Bulldrek v3.0

BBC Microsoft bars Windows pirates

OK so Microsoft won't allow pirated versions of Windows XP to update to the new service pack (when it comes, anytime now is that last I heard). OK so it won't really stop any one since they can just change the key to a version that can update and blah blah blah. But that doesn't really do anything to combat software piracy.

The other thing is with the recent storm of viruses, worms and what have you windows is always in dire need of patching. In some countries the estimate is that a huge number of people use pirated versions of the Windows OS and these people will become (for a time) patch less and vulnerable to god knows all crap that is out there.

OK so Microsoft is in it for the money like everyone else but concidering their dominant position in the market wouldn't it be best if they could actually allow all to update? After all the once that can't will keep spreading the next digital plague cause they can't protect themselves and that in turn will hurt other machines to, perhaps not directly but indirectly by an increased amount of traffic and a whole host of other problems.

So after rambling on here perhaps a question is in order, do you think this is a smart move on Microsoft part or a giant pain in the arse where they are basically shooting themselves in the foot with a 12 gauge?

So.... you think that Microsoft should support people who stole their product? Does that mean you think that Toyota should honor the warranty on a stolen vehicle?

If MS started supplying updates and patches to people who pirate the program there would be no reason for me not to pirate (other then honor and basic decency). If I were a shareholder in the company, I would raise holy hell if they started supporting pirated software.

In my opinion, MS should start releasing viruses that specifically target copies of windows that don't have a special patch.

MooCow wrote:So.... you think that Microsoft should support people who stole their product?

Well they have actually done that, if you by supporting mean allowing people to download patches, up until now.

If that is right or not is another matter. Since some doesn't pay for it they they should not get any support, no argument there. But even people that does pay for it are going to suffer for the people that can't upgrade cause they had that pirate copy of windows installed.

But sure if you use it you should buy it, but for the greater good of everyone they might want to allow all to keep download the patches no matter what.

MooCow wrote:If MS started supplying updates and patches to people who pirate the program there would be no reason for me not to pirate (other then honor and basic decency). If I were a shareholder in the company, I would raise holy hell if they started supporting pirated software.

They do that now. This is what the news is all about, they are going to not doing it. But it does appear they have not really made up their mind about it quite yet.

MooCow wrote:In my opinion, MS should start releasing viruses that specifically target copies of windows that don't have a special patch.

Horrible idea in ohhh so many ways.

But sure if you use it you should buy it, but for the greater good of everyone they might want to allow all to keep download the patches no matter what

How would not updating peoples stolen software significantly affect the greater good?

And even if it would, that's not MS's concern. If it really is a problem, then the government should compensate MS for every unregistered patch they give out. Looking out for the greater good is not the job of business, it's the job of government.

They do that now. This is what the news is all about, they are going to not doing it. But it does appear they have not really made up their mind about it quite yet.

I'll rephrase then. If I were a share holder, and discovered they were doing this I would raise holy hell. That's probably what happened actually.

MooCow wrote:How would not updating peoples stolen software significantly affect the greater good?

Insecure software leads to the large number of viruses and worms that currently fly around the internet. The more systems that are vulnerable, the more they'll continue to propagate.

Speaking of which; can anyone help me find a Windows XP Professional Activator that actually works?

Adam wrote:

MooCow wrote:How would not updating peoples stolen software significantly affect the greater good?

Insecure software leads to the large number of viruses and worms that currently fly around the internet. The more systems that are vulnerable, the more they'll continue to propagate.

But only among the people who don't download the patches.

3278 wrote:

Adam wrote:

MooCow wrote:How would not updating peoples stolen software significantly affect the greater good?

Insecure software leads to the large number of viruses and worms that currently fly around the internet. The more systems that are vulnerable, the more they'll continue to propagate.

But only among the people who don't download the patches.

Yes, although everyone is affected by the slowdown in network performance due to the bandwith used by the infected computers.

I download all the patches, yet I still get dozens of virus-laden emails every day, and I suspect if I checked my firewall logs, many attempted connections from infected computers. Sure, it's fairly unlikely that I'm going to be successfully attacked, but I still have to spend some amount of time dealing with it. Not to mention the large amount of global bandwidth that's wasted.

Of course, the question is - are these millions of pirated Windows installs in China actually being updated to begin with? If they aren't, it's rather moot whether MS allows them to update pirated systems or not. I have to assume that in nations like Korea, where piracy is rampant but so are computer game arcades, that system security and stability is taken rather seriously, but I don't have any evidence to support that point...

lorg wrote:

MooCow wrote:In my opinion, MS should start releasing viruses that specifically target copies of windows that don't have a special patch.

Horrible idea in ohhh so many ways.

I dunno, sounds like a good move to me. Can you think of a better way to discourage piracy? When you go to update, your pirated copy becomes a data miner, emailing data over time to build evidence against you till the athorities decide to raid your place, confiscate your computer, and download the nifty "pirate log file" that will become the ace in the hole to sue your ass, or throw you in jail to serve time in community service.

According to my friends at Microsoft Update, the recent trend has been for Microsoft products to auto-update themselves. They just decide to log on to the main servers, check the info, and update themselves-- regardless of what the user happens to be doing at the time.

Now, does anyone else see a big problem with this? I think Microsquish is using one bad decision to fix another, but I'm no computer guru.

Cain wrote:According to my friends at Microsoft Update, the recent trend has been for Microsoft products to auto-update themselves. They just decide to log on to the main servers, check the info, and update themselves-- regardless of what the user happens to be doing at the time.

Now, does anyone else see a big problem with this? I think Microsquish is using one bad decision to fix another, but I'm no computer guru.

My understanding and experience is that every software that allows you to do this also allows the feature to be disabled, but is typically enabled by default.

DV8 wrote:Speaking of which; can anyone help me find a Windows XP Professional Activator that actually works?

Sorry no help to offer there but it shouldn't be that hard to find or?

3278 wrote:But only among the people who don't download the patches.

Which is a whole lot of people if you belive the BSA and their reports that there are a lot of countries that are in that 90% range of software piracy.

Buzzed wrote:I dunno, sounds like a good move to me. Can you think of a better way to discourage piracy? When you go to update, your pirated copy becomes a data miner, emailing data over time to build evidence against you till the athorities decide to raid your place, confiscate your computer, and download the nifty "pirate log file" that will become the ace in the hole to sue your ass, or throw you in jail to serve time in community service.

Which would be illegal and two wrongs doesn't make a right. But I guess if you sqeeze it into the EULA, that nobody reads anyway, that you the user ok them to install spyware that reports back to Redmond on a regular basis they could get away with that. But then it might also piss off to many legit users that doesn't want to have that piece of code snooping around on their machine(s).

Cain wrote:According to my friends at Microsoft Update, the recent trend has been for Microsoft products to auto-update themselves. They just decide to log on to the main servers, check the info, and update themselves-- regardless of what the user happens to be doing at the time.

Yes that is a nifty little feature. As Adam mentions in his post you can actually turn this off and instruct it to look for, fetch and install updates at certain times of the day etc etc. I don't recall if it was on as default but that does appear to be the microsoft way if nothing else, all on all the time.


While we are on the topic of software piracy. How about all the reports (usually from BSA) that claim that software piracy cost this or that much and if it wasn't around would generate a bunch of new jobs etc. Isn't this really beyond crap? I'm currently of that opinion anyway. After all everyone that has a pirated copy of something wouldn't spend money on a legit one if they couldn't use the pirated one. So even if piracy dropped to 0% (which is nothing but a figment of a BSA auditors imagination) that wouldn't result in a massive increase in software purchases of said pirated products.

By default, Windows XP auto-update is set to download the patches, and then notify you that it's time to install them. Your other options are for the system to do it all, and tell you when it's done, or to do it manually. These options are always provided; this isn't a hidden system function or a registry entry buried down deep, it's a screen that pops up after the initial install.

By the way, I don't understand what's new about this. I've been unable to use Windows Update with blacklisted CD keys for a good while now. Has something changed?

Previously some keys were blocked from Windows Update and some Office Service Packs, but not from regular Windows Service Packs. This is the first Service Pack that won't install for some well-known pirated keys.

lorg wrote:

Buzzed wrote:I dunno, sounds like a good move to me. Can you think of a better way to discourage piracy? When you go to update, your pirated copy becomes a data miner, emailing data over time to build evidence against you till the athorities decide to raid your place, confiscate your computer, and download the nifty "pirate log file" that will become the ace in the hole to sue your ass, or throw you in jail to serve time in community service.

Which would be illegal and two wrongs doesn't make a right. But I guess if you sqeeze it into the EULA, that nobody reads anyway, that you the user ok them to install spyware that reports back to Redmond on a regular basis they could get away with that. But then it might also piss off to many legit users that doesn't want to have that piece of code snooping around on their machine(s).

First of all, I suggested that the data miner would be installed if the update detects a pirated copy, so legit users need not worry. Second, the EULA only applies to people who legally aquired a copy.

Deev, try <a href=http://www.astalavista.com>here</a>. The search isn't so bad, I managed to pick something up for my <b>perfectly legal</b> copy of XP. Later that copy crashed like a little bitch, because it's XP and it fucking sucks, but hey, what else can you run these days?

Criminally attacking a pirate is no more legal than criminally attacking a non-pirate.

If you have your anti-spyware running and don't mind epileptic porn ads, you can always try www.keygen.us which is my brother's favorite site to clog my system with spyware. I think I have a XP keygen/changer program around here still.

Buzzed wrote:

lorg wrote:

Buzzed wrote:I dunno, sounds like a good move to me. Can you think of a better way to discourage piracy? When you go to update, your pirated copy becomes a data miner, emailing data over time to build evidence against you till the athorities decide to raid your place, confiscate your computer, and download the nifty "pirate log file" that will become the ace in the hole to sue your ass, or throw you in jail to serve time in community service.

Which would be illegal and two wrongs doesn't make a right. But I guess if you sqeeze it into the EULA, that nobody reads anyway, that you the user ok them to install spyware that reports back to Redmond on a regular basis they could get away with that. But then it might also piss off to many legit users that doesn't want to have that piece of code snooping around on their machine(s).

First of all, I suggested that the data miner would be installed if the update detects a pirated copy, so legit users need not worry. Second, the EULA only applies to people who legally aquired a copy.

EULA has been turned over in court several times. It was decided several times that it does not apply, since the customer bought the software before reading the EULA, and therefore cannot be bound to it.

However, it /is/ a law that releasing software designed to damage a computer or infringe on privacy without informing the user is illegal. Installing a keylogger on someone's machine without their express permission, for example, is illegal.



I do agree with Microsoft disabling updates for pirated copies, personally.

Adam wrote:Previously some keys were blocked from Windows Update and some Office Service Packs, but not from regular Windows Service Packs. This is the first Service Pack that won't install for some well-known pirated keys.

Well, this seems more consistant, then. Think about it: you've used a pirated key from a Windows XP volume license, so Windows Update won't let you install the patches. So you just wait until the Service Pack comes out, and get all the patches at once.

I guess if I were Microsoft - and you don't know that I'm not! - I'd be doing something like this, too, except mine would be vastly more restrictive. I'm one of the few people I know who thinks that product activation didn't go far /enough./ Blacklisting "bad" keys has been profoundly effective in annoying me, which really should be one of MS' goals, since I /always/ steal their software. It seems like it's hard to fault them for using whatever means are at their disposal to keep people from totally ripping them off. Like I do.

Ok fine, then have Microsoft place a warning to all pirated users in the update's Terms of Agreement. Done deal.

Buzzed wrote:Ok fine, then have Microsoft place a warning to all pirated users in the update's Terms of Agreement. Done deal.

I do not understand why they should need to do anything to address pirated users at all. They should simply reject supporting them by any means they can - if that means blocking updates, then I fully support it.

Ares wrote:

Buzzed wrote:Ok fine, then have Microsoft place a warning to all pirated users in the update's Terms of Agreement. Done deal.

I do not understand why they should need to do anything to address pirated users at all. They should simply reject supporting them by any means they can - if that means blocking updates, then I fully support it.

I was referring to a warning, that a data miner will be imbedded into their pirated copy, when they update, since its been established that it is illegal not to tell them that you are installing spyware that will get them busted by athorities.

I'd perfer it if the update would automatically crash pirated copies upon startup, rather then blocking the update.

"Hey your update crashed my computer."
"Yes we are aware of this problem, it seems to happon with pirated copies. All I can suggest to solve this problem is to purchase a legal copy of XP and install it. It should work then."
"But how do I fix my copy of XP?"
"We don't have a fix yet, try back later."

Or better yet, block updates & crash pirated copies if they manage to somehow get around the block.

"At last! I finally cracked the update block! It only took me 2 months to crack the code. The update is almost done."
"Windows is done installing the update and will now restart."
*BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH*
"Son of a! What the hell just happoned?"

Buzzed wrote:

Ares wrote:

Buzzed wrote:Ok fine, then have Microsoft place a warning to all pirated users in the update's Terms of Agreement. Done deal.

I do not understand why they should need to do anything to address pirated users at all. They should simply reject supporting them by any means they can - if that means blocking updates, then I fully support it.

I was referring to a warning, that a data miner will be imbedded into their pirated copy, when they update, since its been established that it is illegal not to tell them that you are installing spyware that will get them busted by athorities.

I don't think that Microsoft wants to have to deal with thousands of machines pinging their site boasting pirated software, plus it would be undoubtedly blocked quite quickly by a firewall. They don't have the time to go suing everyone like the RIAA does.

I think preventative measures work far better than a 'data miner'.

And crashing their machines would be illegal. Refusing to allow them to update seems like a logical course of action, a decent middle ground between what is fair and right, and the concerns of individual rights and privacy.

Buzzed wrote:Ok fine, then have Microsoft place a warning to all pirated users in the update's Terms of Agreement. Done deal.

"Warning, causes irritation to 3278's. May become volatile." Something like that?

3278 wrote:Well, this seems more consistant, then. Think about it: you've used a pirated key from a Windows XP volume license, so Windows Update won't let you install the patches. So you just wait until the Service Pack comes out, and get all the patches at once.

Another good reason to restrict the SPs is the slipstream install; with the SP, a blank CD, and a XP/2K CD, you can create a new install CD that will install the OS with the SP already applied. Obviously, restricting these to registered users is a good thing from the MS perspective.

Windows XP SP1 had a blacklist, it didn't install on all the Diablo Corp. serials.

By default, Windows XP auto-update is set to download the patches, and then notify you that it's time to install them. Your other options are for the system to do it all, and tell you when it's done, or to do it manually. These options are always provided; this isn't a hidden system function or a registry entry buried down deep, it's a screen that pops up after the initial install.

Can alyone tell me how to alter it? I recently had to rip my enitre accessories folder out with a hacksaw in order to eliminate some changes done do a dialer program. I can't figure out how to alter anything on that level without trashing part of my system folder.

The options to change that are right in your Control Panel.

Damn! I forget the schedule option.

Crazy Elf wrote:but hey, what else can you run these days?

OSX, KNOPPIX (which is very simple to get running version of Linux), or just do like I do... run Win2k. It seems to handle most everything I need without consuming extra resources.

Strangely enough, I'm on Moo's boat with this one, even though I'm running a copy of W2K that's been distributed among three people. I don't like it, but MS has a right to protect their product, and since most of the patches are for security vulnerabilities, there's a sort of irony and black humor in leaving script kiddies vulnerable to hackers and other script kiddies.

That, and WXP ain't gonna hit the newbie users - the ones who buy their PCs retail and get a free copy of WXP - or businesses, governments, and college campuses (I think these are the most profitable of MS's clients?), but people who, arguably, should know better...you know, people who make their own comps and won't run W2K or the fashionable and free OSs scattered all over the 'net. Stuff like that.