M$ && Sending files back? [was: SOT: w2k alters mbr]

[bill at horne.net (Bill Horne)]

David,

There was a tempest-in-a-teapot when (IIRC) Kazaa changed their EUL to
specifically exclude spyware detector/removal tools such as Ad-Aware.
Friends don't let friends use Kazaa, anyway.

dslreports has a brief mention of similar shenanigans by Lavasoft:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/17084


Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: <dlapointe at attbi.com>
To: <discuss at blu.org>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:22 PM
Subject: RE: M$ && Sending files back? [was: SOT: w2k alters mbr]


> Wasn't there an incident with Kazaa recently where
> a bogus update was sent out which disabled a competitor's
> software?
>
> David
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I'm not sure about John's statement, but I do know that the EULA that
you
> > sign when you download Microsoft Media Player has the following
paragraph in
> > it:
> >
> > * Digital Rights Management (Security).  You agree that in order to
> > protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital
rights
> > management ("Secure Content"), Microsoft may provide security related
> > updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto
your
> > computer.  These security related updates may disable your ability to
copy
> > and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer.  If
we
> > provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post
> > notices on a web site explaining the update.
> >
> > After reading this Gem of legalese, I take it to mean that microsoft can
at
> > its own discretion decide what you can or can not run on your machine.
If
> > it feels that "Tim's magical music ripper" is being used to rip cd's
into a
> > format that lacks some form of Digital Rights Management built into it,
they
> > could send down an update that would inhibit it from running.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tim.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chuck Young [mailto:chy at genuity.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:18 AM
> > To: John Chambers
> > Cc: discuss at blu.org
> > Subject: RE: M$ && Sending files back? [was: SOT: w2k alters mbr]
> >
> >
> > Of course I've never read all of the EULA, but is the statement:
> >
> > "by booting W2K you've also given them permission to send any of your
files
> > back
> > to headquarters, to use as they wish."
> >
> > really true?  Just askin' for a rundown on where that came from.  I'm
not an
> > advocate of MS, but I'd like to know if this is the real deal or if you
are
> > just taking poetic liberties here.  I mean, I like poetry too...
> >
> > ---------------
> > Chuck Young
> > Security Consulting
> > Genuity E-Services
> > --------------------
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-admin at blu.org [mailto:discuss-admin at blu.org]On Behalf Of
> > John Chambers
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:58 AM
> > To: discuss at blu.org
> > Subject: Re: SOT: w2k alters mbr
> >
> >
> > | Buying a new computer, (o joy, (note lowercase)),
> > | I get w2k with it.
> > |
> > | Being a curious sort I install it, everything
> > | works okay except that w2k sets itself (hda3)
> > | active, stealing the next boot.
> > |
> > | Is there any way to stop w2k from doing this,
> > | or to have grub fix it?
> >
> > So they're still doing  this.   A  couple  years  ago,  I  found  the
> > paragraph  in  one  of MS's pages of fine print where they state that
> > Windows will check all the partitions during  a  boot,  and  any  not
> > containing a valid MS OS may be marked non-bootable.  This is to help
> > you,  of  course,  since  you  wouldn't  want  to  be   confused   by
> > accidentally booting a partition that doesn't contain a valid OS.
> >
> > I also found another paragraph which states that by  running  the  MS
> > OS,  you  give  them permission to do as they wish to any file on the
> > disk.  So you should be glad  they  only  modified  the  master  boot
> > record.   By  running  W2K,  you've given them permission to wipe the
> > linux partition clean.  You might also make sure that you don't  have
> > anything on your disk that you don't want MS to use, since by booting
> > W2K you've also given them permission to send any of your files  back
> > to headquarters, to use as they wish.
> >
> > Of course, if you  wanted  to  challenge  this  in  court,  it  would
> > probably be declared illegal. But you first make sure that you have a
> > couple million $ in your legal fund ...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at blu.org
> > http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at blu.org
> > http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at blu.org
> > http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss