Charlie Tame wrote:
> caver1 wrote:
>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>> The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
>>>> DiBoy' wrote:
>>>>> caver1 wrote:
>>>>>> quiettechblue@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> John John audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca posted to
>>>>>>> microsoft.public.windows.vista.general:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The contract would still be invalid regardless of what exceptions
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> written in it, it would be an illegal contract. Try assisted
>>>>>>>> suicide and see how many fancy agreements and lawyers got around
>>>>>>>> that one. Plain and simply the law states that you cannot write up
>>>>>>>> contracts that violate applicable laws, if it were otherwise there
>>>>>>>> would in fact be no law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob I wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless of course there is an exception to the "loan sharking" law
>>>>>>>>> that says if you have the document notarized then it is ok to
>>>>>>>>> charge rates above 60%. Carefully read the exemptions, as it isn't
>>>>>>>>> black and white, and the "illegal" part isn't necessarily there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John John wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the EULA legalities. But...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone
>>>>>>>>>> sign an
>>>>>>>>>> agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim
>>>>>>>>>> indemnity. For example, charging interest rates above a
>>>>>>>>>> certain amount is
>>>>>>>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>>>> (loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are
>>>>>>>>>> illegal. If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that
>>>>>>>>>> you will charge me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan
>>>>>>>>>> agreement
>>>>>>>>>> and accept your terms, you are still guilty of loansharking
>>>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>>>> I were to take you
>>>>>>>>>> to court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your
>>>>>>>>>> contract you would still lose because the contract violates the
>>>>>>>>>> law, it is an illegal contract.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you
>>>>>>>>>>> have already agreed to and been notified even though
>>>>>>>>>>> notification
>>>>>>>>>>> may not have been what customers want.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you have really avoided the some of the lessons of "The Wild
>>>>>>> West" (sm). Where there is not or cannot be reliable enforcement
>>>>>>> there is no law, regardless of what is passed my legislatures,
>>>>>>> regulators, etc. WTF do you think all the DRM bruhaha is all
>>>>>>> about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like a quote out of the MS EULA that states that MS will
>>>>>> update their software without the users consent.
>>>>>> caver1
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi caver1
>>>>>
>>>>> http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> In the Vista Ultimate license (at the above link) on page 3 under
>>>>> 'Internet Based Services', it essentially reads that these services
>>>>> (including windows update feature) will connect to MS or service
>>>>> provider computer(s) over the internet and in some cases it will
>>>>> not give the user an individual notice when it connects. *YOU MAY
>>>>> SWITCH OFF THESE FEATURES OR NOT USE THEM*
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally would like to know why the heck MS is updating files
>>>>> on a machine without notice if AU is turned off and WU or MU is not
>>>>> used on that same machine? i.e. why are they still doing it if
>>>>> those 'features' are turned off or not being used? It's like they
>>>>> are violating their own license agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>> More info on stealth updates:
>>>>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/wu.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's my point. Why is MS trying to mislead?
>>>> Either I have to let MS do what they want or I can turn the
>>>> automatic updates off.
>>>> Add this to MS wanting to move to a subscription license and the
>>>> patent that they now have that will let them shut your machine down
>>>> if you do not agree to new rules that they wrote, and it doesn't
>>>> sound good for the consumer.
>>>> Yes I agreed to their EULA when I loaded the product but if I don't
>>>> like the new EULA I should be able to continue using the original
>>>> but not update.
>>>> I should have a choice as to what highway my car is using.
>>>> caver1
>>>
>>>
>>> Well potentially what this is saying is that although you bought a
>>> Ford Focus, Ford reserve the right to come round to your house,
>>> modify the car as they please, have you agree to any supplementary
>>> conditions they care to include with these modifications or else they
>>> will cripple the car so you can't use it at all.
>>>
>>> This is not only stopping you from using the modifications, but also
>>> stopping you from using the original Focus that you bought.
>>>
>>> Now you can argue all you like that you don't "Buy" an OS outright,
>>> but it still amounts to denying you the "Use" for which you have
>>> paid, and may also incur substantial costs (For which of course
>>> responsibility is already denied).
>>>
>>> Even if, as part of your choices when accepting the original
>>> agreement, you take steps to avoid the modifications by clearly
>>> placing a sign on the car "No modifications, thank you" Ford assume
>>> the right to make those modifications anyway, limit your use of the
>>> vehicle in unspecified ways as they see fit at any time they wish and
>>> potentially prosecute you for failing to comply with the terms.
>>>
>>> Some lawyer somewhere needs his ass kicked, this is no more than a
>>> frivolous challenge to common sense is order to establish that
>>> Corporations can do what they like with what or whom they wish
>>> without fear or responsibility.
>>>
>>> Those here who argue for this kind of stupidity are welcome to do so,
>>> it won't be my systems that unexpectedly shut down at some
>>> unpredictable future date, nor will I have to even concern myself
>>> with that possibility 
It may however open up a whole new market
>>> for engineers with experience in other systems
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That is why I never agree with people who use the argument that MS
>> owns the software so they can do anything they want. That is absurd.
>> The Gov't owns the rights to make laws, ergo they can do anything they
>> want.
>> caver1
>
>
> Well, the situation is worsened by instances such as IE7 and the media
> player.
>
> In the case of IE7 they made it so difficult to avoid that most people
> would likely get sick of it and install anyway. That might not be so bad
> except then there's a whole new EULA, but it doesn't just cover IE7, it
> applies itself to whatever else is already there AND adds new stuff - so
> the pressure brought to bear on the customer to install IE7 is also
> pressure to accept something they have not originally agreed to in
> realtion wo something they have already paid for. The penalty for non
> compliance, incessant nagging and attempted install through the
> "Critical Update" channel.
I have managed to avoid IE7 on all XP machines I support so far.
(This is because I got burned once by the WGAN updates through the
browser and have always kept a very close eye on updates ever since.)
When I was checking out vista on my machine, I ignored IE7 and used
Firefox exclusively. That was one of the things that bothered me about
Vista though was the incessant nagging from the security center, start
up programs that were hindered, Defender, UAC, etc.
>
> WMP likewise, although that has seemed more optional. Each "Upgrade" has
> changed the UI enough to be confusing though and this distracts the
> user's attention from the increasingly reduced functionality and the
> increased bloat that is obviously more engineered to communicating with
> MS and other "Vendors" including attempts to assess what you actually
> have on your system. 30 years ago we were criticizing the KGB for trying
> to do the same kinds of thing.
>
I found that my 2.x version of winamp works great on Vista though when I
was testing it. I still have Vista loaded on a partition of my machine,
but it has been months since I booted into it.
These all sound like typical MS tactics.
--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett
