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.
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.
Anon wrote: Why are there security cameras in shopping malls then?
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
Anon wrote: Completly irrelavent to the discussion, but they actually do that. See ThePirateBay.org's legal threats
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
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.
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.[/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
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
Anon wrote: So Microsoft actually physically entering your space to enforce copyright is less invasive than a small program?
Anon wrote: Which proves my point that Microsoft already do send friendly letters to their swedish friends
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
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.
Newfie wrote: But anti-virus systems help people. Copy-protection schemes only help the software companies.