Microsoft Stops XP SP2 Distribution via P2P

[Xesdeeni]

As if we needed it, Microsoft has just provided another example why we're better off without a DMCA. Using the DMCA, they've forced a P2P site to take down the full service pack 2 (http://www.sp2torrent.com/) (if you're wondering how this is possible in a P2P environment, BitTorrent needs small torrent files that serve as a starting point for a download, if you can't get that file, you can't download anything - and those files are usually found on websites, so if you remove them, there's no sharing anymore). How distributing a piece of free piece of software can infringe copyright or circumvent copy protection mechanism is beyond me though.Normally I'm on board with Doom9 (and daring to not be may enadanger my account :rolleyes: ). But I think there are two parts to this, and while I agree with one, I disagree with the other:

1. I agree that the DMCA is completely inappropriate for enforcing protection of XP SP2 on P2P. What's encrypted about it? When sharing this file, what actions were taken to "...circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work...?"

2. I disagree that Microsoft shouldn't stop P2P distribution of XP SP2. Microsoft not only can, but they should enforce downloading it from their own site. It's just too easy to distribute a trojan-laden version to the masses. I'm sure I could find a Windows occurrence, but just last week there was a Symbian (smart phone O/S) virus spread by a modified legitimate game (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3554514.stm). It just makes good business sense for Microsoft (or any company) to use their copyright rights to avoid this type of situation and the accompanying publicity. [Of course, normal Copyright law already covers this (but then it covers all the other stuff redundantly attacked by the DMCA, too...in addition to stuff that should be left legal).]

Xesdeeni

[Sirber]

When will the SP2 will be out for french? Already out for english, german and korean :devil:

[Doom9]

if you get your software from dubious sources, no matter if it's free software or commercial one, you'll always take a risk of getting a poisoned copy. If you don't download from a reliable place or don't bother to check if you got a valid copy, that's your problem, not the software makers.
Considering that Windowsupdate has a tendency to be dead slow when important patches come out, there's a valid need for alternative means to get patches as fast as possible. Imagine all the 100-200mb game demos only being available from one site.. or for that matter lightning_uk hosting DVD Decrypter on his DSL line.. it's simply unthinkable.

And think to how many sites you'd have to go if I didn't have a 130MB software archive ;)

Frankly, I think if somebody downloads SP2 from edonkey/kazaa and catches a virus or troian, he/she probably deserves it :devil: Some people will only learn when it hurts.

[Xesdeeni]

if you get your software from dubious sources, no matter if it's free software or commercial one, you'll always take a risk of getting a poisoned copyAre you arguing that XP SP2 should or should not be available on P2P!?

That's precisely the reason it should NOT be. No matter what, Microsoft will take the hit. If you've been involved in the M$-based industry as long as I have, you will realize they (and many other companies I don't hold nearly as much ill will against) deal with garbage they didn't generate every single day...and it costs them big $$$. WHQL was put into place specifically because M$ got all the support calls when crappy drivers were installed. Pre-installs are dictated by M$ for the same reason. They get the flack, and the support calls. (note that both of these examples have been used for more than they were originally intended, giving them the same situation as unions: good to begin with...perverted into evil).

I saw a stat once that said if 1 in 100 customers actually called tech support, the company (any s/w company) actually lost their profit for that 100 people.

While I hate M$ more than almost anyone, I try to be even-handed about it. And they are making the only sensible move they could make...and a perfectly legal one, even before the DMCA.

Xesdeeni

[int 21h]

Use the MD5, thats what it is there for.

[Xesdeeni]

I'm sure all P2P users know what MD5 is and use it religiously....

Xesdeeni

[Sirber]

@Xesdeeni

I don't get your point. Are you for M$, against M$, for P2P, against P2P? :confused:

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Are you arguing that XP SP2 should or should not be available on P2P!?

No. What he is saying is that all P2P is not created equal. On some networks you really need to ask yourself what the real source of a file is. Bittorrent is completely different. Generally you know exactly where something is coming from or can track it down easy.

What he is saying is that if the site was not masquarading as an MS official site. And did not imply responsibility on MS's part for any problems therin. Exactly what say should MS have on something they themselves give away free without restriction? The answer is they have no say. Or should have none. The fact that it occured exposes the farse for what it is. The only thing Microsoft should have the right to do is refuse to support those with problems who did not get the patch from Microsft themselves.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
That's precisely the reason it should NOT be. No matter what, Microsoft will take the hit. If you've been involved in the M$-based industry as long as I have, you will realize they (and many other companies I don't hold nearly as much ill will against) deal with garbage they didn't generate every single day...and it costs them big $$$.

Distributing the service pack over a single P2P site from a known location that can be verrified good or bad rather easily in no risk to Microsoft whatsoever. In fact if you bother to think about it. It was a huge asset more than any risk posed. Lets look at what Microsoft has actually done. Have they removed all coppies of SP2 from 3rd party sites and P2P networks? Not even close. And guess what they never will. So what did they do. They shut down an honest site with a clean and propper copy of the official service pack that was assisting Microsoft in getting it out to the end users faster so that they may secure their systems faster. So now either an end user must sit and wait for slow downloads from Microsoft's own site leaving their systems unsecured for much longer in the process. Or venture out onto one of the seeder less trustworthy networks to procure a copy thats virtue may be questionable. The result? Microsoft actually hurt all of their customers, gave themselves more bad press, and are making more work forthemselves than they would have had if they had just left well enough alone or even had gone as far as to verify and endorese the site. In short it does not matter how you look at it. As long as you look at it logically and rationally it is clear that Micrsoft shot themselves in the foot once again. It is enough to make one wonder that Microsoft has a foot left to stand on at all at this point.


Originally posted by Xesdeeni
WHQL was put into place specifically because M$ got all the support calls when crappy drivers were installed.

That's apples to oranges. We are not talking about some flaky 3rd party driver. We are talking about Microsft's own service pack. Identical to the one they give away free. Avalible from a better system to everyone faster. If this were some dubious repackaged SP2 then by all means MS should stop it. But it wasn't. It was bit identical to their own offerings.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Pre-installs are dictated by M$ for the same reason. They get the flack, and the support calls. (note that both of these examples have been used for more than they were originally intended, giving them the same situation as unions: good to begin with...perverted into evil).

That is nothing special. Microsoft perverts almost anything they touch. And most people at this point are incapable of getting SP2 pre-installed as it were. So that is basically a red herring. They must download it and apply it themselves! So what's the difference if they get the file from Microsoft or a verrifiably bit identical file from someone else?

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
I saw a stat once that said if 1 in 100 customers actually called tech support, the company (any s/w company) actually lost their profit for that 100 people.

That's just bad business. If it is going to happen and you know it you need to do one of two things. Either perform thurrough testing of all your products to ensure that such risks are reduced to a minimal level, or simply work in allowances into your pricing and budget for such. Microsoft has more than taken the latter. Not only have they made allowances for such things. They are at least borderline price gouging. Am I supposed to feel sorry for a company like Microsoft having to support their own customers on their poorly tested products when they have $65,000,000,000.00 "in the bank"?! We are not talking land or equipment asset. We are talking straight and pure liquid assets. They have so much cash they don't know what to do and are just giving it away? Microsoft owes everyone alot of free tech support.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
While I hate M$ more than almost anyone, I try to be even-handed about it. And they are making the only sensible move they could make...and a perfectly legal one, even before the DMCA.

You try to be even handed about it but you ignore important issues and facts here. 1. Microsoft would hardly have suffered from the sites continuation. 2. Microsoft will actually suffer from the sites caesed opperations in many different ways. From simple bad press, to customer frustration and dissatisfaction. It has to do with popular misconceptions of P2P perpetuated by dinasaur companies and monopolies. All Microsoft has done is remove a highly visible and very valid source for downloads forcing many users to risk downloading from less trustworthy locations rather than wait on Microsoft to get their act together. Stupid Microsoft. Stupid. If anything Microsoft should be providing their own bittorrent tracker. Yet another case of their not invented here syndrome. Someday they will innovate/copy a workalike and be hailed as a paragon of industry. While anyone else who is not them and performs real innovation today is labled as some hoodlum or naredowell. If Microsoft deserves complements give it to them. In the mean time don't feel guilty about heaping coals on them because of all you and others have heaped on them in the past. If they deserve the criticism give it to them.

[Xesdeeni]

I have no love lost for Microsoft. They are bullies. They steal. They blackmail. But I try to be as fair and consistent when judging them as any other company. Otherwise it's just vindictive. But, they just make it so easy to hate them.

P2P is just a tool. But I don't like the characterization of P2P as only useful for illicit file sharing. Plenty of other tools can be and are used mostly for illegal means, and their makers are not the target of so many people.

Oh, and copyright was just right before the DMCA. It gave balanced rights to the copyright holder and to the public.

So...

1. the DMCA doesn't apply to something that isn't protected in any way.

2. Microsoft is trying to defend their reputation and protect their bottom line by exercising a reasonable limit on the distribution of their copyrighted work. (And the comparison to game demos is superfluous...their goal is exposure to bring in new customers, M$'s is security for existing customers.) Just getting the phone calls costs them, even if the answer is "sorry sir, you didn't download the patch from Microsoft, so we can't support you."

Heck, I can imagine someone who downloads a trojan-infected XP SP2 update suing Microsoft because they didn't try to stop the P2P distribution, and some slick lawyer arguing that was "implied consent." It doesn't much matter whether they win, it costs M$ and their stockholders (no, not me).

And what clueless individual would sue M$ for a trojan in a version of XP SP2 they downloaded from a P2P network? Wait...that's a self-answering question. But we have plenty of clueless people in the world.Exactly what say should MS have on something they themselves give away free without restriction? The answer is they have no say. Or should have none.Wow. So if you give it away, you lose the rights? That pretty much destroys open source, doesn't it?

Whether the product is being given away or sold, the creator's right is no different. They do have a right to determine how it is distributed. Remember they have to deal with the consequences.Distributing the service pack over a single P2P site from a known location that can be verrified good or bad rather easily in no risk to Microsoft whatsoever.... It was a huge asset more than any risk posed.You try to be even handed about it but you ignore important issues and facts here. 1. Microsoft would hardly have suffered from the sites continuation. 2. Microsoft will actually suffer from the sites caesed opperations in many different ways. From simple bad press, to customer frustration and dissatisfaction.How can you be the judge of that? Perhaps Microsoft has evaluated the situation and judged that they can only support the number of people who can actually download directly from their site. Perhaps an alternate distribution point overloads their support network. Perhaps they just wanted it that way. But that's why it's called a copyRIGHT. It's their RIGHT to determine this...not mine or yours.Have they removed all coppies of SP2 from 3rd party sites and P2P networks? Not even close. And guess what they never will. So what did they do.And perhaps in this highly litigious society, they eliminated a lawsuit or two. Who knows.Am I supposed to feel sorry for a company like Microsoft...No one asked you to feel sorry for anyone. The discussion started with a discussion that questioned their attempt to remove the binaries. It looks like you think M$ is a special case, and because of all the other evil things they have done, they don't deserve their own copyrights. While I think they should be penalized a lot more than the pat on the hand they've gotten, I don't want my hatred for them to cloud my judgement of what should be fair.

Any argument loses credibility when it's applied differently to different people. So you would need to believe that every single company or even every single person, should lose the right to determine the distribution of their own content. But while I believe the concept of Fair Use is being trampled out of existence, I don't want the entire concept of copyright removed entirely.

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would.

Xesdeeni

[jernst]

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
I'm sure all P2P users know what MD5 is and use it religiously....

Xesdeeni

If they don't they'll get some trojan when downloading another piece of software.

I mean if you are not able to use gnupg, md5, etc. and you download things from p2p networks (in fact, any website; you never know if someone is in the middle ;-)), it doesn't change anything whether you downloaded SP2 or the latest OpenOffice release: you are at risk and if you get problems because of that you are the only one to be blamed.

(btw, on my gentoo, portage is kind enough to check the md5 sums for me, maybe we'll see this in windows update one day :devil: )

[smiller667]

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Heck, I can imagine someone who downloads a trojan-infected XP SP2 update suing Microsoft because they didn't try to stop the P2P distribution, and some slick lawyer arguing that was "implied consent." It doesn't much matter whether they win, it costs M$ and their stockholders (no, not me).There goes the sickening, twisted sense of "justice" so prevalent in the U.S. of A. ... it sure makes you wonder if lawmakers living over there ever heard of any such thing as "common sense", lol.
And no, I'm not trying to start a political argument here ... but perhaps people should think about suing M$ for releasing software which exposes them to major security problems ;) ... just for a change.

Steve

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Oh, and copyright was just right before the DMCA. It gave balanced rights to the copyright holder and to the public.

I am assuming that that was meant as a rehtorical question just presented in a straight statement. But since it was not clear I will say that long before the DMCA copyright had already generated a lopsided economy where the IP cartels were the main beneficiary.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
So...

1. the DMCA doesn't apply to something that isn't protected in any way.

Basically yes. Under the DMCA the main idea was to prevent circumvention of reasonable protections such as encryption in order to stop legal/illegal copying of protected works. The P2P site in question had done no circumvention of any protection what so ever. Therefore the DMCA should be mute. It's like saying that if joe in IT downloads SP2 and puts it on a company wide fileshare on the network for intranet PC upgrades he has somehow magically circumvented some reasonable protection of some sort. As if IIS was ever considdered a form of protection rather than a liability. :p If you are going to nitpick that under the DMCA that a site offering unaltered downloads is in violation. Then hasn't Microsoft dropped the ball by not specifying certified routers that are the only routers that are allowed to deliver data packets from Microsoft to you. Because if you want to get technicall the whole Internet itself is one giant rudementary packet switched P2P network. The only difference is that end user nodes do not share their cache. THE INTERNET IS P2P.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
2. Microsoft is trying to defend their reputation and protect their bottom line by exercising a reasonable limit on the distribution of their copyrighted work. (And the comparison to game demos is superfluous...their goal is exposure to bring in new customers, M$'s is security for existing customers.) Just getting the phone calls costs them, even if the answer is "sorry sir, you didn't download the patch from Microsoft, so we can't support you."

You see here is the issue. Stopping that one site is not going to stop any of the phone calls. Not a one. In fact it might cause quite a few more. What you are in essence saying is that no one other than microsoft is capable of propperly hosting the file. Or that the guys who ran the site were only out to do it so they could cause problems for Microsoft. Either way it is pure BS.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Heck, I can imagine someone who downloads a trojan-infected XP SP2 update suing Microsoft because they didn't try to stop the P2P distribution, and some slick lawyer arguing that was "implied consent."

Such a lawsuit is so weak and insane no one would try it. Even if that was the issue which it is not. It would not be a big issue.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
And what clueless individual would sue M$ for a trojan in a version of XP SP2 they downloaded from a P2P network? Wait...that's a self-answering question.

You seem to have it all wrapped up. Save for the fact that whenever something goes wrong it is never Microsoft's fault. Either it is user error which Microsoft may not be held accountable for or the fault of a 3rd party program again which Microsoft may not be held acountable for. If your hypothesis were correct then Microsoft would have long ago been brought to it's knees under the pressure of lawsuits from all the people and corporations that were brought to their knees as a result of the copious windows worms. Trust me that is not even remotely an issue at hand here.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
But we have plenty of clueless people in the world.Wow. So if you give it away, you lose the rights? That pretty much destroys open source, doesn't it?

Nah. Actually it is the emboddiment of FOSS. Because you give something away does not mean you give up all rights to it. There can be some rights reserved. One of which not included is the ability to pick and choose who can archive and provide others with downloads. Because of this there are things called "official mirrors". They are guaronteed by the software creator to be good and up to date. And if it is not an official mirror don't bother calling them.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Whether the product is being given away or sold, the creator's right is no different. They do have a right to determine how it is distributed.

Only if they derive their profit from the method of distribution itself. Why else do all the big IP cartells loathe P2P and online distro? Microsoft makes no money off of SP2. SP2 breaks many programs. Microsoft is going to get alot of calls. And none of them will have anything to do with 3rd party download sites even though that will happen. This is not about reducing tech support calls. This is not about improving the bottom line. It is not about better PR. It is about perpetuating the myth that only "pirates" use P2P and that there is no such thing as legal P2P. Something which the site in question set out exactly to disprove. The site did not stop distribution because Microsoft had any legal right to tell them to. They stopped it because they made their point that P2P is a legal tool that is being unduly persecuted.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Remember they have to deal with the consequences.How can you be the judge of that?

You don't have to judge something if there has already been precedence. And this is an area ritch with precedence.


Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Perhaps Microsoft has evaluated the situation and judged that they can only support the number of people who can actually download directly from their site. Perhaps an alternate distribution point overloads their support network. Perhaps they just wanted it that way. But that's why it's called a copyRIGHT.

You make the assumption that Service Pack 2 for MS Windows XP is copyrighted. It is not. The works inside it may be. But the service pack is not. Further it makes no sense to persue a copyright infringement case against a method of transport when profit is not derived from the transport itself. But rather by delivering the product to as many consumers as possible. So in escence Microsoft has actually hurt themselves by their own actions. But then that is only normal for Microsoft.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
The discussion started with a discussion that questioned their attempt to remove the binaries. It looks like you think M$ is a special case, and because of all the other evil things they have done, they don't deserve their own copyrights.

Where did anyone say that MS is a special case? Nowhere. At this point you are puting words in peoples mouths. I never said that it should be this way only because they are Microsoft. Infact I said just the opposite that you should not cut them any more slack than anyone else.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
So you would need to believe that every single company or even every single person, should lose the right to determine the distribution of their own content.

And that is my view in so far as they gain nothing from distributing it in any fashion. I apply it to everyone. Not just Microsoft. The only logical end of copyright is to control copying and there by profit from copying. If there is nothing to be gained from controlling copying say for example when you give something away. Then what is the point of copyright when you give coppies away indiscriminantly? You speculate they did it to reduce possible theoretical lawsuits etc. It has never been the case before. Why now? Because it is P2P and Microsoft can. That's why.

[int 21h]

SP2 EULA
a. Installation and Use. Provided you comply with all
applicable license terms and conditions contained in the
OS Software EULA (which are hereby incorporated by
reference except as set forth below) and this
Supplemental EULA, Microsoft grants you the right to
reproduce, install and use one copy of the OS Components
on each of your computers that is running a validly
licensed copy of the OS Software.

b. Reservation of Rights. The OS Components are protected
by copyright and other intellectual property laws and
treaties. Microsoft Corporation or its suppliers own the
title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights
in the OS Components. All rights not expressly granted
to you in this Supplemental EULA are reserved. The OS
Components are licensed, not sold.

[Infophreak]

Under the DMCA the main idea was to prevent circumvention of reasonable protections such as encryption in order to stop legal/illegal copying of protected works. The P2P site in question had done no circumvention of any protection what so ever. Therefore the DMCA should be mute.

I don't think you understand how far-reaching the DMCA is.

Straight from the horse's mouth (SP2Torrent.com):
Sorry, no more downloads here... Microsoft sent DMCA takedown notices to our two webhosts [...]

A DMCA takedown notice has absolutely nothing to do with encryption. All it is, is a legal letter to an ISP or webhost stating that the sender beleives that there is copyrighted material on one or more servers listed in the letter. If the ISP/webhost doesn't remove the material listed in the letter, they are liable for damages, and hence they invariably remove the material and then send a letter to the person(s) operating the site. They can then choose to send a counter-notification to the ISP/webhost if they beleive that the material they have put on the server isn't infringing on the complainer's rights.

The list of the victims of this part of the DMCA is long and contains among others xenu.net and bnetd.

More to the point: SP2Torrent.com might not have been redistributing SP2 (which is illegal according to the EULA) provided they didn't seed it themselves. However, going to court and trying to explain that, when considering that MS can hire the best lawyers money can by (and they do that), is an exercize in futility.

[Neo Neko]

@int 21h

SP2 is not licensed or sold in any way shape or form. The SP2 EULA much like the MS Windows EULA is full of doublespeak, obscure legaleese, and straight out BS. If Microsoft is to give out SP2 the way they give out SP1 there can be no licensing etc. I can download SP1 via lynx under BSD or Linux. It is only of use to me if I have XP. And officially it is only of use to those with legal XP installs. :rolleyes: Therfore anyone who has a legal XP install has a license to use service packs etc. Who's to say the people on the website did not have legal XP installs or further that the tracker was not run on a machine with a legal XP install. Not much of a license if I ever saw one. In any event the whole issue is not about the license. It was about Microsoft bullying them with an inaplicable DMCA takedown notice. Microsoft had no reasonable protections to circumvent. They make service packs avalible to anyone who wishes to download it irregardless of wether they run Windows at all or not.

Originally posted by Infophreak
I don't think you understand how far-reaching the DMCA is.

Trust me I have read the site. I know how far reaching the DMCA is. And how much companies like Microsoft etall are bending/breaking it by bullying people in this fashion.

Originally posted by Infophreak
Straight from the horse's mouth (SP2Torrent.com):


A DMCA takedown notice has absolutely nothing to do with encryption. All it is, is a legal letter to an ISP or webhost stating that the sender beleives that there is copyrighted material on one or more servers listed in the letter. If the ISP/webhost doesn't remove the material listed in the letter, they are liable for damages, and hence they invariably remove the material and then send a letter to the person(s) operating the site. They can then choose to send a counter-notification to the ISP/webhost if they beleive that the material they have put on the server isn't infringing on the complainer's rights.

The merits of such a case brought by microsoft against them in this instance are dubious at best. Microsoft makes nothing from SP2. Therefore they loose nothing from someone else helping to distribute it. With that logic there is exactly $0 liable in dammages. The most expensive thing Microsoft could claim against them are attourneys fees used to persue this thurroughly frivolous case. If a case such as this has no real merit it is going to take a big effort to find a judge willing to waste their time on it.

Originally posted by Infophreak
More to the point: SP2Torrent.com might not have been redistributing SP2 (which is illegal according to the EULA) provided they didn't seed it themselves. However, going to court and trying to explain that, when considering that MS can hire the best lawyers money can by (and they do that), is an exercize in futility.

The case would be an excercise in futility on everyones part. At best sp2torrent.com would have been in violation of freely avalible material with no reasonable protections. It's not like SP2 is only avalible on CDs that must be bought in stores. It is to be put out on the internet by the creator/publisher with no real restrictions what so ever. Microsoft is not loosing anything or being damaged in any way. That is where the outrage is coming from. It has nothing to do with the fact that under the BS in the EULA it could be "technically" illegal. Hell backing up my DVDs is technically illegal. But I do it anyway. Why? Because the reasons for it to be illegal are at best flat out wrong. Should I be allowed to threaten people downloading my works from my website when the EULA says they are only allowed to do so on the "first new moon of the month" and they were downloading it from me on the week after? Don't I have some reasonable responsibility to adhere to my own restrictions and only allow downloads on the specified day? We will see shortly enough if Microsoft is actually going to take reasonable responsibility in contrast of all their actions of the past. Or if it is just another case of Microsoft bullying others.

[int 21h]

I am not commenting on the content of the EULA, I am simply pointing out its content. If an installer does not agree with it, the proper thing to do is not click 'I Agree' and move on.

Further, I completely disagree with your view about SP2 copyright. SP2 is merely a container, a delivery mechanism if you will, for Microsoft's copyrighted changes to Microsoft's copyrighted operating system. This container is full of patented technologies, copyright code, trademarks, etc. Saying the container is not copyright maybe technically correct, but it is sidestepping the fact that the contents of the container are certainly copyright of their creator.

Originally posted by Neo Neko
...
The case would be an excercise in futility on everyones part. At best sp2torrent.com would have been in violation of freely avalible material with no reasonable protections. It's not like SP2 is only avalible on CDs that must be bought in stores. It is to be put out on the internet by the creator/publisher with no real restrictions what so ever. Microsoft is not loosing anything or being damaged in any way. That is where the outrage is coming from. It has nothing to do with the fact that under the BS in the EULA it could be "technically" illegal. Hell backing up my DVDs is technically illegal. But I do it anyway. Why? Because the reasons for it to be illegal are at best flat out wrong. Should I be allowed to threaten people downloading my works from my website when the EULA says they are only allowed to do so on the "first new moon of the month" and they were downloading it from me on the week after? Don't I have some reasonable responsibility to adhere to my own restrictions and only allow downloads on the specified day? We will see shortly enough if Microsoft is actually going to take reasonable responsibility in contrast of all their actions of the past. Or if it is just another case of Microsoft bullying others...

Watch out for that slippery slope, by this logic, if a man believes that the reasons for outlawing concealed weapons are 'at best flat out wrong', he would be justified in carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon with him.

Remember, the law isn't there to prevent someone from breaking it (Obviously someone will break it whether there is a law against it or not), the law is there to provide punishment for those who chose to break it.

[bjorn toulouse]

If you want SP2 and its sitting there for imidiate download on the MS site (as it is), why would you go anywhere else? Even if you had a hooky copy of XP downloading the SP to CD wouldent give the game away. I think MS were a tad heavy handed. But as stated by int 21h it is thier copywrited material.
PS does any one use auto update?

[Doom9]

was there any click agreement that states that you may not redistribute the service pack, prior to downloading? Even if that were in the EULA you have to agree to when installing, unless it's there before the download, MS should have no legal recourse to stop distribution. You cannot commit copyright infringement by offering SP2 for download on your own site in its unaltered form. Only if you start changing the service pack are you effectively entering an area forbidden by law. But absent any agreement by MS and the original downloader, why should anyone be barred from redistributing the software? MS' IP stays untouched - and since it's a free upgrade, you don't have to acquire a license for download.

[anonimitous]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
- Thomas Jefferson

[int 21h]

There is an inherent agreement from using Microsoft's web services. It is in its entirety here (http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx). The original RTM link that showed up for SP2 was hosted at download.microsoft.com, and should be subject to the same terms of use.

Specifically:

NOTICE SPECIFIC TO SOFTWARE AVAILABLE ON THIS WEB SITE.
Any software that is made available to download from the Services ("Software") is the copyrighted work of Microsoft and/or its suppliers. Use of the Software is governed by the terms of the end user license agreement, if any, which accompanies or is included with the Software ("License Agreement"). An end user will be unable to install any Software that is accompanied by or includes a License Agreement, unless he or she first agrees to the License Agreement terms.

The Software is made available for download solely for use by end users according to the License Agreement. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible.

WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, UNLESS SUCH REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ACCOMPANYING SUCH SOFTWARE.


Now granted, whether or not a TOS can be applied to someone that follows a link to another entities website has never been proven or disproven. But generally by using an entities resources (in this case bandwidth) you are automatically indoctrined to their TOS (i.e. ISPs, Educational institutions, etc.)

As for the argument about disobeying this and other 'unjust' laws, I think I'll stay quite far away from that philosphical mire. :p

[Xesdeeni]

Originally posted by Doom9
was there any click agreement that states that you may not redistribute the service pack, prior to downloading? Even if that were in the EULA you have to agree to when installing, unless it's there before the download, MS should have no legal recourse to stop distribution. You cannot commit copyright infringement by offering SP2 for download on your own site in its unaltered form. Only if you start changing the service pack are you effectively entering an area forbidden by law. But absent any agreement by MS and the original downloader, why should anyone be barred from redistributing the software? MS' IP stays untouched - and since it's a free upgrade, you don't have to acquire a license for download. So if they give it away for free, and you give it away for free, that's OK.

What if you charge for it, but they give it away for free?

What if they charge for it, but you give it away for free?

And what if you charge for it and they charge for it.

I don't think the cost of the product affects its copyright. Public broadcasts over the airwaves are copyrighted. But I can get them for free. But I don't recall ever signing anything that said I agreed not to copy them. Does this mean I have the right to distribute this to anyone for free? Even fair use only applies to my own use, not distribution, regardless of the price I do or do not charge.

Xesdeeni

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
So if they give it away for free, and you give it away for free, that's OK.

The only other stipulation being that it were unaltered that would be a fully agreeable situation.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
What if you charge for it, but they give it away for free?

That would be very bad indeed. The only possible way to do this would be to account for the entire ammount as applied to your service costs and nothing going to profits etc. Even then though that is a very dangerous avenue.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
What if they charge for it, but you give it away for free?

That would most definatly be wrong. As in that instance you are clearly depriving them of possible income. The real question comes down to how much. No one not even the grand poobahs at the RIAA have any solid numbers on this. Though all the while they scream bloody murder while playing the statistigcs game. It is defiantly morraly wrong. But apart from that the true effects are unstuddied.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
And what if you charge for it and they charge for it.

Unless you give them their due from your earnings that would be quite wrong. Even if you were to give them their fees from your earnings that is still quite dubious indeed. You would have to have decent service offerings above and beyond the content you offered. And further you really need an agreement with the publisher to do so. Failure to do so poses the threat of actual serious quantifiable damages similar to the aforementioned case that are legaly actionable.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
I don't think the cost of the product affects its copyright.

Perhaps. But then ask yourself this. What is the real initiative to defend the copyright of a product you earn no real income from? If the site that provides it does so pure and unaltered without any misdirection and without fee. Then what is the real issue? It is not about tech support calls. Because of SP2 behavior alone there is going to be a massive increase in tech support needs all over the Windows market. From in the Microsoft camp all the way to 3rd party developers and vendors. It has nothing todo with stopping 3rd party downloads or addressing any fiscal responsibilities. Shutting down that one site does nothing to stop 3rd party downloads. There is nothing that can be reasonably done about that. It is just a fact of life that it is going to happen. So where is the logic in shutting down a site acting honorably providing untampered downloads at no cost or loss what so ever to desirous Microsoft customers. I mean I suppose we could say it has something to do with brusing Microsoft's ego and providing better services than the grand innovator. But there is a simple more aplicable explanation. It can't be about ego brusing. Because anyone can do almost anything better than Microsoft. Save for two things. Protect their ideas from theft by Microsoft and stay fiscally afloat in a monopoly leveraged MS shitstorm. Those two things plus decent marketing skills are what built the monopoly. It comes down to the stigma on "P2P" that all the dinasaur pigopolists perpetuate. They will not let it stand or perpetuate outside their control. Therefor to be seen as consistant and concerned they must attack it in al shapes, forms, and guises. Even those that actually stand to benefit them.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Public broadcasts over the airwaves are copyrighted. But I can get them for free.

Not so. Wherever did you get the idea that they are free? A fee must be paid to broadcast those works. That fee is directly paid by the broadcasters. Who then derive income on andvertisemants to pay those fees. The advertisements are aimed at you the consumer who then goes and purchases products and services advertised. The money earned from the products and services then goes to pay for more advertising. Which allows for continued licensing. It is a cycle in which although indirectly you do indeed "pay" in a fasshion. The alternate method is to directly extract fees from the audience and cut out advertising altogether. Much like satelite radio or pay cable channels. You always pay. It just comes down to how.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
But I don't recall ever signing anything that said I agreed not to copy them.

You don't have to since it is already paid for.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Does this mean I have the right to distribute this to anyone for free?

Actually basically yes that is exactly your right in the previously mentioned scenario. The real issue only arises when the Internet and digital copying enters the equation.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Even fair use only applies to my own use, not distribution, regardless of the price I do or do not charge.

Not true. In it's most pure honest form fair use does entail only personal use. But it does not however preclude sharing a taped recording with a close friend and neighbor. That is perfectly legal. Again the issue arises only when the Internet and digital copying enter the equation. The problem is that your friends and neighbors go from a few isolated people or local aquaintances in your geographic area to millions of people all over the world. And there is no generational loss on copying. Fair use covers me 100% recording something on TV and taking it over for my brother in law to watch. Even letting him keep it. Totally covered. It's sharring it with a few hundred million of my closest friends in other markets that is the issue. A simple matter of numbers between what is acceptable and what is not. Unfortunatly there just are not solid numbers. They never saw the internet coming. Totally blindsided. And now trying to bent it totally in their favor.

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
...
Not true. In it's most pure honest form fair use does entail only personal use. But it does not however preclude sharing a taped recording with a close friend and neighbor. That is perfectly legal. Again the issue arises only when the Internet and digital copying enter the equation. The problem is that your friends and neighbors go from a few isolated people or local aquaintances in your geographic area to millions of people all over the world. And there is no generational loss on copying. Fair use covers me 100% recording something on TV and taking it over for my brother in law to watch. Even letting him keep it. Totally covered. It's sharring it with a few hundred million of my closest friends in other markets that is the issue. A simple matter of numbers between what is acceptable and what is not. Unfortunatly there just are not solid numbers. They never saw the internet coming. Totally blindsided. And now trying to bent it totally in their favor...

This only applies to limited things. NFL broadcasts, for instance, are not covered. You are held liable civilly, (not entirely sure about the federal regulations, I believe copyright violation), if you violate blackout rules. Many taverns have been taken to court over this issue, and all have lost. Further, even when a state tries to reverse the trend and ban blackouts, this is what happens: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/sports/5401321.htm

Believe it or not, the NFL even has an exemption under the Sherman antitrust act...

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/antitrustbasics.htm
NFL Exemption

The NFL does have a very limited antitrust exemption, which can be found at 15 USC 1291 and 1292. The NFL is allowed to pool and sell a unitary video package to TV networks (15 USC 1291). The NFL is also allowed to issue blackouts of non-local games when local teams are being telecast. (15 USC 1292). Additionally, they are allowed to blackout local teams when there has not been a sellout. (15 USC 1292).

Copyright and intellectual property have never really been on the side of the consumer in the United States. But like most other things in life, these struggles are circular in movement. The Betamax case was the last major victory for consumers, our next victory should be coming around the bend any moment now... :p

[Xesdeeni]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
That would most definatly be wrong. As in that instance you are clearly depriving them of possible income.As far as I understand it, copyright law has never included any consideration of possible income loss. That might be a consideration of damages once a violation has been verified, but the existence of a financial gain is not a prerequisite for having a copyrighted work.Not so. Wherever did you get the idea that they are free? A fee must be paid to broadcast those works. That fee is directly paid by the broadcasters. Who then derive income on andvertisemants to pay those fees. The advertisements are aimed at you the consumer who then goes and purchases products and services advertised. The money earned from the products and services then goes to pay for more advertising. Which allows for continued licensing. It is a cycle in which although indirectly you do indeed "pay" in a fasshion. The alternate method is to directly extract fees from the audience and cut out advertising altogether. Much like satelite radio or pay cable channels. You always pay. It just comes down to how.Not public TV. Or the local over-the-air shopping channels. No commercials. So I can distribute their content as I see fit, right? (Although why I would want to distribute the shopping channel content is a completely different matter. :) )Not true. In it's most pure honest form fair use does entail only personal use. But it does not however preclude sharing a taped recording with a close friend and neighbor. That is perfectly legal.I'm pretty sure this is wrong. The copyright holders may not choose to prosecute you, but giving a copy to a friend is still a violation.

Last fall, I had a situation involving just this. I won't elaborate (sorry, I'm paranoid), but suffice it to say that the (over-the-air broadcast) copyright holder was very clear that had they discovered I had distributed copies of their work to some friends (for free), they would have sued me.

Xesdeeni

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
...As far as I understand it, copyright law has never included any consideration of possible income loss. That might be a consideration of damages once a violation has been verified, but the existence of a financial gain is not a prerequisite for having a copyrighted work....

US Copyright Law Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
As far as I understand it, copyright law has never included any consideration of possible income loss.

That is more or less the whole point of copyright. It was to grant a limited monopoly for inventors and innovators in which to maximize their profits over the limeted term of the copyright. Granted that the limited term of copyright now often exceeds the limited lifetime of the average person. The whole point of copyright is to prevent others from possibly profiting from your work. I would however like to point out that a possible loss is not the same nor as serious as a real loss.


Originally posted by Xesdeeni
That might be a consideration of damages once a violation has been verified, but the existence of a financial gain is not a prerequisite for having a copyrighted work.[?QUOTE]

Actually it is. If there is no possibility of damages there is little point in copyright. If there is nothing to protect why go to the effort to protect nothing? It does not make sense. Only things with percieved uniqueness and value are generally copyrighted. And only those with real value are protected actively.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xesdeeni
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. The copyright holders may not choose to prosecute you, but giving a copy to a friend is still a violation.

It is a matter of measure. It is not feesable to go after everyone for sharing with another person. There is very little dammage generally. And often even less to gain from trying to recoup the dammage. It is not illegal in the way that small ammounts of chemicals in your drinking water are not illegal. Not a thing wrong with it. It is when you go past a specific measure that it gets illegal. When the dammage becomes significant and actionable.

Originally posted by Xesdeeni
Last fall, I had a situation involving just this. I won't elaborate (sorry, I'm paranoid), but suffice it to say that the (over-the-air broadcast) copyright holder was very clear that had they discovered I had distributed copies of their work to some friends (for free), they would have sued me.

Xesdeeni

To bad for you being paranoid because it would be interesting to know as long as there is no NDA involved. This must have been quite some number of friends. That or you were unlucky enough to be yourself very visible to them or have a friend involved that was. Publicly broadcast material in it's market especially with advertising intact should be very legal for limited sharing. So either you don't live in the US or a country with similar fair use doctrine or you visibly violated one of those concepts to them. To bad we will never know.