Tech Quicke and lies about free Windows

[Quivz]

3 minutes ago, Jarsky said:

 

A breach of terms of service is not synonymous with law, is why it's not illegal. There would not be a criminal charge for violating terms of service. 

They can make a claim against you in a court, however you aren't committing a criminal offence unless you're breaking a law like theft, IP infringement, etc...using an activator to circumvent their activation would be a criminal offence. 

Ah yes. This is right. Its not a law that was broken, so its not Illegal, but it is actionable. So Microsoft could sue you and would probably win, but you haven't committed a crime. Except in Japan apparently where breaching a EULA is illegal under their laws. Japan has no legal game rental or second hand game stores for this reason.

[Roswell]

37 minutes ago, Quivz said:

 

The video has the upgrade path in it, but it also has the fact that you can download Windows 10 from microsoft themselves and clean install it then use it ad infinitum with nothing much except some aesthetics locked away.

 

I dont remember from my install, but do you click an OK button to agree to the EULA or ToS? Because then it is apparently a contract between 2 parties and you are in breach of contract if you dont abide by the EULA/ToS, which IS illegal.

A breach of contract would be a civil issue, not criminal, so it wouldn't be illegal. Companies can't create their own criminal code, that would be terrifying.

[Quivz]

13 minutes ago, Quivz said:

Except in Japan apparently where breaching a EULA is illegal under their laws.

I assume they would have some provisions for where the EULA is a load of hot garbage...

[wanderingfool2]

6 minutes ago, Jarsky said:

 

However using it on an unactivate basis is just an addendum to the video isn't it? You've always been able to do that ever since day 1 of Windows 10. My assumption was that the primary focus of the video was referencing the Upgrade path "quirk" that was heavily reported on during mid December as still being available. 

Nope, it isn't just an addendum.  As a quick summary of what happened in it; the first 25% of the video mentions ways of how people have been going about ways of using Windows "Free", none of the methods mentioned are condoned or supported by Microsoft.  The only ramifications they mention are the limiting features, and imply that some of those have workarounds.  [No mention that it is against the licensing agreement, and that downloading Windows 10 without the intent to license it is software piracy]

 

2 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Breach of contract isn't really illegal, not in this instance at least.

Breach of contract isn't illegal, but it is a tort.  A point though is it is a breach of a licensing agreement for software it does start to enter into the copyright infringement domain.  An example I gave earlier being buying a movie and charging people to come and watch, you are in breach of the copyright holder's intended use; and thus can be held criminally responsible.

 

That is why I agree slightly with the OP; as I view this kind of video as a dangerous concept.  It all about the optics of telling people it is "free", and then giving people a way to justify it to themselves by saying MS isn't really making much money from the sale of the software anyways...it is to the point in the video that I actually do wonder whether LTT could get in trouble (if MS chose to)...as it could be construed as their video promoting piracy of software (thus violating Microsofts right). [With that said the optics of such a thing would likely be bad for MS, and wouldn't come to fruition]

 

To those who are reading this topic, please take a moment to reread the OP's originally post (and try to filter out the bias in the OP, and look at the basic thing at issue, which is that the video heavily implies software piracy and thus validates it by the concept that MS is making money from it anyways).

 

Like I mentioned in the other post I had, things such as the Apple videos it was mentioned quite clearly that it was not something condoned and that even though they have Apple products that it was in a real grey area.  Had this video mentioned any of this (the fact the methods mentioned were piracy), it likely would not have had an issue with the OP.

 

 

[Quivz]

Well when i read the original post it seems to me that he is concerned that the video encourages people to use un-activated windows. It doesn't, it simply informs you that this is a thing that can be done. I've watched it again twice and he never endorses doing that. He doesn't even present doing so in a favourable light, he's purely neutral about it. The original post also implies that they didn't check their facts, but they clearly did, because all but one thing he states as facts ARE facts.

 

At no point does he say you should do this. He simply informs of the facts of the matter, which are verifiable, with one exception. He is guessing at why Microsoft isn't locking their software down after the trial period. Its a good guess and he backs his opinion up with a lot of evidence, but I dont think Microsoft has ever or would ever come forward and say, that "yes, we just want more people to use windows so we can sell them all the other stuff". He never states this as an opinion so it could be implied that this is a fact and is unverifiable. But since the OP went to the trouble of quoting the EULA this opinion delivered as a fact is not the thing he was concerned about.

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, Quivz said:

Well when i read the original post it seems to me that he is concerned that the video encourages people to use un-activated windows. It doesn't, it simply informs you that this is a thing that can be done. I've watched it again twice and he never endorses doing that. He doesn't even present doing so in a favourable light, he's purely neutral about it. The original post also implies that they didn't check their facts, but they clearly did, because all but one thing he states as facts ARE facts.

 

At no point does he say you should do this. He simply informs of the facts of the matter, which are verifiable, with one exception. He is guessing at why Microsoft isn't locking their software down after the trial period. Its a good guess and he backs his opinion up with a lot of evidence, but I dont think Microsoft has ever or would ever come forward and say, that "yes, we just want more people to use windows so we can sell them all the other stuff". He never states this as an opinion so it could be implied that this is a fact and is unverifiable. But since the OP went to the trouble of quoting the EULA this opinion delivered as a fact is not the thing he was concerned about.

"Windows Free".  (Literally a graphic of $100 and one on 10 as Free).  The first 25% of the video is about people finding ways around paying for it (without a mention that none of these methods are in fact violations).  [Paraphrasing, if you don't have a key the OS will work just fine].  It is heavily implied in the first minute of videos that there are ways to do this; given that the title is "Why Windows if FREE now" heavily implies those methods are valid.  It is no way neutral

[Jarsky]

43 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Nope, it isn't just an addendum.  As a quick summary of what happened in it; the first 25% of the video mentions ways of how people have been going about ways of using Windows "Free", none of the methods mentioned are condoned or supported by Microsoft.  The only ramifications they mention are the limiting features, and imply that some of those have workarounds.  [No mention that it is against the licensing agreement, and that downloading Windows 10 without the intent to license it is software piracy]

Ah right, I couldn't remember the duration of how long they spent on it, but surely the video was driven by the surge of articles in relation to the workaround as theres an assumption that the upgrade will become unavailable after Windows 7 EOL on January 14th. 

43 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That is why I agree slightly with the OP; as I view this kind of video as a dangerous concept.  It all about the optics of telling people it is "free", and then giving people a way to justify it to themselves by saying MS isn't really making much money from the sale of the software anyways...it is to the point in the video that I actually do wonder whether LTT could get in trouble (if MS chose to)...as it could be construed as their video promoting piracy of software (thus violating Microsofts right). [With that said the optics of such a thing would likely be bad for MS, and wouldn't come to fruition]

 

I do kind of agree with the premise as well. I've always had an issue with tech channels like Greg & Tech Yes constantly running promos with sites like scdkeys for Windows 10 for a couple of dollars...we all know those arent legitimate keys at the price they sell it, and I have a bigger issue with that, than promoting just not activating. 

[Quivz]

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

"Windows Free".  (Literally a graphic of $100 and one on 10 as Free).  The first 25% of the video is about people finding ways around paying for it (without a mention that none of these methods are in fact violations).  [Paraphrasing, if you don't have a key the OS will work just fine].  It is heavily implied in the first minute of videos that there are ways to do this; given that the title is "Why Windows if FREE now" heavily implies those methods are valid.  It is no way neutral

To your first sentence (and parentheses), i would argue that the graphic on its own is misleading, but not in conjunction with what is being said... "But today Microsoft lets people use it completely for free..." which is a fact.

 

To your second sentence, i would argue he doesn't encourage it, he just states that it can be done. But yes a statement that they are violations (except for the upgrade path, which i don't think would be a violation, correct me if i'm wrong) would have been a good thing to have.

 

As to your third sentence... Lol i've spent so long reading comments and watching the video i completely forgot about the video title. that does have a ring of endorsement to it I'll admit, but again there's no actual endorsement of doing so. Its just a statement of fact. If you don't mind the locked features, its free now. It just sounds like its endorsing violations when taken out of context. But in the context of the actual video content its really not an endorsement, just a statement of fact.

[homeap5]

16 minutes ago, Jarsky said:

I do kind of agree with the premise as well. I've always had an issue with tech channels like Greg & Tech Yes constantly running promos with sites like scdkeys for Windows 10 for a couple of dollars...we all know those arent legitimate keys at the price they sell it, and I have a bigger issue with that, than promoting just not activating. 

Well, of course this problem (with selling few dollars keys) is bigger than using unactivated Windows, I fully agree. That doesn't mean we should not discuss about other problems, even less important. More and more people believe that using unactivated Windows is not a piracy. Well - it is. I have no problem with people who say "I am a pirate and I always use activators / cracks" - at least these people are honest and say the truth. They do not pretend that everything is ok, they do not justify themselves that they do nothing wrong, because "Microsoft doesn't care". Well - ok, be a pirate, computers develop very good because of piracy. But do not pretend that it's ok. Microsoft do not gives their system for free, it's paid product and always was.

[RonnieOP]

11 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

Well, of course this problem (with selling few dollars keys) is bigger than using unactivated Windows, I fully agree. That doesn't mean we should not discuss about other problems, even less important. More and more people believe that using unactivated Windows is not a piracy. Well - it is. I have no problem with people who say "I am a pirate and I always use activators / cracks" - at least these people are honest and say the truth. They do not pretend that everything is ok, they do not justify themselves that they do nothing wrong, because "Microsoft doesn't care". Well - ok, be a pirate, computers develop very good because of piracy. But do not pretend that it's ok. Microsoft do not gives their system for free, it's paid product and always was.

Then MS need to stop people being able to use it forever without activating it. Simple as that.

 

There is no argument you can make that justifies one of the biggest tech companies in the history of the world not being able to make you use a key to use their OS. Esp when they had done it fine for decades before Windows 10.

 

You clearly care about it much more then even MS do.

[Jarsky]

14 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

Well, of course this problem (with selling few dollars keys) is bigger than using unactivated Windows, I fully agree. That doesn't mean we should not discuss about other problems, even less important. More and more people believe that using unactivated Windows is not a piracy. Well - it is. I have no problem with people who say "I am a pirate and I always use activators / cracks" - at least these people are honest and say the truth. They do not pretend that everything is ok, they do not justify themselves that they do nothing wrong, because "Microsoft doesn't care". Well - ok, be a pirate, computers develop very good because of piracy. But do not pretend that it's ok. Microsoft do not gives their system for free, it's paid product and always was.

The problem with this path of criticism is that Microsoft have always either required you enter a product key to use the product, or it has been timebombed completely locking you out from the OS. They have removed this restrictions, probably because holistically its better for the customer experience and ultimately better for business. By allowing customers to continue using the OS, they have the opportunity of continuing to sell them other products like Office, OneDrive & 365 subscriptions. 

 

I dont believe that legally you could argue using the OS unactivated to be in the same category as piracy

[GoodBytes]

2 hours ago, Caroline said:

It's not free, you're paying them with your data, did you know Windows 10 has a "feature" that sends everything you type to MS? It's called "send typing and inking data to Microsoft to improve recognition, suggestions, blah blah" they also log every process you open via "smart screen"

kinda like what facebook and google (and their subplatforms) do

 

Nothing is free.

Actually, that is when you use the on screen keyboard for the spell checker, or you enable the spell checker/auto-correction.

This is the same thing that Google's GBoard, Swift keyboard, and others do, to be able to provide better prediction tuned for you and improve the spell checker by detection new words which may grow in a region (not all does this part of the spell checker). As for data collecting, that would depend on the keyboard. In the case of Microsoft in Windows 10, the answer is no. Currently their focus is on pushing Bing, OneDrive, Store, and Office on the consumer side. Maybe soon, The New Edge web browser (the Chromium based one which is expected to be officially released early this year), which of course like Chrome, is deigned to collect data on you. And you can add Microsoft Teams and Sharepoint for Enterprises, beside Office and Bing.

[Quivz]

25 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

Well, of course this problem (with selling few dollars keys) is bigger than using unactivated Windows, I fully agree. That doesn't mean we should not discuss about other problems, even less important. More and more people believe that using unactivated Windows is not a piracy. Well - it is. I have no problem with people who say "I am a pirate and I always use activators / cracks" - at least these people are honest and say the truth. They do not pretend that everything is ok, they do not justify themselves that they do nothing wrong, because "Microsoft doesn't care". Well - ok, be a pirate, computers develop very good because of piracy. But do not pretend that it's ok, Microsoft gives their system for free etc.

Now that is well said.

Unauthorised use of software is software piracy. And not activating is unauthorised use.

But i don't think the video condones it. It just explains it. Which therefore becomes the ethics question of 'Is it okay to tell people HOW to do an illegal thing?'.

And the secondary 'is it okay to tell people how to do an illegal thing without telling them its illegal?'.

 

I've read books and watched videos (non-fiction) about how to rob banks, how to kidnap people, how to kill people with different items (normally from a defensive point of view (ie. you can do this to kill them before they kill you), how to grow weed etc.. none of these are banned knowledge.

 

But your original post impugned the quality of the journalism and its facts. I must still contend that its factually accurate with the exception of WHY microsoft continues to do nothing about all the un-activated copies of windows 10 out there. which is to the best of my knowledge just an opinion, but an opinion backed up by a plethora of supporting facts.

 

[Quivz]

5 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Actually, that is when you use the on screen keyboard for the spell checker,...

 

 

WHAT!? I use the OSK all the time when i cant be bothered getting up off the bed... All those Pornhub searches...

[Jarsky]

6 minutes ago, Quivz said:

Unauthorised use of software is software piracy. And not activating is unauthorised use.

 

Piracy is the illegal use or distribution of software. It is not illegal to use Windows unactivated. 

[Quivz]

Just now, Jarsky said:

Piracy is the illegal use or distribution of software. It is not illegal to use Windows unactivated. 

Depends where you get your definition from. Software piracy is more technically software copyright infringement. Copyright exists to ensure fair compensation for the use of copyrighted material. I'm going by this definition and since microsoft asks for compensation for the use of their copyrighted material (although they clearly dont chase it), not giving it to them is copyright infringement.

 

Breaching the EULA is not illegal, but infringing on a copyright is.

[Jarsky]

14 minutes ago, Quivz said:

Depends where you get your definition from. Software piracy is more technically software copyright infringement. Copyright exists to ensure fair compensation for the use of copyrighted material. I'm going by this definition and since microsoft asks for compensation for the use of their copyrighted material (although they clearly dont chase it), not giving it to them is copyright infringement.

 

Breaching the EULA is not illegal, but infringing on a copyright is.

I'm talking about in the context of this discussion, using Windows unactivated via their media creation tool is not copyright.

They would have to prove that you freebooted/bootleg'd the install, and/or modified their software in some way to claim it as copyright infringement. 

They could chase you for using an Activator or anyone running a public KMS server, people bootlegging distributions, etc....actual legally actionable offences under Copyright legislation. But using their distribution unactivated does not fit under Piracy or Theft which would be required to take copyright action under both Civil or Criminal law. 

 

[Rolling2405]

11 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. 

 

11 hours ago, homeap5 said:

Yes, he is reporter/journalist. It's modern media time, you don't must work for CNN to be a reporter anymore. He provides informations and earn money for that. It's not some random guy who upload video on YouTube.

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

[Quivz]

 

16 minutes ago, Jarsky said:

I'm talking about in the context of this discussion, using Windows unactivated via their media creation tool is not copyright.

They would have to prove that you freebooted/bootleg'd the install, and/or modified their software in some way to claim it as copyright infringement. 

They could chase you for using an Activator or anyone running a public KMS server, people bootlegging distributions, etc....actual legally actionable offences under Copyright legislation. But using their distribution unactivated does not fit under Piracy or Theft which would be required to take copyright action under both Civil or Criminal law. 

 

Hmmmm.... Thats true. The unactivated version is a separate entity to the activated one, demonstrated by the watermark and locked features not present in the activated version. And nowhere do they ask for compensation for the unactivated version. I dont think you can argue that all the components that are the same from the activated version are being used without compensation because they were provided as part of the free version... I can't make a case for it being piracy to use the free version...

 

I think you've played the trump card there.

 

Unless of course it stipulates a time period for the use of the unactivated version. And it would have to be specific about not being allowed to use the unactivated version. Saying you have to activate after the time period would bring us back into breach of contract territory and not copyright infringement. Anyone know if there's time frame stipulation like that?

[lewdicrous]

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.

 

Please enlighten us.

 

Sources:

Spoiler

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/microsoft-just-sued-ip-address-windows-office-piracy-claims/amp/

https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2016-06-27-woman-wins-usd10k-suing-microsoft-for-unauthorised-windows-10-upgrade

https://bgr.com/2014/12/08/microsoft-windows-and-office-illegal-activations/amp/

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-sued-over-windows-10-update-campaign/

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/25/how-microsoft-helped-imprison-a-man-for-counterfeiting-software-it-gives-away-for-free/amp/

https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2018/02/15/man_sues_microsoft_windows_7/

 

[rickymohk]

Are you just critizing the title of the video? I think the content of the video is exactly discussing "Yes it is illegal but why does microsoft just leave it usable and don't make it unusable in the first place?".

[Quivz]

4 minutes ago, rickymohk said:

Are you just critizing the title of the video? I think the content of the video is exactly discussing "Yes it is illegal but why does microsoft just leave it usable and don't make it unusable in the first place?".

He never states it is illegal in the video.

[lewdicrous]

4 minutes ago, Quivz said:

He never states it is illegal in the video.

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. 

[Quivz]

19 minutes ago, Quivz said:

Unless of course it stipulates a time period for the use of the unactivated version. And it would have to be specific about not being allowed to use the unactivated version. Saying you have to activate after the time period would bring us back into breach of contract territory and not copyright infringement. Anyone know if there's time frame stipulation like that?

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.

 

If i say in 1 week you have to buy the full book and you say okay, but then you dont and just keep the free version, then thats not copyright infringement, thats breach of contract.

[RonnieOP]

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

Except they are not journalists. They are content creators.

 

You might view them as a journalist. but that doesnt mean they are.

 

So why would they feel the need to act like "real news reporters" when they arent trying to be "real news reporters"?

 

They have no excuse because they dont need an excuse. And theres no point comparing LTT to GN when they have two totally different motives.