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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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?
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
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
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?
Even better than that is "Reset5". Updates are allowed for unactivated XP installs that are still in the first 30 days. Reset5 is a little service that runs at startup and magically keeps that 30 day grace period timer set at 30 days. This is actually more than just a handy tool for pirates. I personally use it on my legitimate copy of XP Pro because the stupid piece of crap DE-ACTIVATES ITSELF if I change more than a couple pieces of hardware (something I do with remarkable frequency).
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I run XP unpatched with no Antivirus and no problems.
You sound like the people in the porn industry who try to justify having sex without condoms.
If you have no antivirus software, how can you be so sure that there are no viruses?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mb sahome.mspx
"I'm Feeling Lucky", even.
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.
Since when is it their responsibility?
Since they started distributing software that interferes with the stability of everyone else's networks, of course.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
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.
And you are VERY wrong if you think that piracy will shrink their market share. I personally would be very happy if Microsoft stamped out EVERY pirate version, because their market share would be pretty small. Microsoft grew based on the piracy, and they know it. Now they are reaching the saturation point, and really only now have they started trying to make the pirates pay, because they are no longer contributing to the increase in profits, because the market share is so relatively high. They have known in the past that they can't stomp too hard or they would lose market share, but now they no longer care, and they can pull out the "the soul-stealing demonic copyright infringing people" (or pirates) sympathy/stupid-law-making card out.
Here's a better idea:
Maybe Microsoft should be charged for every byte of bandwidth that their stupid programming practices chew up when one of these viruses run rampant.
This would force Microsoft to clean up their act. They might actually start thinking about security instead of just paying lip service to it. Then, whether copies of Windows are pirated or legitimate, we just wouldn't have to deal with as much crap on the Internet!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Differences being
a) there's not only one company that makes seatbelts, and won't sell you any if you don't install them on every seat
b) you don't have to pay for 5 seatbelts if you get a 2-seater sports car
c) that seatbelts are mandated by government, not by some corporation that makes them but does not make cars
So actually it's nothing like it at all.
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.
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?
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.
Quick solution: If, like me, you bought a laptop and had to pay for Windows XP Home Edition even though you subsequently installed Linux on it, you effectively have a "spare" licence key. Why not everyone who has such a licence key, pass it on to somebody with a pirated copy of XP? That way you get some use out of it {through the rest of the Internet being one machine more secure than it would have used to have been otherwise}, and the Windows user gets updates. You might even get a pint out of it!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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
You are actually forbidden to do that by the EULA.
So, even having the key, you would still be illegal.
You can be very sure Microsoft have ways to track the license number so the reseler.
morcego
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
What some people are suggesting is that people using illegal copies of Windows should be allowed to install security patches, at least the important ones, in order to reduce the damage done when a worm starts spreading - if illegal copies can't be patched, every illegal copy is an extra carrier for worms. The only way MS pay for that is in extra bandwidth for the Windows Update servers, which I suspect would be a pretty small cost (particularly if the next big worm DoSs Microsoft yet again, in which case having more updates downloaded would probably be a net saving).
:-) and I can't imagine it'd get any better if it became public knowledge that their security updates sometimes deleted the operating system.
The other side of the argument is that Microsoft should have no obligation to support illegal copies, and indeed should reduce the functionality of illegal copies in order to encourage people to buy a copy instead; this is the philosophy MS currently follow, to some extent, by having Windows Update and service packs not install on copies with a bad CD-key.
The problem with using patches as an area of reduced functionality is that most people don't particularly care about the security of their computer at the best of times, so it's not a big deterrent to illegal copying; at the same time, illegal copies getting worms and such affects everyone on the Internet, whether they're illegal Windows users, legit Windows users, or not even using Windows.
(There's also the argument that Microsoft have tacitly encouraged illegal copies in the past in order to get more market share, which I think might be what you're referring to, but the above applies whether you believe this or not.)
Microsoft should set the updates to automatically remove the operating system from anyone who is not a legit user
False positives under MS's current policy are merely an annoyance, but if they followed your policy and their warez-detection algorithm got any false positives whatsoever, it'd wipe the OS of a legit user - I for one wouldn't appreciate that. Microsoft have, um, a bit of a reputation problem as it is
I can't imagine it would kill that many warezed copies either (once word got around), it'd just encourage anyone with an illegal copy not to install patches, and since that has a negative effect on the rest of the Internet, it'd be irresponsible.
*** now talking on #hypothetical-warez-channel - Topic: Get your XP isos here!
<w4r3z-k1dd1e> don't install yesterday's critical update whatever you do, I got burned by it
<@l33t_d00d> how's that?
<w4r3z-k1dd1e> it deleted my OS!
<w4r3z-k1dd1e> had to reinstall it
<@l33t_d00d> lol, didn't you know?
<@l33t_d00d> some of the patches do stuff like that
<@l33t_d00d> safest way is to skip them all
<w4r3z-k1dd1e> doesn't that make your pc not secure?
<@l33t_d00d> heh, whatever
<@l33t_d00d> that's what *they* tell you
<w4r3z-k1dd1e> ah, k
*** l33t_d00d has changed topic to "Remember kids, patches are for the weak"
Is that really what you want the warez kiddies to be thinking, and if so, would your answer change when the next Code Red/Nimda/Slammer/Sasser/... turns up?
Won't work... the keys on preinstalled windows are OEM keys. They won't work on a copy of windows that you install from a retail disk, or indeed, install at all. They only work with "restore discs" from your manufacturer.
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
You are actually forbidden to do that by the EULA.
Since I got my laptop with XP on, and clicked "I do not agree", reformatted and installed Slackware, I don't see what such an EULA has to do with me. I never agreed to the EULA, I never had any contact with Microsoft. The PC manufacturer gave me something I didn't want with the hardware, I had to spend time and effort cleaning it off the hard drive, and I'm giving away the last remnant unused.
Here's my unused key for Windows XP Home edition:
VQDYD-CBPCT-MR2JV-6WR9Y-Y6HX3
First come, first served!
> in fact I wish they would write code that makes illigimate versions of windows to not allow any virus scanner to run
> plus crash randomly.
And how would they differ from the regular versions, anyway?!
cheers.
``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
"Copying a CD (software or music) for someone else to use is NOT fair use because you buy the right to fair use by buying the product in the first place. This scenario, therefore, falls within the legal control of the copyright holder to enforce."
Mostly correct, but my anal self must correct one detail here. Most of things you mentioned aren't even fair use. Their simply your rights. Ownership of a copyrighted work belongs to the public even while the copyright still exists.
THAT is why you have the right to do anything that wasn't explicitly put into the copyright holders hands when granted the copyright.
Copyright grants control over distribution, most of the examples you mentioned are "use" which copyright grants no control over because copying WITHOUT distributing anything is within your domain.
Fair use on the other hand is a set of circumstances under which you have the right to distribute a copyright'd work (or a portion thereof) despite the holder of the copyright. For example you may quote a copyrighted work in a research paper giving credit. Because of fair use you may distribute that research paper far and wide.
Your rights and fair use apply regardless of whether you've purchased the material or not, they apply if you have it. It's distributing that is copyright infringment, not using.
That's a neat idea, and it's been a long time since I read the EULA for Windows, but I'm pretty sure that Microsoft's EULA specifically prohibits the transfer of licenses to other hardware than that which it came bundled with.
Which, means that yes, technically we have to live with such stupidities as I can't give away my old PC with Windows installed on it to someone else when I buy a new PC, and if I want to decomission some outdated system and install my existing Windows license on new hardware, I can't.
It's a good thing the damn licensing agreements are unenforceable.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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).
Maybe they should start programming the viruses to check for valid CD keys ;-)
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.
-1, Clueless.
That isn't a point of contention, read at *least* the summary before going off the handle. This is not about security updates for the benefit of the pirate end user, but the impact of having pirate end users incapable of getting security updates propogating worms that make the rest of the good community suffer.
On remote-exploit security updates, now that I see this circumstance, I think they should apply no matter what. Now feature enhancements and reliability fixes for the end user, those should be denied. Those fixes not being applied are far more annoying to the typical end user anyway, so MS would improve the community by fixing even the pirate systems in the ways that impact the community, but keep things hard for the pirate users by leaving their system extra buggy (even above and beyond the normal Windows experience).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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!
Well, I had a long rant and decided to just shorten it... the meaning of "Microsoft Tax" depends on WHEN you apply it. It used to be that all computers sold paid a royalty to MS wether or not they came with MSDOS. That was really what was known as the MS Tax.
Nowadays people use it to refer to the fact that you can't buy a major brand PC without Windows installed. Even IBM, at one point, who were competing with MS with OS/2, wouldn't sell you a computer without Windows. That had to do with the cliff pricing tactics MS used.
It's still hard to find a major brand you can buy "naked" or with an alternative OS. I know a bunch of idiots are going to respond about how that's not true, that you can buy a Dell, for example, with Linux - but I said it's "hard", not impossible. They do not make it easy.
Notebooks are the worst.
So often enough people who might run an alternative OS will buy a prebuilt system with Windows on it, even if they don't want it.
In other words, MS makes money off of almost every prebuilt PC sold (probably upwards of 99%). That's the MS tax.
Here's another one for you - let's say you bought a prebuilt computer with Windows XP. One day after the warranty expires, you spill coffee on it and fry it, and decide to just buy another PC - now you've bought two licenses of Windows XP but only use one. Yes, again, you CAN build your own PC or find a "naked" one somewhere, and then you can give MS all your private information over the phone, trying to explain you had to replace your computer all the while they think you are a pirate, but most people just buy the pre-built system and pay the "MS Tax".
Any geek can easily avoid it, though, and since most users of alternate OS' are geeks, I fail to see the big deal. Of course, if we hadn't fought it for years and years, you still wouldn't be able to buy a naked PC.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You are talking out of your arse. You are permitted to sell it by the law of the land. If you haven't agreed to the End User Licence Agreement, then it doesn't apply to you at all. If you have agreed to the EULA, then only those parts that do not conflict with the law of the land apply to you.
If you were using a legal key obtained from a Linux user who purchased a copy of Windows without agreeing to the EULA, to activate a borrowed Windows CD, then you would be entirely within your rights under the "any necessary step" provision -- especially as the purchase was made under duress and under protest {which fact it might help to write on the cheque or payment card receipt}. Where someone is physically preventing you from doing something which you have a legal right to do, then you are entitled to use reasonable force. This defence will fail, however, if the court believes that you could have accomplished your intention using less force. Show me a court that wouldn't consider installing a "pirated" copy of Windows to be less forceful than, say, holding a knife to someone's throat and demanding that they sell you a laptop without Windows.
If you accept the EULA, you are not prohibited from selling your copy of Windows -- you have an inalienable right to do that; just like selling a used book, CD or video cassette. It is an offence for anyone to try to persuade you that you do not have that right.
Note that none of this has ever been tested in court. And the numbers of people prepared to jump through all the hoops are so small, that Microsoft could afford to pay compensation equivalent to several times the theoretical amount refundable, by way of "hush money".
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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.
It's actually a little more complicated - at one time (I don't know if this is still true), EVERY major OEM and most minor ones had Windows OEM licenses. The agreement for that license (which got you Windows priced cheap enough to be competetive) required that you pay MS for every PC you sold, whether Windows was shipped with it or not. Therefore, the price for pretty much every PC you could buy included the price for an OEM copy of Windows. THAT was the "Windows Tax" and it was an issue in the antitrust case.
There was anther (or this may be the same one you're thinking of) involving adobe, where a company bought bundles of Adobe software, cut them open and resold the individual titles. Adobe got pissed off and sued, but the court decided that right of first sale and lack of a formal agreement basically meant that Adobes EULA didn't apply. This was in a CA district court, not federal.
In the 50's in Venezuela, we had a dictator called Marcos Perez Jimenez.
/me hopes Windows can reach that quality. It certainly has improved, but the user hasn't. Stupid people clicking all those .exe, .vbs and .pif files
When a tunnel was built in a city, he ordered the arquitects to stand in it, and ordered 10 tanks to drive slowly above the tunnel with the crew below to see if the tunnel would hold the weight.
I'm sure you can tell the quality of the work that was done here in that time.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
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.