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

[ThomasD]

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/

I've noted multiple times that Windows 10 is not a listed service.  There are at least two separate, but related discussions going on here.  Try not to get confused.  (But I have also noted that it is highly problematic how Microsoft foists that agreement upon anyone who does not do a custom install of Windows 10.)

 

You are mistaken (at least as to US law) - what you are permitted to do under copyright is not "solely: up to the copyright holder - it is up to copyright law.  Just like I replied to someone else in this thread - when you buy a book you buy a copy, but never own the text.  You conflate a use license with copyright, and that is a mistake.

 

Go back and re-read everything I've said.  Far too many people have picked at things they thought were wrong but were not.  As another example I've never argued that there were not licenses on software, or that those licenses did not impose additional restrictions.  My point was that there very much was a time when you did own an actual copy of the software.  Unlike today when you do not.  And you do not precisly because First Use Doctrine generally does not apply to things that are not physically instantiated (again this is US law.)

 

Consider that, in your very example, if you had not exhausted the number of installations you could sell those Lotus disks, and people did.  That was exaclty my point when I said:

 

 

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. 

...

 

And then people decided to jump and and try to say that was false, which it is not.

[ThomasD]

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

Not disagreeing with you, or your decent intent.  Simply noting that by 'cracking' the software you are causing it to perform in a manner not intended by the author, which in today's world pretty much means you are in violation of whatever license you had, ie. you are a pirate.

 

And, broadly speaking I agree with you.  This is exaclty the sort of use that should be clearly permissable under copyright law, but is slowly being denied us due to the ever expanding, and IMO abusive use of EULAs and associated protection schemes.  So instead you had to crack it (much like people who want to make otherwise legal copies of their music or video collections have to work around other sorts of DRM.)

[mr moose]

I've noted multiple times that Windows 10 is not a listed service.  There are at least two separate, but related discussions going on here.  Try not to get confused.  (But I have also noted that it is highly problematic how Microsoft foists that agreement upon anyone who does not do a custom install of Windows 10.)

 

You are mistaken (at least as to US law) - what you are permitted to do under copyright is not "solely: up to the copyright holder - it is up to copyright law.  Just like I replied to someone else in this thread - when you buy a book you buy a copy, but never own the text.  You conflate a use license with copyright, and that is a mistake.

 

Go back and re-read everything I've said.  Far too many people have picked at things they thought were wrong but were not.  As another example I've never argued that there were not licenses on software, or that those licenses did not impose additional restrictions.  My point was that there very much was a time when you did own an actual copy of the software.  Unlike today when you do not.  And you do not precisly because First Use Doctrine generally does not apply to things that are not physically instantiated (again this is US law.)

 

Consider that, in your very example, if you had not exhausted the number of installations you could sell those Lotus disks, and people did.  That was exaclty my point when I said:

 

 

 

And then people decided to jump and and try to say that was false, which it is not.

 

I really don't care how old you are, age does not always equal knowledge. I've been an enthusiast for just as long, it doesn't mean anything when you are not representing something properly.

 

Just because some software makers don't impose DRM or care if you copy and distribute their stuff doesn't mean such restrictions never existed. As I have already linked evidence that such agreements and licenses were in place in the 80's not just in terms of an agreement but in the form of active DRM.   But feel free to keep telling yourself whatever you need to believe.

 

Please note that there is no "take back" provision in that agreement - once you have accepted it (e.g. via a standard install of Windows 10) you cannot revoke it so Microsoft pretty much has carte blanche to access the contents of your home system.

It didn't have to be that way, and Microsoft deserves avery bit of grief they are getting.

 

This is flat out wrong, for last time, the terms and conditions mentioned in the OP's article are not apart of any part of the windows install, there is no "carte blanche access" to your home system, installing windows does not make an agreement pertaining to these conditions and finally all conditions can be revoked.  Those terms only apply to the services listed. so please stop telling everyone they are confused or mistaken when you clearly don't even understand what the policy is about or what it applies to.

[ThomasD]

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. ...

The policy refers to games.  The terms of the agreement apply no such limit.  So no nullity.  As I specifically explained, while Microsofts current focus may be limited to console games, their obvious intent was to enable as much freedom on their end - regarding ANY of their services -  as possible.

 

When I mentioned Microsofts "concern" about people using their services or operating system for illegal activity I was speaking broadly about their concerns, not implying that they were policing all users of the OS.  Sorry if my lack of clarity caused confusion.   I've previously noted that Windows 10 is not listed as a service in the agreement (an agreement that anyone who does not do a custom install of Windows automatically accepts.)

 

It didn't have to be this way.  Microsoft chose to frontload all the services at OS install AND also therby frontload the blanket agreement in the same process.

[SansVarnic]

This is not bad. It is most likely a conglomeration between MS and several devs to put more stops in place to slow down piracy. We have seen many times in the past from devs attempting to put up stops from piracy and have even gone to MS asking for integration of their programs into windows to help, this probably MS going one step further and making a standard that devs can adopt to use instead of several different programs working against each other like using more than one virus program at the same time to accomplish the same task which we all know that multiple virus programs cant work together. . . 

 

I see nothing wrong with this. I have no need to pirate, if I cant afford it then I don't buy it, if its not worth buying why would I want it?

Since day one people have been complaining about MS being open about their policies. Instead of just waiting for people to complain after the fact MS is being open and upfront.

 

*Edit

I highly doubt MS is going to phish through 1,000,000,000 (1 billion) pc's amount of info to collect specific personal information. The information they are looking to use is most likely going to be run thru a program designed to look for personality traits to determine usage so they determine on how best to design or improve upon OS features, to determine regional program use or search priorities to know best how to design types of ads to create for each region. Google and Apple already do this in a similar manner. The thing (and biggest difference) with Microsoft is they are telling you they are doing this and giving you and option to 'opt out' instead of hiding it like Apple and Google did before they had to admit they were doing it.

Edited August 9, 2015 by SansVarnic

[samcool55]

Not disagreeing with you, or your decent intent.  Simply noting that by 'cracking' the software you are causing it to perform in a manner not intended by the author, which in today's world pretty much means you are in violation of whatever license you had, ie. you are a pirate.

 

And, broadly speaking I agree with you.  This is exaclty the sort of use that should be clearly permissable under copyright law, but is slowly being denied us due to the ever expanding, and IMO abusive use of EULAs and associated protection schemes.  So instead you had to crack it (much like people who want to make otherwise legal copies of their music or video collections have to work around other sorts of DRM.)

Well yes true i'm using the game not as it should, but on the other hand almost every game says something like your experience may change when playing online or something, which is a sort of warning that you might play with people that are playing the game not as the devs meant it soo, everyone knows there are people out there that will play their game not as the devs meant it to be played. There are a lot of ways to violate the license you have, being a pirate is just one of the many ways  

 

I'm happy to hear that you sort of agree with me, and i'm sure there are more people out there thinking the same thing, there is a reason why GOG is starting to become a big player because they don't offer games with DRM. I hope that GOG can show the world we don't want DRM in this way.

 

And it has been proven many times DRM doesn't work and only hurts the people that pay for the game. 

[ThomasD]

...

This is flat out wrong, for last time, the terms and conditions mentioned in the OP's article are not apart of any part of the windows install...

Again you are wrong. 

 

But don't take my word for it, go to any of the major PC web sites and look at their articles.  Every last one of them explains that installing any of the services (via standard "express" install of Windows 10) or setting up a Microsoft account (opting out and doing a local install is a fine print option in the Windows 10 install) means acceptance of the terms of the agreement.

 

 http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2489212,00.asp

 

Sure, the software has options that you can then go in and "turn off" but - the black letter of the Agreement you have already accepted includes no method of actually revoking the agreement.  It remains in force.

Failure to opt out of these things means that Microsoft:

 

"collects contents of private communications such as email, websites and downloaded apps, as well as the contents of private folders. It collects search queries from its Bing search engine, and conversations users have with Cortana, the voice-activated digital assistant. The company’s privacy statement says “your typed and handwritten words are collected”."

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fdaddc18-39bc-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3iGwnhZvb

 

(Financial Times may re-direct away from the link but if you search "Microsoft Privacy Concerns" on Bing (lol) it is the third listed item.)

 

http://diginomica.com/2015/08/05/how-serious-are-the-windows-10-privacy-issues/#.Vcabh3GM-8Y

[Glenboro]

LOL, I just realized the person in gif is someone I know from high school. 

[CtW]

Lol I don't have a microsoft account connected to my PC so most of the stuff that sucks about this operating system doesn't apply to me.

[mr moose]

Again you are wrong. 

 

But don't take my word for it, go to any of the major PC web sites and look at their articles.  Every last one of them explains that installing any of the services (via standard "express" install of Windows 10) or setting up a Microsoft account (opting out and doing a local install is a fine print option in the Windows 10 install) means acceptance of the terms of the agreement.

 

 http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2489212,00.asp

 

Sure, the software has options that you can then go in and "turn off" but - the black letter of the Agreement you have already accepted includes no method of actually revoking the agreement.  It remains in force.

Failure to opt out of these things means that Microsoft:

 

"collects contents of private communications such as email, websites and downloaded apps, as well as the contents of private folders. It collects search queries from its Bing search engine, and conversations users have with Cortana, the voice-activated digital assistant. The company’s privacy statement says “your typed and handwritten words are collected”."

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fdaddc18-39bc-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c.html#axzz3iGwnhZvb

 

(Financial Times may re-direct away from the link but if you search "Microsoft Privacy Concerns" on Bing (lol) it is the third listed item.)

 

http://diginomica.com/2015/08/05/how-serious-are-the-windows-10-privacy-issues/#.Vcabh3GM-8Y

 

I guess your not very good at reading.

 

This is the service agreement spoken about in the OP:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement/?s=ecym

 

and this is the privacy statement you agree to when you install windows 10:

 

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/default.aspx

 

If you had bothered to educate yourself you would have noticed they are two separate documents and the service agreement we are talking about here is not linked to windows OS nor do you have to agree with it to install windows.

 

You clearly need to stop posting before someone takes you seriously.

[YamiYukiSenpai]

As much as I find their intentions good, it's really troubling to know that Microsoft will be looking into people's stuff.

[Linus_torvalds]

Gut Now every pirate will switch to LINUX and we Linux users will be in Majority

[melbanon01]

Not that I agree with piracy but due to censorship regulations sadly enough sometimes there's no other option...

[oldgamer4life]

Disabling unauthorized hardware?  WTH is this?  It reminds of the BS they try to pull with hard drives for the Xbox 360.  Use their hard drives which are insanely priced or possibly risk getting your console banned.  Yes I know it is near impossible for them to ban you if you upgrade with the proper hard drives you can get at NCIX or wherever but man.  Anyway the bottom line here is MS I am using Windows 7 64 bit and I will keep on using it.

[dalekphalm]

Disabling unauthorized hardware?  WTH is this?  It reminds of the BS they try to pull with hard drives for the Xbox 360.  Use their hard drives which are insanely priced or possibly risk getting your console banned.  Yes I know it is near impossible for them to ban you if you upgrade with the proper hard drives you can get at NCIX or wherever but man.  Anyway the bottom line here is MS I am using Windows 7 64 bit and I will keep on using it.

As numerous others have stated, Windows 10 is not in the list of affected services. This might affect the XBox One, perhaps, but certainly not Windows itself.

[SansVarnic]

This thread <--- 

[Arty]

As numerous others have stated, Windows 10 is not in the list of affected services. This might affect the XBox One, perhaps, but certainly not Windows itself.

/\

*cough* even if it did, im sure the hackers/crackers/would find away around it, and this would only effect the honest people who buy the stuff. *cough*

[Kurosaki Isshin]

This.If you cant afford a game you shouldnt just pirate it.its like going into a shop with no money and stealing a can of coke.

exept the can of coke never left the store.. then someone else comes by and buys it.

 

seriously. pirating is not stealing by definition. it is something else, words & definitions matter. sigh.

[mr moose]

exept the can of coke never left the store.. then someone else comes by and buys it.

 

seriously. pirating is not stealing by definition. it is something else, words & definitions matter. sigh.

 

Yes, words and definitions matter, the legal definition of theft includes:

 

(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence.

 

 

When a content creator expects payment for the services they provide (creating the content) and someone does not pay upon receiving said service they are guilty of theft under the terms.   Just because you haven't removed a physical Item does not mean it isn't theft.

 

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Theft+Act+1978

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_Act_1978

 

 

 

Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act in 1997 to facilitate prosecution of copyright violation on the Internet. The NET Act makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted works such as songs, movies, games, or software programs, even if the person copying or distributing the material acts without commercial purpose and/or receives no private financial gain.

 

https://kb.iu.edu/d/aliv

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2265.ENR:

[CTR640]

Fuck, MS will disable my entire pirated My Little Pony collections.

[sgloux3470]

Disabling pirated software is a good thing, but what's the point of disabling unauthorized hardware.....

 

 

inb4 all the poor people hate me for talking against piracy.

 

Stuff like debit machines,counterfeit money printers etc. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

Stuff like debit machines,counterfeit money printers etc.

... and that is why I print all my money on a Win7 machine. 

[Ridska]

i have windows 10 and i have to say ,

if i had a time machine ,

i would go back and beat the past me for upgreading to windows 10.

[Kurosaki Isshin]

Just because you haven't removed a physical Item does not mean it isn't theft.

sure isn't traditional theft. as with the can of coke example provided by @iludez

and the reason new definition(s) are required for the distinctions between digital and physical theft are clear to me; in one scenerio the product is gone; someone is harmed. in the other, the original remains and a copy is made; no one is hurt--can you prove the loss of sale?

[mr moose]

sure isn't traditional theft. as with the can of coke example provided by @iludez

and the reason new definition(s) are required for the distinctions between digital and physical theft are clear to me; in one scenerio the product is gone; someone is harmed. in the other, the original remains and a copy is made; no one is hurt--can you prove the loss of sale?

 

You can't prove that someone who didn't have access to piracy would not have otherwise purchased the content.  This doesn't change anything.  IF we suddenly made all software free and asked people to simply make a donation to the value of the RRP to the creator, how many creators would maintain their current income?  Not as many and you know it. there are people who would pay for it if it wasn't free, just because it is very hard to work out exactly how many doesn't mean it isn't the case.  

 

EDIT: and on top of that you are ignoring the very fact that it is content creators right to be paid what they want for their work.  who are you or anyone else to deny that right.