[mdawson]

I just came across an interesting article at arstechnica that I figured many people here would find interesting. Ironically, it appears that Microsoft, of all companies, has come up with a reasonable means to minimize software piracy without punishing legitimate software users.
Lets face it, hardware dongles are a pain in the backside. Most modern dongles are USB based forcing you to give up a port per dongle. In the worst case, what if you misplace your dongle? USB dongles are pretty small. Of course dongles are typically only used for very expensive professional packages and are atypical for most mainstream software, for good reason.
For most of us, there is of course software activation, which, in my opinion, is just downright insulting. After I purchase a product I do not need to get the manufacturers permission to use it. I am not a child and that approach to anti-piracy policy is very RIAA/MPAA 1984-ish. When I legitimately purchase software, I should be able to use it without registering it if I should so choose. Activation is forced registration, and for those that do not have Internet access or that for whatever reason do not typically register their software, activation can be a time consuming nuisance. Now, once the upgrade cycle comes about, it is up to the user to opt-in; that is, be resolved to the fact that they must prove that their copy of the software is legitimate to receive free or competitive upgrades.
Based on what the ars article states, Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) program is a relatively non-intrusive measure that will obviously not stop software piracy, but will make the use of pirated software undesirable for the casual pirate. Under this program, automatic software updates will not work and nagware is installed. After all of these years, Microsoft seems to have found a use for their intrusive UI philosophy.
Mac users are used to the OS not bugging them about every little thing every five seconds. While such notices can be deactivated in Windows, the OS has a number of nags turned on by default. The average Windows user simply accepts whatever the OS throws their way simply because so many Windows users, being the vast majority of any given population, are technologically ignorant. Therefore, they never change their computers settings either because they do not know how to do so or because they think that doing so will break their computer. As such, nagware may not be much of a deterrent in the Windows world excepting that more knowledgeable users will have long since deactivated any annoying Windows nags that they can.
Now, imagine the less-than-honest Mac user that now faces not being able to upgrade their ill-gotten software and being blasted with constant nagging from the software every time they use it until they legitimize their software. Mac users are not used to seeing pop-ups from the OS every time they blink their eyes, so for one accustomed to the Mac workflow, nagware will be a cursed nuisance. I find that this technique, which places the punishment exactly where it should beon those that steal software and not those that legitimately purchaseto be a better direction for software companies, many of which are starting to resort to some rather draconian methods of anti-piracy protection.
Along with that, another thing that I noticed that Microsoft does, at least with the academic version of Office:mac 2004, is provide licenses for up to three machines by default. Many people in this day and age have more than one computer in their home and the idea that they should have to buy separate copies of software for each machine, or buy licenses in the same manner as a school (read: site license such as Apples family pack for certain titles) is ludicrous. In terms of software sold to the general public, the license should extend to a reasonable number of computers. I would say that three to five is a sweet spot as more than that does start to get into the site realm.

[Typhoon14]

No, it's still lame as ever. Activation schemes sucks, period. Pirates know how to get around them (And it is very easy to fool the Windows activation and genuine advantage malware), and it's the rest of us who have to suffer through them. I have wasted so much time dealing with activations system that refuse to validate, claim the product has already been activated too many times, etc. I think the record was SIX HOURS spent trying to activate the company copy of Office 2003 at my last job. The auto-activation would not go through, the info phone support gave was ineffective, Microsoft's automat phone system kept spontaneously disconnecting - it was a nightmare. Oh, and heaven forbid you should be somewhere without internet when you have to load new software. Contrary to what corporations and Western urbanites may think, the majority of the world is not net-wired.

[DPG4450Guy]

Ok, but remember ..... you never really purchase software. You are merely paying for a license ... and, like it or not, it's fully within the mfg'r's rights to determine what that software license entails.
Just as you and I have the right to not be their customer.

[mdawson]

In reply to:

---

...like it or not, it's fully within the mfg'r's rights to determine what that software license entails.

---

If that is the case then there is something wrong with the model. While I am no proponent of kissing the backsides of customerscreating false expectations is still bad customer service, I am against unjustified treatment of customers. License or not, people should not be treated like criminals or children by default. Far too many companies are taking on judicial-esque anti-piracy tactics that can be far too easily construed as anti-consumer and your response, like that of far too many consumers, is why this pattern of customer abuse continues.
As consumers, it is our responsibility to never sit back and say, Oh well, thats just how it is, signaling to the corporate world that they can screw us over to their hearts content. We live in a consumer-driven society and people need to be more willing to make corporation that feel as if they can do whatever hurt where it counts.
Lastly, when it comes to software, the current state of the market makes it very difficult for a great many people to simply opt to no be someones customer. Your sentiment is correct, but that does not work as well in the software market as it does for say clothing, groceries or even most other electronics-based wares. Certain jobs require certain software or at the very least have stringent compatibility demands. Those factors can be a severe limiting factor in terms of what people can use to get the job done. Even when viable alternatives are available, there is also the learning curve matrix that can easily make transition infeasible when deadlines have to be met. A great many people cannot simply choose to not use Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, etc. if only for compatibility issues. A great many people cannot switch applications because they do not have the time to re-learn what they already know in a new package, especially if that alternative is not what their employer supports compatibility notwithstanding.
The big players in the software industry know they have most of us backed into a corner and some take advantage of that fact. The licensing/activation scenario is only one of the ways software companies exert control over their consumer base.

[Typhoon14]

In reply to:

---

Ok, but remember ..... you never really purchase software. You are merely paying for a license ... and, like it or not, it's fully within the mfg'r's rights to determine what that software license entails.
Just as you and I have the right to not be their customer.

---

Sigh . . . every single time the issue of consumer versus corporate rights comes up, you adopt wholeheartedly the "screw the consumer!" attitude.
Like it or not, corporations are regulated, and consumers do have rights put down in law. It's these rights that prevent Microsoft from, say, scanning for and uploading all your personal correspondence and adding it to a public database under the Microsoft name. If software manufacturers are using unjust measures, consumers have every right to complain or to take legal action, despite your objections.

[jmincey]

I must say I'm not terribly impressed with this new approach. It still boils down to a form of activation. Before you rush to disagree, ask yourself how Microsoft would go about determining -- upon a user-initiated software update request -- whether an installation of Windows is legitimate or not. The criteria for this determination is fraught with problems -- and the only way to avoid it is what?
ACTIVATION
Microsoft still requires legitimate users (who want the option to update their software and to avoid the threat of nagware)) to activate Windows and MS-Office. The only alternative to this scenario is to just install the product sans activation and then pay the price in the form of nagware and no updates.
Now just how is this progress?

[Nobody]

Corporations are exceptions... surprise, surprise! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Nobody]

MS doing something good is as likely as Bush doing something positive for humanity... enough said! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[mdawson]

I would not be quick to disagree with you on this one, Jeff. In reality, anyone that legitimately purchases software should not have to jump through hoops because of what other people might do. That kind of reasoning is the underlying logic of the RIAA and MPAA toward the fair use rights of the consumer. In fact, while the RIAA has been unsuccessful with the uncopyable CD, the MPAA has been releasing titles that illegally prevent fair use copying since the heyday of VHS.
Realistically, I would not be surprised if Microsoft does not go about legitimacy verifcation in the best possible way; we are talking Microsoft. It does stand to reason though, that if someone is going to get free incremental upgrades they should at the very least have a registered copy so that an updater can verify that a legitimate copy is being updated. I can deal with that much in terms of activation as registration should be something that I can do at my discretion. That is, should one decide to not register their software they should not be forced to do so and it particularly should not be a requirement to run the software.
But, and this a big J Lo but, the purchaser of the software should understand that if they opt out of registration they may be denied the free incremental upgrades. Should one attempt to upgrade with unregistered software they should be provided a blatant warning allowing them to register or cancel the attempt to update before the updater resorts to something as drastic and invasive as nagware. I see this as a situation where the burden of proof rests solely on the software company(ies), as it is the nature of many people not to register products that they purchase. Not registered does not necessarily mean illegal copy.
De facto nagware is wrong no matter what spin a software developer tries to place on it, but then what is Windows but a huge piece of nagware. Windows consistently nags users with pop-ups about this and that by default and most Windows users do not know how to disable these nags or that they can. How many times have you seen messages in Windows such as:
There are unused icons on your desktop. Hey guess what, I do not need help managing my desktop.
This device would perform better in a hi-speed port. Did I ask you?
There are countless others and let us not even get started on the helpful wizards in Office apps. I do not know how effective Microsoft expects nagware to be when all of their software nags the user from the outset. Mac users on the other hand are not used to these nuisances and will therefore have little tolerance for them. Therefore, if used correctly, the nag-a-pirate approach could be effective on the Mac. But, and again we are talking ghetto booty-size but here, this must be done without penalizing legitimate software purchasers, otherwise it is just another bad idea.
In all, if getting an update is akin to me showing my ID when I use my credit card or entering my PIN for my ATM card, I do not have a problem with the verification method. Also, when I buy software, or a license as DPG4450Guy mentioned, I should not be treated like the child in the house that has to get permission to go into the cookie jar. On the other hand, if the purchase, use and updating of my software requires me to jump through hoops as if my name is Osama bin Laden and I am attempting to enter the United States, a policy that some companies have adopted (Adobe, et al.) then the software companies are in the wrong.
The worst part of this, and I am sure you would agree, is that many of the companies that adopt these policies know that they have a lock on certain markets and therefore feel as if they can treat their customer base anyway they please. Despite growing dissent, Microsoft knows that Windows and Office will dominate their respective markets for the foreseeable future. AutoDesk knows that they are the industry standard in CAD and they are not going to change until the industry stops treating them as if AutoCAD is all there is. Adobes graphics applications are the industry standard and Adobe gets away with treating their customer base the same way the hot girl in high school treats the nerds until she needs their help.
Software activation is just another means by which corporations justify mistreating consumers in order to battle some imagined or minimal threat. Fighting piracy is like fighting terrorism in that conventional means do not work. Casual piracy is virtually unstoppable, but something like checking if a copy of software is genuine may stop some casual piratesthat is those that acquire illegal software and lack the technical acumen, or will, to fight even the most basic verification process. On the other hand, genuine piracy requires actively seeking out and persecuting bootleg operations not implementing polices that will ultimately only negatively affect legitimate buyers.

[mdawson]

Good analogy, Alam. At this point, I seriously doubt that any reasonable person would refute that statement. I will give anyone a chance, but when nothing good has happened six years in...
Microsoft had the potential to do great things that would have benefit the technical sector, but instead they opted for world domination. Unlike anti-Mac FUDsters, I do not wish for the complete and utter destruction of Microsoft, but like a certain Administration a serious piece of humble pie is definitely in order. As I stated in the post I just made previously, the underlying concept of WGA should be reasonableI use my credit card, the cashier asks for and checks my ID, I go on with my lifebut I would not be the least bit surprised if Microsofts implementation is seriously flawed.

[sandbag1]

In reply to:

---

After I purchase a product I do not need to get the manufacturers permission to use it.

---

But the fact of the matter is that you don't actually purchase software, you get a licence to use it.

[mdawson]

You are the second person to post that point, and it is just niggling over words. No, one does not purchase the software in the sense that the consumer does not have the right to alter the code or redistribute the product for profit. On the other hand, it still stands that when someone purchases a legitimate copy of software they do not have to get permission to install and use that copy. The right to install and use a copy of software is inherent in the legitimate purchase of that copy of the software.
How would you like it if the RIAA and MPAA decided that you could not play a CD or view a DVD after you legally purchased a copy unless you came to them like a little child to ask permission first? That is exactly the kind of policy that you are attempting to justify.

[Typhoon14]

In reply to:

---

But the fact of the matter is that you don't actually purchase software, you get a licence to use it.

---

And . . . so what? This is a meaningless statement. A transfer of ownership still takes place. By handing over the agreed-upon sum to the company, you acquire the right to use the software. It's not a privilege - the company isn't doing you a favour by letting you use the software you paid for. The consumer has a right to use the copy of the software they now own the licence for, without hindrance from the manufacturer. The same principle applies to anything you purchase. When I buy I pair of shoes, I'm not really buying the the shoe itself, I'm buying the right to hold and utilise a copy of that particular shoe design. The manufacturer still retains rights over the shoe (i.e. I can't resell the shoe as my own invention, nor copy the design and start my own line of shoes). Still, I fully expect to be able to put on the shoes without checking myself in with the maker.

[mdawson]

Thank you. I really do not understand this rationale as if software differs from any other product that a consumer purchases. A purchase is a purchase regardless of the product. I find it appalling that so many people are willing to justify corporate abuse of consumers. Of course, companies pull this crap because far too many people are so disposed to say that such activities are within the companys rights or worse, they are simply apathetic where their rights as consumers are concerned.