Very interesting article about WGA

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Yawner
Registered User
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by Yawner » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:01 pm

Erm, from my experience of windows in order to install it you need a key right??

Fine those can and have been made. What I dont get is why the tool needs to stay on the machine, shouldnt checking the copy be a single process? I mean you cannot change your copy to be illegitmate if it was legal in the first place??

Yawnster

PS.. Use Ubuntu, Kbuntu uses the KDE desktop system which in my opinion is rather bloated. Im no Ubuntu 6.06, works great! Has brung linux forward yet another notch.
Alan Kay : "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Support the OpenDocument Format!

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG » Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:11 pm

Let's get something clear (again), since I'm really not interested in defending Microsoft here day after day: My objection was and is about fairness and FUD. I get the impression that Microsoft is supposed to trust me and just not worry about whether or not I'm a legitimate customer using their products and services -- that basically they should just leave me alone. Until that happens to my satisfaction, I'm entitled to accuse Microsoft in public of most anything up to peddling a Trojan horse via WGA -- and all (so far) without a shred of evidence. Moreover, while I'm making my accusations I can ignore relevant adjustments they make to their products and services in response to genuine concerns and can keep hammering away about what they still could do, what they still might do. And to top it all off, I can disregard the fact that there are many other software vendors who don't trust me and who do worry about whether or not I'm a legitimate customer using their products and services and so require repeated proof of some sort before providing me with those products and services reserved for their legitimate customers.

As I said before, if this were happening to phpBB, we'd be all over it. FUD stickers would be slapped on this kind of stuff just as fast as people could post it. And I don't think it shows as much maturity as the phpBB community is capable of if we turn around and spread FUD ourselves.

Now, if there really is something devious about WGA as it exists today, right now, then I'm happy to see people bring it to light. If there were something devious about phpBB, I'd feel the same way. So if there's something more than FUD to this, put it out there. If not, then this is all (or at best mostly) FUD, and we of all communities ought to know better.

Naturally, this is just my view of things, and since the topic starter did ask for thoughts, I've felt free to give mine.

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:16 pm

No matter how good or bad WGA is, Microsoft (or any company) shouldn't be trying to be doing stuff like this. Yes indeed, the customer should be trusted.

If Microsoft thinks a specific person is breaking the copyright law, then they should call the real police about it, as in dialing 911 or something.

Or if an Internet server is offering infringing downloads, then MS could write a cease-and-desist letter to them, or then possibly sue them.

By doing stuff like WPA, WGA, etc. they are casting a blanket attack on the entire population. It's like the USA nuking all Middle East countries just to stop terrorism.

I know WGA is somewhat minor and not as bad as some make it out to be, but no matter how minor, we shouldn't need to put up with blanket attacks.

The moral of the story is, anti-piracy measures should ONLY affect pirates. Paying customers should NEVER EVER have to tolerate any sort of anti-piracy measures. I'm aware that this would make it easier to pirate, but the paying customer should have absolutely 100% of the benefit of the doubt.

User avatar
Anon
Former Team Member
Posts: 7019
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Anon » Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:10 pm

Newfie wrote: No matter how good or bad WGA is, Microsoft (or any company) shouldn't be trying to be doing stuff like this. Yes indeed, the customer should be trusted.


Why are there security cameras in shopping malls then?
If Microsoft thinks a specific person is breaking the copyright law, then they should call the real police about it, as in dialing 911 or something.


Ah, but how can they do this if they have no way of verifying a windows install? That's where WGA comes in so they can identify who is breaking copyright law
Or if an Internet server is offering infringing downloads, then MS could write a cease-and-desist letter to them, or then possibly sue them.


Completly irrelavent to the discussion, but they actually do that. See ThePirateBay.org's legal threats
By doing stuff like WPA, WGA, etc. they are casting a blanket attack on the entire population. It's like the USA nuking all Middle East countries just to stop terrorism.

I know WGA is somewhat minor and not as bad as some make it out to be, but no matter how minor, we shouldn't need to put up with blanket attacks.


First of all, I love your self contradiction. But seriously, what is wrong with them running some basic checks to see if the software was legally purchased? Hell, Microsoft make their own removal tool according to someone else in this thread
The moral of the story is, anti-piracy measures should ONLY affect pirates. Paying customers should NEVER EVER have to tolerate any sort of anti-piracy measures. I'm aware that this would make it easier to pirate, but the paying customer should have absolutely 100% of the benefit of the doubt.


Image

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:25 am

Anon wrote: Why are there security cameras in shopping malls then?


That's a paranoid way of life too, but at least the cameras are confined to the mall's own private property. If customers don't like being watched, a competitor could build another mall with no cameras to attract people who don't like being on camera.
Anon wrote: Ah, but how can they do this if they have no way of verifying a windows install? That's where WGA comes in so they can identify who is breaking copyright law


They can check for a valid copy of the CD or a valid sticker on the computer case. For volume licenses, they could check for the papers or whatever that denotes a valid volume license.
Anon wrote: Completly irrelavent to the discussion, but they actually do that. See ThePirateBay.org's legal threats


Yeah, I saw those, but Pirate Bay didn't even host the downloads, they only offered the torrents, which in and of themselves are not the copyright software.
Anon wrote: First of all, I love your self contradiction. But seriously, what is wrong with them running some basic checks to see if the software was legally purchased? Hell, Microsoft make their own removal tool according to someone else in this thread


Even if I happened to contradict myself, a blanket attack is a blanket attack, whether one throws marshmallows at everyone or if one throws bombs at everyone. Even though marshmallows don't hurt nearly as much as bombs, they are still an attack if someone throws them at people.

Unless Microsoft owns my computer, or if I'm in their building on their computer, they oughta not check on me.

Perhaps they could rent Windows to people for $5 a month. Then they would own the OS and the CDs, and then they would have more of a moral right to do stuff like this.
Anon wrote: Image


Yeah copyright-related issues are indeed a grand heap of endless confusion. Maybe someday things might get better, and we won't need to muck around with this stuff.

User avatar
Anon
Former Team Member
Posts: 7019
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Anon » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:58 am

Newfie wrote:
Anon wrote:Why are there security cameras in shopping malls then?


That's a paranoid way of life too, but at least the cameras are confined to the mall's own private property. If customers don't like being watched, a competitor could build another mall with no cameras to attract people who don't like being on camera.


And if this were to happen you'd expect people to just got to Mall B, and never whine and complain about Mall A again. Such is the case here, where Microsoft is Mall A, and Ubuntu (for example) is Mall B
Anon wrote:Ah, but how can they do this if they have no way of verifying a windows install? That's where WGA comes in so they can identify who is breaking copyright law


They can check for a valid copy of the CD or a valid sticker on the computer case. For volume licenses, they could check for the papers or whatever that denotes a valid volume license.


So Microsoft actually physically entering your space to enforce copyright is less invasive than a small program? Image
Anon wrote:Completly irrelavent to the discussion, but they actually do that. See ThePirateBay.org's legal threats


Yeah, I saw those, but Pirate Bay didn't even host the downloads, they only offered the torrents, which in and of themselves are not the copyright software.[/quote[

Which proves my point that Microsoft already do send friendly letters to their swedish friends
Unless Microsoft owns my computer, or if I'm in their building on their computer, they oughta not check on me.

Perhaps they could rent Windows to people for $5 a month. Then they would own the OS and the CDs, and then they would have more of a moral right to do stuff like this.


I'd like to point out that they to indeed have full legal and moral rights to protect their enforce their copyrights and intellectual property

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:18 am

Anon wrote: And if this were to happen you'd expect people to just got to Mall B, and never whine and complain about Mall A again. Such is the case here, where Microsoft is Mall A, and Ubuntu (for example) is Mall B


Oh if it were only that easy...
Anon wrote: So Microsoft actually physically entering your space to enforce copyright is less invasive than a small program? Image


They wouldn't go to everybody's houses, just those that are piracy suspects. Of course it would be the FBI or whoever's job to actually check for the stickers and such.
Anon wrote: Which proves my point that Microsoft already do send friendly letters to their swedish friends


They sent the letter to the wrong people. Such letters should only be sent to those who actually have the full 700 MB or so ISO image(s) on their own server(s). Then they would be compelled to delete the ISO images from their servers, one more pirate source bites the dust.
Anon wrote: I'd like to point out that they to indeed have full legal and moral rights to protect their enforce their copyrights and intellectual property


Perhaps they do. But it's a shame that Microsoft feels the need to do this to their customers. As I said before, the paying customer should never suffer, even if the suffering is very very tiny.

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:04 am

Newfie wrote: …anti-piracy measures should ONLY affect pirates. Paying customers should NEVER EVER have to tolerate any sort of anti-piracy measures…

Sure. And anti-virus measures should ONLY affect virus writers. Everybody else should NEVER EVER have to tolerate any sort of anti-virus measures.

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:15 am

SamG wrote: Sure. And anti-virus measures should ONLY affect virus writers. Everybody else should NEVER EVER have to tolerate any sort of anti-virus measures.


But anti-virus systems help people. Copy-protection schemes only help the software companies.

I don't remember anybody ever wanting to either have a virus or keep viruses they already have/had. But if there is someone out there that enjoys being infected, then nobody would force them to get rid of the virus from their own computer.

SAK `
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Places where authorities can't see me.
Contact:

Post by SAK ` » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:56 am

I thought Microsoft's WGA issues would redefine the term 'DRM', since even some of the audio/video clips also force consumers to buy or obtain a license from a website.
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG » Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:56 am

Newfie wrote: But anti-virus systems help people. Copy-protection schemes only help the software companies.

How is it even possible that copy protection does not help people? At the very least, since software companies are made up of people who make their living from selling software products and the services that go along with them, copy protection helps people who sell software. And since I depend on those products and services in various ways, no doubt I'm helped as well. The list goes on.

In any case, it's honestly beyond me why anybody would argue that its wrong for software companies to confirm that they have a paying customer "on the line" before supplying products and services covered by license fees but not physically included with the original purchase. It really is. And it is also beyond me why I'm entitled to spread FUD because the issue at hand is copy protection. Given my limitations in understanding this stuff (and over the years I've been given plenty of opportunity to understand), if I had anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion, likely I've already done it.

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:57 pm

1. Minority benefits, majority suffers (even if only a little).

2. In the Internet era of computing, the very notion of copy-protection itself is something that is fearsome, uncertain, and doubtful. Privacy and personal responsibility are at stake here, two crucial human values. If it weren't for the Internet and the sheer potential for everybody to poke their nose in everybody else's business, copy-protection wouldn't be so much of a big deal.

MarkTheDaemon
Former Team Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am
Location: United Kingdom
Name: Mark Barnes

Post by MarkTheDaemon » Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:57 pm

This is like using a slegehammer to crack a walnut.

There is no need for Microsoft to start forcing WGA on us. It isn't fair and it certainly isn't acceptable.

This is like writing a prescription to allow Microsoft access to your computer

Mark

User avatar
thecharmed01
Former Team Member
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 10:07 am
Location: Wellington, NZ
Contact:

Post by thecharmed01 » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:27 pm

and yet again Microsoft ensures that the IT community's perception of the company stays below gutter level!!!!

:roll:
Please refrain from PM'ing me for support unless I specifically ask you to.......

Helpful Pages: ~ [Styles FAQ] ~ [Styles User Guide] ~ [Styles Submission Policy]
My Site: [C1 Web Design]
| Mummy | Web Designer | Slave | Digi-Scrap Addict | Vampire |

MarkTheDaemon
Former Team Member
Posts: 2770
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:42 am
Location: United Kingdom
Name: Mark Barnes

Post by MarkTheDaemon » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:31 pm

Exactly, its ambiguous for Microsoft to even try something like this in the hope that it can hide it so to speak.


Mark

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”