Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
homeap5

Tech Quicke and lies about free Windows

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

It's all about facts, not speculations. You may ask Microsoft and they give you answer is it legal or not. Oh, wait - they already give that answer in EULA. I even quoted it in my first post. You're trying to arguing with facts. Level of protection (or how weak activation servers are made) is not the reason for considering some actions legal.

Perhaps my use of the term de facto was incorrect.  There seems to be a disconnect between what Microsoft claims is a requirement and what actually is a requirement.  He seems to be pointing out that what he is describing is possible to do whether it is allowed behavior according to the Microsoft EULA or not.  A EULA is a contract, not a law, though it may be binding under law.  A EULA requires the agreement of both parties.  If the EULA is not entered into by both parties it is nothing.  I have not checked out all the ways to acquire a working copy of Windows so I don’t know if they are all possible to do.  I also don’t know which ones have a EULA attached to them.  One issue is that the legality of shrink wrap EULA is in flux, if it has not actually been struck down.  One other point is it is being produced in Canada which may have different views on what is required to make a EULA binding. Your position seems to be that he should not say these things because while they may be possible they are not legal.  I think the point of the video is microsoft is not enforcing enforcing the requirements of its EULA, at least right now.  They might in the future of course.


Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

If it were such an issue then the OS wouldn't even install without a valid key, but it does.

 

If it were such an issue then the OS wouldn't function without a valid key, but it does.

 

If it were such an issue then the OS wouldn't install feature updates, but it does.

 

If it were such an issue the Microsoft would have fixed these "oversights" but they don't.

 

Just as I was contractually obligated to pay for a phone contract, but the provider failed to setup and take payments for 12 months whilst sending me monthly bills showing the previous one as paid. I had no obligation to pay up for them 12 months of usage as the service provider had made mistakes, not me.

There are many reasons why the OS allows you to do it...and just because you can doesn't make it less of an infringement.  (Like the fact that MS got bad rep in the past for being "vulnerable" when people were using pirated unupdated versions that were vulnerable)

 

You are still legally obligated to the funds owed to the phone company...just because they haven't discovered the error yet, doesn't mean they are less entitled to the payments if they discover it...(although, after a certain time they won't be able to sue to recover lost funds...as they are limited in time).

 

It is like saying you got 1 billion in bank transfer errors...they are more than welcome to pursue you for that money back (and if you spent it, you would be on the hook for it)

 

52 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

If you've downloaded a Windows 10 ISO from their site/app, and used it without activating it, then you're not really pirating.

Please don't equate the two.

Where's your proof?

The video you're complaining about already shows you how Microsoft makes money from Windows 10.

 

You're free to use Windows 10 without an activation code, if Microsoft wanted everyone to use an activated version, then they would have done what they did with Windows 7.

Lets not beat around the bush, it is software piracy.  (The illegal use of software is still piracy, so please don't pretend it isn't, you can get sued for exactly the same amount as if the download wasn't provided by Windows).

 

Just because a company "makes money" off a pirated product does not make it any less right though.

 

As mentioned at the top of my post here, there are likely other long-term reasons why they don't follow a strict hard off methodology.  Or even short-term ones like PR issues.

 

40 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

So do you have any evidence that they are wrong about being able to use windows without activating it? People have been doing it for years. MS knows about it. And have done nothing about it. 

 

If you are going to factually state they are wrong then you must have some evidence right?

 

Also you dont have the authority to tell someone they are or arent a journalist. Just because you view them as one doesnt mean they are.

Watching the video, it is actually very irresponsible in my opinion to display the ideas in the video like this.  I would like to point out, the OP did properly cite the licensing that shows they are factually wrong.  You are not legally allowed using it for free; and saying so in the video is dangerous (actually, honestly I am wondering whether it would be LTT in a legal awkward position as the video does come across as promoting the violation of MS's rights as legal).  At least in other times similar issues has been covered @Linus Sebastian had made it clear in the videos that it wasn't strictly allowed/wasn't promoted as something to do.


3735928559 - Beware of the dead beef

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You are still legally obligated to the funds owed to the phone company...just because they haven't discovered the error yet, doesn't mean they are less entitled to the payments if they discover it...(although, after a certain time they won't be able to sue to recover lost funds...as they are limited in time).

 

It is like saying you got 1 billion in bank transfer errors...they are more than welcome to pursue you for that money back (and if you spent it, you would be on the hook for it)

Different countries, different rules. They discovered the error years ago and gave me the option of paying up and keeping the service or leaving with no cost to myself. I had bills showing all payments were made which would throw any court claim out the window.

 

It's completely different to an errornous bank transfer, in that situation there is proof that the transfer was unintentional.


Probably banned for disagreeing

Link to post
Share on other sites

The gist of the video is that they aren't aggressively going after you if you don't activate. They're willingly allowing you to keep using Windows with limited restrictions and the nag watermark. Can you use Windows for free? Yeah. Is it totally legit, no, but they aren't going to stop you. Why? Is it more important to them that you use it than pay for it, because apps? Maybe. Kinda. That's the video summarized. So is Windows free? Yeah, in that context. 

 

Realistically, Windows, tho a money machine, has been a problem for Microsoft for years. Strategically it's problematic to own an OS when you're a software company. To best serve users, and to maximize profitability, your software should be as OS neutral as possible, and that conflicts with owning an OS. In the post Ballmer and Gates era, there has been serious talk about it making it free or stupid cheap, since giving it away could generate revenue in other ways through subscriptions for related services, and app store purchases. The free Win10 for 5 machines upgrade from Win8 wasn't only a way to encourage upgrades, it was a test of the concept. That may be part of the lax response to not activating.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There are many reasons why the OS allows you to do it...and just because you can doesn't make it less of an infringement.  (Like the fact that MS got bad rep in the past for being "vulnerable" when people were using pirated unupdated versions that were vulnerable)

 

You are still legally obligated to the funds owed to the phone company...just because they haven't discovered the error yet, doesn't mean they are less entitled to the payments if they discover it...(although, after a certain time they won't be able to sue to recover lost funds...as they are limited in time).

 

It is like saying you got 1 billion in bank transfer errors...they are more than welcome to pursue you for that money back (and if you spent it, you would be on the hook for it)

 

Lets not beat around the bush, it is software piracy.  (The illegal use of software is still piracy, so please don't pretend it isn't, you can get sued for exactly the same amount as if the download wasn't provided by Windows).

 

Just because a company "makes money" off a pirated product does not make it any less right though.

 

As mentioned at the top of my post here, there are likely other long-term reasons why they don't follow a strict hard off methodology.  Or even short-term ones like PR issues.

 

Watching the video, it is actually very irresponsible in my opinion to display the ideas in the video like this.  I would like to point out, the OP did properly cite the licensing that shows they are factually wrong.  You are not legally allowed using it for free; and saying so in the video is dangerous (actually, honestly I am wondering whether it would be LTT in a legal awkward position as the video does come across as promoting the violation of MS's rights as legal).  At least in other times similar issues has been covered @Linus Sebastian had made it clear in the videos that it wasn't strictly allowed/wasn't promoted as something to do.

Thats what im wondering.

 

Whats the legality of it. Breaking someones ToS doesnt mean its always illegal in the sense that they can punish you legally.

 

Also your logic on bank mess ups isnt true depending on your location. Theres been plenty of cases where banks messed up and didnt catch in time and could not make the client pay it back. Steve Letto (might be spelling his name wrong) did a video on something like that and the courts ruled in favor of the client and the bank ate the cost.

 

Same with the phone situation. depends on your area. I mentioned it to my attorney a while back for my case with charter and legally in my area they could sue me but the law would be on my side and i wouldnt owe them a dime.

 

Without seeing the actual laws in that area we cant say what is truly legal or not.

 

But my point is that if MS cared why do they so easily allow it? Why do they allow basically 95% of windows feature to work fine without activating it?

Id imagine that it would be a very very easy fix like they did back in the windows xp days.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, homeap5 said:

 

Why someone with that reputation, with 1,5 million views, with 52000 likes, says that nonsense unverified opinions?

 

If I had a channel with that many visitors, at least I would try to spend some time to investigate problem, not speak unverified thoughts.

 

This is quote from Microsoft website link

"Authorized Software and Activation. You are authorized to use this software only if you are properly licensed and the software has been properly activated with a genuine product key or by other authorized method."

 

It's not written there anything like "you can use our software for free with our annoying watermark because we don't protect our software using hardcore methods".

 

If searching internet for FACTS is too much for Tech Quickie, there is always Microsoft Call Center. Or you can even write to Microsoft question: "is your system free? can I use it with watermark, because you not made better protection?".

 

Seriously, I expected something more from Tech Quickie. With that number of viewers, this guy is basically TV reporter and it is his responsibility to provide verified informations.

You would fall in the realm of Mordor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Running macOS in a VM is an EULA violation, it is only licensed for use on Apple hardware yet the net is full of VM's, disk images and many websites dedicated to running the OS on any hardware it can support. If anything Apple has more to loose as they get nothing from people using their OS without buying the hardware to go with it.


Probably banned for disagreeing

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, homeap5 said:

 

Why someone with that reputation, with 1,5 million views, with 52000 likes, says that nonsense unverified opinions?

 

If I had a channel with that many visitors, at least I would try to spend some time to investigate problem, not speak unverified thoughts.

 

This is quote from Microsoft website link

"Authorized Software and Activation. You are authorized to use this software only if you are properly licensed and the software has been properly activated with a genuine product key or by other authorized method."

 

It's not written there anything like "you can use our software for free with our annoying watermark because we don't protect our software using hardcore methods".

 

If searching internet for FACTS is too much for Tech Quickie, there is always Microsoft Call Center. Or you can even write to Microsoft question: "is your system free? can I use it with watermark, because you not made better protection?".

 

Seriously, I expected something more from Tech Quickie. With that number of viewers, this guy is basically TV reporter and it is his responsibility to provide verified informations.

There's nothing incorrect about this video. You're free to use windows 10 for free. That is a undeniable fact. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Lets not beat around the bush, it is software piracy.  (The illegal use of software is still piracy, so please don't pretend it isn't, you can get sued for exactly the same amount as if the download wasn't provided by Windows).

 

Just because a company "makes money" off a pirated product does not make it any less right though.

 

As mentioned at the top of my post here, there are likely other long-term reasons why they don't follow a strict hard off methodology.  Or even short-term ones like PR issues.

I highly doubt that they will sue individuals for using Windows 10 without activating it.

I honestly will only consider it piracy when people use other means to activate windows, you know, actually pirating keys or activating it using 3rd part software.

Having it be accessible to people without the need to activate it gives people the advantage of using Windows and give Microsoft the advantage of an increased user base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
24 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

But my point is that if MS cared why do they so easily allow it? Why do they allow basically 95% of windows feature to work fine without activating it?

This Way Windows may be less buggy. Imagine that you loose somehow your activation - and that happens sometimes for different reasons (even Microsoft Activation Servers may have problem sometimes). So in case something wrong happens - thousands of people loose ability to use operating system and Microsoft loose lot of money, there will be big news about "millions of people have problem with their computers around the world" etc. So is better to put less aggressive protection - just in case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
4 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

I highly doubt that they will sue individuals for using Windows 10 without activating it.

No, but that is not important at all. If you stole some money, nobody will sue you if it's just, for example, 10$. Is not worth effort. But it's still illegal, no matter if someone sue you or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

At least in other times similar issues has been covered @Linus Sebastian had made it clear in the videos that it wasn't strictly allowed/wasn't promoted as something to do.

You tagged the wrong guy btw, here, let me help with that. @LinusTech

Edited by lewdicrous
Wrong quote
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lewdicrous said:

You tagged the wrong guy btw, here, let me help with that. @LinusTech

hmm thats weird. that statement you quoted isnt actually mine lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, homeap5 said:

No, but that is not important at all. If you stole some money, nobody will sue you if it's just, for example, 10$. Is not worth effort. But it's still illegal, no matter if someone sue you or not.

Are you serious? You get punished for stealing money, you don't get punished for using Windows without an activation key.

 

Just now, RonnieOP said:

hmm thats weird. that statement you quoted isnt actually mine lol

Meant to quote the guy you quoted, my bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

This Way Windows may be less buggy. Imagine that you loose somehow your activation - and that happens sometimes for different reasons (even Microsoft Activation Servers may have problem sometimes). So in case something wrong happens - thousands of people loose ability to use operating system and Microsoft loose lot of money, there will be big news about "millions of people have problem with their computers around the world" etc. So is better to put less aggressive protection - just in case.

 

ok but allowing literally almost the entire OS? Thats their answer?

 

A watermark and not being able to change a few settings in control panel. There has to be a better way that would actually incentivize people to activate windows.

 

Or how about they fix whatever causes the issue of activated copies being deactivated? Seems like that should be addressed before worrying about people not activating it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, homeap5 said:

 

It's not written there anything like "you can use our software for free with our annoying watermark because we don't protect our software using hardcore methods".

And the video makes no such statement either. "Even if you just download Windows 10 from Microsoft's website and you don't pay for a key the OS will still work just fine." That is simply a statement of fact.

 

At this point I am guessing you are rushing to copy and paste the title of the video as a retort…go right ahead, you will seem even sillier.

 

-kp

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 minute ago, RonnieOP said:

ok but allowing literally almost the entire OS? Thats their answer?

 

A watermark and not being able to change a few settings in control panel. There has to be a better way that would actually incentivize people to activate windows.

 

Or how about they fix whatever causes the issue of activated copies being deactivated? Seems like that should be addressed before worrying about people not activating it.

Protection policy changes. Some game producers use very strong protection that sometimes even causes problems for legal users, other producers don't use any protection and just trust that people buy their product. This doesn't mean that downloading and playing these games for free is legal. Is not. Some producers just know that every game will be cracked sooner or later and made strong protections is pointless (and expensive).

 

Microsoft probably knows that using activators is not always safe. And because they care about safety and they know that people always crack everything, decided to not made strong protection. This eliminates big amount of activations using risky methods. It's still illegal to use unactivated version, but at least you'll not spread viruses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
4 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

@homeap5 @wanderingfool2 You do know that Linus and some other tech YouTubers don't activate Windows on their test benches, right?

So what? I'm not against piracy. I'm only against publishing lies. If they start saying something like "yes, we use unactivated version of Windows and we recommend it to anyone, because it's free and legal" - then it will be a problem (with disinformation).

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

No, but that is not important at all. If you stole some money, nobody will sue you if it's just, for example, 10$. Is not worth effort. But it's still illegal, no matter if someone sue you or not.

What if I stole your money and you still had it?


Probably banned for disagreeing

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
2 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

What if I stole your money and you still had it?

I never said that piracy is the same as stole something. I'm just saying that you must report that someone stole your money. Otherwise there is not a case. But it's still illegal.

 

If some guy repair your tv without using any spare parts, you still must pay for his work, even if he don't must replace anything in your hardware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

What if I stole your money and you still had it?

That would mean that you would have bills with the same number, invalidating the money in either hands. Meaning that the person money you stole "but still have it" can no longer be used legally. Now you know why money has a number on them. And that situation doesn't relate to the topic.

 

What you should say is:

What if I stole your project that you spend billions on, selling it and you still had it?

I am sure you would be very happy.

 

Please stay on topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

So what? I'm not against piracy. I'm only against publishing lies. If they start saying something like "yes, we use unactivated version of Windows and we recommend it to anyone, because it's free and legal" - then it will be a problem (with disinformation).

The video doesn't mention the legality of using Windows without an activation key, so you can't say "they said it's legal" cause that would be spreading misinformation.

Also, they already made a video about them not activating Windows on their test bench (linked below).

Spoiler

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

What you should say is:

What if I stole your project that you spend billions on, selling it and you still had it?

I am sure you would be very happy.

 

Please stay on topic.

The topic is not selling other peoples software either is it?


Probably banned for disagreeing

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×