Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Piracy Plan Means Concerns for IT
coondoggie writes to mention an article on Information Week about possible unintended consequences of the Microsoft Software Protection Plan (SPP) discussed on Slashdot on Wednesday. The new initiative is intended to protect consumers from pirated software, but may cause major headaches for IT shops. From the article: "Microsoft will support SPP in current and future reporting and asset management tools such as System Center Operations Manager. 'On paper it might sound pretty good, but we have to see how it works,' says Jeff Allred, manager of network services for the Duke University Cancer Center. One of his concerns is that a reduced functionality mode kicks in three days after changing out a motherboard in a server if the software is not revalidated. 'That really jumped out at me. We change out motherboards in our servers all the time,' he says. The provision only covers a swap with a non-OEM motherboard, which Allred admits doesn't happen often."
Do you guys do that crazy thing where you, you know, verify the links in a story before clicking the Post button?
Protect consumers from pirated software??? What if I don't want to be protected???
To avoid all the problems with Vista, don't install Vista. Voila. Problem solved. It's like upgrading your OS every time Microsoft puts something new out is a disease that IT suffers from. There are companies who never upgraded NT 4 or 2000 who are doing just fine.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
I believe this is the correct link to the story: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/100506-micro soft-antipiracy.html?t5
Uh, it sounds like you need to find a better vendor if you're changing out motherboards "all the time".
I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
...from pirated software"
Yes, Microsoft designed and built that to protect us hmmhmmm.
the mods may say you posted flamebait, but to me it's a flame that warms my heart. rock on, brother! --chebucto
Well, the article is Slashdotted, but I don't need any expert opinion or research to tell me what it means for IT. I'm the head of an IT department, and it means that I'll be avoiding updates to any Microsoft technology with any "Piracy Prevention", and when I do need an upgrade, I'll be looking for Microsoft alternatives. I have friends who head IT departments, and I'm getting the same sentiment from them.
Not because we pirate. We're too afraid of the BSA sniffing around to do that. The problem is, these things cause problems, artificially created by Microsoft, for no reason. To stop piracy? If I pirated software, then I'd know where to find cracks for these things. Microsoft's "protection" wouldn't stop me.
But I've made a general policy in my department that we've stopped purchasing or installing software that requires "activation" or any other kind of phoning-home. I've run into too many problems where an otherwise working computer breaks itself by the developers own purposeful code because I've done a normal, legal repair job. In a large organization, an instance of the IT dept. replacing some hardware or imaging a disk shouldn't trigger a flag as "suspicious activity".
In my organization, I think we're likely to have more Macintosh purchases. Users like them, they're easy to fix, disk imaging is INCREDIBLY easy, they're reliable, and they work great with our Windows and Linux servers. And we'll see more Linux servers. If Microsoft wants my business back, they can stop trying to limit their OS to do less for me, and start working on how they can improve it to do more for me.
Let me raise a very viable scenario that may not have been presented. This is that the system reports a false positive for pirated hardware. Now, the person quoted in the submission works for the Duke Cancer Center; this might mean they get the same licensing deal that the university presumably gets. Now, let me use an example I am familiar with.
At Ohio State, one of the most populous universities in the country, they have a deal with Microsoft that gives students access to Microsoft software on the cheap. At the same time, this deal applies to departments and other machines for the university. Since this deal is based on mass distribution, and in many cases does not include permanent media, if any media at all (basically, students take the disks, install the software, return the disks), everyone uses the same key. This is the case for XP and Server 2003. It is also the case for 2000, in fact the key is "embedded" on the Win 2k disk, so no input is required from the user.
Now, let us assume that OSU has about 50,000 students (not too far off actually). And each student has this version of Vista installed. Now, let us assume each department is using Windows (actually very few at OSU are not), that is even more copies of the software being used. I would venture that it might not be too far fetched to assume that OSU could have 100,000 or more copies of the same OS installed on various student, faculty and departmental machines. Now, the server installations are quite a bit fewer; however, I do know the department I worked for already have several (as in 8-10) servers running various Windows versions. If all these were upgraded to the server equivalent to Vista, then that would mean 10 servers with the same key, and possibly hundreds (if not thousands) across the campus.
Okay, so let us assume none of this duplication creates a false positive. Instead, let us take the example where someone has offered these versions of Windows to the internet as pirated copies. We now hit a new dilemma. There is the potential for massive piracy in this. You cannot simply cut off every version with this key, since you would be cutting off thousands of legitimate copies. You also cannot do some sort of limitation based solely on IP, since students do not live strictly in dorms and since this would enter a new realm of privacy invasion. You see, there is a huge problem with this sort of re-activation issue. You risk hurting many people. Also, for gaming enthusiast who changes components frequently, this could also lead to issues. And what if your MoBo died? Will it be a problem replacing it with another copy of the same board? You should not have to activate this product everytime your system changes. Defeating piracy is one thing, but causing a lot of headache and issues for paying customers is not. In the end, they will only hurt the paying customers, since the hackers will defeat whatever stupid system they come up with anyway.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."