Anti-Copying Programs May Slow Piracy

[HardOCP News]

Are anti-copying technologies the way to beat piracy? This article points towards Microsoft’s Windows Genuine Advantage as a model of how things can be done while others don’t seem so convinced. Your thoughts?

While a copyright crackdown by the Business Software Alliance and other industry players has been in force for years, piracy rates -- as measured by BSA-commissioned studies -- have stopped falling. So a few years ago, Microsoft Corp. began concentrating harder on locking software down through a program it calls its Genuine Software Initiative.

 

[Shotglass01]

Not a big fan of the WGA or how it works. It's unobtrusive and fine as long as it can contact the mother ship every so often. But, if it breaks it can make a machine nearly unusable. But, the biggest problem I have with it is that it forces inherently broken product on a consumer. I mean that the product actually doesn't work (or work well) unless it can be told to do so. I don't think that is any way to sell products.

 

[Kenrin]

seeing as how WGA has been cracked forever i don't see why they would want to use that as a model, invent something new that works maybe?.. or don't use any copy protection at all. People will find a workaround for it anyway.

 

[kittmaster]

A good debugger and great talent can work around any protection scheme. If it can be locked......it can be unlocked......

Protection will never work at the mass level. WGA and OGA prove that its is a joke.....a few byte changes and its working as new.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

I dont believe its a joke, i think its a good idea to keep trying. If nothing else its slowing people down and its atleast making them work harder at having cracked software.

Yes WGA has been cracked but you dont get updates or if you do, you have to keep cracking it.....i dont think that is fun at all

If you stop and think about it, in my opinion its cheaper to go out and buy the software than have to crack it everytime you want to install or update it.

But i do agree that yes if it can be locked, then it will be unlocked by people just to say they can.

Its just with the old adage if you tell me i cannot do something, then i will do it just to prove you wrong

 

[Azhar]

While it's true WGA has been worked around, it's still a pain in the ass when it comes to updating Windows. If Bill thinks that he wins against piracy by blocking them from updates using WGA, then he's right to think that, unless people want to download updated pirated copies of Windows every month or so. lol

 

[Jakalwarrior]

The WGA doesnt neccessarily bug me. The fact that you are only supposed to install the software on a single system which you arent allowed to upgade does. You pay lots and lots of money for the right to use it on one machine instead of to always be able to use it on one machine at a time.

 

[Renegade_Azzy]

What happens when the software is still in use, but they pull teh online service that authenticates it?

I know in my office we use software often that is 10+ years old, by preference, and I dont see many companies supporting old product.

When XP goes the way of 98, what happens to those of us who want to run an old machine, but WGA isnt supported for XP any longer?

 

[TheRapture]

The WGA doesnt neccessarily bug me. The fact that you are only supposed to install the software on a single system which you arent allowed to upgade does. You pay lots and lots of money for the right to use it on one machine instead of to always be able to use it on one machine at a time.

Uhhhmmm.....if you buy a full retail copy...not the OEM version.....you can indeed move it from one machine to the next....as long as it s only on one machine at any given time. Maybe I misunderstood, but I know I used XP Pro across 3 totally different machines, never took more than one call to MS to get it going, told them I got a new motherboard and processor....never a problem.

 

[Azhar]

What happens when the software is still in use, but they pull teh online service that authenticates it?

I know in my office we use software often that is 10+ years old, by preference, and I dont see many companies supporting old product.

When XP goes the way of 98, what happens to those of us who want to run an old machine, but WGA isnt supported for XP any longer?

It'll still work. They'll just disable the need to activate with an update.

 

[swatbat]

What happens when the software is still in use, but they pull teh online service that authenticates it?

Thats my only real issue with it.

For the most part I haven't had any real issues with wga. Only time I had an issue was they had the servers messed up a few days for the volume license keys.

WGA has though helped me find installs where someone loaded a pirate copy. Helped me bring some clients up to legit versions. WGA generaly works fine so I don't have an issue with it.

Yes people will use hacks to get around this but hell it can help stop a store for instance from installing pirate software and charging for it. As people call to complain that their copy of windows or whatever elce doesn't work it will come back to the pirate that insalled it.

 

[panhead]

It'll still work. They'll just disable the need to activate with an update.

What is your source for this information?

 

[Azhar]

What is your source for this information?

No source, just common sense.

Doesn't take a rocket science to figure it out.

I'm just saying IF they're going to do away with WGA on XP when they expire it's support, the logical thing they would do is patch XP so it won't ask for WGA anymore.

 

[jwp27577]

Actually, the logical business thing to do would be to lock all copies of XP so everyone is forced to upgrade to Vista. And with this whole "Software as service instead of product" BS attitude the industry has today, don't think it won't happen. The Anti-Virus companies are already doing it with their annual "subscriptions."

As for copy protection stopping pirating, it never will. There will always be crackers who do this sort of thing for fun. How much money did MS waste on Vista's protection scheme only to have it cracked in about 10 different ways before it was even on the shelves? Sure they can patch some of them, but there are a few of the cracks that MS will never be able to fix.

Plus all the heavy handed protection schemes just piss off your real paying customers. MS can get away with it because there really is no other choice in the OS market. But other companies don't have that luxury. I didn't buy Bioshock because of the stupid protection scheme. I stopped using TurboTax that year they tried to do an activation scheme like XP (apparently so many other people did too that they dropped the idea the next year).

The industry just needs to accept that there are going to be loses and move on. Unbreakable heavy-handed schemes aren't going to make pirates buy the software (they just won't use it) but it will piss off a company's actual paying customers and cause them to lose real money.

 

[drizzt81]

As for copy protection stopping pirating, it never will.

In fact, it may do the opposite: For example, I rip all my purchased DVDs before watching them, so that I can skip that stupid FBI warning. Customer, if they have a choice and sufficient information, will select the product that provides the most value. More intrusive copy protection schemes diminish the value provided by that software.

Plus all the heavy handed protection schemes just piss off your real paying customers. MS can get away with it because there really is no other choice in the OS market. But other companies don't have that luxury. I didn't buy Bioshock because of the stupid protection scheme.

Excellent point. I did not even bother to look much at Bioshock after reading about the copy protection.

 

[Weenis]

Copyright protection schemes only hinder a company. The minute you lock it and say ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO CRACK , bwahahaha. It's going to get cracked all the faster. Because it frustrates people, people will get a way around it. The more you push, the more people will push back.

As another commented, this 'service over product' idea is right at heart as to why people pirate things. Why would you pay 40$ for a piece of software, then have to pay yearly for it to work? You aren't a large corporation that profits from the anti virus working. I'm just waiting until they try to make windows a per year subscription, no updates unless you pay.. or pay per update?!

Make something that will last, and people will buy it. Why should you have to buy antivirus? Shouldn't it really be included with windows, since after all, antivirus mainly is there to stop EXPLOITS in programming flaws. And as a programmer I know it sucks and is difficult to make a good program, because no perfect program exists.. This is your job, don't like it, burger king is always just around the corner.

 

[stop!theradio]

In fact, it may do the opposite: For example, I rip all my purchased DVDs before watching them, so that I can skip that stupid FBI warning.

So you take an extra 10-20 mins of time to get rid of that FBI logo that takes 10 seconds to disappear?

 

[Miscommunication]

People shouldn't even contest (software) piracy anymore, if you start messing with the hardware then that's different in most cases, but that'll likely never happen for other reasons, etc.

As said before, and always, it'll be broken sooner than later. For all the thousands of employees out there at various companies who try, there's millions many more of who are against them. Not to mention that the techniques that these companies come up with are 90% of the time "child's play" compared to those who have moderate skills or higher in the real world. This is about as excepted as the sky is blue, I don't know why people/companies think otherwise .

Heck in many cases I think piracy does more good than it does harm, just another small thing that tries to keep corporations/companies in check.

 

[Grentz]

But, if it breaks it can make a machine nearly unusable. But, the biggest problem I have with it is that it forces inherently broken product on a consumer. I.

How so...it only prevents Windows Updates and downloading certain software packages from Microsoft's Site. Far from making a machine unusable.

Also, how does it force a broken product on the consumer? As I said all it does is validate the machine for updates and certain microsoft software. It does no more than that.

As to those saying WGA is cracked...yes it is. But it is a back and forth game that goes on monthly if not weekly between the crackers and microsoft. You have to keep getting new cracked versions of WGA as MS keeps updating it. This all makes it a lot more work for the pirates which in turn makes some not do it anymore (not ALL, but some).

Lets not forget that this is stealing and MS has every right to prevent their software from being stolen as does any other software company. It does not matter how big they are or how much you dislike them, stealing is stealing and if everyone stole it there would be no reason to even crack WGA, cause MS would no longer be around.

 

[Grentz]

Darn no post edit in this forum!

Wanted to add that it is true no anti-copy or lock program will ever be 100% sucessful IMO. As long as it is widely used there will always be some genious cracker out there who breaks through and cracks it. It happens with everything from game consoles, to phones, to software and will continue to happen for years to come.

 

[farfromhome]

How so...it only prevents Windows Updates and downloading certain software packages from Microsoft's Site. Far from making a machine unusable.

It's not quite that benign. I recently upgraded my motherboard (and pretty much everything else), so naturally Windows de-activated itself. I wanted to make sure I had everything new in place before reactivating XP, so I went past the 3-day time limit. It didn't merely prevent me from downloading updates; it prevented me from logging in again before reactivating.

I reinstalled Vista from scratch (now 64-bit instead of 32-bit ), so I didn't see what would happen there, but I've heard that it goes into "reduced functionality mode", basically just letting you on the Internet for 1 hour in order to reactivate, or, if necessarily, purchase a new key. Not sure if it lets you run any application other than IE or not.

I'd call MS' methods pretty draconian, and they can only get away with it due to their near-monopoly position. (Thank goodness I could play with Linux at will while waiting for my last components and reactivating.)

I'd have more sympathy for MS if every retail license was like Office [Home and] Student edition, allowing for 3 computers. Most computer enthusiasts have more than one, and pricing for home users gets pretty ridiculous, even for MS, if you do. One license for one machine is pure money-grubbing; one license per user (for however many machines they own) makes much more sense, even if it's harder to police.

Lets not forget that this is stealing and MS has every right to prevent their software from being stolen as does any other software company. It does not matter how big they are or how much you dislike them, stealing is stealing and if everyone stole it there would be no reason to even crack WGA, cause MS would no longer be around.

Oh please. You're talking about the richest software company in the world, who made it big when there was no competition (I'd call Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 their "greatest hits" in terms of taking away market share from competitors; everything after that was after they'd achieved total dominance). I don't buy for a second that MS would be gone, or even that they'd be significantly less profitable, if they didn't use copy protection. Most people buy anyway, either for moral reasons or because they simply get it with their computer. Most people do not build their own computers, or upgrade their perfectly working OS. MS got rich from OEM sales, not retail sales.

 

[farfromhome]

...made it big when there was no copy protection (as opposed to no competitors); fingers went faster than my brain there.

 

[Azhar]

... MS got rich from OEM sales, not retail sales.

actually they got rich off of business users, not home OEM sales.

But nevertheless you're correct in saying more home users get Windows bundled with their computers than buying Windows seperately.

 

[Grentz]

Lets break this down:

It's not quite that benign. I recently upgraded my motherboard (and pretty much everything else), so naturally Windows de-activated itself. I wanted to make sure I had everything new in place before reactivating XP, so I went past the 3-day time limit. It didn't merely prevent me from downloading updates; it prevented me from logging in again before reactivating.

I reinstalled Vista from scratch (now 64-bit instead of 32-bit ), so I didn't see what would happen there, but I've heard that it goes into "reduced functionality mode", basically just letting you on the Internet for 1 hour in order to reactivate, or, if necessarily, purchase a new key. Not sure if it lets you run any application other than IE or not.

I'd call MS' methods pretty draconian, and they can only get away with it due to their near-monopoly position. (Thank goodness I could play with Linux at will while waiting for my last components and reactivating.).

Sorry, didnt know we were talking about activation. Yes it will lock you out and ya it can be annoying but it does make sense. Many applications use the same idea of internet or phone activation. I have actually only seen windows deactivate itself a few times, and it is usually only when the bios is changed as that has the unique identifiers in it.

Its not like its an issue anyhow, you just reactivate and if you are at your limit, you call them up and they let you activate it

It is the same for Adobe Products, Antivirus Products, and many other software packages out there.

I'd have more sympathy for MS if every retail license was like Office [Home and] Student edition, allowing for 3 computers. Most computer enthusiasts have more than one, and pricing for home users gets pretty ridiculous, even for MS, if you do. One license for one machine is pure money-grubbing; one license per user (for however many machines they own) makes much more sense, even if it's harder to police.

I agree, it would be nice to allow multiple computers for one license. Sometimes I do this anyways with a single copy since you can activate it multiple times without issue...

Oh please. You're talking about the richest software company in the world, who made it big when there was no competition (I'd call Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 their "greatest hits" in terms of taking away market share from competitors; everything after that was after they'd achieved total dominance). I don't buy for a second that MS would be gone, or even that they'd be significantly less profitable, if they didn't use copy protection. Most people buy anyway, either for moral reasons or because they simply get it with their computer. Most people do not build their own computers, or upgrade their perfectly working OS. MS got rich from OEM sales, not retail sales.

You are correct, I was bring the hypothetical situation where EVERYONE used cracked copies. It would never happen, but hypothetically my point was still there.

and as I said, stealing is not anymore justified because it is a big company...Just because Best Buy is big you do not get to go in and steal products do you? Do you go and steal gas from Holiday cause they are so huge?

People get to into this downloading and cracked stuff thinking it is not as big of a deal cause you are not physically walking out of a store with it, but in reality it is the same thing. You are stealing and it is against the law just as much as shoplifting.

 

[Dan_D]

Many of you don't seem to understand the goal of copy protection software. It is designed to prevent casual copying from the average users. It does this, very easily. Most people won't bother doing the research needed to crack software and even if they did, many of those people won't understand the instructions or steps needed to crack the software.

The fact of the matter is, stopping the casual user from loaning copies of things to their neighbors and friends is what it's all about. It is about control of the problem, not elimination of it.

 

[Jester FPS]

While it's true WGA has been worked around, it's still a pain in the ass when it comes to updating Windows. If Bill thinks that he wins against piracy by blocking them from updates using WGA, then he's right to think that, unless people want to download updated pirated copies of Windows every month or so. lol

QFT, this is the main reason I've decided to just get legit copies from now on.

 

[Grentz]

Many of you don't seem to understand the goal of copy protection software. It is designed to prevent casual copying from the average users. It does this, very easily. Most people won't bother doing the research needed to crack software and even if they did, many of those people won't understand the instructions or steps needed to crack the software.

The fact of the matter is, stopping the casual user from loaning copies of things to their neighbors and friends is what it's all about. It is about control of the problem, not elimination of it.

Exactly. Same reason the RIAA makes HUGE media news and really makes examples out of people...it is for the scare factor and to make people think twice.

The idea is to keep everyone and their brother from copying, loaning, and stealing and so far it has worked very well. Most people have no idea how to go about installing windows let alone downloading and cracking it.

 

[farfromhome]

Sorry, didnt know we were talking about activation.

WGA and activation are pretty closely tied. If you fail WGA, don't you become de-activated? (I could be wrong here.) And yes, of course I expected it after the upgrade; it's still annoying though.

Many applications use the same idea of internet or phone activation...It is the same for Adobe Products, Antivirus Products, and many other software packages out there.

Except for big, expensive, professional applications that have little competition, not really. TurboTax tried and recanted after all the business it lost because of it. People will only put up with it if they have to.

Adobe products generally fit into the "big, expensive, professional, near-monopoly" category, and anti-virus products, for various reasons, are subscription services rather than normal software packages. Different ball of wax there. And even there, I'm sure lots of people use AVG because not just because it's free (as in beer), but because they don't have to worry about licensing issues (even if "normal" people might not term it as such).

Its not like its an issue anyhow, you just reactivate and if you are at your limit, you call them up and they let you activate it

And it's somehow a normal thing that you have to say "Mother may I?" to use software you purchased? Just because near-monopolies can get away with it does not make it normal, nor desirable.

and as I said, stealing is not anymore justified because it is a big company...Just because Best Buy is big you do not get to go in and steal products do you? Do you go and steal gas from Holiday cause they are so huge?

People get to into this downloading and cracked stuff thinking it is not as big of a deal cause you are not physically walking out of a store with it, but in reality it is the same thing. You are stealing and it is against the law just as much as shoplifting.

Ah, now we get to the real issue. What I don't like is making the issue all black and white (from either perspective, BTW, not just that one). Let's break this down.

(1) Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing a physical product, no matter how many times people say that it is. That does not make it right or wrong, but saying it is to fuel emotions, or from confusion, is incorrect and should stop. Stealing involves the loss of use of property. By its very nature, anything that can be copyrighted can be infinitely copied with no loss to anybody. (And no, opportunity cost is not a real cost.) In fact, that's one of the reasons that copyright exists, to place value on that which would otherwise have little due to the ease of copying. Burgling a physical product that prevents its use from somebody else is a very different matter, and should be treated as such.

(2) That said, the general copying of software is wrong and I do not support it. Not because "it's teh piracy", but because companies, large and small, do have a right to (try to) make a profit from their creations. And as you mentioned, if nobody payed for software, those companies would go out of business. (Not that software development would stop by any means; look at the open source movement. Commercial and non-commercial development can coexist though, and neither should use immoral means [read: patents on the other side] to try to stop the other.)

(3) Morality and legality are often two separate things. For example, I believe most EULA's to be profoundly immoral, as they are solely for the benefit of the company writing them. True, moral contracts must be negotiated by parties of equal power, as otherwise often there is no true ability of the weaker party to refrain from agreeing to a contract that is against his or her best interest due to coercion (sometimes direct, sometimes societal). Thus I do not see breaking of EULA's as immoral in any way, shape, or form. (In fact, for that very reason, many terms of EULA's would not hold up in court anyway, hence the severability clauses in almost all of them.) Immoral laws should be fought as much as possible, not brought up as justification for anything.

(4) So the true issue isn't that copying software is illegal, it is that it is immoral. Large-scale copying (as in torrenting or P2P of proprietary applications) is immoral regardless of any contracts, as that would indeed lead to the significant harm to the company if many people did it. On the other hand, small-scale copying often does no harm and can in fact help the company in question (i.e.: part of the reason I bought Borland compilers back in the day was because they were fine with treating software "like a book", and not strictly one-per-machine. Think also of network effects, part of how MS became so dominant in the first place when it was pirated like mad.) So it is not black-and-white by any means.

I don't usually like to write such long posts, but I don't like to see the same old one-sided arguments (from either side) being brought up as if they were facts. If the issue were that simple, either copyright law would have been rescinded, or many fewer people would break copyright (as most people are moral by nature and would not do anything grossly wrong in their eyes, therefore many, many people don't even see it as wrong, while they see stealing a physical product as wrong, or we'd have many times more burglars than we do).

 

[Exavior]

I'd have more sympathy for MS if every retail license was like Office [Home and] Student edition, allowing for 3 computers. Most computer enthusiasts have more than one, and pricing for home users gets pretty ridiculous, even for MS, if you do. One license for one machine is pure money-grubbing; one license per user (for however many machines they own) makes much more sense, even if it's harder to police.

Why, to make it easier for you to give it out to all your friends and family? For the average person the current scheme works just fine. As they purchase their pcs from dell, hp, gateway,... and it comes with a copy of windows. What about companies? Should be able to install 1 copy on 100,000 machines?

Its the same as any other software. You pay per install, not per machine or site. I can't go buy a game and put it on all my machines. I can't buy adobe software and put it on all my machines.

As for people owning more than 1 machine. How many machines do you build at one time? On top of that how much do you spend per build? For some people the cost of windows probably isn't the most expensive thing they put into the box. What about all your other software? Unless you are building yourself multiple machines at one time and using the lowest end parts you can get, the cost of windows isn't going to be that major compaired the everything else when you look at what you spent on all the other parts for all the machines combined.

If you don't like microsoft's pricing, then don't use their software. Go use linux and stick to free software, and pray that one day the linux developers & company will stop making excuses and actually make a free OS & set of programs that truely will be a full replacement for windows & commonly used programs in all ways, shapes, and forms.

 

[Grentz]

WGA and activation are pretty closely tied. If you fail WGA, don't you become de-activated? (I could be wrong here.) And yes, of course I expected it after the upgrade; it's still annoying though.



Except for big, expensive, professional applications that have little competition, not really. TurboTax tried and recanted after all the business it lost because of it. People will only put up with it if they have to.

Adobe products generally fit into the "big, expensive, professional, near-monopoly" category, and anti-virus products, for various reasons, are subscription services rather than normal software packages. Different ball of wax there. And even there, I'm sure lots of people use AVG because not just because it's free (as in beer), but because they don't have to worry about licensing issues (even if "normal" people might not term it as such).

Windows does not deactivate if you fail the WGA checks.

Many other small software companies use serial number internet activation. Not always as in depth as the bigger ones, but there are tons of pay for software packages out there from tiny companies that use serial activation. (FlashFXP is one I use everyday for example)

I get your point on the legal stuff, I just slim/dumb it down for ease of typing and explaination on the net Copyright and Physical stealing is very different and there are lots of complexities involved. I have actually talked a lot with some friends that work in the legal world (lawyers and law offices and such) and it gets very complex very quick, but at the same time is still it does come down to stealing which should be enough explaination to just say its not right.

Its sad that things to even be this detailed cause it comes down to a company selling a product and trying to get paid for the said product they made. I know of a few companies that have nearly or completely gone out of business from their product being distributed illegally and them not getting paid for the work they put in. Truely said stuff.

 

[Grentz]

and dang I hate not being able to edit my post to fix some of my spelling and writing mistakes!

 

[farfromhome]

Why, to make it easier for you to give it out to all your friends and family

So everybody that has multiple computers is just making excuses and really wants to give it to other people? Right. Back in college, I knew several people that copied lots of software for their friends. I'd always argue against it and tell them they're wrong. Much easier to feel sympathy for the companies when they actually trusted their customers rather than just assume they're ne'er-do-wells (just like you've done).

Should be able to install 1 copy on 100,000 machines?

If you own all 100,000 machines, yes. I see nothing morally wrong with that. After all, you can't use all 100,000 at once anyway.

As for people owning more than 1 machine. How many machines do you build at one time? On top of that how much do you spend per build?

I build only one at a time, but, space-permitting (which I don't have right now anyway, so it's all theoretical), I'd keep the old ones and repurpose them. When I had more space, I tended to have three at once.

For some people the cost of windows probably isn't the most expensive thing they put into the box. What about all your other software?

I use open-source software wherever possible, and most other software I use (other than MS Office and WordPerfect [which I actually like better]) is from small developers (think shareware, which I actually do register if I find it valuable enough) that have no problem with installing on multiple machines, as long as you use only one at a time.

Unless you are building yourself multiple machines at one time and using the lowest end parts you can get, the cost of windows isn't going to be that major compared the everything else when you look at what you spent on all the other parts for all the machines combined.

While that is true, it doesn't cost Microsoft (or any other software company) a dime, no matter how many computers a program is installed on. ASUS and eVGA have material costs; I'm sure they'd love to have a replicator to make copies of hardware at no incremental cost. (Note: I know that Microsoft has R/D and marketing costs, but you cannot compare that directly to costs per unit.)

If you don't like microsoft's pricing, then don't use their software. Go use linux and stick to free software, and pray that one day the linux developers & company will stop making excuses and actually make a free OS & set of programs that truly will be a full replacement for windows & commonly used programs in all ways, shapes, and forms.

Remember network effects? There is a reason that most games are made only for Windows, and it has nothing to do with the relative merits of DirectX vs OpenGL. That and software development are the only reasons I even really keep Windows around.

For most spheres, Linux is already a complete replacement. Perhaps not ready for the average Joe yet (it is improving every year), but close enough for most people who read the [H]. The only exceptions besides games that I can think of are specialized applications that are only written for Windows simply because it's the most popular platform (think network effects again).

I do, however, use Linux a lot when not gaming. In fact, I'm typing this in Linux right now. (Though lots of companies contribute to open source, there is no one Linux "company" to complain to, no matter how much Red Hat wishes it were so. )

 

[BladeVenom]

Many of you don't seem to understand the goal of copy protection software. It is designed to prevent casual copying from the average users. It does this, very easily. Most people won't bother doing the research needed to crack software and even if they did, many of those people won't understand the instructions or steps needed to crack the software.

Instead they can just buy a cracked version from a street corner vendor for $2. They've solved nothing.

Last time I heard, WGA problems affected legitimate purchasers more often than it stopped pirates. So when someone has problems with their legitimate version and then finds out that a pirated $2 version works when the legal $200 doesn't, it is only going to encourage more piracy.

The more copy protection they use the more people will love pirates. Pirates clean up starforce, and resolve Securom issues better than legitimate tech support.

 

[Shotglass01]

Its sad that things to even be this detailed cause it comes down to a company selling a product and trying to get paid for the said product they made. I know of a few companies that have nearly or completely gone out of business from their product being distributed illegally and them not getting paid for the work they put in. Truely said stuff.

I don't disagree with this, but I find it obtuse that the copy of a program I buy is laced with taint. I should not have to be the enforcer of copyright protection for their software. I should not need to call them if I install said software onto a new PC after removing it from an old one. My legal copy of Crysis on my legal copy of XP still occasionally says I need to insert the original disc instead of a backup. I could go get a DVD check free EXE for it, rendering their "protection" useless but have not.

I don't have an answer for them in trying to protect their products. I just strongly believe it should not be placed on the consumer to prove it.

 

[farfromhome]

One more thing though; to truly replace everything in Windows, you'd need more proprietary applications too; as I said, they can coexist just fine with open-source applications. Linux is stuck along with Apple in the catch-22 though, that until they have more market-share, companies aren't going to write as much software for it. But until they have more applications, there isn't going to be a huge exodus to them. Linux has more potential than Apple to get out of that catch-22 though, as it is both Free and free, lowering the barriers of entry to both users and developers (at least of the open-source persuasion, who cooperate with each other rather than compete with each other, so fewer are needed).

 

[farfromhome]

I don't disagree with this, but I find it obtuse that the copy of a program I buy is laced with taint. I should not have to be the enforcer of copyright protection for their software. I should not need to call them if I install said software onto a new PC after removing it from an old one. My legal copy of Crysis on my legal copy of XP still occasionally says I need to insert the original disc instead of a backup. I could go get a DVD check free EXE for it, rendering their "protection" useless but have not.

I don't have an answer for them in trying to protect their products. I just strongly believe it should not be placed on the consumer to prove it.

QFT.

 

[Dan_D]

Instead they can just buy a cracked version from a street corner vendor for $2. They've solved nothing.

Last time I heard, WGA problems affected legitimate purchasers more often than it stopped pirates. So when someone has problems with their legitimate version and then finds out that a pirated $2 version works when the legal $200 doesn't, it is only going to encourage more piracy.

The more copy protection they use the more people will love pirates. Pirates clean up starforce, and resolve Securom issues better than legitimate tech support.

Your avereage consumer doesn't know where to find illegal copies of anything. I don't know where you live but in Texas there aren't illegal software vendors on every corner. I only know of one place one time a month to get software that way. The Police routinely seem to crack down on those vendors too.

Also outside of one or two games I've rarely seen a legal copy of any software cause any major issues to the legal owner/user of the software. I think your perspective on the matter is way off base.

 

[jonneymendoza]

While it's true WGA has been worked around, it's still a pain in the ass when it comes to updating Windows. If Bill thinks that he wins against piracy by blocking them from updates using WGA, then he's right to think that, unless people want to download updated pirated copies of Windows every month or so. lol

you dont even need to crack wga on a ilegal copy of windows.

 

[Optimus]

What they aren't telling you in that article is that a majority of Windows users who see the screen that says "Your copy of Windows is illegitimate. Click here to buy a license," are too computer illiterate to realize that WGA just failed it's check and gave them a false negative.

Such users will purchase a new license, even though they already have a legitimate copy, because they either think that someone at Microsoft manually flagged their machine or they feel they have no recourse.

Vista has actually encouraged more piracy, but Microshaft doesn't know because their extortion racket has artificially inflated their accounting numbers.

 

[Azhar]

What they aren't telling you in that article is that a majority of Windows users who see the screen that says "Your copy of Windows is illegitimate. Click here to buy a license," are too computer illiterate to realize that WGA just failed it's check and gave them a false negative.

Such users will purchase a new license, even though they already have a legitimate copy, because they either think that someone at Microsoft manually flagged their machine or they feel they have no recourse.

Vista has actually encouraged more piracy, but Microshaft doesn't know because their extortion racket has artificially inflated their accounting numbers.

I'm fairly sure that WGA server failures do not constitute as exortion and racketeering. Servers fail from time to time. Microsoft also acknowledged to their customers that the servers failed and they're working on it. Nobody's been robbed of additional money. Get over it.