Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Microsoft Fights Back Against Vista Pirates

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

December 14, 2006, 2:49 PM

Microsoft is fighting back against those attempting to distribute a cracked version of Windows Vista. It has issued an update that detects whether a copy is attempting to bypass the activation system by mixing files from the test and final versions, it said Thursday.

Such a version is currently available on DVD, Microsoft says. When the copy is detected, Microsoft will alert the user, and then give them 30 days to activate the software, or it will be placed in reduced functionality mode.

A Microsoft representative said the update will affect a select number of systems that are running this specific tampered version of the next-generation operating system, nicknamed 'Frankenbuild' by members of Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage team.

"Windows Vista will use the new Windows Update client to require only the "frankenbuild" systems to go through a genuine validation check. These systems will fail that check because we have blocked the release candidate keys for systems not authorized to use them," a member of the WGA posted to the team's web log Thursday.

"We hope that this action will help get the message out that pirating Windows Vista will have real consequences and will, in turn, encourage people to check before they buy," the team member continued.

In addition to the WGA check, Microsoft has reiterated that it will stand by its Vista piracy policy first announced in October. A periodic review of product keys would be undertaken, and the company will take any reports of system file tampering seriously.

Those keys found to be distributed will be blocked, causing unauthorized computers using the key to become inactivated. From there, users will have 30 days to reactivate their copies using a legitimate product key.

Additionally, as new workarounds appear, Microsoft will take additional steps as necessary to prevent pirates from using tampered copies of the operating system.

In the end, it may be an uphill battle. Microsoft said it expects the number of issues to increase as the general availability of Vista approaches.

Add a Comment (260 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By jnelmes44

edited Feb 3, 2008 - 4:45 AM

Hooray for Microsoft, and those people on the Microsoft Windows Genuine Advantage team, Wow, its a wonder they can feed their kids on what Microsoft is paying them, what with those gosh darn perverts, I mean pirates, stealing all Microsoft's money. They must be real dedicated guys & gals, my hats off to them... and for that matter my pants to, BUTT IN THE AIR, this MOON is for you guys and gals.
I'm sure my response couldn't be more "appropirate" and is definitely on topic.
James Nelmes
Lafayette,Ca.

Score: 0

By pormalkan

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 8:18 AM

microsoft try to stole my money, i buy a dell laptop with vista home premium, and i want to change language. they said NO... (why i paid for their fu....g licence not language) they said buy a new one or upgrade ultimate, which costs many many dollars... i ask for am i buy an oem vista, they said no( why? i bought my laptop only 5 day ago, isnt it a new system? for microsft no) I try to stay legal, they dont help, all they say NO AND PAY ME PAY ME MORE YOU'RE MY FATTY PIG AND I LEECH YOU TILL THE END. i'll buy a macpro laptop and say get off micro,soft and useless

Score: 0

By John.Doe

edited Dec 21, 2006 - 12:17 PM

Simple answer to the Majority of arguments, is if you use it illegally - don't complain if MS "disable" some of the features and give you the "Grace Period" to activate a legal (or most likely version with a newer crack in this case).

At the end of the day, the software is Licensed to the End Users, hence the name End User License Agreement not End User Software Usage Agreement for example - MS are well within their rights to "disable" some features if a pirated version of their software is detected.

And if you really want to use Vista, and "can't afford it", "don't want to buy it" or "just want to use it illegally for no apparent valid reason"... Download the KMS Server, Download a working Business RTM/Enterprise Vista ISO, and install it on a computer without internet access... or just disable windows updates... either that or look through each one manually and check it won't "disable" Microsoft's "features".

As for the Legal Users, yes it is a pain having to reactivate occasionally... but you have to live with it, if you want to use Microsoft's Software Legitimately.

Your comments on this are of course welcome ;)

Score: 0

By jnelmes44

posted Feb 3, 2008 - 5:04 AM

"MS are well within their rights to "disable" some features if a pirated version of their software is detected." Would your neighbor be within his rights to break into your house to see if you stole his lawnmower, I'm not running a bootleg version, but I had a copy of one off a cd on my hard drive. They found it and locked it up so tight I can't even delete it! What gave them the "right" to browse my hard drive. Guess they never heard of a Search Warrant in Washington State!

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Dec 18, 2006 - 9:48 AM

Judging from this flamefest, I'm glad I'm sticking with my activation-free (and legal) copy of XP.

Score: 0

By WRFan

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 1:43 PM

but this solution is totally outdated. both warez releases relying on RC1 registration files were nuked yesterday, reason: not working any longer. The KMS in connection with the Volume Vista edition is the only true solution

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 18, 2006 - 9:37 AM

Until they block the KMS keys distributed with the package.

And then, of course, we'll probably be dealing with a KMS keyegen...

Score: 0

By Jim

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 3:53 AM

Personally, and call me paranoid but I have never and will never install a product with a legit key or without a crack. Same as very rarely will I use my real name or any real information online, and it will not be saved to my computer. I still buy my licenses and have the right to use the software.

Now, occasionally I'll break the rules a little. I have more then a dozen PC's and I don't know how Microsoft reasonably expects me, a person with the average US salary - well under 20k a year, who spends half of that on rent and utilities to spent nearly $500 on each PC for the operating system. Same for Office. I have to only be able to view word documents on one of my PC's? I can really use one at a time anyway, except for the occasional (once or twice a month at most?) time when I have a visitor over who I let use one of them for a moment. Usually they're a paying Microsoft customer too.

Until Microsoft becomes more reasonable with their licensing schemes and fair treatment of paying customers they will always have a very large percent of users (would rather be using it legitimately) pirating their software.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

edited Dec 17, 2006 - 11:23 AM

So how or why does a person with under 20k own 12 machines exactly? I make well over 60k and own 3, and yes, they're all legally provisioned with XP, 1 has home, 2 have Pro.

See this is what I don't understand....are people really b****ing about MS' licensing schemes? Or because it's getting more difficult to steal their product. As a paying customer, windows XP doesn't belong to you - the code isn't yours, nothing to do with the ideas or concept belong to you - in fact, you have paid to use the software, for the right to run it and use it ONLY. If you have paid to use it on a single machine and are using it on 50, then you're wrong. If you paid to use it on a single machine and use it on 2, you're still very wrong. The sooner people realize this, the better off everyone will be.

Score: 0

By Jim

edited Dec 19, 2006 - 11:38 AM

*Counts* 2 Pentium 2 Laptops (Thinkpad 600E), 1 Pentium 3 Laptop (Thinkpad T20), 1 Athlon 64 laptop (Gateway), 1 Core Duo Laptop (Thinkpad T60), 1 (Soon to be 2, I'm planning on another athlon x2 system so I have a 24/7 Linux only that I can SSH into anytime away from home) 1 Pentium 4 Desktop (my second - newer one was stolen). A Pentium 3 hand-me-down from a friend that was going to through it out) My Original Pentium 166mhz Thinkpad 760, Unfortunately my Pentium 233mhz Compaq Armada 1500 series was stolen (during gym back in high school, door broken off the locker). That doesn't include any of the 486's and predecessors which I wouldn't want to run any recent MS-OS's on.

I think that brings the count up to 12. I don't make much but I try to fit in a new computer every year, a new laptop every 2. It helps that I always stay one step behind the latest tech so I can afford to always have a fairly modern system.

I'm also one of those who MS attempts to screw by trying to make windows not work when I upgrade my processor and video card every 6 months.
*looks over at stack of spare Pentium3 and 4 CPU's*
Theres a lot of us, and we can't imagine life any other way. Why do you think they had to revert back to a more XP-like license agreement? There would be huge amounts of people either not buying Vista, or more likely paying customers pirating the software even though its still used on only 1 machine, the one they bought it for.

Edit - There was a 3rd Pentium 2 600E, Forgot it got stomped on at H2K2. Currently is hooked up to an external monitor but works. Damn those things just accumulate like N64's, I'm not sure where they all came from.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 12:03 PM

people like you are why MS think they can push consumers around like they do.
companies like MS are trying to take away our right to own a product.
is that what you want?

sorry, i find it sad when companies like MS won't sell you an os because they want control of the people who use it.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 7:26 PM

Maybe they're pushing you around, but they're obviously not pushing me around. And I find it difficult to understand why some people decide to go ape s%it over things like this. You read the EULA (or are supposed to, anyway), you aggree to it, and then you complain out the wazoo when you don't follow the rules and trouble comes or simply at the thought of that situation.
If I thought MS was pushing me around - if I was unhappy with their rules, their product - guess what I'd do? Buy Linux or download it free or buy a Mac and use OsX....simple as that. I wouldn't pi$% and bash at the company at every chance I got, especially because they're protecting their own product from thieves and less ethically minded people who have no problem using an OS they didn't purchase in the first place. Not only that, but people even have the audacity to complain that their stolen/illegally installed or copied license of XP won't download updates from MS servers, WTF?! It's like walking into a best buy, stealing a mp3 player and then coming back pissed off because you didn't get the free remote control with purchase. Stealing is stealing, is stealing.
Personally, if I put hard work and millions of dollars into the development of software, I'd be just as upset if joe dirt decided he wanted it for free....and I'd find a way to make sure that if he got it, it wouldn't work too.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 19, 2006 - 1:19 AM

Don't take this the wrong way, for I agree with everything you've said. However, one interesting point is the mention of Mac OS X. I'm not really sure why anyone would believe that switching to an Apple OS would be a better solution with regards to license restrictions. I've read the EULAs for both OS X and Windows XP, and see no major differences between the two. One major difference in the operating systems themselves, though... at least Microsoft doesn't have nearly as many restrictions on the hardware you're allowed to install and run their OS on.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Dec 19, 2006 - 3:03 PM

Hey Yount, no I was just making a point. Like you know, if you don't like Ford, then buy a Honda, kinda thing. Don't steal the ford and then complain about how bad the security system is, or some crap.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 6:58 PM

Funny i must have missed the "right to own" somewhere in the Bill of Rights. MS (and many others) sell the use of it's product to you, they don't sell the product. If you don't like it, don't buy it, how ****in hard is that? MS and no one else is taking away your rights, you a free to choose not to buy what they are selling. Sorry if that concept is too hard for a mindless MS basher like yourself to understand. Lemmings indeed, pot meet kettle.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 18, 2006 - 10:03 AM

i'm sorry i can't help you.
but, if you don't see the inherent problems with current EULA practices, you are obviously either narrow minded or short sighted.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 18, 2006 - 11:59 AM

yea, must be me. Can't possibly be that your an idiot or anything. I mean seriously, why would any company want to protect it's IP from copyright violators and thieves, thats just absurd.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 18, 2006 - 7:12 PM

narrow minded it is then.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Dec 19, 2006 - 9:35 AM

I'll take narrow minded over your utter stupidity any day of the week.

It is however, gratifying, that you simply don't have anything worthwhile to say and thus resort to pointless name calling to win your arguments like a child.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 19, 2006 - 4:28 PM

lol, you're funny.
:-)

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 3:05 PM

Even Microsoft's a** lickers in this thread repeatedly mention one thing: switch to Linux. It looks like Microsoft will truly "enjoy" the results of it's "anti-piracy" campaign.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 9:02 PM

It's because they are tired of hearing people b****ing about Microsoft and not making a move to find other options. If they hate Microsoft so much it's time to make a move for the options, either sh*t or get off the toilet.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 7:16 PM

Well if it isn't mr "making a copy isn't a violation of law and therefore I feel free to screw people over their hard work". Been along time since I've seen your trolling around here. Nice to have you back.

Score: 0

By Alexq

edited Dec 16, 2006 - 9:22 PM

I never said any of those things. You are a liar.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 3:27 AM

http://www.betanews.com/...s_Loses_Visa/1161197051

That isn't you? Funny, it's got your name on many of the posts claiming that making a copy to screw the copyright holder is ok and within your rights. Must be some OTHER Alexq huh?

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 4:47 AM

I never said "making a copy isn't a violation of law", I said I think such laws are wrong and should be changed.

Similarly, and I never said "I feel free to screw people over their hard work", I said hard work by itself is neither a requirement nor a justification for compensation demands (willingly and explicitly entered contracts are).

You are either incapable of understanding the difference or a liar. Probably both.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Dec 17, 2006 - 8:57 AM

Alexq:"If someone STEALS your BigWheel it is not OK.
If someone MAKES A COPY of your BigWheel then it is OK."

Alexq:"I believe I am within my rights when I make myself a copy of something my friend has (with his consent)."

LOL, squirm all you want, what you said is right there on that thread for everyone to read for themselves. If you want to find a liar, look no further then the nearest mirror.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 3:40 PM

Yes, as an alternative for those who find they can no longer "enjoy" Microsoft products illegally.

Score: 0

By paulm

edited Dec 16, 2006 - 1:57 AM

I spent over five years staying one step ahead of MS and WGA. I got sick of it, although in the end I still was able to install IE7, Defender, WMP11 and the like. But when the price dropped to AUD$99 with a $27 upgrade to Vista Business in February, I took the plunge and became (finally) a genuine user. Do I feel better? Yeah! Maybe just a little. But more importantly, now I don't have to waste so much time and effort staying one step ahead, and THAT is worth every cent of $99.

If each OS release was around AUD$100 (US$80) from first release rather than "the fire sale" at the end of the OS's life, I think more would buy the genuine article rather than seek out that Bangkok or Bali special edition.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 1:21 PM

Hmm, I kind of agree with that. Personally if I ever would pay for a Windows OS (hypothetically since I never have never will) I would not exceed $30 and $40 for Vista (all editions). Even thats a little generous but hey, it's Christmas. :)

Score: 0

By kashin

edited Dec 15, 2006 - 2:44 PM

You could probably separate all the different types of "pirates" into several groups. I think the smallest group would be those extremely smart guys from various countries who love the challenge of screwing Microsoft over. These are the guys who crack the operating system, disable activation code, and so on. Then there is the larger group of people who simply can't afford to pay $200-400 for an operating system. Low income families and people from developing nations. The largest group is of course the guys who just don't want to pay for Windows when they can get it for free. There are others, but these three groups make up the majority of pirates. The problem here is that the people who "pirated" Windows XP, 2000, NT, 98, 95, 3.1 etc. are not going to suddenly start paying out the butt for Vista. It's simply not going to happen.

Just because Microsoft decided to put a lot more protection on Vista will make no difference. All they're doing is screwing OEMs, business users and others who always paid for Windows and will buy Vista anyway. There will be false alerts, legit keys black listed, and just a lot of hassle for legal owners of Vista. My point is that people who haven't paid for Windows at all up until now are not suddenly going to run out and start buying Vista, just because Microsoft stepped up their anti-piracy efforts. These people will either wait for a fully cracked version of Vista (and there WILL be one) or simply stick with their other pirated version of Windows, mostly likely XP.

Besides, most people are not that eager to jump into the next version of Windows anyway. According to most reviews on the net, Vista doesn't really offer many new things except some fancy new interface and a few new toys. Nothing to e-mail home about. Definitely nothing that warrants the high price tag.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 1:29 PM

Finally something that makes sense. I agree fully. Especially about the part that states this sh*t does in NO WAY warrant the price-tag. Anyway, that is SOO F*CKING true about people stealing keys from legit users! This is a major problem for Internet cafe's actually, who license Windows not because they want to (no one wants to of their own will, even if they think they do) but because they fear legal action since its a public business. It's too easy to grab keys and re-use them, I myself have got over 100 "genuine" XP Pro keys ready for use (and STILL run pirate windows) but keep them "just in case".

Hope the places around here upgrade to Vista soon (haha).

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 7:14 PM

That is a great true of facts post. There was no biasedness towards microsoft at all, good job. I usually go overboard and start calling microsoft the devil. But you know it depends on how strongly you feel about the subject.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 1:37 PM

LOL this reminds me of all the silly music pirating threads that pop up. The complete lack of understanding for basic licensing and IP law is astounding.

NO, you don't "own" your OS you only own the right to use it.

Yes MS is within their rights to terminate access to the OS on your box if they find you haven't paid for it....how is this any different then a pay-for-access service (say a nice MMO) that shuts you off when you don't pay?

If you don't like MS policies on it, switch to Linux, BSD, Hell even a Mac (I imagine Apple EULA has the same restrictions but I haven't read it so *shrug*)

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 9:44 PM

"how is this any different then a pay-for-access service (say a nice MMO) that shuts you off when you don't pay?"

they don't disable the software, just access to the servers.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 11:08 AM

And your point is? Can you USE the installed software if you don't have access to the servers? Nope didn't think so. Disabling your OS shuts you off, it doesn't uninstall it for you.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 10:19 PM

"they don't disable the software, just access to the servers."

Which essentially disables the software, since not being able to access the content on the server will render the client useless.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 10:25 AM

ever heard of eqemu and swgemu?

I don't know if these are legal, but...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 10:29 AM

No, they're not.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 10:30 PM

not the same

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 11:59 PM

Care to explain?

A violation of a license agreement is a violation. Plain and simple. In most every scenario, a violation equals cancellation of service, by whatever methods were laid out in the agreement. The particular methods by which that is accomplished are inconsequential. The end result is the same... you are no longer entitled to use the software.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 2:52 AM

"A violation of a license agreement is a violation."

where did that come from?
this was about whether MS has a right to effect my hard drive without my say-so.

but anyway, what service is MS providing me?

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 3:23 PM

Microsoft Windows XP Help and Support Center is where it comes from...

"What does the End-User License Agreement do? Why should I read it?

Microsoft software is licensed to you, not sold. Under United States and international copyright laws, your right to install, copy and run Microsoft software is limited. The End-User License Agreement (EULA) contains all the rights and limitations that govern your use of Microsoft software. The EULA is a contract between you and Microsoft (or the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) if you acquired the software preinstalled on your computer system). You are required to accept the EULA in order to run Microsoft software. You should contact the software or computer reseller if you do not want to accept the EULA. Please note that your EULA does not by itself prove that you are legally licensed. The EULA is used as part of the process to determine whether you have genuine software that has been legally licensed.

Please read the EULA carefully, as you would any legal contract, so you understand your rights and your obligations, and so you understand the rights granted by the licensor. The EULA may limit your ability to make additional copies of the software, and may also grant you specific rights to utilize networks, transfer the software, or otherwise use the software. In addition, please note that under certain Microsoft volume licensing programs intended for businesses, you may have different rights and limitations with respect to the software than may be contained in the EULA supplied with the software. Please consult the agreements that govern such programs for complete information."

(For the umpteenth time...) Microsoft does not affect your hard drive, they affect their (not your) software when it is discovered that a violation of the EULA (breach of contract) has taken place.

If you are only granted permission to *use* the product only if certain conditions are agreed to and met by you, how is that not considered a service? It is not considered a sale of goods if transfer of ownership of the product in question never takes place. Sure, part of the price of the software may include the cost of packaging, distribution, and any included support documentation and the physical media itself, but the majority of the cost is for the license (privilege) to use the software.

You can argue this until your fingernails fall off on your keyboard if you prefer (which apparently you do), but like it or not, once you click on the "I Agree" button for a license agreement, you are bound to it, and voluntarily accept all consequences that may arise from violating it. Continued use of the software depends on you upholding your end of the deal.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 9:18 AM

you have to know that anything coming from MS is going to be biased and directed towards their best intrests.

that doesn't mean that we as consumers don't have certain rights that MS might not disclose publicly.

it is not illegal for me to go against the EULA, but i can be held accountable for any damages or losses because of said action. it is also to remove accountability from the software company for any adverse or unwanted effects of their product.
in fact, a number of clauses in common EULA's contradict local laws and are therefore uninforcable.

i, at least, understand my rights regarding this issue. others seem to just follow blindly.

and for the umpteenth time, i don't care if you don't see MS changing files on my hard drive as an intrusion of my privacy, but it is. i don't care if they THINK they belong to them, they have NO right to conduct their own investigation on my personal property.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 11:12 AM

"but anyway, what service is MS providing me?"

Sigh...

The use of your OS IS the service. As has already been said MULTIPLE times, you don't purchase the software you purchase a license to use it. Microsoft (and most other major software vendors for that matter, everyone seems to think this is just a Microsoft deal and it isn't) still retains ownership of the software. They are just allowing you to use it.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 11:44 AM

sigh...

the use of the OS is NOT a service, it's a sale.
i paid for the product, not a service.
but...believe what you want.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 2:29 PM

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 11:50 AM

Read your EULA, you paid for the license not the product.

but...believe what you want.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Dec 16, 2006 - 12:17 PM

check your local law regarding the subject.
it changes depending on what governing agency you are under. (even from state to state)
as i stated before:
EULA is not law!

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 4:31 PM

"EULA is not law!"

Yeah, you're right... it's merely a legally-binding contract. Our mistake.

*sigh*

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 12:20 PM

"EULA is not law!"

No the EULA is not law your right, it is a contract which is covered by Contract Law. Laws may vary from state to state but contract law isn't all that dissimilar from each state. The end result is still the same.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 1:38 PM

"it is a contract which is covered by Contract Law"

you have proof of this?

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 2:19 PM

http://www.bitlaw.com/so...es/copyright/procd.html

C'mon man... all EULAs are governed by common laws of contracts. A EULA *is* a contract.

Score: 0

By scratchpentagon

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 6:45 AM

has an EULA case ever been brought to court? i'm pretty sure it hasn't. until that happens, anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's as to whether or not it's actually binding.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 12:00 PM

Yes, they have. Did you not see the above link as one example?

Some of the more common cases when the terms of a EULA has not been upheld is when the actual end-user was never presented with it (and therefore never agreed to it) in the first place. In those circumstances, the end-user was not held accountable for his or her actions.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 2:05 PM

Do i have proof that a contract is covered by contract law? make sense man, thats like asking is I have proof the sky is blue.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Dec 16, 2006 - 1:38 PM

-edit-
oops, double post.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 10:31 AM

MS doesn't touch your hard-drive.

Are you purposefully being dense?

Your hard-drive is fine. Install a new OS, or activate Windows with a proper license, and your fine.

They don't break your hardware.

mmmkay?

Score: 0

By elftyrrell

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 5:13 PM

You are right, you don't own the code when you purchase the OS. But you do own that copy of the software. One can't copy the code and go sell it somewhere. But I'll do whatever I like to the copy I own if it's for my own use. What's next? Is MS going to say I can't use certain wallpaper?

Vista is not a service. It is a software product that is purchased. That being said, MS does have a right to go after people using the software that did not purchase it.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Dec 15, 2006 - 5:29 PM

No you do NOT own the copy you think you purchased. You licensed it, big difference. Read the EULA, you only have a license to use the software, you retain no ownership over it what-so-ever.

Since you don't own it, you only licensed it, Microsoft is providing the use of it as a service to you. and just as any service, that can be shut off if you don't abide by the terms of the license...eg if you didn't pay for it you cant use it.

Score: 0

By elftyrrell

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 5:42 PM

Maybe legal. Morally gray. Definitely unenforceable.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 10:31 AM

Google MS v. harmony Computers.

Enforced.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 5:56 PM

Morally gray? That's how most major commercial software is. You license it you don't own it, this isn't the purview of Microsoft alone. It most certainly is legal and enforceable.

Score: 0

By elftyrrell

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 6:33 PM

Enforceable? Yeah, and Iraq is winnable too. Unless MS wants to hire a person to monitor each copy of its OS, it is NOT enforceable.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 10:43 PM

It's plenty enforceable when you're greeted with a nice little message on the next reboot that states "You must activate this copy of Windows before you can log on. Do you wish to do this now?"

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Dec 15, 2006 - 8:46 PM

Sure it's enforceable...Microsoft has it's very own little virus that does the trick nicely. It's called.....oh what the acronym I'm looking for.....oh yeah WGA.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 11:06 AM

Funny, calling it a virus. That's clever. Tell me...when was the last time a virus asked you if you agree to it doing what it does?

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 8:10 PM

Um...well I suppose that depends on your definition of "enforceable". IMO it's still plenty enforceable and enforced when they shut the OS down on your box because its pirated. I'd call that enforcement. *shrug* your mileage may vary.

Score: 0

By elftyrrell

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 8:58 PM

The problem one runs into when criticizing MS and its draconian DRM is being accused of being a pirate. I have no reasonable choice but to suffer with a EULA that assumes I'm a criminal. Yet I don't have to agree with it. Laws change. Maybe the DMCA will change. Probably not - but one can hope.

Be careful who you accuse of pirating software.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 11:04 AM

"Be careful who you accuse of pirating software."

I sure will, but if your referring to yourself, I never accused you of being a pirate, stop being so sensitive. What I said was, that if MS recognizes your OS as pirated then they have every right to disable your access to it. See the difference? I'm talking about the article and your talking about some personal affront for some reason. Not everything is about you personally.

Score: 0

By scratchpentagon

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 6:48 AM

what about users such as myself that own a still-sealed legal copy of the XP cd, but choose to use the "pirated" variety because it's less of a headache? microsoft is driving legit customers to do such things by assuming everyone is a criminal.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 8:48 AM

Your using a modified version of their software. Thats a violation of the EULA. And really...less of a headache? Please thats just silly.

Score: 0

By scratchpentagon

edited Dec 18, 2006 - 1:34 AM

it's not modified, it's xp pro corporate with no modifications other than SP2 and the various hotfixes.

i change hardware. a lot. i don't want to call them up and ask permission.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Dec 18, 2006 - 1:30 PM

That would have to be some pretty significant hardware changes happening all the time. You'd probably be better served getting a version that does not require activation. I'd call MS about it. If your business is hardware testing they can hook you up. If not, then I'm afraid you'll have to live with the inconvenience of a 30 second phone call whenever you make such sweeping changes.

Score: 0

By tiefel

edited Dec 15, 2006 - 12:59 PM

Oh for heaven's sake. Will everyone just put on your big girl panties and shut the hell up!

You know you'll eventually run Vista so quit your crying!

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Dec 18, 2006 - 4:37 PM

The only way Vista will touch any of my machines is after someone prys my keyboard and mouse from my cold, dead fingers.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 2:46 PM

Key word being "eventually" here.

Score: 0

By Hellgod77

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 11:32 AM

but i have a ligit rc2 key.. is it looking for fake testing key's or instal key's. ( i know how the patch works) but it has to see a key somewhere

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 6:38 AM

You do know that key is now dead right, at least for anything past post rc2. I think there was a single post for a rc2 build that you could get but that was it.

I have tried rtm, it wasn't much better then post rc2. In fact other then some sounds that werent available in rc2. I didnt see where the final touches came in at. all problems and issues with games etc were still evident. It was unusable, I had to switch back to xp. So until thid parties get on board with driver support and app support, then you might as well save your money. If you have an older game or hardware, if support isnt already build in vista by now. And you can't part with it, well look forward to learning how to part with it.

game support is a mess, including modern ones. Do some games work? yes but majority did not. So I think vista adoption will be very slow once people figure that out. Others wont notice or wont care and thats ok I guess.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 8:05 AM

It's amazing how many folks have apparently never read the license that comes with Windows.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 7:51 PM

Really? doesn't amaze me in the least.

Score: 0

By cooldude7273

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 4:22 PM

I like you PC tool!

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 1:24 PM

I've read it and it's all bull s***. It doesn't get directly to the point. It's unenforceable cause yu have to be a lawer to understand it. If they want to tell me, Yes you can use Vista, no you can't redistribute it, yes you can do whatever you like with your system, no you can't remove WGA... then fine. But not that s*** that I can't understand.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 2:28 PM

I'm sure there working hard at coming up with a cure for stupidity. Hold tight, man. Some day...

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited Dec 15, 2006 - 1:50 PM

...dude...welcome to life.
Haven't you ever heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse? Just because you aren't capable to understand the license out of stupidity or just sheer laziness doesn't matter one whit. It's still enforceable. Now when a lawyer can't detangle it for you...then you might have a case.

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 12:35 PM

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't care what the EULA says.

Also there's some dispute over whether EULAs are even legal or not. When you pay money to buy a good or service there may be stipulations (IE an EULA) attached to it that YOU MUST AGREE TO WHEN MAKING THE PURCHASE. The argument here is that since EULAs are only presented to the user once the transaction has been long since finalized, they are null and void and have no legal constraint on the user since the user agreed to the terms they were presented with when the sale took place (ie none). I'm not saying this is true but it is at least an interesting argument.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 11:43 AM

yah, maybe that would open their eyes to the level of extortion they're subjected to.
then again, maybe we will continue to let monopolistic companies set policy for us.
before long we'll be living the life "they" want for us, and paying them for it to boot.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 12:23 PM

Sounds like you don't know what extortion means.

MS isn't forcing anyone to agree to their licensing.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Dec 15, 2006 - 10:04 PM

what?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/extorting

maybe you just don't get it.
:-(
...oh well.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 10:28 AM

LMAO...

Yeah, it's me...not you.

You'll believe anything so long as it gets ya free stuff, eh? And you're calling the honest folk lemmings.

Too funny...

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 11:00 AM

"You'll believe anything so long as it gets ya free stuff, eh?"

what are you talking about?
what "free" stuff am i getting?

i didn't call honest folk lemmings, but i will call you one.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 3:34 PM

"keep following, lemming."

Your credibility is starting to dip into the negatives... :)

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Dec 17, 2006 - 9:47 AM

but lemmings are cute...
i thought i was being nice.
:-p

Score: 0

By pickchevy

posted Dec 18, 2006 - 10:34 AM

Yeah...they really are.

http://www.xeye.org/1995-2000/LemmZoo.html

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 17, 2006 - 1:06 PM

I'll give you that... they are kinda cute.

Finally, we agree on something. I'm happy now. I can move on. :)

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 1:26 PM

"Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to his person, reputation, or property. Euphemistically, refraining from doing harm is sometimes called protection."

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 3:16 PM

Exactly, meaning MS is not extorting you. They don't send a guy to your house threatening to break your legs if you don't buy Vista and install it. They simply state that you cannot modify the code or give it to someone else to use. And if you are in violation of the agreement they don't come over and break your legs, the OS just stops working. It doesn't fry your hardware.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 2:27 PM

The boy can cut & paste.

Want a cookie?

Score: 0

By sjc001

edited Dec 15, 2006 - 6:19 AM

Don't use Windows update. Most of the security problems can easily be solved by using a good firewall and anti virus...... Plus, like with XP, you can get your patches and updates from elsewhere.

I never let Windows automatically install its updates and patches. I go through them before I allow it to install them and I have a legit copy of XP. I'll do the same for Vista when I buy my copy of it. Never trust Microsoft.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 4:14 AM

We are allowed to modify our system files if we desire. Its our system

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 16, 2006 - 8:26 PM

You are not allowed to, but have the ability to. Big difference.

It's your system, but Microsoft's operating system.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 7:47 PM

Nope, you can't but they can screw with it all they want.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 8:04 AM

No, it's not. MS still holds the license, and you violate it when you break the activation mechanism. They have every right to bring it down.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Dec 15, 2006 - 11:54 AM

"MS still holds the license"

yah, whatever.

"They have every right to bring it down."

when are people going to realize, "they" cannot enforce law. there is a chain of command to follow when enforcing laws. MS is the bottom link. MS cannot "damage" my computer in any way without warrant (whether given by me or t