Tech Quicke and lies about free Windows

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, Quivz said:

As an example:

I write a book. I produce a version of the book that doesn't contain the last chapter. I give you a copy of that version and say you have to give it back in 1 week. If you dont give it back thats a copyright infringement.

 

Im assuming we are talking about a physical book here. But in this case I dont see how this is copyright infringement. If they just keep your book in their home thats theft.

[Blue4130]

2 hours ago, Thomas001 said:

 

Yes Linus is a reporter/ technology journalist. So are other tech youtubers such as Bitwit, Gamers Nexus, Jayztwocents etc. Just look at Steve from Gamers Nexus he makes sure his testing and results are accurate, he communicates with tech companies and provides them with feedback and suggestions to make products better, he interviews people in the industry and even proved us with factory tours. Other youtubers don’t act like reporters and hold themselves to the same standards as Steve from Gamers Nexus and they should. LMG should be able to do in-depth  research and provide us with the facts and keep us informed just like real news reporters do. LMG has no excuse not to because they are so big and they have more financial resources than Gamers Nexus

I respectfully disagree with them being journalists. They accept money from the companies, not on every video, but they do sponsored videos. At best, they are public relations, but I stick by entertainers. Is that a bad thing? No, I like to be entertained. Do I take what they say at face value? No, I don't even do that with wsj, or Bloomberg. Read, verify, don't rely on single source "facts". This used to be common sense when attaining knowledge, seems that has gone out the window. 

[mr moose]

So basically pointing out the obvious has resulted in everyone arguing of things that can be simply fact checked.

 

1. using Windows without activation is not permitted by MS,  just because they don't waste their time or money trying to sue everyone who does it doesn't change that fact. The OP even listed the relevant clause from MS themselves.   MS generally only sue organizations who don't play ball.  

 

2. a journalist is anyone who creates and distributes reports.  Youtubers who do anything that relays information to people on anything from products to events is a journalist.  get over it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism

 

3. you don't need to be a lawyer to understand any of this. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

They never mentioned the legality of using Windows without a key, they just said it's possible to do so.

Why some people keep saying "they said it's legal but it's not" is beyond me. 

While there isn't mentioned specifically of legality, the title, and many of the lines in the video portray some of the approaches as being legal...and given the amount of people here who seem to think it isn't a violation of copyright laws I would argue that they should have made a disclaimer in the video that all the approaches mentioned are not permitted (it is different when they create videos for entertainment/are clear about the fact that what they are doing is in a grey area)

 

54 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Im assuming we are talking about a physical book here. But in this case I dont see how this is copyright infringement. If they just keep your book in their home thats theft.

Really any physical analogy won't work that well; as software is a bit special in the copyright right (given it can be copied without affecting the original).  [The movie analogy I used earlier is I think a better analogy though...the possession of something does not mean you get to use it in any way you wish.  The act of using the software is consuming it; so if MS's official word is they do not condone it and that it is a violation of the license, then it does fall into copyright infringement]

2 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

To those who keep insisting that using Windows 10 without activating it is "illegal", may you please support your claims with actual evidence of legal ramifications against people who didn't activate their systems. Windows 10 has been out for over 4 years now, surely there would be something, anything.

 

I've been searching around for something more than just armchair lawyers blabbering about things they don't understand, the lawsuits/news about lawsuits that I've seen were one's where people were actually pirating/illegally activating Windows, MS Office, etc., or someone selling discs of something that Microsoft offers for free. I've also seen people suing Microsoft because of Windows 10, but nothing on Microsoft suing people for keeping the watermark.

In most cases it isn't worth the time or money for MS to pursue individuals, they will typically target business as they get effectively more bang for their buck (especially in scenarios where software is being used to gain profit).  It also depends what you define as "illegal"...as it is more along the lines of copyright infringement (which is kind of a grey area between a civil tort and actual criminal)...but some people call torts as "illegal" when talking about it casually (not professionally, but it is like how most people mix up libel as slander).  This is coming from seeing first handing out fines of $10000+ with the threat of court if refused (from a company not properly licensing software)

[lewdicrous]

34 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While there isn't mentioned specifically of legality, the title, and many of the lines in the video portray some of the approaches as being legal...and given the amount of people here who seem to think it isn't a violation of copyright laws I would argue that they should have made a disclaimer in the video that all the approaches mentioned are not permitted (it is different when they create videos for entertainment/are clear about the fact that what they are doing is in a grey area)

Quote

 What is copyright infringement?

As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

I'd argue that using Windows without a key doesn't fall under those clause.

 

I didn't activate Windows 10 for a few months after I built my PC, does that make it copyright infringement?

If this was an older version of Windows that actually required a key to use, something like Windows 7 where you actually need a key to download the ISO, and I somehow managed to get it without said key, then sure, that would illegal.

 

34 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

In most cases it isn't worth the time or money for MS to pursue individuals, they will typically target business as they get effectively more bang for their buck (especially in scenarios where software is being used to gain profit).  It also depends what you define as "illegal"...as it is more along the lines of copyright infringement (which is kind of a grey area between a civil tort and actual criminal)...but some people call torts as "illegal" when talking about it casually (not professionally, but it is like how most people mix up libel as slander).  This is coming from seeing first handing out fines of $10000+ with the threat of court if refused (from a company not properly licensing software)

This is the same with Apple vs. hackintosh; Apple won't target individuals who decide to run macOS on their own machines, but they will sue people who seek to profit from selling hackintoshes, Psystar is a good example of that.

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-wins-key-battle-against-psystar-over-mac-clones/

 

With hackintosh and Windows 10 without a key, the user is still going to buy things, either directly related to Apple/Microsoft or from their respective stores, (their data is still being stored/used regardless of whether they genuinely got it or not), so I doubt that they're going to stop people from doing it.

 

Edit:

I just checked the download pages for Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 ISOs.

The page related to Windows 10 does not mention that you need to have a product key, but the pages for Windows 8.1 and 7 mention that you need it.

Take that as you wish.

 

[Samfisher]

The most important part you're missing out is Windows 10 was always free for Windows 7 users, regardless if they were pirated version of Win7 or not.  It was Microsoft's decision to basically give ANYONE a free Win10 license for the sake of market share.  Win10 has always been free from day 1.  Legally.  By Microsoft's own choice.

[EasonIDontKnowAnything]

16 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

He is not a reporter or journalist. He is an entertainer on YouTube. His only responsibility is to upload videos. If you want verified factual information, don't go to YouTube, if you do, be prepared to take everything with a grain of salt and stay sceptical. 

And as an entertainer with a relatively big influence, he has a social responsibility to be factual. It's not a hard concept.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

The most important part you're missing out is Windows 10 was always free for Windows 7 users, regardless if they were pirated version of Win7 or not.  It was Microsoft's decision to basically give ANYONE a free Win10 license for the sake of market share.  Win10 has always been free from day 1.  Legally.  By Microsoft's own choice.

No it hasn't, not by any stretch of the imagination,  there was a time limit and license agreement terms involved.   They permitted you to upgrade your existing win 7, 8 and 8.1 license to a win 10 license.  That is not the same as giving away 10 for free for everyone without limitation.

 

Honestly,  why are people just ignoring the fact there are terms and conditions on windows? There always has been and they still are today.   Just because people don't understand how licensing terms work doesn't mean they don't apply.

 

 

[SpikeSpiegel]

I was lucky to be able to do the free upgrade before 2020.  And it work without any issues.

[Samfisher]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

No it hasn't, not by any stretch of the imagination,  there was a time limit and license agreement terms involved.   They permitted you to upgrade your existing win 7, 8 and 8.1 license to a win 10 license.  That is not the same as giving away 10 for free for everyone without limitation.

 

Honestly,  why are people just ignoring the fact there are terms and conditions on windows? There always has been and they still are today.   Just because people don't understand how licensing terms work doesn't mean they don't apply.

 

 

They DID give Win 10 away to anyone who cared to upgrade.  There were 0 limitations to upgrading from 7 or 8, regardless of how legit your key was in the first place.  They were throwing licenses out the window getting people to upgrade, even forcing people to upgrade with gigantic/annoying pop ups.  Literally anyone who wanted a Win10 license that first year or so got one.  For free.

 

And Win10 is also essentially free now since you don't even need any of the authentication needed to download the ISO, unlike Win7 and prior where you needed a key to do anything.  Microsoft deliberately made it so for the sole purpose of market share.  They could easily make it harder to "pirate" the OS, which is why key activators were so popular during Win7.  The only legit way to get a license was to buy one.  Not so for Win10, cos it is neither a requirement set by MS, nor a need for it.  Lawsuits are decided by precedent.  The fact that MS has never pursued anyone with an unactivated Win10 license works against MS.  The same for any copyright infringement case.  Companies HAVE to sue other companies using similar sounding names/literally the same prefix/suffix just to hold on to their copyright.  Bathesda HAD to sue Mojang for Scrolls, not cos it wanted to but cos it had to.  Failure to act on copyright/trademark infringement weakens your own claim.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

They DID give Win 10 away to anyone who cared to upgrade.  There were 0 limitations to upgrading from 7 or 8, regardless of how legit your key was in the first place.  They were throwing licenses out the window getting people to upgrade, even forcing people to upgrade with gigantic/annoying pop ups.  Literally anyone who wanted a Win10 license that first year or so got one.  For free.

 

And Win10 is also essentially free now since you don't even need any of the authentication needed to download the ISO, unlike Win7 and prior where you needed a key to do anything.  Microsoft deliberately made it so for the sole purpose of market share.  They could easily make it harder to "pirate" the OS, which is why key activators were so popular during Win7.  The only legit way to get a license was to buy one.  Not so for Win10, cos it is neither a requirement set by MS, nor a need for it.  Lawsuits are decided by precedent.  The fact that MS has never pursued anyone with an unactivated Win10 license works against MS.  The same for any copyright infringement case.  Companies HAVE to sue other companies using similar sounding names/literally the same prefix/suffix just to hold on to their copyright.  Bathesda HAD to sue Mojang for Scrolls, not cos it wanted to but cos it had to.  Failure to act on copyright/trademark infringement weakens your own claim.

Again:

 

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 

Honestly,  why are people just ignoring the fact there are terms and conditions on windows? There always has been and they still are today.   Just because people don't understand how licensing terms work doesn't mean they don't apply.

 

 

 

[Samfisher]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Again:

 

 

Win 10 doesn't have a trial, they have a free installer that works in perpetuity.  I'm not going to dig through hundreds/thousands of lines of EULA text to find the relevant paragraph to tell me I can't use it.  You do it since you say it's there.  And legality is determined by the law, not by Microsoft.  Microsoft can and have restricted access to licensing before, but they did not for Win10.  It is not piracy as the license was not procured illegally.  In fact, there's no license at all since Windows 10 doesn't even care for that.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Samfisher said:

Win 10 doesn't have a trial, they have a free installer that works in perpetuity.  I'm not going to dig through hundreds/thousands of lines of EULA text to find the relevant paragraph to tell me I can't use it.  You do it since you say it's there.  And legality is determined by the law, not by Microsoft.  Microsoft can and have restricted access to licensing before, but they did not for Win10.  It is not piracy as the license was not procured illegally.  In fact, there's no license at all since Windows 10 doesn't even care for that.

And?

 

1. The OP already linked where MS says you are not granted license to use it without a genuine activation method.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

 

2. Not protecting CR does not invalidate it, that is a myth the internet made up to further its ignorant ideals on the topic.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/your-copyrights-online/3-copyright-myths/

 

ergo MS not restricting access to the ISO or tracking every key for its legitimacy is not the same as there being no conditions on said use.

 

4. Burden of proof, if you aren't willing to dig through their EULA to find evidence for your assumptions then the previously supplied evidence stands.

Windows is not free,  they did not give it away unconditionally or without limitation.  the fact they didn't physical enforce their conditions does  not mean those conditions do not exist.   

 

5. I never mentioned piracy,  This is Copyright infringement,     Piracy is technically about copying/duplicating something without permission, copyright infringement is solely about using a product without permission from the owner, I.E using windows inactivated.  Piracy is CR infringement but CR infringement is not necessarily piracy.  And in any case trying to argue it isn't piracy is a pointless red herring that dodges what is already an established fact regarding the usage of windows under established CR law. 

 

 

[Samfisher]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And?

 

1. The OP already linked where MS says you are not granted license to use it without a genuine activation method.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

 

2. Not protecting CR does not invalidate it, that is a myth the internet made up to further its ignorant ideals on the topic.

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/your-copyrights-online/3-copyright-myths/

 

ergo MS not restricting access to the ISO or tracking every key for its legitimacy is not the same as there being no conditions on said use.

 

4. Burden of proof, if you aren't willing to dig through their EULA to find evidence for your assumptions then the previously supplied evidence stands.

Windows is not free,  they did not give it away unconditionally or without limitation.  the fact they didn't physical enforce their conditions does  not mean those conditions do not exist.   

 

5. I never mentioned piracy,  This is Copyright infringement,     Piracy is technically about copying/duplicating something without permission, copyright infringement is solely about using a product without permission from the owner, I.E using windows inactivated.  Piracy is CR infringement but CR infringement is not necessarily piracy.  And in any case trying to argue it isn't piracy is a pointless red herring that dodges what is already an established fact regarding the usage of windows under established CR law. 

 

Thanks for the links, learn something every day   

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

Thanks for the links, learn something every day   

NP. thank you for being reasonable and polite.   and Sorry if I came across as too brash.

[JustWantTech]

Like I said,

12 hours ago, JustWantTech said:

Point of the video:

-> why you can use full fledge win 10 without activating (just locked down the astetics) instead of the usual 30 day trial.

-> why microsoft can afford not having those win 10 activated (even tho you should activate it)

-> in tldr sytle (that's techquickie for ya), does not cover details of the legal or moral consequences of it.

 

I think the title is misleading. should be “Why Windows is "technically" free?”

 

Yes, using unactived windows is breaching TOS, which Microsoft can sue you but they don't bother.

 

Also, just because the video doesn't say "doing this is illegal" doesn't mean the video is implying that it is okay to use it like that or it endorsing people to go breaching TOS. what the video does is explaing why the hell microsoft didn't give use the usually 30 days trial in Windows 10 and speculating why microsoft can do that.

 

@LinusTechCanada Please change the title as it make the video looks like you endorsed people to use unactivated windows and breach TOS.

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, JustWantTech said:

@LinusTechCanada Please change the title as it make the video looks like you endorsed people to use unactivated windows and breach TOS.

 

I have not seen the video, but if the video does not promote said activity,  then the OP's title will not change that.  Only a change to the actual video (if even necessary) will have the effect you seek.

[Quivz]

1 hour ago, lewdicrous said:

I'd argue that using Windows without a key doesn't fall under those clause.

"Use" alone falls under copyright infringement. You dont need to copy or distribute or change. The point is if i hold a copyright and i dont want you using my copyrighted material, then you infringe on my copyright by using it.

[Thaldor]

I see it same as with WinRAR. While yes, you are going against their EULA when continuing to use the software after the 40 days test period and by doing so you use it "illegally". On the other hand they allow you to do so and in case of WinRAR have even go public saying they don't care about home users breaking the EULA and continuing the use of the software after the test period and ignoring the prompt to buy a license.

 

WinRAR is strict about this in their license agreement:

Quote

  2. The software is distributed as try before you buy. This means that
     anyone may use the software during a test period of a maximum of 40 days
     at no charge. Following this test period, the user must purchase
     a license to continue using the software.

But in practice they don't enforce it.

 

With the word "illegal" I would be careful here. While by the law it is illegal to breach an agreement, it only becomes illegal when charges are pressed. As in if police sees you breaching the EULA of Windows by using inactivated copy, they are not going to arrest you and take you to the court or fine you for it unless Microsoft wants to do so for you for breaching the agreement/contract in which case it can be taken even to a criminal court and you can be fined/jailed for it. In other words breaching agreement/contract isn't illegal if the other party doesn't want so (as in you cannot be regarded/deemed as a criminal who broke the law and did something illegal). Just like in case of damaging ones property, you scratch someones car and no one is going to push criminal charges or any kind of legal charges against you if the owner of the car doesn't want so and while you did something illegal that breaks the law, it won't be held against you and you won't be deemed criminal and in legal terms you didn't break the law or did something illegal.

[Arika]

ITT people that think a EULA is a 100% enforceable legal agreement where you will go to prison if you go against it

[flashiling]

18 hours ago, homeap5 said:

There is no trial version of Windows. If you find anywhere on Microsoft website information about trial - let me know.

you can just download a microsoft iso file directly from their website and use it.

that's how i created all my VM's for school projects.

 

[Quivz]

24 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

With the word "illegal" I would be careful here. While by the law it is illegal to breach an agreement, it only becomes illegal when charges are pressed.

We've discussed this earlier in the topic.

 

Its never 'illegal' to breach a contract (which in this case you enter by agreeing to the EULA), but it is 'actionable'. So the party with whom you entered into the contract can sue for damages and compensation, while the government or courts that represent that government can not. Unless of course the government is that second party. And even then, you haven't committed a crime.

 

The exception that i've heard of is Japan where it is written in law that breaching a EULA is a crime, so under the law it is 'illegal'. So under their law, the government of japan can prosecute you for breaching the EULA, even if the company that you entered into the agreement with does not press charges.

[Roswell]

27 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

I see it same as with WinRAR. While yes, you are going against their EULA when continuing to use the software after the 40 days test period and by doing so you use it "illegally". On the other hand they allow you to do so and in case of WinRAR have even go public saying they don't care about home users breaking the EULA and continuing the use of the software after the test period and ignoring the prompt to buy a license.

 

WinRAR is strict about this in their license agreement:

But in practice they don't enforce it.

 

With the word "illegal" I would be careful here. While by the law it is illegal to breach an agreement, it only becomes illegal when charges are pressed. As in if police sees you breaching the EULA of Windows by using inactivated copy, they are not going to arrest you and take you to the court or fine you for it unless Microsoft wants to do so for you for breaching the agreement/contract in which case it can be taken even to a criminal court and you can be fined/jailed for it. In other words breaching agreement/contract isn't illegal if the other party doesn't want so (as in you cannot be regarded/deemed as a criminal who broke the law and did something illegal). Just like in case of damaging ones property, you scratch someones car and no one is going to push criminal charges or any kind of legal charges against you if the owner of the car doesn't want so and while you did something illegal that breaks the law, it won't be held against you and you won't be deemed criminal and in legal terms you didn't break the law or did something illegal.

This is entirely incorrect. Breaking terms or contracts are NOT criminal offenses, at least in first world countries. These are civil issues, if anything. They would be handled in lawsuits which have no correlation to "pressing charges" or going to jail, that's only for criminal offenses.

 

Corporations cannot just randomly create their own criminal codes and offenses, the world would be in absolute chaos if they could. Laws pertaining to what constitutes crime are passed by governments, not Microsoft.

 

Lastly, it's not illegal to damage someone's car, that's why you have insurance, lol. That's never been a thing. Nobody can ever "press charges" if their car gets scratched. The only possible crime that could be involved is if one of the parties flees the scene and it becomes a hit and run it it's a DUI or something. But even then, the charges are levied by the government not the other person.

 

 

 

 

[angryx]

he says that you can grab an iso for free from the ms site but not to get an activated one for free

[mr moose]

45 minutes ago, Arika S said:

ITT people that think a EULA is a 100% enforceable legal agreement where you will go to prison if you go against it

 

It's not because it is part of the EULA that's it's enforceable,  it's because the clause comes under copyright law that it is enforceable through legal action.    EULA's that aren't enforceable are generally the parts that aren't protected with existing laws like copyright and IP.

 

In Australia most EULA's fall down when they are only accessible after purchase or include clauses that are not permitted by local laws I.E they are too long,  aren't written in plain English or contain excessively unfair clauses.  I don't know of any cases in the US where that has happened.

 

MS sue and win a lot of cases on this exact issue, but they don't bother with individuals. We can speculate why forever,  however  that lack of action still doeesn't change the legalities.