Vista - New EULA for Retail Buyers

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:38:38 -0400, "Eddy"
<_blank_@ddress.internet.net> wrote:

>I'm beginning to think ways around it and I love Windows .. but I have this
>rule: it's my computer - not without my consent. I don't want my machine
>making regular reports to Microsoft no matter how benign Microsoft claims it
>is. Sorry, but I don't. And I think it is a reasonable line to draw. Like
>said, I am not a criminal and should not be treated as if I am. Even the
>police need a warrant to search my house.
I agree with *your* rule.
What *they* have done is made it mandatory for you to continuously
give you consent. "No Consent, No patches,updates (or features
functioning)".

Imagine your Automobile and Mechanic under the software EULA.
I will use Ford cars for my example (they don't do this,/yet/).

To Start your car, it needs to connect to Ford who verifies that you
are the original owner AND have only used Ford (tm) parts before
allowing the engine to start.

You reach over and slip a CD into the player. It sits there while the
player contacts Sony BMG to see if you are using a pirated or WORSE,
playing a friends CD.

You take your car to be serviced. Before the mechanic is allowed to
open the engine compartment, the car connects to Ford to verify that
he is a "Genuine Ford Certified Mechanic".

The mechanic no longer has a tool chest, but a tool dispensing machine
as all tools are now only authorized for use on a "single" car (even
though they are not in use simultaneously).

After examining the symptoms, the mechanic determines that the block
is cracked and the engine will need to be replaced. This will require
that all license fees be paid again before the accessories will
function. All music files stored in the built-in MP3 player are now
invalid and must be repurchased.

Lets hear it for the old Borland, whose simple agreement had no
exclusions except SIMULTANEOUS USE, "Like a book"

Hear! Hear!

"Steve Urbach" <dragonsclaw@NOTmindspring.com> wrote in message
newso9fj25980fta8pdu359ij8nfmn62434m3@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:38:38 -0400, "Eddy"
> <_blank_@ddress.internet.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm beginning to think ways around it and I love Windows .. but I have
>>this
>>rule: it's my computer - not without my consent. I don't want my machine
>>making regular reports to Microsoft no matter how benign Microsoft claims
>>it
>>is. Sorry, but I don't. And I think it is a reasonable line to draw. Like
>>said, I am not a criminal and should not be treated as if I am. Even the
>>police need a warrant to search my house.
> I agree with *your* rule.
> What *they* have done is made it mandatory for you to continuously
> give you consent. "No Consent, No patches,updates (or features
> functioning)".
>
> Imagine your Automobile and Mechanic under the software EULA.
> I will use Ford cars for my example (they don't do this,/yet/).
>
> To Start your car, it needs to connect to Ford who verifies that you
> are the original owner AND have only used Ford (tm) parts before
> allowing the engine to start.
>
> You reach over and slip a CD into the player. It sits there while the
> player contacts Sony BMG to see if you are using a pirated or WORSE,
> playing a friends CD.
>
> You take your car to be serviced. Before the mechanic is allowed to
> open the engine compartment, the car connects to Ford to verify that
> he is a "Genuine Ford Certified Mechanic".
>
> The mechanic no longer has a tool chest, but a tool dispensing machine
> as all tools are now only authorized for use on a "single" car (even
> though they are not in use simultaneously).
>
> After examining the symptoms, the mechanic determines that the block
> is cracked and the engine will need to be replaced. This will require
> that all license fees be paid again before the accessories will
> function. All music files stored in the built-in MP3 player are now
> invalid and must be repurchased.
>
> Lets hear it for the old Borland, whose simple agreement had no
> exclusions except SIMULTANEOUS USE, "Like a book"

"You are correct about my post.
So it really begs the question on why Remote assistance can't get it right
:/"

Remote assistance *can* work through two routers (one on both ends) but both
routers need to be configured properly (all needed ports forwarded to the
correct systems). For someone you're trying to help with remote assistance,
that is usually harder to do than whatever they needed help with in the
first place. I assume that is why M$ never made much of a fuss about letting
people know how to set it up.

-Mike

"Imagine your Automobile and Mechanic under the software EULA.
I will use Ford cars for my example (they don't do this,/yet/)."

LOL
I give up on the EULA thing, but on another topic the whole Ford (and other
manufacturers) black box thing must drive you nuts:

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/22/n...-box-details/2

It was just recently ruled that manufacturers (in 2011) will have to start
telling people about these (they've been around for years) AND they have
already been used to deny warranty claims based of "excessive breaking,"
"excessive top speed," and "excessive acceleration." I doubt it will be too
many years before the information can be freely accessed by your insurance
company to determine your rates (they already do access it if you're in an
accident).

Imagine a company (say Ford ) sells you a $35,000 sports car with all kinds
of commercials showing how fast it is and how well it handles. Then when the
transmission goes out, they hook up a computer and say, "sorry your
vehicle's been over a hundred several times and you regularly use excessive
accleration and braking," i.e. you drive your sports car like a sports car,
not a minivan, so your warranty is void - but we'll replace the transmission
for $2000.00.

Vista doesn't worry me much.
-Mike

P.S. What if Ford told you that unless you followed a regular maintenence
schedule of what *they* say must happen or they wouldn't provide the
expected repairs if something prematurely broke? AND there was a well known,
but unspoken rule that unless you used *their* overpriced mechanics for it
that you would have a hell of a hard time bringing it to them to get
something fixed under warranty?? . . . Oh wait, they already do.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:31:17 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

>"You are correct about my post.
> So it really begs the question on why Remote assistance can't get it right
>:/"
>
>Remote assistance *can* work through two routers (one on both ends) but both
>routers need to be configured properly (all needed ports forwarded to the
>correct systems). For someone you're trying to help with remote assistance,
>that is usually harder to do than whatever they needed help with in the
>first place. I assume that is why M$ never made much of a fuss about letting
>people know how to set it up.
>
>-Mike
>
>
IMHO RDC works because it does not use a pre generated "invitation" .
I had the user enter the public IP that has been port forwarded to the
desired host. Works great.

I edited the "invitation" IP address, forwarded the specified port...
Nada. Maybe there is something "else" that needs to be tweaked in the
invitation?

See my post elsewhere about piracy.

I used simple propositions based on reduction absurdum.

On a principle of "minimal costs" organisations tend to do the least
possible in order to meet some endgame or target.

Here the two extremes seem to be:

- use a EULA model that protects copyright model realistically based on
observation and fact

- use a EULA model (if at all) that is wither all words and no substance
else has no ethics at all



Jeff wrote:
> Mike,
> Reasonable logic would say;
> When did the onus of responsibilty; to have to constantly prove
> innocence; fall to the consumer?
> All in all; as you state; most people won't care. That is; unless; and
> until; they get a false positive; and the system errently shuts them
> down to a reduced functionality.
> But again; functionally; SPP is based on the premise of criminal intent.
> Jeff

And so; how does your eula argument; fit with my SPP post to Mike?
(seeing as you saw fit to snip; and add it to this commentary)
Tired of commentary on all of it actually; and seeing as WGA N for XP no
longer seems to be on MSFT updates; seems they may have gotten the message;
also.(about XP at least.)

Jeff

"deebs" <deebs@false.false> wrote in message
news:eIAzXjS%23GHA.4464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> See my post elsewhere about piracy.
>
> I used simple propositions based on reduction absurdum.
>
> On a principle of "minimal costs" organisations tend to do the least
> possible in order to meet some endgame or target.
>
> Here the two extremes seem to be:
>
> - use a EULA model that protects copyright model realistically based on
> observation and fact
>
> - use a EULA model (if at all) that is wither all words and no substance
> else has no ethics at all
>
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> Mike,
>> Reasonable logic would say;
>> When did the onus of responsibilty; to have to constantly prove
>> innocence; fall to the consumer?
>> All in all; as you state; most people won't care. That is; unless; and
>> until; they get a false positive; and the system errently shuts them down
>> to a reduced functionality.
>> But again; functionally; SPP is based on the premise of criminal
>> intent.
>> Jeff

I think it is fair provided the supplier informs the purchaser that such
recording devices have been installed.

Equally: "This vehicle contains covert recording devices that we will
not inform you about unless a warranty claim is made.

You will not have free access to such information however it will be
duly recorded and monitored every time the vehicle is serviced."

Naively: if the information is not shared with vehicle owner then the
servicing agent and/or manufacturer is supporting that owner's usage
pattern of the vehicle therefore cannot quote back to improper use?

In essence if prior knowledge exists and that knowledge is not shared
then it cannot be quoted at dispute.

**__MIke__** wrote:
> "Imagine your Automobile and Mechanic under the software EULA.
> I will use Ford cars for my example (they don't do this,/yet/)."
>
> LOL
> I give up on the EULA thing, but on another topic the whole Ford (and
> other manufacturers) black box thing must drive you nuts:
>
> http://www.autoblog.com/2006/08/22/n...-box-details/2
>
>
> It was just recently ruled that manufacturers (in 2011) will have to
> start telling people about these (they've been around for years) AND
> they have already been used to deny warranty claims based of "excessive
> breaking," "excessive top speed," and "excessive acceleration." I doubt
> it will be too many years before the information can be freely accessed
> by your insurance company to determine your rates (they already do
> access it if you're in an accident).
>
> Imagine a company (say Ford ) sells you a $35,000 sports car with all
> kinds of commercials showing how fast it is and how well it handles.
> Then when the transmission goes out, they hook up a computer and say,
> "sorry your vehicle's been over a hundred several times and you
> regularly use excessive accleration and braking," i.e. you drive your
> sports car like a sports car, not a minivan, so your warranty is void -
> but we'll replace the transmission for $2000.00.
>
> Vista doesn't worry me much.
> -Mike
>
> P.S. What if Ford told you that unless you followed a regular
> maintenence schedule of what *they* say must happen or they wouldn't
> provide the expected repairs if something prematurely broke? AND there
> was a well known, but unspoken rule that unless you used *their*
> overpriced mechanics for it that you would have a hell of a hard time
> bringing it to them to get something fixed under warranty?? . . . Oh
> wait, they already do.
>
>
>
>

I think my previous post can be summed up as: responsible organisations
behaving responsibly.

Should the responsible organisation behave irresponsibly well that is
proven by appealing to covert data.