Microsoft should be feared and despised!
Posted 3 Apr 2001 at 16:27 UTC by csm
After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of
Use and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage
they can do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to
take the time to read it, particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO
MICROSOFT". If you've ever had any doubts about the nature of that
company, reading that section should put them to rest for good and all!
Read the whole story at MoonGroup.com
my home site.
All their license says is that you grant Microsoft a license to use any
information you transmit into or through their Passport service.
They're not claiming ownership. Can you read?
This is unfair, posted 3 Apr 2001 at 18:04 UTC by hub »
Their policy is completely unfair. What next ? They'll take total ownership of data you made with their software ? ... Oh wait. It is already the case since they make them proprietary...
Time for a Badvogato plan.
And continue not using MSFT products.
Sure... I can read... especially the part that says this:
"...you are granting Microsoft and its affiliated companies permission
1.Use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit,
publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense,
create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any such
2.Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted
right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to
3.Publish your name in connection with any such
The foregoing grants shall include the right to
exploit any proprietary rights in such communication, including but not
limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent
laws under any relevant jurisdiction. No compensation will be paid with
respect to Microsoft's use of the materials contained within such
Is this the part you're asking if I can read?
All that does is say that "If you post something to our service, you
grant us a license to use it however we want."
Believe it or not, but virtually every online service that
accepts member submissions does this. (The ones that don't are asking
to get sued anyway.) The only vaguely interesting part is that
Microsoft has explicitly indicated that this includes the right to
commercially exploit any ideas publicized on its servers by its unpaid
contributors. If anything, I give them credit for openly admitting
that they are reserving this right; other sites reserve it anyway
without explicitly telling you. Contrast Microsoft's ToS with, e.g. Yahoo's. Really not that
If this same license had been found on a website belonging to anyone
other than Microsoft, it wouldn't be news, or at least this
newsworthy. Y'all have Microsoft-bashing on the brain.
You agree to grant Yahoo rights on
Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly
accessible areas of the Service
You agree to grant MSFT rights
By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, submitting any
feedback or suggestions, or engaging in any other form of
communication with or through the Passport Web Site
What communication might I be making "through the Passport Web Site"
that isn't intended for the public? I tried to look at their white
paper but it required that I sign up for Passport first, which I don't
want to do yet.
Indeed, Microsoft would have a license to use your HTTP headers under
its agreement, which Yahoo doesn't claim. They might also be able to,
say, post somewhere "John Doe's password on our service is snarfblatt"
(a password being "data transmitted to their service"). If you send a
customer relations email, they would be permitted to publish it.
So, basically, what they're saying is "We reserve the right to
republish anything you say to us. If we do republish something you say
to us, we won't pay you anything and you have no legal recourse in
intellectual property law."
Again, I don't see what the big deal is. As far as I can tell, this is
just more mindless Microsoft-bashing.
Wow, posted 3 Apr 2001 at 20:57 UTC by pudge »
How can it not be considered a big deal? Microsoft is literally laying claim to do anything it
wants with any data transmitted through its servers. If I send mail to you at firstname.lastname@example.org
and it forwards to you at email@example.com, according to Microsoft, they have the right to use
my data and name for anything. Yes, their ToS is not limited to subscribers of the service, but
to any form of communication using their site.
But we don't have to go that far. If you have a Hotmail account -- or any e-mail account
that is not related to your job -- you should have a reasonable expectation that you can send me
an idea you have via your account and Microsoft won't exploit it. If everyone followed
Microsoft's lead, e-mail would be completely useless for businesses, artists, and anyone else
who didn't run their own servers for mail and had some sort of valuable intellectual property.
Seems like a big deal to me.
Bryan Smith wrote an
interesting mail about it too.
The yahoo TOS explicitely say that you still own the data, you are
just granting them the right to publish them when you make them
"available for inclusion on publicly accessibly areas of Yahoo!".
I have to agree with the crowd saying that this is hardly surprising.
Fascist companies have licenses like this, that's part of life and their
Don't use services like this. Don't use services provided by bloated
the counter-agreement issue is critical.
microsoft can potentially LEGALLY TERMINATE a project just because one
of your users has used "the in'ur'ne'" through them, and THEY OWN
XXXXING EVERYTHING THAT WENT INTO A CVS REPOSITORY.
if you ask me, that's _pretty serious_.
THINK. someone using ms-based services is actually wholly-owned by
you think they'd agree to some open source license if you used _their_
services - THEIR services, to threaten THEIR competitive, proprietary
In perspective, posted 4 Apr 2001 at 10:45 UTC by Seri »
One of the thing sthat disturbes me about this license is this
Small band or solo artist wants to show of some MP3's of their music
to their friends, they happen to be using Passport, lo and behold
Microsoft now has full copyrights to their material.
> Believe it or not, but virtually every online service that
accepts member submissions does this.
I know of no nntp server that does so.
> The ones that don't are asking to get sued anyway.
You are going to sue them for doing exactly what you told them to do?
Possible explanations for the existence of these licenses, not
necessarily in order of likelihood:
a) The lawyers involved are incompetent.
b) The managers involved believe themselves to be so incompetent
that they expect to do something such as accidently publishing a
private email on a Web page, and are unwilling to take their lumps
when they do.
c) They are planning ahead.
While I do agree with people who say this is serious and a big deal, listen up, Microsoft does
NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP. Microsoft does not claim copyright or ownership of any kind. They
claim a right to USE your copyrighted material. They cannot shut down a project just because
your copyrighted material passed through them, because they do not own it. They only claim
rights to use it. Microsoft does not have copyright to a band's music; they only have the right
to use that music in any way they see fit. Yes, there is a difference. In many cases the
difference is not too significant, but it is a difference.
right to use, posted 5 Apr 2001 at 13:11 UTC by lkcl »
... so they have the right to use your code, mp3, and your name, and
"hi. see this code? it's GPL. it's written by XXX. it's DANGEROUS to
use this code. you could violate your ms license agreement by being
associated with it".
.... whoops :)
No Big Deal, eh?, posted 5 Apr 2001 at 15:25 UTC by pudge »
If it were no big deal, they wouldn't have changed it! :-)
They said the ToS are old and should be ignored, and the new ones will specifically limit the
claims to rights of use on communication directly with Microsoft, supposedly. This quote is
"I'm kind of stunned," [Jason Catlett, president of Junkbusters,] said. "I mean, if Microsoft
doesn't know what's in its own terms of service regarding personal information, then what hope
do its customers have for the privacy of their own information?
whew!, posted 5 Apr 2001 at 15:55 UTC by duff »
If it were no big deal, they wouldn't have changed it!
Ah good. By the time I got around to reading this thread it had
apparently already been changed. I was about to post a "what are you
guys talking about?!?!?" message. :-)
It does not matter that the adversary is the blessed Microsoft or some
other company. This
shrink-wrap license has been discussed before on various sites and I
think the general attitude must be a strong NO.
Let me offer my small analysis. Using shrink-wrap licenses are being
constantly used in an arguably unconstitutional way to eliminate fair
use of copyrighted work, by invoking the force of the state in an
"unfair" way. Now, this use of private law is beyond the wildest
imagination of those others who try to destroy fair use. It means that
you are being granted no privacy at all. Why does this matter? Because
the question here is not that your communication may be eavesdropped
upon. The obvious threat is that your personal information, which is at
the core of privacy of a respectable individual, is going to be used
your control. The term I think gives them a power over your private life
that you do not even take notice of, for you would be inclined to think
that *exactly the opposite* would be conveyed in that license. There
would be a strong objection against the government exploiting personal
information like this, so why give this privilege to a corporation, why
lose another one of your freedoms?
It is like marrying someone, but under a special contract with a
statement written in the smallest letters imaginable that goes like "I
grant that video shoots of my sexual intercourses with my wife may be
freely by my wife". In effect, it does not look like a deal where there
is a win-win situation, it is simply unacceptable and it is the duty of
every Net user to deny this abuse of law, protesting their shameful
services. If you do not take any action, the corporations will push the
limits of invading your privacy further.
forward, posted 6 Apr 2001 at 21:37 UTC by Malx »
you at firstname.lastname@example.org and it forwards to you at email@example.com
In that case you
is guilty, becouse you have no right to distribute this source code to
anyone (including HotMail) given to you by authour.
If it would come to court - you whoud be wrong (not sender or MS).
nuniabiz, on badvogato, just posted an article about how he was
receiving specifically-targetted SPAM advertising at a hotmail account.
the account was only opened last week.
heather, who has only given out her emergency hotmail address to me,
which was created last month, receives 17 messages in two weeks.
think about it.
read the xxxx-wit agreement carefully.
it says, "we can push your email address and the content around to
absolutely anyone we please our fat little selves".
in other words, i suspect they're selling your email address and the
content of your email - to anyone that gives them enough money.
anyone care to comment on this?
in other words, i suspect they're selling your email address and the
your email - to anyone that gives them enough money.
anyone care to comment on this?
They aren't the only ones. Subscribe to a Yahoo mailing list and
multipy your spam count tenfold.