Microsoft Is Expanding Their Anti-Piracy Program

[EXreaction]

How about getting a legal copy?

If you can't afford Windows use something that is free. How would you like it if you owned a store, and you constantly had people stealing stuff from you?

im an ITer ( or hwo you say it in english ) and i do know what im talking about. the problem with free-oss, is the software. im also a gamer, on a more serious level. so you see, im being forced to use windows.

besides, i really hate microsoft. i really do. i already had a legal one, but my pc crashed and i reinstalled it. it gave 'duplication'- so in fact, 150 euros down the drain. then, you can ask yourself this question- is the money worth it? updates, when a critical update is needed, you still are forced to wait til they release a package of updates. ( i dont know how its now, but i dont dl them anymore, enough MS crap on my pc )

about the stealing things from you- dont even start with that. since even the windows name isnt made by MS. they 'stole' it, more or less. MS stole a lot more things- so dont even try going that direction.

so the whole point is- i use windows because i am forced to use it.

Now, thats just plain BS...nobody is forcing you to use windows...if you want to play a game MADE for windows buy windows!

I hear that from everyone that has an illegal copy...they all claim they hate windows...if you hate them so much, why use an illegal copy of it?

windows is made by Microsoft...I don't care if they stole some code for it or not(I am a programmer myself...and anyone can easily use the same code as you are without knowing it...so I don't call it stealing...if you use some code someone else had, its more like looking into how somebody else did it so that you can learn a new way to do it yourself), its still their OS.

And again...the only one forcing you to use it is yourself...

[MHobbit]

im an ITer ( or hwo you say it in english ) and i do know what im talking about. the problem with free-oss, is the software. im also a gamer, on a more serious level. so you see, im being forced to use windows.

No one's forcing you to use Windows. Windows is dominated w.r.t. games, but it's your choice to continue playing Windows games, not Microsoft's.

besides, i really hate microsoft. i really do. i already had a legal one, but my pc crashed and i reinstalled it. it gave 'duplication'- so in fact, 150 euros down the drain. then, you can ask yourself this question- is the money worth it? updates, when a critical update is needed, you still are forced to wait til they release a package of updates. ( i dont know how its now, but i dont dl them anymore, enough MS crap on my pc )

Not all problems you have can be attributed to Microsoft. I've had to reinstall Windows XP on this computer twice-- the first time didn't work. Both times I got it legally activated with no hassles. If you have problems, ask... I doubt if you talked with their tech support that they'd deny you reinstallation...

You don't like patches and you don't download and install them? Well, you have no room to complain when your computer gets buggy and/or [more] insecure.

If you don't like Microsoft "crap" as you put it, don't use it. Simple as that.

about the stealing things from you- dont even start with that. since even the windows name isnt made by MS. they 'stole' it, more or less. MS stole a lot more things- so dont even try going that direction.

I'd love to see the source on this...

so the whole point is- i use windows because i am forced to use it.

Again, no, you're not forced to use anything. It's your own decision to use Windows. Microsoft isn't going to sue you for switching... besides, there are many alternative OSs.

[SamG]

whoever said i think like that? i dont justify anything…

You said you think like that:

…about the stealing things from you- dont even start with that. since even the windows name isnt made by MS. they 'stole' it, more or less. MS stole a lot more things- so dont even try going that direction…

[Martin Blank]

Well, considering WGA was added LONG after I accepted the license agreement, and I don't really have a choice to NOT install WGA (since it's mandatory to get any updates period), I think that's a huge oversight on Microsoft's part.

Microsoft's original EULA also allows for it to issue updates to the EULA periodically, and they provide a pop-up window whenever that happens. Whether you actually read them or not is not under their control.

Security updates are now available via Automatic Updates no matter what the status of your installation. Microsoft bowed under pressure from the security field on this one, accepting that a less vulnerable installation is better for everyone, pirate or not. They instead implemented WGA to put up a barrier to those using illegitimate copies, and have recently provided a program where they will trade a legitimate Windows license for information on OEMs selling pirated copies of Windows. You do have to have WGA in order to install certain updates (new versions of Windows Media Player, for example) through Windows Update, but a great deal of those patches install without WGA being present if you don't use Windows Update as the installer.

[nuclear_eclipse]

That's interesting about the EULA. I haven't once seen it pop up a new EULA for me to read and accept. Honestly, I haven't read the EULA, I just remember reading from another news site that the current EULA does not include anything regarding WGA in the effect that they will be using it. Either way, I personally have no problems with the WGA protection measures they are taking; it's their option as a developer.

I simply don't like the idea of the EULA changing without notice (as I said, I've never been asked by Windows Update or the likes to read a new EULA), and I am worried (as a programmer myself) that the updates denied to non WGA users will present a problem further down the road as a security issue for both WGA and non-WGA users alike.

Personally, as a software engineer highly against piracy, I think that unauthenticated copies should be disabled after the normal activation period (incredibly long as it is) has expired. I personally think that if WGA knows the system is illegal, it should disable all main features of the OS, including the ability to launch programs outside of Windows/Internet Explorer and the WGA/authentication/activation tools. That would certainly give incentive to either get a legal copy, contact Microsoft to get your legal copy activated/reauthenticated, or stop pirating their software. All of this should be stated clearly in the EULA of course, preferably with a nice big bold disclaimer somewhere else that the user would have to agree to as well.

But I think we are digressing from the topic at hand...

[EXreaction]

^ Ya, I agree...I still don't understand why they don't just disallow people from using it if they know its an illegal copy...I don't think any other company does that.

[Twillingate.info]

Microsoft Is Expanding Their Anti-Piracy Program


As reported on WashingtonPost.com (MS Expands Anti-Piracy Program, Reissues Patch), today Microsoft will began expanding their anti-piracy program in the US.

The software will download to Windows computers via the "Automatic Updates" feature. If users agree to the Terms, the software will then scan your computer to see if you're using an unlicensed version of Windows. If you are, upon rebooting your computer you will began receiving pop-up alerts stating, "This copy of Windows is not genuine; you may be a victim of software counterfeiting." Users will receive this message until they validate their machines as genuine through WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage).

Furthermore, if users do not validated their machines, they will not be able to download IE 7, Windows Defender or many other downloads and updates." However, users will be able to receive "High Priority Security & reliability updates regardless of their validation status."

In the story, Microsoft is quoted as saying, "WGA Notifications is for Windows XP users. Our client software does not collect any information that can be used to identify or contact a user. We use the same process used by many popular search engines and Web sites to determine where their users are from -- a form of IP lookup. This IP lookup process does not include any information that is used to identify you or contact you, and only gives a rough geographic representation of where users are located." Yeah right...

Microsoft is scheduled to expand the program to other Windows software.

Thank god I have a genuine copy of Windows.

[MHobbit]

That's interesting about the EULA. I haven't once seen it pop up a new EULA for me to read and accept. Honestly, I haven't read the EULA, I just remember reading from another news site that the current EULA does not include anything regarding WGA in the effect that they will be using it. Either way, I personally have no problems with the WGA protection measures they are taking; it's their option as a developer.

And that's one of the problems. It may be annoying to read them, but no one can complain about the terms of the EULA if they don't even read it. (This is not directed to you, but everyone who fits under that category in general.)

EULAs are usually displayed at the first use-- if you [re]installed Windows , it should pop up before you start. Otherwise, if it's OEM, it still will be shown before or as part of the initial setup.

I simply don't like the idea of the EULA changing without notice (as I said, I've never been asked by Windows Update or the likes to read a new EULA), and I am worried (as a programmer myself) that the updates denied to non WGA users will present a problem further down the road as a security issue for both WGA and non-WGA users alike.

I believe the EULAs themself state that it is at the company's discretion to modify the terms of the EULA without announcement. At least, this is the case with other legal documents I know of...

[nuclear_eclipse]

And that's one of the problems. It may be annoying to read them, but no one can complain about the terms of the EULA if they don't even read it. (This is not directed to you, but everyone who fits under that category in general.)

I agree. That's why I personally don't complain about what the EULA specifies. I'm simply complaining about the practice of the company changing the EULA without notice...

I believe the EULAs themself state that it is at the company's discretion to modify the terms of the EULA without announcement. At least, this is the case with other legal documents I know of...

Just because that's the way they've been doing things for years doesn't mean it's 'right' or 'fair.' From many articles I've read, EULAs probably wouldn't stand a chance if tried in court by a competent law firm....

However, I'm not saying I'm more right or wrong than anyone else, this is simply my own opinion.

[Martin Blank]

Just because that's the way they've been doing things for years doesn't mean it's 'right' or 'fair.' From many articles I've read, EULAs probably wouldn't stand a chance if tried in court by a competent law firm.

They've been found legitimate by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, and that decision has been cited as precedent elsewhere.