[choeger]

Interesting case. If Microsoft really demands that a user does not disable features, I am looking forward to some taking this to court.

The thing is, software licenses are still largely uncharted territory. If I am not allowed to modify the system as my hardware executes it, will Microsoft take liability for any damage, material or immaterieal that could be caused by it? Think of an upgrade bricking your device (happened to a kindle of mine once) or a security hole that gets exploited.

On the other hand, there is this whole discussion about the legality of ad blocking. Often, publishers claim that it is a copyright infringement to disable ads on their site. I think the cases are pretty much the same: A party offering software to you under the condition that you execute it exactly as they want. I wonder what the closest thing in non-software law would be to such a stipulation.

[FactolSarin]

That's not really what's going on here. "Ninjutsu OS" is a modified Windows 10 ISO. Basically a pirated copy.

[sbarre]

It's actually both.

You are right, they were distributing a modified version of Windows without permission. And there's nothing notable or interesting about that. It's a pretty clear-cut case of "don't do that".

But ALSO.. the language in the MS/BSA complaint states that tools that help the user disable Windows 10 OS features - some that arguably benefit MS more than the user - run afoul of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses, and that's a much broader statement that has nothing to do with an uploaded ISO.

If this stands, does it mean that I am not allowed to use similar tools to disable features on my legit copy of Windows 10? That's what the language in their complaint implies.

[gruez]

>But ALSO.. the language in the MS/BSA complaint states that tools that help the user disable Windows 10 OS features

does that matter? You can put whatever you want on a DMCA complaint. It's not going to be subject to any judicial review. I wouldn't be worried unless they actually initiate a lawsuit.

[p_l]

The case is that the tool included a full copy of Windows, modified, and apparently with activation removed.

So it got hit like any other site providing "cracked" windows.

[dathinab]

No activation was not removed, a license is still required.

Is still a modified version being distributed but license activation was not circumvented.

[arkades]

> No activation was not removed, a license is still required.

This was even explicitly stated in the linked article, but for some reason people keep asserting in this thread that it was a cracked version of windows.

Am I missing something, or are people just making big assumptions and not reading the article?

[lucb1e]

I can't legally give you something copyrighted even if you can't use it without a valid license code. It's still copyrighted.

But that's not what Microsoft is asserting here: the headline (which arguably conveys the main point) says it's about the anti-circumvention clauses of USA's DMCA law.

[LorenPechtel]

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.

[wvenable]

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.

[ClumsyPilot]

It is made even more interesting by the fact that to me, as an end user, it is absolutely unclear what i am suppose to delete/modify and what i am not.

How do I know that deleting or modifying a particular dll is a violation? It doesnt look any different than any other file.

Furthermore, if Windows craps out, which isn't rare, i might have to go into system files and commit dmca violation. As an alterbative, will a Microsoft send a technician to my house, or compwnsate me for the system being down?

[cogman10]

Gets really sticky depending on why you say you are modifying things.

For example, the DMCA protects you if the modification is for educational purposes.

If they want to go down the route of arguing a contract violation, then the question about whether or not the contract is fair comes into play. You can't write a contract that takes everything and gives nothing in return. So these license agreements which basically say "You can't don't own anything about this software, we have every right to sue the pants off you if you upset us, and we accept no liability if our software does anything bad" may very well be unenforceable (Doesn't come up that often because people are relatively sane).

The other interesting thing here is that these licenses may be doubly unenforceable as companies have been adding the "you accept all terms and conditions if you push this button". They are right in the same line as the "Warranty void if you remove this sticker" notices.