J
Joel
Flightless Bird
Re: Microsoft's new 'phone home' anti-piracy practice unacceptable, says critic
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
>I thought this part was very funny:
>
>
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
>I thought this part was very funny:
>
>
>
>Williams defended the change. "We want to make sure we're
>protecting our customers," he said, against newly-developed
>activation cracks that may have slipped by Microsoft, or simply
>not been in use, when the PC was originally activated.
>
>[end quote]
You have to recognize, though, that when he says "our customers", he
means victims of counterfeiting - implicitly, deliberate warez-style
pirates are not customers.
>Why do computer users need to be protected against hacks that
>deactivate Microsoft's product activation? Deactivating WPA is a
>good thing. It means less potential for grief. No, the only ones
>Microsoft is protecting here are themselves.
>
>All it means to me is that I can never use Microsoft's automatic
>download, or anything that requires the running of the "Genuine
>Advantage" or whatever else they are calling their piracy-sniffing
>tools these days. I have a completely legitimate copy of Windows
>7, yet these tools are cut off to me, because I don't want to risk
>the screw ups of WPA and associated "security" crap.
Well, I will agree to the extent that in an ideal world, this wouldn't
be necessary. But it's not fair to Microsoft, and more importantly to
victims of counterfeit software, to completely reject it on principle.
There's a principle on both sides.
--
Joel Crump