I wouldn't leap to the statement the original poster has a "questionable" copy of the beta. What I *do* find intersting is that MS is placing code on your computer that could cause it to NOT FUNCTION and thus cause financial loss, damages to your own intellectual property and other bad things. If this was anyone other than MS, it would be called a VIRUS. What if the person doesn't want to use Beta 2, or they have decided to change directions at their company and thus can't spend the time on Beta 2? Are you saying then that MS has a right to nuke a machine and cause a sysadmin to spend time and money re-installing the software? Will MS, pay the beta org losses? hmmm, I see tort written all over this against MS > -----Original Message----- > From: cami [mailto:camisat_private] > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 11:40 AM > To: vuln-devat_private > Subject: Re: DirectX 9 SDK, Microsoft have got balls.... > > > | I've got hold of a copy of the DirectX 9 SDK beta. It > comes with the interesting warning: > | > | -------------------------------------------- > | This beta version expires on Aug 20, 2002. > | You will need to reinstall Windows if you do not > | have a valid DX9 ID & password to download Beta 2 > | -------------------------------------------- > | > | Anyone in a position to comment on exactly what Microsoft > think they have the right > | to do to an end users PC? > > Since when do you have the right to 'get a copy' of DirectX 9 > when only official beta testers are suppose to have it? > > | Less of a legal argument, more of a technical > "what-they-gonna-do". Format c: would be too easy. > > DirectX 9 can not be uninstalled, so when the timeout expires > and you are still stuck using it, guess what, your machine wont > boot into Windows XP.. > > Moral of the story, do not use pirated software if you are going > to complain about the possible aftermath.. > > Plain and simple, isn't it? >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 28 2002 - 09:21:10 PDT