5 ms·
You didn't explain what this has to do with copyright? CFAA[0] (or even [1]) seems like a better avenue to explore, but still likely a dead-end. Copyright seems
by Someone1234 7y ago
You didn't explain what this has to do with copyright? CFAA[0] (or even [1]) seems like a better avenue to explore, but still likely a dead-end. Copyright seems like a misnomer.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Espionage_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Espionage_Act_of_1996
- TeMPOraL 7y agoSoftware is covered by copyright; if I write some program and compile it, and they copy it off my machine behind my back to run somewhere, it is copyright violation, is it not?
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoPretty sure by you having this malware submission feature enabled you have given a limited license for them to execute the binary. You're barking up the wrong tree.
- 0xffff2 7y agoYou (the user) may not have the right to grant such a license.
- moomin 7y agoAssume for a second this is correct. What's to stop virus writers from embedding a ToS preventing Microsoft from running the code? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's really hard to work out how this is meant to work.
- 0xffff2 7y agoI don't think a virus is relevant here. I'm not a lawyer, but the idea of a "terms of service" for an unwanted and maliciously installed executable seems nonsensical. Virus authors can include whatever TOS they want, but the "user" hasn't agreed to the TOS practically by definition.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoUnfortunately the law doesn’t view common sense answers like that as easily as you and I.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoGood point. What about anti-virus or cloud-detonation services ? Sounds like there would be a similar type of challenges with those re licenses?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoPerhaps. It seems that this option is enabled by default, though. I imagine something about this is buried in the pile of agreements you have to click through when installing Windows. What's the status of current legal understanding of the reality that EULAs are bullshit and nobody ever reads them? Maybe I could win something from Europe via GDPR complaint if I compiled an executable containing my PII only for it to be exfilled by Microsoft?
- Someone1234 7y agoCopyright 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.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoFair. 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_defender_and_privacy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/8dmqdy/windows_d...
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoWorth 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 7y agoHIPAA 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.
- kps 7y ago> 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?
- winkeltripel 7y agoThe License you agreed to by using Windows probably covers this explicitly, even if they didn't get covered under the explicit exception for reverse-engineering and automated analysis.
- scarejunba 7y agoEven if I were to, hypothetically, cross-compile from Linux to Windows and deny my user the right to give away software written by me?