Whistler and Copy Protection

[paulcs]

Another thing we really haven't examined here is that Microsoft, in the US at least, was found to be an illegal monopoly. Now, I think what's really good about being an illegal monopoly (from the standpoint of the illegal monopolist) is that you can stick *any* nasty thing you like in your licensing agreement, and your customers may be forced to abide by it. They don't have a choice.

We are not dealing with Saint Francis here, and this has nothing to do spilling coffee. Until an appellate court says otherwise, this is a rogue corporation engaging in criminal behavior. Every thing of consequence they do should be examined under a microscope.

From Microsoft's standpoint, I suspect this is as much about control as it is protecting their property.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 10 January 2001).]

[Thundrchez]

Bingo. Microsoft == Monopoly. They can do whatever they want to to you, and you just have to bend over, grit your teeth, and take it like a man if you do not like it.

Microsoft, like just about any other company in the free world, wants to be a money making machine. In their world conquest, they have attained the status of Monopoly. Now they have to play nice; well, at least they are supposed to play nicer, but I will believe that when I see it.

[Paulr]

"It is well within my legal rights to have it on a dozen machines if I so choose, so long as only one runs at a time."

That changed a long time ago.
This is no longer the case, you have 12 installations of an OS you are required to have 12 licenses even if 11 of your machines are only used once a year.

The fact is that no company are going to release an OS that can be installed on one PC and if that PC is upgraded you have to buy another copy of the OS.
The very nature of the PC dictates that it can be upgraded, if this is software or hardware.
There will be a way that if your computer is upgraded you will just need to un-lock your OS again.
It's a choice between allowing rampant piracy or by have a little bit of hassle when you upgrade your motherboard/CPU in 12 months time a lot less piracy.

[Paulr]

Gurm:
Check your license agreement again.
MS changed the 'install where you like, only use one copy' license ages ago, and it certainly doesn't apply to OEM copies of the OS.

[Gurm]

PaulR:

And we could play semantics, too.

Let's pretend I have 25 machines, each with a hot-swappable drive bay. I install Whistler on the first machine, and take out the hard drive. I keep that hard drive with me at all times, and expect it to work whenever I snap it into a machine.

Of course one would argue that I really don't want a personal license at that point, right? I want a system-builder license, which is entirely limit-free (within certain constraints).

But the point remains the same. And yeah, they have changed the licensing. But I'm still entitled to install/uninstall/install as many times as I like.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[spoogenet]

First off, I don't really think that anybody has a "right" to install anything. Think of it more as a priviledge.

Microsoft is not abusing monopoly power. They have the "right" to make whatever legal license agreement they want. If you don't agree to it, then you have the choice not to use their software. Mind you, if enough people do this, they won't even be a monopoly anymore.

Microsoft is not a stupid company. While it may be hard at times for consumers to realize this, they have gotten to where they are by making intelligent moves, and some illegal ones too. They will not stick with plans that totally compromise their ability to sell products. Trust me, company IT departments will not like this new policy much at all.

I'm sure Microsoft will implement schemes in the policy to allow for upgrades. If they do not, then I'm sure a class-action lawsuit will be filed by hardware vendors who claim users cannot upgrade because of their OS registration problem.

The single biggest problem that I see here is the privacy one. While I doubt MS really gives a rats ass what chip you use, or what hardware is in your system (if they cared, they'd fix some of the bugs), it is not correct for them to acquire such information. However it is reasonable for a company to require all users to register, as long as the registration information is basic, such as your name, address, and phone number. It is NOT reasonable for a company to require you to divulge more personal details, such as credit card numbers, bank numbers, hardware information, how many children you have, or who your last girlfriend/boyfriend was.

b

[Edit for grammar ]

[This message has been edited by spoogenet (edited 11 January 2001).]

[Jammrock]

A lot of you guys are missing part of the original post:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Microsoft plans to deliver WPA in all 32-bit versions of Whistler except those sold to volume-licensing customers and the so-called "Royalty OEM initial install images" provided to PC makers...</font>

IT departments and tier 1-2 OEM's will get copies of Whistler that may not require the call-in registration. I know if M$ required IT departments to register every install they would flip and nobody would use it. In my company alone that would require over 70,000 registrations, costing thousands of man hours to do, if the entire company switched over. M$ isn't that stupid.

Office 2000 has the same style WPA registration, but if you get you hands on an MSDN (M$ Developers Network) copy of Office 2000 there is no registration. Hell, you don't even haft to enter in a CD key. There will always be copies that will be registration free.

And as you guessed it, all the people in IT are the ones who rarely ever buy an OS or M$ product. Why? Because it's too damn expensive and IT people don't want to submit to the M$ yoke of bondage more than we haft to. And that's all I haft to say about that.

Jammrock

[paulcs]

If Microsoft was giving away Windows and attached conditions to it's use, then I think we'd be in the realm of "priveledge." Remember, you buy Windows, and you have some rights as an owner as well. You certainly have the right to install and use it. The copy you purchase is your property.

There are limits, of course. You shouldn't be allowed to copy and distribute it to others. I don't have a problem with provisions limiting the number of machines it is installed on either. My problem is Microsoft is forcing people to register, which will permit them to maintain a large database of all Windows users, and the fact that Microsoft is limiting the number of times you can install it on the same machine.

I'm forced to do multiple installs of Windows on the same machine. I test a lot of hardware and do multiple device driver installs. I also have several machines and swap and/or replace hardware (including hard drives) all the time. The idea of having to register Windows every single time I do an install sounds like a real pain. It also sounds overly intrusive. The idea of having to call Redmond to get their permission for the fifth and all subsequent installs just appalls me.

Paul
paucls@flashcom.net

[spoogenet]

I don't really think that you are an owner because you purchased a copy of software. The company maintains its ownership of the software, you may own the physical disk, the box, the manual, but you do not own the code. You own the license to install that software, as long as you agree to the licensing agreements, but you do not own the software.

Therefore, you have no real rights as an owner of the software, you only have rights as an owner of the license. You get whatever MS allows you through their license agreement with you. If they choose to require you to register, so be it.

Again, the main issue I see here is the privacy one. They will find, in time, that this is a bad idea and will prevent customers a lot of legitimate freedom. This could also infringe upon hardware vendors ability to sell hardware if users are reluctant to upgrade, that could be called anti-competetive, in a way. Or at least stifling their business.

b

[paulcs]

Microsoft maintains a copyright on the software and well as the trademarks associated with the product. They own the intellectual property. They do own the code, but there are limits on both ends.

If you buy a book, the publisher or whomever owns the copyright doesn't maintain ownership of the book. You own it. It's your book. You just don't own the ideas or, again, the intellectual property.

I happen to work both in publishing and contract adminstration, and I can tell you from personal experience that trickery is the status quo. In almost every complex contract, you'll find a provision that states something to the effect of "if any provision in this agreement is illegal, both parties agree that the contract will not be invalidated as a result of this provision."

That's because contractors put illegal provisions in contracts all the time. There's nothing to stop them from doing so, other than the entire agreement could be invalidated (thus the provision that prevents the entire provision from being invalidated). So they do. The reason they do this is to fool the other party into believing they have to abide by that provision. The truth of the matter is you don't.

If Microsoft's appeals are denied, I bet (or at least I hope) they will be regulated like any other *legal* monopoly (ie, your electric or phone company). The State of California, for instance, could say that Microsoft forcing people to register everytime they install Windows is an invasion of privacy. Therefore, the residents of California would not be bound to this, even if it is part of the agreement.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[agallag]

That's the advantage of working in a company of over 40,000 employees. We just signed an enterprise licence agreement for every business product that microsoft makes, that includes every employee's work and home machines. This includes W2K, O2K, Visio, Project, etc, etc, etc. It cost us a few million smackers, but it certainly makes administration easier .

I sure won't be purchasing any MS software for a while, except maybe some games (Midtown Madness 2 looks pretty good).

------------------
Andrew
Carpe Cerevisi