[Someone1234]

Copyright infringement. It is unlikely to apply. Particularly as the infringement has no "effect [...] upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Meaning Microsoft hasn't hurt anyone else's bottom line.

There's several fair usage arguments you can make. At least three strong arguments. But to be honest this would need to be tested in the courts one way or the other.

I don't really think copyright conceptually is a very fruitful argument here. CFAA is likely stronger.

[kps]

> Meaning Microsoft hasn't hurt anyone else's bottom line.

How so? Microsoft spent money implementing this copying, so the copy is clearly of value to them. Why shouldn't they pay for it?

[TeMPOraL]

Fair. I wonder how a combo of CFAA, HIPAA and GDPR could fare here. I couldn't find whether Windows Defender automatically uploads all executables it sees, but apparently[0] non-executables deemed "suspicious" can be uploaded too.

--

[0] - https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/8dmqdy/windows_d...

[pbhjpbhj]

Worth noting Fair Use in Copyright is a USA thing.

In UK there have been some changes to Fair Dealing in the last couple of years that I'm not up to date on, but I don't know of anything that would make this allowed except having an explicit license from the copyright holder.

[winkeltripel]

HIPAA would end up falling on your neck, not theirs. The users of windows are required to turn that setting off if you're in HIPAA land, among probably a hundred other things.