[DEBUNKED] Windows 10 updates can disable pirated games and unauthorized hardware

[EvilWiffles]

Not everyone is on the high moral bandwagon. Everyone has different needs and requirements.

I personally don't have any method of buying my games, so my only options are to go to a store and buy from there.

Now I lived in the middle of nowhere in Kansas, if you traveled or lived in Kansas, you'll know that there are plenty of people who are miles away from stores. So every year or so, I'd go and buy myself a game or two. Those games I usually end up playing for about a week before they get boring and repetitive, sucks, that's just how games are.

 

Blowing cash on non-physical games just doesn't settle for me.

[mr moose]

No, they had licenses, but nothing like today's EULA's.  Back then you actually owned your copy of the program the same way you owned a copy of a book, or a record, with all the same rights to make, and use copies of the same.  Likewise you could legally sell your copy if you were done using it.

 

It is the difference today between buying an actual printed dead-tree book, or "buying" it on Kindle.

 

Well, I don't know what software you brought that gave you such licenses but all the software I have seen/used from the early 80's was copyrighted.  Most times the back of the box had the warnings about copying or re distributing software (these constitute license agreements).  But as I said, technology was a lot different so much of what we have in EULA's today didn't apply back then. 

[alextulu]

Some people are saying that it aplies to anyone who uses windows 10 with a microsoft account.

 

But then I found it weird that it's limited to pirated games only. Why not stop all pirated software ? Why does it only protect games, but not other things like photoshop or premiere which are also pirated a lot ? Actually why not stop all piracy, includind movies and music?

 

I think it only refers to games that use your microsoft account for xbox live. That would make more sense.

[ThomasD]

Well, I don't know what software you brought that gave you such licenses but all the software I have seen/used from the early 80's was copyrighted.  Most times the back of the box had the warnings about copying or re distributing software (these constitute license agreements).  But as I said, technology was a lot different so much of what we have in EULA's today didn't apply back then. 

That is the exact distinction I am drawing.

 

 

I'm old enough to remember when you owned a copy of your software. 

 

Now everything is a EULA, where you don't own anything.  The next step will be you buying the hardware, but everything else being owned by someone else.

 

And Microsoft's latest "agreement" is nothing if not that,

 

 

Owned. A. Copy.

 

Under copyright law only the author owns the original.  Everyone else owns a copy.  

 

Today's EULAs are not a form of copyright.  They are a specific effort to drive consumers away from the protections afforded by copyright laws and monetize a product in perpetuity.

 

Copyright is the same as is applied to any other form of (old) media.  e.g. If you buy a copy of a book, it is your copy, and you can sell it when you are done with it, and the publisher could not legally come into your home and take it back whenever they felt like it  - because it was your property. You could make a complete copy for back up purposes, or even copy and distribute portions of the work under fair use exemptions. 

 

You could make back up copies of software.  If you had multiple systems you could legally have a copy for each system - so long as you did not have more than one copy up and running at the same time.  The exact same way the law applied to music - you could make tape recordings of your albums in order to listen to them in your car. 

 

Hell, even if you were caught violating copyright - say by selling copies of your album to friends - you would be liable for damages, but your initial copy would still be yours.  Violate any aspect of a EULA and the first thing they'll do is take everything back.

 

When you upgraded you didn't have to call and ask for permission to run your OS on a new system - that was your right.

 

As compared to today's EULAs.  Whether it be software on Steam, a book on Kindle, or music on iTunes, none of them are your property.  They remain the sole property of the publisher, and you just get to use it (that's the U in EULA), subject to their terms.  If Apple goes belly up and iTunes goes away so does your entire library.  Ditto if Valve ever decides to shut down Steam -everything you think is yours ceases to exist and you have ZERO legal recourse for getting it back.

 

You don't own anything. All you have is temporary permission to use it, permission that can be modified or even revoked at a later date.

 

You cannot sell it to someone else (strictly speaking you cannot even give it away legally) when you are done because you own nothing.

[Techhog]

Some people are saying that it aplies to anyone who uses windows 10 with a microsoft account.

 

But then I found it weird that it's limited to pirated games only. Why not stop all pirated software ? Why does it only protect games, but not other things like photoshop or premiere which are also pirated a lot ? Actually why not stop all piracy, includind movies and music?

 

I think it only refers to games that use your microsoft account for xbox live. That would make more sense.

Get your logic out of here. We have to hate on Microsoft at every opportunity to justify staying on Windows 7.

[ThomasD]

...

 

I think it only refers to games that use your microsoft account for xbox live. That would make more sense.

I think that is probably the current intent of Microsoft - with regard to that specific aspect of their business.

 

But I also think that their approach to solving their problem was to force anyone who wants to use any of those services to accept a blanket agreement that gives them carte blanche access to your entire system.

 

So the real problem is not what Microsoft may currently do with that access.  Instead the issue is what they may choose to do in the future, which given the miniscule restrictions they have placed upon themselves in that agreement (e.g. "we won't use your data to sell stuff to you"), are almost unlimited.

 

Good faith on the user's part, but none on their's.

[mr moose]

That is the exact distinction I am drawing.

 

Today's EULAs are not a form of copyright.  They are a specific effort to drive consumers away from the protections afforded by copyright laws and monetize a product in perpetuity.

 

Copyright is the same as is applied to any other form of (old) media.  e.g. If you buy a copy of a book, it is your copy, and you can sell it when you are done with it, and the publisher could not legally come into your home and take it back whenever they felt like it because it was your property.  

 

You could make back up copies of software.  If you had multiple systems you could legally have a copy for each system - so long as you did not have more than one copy up and running at the same time.  The exact same way the law applied to music - you could make tape recordings of your albums in order to listen to them in your car.

 

When you upgraded you didn't have to call and ask for permission to run your OS on a new system - that was your right.

 

As compared to today's EULAs.  Whether it be software on Steam, a book on Kindle, or music on iTunes, none of them are your property.  They remain the sole property of the publisher, and you just get to use it (that's the U in EULA), subject to their terms.

 

You don't own anything. All you have is temporary permission to use it, permission that can be modified or even revoked at a later date.

 

You cannot sell it to someone else (strictly speaking you cannot even give it away legally) when you are done because you own nothing.

 

I think your understanding of copyright is a little hazy.  For one, no consumer has ever owned the digital content.  Copyright law has been in one form or another since the 19th century and most of what we have today is based on laws settled the early 70's. Many countries have consumer law that specifically protect the user from what you describe.  If MS where to suddenly change or try to revoke the software license (preventing me from using the product I paid for as a consumer) they would be forced to refund in full any moneys paid by me for said license.

 

The U in "EULA" doesn't signify you only have the right to use it, it signifies you are the party using it.  The contents of the EULA describe the how the product is to be used and, again, in many countries regardless of what they put in it, they can't just change it after purchase and agreement.

 

The reason you could move your OS from one system to another was not because you owned the software, but because nearly all licenses were unrestricted. If I remember right MS didn't introduce the cheaper OEM licenses until win 95.  Which is not the same as retaining ownership because the consumer never had it, it was/is simply a different end use agreement.

[Techhog]

I think that is probably the current intent of Microsoft - with regard to that specific aspect of their business.

 

But I also think that their approach to solving their problem was to force anyone who wants to use any of those services to accept a blanket agreement that gives them carte blanche access to your entire system.

 

So the real problem is not what Microsoft may currently do with that access.  Instead the issue is what they may choose to do in the future, which given the miniscule restrictions they have placed upon themselves in that agreement (e.g. "we won't use your data to sell stuff to you"), are almost unlimited.

 

Good faith on the user's part, but none on their's.

That's a bit of a stretch. Microsoft has nothing to gain from blocking "unauthorized" PC hardware whatsoever, and why not just make it apply to all pirated content now if that's their ultimate intention? On top of that, why isn't Windows on the list of services here? Sorry, but I'm just reading paranoia here.

 

EDIT: Wait. You're trying to flip this into being about the privacy agreement? What the actual fuck?

[ThomasD]

I think your understanding of copyright is a little hazy.  For one, no consumer has ever owned the digital content. 

Not hazy at all, again I've been dealing with this pretty much since the very start of the consumer/home computer market and have dealt with all the changes along the way.

 

"No consumer ever owned digital content" is the same as saying that no consumer over owned the text of the book they purchased.  Only the author(s) own that (of course they can sell the full rights to that text to someone else - ie. a publisher.)

 

But really now we are just quibbling.  The fact is that software used to be sold largely, if not exclusively, under existing copyright laws, not under the EULA type agreements (which often include specific clauses abrogating the otherwise ordinary protections of copyright) we deal with today.

 

And yes, there are distinctions in copyright law between jurisdictions.  But most of the people here have no idea that there ever was anything other than EULAs.

[ThomasD]

That's a bit of a stretch. Microsoft has nothing to gain from blocking "unauthorized" PC hardware whatsoever, and why not just make it apply to all pirated content now if that's their ultimate intention? On top of that, why isn't Windows on the list of services here? Sorry, but I'm just reading paranoia here.

 

EDIT: Wait. You're trying to flip this into being about the privacy agreement? What the actual fuck?

No, you are missing part of the picture.  Microsoft does have a big concern about what sorts of unauthorized activity goes on on systems that use their services AND that use their operating system.

 

Look at what is going on with BitTorrent and the RIAA.  

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/424341-riaa-asks-bittorrent-inc-to-block-infringing-content-with-a-hash-filter/

 

Right now it is just a "sort of" threat from the RIAA to companies that might be knowingly allowing illegal activity on their services, but it is exactly the sort of legal entanglement that Microsoft pays it's lawyers to keep them out of.

 

So, one of their responses will be to include terms of use that allow for aggressive monitoring of all activity on their services.  One so they can know what is going on, and two so that they can shut down anything that might create legal exposure for the company.

 

Right now companies are choosing between two approaches to this concern.  Some are going the "We don't know, and frankly we set it up so that we can't know" route.  While others are taking the "what we don't know just might bite us in the ass, so we made sure we can know" approach.

 

Much also depends on how current issues/cases like any pending RIAA/Bittorrent suits would work out.  And those sorts of concerns could go away if the courts rule in a certain way.  In which case Microsoft might not need to watch things so closely, but there would have been no harm in allowing for it anyway.

 

As opposed to the alternate scenario, where they do have new liabilities, but have limited their own ability to protect themselves.

[linuxfan66]

I would wait to see what that practically translates to given it may only Xbox live and related services in practice...

If that concerns you anyway.

[mr moose]

Not hazy at all, again I've been dealing with this pretty much since the very start of the consumer/home computer market and have dealt with all the changes along the way.

 

"No consumer ever owned digital content" is the same as saying that no consumer over owned the text of the book they purchased.  Only the author(s) own that (of course they can sell the full rights to that text to someone else - ie. a publisher.)

 

But really now we are just quibbling.  The fact is that software used to be sold largely, if not exclusively, under existing copyright laws, not under the EULA type agreements (which often include specific clauses abrogating the otherwise ordinary protections of copyright) we deal with today.

 

And yes, there are distinctions in copyright law between jurisdictions.  But most of the people here have no idea that there ever was anything other than EULAs.

 

 

But you were the one claiming "Now everything is a EULA, where you don't own anything.".  The thing is that it has always been that way, nothing has changed there.  

 

It seems you are more interested at the moment in trying to make it sound like the sky is falling, especially given your last couple of posts.  I really don't see how the RIAA trying to strong arm bit torrent has anything to do with what is clearly a very erroneous article and misleading thread title.  

[ThomasD]

But you were the one claiming "Now everything is a EULA, where you don't own anything.".  The thing is that it has always been that way, nothing has changed there.  

 

No, that is flat out wrong.  It has not "always been that way."

 

Under copyright law you own a copy.  I have a shelf full of books.  I can sell each of them legally.  I also have a box of old games that I could sell (If anyone had a system that could run them.)

 

Under most any EULA you own nothing.  In Steam I have a "library" full of games.  I cannot sell any of them.

 

If EULAs were equivalent to copyright then there would be no need for EULAs since we already have settled copyright law.

 

As to "the sky falling," spare me.  These are all ongoing concerns that need to be discussed and addressed.  Again, many of us remember the days when you actually owned copies of your music in the form of albums, or CDs. 

 

I could just as easily accuse you of taking a total head in the sand approach. but wouldn't because it is just a way of saying "shut up" without making any real sort of argument.

[linuxfan66]

No, that is flat out wrong. It has not "always been that way."

Under copyright law you own a copy. I have a shelf full of books. I can sell each of them legally. I also have a box of old games that I could sell (If anyone had a system that could run them.)

Under most any EULA you own nothing. In Steam I have a "library" full of games. I cannot sell any of them.

If EULAs were equivalent to copyright then there would be no need for EULAs since we already have settled copyright law.

As to "the sky falling," spare me. These are all ongoing concerns that need to be discussed and addressed. Again, many of us remember the days when you actually owned copies of your music in the form of albums, or CDs.

I could just as easily accuse you of taking a total head in the sand approach. but wouldn't because it is just a way of saying "shut up" without making any real sort of argument.

You owned the license attached to the physical copy...

[Misanthrope]

You owned the license attached to the physical copy...

 

That was always a weak argument and in many jurisdictions with flatout 0 legal value: you owned the copy and were able to do whatever you want with it since the 0s and 1s were physically inscripted on the product you bought, you could not separate them.

[samcool55]

Hang on, how does it manages to figure out the game is really pirated or you just use cracked exe files because you don't want to use the cd's and want to make the game portable?

I mean i have a bunch of games with cracked exe files to avoid the dvd check because i have divorced parents and i just carry an hdd with everything on it back and forth and i won't want to drag a boatload of games all the time. Or just forgetting the disk in the dvd drive when i'm going to my other parent and being unable to continue playing the game because i forgot the CD?

 

Sounds old-school but i DO play some games i have a physical copy of. I am one of those guys liking the looks of a bunch of DVD boxes and i don't want W10 punishing me for that.

[ThomasD]

You owned the license attached to the physical copy...

Not really.  Assuming there was a license, I certainly did not own it.  The license is a contract - a form of agreement, not a thing of ownership.  I'll keep repeating this as long as everyone keeps ignoring it - those licenses were nothing like today's EULAs.  Most simply reiterated copyright law - you could not copy for commercial use, etc., and/or they were hold harmless clauses to keep you from suing because you used Word Perfect to type up a bomb threat...)

 

Did you know that prior to 1990 you could actually rent out the copies of  software that you owned?  That's not specifically an issue of changes to licensing/EULAs - it was cause by the software industry lobbying Congress to make it a crime (the law includes  exceptions for console cartridges and such.)

 

But you are very correct to note that what I did own was a physical copy - that is in important aspect of how and why the current state of affairs has developed, since most of what we deal with now does not come to us in a physical copy.

 

 

...

I mean i have a bunch of games with cracked exe files 

...

 

Like it or not, under the current sorts of licensing agreements what you are doing is not remotely legal.

[duriel]

itt: mad pirates

 

And don't bring up abandonware. The only way Microsoft could be arsed to actually disable pirated games were if the company paid them off, otherwise, why do they care? Do they feel like they'll be seen as the catalyst enabling people to pirate current games and play them for free, etc? Even then, why would they care?

Abandonware I could not possibly see being disabled from running.

[Techhog]

No, you are missing part of the picture.  Microsoft does have a big concern about what sorts of unauthorized activity goes on on systems that use their services AND that use their operating system.

 

Look at what is going on with BitTorrent and the RIAA.  

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/424341-riaa-asks-bittorrent-inc-to-block-infringing-content-with-a-hash-filter/

 

Right now it is just a "sort of" threat from the RIAA to companies that might be knowingly allowing illegal activity on their services, but it is exactly the sort of legal entanglement that Microsoft pays it's lawyers to keep them out of.

 

So, one of their responses will be to include terms of use that allow for aggressive monitoring of all activity on their services.  One so they can know what is going on, and two so that they can shut down anything that might create legal exposure for the company.

 

Right now companies are choosing between two approaches to this concern.  Some are going the "We don't know, and frankly we set it up so that we can't know" route.  While others are taking the "what we don't know just might bite us in the ass, so we made sure we can know" approach.

 

Much also depends on how current issues/cases like any pending RIAA/Bittorrent suits would work out.  And those sorts of concerns could go away if the courts rule in a certain way.  In which case Microsoft might not need to watch things so closely, but there would have been no harm in allowing for it anyway.

 

As opposed to the alternate scenario, where they do have new liabilities, but have limited their own ability to protect themselves.

These are good points and all, but Windows isn't on the list of services, and this policy specifically refers to games. Both of those facts nullify every point made in this post. They would need to revise the policy to include Windows as one of the services on the list and to broaden the reach of the policy to all pirated content. If you're just going to say, "well, they're going to do that in the future," then there's no point in even making an arguement because they could do anything in the future. So no, I'm not missing anything. When this policy actually does what you think it's doing we can talk, but for now you're just misreading the policy/mistaking the policy for what you fear that it is, just like whoever wrote this article.

[Astralify]

I knew it. Windows 10 = Hitler

[Ekpyrosis]

I knew it. Windows 10 = Hitler

Godwin's law strikes once again.

[Altecice]

well thats BS, Im running all that stuff perfectly fine. another sensationalist news article that boils down to 0.

[samcool55]

 

Like it or not, under the current sorts of licensing agreements what you are doing is not remotely legal.

 

Why would that be? I don't live in the UK so i'm allowed to copy the stuff i bought as many times as i like so i can use it on mulitple devices. I have a legit copy and i only use it for personal use, can't see what's not legal about that. If a company wants to bring me to court for this, i won't have a problem with that. I do not harm the game company in any way by using cracked exe files because they don't miss a single sale because i'm doing it. 0 harm done.

 

If storing games like i'm doing is not legal, sites like gamecopyworld would have been taken down, but as the site states, backing up CD/DVD games for personal use is legal, and that's what i'm doing, so again, perfectly fine, no harm done. And in my country it's legal, also checked that, so again, it's fine.

 

Again to make it clear, it's for SOME games, not all, if i can activate the key in steam or origin, i do that. And i don't use cracked exe's or whatever for these games. No need for them anyway

[mr moose]

No, that is flat out wrong.  It has not "always been that way."

 

Under copyright law you own a copy.  I have a shelf full of books.  I can sell each of them legally.  I also have a box of old games that I could sell (If anyone had a system that could run them.)

 

Under most any EULA you own nothing.  In Steam I have a "library" full of games.  I cannot sell any of them.

 

If EULAs were equivalent to copyright then there would be no need for EULAs since we already have settled copyright law.

 

As to "the sky falling," spare me.  These are all ongoing concerns that need to be discussed and addressed.  Again, many of us remember the days when you actually owned copies of your music in the form of albums, or CDs. 

 

I could just as easily accuse you of taking a total head in the sand approach. but wouldn't because it is just a way of saying "shut up" without making any real sort of argument.

 

Bollocks.

 

You haven't even got your head around the fact that windows is not in the list of services, this is not  set of terms and conditions you agree to when installing any windows let alone 10, yet you purport to everyone they are.   You seem to be under the impression that you used to own your software.  Copyright law has never granted the end user the rights to own the content only the rights (by license) to own a copy.  What you are permitted to do with your copy is solely upto the copyright holder and that is usually laid out in the manual.  In fact some software like Lotus 123 even had DRM installed on 1.44 Floppies so it would limit the times it could be installed.   And that was in the 80's.  So while most companies didn't really put effort into copyright protection, many did enforce their rights in so much as having these agreements on the side of box's and in manuals, if not in the software itself.

 

And for what it's worth, the first sale doctrine has never been in dispute and yet there is a grey area surrounding the legality of EULA's to circumvent First sale rights.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/09/the-end-of-used-major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses/

[Techhog]

I knew it. Windows 10 = Hitler

Nearly all European leaders were as evil as Hitler, you know.