Tech giants trying to stop impending vote on opting-out of collection / sale of personal data

[Delicieuxz]

You only have the right to use (insert version here) of Windows. The lease period is the planned lifespan of the version. I.e. you bought Windows 7. You do not own a copy of Windows 7 but you're allowed to use it until it's end of life. After that your Windows7 may cease to function at any given time and MS won't give a damn. They may even release an update to break it in order to encourage you to switch OS.

There is no lease period for perpetual software licenses that are sold. They are sold, not leased.

As what goes of your right to resell that right to use bears no meaning in this discussion.

The European Union's highest court's rulings are not simply regarding the right to resell software, they also explicitly address ownership of the software people purchase, rulings that you own the software you buy. The EU court's rulings regarding the right to resell software licenses are based on the ruling that people own the software they've purchased licenses for, and so the decision-making authority of whether they may sell their license rests solely with them.

The fact is you don't own your Windows 7 or any Windows for that matter so you cannot dictate also what Microsoft does with your OS. And by that you release control of your computer hardware to Microsoft when you install their OS. The only way to own your computer is to use free and open source software and OS.

None of that is true. Microsoft doing anything to obstruct your access to your Windows OS would be a violation of your property.

Also, there isn't a single national law in the world that claims that people don't own the software they're purchased. The only countries that have national law regarding software licenses are the countries of the European Union, and the United Kingdom. The countries of the European Union include:

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden


All of those countries and the United Kingdom, altogether representing 508 million people, have made it their national law that purchasing software is the same as purchasing any retail product so that when you purchase software, you own that software. Therefore, when you purchase a Windows license, you own that Windows.

The argument you're presenting, that people don't own the software they purchase, is not any country's law - not even the USA's, where the matter has never gone to the supreme court. It is only an urban myth, and deceptive corporate propaganda. It it not based in in anything, and does not reflect reality.

Also, arguing that people don't own the software they purchase what is both naturally illogical and fundamentally against the interests of every individual. And any arguer that people don't own their purchased software which is sold to them (not leased), would be an Uncle Tom for corporations / against the average person.



To put it succinctly: Not a single country in the world has national law that says a person doesn't own the software they purchase. 28 countries in the world have national law that declares that a person owns the software that they purchase. That's 28 - 0 in favour of the view that people own the software they have purchased licenses for.



It's time for this myth that you don't own your purchased software to die, people. Stop repeating illogical falsehoods that are fundamentally against your and society's interests.

 

[B00nie]

But the FACT remains that Microsoft is doing whatever the fuck it wills with your Windows installation, including deleting apps you installed, altering settings, rebooting your computer when THEY see fit and forcefully install updates that potentially render your computer unbootable (or break your hardware, I personally trashed a 300 dollar steering wheel only to find out later the hardware was most likely ok but Windows 10 had secretly installed a broken version of the driver or changed something in the system so that the driver required a reinstall). Not to forget 'telemetry' collecting, forcibly installed applications, advertising and promoting of their own products inside the OS. They may even deny access to your 'license' when product verification fails. You don't even get a document of ownership nowadays, just a digital fingerprint on some server somewhere.

This all is fact, all you present is pure theory.

 

[Delicieuxz]

But the FACT remains that Microsoft is doing whatever the fuck it wills with your Windows installation, including deleting apps you installed, altering settings, rebooting your computer when THEY see fit and install updates that potentially render your computer unbootable.

This all is fact, all you present is pure theory.

It isn't theory, but law. And in the software realm, it takes time to adapt to new developments. An obvious example is that we've just seen the EU implement GDPR - and the investigations that are being done by various EU nations' data and privacy rights agencies have and are looking at the very things you mentioned. And Microsoft has already had to make changes to their OS regarding some of those things in order to comply with EU law.

Microsoft is pushing things with the resetting of program defaults and settings (both of which have been raised as issues by investigating European agencies). But, MS have been doing those things while pretending that they're inadvertent, accidental, and bugs. The Dutch DPA looked closely at the resetting of settings in Windows 10, and concluded that Microsoft's actions in this regard violate EU law. Other EU countries are still in the process of investigating Windows 10.

I think that Microsoft has stopped changing people's settings in Windows 10 since the last update or two - or at least has seriously toned down what might be reset so that it no longer affects data-collection levels.

 

[B00nie]

There is no law that stops Microsoft from doing all the things I listed. As long as people are stupid and just blindly buy their products they continue to abuse the consumers.

As you said, resetting settings or deleting apps can always be masked as a mistake. Ooops. Too bad.

 

[Mazzspeed]

For the record, you own a license to use the software, you do not own the software, you do not own that Windows code on that media you bought. You own the physical media the code is on and you own a license to use the code, nothing more.

 

[Delicieuxz]

For the record, you own a license to use the software, you do not own the software, you do not own that Windows code on that media you bought. You own the physical media the code is on and you own a license to use the code, nothing more.

Again, that's distinction of semantics.

"Software" doesn't exclusively or by-default mean the software IP, which is the specific code, which I've said from the outset that people don't buy - in exactly the same manner that people don't buy an automobile's IP when they purchase a car from a dealership: They instead purchase a license that grants the right to use the car's IP within the context of the instance of that car's IP which they bought.

A license is permission to make use of copyrighted / patented content without becoming the owner for the copyrighted / patent content. When you purchase a car, you don't become the owner of its IP / patented content / design / branding / manufacturing - you simply purchase an instance of those things which you then are the full owner of and hold all property rights regarding.

People normally just refer to their licensed vehicle-instance (and every other product they've bought) as 'their car'. It is the same with software: People purchase and own software - they just don't receive ownership over the software IP. But "software" doesn't naturally mean 'software IP'. It is perfectly correct to say that people purchase and own their software, if what is meant is the instance of software that they purchase. Owning a software license / instance is owning software.

This was already said:

I don't own the Windows Intellectual Property.

I DO own my Windows instance which is represented by my Windows license:


This software (IP) is licensed, not sold.
This software (license / instance) is sold, not licensed.

When you buy software, you own that software. You own your Windows in the same sense that you own your car, your TV, your phone, your clothes, etc.

 

[Mazzspeed]

Again, that's distinction of semantics.

"Software" doesn't exclusively or by-default mean the software IP, which is the specific code, which I've said from the outset that people don't buy - in exactly the same manner that people don't buy an automobile's IP when they purchase a car from a dealership: They instead purchase a license that grants the right to use the car's IP within the context of the instance of that car's IP which they bought.

A license is permission to make use of copyrighted / patented content without becoming the owner for the copyrighted / patent content. When you purchase a car, you don't become the owner of its IP / patented content / design / branding / manufacturing - you simply purchase an instance of those things which you then are the full owner of and hold all property rights regarding.

People normally just refer to their licensed vehicle-instance (and every other product they've bought) as 'their car'. It is the same with software: People purchase and own software - they just don't receive ownership over the software IP. But "software" doesn't naturally mean 'software IP'. It is perfectly correct to say that people purchase and own their software, if what is meant is the instance of software that they purchase. Owning a software license / instance is owning software.

This was already said:



When you buy software, you own that software. You own your Windows in the same sense that you own your car, your TV, your phone, your clothes, etc.

Believe whatever you want, if you owned the software you'd be able to modify the source code as you saw fit. Yes, you do own Windows the same way you own your TV or your car, you own the physical device/machine, you do not own the software needed to run it. Such software is solely owned by the manufacturer, in Microsoft's case, it's owned by the developer being Microsoft.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Believe whatever you want, if you owned the software you'd be able to modify the source code as you saw fit. Yes, you do own Windows the same way you own your TV or your car, you own the physical device/machine, you do not own the software needed to run it. Such software is solely owned by the manufacturer, in Microsoft's case, it's owned by the developer being Microsoft.

What software is needed to run Windows? It is the software. Microsoft owns the intellectual property for that software, while the individual instances of that software installed on machines via licenses that were bought by customers belong to the customers that bought those instances represented in their licenses.


People are indeed allowed to modify Windows and any software they own as they see fit. But Microsoft and other software IP holders are not required to release their source code to anyone, just as other retail product sellers are not required to make blueprints, schematics, and ease-of-access (well, perhaps with an exception for mobile phones in the US via right-to-repair) for their products available to anyone. So, you aren't unable to modify Windows source code due to not being allowed to, but due to the Windows source code not being made available by Microsoft to mod.

I have electronic gear that can be difficult to trouble-shoot because the manufacturer didn't release a schematic for it. The schematic for an electronic device is analogous to a software's source code. You can do more if one is available, but the producer is not forced to make one available. Either way, you are fully entitled to modify your electronic or software property as you see fit.


What you aren't allowed to do is modify your copy of Windows and then sell that modified copy of Windows, or to distribute your modified copy of Windows for people who don't own Windows themselves to use.

You also aren't entitled to have access to extraneous services that your software can engage with if you modify your instance of that software. For example, developers / publishers of online games are not required to allow you to use their servers if you modify your instance of software because you buying a license for the software is not the same thing as buying a license to use the servers that the software connects to.



A German court has given an example of this matter: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/10/german-court-rules-against-rights-to-resell-steam-games/

“While the doctrine of exhaustion limited the rights holders’ powers with regards to an individual DVD, it did not require them to design their business in a way that facilitated the sale of used games and therefore did not make the Steam terms of service unenforceable.”


Yes, you own your software, and yes you can choose to resell it per your sole discretion. However, with Steam being a privately-owned service, Valve is not obligated to design their service to accommodate and facilitate people's ability to transfer their games from their Steam accounts to elsewhere - obviously presenting a roadblock in the ability to effectively sell games bought through the Steam service.

In the same manner, you are fully entitled to modify the source code for your owned Windows. However, Microsoft is not obligated to provide you with the source code to make it easy for you to be able to do that. So, if Microsoft doesn't make available the source code for Windows, how will you possibly be able to modify it?

And, likewise: While I'm entitled to modify and repair my electronic equipment, the manufacturer of the equipment is not obligated to provide me with a schematic to facilitate my ability to do so.

 

[B00nie]

What software is needed to run Windows? It is the software. Microsoft owns the intellectual property for that software, while the individual instances of that software installed on machines via licenses that were bought by customers belong to the customers that bought those instances represented in their licenses.


People are indeed allowed to modify Windows and any software they own as they see fit. But Microsoft and other software IP holders are not required to release their source code to anyone, just as other retail product sellers are not required to make blueprints, schematics, and ease-of-access (well, perhaps with an exception for mobile phones in the US via right-to-repair) for their products available to anyone. So, you aren't unable to modify Windows source code due to not being allowed to, but due to the Windows source code not being made available by Microsoft to mod.

I have electronic gear that can be difficult to trouble-shoot because the manufacturer didn't release a schematic for it. The schematic for an electronic device is analogous to a software's source code. You can do more if one is available, but the producer is not forced to make one available. Either way, you are fully entitled to modify your electronic or software property as you see fit.


What you aren't allowed to do is modify your copy of Windows and then sell that modified copy of Windows, or to distribute your modified copy of Windows for people who don't own Windows themselves to use.

You also aren't entitled to have access to extraneous services that your software can engage with if you modify your instance of that software. For example, developers / publishers of online games are not required to allow you to use their servers if you modify your instance of software because you buying a license for the software is not the same thing as buying a license to use the servers that the software connects to.



A German court has given an example of this matter: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/10/german-court-rules-against-rights-to-resell-steam-games/

“While the doctrine of exhaustion limited the rights holders’ powers with regards to an individual DVD, it did not require them to design their business in a way that facilitated the sale of used games and therefore did not make the Steam terms of service unenforceable.”


Yes, you own your software, and yes you can choose to resell it per your sole discretion. However, with Steam being a privately-owned service, Valve is not obligated to design their service to accommodate and facilitate people's ability to transfer their games from their Steam accounts to elsewhere - obviously presenting a roadblock in the ability to effectively sell games bought through the Steam service.

In the same manner, you are fully entitled to modify the source code for your owned Windows. However, Microsoft is not obligated to provide you with the source code to make it easy for you to be able to do that. So, if Microsoft doesn't make available the source code for Windows, how will you possibly be able to modify it?

And, likewise: While I'm entitled to modify and repair my electronic equipment, the manufacturer of the equipment is not obligated to provide me with a schematic to facilitate my ability to do so.

Are you so sure?

4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

This is an effective ban on _any_ modification to a closed source software.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Are you so sure?

This is an effective ban on _any_ modification to a closed source software.

First, I would say that modifying source code that is available is not the same thing as reverse-engineering source code.

Next, that is from an EULA - and EULAs are not laws. EULAs are just what the software developer or publisher wrote for themselves, and basically amount to publisher / developer wet dreams. What they write in an EULA isn't enforceable unless it conforms to laws - and lots of EULAs are filled with non-enforceable claims. Anything in an EULA that violates laws, including property rights laws, is null and void.

Whoever wrote that EULA clause seems to have suspected that the clause could be risking the invalidation of the whole EULA, as they wrote "except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation".

In other words, they're saying 'you can't do this, unless the law says differently'. It's a ventured claim of protection, power, and control for the publisher / developer despite whoever wrote it having no idea whether it was a legitimate thing to claim. So, they tried to cover their bases by added 'except where law disagrees'.

Lastly, I would say that an EULA clause of 'you may not modify or reverse-engineer this item' is like buying a toaster which comes with the disclaimer 'you may not open this up to repair it' - or like getting a GPU that says the warranty is void if a certain sticker is removed (though even that didn't go so far as to purport that people couldn't modify / alter / reverse-engineer the product - only that doing so would void the warranty. And that was smacked-down all the same).



EULA's are just written by whoever - sometimes by legal experts, and sometimes not. And when written by legal experts, they can still contain baseless and experimental claims. Sometimes lots of EULAs repeat bogus claims that the writers of them have seen in other EULAs and just thought they sounded good - but eventually are discovered to be impotent once tested in a courtroom.

An example is that for years EULAs claimed the purchaser couldn't sue to the publisher - which contradicted consumer rights in many places, and also invalidated other potential protections for a publisher. But people put the line in their EULA because, hey, it's an EULA and anything can be written because there are no guidelines or rules, so just write 'all rights and protections for the publisher / no rights and protections for the purchaser'.

Some claims in EULA are just made to psyke customers out, to give them an impression that they can't do anything, so as to ward off potential challenges. It's faking people out to rob them of their rights and sense of power, to make them feel helpless against the corporation.

Microsoft has such a clause in their Windows 10 EULA, which says that people (at least in the USA) can only bring a court case against Microsoft in the state of California - except such a condition is banned in the consumer laws of some states. And so, that clause doesn't hold any power for people in states where such a restriction is prohibited.

There is no official format for an EULA, they're just a collection of publisher or developer ideas for what type of understanding and relationship they want to have with their customers. Anything in an EULA that is clearly unreasonable can be disregarded.

Corporations, publishers, and developers do not possess law-making powers. Imagine the hell society would be if they did.


Best way to look at an EULA is: Just opinions. If the opinion is clearly reasonable then maybe it should be abided by. If it isn't, then it doesn't count.

If an EULA is contested in court, it's always going to come down to whether its challenged clauses are reasonable and law-abiding.

 

[B00nie]

First, I would say that modifying source code that is available is not the same thing as reverse-engineering source code.

But dear Sir, Windows is closed source so any modification you want to make to it has to be through disassembly or reverse engineering which are explicitly prohibited.

 

[Delicieuxz]

But dear Sir, Windows is closed source so any modification you want to make to it has to be through disassembly or reverse engineering which are explicitly prohibited.

First, the clause you posted doesn't even exist in the Windows 10 EULA. And that is most likely because it is an ancient and goofy generic monkey-see-monkey-do copy / paste EULA clause that has no merit to it, whatsoever - just like the clauses in older EULAs that claimed that by use of their software you waive your right to sue the publisher / developer for any damages.

As I just said above, EULAs are not laws, and EULAs (including Microsoft's) are commonly filled with made-up garbage that has no legal basis. Anybody can write anything in an EULA - that doesn't make it actually binding. So, and EULA claiming something is prohibited doesn't mean that thing is actually prohibited.

Like I said, corporations do not possess law-making powers.


"except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation" - in other words, somebody wrote this because it sounded all-encompassing and represented their fantasy of control over those who bought their software, despite whoever wrote it having no understanding of whether it is a legally-acceptable clause which is why they added the "except to the extent" part. And "the extent" could be, and almost certainly is, 'in all ways'.


People who create software and assume they get to make the terms for the software after it's sold to other parties are entertaining delusions of grandeur. If you sell something, then you no longer hold any decision-making authority over it. And software licenses / instances are sold.

If you buy a perpetual software license, that non-reproduceable instance of software is yours to do with as you see fit.

 

[BSmith]

Google would lose its stock value and Windows 10 would go back to a paid product...

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Every free social media service would have to go to a subscription model. There are more, but that should cover a big percentage of the data gatherers.

However, I have a feeling this is not over and will be challenged in court and it will be there that it will be killed. That is just my best guess at what will happen next. Or the Fed will overturn it with a federal law which will have holes big enough for all the data gatherers to be happy.

<snip>
I think that Microsoft has stopped changing people's settings in Windows 10 since the last update or two - or at least has seriously toned down what might be reset so that it no longer affects data-collection levels.

Uh, no they have not. Not at all. I still have to deal with all the settings changes they make in Windows 10 with almost every update. However, there appears to be a distinct pattern to what they are changing. Might be able to cook up a program to restore the ones I know are getting reset all the time. It would save me a ton of time, but also reduce my billable hours,....so there is that.

 

[B00nie]

First, the clause you posted doesn't even exist in the Windows 10 EULA. And that is most likely because it is an ancient and goofy generic monkey-see-monkey-do copy / paste EULA clause that has no merit to it, whatsoever - just like the clauses in older EULAs that claimed that by use of their software you waive your right to sue the publisher / developer for any damages.

As I just said above, EULAs are not laws, and EULAs (including Microsoft's) are commonly filled with made-up garbage that has no legal basis. Anybody can write anything in an EULA - that doesn't make it actually binding. So, and EULA claiming something is prohibited doesn't mean that thing is actually prohibited.

Like I said, corporations do not possess law-making powers.


"except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation" - in other words, somebody wrote this because it sounded all-encompassing and represented their fantasy of control over those who bought their software, despite whoever wrote it having no understanding of whether it is a legally-acceptable clause which is why they added the "except to the extent" part. And "the extent" could be, and almost certainly is, 'in all ways'.


People who create software and assume they get to make the terms for the software after it's sold to other parties are entertaining delusions of grandeur. If you sell something, then you no longer hold any decision-making authority over it. And software licenses / instances are sold.

If you buy a perpetual software license, that non-reproduceable instance of software is yours to do with as you see fit.

Ok you can try to make derivative works based on Windows source code and sell it. You'll be sued before you get out of the door for sure. Windows is not and never will be open for modification. Microsoft does and will alter your computers settings and delete data arbitrarily at its will because you do _not_ have any control over your Windows computer. Microsoft has and will walk right past any GPOs, registry tweaks etc. you users try to use to stop them making the changes.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Ok you can try to make derivative works based on Windows source code and sell it. You'll be sued before you get out of the door for sure. Windows is not and never will be open for modification. Microsoft does and will alter your computers settings and delete data arbitrarily at its will because you do _not_ have any control over your Windows computer. Microsoft has and will walk right past any GPOs, registry tweaks etc. you users try to use to stop them making the changes.

Why do you keep responding when you don't even read or pay attention to what's been said?

It is absolutely your right to modify Windows, and any of your property. But how you went from modifying Windows to an assumed right to sell duplicates of your non-reproduceable instance of Windows is beyond me, especially after it's been already stated:

What you aren't allowed to do is modify your copy of Windows and then sell that modified copy of Windows, or to distribute your modified copy of Windows for people who don't own Windows themselves to use.

You also aren't entitled to have access to extraneous services that your software can engage with if you modify your instance of that software. For example, developers / publishers of online games are not required to allow you to use their servers if you modify your instance of software because you buying a license for the software is not the same thing as buying a license to use the servers that the software connects to.

I didn't think this should be news to you, but you also can't sell a car of your own creation as a Honda Civic, or steal the parts that make one from Honda's factory and then put them together and sell the resulting cars (which is akin to duplicating copyrighted code for your own marketable projects and then selling those projects).


It seems like your sort of just putting together disparate together chunks of information into a retort-like format to make it look like you've made a nay-saying argument, when those disparate chunks of information come from completely obtuse parts of the discussion, don't answer what you're responding to, and don't make sense the way you're presenting them. Sort of like you're deliberately trying to confuse the topic towards a false conclusion of 'you have no rights / corporations have all the rights'. I wonder which software company you work for, or which software IP you own and have made a (probably unreasonable) EULA for. Would you care to share that information with us?


Microsoft changing your settings or frustrating your control over your OS is neither here nor there. Microsoft does lots of illegal shit - some of which, like the resetting of settings, has been called out by EU data rights investigators. That doesn't mean you don't own your software any more than somebody vandalizing your front-yard means you don't own the property your house is on, or that somebody throwing eggs at your house means that you don't own your house.

 

[Master_shake_]

Google would lose its stock value and Windows 10 would go back to a paid product...

Where's those downsides?

 

[B00nie]

Why do you keep responding when you don't even read or pay attention to what's been said?

It is absolutely your right to modify Windows, and any of your property. But how you went from modifying Windows to an assumed right to sell duplicates of your non-reproduceable instance of Windows is beyond me, especially after it's been already stated:

Being able to modify Windows but not being able to redistribute or sell the modification is useless. Nobody has the resources to single handedly reverse engineer key Windows functions for personal use only even if it's legally possible. It's legally possible for you to launch yourself to the Moon so go ahead and do it.

So please stop trolling. You do not have any control over how Windows functions in reality and if you continue to use it you succumb to whatever actions Microsoft seems fit to perform.
You do not have even a true administrator account. It's Microsofts property. You can't stop them from updating the computer or changing settings with no warning and at their discression. Tell me, if you have no true control to something that you 'own', do you own it in reality? My opinion is that you don't.

You can stop the legal mumbo jumbo there. It has no meaning.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Being able to modify Windows but not being able to redistribute or sell the modification is useless. Nobody has the resources to single handedly reverse engineer key Windows functions for personal use only even if it's legally possible. It's legally possible for you to launch yourself to the Moon so go ahead and do it.

Since when did the subject of what people's rights are, what their ownership of licenses means, translate into how feasible it is for a person to do something? You brought up reverse-engineering source code in the first place. So, why are you now saying the matter is pointless after the falsity of your assertion has been uncovered? If you didn't care, you wouldn't have brought it up. It seems that you only cared so long as you thought it could validate your negative perspective.

So please stop trolling. You do not have any control over how Windows functions in reality and if you continue to use it you succumb to whatever actions Microsoft seems fit to perform.

Who taught you to be such a weak person? And there is no trolling in stating the truth.

You do not have even a true administrator account. It's Microsofts property. You can't stop them from updating the computer or changing settings with no warning and at their discression.

I don't know about you, but I can stop Windows 10 from updating. That's what the Group Policy is there for. There are also router firewalls. Microsoft has no right to change anybody's computer settings unilaterally. If they do, it is an offence and a violation of people's property.

You can't stop somebody from violating the property your house is on - but that doesn't stop the property your house is on from being yours.

Tell me, if you have no true control to something that you 'own', do you own it in reality? My opinion is that you don't.

If somebody violates your rights, does that mean you don't have any? If somebody violates them, you stand up for them - not roll-over in submission like you are doing. Your defeatist attitude is pitiful.

Imagine if women's suffrage never came about because women said 'we're unable to vote, therefore we don't have a right to vote', or if abolitionists said 'black people are slaves, so they don't have a right to be free'.

Your attitude exudes no self-respect, and an obsession with failure. Which begs the question: Why are you persisting to insist your attitude of hopelessness, rather than giving up arguing your failed points just like you have surrendered yourself to corporate propaganda? It would actually be a positive development if you chose to give in to reinforcement of people's rights instead of the giving in to the violation of them that you've been doing. You're failing the wrong way.

You can stop the legal mumbo jumbo there. It has no meaning.

If the discussion is above your understanding, why do you interject yourself into it?

 

[B00nie]

Since when did the subject of what people's rights are, what their ownership of licenses means, translate into how feasible it is for a person to do something? You brought up reverse-engineering source code in the first place. So, why are you now saying the matter is pointless after the falsity of your assertion has been uncovered? If you didn't care, you wouldn't have brought it up. It seems that you only cared so long as you thought it could validate your negative perspective.

Since you tried to make your point to be that anyone is free to modify the Windows code and there for they would be in control of it. This is patently false. Even if you legally own your copy of windows, Microsoft is still entitled and able to modify your operating copy as it wishes and you will never, ever, be able to control your computer in practice if you run Windows on it. So following my example: While it's legal for you to make a moon rocket and fly to moon, in practical terms you're not able to do so - especially if you can't build a commercial venture out of it. This means that in effect, you have no means to modify your windows, period.

No amount of smoke screens and turning you create will change the fact. As long as Microsoft dictates how your Windows computer works and what can or can't run on it, you don't have control nor true ownership over it. Your hardware is owned by Microsoft.

I don't know about you, but I can stop Windows 10 from updating. That's what the Group Policy is there for. There are also router firewalls. Microsoft has no right to change anybody's computer settings unilaterally. If they do, it is an offence and a violation of people's property.

You can't stop somebody from violating the property your house is on - but that doesn't stop the property your house is on from being yours.

First of all, GPOs do not work in home versions of Windows 10. Second, GPOs have been selectively overruled or disabled by Microsoft in its updates when it sees fit. Several people have reported that the policies they've put into action have not stopped critical updates and by them, changes to their systems. Microsoft has also randomized the sources it uses for updates and telemetry in order to mask its actions from consumers and make firewalling unpractical. They're committing a knowing crime in effect by creating techniques to bypass peoples attempts to stop them.

If somebody violates your rights, does that mean you don't have any? If somebody violates them, you stand up for them - not roll-over in submission like you are doing. Your defeatist attitude is pitiful.

By definition YOU are the defeatist by continuing to use and pay for Microsoft products even though Microsoft has stomped on your rights and used immoral business practices in order to gain an unhealthy grip on the market. You're a defeatist by submitting to their advertising and data collection as a 'price you have to pay' to use Windows. You are the pitiful one - in fact just the fact that you follow the masses and do what everyone else does is pitiful and weak. So please, spare me the lecture and look in the mirror.

Having said all of that, I'm placing you to ignore from now on because I really do not need to spend my time arguing with people like you. You drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Oh by the way: The proof is in the pudding. Show me you can modify your windows, post a reverse engineered version (by you of course) of a windows operating system library/executable with it's source code. Any one of them, then you win the argument.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Since you tried to make your point to be that anyone is free to modify the Windows code and there for they would be in control of it.

Stop your spin, and don't misrepresent what I've said - the "and there fore" part is your own invention, and you know that.

Everybody has a right to modify their property, including their owned software. The same right applies to other digital products, such as music and movies.

This is now the 3rd time you've made the same fallacious twisting of facts, and the second time that I am bringing attention to the fact that this was already previously addressed in full:

https://hardforum.com/threads/tech-...-personal-data.1963193/page-2#post-1043711503

That you keep re-trying the same false assertion, as if you simply want to have it seen and appear as though it were a conclusion to anything, shows that you are self-presentation in this discussion is thoroughly disingenuous and guided by an ulterior motive.

This is patently false. Even if you legally own your copy of windows, Microsoft is still entitled and able to modify your operating copy as it wishes and you will never, ever, be able to control your computer in practice if you run Windows on it.

What you've just said is patently false. Even if Microsoft modifies your PC, that doesn't change your own rights over your PC, and that doesn't means that Microsoft isn't entitled to make any changes on its own. Windows 10 is a product, sold as a product, described as a product in the EULA ("this software" / "the Windows software", and not "this service" / "the Windows service"). Windows 10 is a property that people buy and own. A license is a right to use an Intellectual Property, and something being a license doesn't comment on whether it is sold and bought, or not. You have a license to use your car, your TV, your clothes, your computer hardware - you do not own the IP for those things, but you own an instance of their IP. The same is with Windows 10 - you own your Windows 10 instance.


This has also been gone over already multiple times. You're again repeating false assertions in order to just try to have them visible on the page one more time, despite there being no truth and only (seemingly deliberate) ignorance in what you've suggested.

So following my example: While it's legal for you to make a moon rocket and fly to moon, in practical terms you're not able to do so - especially if you can't build a commercial venture out of it. This means that in effect, you have no means to modify your windows, period.

You do have means to modify your Windows. And further, you have a right to. That you might be incompetent and unable to figure out how to modify your Windows is your own issue.

No amount of smoke screens and turning you create will change the fact. As long as Microsoft dictates how your Windows computer works and what can or can't run on it, you don't have control nor true ownership over it. Your hardware is owned by Microsoft.

You need to spend some time thinking about the concept of ownership. Your ownership of your property doesn't decrease because some bully interferes with your ownership. A lot of people choose to stand up to bullies, but you appear to be the eager advocate for a bully. I'm stating the perfect and Windows owner-empowering truth, while it's you who's putting up smoke-screens as you're rationalizing towards falsehood and failure. You're on Microsoft's payroll, aren't you?


This also has been already gone over already multiple times.

First of all, GPOs do not work in home versions of Windows 10.

It can be enabled in Home with a registry tweak. Also, there is a registry tweak to disable Windows Update in Home. You've been complaining, making the false assertion that you can't modify your Windows (don't know about you, but I and everybody else can) when the reality is that you just don't have a clue how to.

Several people have reported that the policies they've put into action have not stopped critical updates and by them, changes to their systems.

Disabling the Windows Update Service in Services isn't effective since build 1709 of Windows 10. However, the Group Policy for Windows Update works to stop Windows Update.

Microsoft has also randomized the sources it uses for updates and telemetry in order to mask its actions from consumers and make firewalling unpractical. They're committing a knowing crime in effect by creating techniques to bypass peoples attempts to stop them.

Wow. Did you just acknowledge and admit that Microsoft is acting illegally in obstructing people's rights to modify their Windows and not have their modifications undone by Microsoft? It seems that some small bit of reason has actually gotten through to you!

Now, some of Microsoft's practices in this regard have been raised by European privacy and data rights agencies. There are still numerous investigations into Microsoft's Windows 10 practices ongoing in EU countries.

By definition YOU are the defeatist by continuing to use and pay for Microsoft products even though Microsoft has stomped on your rights and used immoral business practices in order to gain an unhealthy grip on the market. You're a defeatist by submitting to their advertising and data collection as a 'price you have to pay' to use Windows. You are the pitiful one - in fact just the fact that you follow the masses and do what everyone else does is pitiful and weak. So please, spare me the lecture and look in the mirror.

By calling out Microsoft's criminal activities, educating people about their rights in regards to their owned software, and by encouraging people to disable Windows data-harvesting and to use editions of Windows that have easy options for less harvesting of their data I'm submitting to Microsoft's advertising and data collection? That is just yet another crazily ridiculous and nonsensical statement that you've issued in your pursuit of trying to mentally swindle people out of their software property and the rights that they have over their software property, such as Windows 10.

You lost this debate back on the 1st page of discussion. You've been repeating your earlier debunked false assertions and supplementing them with further new mental gymnastics since then in lieu of having anything of actual substance to say. If this is how you retreat, then I can only say 'it's about time'.

Having said all of that, I'm placing you to ignore from now on because I really do not need to spend my time arguing with people like you. You drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Oh by the way: The proof is in the pudding. Show me you can modify your windows, post a reverse engineered version (by you of course) of a windows operating system library/executable with it's source code. Any one of them, then you win the argument.

How would you see what I post if you place me on ignore? People are modifying Windows all over the place and for all types of purposes. Microsoft just purchased Github - but if people couldn't modify their Windows Microsoft would have sued Github instead. Microsoft could do that, though, because Windows is a product that is sold and owned by all the people that buy perpetual licenses for it. And the people who buy Windows possess the full property rights and decision-making authority over their non-reproduceable instance of Windows.

 

[Mazzspeed]

This discussion is ridiculous, you do not own the software, the software is licensed to you it is not sold to you. To quote the latest Windows EULA modified July 2017:

2. Installation and Use Rights.

a. License. The software is licensed, not sold. Under this agreement, we grant you the right to install and run one instance of the software on your device (the licensed device), for use by one person at a time, so long as you comply with all the terms of this agreement. Updating or upgrading from non-genuine software with software from Microsoft or authorized sources does not make your original version or the updated/upgraded version genuine, and in that situation, you do not have a license to use the software.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

That's it, there's no more to discuss. It's the same when you buy a DVD, you own the physical media the movie is on, you do not own the movie.

 

[Delicieuxz]

This discussion is ridiculous, you do not own the software, the software is licensed to you it is not sold to you. To quote the latest Windows EULA modified July 2017:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

That's it, there's no more to discuss. It's the same when you buy a DVD, you own the physical media the movie is on, you do not own the movie.

That has already been discussed, and multiple times. Both of these are true:

This software (Intellectual Property) is licensed, not sold
This software (license / instance) is sold, not licensed or leased

"Software" refers to multiple things, and you've attributed your claim that you don't own the software to the wrong meaning of "software".


To be clear: There is not a single country in the world that has ruled that people don't own the software they purchase. While at the same time, all of the European Union countries, the UK, and I believe Australia has ruled that people own the software they buy.

So, there is no basis for anyone to ever claim that people don't own their software, when the highest existing rulings across many countries say that people do. It is a denial of reality to argue that people don't own their software.


It's also already been clarified that EULA are not laws, and that corporations do not possess law-making powers. When they sell a software license / instance, they relinquish all their control and ownership over that instance of the software. And whoever buys that software becomes its sole owner.

EU Court: When You Buy Software You Own It
EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored
EU Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

You, or anyone claiming that a corporation said so and therefore that's what is, is like you claiming that because some random person on the internet claimed they're the king of the Pacific Ocean that that's it, the matter is settled, there's nothing else to consider. It's nonsensical, and it's debunked by actual laws and court rulings. And the corporations are not even claiming what you're suggesting they are - they're claiming that their software Intellectual property is licensed, just like your clothes' intellectual property is licensed, not sold. But the specific software instance, like the instances of your clothes, are sold, and whoever buys them exclusively owns them.

That's it, there's no more to discuss. When you buy software, a movie, or music, you own that software, that movie, or that music. You just don't own the Intellectual Property for that software, that movie, or that music.

 

[Delicieuxz]

I don't know what's difficult to understand about this. The very EULA clause you posted, Mazzspeed, confirms that Microsoft is saying exactly what I've said - that you own your software, just not the software Intellectual Property:

To quote the latest Windows EULA modified July 2017:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm

2. Installation and Use Rights.

a. License. The software is licensed, not sold. Under this agreement, we grant you the right to install and run one instance of the software on your device (the licensed device), for use by one person at a time, so long as you comply with all the terms of this agreement. Updating or upgrading from non-genuine software with software from Microsoft or authorized sources does not make your original version or the updated/upgraded version genuine, and in that situation, you do not have a license to use the software.

Notice the specific usage of "the software"? The instance is of "the software", and the instance is not "the software" itself that the EULA refers to, despite the instance itself also being software. The instance in Microsoft's phrasing is of the Windows I.P., and so therefore "the software" in Microsoft's phrasing is the Windows I.P.. And Microsoft's EULA states that the owner of the license has the right to one instance of "the software", which is the I.P..

Nowhere does the EULA claim that people don't own their instance of "the software". Instead, the EULA says that the purchaser of the license / instance has a right to that instance. And this is an EULA for a "perpetual license", which means that it never expires. The license represents an instance of Windows, which the purchaser holds BY RIGHT - as acknowledged in Microsoft's EULA.

In other words, the owner of a Windows license owns a non-exhaustible, non-reproduceable, all-encompassing instance of Windows.



And if Microsoft or any other individual, company, or corporation ever claimed that people don't own their non-reproduceable instance of the software they've purchased, the individual, company, or corporation claiming such would be wrong or a liar, and their claim would be false and invalid - because no individual, company, or corporation possess the power to claim that people don't own the software that they've purchased licenses for.



Everything is literally exactly as I've explained from the beginning:

This software (Intellectual Property) is licensed, not sold
This software (license / instance) is sold, not licensed or leased


You own your software, people. Congrats on reality being better than propaganda.

 

[Mazzspeed]

I don't know what's difficult to understand about this. The very EULA clause you posted, Mazzspeed, confirms that Microsoft is saying exactly what I've said - that you own your software, just not the software Intellectual Property:








Notice the specific usage of "the software"? The instance is of "the software", and the instance is not "the software" itself that the EULA refers to, despite the instance itself also being software. The instance in Microsoft's phrasing is of the Windows I.P., and so therefore "the software" in Microsoft's phrasing is the Windows I.P.. And Microsoft's EULA states that the owner of the license has the right to one instance of "the software", which is the I.P..

Nowhere does the EULA claim that people don't own their instance of "the software". Instead, the EULA says that the purchaser of the license / instance has a right to that instance. And this is an EULA for a "perpetual license", which means that it never expires. The license represents an instance of Windows, which the purchaser holds BY RIGHT - as acknowledged in Microsoft's EULA.

In other words, the owner of a Windows license owns a non-exhaustible, non-reproduceable, all-encompassing instance of Windows.



And if Microsoft or any other individual, company, or corporation ever claimed that people don't own their non-reproduceable instance of the software they've purchased, the individual, company, or corporation claiming such would be wrong or a liar, and their claim would be false and invalid - because no individual, company, or corporation possess the power to claim that people don't own the software that they've purchased licenses for.



Everything is literally exactly as I've explained from the beginning:

This software (Intellectual Property) is licensed, not sold
This software (license / instance) is sold, not licensed or leased


You own your software, people. Congrats on reality being better than propaganda.

You own a license to use the software, you do not own the software. The opening sentience: You own a license to use the software, the software is not sold says it all. You do not own Windows, Microsoft owns Windows. You do not own iOS, Apple owns iOS. You own a license to use the software.

 

[Delicieuxz]

You own a license to use the software, you do not own the software. The opening sentience: You own a license to use the software, the software is not sold says it all. You do not own Windows, Microsoft owns Windows. You do not own iOS, Apple owns iOS. You own a license to use the software.

I just explained this. Microsoft's phrasing uses "the software" to refer to the software IP, which the perpetual license grants a non-exhaustable right to an instance (a one-off copy) of. Microsoft's EULA usage of "the software" not does refer to the software instance of the software IP, and there is no example in all of Microsoft's Windows EULA that claims that people don't own their instance of the software IP that is represented by their license.

So, why are you being an Uncle Tom for corporations - corporations that in your examples are not even claiming what you have claimed? Which software IP do you own and have made an EULA for, that you are rattled by elucidation that you don't have any ownership or rights over the instances that software IP which you've sold to people? Would you care to share an EULA of yours here, so that it can be examined?

Regardless, you're flat-out wrong, Mazzspeed: There is no example in Microsoft's EULA that backs up what you're claiming to be true. And further, EULA's are not laws, and corporations do not possess the power to create laws. And the European Union's highest court has ruled that you, and everybody else, does own the software they purchase.

There's nothing left to argue. People own their software including Windows and iOS, as ruled by top courts. Case closed.

 

[Mazzspeed]

I just explained this. Microsoft's phrasing uses "the software" to refer to the software IP, which the perpetual license grants a non-exhaustable right to an instance of. Microsoft's EULA usage of "the software" not does refer to the software instance of the software IP, and there is no example in all of Microsoft's Windows EULA that claims that people don't own their instance of the software IP that is represented by their license.

So, why are you being an Uncle Tom for corporations - corporations that in your examples are not even claiming what you have claimed? Which software IP do you own and have made an EULA for, that you are rattled by elucidation that you don't have any ownership or rights over the instances that software IP which you've sold to people? Would you care to share an EULA of yours here, so that it can be examined?

Regardless, you're flat-out wrong, Mazzspeed: There is no example in Microsoft's EULA that backs up what you're claiming to be true. And further, EULA's are not laws, and corporations do not possess the power to create laws. And the European Union's highest court has ruled that you, and everybody else, does own the software they purchase.

There's nothing left to argue. People own their software including Windows and iOS, as ruled by top courts. Case closed.

Not interested in an ongoing argument. You're wrong, but if you want to believe you own that OS you purchased, go right ahead.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Not interested in an ongoing argument. You're wrong, but if you want to believe you own that OS you purchased, go right ahead.

All you're doing is going 'this is a format of a response resembling when somebody presents an argument with a point, or when they have already done so to substantiate what they've claimed', and then just posting that sentence format (along with the token 'I'm [pretending that I'm] humouring you' emoticon), devoid of the actual 'argument with a point' and 'substantiation' parts, in an attempt to fake an impression of having done those things.

But your tactic has mirrored B00nie's, in just re-insisting a false claim while presenting nothing that backs up that claim. In fact, every piece of information you and B00nie have posted has, upon examination, instead verified what I've said, with what I've said also being declared to be reality by the highest court ruling possible.

I hope that lots of people read through the entire discussion in this thread so that public awareness increases that everybody owns the software that they purchase, and so that purchasers / owners of software will be empowered by knowing that, and through realizing that corporations trying to discourage them from being aware of their rights as a control mechanism and as pretext to continuously psychologically etch away at the public's expectation of rights until the public's perception is dominated by the false propaganda that corporations and their Uncle Tom cohorts have been spreading.

 

[Frobozz]

All you're doing is going 'this is a format of a response resembling when somebody presents an argument with a point, or when they have already done so to substantiate what they've claimed', and then just posting that sentence format (along with the token 'I'm [pretending that I'm] humouring you' emoticon), devoid of the actual 'argument with a point' and 'substantiation' parts, in an attempt to fake an impression of having done those things.

But your tactic has mirrored B00nie's, in just re-insisting a false claim while presenting nothing that backs up that claim. In fact, every piece of information you and B00nie have posted has, upon examination, instead verified what I've said, with what I've said also being declared to be reality by the highest court ruling possible.

I hope that lots of people read through the entire discussion in this thread so that public awareness increases that everybody owns the software that they purchase, and so that purchasers / owners of software will be empowered by knowing that, and through realizing that corporations trying to discourage them from being aware of their rights as a control mechanism and as pretext to continuously psychologically etch away at the public's expectation of rights until the public's perception is dominated by the false propaganda that corporations and their Uncle Tom cohorts have been spreading.

I always thought that software was weird as how the concept of First Sale Doctrine doesn't seem to apply as cleanly as a physical object. If I buy a book, I can read the book, burn the book, modify the book, and sell the book. Everything is normal and accepted as things you can do with a book that you purchased. Turn it into software, if I buy a video game, it gets tied to an account a lot of times and is not able to be resold. Same happens with Windows. I think there may be flavors you can transfer from machine to machine, but it's largely understood that you can not transfer ownership of what you purchased to someone with the same ease or legality as you would a book or a lamp. Ex. If I buy a computer with an OEM install of Windows, I don't believe I can wipe it from that machine and then sell you the OEM key and media for $5 for your use without violating the terms of the license.

 

[heatlesssun]

Ex. If I buy a computer with an OEM install of Windows, I don't believe I can wipe it from that machine and then sell you the OEM key and media for $5 for your use without violating the terms of the license.

In the US you can't resell Windows OEM licenses, the law varies by country.

 

[odoe]

Sorry this went on so long. This discussion belongs in GenMay or submit it for the news section.