Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Security Updates for Pirated Windows?
zachlipton writes "DSL Reports has an interesting question posted: should users with pirated copies of Windows be allowed to download security updates, such as for Sasser? Apparently, without a valid CD key, users cannot download these updates. Do they get what they deserve, or should they be allowed these updates through Windows Update in order to reduce the impact of these worms on the rest of the net? Should security updates only for worms be made available to pirated users, or also updates for issues that while not posing a risk to other internet users, would open the pirate up to a security hole?"
I am pretty sure MSDN version of windows XP don't have activation keys and such. Does that mean they can't upgrade?
because if they dont let me patch my OS, ill bring down the rest of the world's infastructure with me!!
Mwaahahahhaha!
why i laugh?
A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
Pirates should get updates as much as they get support from any other product they stole: Zero.
Want software without paying for it? Use Free Software. Theres heaps of it.
If they can pirate the operating system, why can't they just pirate the patches too?
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
Whatever they decide will no doubt be best for everyone. Afterall, they have the resources to really look into the questions while all we can do is speculate.
If they cant download the updates, and havoc is all the more extreme because of poor MS coding, it only shines a brighter light on alternative operating systems.
Ive been saying forever that the year MS perfects its anti-piracy technique really WILL BE the year of the linux desktop, and this (at least in my eyes) is a step closer to that.
the EULA attached to the security patches, even when you are legitimate owner of a copy of Windows!
Bull. I update my pirate copies of XP all of the time.
Its microsofts perogotive, theyre not in any way required to support pirated versions of their software, and why should they bother. On the other hand, these worms negativly effect everyone. Although if your smart enough to pirate windows (there are some tricks joe sixpack wouldn't know right away) you should be savy enough to get a keygen of kazza or something. Not that thats how i got XP SP1 or anything...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Not saying I pirate windows or anything of the sort. But jsut because they dont get patches doesnt mean they wont pirate. It just means that when worms come out, it will be that much worse. Pirates tend to be a lil smarter, and actually keep their systems up to date.
I would hate to see sasser or code red hit the large percetage of people that pirate, and CANT patch. Internet go byebye!
snowulf.com
I've seen several "corporate" XP cds floating around, as well as some beta versions which contain all XP functionality once patched through Windows Update.
Microsoft disables some CD keys already which are known to be pirated, but I wonder how many valid corporate group cd key installations there are which have been pirated. In that case, it really wouldn't be feasible for MS to disable that cd key, as it would disable that entire company, etc.
"Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" -Juvenal
corporate edition.
Harder.. Better.. Faster.. Stronger
It is fundamentally a companies sole responsibility to ensure that any flaws within its products are fixed. By using their own mistakes as a punishment for people who pirate that are propagating flawed copies of their software. Microsoft should allow any user of their products regardless of if they have a right to it to have updates. They can fight piracy in more responsible and effective ways, for there are other people who use the network.
Why should it have to pay for the bandwidth to support pirated copies? There is no benefit to them.
Most if not all infected Sasser users around here had legit but hadn't bothered to update. Real crackers use the corporate version of Windows that apparently doesn't require a CD key for updates.
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
Support is Free ... duh, not like they have to pay for all that bandwidth or anything. They may be able to afford it, but why would any company (ala: Redhat) be forced to maintain something that wasn't purchased? All real property vs intellectual property ideals aside, that's like blaming Ford that your stolen car can't be serviced.
I have been of the oppinion that App level firewalls at the ISP level (hell even port blocking during worm-storms) is a necessary function. During the Nachi outbreak ISPs were killing ICMP just because of the sheer mass of pings flying around were bring down gear.
At the very least, ISPs should be responsible for the prevention of outbound malicious traffic, automated or manual (aka: crackers, kiddies etc.)
When they knowingly ignore the traffic traversing their network and wreaking havoc on others, I am always disgusted.
Not that my shit don't stink, but if I got a line spewing worm, it gets pulled till it's clean. Thank goodness for the public sector.
Yes, they should allow pirated copies to download the security updates. They'll just be turned into proxy servers to launch further attacks if they don't, and considering hackers are starting to target Microsoft's servers itself now with these proxies, I'd think it'd be in their best interests overall.
Besides, if I owned Microsoft I wouldn't really want to give these people yet another reason to switch over to Linux.
Creator of the popular web game Proximity
It's probably in everyone's interest to give out patches to all, even those that Micro$oft knows are illegal copies, as it probably impacts the spread of viruses such as Sasser more than it does their pocketbook.
no.
"Ain't that a B!" -Rick James
/dev/random
Uhhh, you can still download updates with a pirated version of Windows Xp. There are many programs that anyone can easily download, that will generate, and put to use a new serial number that will allow you to use Windows Update.
Company profits vs. general good of the internet. I really wonder which one they'll choose.
(note that I left out writing better software)
SecondPageMedia - Wha
These people have pirated the software. == no support == no upgrades. Sure, it would help the rest of the net if they weren't spreading the worm, but since when has M$ considered the well-being of the internet their responsibility?
"as if nothing were solid...and that would be the end of the world, not fire and brimstone, but goo."--Rand
Maybe it's something you could get used to.
Frank: Hey Bob, could I burn a CD on your computer?
Bob: Yeah sure.
Frank: Uhh. It says it's going to shut down in 60 seconds.
Bob: Yep. Gotta work fast.
Give people more incentive to use linux instead of a pirated copy of XP.
The latest build( released in the last 4 days ) of the xp service pack2 beta, blocks a whole range of keys. People who have been using the corporate version of xp, using a keygen will find it will find it needs activating when the apply service pack 2.
The keygen(a very very very popular one) generates product keys in the range 640-645. SP2 turns activation back on when it detects this.
That this is up for discussion shows how little Microsoft cares about the common good of the worlds internet users and therefore their customers.
Who was it said 'EULAs are what you use against your clients'?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
We need to create an environment where piracy is looked down upon, not encouraged. Giving them updates is simply encouraging pirate behavior.
If an infected machine becomes such a problem that they're affecting other people, ISP's should simply revoke a users access until they upgrade to the latest patches and remove the virus. A pirated version of Windows wouldn't be able to get the updates and therefore would probably keep on getting the virus, costing them a great deal of inconvience every time their internet is shut off. Not to mention the knowledge that thier machine is going to be swamped with viruses and that their computer will be completely insecure.
The best way to get rid of pirates is to make the cost of pirating greater than the cost of buying the software (or finding a legit alternative).
I know with the installation of Windows XP SP1a, a specific activation code would not allow the service pack to install. This is obviously different from a security hotfix.
Not allowing security hotfixes for pirated copies isn't just a threat to the pirating user, but a threat to all legal users as well. When someone using the same web server as me and gets hit by Netsky, I AM GOING TO SUFFER. I own my copy of Windows 2000 Professional, and I periodically have a Linux machine going. I've done nothing morally wrong there, but I will suffer. Thats simply unacceptable.
Thinking business, could an ISP sue a user who is unable to resolve a security issue that pushes out 10K emails an hour if it was against their terms of service? Is it precedented?
I guess the short of my point is that it's not fair to the rest of the legal users when a pirated copy is responsible for bandwidth and storage abuse. No one should be denied security updates.
This article is misleading and transend into a completely difference arene without even addressing it. The article refer to the use of Windows Update service which offer patches and scanning function of Windows XP machines and a user inability to use that service has NOTHING to do with wherether they can patch their machine or not because they can patch their machine using a regular method of download a file and run it or uses other Software Management system to get their system(s) updated without using ANY Microsoft service. So this question doesn't apply in this case. In order to answer the question, NO users should not be allowed to use a service that they didn't paid for which in this case the Windows Update service offered by Micro$soft.
1. Open it up to all with a key
2. Log the ones who's key is invalid (unregistered)
3. SUE SUE SUE!!!
4. PROFIT!!!
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
The simple answer is yes.
For the common good of the internet, as well as for the sake of protecting Microsoft's already spotty image, they should be allowed to download hotfixes... after all, they wouldn't need them if Micrsoft had done it right in the first place.
The corporate answer is no.
They didn't pay for the software and are therefore ineligible for updates.
My opinion?
For the common good, Windows should go away. But until then, everyone running it, legally or not, needs to have access to emergency patches and fixes.
-- This sig for rent.
Many users say pirates who can't find workarounds should "reap what they sow", but their infected pirated Windows boxes impact non-pirates everywhere."
Umm except for that non-pirates can apply the patches which means they won't be infected. And if someone can't bother to take 2 minutes a month to install the updates then they probably don't care all that much whether their PC gets hosed. So what's the big deal? I'm on OS X and microsoft pirates not being able to patch hasn't hurt me any, so why should microsoft be forced to give amnesty?
I'm pretty sure that most copies of pirated XP floating around (the keyless corporate versions) will let users install everything but service packs. I don't know a lick about international piracy, but I imagine it's the same software.
I downloaded the patch to Win XP against Sasser, and it never even asked me for a CD key. (Which, given that I don't know where mine has gotten to now, is a good thing.)
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Of course the initial response is to think that those who have pirated copies must not receive updates.
As with all things though it's seldom that simple.
When a company such as Microsoft gain a significant share of the market (yes... monopoly), then the damage that saying no could be could actually threaten the stability of that society were their software to fail sigificantly.
i.e. If machines cannot be patched with at least the bare security updates, and those machines then assist in the even wider propagation of a virus or worm such that it affects the infrastructure of the Internet as a more general thing.
Then in those cases, would it not have been a civic duty upon the company to protect the wider Internet and society (of their original shortcomings in allowing the vunerability to exist) regardless.
So I'm more of the opinion that No should be the answer for all bells and whistles things... such as Media Player. But that all security patches should be installed on every machine possible... regardless of whether that is a machine without a legit key or not.
Interesetingly, this is probably opposite Microsofts view. As to be able to manipulate market forces they need critical mass in areas suh as Media Player. So I think from their perspective they would probably wish to allow the whistles, but to encourage/force the upgrade to a legal version would probably wish to disallow stability patches (read: security) so that legit systems are more stable.
You don't deserve the software update.
Granted, these people not getting the software updates will cause problems for the rest of us, in that they're propagating some sort of virus.
My solution to that is to shut off the users. If the ISP of this user can prove that the user's PC is infected and sending out the virus, then it should be simple for the ISP to say, "patch it, or we're shutting you down".
I'm not really fond of ISPs snooping in on my traffic to determine whether or not to cut me off, so they should base it on a complaint system - if somebody complains that you're spreading the virus, then the ISP investigates (I recall lots of people with logs of Code Red attacks). If they find proof that you're spreading the virus, then you're forced to patch, or if you can't, you're shut down.
Extreme, perhaps, but the only way that people will properly maintain their machines.
-- Joe
I've seen a couple of TechNet update pages, though, that don't provide direct download links, but instead refer to Windows Update (or WU Catalog).
Not that I'd know any of this from experience or anything...
Ok, here's how it works. If you're smart enough to get a pirate copy of Windows, you're smart enough to get the update the same way. Why would you go through Microsoft to get their updates if you "pirated" their software? Go through the regular sources, right? I'm actually supised MS doesn't install a "patch" on systems without a key that make the system unusable. Seems to me like a good way to keep users that don't pay on the edge to the point where some of them will break down and pay. Then again, that's why I use Linux. I thought this was a Linux based site anyways?...
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Regardless of how MS is the evil empire or whatever we're calling them this week, you shouldn't receive support if you didn't pay for it. They make a product, and if you choose to use it, then you should pay for it. Yes, their license costs an arm and a leg, but there's no excuse that warez monkeys should receive support. If I pirate WineX, should I be able to email the developers and ask for help on something? I'm not a developer, but if I was and I sold a commercial product, I'd be pissed off if someone had the audacity to ask me for updates if they willingly STOLE my work in the first place.
Microsoft should allow pirated copies to update for a number of reasons. First off, unpatched Windows machines make life worse for EVERYONE, and just makes Microsoft look worse. Secondly, why push people more toward Linux (from MS's point of view) Personally, I'm using XP Corporate installs at home. Is it legal? No. Do I feel guilty? Not in the least. Why not? Because I actually have MORE LEGIMATE XP PRO LICENSES THAN I HAVE XP PRO INSTALLED ON. I have 3 LEGIMATE XP Pro licenses, and 2 computers with XP Pro installed on them. I just am constantly changing hardware, and activation is a pain, so I install off a corporate CD to avoid it. I've been meaning to switch my main desktop to Linux anyway (I allready have more Linux boxes than Windows ones) If I couldn't update my XP corp install, it would probably be the push I need to do it...
Here in Poland, the only legal M$ software is in business or preinstalled. People who buy hardware with preinstalled soft are usualy technicaly illiterate. If for some reason update procedure becomes more complicated they'll simply abandon it. :) I work as helpdesk/(repair that crap) :)
So I think its good idea to make procedure complicated
On the one hand there is piracy. Even if you say it's an advantage for Microsoft because of more dependency, the truth is that it isn't what they want people doing with their product, and it is illegal. If you want the support you should fork over for the product; after all Windows is about as Not-Free-Software as you can get. Perhaps if it wasn't such as widespread, costs to cover piracy would come down, and Windows would be cheaper and thus more easily availible. A rock and a hard place, people will need to buy before they can afford, and the numbers on actual piracy are way out of the realm of possible statistical analysis.
That being said, not getting security updates can cause problems for the Internet as a whole, not to mention for valid Windows users as pirate machines which can't be patched propigate viruses. That is more than just a problem for the people with bootleg'd copies themselves, that causes network congestion and performance problems for valid users as well. I know my Apache logs are still crammed with exploit attempts...
It's a question of responsibility vs. assisting lawbreakers. My (personal, humble) opinion is that Microsoft should allow security patches to all copies of Windows as it defeats expliots and worms/virii much quicker, but as for feature upgrades and bug fixes which are not a security issue, Microsoft should withold those unless the user has a valid serial key. True seriousness about security means defeating the problem for more than just customers, it means providing a better enviroment for everyone. This, I believe, is the root of the problem in the Microsoft attitude, and it's kind of sad that the largest software company on Earth can't see far enough past their bottom line to make such a move.
No one is (or should) ask them to give away anything more than saftey.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I don't know who the first was but notably Valve is doing this with their software through Steam. Once you register your CD key with Steam you get access to that game and mods for that game. Patches, when released, are automatically pushed to your computer (unless you specify otherwise). There are no updates to download; for example, if you go to the Counter-Strike web site and click on "downloads" you'll be directed to the Steam website.
I've read there are no keygens for Steam accounts, though I guess you could share a key if you don't play online (and limit yourself to a LAN, e.g.)
i don't know about yous guys but my "functional offsite backup copy" of xp get updates and patches
Actually there is a third option...
Microsoft quits releasing software that has so many fucking bugs and security holes.
Seriously, getting around Microsoft's restrictions on keys is so trivial even my mother could do it. Anyone who isn't already applying updates even on a pirated copy wouldn't apply them if they were openly allowed to anyway. Lazyness and apathy is more of a problem.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Ok, i'm just gonna come out and say it, who here's running that pirated corporate version of XP Pro? I'll be the first to admit it, my computer came with XP home and i was having printer problems, a friend of mine got me a cd and i upgraded to pro fixed the problem, not even sure why though. Never had a problem with any of the usual updates and hotfixes. When SP1 was released i tried to install it but it wouldn't let me, invalid cd key, comtact microsoft piracy hotline blah, blah, 5 minutes on kazzaa and i had a keygen for "m$ xP P40 c0rp-ed" or something like that. Changed my key, installed the service pack no problem. I bet a lot of people have done the same. If your enough of a cluebie to be able to install pirated software (there are a few tricks), your probably the type of person who keeps your system patched. Its mom & pop sixpack who bought their $400 dell with XP home and open every e-mail they get that lead to massive worm outbreaks, aside from the flaws with windows and especially outlook... Hopefully SP2 will help that some, since its focus is on security (enables the firewall, pop up blocking, port closing etc), but unfortunatly those of us savvy enough to install this will be the ones least in need of it. People from todays generation need to get their parents to stop treating computers like toasters, it doesn't "just work"(macs nonwithstanding... :p).
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
One can argue the safety of the 'net (patches against worms and such), but the responsibility for any worm infestation on a computer running a pirated OS falls on the user of pirated software.
--I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
it is simple really. when an unsanctioned copy is made the copy becomes an outcast child and traditionally the parents and the rest of the community do not acknowledge your existence so if you are ever in a danger they can witness they will not help you. MS should not have to support unauthorized use of its software. that said, if the pirates can find a way to get access to those patches and even install them, that is fair game as well. if the outcast manages to find a way to survive on their own, then they are achieving the ultimate goal, that of preservation/survival. a world view shared by the parents and the rest of the community. they shun the outcast but not kill them. they leave it up to nature to decide the outcasts fate. obviously MS is not at all like the above imagery. MS would never consider it fair game that you have and use an unauthorized copy of windows xp. but still the outcast must fend for themselves. this is one point of view. another is where every copy of windows XP is supported by patches. simply because an unauthorized copy of windows xp can exist on a network connected to authorized copies of windows xp. now if only the authorized copies recieved patches that would leave the unauthorized copies vulnerable effectively making the whole network icnreasingly susceptible to exploitation by worms and viruses. supporting every copy by giving authorized copies several dedicated sources to download from, and the unauthorized get a lousy .torrent . this way MS gains more control over the image of its product. less negative press can occur because of exploitation simply by supporting unauthorized copies.
.. download the patches form Windows Catalogue? Or do even they not work? What about service packs?
You didn't pay for Windows, why should you get the support that paying customers get? Should RedHat continue giving support to someone who pirated their way in to their support system even after it's discovered they're not a legitimate customer? Of course not.
You don't need a Windows patch to prevent viruses. These pirates need to grow a brainstem and install anti-virus software which does just as well keeping their system clean.
Of course, they probably don't want to pay for that either. They want everything free and then when they get screwed over they act like someone owes them something.
People with legitmate copies of Windows are perfectly capable of being immune from the infected pirated copies so why should they care that pirated copies of Windows are doing overtime infecting each other?
If it's really that big of a deal, ISPs can deal with users who are infected.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
to me, it sounds like "just desserts" all around...
Hey, I just had a good idea. Is there any kind of signature, left behind on the user's computer by the various cracked versions, that a worm might be able to pick up on, or any way in general a genuine copy always differs from a cracked copy? Because if there is, then I can imagine lots of forthcoming fun and even some beneficial side effects.
I'd say from a busniess perspective as well as impact on the net, Microsoft should allow any users (pirated or not) to download security updates. Feature upgrades and the like should probably require cd-key validation.
Here. It is an interesting discussion.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Apparently, without a valid CD key, users cannot download this crap. Yeah, right, there are people who cannot click on Windows Update and whom get denied access because of an invalid key? Where are the stories of Jack Sparrow's being indicted of stealing software through MS's benevolent Windows Update service? I haven't seen any.
Microsoft lets people with installed versions of their OS freely update exploited code with patches. End of story.
Let's say there's a day when MS can somehow subvert these pirate dudes. Okay, only people who paid them can receive updates. But that really isn't going to happen.
As long as there are thousands and thousands of illegally installed versions of their OS, MS will definitely allow all with access to patches. I mean, if they didn't, that would mean checking for data, sending data, verifying it: spyware. As bad as MS is, they at least let you know when you update your Windows that no information is being sent. Why? Courtesy? They realize it's naughty to do that. For now.
But, anyway, publicity matters. These worms and shit hurt MS. As long as there are illegal copies around, MS will let their patches live free. And even if there exists a small percentage of unpaid installs, MS will provide free patches from the goodness of their hearts. Put quotations around that.
porp
and a burglar who breaks into my house at night, trips on the stairs, and breaks a leg is entitleds to sue me. holy crap. while i use os x and linux, i don't buy microsoft products, i respect their right to publish thier software under any license they see fit. and if i'm unwilling to agree to the terms, then that's my decision. all this would do is be rewarding people for breaking the law. what a stupid idea.
oh wait, there's this amnesty plan for illegals. shit, there goes that theory.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I don't know if you are aware of this but microsoft has a list of key-codes that they give out to people who legally purchased windows, but whose key codes don't work. The list is in circulation and most "pirates" use one of the 20 key codes on this list(if they have any google searching skills at all). Effectively giving them access to the updates. This is all "second hand knowledge" of course...Of course in order to do this you first have to use the "Blue List" key code to install winndows, the use a special technique to currupt the key code value in the registry(again just google). After that you enter the activation wizard and enter in one of the key codes on the list. There you go a fully "Windows Update" friendly pirate copy of WinXP.
Creative Demolition
Why are we even discussing this stuff here? There's always going to be a way for people to change their pirate keys, just like there is now in order to install SP1 under XP. So, big deal! charlos
Frankly, I'd rather wait for some guy (like the 98se patchin' guy) to do it.
At least he has a reason to do a good job - you don't want a pissed off internet after you.
XP was supposed to be the most secure windows, yet is rife with exploits, and remote ones at that. I think that MS is in trouble for the first time! The DOJ and antitrust failed where public opinion may win - Windows is not getting better, is not getting more secure, is not winning any new converts. Their big bet is DRM, because that is the only way they see out of the mess they are in. Lock the OS down to the point of uselessness.
As I type this on my Powerbook, I've seen the future, and it's feline.
Haveing had to repair any number of these cracked lemmings 'puters' I'm sick of it..if your not willing to use a free o/s but are willing to crack the law then I'm goona give you back your virus host after a good fdisking and ..ok buhbye now thanks for the cash job.
If you cant get updates and wont run at least a hw firewall and a good av then it's your own damn fault try to think of it as a darwin web smack.
(let the you drive a car too ?)
And dont tell me "I didn't know" I dont care
Darwin Enforcement Agent
Really?
;^)
*logs on to Windows Update*
*downloads some critical updates*
OH, you must mean users of the FCK key. Not those of us with the corporate edition that used a key changer and a list of corporate keys Microsoft hasn't yet banned (and no, I don't know why)
Its microsofts perogotive, theyre not in any way required to support pirated versions of their software, and why should they bother.
Because infected and unpatched instances of their software generally continue to operate for the user while clogging the net with viral traffic, serving as zombies for DDoS attacks and acting as spam forwarders.
This is damaging to legitimate customers of Microsoft's products, users of competitors' products, users of open-source products, and operators of the network infrastructure, as well as the users of unlicenced copies of their product.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why restrict this to just software? We should extend it to any product. Stole that radio and it doesn't work? I should still be able to get it fixed under warranty. Stole that car and the radiater hose burst? No problem, take it to the dealer and have it fixed (if under warranty).
It is called the Microsoft Baseline security analyzer. It will tell you which updates you need to get and even point you to the security bulletin page to download it
did you forget to take your meds?
should a thief who broke into your house be allowed to sue you when he trips on the loose carpet and breaks his leg?
:)
and just so we're clear, the thief is Microsoft, right?
If someone uses a pirated copy of Windows, they can simply search the Knowledge Base (or watch the KB numbers in the security bulletins), download and install them. Or, better yet, build their pirated install CD to install them when the OS is installed. I work desktop support, where one of my duties is to perform OS installs. To cut down on the vulnerability time of a machine I was charged with creating a 'slipstreamed', meaning all of the updates/hotfixes/service packs are preinstalled, installation CD. Works good, too. There are many alternatives to Windows Update for the creative user/pirate. Anyone intersted in a slipstreamed distribution, check out msfn.org's forums. There are a lot of good tutorials and users who do this regularly. (Although, I'm rather liking the internet/network install that Linux offers... Up to date on install, without all the fuss!)
Excellent, this can only help alternative (eg free/open source) software. But is Microsoft that stupid? Everyone knows they love the drug dealer scheme. "Pirated" copies only helps more people get used to their products, and they know and love to allow this in "third world" countries. But those people have to work somewhere, and there is where they aim with their bribed cops.
I hope they do try to prevent "ilegit" downloads, but i doubt they will. They may try, to not look bad in public, but probably won't try very hard, so to maintain windows popularity.
If they really enforced their "IP", they probably know only them will lose. Thats one of the best incetives for whole governements and companies to make a serious consideration of free/open source software alternatives.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
I think Msoft should allow pirated users to patch.
If technically savy enough to purchase a computer without a bundled OS and then to pirate a copy with a CD that passes initial checks then they are obviously a pretty savvy pirate.
Microsoft understands that pirates like gamers are a small but prolific group inside the computer community. I have influenced about 150 people (designed specs) in their computer purhcasing decisions and their Operating System desisions. Some of them could afford the MS tax others could not, I acted accordingly.
If Microsoft limits useability any further for this group they will be more likely to find open source alternatives and use their role as "computer nerds" to influence those around them.
Microsoft currently enjoys enormous sucess without badgering this 0.3% of the market and I think rocking the boat on this one might be quite costly.
Operating system piracy will never replace big box installation as the primary force for operating system distribution because formatting and installing a new OS is a terifying task for a new user. (Not as terrifying as choosing a Linux distro and feature set mind you but still) Also increasing CD security or required networking for use might be the change that pushes the term "evil empire" into the public consciousness.
Besides, if I owned Microsoft I wouldn't really want to give these people yet another reason to switch over to Linux.
Then you'd probably drive it into the ground. You should be more concerned with the people who actually BOUGHT your product.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I think pirates should be required to buy their own firewalls.
That would stop 90% of all this shit propagating anyway.
I've got a leg license but my firewalls seem to put an end to even letting the worms be exposed to my winupdated machines.
ISO certified == THX certified
The corporate answer is ..... maybe.
Because if they're using a pirated copy of your software, they aren't using a legal copy of Linux.
Every person has a point at which they will switch. The corporation wants to get as close to that point as possible without going over.
So, they kill selected fake keys, but they don't kill them all.
They make it difficult to run a pirated copy, but not impossible.
From Microsoft's viewpoint, it's better to not get money from a pirated installation than it is to lose that machine to Linux.
Isn't the same in SP1? I heard it happened like this when SP1 came out.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
At least, not in here in NZ. Telecoms companies generally get paid per megabyte on the high speed lines, so the more data flying aroudn the better. Sure I can stop all the spam, viruses, and worms and crap at my firewall, but I've already paid for it by then.
I can't see them implementing it for flat-rate (if there is still such a thing) consumers either, because the added processing costs eat into their margins. Sounds like there's a need for a cheap packet-processing co-processor or something...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Say there is an outbreak of a highly contagious disease in your country, which can spread simply by breathing or something. Do you only inoculate your citizens, and skip the illegal immigrants? Only if you want to kill off your population.....
My Favourite Meme
Aren't there other tools available that one can use to keep up to date on all the security patches?
m bsahome.mspx)
For instance: Microsoft Baseline Security Analyser
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/
Does anyone know if this is sufficient, or does Windows Update supply some patches that simply aren't available anywhere else?
_This is insane_ windows computers withouth patches become worms and spam boxs. Something that HURT other people mailbox and computer itself. If Microsoft avoid providing fix for that box, a lot of unpatched box will become zombie zealots of mafias!!!.. the result will be a much problemfull and unsecure internet!!.
For the gods sake!.. this is like breaking tires of stolen cars, cool.. stealer will collide to other car and will die, AND will die the passenger of other car.
Breaking fixes for stolen windows is unresponsable.
-Woof woof woof!
People who are running a pirated version of Windows or any other software title took full responsability when they started to do so.
Not only Microsoft but also RedHat and SuSE disallow updating your installation using their servers (cfr. RedHat Network and Yast Online Update) when you don't have a legal installation. Making, testing and publishing patches does cost money.
If someone has a pirated version of Windows and is therefore unable to update his system resulting in a system that is polluting the Internet with worms, virusses and other harmful software, he or she is fully responsible.
Microsoft may find that the total negative impact of not having these people update their systems is greater then the positive effect (people removing their pirated versions or buying a license). That could influence a decision to offer critical updates to any Windows versions with no questions asked.
It depends on what you call a "pirated copy of Windows". If you buy a new PC, it's probably preloaded with some version of Windows. At some point, you may decide or need to reinstall Windows, and you may not have the restore cd/dvd handy when that time comes. If you install a cracked version of Windows, same edition as the one you had before, are you a pirate? Nobody's going to steal a copy of Windows XP Home edition when they have the option of choosing any edition they want, unless they already had a legitimate right to use the Home edition and wanted to keep their conscience clean.
/.*[ui]x|.*BSD/ thing everyone's talking about."
And the Microsoft monopoly adds an interesting spin to the issue of piracy. People no longer use Windows because they want to, but because Microsofts tactics have ensured that they'll probably need to. Microsoft is actively attacking legal alternatives to Windows, through investments in litigious bastards, software patents, and false advertising campaigns. They left the realm of capitalism and the free market years ago. They took choice out of the hands of the consumer and now they get free money. I personally respect their IP but it's getting harder and harder to blame Windows pirates these days. All the other pirates can go #### themselves, but stealing Windows is like stealing water from a company that poisoned your well.
Microsoft should definitely be able block updates to pirated copies of Windows if they wish. I think if they do it'll just fuel the switch to alternative operating systems, which their other commercial offerings won't run on. If they're confident that everyone that pirates Windows pirates the rest of their stuff as well, and they don't think giving alternative operating systems a foothold is going to be bad for their future, then they should go ahead.
But if you think about it, the most monopolistic action they could take would be to ALLOW pirated copies of Windows to be updated. It'd slow the adoption of alternative operating systems, and help keep estimates of worm and virus infection rates that so often make the news as low as possible. If the rates of Windows exploitation increases dramatically, people aren't going to think, "Oh, those are mostly just pirates who are being affected," they'll think, "Windows is looking less secure than ever before and look, I just got another dozen virus infected emails over my lunch break, maybe I should try this
The short answer? No. I paid for my copy. Isn't allowing them to download the patches and service packs rewarding criminal activity? What about all the honest people out there who have to pay for their dishonesty? I have as much sympathy for them as for those people out there who don't take care of their computers....absolutely none.
Requiem
This is a public policy issue.
The fact is that piracy levels are there. If updates against these critical security issues are not publically available, then the infected pirated machines are a social nuisance. These people are unlikely to buy a legitimate version anyway.
However, it should stop at critical issues: anything related to bug fixes or performance or reliability issues only available to licensed users.
Look at some of the AV companies: they do provide free disinfectant tools for critical issues: you can download and use these even if you are not the AV customer. However, if you want true AV support, then you do need to buy the product for the licensed updates.
Every pirated version of 95, 98, ME, 2000, and XP I have ever used has no problem with Windows Update. The only issue ever has been the XPSP1 initial corp key which was easily fixed by changing your key. Nowadays everyone uses the 6-in-1 or 8-in-1 CDs that include all versions (MSDN, Pro, Home, etc) and one even includes Partition Magic on the bootable CD, how's that for the best damn feature ever! Never had an issue at all.. MS doesn't care about the pirates, it builds mindshare and they know if they made things too difficult there would be that much more incentive for everyone to switch to Linux.
If you swipe something from a store, then come back to complain when it breaks, you would get laughed at. So what makes it much more different from pirating software and then wanting the company to fix it for you when its broken, even if it is an easy solution that already exists?
Look, whether or not it would be a good idea in theory, there's no way to make it work in practice. There's nothing stopping Microsoft from using the data of pirated computers to track down and prosecute those pirates. So if you have a cracked version, you'd be an idiot to get updates through Microsoft. And there's no way they're going to go through the expense of setting up a seperate, anonymous distribution channel just for pirates.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Go to the Microsoft download center. Use the Microsoft Network Security Hotfix Checker Tool
Or better yet, use the Microsoft Security Baseline Analyzer Tool which includes Hfnetchk.exe.
Windows Update actually deletes downloaded updates once they're installed. You can try to retrieve them before they're installed. But it's easier to just download them from the download center. That way you can qchain 'em if you do a reinstall.
I know people with pirated windows, and they download all the security updates, straight frmo microsofts site. MS makes them available to everyone. You just can't get them off windows update. You can still find them by searching through the site the old fashoined way though.
this seem only fair since providing service to pirates will only encourage piracy and shrink their market share. On the other hand since you get value out of not being bombarded with viruses and virus spawned spam you of course are happy to pay this small fee even if you install linux.
what do you think? How much would you pay to get MS to do this?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mb sahome.mspx
"I'm Feeling Lucky", even.
So we have it folks. People on here pretty much saying its Microsofts (oops...sorry...M$) fault for people stealing their software, and somehow they should be made to pay for it. Look, this software is STOLEN. Microsoft owes these thieves nothing.
I have a better idea. Microsoft should set the updates to automatically remove the operating system from anyone who is not a legit user. Not touching the data, just the system files. That way these thieves will not be able to spew forth more worms onto the net. That way they reclaim their stolen property.
I bet you dont start bleating away when a flaw is found in Apache or sshd do you? Oh no...these products have been produced insecurely so they must be made to PAY, must they not? Why dont you bleat about Red Hat not providing support to those not on RHN? These people got a Red Hat product, they should be supported by Red Hat? No, of course not, different rules for FOSS isnt it?
The real problem comes to when installing service packs to Windoze XP. Normally, when you have a cracked edition of XP, you never activate it on the net. Tho', when installing a service pack, it requires to re-activate the account (even if not yet activated). After you installed the package, you cannot start up windows without activating it, which leaves you with a totally unusable version...
If you have a "valid" corp key for you no Activation corp copy of XP.
.... but I doubt they can stop it totally.
as soon (or slightly before if memory serves?) their was a number of work arounds for the 'keys' m$ disabled with SP1,
I have a large number of 'friends' running XP pro with corp 'keys' and all have been able to use windows update without much difficulty.. other than changing keys for SP1 but no biggie.
of course for the slightly less 'advanced' warez copy users out there they may have difficulties.
As long as all the people in China and other SE Asian countries refuse / can't afford to pay M$ prices for software 'fixes' for m$ anti piracy efforts seem likely to presist. M$ can 'raise the bar' for how much work it is to successfully pirate and then update their os
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
It it's clear that MS has no obligation to support stolen software. If you steal property you should be ready for some kind of problems.
Yet I see that the point is that MS is making a mistake in not giving security fixes to everyone.
Here's why: There will be millions of pirated XP's also in future. They will have trouble in fixing their system. During that period they are harming the network experience of all of us. And they do have a significant effect, because of their huge amount. Finally they find a solution from firewalls or installing other OS's, such as Linux or OS/X !
If 50% of worlds PC's carry pirated XP and 10 % of those will end up in moving to Linux, we will have quite a boost for Linux ! I don't mind that..
If the Microsoft PR machine is smart they'll withhold security updates from pirated copies. Then they can blame the spread of viruses and worms on the evil software pirates who are running the insecure systems.
How many people have valid licenses but don't use valid cd keys? For instance, does Dell give cd keys for their products? Having an invalid cd key does not necesarily mean the product is pirated.
Believe or not, the NT server product key will accept all 1's. I don't know why Microsoft did that, but it seems to contradict anti-piracy tactics. It almost seems intentional. But if you don't believe me, just give a try.
95% of Windows installations here in Latvia are from pirated CD. WindowsUpdate works fine for them. Installing and updating of pirated software is eevryday duty of 95% of IT-people in eastern europe.
I feel utterly stupid. I never really got it as to why som many computers wore unpatched running XP. Since XP has an autoupdate i presumed that the users was updated. Now it becomes chrystal clear to me. The amount of pirated and unpatched machines must be staggering.
I do think that witholding security updates is bad for MS reputation since they get the blame, not the pirates.
HTTP/1.1 400
You are missing the point - what's in question is that we suffer for their being idiots if they don't get the updates.
(Uh, feel free to change the pronouns according to your OS purchasing habits)
sic transit gloria mundi
" Customers without Service Contracts
Customers who purchase direct from Cisco but who do not hold a Cisco service contract and customers who purchase through third-party vendors but are unsuccessful at obtaining fixed software through their point of sale should get their upgrades by contacting the Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC). [...]"
So in their case, you get the software upgrades, no strings attached. It'd be nice to see Microsoft continue to do the same, for the greater good.
REM MY Windows Piracy Solution
echo "You're an idiot, try purchasing Windows if you want support!"
format c:
format d:
format e:
REM We'll let any other drives keep their data, this time.
echo "Thank you for using Windows Update, the FBI will be crashing through your windows shortly."
"Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
and now maybe the people with unlicensed versions of windows will pay up. and maybe they'll look at alternatives.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
I don't think they can. MS claim pirated copies can't use Windows Update. In fact, they can provided they're not running one of two commonly used pirate keys. The keygen that came out in late 2001 blew WPA wide open, and they know it.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Every time there are these kind of virii and worms, my friend Edgar is happy. His job is to provide tech support and he charges for every computer he disinfects.
So: Would we treat somebody in a hospital because he caught an infectious disease while doing something illegal? Yes. Then, the same should be true for patches.
This can only be a good thing (if you think hurting Microsoft's market share is a good thing).
You just know there's going to be tons of perfectly legitimate Windows installs where, for one reason or another, the saved license key will be missing or corrupted (Am I the only one who's had to deal with a damaged registry?).
That will just lead to people being even more frustrated at Microsoft.
Then again, what do I know... I wouldn't have thought that most people would accept the XP registration system
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If you read the EULA for various security updates, they enable Product Activation on versions of Windows that didn't already have it. But I could be totally wrong.
Any thoughts?
Most virusses work not by exploiting bugs in software but by exploiting dumbass users into opening attachments from people they've never heard of. Assuming most people who have Windows illegally installed know enough about computers to get the illegal copy and install it you'd be targetting the wrong group of people. Most virusses seem to florish on the systems of dumbass corporate users or yer average grandparent.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
You could say that the pirates get what they pay for.
You could also say that Microsoft has no obligation to support those who steal.
Fact is, these pirated systems are effecting all of us.
Just because someone is "savvy" enough to lay hands on a pirated windows cd or download a crack/keygen does not mean they are savvy enough to patch their system through those same channels.
Look at Thailand or China. You can walk down the street and buy CD's full of all the hot warez from the street vendors who sell them from carts in plain view.
You think they sell Windows XP SP1?
And do you think it's a mere coincidence that Asia, South America and Ex Soviet Block countries have such huge traffic in spam?
With the inherent security holes and rampant worm situation, I think Microsoft is being criminally negligent by NOT providing patches to anyone and everyone who runs their product, regardless of how that copy was acquired.
Their negligence does nothing to correct the pirating situation and harms everyone that uses MS Windows by allowing these worms to spread unchecked. Additionally it hurts the the remainder of the net who has to deal with DoS attacks and the overwhelming amount of spam caused by unpatched Windows machines.
This question's answer is really quite obvious if you move it into a real-world scenario:
"Should drug users be allowed to receive treatment in a hospital (public or private) even if treatment is due to drug-related illness or injury? Or do they get what they deserve and have to fend for themselves?"
People who pirate do it for a myriad of reasons. How about the poor inner-cities child whose family can barely afford the $299 Wal-Mart PC and has no chance of a retail priced copy of Windows and Office? How about the elderly grandmother whos well-meaning grandson hooked her up with the latest copy of XP Home because it had larger fonts and buttons than her legally licensed copy of 95 did?
Support for Windows should be user agnostic. I've said many many times in the past, someday the laws of this country will recognize that computer professionals need the same legal protection that priests and doctors currently enjoy. People who have computer problems need to know they can get them fixed without worrying about the tech turning around and reporting them to the BSA or DOJ. Otherwise, they will sit on the problem and contribute to a greater harm.
If Microsoft wants to exclude pirates users from receiving assistance, then they should be legally liable for any further or collateral injury that occurs as a result of this...the same way a doctor or nurse would be liable for turning away a mental patient complaining of "voices telling me to do bad things" who then goes on to murder someone.
The simplest thing for Microsoft to do is drop the whole cockamamie "Windows Update" bullcrap and just post the damn updates on an FTP or website where people can download them without handing over Product IDs (and from other operating systems as well). If they don't want to do this, well, then let's make sure they they are responsible for whatever happens.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
I would have thought that Microsoft actually like to have pirated copies of windows out there. If everyone is running windows, then it will be very hard for other operating systems to get a foot hold, where as, if they alienate everyone not running a legit copy of windows, then they will either have to pay, or turn to an alternative. If they stop using windows, then windows stops being the defacto standard and that is currently microsoft's big advantage on the market.
Should they provide support to people that pirate their products? No. But if it means losing out on their user base; shouldn't they?
You can find most of what you're looking for by going to the various bug advisories. Google is your friend if you're not sure of the location on MS. Sure, WindowsUpdate is a one stop shop and is convenient. There are at least two tools that will scan your machine and let you know what patches are required.
One is by MS and another by Shavlik Technologies. Each downloads an XML file with the various bugs and the fixes.
However, I have to test every patch before I deploy it, mainly so workstation don't go belly up. This place run on email and an AS/400 or 11. This means every platform. (NT Srv, NT Wks, 2000 pro and srv, XP, 2003). The only way I can do this is to have a damn CD filled with the raw patches and install by hand.
Only then do they get approved for deployment.
Also, having the CD (and a central download souce for myself), is good for giving a copy to users when they come a week after the latest virus/worm and tell me "my home PC doesn't work any more".
I don't trust users to run WindowsUpdate and 99% are never going to have admin privlidges to thier work machine. It's already hard enough to keep control without users. (Cue Basil Fawlty-esqu: It's a great network, except for all those bloody users).
If this all seams a bit jumbled, I haven't had my coffee quotient yet this morning and I'm still a little jumpy.
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder about the expense in time and effort involved in keeping patches from illegitimate users. At my college, at least, there would be a huge strain on the computing assistants. They'd have to explain exactly why they couldn't fix the computer and why they wouldn't allow it back on the network until it had been fixed (MUCH more time than just patching the darn things). They'd also have to provide advice about switching to a more affordable, if maybe more difficult to use, OS (prohibitive cost is the only reason I, at least, would pirate software). I'm not saying that pirate users deserve this kind of support, but it would be such a big deal to lack it that MS's image would surely suffer with the people who have been oblivious to its ugly practices in the past, because they'll be the ones waiting and paying for all this extra support time.
There is no other version of Windows XP that I will install. Windows XP Corp requires no activation. So, when someone pays me to fix their computer and I have to format it, I generate a key and install the Corporate Edition. Why? Because I don't feel like activating. Why else? Because I don't feel like activating. Activation is a pain in the ass.
Oh ya, I have never had trouble downloading an update for a corporate edition where the key was generated using a common crack available all over the Internet. Even on my laptop, which came with a legitimate XP copy, I use the pirated Corporate version. Why? Because I don't ####### feel like activating.
On my home computer, though I can download a legitimite XP copy for free from my school, I have pirated Corporate Edition. Why? Because activation is annoying.
Activation is like... When you buy a new car and install an exhaust, or change the oil, you have to call the maker and request permission to start it.
I will not use any software that requires activation unless it is entirely easy to circumvent. When it becomes hard, I will switch to a free alternative. The software industry is slowly forcing me to open source.. ie.. Adobe with Photoshop (Gimp instead), Symantec with Antivirus (whatever the hell the free version is called instead)...
What if I stole a ford explorer and then took it to the dealer to replace the tires because they were recalled? I'd look like an idiot. I could say to the dealer "well me driving on the road with these bad firestones is unsafe to everybody" and he'd retort back "yeah...and you stole this car!" Just because everyone hates microsoft, doesn't mean they should be expected to support products that are stolen. Even though we're dealing with software and the cost to them for stealing is zilch, they still have to pay for the bandwidth and servers to host windows update.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(not the same AC, btw).
He said he doesn't have ethical problems. He never said he didn't have legal problems with it.
Your marriage contract (pre-nups or whatever) doesn't change every time your wife cooks for you.
:-)
sleeps with you...
washes your clothes...
or any other implied "services".
Then again... the longer you are married, the more she'll get when you divorce her. Sooo... the longer you use windows, the more Microsoft owns your computer!
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
I only have Linux machines and I was able to download the updates from Microsofts own security advisary pages without any problems (links found through earlier slashdot story).
I have then made CDs containing Symantecs Sasser removal tool and the hotfix for both Windows 2000 and XP and made copies to pass around to friends and family that still run Windows.
So even if Windows Update requires a valid key for Windows XP users, the updates are still readily available. Albeit, not quite as easy as Windows Update, but if you run pirated software, you deserve to suffer just a bit.
I'd like to point out to everybody that this is a moot point. You CAN get the update regardless of version a regardless of whether you have pirated your copy of XP. Just see: this to download the appropriate version of the update.
If your stupid enough to steal something, you shouldn't be able to get updates. This is like stealing a car and then going back to the owner for help fixing the car. It's just stupid.
I believe that people's licenses on things they create should be respected. Just as I prefer and respect Free Software, some people prefer proprietary software. When you disobey the license by not paying you're in violation and you don't deserve the priviledges (if any) that the license grants you.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Who modded this flamebait tripe as "insightful"?
Perhaps you were ignorant of the fact, but:
- according to the Business Software Alliance.Q: If I steal a car, and some defect in that car leads to my injury, can I sue GM and win?
A: Definitely Yes.
Why is this different?
I know it's different because right now we can't sue MS for any damages even if we didn't steal Windows.
It seems to me that if they apply a double standard to products acquired legally vs. products that aren't legal, they are opening themselves up to some sort of implied warrantability for the legal product. Which of course they don't want to do.
It has gotten *really* bad with all the spyware, malware, and viruses these days. It's starting to look like the "death of a thousand cuts" we hear so much about. I wonder how many of these worms, etc. are put out there with the goal of bringing MS down?
I know, I know, you say "But these beggars and thieves have stolen from the rich man! Why should the rich man do them a favor?" But take a hard look at the rich man (Microsoft). Hasn't he, who has hoarded so much for himself, taken wealth away from so many other people to achieve his own wealth? Some might argue that because the wealthy man has accumulated his resources in a lawful manner the money is rightfully his. Perhaps charging exorbitant prices for your product is lawful, but does that make it just? And hasn't this rich man have a long record of acting in vicious ways to ensure that they can continue to hoard their treasures? The rich man is nothing but a well-dressed scoundrel who conceals his true inner nature.
The way I see it, Microsoft has an obligation to service the people with pirated copies. They have profited handsomely from society and it's laws that have allowed them to become corporate behemoths. It's time for them to give back.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Seriously, if these people have mannaged to make it this far without using SP1 update, then there allready prey for all the nastyness going around with windows XP unpatched (code red will still get them for goodness sakes! Let alone MSBlast)
If they knew enough to manually find and download the non-windows update fixes, then they can do it for Sasser.
If they knew enough to install SP1 update (with a fake corp CD-key, or some other techno-wizardry I'm unaware of) then windows update still works perfectly well for them and it's a non-issue.
So to summarize
1-Unpatched lamers are remaining unpathced lamres (and plagues upon the internet who should be shot! or at least disconnected)
2-Sneaky lamers grab there patches from security bullitins and don't need windows update
3-'1337 hax0rs' have SP1 installed and windows update is working fine for them
Did I miss anyone?
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
imho: I can only ethically assume that company's fee is for a support contract. And their update site is an extentsion of that support contract.
In order for people not subscribed to a support contract to receive updates, they might consider that they might find their updates and fixes outside the zone of the support contract site.
If one is to aquire the media outside of the support contract, then they should use the same means to get the updates to their unsupported software.
Of course the flaw to this, and the product of a closed source license, is the difficulty for fixes to be made by any other than those who provide the support contract.
It is not the responsibility of that company to provide support to those who are not paying them, any more than it is the responsibility of a free community to cripple their products in manners that ensure the safety of the rest of the world.
Meh
If there is an unpatched Windows machine causing problems on the network, the ISPs should simply enforce their terms of service and disconnect the offending machine, whether the software is pirated or not.
And no, I can't think of a good reason for pirates being supplied with free upgrades.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Personally, if I were a PR at Microsoft, I'd be giving those patches away. The less overall damage systems running Windows would get because of security exploits, the best the PR. Furthermore, it would allow me to give the possibility to give the "we care" speech...
On the other hand, as an Open Source advocate as I am, I believe these issues should be exploited to the maximum. Not only is most Open Source software more immune to such problems but the patching speed is of critical importance for most enterprise users, and as far as I'm concerned, that would be the main entry point into the household.
I've been using pirated copies of windows 98 and 2000 and windows update worked flawlessly.
Many "pirates" can not afford to buy the music/software that they download.
(I'm not saying that this gives them any right to infringe on others' copyrights.
I'm just saying that the BSA's figures are exaggerated.)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Install Windows 2000, less bullshit, less fiddling, less bother infact
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
Like it's already the case with the Enterprise products from SuSE (and RH, I presume).
;-)
It's only a small step from the status-quo anyway.
But it would bring a bit more honesty to the debate of the cost of running Windows vs. Linux/BSD
BTW: SuSE is (currently) very lax with regards to the licensing of their Enterprise-products. They have a "We trust you not to do silly things"-attitude.
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
If, as a software pirate, you believe yourself to be on some moral crusade against the "scourge of Microsoft" or the high prices of commercial software in general, then the best way to hurt those comapnies is to not buy their products - it REALLY is that simple.
The problem is that for a lot of computer users, software has become a "fashion accessory" just like a pair of designer jeans or a new mobile phone - everyone HAS to have the latest version of the latest package without stopping to think about whether there is actually a need for those additional features that the latest version provides. Right down from the warez crackers on the Internet to the end users, piracy is simply about peer pressure, nothing more.
The majority of computer users need to grow up and join the world of adults rather than sit in front of their PCs with the attitudes of schoolchildren.
There is a wealth of good quality free software for any operating system that you choose to run and while it may not, on some occasions, match up to commercial offerings, it IS free and will get better if you take the trouble to voice your dislikes and likes about it to the people that program it.
Pirates achieve one thing and one thing only - they create an excuse for large corporations to restrict the rights of ALL users in making fair use of products that they own and for those corporations to push through DRM, copy protection etc. on the basis of revenue loss and the honest users just end up paying more.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
When i ordered my laptop i HAD to buy windows XP HOME with the package, which I don't even use. Instead I use XP prof, which is a pirated copy. MS forces me to buy shit I don't want, then wants more $$$$ for a different version in order for me to be legit? Blocking users from updating pirated copies of windows will just force some people to switch even more so to linux. The only reason I currently use windows is for gaming, just give me another reason not to support winblows and I will delete all my NTFS partitions.
No for various reasons:
* Why should people illegaly using software get the services as well?
* If people pirate software they should at least have to bear the consequences of running a pirated and after a while insecure software.
This "No" has some interesting side effects:
* Some people will eventually start buying MS software. I dislike MS but they should nevertheless get their money.
* Those who don't buy a valid license will suffer negative personal consequences. At first, there will be millions of infected machines worsening the effect of worms and other malware. But eventually ISPs will react and simply shut network access of those machines down until they are fixed. This is already starting to happen anyways. Eventually this will be a good thing for all alternatives to MS Windows since they become much more attractive which in turn will eventually decrease the impact of the MS monoculture on clients.
I think MS should do everything possible to make it as hard as it can be to use unlicensed windows. The'll shoot themselves in their knees but it'll be better for everyone in the long run.
He didn't exactly have an answer, other than to say they were still looking at the problem - but from what he did say MS is acutely aware of the problem.
I think my solution would be to allow security updates only. During this trip I had a long discussion with a pile of MS executives about community and /. came up more than a couple of times in the conversation ;-)
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
If the policy is truely that users cannot obtain the patch without a valid CD key, then what are the majority of LEGAL home users -- who have preloaded systems, and either never got or threw away their copy of the CD key -- going to do?
Anyone who owns a pirated copy of Windows which requires a valid CD key should probably upgrade their version of pirated windows to one which doesn't require a key.
Very seldom when I have my car in for repairs, service or whatever do they make a check on my identity. Even more, they don't compare it with any register of car owners. Actually, sometimes I have someone else dirve the car there. I have not heared of them checking the car versus some stolen car registers either.
Well we're at it, why not do warranty repairs on stolen vehicles.
This is ridiculous, you have no right to use the software. What sort of obligation does ANYONE have to help you maintain it.
Discouraging piracy is a more direct route to more sales.
They want windows, make them buy it. They might use something else rather then buy Windows, but then they weren't gonna buy Windows anyway, so you don't have any lost sales.
In other words stop with the "You have no right to a secure system if you have a pirated copy" responses already!
What about the right of the rest of the world to have an Internet which is not a breeding ground for worms and spam-relays?
No one would realistically allow functional updates but I can't see that allowing security updates does anything other than help everyone else, including Microsoft.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
OK. From the top...
As soon as someone is unable to patch their system from exploits because they aren't running a legit copy, and whatever their machine does whilst exploited causes you problems: that is when it affects Your Rights Online
I honestly believe that antivirus, firewalls, and security updates (if nothing else) should be freely avialable to all. If for no other reason than they affect everybody.
It's in everyone's best interests (well, except AV-companies - might explain a lot...) if viral outbreaks are kept to an absolute minimum. Making people pay to keep their systems secured merely encourages people to keep what should be the most important thing they do waaay down their own list.
Like it or not, people will run pirate software. And if they can't patch, then don't complain at the next Sasser iteration.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Just switch to linux, and bug those 'windoze' only application'developers' to port their tools to linux. Without a real competition, we'll likely to have this kind of silly discussions over and over again.
And if you're using a software and it's required you to pay for it, then pay for it. Or just don't use it. Using pirated copy of windows is like stealing a sack of crap with benefits of everyday exploitable life.
If MS in the future decides that patches are a premium-service (with premium license-fees), then so be it. I also think that anyone who uses MS-software should pay their price.
If you don't like their prices or their conditions turn to the alternatives.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
First NT version happened how many years ago? Every consecutive version MS has promised to make it secure, powerful and stabile. How many friggin years they still need to make one OS that delivers?
Hotfixes my ass, let's see one OS from MS where quality is something one would expect from multibillion dollar company with thousands of developers.
Let's see one modern MS OS (for x86 not PDAs!) where standard supported minimum install is below 20Mb where users can add/remove components and functionality as they please.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Last I checked all the pirated XP users simply changed their key to another volume license after sp1. It's not like they can't download patches via windows update!
When Microsoft permits that piracy copies do secure updates, it is saying: "All these years, we vitiated you in our OS, and we need your piracy because if we block you from using our OS, all you will deband to Linux, and we not need this, right?" "Then, please download more this update, and keep using Windows, but remember: One day, we will block you!" All government must require to Microsoft block ALL pirated copies!
$199 is above my threshold for a Windows purchase, however I gladly shell out $40(home) or $80(pro) for Linux. There you go Microsoft - there is my pricepoint.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
How about if MS detect a user has a pirated copy of Windows that they let them download a patch that does the job but also has extra code in it to pop-up a window saying "This is a pirate copy" or change the background to something similar ? Let's face it NO-ONE should be running pirated software ... some people think "Ahhh they're a big company earning shed loads of money I deserve to get something for free from them!", but this could lead to them pirating someone elses software who happens to be a one man band, spent 5 years of his life developing it and has 10 kids to feed (actually not that likely, how many computer nerds get to see women let alone breed! :-)
Piracy is bad bad bad and far to easy a thing for people to fall into in either big or little ways.
Hands up who actually owns a license for Winzip ?
Mark
OKay, so it's microsoft. But do we have to mod up this site to a 5? it's a link of serial numbers.. unlike kaaza, i can't think of a legal use for those.
I *would* agree with ya in a perfect world. But in our real world there are dialup user, free/anonymous ISPs over dialup, sometimes BIG corporate nets may get infected, and they do not have an 'ISP', instead they have some fat pipes going out, so no luck enforcing some TOS... etc etc.
I used to be a nasty pirate myself, until I saw the light. MS enforcing their 'rights' can only be a good thing, since it will shy people (at least people from poor countres) away form their products, thus making the internet safer. But for now it is simply wiser to give updates to the pirates.
cheers.
``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
"Apparently" denied updates because of invalid security keys? Bull!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/There's NOTHING stopping people downloading the security updates off the beaten track, on the actual Microsoft Security Updates site. Do you think companies running thousands of machines on policy-controlled domains let every Tom, Dick and Eric run Windows Update? It's in Microsoft's best interests to put the patches up as individual downloads :)
The benefit of Windows Update and ME/XP's auto-updates is it's automation for home users. But this should really be only an option for legitimate users. If we let software pirates get full functionality of the software they steal, they win. If we are going down that route, we may as well let SCO kill Linux and forget chasing those router people who refuse to follow the GPL :)
was XP Pro. Man did that one come back and bite me in the ass.
--
What would Bill Clinton do?
As long as the U.S. doesn't have national health care, I say let the pirate computers stew in their own filth spreading disease throughout the community. Keep libertarian capitalism pure from service pack charity.
I'd say send them a patch that uninstalls the illegal software :)
Privacy is terrorism.
Giving all patches to illegal users except those which wouldn't affect the rest of the net, but could still cause a security hole.
But any hole is a risk to the rest of us - if it's writeable, it can be used to create another spamming, DDOS'ing, crap-flooding zombie. If it's read-only, then it can either be used to find a writeable hole, or it increases costs by increasing, say, credit-card theft (chargebacks aren't totally free), ID theft (which could be used to hurt those people who know the user, or those who do business with the user), etc.
No security hole is a benign security hole.
That would explain why my net connection went down sudenly this summer and i ended up having to reinstall all the winsock stuff. No idea what happened to it or why it was corrupted, wouldn't be suprised if it was an update that broke it.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
MS should detect update attempts from pirated software and offer the opportunity to: 1) pay a fee and obtain a retroactive license; 2) get a code to access and apply the updates; 3) receive an effective amnesty for the piracy.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Funnily enough, I get that message despite the fact that I run Win2K. I do, however, use a proxy server that strips out my HTTP User-Agent headers.
should users with pirated copies of Windows be allowed to download security updates?
My answer: No.
As much as I do not like the price of Windows (too high for what one gets for the money) you have to either try to restore competition in this particular market (which will lover the price of Windows to some real numbers) or change your demands and use something else (Mac, Linux, ...) or something else. It's maybe unfair there is no alternative producer of Windows but stealing does not make that better, quite contrary (helps Microsoft keep the monopoly while they have 90%+ market share also thanks to those users with illegal copies).
If users of illegal copies (they) get (with permission from Microsoft) those patches, they wont be stealing (patches) from Microsoft. But they will have screwed comparison tables "Windows vs. ProductX" in a way as "Windows are for free (0 monetary cost)". It will make them unwiling to switch (either to legal copy of Windows or legal copy of some other product be it free or commercial). Thus it'll help Microsoft to keep their unfairly acquired monopoly much longer and screw the market/economy/people/... much more. If Microsoft is going to give permissions to users of illegal copies of their products to use patches, I'll consider it anticompetitive and illegal move from them.
If [they] will be allowed to use those patches, market/economy/people may mistakenly see it as a move to the right direction (from security point of view) while the true right move - more OS diversity on desktop PCs - will be pushed away. Security will hurs, market/economy/people will hurt.
For sure, there will be short-range benefits in allowing [them] to use those patches, but in the long term I do not see it as good decision (good for market/economy/people).
hany
I have a pretty strict view of this. If one willfully (and/or knowingly) pirated an operating system: they should get no support from the manufacturer at all.
/.-ers think of Microsoft as an evil empire, there are a lot of hard working programmers working for them who do deserve to get paid. The liquid asset of that company is immaterial.
Since unpatched and vulnerable systems can wreak havoc on legitimate customers, I think the best solution is to simply disable the offending product. If you stole the OS, you have no right to use it. Force it to shut down. Don't destroy the drive or any data, just make it the ultimate in nag-ware: continually prompt on boot for a legitimate proof of purchase.
Of course, that gets into all kinds of 'big brother' bull. The end of the story is the same: pay for it. In spite of the fact that the majority of
"But what if I'm using it in a lab environment?" Well, you should have paid for your license. Don't want to pay? Microsoft offers 120-day evaluations of many of their products. These are fully functional products and can even be updated in most cases (rare exceptions such as ISA exist).
I understand hacking for the sake of hacking, but doesn't it seem wrong to you that there's not a legal use of the numbers that you are publishing?
People don't have to use MS software. Why help them do it illegally?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I can't believe this question even deserves attention
YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR WINDOWS hence they DON'T OWE YOU SHIT for support, why is this so hard to understand.
Because users couldn't get updates, I've seen quite a few of them go out and buy legit copies at work. The reason being they were going to lose network access if they didn't!
Your Windows PC is my other computer.
Maybe they should start programming the viruses to check for valid CD keys ;-)
"You SHOULD have bought your laptop elsewhere and explained to the original vendor you were not buying their product because XP Home was installed and you did not want to pay for XP Home."
Yes. That would limit his choices to perhaps one or two lousy laptops.
he wants to do work, not make a statement. Please come back to the real world.
If Ford had issued a recall for the said defect and the thief did not bring their vehicle in (why would he, he'd probably be arrested), then the fault is on the "customer," not Ford. IANAL, but I don't imagine anyone convicting Ford because a criminal wouldn't bring a stolen car in to be serviced. Even if Ford did not announce the recall, I don't know if they would be liable. Passengers are at the liability of the driver. The driver was using the vehicle illegally, so I'm not sure that he would have any basis for a claim.
Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
I STILL don't get why people think downloading is their right and stealing is OK.
BTW, if you're going to pirate Windows, you really should look at one of the linux or bsd distros. Same functionality (except for a few games that won't run) and legal...
If you do not lawfully aquire an item, you have no right to possess let alone use it.
Possession of stolen property does not give you any rights to that property.
If Ford had such flaws that would cause a car to veer off course defying it's owners control, a recall would be issued and ALL owners would be elligible. Mind you, regardless if they were the 1st, 2nd 3rd or 4th owner or whether or not they had a Ford service plan or were covered under warranty.
Certainly. But all those are legal transfers. And there will never be more Fords than Ford produced.
A better analogy would be that a car thief comes to Ford, the Ford database says it's stolen and the thief wants them to fix it anyway.
An ever better one would be that a someone that created a copy of a Ford came in and wants them to repair it because the original he copied it from had a flaw, even though it's illegally made and not even an original Ford.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The question posed has striking similarities to the question of public healthcare. In the US, the EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) requires hospitals and clinics to give life saving and stabilizing care to anyone, regardless of proof of insurance and/or ability to pay.
This is primarily a welfare service for the individual but has corporate benefits as well such as the reduction of communicable disease from those who would otherwise go untreated.
Without getting offtopic into the US healthcare system, I think the article brings up a similar point. If a software update is meant to benefit the end user only, in that it fixes or enables a new feature, that is one thing, but for the health of the public Internet, security patches that prevent malicious and communicable computer virii should be publicly available...by law.
It is more important to keep the Internet available to individuals, businesses, and research institutions as well as governments that rely upon it every day for communication and control of critical systems, than to ensure that a small percentage of the population is not illegally pirating software.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Thats not a problem, trust me. I personally know friends of mine who have pages and pages of generated cd keys, all of which work with windows update. It takes about 5-10 minutes on google to get a working key for any Microsoft product. In fact, I think I'm the only person I know who runs a legit copy of windows, and I only do that because I have a friend who sent me a copy from the Microsoft Employee Store.
Should security updates only for worms be made available to pirated users
We can pirate people now? Cool... how do I burn me a Britney?
Why does everyone make such a big issue out of pirates not having updates/service packs. These things are so commonplace a few googles will get you there. I'm sure pirating the software is, in most cases, harder than pirating the updates. It was for me...er..I mean this guy I know...C'mon people, think about it.
If you come into my house to burglarize it, and I shoot you in the legs to stop you, I'm liable for your loss of future income earning potential. Think it sounds farfetched? I remember a case when I was in HS that revolved around that exact scenerio, and the burglar won.
Faulty products are faulty products. If Microsoft fails to offer a repair to a product it knows is defective. Unlike the stolen Ford, our pirate friends may have tried to get the patch and were denied it. Microsoft now has knowledge of a defective instance of the product and has knowingly refused to make the necessary safety corrections. Regardless of the legal status of the ownership, the product liability remains. The fact that the "product" is digital is what makes it not quite fit the traditional product mold. All the disclaimers won't help either,as known defects _will_ make you liable no matter what. As a PE, if I say in my contract "that's not my responsibility" but the "not by me" design is clearly faulty, I'm still liable.
If they can prove it has been stolen from them, they should notify the autorities of the theft and have the product returned to them for repair or destruction.
(I'm not advocating piracy - I have legal copies of XP - but making a patch unavailable is wrong. How would you get the sasser patch if your inet connex was down due to sasser? My parents couldn't, because I couldn't get the patch and write it to disc for them, and they own a legal copy of XP home.)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Sasser can be blocked by any firewall, I have an unpatched Windows, ZoneAlarm reports blocking all the Sasser attacks, (port 445) without any intervention or upgrades from me. If you have a vulnerable OS, just wall it off.
I say that they shouldn't. Someone has to pay for that bandwidth. If people want to pirate Windows there's not a ton Microsoft can do but this is one thing they can do.
I mean I'm sure the patches would be cracked just as the OS would be.
Of course, Microsoft shouldn't have released a virus prone OS to begin with but it's an inherent flaw in their design.
Actually what I would do is only release certain patches to the world. Give and take a bit just to frustrate people enough to buy a valid license or switch to a different OS.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Microsoft Baseline security analyzer is more or less useless. It has missed many required updates, including the one which would have prevented Blaster. If you rely solely on this application you will likely not have all the latest patches. You're much better off going through all the security alerts and download pages finding patches for whatever you have.
Unfortunately I sometimes have to do this at work. But I'm much happier with Linux at home. One button and I'm patched with latest updates my distro is offering.
Developers: We can use your help.
Dude just use RPMs
Microsoft know who use pirate license, but to home users they don't care. They like home user use Windows in your home's because when home user got in your job can't use outherelse....
Here's a point that some of us may be missing... How many people with a legal copy of XP actually update? If your like me you have the damed thing to update every night if possible. Then you have those epidemics where Blaster is killing the net, and these people are logging on, not downloading the patches then wonder why they got the virus and cry. WHY! Yes, you can offer free downloads for unlicensed copies but what's the percentage of the people who actually update using this? I can't decide on this matter, but figure they should give in and just do it.
This would be a moot point, if MS didn't release such insecure crap. I'm not saying that *nix is any more inherently secure, but at least it defaults to a fairly limited set of permissions. (In my experience.)
-Styopa
should users with pirated copies of Windows be allowed to download security updates?
My answer: No.
Your answer is not smart.
If you want to deny SW pirates access to new versions of Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, or drivers for their video card, that's fine. But denying them security updates is harming people and businesses who did nothing wrong. Why should my domain be blasted with traffic from infected PCs running pirate copies of Windows XP? Why should my ISP have to bear the burden of traffic from those infected PCs? Why should someone playing a multiplayer FPS game get fragged because network congestion from infected PCs is causing packet loss and latency? Why should some guy who buys a new laptop at Best Buy find it infected within one minute of connecting to the net because there are countless infected machines looking for some particular flaw that his yet-to-be-patched PC has?
What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is behind on his gas bill. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members.
Your "security through OS diversity" suggestion shows your lack of understanding of computer security. It is just a thinly veiled version of "security through obscurity." If your ISP has boxes running Windows Server 2003, FreeBSD, RedHat Linux, Suse Linux, and Windows Server 2000, a flaw in any of those could, depending on network configuration, cripple the network or render services unavailable. Every one of those boxes could be a hole through which an intruder could enter. Keeping all of those OSs up-to-date is a major chore that is likely to be neglected at times.
I bought a new HP notebook 18 months ago. Of course, due to Microsoft's anticompetitive OEM marketing agreement which has been adjudicated as illegal, I was forced to buy a copy of WinXP that I didn't need because I run Linux. Of course, I can't sell my WinXP to someone who wants to upgrade from Win98 because it's some bastardized OEM version that only works on a model of notebook PC that already shipped with XP. I'm sure they didn't do that on purpose (bastards).
I suspect there are about as many Windows pirates in the US as there are Linux notebook PC users who have a virgin Windows license. I think I'll register www.Pirate-MS-Licences.com as a place where Linux users can donate their unused licenses to pirates. When Microsoft sues me, my defense will be, "I was forced to buy this thing, and now I can't even GIVE it away? How is that not a Microsoft Tax on notebook PCs?"
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Of course, if someone brought in a stolen car for servicing, would the dealership not be justified in reporting the car (and whoever brought it in) to authorities?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I wiped the XP offering from this box too (with Debian). So here's my useless key for you to enjoy:
XVJW8-DB93F-2R2XD-XGB3D-3788D
To illustrate how crap things have become with preinstalled doze, my Sony didn't even come with a CD!
Dang, I'm still using Windows 2000.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Should M$ allow pirates access to Windows Updates? Well this is a loaded question.
On the one hand, one could contend that they should be allowed access to protect the rest of the net like the article says.
However, if the rest of the net is already updated, then why is there a need?
On the other hand, and this is where my opinion lies, M$ will probably let pirates get updates that contains code to diable or even track them without their knowledge.
It would seem to me that they would benifit from this, by "getting to know their enemies".
Remeber the old adage keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
As a pirate Windows user myself, I have never had problems getting updates, though I still use 98SE. (I refuse to use anything else due to the liscening).
Computing today no longer requires you to use Windows. I use Windows for playing games only. Surfing the net, hacking code, doing essays/reports I do all in my favourite *nix flavour.
The average home user has a choice now, as do the pirates. Give your money to the giant conglomorate, or support the open source community and purchase a linux distro.
I'm happy to say that the linux community will be getting my hard earned money.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
In any immunization scheme, you're not looking for perfect coverage, which is impossible- you're looking to stop common points of transmission. For every person you get, you're missing one or more. This goes for your precious citizens, as well as those nasty demihuman illegals.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Ummm - why couldn't you manually download the patch - and run it off your local machine?
Is the issue that the autoupdate site checks the key, or the setup application itself?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
The answer is simply "NO". OTOH I will be happy to help these poor souls out for a small fee (as in beer :) and get them going with a Linux distro.
Why do they want a free operating system that's made by Microsoft when there are soooooo many alternatives? I mean, if I'm gonna buy an OS, it'll be Mac OS X. If I'm gonna get one for free, it'll be a Linux distro.
Pirating Windows is like breaking into a Yugo that's sitting next to an unlocked Bimmer with the keys in the ignition.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
If I stole a watch from a jeweler, how happy do you think he would be if I took it back for repairs because it doesn't keep time accurately?
Microsoft's new policy of denying updates to any system with an apparently invalid product key opens a new possibility for today's viruses: changing the Window product key to a "leaked" key that isn't allowed to get updates, thus keeping the system open and vulnerable.
I've actually seen several legitimate installs of Windows denied access to Windows Update this week. All were infected with variants of Gaobot and Sasser - I haven't heard that these change the XP product key, but I wouldn't be surprised.
1. Micro$oft wishes Windows to be most-used Operating System.
2. Window$ costs a disproportionate amount.
Therefore,
3. Pirated CDs will prosper.
3.1. To support the pirate-CD population via proxy, allow any Windows installation to update itself.
Elementary, my dear Watson!
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Wouldn't this be less of an issue if Microsoft focused building Quality into it's products?
Just use the same key and don't active it, especially in a test lab where you need to scrap everything every month,
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Is the manufacturer of the vehicle now exempt from liabilities because the car was stolen? I think not. It would have failed regardless of the owner involved.
To simply state the there is no liability of product when that product is stolen is not a valid statement. In addition, their product, stolen or not, has a negative impact upon myself who chooses not to purchase that product, or steal it, at all.
If you Pinto explodes, dousing me in flaming gasoline, there is still a product liability even if I'm riding my horse.
"OOOh if I steal a car, should I be entitled to free oil changes?!"
First off, dip shit, and oil change is not "patching" your car. It's maintenance. If MS had some online service that scanned your registry for you to make sure it was free of viruses and spyware, then yes, your analogy would work.
Second, quit comparing pirating software to stealing physical property. Unless you're a fucking idiot, you know the two are nothing alike. I have a pirated copy of WinXP along with thousands and thousands of other people. Tell me, again, how much MS made in profit last year.
On that note, save me your pathetic, "So that gives you the right to download it?!" retorts. It doesn't concern you or affect you in anyway, so move along. Hypocrites.
To answer the question "Should pirates get patches?": Yes. Why? Because they'll get it either way, and any time/money you spend trying to implement anti-piracy methods will be wasted.. because within hours a patch will be available.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I have seen the links here to MS updarte disks they send through the mail. I've never gotten one or really looked into it yet, just wondering, do they cost any cash to get for the older systems , the 9x series, and do they require individual activation keys to use them? Reason I ask is I have some older used boxes I bought as scrap, and would like to apply the updates to them before giving them away. The ones I have given so far had disks now I am feeling guilty about giving them away, although I don't think any of them are used to go online with as far as I know so far, but still...they might sometime. And no, installing linux is not an option, these are older pentium 1's with very low ram installed, there isn't a linux OS distro that will run a GUI efficiently on something with 8 or 16 megs ram suitable for a raw noobie right out of the box, already been through that several times here with some other conversations. As soon as that happens I'll do that, but for now they go out the door with windows, whatever came on them that works. How do you get that with a used computer you got that didn't come with any disks? Or is this not "the rules" or what? I have only a very few original disks with the keys and running out fast, I think I have 2 win 95 disks left total, and zero 98. Just wondering from anyone who's gotten the mail order updates, how do they work,can you use them on multiple machines or what, does MS require a separate key for each disk shipped (no burner here to make any copies anyway of anything) and do they cost cash to get?
Yeah, let the dopeheads use dirty needles. Who cares if they catch a virus and spread it.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Ayup
It is clearly in *my* best interest that every copy of Windows running be patched to its utmost, legal or no.
Granted, I agree that Microsoft isn't obliged to provide these updates, but they would be doing their customers a favour if they did.
"Break out the gin, and the small violin, I'm a raging success as a failure." --Firewater
This garbage effects small businesses as well.
They dont qualify for the 'special corporate' editions, and are forced to fight with registration on their PCs, unreasonably raising the support cost.. ( one could even argue its unfair business practice to offer the variing versions to 'preferred companies' as it gives them a slight advantage overall )
For years I've done like many, and bought retail copies for small business, but install corporate copes ( or serial numbers ) so its more practical to support..
Sure its not techically legal, but they did pay for software, and can prove it.... so Microsoft can goto hell if they complain.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"And no, I can't think of a good reason to provide vaccination to illegal immigrants." - and then let them run rampant between the "legal" population and spread germs. Makes sense maybe in law enforcement perspective, but not from epidemiological point of view.
Considering the impact of worms to even organizations of the size of Eurpoean Commission (or eg. airlines, to pick an example that isn't a bunch of never-do-well parasites, at least not that much), it can even be a question of national-security grade.
Microsoft has no obligation whatsoever to provide any freebies to folks with illegally copied (the P word - "pirated" - seems to be politically incorrect here at Slashdot) versions of Windows.
The word you are looking for is "copy". Every copy is illegal to the eyes of MS.
Anyway, "pirate" is a stupid word to use for someone who copies a piece of software. Pirates attacked ships, robbed, raped, killed. There is a difference. Using the word "pirate" is making the assumption that making unauthorized copies of software is equivalent to killing, raping and robbing. It's just a marketing thing that was used by record companies, and it just worked. Now we are using a word that describe a killer, to talk about a person who copies a CD. Think "diamonds are forever", that's a marketing thing that just worked, even though it's not true. It sounds good, and most people who don't know better, believe it's true, while it's just a marketng thing. The problem with the "P" word is that if we keep saying that copying CDs is as bad as raping, killing and robbing, people who don't know better start to believe it's true. That's the power of the language.
In Uruguay, my country, people who don't know what they are buying, get a computer with a copy of Windows preinstalled (that trend is changing), for which Microsoft gets no money, and know nothing about licenses. I'd rather not call them pirates, just stupid.
While they have zero legal responsibility to offer anything to people that are using their products illegally.... Morally they have an obligation to do so.
It is due to 'deficiencies' in their product that is effecting millions of people.. so they should be a responsible company and offer the critical security patches ( not feature improvements ) to anyone whom asks..
Now if they start asking for your home address and tracking down IP addresses then demand proof of ownership, that a bit extreme.. Though they could do that legally..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just download the individual patches by number and apply them individually instead of using windowsupdate.
It's only windowsupdate that checks the reg code. (Yes! I do have a legal copy of windows (it came with the laptop I run Linux on) but I'm a geek with too much time on my hands and I had to find a way...
Cheers!
Because the people most likly to pirate Windows, are those who are more likly to do their own installs. Therefore they are the people with a little more tech savy. Therefore they are the people MOST likly to update their systems. Not that they all do, probably, but there is a reason why they would, when people who would never try anything with a computer their dell tech support representitive didn't tell them to do, would not.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
You are right, but who said I wouldn't be more concerned with them? I don't have to be 100% focused on my customers all the time, you know (even though putting them first is very good business practice). Sometimes you have to keep an eye on your competition, and Windows' competition is Linux (customer loyalty goes a long way, but they still won't remain loyal if a competitor is obviously better in every single possible way, and you're still operating in the stone age).
Creator of the popular web game Proximity
That gives us something else to consider/worry about..
What would happen if the next virus went and changed everyone's keys? Coupled with a remote exploit, that'd bring the net, and MS's activation scheme, to it's knees.
Nope, it's not Microsoft bugs trashing the net. It's some asshole somewhere who thought it would be really cool to have lots of computers rebooting all the time (or whatever crap the latest virus does to your machine).
That's true. But it's also irrelevant.
Once the exploits are out there, the only ways to make them STOP trashing the net (short of taking out the machines) is to apply the patch. Blocking distribution of the security patch to unlicensed copies insures there will be a much larger number of infected machines chattering away than if it is open.
Selling millions of copies of software that is susceptable to infection and expecting them to remain uninfected is like laying out millions of uncovered petri dishes full of culture medium and expecting them to remain sterile. If nothing else, Microsoft bears some of the responsibility according to the doctrine of "attractive nuisance".
In case you're not aware of it: Consider a chemical company that keeps concentrated sulphuric acid in an uncovered, unfenced, outdoor tank that looks like a swimming pool. Is it the chemical company's fault if, some summer afternoon, some neighborhood kids jump in and/or push each other in? In US law: Absolutely!
By deploying a massively virus/worm susceptable system Microsoft has created an attractive nuisance. Yes the primary responsibility for damage when it is exploited rests with the exploiters. But when they "light a fire" that starts an ongoing process of consuming the neighborhood, it's Microsoft's responsibility to help put it out.
And it's in Microsoft's interest to do so, before somebody wises up and starts using the attractive nuisance doctrine to make them pay for the damage.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Apparently, without a valid CD key, users cannot download these updates.
Without a CD Key, you can't install Windows at all. With a CD Key, you can not only install Windows, but all of the updates.
I have never paid for a Microsoft product in my life, but my Windows XP is always up to date.
Not even close. If you reject the GPL (or BSD or any open license) you revert to standard copyright law: use the software any way you want but don't redistribute it. OTOH, EULAs take away fair-use legal rights.
Hence the dodge: kids can't be bound by contracts, only by laws.That is the key tenet of this argument - MS is not guilty of dumping when the actual cost of *production* per CD is quite low.
/. name - just cant remember the d*mned thing.....
Software created (lets just say once) and then put into production - millions of CDs are stamped with the SAME code!!
Therefore cost of production is eXtremely LOW!!
-
I have a
get a copy of the corp por (er, corporate professional that is) version of windows. No activation, licensed to "as many users as your company can stomach", etc. Remember, every time you pay for Microsoft software, you're promoting pure evil. When you pirate Microsoft software, it's much more like you're whacking off to it.
Actually, I would be interested to know of any laptop vendors that sell their products with no operating system pre-installed, and compare prices with Toshiba, Dell and the like.
I just checked Alienware, because I thought they came with nothing installed, but it seems they have XP Home Edition.
That's not piracy. Piracy is killing, robbing, raping, like pirates did. Unauthorized copying of copyrighted works is not killing, raping, or robbing. Calling someone a killer because he copies CDs is not fair, although he might be coing comething worng, it has nothing to do with killing, robbing or raping.
That comparison is funded by big media companies that try to make everybody thing that people who copy CDs are reaaaaaaally baaaaaad, and should be shot or hanged, and their belongings given to these companies. Don't buy it, please.
It seems like everyone has been repeating the same ideas over and over, but I only saw one poster who came close to this. Since the security vulnerabilities that allow worms and viruses to spread are well known, why doesn't Microsoft just write their own virus that seeks out pirated copies of Windows and nukes them? Or, if they want to be nicer, just break the networking capability of the pirated systems so that other viruses won't be able to spread.
There is just one drawback: how will Microsoft's virus know whether a given MS-Windows installation is legitimate or pirated?
If there is an unpatched Windows machine causing problems on the network, the ISPs should simply enforce their terms of service and disconnect the offending machine, whether the software is pirated or not.
Um... then how is the user supposed to get their machine patched?
And no, I can't think of a good reason for pirates being supplied with free upgrades.
Me either, but that's not what this thread is about. An upgrade is something that adds or improves functionality, IMO; a patch fixes a mistake that never should have been there. I don't think (and neither does Microsoft) that *anyone* should get free upgrades necessarily. That's why it costs to get Windows XP even if you have a legitimate copy of Windows 2000. But believe me, after the last batch of patches I installed (which screwed something having to do with video drivers that made me boot in slow motion), it's ludicrous to call critical updates "upgrades."
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
doinf that for some time.
Look
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Comment removed based on user account deletion
pirate windows? but thats unpossible!
your suggesting the ISPs cut of their revinue stream? good thinking, I'm sure they'll get right on that.
Here's one, let them patch. Now they can properly maintain their machines.
There is a myriad of issues with your suggestion. talk to anyone who works in the upper levels of an ISP.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
customer loyalty goes a long way,
People who have Warezed their product are not their customers.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Someone using pirates software probably shouldn't be eligible for any kind of support BUT the line isn't that clear.
If an unpatched copy of the O/S can cause problems to the community and a patch can fix it then the issue becomes murkier.
Perhaps the solution would be some sort of counter that requires a user to re-register their software every now and again based on their internet usage? If they are registered they can get patched, if they are not then they lose network operability (except to a registration and patch server).
I know this would be an inconvenient and unpopular idea but something like this would help assure honesty and properly patched and protected systems.
No, they personally might not be, but the businesses they work for (or will eventually work for, or start up) are. If an entire generation grew up on Linux, you could bet that businesses wouldn't still be using Windows for their OS software. But since Windows is all most people know, because it's all they are exposed to (whether they pay for it or not), the businesses are compelled to use their product, since even though it's expensive, it would be cheaper than training all new hires years upon years worth of experience with another OS.
Creator of the popular web game Proximity
How about this: No!
Furthermore, Microsoft's next/future service packs (or possibly Windows Update itself) should check your key against their database to ensure that you do have a valid installation of Windows. It amazes me that they haven't gotten to this point yet.
If it was up to me, I'd generate a "hotfix" for pirated copies that wipes the product key info, and pops up that little key icon in the system tray with a balloon saying "You are using a pirated key. Click here to purchase a valid one.", and linking to Microsoft's store. Perhaps a timer is also in order, giving you 30 days(?) to set things right before networking no longer works, or the system won't go past the login screen. That sort of thing.
Yes, I'm very serious.
Let's say I steal a newer car. The manufacturer of the car discovers a fault in the hood latch; it can randomly let go of your hood-- and that would be a bad thing, especially if it happens while doing 55+ on the freeway. I go to the dealership and demand they fix the fault for free. But wait, the car is stolen! The owner called the dealership and reported it as such. Does the dealership just shrug their shoulders and fix it and send me on my way? I think not. They call the police, or simply deny me the fix.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Linux is not the solution to everything. Simply having people switch over to Linux isn't going to solve the problem. People don't want Linux. They want Windows for free. It's as simple as that.
Linux is, like it or not, in a technical sense, far more advanced than Windows. Or, perhaps, "elegant", for lack of a better word. As an operating system, that is. As a development platform, Windows has some very serious gaming software, entrenched Office applications, and things like that, so there are some reasons why people want to use Windows, understandably. But in terms of technical advancement, in terms of technical superiority, so to speak, Linux, in its raw, unadulterated form, is to Windows what a Formula 1 car is to a pickup truck. (or something along those lines). Of course, the user-friendly distributions don't fit this analogy, they are "tuned down", so to speak, and easier, more comfortable to use, but the heart of the technology is not unlike the analogy.
Formula 1 cars can't be driven on the street; the oil-change intervals are not necessarily particularly impressive; they don't do very well in traffic jams, they are loud, and not particularly comfortable to drive. Not to mention that it would almost be a necessity to have a machine shop in your garage and a crew of mechanics (or a lot of spare time on your hands) if you are going to keep it in running order. But in terms of being technically superior, there is not doubt that a Formula 1 car trumps a passenger car. Most people will want a passenger car. There are Linux distributions that make this easier, but then again, that's not what a lot of people want. They want Windows, and they want it for free.
So yes, those patches should be made free. That's what the people want. If Windows is going to continue to give people what they want, why not do like Sun - allow people to download Windows for free, and install it themselves. What's wrong with that? How many people are going to actually bother to install Windows by themselves? It's not that easy; Linux is easier to install if you get a distribution that is designed to be easy to install.
There is no doubt that the patches should be free. Furthermore, Windows, if you are willing to install it yourself, should also be free. It's pretty much as simple as that. Even if MS offered, perhaps a "Windows XP Lite" for those who would like to install it themselves, they probably wouldn't lost that much business because most people would just buy a new computer with everything set up anyway. Plus, the "Home" and "Pro" editions could still cost money.
But the patches should definitely be free. Absolutely. It is ridiculous that they are not free. It's just absurd. Like that's going to discourage anyone. Oh yeah, "I won't pirate XP because I can't get security patches for it" or "I was just going to pirate XP but when I realized that security patches weren't going to be available for it, I changed my mind and went out and bought it". Suuuuure. Makes a LOT of sense to me.
Great and all, but that is just another key that MS will ban when SP2 comes out.
It strikes me as kind of funny that M$ won't let you download the patches, since http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ bears a link to a page that will have them snail mail you a security update CD. I had them send me one and I don't even have a PC running XP! :-P
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to mak
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
If Microsoft can identify "pirate" copies by their serial number with Windows update, the answer is simple: 1) Let them download and install important security patches to their machine. 2) Detect the pirate serial number and activate a server on that machine that is capable of distributing the security updates. 3) Have Windows Update spread download requests across your network of pirate-Windows servers. Over time, the pirates pay Microsoft for Windows with bandwidth costs, but they still feel like they're getting it for free. In the mean time they have patched boxes. Everybody wins! =)
If you unlawfully aquire property, you do not gain any rights to that property.
This is also true of stolen property, as well as unlicenced property or information. Basically anything that is not yours, and aquired without permission by the 'owner' does not carry an inheirant right to use.
Desktop Linux
Their advertising doesn't seem to engender the greatest confidence, either. The easily offended should turn images off [standard porn buttons].
Wikileaks, no DNS
I have always seen to it that the software on the networks I admin was properly licensed. Sometimes, on taking up a new job, the task was enormous.
We still got audited. So we had a double penalty of staff time: fix the problem before the audit, then prove it was fixed. Neither case advanced the organizational mission. It was pure loss, friction . All the time I was doing that, I wasn't fixing things that were broken. I wasn't making the net more secure. I wasn't installing new things.
I will grant that a company can set the terms of use for their products as they wish. They should be aware that hamfisted, user-hostile enforcement mechanisms like this are driving customers like me away. At comparable functionality, even with higher costs, I prefer the Free as in Speech solution.
Should I experience a difficult implementation due to lack of developer/test resources in an Open Source project, I experience necessary pain. That is to say, any problems I have with getting it working are a natural result of the state of the project I'm working with. Licensing friction is unnecessary pain. It's the unnatural result of the developers going out of their way to put up obstacles.
Unnecessary pain hurts way more than necessary pain for similar stimulus levels.
Gotta say, props to the commercial software outfits that have simple concurrent licensing setups that actually work. It's the ones that suck that cost you future business.
If you mean just the original installation, download the ISOs (this one's Red Hat Fedora, but you can Google for another) using bittorrent (I use Azureus). I believe that the Knoppix Live CD distro has its own installer.
Wikileaks, no DNS
I gues i'll have to find my win2k cd when i install windows from no on instead of just logging on to #serialz, but windows piracy is the gratest hurdle to OSS adoption. If people can't fix windows if they have a pirated version, they will look at OSS.
Of course, MS knows this and won't actually crack down, they're judt trying to scare a few people into paying up.
Bill understands his "business" perfectly! There's more precieved customer "value" in getting a ripped copy of an expensive title than paying to get a cheaper tool that meets your needs...That's the whole reasoning for Educational discounts as well. That way there will NEVER BE market for software until MS says there is!! Even Linux "free-as-in-speech" can't compete with MS "free-as-in-cake" price! People are already being trained to be consumers of MS products rather than cocreaters of OSS type software...
The real profit is that Bill can start collecting REAL money from business that have to have connections or preasence in "civilized" countries. Items like this...limiting access to patches and such...with more tools comming soon to limit any unauthorized windows boxes...prepare the way to make them pay when the time comes. After all, what multinational is going to allow UNPATCHED machines on their international corperate network? See, MS will get the money! Over here we already pay because the BSA has beat up our empolyers, schools, churches, clubs, etc. or face stiff fines...we aren't noticing the barriers they are putting up. Look at XP, it would appear that the majority of installs are legit! that's a huge achievement from even 3 years ago. Once the asians have to connect to our networks, the mechanisms are already in place to make them pay or else!
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris (Eval), Linux. There's more than enough quality software out there for people who can't afford to pay for Windows. The funny thing is they'll be better off doing it too.
Should they get patches? No. Their machines should die the horrible unpatched death that will follow.
Brian Seppanen
Minister of Information and Propaganda
Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The BSA should be using their inflated figures, not only to convince people away from piracy, but using them to convince the software companies to price their products appropriately for these markets.
The drug companies got the hint and provide very expensive drugs very cheaply for these markets. How do they do this? They get their research money from the developed world, not the under-developed world. The local drug companies, who are subsidiaries of the ones you know and love, are very successful here, even with the low drug costs. (Generica Prevacid cost $3+ per pill in the USA, $0.10 here)
Why can't companies like MS recognize this? They did release some crippled versions recently for Indonesia and Thailand (I think), but that misses the point. Why would I buy a crippled Windows version for $25 or whatever it is, when I can buy the real thing for $.50?
You may want to, and legally can, call the people in my city pirates, but when there is NO other choice for them, what should they do? I know I might be flamed for supporting piracy (which I don't), but you come and live in Asia a while, and you will understand what the masses have to do.
What I am trying to do is fight piracy by helping (out of my own pocket) develop and encourage Free and Open Source Software in English and even translate it to their native languages, so piracy won't be necessary, AND they can play a part of the 21st century, instead of producing illegal drugs and terrorism.
You can download a better OS for free.
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Honestly since when do s/w providers dictate what pirates can and can't do. Thats like telling a crook he can't break into a vault and steal it's contents. While it may be hard it is almost always do-able. Is it even worth the struggle? I say updates for all, you should have made it right the first time.
I mean how else will Microsoft find out who they are, I mean Microsoft could put some backdoors in and make it possible to find out who is stealing it.. Mmmm wait.. why does that sound like a bad idea.
Just say no to license servers!!
Based on your opinion, my answer is "not smart" and I'm experiencing "lack of understanding of computer security" but I'll still try to make your "gas leak" analogy more consistent with the situation of users running illegal (and unpatched) copies of products of Microsoft corp.
Your analogy:
"What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is behind on his gas bill. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members."
Should IMO be:
"What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is stealing gas from them using black-pipe illegaly connected to some official company's pipe. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members."
(and I also provide explanation for neighbours: "He is/was using our property illegaly without contract with us or permission from us. What's more, he did it without necessary technical skills and knowledge. His actions harmed you. His actions harmed also us. We should join forces and and sue him to hell. Or, if he's alredy dead, at least try to sue/educate/... other's who are like him to at least prevent such accients in future.")
From such (IMO more precise analogy) comes also maybe good advice to Microsoft, what to do with such users: If gas company discovers some illegal connection to their pipe system, they (I'm quite sure) try to
1) immediately disconnect it (or at least additionaly certify and legalize it) and then
2) sue entity responsible for it (or make them pay for work required for additional certification and legalization).
Microsoft cofounded BSA for what I undestand "pirates hunting" so they should use it to hunt down users of illegal copies of their products trying to get security patches with nice side-effect to others: less infected PCs on the Net.
As I alredy wrote: "For sure, there will be short-range benefits in allowing [them] to use those patches". That means that if patches are not provided, there is immediate harm done to innocent people. I'm experiencing that harm too. But providing those patches to those people we're talking about is (I'm repeating) not best longterm solution.
hany
"What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is stealing gas from them using black-pipe illegaly connected to some official company's pipe. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members."
Bad analogy. Microsoft caused the security holes in Windows. In your example, the leak is implied to be the fault of an incompetent thief -- not the fault of the gas company. I used the "behind in their payments" analogy to avoid that logical fallacy. Your analogy would be valid if the SW pirates were causing security flaws by their piracy, but they are not. The flaws are in the released product.
(and I also provide explanation for neighbours: "He is/was using our property illegaly without contract with us or permission from us. What's more, he did it without necessary technical skills and knowledge.
You have no evidence whatsoever that a user of a pirated copy of Windows has less technical skill or knowledge than someone who has a purchased copy. In fact, I'd bet that the average person who has pirated Windows XP has more technical skill and knowledge than the average Windows XP user. Don't blame the end-user, whether a licensee or a SW pirate, for Microsoft's security holes.
His actions harmed you. His actions harmed also us. We should join forces and and sue him to hell.
No. The pirate's actions *may* have harmed Microsoft, but Microsofts action of creating a system specifically to deny security patches *will* harm everyone else. If Microsoft hadn't actively denied the patches to the SW pirate, then the system wouldn't be spewing viruses and costing others time, bandwidth, and money.
As I alredy wrote: "For sure, there will be short-range benefits in allowing [them] to use those patches". That means that if patches are not provided, there is immediate harm done to innocent people.
And what right does Microsoft have to inflict harm on you, me, or others who are not pirates? The Internet is like a highway. I don't care if you stole your Ford Explorer or are behind in your payments -- Ford has no right to put everyone else on the road at risk by refusing to replace the defective Firestone Wilderness A/T tires.
The whole argument in our discussion starts to remind me of arguments about guns. And this argument IMO comes down to who is responsible for shot people: shooter or gun manufacturer? I think shooter, except of specific cases when death has been caused by something like production fault of the gun, etc.
"Microsoft caused the security holes in Windows."
That's true.
But Microsoft did not connect machines of those users to the Internet. Nor did they installed their faulty OS on those machines. Nor did they powered on those PCs. ... Microsoft may be monopoly, but current situation is not that much bad as that MS is responsible for every PC on Earth. (which is of course not argument for dissasembly of anti-monopoly government bodies :)
"In fact, I'd bet that the average person who has pirated Windows XP has more technical skill and knowledge than the average Windows XP user."
That we can agree upon too.
But such supperior technical skils does not give them the right to steal nor to free them from responsibility they bear by using the stolen product.
"And what right does Microsoft have to inflict harm on you, me, or others who are not pirates?"
None. But none of us has any right to require them to cover the costs of faults which are not covered in their warranty. We can argue of what warranty they give (IMO essentialy none), but that's another problem.
You mentioned Ford. Ford partialy because of warranty they give, partialy voluntarily (to keep good relationships with their customers so future business wont be hurt) proactively distribute "patches" for their faulty cars. It's a shame forces of free market have no such effect on Microsoft.
So (I'm partialy repeating myself again):
So again: Users should ask fair warranty from manufacturer, if they are buying from him so they want have to be responsible for mistakes manufacturer has done.
In case of Microsoft you should write to them, call them,
If, in the process, you encounter problems with interoperability between MS Windows, MS Office,
So to close that up: Current situation with malware outbrakes is after all respons
hany