Microsoft to Step Up Anti-Piracy Stance

Quote:

---

If a legitimate copy is not bought within 30 days, the system will curtail functionality much further by restricting users to just the Web browser for an hour at a time, said Thomas Lindeman, Microsoft senior product manager.

---

Quote:

---

Under that scenario, a person could use the browser to surf the Web, access documents on the hard drive or log onto Web-based e-mail. But the user would not be able to directly open documents from the computer desktop or run other programs such as Outlook e-mail software, Lindeman said.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100400493.html

I'm still baffled why it doesn't lock users out completely. At least to all domains excluding *.microsoft.com or something.

Even if it would be the right thing to do, it would get too much negative press. I don't think Microsoft want to go there right now.

When (and I'm sure this will be a when, not an if) their checks trigger false positives for corporates (like recently), they need to leave people able to do their jobs.

"Our software screwed up and got annoying" is just embarrassing. "Our software screwed up and cost you large amounts of money while we took your workforce offline for a day" would probably mean hefty legal bills.

If Microsoft wants to apply this technology to those countries, which have the highest rates of piracy such as China, Russia; then that is one thing. But if this is applied world-wide, then I think Microsoft will be creating huge legal liabilities for itself, whether we are talking about consumers or corporate customers.

IMO, Microsoft could use this technology to identify specific instances of piracy and to communicate with those individuals or corporations. However, if they start shutting down or crippling these computer(s), which they have identified as using pirated software; then how is this different from the Sony DRM rootkit fiasco.

Microsoft has a right to attempt to get justice in terms of piracy of their intellectual property; however, they do not have the right to prevent a user from using their computer. This is especially important, given that the accuracy is not 100% accurate and there does not seem to be an easy resolution in case of errors.

Does Microsoft really want to go through what Sony has gone through world-wide? I wouldn't think so.

Cheers,

Linda

Quote:

---

Microsoft has a right to attempt to get justice in terms of piracy of their intellectual property; however, they do not have the right to prevent a user from using their computer.

---

This is completely different from the Sony fiasco. No one has a right to expect illegally produced software to function the same way as the software it imitates. If an individual buys something other than Microsoft and it doesn't perform the same as Microsoft, it's not Microsoft's responsibility. If you bought a Ford Pinto and it didn't act like a Ferrari, do you sue Ferrari? Of course not. Microsoft is doing nothing to your computer to change its operation if it determines that the software trying to access its own sites is illegal. It's just keeping non-members of the club out of the club.

At any rate, Microsoft has done nothing to prevent the computer owner from using his computer. It will still turn on, the CD drive will still work, it can still read floppies.

One last thing that I find irritating, quite frankly: Why do you distinguish between "consumers" and "corporate customers?" They're all consumers.

By the way, I have no affiliation with Microsoft. I just don't understand why people are so willing to make ridiculous demands of certain companies when they reach a certain size. No one has forced anyone to buy MS products; they do so because they want to. MS employs thousands of people, pays insanely good benefits and has a positive impact financially at all of their locations. They are everything a model company could be. I guess they're bad because they're successful.

I agree with lgbpop.
This does not prevent a user from using his computer. If he doesn't want to pay for a product he uses, why not use Linux instead?

Quote:

---

If a legitimate copy is not bought within 30 days, the system will curtail functionality much further by restricting users to just the Web browser for an hour at a time, said Thomas Lindeman, Microsoft senior product manager.

---

Quote:

---

Under that scenario, a person could use the browser to surf the Web, access documents on the hard drive or log onto Web-based e-mail. But the user would not be able to directly open documents from the computer desktop or run other programs such as Outlook e-mail software, Lindeman said.

---

LBLPOP,

I agree with you, Microsoft is a good company and they have done a lot of good things; however, that not mean that every decision that they make, should NOT be scrutnized. I also believe that eveyone should be using legitimate copies

The quote above states that the user would not be able to open documents from the desktop. I based my comments above on the quotes in Usil's original message but to be on the save side, I went and read the entire article.

Quote:

---

Microsoft said it won't stop a computer running pirated Vista software from working completely, and it will continue to deliver critical security updates.

Still, the much harsher tactics contrast to Microsoft's earlier anti-piracy measures, which have involved instituting tougher piracy checks for Windows XP users who want to get free add-ons such as anti-spyware programs. In most cases, these were seen as annoying, rather than debilitating.

Analyst Roger Kay with Endpoint Technologies Associates said Microsoft has a right to curtail illegal distribution of its software. The new piracy measures, he said, "seem harsh only in comparison to how lenient it has been."

Kay also doesn't expect the new piracy measures to be that effective against hardcore pirates, who have built de facto businesses selling illegal Windows copies. But he thinks it will stop some lower-level piracy.

Windows Vista also will include more sophisticated technology for monitoring whether a system is pirated. For example, the system will be able to perform some piracy checks internally, without contacting Microsoft, Lindeman said.

Microsoft also is adding ways to more closely monitor for piracy among big corporate users, who tend to buy licenses in bulk.

Microsoft plans to take similar tough measures with the forthcoming version of its Windows server software, dubbed "Longhorn," and to incorporate it into other products down the road.

The crackdown shows how much more seriously Microsoft has started taking Windows piracy, which for years has been extremely widespread in areas such as Russia and China. The Business Software Alliance, a software industry group, estimates that 35 percent of software installed on PCs worldwide is pirated.

In recent years, the market for Windows _ one of Microsoft's main cash cows _ has become more saturated. That's left the company eager to make money from users who may otherwise have obtained illegal Windows copies.

Cori Hartje, director of Microsoft's Genuine Software Initiative, said the company now wants users to notice the difference between legal and pirated copies of Vista.

"Our goal is to really make a differentiated experience for genuine and non-genuine users," Hartje said.

---

After reading the entire article, it is obvious that Microsoft is providing a way for the user determine if they have a legitimate copy of Microsoft's Vista or Office 2007 after they have purchased the software. This allows the customer to seek redress from the vendor, while he still has the receipt.

Microsoft is taking a very reasonable stance in that they will provide security updates and they allow the user time to address the issue with Microsoft (in the case of a false report) and - or with their computer software vendor.

IMO, this is a very reasonable approach.

Cheers,

Linda

Upon discovery, Microsoft has every right to instantly disable any of their stolen software. (Not the PC hardware itself, or any of the user's data files, just their software).

Mobile phone companies are starting to do much the same with stolen phones. It's called "Remote XT" and instantly makes stolen mobile phones completely useless. Even if thieves remove the SIM card, the phone let's out a continous ear-piercing screech which can only be stopped if the battery is removed. It also locks the handset and wipes all information immediately. It does does come with a complete back-up function however, that restores all data instantly to a new phone including e-mails, text messages, ringtones, music, pictures etc.

http://www.remotext.com/media-centre...tamped-out.asp

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

Quote:

---

I agree with you, Microsoft is a good company and they have done a lot of good things; however, that not mean that every decision that they make, should NOT be scrutnized.

---

Says who? Aside from Microsoft, whose darned business is it what Microsoft decides it's going to do? Who are the scrutinizers to think they have any right or responsibility to examine and criticize? This is insanity. It's as idiotic as people giving Ralph Nader credence for criticizing General Motors. The man never drove a car, and never had a driver's license--but he (a lawyer) was an automotive authority?

This is the same mentality that applauds when Nancy Pelosi says, "We have to make sure our wealth is distributed equally." I'm sorry, but whose wealth?? Private enterprise in this country is in peril with thinking like this. If you want socialism or communism, go to East Germany. :D Or the Soviet Union. :D :D We've succeeded as a country precisely because those who work hard and smart can reap the rewards of their efforts. Remove that incentive and you remove the prosperity. At that point, we'd all be equal....equally poor, just like Cuba.

Let's face it, Microsoft is a monopoly, and they want to stay a monopoly. MS has a plan to kill Linux. They're trying to get the major manufactures of computers to install chips on their motherboards to stop the installation of 3rd party software. Can you say "anti-trust violation" boys and girls. Things like that kill the trust of the buying public. That aside, Microsoft makes the worlds best operating system. They've got the market cornered and are raking in billions in profits. So why go to such great links to step on the little guys? I'm not talking about pirates here I'm talking about open source software.

The problem with their plan to disable pirated software is false positives. Were genuine software will get disable by mistake. Another problem will be; A guy shops around and finds a seller on ebay that states "my software is 100% genuine Microsoft with a COLA" and buys it. After he installs it, it get disabled by MS for being pirated. This guy didn't know it was pirated, he was only looking for genuine software at the best price. I guess I have to ask the question; is pirated software really that big of a problem with MS? Or are they blowing it out of proportion?

Microsoft is a 'monopoly' because no one else has been able to do what they do.

With a purported 50-million lines of code and 5+years in the making, Windows Vista is the largest, and longest concerted software project in human history. The average software developer in the US produces around 6,200 lines of code a year. 50-million lines of code divided by 6,200 lines of code per year equals 8,065+ man-years worth of coding. Even at $399 for the full-blown Windows Vista Ultimate package and you're still only looking at less than a nickle per year for those 8,065+ years worth of coding. Where else can you get the same quality Operating System for less?

Microsoft does it well. And they cannot, nor should they have to, do it for free.

I think that everyone on this thread agrees that everyone should be using a legitimate copy of Microsoft's software. Microsoft says that the majority of the problem is in Russia and China, so most of the world is not the major target.

However, what is being discussed is that Microsoft have an expedious process in place, so that customers can resolve disputed issues about whether their Vista is legitimate or not.

Based on what I have read so far in the Washington Post article, it looks like Microsoft will have a good process in place to handle these issues. ... or at least I hope they will. If they don't, then this could be a hindrance to more customers upgrading to Vista, just like the uproar over XP's authenication process was, when XP was initially released.

I remember the columnist writing about Office 2003 and when was on an airplane, writing his next column, Office 2003 shut down. The only resolution was for David to insert the Office 2003 CD, which he didn't have with him, since he was traveling. This kind of publicity is not what any company needs or wants.

As a result, when I bought two new computers, I opted for W2K, because the last thing that I wanted was more issues. W2K was stable, solid and looked like the best way to go.

Good planning prevents a lot of these potential disasters. Or as the saying goes, "Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail."

Cheers,

Linda

Sorry, I feel no sympathy for anyone buying eBay software without doing their homework. And I still have to wonder why it bothers people that Microsoft or any company makes profits. The news media love to mention the gross profit, but rarely break it down into profit margin or profit per unit sold. Moreover, does the amount of profit made change anyone's life, improve their standard of living or lower their taxes? No, no and no. What frustrates me is that the same group of people who moan about corporate profit are the same ones moaning about jobs; yet, if they had their way and put these "evil" companies out of business we'd have a 30% unemployment rate.

More details here:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/win...9283874,00.htm

Quote:

---

"In reduced functionality mode, we will let you use your browser for periods of up to an hour before we log you off," Lindeman said.

---

Quote:

---

"It has nothing to do with licence counting right now, but companies will need to expend time and effort and some money to administer this, in the name of helping Microsoft recoup revenue lost to piracy," he said. "There needs to be more of a benefit [for customers]. Linux and Mac communities will try to make hay with this, but this will not be the tipping point."

---

I'm an equal-opportunity laissez-faire type. Just as M$ has a right to protect their property, it's M$'s responsibility to protect their property--not the customers' responsibility. I'd tell M$ to count their own d**ned licenses; and if it affected my business, I'd be looking at open-source alternatives. This doesn't make sense--if M$ can tell a phony OS over the internet (or claim to be able), why should the customer have to do anything? I must be missing something. (Besides my marbles. :D )