Why I'm against WGA and Vista's licensing

  • Thread starter Thread starter xfile
  • Start date Start date
X

xfile

Dear all,

Will be very busy in the next few days, so please allow me to highlight some
questions for why I'm against the above practices (not against the company
nor the product).

Instead of going through all explanations, I'd like to list some questions
for you to consider. Again, it doesn't matter for you to change your stand
or not, but just to bring some questions for considerations.

(1) XP license method: Do you see any major needs for changing the current
license methods for XP?

(2) WGA: Do you see anything terribly wrong for letting a user to grant and
determine when the system is being verified for a genuine product? Example,
when the OS is being installed and about to be used AND when a user is
visiting the site for updating critical AND non-critical updates, AND for
downloading anything from the site.

(3) Win-Win situation: Do you really believe that both practices have been
included the "win-win" considerations for both the company AND the consumer?

(4) Eliminate piracy: Do you really believe that piracy can be totally wiped
out and eliminated if both are being in place?

(5) Legal precedent: Can you live up with the consequences for if both
practices become a legal precedent and followed by other software makers?

Example, a DVD software maker limit you to change DVD burner once, and
constantly monitoring your system to see if you're using a genuine copy, and
the same thing for games, anti-virus programs, and so on.

(6) Risk of doing business: You honestly believe that a company operating in
a fair market economy can do business without any risks of losing any
potential revenues, and it can only make more than deserved but not without
any risk for less.

If you answer YES to all of the above, there is no more to say. If you have
any doubts about any of the above, you may wish to reconsider your stand.

That's all and good luck.
 
xfile said:
Dear all,

Will be very busy in the next few days, so please allow me to highlight
some questions for why I'm against the above practices (not against the
company nor the product).

Instead of going through all explanations, I'd like to list some questions
for you to consider. Again, it doesn't matter for you to change your
stand or not, but just to bring some questions for considerations.

(1) XP license method: Do you see any major needs for changing the current
license methods for XP?

(2) WGA: Do you see anything terribly wrong for letting a user to grant
and determine when the system is being verified for a genuine product?
Example, when the OS is being installed and about to be used AND when a
user is visiting the site for updating critical AND non-critical updates,
AND for downloading anything from the site.

(3) Win-Win situation: Do you really believe that both practices have been
included the "win-win" considerations for both the company AND the
consumer?

(4) Eliminate piracy: Do you really believe that piracy can be totally
wiped out and eliminated if both are being in place?

(5) Legal precedent: Can you live up with the consequences for if both
practices become a legal precedent and followed by other software makers?

Example, a DVD software maker limit you to change DVD burner once, and
constantly monitoring your system to see if you're using a genuine copy,
and the same thing for games, anti-virus programs, and so on.

(6) Risk of doing business: You honestly believe that a company operating
in a fair market economy can do business without any risks of losing any
potential revenues, and it can only make more than deserved but not
without any risk for less.

If you answer YES to all of the above, there is no more to say. If you
have any doubts about any of the above, you may wish to reconsider your
stand.
Click to expand...


I don't mind WGA or any other anti-piracy method, providing it works 100%.
I don't want to install an operating system to find that activation fails
and I am branded a software thief.
 
Why should I? The abuse of privacy and abuse of civil liberties is a crime
and should be dealt with when it occurs.

 
Beck said:
I don't mind WGA or any other anti-piracy method, providing it works
100%. I don't want to install an operating system to find that
activation fails and I am branded a software thief.
Click to expand...

If someone is stealing from you, you don't use your paying customers to
help you catch the thief. You call the proper legal authorities. WPA and
WGA and ISS are all software. Ergo, they aren't perfect and false
positive will abound. I can't believe that people accept being made to
act as a cop for MS and for free!

Alias
 
Right, but I am not the law nor the carrying out of it, neither is
Microsoft. It's for the courts to issue warrants to the police to invade a
privacy, do searches, seize documents and arrest pirates. Then it is for the
courts to decide what action to take within the limits of the laws of the
land. It's a regulated process which precludes tyranny. Microsoft wants to
usurp those powers of state. It also wants to remain completely
unaccountable. It just doesn't jive. Almost sounds like the monopolist wants
to turn tyrant. Not good. They should be more circumscript in their
behaviour in my opinion.

Sure piracy is "bad". How "bad" it is for Microsoft is debatable because it
could well be argued that piracy is one of the main factors that ensured
success for Microsoft. Piracy helped put Windows everywhere giving it
dominance. But now that Windows is everywhere and piracy is of no more use
to Microsoft, piracy is suddenly "really bad" and we are supposed to agree
that it is A-OK to abuse the privacy and civil liberties of the customer in
order to combat it. Doesn't jive with me and is not good.

No, I am not advocating stealing nor piracy. But I don't think Microsoft has
the right to be abusive in combatting it. It's a matter of reasonable
limits. The ends do not necessarily justify the means.
 
I've never really thought about this debate until now, but here are the
things that strike me at first.

1) Privacy

I don't see how WGA/WPA affects privacy. Your IP address is a public thing
by definition. Microsoft has it every time you access any of their websites.
And Microsoft only gets a hardware "fingerprint" of your computer - they can
uniquely identify only your COMPUTER based on this fingerprint, not YOU.
Because this fingerprint, your license key, etc. does not tie into your
personal identity at all.

2) Effects of enforcement

Microsoft wants to prevent you from transferring your license from one
computer to the next more than once. Microsoft also wants to make sure you
have a valid copy of windows - this is done by downloading a tool that
verifies you are not running a hacked version.

Since I have already ruled out privacy concerns, the only negative aspect of
this is:

- Being falsely identified as an invalid copy

- Not being able to transfer to a new computer more than once

The first one is the only real issue in my opinion. All software has bugs,
including whatever tool they will use to detect invalid copies of windows. I
would hate to see the reaction if this software invalidated a huge chunk of
legal copies of Windows. Microsoft could be opening up a can of worms in
this regard.

As for the transferability of Windows, I can see how having an automatic
software means to enforfce this will help prevent piracy. However, this
provision does seem to affect a small percentage of the more technical savvy
of the computer users, not just pirates. I can see how MS can justify this,
although I do not agree with it personally.

Using technical means to enforce licensing is a good idea; however,
Microsoft must be careful to ensure that their software enforces the terms
of the agreement that benefit both microsoft and the end user. If the
enforcement software were to erroneously limit the end user's rights under
the EULA, wouldn't MS be in breach of their own agreement?
 
Hi,

I should have mentioned it is "WGA N" but not WGA is the problem and what
WGA does are examples on (2) (which I give it more options for non-critical
updates as well as for "downloading anything" both are not existing for
now).

What WGA N does is highly controversial - it "automatically" and
"periodically" sends system information back to its mother.

The company is reluctant to disclose the intervals for sending information
(according to several reports) and as far as for what type of information it
will collect, you can only guess.

THE ISSUE - Without a user's knowledge and consensus, this software will
periodically collect and send information to its company.

Again, I'd like to re-emphasize two points:

(1) Many of us are not against piracy verification. So please do read our
messages closely and please do distinguish the WGA and so-called WGA N
practice.

We are not here to frame the company as an evil and please do not frame us
as using pirated products. It's about the two specific "practices".

(2) Please do consider the consequences for both Vista license and WGA N
practice to become an industry standard.

Yes, it will because this company is the industry leader, and everything it
does, will soon be followed by other software makers. Once those practices
become a legal case and followed by other makers, go figure what kind of
life we will be living in.

One thing is good though, we don't need a firewall anymore because all kinds
of application are constantly collecting our system information and legally
sending to its parent company for "verification" purposes.

And it should also help the industry's growth, since whenever a person
changes a major component, one of the software and/or OS must be
re-purchased.

Finally, I would really appreciate people constantly saying "only a small
percentage will be affected" can at least do two things:

(1) Show some creditable sources of statistics for your statement, and
(2) Consider if you are unfortunately become one of them, will you say the
same?
 
Ahh Jimmy,
Not at all against WGA; it's methodology;again. It's WGA N and SPP.
By their methodology here;MSFT is making fundamental assumptions;
assumptions and actions;based on the premise of guilt.
Guilt Jimmy
And; as I have asked; many times; when did the onus of responsibility;to
have to prove one's innocence;fall to the consumer? Constantly prove;btw.
People argue this and that;but the fact stands; with SPP; and WGA N;
your pc is initiating an outbound connection; by itself.
Why does MSFT have to "periodically"(periodically;as in; at every boot
up-btw) check; to see if I in fact;have in my possession; a valid copy of
said o.s.?
A premise of guilt Jimmy; that's why.
And furthermore;what business is it of MSFT;what hardware I run it on?
None. Period. I don't give a flying ^^$W what MSFT; or people say; I pay
good money to lease an operating system. If I choose to change my
hardware;that's my right;and the operating system better work on it. Period.
Or they lose my business-forever.

Which; as a side note;this weekend, I had to help a friend recover from
a fatal XP error; which I was none to happy about;but in the course of this
reinstall;with his "genuine" copy; I got to the point of running updates.
XP Home SP2-and going through MSFT update;there were 66 "high priority"
updates.(66- ya think it's time for SP3??)
I did not arbitrarily let it auto-update;as MSFT wants everyone to
do;but I carefully reviewed every single update before even downloading; and
guess what? No KB905474-no Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications. So I
said; Hmmm; and installed my copy of XP Pro in VPC2007; in this lappy; and
again;at updates; no WGA N. Others have noticed this also. I can only
comment on this part; now;because; as you know; I've been running
Vista;exclusively. Seems that WGA N isn't on MSFT's "high priority" updates
any longer.
As to erroneously limiting; Chad can fill you in on that part. lol

Jeff :-)
 
Not at all against WGA; it's methodology;again. It's WGA N and SPP.
By their methodology here;MSFT is making fundamental assumptions;
assumptions and actions;based on the premise of guilt.
Click to expand...

It has always been based on guilt. You enter a product key to PROVE that you
have a license to windows. You validate to PROVE that you have a valid
license key. You "genuine advantage" to prove that you have a valid
validation of a valid license key.

And if these things fail, Windows will tell you about it. And ask you to
gain a legal key. And disable functionality.

All I see is MS ramping up enforcement.

And; as I have asked; many times; when did the onus of responsibility;to
have to prove one's innocence;fall to the consumer? Constantly prove;btw.
Click to expand...

Since the invention of the product key. lol
People argue this and that;but the fact stands; with SPP; and WGA N;
your pc is initiating an outbound connection; by itself.
Click to expand...

True. Personally, I think this is a bit sneaky, and it should at least tell
you what's going on, what info is being sent, and give you a choice to stop
it - even if choosing to stop it will limit the functionality of your
Windows system, you would still have a choice.
Why does MSFT have to "periodically"(periodically;as in; at every boot
up-btw) check; to see if I in fact;have in my possession; a valid copy of
said o.s.?
Click to expand...

Because they are always finding new cracked keys / hacking methods. If they
didn't do this, they couldn't catch those that have activated a hacked copy.
In this way, there is no longer a "lag time" where users of the newest
exploits/hacks get activated and are good from then on.

And furthermore;what business is it of MSFT;what hardware I run it on?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think it is any of their business. I don't think there
should be limitations on how many times you can transfer your Windows
license around. I think that provision is just there to keep unscrupulous
people from continuously copying Windows from one computer to the next and
calling up product support saying they are transferring the license, when
they are not.

I think Microsoft needs a technical solution to this problem, that would
allow them to catch the theives without hurting honest people's ability to
transfer their license around.

As to erroneously limiting; Chad can fill you in on that part. lol
Click to expand...

No doubt. lol
 
Jimmy,
Validation; at my initiation; is one thing; checking in at every bootup
is quite another;(SPP_WGA N) and no; fundamentally; this is a shift.
WGA in itself;did not do this; and I am not opposed at all to WGA.
This is analogous to searching one's house;by the police;whenever you wake
up.(bad analogy maybe;but you get my point)
Product keys are not constantly validating themselves;you buy a
product;produce a valid key;story over. Not checking in everytime you use
the software.
Again a fundamental shift; in the way they do business; and on a side
note;it seems that WGA N is no longer a update.
At least I don't see it.
Twice in the past 5 days; I,ve had the financial fortune;to use my
business;to help out people;who just can't stay away from "hidden" files-lol
Reinstalled XP for a friend(no payment required-however;they did; and a
customer;payment required!! :-)! )
In the course of getting the patches(66 in total;and as I stated b4-66;hmm
SP3?-lol)
No WGA N on the servers.
Wonder where it went?
Again, Chad probably has the best info there. LOL

Jeff
 
Yeah, why should an installation have to continually validate itself? How
can a valid installation somehow become un-valid? It doesn't make any sense.

I go to the superstore, buy a retail copy, install with key and activate -
it's valid .. so how does it ever become un-valid?
 
It may not have been valid to start with. It may have been a hacked copy
that Microsoft didn't know about when you installed it. At some future point
in time they may become aware of a counterfeiting operation, shut it down,
and get the keys that were being used or find out how the code was hacked
and come up with a fix. You may have downloaded or programmed a hack and
installed a copy of Windows on all your machines instead of just one.
Someone at the superstore may have opened all the product and sold the keys.
There are many scenarios where the status of a seemingly valid copy of
Windows may change.

I'm not saying I agree with WGAN, the Vista license, or anything else, just
answering the technical aspect of your question.
 
Ah Kerry,
Hi!!!
Jeff
Kerry Brown said:
It may not have been valid to start with. It may have been a hacked copy
that Microsoft didn't know about when you installed it. At some future
point in time they may become aware of a counterfeiting operation, shut it
down, and get the keys that were being used or find out how the code was
hacked and come up with a fix. You may have downloaded or programmed a
hack and installed a copy of Windows on all your machines instead of just
one. Someone at the superstore may have opened all the product and sold
the keys. There are many scenarios where the status of a seemingly valid
copy of Windows may change.

I'm not saying I agree with WGAN, the Vista license, or anything else,
just answering the technical aspect of your question.
Click to expand...
 
Bull, Kerry Brown. If I buy shrink-wrapped from Best Buy it's a valid copy.
And in the most unlikley event .. rare .. 0.000000000032 % of cases at most,
the copy from Best Buy might have not be GENUINE should I agree to give up
my civil liberties? No.

Remember, this notion that pirating Microsoft software is "very bad" has
only come about since the market is abslutely saturated and with the
realization that Linux is not "going to take the desktop". Heck, Microsoft
would release copies of XP WITHOUT Windows Product Activation. That's how
much they really cared about priacy - they handed non-WPA versions out as if
they were giving the pirates it on a silver platter.

So while I think pirating is a moral wrong, that Microsoft wants me to take
it as "very bad" now - well, it just doesn't jive, especially since
Microsoft through its actions and inaction has been encouraging piracy
for decades as it suited Microsoft's purpose [better a pirated copy of
Windows on that computer than a copy of Linux, eh?].

So boo hoo hoo there is no need for my copy to be continally analyzed and
checked on and for reports to be made and sent .. and Microsoft has no right
to lock up my computer on their caprice and whim.

Oh and by the way, since we've had four years of WPA and a good year of WGA
is the price of Windows going down? Wasn't piracy keeping the price too
high? Now that we've all been check they can lower the prices now. Oh what,
the prices are going up? My my ... and for this we are supposed to "agree"
to give up our civil liberties?


 
You asked a technical question. I gave you a technical answer. All of the
scenarios I suggested are possible. How likely they are was not the question
you asked. It seems you also did not read the part of my post where I said I
was not making a statement as to whether I agreed with WGAN, licensing terms
or anything else. I was not expressing an opinion but answering a question
with facts. You are now stating opinions. I don't really spend too much time
responding to opinions. I haven't made up my mind on all the issues to do
with Vista licensing, WPA, WGA, etc. yet as the final version is not out and
no one other than a few people at Microsoft know how it will work and only
time will tell how it affects consumers.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


SESSION_EVENT said:
Bull, Kerry Brown. If I buy shrink-wrapped from Best Buy it's a valid
copy. And in the most unlikley event .. rare .. 0.000000000032 % of
cases at most, the copy from Best Buy might have not be GENUINE
should I agree to give up my civil liberties? No.

Remember, this notion that pirating Microsoft software is "very bad"
has only come about since the market is abslutely saturated and with
the realization that Linux is not "going to take the desktop". Heck,
Microsoft would release copies of XP WITHOUT Windows Product
Activation. That's how much they really cared about priacy - they
handed non-WPA versions out as if they were giving the pirates it on
a silver platter.

So while I think pirating is a moral wrong, that Microsoft wants me
to take it as "very bad" now - well, it just doesn't jive, especially
since Microsoft through its actions and inaction has been
encouraging piracy for decades as it suited Microsoft's purpose
[better a pirated copy of Windows on that computer than a copy of
Linux, eh?].

So boo hoo hoo there is no need for my copy to be continally analyzed
and checked on and for reports to be made and sent .. and Microsoft
has no right to lock up my computer on their caprice and whim.

Oh and by the way, since we've had four years of WPA and a good year
of WGA is the price of Windows going down? Wasn't piracy keeping the
price too high? Now that we've all been check they can lower the
prices now. Oh what, the prices are going up? My my ... and for this
we are supposed to "agree" to give up our civil liberties?


Click to expand...
 
Well thank you then for the forensic description.

:)

Yes, I'm spouting my opinion - but it is an opnion thread - look at its
title.

'Have a nice one.


Kerry said:
You asked a technical question. I gave you a technical answer. All
of the scenarios I suggested are possible. How likely they are was
not the question you asked. It seems you also did not read the part
of my post where I said I was not making a statement as to whether I
agreed with WGAN, licensing terms or anything else. I was not
expressing an opinion but answering a question with facts. You are
now stating opinions. I don't really spend too much time responding
to opinions. I haven't made up my mind on all the issues to do with
Vista licensing, WPA, WGA, etc. yet as the final version is not out
and no one other than a few people at Microsoft know how it will
work and only time will tell how it affects consumers.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


SESSION_EVENT said:
Bull, Kerry Brown. If I buy shrink-wrapped from Best Buy it's a
valid copy. And in the most unlikley event .. rare ..
0.000000000032 % of cases at most, the copy from Best Buy might
have not be GENUINE should I agree to give up my civil liberties?
No.

Remember, this notion that pirating Microsoft software is "very bad"
has only come about since the market is abslutely saturated and with
the realization that Linux is not "going to take the desktop". Heck,
Microsoft would release copies of XP WITHOUT Windows Product
Activation. That's how much they really cared about priacy - they
handed non-WPA versions out as if they were giving the pirates it on
a silver platter.

So while I think pirating is a moral wrong, that Microsoft wants me
to take it as "very bad" now - well, it just doesn't jive,
especially since Microsoft through its actions and inaction has
been encouraging piracy for decades as it suited Microsoft's purpose
[better a pirated copy of Windows on that computer than a copy of
Linux, eh?].

So boo hoo hoo there is no need for my copy to be continally
analyzed and checked on and for reports to be made and sent .. and
Microsoft has no right to lock up my computer on their caprice and
whim.

Oh and by the way, since we've had four years of WPA and a good year
of WGA is the price of Windows going down? Wasn't piracy keeping the
price too high? Now that we've all been check they can lower the
prices now. Oh what, the prices are going up? My my ... and for this
we are supposed to "agree" to give up our civil liberties?


Kerry Brown wrote:
It may not have been valid to start with. It may have been a
hacked copy that Microsoft didn't know about when you installed
it. At some future point in time they may become aware of a
counterfeiting operation, shut it down, and get the keys that
were being used or find out how the code was hacked and come up
with a fix. You may have downloaded or programmed a hack and
installed a copy of Windows on all your machines instead of just
one. Someone at the superstore may have opened all the product
and sold the keys. There are many scenarios where the status of a
seemingly valid copy of Windows may change.

I'm not saying I agree with WGAN, the Vista license, or anything
else, just answering the technical aspect of your question.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


SESSION_EVENT wrote:
Yeah, why should an installation have to continually validate
itself? How can a valid installation somehow become un-valid? It
doesn't make any sense.

I go to the superstore, buy a retail copy, install with key and
activate - it's valid .. so how does it ever become un-valid?

Jeff wrote:
Jimmy,
Validation; at my initiation; is one thing; checking in at
every bootup is quite another;(SPP_WGA N) and no;
fundamentally; this is a shift.
WGA in itself;did not do this; and I am not opposed at all to
WGA. This is analogous to searching one's house;by the
police;whenever you wake up.(bad analogy maybe;but you get my
point) Product keys are not constantly validating
themselves;you buy a product;produce a valid key;story over.
Not checking in everytime you use the software.
Again a fundamental shift; in the way they do business; and on
a side note;it seems that WGA N is no longer a update.
At least I don't see it.
Twice in the past 5 days; I,ve had the financial fortune;to use
my business;to help out people;who just can't stay away from
"hidden" files-lol Reinstalled XP for a friend(no payment
required-however;they did; and a customer;payment required!!
:-)! ) In the course of getting the patches(66 in total;and as
I stated b4-66;hmm SP3?-lol)
No WGA N on the servers.
Wonder where it went?
Again, Chad probably has the best info there. LOL

Jeff

message
<snip>
Not at all against WGA; it's methodology;again. It's WGA N
and SPP. By their methodology here;MSFT is making fundamental
assumptions; assumptions and actions;based on the premise of
guilt.

It has always been based on guilt. You enter a product key to
PROVE that you have a license to windows. You validate to
PROVE that you have a valid license key. You "genuine
advantage" to prove that you have a valid validation of a
valid license key.

And if these things fail, Windows will tell you about it. And
ask you to gain a legal key. And disable functionality.

All I see is MS ramping up enforcement.

<snip>
And; as I have asked; many times; when did the onus of
responsibility;to have to prove one's innocence;fall to the
consumer? Constantly prove;btw.

Since the invention of the product key. lol

People argue this and that;but the fact stands; with SPP;
and WGA N; your pc is initiating an outbound connection; by
itself.

True. Personally, I think this is a bit sneaky, and it should
at least tell you what's going on, what info is being sent,
and give you a choice to stop it - even if choosing to stop
it will limit the functionality of your Windows system, you
would still have a choice.

Why does MSFT have to "periodically"(periodically;as in; at
every boot up-btw) check; to see if I in fact;have in my
possession; a valid copy of said o.s.?

Because they are always finding new cracked keys / hacking
methods. If they didn't do this, they couldn't catch those
that have activated a hacked copy. In this way, there is no
longer a "lag time" where users of the newest exploits/hacks
get activated and are good from then on.

<snip>
And furthermore;what business is it of MSFT;what hardware I
run it on?

Personally, I don't think it is any of their business. I don't
think there should be limitations on how many times you can
transfer your Windows license around. I think that provision
is just there to keep unscrupulous people from continuously
copying Windows from one computer to the next and calling up
product support saying they are transferring the license,
when they are not.

I think Microsoft needs a technical solution to this problem,
that would allow them to catch the theives without hurting
honest people's ability to transfer their license around.

<snip>
As to erroneously limiting; Chad can fill you in on that
part. lol

No doubt. lol


--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top