Symantec NIS 2007 Bait & Switch Licensing

I know what you mean as I have installed a copy of XP pro many many times on different computers. The big difference however is that with Microsoft you can simply call their phone number and activate it that way. They do not care how many different computers you put it on as long as it is only on one at any one time. I know this from experience because I always need to call them now when I activate it. My key will never activate over the web but they did not kill off my license completely as scamantec did.

So really I can even understand MS making it a pain by having to call them everytime since I used it so much but to stop usage of the license altogether is something MS does not do. In fact I have never heard of any company ever doing such a thing.

Also I know for other MS products it is the same thing as my Office xp pro I always loaded on clean installs also needed to be activated over the phone which MS was always more than happy to do when I called them. Scamantec flat out told me we can do nothing for you but please buy another license. They had store links in the first support emails as well.

 

see there is the kicker, did you call symantec and tell them everytime you activated on a different computer.?? Like you did Microsoft, I promise you if you had there wouldn't be a problem now. They told you you needed another license after the fact that wouldn't have happened if you called first.

 

No I never called them everytime I reloaded it because I never had to. It always activated without any problems. I figured this was because they could tell it was only on one computer at a time with updating fromt heir servers and logs,etc. It was only recently when it would no longer work that I called them to find out what was up. I never called MS for XP either until the activation also stopped working which was quite a few installs before that happened as well.

Honestly, no matter what suspicions you may have of me, I truly did not do anything wrong with this NIS license. I spent lots of $ per year with them right on their online store, bought multiple license for NIS for the ones that needed to run at the same time and everything.

I can tell you this has been the absolute worst customr experience I have ever had with a software company which I have been loyal and buying from for as many years as I have.

You know the bottom line is really that they did not care and regardless did not protect their revenue from me in any way because I was not using anything I did not already pay them for. Instead they lost far more with not having my future business anymore.

 

Atomic_Ed I truly don't believe you ever meant to defraud or pirate their software as you understood the license. And I don't believe that Symantec has done anything wrong either. They are very good about allowing you to transfer your license to other computers as long as they are notified before the switch. I think it is very unfortunate that the situation has deteriated to it's present condition. I do think Symantec needs to find another way to fight piracy and not make it so hard on the legal consumer. I am glad I don't have to make the decision that they do but if I did I would probably leave the activation as it is for now. Ed I do wish you better luck in the future.

bigc

 

Thanks for your sentiments on this. I appreciate your understanding my position as well.

I don't know what the answer is for them to fight piracy, only that the current process is definately broken and not working as intended.
I am further not even sure that piracy as with other crimes, will ever be completely avoidable by any company. Kind of like shoplifting in stores, there will always be a certain % of loss no matter what mechanism is implemented. However I should think that companies would also consider their loyal customers protection at the same time. It does not make much sense to implement a solution so one sided that it assumes everyone is a pirate like this. The loss of customers may well be hidden costs to them within this scheme and makes one wonder just how much loss of business they have incurred with their current process. I dislike activation personally and it is a pain for me with how I use my software, but I am willing to still buy products that use it since I am not intending to pirate. It is just I am not willing to buy products that use it and can be deactivated by the company when no proof of any wrong doing exists on my part. Also this is assuming that they are legitimately concerned with it being piracy, which I can say I am not convinced of, as there are too many obvious indicators for them to see I am not a pirate within their own records there.

Also it does make one kind of wonder how every product I have ever seen that included activation schemes or even hardware dongles, are freely available on all the dark sites cracked and free. It is only the paying customer who gets affected by these schemes. A pirate would not be using a non cracked activation scheme version to begin with.

Well, again thanks for the well wishes for me and I can say thus far your mcafee recommendation has been working well for me. I am quite happy with it the short time I have been running it and no activation schemes to deal with.

I know I am but only one customer to them but I was loyal and spent good $ with them every year including the years I was using other Avs, I was still buyin ghost and other products from them. Not to mention my word of mouth to countless consulting customers I deal with each year. In the end they have lost far more from me than I from them with all of this.

I do agree that it is sad it has progressed to this point with my relationship with them, but I would be foolish to continue to buy from them when I can be treated the way I have. I do hope they wise up and implement a better system for anti-piracy that doesn't include accusing their legitimate customers, but again no matter what they do there will always be a percentage of loss to piracy. I dislike it as much as they do if not more since I am being affected by it more than the pirates are.

 

I am glad you like the new McAfee, it is a bit different than in the past seems to work better

 

Yes it does work well and a full system scan was much faster than previous versions, although not speedy compared to some products, definately acceptable to me.

I really like the personal firewall and the visual trace feature. I missed some of those features when I was using norton. Did you also know there is a file shredder and quick cleaner included. Overall I have to say it seems this package I got is a great value for the money. Thanks again for the info you provided me on it previously. Another thing that seems pretty decent with the mcafee stuff is how quickly they put out program updates when bugs are discovered. I feel that they are really trying to improve their product and I am quite happy with it.

 

First, I would like to apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread. However, I wanted to add that after reading solely the above provision of the EULA, I find nothing that should preclude a licensee from using their license. Without having read the entire EULA I would conclude that the licensee has a good argument for insisting on Symantec honoring the terms of the agreement (meaning purchase agreement). In other words, I'm sure that Symantec is entitled to revoke a license as they see fit, but nothing above gives Symantec the right to do so at the expense of the licensee. Such an interpretation ignores the terms of the purchase which included a one, or two, year license to use the software.

It seems that the above provision serves to give notice that anti-piracy technology may be in place that limits the ability to install the software to a "finite number of times." However, the intention, as I read it, clearly is to prevent piracy and not to preclude licensees from utilizing the software. Furthermore, the purchase price was exchanged for a license to use the software for a fixed period of time; albeit subject to the terms of the EULA. It seems unconsionable to think that the aforementioned anti-piracy clause could be used to effectively strip legitimate licensees of their purchase.

DISCLAIMER
I say this not as a lawyer, but merely a student. This is only my opinion and is not intended to be consrued as legal advice of any kind. Please consult an attorney and do not rely on my opinion.

 

Regarding this whole activation thing, I really do not see why Symantec's activation cannot work in the same method as Microsoft. It is simple to store details of hardware information and send it to Symantec's clearing house. This info can be used to determine if the same PC is being used for installation. If not, then activation wouold be denied and the customer told to contact Symantec.

I am aware of other companies besides Microsoft using hardware information to keep check on license terms. So why can't Symantec do the same?

 

Thanks alot for your input on this. I am not a student of law or anything, so I appreciate hearing your more knowledgable thoughts on this. I also however, after reading this as well, came away with a similar impression on it. It was this with what I challenged scamantec on during my lengthy communications. This is where it seemed at least to me that, whenever I brought up the fact that there is NO specified number expressed within that part of the eula, nor that the intent was said to be for anti-piracy yet no piracy could be confirmed as none existed, nor are there apparently any mechanisms in place to substantiate their claims only assumptions, that it was not within my understanding of the eula for them to deactivate my license like that and simply tell me to buy more.

The funny thing is some of the support people I talked to were sympathetic and when challenged to an empass on their position, they would always simply say I understand how you feel, but it is our company policy. It was obvious to me they knew I knew what they were doing with all of this. It was after all of this I realized the only possible reason I could surmise was that this ambigous eula clause was being used merely as a marketing tool to perpetuate further license sales. I also felt it very unethical practice if I am in fact correct in my assessment, but with all of the data at hand where I have been a faithful customer and already hold multiple license for my machines that need to run concurrently and that they wrote that eula ambigously for a reason, I have to say it sure seems to me that they are using it as a tool for sales.

Why else would they not look at the data they do have that shows an honest customer, why else would they right away start their sales pitch to me with links to the store to buy more licenses within my support sessions, why else would they have written their eula so ambigously and in the end after my firm stance of opposition with what they were doing and my demanding to speak to every person in the chain of support and after I told them I would be reporting their practices to every US authority possible, did they give me a full refund on my license.

So after all of this, I can't help but think that there is really no other reasonable expaination of their activities.

 

I haven't used these type of antivirus in a long time. I don't know the EULA about Nod32 from Eset, but they have a really good support team and I love their product. A comparision to NIS and McAfee is located on their website, eset.com.

Best of luck to you.

Carol

 

Thank you for the info. I did trial nod32 awhile back and while I think it is a really good av, I personally have leaned towards the full security suites, due to the sheer number of stand alone security apps needed nowadays. In the end scamantec gave me a full refund and I went ahead and switched over to the new mcafee 2007 internet suite which so far I have been quite happy with.

Thanks again.