Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Adds Product Activation
maliabu writes "GlobeTechnology/CNET reports that Symantec has added an antipiracy technology to the new version of its main virus-zapping program, in the form of compulsory product activation. It is intended to protect consumers from widespread counterfeit copies of Symantec programs. The company estimates at least 3.6 million bogus copies of its programs are sold annually, causing headaches both for Symantec and unsuspecting buyers, who find out too late that the software isn't doing the job."
How would product activation protect users? Piracy prevention only protects symantec.
The Television Wiki
Seems like the new standard - now they can enforce virus definition subscriptions as well - previously, reinstalling the product after a clean deinstall + registry clean would reset the subscription date for definition updates.
So the real question is - if there are 3.6M bogus copies sold, and (by RIAA numbers) an additional 360M pirated freely online, by enforcing the product activation, will the Internet see more viruses or less? (and yes, I know it's technically virii)
My vote is on more...
Subscribe for free to my show!
Not sure if it REALLY is, but Symantec has a serious problem with counterfeit copies. I get TONS of spam trying to sell me all sorts of Symantec products that are surely counterfeit. I've read before they have a support nightmare from people that buy them.
I am very disappointed with Symantec/Norton anyway, in recent weeks I have replaced 20 desktop licences with AVG by GRISoft. AVG found viruses on about 15 systems where Norton did not complain at all. Yes, Norton was up to date in all situations and many of the desktops were installed by other people, so no commonality there.
If I had shares in Symantec I'd be selling them now.
... they tell honestly that they want people to actually pay for the program? Norton AntiVirus is worth every buck you pay for it, and the online update features are very comfortable. I can't imagine of "bogus" copy's that don't work, and even if they existed, why counteract with a registration. if the bogus copy doesn't work, they don't have to fear it. Furthermore Symantec does a great deal in helping us for FREE (do you remember the W32.Blaster removal tool you could download even when you weren't a costumer of them?), so i think if you want to use AntiVirus from Norton you should pay for it, if you are greedy there are a lot of free alternatives
".Sig Stealer" was here
Just like the copy of my Symantec Anti Virus software I got for free with my DELL.
...Visit the website... Oh your version of Anti Virus has expired, please consider upgrading or buying our one year service plan...
Installed, and what pops up... Oh your virus files are out of date! Please visit our website.
The notebook was BRAND NEW...
This is called a money grab, boys and girls...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
- make the update protocol encrypted and secured;
- make virus pattern update sucription for money;
- release the client software itself for free;
- ???
- Profit!
Why? I hate product activation - it never works and users are always frustrated.Besides, the scanning and curing are not complicated operations per se. Virus patterns are the content that I am ready to pay money. Therefore the the other business model: charging for content rather than for software.
Less is more !
I personally don't mind product activation as long as consumers are aware of it before buying. I mean it is a matter of choice. I am sure you can find alternatives without product activation if you like. So it is simple. If you want to buy Symantec (Symantec is not a monopoly like MS so you do have many alternatives), then you will have to activate the product. I mean why do people talk as if trying to prevent piracy is a very bad thing. Only requirement is that the consumer should be informed, and after that let the consumer decide. I know some will argue that if Symantec is successful, others will incorporate same technology in their products as wel, but the point is that if Symantec succeeds, that means that a majority of consumers don't mind activating anyway. So in that case other would be fully justified in adding this technology to their own products. On the other hand, if people are bothered by it, they simply won't buy it. So just let the invisible hand of market take its course. I am sure we will reach an outcome which is benificial to the maximum number of people.
What's under yellowstone?
The only anti-piracy technology that really works is that which uses hardware.
It's difficult if not impossible to duplicate a hardware lock (parallel port dongle), and it costs money to do.
It would cost Symantec about $5 in mass production to include a dongle with their anti-virus software. It would cost the average person $25 to make that same lock, and would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate the firmware...
Software methods for anti-piracy were killed by copyiipc back in the 80's....
because if you have every used a Symantec product like Norton Internet Security (NIS) or Norton Antivirus (NAV) you must have realized how easy those have been to install on multiple computers.
:)
:)).
I've bought one back home and run it on all of my (2) home Windowsses, after all Norton is almost a synonym for quality when it comes to Windows utilities. I've also installed few from some public www page, where NIS 2003 (includes NAV 2003) was spread in 40MB fully working package.
Maybe they are just playing it wisely, waiting for the fuzz about M$ fascistic moves calmed down and then switching their own system on.. Can't blame them, this is IMHO the only way to go, no other realistic options.. However, I doubt that this will give them much more money, as hopefully most of the commericial side is already using their products legally so this would mostly target home and lifeless w4r3z d00ds
Though I have to admit that I haven't read any recent statistics about pirated stuff used at workplaces, only heard news that it'd be going down all the time (at least here in Finland or Scandinavia.. I have very bad memory
-rzei
I mentioned this in a seminar in Redmond when we were discussing MS product activation and Windows XP. I'll admit that software companies are entitled to make a profit. I'll even admit that they have the right to license every copy of that software that's in use if that's the model they choose. I won't argue MS' claim that about half the commercial software in use is pirated - but: Since these companies are showing a profit now, the price of piracy is clearly built into the software now. If product activation is effective then the previously unregistered copies that get purchased are clearly pure profit for the software manufacturer. Everyone pays the price for software piracy - so I'd like to ask Symantec the same question I asked Microsoft a couple years ago - are you going to reduce the price of your products now that all those previously unregistered copies are bought and paid for? Anything else seems like a grab for profit under the guise of protecting intellectual property.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
I've always thought it's a bit strange that a piece of software that has to phone home to work well (i.e. download signature files) was so incredibly easy to copy. I installed Norton Antivirus on my parents' old computer, and when they bought a new one I thought I'd have to go through some more or less complicated procedure to get the program to run on it. But nope, I installed it and not only did it work, I got 12 new months of free updates (only one year is included, then it's like $10 per year).
Martin
I've also noticed that after a recent "Live Update" and reboot of my machine that one of the Symantec executables (ccApp.exe I think) insists on contacting crl.verisign.com when it didn't before...
Personally, I am getting tired of all this extra effort just to use a damn piece of software I purchased legally. I'm also tired of every single application wanting to contact the mothership for some reason.
-Phil
Shoot questions, first ask later...
Imagine if every bit of software on your computer was tied to that one computer. All of your games, all of your utilities, your office software, etc. Everything.
Now imagine thinking about buying a new computer. You have all of that money invested in software which is tied to old computer. Suddenly, the cost of that new computer is a LOT more because you have to buy your software all over again.
Of course, defenders of product activation will say that you'll be able to remove the software from the old system and install it on the new system. But do we know that for certain?! It certainly didn't work that way for TurboTax users.
Essentially, switching will become a risk. You might be able to use some of your software, but some you will not. Plus, that old computer will have absolutely no software on it, thus, it'll be rendered useless.
Some will argue that installing software on two computers you own is illegal. They'd be right, BUT, and this is a big BUT, CONSUMERS ARE USED TO IT. They've been doing it that way from the very beginning. When consumers get used to doing something one way, they get pissed when it changes.
When product activation is widespread, Dell, Gateway, and every other computer manufacturer can kiss their asses goodbye.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.