No, I don't think it won't hold up in court because it's not a "piece of paper". Case law in the United States already has shown numerous times that EULA's do not hold up in court. Maybe you should start doing some research instead of posting your opinion.
Here's key sentences from Microsoft Services Agreement from top to bottom These terms (“Terms”) cover the use of those Microsoft’s consumer products, websites, and services listed here (the “Services”). Many of these products previously had separate terms that were called different names, such as “Xbox Live Terms of Use” or “Skype Terms of Use,” and these Terms replace those separate terms. You accept these Terms by creating a Microsoft account or Skype account, through your use of the Services, or by continuing to use the Services after being notified of a change to these Terms. - 'here' in bold refer to Covered Services at the bottom - bold sentence is how you accept it 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. - this part still part of 'These terms (“Terms”) cover the use of those Microsoft’s consumer products, websites, and services listed here' above Covered Services The following products, apps and services are covered by the Microsoft Services Agreement, but may not be available in your market. Account.microsoft.com Advertising.microsoft.com ... - you'll find this 'Covered Services' part on the bottom in related to 'Services' mention before.
I still have no idea what you're talking about Here's an example... ProCD v. Zeidenberg The license was ruled enforceable because it was necessary for the customer to assent to the terms of the agreement by clicking on an "I Agree" button in order to install the software If the EULA shown before you install the software it's legally binding and will hold at the court. If you buy a software and you don't agree with the EULA you can return it (within a limited time frame) and you should get a refund.
gtfo ... is that the best argument you can come up with If someone like me from MS who are you with are you with apple or google At least point to one of my posts and tell me how or what's wrong with it
sigh this is why I've stopped posting in the Win 10 forum area. Delete every post in this thread except the OP.
I just love watching people trying to defend BS when the cost of the BS is their own privacy. Little innocent link, don't click it.
That case is a terrible example as to the erroneous point you're trying to prove. First of all, the Wikipedia article doesn't specify who the plaintiffs or defendants are. I'm assuming Zeidenberg is the defendant. There's a reason why universities don't allow Wikipedia as reference sources when doing papers. He took a non-commercial version of their software (when they had a commercial version available), and posted the contents of what was on the CD on his website. That's along the same lines as selling ISO files of Windows 10 on your personal website. The point is, and anyone around here who knows a thing or two about United States case law knows this, is that EULA's are more times than not enforceable in court. If EULA's were enforceable, then MDL would disappear along with a lot of people potentially getting sued. People on here are reverse engineering parts of Windows and disseminating information and software to make this process happen. It seems that you think an EULA is some kind of black or white "law" that's written in stone, and courts are always going to side with it. Many times an EULA clashes with case law and state laws. Windows 7's EULA states that it's against the license to reverse engineer any part of it and disseminate information on how to do that. However, it's legal in the United States to reverse engineer things. Now, can we please get back to the conversation about privacy, not EULA's?
@eko_p: We are -NOT- concerned about the MS EULA. The EULA is a binding contract between the user and creator of intellectual property designed to protect the rights of the creator of the aforementioned intellectual property. The problem is, the MS Privacy Agreement, which is tacked onto the MS EULA as a rider, is effectively creating law without legislation. The fact that you are -NOT- arguing this point shows Me and others here that you do not understand the original post, or the reason for it. Before you start quoting case law in this thread. I suggest that You take a moment and read the posts. Try to understand what you are arguing about before attempting to defend one side or the other.
Oh? If you notice there is mention of MS account and when you login with that your files on your computer are under that. See? The vaguesness of the terms is something unbelievable. Even if you log in with local account the snooping functionality is present even if not used right now. It does not take much from MS to change that statement when they wish and most people will not react in any way. But yeah, we have different views on what can happen and what the legal system can do about it if suing is something to put your faith on.
I've read your post in page one and I understand that this thread have specific purpose of discussing Privacy and the Microsoft Privacy agreement. I started mentioning Microsoft Services Agreement because someone mention MSA section 7b which actually tied to MSA and definitely can't be use to legalized scan your computer HDD or to search and disable pirated software. EULA in this case Microsoft Privacy Statement and Microsoft Services Agreement are binding for all party involved ... it also confine MS from what they can and can't do (like they can't collect personal data other than what they've mentioned in Personal Data We Collect in MPA). The EULA itself is not law but you can use law to enforce that EULA ... the EULA alone won't protect you but the law is. You're free not to trust MS and I'm not here to change your mind but if you believe that your privacy right has been violated or MS doing beyond what they said they do why not use the law to protect you ... call your lawyer and fight for your own freedom. I see R29k above also posted another nice reading material about EULA About why MDL still exist is not because EULA isn't enforceable in court ... it's because for copyrighted material the authorities didn't have the right of initiative like investigating murder for example. The copyright owner have to make a report or claim first. In case of MDL facing law suit as long as there's no copyright violation on it server you always can make a free speech argument. I detect MDL server are from Germany. If you want an example there's d-addicts forum which hosted also in Germany that runs for years until they received copyright claim and forced to remove their torrent section because they host the torrent file on their server. Oh about using MS acc for windows login you can relax because MS didn't include windows in MSA Covered Services. All this you can read it for yourself in Microsoft Privacy Statement and Microsoft Services Agreement.
@eko_p: I think you should stop and read your original post -CAREFULLY-. You make mention of the MS Service Agreement, and the fact that "Somebody else brought it up", when in fact, You brought it up in post #464. Okay...you missed some "homework", so to speak. You neglected to look at the post that I made where I referenced the EFFs' findings with regard to making law without legislation. I don't know what country You come from, but Here in the USA, we frown on that. And legal advocates are constantly fighting against use of legislative powers by corporations. You also mentioned your own hypothesis as to why MDL still exists, and the "right of initiative". Companies like Microsoft can go to legal organizations whose sole purpose is to issue DMCA takedown orders on their behalf. They can cause the closing of Websites and initiate lawsuits without affording the defendant(s) the right to "due process". Oh...some more "Homework" for you. Look at the Magna Carta, and how it defines "due process". There's a big difference between Civil law and Criminal law. In the USA, the "Miranda" law enforces your right not to testify against yourself, as well as your right to legal council. In criminal law, You have that right; Civil law affords no right to legal council. Take a moment and think about the ramifications of the last statement that I made. If a person or entity makes an accusation in Criminal court, the burden of responsibility is on the judicial system to prove guilt. "Innocent until proven guilty". In matters of Civil litigation, the amount of financial resources that the plaintiff (and the defendant) possess determines the level of protection that they can have with respect to civil law. Now, before we start splitting hairs, let me qualify my statements with a hypothetical example. John Doe uses His own intellectual property (an image or an MP3) on a web site. The image looks or sounds similar to a piece of copyrighted work that Bill Smith has created. Bill Smith decides that the two works are the same, or close enough to allow him to sue John Doe. Now, John Doe is not a wealthy Man. He doesn't have a legal fund behind Him, nor does He have civil council. Bill Smith does have a legal fund behind Him, and possibly a team of lawyers who will represent his interests in civil court, simply because He has the money to pay their legal fees. Who do you suppose has a better chance of winning that court battle? My initial response would be "The person who could afford the better legal council" A Good lawyer will provide "Expert Testimony", some of which is quite expensive. Everything from Doctors to Forensic Accountants are available to offer their views on a particular subject (For a fee, of course) If John Doe can't afford these fees, He can't afford the critical piece of evidence that will allow Him to establish His innocence. He may have to take a loan against His house, or take operating monies from His business to pay legal council to protect Himself. In the case of a small business, the damage can mean the demise of the aforementioned business. "Guilty until proven Innocent". Now. Let's get back to Microsoft. A -HUGE- and very wealthy corporation whose legal department can tie a person up in civil court and exhaust the financial resources of their adversaries. To Me, that's an unfair advantage. But, it's an advantage the money offers. Microsoft and companies like them can use the courts to prohibit an entity from realizing profits while this litigation goes on. Basically, they can bleed an entity dry and put them out of business before they can prove that they are innocent. If the other entity can prove a wrongful lawsuit, they can sue the adversary for damages. But, by that time, they may not be able to afford to sue, or their business model may have been compromised in such a way as to make civil litigation pointless. Getting back to the Privacy agreement, Microsoft is notifying the end user that they may collect personal information and give or sell it to third-party Microsoft affiliates. It has been demonstrated that Microsoft will use their technology to monitor your children, even though You specifically told them not to. (i.e. Turning on monitoring after an update) And by accepting the EULA (a legal document designed to protect their intellectual property) You are forced to accept this Privacy Agreement. My personal opinion is that Microsoft and their services should be avoided at all costs. As should Google and any other corporate entity who chooses to use intrusive means to either undermine or violate your privacy. In summation (I always wanted to say that. ) I'm -NOT- a lawyer, nor am I a law student. I am not schooled in such areas. But I can read, and I have a fair level of comprehension. Others have provided information, some of which I have provided links to, for the sake of completeness. I am not responsible for the validity of their works. They have credentials that are public knowledge, and you can check them if You like. :MJ
LOL.... “If you’re catching flak, you’re probably over the target" So many trolls, and so little time...
Guys just for your info: This is a thread about Microsoft and Privacy Please discus your personal issues in appropriate threads where there are so many on MDL, Thanks