Microsoft piracy check comes calling

Mirror?

Where would one this?

 

Googling for KB891861 should turn up numerous other locations hosting this (here being one example). For other patches, try a search using their KB numbers.

 

Ah thank you paranoid.

I can't seem to find a checksum for these type of things. How does one verify the file's integrity?

 

Not to argue, but I do not understand what the objection is to validating that your copy of Windows is genuine. I have done it without any pain or problem.

I do believe that a developer has the right to prevent, to the extent reasonable, piracy of his work, and the loss of revenue. After all he developed it and with profit in mind generally.

I realize that hating MS is a thing with many folks, but where would we be in computers without MS?

Anyone want to give me a reason for objecting to validation, except dishonesty?

Jerry

 

You could always use this site to update>

Snipped Link - Windows Updates should be done through the M$ Update site - dog

Instead of using IE and going to the Microsoft update site.

 

It doesn't always work, even when the installation is 100% genuine. I've had "arguments" with WGA in the past and my setup here is completely legit. If I, as a technically-minded user, can experience problems, what hope does your average Windows user have? And why should we suffer any inconvenience when we've been totally honest and paid for the product? What other industry could hope to get away with treating all of its customers as criminals?

There are other arguments against as well, but I won't carry on ranting...

 

Thanks for the reply. I don't disagree with that.

Jerry

 

Well it seems that this Privacy check has been "cracked" already.

I have a neighbour that is knowingly running XP Professional on 3 machines,all pirated copies.......he got caught by the latest update and had the "you are running illegal software "notices.

He then visited a certain site and obtained a "patch" that switched off the Microsoft privacy check and allows him to download updates for his systems.

He can't see anything wrong in his actions,but I bet he wouldn't work all year
and be happy if he was told his salary was $00.00.

 

Hum, "cracking"... Let's keep this site clear of this kind of talk.

But on this tangent, nothing is foolproof.

 

While that's correct in a sense, it doesn't really apply here. Yes; warez is against our terms of service, specifically links to any downloads or download sites. But mentioning it in an academic sense inline with the discussion is fine, we don't have our heads in the sand - we're all aware it exists. I believe Upasaka brought up that point to illustrate that the actions Microsoft takes in reality only effects legitamate license holders, as we're the only ones jumping through the hoops of Microsofts anti-piracy schemes. Those running pirated copies will continue to run pirated copies, there'll always be a 'patch' - everything done, can be undone or modified. One day Microsoft and others (ie Movie & Music Industry) will realize, the cost of these efforts will bear no fruit, only serving to reduce their margins. Copyright protection is fine ... when reasonable, but this never-ending search for the prefect protection is absolutely pointless - it'll never exist. If they'd only take their heads out of the sand and look for alternatives (pricing / embracing new technologies [Movie & Music] etc.) We'd all be further head ...

 

Dream on! However there is one slight difference in MS's approach in that it is more likely aimed at PC vendors than end-users. Since the vast majority of people get their copy of Windows with a new PC, Microsoft's greatest concern is presumably in ensuring that no vendors can get away with using counterfeit copies. Online activation was one step and Genuine Advantage seems to be the next.

However, in addition to the mistakes reported above, this also seems likely to hamper legitimate licence transfers and it will be interesting to see if MS faces any legal challenges over this.

 

sosaiso spoke of monopoly.

Pictures speak louder than words (MarketShare.com, "Operating System Market Share for March, 2006") here:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

A view of gasoline (or petrol) sales in California here:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_market_share.html

Also take a look at this article, "Oligopolies and copyrights", here:

http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2004/01/29.html

The U.S. Justice Department "missed the boat". Fairly early in the last century, anti-trust laws were used to break-up Standard Oil.

bktII

 

Ah I apologize to Upasaka, I did not realize it was meant in that way.

As for Microsoft's monopoly, no one can dispute that. 94% [as of 2003] of all newly manufactured computers came preinstalled with Windows. 94%!!! I'm not sure what constitutes as a monopoly... maybe 100%? But the argument here is that MS is a natural monopoly. There just isn't any feasible replacement for it.

 

sosaiso,

I respectfully disagree that Microsoft is a "natural" monopoly. The U.S. Justice Department has certainly helped. The EU Also, the U.S. states, Massachusetts and Minnesota, are certainly butting heads with Microsoft; in this case MS Office, not Windows OS.

I also respectfully disagree that a feasible replacement (I would prefer to say "alternatives") does (do) not exist. I have worked in organizations that are Apple shops, Unix shops. The current crop of Linux OS desktops, especially corporate-based Red Hat and Novell, but more on the way, with reliable alternatives to MS Software is, frankly, amazing. Also, if one must use MS Windows software on Linux, there is CrossOver Office, Wine, etc.

Regards,

bktII

 

Ah bkt, you do not have to respectfully or disrespectfully disagree. Just do it. xP

But I acknowledge your point. The only counterargument I have [seeing as to how i am becoming more and more a linux user] is that replacing Windows is hard. Whether from a consumer standpoint or a business standpoint. Windows has support. It's easy to use. Linux needs commandline. Mac is expensive [arm and leg for a G5 anyone?]. Preinstalled Windows is just cheap [I've been getting desktops for under $400]. I agree that alternatives exist, but they're still not up to competition with MS. It's just been here longer.

There are speels of first move advantage and declining marginal cost, etc that I have not studied enough to say, but MS fits under the mold of a natural monopoly. And I agree, natural or not, it is just wrong that it can just do whatever it wants.

 

Here's an interesting thought.

M$ claims that piracy results in higher software prices. Yet prices dropped substantially in the late 80's, about the same time that software companies gave up on copy protection schemes. Remember copy2pc ?

Profits? Lotus managed to survive the price drops and still have the highest paid CEO in America at the time.

I certainly don't advocate piracy. Nor do I look forward to again paying $400 for a word processor if MS figures out how to stop piracy.

I recall an old saying that goes -

"There is no honor among thieves."

 

And some users with legitimate licenses are using cracked versions of XP to circumvent the hassles of WGA, activation and automatic updates.

 

I noticed today the windows update site states that one needs to update the updater. The site informs one that the new version is wonderful and most useful...
The little "details" arrow showed this was just the Validation Tool they were pushing before. It appears they are unwilling to accept "NO" for an answer. It is annoying since they have validated my copy of Windows repeatedly to get other files. Is the real "Genuine Advantage" to waste my drive space and install useless clutter.