____/ Nick Ballard on Thursday 01 May 2008 02:47 : \____
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:35:13 -0400, Ruben wrote:
>
>> From my Friend Wendy's legal site.
>>
>>
>> October 19, 2006
>> Forbidding Vistas: Windows licensing disserves the user Filed under:
>> Uncategorized — Wendy @ 12:18 am
>>
>> Reading the Windows Vista license is a bit like preparing for breakfast
>> with Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen: You should be ready to believe at least
>> six impossible things about what users want from software.
>>
>> It is unlikely that a home user looking for a computer operating system
>> has any of these “features” of the Vista EULA in mind: The Red Queen
>>
>> 1. Self-limiting software
>
> Aka "antifeatures". The FSF has a great article detailing the amount of
> extra work that is required for M$ to cripple their products for end-
> users and force license upgrades:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/
>
>
>> 2. Vanishing functionality through invalidation
>
>
>
>> 3. Removal of media
>> capabilities
>> 4. Problem-solving prohibited
>> 5. Limited mobility
>> 6. One transfer only
>>
>> and a bonus,
>> 7. Restrictions on your rights to use MPEG-4 video
>>
>> Details below. While Microsoft should be commended for putting its
>> license into plain English, that doesn’t help to make the license
>> restrictions any more palatable. Quoted italicized language comes from
>> the Vista license.
>>
>> 1. Self-limiting software, or Mandatory Activation. “Your right to use
>> the software after the time specified in the installation process is
>> limited unless it is activated. You will not be able to continue using
>> the software after that time if you do not activate it.” Moreover,
>> “[s]ome changes to your computer components or the software may require
>> you to reactivate the software.” In order to use Microsoft Vista, you
>> must consent to communication to Microsoft of information about the
>> software and the device on which you have installed it. If you don’t do
>> so in time, your software will begin to degrade in function.
>>
>>
> The "mandatory activation" and forced "consent to communication to
> Microsoft" is absolutely tyrannical and Orwellian; even more so is the
> idea that they have a right to snoop around in your system. The message
> here is that you, as a customer, are not trustworthy to use a computer
> unless Microsoft is able to constantly monitor what you're doing with it.
>
> They call this "trusted computing" aka "treacherous computing", or more
> appropriately, "total control".
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
>
>> 2. Vanishing functionality through invalidation. “The software will from
>> time to time validate the software, update or require download of the
>> validation feature of the software. [if validation fails] you may not be
>> able to use or continue to use some of the features of the software.”
>> Again, your computer must make periodic (period unspecified) contact
>> with the Microsoft mothership if you want to continue to enjoy what you
>> thought you paid for. Microsoft, of course, disclaims any liability for
>> the consequences if their servers fail or mistakenly deny you
>> validation.
>>
>>
> Another fine example of Microsoft taking the time and effort to make sure
> they squeeze every last dime out of their installed user base.
>
>
>> 3. Removal of media capabilities. “When you download licenses for
>> protected content, you agree that Microsoft may include a revocation
>> list with the licenses.” “[C]ontent owners may ask Microsoft to revoke
>> the software’s ability to use WMDRM [Windows Media digital rights
>> management] to play or copy protected content.” In other words, one
>> movie or music file may take away your ability to play another, if the
>> content owner (not the computer owner) chooses to cut back the Windows
>> Media Player’s features. Don’t like the reports that Creative is
>> removing radio recording functions from its MP3 players, under music
>> industry pressure? Prepare for that kind of feature flux to be routine
>> in Vista — you’ve agreed to it in the license.
>>
>>
> That term "digital rights management" sounds innocent enough, except that
> it actually allows the digital content providers to manage what rights
> you keep or lose.
>
> In a recent example, MSN announced that it will shut down its MSN Music
> service, leaving its customers unable to transfer licensed content.
>
> http://defectivebydesign.org/blog/1131
>
>
>> 4. Problem-solving prohibited. “You may not work around any technical
>> limitations in the software.” Microsoft might be referring to
>> anticircumvention of technical protection measures here, but since it’s
>> often hard to tell the difference, from the user’s perspective, between
>> a TPM and a bug, this reads as a prohibition on user debugging and
>> problem-solving. After all, down-rezzing HD content or refusing to allow
>> users to copy quotes from an e-book don’t strike most people as wanted
>> features. Can you work around a document’s failure to save properly?
>>
>
> "Failure to save properly" is actually considered a feature...or more
> accurately, an anti-feature...of a lot of products which are provided as
> "trial versions" to new computer users. These developers go to great
> lengths to make their programs not work properly, and they don't want
> their users circumventing these efforts.
>
>> 5. Limited mobility. “The first user of the software may reassign the
>> license to another device one time.” If you upgrade your machines more
>> frequently than you care to change operating systems, you’ll just have
>> to pay again. Don’t worry about this applying too frequently, though,
>> because most OEMs will probably keep bundling Windows with their
>> hardware, thanks to Microsoft’s pricing encouragement, and Microsoft
>> won’t offer refunds if you don’t like the terms on those OEM bundles.
>>
>
> That's convenient enough if you buy off the rack; for those users who
> upgrade their hardware a few components at a time, this could very well
> mean purchasing another windows license at $100 to $500 per copy.
>
>> 6. One transfer only. “The first user of the software may make a one
>> time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third
>> party. [T]he other party must agree that this agreement applies to the
>> transfer and use of the software.” You can give your old computer to
>> Dad, but if he wants to give his older computer to the neighborhood
>> community center, they’ll have to find their own operating system (may I
>> recommend Ubuntu?).
>>
>
> In general, everyone I've talked to who's used Vista absolutely hate it,
> and are enthusiastically looking for alternative OSes that will make
> their new PCs *feel* like new PCs and not old PIIs that were retro-fitted
> with XP. I've been recommending Ubuntu every time, as it is
> exponentially more secure, stable, and functional than Vista and easier
> to use than most other Linux distributions.
>
>> Bonus. MPEG-4 Visual Standard
>>
>>
>> NOTICE ABOUT THE MPEG-4 VISUAL STANDARD. This software includes
>> MPEG-4 visual decoding technology. MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this
>> notice: USE OF THIS PRODUCT IN ANY MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH THE
>> MPEG-4 VISUAL STANDARD IS PROHIBITED, EXCEPT FOR USE DIRECTLY
>> RELATED TO (A) DATA OR INFORMATION (i) GENERATED BY AND OBTAINED
>> WITHOUT CHARGE FROM A CONSUMER NOT THEREBY ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS
>> ENTERPRISE, AND (ii) FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY; AND (B) OTHER USES
>> SPECIFICALLY AND SEPARATELY LICENSED BY MPEG LA, L.L.C.
>>
>> Humpty DumptyUsers never asked for these impossible limitations.
>> Microsoft decided unilaterally to add them, claiming it could abrogate
>> personal ownership, fair use, and first sale rights because “The
>> software is licensed, not sold.” If Microsoft faced real market
>> competition on the home desktop, users could vote with their wallets,
>> but anticompetitive practices and network effects make Microsoft a
>> like-it-or-not proposition for most users.
>>
>> While Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty might have been able to choose the
>> meanings of his words at will, on this side of the looking glass,
>> software vendors shouldn’t be able to redefine the meaning of “buying
>> software” by the simple attachment of a click-wrap license.
>>
>> Public domain Tenniel images (1872) from The Victorian Web.
>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
"Look, sonny, it's a nice cage. There's some really soft cushion here, a PS3
and even a bowl... for, errr... some water. Come inside."
Windows MEv2: treating PC users like animals.
--
~~ Best of wishes
"Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox’s store before I did and took
the TV doesn’t mean I can’t go in later and steal the stereo."
--Bill Gates, Microsoft
|
|
