Slashdot Mirror
Windows Genuine Advantage Makes Few Friends
With a reminder to "not get silly here," ocbwilg joins several others in casting doubt on the source of the rumor about a mass turn-off:
"A 'front-line tech-support drone' who gets paid $12 an hour to read the support script is somehow going to know what sort of top-secret plans Microsoft has for the next six months? I highly doubt it. It sounds more like the sort of thing that a help desk drone would say to try to persuade a clueless computer user to do things their way.Then, of course, there's the fact that if you install WGA today on a pirated copy of Windows, all you get is the notification message that pops up. You don't get shut down, and you don't even get cut off from Windows security updates (which are truly the only updates that matter, and even they aren't that good). I find it very difficult to believe that Microsoft is going to go from 'Hey, your copy of Windows doesn't look genuine, but you can still install our security updates' to 'I don't know if your system is pirated or not because you haven't installed WGA, but even if it is a legitimate copy I'm just going to shut you down simply because I have no way of verifying it.' Especially not in the span of 6 months."
Along the same lines, another reader asks "Why are we making all this fuss over what could just be a rumor unwittingly spread by a clueless help desk worker? Since when did help-desk techs become privy to future, unannounced plans for a company, let alone ones as sensitive as this one?"
Besides the dubious source, the sheer scale of such an action convinces reader Willith that it's not going to happen — he promises to eat his hat if it does:"The thing to look it is how this might affect legitimate corporate versions of XP — and by that, I mean VLK versions actually being used in an enterprise setting.The company for which I work has more than 100,000 copies of XP running in offices on six continents, participating in one of the largest Active Directory installations in the world. Every system's load is tightly controlled and managed, and I can tell you that there are no copies of WGA anywhere on any of those desktops (I've seen the SMS reports). Nor will there ever be.
People say to 'vote with your dollars,' but your dollars, and my dollars, don't matter. Large corporate dollars matter — like the kind of dollars that can outfit a company's world-wide IT needs. WGA has no place on a configuration-controlled and managed enterprise desktop, and MS would never risk upsetting their real customers — corporate Windows & Office sales — to emplace something like this."
Working machines matter to smaller users, too, though, and Kremit mentions reports spotted online of "Dell desktops, valid CDs, and other licensed systems having problems with WGA," writing "When these systems stop working, people are going to flip. To them, this will be akin to the computer crashing and taking their data along with it."
Other readers had some specific gripes about the way WGA currently misfires in their own experience; Jnaujok maintains that it hasn't worked well for him:
"What about my two perfectly legitimately licensed machines at home that fail the 'Windows Genuine Advantage' test every time they update WGA? Considering that one of them is my copy of Advanced Server 2003, I won't be exactly happy when it gets killed this fall. (Hey, I just use it for the mail server program because I can't stand sendmail.)And I'm just a little bitty guy with one server running. What happens when this hits some company's server farm and they all shut down? How much liability is Microsoft going to have when that happens?
And every time they 'fix' my copy after the new WGA comes out, I have to make manual registry changes. Can you imagine having to do that on a 500 machine server farm?"
Not everyone objects to the idea of harsher treatment for unlicensed copies of Windows; several readers welcomed the idea of more active license revocation by Microsoft as beneficial to the world of free software; WhiteWolf666 described a turn in that direction on Microsoft's part as a "solution to the Linux pricing problem," writing
"35 percent of PC software is pirated. I'm guessing that Windows XP is highly represented in that group (of pirated software; i.e. at least 30% of worldwide Windows installs are not legal). If even 10% of that user base decides to switch to Linux rather than pay the Windows tax, it'll be a substantial marketshare boost.Reader soren42 lays out what this might mean: "If you suddenly force all the non-legal users off your platform, you're forcing them to use something else. Which means, in turn, more demand for OpenOffice, games on Linux, GAIM, ad infinitum — until there is a more, better, complete Linux end-user software stack to seriously compete with Windows."And the remaining 90%? They might decide that the MSRP cost of Windows is too close to the MSRP of a brand-new dual-core Mac.
I'm thrilled. MS has ridden on piracy marketshare for far too long. I hope they do every thing they possibly can to stamp out software piracy, and I hope they succeed."
Other readers share that sentiment, with a twist: on the basis that remote turn-off really is in the near future of Windows, some, like reader ewhac, say they're through with Microsoft: "I just built a brand new machine, primarily for gaming. Oblivion has been fairly sweet. But it looks like I won't be playing those games anymore — not unless the entire game industry decides to support Linux. ... This is morally and ethically reprehensible, and Microsoft knows it, and apparently doesn't care. Well, I do care. I do not, and shall not, grant consent to Microsoft to remotely snoop on my machine, regardless of their ostensible reasons. If my copy of Windows stops functioning as a result, I will take that as a maliciously incorporated product defect, and respond accordingly."
Most people won't be doing the same, in the eyes of RightSaidFred99, who scoffs "Give me a break, people won't be moving to Linux. They'll find a hack for Windows, they'll buy Windows, or more than likely they'll just buy a new PC that comes with Windows legally bundled. Nobody is moving to Linux because the games aren't there, the thousands of cheesy little Windows applications people love aren't there, it's different (read: scary), and it's a pain in the ass for most joe schmoes to install."
Large corporations running Windows are in a more delicate position. Reader lynx_user_abroad doubts that many corporate users are likely to go seek out either free or illegal alternatives to updated Windows licenses. To the suggestion that many users would do just that, he writes"In a contest between you and them, I'd suspect Microsoft is in the better position to understand the nature of the addiction they have created. And I'd feel safe saying that even if you yourself had succeeded in completely breaking your addiction to Windows, which I suspect you haven't.Most people, most businesses are so hopelessly addicted to Windows that they literally can't even conceptualize their own survival without it. I'm always amused when I read the latest rant about a Windows vulnerability on an IE-only site, or read about some program manager publishing their 'Linux Strategy' document as a PowerPoint chart.
Think of all the hundreds of thousands of Microsoft Office documents the average business has, or the potential millions of dollars worth of intellectual property and business intelligence those documents represent. Now, even if they have the skill and determination to propose leaving Windows behind, think of the complexity of dealing with a customer base which might not be as skilled, or determined."
Several readers say WGA's phone-home capability doesn't affect the users who Microsoft would be expected to target, anyhow. GenericJoe says "Forget that," writing "I am a legitimate user of Windows. I know I am, because I bought a licensed copy from a reputable dealer. Thus, I figure, I don't need the WGA to tell me if I have a legitimate copy. I do have a legitimate copy. ...And Microsoft doesn't get to know anything else about anything I do, or affect me. The idea that I can be held hostage because I don't want to trust software from Microsoft. Well, that's kind of crazy."
Reader riptide_dot offers similar sentiments, asking "What if I did pay for [Windows] and I don't want the WGA software installed? I'm not allowed to use the software I paid for because I don't want to add on to it? That's like selling me a car and telling me that if I refuse to put a spoiler on the back that I won't be allowed to drive it."
As to actually unauthorized users, Akaihiryuu asserts that
Based on the common-sense arguments made above, unless Microsoft manages to not only flatten wrinkles in WGA as it currently operates, but also convince more users that check-ins with Redmond are close enough to their best interest to be worth accepting, mass turn-offs for Windows XP users seem unlikely. Thanks to the readers whose comments helped inform this discussion, especially those quoted above:"[P]eople who knowingly run illegal copies of Windows won't be affected by this in the slightest. These people have been cracking WGA since it came out, first with Javascript, then later with cracked DLLs. I'm sure there will be a crack for this within 24 hours of it being released (there always has been in the past), and these people will able to get it very easily. The only people that this will affect are
- People who think they have a legal copy of Windows but really don't because whoever they bought it from screwed them, and
- People with legal copies who either don't want to run WGA for some reason, or
- People with legal copies who run WGA and it mistakenly identifies their machine as 'not legit.'"
By EULA you agreed too. NO WARRANTY WRITTEN OR IMPLIED. This software may cease to work without any reason, we may shot your daughter and rape your dog, you can do nothing against that and all your base are belong to us.
Generally, while Microsoft doesn't write explicitly that they are allowed to turn Windows off, they explicitely write you can do nothing if they do.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Maybe when Microsoft says "required to participate" they mean something other than "install our spyware or get shut down", but I'm at a loss as to what.
And just because "self-help" (read: "We, owners of the license, have the right to 'help ourselves' enforce our license by remotely shutting down the software on your box") didn't fly under UCITA, doesn't mean it's not permitted as a "technological measure" in the context of DMCA.
If I've purchased a legitimate copy, and I installed it with a license agreement prior to the release of WGA, by what legal authority can Microsoft disable my operating system?
But when it really comes down to it, having purchased a legitimate copy, what right do you have to continue running it? Which law exactly governs your continued ability to breach copyright over and over by copying Windows binaries into memory?
That may seem a little spurious, but the fact of the matter is that computer software is still, relatively speaking, in a legal no mans lands. It's use and sale is still governed by a hodgepodge of laws originally designed to cover books, newspapers and the selling of hardware gizmos. Software, a massive collection of logical algorithims represented by binary numbers, bears close to no relation with any of these things, either in its sale or use.
Software is still in a legislative Wild West. With little law, and even less legislative oversight, the software industry is largely run by cowboys. They can be found from right at the bottom, with unscrupulous freelance coders holding clients to ransom, to all the way at the top, with Gates, Ballmer & Co screwing over hundreds of millions of customers with rules that are made up by the company, for the company, as they go along. It's an industry crying out for regulation and transparency.
While Open Source software is reintroducing integrity and giving power back to the client, some old cowdogs are finding it hard to change their tune. The Windows Genuine Advantage Boys you paid to guard your Windowy wagon could still turn around in the middle of bandit country and demand hard cash not to leave you stranded there. And there's virtually nothing you can do about it, because it's probably 100% legal.
I pick open source largely for one reason. It's not because of political ideaology, technical superiority, free as in beer effects or ease of use. It's because open source offers one thing that proprietry software rarely if ever puts on the table. Trust. I trust open source apps not to pull dirty trcks and leave me stranded. Anyone who buys proprietry should never be surprised to see their escort nonchalantly trotting back to town as the highwaymen close in for the kill.
May the Maths Be with you!
Title 17, United States Code, section 117 (and foreign counterparts). Look it up.
Here in the UK, my friend got the "you may have been a victim of fraud" for a month and then one friday he's locked out.
His shares still work but there's no login screen just a Windows logo.
I couldn't stop laughing.
He's running Knoppix on it now so he can still play his mp3s etc.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
There is a petition against WGA at http://www.petitiononline.com/nowga/petition.html Would be interesting to see how many signatories it gets
They are actually morally right and you are wrong.
How is this so? I don't understand. Is it because they own some copyright? Does that make them right? Does being a copyright holder make you immune to spyware laws and litigation?
If you have 40K worth of windows software, you better make sure to buy that 100USD copy of MS Windows, my friend.
So because I have somthing on my machine, which is only a part of a working whole, that gives them the right to destroy what they want, even if it is NOT theirs? This is like saying the RIAA has the right to hack your machine because you have mp3s on your drive.
Just because a company is found guilty of anti-competitive practices, it does not give you a right to infringe on copyrights and violate licenses.
Research your history. Licenses don't matter. If you buy 200 copies. And put it on 200 machines. the License means nothing since you paid for it. There are no laws to protect the license philosophy since it is just a idea... Kind of like your facist liberal beliefs.
My bet is that MS is actually morally and legally right here.
Explain Please. If you pirate, then they are just as much as a vandal as you if they destroy your data. I believe its 50/50. Not 0/100. Either that, or your logic is distorted.
If I am not mistaken, Microsoft was the one who INVENTED the idea of copyrighting software, and selling it. Before Microsoft we just passed software around, and it wasn't illegal. You were probably born after that, and are too young to know about it. But that changed when Bill Gates got rich. So you are telling me that becuase Bill Gates started the idea of copyrights on software, changes how people obtain software, then lobbies to have the law changed in his favor, the pirates are the criminals? Why? Becuase Bill Gates says so? Because Bill Gates has this 'copyright', and it gives him unlimited power to get vigilante all over your box, reguardless if he is wrong?
Mod me down if you wish. Ill remember it as well when your time comes. The law is the law, no matter what I, or you believe. You say hes right, I say hes wrong. But because the law says I can't do this, or that, doesn't make it LEGAL for him to respond in an illegal manner.
Copyrights don't give you power to break the law. No matter what philosophy you believe.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
want my operating system to frigging work right, not report on me, not protect me, not help me, I want it to do it's job and let other programs do the other stuff and NOT crash when the other programs crash
Hmmm, sounds like you want OpenBSD.
The emphasis is on doing things right (rather than trying to do everything).
By EULA you agreed too. NO WARRANTY WRITTEN OR IMPLIED.
In most jurisdictions exclusions of warranties are severely limited in scope by a variety of laws (e.g., in mine, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977) and legal precedents. The manufacturer intentionally preventing the product from doing what it was claimed in advertising that it would do is almost certainly not covered by the exclusion.
Unfortunately, you probably can't claim anything more than your money back, even if the sudden unexpected failure cost you significant cash. Unless even the limitation of damages clause is ruled illegal, as it might be in the case of intentional damage.
Doing this would open MS up to a *lot* of legal action. Just one more reason why they won't be doing it.