[Am-info] Hey, do you know MS PUR?

[Joe Barr]

And isn't it an "amazing coincidence" how these new terms of service
dovetail with the infamous UCITA legislation.




On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:39:02 -0500
Gene Gaines <gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com> wrote:

> This is a forwarded message
> 
> From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
> To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
> Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 4:18:59 AM
> Subject: IP: On MS license agreements
> 
> =================Original message text===============
> 
> >
> >http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/02/11/020211opfoster.xml
> 
> autoabstract
> 
> BILL GATES SAYS security is Microsoft's top priority, but just whose 
> security does he have in mind?
> 
> Consider some of Microsoft's recent boilerplate legalese -- language you
or > your company might already have unknowingly accepted -- and then
decide for > yourself.
> 
> As the PUR document is part of most customers' volume license agreements
> and is subject to periodic change, in theory Microsoft customers should 
> check it regularly to see what rights Microsoft has decided to grant or 
> take away.
> 
> After the reader shared his discovery with me, I asked some other
Microsoft > volume license customers if they were aware of the PUR term.
> 
> Not surprisingly, most were only vaguely aware of the PUR's existence,
much > less the terms in the XP section.
> 
> But they had plenty of concerns once they read it, the most obvious
being > the damage the most benign of automatic OS upgrades could cause in
a > corporate environment.
> 
> Several readers were also worried that Microsoft's broad assertion of
its > right to access their computers would force their companies into 
> noncompliance with government security guidelines and various privacy
laws.> 
> This concern was exacerbated by additional PUR language in the same
Windows > XP section.
> 
> In terms of "Security Updates," users grant Microsoft the right to
download > updates to Microsoft's DRM (Digital Rights Management)
technology to > protect the intellectual property rights of "Secured
Content" providers.> 
> Currently, DRM technology is associated just with music or video
content, > but there's no legal reason it can't be used with software
applications as > well.
> 
> 
> For archives see:
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
> 
> ==============End of original message text===========
> 
> -- 
> 
> Gene Gaines
> gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info


-- 
#####################################################
| Put an end to the collusion of unconscionable     |
| corporate greed and bootlicking politicians which |
| spawns bad law like the DCMA and UCITA.           |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| Take back your rights to make backup copies of    |
| software, to own/sell the software you buy, and   |
| to use the software as you see fit.               |
|---------------------------------------------------|
| "No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be |
| satisfied until justice rolls down like water and |
| righteousness like a mighty stream."     MLK 1963 |
#####################################################