WZor - Windows 7/2008 R2 Service Pack 1 - LINKS LEAKED!

[xbamaris]

It's illegal because Microsoft holds the copyright to it. This gives them the sole right to create new copies of it. For it to be legal for you to make copies of it (by downloading it, uploading it, installing it, or executing it and making transitory copies in RAM), you have to have their explicit permission. This is the case regardless of whether they decide to charge for the product or not (but if you purchase something, you have certain implicit consumer rights that vary from region to region.)

Many people seem to think you can freely distribute something just because the author decides not to charge for it, but this isn't true. Copyright applies to everything. In this particular case though, Microsoft doesn't even give it away for free, because they haven't even released it yet.

Show me in the EULA where you cannot distribute Service Packs and then you will have me. While I'm not completely disagreeing with you but if Microsoft had a case against anyone using a service pack that hasn't been distributed my Microsoft themselves they should atleast have some where in LEGAL context. Ironically, since the EULA hasn't been released for the Service Pack then there is no way for a user to know what their rights are. Which would be a defense against any case Microsoft would bring upon someone. Let alone, its highly unlikely Microsoft will even bother bringing a case against ANYONE unless there was some kind of MALICIOUS intent. Which in this case, there isn't.

[PGHammer]

<br />Source: <a href='http://www.winsupersite.com/article/windows-7/Sneak-Peek-A-Quick-Look-at-Windows-7-Service-Pack-1.aspx' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>WinSuperSite</a><br />

<br /><br /><br />

I'd call the HDMI issue pretty darn major (even though I don't have that bug personally, I know some that do). HDMI is becoming the primary (or even preferred) way to connect PCs to displays (my 23" monitor supports VGA, DVI-D, and HDMI, as does my desktop, and I use HDMI, despite that it made my X-Fi moot), especially portable PCs (such as laptops and notebooks, but also desktops and FPTVs).

[hdood]

Show me in the EULA where you cannot distribute Service Packs and then you will have me. While I'm not completely disagreeing with you but if Microsoft had a case against anyone using a service pack that hasn't been distributed my Microsoft themselves they should atleast have some where in LEGAL context. Ironically, since the EULA hasn't been released for the Service Pack then there is no way for a user to know what their rights are. Which would be a defense against any case Microsoft would bring upon someone.

You seem to have it backwards. You need to provide the document that gives you permission. By default you have no rights at all.

Let alone, its highly unlikely Microsoft will even bother bringing a case against ANYONE unless there was some kind of MALICIOUS intent. Which in this case, there isn't.

Microsoft has sent cease and desist letters over updates before. Even to Neowin, if memory serves me right.

[hdood]

I'd call the HDMI issue pretty darn major (even though I don't have that bug personally, I know some that do). HDMI is becoming the primary (or even preferred) way to connect PCs to displays (my 23" monitor supports VGA, DVI-D, and HDMI, as does my desktop, and I use HDMI, despite that it made my X-Fi moot), especially portable PCs (such as laptops and notebooks, but also desktops and FPTVs).

Maybe, but it doesn't apply to most people or it would already be on Windows Update. It was fixed in November 2009 anyway, so if you've waited this long it can't have been that important.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

The files may be genuine, but it's still against the law. If I'm going to break the law, why not make it worth it? There is no legal difference between downloading or distributing a copy of Windows 7 and SP1. Both are just as illegal, and it doesn't become any less illegal by calling it a "leak."

You're a little off with your reasoning. It could be argued that distributing the Service Pack without prior, explicit, permission from Microsoft is a violation of their copyright. The determination of that would be left up to a court of law though. Getting a Cease & Desist letter from a lawyer doesn't prove that you've done anything illegal as a lawyer isn't given the power to determine legality (that is the providence of a judge in the US legal system, where Microsoft is based).

Downloading and installing a Service Pack wouldn't be illegal for any legally licensed Windows user. Why not? Because the Windows EULA automatically licenses them for ALL future updates to their current version of Windows. So they can't be violating any law or copyright for installing it since they have already been given the right to do so...

I'll quote the opening paragraphs to the Windows 7 Ultimate EULA for you (emphasis mine):

MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS

WINDOWS 7 ULTIMATE

These license terms are an agreement between Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live, one of its affiliates) and you. Please read them. They apply to the software named above, which includes the media on which you received it, if any. Printed-paper license terms, which may come with the software, may replace or modify any on-screen license terms. The terms also apply to any Microsoft

? updates,

? supplements,

? Internet-based services, and

? support services

for this software, unless other terms accompany those items. If so, those terms apply.

[JonathanVP]

It seems to install and run okay with no stability issues on my laptop. Time to bite the bullet and install on my desktop....

[Azusa]

Apparently it doesn't :pirate:

But bad on you for not getting one of the cheap deals out there! They had it for $30 at one point to compete with OS X Snow Leopard! :boo:

Yeah they'll always have it for $30 but never ?30.

[Lexcyn]

I installed it on my desktop... I don't care if it's not sanctioned or whatever, I have a legit copy of 7 Pro so I am not worried.

Also, I have a feeling that this is the final just MS doesn't want to admit it :p

[NEVER85]

All my MP3s are legal, not that I quite see the relevance.

I love posts like this. People like you that spout off about the evils of "illegal" downloading are often the worst pirates of all. Quit being a hypocrite.

Anyway, installed it, works fine.

[hdood]

You're a little off with your reasoning. It could be argued that distributing the Service Pack without prior, explicit, permission from Microsoft is a violation of their copyright. The determination of that would be left up to a court of law though.

Obviously only courts actually rule on specific cases, but this isn't something that is in dispute. It's a basic and simple part of copyright law (and in fact, Microsoft go out of their way to point it out in their license terms even though they don't have to.)

Getting a Cease & Desist letter from a lawyer doesn't prove that you've done anything illegal as a lawyer isn't given the power to determine legality (that is the providence of a judge in the US legal system, where Microsoft is based).

Certainly true, but I was just pointing out that Microsoft actually does care and actually has in the past made an effort to stop third party distribution.

Downloading and installing a Service Pack wouldn't be illegal for any legally licensed Windows user. Why not? Because the Windows EULA automatically licenses them for ALL future updates to their current version of Windows. So they can't be violating any law or copyright for installing it since they have already been given the right to do so...

That is not what the text means. It doesn't "license them for" anything. It means that the license terms (the actual text) is the same for any updates that don't have their own license terms that supercede it (most do, including SPs, but that's not important.)

It's also worth nothing that the EULA only applies to events that occur after you accept it. When you buy Windows, you buy a copy stored on a DVD. You own this and have legally obtained it. However, you have no right to make additional copies of it (sort of, local consumer laws apply here.) When you attempt to run the installer, it prompts you with the license terms. If you accept the terms, Microsoft then gives you permission to make a new copy by installing (copying) it onto your hard drive.

If on the other hand I go and download it from a warez site, I never got permission to make this initial copy of it. It's impossible for the warez site to grant me such permission (both implicitly and explicitly), because they aren't the copyright holder. Microsoft on the other hand, can do this on their site, because they do hold the copyright.

I love posts like this. People like you that spout off about the evils of "illegal" downloading are often the worst pirates of all. Quit being a hypocrite.

And people who reply exactly that to me often rape and murder blind wheelchair-bound orphans. Nice personal attack, but I've not said anything about it being "evil" (which is the word that belongs in quotation marks, not illegal.) I'm mostly amused by the way I could get a warning for saying to someone that pirating X was the only way of obtaining it without paying, while some threads that are outright dedicated to copyright violation are allowed. I don't really think it matters if someone downloads a pre-release version of an update (or Windows itself really, for that matter), although the tech geek in me doesn't really see the excitement (unlike betas of new products.)

some copyright violation is allowed and encouraged, whereas

[DjmUK]

Question

All my MP3s are legal, not that I quite see the relevance.

Answer

For it to be legal for you to make copies of it (by downloading it, uploading it, installing it, or executing it and making transitory copies in RAM), you have to have their explicit permission. This is the case regardless of whether they decide to charge for the product or not (but if you purchase something, you have certain implicit consumer rights that vary from region to region.)

Anyway. Enough flaming, you don't believe it's acceptable to install this Service Pack - fine, it's unlikely those who have installed it are going to uninstall it because of your hurt feelings. Time to move onto another thread and picture meadows I think ;)

[hdood]

Answer

I have permission for all my MP3 files. It's not really important though, because the statement "rape and murder is illegal" would still be true if it was uttered by a murdering rapist. Heck, I'd probably be more inclined to believe him exactly because he was a murdering rapist because, hey, he's probably looked into it.

[Arkaic]

I have permission for all my MP3 files. It's not really important though, because the statement "rape and murder is illegal" would still be true if it was uttered by a murdering rapist. Heck, I'd probably be more inclined to believe him exactly because he was a murdering rapist because, hey, he's probably looked into it.

that is messed up. :wacko:

[lalalawawawa]

The files may be genuine, but it's still against the law. If I'm going to break the law, why not make it worth it? There is no legal difference between downloading or distributing a copy of Windows 7 and SP1. Both are just as illegal, and it doesn't become any less illegal by calling it a "leak."

I see your administration did a good job on you. No offense, but...

Laws? :laugh:

[x-scratch]

All my MP3s are legal, not that I quite see the relevance.

sure they are. but anyways if it was illegally leaked why does microsoft not go after wzor then

seems microsoft wants the attention so somebody leaks it out on purpose

case closed

[Ji@nBing]

You are mistaken. Price has absolutely nothing to do with it. Copyright applies to all software, regardless of whether the author chooses to charge for it or not. The copyright holder has the right to make it freely available on his site, but you do not without getting his permission.

This is where the term "license" comes from. Licensing software means obtaining permission to make limited copies of it through a legal agreement between you and the software vendor.

I have, and I stand by my statement. The high priority updates that most people can be said to need "right now" have already been pushed out through Windows Update.

No, they don't. They don't want third parties to distribute updates at all. They want it all to go through them directly.

Frankly I don't give a damn about copyrights, especially when it comes to software that is offered for free already. It's pretty much just a meaningless bunch of text.

[Subject Delta]

The files may be genuine, but it's still against the law. If I'm going to break the law, why not make it worth it? There is no legal difference between downloading or distributing a copy of Windows 7 and SP1. Both are just as illegal, and it doesn't become any less illegal by calling it a "leak."

Oh wow, I downloaded a leaked copy of a service pack that will end up being released for free anyway, aren't I the dreadful evildoer? I never tried to claim it was legal, I just seriously don't care it's only a service pack. My copy of Windows is legit actually, I just like to get hold of major updates as soon as they are released, I like to keep my software fully updated.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Oh wow, I downloaded a leaked copy of a service pack that will end up being released for free anyway, aren't I the dreadful evildoer? I never tried to claim it was legal, I just seriously don't care it's only a service pack. My copy of Windows is legit actually, I just like to get hold of major updates as soon as they are released, I like to keep my software fully updated.

Agreed. If it was that damn big of a deal, the mods would have taken it down already.

[Skyfrog]

The files may be genuine, but it's still against the law. If I'm going to break the law, why not make it worth it? There is no legal difference between downloading or distributing a copy of Windows 7 and SP1. Both are just as illegal, and it doesn't become any less illegal by calling it a "leak."

lmao, wow. :rofl:

[+LogicalApex MVC]

That is not what the text means. It doesn't "license them for" anything. It means that the license terms (the actual text) is the same for any updates that don't have their own license terms that supercede it (most do, including SPs, but that's not important.)

It's also worth nothing that the EULA only applies to events that occur after you accept it. When you buy Windows, you buy a copy stored on a DVD. You own this and have legally obtained it. However, you have no right to make additional copies of it (sort of, local consumer laws apply here.) When you attempt to run the installer, it prompts you with the license terms. If you accept the terms, Microsoft then gives you permission to make a new copy by installing (copying) it onto your hard drive.

If on the other hand I go and download it from a warez site, I never got permission to make this initial copy of it. It's impossible for the warez site to grant me such permission (both implicitly and explicitly), because they aren't the copyright holder. Microsoft on the other hand, can do this on their site, because they do hold the copyright.

You might want to read the actual EULA and stop making stuff up about what you think it says @ http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/UseTerms/Default.aspx

The EULA licenses all future updates, but offers Microsoft the option to update the EULA with updates as well. The license clearly states your existing license covers updates as well...

I never said the EULA provides the pirate with any rights. It wouldn't since the pirate wouldn't have a valid license under the EULA. I'm talking about legally licensed Windows users. They have a license for SP1, and all other updates, by virtue of their existing license. Read the EULA it says that as clear as I pasted it last time.

Also, you do get rights to make personal backup copies of Windows. It is in the EULA, like a lot of other things. You might want to give it a read sometime.

[Somnus]

This won't install for me. It states that my Windows 7 was modified with vlite, yet wasn't.

More than likely I will be installing fresh anyway once it is available from Technet or something.

[(Spork)]

wow this topic went down the ****** . bunch of people with knots in there panties

[hdood]

The EULA licenses all future updates, but offers Microsoft the option to update the EULA with updates as well. The license clearly states your existing license covers updates as well...

I never said the EULA provides the pirate with any rights. It wouldn't since the pirate wouldn't have a valid license under the EULA. I'm talking about legally licensed Windows users. They have a license for SP1, and all other updates, by virtue of their existing license. Read the EULA it says that as clear as I pasted it last time.

I have read it. Like I said, it states that the license terms also apply to any updates that don't include their own terms. The updates still have to be obtained legally for these license terms to apply, just like with Windows.

Also, you do get rights to make personal backup copies of Windows. It is in the EULA, like a lot of other things. You might want to give it a read sometime.

No idea what this is a response to. I've never said you can't make a backup copy. In fact, I've even pointed out that local laws often give implicit permission to do so regardless of what Microsoft says or doesn't say.

[Quillz]

There's really nothing in SP1 that can't wait a little bit until it's available through official channels. Why would I break the law and risk infection just to get it a few days early.

I'm pretty sure Bill Gates and the Microsoft Police aren't going to break down your door in the middle of the night and put you away for life without parole because you installed a service pack a few days early.

[Premgenius]

Going to wait for the official release and link to download but will start prepping for a clean install :)