This is not correct. It isn't a matter of law that they are discouraging non-infringing use. It is a matter of fact that is in dispute. If they choose to pursue this then a jury gets to decide. It may be thrown out long before, as Hotfile has a history of honoring DMCA notices. That provides them with safe harbors.
Not all lawsuits are valid, some are filed to irritate and to increase expenses. That's what the MPAA is doing. In fact, the MPAA is making so much money (just look at the net from the movies) that they can afford to attempt to wreak havoc on anyone they don't favor.
That's not what was happening. Hotfile sells a tiered cyberlocker service. Most use it for free. Only when you want more do you have to purchase a better plan. Not an uncommon business practice. It's like Yahoo.com's mail. You can use their mail service for free but if you want more space or the ability to connect via 3rd party mail clients you pay a fee. If you send emails with copyrighted content that's not Yahoo's business. The same goes for the online cloud storage. You generally get a few gigs free but if you want more space you pay more. If you store copyrighted material and publish that for your friends that's not the cloud storage company's business until a legal DMCA takedown notice is filed.
In the case of Rrapidshare they were sued multiple times and found innocent though they were doing similar things. Their users were/are storing copyrighted material that people can download. Rapidshare has a DMCA notice policy and they enforce it.
Hotfile is the same. It sells a service to those asking for more. If their users store copyrighted information that others can download may be illegal, but the DMCA is there to help protect the copyright owner. They can file a DMCA notice with hotfile.com and hotfile will honor it to the letter of the law.
The lawsuit filed against hotfile is extremely weak because 1) there are all sorts of pay as you go locker services, and 2) hotfile honors legal DMCA notices. What the company suing hotfile is claiming is that they are different in that they sell space that can be used to store copyrighted material. But hotfile doesn't sell space to do that. They sell space. If it is used improperly hotfile isn't responsible unless they ignore legal DMCA takedown notices.
Their claim is basically that Hotfile's cyberlocker service couldn't have a legitimate purpose. This practice of charging for premium service, contrary to the MPAA's implication, doesn't mean that Hotfile is inducing infringement. The MPAA tries to claim that Hotfile doesn't use any copyright filters, but there's no law that requires anyone to do that. This is simply an attempt by the MPAA to bully the upstart and to cost them money in an attempt to bankrupt them.
I believe the situation was that the guy worked for the Soviet state and thus he didn't own what he created, even though he developed it on his own time. Until recently he hadn't received a dime for it. He now lives in Washington State. New licensing deals have finally been made which have resulted in him receiving some royalties.
It's the laptops that will suffer if the manufacturer of the system doesn't know about the bug. That'll mean dead systems for the most part for anyone buying a board that uses the 3gb SATA only on those laptop motherboards.
Honestly I can't see the iPad2 as having any real new or innovative features. Cameras? Don't think that's enough. More RAM? Still. Faster CPU/GPU (and/or dual core)? Maybe to keep the performance competitive. The Android market, being open, is what will make the biggest difference in the long run as the hardware on all platforms become similar. Tiny underpowered games and utilities which are limited by Apple's policies aren't going to help either. I think in the long run the iPad will fall into similar use as you find the Macintosh now (e.g., the vast majority of people using the PC clones while the faithful stick with Apple). I know there'll be a circus around the new iPad2 features, but I think this time the industry pundits will see the iPad2 as just keeping up, as I believe the Android tablets will take over the market--just like the Android phones have taken the number one sales spot for mobile OSes. The only thing that might impress me is if Apple halves the price of the whole line of products. That'll make it far easier for people to swallow the DRM nature of their walled garden.
I read the specs and didn't see it had a GPS. I'm not likely to buy one without GPS, and certainly will not buy any tablet with a price that high. $299 to $399 should be the extreme high end price for these.
In the case of any Android tablet it isn't like they had to develop their own OS for it--they got it for all but free + whatever customization costs they had.
Much of the technology used in netbooks, laptops, and tablets have been designed to use less power (thus less heat). Then there are components that are integrated, such as the GPU and CPU in one (fewer components mean less heat, less weight, less design costs). Most tablets only supply a limited interface (less weight, less cost, less heat). It's not like they will provide 6 SATA, 10 USB, printer, and serial interfaces along with PS2 and firewire. They don't typically provide the VGA/DVI interfaces either. A fixed amount of flash RAM with no removable storage makes for a cheaper to build (but more expensive to maintain) unit.
As a consequence it is much easier and cheaper to design a tablet. That also makes it lighter. There's no real excuse for saying that weight is the factor here, at least not alone. Certainly it is. As tablet's gain market-share and notebooks begin to look a little too bulky they'll too be slimmed down to weight significantly less.
The cost is far too high for any computing device.
The article isn't about how insecure Linux is. It's about how autorun features can be used to exploit even in Linux now that Linux's usability has gone way up, through the inclusion of features such as autorun.
This researcher was focused specifically on Ubuntu 10.10 and Gnome with how it can be exploited by having features such as autorun, or the ability to open removable media once mounted (where previews and icons can be used as an exploit). He didn't actually say that it was being used or that it could do much to the system. His outline traced through the various source used to mount and view previews/icons. It only happens that with autorun turned on that you might be able to exploit depending on how the underlying tech is either a user program or a kernel accessible program.
Technically, he's talking about a tiny fraction of a possibility that one might succumb to an exploit from a removable device where it autoruns or previews specially coded document types for preview.
On option the researcher is explains how to turn it off the option to browse media when a removable storage device is inserted. Nautilus > Edit > Preferences > Media tab
Un-check the box for "Browse media when inserted".
It won't be long before the code is examined and corrected.
Keep in mind his speech is about Ubuntu 10.10 and specifically gnome running as the desktop manager.
Has there really ever been anyone responsible for Linux making claims of "the year of Linux"? Or has it just been some random users that once made a reference?
I think negative mods would only be given for not addressing what the researcher was talking about. Android isn't using an autorun feature. In fact, he specifically states that his speech addresses only Ubuntu 10.10 and gnome (and not the other desktop managers).
The thing about his letter...He asked not just questions, but he asked the *right* questions.
I'm sure Holder and the ICE enforcer are aware they are breaking the law. I am wondering how difficult it is to get a special prosecutor. I'm wondering why, after a certain number of American's complain that a special prosecutor isn't automatically assigned. Seems to me that'd be the way to go to get these guys under control.
As I pointed out the other day, other toolbars tied to search engines *now* know to do the same thing, if they aren't already doing it. With certainty those that weren't now are updating their program to copy Microsoft. I'd also venture a bet to say that their's won't be opt-in and few will inform you.
The toolbar installation was a device to track down how the seemingly identical results were showing up in Bing when no one could possibly be searching for those results except those Google employees with the Bing toolbar installed and opt'ed in.
Without the Bing toolbar the results wouldn't have been in Bing's index nor ranked in such a way as they were. The toolbar was just a test to determine the vehicle. After that determined how Microsoft ranked and presented the results in an identical way to Google.
It isn't customer data. It's Google's data. They watch the customer search Google. Then they update their indexes with the best results. When a different user searches Bing they come up with the Google search data contained in their indexes.
The Bing toolbar is a program running in memory. It was loaded and embedded into IE. Even if you never used the Bing toolbar for searching and you just searched directly from Google's home page, the Bing toolbar (being a program) can do anything any other program can do. In this case it is looking at what is being searched for in Google and then Microsoft looks at the search results and updates their index to indicate those search hits at the top.
When a person then goes to Bing and searches for those terms Bing searches it's index which lists those same top hit results.
Microsoft didn't have to do any work to accomplish this. They aren't fine tuning their search algorithms. They aren't inventing a new innovative way of accomplishing it. Frankly, they probably aren't even going out to the web crawling it to collect and summarize, instead, they are simply letting Google do that and updating their indexes using that Bing toolbar.
I, if I were a Bing user (and using the toolbar with the opt-in selected), would never have concluded that this is what Microsoft is doing when asking me to opt-in, but that's it. That's what Google's sting reveals (in a general sense).
Google does so well finding and presenting the best results because they work hard at making that happen. As Google said, they don't do that and never would. In fact, because Google has done the hard work up front, it would make that practice nigh impossible (at least without skewering their results).
Their opt-in terms are vague. To me it read as if they were implying that the information collected would be from their service so they can fine tune it. I would never have concluded that they were going to be stealing Google's search.
The way that Google has become so popular is that their search engine is used so much that the good stuff works to the top. Microsoft is trying to accomplish this without putting in the hard work up front.
I've said over and over that those toolbars are there for no other purpose other than tracking. Do you guys really think that those pretty buttons are all that useful? Did you guys not know that there's a drop down so you can switch search engines on the fly? Did you not know you can add additional search engines?
How many of you have gone to the gas station only to have someone come up to you with a gasoline can asking for some gas? It's annoying, they make it out like they are just trying to get from place to place. Then you see them later doing the same thing with someone else. At first you felt charitable and then you realized they are just a con and they are stealing from you.
The way that sting went down shows unequivocally that Microsoft is copying Google's search using the Bing toolbar.
So many act as if Microsoft is this weak up and comer and this is what the competition must do, when in reality Microsoft is a massive behemoth that makes billions of dollars every quarter in profit. And how many other companies have they stolen from using similar tactics? Over the past couple of decades it would be impossible to count--there are so many.
The "bot-net" analogy seems apt. The fact that they are doing this seems as if it is plausible to list the Bing toolbar as a spyware tool. And, if I recall in the past Microsoft had stake in another toolbar that was determined to be spyware/adware. Hotbar I believe it was called. Didn't it also do something similar? Hasn't Microsoft been shown to use other companies as proxies to do their dirty work?
I think most people choosing to opt-in are doing so because they feel that their "bing" searches would be relevant to Microsoft in improving their "bing" search system. I don't think any understood that Microsoft was going to be watching everything they do and every site they searched, including their competitor's.
Reading the Bing opt-in option I would never have concluded that Microsoft would have been using the Bing toolbar to collect search information from Google. I would have concluded that they were going to follow the process happening at their site in order to fine tune their site.
What Microsoft is doing is being a parasite. And it shows that they can't work out their own system. It tells me that they are failures and are willing to do anything to create a competent product (something they can't do on their own apparently).
The purpose of seizure is to ensure that evidence isn't destroyed prior to trial.
1) After the seizures no one has been charged, as of yet.
2) Everyone seems to haver glossed over the fact that in this particular case this site has gone to trial twice and found to be legal twice.
3) There is no evidence that they are protecting from destruction through these seizures. The domain name would continue to exist even if it hadn't been seized. And in this seizure's case, as the site has gone to court twice it is likely that most of the evidence is already in the court record in the venue where the court had jurisdiction.
4) Seizing these sites in this manner is prior restraint.
5) There are serious free speech issues involved in these cases, as there typically is plenty of legitimate free speech ongoing on these sites.
6) The bar for seizures of this sort have a significantly higher bar when the seizures would involve free speech issues.
It's sad to see the judges just rubber stamping these. Hopefully, there'll be a judge or two that come to their senses and begin demanding that the cases involving the seizures be brought before the court in short order.
At least this site in particular has fought for its rights in the past. Hopefully they'll do the same.
And yes, we must consider that the US has been damaging the name/reputation of this known legal site and continues to broadcast it.
What, they don't have the Bing toolbar for Macs? You're making the argument that diversity is the best way to survive and to protect your privacy. So be it. But that applies to all products that aren't the big one, such as Linux.
And, what makes you think that any other product couldn't/wouldn't suffice for Microsoft to accomplish the same thing on a Mac?
And, even if you aren't contributing to the parasitic approach Microsoft has taken it doesn't mean you are immune from the result if you use Bing in any way (or even Yahoo since it is really Bing behind the scenes), nor less immune from the result as parasitical methods generally are damaging to the whole.
The Bing toolbar is often times installed as a drive-by through other installs such as Java. That makes it non-opt-in. And, installing a product that does something such as key-logging or potentially does something that violates your privacy (in a big way) without telling you is not opt-in.
If the EULA described their behavior (key-logging) then it would have been pointed out much earlier by Google, or even other search engines. The fact that so many people had absolutely no clue this was happening is telling. In other words most people had no idea that this was happening so they couldn't have opt'ed in.
I believe Microsoft was the catalyst behind getting a court ruling stating that if your anti-malware software pointed out that a product is malware that you, the malware developer, couldn't sue back. This came about because Microsoft (and others that provided software to detect malware) were being sued just for indicating that a product was malware. It also means that the malware authors can't sue as a business model. Imagine Spybot Search and Destroy or Malwarebytes getting sued out of existence for point out that X product is malware.
Technically, Bing now falls under the category of malware because it is key-logging and it is enticing you to install it without actually informing you of what it is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not correct. It isn't a matter of law that they are discouraging non-infringing use. It is a matter of fact that is in dispute. If they choose to pursue this then a jury gets to decide. It may be thrown out long before, as Hotfile has a history of honoring DMCA notices. That provides them with safe harbors.
Not all lawsuits are valid, some are filed to irritate and to increase expenses. That's what the MPAA is doing. In fact, the MPAA is making so much money (just look at the net from the movies) that they can afford to attempt to wreak havoc on anyone they don't favor.
That's not what was happening. Hotfile sells a tiered cyberlocker service. Most use it for free. Only when you want more do you have to purchase a better plan. Not an uncommon business practice. It's like Yahoo.com's mail. You can use their mail service for free but if you want more space or the ability to connect via 3rd party mail clients you pay a fee. If you send emails with copyrighted content that's not Yahoo's business. The same goes for the online cloud storage. You generally get a few gigs free but if you want more space you pay more. If you store copyrighted material and publish that for your friends that's not the cloud storage company's business until a legal DMCA takedown notice is filed.
In the case of Rrapidshare they were sued multiple times and found innocent though they were doing similar things. Their users were/are storing copyrighted material that people can download. Rapidshare has a DMCA notice policy and they enforce it.
Hotfile is the same. It sells a service to those asking for more. If their users store copyrighted information that others can download may be illegal, but the DMCA is there to help protect the copyright owner. They can file a DMCA notice with hotfile.com and hotfile will honor it to the letter of the law.
The lawsuit filed against hotfile is extremely weak because 1) there are all sorts of pay as you go locker services, and 2) hotfile honors legal DMCA notices. What the company suing hotfile is claiming is that they are different in that they sell space that can be used to store copyrighted material. But hotfile doesn't sell space to do that. They sell space. If it is used improperly hotfile isn't responsible unless they ignore legal DMCA takedown notices.
Their claim is basically that Hotfile's cyberlocker service couldn't have a legitimate purpose. This practice of charging for premium service, contrary to the MPAA's implication, doesn't mean that Hotfile is inducing infringement. The MPAA tries to claim that Hotfile doesn't use any copyright filters, but there's no law that requires anyone to do that. This is simply an attempt by the MPAA to bully the upstart and to cost them money in an attempt to bankrupt them.
I believe the situation was that the guy worked for the Soviet state and thus he didn't own what he created, even though he developed it on his own time. Until recently he hadn't received a dime for it. He now lives in Washington State. New licensing deals have finally been made which have resulted in him receiving some royalties.
It's the laptops that will suffer if the manufacturer of the system doesn't know about the bug. That'll mean dead systems for the most part for anyone buying a board that uses the 3gb SATA only on those laptop motherboards.
This is Intel's fault all the way.
Here's an article that describes the problem in pretty simple terms.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4143/the-source-of-intels-cougar-point-sata-bug
It appears to only affect the 3gb SATA, and not the 6gb.
I suspect manufacturers will buy these cheap and just not implement the 3gb SATA feature, at least those that understand the problem.
Most modern distro's won't execute that command.
Honestly I can't see the iPad2 as having any real new or innovative features. Cameras? Don't think that's enough. More RAM? Still. Faster CPU/GPU (and/or dual core)? Maybe to keep the performance competitive. The Android market, being open, is what will make the biggest difference in the long run as the hardware on all platforms become similar. Tiny underpowered games and utilities which are limited by Apple's policies aren't going to help either. I think in the long run the iPad will fall into similar use as you find the Macintosh now (e.g., the vast majority of people using the PC clones while the faithful stick with Apple). I know there'll be a circus around the new iPad2 features, but I think this time the industry pundits will see the iPad2 as just keeping up, as I believe the Android tablets will take over the market--just like the Android phones have taken the number one sales spot for mobile OSes. The only thing that might impress me is if Apple halves the price of the whole line of products. That'll make it far easier for people to swallow the DRM nature of their walled garden.
What I find funny is that, if you watch the video, what I said makes perfect sense. No whoosh. Thus the "whoosh" becomes satirically funny, in a way.
I read the specs and didn't see it had a GPS. I'm not likely to buy one without GPS, and certainly will not buy any tablet with a price that high. $299 to $399 should be the extreme high end price for these.
In the case of any Android tablet it isn't like they had to develop their own OS for it--they got it for all but free + whatever customization costs they had.
Much of the technology used in netbooks, laptops, and tablets have been designed to use less power (thus less heat). Then there are components that are integrated, such as the GPU and CPU in one (fewer components mean less heat, less weight, less design costs). Most tablets only supply a limited interface (less weight, less cost, less heat). It's not like they will provide 6 SATA, 10 USB, printer, and serial interfaces along with PS2 and firewire. They don't typically provide the VGA/DVI interfaces either. A fixed amount of flash RAM with no removable storage makes for a cheaper to build (but more expensive to maintain) unit.
As a consequence it is much easier and cheaper to design a tablet. That also makes it lighter. There's no real excuse for saying that weight is the factor here, at least not alone. Certainly it is. As tablet's gain market-share and notebooks begin to look a little too bulky they'll too be slimmed down to weight significantly less.
The cost is far too high for any computing device.
Yeah, that's what I meant by "It won't be long before the code is examined and corrected."
The article isn't about how insecure Linux is. It's about how autorun features can be used to exploit even in Linux now that Linux's usability has gone way up, through the inclusion of features such as autorun.
This researcher was focused specifically on Ubuntu 10.10 and Gnome with how it can be exploited by having features such as autorun, or the ability to open removable media once mounted (where previews and icons can be used as an exploit). He didn't actually say that it was being used or that it could do much to the system. His outline traced through the various source used to mount and view previews/icons. It only happens that with autorun turned on that you might be able to exploit depending on how the underlying tech is either a user program or a kernel accessible program.
Technically, he's talking about a tiny fraction of a possibility that one might succumb to an exploit from a removable device where it autoruns or previews specially coded document types for preview.
On option the researcher is explains how to turn it off the option to browse media when a removable storage device is inserted. Nautilus > Edit > Preferences > Media tab
Un-check the box for "Browse media when inserted".
It won't be long before the code is examined and corrected.
Keep in mind his speech is about Ubuntu 10.10 and specifically gnome running as the desktop manager.
Has there really ever been anyone responsible for Linux making claims of "the year of Linux"? Or has it just been some random users that once made a reference?
I think negative mods would only be given for not addressing what the researcher was talking about. Android isn't using an autorun feature. In fact, he specifically states that his speech addresses only Ubuntu 10.10 and gnome (and not the other desktop managers).
The thing about his letter...He asked not just questions, but he asked the *right* questions.
I'm sure Holder and the ICE enforcer are aware they are breaking the law. I am wondering how difficult it is to get a special prosecutor. I'm wondering why, after a certain number of American's complain that a special prosecutor isn't automatically assigned. Seems to me that'd be the way to go to get these guys under control.
As I pointed out the other day, other toolbars tied to search engines *now* know to do the same thing, if they aren't already doing it. With certainty those that weren't now are updating their program to copy Microsoft. I'd also venture a bet to say that their's won't be opt-in and few will inform you.
The toolbar installation was a device to track down how the seemingly identical results were showing up in Bing when no one could possibly be searching for those results except those Google employees with the Bing toolbar installed and opt'ed in.
Without the Bing toolbar the results wouldn't have been in Bing's index nor ranked in such a way as they were. The toolbar was just a test to determine the vehicle. After that determined how Microsoft ranked and presented the results in an identical way to Google.
It isn't customer data. It's Google's data. They watch the customer search Google. Then they update their indexes with the best results. When a different user searches Bing they come up with the Google search data contained in their indexes.
The Bing toolbar is a program running in memory. It was loaded and embedded into IE. Even if you never used the Bing toolbar for searching and you just searched directly from Google's home page, the Bing toolbar (being a program) can do anything any other program can do. In this case it is looking at what is being searched for in Google and then Microsoft looks at the search results and updates their index to indicate those search hits at the top.
When a person then goes to Bing and searches for those terms Bing searches it's index which lists those same top hit results.
Microsoft didn't have to do any work to accomplish this. They aren't fine tuning their search algorithms. They aren't inventing a new innovative way of accomplishing it. Frankly, they probably aren't even going out to the web crawling it to collect and summarize, instead, they are simply letting Google do that and updating their indexes using that Bing toolbar.
I, if I were a Bing user (and using the toolbar with the opt-in selected), would never have concluded that this is what Microsoft is doing when asking me to opt-in, but that's it. That's what Google's sting reveals (in a general sense).
Google does so well finding and presenting the best results because they work hard at making that happen. As Google said, they don't do that and never would. In fact, because Google has done the hard work up front, it would make that practice nigh impossible (at least without skewering their results).
Their opt-in terms are vague. To me it read as if they were implying that the information collected would be from their service so they can fine tune it. I would never have concluded that they were going to be stealing Google's search.
The way that Google has become so popular is that their search engine is used so much that the good stuff works to the top. Microsoft is trying to accomplish this without putting in the hard work up front.
I've said over and over that those toolbars are there for no other purpose other than tracking. Do you guys really think that those pretty buttons are all that useful? Did you guys not know that there's a drop down so you can switch search engines on the fly? Did you not know you can add additional search engines?
How many of you have gone to the gas station only to have someone come up to you with a gasoline can asking for some gas? It's annoying, they make it out like they are just trying to get from place to place. Then you see them later doing the same thing with someone else. At first you felt charitable and then you realized they are just a con and they are stealing from you.
The way that sting went down shows unequivocally that Microsoft is copying Google's search using the Bing toolbar.
So many act as if Microsoft is this weak up and comer and this is what the competition must do, when in reality Microsoft is a massive behemoth that makes billions of dollars every quarter in profit. And how many other companies have they stolen from using similar tactics? Over the past couple of decades it would be impossible to count--there are so many.
The "bot-net" analogy seems apt. The fact that they are doing this seems as if it is plausible to list the Bing toolbar as a spyware tool. And, if I recall in the past Microsoft had stake in another toolbar that was determined to be spyware/adware. Hotbar I believe it was called. Didn't it also do something similar? Hasn't Microsoft been shown to use other companies as proxies to do their dirty work?
I think most people choosing to opt-in are doing so because they feel that their "bing" searches would be relevant to Microsoft in improving their "bing" search system. I don't think any understood that Microsoft was going to be watching everything they do and every site they searched, including their competitor's.
Reading the Bing opt-in option I would never have concluded that Microsoft would have been using the Bing toolbar to collect search information from Google. I would have concluded that they were going to follow the process happening at their site in order to fine tune their site.
What Microsoft is doing is being a parasite. And it shows that they can't work out their own system. It tells me that they are failures and are willing to do anything to create a competent product (something they can't do on their own apparently).
The purpose of seizure is to ensure that evidence isn't destroyed prior to trial.
1) After the seizures no one has been charged, as of yet.
2) Everyone seems to haver glossed over the fact that in this particular case this site has gone to trial twice and found to be legal twice.
3) There is no evidence that they are protecting from destruction through these seizures. The domain name would continue to exist even if it hadn't been seized. And in this seizure's case, as the site has gone to court twice it is likely that most of the evidence is already in the court record in the venue where the court had jurisdiction.
4) Seizing these sites in this manner is prior restraint.
5) There are serious free speech issues involved in these cases, as there typically is plenty of legitimate free speech ongoing on these sites.
6) The bar for seizures of this sort have a significantly higher bar when the seizures would involve free speech issues.
It's sad to see the judges just rubber stamping these. Hopefully, there'll be a judge or two that come to their senses and begin demanding that the cases involving the seizures be brought before the court in short order.
At least this site in particular has fought for its rights in the past. Hopefully they'll do the same.
And yes, we must consider that the US has been damaging the name/reputation of this known legal site and continues to broadcast it.
What, they don't have the Bing toolbar for Macs? You're making the argument that diversity is the best way to survive and to protect your privacy. So be it. But that applies to all products that aren't the big one, such as Linux.
And, what makes you think that any other product couldn't/wouldn't suffice for Microsoft to accomplish the same thing on a Mac?
And, even if you aren't contributing to the parasitic approach Microsoft has taken it doesn't mean you are immune from the result if you use Bing in any way (or even Yahoo since it is really Bing behind the scenes), nor less immune from the result as parasitical methods generally are damaging to the whole.
The Bing toolbar is often times installed as a drive-by through other installs such as Java. That makes it non-opt-in. And, installing a product that does something such as key-logging or potentially does something that violates your privacy (in a big way) without telling you is not opt-in.
If the EULA described their behavior (key-logging) then it would have been pointed out much earlier by Google, or even other search engines. The fact that so many people had absolutely no clue this was happening is telling. In other words most people had no idea that this was happening so they couldn't have opt'ed in.
I believe Microsoft was the catalyst behind getting a court ruling stating that if your anti-malware software pointed out that a product is malware that you, the malware developer, couldn't sue back. This came about because Microsoft (and others that provided software to detect malware) were being sued just for indicating that a product was malware. It also means that the malware authors can't sue as a business model. Imagine Spybot Search and Destroy or Malwarebytes getting sued out of existence for point out that X product is malware.
Technically, Bing now falls under the category of malware because it is key-logging and it is enticing you to install it without actually informing you of what it is doing.