Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries

applejax writes "SecurityFocus is running an article regarding some concerns about Vista's activation terms. Do you have the right to use properly purchased but not validated software? What happens if Microsoft deactivates your OS that was legally purchased? The article goes into some detail about Vista's validation and concerns." From the article: "The terms of the Vista EULA, like the current EULA related to the 'Windows Genuine Advantage,' allows Microsoft to unilaterally decide that you have breached the terms of the agreement, and they can essentially disable the software, and possibly deny you access to critical files on your computer without benefit of proof, hearing, testimony or judicial intervention. In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee."

Comments

Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE

[toby]

For those who sleepwalked through past adventures in "keeping you and your data apart": This "feature" exists only for the purpose of DEACTIVATION, so let's be honest and call it that.

Switch to something that's AlwaysActivated(TM): Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris 10. Then we can talk about genuine advantages. As in "genuine" and "advantageous", rather than "marketingspeak" and "sure to bite you in the ass".

Re:Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE

[morgan_greywolf]

Switch to something that's AlwaysActivated(TM): Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris 10.

I just know I'm gonna get modded down for this, but who cares?

Wait. Who said that OS X is 'always activated'? That's true if you run OS X on only Apple hardware, but switch to some non-Apple hardware and your 'AlwaysActivated(TM)' turns into 'NeverActivated(TM)'. OS X should work with any hardware, just as Solaris does. (And, yes, Solaris Sparc will work on Sparc-based clones that are not manufactured by Sun)

Why do people want to give Apple a break for exhibiting the same behavior that Microsoft gets lambasted for?

Re:Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE

[paniq]

You mean the Penguin Advantage?

Could this be illegal?

[b0s0z0ku]

Putting "bombs" in software that you create is generally frowned upon by the law, if only because it comes dangerously close to extortion. If MS starts deactivating legit copies of Vista after the fact or demanding money, I suspect that there'd be legal hell to pay. In the same sort of way that if you're in the mafia and you get caught saying "pay up or I'll burn your store down" you'll probably end up in jail.

-b.

Re:Could this be illegal?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Microsoft has broken the law before, and been found guilty. Nothing substantial happened.

Re:Could this be illegal?

[b0s0z0ku]

Microsoft has broken the law before, and been found guilty. Nothing substantial happened.

MS has never tried something like *this* before. If they deactivate, they're probably overstepping some hitherto invisible line. Just wait until some gov't agency's or some Federal judge's copies of Windows get deactivated. I think that using extortionate tactics like this will get MS into some deep legal shite.

-b.

Re:Could this be illegal?

[spellraiser]

I'm willing to bet both arms and both legs that Microsoft has this one covered legally. The writing of EULAs has become a finely honed art. They will cover this in the EULA, and there won't be a damn thing that people who have agreed to the EULA can do about it.

The only real escape is not to use Vista.

Or...

[michrech]

Or, I could just not purchase Vista and not have to worry about it.

Problem solved!

So, fellow froggies

[hey!]

is this water getting toasty, or what?

never get that far

[mikesd81]

In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee."

I'd be willing to bet that it would never get this far and MS would just take care of it. They wouldn't be afraid of someone suing them over a license. That's petty to them. Maybe if a company sued because their software was legal and got a false positive on being illegal and it caused down time, now that's something to sue about. It's a shame that Microsoft doesn't care about their customers enough to make sure things like this wouldn't happen.

computer crash?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess "Microsoft deactivated my Windows license last night, I couldn't finish my paper." will become a common and valid excuse.

O rly?

[voice_of_all_reason]

and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee.

I thought the new vogue in EULAs nowaways was a clause stating that by using the software, you give up the right to any litigation?

Re:Windows Vista?

[wolfgang_spangler]

Ballmer can bite me.

I believe he would rather squirt you a picture of his kids.

They said the same thing about XP.

[Kenja]

This is almost word for word what the fear mongers where saying about XP. Yes software activation is a pain. But so are pirated copies of windows sold as being legit. Which is what this is trying to stop. Yes there will be cracks and work arounds, there allways are. But if your mom buys a computer from the corner store, this will check to make sure that its legit. Microsoft can not remove your access to the files unless they're doing on the fly encryption. They also have no reason to do that. Much like the XP activation, in the case of an illiegal copy Microsoft has been very good about working with the end user to find a resolution.

Bottom line, if you dont like it dont use it. For the non geeks this is a good thing as is the whole bundle of software signing and certs that Microsoft is trying to get out there. People dont want to have to understand how the computer works, they just want to download software and have it do its thing without sending porn spam to half the country. If things like this worry you or you think they're not needed. Then perhaps Windows is not the right OS for you.

Re:They said the same thing about XP.

[mochan_s]

This is almost word for word what the fear mongers where saying about XP. Yes software activation is a pain.

Not. It is not.

Even if you run a non-genuine version of XP, Microsoft cannot turn off your XP. They will deny will some updates in the Microsoft Update but not deny you access to your computer.

Re:because it doesn't

[b0s0z0ku]

With OS X's DRM, I'm locked into Apple hardware. That's right vendor lock-in. Without OS X, I won't be able to get at my data, either.

You're locked into your existing hardware and possibly your existing OS (if newer versions of OS X won't run on your old Mac). No one is threatening to render your old Mac unusable.

-b.

Re:because it doesn't

[_Sprocket_]

Apple don't sell it to run on whitebox (unlike MS). There's no comparison.

It shouldn't matter. If I go and buy the complete OS X product in a box, I should be allowed to run it on my toaster if I can figure out how to do so. Whether or not Apple would be keen to support my toaster configuration is another story. But to have licensing restrictions as to what I can do with a product after purchasing it is counter to basic consumer rights.

RTFA

[Silver Sloth]

From TFA

The UCITA also provides a procedure for "electronic self-help" - that is, the termination of access or use of the software without a court order. The first thing to note is that, in Maryland at least, the law expressly notes that, "electronic self-help is prohibited in mass-market transactions." Microsoft's EULA is undoubtedly a mass-market transaction, and therefore Microsoft may be prohibited from exercising self-help in Maryland. Moreover, even in non mass-market transactions, before you can resort to self-help, the contract must provide notice that self help will be used, who will be told about the exercise of self help, and provide other notice. The Maryland law also provides that "electronic self-help may not be used if the licensor has reason to know that its use will result in substantial injury or harm to the public health or safety or grave harm to the public interest substantially affecting third persons not involved in the dispute."

This is just a short extract. TFA is quite clear that in Maryland and Washington there may well be situations where M$ have opened themselves up to punative damages. IANAL - but the guy who wrote the article is.

Re:because it doesn't

[ceoyoyo]

No... MS wants to be able to disable your computer because they decided to.

The only way your Mac gets disabled is if it dies a natural or unnatural death, totally independently from Apple. If Apple decided that your Mac will only work when it has a working Internet connection and they can disable it on a whim, then I'd agree it's the same thing.

Re:Upgrade

[nine-times]

Meanwhile, you're still paying money to businesses who are putting their resources towards efforts to make your life harder, rather than efforts to make your life easier. For every "fix" or "work-around", you're still exerting extra effort where you just shouldn't need to. You're making your software buggier, and your music lower-quality for what it essentially 0 net-gain for anyone. And by buying the products that do this, you're sending the message to these companies that it is acceptable behavior, and that their efforts are good.

If you buy Vista, even if you crack it, you're telling Microsoft that their product is good. Buy pirating it and cracking it, you're telling them that their product is good, but that their "piracy protection" isn't good enough, and that they should put more resources on that front. But the only way to tell them that these "features" are unacceptable is to refuse to buy it or use it. And what will you have lost anyway, by not using Vista? What does Vista actually give you that Windows XP doesn't? Incompatibility and the need to buy new versions of the software you've already bought.

If Microsoft isn't servicing your needs, then you need to let them know. Even if we all simply refuse to buy it, Microsoft will claim that the reason Vista isn't selling is due to piracy, and their lobbyists will put forth a case that this means we need more restrictive laws on software use. It's important that, instead, we make a public case that Vista is not a good product.

Re:because it doesn't

[Reaperducer]

With OS X's DRM, I'm locked into Apple hardware.

I'm with you, brotha. I legally purchased Leopard almost a year ago, and I'm STILL unable to install it on my Commodore 64. Apple says it's not supported hardware!

When will these multi-national corporations understand that I have the freedom and right to use the software on any machine I see fit? Greedy short-sighted companies like Apple don't understand that they'd made a TON of money if only people could use OS X on a GameCube or a PSP or a toaster. Think about how many toasters there are in the world! There's a HUGE potential market for OS X unbundled from Apple hardware!

Lock-in sucks, and I won't support any computer company that doesn't put forth the money, time, and effort to make their software run on every possible combination of electronics hardware in the world.

They're stifling my constitutional freedom of liberty!