Windows 10 isn't going to search & destroy all your pirated games

[sirhobbes3]

Only reason I still use Windows is for games. I' thinking about building a machine strictly for doing older games (maybe put XP on it and leave it off the internet) and then building a new machine for Linux and just clean up my W7 machine so i can play these new games where emulation through Wine doesn't work or I don't want to go to the hassle of setting up a VM just to find it doesn't work well. Honestly phone wise, Apple is actually looking kind of decent right now and if i ever buy a game console it'll be the new Nintendo console or a PS4. I think MS is screwing itself over with this "Windows as a service idea"

[azrael-]

What I'd like to know is where the author of this article gets the confidence and certainty that what he writes is how it actually is.

As with many (most?) issues concerning Windows 10 we actually do not know where we stand, because Microsoft doesn't come out and takes a firm stance one way or the other. All we have are a bunch of vague statements that can be interpreted differently, depending on how you look at it. And I'm pretty certain that is by choice...

[scaryjim]

What I'd like to know is where the author of this article gets the confidence and certainty that what he writes is how it actually is.

Probably by following the same logical deducations I did in the thread you started about this here: http://forums.hexus.net/windows/3428...agreement.html

The MSA very specifically, explicitly and bindingly limits it's own scope to the use of the listed services. I wouldn't disagree that MS have been vague about a number of things with Windows 10, but the MSA is not one of them. Its scope is very clear, and it doesn't allow MS to poke about through your Windows install disabling things on a whim.

[azrael-]

Probably by following the same logical deducations I did in the thread you started about this here: http://forums.hexus.net/windows/3428...agreement.html

The MSA very specifically, explicitly and bindingly limits it's own scope to the use of the listed services. I wouldn't disagree that MS have been vague about a number of things with Windows 10, but the MSA is not one of them. Its scope is very clear, and it doesn't allow MS to poke about through your Windows install disabling things on a whim.

I did indeed start said thread, and I yet remain unconvinced that all is copacetic.

[Saracen]

Probably by following the same logical deducations I did in the thread you started about this here: http://forums.hexus.net/windows/3428...agreement.html

The MSA very specifically, explicitly and bindingly limits it's own scope to the use of the listed services. I wouldn't disagree that MS have been vague about a number of things with Windows 10, but the MSA is not one of them. Its scope is very clear, and it doesn't allow MS to poke about through your Windows install disabling things on a whim.

Thing is, I disagree about how clear it is.

MS have promoted the fact that it's "simplified", and rewritten to be "easy to read", as it's written in "everyday" language, not stilted, awkward legalese.

Trouble is, that legalese was stilted and awkward precisely because it was designed to be, as far as possible, unambiguous. The reason is that the final arbiter of what any legal agreement means is going to be a court, and ambiguity introduces uncertainty as to how it will be interpreted by the court, as to what is meant by what it says.

Even inserting, or changing position of, as little as a single comma, can change the meaning of a sentence. Using "everyday" language introduces very substantial ambiguity.

It is perfectly possible to write a sentence is such a way that if you read it expecting to find one meaning, it can be argued to mean that. But someone else can read it expecting it to mean something completely different, and argue that it did. Partly, it's down to expectations, but partly it's down to inexact usage or understanding of words.

Little Girl : Mummy, can you read me a story?

Mummy : Yes, dear.

<Mum continues to watch TV>
<Little girl, getting noticeably worked up>

Little Girl : Mummy, my story ????

Mummy : Oh, you meant "Will I read to you? Sorry, not now. I'm busy.

<Little Girl stomps off wondering what just happened>

[Lenny_Nero]

I dont think the pirated games are the biggest deal, a while back I was fixing a friends 'box when I started getting cpu's pegged and things popping up all over the place foretelling of doom because of malware and unsigned stuff, I was running windows update which then does the MTR.exe (IIRC) win scanner while I was working at another screen.

But the files it was calling out were signed windows stuff.

So what happens when there is (and there will be) a 'false positive' on someone's downloaded digital licences/whatever and shift-deletes them.

Now I know everybody has good quality 3x3 backups ..dont we *cough-BS-cough* all so it will not prove a real problem.

But just think

[scaryjim]

Thing is, I disagree about how clear it is. ...

I have no disagreement with the crux of your argument - legal language is absolutely intended to be unambiguous, and trying to make the language more readable always risks introducing ambiguity.

On the other hand, I'd question whether there is any ambiguity in the following sentence:

"These terms (“Terms”) cover the use of those Microsoft’s consumer products, websites, and services listed here (the “Services”)."

which limits the scope of the MSA.

Of course, I don't think it's beyond Microsoft to try to wrangle this into doing anything they think they can get away with. I'm just arguing that this one clause in the MSA doesn't in and of itself give MS carte blanche to do whatever they want to a Windows 10 PC, because it explicitly limits its scope to the use of a list of services. If MS want to pull anything using this clause in the MSA, they're going to have be very sure that a court will agree that the action they take is relevant to the use of the listed services. Otherwise they're placing them selves on some very, very thin ice...

[Saracen]

I have no disagreement with the crux of your argument - legal language is absolutely intended to be unambiguous, and trying to make the language more readable always risks introducing ambiguity.

On the other hand, I'd question whether there is any ambiguity in the following sentence:

"These terms (“Terms”) cover the use of those Microsoft’s consumer products, websites, and services listed here (the “Services”)."

which limits the scope of the MSA.

Of course, I don't think it's beyond Microsoft to try to wrangle this into doing anything they think they can get away with. I'm just arguing that this one clause in the MSA doesn't in and of itself give MS carte blanche to do whatever they want to a Windows 10 PC, because it explicitly limits its scope to the use of a list of services. If MS want to pull anything using this clause in the MSA, they're going to have be very sure that a court will agree that the action they take is relevant to the use of the listed services. Otherwise they're placing them selves on some very, very thin ice...

That sentence is not the whole of the agreement, though.

Just looking at s7,

7. Updates to the Services or Software, and Changes to These Terms

a. We may change these Terms at any time, and we’ll tell you when we do. Using the Services after the changes become effective means you agree to the new terms. If you don’t agree to the new terms, you must stop using the Services, close your Microsoft account and/or Skype account and, if you are a parent or guardian, help your minor child close his or her Microsoft account or Skype account.
b. Sometimes you’ll need software updates to keep using the Services. We may automatically check your version of the software and download software updates or configuration changes, including those that prevent you from accessing the Services, playing counterfeit games, or using unauthorized hardware peripheral devices. You may also be required to update the software to continue using the Services. Such updates are subject to these Terms unless other terms accompany the updates, in which case, those other terms apply. Microsoft isn’t obligated to make any updates available and we don’t guarantee that we will support the version of the system for which you licensed the software.
c. Additionally, there may be times when we need to remove or change features or functionality of the Service or stop providing a Service or access to Third-Party Apps and Services altogether. Except to the extent required by applicable law, we have no obligation to provide a re-download or replacement of any material, Digital Goods (defined in section 14(b)(v)), or applications previously purchased. We may release the Services or their features in a beta version, which may not work correctly or in the same way the final version may work.
d. So that you can use material protected with digital rights management (DRM), like some music, games, movies and more, DRM software may automatically contact an online rights server and download and install DRM updates.

The very first bit,

a. We may change these Terms at any time, and we’ll tell you when we do. Using the Services after the changes become effective means you agree to the new terms.

opens a door wide enough anyone could steer an aircraft-carrier through it.

On the surface, it's a boilerplate provision. But it also authorises ANY changes, any at all, that MS choose to make, and your options are comply, or stop using any MS services. So if they require you to access their services, while singing a Bay City Rollers hit, on videocam, dressed in a pink tutu, they can.

/Shudder, by the way.

But also, the controversial bit ....

We may automatically check your version of the software and download software updates or configuration changes, including those that prevent you from accessing the Services, playing counterfeit games, or using unauthorized hardware peripheral devices.

Note that that doesn't say "playing counterfeit Microsoft games".

It, and the rest of that section, authorises "software updates" that prevent "playing counterfeit games", and that is unqualified. Your option, to avoid the MSA doing whatever MS interpret "counterfeit games" to be, or whatever they change the terms to mean, is ONLY to stop using MS services.

One possible future change could (and I'm saying could, not would) be that ALL installed software is acquired via MS store. Your option then is comply, or stop using MS services.

What does seem absolutely unambiguous to me is that that agreement locks users into a binary choice - accept WHATEVER terms, or changes to terms, MS come up with, now and in perpetuity, or stop MS services. They may (or may not) MEAN, currently, only counterfeit MS games, but that's not what it says, and nor do they limit or define the mechanisms by which they determine what is counterfeit.

This is where trust comes in. How benign do we trust MS to be, in future? Personally, I don't trust them at all.

[stephen0205]

meh all my games are legal if it did check anyways

[KillerCoati]

Tbh, doubt very much this'll happen to anything other than their own software in worst case scenario. I can't see them putting their resources to benefit companies other than themselves, especially something that will cause them to possibly loose money by causing controversy such as this and putting people off purchasing windows 10 over alternatives.