Microsoft: breaking with licensing tradition

The Register USA ^ | 8-2-2002 | Gavin Clarke

[Knitebane]

It's about piracy to me. And I'm not talking crusade, crusades are for other people, MS protects their investment. They're working to protect themselves both from pirates and from suits. Fact is MS stuff has been throwing things on your system for a long time (automatic update has been in the OS since 98, Windows Media has been grabbing updates and codecs since 7.0), they've also been using those same tool to check some GUIDs for piracy

What a weasel.

Look, piracy is defined as the use of force to commandeer a vessel on the high seas. The theft of the term to label people who copy software illegally is an Orwellian tactic to make the act seem violent, thus lending creendence to their cause and hoping that the public will turn a blind eye to the over-the-top reactions to it. Like sending CIA agents to investigate overseas copyright violations instead of hunting down terrorists. The fact that you use the term says something about you.

It isn't about Microsoft protecting their investment, unless you mean that their investment is domination of the software world. Then, yes, that's exactly what it is. Microsoft has defacto control of users desktops, now they want it in writing that the user agrees that Microsoft has the right to do whatever they want to users systems and software, no matter where that software came from.

You and I both know that WMP always asks first before it installs CODECs. Windows Update requires the user to confirm patch and software installation. The new EULAs require the user to agree that Microsost has the right to install software without notifying the user. That is entirely different. Before it required the user to intervene to install software, now it doesn't.

It's not an evil conspiracy. A corporate conspiracy requires more than one company acting in collusion. This is just Microsoft doing this.

[discostu]

What a jerk. Bye.