"sticks" <***@charter.net> wrote
| >> YOU already gave your "approval and consent" to updating when you
| >> accepted your Microsoft license terms.
| >
| > That's legal bullshit. Most people DON'T give "approval and consent",
| > they click the button that makes the software work.
| >
| Oh, OK. Well, that's that then. Thanks for clearing that up.
It's a sticky business. EULA clickthroughs have
been held up in court. On the other hand, articles
have been written about absurd claims they often
contain. Microsoft claims, for instance, that anyone
clicking through to use .Net tools has no right to
review them without permission. So no freedom of
speech if you buy .Net. Would you say, "Tough luck.
You clicked it." ? Where do you draw the line? They
have a right to define terms of the license for the
software you're using. That's what the license is.
They can't just go saying, "We have the right of
surveillance because you bought our stuff."
MS also claim that they owe you no support if you
buy an OEM computer because you're copy of Windows
is licensed to you by that company. They must provide
support. So how do Microsoft then claim that you agree
to terms of use? You didn't even license it from Microsoft.
Then of course there are the issues of monopoly. You
don't really have much choice about clicking the license.
What else can you do? Buy Apple? It's not as though
Microsoft have equivalent competition.
Today in Congress, Zuck was being grilled about
Facebook terms. Of course everyone agrees to
the terms. But people expect a modicum of human
decency. Most people don't understand that Zuck is
constantly spying on them. And Zuck, along with Google,
Apple, MS, etc, is careful to not make it obvious. The
Congress men and women don't even understand that.
Zuck denies that he spies on non-members. Yet there
are Facebook links and script all over the Web. It's
easy enough to prove, but the Congresspeople don't
understand what they're dealing with. So how can
everyone else be expected to?