Re: Windows Genuine Advantage Notification (Windows Update #KB905474)says...

Stewart wrote:
> ...my copy of Windows is not genuine, and that I may be a victim of
> pirated software.
>
> Windows came with my HP computer last year. It has a certificate of
> authenticity and I seriously doubt HP is a pirate (even if this update
> suggests otherwise). Moreover, this copy of Windows has be validated
> several times before (when downloading software from Microsoft's web
> site, for example), without any problems whatsoever.
>
> I have tried several of the suggestions on the Windows Genuine
> Advantage Talkback forum at...
>
> http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/...=125&SiteID=25
>
> I have went to www.microsoft.com/genuine to revalidate, with no
> success. I have also tried the MGA Diagnostic Tool, which resulted in
> a bunch of garbage without any solution offered. I was going to post a
> copy of the results to the WGA Validation Problems forum at...
>
> http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/...aspx?SiteID=25
>
> ...but it appears I have to sign up to something to access that
> forum (a lot of talk about Windows Passport, Hotmail, and more) and
> provide even more information about my computer for Microsoft to screw
> up. Since I would rather not do all that, I'm instead sitting at my
> computer in a really ****ed off mood, with not a clue what to do next.
>
> At the same time, my copy of Office XP is also now saying it is not
> a genuine copy, which may or may not be related to this Windows update
> (the update doesn't say anything about Office, but this started at the
> same time). I purchased Office XP from a military PX several years ago
> (the military is also not likely a pirate, in spite of what this
> update suggests), and it has also been validated numerous times before
> (to download updates and additions from Microsoft's web site).
>
> As I said, I'm in a really ****ed off mood. I really don't need this
> hassle in my life at the moment. So, instead of doing anything else to
> fix this, I'm not doing another thing. If Microsoft can screw up my
> computer with an update, they can just as easily fix it with an
> update. And I damn sure expect them to do so soon. If I'm deprived of
> the use of my computer for one moment because of this garbage, or am
> forced to continuing seeing bs messages all over my computer each time
> I use it, I'm going to look into the possibility of taking Microsoft
> to the German equivalent of the American small claims court.
>
> stewart

Try using System Restore to restore your computer to a date prior to the
"update".

Once again, folks, WGA screws paying customers and doesn't affect the
pirates one iota. I guess it's time to take the Linux plunge.

Alias

Alias wrote:
<snip>
> Once again, folks, WGA screws paying customers and doesn't affect
> the pirates one iota. I guess it's time to take the Linux plunge.

I do have to ask, as I have been curious for a while..

How does anyone know it does not affect the "pirates one iota"?

One cannot assume it does not affect the pirates just because:

- "the pirates" don't come post here complaining (although - quite a few
of these posts do begin with "I am using the corporate Windows XP" or "I
borrowed my friends CD to upgrade" or such - not this one in particular -
but there are a fair number.)
- piracy levels (which I would like to know where these accurate counts
come from!) have or have not reduced
- there are cracks released within days (hours) of each rendition of the
patch

While it is easy to assume that the true "software pirate" remains
unaffected (as they have the skills to avoid any issues you would think - as
they are probably the one writing the cracks and such) - there are probably
many others that are using "pirated software" that know they are using
pirated software that got said pirated software from friends/family members
and have not one clue how to download/find said cracks.

Is that number small? Maybe - hard to gauge.
Is the number of people actually using pirated software large? Maybe - I
would venture to say that is hard to gauge as well - because if it was easy
to gauge - well - it would be easy to counter too, eh?

While it would be fair to say that this is affecting some well-intentioned
paying customers as well as some pirates - I do not think you can say it is
not affecting the pirates with much confidence.

Personally - on the issue of whether or not Microsoft should be doing
something like this - I could care less. It is their product they are
selling - their good/bad choices are their own to make. They will have to
deal with the results of said choices. (Although you may argue that some
small resellers and perhaps even large ones have to deal with it too, in
the end - Microsoft is the one that deals with it because said small and
large resellers may just choose to use *nix and open office on their next
personally-sold set of PCs.. For the short term - yep, annoying as hell to
more than just those who the mechanism is supposedly setup to annoy. For
the long term - if you can predict the future, I need more money - give me a
stock tip.)

My reason for interjecting is that I think if one is going to complain - one
should complain properly. There is no proof that it is not affecting
"pirates one iota" because these are not exactly a set of people you can
poll easily (since you may not know who they are) and you can find many
posts in these newsgroups and forums like it all over the internet that have
people either saying "I knew I was using an illegitimate copy of Windows
XP - but I let it go until now - how can I get rid of this message?" or
"Hey - anyone know where I can find the crack for the latest release?"

A true software pirate may be unaffected. The people who initially released
the pirated versions and/or those who know how to quietly stay in the
background and get what they need to continue working along may be fine.
However - those are not the only software pirates out there. There are
those who know almost nothing about computers, but know their frioend or
cousin charlie installed Windows XP on their machine and they never paid for
it. There are those who did it because at the time, they just didn't have
the money and they knew the right people. There are those who did not even
know their OEM sold them a pirated version (the truly innocent software
pirate - they do exist and I do have empathy for them - just like anyone
else who gets taken in the many other ways possible out there in the real
world.)

So say, "Why should honest people who have proof they paid for the software
they are being told they did not pay for have to suffer when many software
pirates (who are the target of said actions) will just download the latest
crack and move on?" That is fairly accurate. Saying that it has no affect
on pirates is a guess.

Also - I truly want to know where people get their "piracy numbers" from. I
have seen it thrown out that piracy has "decreased/increased since the early
'90s" (depending on which side of the argument presents it) and I have to
ask - how do we know that? Wouldn't one have to report that they were using
the software without paying in an open and representative poll of the planet
in order to get such information? Numbers are great - they can be bent to
anyone's will I suppose!

I don't care about either fanatical side's agendas (the super-microsoft
conformists or the anti-microsoft pushers) - I just want to know where
someone - anyone - actually collects these numbers and how they can say they
are valid representations of.. well - anything.

Yes - it sucks when good people get caught up in implementations meant to
protect someone elses interests.. But there is no reason to go to an
extreme opposite (when you cannot prove that extreme opposite) to make your
point either.

--
Shenan Stanley
--

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Alias wrote:
> <snip>
>> Once again, folks, WGA screws paying customers and doesn't affect
>> the pirates one iota. I guess it's time to take the Linux plunge.
>
> I do have to ask, as I have been curious for a while..
>
> How does anyone know it does not affect the "pirates one iota"?

My ISP has a private Usenet. The cracks are posted one day after the
WGAs are released is how I know. They are also posted on non MS Usenet
groups.

>
> One cannot assume it does not affect the pirates just because:
>
> - "the pirates" don't come post here complaining (although - quite a few
> of these posts do begin with "I am using the corporate Windows XP" or "I
> borrowed my friends CD to upgrade" or such - not this one in particular -
> but there are a fair number.)

Not my source. See above.

> - piracy levels (which I would like to know where these accurate counts
> come from!) have or have not reduced

You do know that MS made billions with 9x and NT prior to WPA and WGA.
In fact, despite piracy, those "unprotected" OSs made MS one of the
richest companies in the world and its CEO THE richest man in the world.

> - there are cracks released within days (hours) of each rendition of the
> patch

See above.
>
> While it is easy to assume that the true "software pirate" remains
> unaffected (as they have the skills to avoid any issues you would think - as
> they are probably the one writing the cracks and such) - there are probably
> many others that are using "pirated software" that know they are using
> pirated software that got said pirated software from friends/family members
> and have not one clue how to download/find said cracks.

They usually have a friend who does.
>
> Is that number small? Maybe - hard to gauge.
> Is the number of people actually using pirated software large? Maybe - I
> would venture to say that is hard to gauge as well - because if it was easy
> to gauge - well - it would be easy to counter too, eh?

According to MS, they lose billions to piracy. I think they're wrong.
>
> While it would be fair to say that this is affecting some well-intentioned
> paying customers as well as some pirates - I do not think you can say it is
> not affecting the pirates with much confidence.

See above.
>
> Personally - on the issue of whether or not Microsoft should be doing
> something like this - I could care less. It is their product they are
> selling - their good/bad choices are their own to make. They will have to
> deal with the results of said choices. (Although you may argue that some
> small resellers and perhaps even large ones have to deal with it too, in
> the end - Microsoft is the one that deals with it because said small and
> large resellers may just choose to use *nix and open office on their next
> personally-sold set of PCs.. For the short term - yep, annoying as hell to
> more than just those who the mechanism is supposedly setup to annoy. For
> the long term - if you can predict the future, I need more money - give me a
> stock tip.)

I personally think this trend will mark the end for MS. I never wanted
to have to go through the Linux learning curve, but now I will.
>
> My reason for interjecting is that I think if one is going to complain - one
> should complain properly. There is no proof that it is not affecting
> "pirates one iota" because these are not exactly a set of people you can
> poll easily (since you may not know who they are) and you can find many
> posts in these newsgroups and forums like it all over the internet that have
> people either saying "I knew I was using an illegitimate copy of Windows
> XP - but I let it go until now - how can I get rid of this message?" or
> "Hey - anyone know where I can find the crack for the latest release?"

If you want the cracks, they are available.
>
> A true software pirate may be unaffected. The people who initially released
> the pirated versions and/or those who know how to quietly stay in the
> background and get what they need to continue working along may be fine.
> However - those are not the only software pirates out there. There are
> those who know almost nothing about computers, but know their frioend or
> cousin charlie installed Windows XP on their machine and they never paid for
> it. There are those who did it because at the time, they just didn't have
> the money and they knew the right people. There are those who did not even
> know their OEM sold them a pirated version (the truly innocent software
> pirate - they do exist and I do have empathy for them - just like anyone
> else who gets taken in the many other ways possible out there in the real
> world.)

I worked on a machine owned by a person who didn't know how to make a
new folder, a total newbie. He did, however, know how to pick up the
phone and order a copy of W2K from his favorite pirate.
>
> So say, "Why should honest people who have proof they paid for the software
> they are being told they did not pay for have to suffer when many software
> pirates (who are the target of said actions) will just download the latest
> crack and move on?" That is fairly accurate. Saying that it has no affect
> on pirates is a guess.

If you say so. My experience says differently
>
> Also - I truly want to know where people get their "piracy numbers" from. I
> have seen it thrown out that piracy has "decreased/increased since the early
> '90s" (depending on which side of the argument presents it) and I have to
> ask - how do we know that? Wouldn't one have to report that they were using
> the software without paying in an open and representative poll of the planet
> in order to get such information? Numbers are great - they can be bent to
> anyone's will I suppose!

Each country has a different situation. In China, for example, you would
be hard pressed to find someone with legit software of any flavor.
>
> I don't care about either fanatical side's agendas (the super-microsoft
> conformists or the anti-microsoft pushers) - I just want to know where
> someone - anyone - actually collects these numbers and how they can say they
> are valid representations of.. well - anything.
>
> Yes - it sucks when good people get caught up in implementations meant to
> protect someone elses interests.. But there is no reason to go to an
> extreme opposite (when you cannot prove that extreme opposite) to make your
> point either.
>

If someone thinks that someone else is stealing from them, they should
call the appropriate law enforcement authorities, not force their paying
customers to help them catch a thief by forcing them to install spyware
on their machines. Period.

Alias

Well, to cap off an equivalent analogy, because people steal cars did NOT
make my dealership the last time I visited, render my ignition key
inoperative until the dealer replaced it weeks later with one that worked.

Doc H.

"Alias" wrote:

> Shenan Stanley wrote:
> > Alias wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Once again, folks, WGA screws paying customers and doesn't affect
> >> the pirates one iota. I guess it's time to take the Linux plunge.
> >
> > I do have to ask, as I have been curious for a while..
> >
> > How does anyone know it does not affect the "pirates one iota"?
>
> My ISP has a private Usenet. The cracks are posted one day after the
> WGAs are released is how I know. They are also posted on non MS Usenet
> groups.
>
> >
> > One cannot assume it does not affect the pirates just because:
> >
> > - "the pirates" don't come post here complaining (although - quite a few
> > of these posts do begin with "I am using the corporate Windows XP" or "I
> > borrowed my friends CD to upgrade" or such - not this one in particular -
> > but there are a fair number.)
>
> Not my source. See above.
>
> > - piracy levels (which I would like to know where these accurate counts
> > come from!) have or have not reduced
>
> You do know that MS made billions with 9x and NT prior to WPA and WGA.
> In fact, despite piracy, those "unprotected" OSs made MS one of the
> richest companies in the world and its CEO THE richest man in the world.
>
> > - there are cracks released within days (hours) of each rendition of the
> > patch
>
> See above.
> >
> > While it is easy to assume that the true "software pirate" remains
> > unaffected (as they have the skills to avoid any issues you would think - as
> > they are probably the one writing the cracks and such) - there are probably
> > many others that are using "pirated software" that know they are using
> > pirated software that got said pirated software from friends/family members
> > and have not one clue how to download/find said cracks.
>
> They usually have a friend who does.
> >
> > Is that number small? Maybe - hard to gauge.
> > Is the number of people actually using pirated software large? Maybe - I
> > would venture to say that is hard to gauge as well - because if it was easy
> > to gauge - well - it would be easy to counter too, eh?
>
> According to MS, they lose billions to piracy. I think they're wrong.
> >
> > While it would be fair to say that this is affecting some well-intentioned
> > paying customers as well as some pirates - I do not think you can say it is
> > not affecting the pirates with much confidence.
>
> See above.
> >
> > Personally - on the issue of whether or not Microsoft should be doing
> > something like this - I could care less. It is their product they are
> > selling - their good/bad choices are their own to make. They will have to
> > deal with the results of said choices. (Although you may argue that some
> > small resellers and perhaps even large ones have to deal with it too, in
> > the end - Microsoft is the one that deals with it because said small and
> > large resellers may just choose to use *nix and open office on their next
> > personally-sold set of PCs.. For the short term - yep, annoying as hell to
> > more than just those who the mechanism is supposedly setup to annoy. For
> > the long term - if you can predict the future, I need more money - give me a
> > stock tip.)
>
> I personally think this trend will mark the end for MS. I never wanted
> to have to go through the Linux learning curve, but now I will.
> >
> > My reason for interjecting is that I think if one is going to complain - one
> > should complain properly. There is no proof that it is not affecting
> > "pirates one iota" because these are not exactly a set of people you can
> > poll easily (since you may not know who they are) and you can find many
> > posts in these newsgroups and forums like it all over the internet that have
> > people either saying "I knew I was using an illegitimate copy of Windows
> > XP - but I let it go until now - how can I get rid of this message?" or
> > "Hey - anyone know where I can find the crack for the latest release?"
>
> If you want the cracks, they are available.
> >
> > A true software pirate may be unaffected. The people who initially released
> > the pirated versions and/or those who know how to quietly stay in the
> > background and get what they need to continue working along may be fine.
> > However - those are not the only software pirates out there. There are
> > those who know almost nothing about computers, but know their frioend or
> > cousin charlie installed Windows XP on their machine and they never paid for
> > it. There are those who did it because at the time, they just didn't have
> > the money and they knew the right people. There are those who did not even
> > know their OEM sold them a pirated version (the truly innocent software
> > pirate - they do exist and I do have empathy for them - just like anyone
> > else who gets taken in the many other ways possible out there in the real
> > world.)
>
> I worked on a machine owned by a person who didn't know how to make a
> new folder, a total newbie. He did, however, know how to pick up the
> phone and order a copy of W2K from his favorite pirate.
> >
> > So say, "Why should honest people who have proof they paid for the software
> > they are being told they did not pay for have to suffer when many software
> > pirates (who are the target of said actions) will just download the latest
> > crack and move on?" That is fairly accurate. Saying that it has no affect
> > on pirates is a guess.
>
> If you say so. My experience says differently
> >
> > Also - I truly want to know where people get their "piracy numbers" from. I
> > have seen it thrown out that piracy has "decreased/increased since the early
> > '90s" (depending on which side of the argument presents it) and I have to
> > ask - how do we know that? Wouldn't one have to report that they were using
> > the software without paying in an open and representative poll of the planet
> > in order to get such information? Numbers are great - they can be bent to
> > anyone's will I suppose!
>
> Each country has a different situation. In China, for example, you would
> be hard pressed to find someone with legit software of any flavor.
> >
> > I don't care about either fanatical side's agendas (the super-microsoft
> > conformists or the anti-microsoft pushers) - I just want to know where
> > someone - anyone - actually collects these numbers and how they can say they
> > are valid representations of.. well - anything.
> >
> > Yes - it sucks when good people get caught up in implementations meant to
> > protect someone elses interests.. But there is no reason to go to an
> > extreme opposite (when you cannot prove that extreme opposite) to make your
> > point either.
> >
>
> If someone thinks that someone else is stealing from them, they should
> call the appropriate law enforcement authorities, not force their paying
> customers to help them catch a thief by forcing them to install spyware
> on their machines. Period.
>
> Alias
>

People that make such extreme statements are wrong in this case.
Just like other all inclusive statements such as "always", "never","doesn't
affect the pirates one iota."
Such statements are usually false.

The proof is in the posts in the newsgroups.
You have seen post from people who find out they were unknowingly sold
pirate Windows.
Others have a friend do them a favour and install their copy often not
knowing it is a license violation.
These are common cases where the computer owner wants to make it right even
if it costs.
Some people just want to do what is right.

But if by pirates you discount the casual pirates and only include the
determined thieves, the statement is true.
Just like other information, you can skew the results by ignoring relevant
groups.
Since SP-1 came out, the unwitting victims as well as casual pirates are the
ones wanting to make it right and often do so when they find the truth.

None of the anti piracy measures were intended to stop the determined
thieves.
So you could legitimately discount that group.
An interesting statistic would be what % of casual pirates and victims of
fraudulent sales go legitimate when they find out what they have?
A difficult if not impossible statistic to get accurately.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Shenan Stanley" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Alias wrote:
> <snip>
>> Once again, folks, WGA screws paying customers and doesn't affect
>> the pirates one iota. I guess it's time to take the Linux plunge.
>
> I do have to ask, as I have been curious for a while..
>
> How does anyone know it does not affect the "pirates one iota"?
>
> One cannot assume it does not affect the pirates just because:
>
> - "the pirates" don't come post here complaining (although - quite a few
> of these posts do begin with "I am using the corporate Windows XP" or "I
> borrowed my friends CD to upgrade" or such - not this one in particular -
> but there are a fair number.)
> - piracy levels (which I would like to know where these accurate counts
> come from!) have or have not reduced
> - there are cracks released within days (hours) of each rendition of the
> patch
>
> While it is easy to assume that the true "software pirate" remains
> unaffected (as they have the skills to avoid any issues you would think -
> as they are probably the one writing the cracks and such) - there are
> probably many others that are using "pirated software" that know they are
> using pirated software that got said pirated software from friends/family
> members and have not one clue how to download/find said cracks.
>
> Is that number small? Maybe - hard to gauge.
> Is the number of people actually using pirated software large? Maybe - I
> would venture to say that is hard to gauge as well - because if it was
> easy to gauge - well - it would be easy to counter too, eh?
>
> While it would be fair to say that this is affecting some well-intentioned
> paying customers as well as some pirates - I do not think you can say it
> is not affecting the pirates with much confidence.
>
> Personally - on the issue of whether or not Microsoft should be doing
> something like this - I could care less. It is their product they are
> selling - their good/bad choices are their own to make. They will have to
> deal with the results of said choices. (Although you may argue that some
> small resellers and perhaps even large ones have to deal with it too, in
> the end - Microsoft is the one that deals with it because said small and
> large resellers may just choose to use *nix and open office on their next
> personally-sold set of PCs.. For the short term - yep, annoying as hell
> to more than just those who the mechanism is supposedly setup to annoy.
> For the long term - if you can predict the future, I need more money -
> give me a stock tip.)
>
> My reason for interjecting is that I think if one is going to complain -
> one should complain properly. There is no proof that it is not affecting
> "pirates one iota" because these are not exactly a set of people you can
> poll easily (since you may not know who they are) and you can find many
> posts in these newsgroups and forums like it all over the internet that
> have people either saying "I knew I was using an illegitimate copy of
> Windows XP - but I let it go until now - how can I get rid of this
> message?" or "Hey - anyone know where I can find the crack for the latest
> release?"
>
> A true software pirate may be unaffected. The people who initially
> released the pirated versions and/or those who know how to quietly stay in
> the background and get what they need to continue working along may be
> fine. However - those are not the only software pirates out there. There
> are those who know almost nothing about computers, but know their frioend
> or cousin charlie installed Windows XP on their machine and they never
> paid for it. There are those who did it because at the time, they just
> didn't have the money and they knew the right people. There are those who
> did not even know their OEM sold them a pirated version (the truly
> innocent software pirate - they do exist and I do have empathy for them -
> just like anyone else who gets taken in the many other ways possible out
> there in the real world.)
>
> So say, "Why should honest people who have proof they paid for the
> software they are being told they did not pay for have to suffer when many
> software pirates (who are the target of said actions) will just download
> the latest crack and move on?" That is fairly accurate. Saying that it
> has no affect on pirates is a guess.
>
> Also - I truly want to know where people get their "piracy numbers" from.
> I have seen it thrown out that piracy has "decreased/increased since the
> early '90s" (depending on which side of the argument presents it) and I
> have to ask - how do we know that? Wouldn't one have to report that they
> were using the software without paying in an open and representative poll
> of the planet in order to get such information? Numbers are great - they
> can be bent to anyone's will I suppose!
>
> I don't care about either fanatical side's agendas (the super-microsoft
> conformists or the anti-microsoft pushers) - I just want to know where
> someone - anyone - actually collects these numbers and how they can say
> they are valid representations of.. well - anything.
>
> Yes - it sucks when good people get caught up in implementations meant to
> protect someone elses interests.. But there is no reason to go to an
> extreme opposite (when you cannot prove that extreme opposite) to make
> your point either.
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 08:43:02 -0700, Al wrote:

> Well, to cap off an equivalent analogy, because people steal cars did NOT
> make my dealership the last time I visited, render my ignition key
> inoperative until the dealer replaced it weeks later with one that worked.
>
> Doc H.
>
It's more like adulterating the gas of drive-away self-service suspects.
Very annoying if you went in and paid instead of taking off without paying.
That's not an exact analogy, because filling up on a different OS will run
your computer. You'd have to figure out how to use the new fuel, though.

You own the computer. Microsoft owns the operating system. If they're
inclined to motivate you to try alternatives, you may choose to decline
or accept. Creatives like OS-X. Geeks like Linux. Everybody else groans
and goes along with the less expensive (money + time) Redmond alternative.

I think the main frustration is not the concept. Bravo MS for trying to
protect their copyright. The frustration is that the "update" misidentifies
legitimate users (apparently many) - users who purchased valid retail copies
of genuine MS software, hologram and all, causing effort and loss of time for
this group, myself included. I'm not worth $28B, but my time is worth
something, and MS has "stolen" that from me, through no fault of my own. I
bill clients for that; a lot. I'm a long-time user of MS software and
products (decades), and a fan of their innovation. I'm as interested in MS
in getting value for my efforts, and being reimbursed for time I spend on
someone else's behalf - in this case, getting software to work as advertised
on my personnel system. In no other industry product are flaws so tolerated
as in the software industry. The moral is: get it right before you hit the
"release" button, and you'll save a lot in PR. A lot rides on software MS
produces, including the "updates," software is their business. Get it
right.

Doc H.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:

> People that make such extreme statements are wrong in this case.
> Just like other all inclusive statements such as "always", "never","doesn't
> affect the pirates one iota."
> Such statements are usually false.
>
> The proof is in the posts in the newsgroups.
> You have seen post from people who find out they were unknowingly sold
> pirate Windows.
> Others have a friend do them a favour and install their copy often not
> knowing it is a license violation.
> These are common cases where the computer owner wants to make it right even
> if it costs.
> Some people just want to do what is right.
>
> But if by pirates you discount the casual pirates and only include the
> determined thieves, the statement is true.
> Just like other information, you can skew the results by ignoring relevant
> groups.
> Since SP-1 came out, the unwitting victims as well as casual pirates are the
> ones wanting to make it right and often do so when they find the truth.
>
> None of the anti piracy measures were intended to stop the determined
> thieves.
> So you could legitimately discount that group.
> An interesting statistic would be what % of casual pirates and victims of
> fraudulent sales go legitimate when they find out what they have?
> A difficult if not impossible statistic to get accurately.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Shenan Stanley" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Alias wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Once again, folks, WGA screws paying customers and doesn't affect
> >> the pirates one iota. I guess it's time to take the Linux plunge.
> >
> > I do have to ask, as I have been curious for a while..
> >
> > How does anyone know it does not affect the "pirates one iota"?
> >
> > One cannot assume it does not affect the pirates just because:
> >
> > - "the pirates" don't come post here complaining (although - quite a few
> > of these posts do begin with "I am using the corporate Windows XP" or "I
> > borrowed my friends CD to upgrade" or such - not this one in particular -
> > but there are a fair number.)
> > - piracy levels (which I would like to know where these accurate counts
> > come from!) have or have not reduced
> > - there are cracks released within days (hours) of each rendition of the
> > patch
> >
> > While it is easy to assume that the true "software pirate" remains
> > unaffected (as they have the skills to avoid any issues you would think -
> > as they are probably the one writing the cracks and such) - there are
> > probably many others that are using "pirated software" that know they are
> > using pirated software that got said pirated software from friends/family
> > members and have not one clue how to download/find said cracks.
> >
> > Is that number small? Maybe - hard to gauge.
> > Is the number of people actually using pirated software large? Maybe - I
> > would venture to say that is hard to gauge as well - because if it was
> > easy to gauge - well - it would be easy to counter too, eh?
> >
> > While it would be fair to say that this is affecting some well-intentioned
> > paying customers as well as some pirates - I do not think you can say it
> > is not affecting the pirates with much confidence.
> >
> > Personally - on the issue of whether or not Microsoft should be doing
> > something like this - I could care less. It is their product they are
> > selling - their good/bad choices are their own to make. They will have to
> > deal with the results of said choices. (Although you may argue that some
> > small resellers and perhaps even large ones have to deal with it too, in
> > the end - Microsoft is the one that deals with it because said small and
> > large resellers may just choose to use *nix and open office on their next
> > personally-sold set of PCs.. For the short term - yep, annoying as hell
> > to more than just those who the mechanism is supposedly setup to annoy.
> > For the long term - if you can predict the future, I need more money -
> > give me a stock tip.)
> >
> > My reason for interjecting is that I think if one is going to complain -
> > one should complain properly. There is no proof that it is not affecting
> > "pirates one iota" because these are not exactly a set of people you can
> > poll easily (since you may not know who they are) and you can find many
> > posts in these newsgroups and forums like it all over the internet that
> > have people either saying "I knew I was using an illegitimate copy of
> > Windows XP - but I let it go until now - how can I get rid of this
> > message?" or "Hey - anyone know where I can find the crack for the latest
> > release?"
> >
> > A true software pirate may be unaffected. The people who initially
> > released the pirated versions and/or those who know how to quietly stay in
> > the background and get what they need to continue working along may be
> > fine. However - those are not the only software pirates out there. There
> > are those who know almost nothing about computers, but know their frioend
> > or cousin charlie installed Windows XP on their machine and they never
> > paid for it. There are those who did it because at the time, they just
> > didn't have the money and they knew the right people. There are those who
> > did not even know their OEM sold them a pirated version (the truly
> > innocent software pirate - they do exist and I do have empathy for them -
> > just like anyone else who gets taken in the many other ways possible out
> > there in the real world.)
> >
> > So say, "Why should honest people who have proof they paid for the
> > software they are being told they did not pay for have to suffer when many
> > software pirates (who are the target of said actions) will just download
> > the latest crack and move on?" That is fairly accurate. Saying that it
> > has no affect on pirates is a guess.
> >
> > Also - I truly want to know where people get their "piracy numbers" from.
> > I have seen it thrown out that piracy has "decreased/increased since the
> > early '90s" (depending on which side of the argument presents it) and I
> > have to ask - how do we know that? Wouldn't one have to report that they
> > were using the software without paying in an open and representative poll
> > of the planet in order to get such information? Numbers are great - they
> > can be bent to anyone's will I suppose!
> >
> > I don't care about either fanatical side's agendas (the super-microsoft
> > conformists or the anti-microsoft pushers) - I just want to know where
> > someone - anyone - actually collects these numbers and how they can say
> > they are valid representations of.. well - anything.
> >
> > Yes - it sucks when good people get caught up in implementations meant to
> > protect someone elses interests.. But there is no reason to go to an
> > extreme opposite (when you cannot prove that extreme opposite) to make
> > your point either.
> >
> > --
> > Shenan Stanley
>
>
>

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> People that make such extreme statements are wrong in this case.
> Just like other all inclusive statements such as "always", "never","doesn't
> affect the pirates one iota."
> Such statements are usually false.

And the Jupiter goes on to say how it's true:

> The proof is in the posts in the newsgroups.
> You have seen post from people who find out they were unknowingly sold
> pirate Windows.
> Others have a friend do them a favour and install their copy often not
> knowing it is a license violation.
> These are common cases where the computer owner wants to make it right even
> if it costs.
> Some people just want to do what is right.

If a person suspects that their copy of XP is not genuine, they can put
it in an envelop and send it to MS for inspection. There is no need to
subject people who have a genuine copy to this nonsense.

> But if by pirates you discount the casual pirates and only include the
> determined thieves, the statement is true.

Of course! I didn't say "casual pirates", I said PIRATES!

Alias

Alias wrote:
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>> People that make such extreme statements are wrong in this case.
>> Just like other all inclusive statements such as "always",
>> "never","doesn't affect the pirates one iota."
>> Such statements are usually false.
>
> And the Jupiter goes on to say how it's true:
>
>> The proof is in the posts in the newsgroups.
>> You have seen post from people who find out they were unknowingly
>> sold pirate Windows.
>> Others have a friend do them a favour and install their copy often
>> not knowing it is a license violation.
>> These are common cases where the computer owner wants to make it
>> right even if it costs.
>> Some people just want to do what is right.
>
> If a person suspects that their copy of XP is not genuine, they can
> put it in an envelop and send it to MS for inspection. There is no
> need to subject people who have a genuine copy to this nonsense.
>
>> But if by pirates you discount the casual pirates and only include
>> the determined thieves, the statement is true.
>
> Of course! I didn't say "casual pirates", I said PIRATES!

hahah

"If a person suspects that their copy of XP is not genuine, they can put it
in an envelop and send it to MS for inspection."

That's funny - because it is not human nature and because why would they
suspect in most cases - ever? If it is working without trouble - most
casual users (even if they consider themselves 'heavy users') will never
know whether or not their copy is genuine. Even if they found out it wasn't
and there were no consequences that they understood - it is doubtful most
would ever do anything as long as they could use their computer as they
wanted without interruption. Not to mention that someone could have a
legitimate CD and not have a legitimate CD key to go with that CD. Many do
not feel that they are using something without permissionwhen it comes to
software - because it is intangible to them.

Ignorance should never be an excuse. I have met many "casual" pirates. Go
to a college campus - you'll meet a few hundred too. Most of them know they
are pirating, many assume that when their friend/family member installed
that "special" Windows XP - and didn't use their CD key to do it - that it
was not legit.. etc. But their stuff works - must be fine. I consider them
"casual pirates" - because they are not selling the software to anyone -
they are using it for their own needs, etc. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be
****ed if I noticed they borrowed my shoes from my closet and used them the
same way. heh

Personally - I think the problem is in the approach.. Just like the approach
most have for spyware still - and many people have for securing systems as
well. It's better to prevent it altogether from the beginning than to try
and correct for it later. Correcting for it later just causes issues like
the ones we are seeing.

In other words - trying to catch everyone now seems dumb - you let the air
out of the balloon - you are not getting all that same air back in and you
will likely get air in it you did not intend. If you want to secure your
product - do it from the beginning. Maybe you couldn't, and that is too
bad - concentrate on the future and do it right next time. Don't take the
risk on punishing the good as well as the bad - when the bad will likely
circumvent whatever you do anyway. Just make it harder NEXT time - so that
only a select few can "do you wrong".

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
>>> People that make such extreme statements are wrong in this case.
>>> Just like other all inclusive statements such as "always",
>>> "never","doesn't affect the pirates one iota."
>>> Such statements are usually false.
>> And the Jupiter goes on to say how it's true:
>>
>>> The proof is in the posts in the newsgroups.
>>> You have seen post from people who find out they were unknowingly
>>> sold pirate Windows.
>>> Others have a friend do them a favour and install their copy often
>>> not knowing it is a license violation.
>>> These are common cases where the computer owner wants to make it
>>> right even if it costs.
>>> Some people just want to do what is right.
>> If a person suspects that their copy of XP is not genuine, they can
>> put it in an envelop and send it to MS for inspection. There is no
>> need to subject people who have a genuine copy to this nonsense.
>>
>>> But if by pirates you discount the casual pirates and only include
>>> the determined thieves, the statement is true.
>> Of course! I didn't say "casual pirates", I said PIRATES!
>
> hahah
>
> "If a person suspects that their copy of XP is not genuine, they can put it
> in an envelop and send it to MS for inspection."
>
> That's funny - because it is not human nature and because why would they
> suspect in most cases - ever? If it is working without trouble - most
> casual users (even if they consider themselves 'heavy users') will never
> know whether or not their copy is genuine. Even if they found out it wasn't
> and there were no consequences that they understood - it is doubtful most
> would ever do anything as long as they could use their computer as they
> wanted without interruption. Not to mention that someone could have a
> legitimate CD and not have a legitimate CD key to go with that CD. Many do
> not feel that they are using something without permission when it comes to
> software - because it is intangible to them.

So, I guess old Jupiter was wrong when he stated that people want to
know if their copy is genuine or not. There goes that theory: out the
Windows.

>
> Ignorance should never be an excuse. I have met many "casual" pirates. Go
> to a college campus - you'll meet a few hundred too. Most of them know they
> are pirating, many assume that when their friend/family member installed
> that "special" Windows XP - and didn't use their CD key to do it - that it
> was not legit.. etc. But their stuff works - must be fine. I consider them
> "casual pirates" - because they are not selling the software to anyone -
> they are using it for their own needs, etc. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be
> ****ed if I noticed they borrowed my shoes from my closet and used them the
> same way. heh
>
> Personally - I think the problem is in the approach.. Just like the approach
> most have for spyware still - and many people have for securing systems as
> well. It's better to prevent it altogether from the beginning than to try
> and correct for it later. Correcting for it later just causes issues like
> the ones we are seeing.
>
> In other words - trying to catch everyone now seems dumb - you let the air
> out of the balloon - you are not getting all that same air back in and you
> will likely get air in it you did not intend. If you want to secure your
> product - do it from the beginning. Maybe you couldn't, and that is too
> bad - concentrate on the future and do it right next time. Don't take the
> risk on punishing the good as well as the bad - when the bad will likely
> circumvent whatever you do anyway. Just make it harder NEXT time - so that
> only a select few can "do you wrong".

Again, sigh, MS made billions with unprotected OSs and they're making
billions with XP. This WGA crap will reverse that trend and it is STUPID
to require paying customers to prove they are not thieves FIVE TIMES AND
COUNTING! What's worse, the dang thing is spyware and reports to MS what
BIOS you're using, etc.

Alias