Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 192 posts

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#181

Post by thejynxed »

henearkr wrote: post #68
romanovcode wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read the article? Someone took ISO and modified it for re-distribution which is piracy. It has absolutely nothing to do with disabling features on your own Win10 installation.

Yes I had RTFA. Seems like you can download Windows nowadays, and you need to buy the license key separately. I am wrong? (I ask naively, because I am not a Microsoft user)

Yes, that is how it works, and you can buy a key right inside the Windows Store app so you don't even have to go digging in Microsoft's website nor a reseller site.

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#182

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Ntrails wrote: post #80
smolder wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bad move for MS. It's user hostile enough to have telemetry and ads in the OS in the first place. If they fight against people's efforts to make it usable again, they lose market share, developers/power users lose interest in the platform, less software gets bought from and made for their store, and so on. I think what they really need is a pro version of Windows that attracts pro users by removing the bull…

> It's user hostile enough to have telemetry and ads in the OS in the first place. I may be alone, but I think those two things are very different classes of feature, and am very relaxed about the former as an opt out.

I don't know, but I assume the telemetry is used for marketing by Microsoft at least and probably by their partners (ie people who financially benefit Microsoft partially in return for access to "telemetry").

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#183

Post by pbhjpbhj »

wvenable wrote: post #158
smolder wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are others saying it wasn't cracked and didn't disable activation? Cracked implies copy protection or licensing measures were circumvented.

Why does it matter? No company is going to do nothing if someone else distributes a modified versions of their software -- regardless of the modification. The fact that it's cracked or not is inconsequential to the discussion.

You still have a point, but isn't what you declaim precisely what companies like RedHat, Canonical, etc., do. Mozilla, and Google too, to some extent.

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#184

Post by wvenable »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #183
wvenable wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter? No company is going to do nothing if someone else distributes a modified versions of their software -- regardless of the modification. The fact that it's cracked or not is inconsequential to the discussion.

You still have a point, but isn't what you declaim precisely what companies like RedHat, Canonical, etc., do. Mozilla, and Google too, to some extent.

Free software licenses are specifically designed to allow distribution -- the exception that proves the rule. But even so, none of the companies listed will allow you to distribute modified binaries under their exact product names. Hence CentOS, Iceweasle, etc. Despite being open source and free software, these companies still want to define for themselves what "Firefox" and "Redhat" actually are.

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#185

Post by Xelbair »

gruez wrote: post #106
Xelbair wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no opt-out of telemetry in win10. You can only set it to basic.

You can set it to one level lower ("security") on enterprise and education editions. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/privacy/configure-w...

It still isn't opt-out. And you still have no exact idea what is and isn't sent - only their promises.

Personally i use ancient trick that block telemetry on metered connection, and you can set LAN to be metered too via registry key.

No idea if it still works to be honest.

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#186

Post by dang »

nailer wrote: post #178
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have something substantive to say, then say it. In what way does apt, say, not behave as I have described?

I mentioned your repo knows everything you have installed. How is that not substantive? There's not some kind of zero-knowledge k-anonymity ( https://blog.cloudflare.com/validating-leaked-passwords-with... ) type feature. It simply doesn't exist. Apt doesn't use it, yum doesn't use it, pacman doesn't use it. They all know everything. If you wanted more detail, you could have asked. Instead you said my comment had no…

This sort of thing will get you banned here. Surely you know that by now. Please don't do it again, regardless of how provoked you feel.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#187

Post by dang »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #175
nailer wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0 Linux distros manage this. Have you ever ran an apt or yum repo?

If you have something substantive to say, then say it. In what way does apt, say, not behave as I have described?

Please don't be a jerk in HN comments. It's against the rules and evokes worse from others.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#188

Post by sjwright »

labawi wrote: post #179
sjwright wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An assertion that one court somewhere on the planet erred in a spectacularly ridiculous way isn’t evidence of anything.

Similarly, asserting a court erred in a spectacularly ridiculous way is not an argument. Note that before 1989, rules in USA were quite different. Instead of: everything is IP, almost forever - explicit copyright registration was required for protection of works. While object code was ruled as copyrightable for pretty obvious reasons, initial rulings seems quite consistent with law at the time. Current 100+ year copy…

Yes, it is an argument. It is not evidence, it may not be compelling argument for you, but it’s unquestionably an argument.

I refuse to accept that courts deemed compiled code to not be a creative work or intellectual property. Remember—a lot of early computer code was written in assembler...

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#189

Post by opan »

jeroenhd wrote: post #16

The website is down, but yeah, offering customised ISO files with Windows and some tools is clearly a breach of license. You can't just take a paid OS distribution, add some config and plonk it onto github. There's been people patching and customising Windows for many years, but most of the time that was done in the form of gaining an official ISO, patching it with a program on your computer and then using that to in…

>You can't just take a paid OS distribution, add some config and plonk it onto github. I believe the issue is with licensing rather than cost here. You haven't been given a license that permits you to change and redistribute the software (as you would were it free (as in freedom) software).

Re: Removing “Annoying” Windows 10 Features Is a DMCA Violation, Microsoft Says

#190

Post by dathinab »

wvenable wrote: post #157
LorenPechtel wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because while distributing the basic .iso is illegal what are Microsoft's damages? They distribute it for free anyway, their losses are $0 from someone else distributing it.

If JK Rowling gave away Harry Potter ebooks because of COVID-19, you can't just take those books and replace all instances of "Wand" with "Penis" and distribute it because she made it available for no money. It's not all about money but also about moral rights; The right to the integrity of the work.

I think no one is claiming that distributing modified isos is legal, actually even distributing the unmodified ISO files would not be legal.

The problem is that Microsoft didn't make a take down request based one them distributing ISO files. But based on them "disabling features in windows" in that ISO files.

Post reply on HN