Actually no they won't. If they operate under the assumption that all PC's are either connected to the net, a LAN, or a WAN, they they can provide a forced download method that will do license+machine+registration based validation prior to providing the necessary files.
Also, if you simply modifiy the setup program itself that can increase the difficulty of simply burning an image from the i386 or CAB folders a lot.
Granted they'd have to make some fundamental changes in their install and boot procedure (what? provide network support on boot? remember network settings? *gasp*...no that can't be done...) but it's within the realm of possibility. Frankly, given Micro$lop's current behavorial pattern I wouldn't be surprised to see this implemented fairly soon.
However, I do agree that we are probably going to see pirate version of the OS's out pretty quick. Probably even before the retail versions ship. I don't believe that even all M$ employees are happy with this policy. Actually I know for a fact that they aren't.
Apparently M$/Adobe don't realize that they are making the issue worse. The people this is going to affect ARE NOT the ones who are using 'pirated' version of software. And those who are, won't be stopped for a minute by this. It's the same nonsensical "take the guns from the non-criminals so that the criminals won't have them" rationale that the government is using. This flawed logical reasoning seems pretty prevalent in the corporate structure right now.
Given that the DMCA does appear to put the burden of liability upon the hosting site(s) and their provider, this actually seems like a very good idea as far as the offshore arrangements go. As for the whether or not the DMCA is constitutionally valid, this seems like a good test for it. Is there any possibly the ACLU might have an interest in looking at this case in terms of freedom of speech? Of course it's easy for me to say since I don't have to directly deal with the fallout of this, but it seems that if a site like/. can be censored - BY A THIRD PARTY - then all I want to know is whos next?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if you simply modifiy the setup program itself that can increase the difficulty of simply burning an image from the i386 or CAB folders a lot.
Granted they'd have to make some fundamental changes in their install and boot procedure (what? provide network support on boot? remember network settings? *gasp*...no that can't be done...) but it's within the realm of possibility. Frankly, given Micro$lop's current behavorial pattern I wouldn't be surprised to see this implemented fairly soon.
However, I do agree that we are probably going to see pirate version of the OS's out pretty quick. Probably even before the retail versions ship. I don't believe that even all M$ employees are happy with this policy. Actually I know for a fact that they aren't.
Apparently M$/Adobe don't realize that they are making the issue worse. The people this is going to affect ARE NOT the ones who are using 'pirated' version of software. And those who are, won't be stopped for a minute by this. It's the same nonsensical "take the guns from the non-criminals so that the criminals won't have them" rationale that the government is using. This flawed logical reasoning seems pretty prevalent in the corporate structure right now.
Actually, moving offshore (or preparing an alternative location offshore) was brought up in comment #465 and #586.
Given that the DMCA does appear to put the burden of liability upon the hosting site(s) and their provider, this actually seems like a very good idea as far as the offshore arrangements go. As for the whether or not the DMCA is constitutionally valid, this seems like a good test for it. Is there any possibly the ACLU might have an interest in looking at this case in terms of freedom of speech? Of course it's easy for me to say since I don't have to directly deal with the fallout of this, but it seems that if a site like /. can be censored - BY A THIRD PARTY - then all I want to know is whos next?