Slashdot Mirror
MS To Limit Security Fixes to Legal Copies of Windows
rufey writes "An Associated Press artcile on MSNBC is reporting that Microsoft is going to start restricting access to security updates from pirated copies of its Windows operating systems. Starting in mid 2005, if you have a pirated copy of Windows, the only way to obtain security updates will be through the automatic updates mechanism. And even that method may be restricted at a future date. The article is light on details about what versions of Windows this will affect. Parts of the system to check for a valid copy of Windows is already used when downloading software (such as Media Player) from Microsoft - except that validation is currently optional." EnderWigginsXenocide points out Reuters' version of the story.
The main gist is that people who have their Windows Update set to automatically download the latest critical patches (through the Windows Security Center - insert oxymoron comment here) will not be affected at this time. If you manually go to Windows Update you will need to provide some sort of credentials (allow software to snoop on yer box or provide your key) to access content. I myself bought a copy of XP recently from Newegg for this exact purpose. I like Linux a lot and if I didn't game, I'd use it exclusively. Since I do game, Windows is a necessity, and I don't want to have a haxxored box because MS tightened down on allowing pirates (which I freely admit I was one) to patch their systems. Newegg has copies of XP pro for about $150.00 with the purchase of any hardware, which is a far cry from their $300.00 MSRP.
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Folks will just start distributing these patches through other arenas (torrent, newsgroups, web sites, etc.), or will develop methods (as they always have) to work around the system checks.
This is just a ruse to get folks to pay less attention to the fact that the MS OS is generally less secure for most people than it should be...
MS To Limit Security Fixes to Legal Copies of Windows
Or, maybe, how 'bout:
MS To Limit Security Holes to Legal Copies of Windows. That would make most people's installs pretty solid....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
what happens? You'll get a lot more spam.
basically that's it.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Really the only thing that would be better is if they could devise a way to make it impossible for people to install their software in a manner that violates the license.
How many more people would start taking a hard look at FOSS if they couldn't get their 'free' MS products?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
...exactly how does MS plan to check piracy? What conditions are being checked? What files? In other words, how do they know? (mine's a corporate license that was given to me...hopefully it's not a hack, but who knows)
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
MS's new authentication and registration techniques do work on the small scale, your average person who does have the technical know-how to just copy the Win98 cd doesn't usually have the know how to find the crack for systems like WinXP that need to be "activated" i know alot of family/friends who used to just copy software but have bought XP cuz its "pirate proof".
Many people pirate Windows, for many reasons. Cost, availability, etc.
But imagine now if it's becomes a nuisance to crack everypart of the OS which phones home. People will go elsewhere... legal perhaps.... but what about the people who wont pay.
With Linux now coming of age, it seems about right that a significant market share would now drift in the direction of OpenSource operating systems.
Like, if my HPiece-of-shit laptop dies and I "transfer" my XP license to a Dell, does that count as piracy?
Yes, because now you don't buy software. You lease it. >:(
Why should they be expected to support copies of Windows that people didn't pay for? Sure, this is an issue of customer support. But then, the people with 'pirated' copies of Windows aren't Microsoft's customers.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The pirated versions will still be getting updates if the user of said software has auto-updates turned on. It's only when you manually run windows update that you get denied.
That may change in the future, however.
The reality is that almost no other commercial software vendor will provide you with updates if you aren't current on maintenance, let alone pirated the software in the first place.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
And what happens if the machine you're legitimately trying to update can't be put on the internet? I remember during the blaster virus, some of our laptops were getting infected so fast, we had to make sure the remote users did NOT get online, and we had to send them the security update and blaster cleaner on disk.
So, under Microsoft's new model, we wouldn't have been able to fix those machines, because as soon as we let them on the internet to "validate" their copy of Windows and download the patch, they would have been reinfected and rebooted. Lame.
Talk about using your worst problem to your advantage. Now security holes sell windows. It's amazing what a monopoly can do isn't it?
If/When windows-update denies pirated versons of windows, people with pirated versons, who can't get security updates can risk having their machines turned into spam zombies.
And then every one on the internet will have a problem when the net is flooded with spam from unpatched zombies.
Or we can hope that people will switch to something some people consider a better OS when they no longer get updates from MS.
When i Moderate something -1 Flamebait, why do i not get another modpoint?
5--1 = 6
Awsome simply awsome the tighter they make their licensing the quicker the uptake for Linux. Hell I don't really know anyone other than some companies that buy legitimate copies of windows. Hopefully they will put a check in Office that will not let you run on a pirated system as well.
Short term revenue gain, long term loss.
Got Code?
... in exactly how many machines we're talking about here. Given that every time I've purchased a machine in the last 5 years I've been force-fed a Windows license, how likely is it for someone to have a pirate copy?
I'm still steaming from all the times I've purchased machines to run Linux, yet been forced to buy the OEM Windows license along with it.
And before anyone mentions building a box yourself, that just causes a hassle when it comes to warranties (I want a name brand machine that I can take back if something breaks in its hardware), and companies that allow you to purchase the machine without an OS are virtually nonexistant in my area.
So given that I've been forced to buy a Windows license with every PC I own (whether I use it or not), I'm not sure how it's possible that there's that many pirate copies out there.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Assuming that MS tinker with automatic Windows update so that it detects illegal installs when a user tries Widnows Update on a pirated copy, I can't see how this system is going to work.
At the moment, any user of Windows (legal or illegal) can MANUALLY find the system administrator patches easily on Microsoft's website.
Unless MS manage to work a pirate copy checking system into each and every one of their system patches, this system will be easily broken. (and even then pirates may distribute cracked patches)
My main beef with MS is that I paid for XP, but reinstalling the system just to fix it means that I have to play their stupid online registration game - which only gives me so many lives before "Game over"
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
If you install WinXP Volume licenced edition with the famous FCKGW RHQQ2 (Genius!) serial number then install IE critical updates from Windowsupdate, the computer will start crashing on an occasional basis... its been widely rumoured that early on in the XP lifecycle Microsoft issued a patch which has an additional function of degrading the reliability of pirated copies.
This is reproducible with any XP volume licenced CD using that serial so bad media can be ruled out
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Althought I hate to give Microsoft any credit at all, I can't really say that, in theory, Microsoft is out of their right to do this. However, with the new Media Player, I have a real legitimate copy of Windows XP, and it was still unable to verify the authenticity of my software. Being optional, of course, I ignored it, but if that 100% legitimate copy stops working some day because Microsoft can't verify its authenticity, what then? Call Microsoft and tell them? I'm sure I don't have the receipt for a copy that I bought 3 years ago. Is Microsoft going to take my word for it that it's legit? What if it happens on a Sunday night before Christmas? Are they going to have operators standing by to get me working again?
I sure hope they think this policy out before implementing it. As a sysadmin of a small business network, I sure as hell hope that nothing goes wrong with our volume licensed copies.
In the immortal works of Han Solo, "I have a really bad feeling about this..."
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
If anything, it might nudge some people to a Mac. Apple has the brand recognition, and you can buy "For Macintosh OS X" software in stores. In other words, they know what they're getting with a Mac.
With Linux, on the other hand, most people wouldn't have any idea whether or not they would be able to use the software they want, let alone how to get it even if it did exist for Linux.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The reality is that almost no other commercial software vendor will provide you with updates if you aren't current on maintenance, let alone pirated the software in the first place.
The reality is that Microsoft Windows is installed on 90% of the machines out there. The reality is that regardless of how the software was aquired it is likely to be vunerable to worms, trojans, etc. The reality is that Microsoft is going to continue to look mighty bad when worms and trojans slam 90% of the computers out there.
After a while the "oh, well, the pirates shouldn't have pirated the OS and then they could have gotten our updates that came 6 months after the worm started" gets old and people don't care anymore.
As I have said before this is the situation that they want to occur as it makes all the more sense to place DRM restrictions on their OS and programs that will run on the OS/hardware.
No, for corporate edition your not supposed to use winupdate, your supposed to "streamline" the patches into the installer, and install an already service packed and patched system(or reinstall) on all your workstations, which may even be faster then trying to install a patch on a system with weird settings/corrupted files/messed up registry's.
Ok say some sinister hacker knowing that cd keys are
stored in the registry builds a little one liner that inserts a known comprimised key. You know ms is gonna check for this.
The result is a ton of instantly owned machines since they are unable to install security updates.......brilliant plan
That being said I hope they enforce their licensing pirates are slowing the uptake of Linux, it hurts everyone.
Got Code?
I remember reading a Crypto-Gram article on this a while back. Here's some great, relevant commentary from Schneier. The original link is http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0406.html#4.
The security of your computer and your network depends on two things: what you do to secure your computer and network, and what everyone else does to secure their computers and networks. It's not enough for you to maintain a secure network. If everybody else doesn't maintain their security, we're all more vulnerable to attack. When there are lots of insecure computers connected to the Internet, worms spread faster and more extensively, distributed denial-of-service attacks are easier to launch, and spammers have more platforms from which to send e-mail. The more insecure the average computer on the Internet is, the more insecure your computer is.
It's like malaria: everyone is safer when we all work together to drain the swamps and increase the level of hygiene in our community.
This is the backdrop from which to understand Microsoft's Windows XP security upgrade: Service Pack 2. SP2 is a major security upgrade. It includes features like Windows Firewall, an enhanced personal firewall that is turned on by default, and a better automatic patching feature. It includes a bunch of small security improvements. It makes Windows XP more secure.
In early May, stories were written saying that Microsoft would make this upgrade available to all XP users, both licensed and unlicensed. To me, this was a very smart move on Microsoft's part. Think about all the ways it benefits Microsoft. One, its licensed users are more secure. Two, its licensed users are happier. Three, worms that attack Microsoft products are less virulent, which means Microsoft doesn't look as bad in the press. Microsoft wins, Microsoft's customers win, the Internet wins. It's the kind of marketing move that businessmen write best-selling books about.
Sadly, the press was wrong. Soon after, Microsoft said the initial comments were wrong, and that SP2 would not run on pirated copies of XP. Those copies would not be upgradeable, and would remain insecure. Only legal copies of the software could be secured.
This is the wrong decision, for all the same reasons that the opposite decision was the correct one.
Of course, Microsoft is within its rights to deny service to those who have pirated its products. It makes sense for them to make sure performance or feature upgrades do not run on pirated software. They want to deny people who haven't paid for Microsoft products the benefit of them, and entice them to become licensed users. But security upgrades are different. Microsoft is harming its licensed users by denying security to its unlicensed users.
This decision, more than anything else Microsoft has said or done in the last few years, proves to me that security is not the first priority of the company. Here was a chance to do the right thing: to put security ahead of profits. Here was a chance to look good in the press, and improve security for all their users worldwide. Microsoft claims that improving security is the most important thing, but their actions prove otherwise.
SP2 is an important security upgrade to Windows XP, and I hope it is widely installed among licensed XP users. I also hope it is quickly pirated, so unlicensed XP users can also install it. In order for me to remain secure on the Internet, I need everyone to become more secure. And the more people who install SP2, the more we all benefit.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
It's funny how Microsoft seems to want people to take them seriously when they talk about pirating their stuff, yet pretty much rip off their customers any time they can. System dies and you want to transfer the license? Sorry! You have to buy it again! Why? You paid for it once, now on a system that will no longer function. Provided that you don't repair the old system and bring it online, what valid reason other than "we want more of your money" do they have for such restrictions? What makes them believe they have the authority to make such restrictions in the first place?
Windows XP Service Pack 2 already did this. "Someone I know" had a problem when installing SP2; it would error while check current configuration stating that Windows was operating on an invalid CD Key even though it had no CD Key errors before hand. However, this was one of the first XP Pro copies out there that I know of. After changing the cd key to another valid key my "friend" no long had any problems.
Windows Server 2003 already did this. So it's not that big of a suprise the would do it for the other OS.
Quality over Quantity.http://www.virusgaming.com/
Well it means that a large chunk of machiens will remain open to those who wish to install bot-nets on them and DDoS whoever annoys them on IRC.
I think they'd probably have done a lot better if the next version of DirectX can't install on a illegal version of windows, people generally don't give much of a damn if they can't get security patches, if they can't get the latest game to work however the'll be pissed.
At this rate, I'll be jumping ship to a Mac Mini any day now just to get spun up.
What's holding you back? Go for it! Just remember to get the 512M upgrade - Apple should be ashamed for even offering a 256M option.
Given the way SP2 foobared my XP, I wonder if there is a way to un-register my copy to take advantage of this feature.
Hi,
It's not a question of whether it's "right" or not. Fact is that there is a tremendous number of pirated Windows copies out there. These will be far more vulnerable than they are now; the result of this will initially be to hurt their owners, but in the end, everyone suffers due to an explosion of botnets/DDoS/spam gateways, etc. etc. etc.
I am even inclined to believe that even semi-clued kiddies will not be unduly affected by this because, as another poster pointed out, obtaining an illicit collection of updates probably won't be tremendously difficult.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
MS should look into making a reduced "Gamers" edition of Windows.
:)
They have two: Xbox and XP Home. They even bundle a computer with the Xbox version.
I say it's good.
You're obviously not in IT... if you were you'd be screaming. Restricted security updates means more virus seeds and faster virus distribution.
So last night I was playing Wow for a while and the performance in Orgrimmar was pretty bad. I figured I'd up the ram in my main maachine to fix the problem.
Pulled the ram from another machine, dropped it in and rebooted windows. Windows XP then informed me I had made substantial changes to the machine since I installed XP Pro on it and told me I had to re-activate it.
If this causes me, at a future date, to have issues because another minor change triggers the Activate windows, and it fails for some reason and I can't get security updates I am going to sue their ass.
Thankfully I have a Mac.
(If I had Priated XP I wouldn't even have this concern. I'm sick of being treated like shit after spending a few hundred on stuff.)
from the article:
"Users of pirated copies of Windows will still be able get some updates, such as security patches, but will not be able to get other add-ons for Windows, the Redmond, Wash.-based company said in a statement."
So, tell me again how this is a bad thing? Don't we already bitch about the useless crap M$ dumps on computers?
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
Separate downloads will always be available because corporate users generally do not use Windows Update for their workstations and servers. They have to download separate patches so they can be fully tested, then distribute it themselves. Whether or not these downloads will be available to everyone on their website is unknown. But the article only says this license check "also" will be used for Windows Update, not Windows Update exclusively.
There's no way they'll alienate all of their corporate customers. Updates will still be available as separate downloads or on CD.
Developers: We can use your help.
In fact, they will officially engourage pirating by charging legal customers more.
FTA: "by offering discounts to users of pirated copies of Windows"
Pirate a copy, then ask for the discount.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
I'm not sure what you are asking for. I'll give answers to both possibilities. I must say, though, either you are poorly informed, or a troll. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I am usually poorly informed as well. BTW: This is about SuSE. Why? Because I think its the currently slickest linux Distro. I've used Windows/Mandrake/Debian/Knoppix/Redhat (old)/Fedora/Slack.
.) Don't take this well written guide as an indication that installation is complicated. Its not. Try it. It's much easier than a Windows install. The guide is there so that you can understand the process, if you'd like to. The User/Administration book is good, too. Covers many pieces of software that come with SuSE, such as OpenOffice.org, or the Gimp. Perhaps ~400 pages of documentation, but it feels like reading a very good quality textbook (with the occasionaly grammatical error.
I prefer SuSE. Oh, and updates are cake. The included auto-updater asks if you like to turn on auto-updates, and if not, would you please regularly run the updater.
A: Install for the OS.
SuSE has the slickest installer I've seen, Operating System wise. From Bootup to Desktop, everything is graphical. Most hardware is auto-detecting. Hardware which includes difficult to distribute drivers, such the NVIDIA drivers, or various WLAN card drivers, are automatically pulled from the internet after first bootup (using the Auto-Updater). SuSE create a WIDE variety of packages, including all kinds of neat software like Main Actor (Non-linear video editing), and a well integrated OpenOffice.org (looks like KDE). All of this is done via a very easy click through GUI.
Excellent, incredible documentation, too, especially if you buy the box set (~$70.00). The installer book (Yes, installation has its OWN manual) covers everything from fairly easyish topics (What is Hard disk partitioning? How to I set my Windows to bootup by default? etc etc . .
Feel free to burn a copy of the CDs/DVDs from your friend, though. YaST, the only previously NON-FREE part of the installer, was freely licensed last year. Now, its legal to distribute the CDs/DVDs, as far as I know, as well as install one $70.00 copy on as many systems as you like.
B: Installing software once your OS is up and running.
As long as SuSE rpms are avaliable.
1. Download package (.rpm).
2. Click on package.
3. Dialog pops up. "This action require root access. Please type your root password".
4. Type root password.
5. Watch bar go across screen. Either YaST will say "Dependencies needed, please insert disc (1-5) of your installation discs), or "Installation Complete".
6. Done.
Many projections now release SuSE packages in addition to Debian/Fedora packages. Don't be too afraid to use a SuSE package for 9.1, most of those should work with 9.2. Anything earlier, however, will have to probably be compiled from source. Before you do this, however, MAKE SURE YOU LOOK at the installation media. I CANNOT stress how often I went through the trouble of installing something from source before I realized that although it may not be avaliable from the Sourceforge project page, a SuSE RPM with updates was avaliable on my installation media.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
> System dies and you want to transfer the license? Sorry! You have to buy it again! Why? You paid for it once, now on a system that will no longer function.
If you break out the costs, a new XP shrink-wrap license is around $299 for the pro version. You only really pay around $65-$85 for the OEM version.
If you buy the full one, feel free to use it wherever you want.
> What makes them believe they have the authority to make such restrictions in the first place?
It's their software, they set the terms.
Because you can't dowload a patch on a fixed, or otherwise non-vulnerable (Mac, Linux box, etc.) machine to copy and install on vulnerable machines.
The only machines that can be patched this way are machines vulnerable without the patch. If a vulnerability that can be exploited in less time than the verification takes (let alone downloading the patch) you can effectively have a machine you cannot ever use on the net.
You do realizes it's possible to download software for one machine running one o.s. on a different machine running a different o.s. don't you?
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Short term:
* users of those systems wont notice
* a lot more DoS, virus spreading
Middle term:
* users of those systems notice, start wondering at their needs and options
* slight decrease of DoS, virus spreading
Long term:
* users of those systems either buy a copy of Windows if they can afford it, but many switch to Linux
* gaming options improves on Linux
* stabilisation of DoS, virus spreading
Very long term:
* more gamers switch to Linux, as it becomes a viable option and does not require them to buy Longhorn.
Eventually:
* Microsoft regrets taking this steps, after Linux becomes predominants amongst youngsters.
* Phenomenon is accentuated when ex-youngsters/new-graduates introduce their in-depth Linux experience into the even most monolithic companies
Optimistic? Me?
Now we can look forward to never updating our systems simply because it will take 3 days to download the patch.
This space for rent
I don't care if it's a legal or illegal zombie spaming me into the ground. MS fucked up and MS should do something about it.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Aren't there monthly Windows XP magazines that come with a CD that contains the latest Windows updates on them?
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
The MS EULA says you're not allowed to move your license to another computer.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
This is the most flawed argument I've read in a while. I'm surprised it lasted this long on slashdot. A phone is a physical entitity that has manufacturing and raw materials costs associated with it. The equivilent of software is almost negligible (CD-R's go for like $0.25 ea. these days) so I can't see how you can make this claim. C'mon free software zealots: raise your voices here!
In fact a lot of software vendors (smaller ones, admittedly) are happy to give you your license code if you just call them up and explain your situation. If you can prove your identity, they can simply give you your serail key/number, a URL to download the software, or claim a small fee for shipping a new CD.
I'm sure they work great "IF" you can get hardware accelerated open GL support to work properly.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
if you have a pirated copy of Windows, the only way to obtain security updates will be through the automatic updates mechanism. And even that method may be restricted at a future date
For those of you who don't use a Windows machine, you should know that the "automatic updates mechanism" is the way that legitimate and illegitimate users of Windows obtain their security fixes, the way they always have, and the way they likely always will. This article is talking about Microsoft AntiSpyware - the product which they acquired by purchasing GIANTCompany.com. Microsoft has made it Very Clear that they are going to always allow users with pirated copies of Windows to download security fixes. This article says nothing to indicate that users with illegal copies of Windows have any further restriction in downloading security fixes, nor that they will not be able to do so in the future.
The only 'security fixes' referred to in this article, are those performed by Microsoft AntiSpyware. This has nothing to do with their OS, browser, and other product security fixes / patches.
Come on Slashdot! Get the story right!
M$ may not be dumb . but they are not that smart either. Basically they charge so much for a legitimate copy of Windows that most people are forced to pirate. Windows XP home edition costs over $200 boxed ..
... to deny access to software updates completely would be a public relations disaster and sink the company back into the almost constant negative mainstream press that has haunted them for the last 2-3 years. What they are doing today is more about the message, not action.
As a result, 40% of Windows installations are pirated (could be even higher in some countries)
Furthermore their monopoly is dependent on pirated software, so it is probably in their best interest not to ruffle the pirate feathers too much. These are not loyal customers and could at any moment jump ship given an alternative. Thats what Linux is banking on.
That does not make sense to me. If I buy a mobile phone, and somehow lose it, I cannot go to the reseller and claim a new phone simply because I "already own it". If I lose it, then it's lost and I will have to buy a new one.
Similarly, if I've lost my software key, then I've lost my proof of ownership, and I'm just as much a pirate as anybody else if I use a friend's key when installing.
No one can expect Microsoft to cover for one's own sloppiness - if you lose your key then you'll have to buy a new one. There's no "I already own this" argument to be made when you've lost it yourself.
First, as the other poster mentioned, a mobile phone is a physical entity that costs something to manufacture, and therefore costs a lot to replace. Therefore, reasonably, the manufacturer shouldn't have to pay for your sloppiness. However, a logical entity such as a software key costs NOTHING to replace, and software costs VIRTUALLY NOTHING to copy.
Second, you own that cell phone that you purchased. It's yours. But you DO NOT OWN SOFTWARE. You own a license to use that softare. And the key is not that license! The key is simply proof of the license, and losing the key does not equal losing the license that you own.
Basically, whether you have the right to use software when you've lost the piece of paper that says "you have a right to use this software" has *nothing* to do with whether you have the right to a new free phone if you lose your old one. The analogy is horribly flawed.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
The full price bend-over-and-be-reamed retail version can be transferred to another PC if you scrub it from the first one. I do warn people about this when I build systems for them and give them the option of OEM or retail versions (they all pick OEM).
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
That would run countered to game industry, suddenly those kids won't be running games. Suddenly people will be writing OpenGL games instead. Suddenly platform is not much issue anymore.
I think they want to crimp down on smart business fish that evaded nets of juBSA.
Well, I can see this working two ways...
1) People will get infected with worms, trojans, etc because of Windows security flaws. Because they can't update anymore (potentially), they'll run out and buy a legit copy of windows for $150-$200.
or
2) People will get infected with worms, trojans, etc because of Windows security flaws. They'll say "who cares if my box sends spam or transmits worms, I'm not spending a dime" and just let their box be infected so long as they can keep using it. Spammers and such will love this, and create worms that are purposefully non-destructive and simply allow for remote DoS attacks, email spamming, etc.
I bet on #2...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
I personally do not welcome the day when 50'000 windows pcs will start hammering my openbsd/linux servers. Denying patches from 40-90% of ALL installed windows boxes is insane. MS is making a huge mistake with this, if he denies access to security patches. Those users are not only a danger to themselves, but to EVERYONE ELSE too. I mean, when a script kiddy can build up 10-50k of infected windows boxes in a few months, what stops him from using them? Helping the bad guys by making more boxes vulnerable is not the solution. Yeah, you can say that they can still Autoupdate, but denying people using illegal copies who are quite tech-savvy from security patches WILL leave more boxes vulnerable. I wish this would be the push for some people to switch to alternative operating systems, but this is never going to be entirely true.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
There certainly are a lot of pissed of Windows pirates here.
Just an observation....
Others have already pointed out the obvious holes in your analogy. Allow me to point out some non-obvious ones.
If you lost your phone, would you also have to sign up for a new contract? By your analogy, you would also lose your phone service, and would have to get a new number, new account, sign a new contract, etc.
If I truly do own that key, then I should be able to sell it. In turn, whoever I sell it to should be able to sell it, and so on. That is not the case however.
If you lose your proof of ownership (that would be the official hologram on the actual certificate that contains your key), do you lose all rights to that software? If you write down your key, then lose your hologram card, are you a pirate? You don't have the "proof" of ownership anymore.
Has it sunk in yet that digital works are not the same as physical works? The same rules cannot apply. That is why legally, copyright violations are not the same as stealing. They are different things, with different rules under the law.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Besides, corporations often burn CD-Rs of their own copies of the OS and use their volume license keys as often as they want.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
So, your second copy shouldn't activate since that key is already assigned to the fingerprint of the first machine.
Here is some info I found, a while ago...
10 hardware characteristics (12 points) are used to determine the Windows XP hardware activation hash:
points item
1 Display Adapter
1 SCSI Adapter
1 IDE Adapter
3 Network Adapter MAC Address
1 RAM Amount Range (i.e. 0-64mb, 64-128mb, etc)
1 Processor Type
1 Processor Serial Number
1 Hard Drive Device
1 Hard Drive Volume Serial Number
1 CD-ROM / CD-RW / DVD-ROM.
For activation to remain valid 7 points must remain the same.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I like to use knoppix and technet to drop updates onto a fresh install before connecting a fledgeling Windows system on a network.
I wonder if we're still going to be able to get access to Technet articles?
It sure beats MS enforcing Windows being legal when you try to actually INSTALL windows. Why, if they did that, the world would be devoid of pirated Windows...just legit, secure Windows. And a few Linux machines here 'n there.
Obviously MS prefers that there be lots of insecure pirated Windows boxes out there. I wonder why...
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
If they can't be bothered to pay for their support, they can switch to a "free" operating system with maintainers that give "free" patches to their "free" bugs and "free" vulnerabilities.
It would sure make my job easier as a consultant. If I had a license fee's worth for every pirated installation of Windows XP I've refused to support... "OK I need to replace this file, where's your XP CD-ROM?" "What XP CD-ROM?"
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
One of our salespeople got some really tenacious spyware on his machine last week. We tried Spybot S&D, AdAware, HijackThis and then finally the new Beta Microsoft Anti-Spyware. I've been scoffing that it was a little ironic that the company who's responsible for Windows being so vulnerable has a lot of gall trying to peddle software to counteract the vulnerability.
Anyway, I digress. In order to download the Microsoft stuff, we had to do a "validation" which entailed entering our WinXP product code, followed by the name of the manufacturer of our laptop, the name of the place we bought it and one of those security codes in an image that you have to transcribe into a text box?!??! I'm surprised I didn't have to show proof of the Windows logo tattooed on my forehead.
BTW, despite notifications from every anti-spyware program that they had cleaned the machine of all spyware, none of them were able to get rid of it completely. None. We're going to have to re-format the whole damn box. In the meantime, I installed Firefox and told the guy only to use IE if he absolutely has to.
* Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED, TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated product and may only be used with the COMPUTER. If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the COMPUTER, provided you retain no copies, if you transfer the SOFTWARE (including all component parts, the media, any upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE.
Note, this copy of XP is an "OEM" version, which I bought "with hardware" for a DIY system - maybe bundled name-brand computers have a different EULA?
The way I read it - you just can't "transfer" the license for simultaneous use, but you can transfer the license "with the hardware". In my case the hardware is pretty much the computer, but some vendors will sell you as little as a floppy cable as the "hardware". So, as long as you take that floppy cable to the new system, you are legit, right?
Also, I have this list from somewhere...
10 hardware characteristics (12 points) are used to determine the Windows XP hardware activation hash:
points item
1 Display Adapter
1 SCSI Adapter
1 IDE Adapter
3 Network Adapter MAC Address
1 RAM Amount Range (i.e. 0-64mb, 64-128mb, etc)
1 Processor Type
1 Processor Serial Number
1 Hard Drive Device
1 Hard Drive Volume Serial Number
1 CD-ROM / CD-RW / DVD-ROM.
For activation to remain valid 7 points must remain the same.
So, the grandparent post is an interesting question - logically, moving the license from a dead HP laptop to a working Dell laptop is no different than replacing a broken motherboard in my DIY system.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I read articles like this and I think how it will affect legit users more than hackers/pirates/'thieves of IP'. Almost every time a large corporation puts out some blanket policy to 'stop theft' or 'create security' it hits the average user hardest. Most average users don't worry about patches that much to begin with...why? In the case of MS who tells them just turn on Automatic Updates and forget about it....then their machine crashes due to some update. Now they call the vendor for help(Dell, Gateway, etc). The technically challenged(or even sometimes somewhat technical user) is dragged through support calls for just following procedure. Now, bulk licensed copies, like those at the University I work...how do those get validated? There is no doubt that employees take home copies of slipstreamed WinXpSp2 and the University bulk license and use it. So, this is a legit license. The user may be using it improperly, but it is a legit key. What about the 'hardware checking' in XP? For example: A user changes out video card because they like to game, could take advantage of upgrade, but are not really that technical. Changing hardware like a video is rather simple these days...go to Best Buy or some store, buy the card, install the drivers...bing...done! Right? No. With the introduction of XP a user can in cases have their license questioned by MS for simply changing hardware in their machine; this can cause support calls, down times, and general headaches for something that is a users right to do. Continuing on with example... A message comes up after driver install to reboot. Being the 'good user' the installer follows directions. Machine comes back up. Hardware is all valid, the O/S license is valid...but....XP won't let user continue...call MS...get new key....your system has changed......geez! This simple example isn't anything that unusual. I've seen it happen multiple times. Just off the cuff....If Windows were to cost $50 for annual subscription(in America or any country where that price is 'fair') an an individual wasn't going to have their key revolked for hardware changes, didn't have to keep proving to the company they have a legit key, and could generally DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR STUFF I'd say discrete license checks would be fair. As it is, users seem to feel the need to update their ENTIRE machine every 2 years due to a sort of odd marketing training by hardware vendors and MS that their machine no longer cuts it....very flawed...and possibly expensive for many average users or even corporations. Other posts have already said this but....I too can do EVERYTHING I need on a Linux, Mac, or maybe even the new Amiga machines soon....except Gaming. If gaming ever moves to another platform with the support level that exists on Windows, I'm gone. That said, the average user doesn't use their machine beyond say 10% percent of its potential, yet continually upgrade to better hardware to support new O/S every two years(Longhorn delays are the exception). Why? I have a computer to run apps, video/audio editing, gaming, word processing, email, chat, etc. Why should the O/S get in my way? The purpose of ANY O/S is to shut up and let users get whatever it is they need done. To wrap up, I see this as desperation by MS. It is alarming to see the U.S. stuck with lousy licensing models while other countries wise up and demand better. I really don't care who does it at this point....Linux, Apple, Be O/S, Amiga4.x, SUN, etc. There really needs to be the competition in O/S realm to accomplish for users in software that AMD did for hardware. When Corporations are FORCED to compete, everybody wins. Nuff said.
What an excellent way to shift the blame.
"Well, there wouldn't be so many worms and exploits out there if it wasn't for those damned pirates."
"Sorry dear customer, due to all those evil pirates, you got infected by a worm."
"It wasn't our software, it was the pirates."
For your Mom, the Mac is ready to replace Windows.
For people more knowledgeable and wanting to be on the cheap, Linux is ready to replace windows on hardware they already have.
It's a killer two-pronged attack. And I agree with the parent that the harder you actually make something to pirate, the more people you will shove into legitimate sofwtare - some of it will be replacing pirated copies with legal ones, but other instances will be customers jumping ship to cheaper or easier solutions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Last I checked, the changes aren't automatic. The poster must have just clicked through and not read the dialog like a typical Windows user...
I guess that would be a save bet since scenario #2 is already happening, even without the new anti-piracy measures. I've seen (licenced) windows systems where the "new updates ready to be installed" icon in the systray had been ignored for over half a year...
I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.
How will the USA stop MS from doing this?
Take them to court? Threaten to make them give away copies to schools? Slap 'em with a £1million fine?
Seriously - How will the courts stop them?
b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
MadDwarf
Microsoft: What is your name!
Me: Stephen
Microsoft: What is yur quest!
Me: I seek the Security Patches!
Microsoft: What is your product Key?
Me: Uh, I don't know that Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
A phone is a physical entitity that has manufacturing and raw materials costs associated with it. The equivilent of software is almost negligible (CD-R's go for like $0.25 ea. these days) so I can't see how you can make this claim.
You've covered the raw materials in that $0.25, but what about the manufacturing costs? It costs money to develop code. Plus you neglected to mention profit on both sides.
Addlepated - punk & metal
managment - "lets stop all pirated copies of windows by not allowing them to update, that'll stop them getting all those brillant new features we pack into updates! those pesky pirates will be so heart broken they will be forced to run out and buy a copy!" ...meanwhile in the real world.....
"in other news, china and most of asia is swamped with viruses, having the knock on effect that everyone else in the world get 100000000+ spam emails a day and constantly bombarded with virus activity"
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....