Is That Pirated Software?

underpar writes "According to this ZDNet.com article, Microsoft 'has launched a pilot program in which some visitors to the main Windows download page are being asked to let the software maker check to see whether their copy of the operating system is licensed.' The check is not required, but after the desired 20,000 users go through the program they might change their tune."

Comments

How do they stand to gain?

[__aavhli5779]

Before the inevitable barrage of comments about how nobody with a pirated company would in their right mind agree to this, I'd like to focus on the particular group which Microsoft is actually targetting with this:

... it is a sensitive group of customers Microsoft is targeting with the program--namely, people who bought a computer that they thought had a legitimate copy of Windows, but are somewhat unsure. Microsoft wants those people as customers, so it wants to be sure to treat them kindly, even as the company seeks to encourage legitimate Windows use.

Who are these people? Being a freelance computer tech (and knowing many others in my trade), I know exactly who these folks are. They're the ones who got a particularly good deal when buying a home-made computer from someone's garage... or, more likely, those who had an OEM copy installed with their retail computer, messed it up dreadfully, and whoever worked on it decided to forego using the "restore disks" (which are often missing, since many people have no idea what they're for, and which are generally dreadfully broken in the first place) and install a questionable copy of XP. I've faced this dillema myself, before, but I always opt to try to fix the existing installation, or inform the customer that their decision to visit every gambling and porn site under the sun necessitates that they buy a new copy of Windows.

These are the folks who can often be genuinely uncertain whether their copy of Windows is legitimate. These are the folks who click "OK" on everything anyway. The question is what they have to gain from this knowledge, and, more importantly, what Microsoft has to gain.

What information can Microsoft harvest, exactly? They surely know how widespread these practices are; after all, they practically encourage them with their cutthroat OEM policies. Also, they insist (at least according to the article) that they won't treat those with an unlicensed copy any differently from those with a legitimate one. My guess, among other things, is they'll start harvesting illegitimate license codes (like they have in the past... FCKGW anyone?) and perhaps block them a year in advance.

Re:How do they stand to gain?

[ananke]

I agree with the sony crap. We will never support any new purchase of a sony laptop, thanks to our last experience with their tech support and their policy on drivers: we had to pay money to get new set of drivers, because the old media broke. Instead of allowing for the drivers to be downloaded, like any decent vendor on the market, they want to gain extra few bucks by forcing you to purchase driver cds. Well sony, here's a nice fat 'screw you'. You got the fee for drivers, and you won't see again another purchase from us. How's that for kicks? [by the way, the drivers, as I recall, were essential to have the laptop working with windows. Pretty much the laptop was useless without those]

Likely use...

[over_exposed]

So they'll probably use this to keep pirated windows boxes from downloading windows updates... so what? You can have microsoft send you a CD with the latest patches on it for free. Granted, it takes a little longer than a 1-20 minute download, but it's still a viable solution for those of you with the urge to use pirated software.

If the whole thing is optional -

[thewldisntenuff]

then what's the point....What's scary is that someday they'll lock the pirates out of patches...Leads to two scenarios -

1.) Increase of unpatched, demon, zombie PCs

or

2.) Linux Migration! :)

You could probably piss a hell off a lot of people, who as TFA states "namely, people who bought a computer that they thought had a legitimate copy of Windows." You're gonna force them into buying a new copy?

And that still doesn't get around ordering a patch cd in the mail.

-thewldisntenuff

How do they know?

[Spad]

If the user is running a VLK edition of Windows with a CD-Key other than the FCKGW one - or with the 640 PID, depending one how stringent they're being - how do Microsoft know that it's a priated copy?

OK, so activation cracked copies will be fairly easy to ID, but if you've got a corporate copy (which most pirated releases are anyway) and a valid key there's no way to tell, surely.

Re:How do they know?

[rseuhs]

They can't tell today, but in a few months, they may well have enough data to say "these ones *must* have been leaked".

The problem is that when they start blocking these IDs, they also block the legitimate owners (just because one (ex-)employee copied the company CDs, doesn't void the license.) and they no longer can get their updates.

Actually if it did void the license it's even worse. Imagine you have just spent a few hundred thousand on MS-software and it's void just because some employee put it on a P2P-network.

It's funny that these things never turn up in TCO-studies...

Re:How do they know?

[Snover]

Except for companies which have people running all over the country and/or world (large corporations, companies such as Insurance that have adjusters running all over the place), in which case they'll all be valid but still will "look" bogus, in your scenario.

Firefox?

[digidave]

I wonder what happens if you visit with Firefox. They are obviously using an ActiveX control for this, so will FF users pass right by or be denied access to downloads? Windows Update won't work anyway, but will this affect manually downloads?

I don't even know where to start

[Daikiki]

This is one of those glorious ideas that look great on paper and have absolutely no effect on piracy.

There was a time when Microsoft began blocking SP1 downloads for WinXP for users using one of a list of very common keys. I suppose it may have prevented a few people from downloading the service pack, but the vast majority of users who were using these keys either found a hack to change their key to something randomly generated, or simply downloaded the service pack elsewhere.

Go back a little further and try to remember the furore over the required online or phone registration of new WinXP installs. For the poeple who do not desire to pay for their operating system, this was a similar inconvenience. Easily circumvented, but an annoyance to legitimate users.

The music industry implements protection so weak that it can be circumvented by pressing the 'shift' key, but breaks CDs for legitimate users. Nobody who wants an illegal track or two is deterred by this. If they can't get the music off the CD they'll just go to a P2P network and download it from there.

Time and time again we see media providers and software companies implement these rediculous attempts to spite casual pirates. The only people they ever end up bothering are there own customers, and in the rare case there is a backlash and their sales are hurt by their own arrogance, who do they blame? Pirates, of course.

If MS doesn't like pirated Windows...

[h00manist]

Why did they release the XP "corporate" verstion which allows installation of XP without teh required online registration?

It's apparently worked quite well to protect Citrix and MS Terminal Server from being used.

I believe MS likes having everyone use Windows, whether it's paid for or not.

What are people going to do, if they can't get Windows pirated? Buy it? Nope.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

An experience with activating WinXP

[mixy1plik]

Like many nerds with a job, I upgrade components in my PC frequently. I have a legitimate retail copy of WinXP Pro. I have a home-built PC, which sits happily next to my Powerbook G4. A couple months ago, I upgraded the motherboard and RAM, and took the opportunity to reinstall WinXP (as I typically need to about once a year). When I called the Windows activation department in Bangalore, I learned something new...

Lady: I can help you with activation. First I need to ask you a couple questions.
Me: Ok.
Lady: How many computers is this copy of Windows XP installed on.
Me: One.
Lady: Why are you reinstalling Windows?
Me: I bought a new computer case. (I just said this off the top of my head, not thinking anything of it.)
Lady: Well, I'm sorry. You can only activate Windows XP on one machine.
Me: It is one machine. I've transferred all the same parts to a new case.
Lady: You can't do that.

In the end, I had to call back and make up another reason. This was the dumbest thing I'd ever heard. The woman insisted that I could not change the case it's in, but I could change EVERYTHING ELSE. She kept telling me to read the license agreement.

The bottom line is that MS will slowly but surely reign in the piracy. This is just a first step. The Windows activation is pretty lame, because if you have a legit number you can just keep calling and (re)installing all over.

Re:P2P Updates

[Anonymous Coward]

Number one reason why everyone in my family runs 2k or below?

XP's magical disappearing configuration system. After all, if you've never needed it yet, it won't show it to you so you don't know you've got it. Its bad enough having to troubleshoot something over the phone, without knowing the 50 different paths to get there depending whether the person has chosen to disable the hiding functionality, disable the "new" control panel (note that in the new control panel, there are icons that you cannot reach from the groups it displays, most notably 3rd party extensions, but a few microsoft things too), etc.

Its a pain in the ass in Office too. I have to deal with people asking me how to do things that are right on the format menu..... if they've used them once. Of course, until they use them once, they have no idea Word can even do it.

Re:Buyer's remorse

[big tex]

So you spent more on SuSe Pro then an OEM copy of Windows XP Home would have run you.

OEM Copy.

Way to compare apples and lugnuts.
This would be the same MS who gives deep discounts to the OEMS, discounts that you and me cannot buy on our own?

Also, to the grandparent post:
The fact that they still have the 50BN (as opposed to spending it or, say, offering dividends) does not prove that they are good at ripping people off. All it proves is that they have some fiscal responsibility and can hold onto cash.

MS needs to get their pricing in line

[Thai-Pan]

I run a part time business selling computers (approx. 10 a week) and it's a rare event that I sell a computer to a private user with an operating system.

People do not enjoy using pirated copies. Especially when it's a pain in the ass or a worry, like getting service packs, etc. They do so because for them to buy legit copies of Windows would simply be too damn expensive. The cheapest I can do WinXP Home OEM edition for is around $150 Canadian, which is simply too much. Even $100 Canadian would be a stretch, frankly. Your average Joe would be satisfied buying an OS if it didn't exceed ~$75 Canadian. I'm not basing this off any direct studies, just my personal observations, but if WinXP was priced around there, I think I would sell FAR more copies.

Different demographics are all obviously different too. As a computer engineering student, I'd be surprised if any significant number of my colleagues were using legit copies of WinXP. Those who are, are usually doing so because it came with their laptops. MS will give us absurd discounts on Visual Studio, etc., but we're left to spend the big bucks on an OS?

Sure, analyzing the pricing on an OS may be a bit naive of me. But different demographics are willing to spend drastically different amounts of money on an operating system. When someone wants to buy a ~$400 system, it's hard to tell them that the OS will cost $150. Then I might turn around and build a system for someone else that costs 10x as much and they don't think twice to get me to toss it on there.

Here's an idea that's a real long shot. Suppose a motherboard manufacturer were to design a motherboard which is targeted for low end, budget users. It is somehow crippled so that it can't be used with the more expensive hardware, but it also comes with a rebate form or some sort of discount on WinXP Home. It would be a modified OS to run only on the motherboard it was shipped with or intended for use with, and the motherboard is set up so that it would be adequate for budget users but not for high end enthusiasts. It would encourage the low end users to purchase Windows instead of pirating it, and allow Microsoft to keep higher prices for the rest of the market. I see the potential flaws in my little scheme, but it's something to think about.

Doesnt work.

[vspazv]

The site says my fake volume license key is legit. The people they're catching are the ones that got screwed by shady computer stores that slapped a computer together with an unlicensed copy of XP and give the customer a burned CD. If it makes anyone feel better I have 5 NFR copies of XP Pro that have never been used.

Re:I don't want to be in their database.

[freedom_india]

I run Win98 SE for Games.

I run SUSE 9.0 Personal edition for Work and internet.

Somehow the old saying; Windows is for fun, UNIX is for getting things done....seems more relevant today than ever.

Linux is a kernel, GNU is not platform centric

[Photo_Nut]

Parent poster wrote:
"The problem is that most hackers are rabid about Linux because it's phenonmentally powerful if you code a bit."

So are BSD, MacOS, and (bet you saw this one coming) Windows. Most hackers are rabid about Linux because they got more than they were promised. They weren't promised anything. They didn't pay anything, and they got a whole lot.

I have a few friends that graduated with me from college with varying technical degrees, including CS, Math, Engineering, and Physics (what can I say, I'm a geek and hang out with geeks). Some close friends ended up at Microsoft. And even though they run Windows whatever at work, they still chose vi or emacs as their editor, bash and other shells, and awk and sed in their code along with their C#, C++, and Perl. One of them bought a shiny new laptop with his recent bonus and reused his old desktop (stuffing Linux on it) as a web-connected file server/bridge. He recently told me how he saved one of his machines at work by using a Knoppix CD! Just imagine an MS employee booting Linux, at work, to fix their Windows machine!

GNU isn't just about linux advocacy, it's a philosophical movement centered around the idea that by keeping code "free of ownership" we can advance society. From another perspective, the GPL is a way of saying, "I don't own this code. You don't own this code. The public owns this code. You can't build something from this code and distribute it without the code."

This is quite diametrically opposed to the philosophy that: "I work hard to create a software product of intrinsic value. It is my property. I sell you a license to use that property."

Many people who wrote utilities and published them under the GPL ported their utilities to Windows, BSD, Linux, etc. They also make pure Windows apps under the GPL, and others port these. Basically, it's not the Linux OS that makes for a great hacking experience, it's the fact that it comes with a bunch of GNU tools. But then there's CygWin and other GNU toolsets for Windows and BSD and MacOS.

The reason that Linux may be a threat to Microsoft is that there are a growing number of developers who got hooked on Linux because the development tools came with the OS, and they didn't want to pay MS (or Borland) for tools which promote Windows. Of course, there are also a great many people who still write free software for Windows (using DJGPP or other MSVC++) simply because Windows is the largest target audience of normal users, and they use it. But if the developers market is changing because of the availability of high quality tools, then Microsoft will react. Maybe too late, but it's in the cards.

Indeed, Microsoft already has done some reacting. 57,000 employees, including some of my best friends know that their job is on the line if Microsoft goes under, and from what my friends tell me, working at Microsoft is better than all of their previous jobs. Their reaction: http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/ Is this too little too late, or is it the beginning?

(getting back to original topic of activation, and tying back into the philosophy of property)
When I ask my friends about the activation stuff, they tell me that nobody who has a brain expects it to deter piracy, but they have to do something to attempt to prevent it from happening. DRM is an equal joke, but it is another way to protect information as property. Both of these measures do something very specific: they make it so that in order to copy the "property", you need to intentionally remove its "protection". This follows a fundamental principle that property is only owned by someone to the extent that they can defend it.

One more response to the parent poster:
"For average folks, it's [Linux] just another alternative."
In order for it to be an alternative for me, it needs to do everything that I need it to do. I need it to run the software I use (includes Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop and t

Re:The benefits of Linux

[0x0d0a]

I've developed on both platforms and find that they both have advantages and disadvantages...

Same here, and same here, though I think Linux's advantages for a hacker vastly outweigh the drawbacks.

Why do you consider Linux to be a 'mind boggling' better platform for hackers?

* If I have a problem/missing feature and it's irritating me enough, I'm guaranteed the option of just fixing it myself.

* The POSIX toolset, large set of development tools and compilers available on a typical system, and easy hooks into the OS (like /proc) makes Linux a much nicer system. I can slap together apps to accomplish simple tasks in a line or two. Sure, there's cygwin, but despite being an impressive hack, cygwin is slow, often flaky, and almost all software is vastly less well-tested on cygwin than on a Linux environment.

* If I don't like the way my system functions, I change it. For example, Fedora's standard configuration currently stops any attempts to re-obtain a DHCP address if any attempt to get an address fails. I often work on flaky networks, and this drives me bananas -- I want the thing to keep trying to re-obtain an IP address even if an attempt fails. You can just open up /sbin/ifup in your favorite text editor and tell the script to hand "-w" instead of "-1" to dhclient.

* Better (non-POSIX) tools. Windows doesn't have a "file" command any more than it has a "locate" command.

* Better remote access options. Using Windows remotely is a painful chore that *can* be done using VNC or the like. Using Linux remotely (stick with CLI programs, which is quite feasible) is a pleasure.

* Choice in what packages to use. As it happens, I don't like GNOME *or* KDE *or* Explorer very much. They all slap large icons on the screen, eat screen space, expect me to launch applications with my mouse instead of my keyboard, cover up my pretty desktop, and none of them (well, maybe KDE) use "viewports" instead of "virtual desktops" any more, where a window can lap over from one "viewport" to another. Easy fix -- just slap something else in. I use xbindkeys+gkrellm+sawfish, and have exactly the environment I want.

* Sandboxing capabilities. It's a bitch to, say, sandbox an unknown binary (or a server, to keep a server compromise from compromising the whole system) on Windows. It's much more reasonable on Linux.

* No bullshit. If I've identified a problem and I don't want to fix it myself, I file a bug report. With, say, Microsoft, I go to some low level tech support person, and maybe after a series of escallated issues, they admit that there's a bug. Maybe. And they don't call it a "bug", because they don't make products with "bugs". They call it an "issue". Their product doesn't have a bug -- *I* have an "issue". Then maybe somewhere the "issue" wends its way to the cloistered-away developers and perhaps, after some period of time in the mysterious black box, eventually gets released. In the open source world, if I know what I'm doing, I fire off a "there's a problem, here's what's breaking" message straight to the developer (and can do so to the guy that wrote the very line of code that's broken). I dump my bug into a bug tracker (heck, wishlist features go into the "bug tracker"). As the developers work on the thing and fix it, I have full access to every thing they've done, just as much as any developer does, and when the problem gets fixed, I know about it immediately.

* If I want to do something, there's probably a ton of actively-maintained and free libraries already out there that do just about everything I want (and if they *become* unmaintained, someone else can easily take up the torch -- I don't have to worry about reliance on some random third party). For example, two days ago I was working on a JPEG artifact removal idea. I wanted to do image processing (encoding, decoding, manipulation) and use a neural network. Two apt-cache searches and an apt-get download later, I