Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Security

Microsoft Allows Pirates to Install XP SP2 549

Posted by CmdrTaco from the well-isn't-that-nice dept.
mkraft writes "On the tail of the previously asked question on whether Microsoft should support pirated copies of XP, comes the answer. According to Computer Times, Microsoft will allow SP2 to be installed on any copy of Windows XP including copies with invalid license keys. Microsoft decided "that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue." There is no news of whether or not pirated copies will be allowed access to the Windows Update site afterwards or just allowed to install SP2."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Allows Pirates to Install XP SP2 More

Microsoft Allows Pirates to Install XP SP2

Comments Filter:

  • In other news, (Score:5, Funny)

    by karmaflux ( 148909 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:53AM (#9100156)
    sixty percent of software priates STILL won't install it, because they're white-knuckling their tinfoil hats screaming IT'S A TRAP! so loud that Admiral Ackbar thinks he hears an echo.

    • In other related news, (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      95% of Windows users dont even know what a patch is and in result SP2 will never be installed and nothing will be resolved

      • Re:In other related news, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:47PM (#9100944)
        Actually, most of that 95% of users have a client support group that takes care of this sort of thing for them.

        Plus, when this starts shipping with new computers, the FW should save a lot of headaches coming from home users on broadband connections.

        So yeah, it won't be perfect. It's also okay to hate the company, or the products, but being a negative nancy isn't going to make the world a better place.

        • Re:In other related news, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheRoachMan ( 677330 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:07PM (#9101044) Journal
          If I had any modpoints I'd mod you up, but I don't so I'll reward you for your insight with a reply. I hate it when people say they hate Microsoft. As you say, it's ok to hate the company but whining about it won't help. A few days ago, when the sasser worm news was on /. people were complaining that warezed versions of Windows XP are to blame, because they're the most likely to not have any security patches installed, and thus help spread the worm. Now Microsoft fixes this (4 days after it's been brought up on slashdot as an 'idea'!!), and people start cracking jokes and saying that it's useless etc etc. I just can't bend my head around this...(yeah I must be new here :p )
          • What really annoys me is that fact that there are millions of morons out there who will "pirate" commercial software (and especially dog crap like Windows) when they could legitimately obtain free or open source software that's just as good or better for the same or less money and effort.

            How many times have you seen people selling CDs of "cracked" software for $25 and getting away with it?

            "Don't spend your money on illegal software," you say, have this it's free. But no, they'd rather break the law, further

            • Re:In other related news, (Score:5, Interesting)

              by no longer myself ( 741142 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @04:31PM (#9101904)
              What really annoys me is that fact that there are millions of morons out there who will "pirate" commercial software (and especially dog crap like Windows) when they could legitimately obtain free or open source software that's just as good or better for the same or less money and effort.

              As a satisfied Mandrake user, I'd love to completely agree with you, but my experience has been daunting so far as finding worthy candidates for OSS. Here in Ohio there are a lot of people who have a limited concept as to what a computer is, how it can be used, and what it takes to maintain one. Many of them get ahold of an old Pentium or *gasp* 486, and then come to me to see if I can get them hooked up to the internet.

              "[So-and-so] told me you might be able to get me online with that free e-mail... Jeeno... Jano..."

              "Juno."

              "Yeah, that's it! So can you help me out?"

              With those old machines, I could install a non-licensed copy of 95/98/Me, but they don't want to put any money into it at all. (I don't even think anyone offers free access anymore.) Hense, I've adopted a "Sorry, I'm using Linux" line that gets me off the spot.

              As for those people who go out and buy new machines, it automatically comes with the MS tax preinstalled, so their system is legit and qualified for the updates no matter what. Occasioanlly they still come to me crying about some problem, and once again I tell them, SIUL. To be honest, I don't really know the XP environment enough to be of significant help like I was for the 95/98/Me versions.

              Now could I "convert" them over to Linux? DOUBTFUL. They get so branded, that they act lost and on the verge of tears if they can't find those familiar icons to their spyware infested programs and proprietary internet connections.

              Again, they are cheap to the point that even with OSS you can't make the machine useful. (I'm sorry, but without internet access, I fail to see a computer as anything but an orphaned box in the middle of a wasteland.)

              It's not about the rabble wanting to break the law. They just want the internet for nothing, and that's just not the way it works... Even with OSS like Linux.

              If anyone ever shows genuine interest, I'd be more than happy to share Lycoris, Mandrake, Knoppix, or any other free OSS with them, set them up, and help them along when they got stuck... But this is Ohio. I might as well teach Shakespear to chimps.

            • Re:In other related news, (Score:4, Insightful)

              by BFaucet ( 635036 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @07:44PM (#9102872) Homepage
              I'd bet that many of the 12-20 year old male audience wants a computer for gaming. Yes, there are games for Linux, but really... most of today's PC games run on windows and their engine's work with MS's DX9 and it wouldn't be cost effective for the game company to get their engine running in OpenGL and port it to Linux.

              True, Many of these 12-20 year olds are able to get their parents to fork over the cash for a computer and legit software. Others can't. Some parents can't believe that their kids want more money even after they handed their kid $1,000 (or what have you) for the computer hardware.

              I used to be one of these kids... then I got a job.

          • I'll come right out and say it (Score:4, Insightful)

            by bonch ( 38532 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @04:21PM (#9101862)
            I'll say it, even at the risk of burning my karma.

            Most (I said most--if it doesn't apply to you, disregard) of the posters here are high schoolers and college students who don't work and have absorbed into the hivemind groupthink that dictates that everything Microsoft does is silly and ridiculous, and everything OSS does is cool and cutting-edge. It's "hip" to your IRC buddies to hate Microsoft and use Mandrake. Then you can say, "Windows sucks because a buggy driver crashed it once...by the way, I'll be back in three hours while I set up my sound card in Linux."

            VA Linux-owned Slashdot has a certain interest in posting as many negative Microsoft articles as possible, and seeing as how Taco's excuse for calling his "news" site a hobby is supposed to be an explanation for the outright falsehoods and propaganda that gets posted, it's a convenient way to discredit Microsoft no matter what they do.

            Outside of Slashdot, the world is very different, but a lot of people have adopted a worldview that is based entirely on Slashdot headlines. Google Zeitgeist shows Linux at 1%, Windows is still around and Longhorn is definitely coming, but if you come to Slashdot, Linux is somehow taking over Mac usage and Longhorn is "vaporware" with no useful technologies whatsoever. Just one example of many (don't get me started on the pro-piracy bullshit...violating copyright holder rights is "justified," while violating the copyright of the GPL is "evil").

            I've seen sigs that stated, "You use Linux if you're anti-Microsoft, you use BSD if you're pro-UNIX." It extends to this website, which is not pro-OSS or pro-Linux, but merely anti-"M$." We're still seeing Clippy and BSOD jokes in 2004. It's like this place is firmly stuck in 1998 and absolutely will not let go. Meanwhile, the late 90s free software golden child that Linux was to the press has subsided, and now people have moved on, expecting actual results and not just cute ideologies that look good in a Wired article. I merely bring all this up because I believe it has an effect on the attitudes of the Slashdot editors and most of Slashdot's devoted readers.

            Less and less do I even bother reading the comments of stories anymore...I'm about ready to just skip them entirely. So much uninformed opinion, outright false memes that never stop spreading ("640K is enough for anybody" is just one example) and bullshit that I could start a manure farm...

            • Re:I'll come right out and say it (Score:5, Insightful)

              by fermion ( 181285 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @07:46PM (#9102883) Homepage Journal
              The problem with /. is that there are few posters with a long term view of the computing industry. Although 1998 seems a long time ago, in a certain sense it is not, and another certain sense it is.

              First, MS cannot be compared to Linux. The former is a very mature product, the later is very immature. Linux gets the same pass we gave to Windows up to about NT. Windows was maturing from a single machine/single person/single node toy to a hybrid OS. Linux is maturing from multiuser multiperson/networked machine to a hybrid OS. Linux may never be simple enough for the average user, and Windows may never be reliable enough for high performance applications.

              MS had no problems until they wanted to do everything. The groupthink MS created over the past 5 to 10 years is that your business is best run using a single OS, and it is even better if you use the same OS as everyone else. This is a far cry than the late 70's/early 80's when they were crying not to trust the single vendor IBM, or in the mid 80's when they were crying no to trust Apple.

              Over the years they have gotten themselves into more trouble. Hacking on a GUI on top of a function command line was done quickly and without enough understandings of the difficulties. The problems and ridicule were absolutely deserved given the demonstrated state of the art. Likewise hacking on a network protocol, with the additional disks, additional hours, and additional support, was a joke compared to the plug and play capabilities of AppleTalk and the much more advanced feature of Novell.

              And I always find it ridiculous when I hear complaints about the drivers. It took me half an hour at the command line to get a zip drive to work in 1994 on a PC. The Mac was plug and Play. Installing a printer driver required acquiring the printer driver and several reboots, not to mention a clunky choosing of the printer. On the Mac at the same time may popular printers were almost plug and play. Of course by them manufacturers had fallen for the myth of the 'simplicity' of the PC, and so often did not include serial ports for the Mac.

              So, many posts you read are also from people who have seen Windows develop from the day MS released that they had missed the boat. They worked on original Unix machines, even microcomputers, that in some ways were better than anything we have today. The hope is that we will get back to the time when computers worked, when we weren't forced to run services we did not need. There is a place for Windows. There would be more of a place if it were customizable.

              In short, if the issues were just results Windows would be a non-starter. However, since cheapness, groupthink myths, and communicating to the PHB plays a big part, it is now what we are stuck with.

            • > (don't get me started on the pro-piracy bullshit...violating copyright holder rights is "justified," while violating the copyright of the GPL is "evil")

              You're argument relys on the notion that current law serves its intended functions in terms of promoting the creation of culture and technology. Can you prove that recognizing copyright law in its current form is inherently 'right' any more so than some say it's 'wrong'? And whats to prevent a law coming into effect that abolishes copyright law in its
        • Actually, most of that 95% of users have a client support group that takes care of this sort of thing for them.

          That's all well and good for machines at work. Then those same users go home and do nothing with their home machines.

    • Re:In other news, (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jacquesm ( 154384 )
      it actually might be, but enforcing that is another matter. That being said I'd be more pleased if MS started accepting liability towards their REGISTERED users instead of allowing those who install pirated copies to upgrade. In fact the 'upgrade' issue would probably go away all by itsself because MS would have to make sure they sell a solid product. Way too much money being lost. TCO studies historically look at things like purchase price, not at value of time/money lost because of sloppy products, which

      • Re:In other news, (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:48AM (#9100558)
        I think you have an unrealistic view of the OS and all of the related components that it comes with.

        Facts is facts, there are Linux security issues, FreeBSD security issues, even OpenBSD security issues (although much more rare), as well as other miscellaneous bugs and compatibility issues.

        Face it, when someone releases a completely secure general purpose operating systems, it won't be for current technology.

        While MS products could (and should) be better, and I agree with your assesment about TCO, we need to keep in mind that Linux also needs upgrades and patches installed, and security holes plugged. Often it can be more time consuming to patch Linux, too - find and download RPM, potentially requiring you to find and download dependencies, etc., and installing, while in Windows, for most users, it's "click on Windows update button."

        I guess the conclusion is they should both be better. I do agree that once a Linux machine is patched it seems to run and run without any problems, while Windows clients seem to have continuous problems (for whatever reason - we have a large network and computers seem to keep losing connections and having all sorts of connectivity problems that cause a lot of wasted time). But, we need the Windows software.

        • Re:In other news, (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j@nospAm.ww.com> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:54AM (#9100604) Homepage
          Oh, I fully agree with you that it won't be for current technology. No such thing is possible in my view. We'd need to forget about performance as goal #1, but go for robustness instead. How was that old joke ? If carpenters built stuff the way programmers do the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. Count me in the micro kernel camp (the plan 9 way, not the 'hurd' way). Something solid, no eye candy but functionality. I find it amazing how much time goes into 'theming' and all kinds of nonsense and how little goes into the foundation, the hardware interfaces and so on. But progress takes time, and for now in a practical sense Linux seems to have the momentum behind it to make some change, long term it is not the be-all-end-all of computing, a more drastic change will need to be made.

      • Re:In other news, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by timmyf2371 ( 586051 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:52PM (#9100968)
        If you look at the majority of incidents relating to bugs in Microsoft software, the majority of them have actually had patches available for download/install before any virus/worm outbreaks.

        Perhaps it's the users who should accept liability for not installing these patches?

  • ooh (Score:5, Funny)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@gmL ... m minus math_god> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:53AM (#9100158) Homepage
    I can't wait to see how people here try to twist this into something malevolent on MS' part. This is gonna be some mighty cool logical contortionism...

    • Oh that is easy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:43AM (#9100518) Journal
      There are two explanations.

      The first is simple. MS can't ban them. SP1 was easily installed when you had a keygen. So basically they are allowing something they can't stop anyway.

      The second is more sinister. Has MS ever lost from piracy? Or has piracy helped them become the owner of the desktop. If everyone really had to pay for every bit of MS software they ran would they still be so widely used?

      If they ever manage to create a windows you can't install without a license people might just choose not to use windows. It is a radical idea I know but MS can't risk it. They can afford piracy, they can't afford losing dominance on the desktop. Hell Gates himself has boasted that MS fortune is big enough to last them years without a single source of income.

      Unix was once very popular because it was practially free to everyone working at a university. There were other OS'es to work with but unix was free for students, teachers, researchers and other people with no money. Same with the C programming language.

      Dominance is worth a lot more then getting every user to pay. Just ask apple. Apple made sure you had to pay for their OS because you have to buy their hardware. How big is their share again?

      • Then why the need for XP activation? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bonch ( 38532 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @04:29PM (#9101893)
        Has MS ever lost from piracy?

        I hear constantly how Microsoft is supposedly pro-piracy for dominance purposes, yet never an explanation why they added activation to Windows XP, Windows 2003, Office XP, and Office 2003.

        And why did SP1 not install on invalid keys?

        Clearly, this is simply a turnaround based on the fact that the keygens out there make it impossible to detect an invalid key, and the need to plug certain holes that have been spreading things is more important than making sure the user has paid for what's running. Their own dominance through piracy is becoming a security clutch, and this is their answer.

        • Re:Then why the need for XP activation? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @04:48PM (#9101980)
          Activation was to essentially add marginal revenue.

          Think of it like this...

          You're selling Windows, and you have a lot of money, so you do a lot of surveys about windows, and based on Windows Update, you have a pretty good idea how many unique PC's are out there versus how many licenses you sold.

          Lets assume the piracy rate for Windows is 15% (I have no idea, just a guess). Now, Microsoft is already getting money for each PC, because Dell, Gateway, and all the others force you to buy Windows when you buy the PC. That means you can't gain market share simply by expanding your market, because you've got 100% of the market for all intents and purposes.

          So you look at that piracy number. If you can decrease piracy 5%, you get 5% more revenue, essentially for free.

          Oh sure, 10% will still bypass it, but what do you care? The 5% is easy, causes no inconvenience, and if you're selling Windows, you make it as liberal as possible. You're trying to scare Joe Mostly-Honest into doing the right thing.

          Now, if your goal was to go from 10% piracy down to 1%, my guess is that you would piss off about 50% of your customers, because it would be such a pain the ass, no one would be happy.

          So MS just got 5% more revenue simply by forcing the thing to phone home once. Big deal.

    • Re:ooh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jkabbe ( 631234 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:06PM (#9100667)
      It's not malevolent but it is in their best interest.

      When the next killer worm sweeps the world I doubt Microsoft will just be able to wave their hand and say, "it's all those illegal copies that are causing the problem" and have people believe it.

      Bad PR is a big danger to Microsoft.

  • Great (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymouse Cownerd ( 754174 )
    now the questions that remains is, does SP2 require SP1 (since SP1 checks the validity of the license).

    Good for your Microsoft.

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)

      by Wuffle ( 651894 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:58AM (#9100206) Homepage
      Microsoft service packs don't require the previous service packs (eg XP SP1) to be installed, they contain all the updates thus far.

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)

      by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:16AM (#9100333)
      Actually, SP1 doesn't check the validity of the license. It simply denies those who have a CD key starting with "FCKGW".

      The SP1 fix for pirated copies of Windows XP is a simple re-registering of a newly generated CD key. No need to activate.

      So basically if you installed a pirated copy of WinXP (that has activation removed) and used any other key besides "FCKGW...", you're good to go.

      Not much of a "piracy prevention" system going on there.

  • And i'm sure (Score:4, Interesting)

    by klocwerk ( 48514 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:53AM (#9100164) Homepage
    the new DRM stuff being added has nothing to do with them letting everyone have it.
    *tinfoil hat*

  • Ah, Microsoft the benefactor. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by base3 ( 539820 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:53AM (#9100166)
    Of course, were they to deny access to SP2 to those with copyright infringing copies, those using them might migrate to OSS. Or Microsoft might even be sued for having allowed infected machines to exist, when they had the means to patch them.

    • Re:Ah, Microsoft the benefactor. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pidder ( 736678 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:58AM (#9100213)
      Of course, were they to deny access to SP2 to those with copyright infringing copies, those using them might migrate to OSS. Or Microsoft might even be sued for having allowed infected machines to exist, when they had the means to patch them.

      I don't know what you are smoking but dude, not being able to patch their system will not make them migrate. People don't care about patching their systems as it is. Look at Sasser, a patch was out but people didn't bother downloading it. The only thing that will make people migrate to OSS is if it was ABSOLUTELY impossible to use a pirated version of Windows.

      • i think he meant that the rep MS will get would be bad because people who cant patch their machines will start having machines that are as flaky as winME. One of the biggest turning points for MS was Win2k/XP without the ominous BSOD/crashing every day. Without all the crashes people biggest complaint ( it crashes all the time ) was nullified. But If no one can patch then every other day your system gets infected with this that or the other thing. Almost making it ABSOLUTELY impossible to run without patchi

    • Re:Ah, Microsoft the benefactor. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:59AM (#9100220)
      No, I run pirated XP and I have to say that switching to OSS never crossed my mind. If someone had technical knowledge enough to use OSS wouldn't they also have the knowledge to find a cracked version of SP2? Most pirates know about the cracked version of SP1 and I'm sure it would be the same for SP2 whether MS "allows" us to install it or not.

    • Re:Ah, Microsoft the benefactor. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Karamchand ( 607798 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:59AM (#9100223)
      Bullshit, they'd never ever get (successfully) sued. They have no obligation whatsoever to provide a pirate with updates to the pirated software.
      • Bullshit, they'd never ever get (successfully) sued. They have no obligation whatsoever to provide a pirate with updates to the pirated software.

        You are exactly right. THey have no obligation to non-customers running pirated copies. I think this is more of a "plan for future PR" move, personally. If they left all the pirated copies of XP vulnerable to attack by refusing them updates, think what that'd do to future statistics. They probably don't want windows to look any worse than it is, so anything they

      • aaah but there is a greater responsibility there, not to the pirated user, but to the Interne community. IANAL but this is how I'd state my case vs. Microsoft:

        1) Microsoft would know that there was a security issue on Windows
        2) Microsoft would know that this security issue does not necessarily affect the individual holder of the computer, but the network space surrouning the holder of the computer.
        3) Microsoft willfully denied at least some users the ability to patch their system properly, thus harmi

      • Re:Ah, Microsoft the benefactor. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CTho9305 ( 264265 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:29AM (#9100419) Homepage
        ...and yet I can be sued when a burglar hurts himself on my property.
    • ...migrate to OSS

      Do you really think Microsoft cares if pirates switch to Linux? They don't pay anyway, so who cares.
  • Now, this seems like a genuinely nice thing to do by Microsoft. I can't wait to see how the Slashdot hordes of RMS fanboys are going to spin it to make Microsoft seem like the bad guy again...

    (this almost made fp, too!)

    • It's not nice, it's good business (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bcore ( 705121 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:09AM (#9100294)
      I'd say that this is just good business for them.. Making sure that people who probably wouldn't pay for an OS anyways aren't helping to spread worms and infecting people who DO pay for the OS is just going to help MS.

      On the other hand, denying people service packs is not likely to induce them to pay for a license (it certainly wouldn't have convinced me, back when I ran windows), and just contributes to the perception (if you want to call it that.. :)) that windows is insecure.

    • Re:Conspiracy theorists unite! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bistronaut ( 267467 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:22AM (#9100373) Homepage Journal
      OK - I'll bite. :-)

      Microsoft doesn't actually have anything to loose by giving this patch to pirates of its operating system. For one thing, if they had less pirates they would loose valuable market share (their greatest asset). The number of pirates who would actually buy a copy of Windows to get SP2 is negligable, so it's not like they're giving up some big potential revenue stream. Factor in the reduction in bad press that MS gets every time there's a worm and Microsoft's continued policy of supporting pirated copies of Windows makes all the sense in the world. They'd have to be stupid to do otherwise.

      Of course the curtailing of various worms is nice for the Internet at large. Just because an action serves Microsoft's interest doesn't mean that it can't serve everyone else's interests too. (Except for the fact that it perpetuates Microsoft's choke-hold on the IT industry, but since when did we worry about the long-term good when a short-term good is in front of us?)

      I'm sure that the extra bandwidth will cost Microsoft thousands of dollars, but it's cheap PR for them.

      Maybe I'm not the target of this particular troll, since I don't believe that there's any "conspiracy". Microsoft is just doing what is best for Microsoft. That's what it always does (and should do - it is a business after all).

  • There has to be an alternative motive here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:55AM (#9100178)
    I had to use a pirated version of windows on my vmware because my damn laptop came with a version of XP that could only be installed on a SONY, laptop. Which is crap - I was forced to pay for XP with my laptop - it should be mine to run on:

    1. Another computer should I not use it on my laptop.
    2. My vmware virtual machine on the laptop it was meant to run on, although not in the manner originally intended.
    • 3. Digital Rights Management.

    • Re:There has to be an alternative motive here... (Score:5, Informative)

      by donutello ( 88309 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:10AM (#9100295) Homepage
      If you paid for a full retail version of XP, you would indeed be able to use it that way.

      However, you didn't. You paid a fraction of the price for a limited license which allows you to use it on your laptop and your laptop alone.

      • Re:There has to be an alternative motive here... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:36AM (#9100466) Homepage
        1. However, you didn't. You paid a fraction of the price for a limited license which allows you to use it on your laptop and your laptop alone.

        raises hand

        I read that he *did* pay for the licence needed to run it on his laptop. It was bundled in with the price of the laptop. He's using it on that laptop. That Sony has crippled the copy he had does not negate that he does indeed have a licence. It's a technical issue, not a legal one.

    • Re:There has to be an alternative motive here... (Score:5, Informative)

      by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:12AM (#9100311) Homepage
      If you buy a full version, you have all these rights. What people fail to realize is they get an OEM copy of the OS with a new system. It is much cheaper than a full version, but also has 1 added restriction, it can only be (legally) run on that machine. If you want the full version, pay for the full version. If you only pay for a limited version (which is esentially what the OEM version is) then don't complain because you don't get the rights of the full version.

      And before you say it, Sony has chosen to make it so you can only install the OS on a Sony machine, not MS. So the fact you can't install the OS on VMWare on the machine it came on is the fault of Sony, not MS.

    • Re:There has to be an alternative motive here... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by puppet10 ( 84610 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:40AM (#9100495)
      You would think you had the right to use the product as you wish, but the software industry has created this whole new added feature to copyright where you don't actually buy what you buy.

      Microsoft have sold you (through Sony) what they call an OEM version of the software which they purport to only allow you to use on the original hardware you bought it on.

      This type of limitation on sales of product was attempted with books and the resulting court case resulted in the formation of the First Sale Doctrine where once you purchase the work you can do with it what you see fit unbound by limitations by the copyright holder, in that particular case it was to resell a book at a price not set by the copyright holder.

      Unfortunately this right has fallen largely by the wayside in software and the courts, congress and the executive haven't done anything to prevent this erosion of rights - in fact most have been actively promoting this erosion.

      So you don't currently have the right according to the license agreement to use that copy of the software anywhere other than the computer you bought it on.

  • The picked the win-win situation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zaunuz ( 624853 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:55AM (#9100183)
    Well, allowing everyone to install SP2 would make worms and viruses that spreads due to OS voulnerabilities to be slowed down. And i doubt MS would sell more Windows if it wasnt possible to install SP2 on pirated windows-versions.

    • Re:The picked the win-win situation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EboMike ( 236714 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:21AM (#9100366)
      I guess that's the key here. Slowing down the spread of viruses will create less bad publicity about Windows vulnerabilities.

      Every time one of those viruses breaks out, it's virtually on the frontpage of major newspapers. Certainly nothing that entices people to buy more Microsoft products.

      In effect, they are helping that "revenue issue".

  • Pragmatic decision (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:56AM (#9100189)
    I think what they meant to say is that they realized it's more important to keep OTHER Windows users safe. By allowing users of invalid copies of XP to patch, known vulnerabilities that might be exploited and used as points of attack against other Windows installations are addressed. It simply makes sense for them to do this.

    • Re:Pragmatic decision (Score:5, Informative)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:11AM (#9100303)
      I think what they meant to say is that they realized it's more important to keep OTHER Windows users safe.

      It isn't just what he "meant" to say:

      "Having these unsecured users means bigger worm and virus outbreaks - which also impacts the Internet and consequently, our legitimate users as well." [said Microsoft group product manager Barry Goffe.]

  • What they mean to say is.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Inhibit ( 105449 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:56AM (#9100190) Homepage Journal
    "that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep our future revenues safe than to worry about coypright infringment."

  • It's a conspiracy!!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dmacdonald ( 699877 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:56AM (#9100191)
    If they really wanted to keep u ssafe, they wouldn't let us install windows AT ALL. ;)

  • From the headline:

    even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue

    If someone is using a pirated copy of Windows, seems to me the "revenue issue" has already been decided. ;)

    The Dalai LLama
    ...on a pirated copy of Linux... hope my service packs will install...

  • Wrong Way Round (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CowboyBob500 ( 580695 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:57AM (#9100198) Homepage
    Microsoft decided "that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue."

    What they mean is "it is more important to keep us safe from the media when the next round of viruses hit any unpatched machines by saying we allowed anyone to install SP2"

    Bob
  • Why can't Microsoft settle for allowing people who have not purchased a valid key for XP/Server 2K3 to have the upgrade, but also make any TCP/IP connection drop after a certain time?

    That is, except for more updates from Microsoft.

    This way people can still "try" Windows, use it for the programs they need, but if they want to go online or play games, etc., they'll have to do it in the time frame before Windows needs to reboot or wait a certain time before connecting again, or purchase a key.

  • From One POV.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by colinramsay ( 603167 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:58AM (#9100208) Homepage
    This is fairly selfless. This stance could be interpreted as Microsoft putting aside its own interests in order to improve the current state of home computer security and the poor security levels on the net. Even though they caused those problems in the first place, this move is one which should be met with approval.

    • Re:From One POV.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:21AM (#9100368) Homepage Journal
      It has nothing to do with being selfless. If they COULD block access, then they would.

      The problems with restricting access to this SP2 are totally different to restricting SP1.

      At the SP1 stage, everyone with pirated version was using the devilsown serial key - one single key for every pirate.

      This key was in use by 1 corporation, and it was fairly simple for microsoft to contact that one corporation, and talk them through changing their key.

      Now that everyone knows the key is locked, they all use the newer keygenerators and produce random keys.

      Microsoft can no longer determine the legit customers from the pirates.

      It would cost them serious money if legit customers were blocked from updating.

  • Not true.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by aGeMo ( 229752 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:58AM (#9100210) Homepage
    Many corporate cdkeys were locked out of the last sp2 build to try to fight piracy. The build would allow you to install the service pack but immediatly after login it would force the activation screen to you which you can not get around. Only solution was to format and install with a different key. More info here [flexbeta.net].

  • Yay! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For those that will say "big deal, we could've done this anyway", remember that while some people with invalid keys could install SP1 by just downloading the patch manually, many couldn't. Many of the pirated copies of XP used one of two keys (one of which started with FCK...), and Microsoft's SP1 download checked the PCs license number to make sure it wasn't one of these two keys. If it was, it wouldn't install itself. Trust me, I tried... I ended up having to change my license number by using a script [microsoft.com]

  • What a crock (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SYFer ( 617415 ) <syfer@syfer.LAPLACEnet minus math_god> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @10:58AM (#9100216) Homepage
    "that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue."

    Bullshit. What they really mean is:

    "Even if someone has a pirated copy of Windows, we will grudgingly forego the revenue and allow it to be updated because the proliferation of morons with compromised machines further erodes the already declining credibility of our OS. For now."

  • Microsoft Secretly Loves Pirates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:02AM (#9100239) Homepage Journal
    It's quite obvious when you think about it. As long as Microsoft makes it possible to pirate windows it keeps linux down. Remember, piracy makes things more popular, like music. As long as people can get windows for free the freeness of linux is not so attractive. Microsoft knows that people who are pirating XP probably will never pay for windows ever. So by doing this they can keep their market share from going to linux or some other os. Someone using windows, even if not paying, is still using windows. And there's a chance they just might pay for some other windows software. Maybe the pirated windows and bought an EA Sports game. Doesn't help Microsoft directly, but every windows program sold makes a small difference.

    Microsoft probably has the power to completely disable every internet-connected PC with pirated MS software on it. But imagine if today all pirate copies of windows stopped working. You would have a large large number of people with useless computers. They would all follow one of two courses of action. Either go to the store and buy windows for $100+ or download a linux or some such for free. More people would do the latter than Microsoft would like.
    • I call bullshit.

      I use many different systems... I administer several hundred Win, Mac, Unix and Lin systems (98% Windows). I'm typing this on a Debian GNU/Linux unstable box right now. Here's the one observation I have about MS Windows: Yes, Windows has problems, but the benefits to using it (applications, all users know it, it's everywhere, etc.) outweigh the risks (worms, trojans, viruses, etc). And, more importantly, the risks, although great, are very managable from an IT perspective. Intelligent ma

  • Nice PR there :-P (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:02AM (#9100247) Journal
    even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue.

    Of course Microsoft don't care about being kind to their pirates, but to save their asses and get a better rumor about providing secure operating systems.

  • Shiver me timbers! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Henrik S. Hansen ( 775975 ) <hsh@member.fsf.org> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:03AM (#9100252) Homepage
    Better get me one of those scurvin' patches for me eye.

    But what about me land-lubbin' mateys? Guess the scallywagin' Microsoft haven't thought about them.

    Arrrr, who cares about them anyway? Pass the grog, ye son of a biscuit eater!

  • Not that it matters much... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Running a pirated copy of Windows XP Proffesional here.

    All I had to do was search out a clean license key and instructions on changing it- that was trivially easy to do. 15 minutes of searching the web, maybe five of running the windows programs(all built into windows) that manipulate the license key and activation system. Anyone able to follow simple directions, they go step by step not leaving anything to your own prior knowledge. Well, you have to be able to read, but thats about the only skill you n
  • I don't think I would let people have it if it were pirated. Or maybe I'd let them have it but permanently remove TCP/IP. Someone would just figure out how to put it back in I'm sure.
  • Microsoft will allow people to install SP2?

    I hate to bring it up, but Apple does it the smart way. Install all the patches that you want, but if your key is considered invalid, the next time you try to run it... it prompts you for a valid key. Problem solved and all software is secure(but possibly not working).

    It does suck because a few of my "Hi-End" software does not work, but you get what you pay for(troubles).
    • Key? What key? I have never had a key on an Apple OS. Considering you can only run it on an Apple system there is literally no need for a key.

      I'm looking at my Panther boc right now and no key is to be found, nor on the Appleworks box right next to it, and oh look, no key for my iLife 04 box.
      • Their Pro software does this (eg Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro...). Their OS and "commodity" software they'd rather see widely distributed by piracy than inconvenience those who do buy it with license keys.

  • Different Pirated Copies of XP (Score:5, Informative)

    by ApheX ( 6133 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:13AM (#9100318) Homepage Journal
    As far as I know there are a couple different pirated copies of XP out there. There is the original DevilsOwn patched version, then there are the VLK/Corporate versions and so on. I am going to guess that the majority of people pirating XP are using the corporate version which AFAIK currently has no problem connecting to WindowsUpdate.

    Now - even if Microsoft does block everyone with any kind of pirated version of XP out - what is stopping someone from setting up their own WindowsUpdate server (I have done so at my office) and allowing people to update themselves from there (unless of course the WindowsUpdate allows for the person to download and once it attempts to install finds the illegitimate key and then stops there).

    With the piracy scene these days it shouldnt take but a couple days for someone to figure out a way around all this activation stuff and sometimes even MS makes it easier to get around. Take Office XP - it requires activation which can be gotten around and if you attempt to install updates (esp. Service packs) it will ask you for the original CD. However, if you just download the entire SP3 for Office XP you can install the service pack without ever needing the original disks for XP.

    If you can program some sort of protection - someone else will figure out a way around it. MS Activation, PGP, etc, etc, etc. Almost everyone wants something for nothing and will spend a lot of time to figure out how to do it.

  • Product Activation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by atlantis191 ( 750037 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:21AM (#9100370)
    Well thanks to Microsoft's Product Activation, there is no such thing as a pirated copy of Windows XP, right? Oh, there is? And its easy to get around? Well thanks for wasting all the legit users fscking time, Microsoft!

  • Responsible of them (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:32AM (#9100443) Homepage Journal
    Seriously.. The issues of internet protection are much larger then the revenue lost from a few 'pirates'... ( though it is debatable if there really is a loss, since most 'pirates' wouldnt have purchased the product anyway )

    This was a good and responsible move on their part.

    Assuming there wasnt some underlying motive we dont know about.... I hate to be too trusting of a company that has a history with hidden agendas..

  • 250 MB service pack? Eeek (Score:5, Funny)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:39AM (#9100488) Homepage Journal
    My god, with 250mb i could create an entire operating environment...

    Something is wrong with that, being as the SP is mostly bug fixes.. ( not all, but mostly )

    Will not be practical for dialup users, and they will have to pay for the ( by then late ) updates..

    And give Microsoft their home address for future 'license verification sweeps'... how convenient...

    • Re:250 MB service pack? Eeek (Score:5, Informative)

      by Neophytus ( 642863 ) * on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:10PM (#9100698)
      they offer security updates on a cd for free [microsoft.com]

    • Re:250 MB service pack? Eeek (Score:4, Informative)

      by BRSQUIRRL ( 69271 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:23PM (#9101109)
      While 250 MB is a huge update, this is the first MS service pack (that I can recall) that actually consists mostly of new features and not just bug fixes...the security features of XP have been overhauled (new security "dashboard" control app, vastly improved firewall, and lots of "default off" security settings in Messenger, Outlook Express, etc.) and it includes a new version of IE with pop-up blocking built-in and extension management, a new bluetooth and 802.11x wireless detection/connection tool, and a number of smaller (but no less visible) enhancements (like a streamlined Add/Remove Programs tool).

  • XP Pirates Are Taking A Risk (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Esion Modnar ( 632431 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @11:53AM (#9100599)
    What's to keep Microsoft, if they choose, from grabbing the IP addresses of pirates attempting the Windows Update, and going after them RIAA-style? It seems like that would be real tempting to their legal department...

  • Ha! Allow me to translate: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by antis0c ( 133550 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:15PM (#9100742)
    Microsoft decided "that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him safe than it is to be concerned about the revenue issue."

    Roughly translates to:

    Microsoft decided "that even if someone has pirated copy of Windows, it is more important to keep him locked into the platform than it is to be concerned with the legality of the license."

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:29PM (#9100813)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Easy way to get a legit Volume Licence Key (Score:5, Funny)

    by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:40PM (#9100896)
    Someone I know *ahem* downloaded an XP Pro ISO from KaZaA (took nearly 2 weeks on modem) then used WinISO to slipstream it with the Service Pack 1 full installer

    This individual was going to try and google a key but then went into his local bank (Barclays) to arrange a loan for a car, and noticed that the Dell PC sitting on the adviser's desk had the usual Dell label on it, with serial numbers for Windows XP and 2000 on it....

    And there was a pile of complimentary notepads and a pen on the desk. And the adviser was off getting some forms.

    Priceless...

  • To all proclaiming Microsoft is not losing $$.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The0racle ( 318716 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:53PM (#9100977)
    People in thier comments seem to just be regurgitating the same old piracy drivel about the company not losing revenue streams: "Well, its not like the pirates would actually buy the software anyway." This might be true for some apps like 3d studio max and photoshop to an extent, which are high-priced, luxury software.

    But if Windows had been impossible to pirate, these people would have bought windows. Sure, some of them might have gone the *nix route, but most likely a very small minority. These pirates dont balk at spending money: they spent 1000-1500 dollars on the hardware for their computers. Spending an extra 100 bucks on some software that makes that hardware work and function wouldnt even be a second thougt if it were impossible to pirate windows.

    So sure, microsoft is gaining marketshare, which is arguably more important to them than revenue -- especially at this point -- but recognize that they have lost a significant revenue source because of piracy.

  • Anyone checked out SP2 RC1? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by trickykungfu ( 778316 ) on Sunday May 09, 2004 @12:54PM (#9100983)
    There's an English version and a German version, but the english is 13 megs heavier. Anyone know why? Perhaps some nasty little bit of snoopware they know they couldn't get away with in Germany?

  • Good move MS! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaptainTux ( 658655 ) <papillion@gmail.com> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @01:38PM (#9101185) Homepage Journal
    Regardless of whether this is a pure marketing move or a genuine attempt to address security holes in the OS, I think that Microsoft has done an incredible job with this. It makes sense, it's good practice, and it portrays MS as a non-evil, somewhat caring corporate giant. Either way, they win and, this time, the consumer sorta wins too.

    Bravo MS. Good move.

  • This is a good thing... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lothsahn ( 221388 ) <Lothsahn@@@SPAM_ ... tardsgooglmailcm> on Sunday May 09, 2004 @02:28PM (#9101409)
    But they should still bring up a single pop-up box/warning when it's installing/starting up. Many people who have 'pirated' copies don't know they were pirated at all. Often, a friend or relative builds them a computer, and just installs a pirated copy rather than buy one.

    This one student at the college purchased the computer, and it had a pirated copy on it. Apparently, the person who was assembling computers was just installing pirated copies instead of buying a copy of windows XP for each computer he was making. Therefore, they bought a computer with what they thought was a legal copy and ended up getting ripped off.

    I told them to contact the person and inform him that they would like a full registered copy in a sealed box that they could use with a non-activated key. Without attempting to install SP1, they would never have known.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 10, 2004 @01:50AM (#9104356)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

"Never ascribe to malice that which is caused by greed and ignorance." -- Cal Keegan

Close