UnBox Calls Home, A Lot 252
SachiCALaw writes "It turns out that to use UnBox, the user has to download software from Amazon that contains a Windows service (ADVWindowsClientService.exe). Tom Merritt over at C|Net reports that the service tries to connect to the internet quite frequently. Even tweaking msconfig could not prevent it." From the article: "So, in summary, to be allowed the privilege of purchasing a video that I can't burn to DVD and can't watch on my iPod, I have to allow a program to hijack my start-up and force me to login to uninstall it? No way. Sorry, Amazon. I love a lot of what you do, but I will absolutely not recommend this service. Try again."
What is the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out Unbox's 12 monkeys [amazon.com] and the special edition DVD [amazon.com] with over 2 hours more video.
Should Congressional Action Be Warranted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the software is so sneaky as to masquerade as a legitimate SSL requirest, so even a network administrator has no clue whether or not the information coming out of their network does or does not contain proprietary information about the network's users--and you are left to the "trust us" language in the EULAs with no proof that the data being sent is benign info.
Where is the EFF on this???
This is not the first time I've seen this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Should Congressional Action Be Warranted? (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternatives enter the market place because mass markets are created. Investment in alternatives occurs because of a perception of the possibility of that market. Not all collective action is simply whining and asking for a hand-me-down, and much "personal" action is.
The same old bad deal. Non free sucks. (Score:2, Interesting)
Amazon is clearly catering to a single party -- motion picture copyright holders.
It's intersting that someone with the nick name, "gnu-sucks" would complain about non free software problems. Yes, the "single party" in this case is the MPA. In other cases it's M$ or the highest bidder. That's the way non most non free software works. It's non free because the author wants you to do as they say in one way or another. As lots of companies, such as IBM, have been making lots of money selling and servicing free software, you can't say the "do as I say" is about paying for development anymore. Amazon is offering the usual non-free media deal: In order to enjoy popular culture, you must surrender control of your computer. Use of WMP and Windoze DRM just makes the deal suck that much worse because WMP is buggy.
People selling DRM crippled junk are going to go out of business sooner or later.
SPYWARE / ADWARE IS GOOD (Score:2, Interesting)
'Terms of use'(less) (Score:2, Interesting)
Never buy digital restricted media, ever!
Re:Should Congressional Action Be Warranted? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a statement I am so fucking sick of reading on this site. It would be applicable if the entertainment companies weren't pretty much the only game in town. But 99% of everything to do with media entertainment available is from them, so you have no damn choice but to deal with them. This "well you don't have to buy their products" line is bullshit, and over-used, dead tired bullshit at that.
Re:The same old bad deal. Non free sucks. (Score:2, Interesting)
If I'm to distribute my GPL'd app, you better believe it absolutely has to include the source code. And, if anyone wants to use it for their own purposes, their works have to be covered by the same license. And I have to include an obvious copy of the GPL license.
Yes, if you distribute someone else's software you have to pass on the same rights you received. That has nothing to do with your own software, for which you can use whatever license you please. If you want to distribute modified GPL'd software, you do have to make the license and source code, in the form that works for you, available. That's not a really big deal now is it? Of course you can use and modify GPL'd software for your own purposes without any restrictions whatsoever. It's only when you make a copy that the restrictions come into play because the authors don't want you to abuse other people with their work. That all seems fair to me. After all, I'd hate for some dork like Bill Gates to use my software to make money and prop up his little Windoze empire.
Re:No car, you insensitive clod (Score:3, Interesting)
if you don't believe me, try not using your car for a week.
* nyc and possibly chicago excluded
Re:Should Congressional Action Be Warranted? (Score:4, Interesting)
You absolutely have a choice, you have the option of not consuming mainstream media. It may not be a choice that you like, but it's a choice nonetheless. Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean the option isn't available to you.
It's obviously not a simple choice, to be sure. It's a tradeoff between two different interests, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Most people do decide to purchase mainstream media, they value access to that content over whatever money or rights they have to give up to get it, and they have the option to do so. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the fact that lots of people make a particular choice means it's the only choice anyone could possibly make, though.
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Should Congressional Action Be Warranted? (Score:3, Interesting)
That statement really is not the issue. IF people/companies/whomever decides to provide entertainment, they do so under some very specific conditions, namely, the ones laid out in copyright law.
Copyright law was created NOT to benefit content creators (artists, musicians, etc.) but to benefit society as a whole - copyright is merely a ploy to encourage creation by allowing the creators to benefit from their work for a limited time and only applies to the right to reproduce and distribute the work - not the right to control how it is consumed.
That, at least, was the intention, an intention that creators lived happily with for almost 200 years, until recently when the mega-corporations decided that those restrictions weren't profitable enough and decided to buy some congressmen to change them.
That is not a defensible behavior.
This statement assumes a perfect world in which all the participants are at least equally educated. You can only make a choice you're aware of - and the content companies have worked very, very hard to ensure that the common consumer is not educated.
As a test, go out on the street and ask how many people if they know what the DMCA is. Out of those who know WHAT it is, ask if they can state any single clear requirement it contains.
Then you'll know exactly how well educated Joe Consumer is, and exactly how level that playing field is.
People cannot refuse to buy what they have no reason to refuse to buy. That requires education and knowledge, and in a world where information is power, all the information is in the hands of very few people. Yes, it may be readily available to any who looks for it (like your average Slashdotter), however, we are a very small segment of the population. The VAST majority of people know absolutely nothing about DRM, the rights being taken from them, or the coming restrictions on their viewing experience and the control over their own computers being taken from them, but worse than that is that they don't even know that they should be looking. And you can rack that ignorance up to pure malice on the part of the entertainment industry. They have a vested interest in keeping people ignorant - it allows services like UnBox to even be considered viable.
That is not an environment in which you can fairly claim "If you don't like the way the companies are run, don't buy their products."