Microsoft Media Player "Security Patch" Changes EULA Big Time 771
MobyTurbo writes "In an article on BSD Vault a careful reader posts that in the latest Windows Media Player security patch, the EULA (the "license agreement" you click on) says that you give MS the right to install digital rights management software, and the right to disable any other programs which may circumvent DRM on your computer." So if you want your machine secure,
you also want microsoft to have free reign on your PC.
So where is the end? (Score:3, Interesting)
When is the user going to quit rolling over and taking in the rear with a smile and being forced by the EULA to say "thank you may I please have another?"
Or is the general populace pretty much doomed.
Security Patches are the getting worse (Score:4, Interesting)
MS is without a doubt throwing non-security things into "security patches", and I for one don't like the unadvertised "featues" one bit.
-Pete
Re:extortion (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole concept of the EULA is so silly... I really hope it gets tossed out of court ASAP. Where else can the manufacturer of a product hold you under a contract you did not sign, and change the terms of that contract at any time without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes?
Another Nail (Score:1, Interesting)
XP and Microsoft's moves from customers owning their software (such as that "ownership" was anyway) to only renting it might have been the turning point where I work. My boss recently had us change his laptop from Win98-only to dual-boot Linux as well. A new "computerization" initiative for the production line will use Java-based apps running on *gasp* currently moth-balled X-terminals!
With this kind of... extortion (the DRM crap included in a security update, fer Christ's sake), I'm of the opinion that MS is only driving another nail in its own coffin.
Corporate users can't install that (Score:5, Interesting)
Scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Now there's a particularly nasty line. It starts off with DRM for 'Secure Content' (which I guess is M$'s new term for protected IP), but then it expands into 'Other Programs'. Which means, MS is now reserving the right to disable any program they don't like.
Furthermore, the patch that disables the program will "will be automatically downloaded onto your computer," without your knowledge. But, the real kicker is this one (my favourite line):
If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.
So even if they send out patches killing off all non-MS software, they can bury a notice so deep in microsoft.com that no one will ever find it, and claim (correctly) they are going above and beyond the EULA. Damn, I'm glad I use Macs and NetBSD.
scope creep (Score:2, Interesting)
Back In The Olden Days, why, we just wrote our own software! Companies sold hardware and a compiler. That has slowly changed, and now we are staring down the barrel of the 'software subscription' gun. Meaning, you will have as much control over the nature and quality of your software (and hence your entire computing experience) as you have over the programming on broadcast TV. Which is, none at all. The masses are thrilled with that (they still watch TV, too) and M$ and all the others are selling to the masses and probably not a single reader of this post. So yeah it sucks when M$ takes control, as if they never had control, but if you have a problem with that you can join with a bunch of software rebels and create your own software, and license it the way you like. Yeah sure I'm not the first to come up with that idea, but before we lament what the software companies do because we let them, we can just go around them.
After all, we do still own the hardware. For now.
Legality of EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an interesting point. How legally binding *IS* the EULA? It's generally accepted that in internet transactions involving credit card numbers, a customer can at any time deny having made the transaction. Without a signature, there's no way to PROVE that the customer made the transaction: they can't take that customer to court. This is why there is a much larger allowance for bad debts on online credit card transactions. In a real-life transaction with a carbon copy, all they need is your signature to prove that you made the transaction, and they can sue you.
In that vein, how can the EULA possibly be legally binding? I can see how the signature on the invoice for their computer or copy of Windows, they could be held liable. However, how can I user clicking on "OK" in a upgrade screen be legally binding?
I don't understand how the judicial/legislative system has allowed them to get away with this, whereas credit card companies are screwed on fraudulent online transactions. This doesn't make any sense to me. Some court somewhere should be able to strike down the EULA as non-binding contracts, due to the lack of a customer signature or any other proof that the customer entered the transaction.
Things Microsoft might do under this EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the stuff the RIAA has been asking Congress for, but Congress hasn't gone along with it. Now it's coming in through the back door.
And notice that this system includes a back door, through which Microsoft can secretly install new software that takes away functions or spies on you.
Re:Corporate users can't install that (Score:1, Interesting)
We are not allowed to install anything "illegal" of course, but basically you have to police yourself.
Of course, the fact that this is the research division and 90% of the staff members have Ph.Ds in EE or CS might have something to do with it.
So I am saying that the original poster made a valid point. Sometimes the employees have to make the judgement of which software they can legally install and which software would be problematic.
Re:So where is the end? (Score:5, Interesting)
After the disaster. I can keep my GPG private key pretty secure, because
But I don't think anything can happen before the disaster. It's just not how our culture works.
Re:Two questions (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a start
Re:Brownie Points with DRM advocates (Score:5, Interesting)
I was there for most of the live presentation, and during the Q&A someone got up and asked what would happen if the keys were compromised, for example someone found a way to hack the unique id in a player. The MS guy indicated that the keys for an entire brand/model of player could be shut off if necessary. The next question, of course, was how the buyers of those players would feel when their expensive players became useless. The MS guy said that the decision to shut off access wouldn't be Microsoft's, but they could do so on a court order, for example.
Why would someone want to buy a portable media player (or desktop media player for that matter) that could become worthless a few months later because someone else hacked it and rendered the DRM insecure? You wouldn't. Why would a manufacturer want to take the chance that they'd be involved in a messy class-action suit from customers because their portable media player now can't play music? They wouldn't.>/b>
I just can't see how this can come to pass.
Re:So where is the end? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not really.
"They send you a new agreement when THEY decide to change it,"
By doing so, they are giving you the notice they are required by law to give. They are in effect saying "enclosed are proposed changes to our contract..."
"and your only option is to cut the card in half and send it back to them."
And if you don't agree to the changes in the contract, you are allowed to terminate the contract, just like hundreds of years of common law allow.
That's where MS changing the EULA unilaterally is different. One can always get a different cc card - the field is hugely competitive. But, since MS is a convicted monopolist, by definition I DO NOT have any competitive options. I CAN'T just say "Screw you, MS - I'm uninstalling Windows" - there is little competition.
Re:MS/Borg (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This has got to stop (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Legality of EULA (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course I can. I never agree to any of those EULA's, and I never read them. I click on the button yes, you may construe that to mean i have agreed to something, I don't agree.
security as a carrot on a stick (Score:1, Interesting)
While he regards the OS as 'his', he understands that really it's just 'licensed' to him by MS. 'Semantics', he thinks, as a license is a form of contract which cannot be changed by either party without the consent of both parties, so whatever. It doesn't occur to him that when he downloads that security patch and just automatically clicks on 'OK' in order to proceed with the install, that he might be agreeing to something, in fact he doesn't even bother to read the gobbledy-gook text of the EULA (end user license agreement) presented by the installer. Perhaps he would have found the EULA for the latest security update for Windows Media Player interesting.
Of course, even had he read it, what would he have done? Clicked 'cancel' and left his computer vulnerable to the security hole? Each security hole discovered in Windows now is an opportunity for MS to modify the EULA and gain new concessions from the user. And because there will be more security updates in future, in order to have a secure OS, Bob will have to install the next to be secure, and the next to be secure... You see where the 'carrot on a stick' image comes from, Bob keeps plodding along after the carrot of security, never really getting it, but along the way agreeing to whatever MS wants.
Once Bob's sufficiently clued in, he may want to say to hell with MS altogether. To Bob and others like him I'd suggest Linux/Mandrake [mandrake.com] as a nice, easy to install and use, version of Linux. The commercial version comes with an MS Office replacement called StarOffice, though you can get a free version called OpenOffice which doesn't have the db support from OpenOffice.org [openoffice.org]
Personally, I think infrastructure, anything critical like operating systems, should be free, but another alternative I'd suggest in the 'lesser of two evils' category would the Mac, esp. running OS/X. Here in Canada, and I expect in the US, Apple is running some really brilliant ads featuring former Windows users as part of their campaign to get Windows users to switch. The web site for the campaign is at http://www.apple.com/switch/ [apple.com]
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:2, Interesting)
What we need is third-party security patches and hotfixes for Microsoft products. Ones that don't change the EULA.
Seeing as most bugs/exploits are found by non-MS folks, the next step is for them to write a patch for the bug. Props to the next hacker who find a bug and releases a patch too, completely circumventing Microsoft's involvement in the process!
Re:PNG packs tighter than TIFF (Score:3, Interesting)
TIFF has a deflate compression scheme too, though not everyone supports it. TIFF can be smaller; CCITT Fax, which is designed for bilevel text, actually works better than PNG for bilevel text.
What does TIFF do that PNG doesn't?
JPEG. Multiple images in one picture; libtiff's registered tags allow for a 3D scan to be stored in one file as a series of slices. Thumbnails can be included by the same mechanism. It can also be used like PDF, in holding an entire document in one file. It provides for anyone to register new tags, for arbitary extension. It's an extraordinarily flexible file format.
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:extortion (Score:4, Interesting)
Horseshit! You can't change a EULA without notification. This is Contract Law 101. You can't change a contract unilaterally. Show me a EULA which reserves the right to change itself without notice and I'll show you a EULA that has no feet to stand on.
The whole concept of the EULA is so silly... I really hope it gets tossed out of court ASAP. Where else can the manufacturer of a product hold you under a contract you did not sign, and change the terms of that contract at any time without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes?
The concept of a EULA is not silly. A paper signature is only one way to prove that you actually indulged in the transaction. It is not necessary to prove that you actually did. And nowhere can anyone change the terms of a contract without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes. It hasn't happened in this instance and won't happen ever.
How to take a stand and have it count (Score:5, Interesting)
So instead, you will just have to stop using Microsoft software. People bitch and moan and gripe but at the end of the day they sit down and load up Windows.
Well, if you really want an effective protest, you are going to have to change. There are some options and they are not as bad as they seem once you adjust!
First off, there is Linux.
Pros: Keep old hardware, plenty of free software available, WINE may let you play some Windows only games, large community of geeks who will likely help you for free if you get into trouble (a million places to go for "support"). EULA, if any, is not the work of the devil.
Cons: Limited number of games, some only available through WINE, need to learn UNIX (big curve for some people), some hardware may not work right or at all, ease of use is not all there yet. No office but there are alternatives which are getting better by the month.
There is also the Macintosh:
Pros: Extremely easy to use, rock solid OS which matches or exceeds the windows experience when it comes to user interface, cd burning from the desktop and overall user experience. Plug and play far superior to Windows and Linux. Good and rapidly growing supply of games and other software. OS is based on open source software (NetBSD) and Linux/UNIX software can and is being ported over (you can even replace your UI with Gnome or KDE if you wish!). Microsoft office is available as well as the open source alternatives ported to Mac OS X. Large fanatic user base who will often help out other Mac users in distress for free.
Cons: Not as many games/software choices as Windows, though this has improved imensely in the last 4 years. EULA may be the work of the devil, check Steve Job's receding hairline to see if horns are exposed. Mac OS X still a young OS and there will be bumps in the road. Last but not least, you will need a new computer and the hardware is a bit more expensive though this is made up for quality and an average usable lifetime of 4 years compared to 2 for a PC.
So you may have to make some sacrifices and changes, but you can give M$ the finger and still have a usable computing solution in your home or office.
On patch, EULA doesn't display (Score:4, Interesting)
Patching a number of systems at the office (my desktop's Debian GNU/Linux, but others suffer...), I noticed that the EULA dialog (digression #2: HTF is someone supposed to be able to read the text in a dialog that shows ~8 lines x 20 columns?) didn't present the EULA by the time I'd clicked the "Accept" button. This several times. And though we're running some older systems, this included a set of newer 1 GHz+ boxen.
What's the legal status of a contract which disappears "on approval" before it's been read?
Everyday my decision seems smarter and better. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:PNG packs tighter than TIFF (Score:3, Interesting)
Does PNG support multiple images in one file? Don't take this as a troll...I've had fax software that would store all the pages of an incoming fax in a single TIFF file that could be viewed/printed/etc. Does PNG support a similar capability?
(For images on a website that you don't want to put through JPEG losses, PNG rocks.)
Re:MS/Borg (Score:2, Interesting)
NON-NERD WORKAROUND HERE (Score:1, Interesting)
Another big win for Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
There are conflicting versions of the EULA!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
What the hell? I thought the BSD article was a troll, but to be sure I checked out his links and sure enough, THAT version of the patch [microsoft.com] contains the paragraph about DRM etc...
Well now we have two versions of the same EULA with conflicting conditions, both of which are posted in VERY public places! Now I'm no expert on contract law, but with two publicly posted conflicting versions, as far as I'm concerned, we can safely ignore both! Way to go Bill!
Re:So where is the end? (Score:2, Interesting)
What If This EULA Applied to Hardware? (Score:2, Interesting)
My second reaction: Oh, well. I don't run Windows, so no problem.
My third reaction: What if this kind of EULA migrates to hardware? What if the next box, or drive, you buy is only "licensed" to you, and the act of purchasing that license gives MS, or the government, to add or delete code from your machine at as they see fit?
Post-install non-compliance made impossible? (Score:1, Interesting)
Because the Windows Update website states quite clearly that the update can not be uninstalled. So.. how exactly can I make use of the rights I have concerning the EULA, when this been made impossible?
Re:automatic EULA remover (Score:1, Interesting)
> with terms of use and the option for the company
> to revoke your license.
>
Of course the simple solution here is for customers to provide their *own* licenses upon purchase of the software in question. By "accepting your money" (as in "opening the package") *they* agree to various terms of your choosing, which you have kindly outlined in your Personal Interest Safety and Security Outline For Fiduciary Management of Software ("PISSOFFMS"). A clause for monthly storage fee's to you for what they insist is "their software" could prove quite amusing.
Aluminium (Score:3, Interesting)
Agree. Aluminium `the eternal metal' was once rare and precious.
how can any government or corporation use MS (Score:2, Interesting)
backdoor for the NSA and CIA and music industry?