lalalawawawa Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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. Downloading a leak is not illegal. The internet police are not going to come after you. What the hell is wrong with people these days? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjmUK Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Come on now guys - let's picture pretty meadows and move on. So - is there an ETA for the official release date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 i just did a clean install of windows 2008 r2, installed this update and there is nothing new on windows update. (except a definition update for windows defender) - good enough for me. :p So does that mean you lose the ability to install language packs if you install this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kool Box Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Temporarily until Microsoft makes SP1 publically available on windows update then the language packs should return as SP1 compatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 all those that are saying it's illegal to use the leaked version need to calm down and shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gutierrez Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I wouldnt use a SP till the 1st SP of the SP :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkaic Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I wouldnt use a SP till the 1st SP of the SP :blink: Huh?:unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulpian Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I installed 64-bit Enterprise Trial. Applied SP1 b4 updates and b4 activating. Screensaver won't work, printers function produced errors. I googled and red that sfc /scannow will help. After using sfc /scannow I saw warning about pirated version (I use 90-day trial, no illegal stuff here, activation crashed), activation not worked, even calculator not worked. Widnows update - ERROR. I tried slmgr /rearm - info about pirated copy is gone, but system is still malfunctioning in other areas described above. System is ready for reinstalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted January 16, 2011 Author Veteran Share Posted January 16, 2011 Still no weird errors here. I running great since yesterday after i formatted and installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billmaster Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Wow Ulpian your system messed up major! I noticed the installer had to download something before installing. (x64) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjmUK Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I wouldnt use a SP till the 1st SP of the SP :blink: Huh?:unsure: Lol - do you mean SP2 (aka SP of SP1) :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMHolt57 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 46 minutes desktop to desktop with only one restart, not too bad. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LogicalApex MVC Posted January 16, 2011 MVC Share Posted January 16, 2011 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. Your argument is a non-sequitur one. You can't have a license to install the Service Pack without an underlying License to run the Windows OS that it is updating. You're essentially saying the Service Pack has a license that is not related to the Operating System it updates. Microsoft's EULA doesn't agree with you... Any License Agreement that comes with a Service Pack is merely an addendum to the EXISTING license you ALREADY have. As such, the Windows License, as it states, authorizes, and licenses, you for any updates. The only caveat is you have to accept any EULA changes that MAY accompany the update. 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. That was a response to this statement by you earlier (emphasis mine)... 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. You have certain authorizations to make copies of Windows as prescribed in the EULA. This is irrespective of any consumer laws that may or may not exist in your jurisdiction. So you ARE legally allowed to make copies of Windows for your OWN PERSONAL USE as long as it complies with the EULA terms. You said you aren't allowed to... Shows you didn't read the EULA. Either way this argument is going nowhere fast. I just wanted to explain to you, with the legal justification, that you aren't correct to chastise people for installing a Service Pack. There is no legal justification to do so since their contract with Microsoft allows them to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganX Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I wouldnt use a SP till the 1st SP of the SP :blink: Those are the old days when we needed a SP to make the OS actually work. Now Service Packs are meh ... Thanks you Windows 7. Besides there's not much in it. Most interesting to me is RemoteFX which means nothing to my personal PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It needs 8 GB of free space before it will install, but I only have 6.3 GB free (SSD). Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 You're essentially saying the Service Pack has a license that is not related to the Operating System it updates. Microsoft's EULA doesn't agree with you... That is correct. The copyright to the update exists independently of the copyright to Windows. They are separate. Any License Agreement that comes with a Service Pack is merely an addendum to the EXISTING license you ALREADY have. As such, the Windows License, as it states, authorizes, and licenses, you for any updates. The only caveat is you have to accept any EULA changes that MAY accompany the update. Untrue. The EULA specifically states that the license terms "also apply to any Microsoft updates for this software, unless other terms accompany those items. If so, those termps apply." In other words, if the update has no separate license terms, then the same license terms as for Windows apply. If it does have them, they and they alone apply. As such, the Windows License, as it states, authorizes, and licenses, you for any updates. The only caveat is you have to accept any EULA changes that MAY accompany the update. It does not "authorize and license you" for anything, it simply states the actual text of the license terms (the license.rtf file) also applies to updates that don't have their own (few, not that it's important.) You still have to have obtained the file that the license terms apply to by legal means, just like you do with Windows. There is nothing in the license terms you have accepted for Windows that says you can download updates from anywhere you want. You have certain authorizations to make copies of Windows as prescribed in the EULA. This is irrespective of any consumer laws that may or may not exist in your jurisdiction. So you ARE legally allowed to make copies of Windows for your OWN PERSONAL USE as long as it complies with the EULA terms. You said you aren't allowed to... Shows you didn't read the EULA. I respectfully ask that you actually read the post you are responding to. The sentence you have highlighted is talking about what inherent rights you have prior to accepting the license terms contained in the EULA. At that point what rights you have to make copies depends on local law. In some places you are legally entitled to make backup copies, and in some places you are also legally entitled to make whatever copies are required to use the product for its intended purpose. These are exceptions to copyright law designed to protect consumers, but they vary from place to place. Either way this argument is going nowhere fast. I just wanted to explain to you, with the legal justification, that you aren't correct to chastise people for installing a Service Pack. There is no legal justification to do so since their contract with Microsoft allows them to do so. They don't, because they have no contract with Microsoft that states that they are allowed to make copies of the copy stored on fileserve.com. There is nothing in the Windows EULA about this at all. It only states that you are allowed to make (limited) copies of a copy that has been legally provided to you (either on physical media purchased from Microsoft or stored on a Microsoft server.) The reason there is nothing in the EULA about it is because the EULA is only presented to you after you've already obtained a copy. Now, downloading it rates as about a -50 on the seriousness scale and Microsoft doesn't give a damn, but it is technically illegal. Same with uploading it through BitTorrent or hosting it (although here Microsoft does care, and does have a history of going after people, including Neowin.) I say go ahead and download both pre-release updates and pre-release versions of Windows and other software. Why not, it's fun. Technically though, threads like that should be treated the same way as ones dedicated to pirating Photoshop or whatever. Calling it a "leak" instead of copyright violation doesn't make it legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomoko Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I say go ahead and download both pre-release updates and pre-release versions of Windows and other software. Why not, it's fun. Technically though, threads like that should be treated the same way as ones dedicated to pirating Photoshop or whatever. Calling it a "leak" instead of copyright violation doesn't make it legal. If you can't see the moral difference in downloading a service pack early (which there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with) and downloading the actual OS without paying for it (which is stealing) then I feel sorry for you. Actually I already do because you're making such a big deal out of absolutely nothing. Neowin isn't going to close the thread because there's nothing wrong here and downloading SP1 early is not illegal. Go find something productive to do and stop making a fool of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardK Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Agreed. If it was that damn big of a deal, the mods would have taken it down already. NO, all the MODS encourage and support piracy. If they really were serious about anti-piracy, everyone posting here saying they have downloaded it, or that they don't care about copyrights or laws in general would be permanently banned from the forums. Their information should be forwarded to the law enforcement agencies in their respective countries as well. That never happens, so the only other conclusion is they encourage and support it. And, they actively advertise it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If you can't see the moral difference in downloading a service pack early (which there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with) and downloading the actual OS without paying for it (which is stealing) then I feel sorry for you. Sure I can. The law doesn't deal with how "moral" it seems though. Copyright law applies equally to my freeware utility and a ?5000 Microsoft enterprise product. Actually I already do because you're making such a big deal out of absolutely nothing. Neowin isn't going to close the thread because there's nothing wrong here and downloading SP1 early is not illegal. Go find something productive to do and stop making a fool of yourself. Neowin knows what's illegal. They've always been treading a very fine line on this kind of thing, because so much of the site has been dedicated to pre-release software from Microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyfrog Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Neowin knows what's illegal. They've always been treading a very fine line on this kind of thing, because so much of the site has been dedicated to pre-release software from Microsoft. It's not illegal, and you're being silly. Microsoft doesn't care; no one does (except you apparently). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H. Veteran Posted January 16, 2011 Author Veteran Share Posted January 16, 2011 Ok enough with the legalities. It's like trying to close the barn doors after the horses have already left! Let's just discuss any benefits or issues we've found with this current build, RTM or not. As of now things seem to be running great, what is everyone's experience so far? Anyone with USB 3 or HDMI outputs notice said changes that were supposed to be implemented? 2008 R2 users, how's the Remote FX stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkaic Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 NO, all the MODS encourage and support piracy. If they really were serious about anti-piracy, everyone posting here saying they have downloaded it, or that they don't care about copyrights or laws in general would be permanently banned from the forums. Their information should be forwarded to the law enforcement agencies in their respective countries as well. That never happens, so the only other conclusion is they encourage and support it. And, they actively advertise it as well. Who do you work for? Seriously you've blown your cover (or top) matey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lalalawawawa Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Sure I can. The law doesn't deal with how "moral" it seems though. Copyright law applies equally to my freeware utility and a ?5000 Microsoft enterprise product. Neowin knows what's illegal. They've always been treading a very fine line on this kind of thing, because so much of the site has been dedicated to pre-release software from Microsoft. Its not illegal, its against the EULA. So cut the crap, okay? Anyway, any news of an official release of integrated MSDN images? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Its not illegal, its against the EULA. So cut the crap, okay? Anyway, any news of an official release of integrated MSDN images? Probably not for a while yet. I just slipstreamed my own using RT7Lite (would recommend using version 2.0+) and did a test install with the ISO in VMWare, and it seemed fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Its not illegal, its against the EULA. So cut the crap, okay? The EULA doesn't enter into it. If I go and download Photoshop 17, I'm not violating the Photoshop EULA (which I haven't even seen), I'm violating copyright law. But anyway, I've derailed enough so no one else respond to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts