Microsoft Announces Software Protection Program for Vista, Longhorn Server

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Intel Inside, Oct 5, 2006.

  1. Intel Inside

    Intel Inside Guest

    "With the Software Protection Program, customers will be asked to activate
    their copy of Vista with a valid product key within 30 days of installation.
    If the user fails to do so, the operating system will operate in a 'reduced
    functionality mode.' In reduced functionality mode, users will not have
    access to ReadyBoost, the Windows Aero user interface, Windows Defender or
    optional software updates. Users will, however, still be able to access
    critical security updates from Windows Update.

    Microsoft also has the option to deem an installation of Windows Vista
    invalid at any time. Cori Hartje, director of Microsoft's Genuine Software
    Initiative goes on to explain:

    If the software is discovered to be counterfeit or non-genuine, the user may
    be asked to reactivate their copy of Windows. Product keys can be blocked
    for a number of reasons, including if the product key is abused, stolen,
    pirated or seized as a result of anti-piracy enforcement efforts. Product
    keys can also be blocked if they are beta or test keys and have been
    disabled, if there were manufacturing errors in the keys or if the keys have
    been returned. "

    See:

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4433

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx
     
    Intel Inside, Oct 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Intel Inside

    Dan W. Guest

    Thanks and fair enough on Microsoft's part and it is all about IP ---
    <Intellectual Property> in my view.
     
    Dan W., Oct 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Intel Inside

    Beck Guest

    Interesting. I have been looking for a way to get rid of windows defender
    ;-)
     
    Beck, Oct 5, 2006
    #3
  4. Intel Inside

    Jeff Guest

    Hi,
    Seems Vista will phone home periodically;to check if you're legit. Uhoh,
    see a pattern/problem here? LOL
    Not that I find anti-piracy initiatives bad; or that I am in any way
    opposed to MSFT's legitimate attempt to stop piracy,
    but again; the methodology is what concerns me.
    WGA in itself;a great idea.
    What I do take offense to;is periodically checking to see if I am a
    criminal.
    Check once;at activation;then LEAVE ME ALONE. If I choose to apply a WGA
    program;then o.k.; check again.
    Total BS.
    Go after the pirates;and STOP harrassing legit customers.
    And back to an old xp post of mine;
    When did the onus of responsibilty; shift to the customer???
    Guilty;until proven innocent,huh?
    Disgusting, PERIOD.

    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Oct 5, 2006
    #4
  5. Intel Inside

    Gene Fitz Guest

    From what I understand, the idea is to check when ever doing updates (service
    packs, and other "Windows Update" features). That is the deal with the
    "genuine Microsoft" thing, that if you notice has run every time you try to
    install an option or use Windows Update. I am not opposed to it. I mean, when
    the software is finally released, poor saps like you and me will be paying
    quite the penny for it. Some reports have it being as high as $200 for the
    base line (nothing final that I know of).
    Lets be honest, there are several hacked copies of 95, 98, and XP out there.
    Because of that, newer software is costing more than it should. Just like
    with shoplifting. It may seem harmless until you take into account that the
    store has to make their money too. Who picks up the bill? Us, by paying the
    higher costs.
    Me, I have nothing to hide, and as long as they are only checking to see
    that my Microsoft programs are legit, so be it, check away.
     
    Gene Fitz, Oct 5, 2006
    #5
  6. Intel Inside

    Jeff Guest

    Gene,
    Ok,
    WGA does what you said;checks when trying to download something.
    Too the contrary; WGA Notfications; and now Vista(supposedly); is phoning
    home periodically; without user interaction.
    To use an analogy; how would you feel; if everytime you needed to use
    your vehicle;you had to check with the police;too see if you have a valid
    license;or else said vehicle wouldn't function? Or only let you drive a mile
    from your home?
    Again; I have no issue with trying to eliminate pirating; I'm fine with
    validation; ONCE to begin with;and if I try to download something "genuine";
    however; subjecting people to this; passing the onus of responsibilty to the
    end consumer; to have to constantly prove that they are not a criminal;is
    out and out BS.

    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Oct 6, 2006
    #6
  7. Intel Inside

    B Barley Guest

    I have issue with people assuming that pirated copies of software increases
    expense of future releases....bs. You can't tell me that if every single
    copy of a program out there was purchased legally that future updates would
    be cheaper....big software companies will try to make the most money out of a
    release that they can. And that money doesn't go back into r&d, but stock
    holders and corp execs.

    Consider this...people pirateting a copy of the os, do they really need that
    os? If they are so dead set about paying for the os, they'd probably just
    use linux which they could get for free.
     
    B Barley, Oct 9, 2006
    #7
  8. Intel Inside

    Mike Garren Guest

    Yes priated copies cost the company, you are looking from the single copy
    view. Would a single copy hurt Microsoft, no but will a 100 million copies?
    You bet, and where is Microsoft getting the money to develop Vista if they
    don't spend money on R&D. People just try to justify stealing by pretending
    it isn't hurting anyone. If you want a copy of Vista when it is released
    then buy it otherwise beg someone for their copy of Windows 95 and make do.

    Countries like China priate Microsoft products and sell copies on the street
    for a couple of dollars, with that happening why would someone in China buy
    a legit copy of a Microsoft product.

    Yes stealing does hurt.
     
    Mike Garren, Oct 13, 2006
    #8
  9. Hi,

    Having a copyright infringement a.k.a "piracy, yarr! Shiver me timbers!"
    discussion here is pointless and a waste of time and effort.

    Regards,
     
    Terje Alexander Barth, Oct 13, 2006
    #9
  10. Intel Inside

    Alias~- Guest

    False. MS made BILLIONS with W96/98/me/NT/2000. Billions, with a B. None
    had copy/piracy protection. They did make their former CEO the richest
    man in the world. Can you please explain how and why MS is "hurting"?

    Now, forcing paying customers to be in the crossfire between MS and the
    pirates *will* hurt Microsoft big time.

    Alias
     
    Alias~-, Oct 13, 2006
    #10
  11. Intel Inside

    Yoshi Guest

    It's plain and simple. It's stealing. Doesn't matter how much money is
    involved.
     
    Yoshi, Oct 13, 2006
    #11
  12. Intel Inside

    Alias~- Guest

    Many people can only use a pirated version because they don't have the
    money to buy XP or, Vista. Is that figured in? Are XP and Vista only for
    the rich folks? Theft is always figured in as a cost of doing business
    by any competent organization and the cost is always passed on to the
    customers, be it MS, Walmart, Michellen Tires or Sears so you can bet
    your booties that MS isn't losing money through piracy. But I (and you)
    digress..

    Here is my main point, the one you ignored:

    Forcing paying customers to be in the crossfire between MS and the
    pirates *will* hurt Microsoft big time. If you think someone is
    stealing, plainly and simply, you call the proper legal authorities, not
    force your customers to prove they are not pirates over and over and
    over again. Making it so that one cannot upgrade one's computer without
    buying another license is stealing and the end user can't pass it on ...

    Alias
     
    Alias~-, Oct 14, 2006
    #12
  13. Intel Inside

    Jeff Guest

    Since I started this thread; and haven't revisited it lately; let me refresh
    my original point.

    When did the onus of responsibility; shift to the customer???
    Guilty;until proven innocent,huh?
    Disgusting, PERIOD.
    No where did I disagree with MSFT's right to protect their property;
    however;
    the methodology is wrong. Patently;ethically;and even commercially WRONG

    It may not hurt MSFT financially;in the big scheme of things; but one
    less customer can; and will add up.
    Ahh, some may argue; well no one's forcing you to use their operating
    system.
    True; that however; does not change the fact that;now; to do business
    with MSFT;one must consent to "periodic"
    checkups. Again; when did it become the responsibility of the consumer; to
    have to constantly prove innocence?
    More distressing; is the fact; that by taking this route; MSFT is
    basically saying that their customers are inherently criminal.
    If not; why then the requirement to phone home to "validate" every time you
    boot up?
    "Periodic"? Look close; you may be surprised at what you find.
    No matter how they spin this; variables staying the same; same pc; same
    motherboard etc; the basic presumption is one of guilt; if not; then one
    validation would suffice.


    Jeff
     
    Jeff, Oct 14, 2006
    #13
  14. Intel Inside

    Yoshi Guest

    Your basically saying it's ok to steal. Sorry, it's not.

    There are poor people in this world but they aren't allowed to steal.
     
    Yoshi, Oct 14, 2006
    #14
  15. Intel Inside

    Jeff Guest

    And you all are missing the ORIGINAL point of my thread
     
    Jeff, Oct 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Intel Inside

    Intel Inside Guest

    Yes, "priate" copies are an issue, including the "priated" ones.
     
    Intel Inside, Oct 14, 2006
    #16

  17. What are 'you' stealing?

    Do the 'poor folks' go into the software store and remove a physical product with all the
    costs associated with such a physical product, or do they create a bit-identical clone of
    another virtual product and thus breach a license associated with this virtual product?
     
    Terje Alexander Barth, Oct 14, 2006
    #17
  18. Intel Inside

    Alias~- Guest

    You're repeating yourself and, no, I didn't say it's OK to steal. Please
    read for content.
    Can you address this?:

    Forcing paying customers to be in the crossfire between MS and the
    pirates *will* hurt Microsoft big time. If you think someone is
    stealing, plainly and simply, you call the proper legal authorities, not
    force your customers to prove they are not pirates over and over and
    over again. Making it so that one cannot upgrade one's computer without
    buying another license is stealing and the end user can't pass it on ...

    Alias
     
    Alias~-, Oct 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Intel Inside

    Yoshi Guest

    Don't make it technical. Stealing is stealing no matter how you slice it.
     
    Yoshi, Oct 14, 2006
    #19
  20. Intel Inside

    Alias~- Guest

    Legally, copyright infringement is not stealing, nor is it a crime. It
    is a civil offense. Whether fair use applies to installing a copy of XP
    on another computer in your home has never been tested in a court of law
    and MS would never dare to try. How many casual pirates have been
    prosecuted? Not one.

    That said, civil or criminals laws are usually changed by disobedience,
    i.e., prohibition and civil rights. Are you saying that booze should be
    illegal again and that blacks should have separate public bathrooms and
    drinking fountains and sit at the back of the bus because once that was
    the law?

    Alias
     
    Alias~-, Oct 15, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.