If that's what they meant, why do you think that isn't what they said? Those documents get read by legions of legal eagles before they're used--if they say they have the right to update without your permission, that means they damn well intend to use it, wishful thinking on your part notwithstanding.
That would hold up in an actual case on a cold day in hell. It's a contract of adhesion with unconscionable provisions, both of which are enough to nullify it. Of course, MS isn't stupid enough to go beat on a company big enough to actually take it on in court; they'll just use this to intimidate individual users and small businesses into compliance.
We need to go tell the world about this crap and what it means--Bill Gates is probably funding Hollings "campaign fund" to make XP with Digital Big Brother^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Rights Management the law of the land!
This is just what open source software needs. I never thought I'd see the day that I'd be rooting for "eye-tee professionals" (aka Network Nazis) that say they need to "carefully test" any change to workstation software configuration, but the corporate masters are the ones that are either going to make this die, or start giving free software critical mass.
Way to go, Microsoft! Hope you get enough income from your digital "rights" management partnerships to offset the loss of sales and goodwill you're about to experience.
Someone needs to emphasize that (perhaps by modding it up?). Tivo got crapped on big time for disabling features with an update (and rightfully so), but here's their competitor explicitly claiming the right to do the same thing.
Re:Computer Science Major and Political Science Mi
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 1
You can rant and rave but let's face it: one of the jobs of the DoJ is to defend the government. They are the government's lawyers. So if you sue against this (or any other) law, it's the DoJ who'll show up opposite you in court. And what's more, they're professionally obligated to do the best defense they can, and this motion falls under that. It would have been irresponsible not to file it.
Yep, kind of like they're professionally obligated to persue a meaningful penalty against a proven monopoly. Uh, never mind.
Re:Nader voters, front and center...
on
DMCA 2, Freedom 0
·
· Score: 1
I suppose it's not important to note that the DMCA became law under Clinton/Gore's watch. But then, I imagine we don't need to let facts interfere with our arguing.
Not really, you can buy a tivo (or at least we did) for much less than one of these replay tv things without any monthly fees, with the "Lifetime" subscription.
For the benefit of those not familiar with Tivo that might be reading this, that "lifetime" is the lifetime of the box, not the owner. IOW, if the box dies a day after the warranty is up, you're out the cost of the "lifetime" subscription. IMO, it's pretty damn deceptive to use the word "lifetime" in that way. IIRC, the subscription is also technically non-transferable, even if you sell the box.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's what they meant, why do you think that isn't what they said? Those documents get read by legions of legal eagles before they're used--if they say they have the right to update without your permission, that means they damn well intend to use it, wishful thinking on your part notwithstanding.
So, since you're going to hell anyway, why not take the mark. NOW I get it.
We need to go tell the world about this crap and what it means--Bill Gates is probably funding Hollings "campaign fund" to make XP with Digital Big Brother^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Rights Management the law of the land!
Way to go, Microsoft! Hope you get enough income from your digital "rights" management partnerships to offset the loss of sales and goodwill you're about to experience.
Someone needs to emphasize that (perhaps by modding it up?). Tivo got crapped on big time for disabling features with an update (and rightfully so), but here's their competitor explicitly claiming the right to do the same thing.
Yep, kind of like they're professionally obligated to persue a meaningful penalty against a proven monopoly. Uh, never mind.
I suppose it's not important to note that the DMCA became law under Clinton/Gore's watch. But then, I imagine we don't need to let facts interfere with our arguing.
For the benefit of those not familiar with Tivo that might be reading this, that "lifetime" is the lifetime of the box, not the owner. IOW, if the box dies a day after the warranty is up, you're out the cost of the "lifetime" subscription. IMO, it's pretty damn deceptive to use the word "lifetime" in that way. IIRC, the subscription is also technically non-transferable, even if you sell the box.