Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[John John]

The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were
written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide
and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one.
Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that
violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no law.

John

Bob I wrote:

> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that
> says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates
> above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,
> and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>
> John John wrote:
>
>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on
>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>
>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity. For
>> example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is illegal
>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are illegal.
>> If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you will charge
>> me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and accept your
>> terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were to take you
>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your contract
>> you would still lose because the contract violates the law, it is an
>> illegal contract.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>
>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have
>>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not
>>> have been what customers want.
>>>
>

 

[Bob I]

The "issue" is how the law is written, IF the law provides for
EXCEPTIONS then there are circumstances where the "law" is not violated.
Pure and simple. Just like you "can't violate the overtime law" except
for the stated exception if a bargaining sets up a contract to do it
differently. It's the law that provided for the exception.

John John wrote:

> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were
> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide
> and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one. Plain
> and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that
> violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no
> law.
>
> John
>
> Bob I wrote:
>
>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that
>> says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates
>> above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,
>> and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>
>> John John wrote:
>>
>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on
>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>
>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>> illegal (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you
>>> will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and
>>> accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were
>>> to take you to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted
>>> your contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have
>>>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not
>>>> have been what customers want.
>>>>
>>

 

[Adam Albright]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:39:49 -0500, Bob I <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The "issue" is how the law is written, IF the law provides for
>EXCEPTIONS then there are circumstances where the "law" is not violated.
>Pure and simple. Just like you "can't violate the overtime law" except
>for the stated exception if a bargaining sets up a contract to do it
>differently. It's the law that provided for the exception.

Actually it depends only on how the law in interrupted BY the court
system, IF it ever gets that far. Of course parties having legal
disputes may and often do settle contractual disputes out of court.

Limiting the discussion just to United States interpretation there are
three broad standards. Criminal law, Civil law and Common law.
Criminal law sets up a bunch of "laws", look at them as "rules" that
state what a "crime" is and the punishment for it IF the accused is
found guilty. Those found guilty of some criminal offense may be
subject to incarceration, meaning some length of time is generally
served for their offense within either the federal system if a federal
law is broken or in the state system if some state law is broken.

Read slowly: Common law tends to draw abstract rules from specific
cases, which becomes case law, whereas civil law starts with abstract
rules which judges must then apply to the various cases before them.
Punishment, if found guilty rarely results in prison time and usually
results in some monetary punishment in the form of fines.

Some may be shocked to learn much of present day's civil law is based
on ancient Egyptian law from many thousands of years ago which the
ancient Romans adopted and modified that were further adopted
throughout Europe and pretty much remained unchanged through the 18th
century.

Then a process call Codification began to change the legal landscape.
This new process is where some enity, ie a Government in a democracy
restates and refines the "law" resulting as in the United States as
some act of Congress, creating some federal statutes. The official
codification of Federal statutes is called the United States Code.
This "code" is divided into "titles" numbered 1 through 50. Title 18
for example contains many of the Federal criminal statutes. This
process is based on The Corpus Juris Civilis a collection of
fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued during the years 529 to 534
by order of Justinian I, Byzantine Emperor.

The US Code is very complex and lengthy:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/browse.html

Another difference between common and civil law is civil law is
historically common law developed by custom, beginning before there
were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after
there were written laws, whereas civil law developed out of Roman law.

The difference between civil law and common law isn't limited to
codification, but in the approach taken to codes and statutes. In
civil law countries like the United States, legislation is always
written by some governmental body, (at the federal level, Congress)
which is seen as the primary source of federal law while each state
legislature has the same task for writing state laws. Ditto for local
governments where some governmental body proposes and creates "law"
more commonly called an ordinance some authoritative decree or
direction, again having roots in Roman times.

By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of
codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be
derived. Courts therefore have to reason extensively on the basis of
general rules and principles of the code, often drawing analogies from
statutory provisions to fill in the blanks and to achieve coherence.
By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of
law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law
and thus interpreted narrowly.

My point of all this long winded flowerily language is to remind those
that think anything in any "legal" written document such as a contract
or Microsoft's EULA is absolute and binding are sadly mistaken and in
for a rude shock IF any provision is tested within the court system.
Often many contractual clauses fail to pass the smell test and will
accordingly be thrown out by the courts. I've seen it happen many
times, so sorry, I must snicker when I see the fanboy crowd making
reference to the EULA and pretending it trumps everything else. Not
even close.












>
>John John wrote:
>
>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions were
>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted suicide
>> and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around that one. Plain
>> and simply the law states that you cannot write up contracts that
>> violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there would in fact be no
>> law.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Bob I wrote:
>>
>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law that
>>> says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to charge rates
>>> above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't black and white,
>>> and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>
>>> John John wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on
>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>
>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>>> illegal (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you
>>>> will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and
>>>> accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were
>>>> to take you to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted
>>>> your contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have
>>>>> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not
>>>>> have been what customers want.
>>>>>
>>>

 

[PA Bear]

~greg wrote:
> "PA Bear" >
>> Then perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread. Is our
>> time less valuable than yours?
> definitely.

Take a hike. <plonk>

 

[quiettechblue@yahoo.com]

John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:

> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
> were
> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
> would in fact be no law.
>
> John
>
> Bob I wrote:
>
>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>
>> John John wrote:
>>
>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>> on
>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>
>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>> illegal
>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement
>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if
>>> I were to take you
>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification
>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>
>>

Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?

 

[caver1]

quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>
>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>> were
>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>> would in fact be no law.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Bob I wrote:
>>
>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>
>>> John John wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>> on
>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>
>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>>> illegal
>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement
>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if
>>>> I were to take you
>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification
>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>
>
> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?
>
>


I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will update
their software without the users consent.
caver1

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Read paragraph 7 in the license.
Consent is already given when the agreement is accepted.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:OW2Ap6X$HHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will update
> their software without the users consent.
> caver1

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Start/Run
Type "winver" ENTER
Click "Microsoft Software License terms"

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"TB" <brownto1968@ruraltel.net> wrote in message
news:%237qFnHZ$HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I would love to read paragraph 7 in the license agreement. There is only
>one problem and I am hoping you can help me. My HP Pavilion dv6451us does
>not seem to contain the license.rtf file anywhere on the hard drive! This
>computer was purchased 9/7/07 and has not been modified in any way that
>would have removed that file.

 

[caver1]

TB wrote:
> Thank you. Though it is rather vague I see what you are talking about.
> I also am waiting to be able to register my copy of Vista Ultimate.
> Strangely everytime I go to the site to register Windows it just gives
> me an error on the page and won't proceed. I have contacted Msoft but
> have not heard anything back from them.
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23GSu1OZ$HHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Start/Run
>> Type "winver" ENTER
>> Click "Microsoft Software License terms"
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
>> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>>
>>
>> "TB" <brownto1968@ruraltel.net> wrote in message
>> news:%237qFnHZ$HHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> I would love to read paragraph 7 in the license agreement. There is
>>> only one problem and I am hoping you can help me. My HP Pavilion
>>> dv6451us does not seem to contain the license.rtf file anywhere on
>>> the hard drive! This computer was purchased 9/7/07 and has not been
>>> modified in any way that would have removed that file.
>>
>

I also forgot that I was the Vista group not XP. The XP EULA states that
automatic updates are default and you agree to that unless you turn
automatic updates off. So it is your choice not MS's.
My understanding is that Vista states that you have to utilize automatic
updates.
caver1

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

caver1 wrote:
> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>
>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>> were
>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>
>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>>> on
>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>>>> illegal
>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement
>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if
>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification
>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>
>>
>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?
>>
>
>
> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will update
> their software without the users consent.
> caver1

Hi caver1

http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these services
(including windows update feature) will connect to MS or service
provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases it will not
give the user an individual notice when it connects. *YOU MAY SWITCH
OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*

I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files on a
machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is not used on
that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it if those 'features'
are turned off or not being used? It's like they are violating their
own license agreement.

More info on stealth updates:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> Read paragraph 7 in the license.
> Consent is already given when the agreement is accepted.
>

But it also says there that the services can be turned off. If the
services are turned off, then why are they still doing it anyway?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[caver1]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>
>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>> were
>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>
>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>>>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement
>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if
>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification
>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?
>>
>>
>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>> update their software without the users consent.
>> caver1
>
> Hi caver1
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>
> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these services
> (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or service
> provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases it will not
> give the user an individual notice when it connects. *YOU MAY SWITCH
> OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>
> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files on a
> machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is not used on
> that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it if those 'features'
> are turned off or not being used? It's like they are violating their
> own license agreement.
>
> More info on stealth updates:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>


That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the automatic
updates off.
Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the patent
that they now have that will let them shut your machine down if you do
not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it doesn't sound good for
the consumer.
Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I don't like
the new EULA I should be able to continue using the original but not update.
I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
caver1

 

[Charlie Tame]

caver1 wrote:
> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
> wrote:
>> caver1 wrote:
>>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>>
>>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>>> were
>>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity.
>>>>>>> For example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is
>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement
>>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if
>>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification
>>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>>> update their software without the users consent.
>>> caver1
>>
>> Hi caver1
>>
>> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>
>> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
>> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these services
>> (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or service
>> provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases it will not
>> give the user an individual notice when it connects. *YOU MAY SWITCH
>> OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>>
>> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files on a
>> machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is not used on
>> that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it if those
>> 'features' are turned off or not being used? It's like they are
>> violating their own license agreement.
>>
>> More info on stealth updates:
>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>>
>
>
> That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
> Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the automatic
> updates off.
> Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the patent
> that they now have that will let them shut your machine down if you do
> not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it doesn't sound good for
> the consumer.
> Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I don't like
> the new EULA I should be able to continue using the original but not
> update.
> I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
> caver1


Well potentially what this is saying is that although you bought a Ford
Focus, Ford reserve the right to come round to your house, modify the
car as they please, have you agree to any supplementary conditions they
care to include with these modifications or else they will cripple the
car so you can't use it at all.

This is not only stopping you from using the modifications, but also
stopping you from using the original Focus that you bought.

Now you can argue all you like that you don't "Buy" an OS outright, but
it still amounts to denying you the "Use" for which you have paid, and
may also incur substantial costs (For which of course responsibility is
already denied).

Even if, as part of your choices when accepting the original agreement,
you take steps to avoid the modifications by clearly placing a sign on
the car "No modifications, thank you" Ford assume the right to make
those modifications anyway, limit your use of the vehicle in unspecified
ways as they see fit at any time they wish and potentially prosecute you
for failing to comply with the terms.

Some lawyer somewhere needs his ass kicked, this is no more than a
frivolous challenge to common sense is order to establish that
Corporations can do what they like with what or whom they wish without
fear or responsibility.

Those here who argue for this kind of stupidity are welcome to do so, it
won't be my systems that unexpectedly shut down at some unpredictable
future date, nor will I have to even concern myself with that
possibility It may however open up a whole new market for engineers
with experience in other systems

 

[caver1]

Charlie Tame wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
>> wrote:
>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim
>>>>>>>> indemnity. For example, charging interest rates above a certain
>>>>>>>> amount is
>>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement
>>>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if
>>>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification
>>>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>>>> update their software without the users consent.
>>>> caver1
>>>
>>> Hi caver1
>>>
>>> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>>
>>> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
>>> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these services
>>> (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or service
>>> provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases it will not
>>> give the user an individual notice when it connects. *YOU MAY SWITCH
>>> OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>>>
>>> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files on
>>> a machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is not used
>>> on that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it if those
>>> 'features' are turned off or not being used? It's like they are
>>> violating their own license agreement.
>>>
>>> More info on stealth updates:
>>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
>> Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the automatic
>> updates off.
>> Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the
>> patent that they now have that will let them shut your machine down if
>> you do not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it doesn't sound
>> good for the consumer.
>> Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I don't
>> like the new EULA I should be able to continue using the original but
>> not update.
>> I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
>> caver1
>
>
> Well potentially what this is saying is that although you bought a Ford
> Focus, Ford reserve the right to come round to your house, modify the
> car as they please, have you agree to any supplementary conditions they
> care to include with these modifications or else they will cripple the
> car so you can't use it at all.
>
> This is not only stopping you from using the modifications, but also
> stopping you from using the original Focus that you bought.
>
> Now you can argue all you like that you don't "Buy" an OS outright, but
> it still amounts to denying you the "Use" for which you have paid, and
> may also incur substantial costs (For which of course responsibility is
> already denied).
>
> Even if, as part of your choices when accepting the original agreement,
> you take steps to avoid the modifications by clearly placing a sign on
> the car "No modifications, thank you" Ford assume the right to make
> those modifications anyway, limit your use of the vehicle in unspecified
> ways as they see fit at any time they wish and potentially prosecute you
> for failing to comply with the terms.
>
> Some lawyer somewhere needs his ass kicked, this is no more than a
> frivolous challenge to common sense is order to establish that
> Corporations can do what they like with what or whom they wish without
> fear or responsibility.
>
> Those here who argue for this kind of stupidity are welcome to do so, it
> won't be my systems that unexpectedly shut down at some unpredictable
> future date, nor will I have to even concern myself with that
> possibility It may however open up a whole new market for engineers
> with experience in other systems
>
>
>


That is why I never agree with people who use the argument that MS owns
the software so they can do anything they want. That is absurd.
The Gov't owns the rights to make laws, ergo they can do anything they want.
caver1

 

[Charlie Tame]

caver1 wrote:
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> caver1 wrote:
>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>>> DiBoy' wrote:
>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>>>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>>>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>>>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>>>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
>>>>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim
>>>>>>>>> indemnity. For example, charging interest rates above a certain
>>>>>>>>> amount is
>>>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement
>>>>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if
>>>>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though notification
>>>>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>>>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>>>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>>>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>>>>> update their software without the users consent.
>>>>> caver1
>>>>
>>>> Hi caver1
>>>>
>>>> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>>>
>>>> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
>>>> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these services
>>>> (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or service
>>>> provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases it will not
>>>> give the user an individual notice when it connects. *YOU MAY
>>>> SWITCH OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>>>>
>>>> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files on
>>>> a machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is not
>>>> used on that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it if
>>>> those 'features' are turned off or not being used? It's like they
>>>> are violating their own license agreement.
>>>>
>>>> More info on stealth updates:
>>>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
>>> Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the automatic
>>> updates off.
>>> Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the
>>> patent that they now have that will let them shut your machine down
>>> if you do not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it doesn't
>>> sound good for the consumer.
>>> Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I don't
>>> like the new EULA I should be able to continue using the original but
>>> not update.
>>> I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
>>> caver1
>>
>>
>> Well potentially what this is saying is that although you bought a
>> Ford Focus, Ford reserve the right to come round to your house, modify
>> the car as they please, have you agree to any supplementary conditions
>> they care to include with these modifications or else they will
>> cripple the car so you can't use it at all.
>>
>> This is not only stopping you from using the modifications, but also
>> stopping you from using the original Focus that you bought.
>>
>> Now you can argue all you like that you don't "Buy" an OS outright,
>> but it still amounts to denying you the "Use" for which you have paid,
>> and may also incur substantial costs (For which of course
>> responsibility is already denied).
>>
>> Even if, as part of your choices when accepting the original
>> agreement, you take steps to avoid the modifications by clearly
>> placing a sign on the car "No modifications, thank you" Ford assume
>> the right to make those modifications anyway, limit your use of the
>> vehicle in unspecified ways as they see fit at any time they wish and
>> potentially prosecute you for failing to comply with the terms.
>>
>> Some lawyer somewhere needs his ass kicked, this is no more than a
>> frivolous challenge to common sense is order to establish that
>> Corporations can do what they like with what or whom they wish without
>> fear or responsibility.
>>
>> Those here who argue for this kind of stupidity are welcome to do so,
>> it won't be my systems that unexpectedly shut down at some
>> unpredictable future date, nor will I have to even concern myself with
>> that possibility It may however open up a whole new market for
>> engineers with experience in other systems
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> That is why I never agree with people who use the argument that MS owns
> the software so they can do anything they want. That is absurd.
> The Gov't owns the rights to make laws, ergo they can do anything they
> want.
> caver1


Well, the situation is worsened by instances such as IE7 and the media
player.

In the case of IE7 they made it so difficult to avoid that most people
would likely get sick of it and install anyway. That might not be so bad
except then there's a whole new EULA, but it doesn't just cover IE7, it
applies itself to whatever else is already there AND adds new stuff - so
the pressure brought to bear on the customer to install IE7 is also
pressure to accept something they have not originally agreed to in
realtion wo something they have already paid for. The penalty for non
compliance, incessant nagging and attempted install through the
"Critical Update" channel.

WMP likewise, although that has seemed more optional. Each "Upgrade" has
changed the UI enough to be confusing though and this distracts the
user's attention from the increasingly reduced functionality and the
increased bloat that is obviously more engineered to communicating with
MS and other "Vendors" including attempts to assess what you actually
have on your system. 30 years ago we were criticizing the KGB for trying
to do the same kinds of thing.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Windows Update Service
BITS
If those services are turned off, there will be no updates.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fd60a8$2h4$2@aioe.org...

> But it also says there that the services can be turned off. If the
> services are turned off, then why are they still doing it anyway?
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[David]

Fix your system clock!

 

[caver1]

Charlie Tame wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>>>> DiBoy' wrote:
>>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>>>>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>>>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>>>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>>>>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>>>>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>>>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>>>>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone
>>>>>>>>>> sign an
>>>>>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim
>>>>>>>>>> indemnity. For example, charging interest rates above a
>>>>>>>>>> certain amount is
>>>>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan
>>>>>>>>>> agreement
>>>>>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking
>>>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though
>>>>>>>>>>> notification
>>>>>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>>>>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>>>>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>>>>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all
>>>>>>> about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>>>>>> update their software without the users consent.
>>>>>> caver1
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi caver1
>>>>>
>>>>> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
>>>>> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these services
>>>>> (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or service
>>>>> provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases it will
>>>>> not give the user an individual notice when it connects. *YOU MAY
>>>>> SWITCH OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files
>>>>> on a machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is not
>>>>> used on that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it if
>>>>> those 'features' are turned off or not being used? It's like they
>>>>> are violating their own license agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>> More info on stealth updates:
>>>>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
>>>> Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the
>>>> automatic updates off.
>>>> Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the
>>>> patent that they now have that will let them shut your machine down
>>>> if you do not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it doesn't
>>>> sound good for the consumer.
>>>> Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I don't
>>>> like the new EULA I should be able to continue using the original
>>>> but not update.
>>>> I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
>>>> caver1
>>>
>>>
>>> Well potentially what this is saying is that although you bought a
>>> Ford Focus, Ford reserve the right to come round to your house,
>>> modify the car as they please, have you agree to any supplementary
>>> conditions they care to include with these modifications or else they
>>> will cripple the car so you can't use it at all.
>>>
>>> This is not only stopping you from using the modifications, but also
>>> stopping you from using the original Focus that you bought.
>>>
>>> Now you can argue all you like that you don't "Buy" an OS outright,
>>> but it still amounts to denying you the "Use" for which you have
>>> paid, and may also incur substantial costs (For which of course
>>> responsibility is already denied).
>>>
>>> Even if, as part of your choices when accepting the original
>>> agreement, you take steps to avoid the modifications by clearly
>>> placing a sign on the car "No modifications, thank you" Ford assume
>>> the right to make those modifications anyway, limit your use of the
>>> vehicle in unspecified ways as they see fit at any time they wish and
>>> potentially prosecute you for failing to comply with the terms.
>>>
>>> Some lawyer somewhere needs his ass kicked, this is no more than a
>>> frivolous challenge to common sense is order to establish that
>>> Corporations can do what they like with what or whom they wish
>>> without fear or responsibility.
>>>
>>> Those here who argue for this kind of stupidity are welcome to do so,
>>> it won't be my systems that unexpectedly shut down at some
>>> unpredictable future date, nor will I have to even concern myself
>>> with that possibility It may however open up a whole new market
>>> for engineers with experience in other systems
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That is why I never agree with people who use the argument that MS
>> owns the software so they can do anything they want. That is absurd.
>> The Gov't owns the rights to make laws, ergo they can do anything they
>> want.
>> caver1
>
>
> Well, the situation is worsened by instances such as IE7 and the media
> player.
>
> In the case of IE7 they made it so difficult to avoid that most people
> would likely get sick of it and install anyway. That might not be so bad
> except then there's a whole new EULA, but it doesn't just cover IE7, it
> applies itself to whatever else is already there AND adds new stuff - so
> the pressure brought to bear on the customer to install IE7 is also
> pressure to accept something they have not originally agreed to in
> realtion wo something they have already paid for. The penalty for non
> compliance, incessant nagging and attempted install through the
> "Critical Update" channel.
>
> WMP likewise, although that has seemed more optional. Each "Upgrade" has
> changed the UI enough to be confusing though and this distracts the
> user's attention from the increasingly reduced functionality and the
> increased bloat that is obviously more engineered to communicating with
> MS and other "Vendors" including attempts to assess what you actually
> have on your system. 30 years ago we were criticizing the KGB for trying
> to do the same kinds of thing.
>



Ever notice that when you get a logical argument that all the fanatics
fall off the globe?
caver1

 

[caver1]

David wrote:
> Fix your system clock!

First tell me what is wrong with it.
caver1

 

[Charlie Tame]

caver1 wrote:
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> caver1 wrote:
>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>>>>> DiBoy' wrote:
>>>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>>>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>>>>>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>>>>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>>>>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>>>>>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>>>>>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>>>>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>>>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it
>>>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not
>>>>>>>>>>> commenting
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone
>>>>>>>>>>> sign an
>>>>>>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim
>>>>>>>>>>> indemnity. For example, charging interest rates above a
>>>>>>>>>>> certain amount is
>>>>>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan
>>>>>>>>>>> agreement
>>>>>>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking
>>>>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though
>>>>>>>>>>>> notification
>>>>>>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>>>>>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>>>>>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>>>>>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all
>>>>>>>> about?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>>>>>>> update their software without the users consent.
>>>>>>> caver1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi caver1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
>>>>>> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these
>>>>>> services (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or
>>>>>> service provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases
>>>>>> it will not give the user an individual notice when it connects.
>>>>>> *YOU MAY SWITCH OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files
>>>>>> on a machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is
>>>>>> not used on that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it
>>>>>> if those 'features' are turned off or not being used? It's like
>>>>>> they are violating their own license agreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More info on stealth updates:
>>>>>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
>>>>> Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the
>>>>> automatic updates off.
>>>>> Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the
>>>>> patent that they now have that will let them shut your machine down
>>>>> if you do not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it doesn't
>>>>> sound good for the consumer.
>>>>> Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I don't
>>>>> like the new EULA I should be able to continue using the original
>>>>> but not update.
>>>>> I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
>>>>> caver1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well potentially what this is saying is that although you bought a
>>>> Ford Focus, Ford reserve the right to come round to your house,
>>>> modify the car as they please, have you agree to any supplementary
>>>> conditions they care to include with these modifications or else
>>>> they will cripple the car so you can't use it at all.
>>>>
>>>> This is not only stopping you from using the modifications, but also
>>>> stopping you from using the original Focus that you bought.
>>>>
>>>> Now you can argue all you like that you don't "Buy" an OS outright,
>>>> but it still amounts to denying you the "Use" for which you have
>>>> paid, and may also incur substantial costs (For which of course
>>>> responsibility is already denied).
>>>>
>>>> Even if, as part of your choices when accepting the original
>>>> agreement, you take steps to avoid the modifications by clearly
>>>> placing a sign on the car "No modifications, thank you" Ford assume
>>>> the right to make those modifications anyway, limit your use of the
>>>> vehicle in unspecified ways as they see fit at any time they wish
>>>> and potentially prosecute you for failing to comply with the terms.
>>>>
>>>> Some lawyer somewhere needs his ass kicked, this is no more than a
>>>> frivolous challenge to common sense is order to establish that
>>>> Corporations can do what they like with what or whom they wish
>>>> without fear or responsibility.
>>>>
>>>> Those here who argue for this kind of stupidity are welcome to do
>>>> so, it won't be my systems that unexpectedly shut down at some
>>>> unpredictable future date, nor will I have to even concern myself
>>>> with that possibility It may however open up a whole new market
>>>> for engineers with experience in other systems
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is why I never agree with people who use the argument that MS
>>> owns the software so they can do anything they want. That is absurd.
>>> The Gov't owns the rights to make laws, ergo they can do anything
>>> they want.
>>> caver1
>>
>>
>> Well, the situation is worsened by instances such as IE7 and the media
>> player.
>>
>> In the case of IE7 they made it so difficult to avoid that most people
>> would likely get sick of it and install anyway. That might not be so
>> bad except then there's a whole new EULA, but it doesn't just cover
>> IE7, it applies itself to whatever else is already there AND adds new
>> stuff - so the pressure brought to bear on the customer to install IE7
>> is also pressure to accept something they have not originally agreed
>> to in realtion wo something they have already paid for. The penalty
>> for non compliance, incessant nagging and attempted install through
>> the "Critical Update" channel.
>>
>> WMP likewise, although that has seemed more optional. Each "Upgrade"
>> has changed the UI enough to be confusing though and this distracts
>> the user's attention from the increasingly reduced functionality and
>> the increased bloat that is obviously more engineered to communicating
>> with MS and other "Vendors" including attempts to assess what you
>> actually have on your system. 30 years ago we were criticizing the KGB
>> for trying to do the same kinds of thing.
>>
>
>
>
> Ever notice that when you get a logical argument that all the fanatics
> fall off the globe?
> caver1


Well I don't so much care about legality as what's "Ethical" if you
like. I don't think it's ethical to sell something and then change the
terms under which the user can use it, and things appear to be heading
that way.