Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sued Over WGA
Hope Thelps writes "The Seattle PI is reporting on a lawsuit being brought against Microsoft in response to their WGA spyware. Groklaw is also covering the story. Although there are a lot of similarities to Sony's rootkit, the actual harm done is less concrete. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out."
Got tired of waiting for this to happen.
Sued by the same moneymonger who sued Sony.
whoopie, M$ loses and donates another $1,000,000.00 worth of software to some high school system or third world country as retribution (at a cost of about 35 cents to the evil empire).
It came as a Windows Update, if you wanted to protect yourself you should have turned automatic updates off...
win or lose this will deter Microsoft from using wga to shut down any unlicensed (or otherwise) computers...for a while at least.
"I just only wish there was an alternative..." typed the man in his slashdot repsonse on his Linux workstation.
FLR
So what exactly are they going to sue for, like 1/30000th of Microsoft's money? This is why no one can ever successfully sue Microsoft.
http:///..org...pure genius, yet absolutely impossible to explain to the uninformed.
How can an official component of Windows be spyware? It's their operating system, they allready own you if you use it. Pull down your pants and get it over with allready.
"If you don't have eyes you shouldn't have wings" -- Carl Pilkington
A Microsoft spokesman, Jim Desler, agreed with the allegations. "Spyware is deceptive software that is installed on a user's computer without the user's consent and has some malicious purpose," Desler said.
Well, actually he claims to have disputed the allegations, but then he said what's quoted above, and finally (to the press corp's horror and astonishment), proceeded to shove his entire foot, ankle, and leg (up to his knee), firmly down his own throat.
Let's break this down:
[x] Deceptive software...check!
[x] Installed without user's consent...check! (Well, basically with as much consent as any other spyware package, so I think there's a good case to be made for this point.)
[x] Malicious purpose...check! It beams data back to the mothership every day and can be used to remotely break the computer. I think that qualifies as "malicious."
So apparently by Microsoft's own admission, WGA is spyware.
I'd personally argue for a more expansive definition of spyware (or malware, or scumware, etc...), but even given the relatively constrained definition proposed by Microsoft itself, WGA seems to qualify.
A: On a pile of money.
Is '... in response to their WGA spyware' really necessary? Provide the information and let the readers make up their minds.
>> the actual harm done is less concrete...
No shit, there's no harm done at all.
Clear notice that this was an optional install. I could have elected not to install it and had my machine function as before. I had to read a statement and check a box saying I understood and agreed.
We can argue the merits of the actual software that is installed.
Hey, at least the Sony rootkit comes with music!... this thing comes with worse: Windows!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
DOH!
Oh... was I supposed RTFA? But wait... this is slashdot.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Either way, we lose. I think I'd rather have the lawyers win than Microsoft win.
Depending on the artist, it's debatable as to whether Sony media actually comes with "music."
1. WGA communicates with Microsoft HQ. The information transferred may or may not be 'sensitive' but this could be considered an invasion of privacy.
2. Any program that uses up system ressources without performing a task explicitly requested by the user is harmful in the sense that it slows down the computer. This is one of the main complaints with spyware/adware: they slow down your computer for no purpose (or at least no purpose that you, the user, are interested in).
3. WGA appears to effectively give someone else (specifically Microsoft) control over your machine (for instance the recently announced "remote shutoff" function). To the user, a program that limits their control of the computer (and gives someone else more control) is harmful. Note that the argument "but Microsoft would only shut off illegitimate versions of Windows" doesn't make any difference. Even if that's true, there is still a loss of control for the user. This is harmful to the user.
To the same extent that any other piece of so-called "spyware" is harmful (installed in a tricky way; sends info back to some company; wastes CPU cycles and disk space; etc.), WGA should also be considered "harmful."
The problem with WGA is that is not an update, security-patch, or feature upgrade. It does *nothing* for the user, and only installs in order to give Microsoft more control/leverage over your machine. From the user perspective, it is a net negative, hence harmful.
Windows belongs to Microsoft and they are out to make a profit. Financialy making Windows unauthorized use difficult could add a few percent to a pie chart somewhere thereby justifying Windows Genuine Advantage checking.
So, if you're a pirate you can either deal with all the contractual obligations found in the proprietary world or adapt to a F/OSS world where software such as registration/access checks simply do not have a logical place.
Also wishing Windows (XP Pro $399CAD here) was not so un-free.
Shh.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one who hates all of the BS you get when you buy a new laptop/desktop. First thing I've always done with my Dell laptops/desktops is format, reinstall xp + linux. However, I got frustrated with the activation when I didn't always internet or the activation insisted i make a 30 minute call to MSFT to get a rediculously long key. Long story short, I used the ever-so-famous corporate copy + key (generated with keygen) even though I have XP Pro COAs on the systems. Now, a few years down the road WGA is going to force me to reinstall--now that I have many important business apps installed. How many others are in the situation of "invalid keys" with legit COA licenses?
Just thought that you guys might wanna know that Microsoft has came up with an article on removing WGA.
w00t
I mean, I'd be just a little less bad (WGA) if it worked properly. I've seen most of my old HS's comps get the "not genuine" notice, and it takes a while to fix.
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
I make websites and stuff. Buy one.
What peeves people so much about WGA is that MS pushed it out as a Critical Update, meaning that all machines with Auto Update install it without prompting. It is undeniably not a critical security update and to make matters worse it phones home. After taking some heat, MS then conceded that the installation of WGA will be optional (if by optional you mean selectively blocking some non-critical updates). It's still being pushed, but you don't have to install it. For those of you with your less than legit copies worried about not receiving updates, you can always download third-party update packs if you don't mind a bit of a delay. Not necessarily a bad thing considering that MS has been known for having to patch their patches. I'm not an MS fan, but not a huge hater. Just a strategically stupid time to ramp up WGA after the whole rootkit fiasco. I'm not an MS fan, but not a huge hater. Just a strategicly stupid time to ramp up WGA after the whole rootkit fiasco.
http://news.com.com/5208-1029-0.html?forumID=1&thr eadID=18274&messageID=157697&start=-16
With the possibility of barring access to Windows...
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/29/165 7241
... then how much of downtime must a user suffer from this?
...No indeed! We are not strong,
/ KiplingRudyard/verse/p3/pictsong.html
But we know Peoples that are.
Yes, and we'll guide them along,
To smash and destroy you in War!
We shall be slaves just the same?
Yes, we have always been slaves,
But you--you will die of the shame,
And then we shall dance on your graves!
from "A Pict Song" by Rudyard Kipling
http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K
No shit, there's no harm done at all.
sniff, sniff, sniff, fee fie foe fum, I smell the blood of a troll...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Look everybody wga is NOT SPYWARE. I ran Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware Beta on WGA and it came up CLEAN. So drop it okay?
http://www.firewallleaktester.com/removewga.htm
I CANNOT vouch for the legitimacy of that utility (so scan it first, try it on a staging machine, etc., YMMV, Batteries not included, and all that jazz). I just did a quick search for utilities for removing WGA, but being a Linux user I don't have much use for it myself. There are reviews of it on legitimate sites (for example, PC World) but then they've also unknowingly recommended scumware in the past as well.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187839&cid=154 93469
Wait, wait, vision in my third eye is clearing: I see, Microsoft is going to lose. And yet, losing major litigation still won't stop them from spying on folks.
I have a legal version of Windows, I have no fear of Microsoft. It doesn't send any personal information. It just sends your PID to see if is Legal. If You have something to fear, stop using Windows. Run Linux or go buy a Mac, Its your choice.
WGA notifies Microsoft of when/where you sign on to your PC without your knowledge/consent. This allows MS to keep tabs on your location at any given time.
/tinfoil hat jokes not needed.
Sure, when you go to Microsoft Update you are giving up your IP addy and effectively doing the same thing...but...this is a voluntary action on your part.
This is all a means to an end....you just don't see it yet.
In other news, Jack Kevorkian sued the developers of the POSIX-compliant 'NUX commandline program "killall", citing that the application didn't really kill "all" the programs on the computer but instead should be renamed to "killnothingbut". This intellectual Advantage(TM) of Kevorkian stemmed from his introduction of the oft'quoted uber-leet commandline tool "kevork" which injects null pointers into the code and data segments of all programs that are non-responsive to the "TERM" and "KILL" flags. Kevorkian was unable for comment on whether this is a closed or open-source application, though it was rumoured by his assistant that it is a simple library replacement with a namely-fassioned symlink to killall that the library determines based at runtime with argv.
Sincerily,
John "kill'em'all" Dahmer
...could be that software is one of the most tractable of all non-abstract mediums, and we're attempting to apply laws intended for much less tractable non-abstract mediums. So won't work.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
The software is only viewed as spyware when you think it's ok to pirate it.
If you think that way, what does that say about you?
The thing is my hijacked copy of Windows XP won't even download updates because it has an 'invalid key', so how are they going to deliver the WGA?
WGA is supposed to mean "Windows Genuine Advantage."
Of course if Microsoft can use it to remotely render your computer inoperative, install software without your permission, beam data back to Microsoft, and to generally be a pest, it's clear the only advantage in WGA is Microsoft's advantage.
To the hapless user it should be "WGD," or "Windows Genuine Disadvantage." Indeed, other operating systems do not suffer this disadvantage.
It has been eons since I read the EULA, but it basically says that MS owns the systems. That means that they can do whatever they want. OTH, sony or any 3rd party who does not have explicit permission from MS can then be sued. Oddly enough, if MS and Sony had not been fighting over playstation/xbox, MS probably would have given permission.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Q: How do Microsoft Programmers sleep at night? A: On a pile of money.
Is that because he's afraid Bill Gates will take it back?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You only view people as disliking WGA only if they have something to hide. Screw principle. People who don't like it obviously fear it, right? What does that say about you, besides stating the obvious fact that you're a flamebaiting troll?
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
then load an OS like Linux that is really yours.
WGA is like a cop taking drunks off the road. The more Windows boxes that are removed from the internet highway the safer we all are!
There! Go ahead and mod me as a troll or flamebate or over rated. Someone had to say it.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I am confused (a dangerous thing to admit openly on slashdot, I know). It is said that the WGA is what audits a system to determine authenticity. For now installing WGA is voluntary (or installed by user permission...informed consent, I think it is called) However, it's later stated that WGA will become mandatory at some point, and possibility that Windows will be disabled (killed, turned off, etc.) eventually, if WGA is NOT installed. So, if WGA is not installed, what other mechanism is in place within Windows that could allow MS to remotely shut down a computer system? What am I missing?
They might mod me down troll/redundant, etc, but what the hell!
I ran a Windows/Linux machine and switched to Mac a year and a half ago. Since then, I've never looked back. Specifically, I don't have to deal with a company that has contempt for me and treats me like a criminal. Since OS X will only run on Macs, Apple doesn't have to worry about piracy, license keys, etc. What's more, I can run several Linux distros within the Parallels emulation software.
The only thing that sucks is I'd like to run my old games, but that would require Boot Camp, and with XP I need to register online. If I run Windows, I want to do so offline, full stop.
This space left intentionally blank.
The question is, if WGA is not installed, how does a computer know to contact the MS server and verify?
If you buy a machine with an OEM copy of XP Pro on it, and then re-install with a corporate XP Pro cdrom, you've technically committed a software license violation unless you also bought a corporate "volume license" to cover it (yep, you actually have to pay for XP Pro twice in this scenario to stay legal) plus used your specific corporate installation key code that was assigned to your company when you bought the volume license. Otherwise you must use your original OEM licensed copy of XP install (or recovery) media and your original installation code from the sticker on the machine plus go thru all the hassles of product re-activation to remain legal. Yes this is a load of crap to have to go thru, but when you clicked thru that OEM Windows EULA, you voluntarily agreed to be bound under such nefarious terms.
We have been informed that your living quarters are not in compliance with our surveillance requirements you agreed to when renting our house. You have thirty days to bring your living quarters into compliance or face eviction at that time.
Even though your lifestyle may be in compliance, we cannot verify that nor monitor ongoing compliance in accordance with our instant eviction policy. This is not a request. Compliance is mandatory and you must submit to constant surveillance or face banishment and asset forfeiture.
Thank you for renting from Microsoft.
There will be many arguments presented in court to validate both sides to this, but there is an aspect of this that the Microsoft loving trolls here will never admit. This WGA is doing just what a ton of malware/spyware/crapware is doing, which is exactly why Windows can never be secure.
I would be curious to know how many Windows XP users are no longer able to validate their OS. I bought Windows XP Pro OEM when it first came out. 3 motherboards, 3 video cards, 4 harddrives, I forget how many CD/DVD-RW's, and 3 slipstreams, my Windows has been apparently installed on too many computers(?). I am told that this cannot happen, but oh well. I now use Mac and Slackware Linux.
From the Linked Page:
SUMMARY
This article applies to the version of Microsoft Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) Notifications that is distributed during the pilot program. For example, this version is included in the pre-release version that accompanies the Microsoft Software License Terms. To safely and easily uninstall the pilot version, you must install the general release version of WGA Notifications. If you do not install this version, you can follow the steps in this article to disable or uninstall the pilot version. Important These instructions have not been tested on the general release version of the WGA Notifications. Therefore, these instructions are not supported. Microsoft will offer the general release version of WGA Notifications to users who uninstall the pilot version at a later date. These users will obtain the general release version through the Microsoft Automatic Update service. WGA Notifications is part of the Windows Genuine Advantage program.
............You own Windows
What happens if people simply disable updates?
I really don't see what all the fuss is about, if MS want to make sure your copy of windows is legit, then fine, after all, you bought into their crap. And for all of those people who actually did buy into it, getting rid of the illegal copies makes forking out the money seem a lot less painful, for those who didn't, how can you expect it to work, you stole it. Nobody would mind if Ford introduced some tracking gadget to help stop car theft... ...well, maybe they would, but I'm sure not so many would.
I hate MS as much as the next slashdotter, but the endless moaning about WGA is really starting to get to me.
So if you don't want to get pulled over, you just turn off the cops? Sounds like a plan!
WGA comes with solitaire, hearts and a pinball game...
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
"Sony's rootkit, the actual harm done is less concrete." Thing is, there is no harm done here. Of course, the communication with Home Base was poorly (if at all disclosed) but unlike the sony rootkit there is really no adverse impact to the user's system.
The best we can hope for is the ensuing lawsuit makes a PR nightmare for MS, exposing the real "plot" behind the installation of WGA and its use. General outrage from the customer base will probably give them pause in fully implementing WGA's rumored functionality.
Go lawyers. Umm wait...
Anyone know the port, host, or path, the WGA communicates to the mothership with so I can block it at the router or proxy server? Oh wait, I bet the people running the Great Firewall of China know.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Not this problem, but something worse.
I have Automatic Updates turned on, and I cannot figure out any way to turn them off. Yes, I know how to turn them off, I frequently tell them to download but not install, or turn them all the way off and use the website. The screenshot is taken from one of two places to get to the same controls, and the whole fucking page is greyed out (disabled).
Go ahead, call BS on this. I may even consider giving you VNC access for a day or so before I format.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Actually, WGA is more akin to extortion, since it not only constantly nags you throughout the day about the version of Windows not being legit, but to get it to stop (and to allow you to update your Windows installation, to protect against all manner of malware), you have to shell out $150. Did you buy a used computer with Windows XP installed? Did you download Windows XP from a pirate site or P2P app? It doesn't matter. You're still given the shakedown for $150.
And as for Linux, I've said it again and again, nobody wants to ditch the OS they feel comfortable with, in order to learn a whole new OS from scratch, just because it's more politically correct to do so, especially when they have to deal with the overzealous snobs who demand they do.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
BUT... step back for a second. Forget the fact that they're a mega-conglomerate. Forget the fact that it's some giant company who you think might be out for world domination, one PC at a time.
Instead, I think of it like this:
You create a piece of software (Those of you who say what about "Sourceforge" or "freshmeat", back off for a few minutes... we're not talking OSS right now, we're talking commercial). You want some level of appreciation. You want to make sure that when people pay the $XXX for the software you made (And let's face it, we're talking a BUSINESS here, not a charity - you'll charge however much is possible, to keep it selling and get as much profit as possible).
You also are not a bumbling idiot, you've used emule, bittorrent, google, and astalavista. You are, or know, that "Guy who has everything" for software. You've needed some minor piece of software, and could find / engineer a crack / keygen for it. You get it for free. If you DO have scruples, you know too many who don't.
So you want to protect your software from the evils of "Oh, I can get it for free". Without protection, a couple days and it's spread around the net. You protect it, congratulations, you've bought yourself a week before a serial / crack is released. SO you lock it down good and tight. And hey, if there's something people without scruples love, it's the idea that "They say we can't, so we'll prove them wrong!". Besides, according to crackers / OSS fanatics / the immoral, ALL software should be free, you should be doing this in your spare time, and hoping that you'll get enough donations to live off of if we don't pay for it! (Wait.... they stole the software, but expect the owner to live off of donations, while they're not paying for it anyways?!).
Solution: You use pre-packaged solutions to lock down your software, good and tight. It runs various checks against files for alteration. It might even dial home when run to make sure it's legit, disabling if not. Hell, I'd do it if I wrote still. Does that make you evil? NO! It means you want to protect your investment (Time, effort, energy, money, employees). But somewhere, somebody out there will find a way to defeat it. You've not bought "infinite protection", instead you've bought another month to come up with a better way of protecting your money (Goal here is to delay it as long as possible. Outright prevention is impossible, but delaying is entirely doable).
So you use software to dial home and verify authenticity, check itself and other files to make sure that they're running and not tampered with, restore each other if necessary, and quite possibly re-confirm that they're authentic from the dial home. Does that make you an evil beast who deserves to die? Hell no.
But wait, it's Microsoft. Oh, SCREW THIS! They're too big, make too much money, they're evil! Need to die. Who the hell do they think they are, trying to protect their stuff? They don't need the extra money, I feel good sticking it to them! Imagine, trying to make people pay for their stuff or make people feel bad for having stolen it.
THE NERVE.
Does M$ no longer care about their older children? Now they're basicly saying, "take all the 2000's, ME's, and 98's as you want!"
Microsoft never guarantees that Windows is fit for any particular purpose.
, scroll down to secton 16)
Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence... (see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx
It's not Microsoft's problem if Windows doesn't live up to your expectations of what is fit to use as a PC operating system. You're lucky they bothered to write bits to the install CD at all, they weren't even contractually obligated to do that.
Let's see: Calling out unattended to an NTP server every day? Fine. Calling out unattended every day to McAfee/Symtantec/ClamAV/whatever to update your anti-virus? Fine. Calling out unattended every day to update your anti-spyware? Fine. Calling out unattended all the time to run your BitTorrent or P2P client? Fine. Calling out unattended every day to check for OSX/Debian/Windows updates? Fine. But calling out unattended to to make sure you're not a pirate? Gasp! Shock! Horror! OK, so maybe you didn't know it was calling home, per se, but you probably should have guessed.
WGA and a ROOTKIT are NOT similar. The Sony RootKit was also exploitable, so that other malware could hide themselves. The only similarity is they both called home.
Sorry, just because he brings up an argument pro-windows with some invalid points doesn't make him a MIcrosoft shill, as you would like. Of couse, for all we know, you might be part of some evil Linux Shill that acts covertly in order to help linux!!!11! Anyway, I hate to break it to you, but "Browsing the Internet, reading email, watching movies and burning cds is just as easily done using Linux" is not true. Internet and reading email, yes it is as easily. Movies are not - their is a lot of trouble often to find effective setups for movies. Burning CDs, as I understand, can be done via click and drag on XP. (I myself still use Win2k - I don't trust XP for reasons such as WGA) Average Joe #200132 doesn't know his rights are being taken away. How would they? Most of them have out of the box fully installed and working computers. DRM often doesn't create a trainwreck on these (Rootkits do still, though. And my custom box cries when introduced to some of that stuff such as Starforce) I must also disgree with you on that Linux programs are elegent - I find SOME to be very nicely polished - but the vast majority aren't.
Well back to disagreeing. My family has four computers including a home server. My server has our music collection on it and all computers have easy access using Jukebox or one of several other open source mp3/ogg players. These players are not "half-pie open source attempts." They are VERY professional and elligant applications. (Which I can't help think that you would know about if you really were a Linux user. Frankly you sound much more like a Microsoft shill to me.)
There are a number of very professional open source applications, the media players amongst them, but try and find an a good open source alternative to something like Soundforge, Cubase or Protools. Perhaps samba has gotten much better since I last used it, but setting connecting to or creating Windows shares was far easier with Windows than with Linux. Would one of the less computer savvy members of your family have more difficulty adding a Windows share on the Windows box or the Linux one?
Right things should never change not ever, ever, ever. **cough stupid argument cough**
I didn't say that. I asked why someone would switch from a perfectly good operating system that already does everything they want to another one that does the same thing? Many average users simply can't be bothered with installing Linux and relearning tasks. Granted most of these are simple like Internet Explorer -> Firefox, some are not so trivial and change depending on the distro. But what good reason does somebody have for switching, especially if the WGA issue means nothing to them?
Really? Most non-geeks that I talk to are not happy about having their fair use rights taken away.
But how many care enough to switch to an alternative operating system? Just about everyone I know complains about ever rising petrol prices, but very few have switched to alternative forms of transport such as cycling, busses or car pooling. The geeks will switch operating systems because they don't mind spending the effort in installing and learning a new system, the rest will complain about how Mircosoft is infringing on their rights and go back to using Windows. Just like hundreds of people went "oh, gasp, how dare they" about the Sony rootkits, but forget about it the minute they want the latest album released under the Sony label.
That is just blatant FUD. Now I know you're just a Microsoft shill. Browsing the Internet, reading email, watching movies and burning cds is just as easily done using Linux as Windows. Linux is no longer just a "geek OS." This is just the kind of Microsoft FUD a Microsoft shill would spew.
Again with the putting words in my mouth. I never said that Linux cannot do these things. I said that Windows does them perfectly well. However Linux is not capable of running all of the Windows games and applications that don't have native ports, it can't play some media files (whether it be because of lack of mp3 support out of the box or some random .wmv format) it lacks proper support from many hardware companies (Linux on laptops anyone?). Sooner or later these problems become frustrating to the average user.
Another point of interest is that Windows is often easier to get help on. For instance, try googling for "change screen resolution" and add either "Windows" or "Linux". The first link for Windows will take you to Microsofts page which gives detailed step by step instructions for using the Gui. The first "Linux" result takes you to a somewhat confusing page about the X configuration files. Even replacing "Linux" with "Ubuntu" or "Linspire", two of the desktop Linux distros result in pages about editing the X config files.
I don't consider myself a Microsoft Shill (tm) by any stretch, but I also don't consider Linux to be the be-all-and-end-all operating system that many people who have us believe that it is. I don't go around trying to religiously convert people who are perfectly happy with Windows. Both operating systems have their advanta
... it's not even funny anymore (and I guess that's why there is a lawsuite). Yes, there have been false positives but I don't think that's the real issue. Especially the new WGA Tray notification is tremendously flawed: - It claims to be an important security update, while it really isn't - Hiding it on Windowsupdate is just a temporary workaround it reappears and claims to be an important update with each and every single of it frequent updates - Once installed it cannot be uninstalled (only manually, you need quite some computer-skills for that) - If you DO install it, the current versions phoned home daily, newer versions will 'only' phone home every day. Why do I have to proove to Microsoft this often, that my legally optained copy of Windows is still legal? I don't remeber agreeing to that when I bought my copy of Windows. - WGATray.exe actually uses quite a lot of ressources and did slow down my system's boot-up time. On every single startup it uses quite some CPU-time to performe its WGA check. - It behaves like spyware! Microsoft doesn't clearly tell it's users on Windowsupdate that this will steal system ressources from them and that it will phone home to Microsoft constantly. Microsoft even calls it an important security update which it clearly is not, pretty much like a lot of other rouge software out there. And Microsoft already plans to make WGA Tray Notifications even more mandatory than they already are (current plans involve that all other WGA-checks will automatically assume your copy of Windows is not genuine if you refuse to install the tray notifications and waste your ressources on that).
Maybe Microsoft is secretly paying this lawfirm as way to combat these damn software companies who think they can install whatever they damn well please on peoples machines.
*coughs* AOL *coughs*
So why not, maybe it would cost them less money then to hire this firm and pay them off then create 10 new patchs because of a expliots. Now we could say PI v Microsoft basically making it illegal to not show you software package ingredients. There are laws created all the time by way of the judicial system and I hope this goes all the way to the US Supreme court and becomes federal law.
To me this is a major violation of privacy which is already being deminished away by big brother.
Eh? mplayer (or a pretty INTEGRATED GUI like kmplayer or gmplayer) works out of the box for ALL of my downloaded videos. I booted into a fresh install of windows and tried to play them: no go. WMP said it could find the codec for it automagically but failed. Then I remembered you have to download your codecs manually in windows so I went and got the Nimo codec pack. It still wouldn't work so I gave up. I understand VLC is the way to go these days? Clearly WMP is harder to get working than say gmplayer.
And in linux - see k3b and others.
Same can be said for windows programs.
There are valid arguments of why someone should use windows. For some reason they are not often used.
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world" -Gandhi
linus torvalds would never do this!!
the actual harm done is less concrete
Oh yes it is. I don't understand this thinking. Why, "harm" has to mean something really tangible, like breaking a leg or something ? I think not. The harm here does not cause some physically concievable defect - yet. But thing is, they did not tell the people what this WGA does (i.e. calling home every so often), they just told it when some people have found it out. Ok, I know how EULAs work, and how they probably could prove in court that they have every right to change their software as they see fit, still, when it is about using our computers to send _any_ information to _anyplace_ without asking us first, or if not asking then at least telling us about it, is just outrageous. I don't care what they send, I don't care how much or how small amount of information is in it, I don't care who they send it to, it just should not happen without asking us and letting us approve of disapprove the action.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Obviously you've never used Solaris.
When they say killall, they _mean_ killall.
ND
This statement is forty-five characters long.
I can't see what the 'Genuine Advantage' actually is. Few home users ever get any support from Microsoft, so paying for Windows to get support is not an advantage. Paying to get a copy of the latest version of Windows is certainly not an advantage, since most of us (at least when we still used it) just copied it, since the previous copies we had paid for were not of 'merchantable quality', as required by consumer protection law (ie. they crashed to often to be usable) - thus making Microsoft liable for fixing the issue. As far as I am concerned, if you are using a version of Windows prior to Windows 2000, there is a strong argument that it is legitimate to extract a replacement version of Windows that works properly from Microsoft (ie. copy it). Even with stock drivers (supplied with ME), my Sony laptop was never stable. 2000 / XP work fine, but product activation convinced me that Microsoft thinks that only it can get away crime, so I had to switch.
Microsoft is more of a Pirate than the people it calls 'pirates'. As a convicted monopolist, Microsoft has been stealing on a grand scale. How can they possibly object to a few people copying software that they can barely afford to buy? Given the development rate of Windows, compared to Linux, how can they justify the VERY high prices?
'Genuine Advantage' is a kind of Bush-esque doublespeak. If I hadn't already switched to Linux as a result of Windows 2000 product activation, I would be switching now.
I distinctly remember that their EULA said "You are not allowed to use beta software on any production system" (maybe not word-by-word), while they declared WGA Notifier as beta...
So, what did they endanger and why do they break their own EULA conditions?
Add this to the "stealth" installation as security update...
Then don't complain about the WGA and the money you have to pay. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The time spent into learning linux is not for nothing.
well i have to give it to you, you took the words out of my mouth
as such i love linux on the servers (i have 2) just for the stability and speed but on the desktop, most of the points u raised are true and ur not the only one who encountered issues mentioned in your
posts
So what will be the outcome of such a lawsuit? Perhaps MS will pay a fine, the sueing parties will be happy. But if you want to keep using windows, you'll still need the WGA 'critical update'. Worse, I don't think the lawsuit is going to prevent future WGA implementations. Regargdless of the outcome, the next version of windows will have something similar to WGA installed from the start. There will be a parargraph in the licence agreement when you install your (legal or illegal) copy of Vista that the software may be contacting other computers etc etc without explicit user consent etc etc and you hereby agree etc etc. People aren't going to read it, but they'll hit the "I Agree" button. No grounds for a new lawsuit. With windows, you're stuck with WGA. Take it or leave it.
assignment != equality != identity
Of'course I've used Solaris to killall the viewers.
I don't see any other use for that specific George Clooney movie, other than burn their sensory organs back into primordial pre-evolution stubs.
I bet Freedom Fighters are using it against those dangerous terrorists detained in Guantonamo Bay prison, in addition to the light-bulb treatment.
Sincerily,
Bob Tristand, Network Associatiates Lab Technician #3
This is what will be used against this case. If this case continues and the court allows it in, then it will quickly change from illegal program to one of validity over the EULA.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Since last Summer machines that were running dodgy XP keys were _prohibited_ from installing "non-critical" updates - this was the original crackdown against piracy.
The Javascript functionality to access non-critical updates aside (does that still work? Haven't checked) this is by no means a critical update. However issuing it as such is the only way MS could have targetted the machines it was attempting to get to - via automatic updates.
Placing this update as a non-critical would mean that only users that run Windows/Microsoft update (not many, right?) and that had a key that bypassed last years WGA checks would receive the software - somewhat counter-productive, no?
In the final analysis, I'm happy that they are being called on this. I'm most annoyed that this software is TSR and respawns itself on termination - this is unnecessary. And as for the removal instructions on MS KB 921914, these smack of utter duplicity - why in the name of all that's holy wasn't an uninstall routine provided?
Again, this is a case where legitimate customers will get screwed and people running unlicensed copies of windows should have already read the description, prevented the install and clicked on the "do not show this update again" checkbox from Windows Update.
I installed it because Boundschecker needed a scripting debugger, which came from Microsoft.com, which in turn required I install their genuine advantage first.
e bugger
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+script+d
(Notice it says 'Validation required' then takes you to their WGA page.
Now I know it's installed, but it's not showing up in the add remove software, or add remove Windows components. I don't see why Microsoft should be told which days I'm at my workstation and what software I'm using, so how do I uninstall it?
The only thing that looks suspicious in the 'Add/remove software' is KB893803, but the web page that links to doesn't say what it is.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=893803
I search the new and find wgatray.exe and sure enough there's a wgatray.exe, but it doesn't let me delete it. Yet wgatray.exe doesn't show up in processes on the Task window. WTF? Is it a hidden process or something else?
>Microsoft never guarantees that Windows is fit for any particular purpose.
The law requires Microsoft to do so though. That applies to basically anything sold and most countries in the wlrd has such laws.
True story:
I sometimes use my university's wireless network (whenever I bring my laptop). Since the university's IT lab has no way of knowing who is using what laptop[1], they redirect all initial traffic to a portal where you must log in (using the username + password you use on all other university computer systems). Point being, you get a network connection, but must log in to actually get where you want.
Since I installed WGA[2] (at the point I was rather indifferent to it), every time I use the university's network I get 50 entries in the Application Log (error source: crypt32; description: "Failed auto update retrieval of third-party root list sequence number from: with error: [timeout/server cannot perform operation/error code]"). This happens before I have a chance to log in on the university network, which of course means that my laptop can't yet access said site. More annoying, though, is that svchost -k netsvcs starts eating memory like crazy; peaking at over 90 MBs and then falling down to 70-80 (used to stay at 20-30). This only happens when I use the laptop at the university; at home (where obviously no login is required) the process stays at 20-30 MB.
I personally think that some "advantage" component that, when unable to access some site, causes a process to eat up 3-4 times the memory it usually does, taking up an extra 10% of the computer's physical memory in the process, is rather a DISADVANTAGE. I don't know how much memory spyware typically consumes, so I can't reflect on the comparison between WGA and spyware. 50 MB seems a rather hefty price for failing to communicate with some server, though.
Maybe they should rename it WGD?
[1] I guess a) setting up individual users' connections, including keys, is too much work, b1) collecting MAC addresses is too much work, b2) Joe Average won't be able to figure out his computer's wireless' MAC anyway, and c) there are potential security leaks if wireless cards, or laptops, are stolen/sold to non-university users (both a and b1).
[2] Troubles started at that point. Could be something else, I SUPPOSE, but I think it is unlikely.
Hey, at least the Sony rootkit comes with music!... this thing comes with worse: Windows!
lol. this reminds me of the classic one:
Some people say that if you play a Windows install CD backwards you will hear demon voices commanding you to worship Satan. But that's nothing. If you play it forward it will install Windows.
"I go through all this trouble because:
- I don't want to make bussiness with a company that has broken the law.
- I want to use software that is safer to use.
- I value the freedom to use software that benefits everybody, not only one given company"
I am tired of pro Windows zealots and astroturfers that keep patronizing Joe Average like if he was an idiot.
He may or may not agree with the ideas above, but he will understand them and will take a position ("No shit, I just want to play Half Life!" or "Tell me more pal, that sounds interesting").
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Perhaps samba has gotten much better since I last used it, but setting connecting to or creating Windows shares was far easier with Windows than with Linux.
Well, on my computer at home with GNOME 2.14 I seem to recall Right click folder -> Sharing and the Sharing admin panel, which sets up Samba appropriately. Browsing network shares was simply a matter of clicking the network bit in Nautilus (and it actually didn't keep hanging like explorer, but YMMV -- some Windows networks I tried worked horribly)
try and find an a good open source alternative to something like Soundforge, Cubase or Protools
It is a bit of a problem but progress is being made (see the ANGULA project). If you're willing to mess about at the command line a bit you can get quite a nice setup with JACK and DSSI/VST/LADSPA/LADCCA stuff and using rosegarden as a sequencer, linuxsampler and others for sampling, ardour for recording. Most audio people I've known haven't been afraid to get down to the ugly parts of their Windows systems to improve performance, though.
Some integration needs to be made, and the frontend stuff is inferior to their Windows counterparts currently. The backends still need some work but IMO they're better than the mess on Windows, though in Windows that is hidden by the UI. Plus another advantage is that you can strip the system down to bare minimals with a custom kernel for audio work (low latency, realtime optimisations with ALSA can get extremely low latency of less than 2ms consistently and no stuttering on my low end system but again YMMV).
said that Windows does them perfectly well.
I have to disagree here though. It's not so much that Windows struggles with the tasks themselves, but the OS can end up a bit of a mess when you leave it in the hands of a typical non-geek user for long. I tried my best with my family's laptop, created them an Admin account and a Limited user and told them only to use the Admin to install software. Sooner or later they found stuff didn't work right in Limited user and switched over to the admin account.
Then a misclick in IE just yesterday, one month after getting it (not sure how they got it up, I set firefox as their default and deleted the IE shortcuts) caused their computer to be infected with so much spyware it needed a reinstall. The only experience I had with that on the family linux computer was when someone got the WINE install infected with spyware... I just blew it away and started again.
it can't play some media files (whether it be because of lack of mp3 support out of the box or some random .wmv format) it lacks proper support from many hardware companies (Linux on laptops anyone?).
This is a problem, but it's a very hard to solve one. The solution is sadly getting enough people on Linux that free formats like ogg become more commonplace (or using that fluendo mp3 plugin). Unfortunately it means there's going to be a period of format 'flux'.
Another point of interest is that Windows is often easier to get help on
I agree. At the moment, you search for help on something and you're nearly bound to get something detailing how to do it in RedHat 6 via the command line, despite it possibly being 2 menus away on a modern install of Ubuntu (as changing the resolution is). Possibly more focus should be put on the brand name of the distro and trying to get their help pages (wikis and such) high on the search results as MS tech support articles often are. A better online help system wouldn't go unappreciated either.
>The Software is licensed, not sold.
Actually almost every store SELLS it. So it is an erroneous statment.
In addition, one might of course wonder what means "licensing software". Rights, permisions and actions are licensed, a physical product in iitself is not "licensed". Furthermore, licenses has nothing to do with ownership, which selling has. Consdiering the contract that wants to to agree to the fact that you did not buy the software is not even related to the sale (which is between you and a shop normally) doesn't help out much. One may also wonder how one ever get in posession of the software if it is never yours, is there some leasing contract for it? Do you borrow it from them? Or is there some other (legal) set up for you to have it? As a side not, you can also ponder over the legal status of ownership for example at a point after the purchase but before you install and is presented with the contract and the shops role in it all.
I seem to remember saying this might happen
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
In order for WGA to work the authorization data (Product Key, WPA Signature etc.) must be kept confidential.
One way to cause major problems for WGA would be to automatically make this information available to the
net at first by thousands to hundredthousands of users, for example by a popular service many use and which
also transfers the authorization data to nodes who don't have it.
Another (illegal) way to do it would be to write a virus that automatically publishes that information into
newsgroups etc.
The internet really teaches an interesting lesson both to the control freak and the ones he wishes to control.
Disobedience spreads a lot faster on the internet than in meat space and aren't they afraid of that.
init too?
One thing for sure, in the next five years Microsoft has a potential be a great law firm which specializes in corporate lawsuits
There is a huge differance in spyware bundled with (insert crummy freeware here) and what WGA is/does. One has a reasonable expectation to privacy and security when downloading vendor-recomended or requiered updates to the opperating system that they paid for, regaurdless of what the EULA says. MS abused their position in providing "security fixes" by installing this crud. Hey Balmer, I paid for the OS, stop looking over my shoulder!!
If you can execute the software on your hardware without taking the action of copying the software into your computer's memory (and remember, copying is the basic right granted to the creator of a work by copyright, hence the name), you might have a point there. As it is, Microsoft grants permission through a license to do the copying that's required to run the software. It's their position that you own a single copy of the software on the physical media it was sold on. The fact that you need to copy it for it to be of any use to you is the whole basis for the EULA.
Now, you may argue that the copying needed to execute software once you've paid for it is noninfringing under Fair Use, and that you're legally free to use the software however you want without a license at all, but I don't think you'll find much case law to back you up at the moment.
You can probably also bet that if courts did start ruling in your favor, Congress would move quickly to close what they'd call "the fair use loophole" once the BSA's lobbyists made a few phone calls.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Mandatory Microsoft WGA annouced on slashdot June 29, 1:41 PM Microsoft getting sued for mandatory WGA June 29, 9:47 PM Only 8 hours between /. reporting it, then reporting it being sued. Is that a /. record?
Then you get pwned by the Microsoft virii.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
>If you can execute the software on your hardware without taking
>the action of copying the software into your computer's memory
>(and remember, copying is the basic right granted to the creator
>of a work by copyright, hence the name), you might have a point there.
You miss the important part about the right to copy, it is not completely exclusive to the copyright holder. There are many cases when you can copy without needed a license from the copyright holder. One such is those copies required to use and run software you have. Those copies are NOT infringing and does NOT rewuire licenses.
> As it is, Microsoft grants permission through a license to do the
>copying that's required to run the software.
Thus not needed as it is specifically allowed and permited by the copyright law itself allready.
> It's their position that you own a single copy of the software
> on the physical media it was sold on. The fact that you need to
> copy it for it to be of any use to you is the whole basis for the EULA.
Which is a very bad "basis" since the law specificaly says you don't need it. That makes much of the basis the EULA stands on completely void.
>Now, you may argue that the copying needed to execute software
>once you've paid for it is noninfringing under Fair Use,
No, see above. If you want to talk about specifically the US laws, it is in 117, Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, which says you need no such license. Fair use is not an issue or needed at all. Other countries has similar provisions in their copyright laws.
switch
to
linux
Your conclusion that "they did it, therefore, it must makes sense" is one of the silliest things I've heard in awhile. DRM applications? Rational? Behavioral economics already has a lot of evidence to suggest that people and businesses often make irrational decisions. I'd think that this applies even more so to the "illegal copying" bogeyman at a company with an IP-conscious management like Microsoft. It sounds a lot more like some idea that some executive came up with, and as usual got implemented without anyone seriously looking into it's relevance. From Microsoft's point of view, something that can stop a trivial number of cases of piracy is a good idea, regardless of how much it inconveniences anyone else. (It's not like they think someone's going to switch to Mac or Linux if Windows installation is inconvenient.)
I've had the general impression that DRM tends to be harmful for the seller, in that it tends to give them a larger share of a much-reduced pie. But they seem to be thrilled that it reduces copying, without any consideration of the absolute number of units sold. There are just certain things managers seem to feel comfortable with; if in doubt, restrict things more!
^ ^ ^
What if sniff where windows update is at, then block that ip via hosts file? then get your updates elsewhere?
I vote for ETA. The Basque should to get rid of MS, er all of all those Spanish and French who invaded their homeland Euskadi.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If a person can't get past the WGA check, they can use Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer (MBSA) to get a list of updates the system needs, and use the links in the MBSA report to download them one at a time and apply them.
There should be other sources of MBSA on the net if you do not have it installed (you must pass WGA to download it). It was also shipped on a security CDROM they released a couple years ago and also on their recent tech net media.
Its amazing how I dislike windows more and more every day. Crap like this just turns my stomache. To all those out their defending microsoft, I am not saying this particular problem violates something, but as a user I personally dislike it so i will never use it. I cannot aggree any longer to all the disclosures and agreements, so the last copy of windows I will use in 2000. I have never installed XP and as of now do not plan on doing so. This is my right and I excersize it. I also will be migrating more sytems over to Linux in the future, instead of just one that I use with linux now.
Most of the time you just want a clean slate, and don't want an OS loaded with all sorts of Free ISP offers and annoying desktop icons that you don't need. You want to stick to what you know.
As I don't have and won't buy a retail version of the Windows OS I'm using and I have a recovery disk set I will use it. Of course then, as you say, I'll go through Add/Remove programs and Windows setup to get rid of all those annoying ISP and program offers that are installed automatically. Annoying though it is it's not really as much a big deal as spending a few hours doing a compleat installation just to reinstall Windows.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Google 'removing WGA'
Which pretty much goes against what the GP wanted.
shutting down unlicensed computers?
No problem with that but there is a problem when the software is licensed!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Okay, so we have TWO versions of WGA to play with. The only obvious difference is how often they phone home. Wouldn't it be fairly easy to DIFF the two programs, find out what changed, and change it one more time to make it phone home, say, once every 2,000 years?
Then we get the (dubious) advantage of knowing we'll continue to get other security updates etc., but the fool thing will stop phoning home (and thus risking false positives, deactivation, etc.)...
Just an idea.
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
For the life of me, I can't figure out why the make the OEM and non-OEM licenses incompatible. Spending 30-60 minutes on the phone to fix a work machine because the user needs a reinstall (hard disk crash) and doesn't have the original disc is a pain that I could do with out, and I'm sure that if you multiply it by the number of home users/technicians that have to do this then it becomes an even bigger pain in the ass.
Shame that *nix desktops are still such a long way from being suitable for the average nongeek user. The social part of the problem frustrates me, much like when libertarians get nowhere in US elections. I don't expect this to change until some distro really hits a grand slam in terms of UI simplicity, makes PnP driver installs "foolproof," and gains the requisite mindshare to make documentation & help ubiquitous. Then it's up to the community to realize that Win users don't comprehend how to RTFFAQ first, and so take turns swallowing our pride when answering a newbie question for the umpteenth time.
ReactOS [http://www.reactos.org] might be a way to leverage Windows' high UI recognition against Windows itself. Then you've at least got a fighting chance at having full control over the system.
Pi Ran Out
How did this get to 5 Insightful?
Sure it's true, but it requires no great insight. I wouldn't even rate it informative or interesting, since all this guy did was to state the obvious. Let's not let such obvious comments rise to the surface. It's a shame that I see these kind of comments, with these kinds of scores, all the time on slashdot.
Yeah, yeah. You can mod me -1 Offtopic, but you still read this and I still maintain I'm a damn sight more insightful than this guy.
The second WGA story in so many days...
and I still don't know what WGA is.
the people who actually do buy Windows aren't going to see WGA shut down their O/S.
In case you missed it, yesterday there was an article about how WGA does refuse to allow Windows to run legitmately. WGA Turning Off PCs in the Fall? The links in this article describe just the sort of problems users have had from WGA. Some people have had their computer in for repairs from the manufacturer and when they get it back Windows refuses to run.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why is it so hard for some people to understand?
If you don't have a legit license you don't get to use the program! It has nothing to do with sabotaging your pc. Your pc will work fine with some other o/s on it, just not windows unless its genuine. Nothing more nothing less.
It's their product, and you pay for a license. It's not the pc users god given right to have a copy of windows????
So many posts here appear to present that fact that there is no other choice for an o/s out there, that they are 'forced' to use windows which is simply not the case.
As soon as M$ does something to protect illegal use of their software they get shat on, and they really are not doing anything wrong. This, no matter how much people try and argue it, will in fact force the average user with an illegal copy of windows to purchase a license.
I'd like to see a little more bitching how linux and other o/s's haven't really made it any easier for average users to jump the windows ship. Surely that could be done if some of this lynch mob energy was shifted from M$ and put to good use.
If the average Joe just wants his computer to work then the answer is a Mac. You're right Linux isn't the answer right now. Whatever you want to say about Apple, Macs just work. Yes they are a proprietary closed company, and might be just as bad as MS if and when they dominate the market but because Apple controls both the hardware and the OS they are able to make sure everything "just works". Me, I have had Macs, PCs, a PC running linux, and even had an Amiga. If I had the choice and the work and development had continued on it I'd prefer an Amiga.
FalconShould there be a Law?
>The Software is licensed, not sold. >Actually almost every store SELLS it. So it is an erroneous statment. Common misperception. You're not buying the software, you're buying the media it's on and a license to use it. That CD is yours and you can do whatever you want with it, but the contents are property of Microsoft. I completely disagree with it, but that's how the laws are right now.
What would be FUNNY AS HELL would be MS to shove this down everyones throat....some smart hacker comes along and gets into their system...and then send a remote shutdown of EVERY XP computer in use across the world...MS would then get THEIR butts bent over the copier!
At least over here, I have control over what processes are running. Clean and simple. As an added bonus, it does not even run any Win32 malware, including WGA!
I never use OEM crap CD's cause I can't stand all extra crap that comes along with it
-m10
One of the main reasons that our legal system has difficulty influencing the behavior of corporations is that it attempts to apply the same pressures against them that are used against individuals. You can't put a company in jail, so you're left with fines. The problem is that money is actually worth much less to a corporation than it is to an individual. Unless you can levy a large enough fine to put the company out of business, they are only forced to pass the fine onto their consumers. We end up punishing ourselves.
What we need to do is go back to basics and re-examine the concept of punishment as it applies to corporations. What is valuable to corporations? Market share. How do they acquire market share? Through advertising, and through relationships with other corporations or government agencies. In order to effectively punish them, you have to impose penalties that impact these channels. For instance:
Place a cap on the amount of advertising the company can do.
Impose fees on other entities for doing business with this company.
... So does Spybot(tm) search for this and destroy it yet?
In the mean time, until it does, I use ZoneAlarm to block WGA from having ANY access to the internet. Windows Update is happy 'cause it still sees it on my system and will let me install updates. But that little spyware can't write home... >:) (Well, I hope not at least...)
Seriously, though. It's because of crap like this that I don't have anything mission-critical on my Windows box. I use a Mac for important stuff. My Windows box is for games only, which basically is the only use I personally have for Windows (I'll try WINE later...)
As usual, with Microsoft, you don't have many choices. You can turn updates off and get pwned by the virii, or leave them on and get pwned by Microsoft.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
"but it seems to me that they can't modify the EULA for Windows and have the changes retroactively effect existing users"
seems someone never took the time to actually read a M$ EULA. too bad... for them!
I don't feel like it...
Does someone have a firewall log showing the addresses and ports used to phone home?
Those damn chemistry books teach terrorists how to make bombs!! Burn all the chemistry books!!!
Think about this - the copy of XP I have came without WGA - I never agreed to use it (and since I long ago disabled windows update as part of securing XP, I don't have this issue anyways:). So, since WGA significantly alters the EULA and the original software, I don't see how MS has a leg to stand on.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
If they own it, they can do anything that they want. Not you. The EULA is not about protecting your rights or even spelling out your rights. It is about protecting MS's rights, wether they are real or not. Like I said elsewhere, I suspect that this will lead to a court case where MS's rights (and all closed source code) will be tested. This case could have some major impact on society (and MS's plans).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sure, I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan in the world, but I don't see where this person has grounds to sue Microsoft. The operating system he is using was developed and is maintained by Microsoft and I'm sure they have a right to know if your copy is valid. Plus, with having a valid copy, you qualify for all kinds of benefits (such as Internet Explorer 7 beta, Windows Vista beta, Windows Media Player 11 beta, Windows Defender, etc. But you have to verify your copy of Windows first. But another thing... WGA only works when you verify your system... so if you never go to download all of your critical updates (which you need anyhow), then you're never submmitting anything to Microsoft about the validity of your system. And about the automatic updating too... you have a choice while setting up Windows (through a fresh install or setting up a new system) between turning that on and off... and of course, you can disable that within Windows (as well as turn off the validator toolbar in Internet Explorer.) So WGA bogs down your system and sends off your personal information to other businesses in order for them to sell you miscellaneous products? I think not.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
What do you NOT see here. Just yet ANOTHER flippin MS process running for NO REASON REALLY waisting my CPU cycles and memory....so it can just sit pretty in the task bar tray...DOIN NUTHIN...as an owner of WindowsXP Home and Pro...once I put the key in...I shouldnt get flippin HASSLED by MS about registration..should be a one time deal. NOW what happens when Norton wants to do the same thing..how about every flippin piece of software on your system...Your gonna have to get a few more gigs of memory to keep up with just the software checks. I could see MS requiring a check for a legal copy upon EVERY update you initiate, but to have a piece of lameware running in my system tray for NO reason just to spy on me is ridiculous. If they do this..Ill HAPPILY await a hacked version of Vista WITHOUT it and just wont buy the stupid thing! No matter WHAT MS does, someone IS gonna figure out how to hack their system because there is ALWAYS someone out there smarter than their programmers are...ALWAYS...dont punish me for something I am not doing..
You're missing the point - the original EULA I agreed to didn't include anything regarding WGA or turning my system off. I never agreed to load arbitrary software. Actually, I didn't agree to running Windows Update either. Therefore I shut it off. I also never agreed to having my system online, ever. So exactly how are they going to win? Or shut my system down?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Doesn't WGA only only work when automatic updates is turned on? Or does WGA run independently. Another thing, can't you customize what downloads you want to install? Of course you can.... but I guess that don't really matter because the article is more about how WGA is not properly documented then this post is basically pointless and I don't want to completely waste my time so I'm going to post it anyways and this is a long 455 run on sentence.
Per the EULA that you clicked on, you agreed that it was MS's software (that was in the original posting that I did). That is, they LICENSED it to you to use, they did not SELL it to you. You are acting as though you own it.
This has never been tested in the courts (IANAL), that I know of. I suspect that this aspect of the license will have to be tried in a court. So, if this suits goes through, than this aspect will be brought out shortly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, the good news it that the pirates aren't bound by the EULA, not having paid for the software. They're quite within their rights to screw over Microsoft that extra bit. Again, it's the legit users that get screwed - they're not presented with the EULA prior to purchase (I'm talking off-the-shelf PCs here, not boxed Windows), so they couldn't have read it if they wanted to. Well, maybe things have changed... four years ago or so when I bought my first and last Dell computer, I never saw the XP EULA, nor was I forced to agree to it prior to or after my purchase, and I know there's no conceivable way that I could have returned the system because I didn't agree had I found the thing. Microsoft having a monopoly still likely renders the thing useless, since agreeing or not, you've got no alternative (don't bring Linux into this ever, and especially not until you can walk into Best Buy or visit Dell Home and buy a system with a blank/*nix'ed HD)
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
>>>The Software is licensed, not sold. >
s c_sec_17_00000202----000-.html
s c_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
>>Actually almost every store SELLS it. So it is an erroneous statment.
> Common misperception.
Not at all. What makes you believe so?
> You're not buying the software, you're buying the media it's on and a license to use it.
THIS is the common missconception which there is not even any basis for by law or otherwise. Sales are well regulated through laws and is a conception that has been in use for ages really. When you buy something, you buy it all, not only part of it. Try finding a law for example that says that for software you only buy part of it. besides, there is no difference in "the CD" and "the media" it is the same thing really and in most cases it is a copy of some sort of work (that usually has copyright invovled).
As for licenses, it is only relevant, if there is some right one need, using software doesn't need any such things. Neither would the copyright holder be able to grant you such licenses either, since the copyright holder doesn't not hold such an exclusive right to start with.
>That CD is yours and you can do whatever you want with it, but the contents are property of Microsoft.
No idea were you come up with such strange ideas. No, the copy of the softwqre belongs for example to me if I am the one who bought the copy. Other copies belongs to other people who have bought them. Microsoft would hold the copyright on the work though, but that is something different and not realted to the ownership of individual copies at all. If you want to learn about the difference about owning a copyright to a work and owning individual copies, here is a starting link to the US copyright law dealing with it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
And by the way, here is the link to the same law's definition of for example the material object in question, copy and so on:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/u
> I completely disagree with it, but that's how the laws are right now.
What law? Feel free to quote or link to any such law in whatever country you like that specifies that one can't buy software and that copies of software is always owned by whoever has the copyright to it.
I go into a store in the morning and buy a transister radio and get a bill of sale. In the afternoon I go into the same store and buy a full install retail version of Windows and recieve an identically formatted bill of sale. Nothing to indicate that I didn't buy both products.
I use the radio with no issues.
I then try to use Windows and that EULA is presented. Why can Microsoft try this "You didn't buy this" AFTER I bought it and recieved a bill of sale for it?
The store in all ways treated it as a sale and I was in no way informed that it was not a sale. Why should Microsoft be able to treat it as any different from the sale of any other copywritten product such as a book?
Even if I try to get a refund as directed by the Microsoft EULA I won't get one as the local stores treat software sales as final, only allowing exchanges for defective disks or missing manuals. If I then call Microsoft they won't refund my money either.
If this is selling me a license then the store needed to be authorized by Microsoft to sell licenses and negotiate terms and those licenses need to be presented in advance of the sale.
Software in stores is sold. Software companies are trying to create the legal fiction of them being licensed.
Let's first put aside the question of whether software is a license or a product. We'll say it's a license since you've bought into that. I tend to disagree, and that discussion follows.
I own the license. It's paid for. Therefore, I "own" the software, at least as far as the law allows me to. The law does not allow me to make copies and sell them, for instance. I also don't believe the law allows MS to deprive me of a legally obtained license either, except for under the terms of the license. Personally, I think MS is in a world of hurt if they ever try this (which I should say is doubtful).
Now, for the license/product discussion. MS could make it a license if they leased me a product, like, say, I could only lease my PC from MS or its "certified" vendors. Since I don't, and I own my hardware, that's null and void. You don't "license" a DVD or CD. You own it. Just like a book. The license bit is like a rental DVD. In that case, you don't own the DVD, you just pay to use it. Some programs that follow this "new" convention are Norton AV and McAfee AV. They both "sell" you the product, but the updates making it useful are a 1 year service, or the "license" part.
As an aside, I'm very happy McAfee/Norton work that way, because it provided the prodding I required to remove that POS from my system.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.