Microsoft Announces Software Protection Program for Vista, Longhorn Server

[Intel Inside]

"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

 

[Dan W.]

"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

Thanks and fair enough on Microsoft's part and it is all about IP ---
<Intellectual Property> in my view.

 

[Beck]

"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.

Interesting. I have been looking for a way to get rid of windows defender
;-)

 

[Jeff]

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

 

[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.

 

[Jeff]

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

 

[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.

 

[Mike Garren]

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.

 

[Terje Alexander Barth]

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.

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,

 

[Alias~-]

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.

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

 

[Yoshi]

It's plain and simple. It's stealing. Doesn't matter how much money is
involved.

 

[Alias~-]

It's plain and simple. It's stealing. Doesn't matter how much money is
involved.

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

 

[Jeff]

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

 

[Yoshi]

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.

 

[Jeff]

And you all are missing the ORIGINAL point of my thread

 

[Intel Inside]

Yes, "priate" copies are an issue, including the "priated" ones.

 

[Terje Alexander Barth]

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.

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?

 

[Alias~-]

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

You're repeating yourself and, no, I didn't say it's OK to steal. Please
read for content.

There are poor people in this world but they aren't allowed to steal.

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

 

[Yoshi]

Don't make it technical. Stealing is stealing no matter how you slice it.

 

[Alias~-]

Don't make it technical. Stealing is stealing no matter how you slice it.

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