locked
Why can't you use the monthly update cycle for your wga update? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Yet again today I received another update KB905474. I have installed all the other previous wga irritants ( successfully ). Why does the wga group wish to pester valid users outside the normal update cycle? Does it give you a cheap thrill to force these silly updates on us at random intervals? 


    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:51 PM

Answers

  •  gus19 wrote:
    Phil that you are not sure of what is meant by the monthly update cycle speaks volumes. You have a user base and administrators that Microsoft has informed to look for updates on the second Tuesday of the month and you clain not to have knowledge of the monthly update cycle? Do you think we users/adminstartors are playthings so you can alter the standards on a whim?


    http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/update/bulletins/default.mspx

    When necessary, Microsoft provides a new security update on the second Tuesday of each month and sends a bulletin announcing the update.

    I have edited your post, as the personal attack is not appreciated on this public forum. While we appreciate the stance and feedback of all users, there is certainly a limit to what we allow here. This rule, while it may seem like "singling a post out" - is not so. All users must follow these rules, including MS employees, customers, or users of the software.

     

     

    Actually, I was not familiar with the term "monthly update cycle". There are many terms in use throughout, which may be misconstrued. I was simply asking for clarification before assigning that as the "Security Tuesday" type of release.

     

    Our program is not technically classified as a security update, so we are not intimately familiar with those either.

     

    We do have our own release cycles.

     

    Sorry for the confusion.

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:40 AM

All replies

  • There is a new release today that will correct many issues as we've upgraded to a full-release.

     

    -phil liu

    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:15 PM
  • That doesn't answer the question about the normal 2nd Tuseday update cycle. Your response only confirms that the wga trojan is a not ready for prime time work in process that you persist in inflicting on valid users until you get it right.
    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:29 PM
  • What is WGA trojan? Can you please clarify? We may be talking about separate issues.

     

    -phil liu

    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:39 PM
  • again you're ignoring the issue about monthly update cycle.

     The wga trojan is the set of software that has been inficted on valid users for several months ( April 25th in my case ). It meets the pure definition of a trojan. It was surreptitiously installed, proceeded to phone home at regular intervals (that Microsoft didn't acknowledge until caught ) and cannot be uninstalled. As I have stated in the past,  I pass your verification. I am legal and  vehemently resent  the trojan. If you wish for me to  pass the 'Genuine' test every time I go to Wu that's something I  would do. But in effect you are  telling valid users that you distrust them  and that they are theives by this current process. 

    Again why  do you refuse to use the monthly update cycle that you have accustomed user to? It's a simple question

    Also what does the wga 'full release' mean?
    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:58 PM
  • Update to the WGA Notifications program introduces changes based on customer feedback: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/jun06/06-27WGA.mspx 
    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:18 PM
    Moderator
  • I just will have to accept that fact that Microsoft refuses the answer the question

    Why can't you use the monthly update cycle?

    I also find it amazing that the removal intructions at the link you provided are slight garbled

    "KB article # 921914on Microsoft.com" 

    and as with the typical Microsft disdain for the user provide no easy link to the kb
    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:34 PM
  • I must add to Gus's assessment:

    1. If you listened to customer feedback, you'd cancel this entire silent trojan attack, with its out-of-sequence updates.

    2. The primary objection isn't the "phone home" thing.  That was last week's squawk from the journalists, convenient to your spin on this matter.  The primary objection is the aura of mistrust and staggering involuntary beta test that surrounds WGA. Give it up.

    3. The whole arena of security updates is being terminally polluted by this excrescence, and by hanging things like Defender updates on a previously clean process. 

    4. Microsoft was previously an apostle of The Trusted Source. Trust is being lost.  Take heed.

    5. And open this up to the NNTP groups, where those who can defend themselves prefer to reside.

     

    That's my feedback.

    -f

    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:10 PM
  • I TOO cannot find the kb921914 using every source on M* I can!

    SAY M*-Is it possible that your help isn't on the same page again and never or didn't post the kb article YET????

    PATRICK

    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:15 PM
  • I'll agree with the concerns on this thread.  The WGA fiasco has thrown a wrench into a critical and carefully set up tool: Windows Update.   It's all administrators can do to manage and test this on a normal basis, much less all this out-of-band random WU schedule and other such nonsense.

       To steal f's words 'Trust is being lost'.

    Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:34 PM
  • it's at

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;921914
    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:15 AM
  • Classification of the term "Trojan" is very broad and can be found and explained in more detail by our press pass article http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/jun06/06-27WGA.mspx

    The term "phone home" is actually misleading and mis-read by many press articles. The original intention of the one-way Notifications communication protocol was to update the settings file incase the notifications program was mis-installed (or something of the sort). That functionality has changed - and can be viewed in the press pass above as well.

    I'm not sure what the "Monthly Update Cycle" you're referring to. The WGA Notifications program was re-released today as a full general public release.

     Thanks for your feedback,

    -phil liu

    Program Manager,

    WIndows Genuine Advantage

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:29 AM
  •  Phil Liu MSFT wrote:

    I'm not sure what the "Monthly Update Cycle" you're referring to. The WGA Notifications program was re-released today as a full general public release.



    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/revsbwp.mspx

    "In response to extensive customer feedback, Microsoft is implementing changes in the way security bulletins are released. These changes will help enhance the manageability and predictability of the patch management process for customers.

     Security bulletins will normally be released on the second calendar Tuesday of every month."

      This cycle helps us in IT deal with the process and lets us pre-test to prevent our carefully tuned PCs from turning into a smoking lump of charcoal because of an errant update.  The only exception to this cycle should be emergency security patches such as the .WMF patch last December/January.

      - Steve

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:09 AM
  • Phil that you are not sure of what is meant by the monthly update cycle speaks volumes. You have a user base and administrators that Microsoft has informed to look for updates on the second Tuesday of the month and you clain not to have knowledge of the monthly update cycle? Do you think we users/adminstartors are playthings so you can alter the standards on a whim?


    http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/update/bulletins/default.mspx

    When necessary, Microsoft provides a new security update on the second Tuesday of each month and sends a bulletin announcing the update.

    -----------

    Edited personal attack.
    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:16 AM
  • Steve:

     

    Thanks for the feedback. I've spoken with a few members and this is not classified as a security bulletin. Its classified as a high-priority update, however.

     

    -Phil Liu

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:18 AM
  • Taking a cheap shot is very unprofessional.  You need to mind your manners or move on.
    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:33 AM
    Moderator
  •  gus19 wrote:
    Phil that you are not sure of what is meant by the monthly update cycle speaks volumes. You have a user base and administrators that Microsoft has informed to look for updates on the second Tuesday of the month and you clain not to have knowledge of the monthly update cycle? Do you think we users/adminstartors are playthings so you can alter the standards on a whim?


    http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/update/bulletins/default.mspx

    When necessary, Microsoft provides a new security update on the second Tuesday of each month and sends a bulletin announcing the update.

    I have edited your post, as the personal attack is not appreciated on this public forum. While we appreciate the stance and feedback of all users, there is certainly a limit to what we allow here. This rule, while it may seem like "singling a post out" - is not so. All users must follow these rules, including MS employees, customers, or users of the software.

     

     

    Actually, I was not familiar with the term "monthly update cycle". There are many terms in use throughout, which may be misconstrued. I was simply asking for clarification before assigning that as the "Security Tuesday" type of release.

     

    Our program is not technically classified as a security update, so we are not intimately familiar with those either.

     

    We do have our own release cycles.

     

    Sorry for the confusion.

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:40 AM
  • Someone from Microsoft stating that they are unaware of a monthly update cycle is professional  and minding one's manners? Sorry I can't believe that anyone on the wga team is that unaware. What other explanation can there be?

    As I've said previously you have a right to protect your product.  I as a consumer have a right to take umbrage when  you go beyond  any reasonable methods to achieve that aim.

    You are correct as it is time to move on - alas - not just this thread.    
    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:53 AM
  •  Phil Liu MSFT wrote:

    Actually, I was not familiar with the term "monthly update cycle". There are many terms in use throughout, which may be misconstrued. I was simply asking for clarification before assigning that as the "Security Tuesday" type of release.

    Our program is not technically classified as a security update, so we are not intimately familiar with those either.

    We do have our own release cycles.



      All we administrators are asking for is that we not get new code outside the security update cycle.   In the administrators' and users' opinions, the WGA release cycle could wait to sync up with the security update cycle.   In the Microsoft and the customers would win.  We don't get surprise new code that could have a conflict with our other software, and within a month the new WGA runs and validates licences or whatever.

       Marking the WGA updates as high priority and release dates out of sync with bulletin updates is very confusing and creates extra work for admins.


    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:53 AM
  • Steve:

     

    Thank you for the input and clarification! Your dedication is certainly appreciated. I've submitted the feedback as highpriority feedback to our upper management - I will get back to you ASAP regarding this issue.

     

    I agree with you 100% about scheduling timely releases in accordance with customer needs.

    Thanks,

    -Phil Liu

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:59 AM
  • good grief Phil please explain why if I go to Windows Update I will see
    ---------------------------------
    Select High-Priority Updates
    To help protect your computer against security threats and performance problems, we strongly recommend you install all high-priority updates.

    Windows Genuine Advantage Notification ( KB905474)

    ---------------------------------

    Would you describe this a a security threat or a performance threat?

    When you ask that a person communicates with  you in a professional matter then you should also respond in a similar manner. Some take offense at obfuscation

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:04 AM
  • Gus;

    I understand the point you're coming at (assuming you're pointing at the same things Steve is - by the way, Steve thanks for clarification).

    I *personally* cannot classify the update as anything. The classification of the update is determined by a different group. The press pass article can explain more as to why the update was provided as high-priority.

     

    -phil liu

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:17 AM
  • yes my point is the same as Steve's as to the schedule.  I can ask any system administrator and many a home user about a Microsoft monthly update schedule and they'll know I mean the 2nd Tuesday of the month. That someone in the wga team decided that a 'press pass article' validates any adjustment of that schedule is an affront to the user base.

    Microsoft was adamant in not adjusting that schedule is the face of several severe security threats in previous months yet it appears  ok to adjust it for wga? This flies is the face of reason
    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:34 AM
  • The 2nd Tuesday of the beginning of every month is the "Security" Tuesday. Again, WGA is not classified as a security update. We do have a release schedule that we follow as well.

     

    -phil liu

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:54 AM
  • Gus,

    Security bulletins and their related updates are released on Patch Tuesday.

    Other updates show when they show.

    Are you saying you want all Updates, Windows or not Windows, security and non security, to be issued on the same day once a month?  That would be a bear.

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:22 AM
  • Dan, I'm saying that the procedure has been to release updates defined as high priority on patch Tuesday. From the WU site ( KB905474 is under high priority )
    -------------------------------------
    Select High-Priority Updates
    To help protect your computer against security threats and performance problems, we strongly recommend you install all high-priority updates.
    --------------------------------------------

    The wga update released today is neither a security threat nor would it be classified as a performance problem. Or is Microsoft admitting that they released problematic code on a large portion of the user base?

    Microsoft has made a decision to shoe horn in  wga updates into a category that is inappropriate  for it according to Microsoft's own definition above. Define a  new category if you wish  ( ie Microsoft mandatory validation updates ).  The surreptitious distribution of wga via the high priority update mechanism the past few months does a disservice to the work Microsoft has done to secure it's software and protect it's user base via wu.



    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:26 AM
  • Again, WGA is *not* classified as a security update, and actually is designed to protect and notify the user of potential issues they may be having with their machine.

    An overview of the WGA Program can be found here (http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en).

     

    Thanks,

    -Phil Liu

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:33 AM
  • Phil I do agree that wga is not a security update nor is it a performance problem update.

    So yet again I ask the question why is it shoe horned in the high priority security/performance category in windows update?  That's not my definition - that's Microsoft's definition in windows update
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Select High-Priority Updates
    To help protect your computer against security threats and performance problems, we strongly recommend you install all high-priority updates.


    .
    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:42 AM
  •  gus19 wrote:
    Phil I do agree that wga is not a security update nor is it a performance problem update.

    So yet again I ask the question why is it shoe horned in the high priority security/performance category in windows update?  That's not my definition - that's Microsoft's definition in windows update
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Select High-Priority Updates
    To help protect your computer against security threats and performance problems, we strongly recommend you install all high-priority updates.


     

    Again, the WGA Notifications program is not classified as a security update. It is classified as a high priority update designed to help protect the computer against security threats and performance problems. Studies have shown (independent studies) that non-genuine systems may be more at risk to issues than genuine systems.

     

    -phil liu

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:44 AM
  • Studies have shown (independent studies) that non-genuine systems may be more at risk to issues than genuine systems.

    That's interesting, Phil. Are these studies available for the public and if so, could you please provide a link to these?

    I would expect that astronomic data of your girl friend's birthday may have the same correlation than non-genuine or genuine (validated by MS's tools of course) when it comes to systems beeing at risk.

    Bye,
    Freudi

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:20 PM
  • The Continuing Fight for Genuine Software http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/apr06/04-24GenuineSoftware.mspx 

    Business Software Alliance: http://www.bsa.org/usa/ 

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:58 PM
    Moderator
  • Ottmar,

    The hypothesis that nongenuine software has the potential to expose its users to more risks than genuine software passes the common-sense test.

    Let's take a cracked and hacked copy of XP.  This copy has had its Product Activation and Windows Genuine Advantage cryptography features defeated or worked around by skilled hackers, maybe hackers who have somehow gained access to source code.  No doubt this takes time and effort, and like everyone else, these hackers want to be compensated for their efforts.

    Maybe the hackers are paid by the spamming community to add rootkits, smtp engines, zombie code, or trojans to the copy of XP.  Now the spammers can distribute the copy of XP on w*a*r*e*z and other blackmarket download sites.  It works just like fruit does for a tree:  the sweet outer layer draws the hungry animals to the fruit; they grab it, and then go on their way; the seeds are distrubuted when the animals eat the fruit and excrete the seeds.  Likewise with this copy of XP:  people looking to get something for nothing download it and use it, and the next thing they know their computers are zombies for spammers and are filling up your inbox with worm-laden spam, or sending back their credit card numbers and bank account info to a server in Russia.

    Or, maybe the hackers sell their product to software counterfeiters.  The counterfeiters have access to CD manufacturing machinery and printing equipment; all they need is a cracked copy of XP to put on the disc.  There is plenty of money at stake in these counterfeit operations.

    But you seem to be saying that the above scenarios are less likely to be correct than an astrology reading.  I don't think so.

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:00 PM
  • The E.U. questions the independence of the BSA according to the news items from previous years.

    http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/bsa/

    BSA is an organisation founded in the USA and currently without official status in most European countries, controlled by Microsoft and a few other large members.

    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-842159.html

     
    At the center of the controversy is the revelation that the "author" of a draft copy of the directive appears to be a key employee of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a group that represents the interests of big businesses, including Microsoft.


    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:23 PM
  •  Carey Frisch wrote:

    The Continuing Fight for Genuine Software http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/apr06/04-24GenuineSoftware.mspx 

    Business Software Alliance: http://www.bsa.org/usa/ 

    And the independend study is to be found where?

    Bye,
    Freu"In case you're replying to me posting - don't know"di

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:26 PM
  •  Dan at IT Associates wrote:

    The hypothesis that nongenuine software has the potential to expose its users to more risks than genuine software passes the common-sense test.

    Sorry, Dan, I just wanna *read* one of these independend studies Phil mentioned by my own and *don't* want to read any interpretation of or speculations on these studies or "common-sense" variations. TIA

    Bye,
    Freudi

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:29 PM
  • But Dan at IT Associates if MSFT is combating any of the above, that would surely be a security fix?

    They are adamant this is not a security fix, and the WGA development has some other schedule for updates... According to Phil Liu (1:18AM today) " this is not classified as a security bulletin". "We do have our own release cycles." (1:40AM) "The 2nd Tuesday of the beginning of every month is the "Security" Tuesday. Again, WGA is not classified as a security update. We do have a release schedule that we follow as well." (2:54AM) "Again, WGA is *not* classified as a security update, and actually is designed to protect and notify the user of potential issues they may be having with their machine." (4:33AM)

    For MSFT this isn't about security; it is about money. MSFT wants not to have pirated copies in use. Honest users don't want to be using them, but not at the cost of having to administer updates on unexpected dates.

    The scheduling makes it seem MSFT thinks these WGA updates more urgent than security updates, even though they are rolling this out over many months. Suppose it takes an administrator a couple of hours to deal with the ramifications of these unexpected updates. Multiply that by the number of installations affected and calculate the cost MSFT has imposed on its customers. That's users' money they are spending, users' schedules they are disturbing, users they are annoying.

    PS I also have invested in MSFT.
    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:58 PM
  • Rational,

    I think you are advancing a semantic argument.

    The notifications tool is not patching a known security hole/defect/exploit, so it does not qualify for inclusion on patch Tuesday.

    The notifications tool does, IMO, add new capability that has the potential to enhance security if it alerts unknowing users to the fact that their installation of XP is nongenuine.  IMO nongenuine software has the potential to be detrimental to both the individual user and the computing community as a whole (see my post to Ottmar above for my reasoning).

    If said users decide to purchase a genuine copy of XP, then of course it adds to MS's bottom line; it's like found money.

    With any new feature added to Windows, Windows Updates, or any software for that matter, there will be unanticipated problems.  Your point about causing administrators to do extra work is a valid concern, but I think the readiness to blame MS for causing extra work is much too shoot-from-the-hip.  What if the apparent problem with "false positives" turns out to be not a glitch in the Notifications Tool but a symptom of deliberate tampering with files?  Or a symptom of a nonstandard, not-MS approved deployment setting or rollout practice being implemented by an OEM or large user?  For example there seemed to be a lot of OEM Dell installations having problems with notification tool false positives---do we know if that was a MS problem or a Dell problem?  As you say ultimately it is the admin's problem, but it seems the rush to judgment is against MS.  And while MS bashing is a very popular indoor sport, admins of all people should be concerned with the objective "Why?" of why their systems are failing and should resist nonsensical finger pointing that only makes finding the actual problem more difficult.

    Finally, I would be curious to know what the nonsecurity updating schedule is that Phil noted, but I don't think knowing it would matter much. 

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 4:37 PM
  • Hi Gus,

    You are correct that the 2nd Tuesday of each month is when all new security updates are released. 

    The 4th Tuesday of each month is reserved to distribute other high priority updates, of which WGA Notifications (KB 905474) is classified.  All of the WGA Notifications releases have taken place on the 4th Tuesday (1/24, 2/28, 4/25, 6/27).

    The WGA Notifications update that we published on 6/27 is the general availability release.  This release includes a revised EULA which is more user friendly (and not all legalese) and based upon customer concern, the removal of the download of the settings file which told the Notifications app to run or not

    KB 905474 is an optional update (published on the 4th Tuesday) and that is why it does not show up in the June 2006 Security Update Bulletin that is published.

    We do realize that administrators (and users) rely on Windows Update to keep their systems up to date.  We do not take this lightly. 

    When you have a free moment, take a look at this:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/894199 - The target audience of this KB is administrators who use WSUS (Windows Server Update Services) to maintain their networks with secuirty patches, etc. 

    Find the link on the page for New non-security content and it will outline everything that was published that is high-priority, non-security that was made available on each 4th Tuesday release.

    Let me know if you have any other questions or feedback and I will do my best to assist you.

    Thanks,
    Michelle

     

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 5:36 PM
  • Michelle

       Thank you for your response.   Just my opinion but the distribution of 'other' high priority updates  ( some requiring restarts ) on the 4th Tuesday of the month  presents scheduling problems for an administrator base that would be alleviated by just a 2nd Tuesday schedule. 

    Are you aware of any published feedback from administrators that addresses that issue ( pro or con ) ?
    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 6:15 PM
  • Hi Gus,

    You're very welcome.  Thank you also for your opinion.  I can only speak to the update that I am responsible for KB 905474, which I am aware in most instances will require a reboot (which I know is disruptive).  I have received very similar feeback from some of my MS colleagues as well.

    My project team and I will be meeting later this week to discuss making additional enhancements that will further improve the user experience.  The reboot issue is one of the top priorities on our list.

    As to your other question relating to admin feedback (2nd Tuessday / 4th Tuesday restarts), I do not have access to any feedback that comes into the WU or AU teams since our team is what they consider to be a 'content publisher'.  What I can do is pass your feedback on to the appropriate PM's so they are aware.

    Keep an eye out for a future update to WGA Notifications (KB 905474) in which we will be addressing the reboot requirement. 

    Please keep the feedback and comments coming as this is helpful to me when I am doing project planning.  It allows me to better understand the pain points and it helps us prioritze features.

    Thanks again,
    Michelle

     

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:06 PM
  • Michelle

    There one other small issue I wish Microsoft would change ( the text on at least). When using Windows Update,  the updates that are not security or performance related are listed under that heading. Thus KB905474 gives the impression that it is related to security or performance. That was an issue I was debating with Phil Liu on although I suspect we were talking past each other at that point.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Select High-Priority Updates
    To help protect your computer against security threats and performance problems, we strongly recommend you install all high-priority updates.


    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:32 PM
  • There are different classifications for "High Priority Updates" and "Critical Security Updates".

    This update is classified as high priority because it is *designed* to help protect the computer against security threats and performance (thus fitting the definition of a high-priority update).

    We have (and still continue to) discuss the issue regarding classification of the update between High and Critical, but as the update sits, it has not yet been raised to the bar of a Critical Update.

     

    -phil liu

    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:25 PM
  • Phil

      How exactly does the 'high priority' wga update protect me from security threats or improve the performance of my workstation?  What is the special significance of  'designed'?



    Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:07 PM
  • I reckon an answer isn't forthcoming
    Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:37 PM
  • WGA provides you with the assurance that you are using a genuine and proper licensed Microsoft operating system.  If you desire clarification, please visit:

    Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) program FAQ: http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.aspx?displaylang=en

    Friday, June 30, 2006 2:48 PM
    Moderator
  • Carey

    Phil Liu made the following statement

    "This update is classified as high priority because it is *designed* to help protect the computer against security threats and performance (thus fitting the definition of a high-priority update)."

    The link you provided addresses neither Phil's statement nor does it address my question of Phil's statement to me.

    How does the wga update protect me against security threats and/or performance issues? What is meant by Phils use of *designed*?



    Friday, June 30, 2006 4:15 PM
  • Gus,

    I posted this to Ottmar earlier in this thread and I think it applies to your question.  You you seem to be a knowledgeable computer person so I would hope you think it passses the common-sense test, too.

    Ottmar,

    The hypothesis that nongenuine software has the potential to expose its users to more risks than genuine software passes the common-sense test.

    Let's take a cracked and hacked copy of XP.  This copy has had its Product Activation and Windows Genuine Advantage cryptography features defeated or worked around by skilled hackers, maybe hackers who have somehow gained access to source code.  No doubt this takes time and effort, and like everyone else, these hackers want to be compensated for their efforts.

    Maybe the hackers are paid by the spamming community to add rootkits, smtp engines, zombie code, or trojans to the copy of XP.  Now the spammers can distribute the copy of XP on w*a*r*e*z and other blackmarket download sites.  It works just like fruit does for a tree:  the sweet outer layer draws the hungry animals to the fruit; they grab it, and then go on their way; the seeds are distrubuted when the animals eat the fruit and excrete the seeds.  Likewise with this copy of XP:  people looking to get something for nothing download it and use it, and the next thing they know their computers are zombies for spammers and are filling up your inbox with worm-laden spam, or sending back their credit card numbers and bank account info to a server in Russia.

    Or, maybe the hackers sell their product to software counterfeiters.  The counterfeiters have access to CD manufacturing machinery and printing equipment; all they need is a cracked copy of XP to put on the disc.  There is plenty of money at stake in these counterfeit operations.

    But you seem to be saying that the above scenarios are less likely to be correct than an astrology reading.  I don't think so.

     

    Getting nongenuine software off of people's computers is IMO a security issue and a good goal to strive for.


     

    Friday, June 30, 2006 4:21 PM
  • Dan

      I'm of the belief that the wga poses an even greater threat to security as people will become/have become  gunshy of windows update. Critical updates won't be applied and the trojan writers will have a field day - all because of an ill-conceived concept know as wga.

    Have you the news on the overload of the French site that published a tool to remove wga? While they were a valid site, how many people will download code that puts their computers at risk just because  it says it  can remove wga?  Spammers will have a field day. I wouldn't be surprised if theysend bouquets to Microsoft
    Friday, June 30, 2006 4:46 PM
  • Gus19,

    While your hypothesis might be viable, I do not think the conditions needed for it to become reality exist now or will for the foreseeable future.  Idon't think that the typical person is even all that much aware of Windows Updates, let alone the overblown flap over Notifications, so there will be no mass stampede away from Windows Updates.

    Sure it's the buzz in tech circles, but our group of propeller-heads is hardly typical of the general public.

    And "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" about what the French are doing!  ROTFLMAO

    Friday, June 30, 2006 5:40 PM
  •  Michelle Holtmann MSFT wrote:

    You're very welcome.  Thank you also for your opinion.  I can only speak to the update that I am responsible for KB 905474, which I am aware in most instances will require a reboot (which I know is disruptive).  I have received very similar feeback from some of my MS colleagues as well.

    My project team and I will be meeting later this week to discuss making additional enhancements that will further improve the user experience.  The reboot issue is one of the top priorities on our list.

    ...

    Thanks again,
    Michelle

     

    Hello Michelle,

    This is my first post to this MS Forum - brought here after a search on the KB number mentioned in the latest update, found the /Genuine site and the site mentioned these forums.

    What brought me here is not necessarily related to the Subject - but to the bulk of your reply to Gus - about reboots.

    I got so upset at the last WGA update I wrote MS and got a general comment for a reply... my topic: Why so many? And now another one. Between WGA and the Malicious Software removal tool - I am really getting to hate this. The stability of a users system is their responsibility - the Malicious SW tool does what? What different from my daily updated AV and Spyware scans and runs? Sorry that's another story...

    I did not understand the quantity of WGA updates until I saw the word BETA - this should have been publicized as a Beta product when first released AND with each release. I wrote MS because I was upset I installed one WGA update and a day later had another - and a week before had one... this is VERY disruptive - now read this - this is what the bulk of the emails here are about - and it is quoted in the news release found here too: "It is important to note that WGA Validation still periodically checks to determine whether the version of Windows is genuine. "

    My question is: WHY??? If you have checked a system, validated the key as Genuine - WHY does it need to check 'periodically'??  AND WHY the Operating System - as stated in the quote - it says it checks the 'version of Windows' - if this version has been determined to be Genuine - WHY check again???

    When you install a new MS Product - it goes through activation - thus all new products installed will be Genuine. 
    The only answer to this question is not admitted or mentioned here but obvious - you want to periodically see if we, the world, install ILLEGAL MS software - and prompt us to buy a license - Why can't MS just admit this.  Like Dan said, someone will download an illegal OS - well, my comment on this: It is their own problem - why should 99.9% of the public have to install and run a program because a few idiots install illegal software. To use his analogy in this context: It is like a car owner being told they need to come in every now and then and have a device put on their car to monitor if they are speeding - just so the dealer can tell you it is unsafe to drive at those speeds...

    I remember reading during install something like: WGA sends your 'Key and IP Address to MS' and that 'this will never be used to investigate' - Huh?  I feel like Homer Simpson - Dooo... If you are trying to find pirated software which is obvious (I personally have reported piracy SPAM to piracy@microsoft.com almost every time it is offered to me) - then why state that you will not pursue 'found illegal software'?  I cannot believe that if MS gets reports of say more than 100 copies of illegal software from a single IP (obviously a business) that they would not investigate.  Actually I support this.

    What I do not support - and ask you to fix:
    1)  Reboots - Tell someone at MS to remove the recurring pop-up asking the user to reboot their system - this is disruptive and can, and has destroyed work I have been doing - for example, I am typing this message - right now - and all of a sudden my keystrokes mean nothing - why, the 'Automatic Updates' box just popped up and took over key entry focus. Worse examples (yes, I play a computer game every now and then, maybe twice a week) and in the middle of driving all of a sudden - Automatic Updates takes over and tells me I have a Critical Update that needs attention.  The worst condition lately - I was researching some information (here is a suggestion for the IE department as well) and had probably 40+ site pages open in a couple browsers (nice IE7 tabs or Mozilla tabs)... and I get a notice an update is available - another WGA update - well, I have already authenticated my OS - It won't need to reboot - wrong.  Now I have to take the extra time to create a favorites folder, add each page to that folder, reboot, reopen IE and reload all of these pages.  It is NOT possible for a person to ignore this annoying pop-up every few minutes - all it does is p__s us off.  It should be possible to CLOSE this pop-up during a session - have it auto-run and show ONCE again after either a screen-saver session has start and ended or a user has logged off and on again - again allowing them to disable it. 

    2) Answer these questions please:
    a) Does WGA run as a service - taking resources I may need to use?

    b) Can WGA be set (or take this as a suggestion as others here are trying to suggest) to run ONLY when a user wants it to - i.e. when visiting MS Update - obviously not an easy possible, but a small applet in the MS Update program could launch WGA on each run (if installed) - so it ran on each update!  I do NOT want ANY programs on my system accessing the internet Without my knowledge -
    why, read on: 
    I have had repeated, local internet problems - likely caused by WGA attempting to get out when my ISP provider 'Locks' my internet connection - I am on a wireless, and my ISP requires relogging in every 12 or so hours. When it goes down, Windows does NOT know, my router shows no changes - the only thing different as pages cannot be loaded other than the login page - so some applications (including some firewall software I used before getting a HW router/firewall) would hang because a connection appeared present, but no throughput allowed.

    c) Is this the Last WGA for a while? Pretty obvious I do not want to see another for a while.

    d) Why does the end-user not have the right to disable WGA (the posts imply prior versions can be uninstalled but this latest cannot) if they 'Have' run it once and authenticated their system?  I ask as I am still running Office XP(2002) and will likely for some time to come - there are no planned or forseen MS additions to be made to this system for years+. In fact, my mother's system runs Windows 98se - and she gets these WGA notices - her system has not changed for 8 years - and yet, over dial-up of 36k she is forced to download these huge updates (last was 1MB)...  She is close to 90 Years Old! She does not understand what these are.  I am called weekly about 'what does this mean - how do I deal with these...'. 

    Closing summary:
    > WGA Run once - I understand - run 'Periodically' I do NOT.
    > Force a reboot Notice every few minutes - Bad Idea. Surely you can have the reboot notification program monitor the system, just like a screen saver and pop-up the notice after a time of not being used - to disrupt 'Active Typing' - twice as the thing has done while I type this is Very annoying.
    > Putting 'this cannot be uninstalled once installed' in the Description Should be a LAW - to say only "The Windows Genuine Advantage Notification tool notifies you if your copy of Windows is not genuine. If your system is found to be a non-genuine, the tool will help you obtain a licensed copy of Windows" is very misleading - maybe in the license, but seriously - how many people read the hundreds of lines... my 90-year old mother does not!

    Todd

    A bit about me if you are curious: In the computer hardware and software development industry since 1988. MS Beta-tester of every MS OS Since W98se (I have spent my time and money, burning CDs and now DVDs to help MS test new operating systems for more than 7 years - some OSs have taken 10 to 20 CDs when they were not so cheap)... I like helping make things run better, helping others with bugs, fixes, suggestions - it is a Great hobby - but things like repeated interuptions, updates when I am already verified, reboots, etc. in my daily life by MGA have been getting very annoying. Not to mention my security parinoia - I know what every item listed in Task Manager is - if a new one appears (as MGA did) all of a sudden, and TCPView says it is connecting over the net - can cause undue stress.
    And yes - I do type too much... must be some form of psychosis where, when we are upset we have to keep typing - I see it in these posts all the time...

    Saturday, July 1, 2006 12:57 AM
  •  Michelle Holtmann MSFT wrote:

    You are correct that the 2nd Tuesday of each month is when all new security updates are released.

    The 4th Tuesday of each month is reserved to distribute other high priority updates, of which WGA Notifications (KB 905474) is classified. All of the WGA Notifications releases have taken place on the 4th Tuesday (1/24, 2/28, 4/25, 6/27).

    The WGA Notifications update that we published on 6/27 is the general availability release. This release includes a revised EULA which is more user friendly (and not all legalese) and based upon customer concern, the removal of the download of the settings file which told the Notifications app to run or not



    Although WGA Notifications are not classified as security updates and as 'only' high priority updates, they are inextricably tied up with security updates.  During the May patch cycle, no security patches could be reviewed without first installing a WGA update (I don't know which component this was).   Thus the complaints from us system administrators about seemingly random security updates.   

    Saturday, July 1, 2006 11:59 AM
  • I have several Computers, store bought is the worst.

    What comes with my Computer is always working, always pass activation, yet I must download the WGA to get something sometimes, as if the first time was not enough. I have no problems with it, if its practical, must be better this way.

    I think its great they need to protect there software, they just choose the wrong way, because each disc has a key, there should no reason to stop any honest someone.

    Look at the facts, each software has a key, any duplicate maybe your problem:

    1. Reinstalling or testing the software, on another computer, to research a problem, on a Computer, creates termination. If it were on 2 or more Computers for over a month, I could see termination, you would need to test often.

    2. If you could test often you could spot abuse.

    3. I can't test, and spot problems, I can not test and check the software, I can't test hardware parts, with this strange protection system of yours. I don't need to keep buying, store bought software.

    4. Its bought and paid for at the store, its proved genuine.

    5. Many places have software that has a key, and protection, it works great, not yours.

    6.I have a Duo Centrino, that is 2, what if they make one with several, then next terminate me for running too many Computers on one Software.

     And what next terminate me for writing something, about what the Software does and Microsoft does, your so called angels of mercy don't approve of, because you think its a perfect world and you think your saints.

    Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:56 AM
  • Hi. I am attempting to post a comment here on this thread, since this one seems to be acceptable to this site.

     

    I posted a comment entitled "I resent WGA" last week, that is to say, the first week of July 2007. I wanted to check and see if there had been any comments on my post. I do know that it had been viewed; I saw that much. Lo and behold! I can no longer find my post at all. It's simply not there. I can't find it under either the title or my name. I can only surmise that this site removed my post for reasons of their own. I don't understand why, since my post was in no way abusive or inflammatory. I do feel, however, that it is a strong indicator of how they felt about what I had to say.

     

    I am going to try to repost at least the essence of my original post, and this time, I will be saving my post to my own jumpdrive, and I will repost it as often as neccesary in order to get some sort of a response or comment.

     

    So, here it goes-again.

     

    I resent WGA. I resent that I cannot use my disk to install XP OS on my kids' computers, and that they must, MUST, use older versions of the same OS. I resent that this so-called "tool" was installed on my computer bundled with other important updates without a full disclosure of what it really is. I resent that I cannot uninstall it or disable it. My computer is MY property, and I see this as an invasion of my home and privacy. It's a matter of principal.

     

    Let me give a very simple example here. If a feed and tack store sells you 50 bales of hay, do they then tell you which horse or how many horses you can feed that hay to? NO, of COURSE they don't. Why not? Because they no longer own the hay, and the horses are YOUR property, and now, so is the hay. This so-called tool is just as ridiculous as a hay-seller trying to control your feed and livestock. Same principal applies to the seller-buyer relationship of any other service or product. You have a program for sale? Good! You have a buyer for that program? Even better! You sell the program to the buyer? Great! Now, the program is THEIRS, and if they want to install it on five computers in their home, what business is it of yours? You've SOLD the program to them! You have the money, they have the product. This company has no right, no right whatsoever, to control what I do with it once I get it home on MY property.

     

    I do not disagree with the right to protect a patent or technology. What I DO disagree with is, is the method of doing it. I don't want ANY program to send information regarding MY computer, MY property, to ANY one else, for ANY reason. Microsoft or anyone else does NOT own my computer or my kids' computers. We do. It is OUR choice, or SHOULD be, about what to install or uninstall on our property, NOT someone else's. I fully agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread- this is a trojan, with no benefit to anyone but the company who SOLD the program.

     

    If you really want to put a stop to software piracy, why don't you make the program a little more affordable? You have the OS already designed and programmed; you DON'T have to program each and every disk you sell, so the initial overhead has been paid for hundreds of times over by now. Failing that, why don't you make the cost of a second license key a fraction of the original purchase price of the OS? After all, a second code key is nothing more than a set of numerals and letters. I find it nothing but greedy, selfish, materialistic, and self-serving to charge nearly the same cost for a second license for a program already PAID for, just to use it on a second machine in a private home! What do you think makes software piracy so lucrative to begin with??? The high COST of the OS and/or secondary keys to the average consumer. If it didn't cost so much for the OS, or for a second or third code key, gee, the software pirates wouldn't have anything to peddle, would they? But, did that ever enter into the equation in this war on piracy? No, I didn't think so. Consider this- if the market for software piracy is removed, so then is the piracy. Amazing concept, isn't it. And you can help remove the market for piracy by making certain that the product is affordable for anyone who wants it.

     

    I have read through this thread, and I am sorry, but the protestations that this is being done to protect the buyer sound like just a thin veneer to protect the company and their technology. Please don't think I am incapable of understanding how codes which have been "cracked" in order to make a pirated copy can cause damage to a persons' computer system and risk to their personal lives. But this is attacking the whole problem from the wrong end. If you were truly so concerned about the buyer, your cost for a second code key would not be over a hundred dollars. I called and checked on it, for my kids' computers. So, one child is using 98SE, and the other child is using an XP upgrade that someone was kind enough to give me. As a single mother, I HIGHLY resent that! I work, make my living, support my children, through my computer. I work two jobs. I have to have my system, and I have to have it operational, and I have to have it updated as needed for security. If it crashes, I cannot work. Without this trojan WGA, I cannot update my system as neccesary in order to work. Therefore, I am in a corner. I have to allow this trojan-type tool on MY property to satisfy YOUR company that it is STILL a legal copy of XP, as if I would do something so stupid as to remove a genuine OS and replace it with a pirated copy. Give me a break, please! You people are interfering with my making a living, and trust me, I am a far cry from your level of income.

     

    I want Big Brother off of my property.

     

    Now, let's see if this post also is removed.

     

    Oh yeah, have a nice day.

    Monday, July 16, 2007 7:07 AM
  •  catmagyck wrote:

    .snip,

     

    Let me give a very simple example here. If a feed and tack store sells you 50 bales of hay, do they then tell you which horse or how many horses you can feed that hay to? NO, of COURSE they don't. Why not? Because they no longer own the hay, and the horses are YOUR property, and now, so is the hay. This so-called tool is just as ridiculous as a hay-seller trying to control your feed and livestock. Same principal applies to the seller-buyer relationship of any other service or product. You have a program for sale? Good! You have a buyer for that program? Even better! You sell the program to the buyer? Great! Now, the program is THEIRS, and if they want to install it on five computers in their home, what business is it of yours? You've SOLD the program to them! You have the money, they have the product. This company has no right, no right whatsoever, to control what I do with it once I get it home on MY property.

     

    >snip<

     

    Catmagyck,

     

    Microsoft software is licensed, not sold.  The terms of the license are clearly stated for you to either agree with or not agree with.  If you do not agree, do not use the software.  To read your End User Licensing Agreement, click Start>Run, type winver then click OK.  In the resultant information window, click on the link that takes you to your EULA.

     

    Your analogy is false because you are trying to compare licensed intellectual property with actual physical property.  A software license is just like a driver's license in that you are allowed to use the property owned by someone else, but it does not give you legal title to the property, be it intellectual or physical. 

    Monday, July 16, 2007 4:49 PM
  • Hi Dan,

    Thank you for your reply. Alright I see the difference, however, does that then make the disk that I bought and paid for not truly mine? It doesn't really belong to me? I think that there are both intellectual and physical property involved here. If I choose to sell an old program that I bought and paid for years ago, am I not allowed to do that? And why is it then so much to -purchase- a second license code key? Now, that is intellectual property, unlike an actual disk. And are my points concerning piracy not then valid?

     

    Thank you.

    Monday, July 16, 2007 10:36 PM
  • Catmagyck,

     

    The disc you purchased is the media through which the licensed intellectual property is delivered to the licensee, you.  Yes, you do own the disc, but not the intellectual property that the contents represent.

     

    Just like when you buy a DVD of a favorite movie, you buy the physical media, the DVD, and you own that.  You can use the contents of the DVD, the intellectual property (the movie on the DVD), in accordance with the license displayed at the beginning.  It does not mean you own the intellectual property of the movie.

     

    Your rights to sell the intellectual property are usually spelled out in the End User Licensing Agreement.  For example, if you purchase a computer with XP preinstalled (an OEM license), the EULA does not allow you to separate the license from the computer and sell each separately.  On the other hand, if you purchase XP in a retail box (just the Operating System), the EULA allows you to sell just that license for Windows without having to sell the computer it's installed on.  The EULA says that if you are selling a retail license, you have to remove it from your computer before you sell it--of course you wouldn't be able to keep it installed and then sell it, that would mean there are two copies installed and being used.

     

    Your theory about how to lower piracy rates by lowering the price of the product is just that, a theory.  Management at Microsoft (and at every company around the world) is paid to constantly weigh and judge the dynamic of the marketplace and come up with their company's pricing strategy.  Lower prices almost always result in more sales, but lower prices may not bring in the profits needed to attract new capital for new product development.  If you lower the price too much, sure you'll sell more but maybe the maginal difference won't be enough to offset the lost profits and you may end up losing money overall.

    Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:38 PM
  • Actually, Dan, you're wrong.  The only versions of Windows that are licensed are Volume Editions.

    If you buy windows in the store you don't see a license, so it's treated like all other purchases - as a sale. That means the EULA is a post-sale contract and meaningless.

    It would really be better if you had an idea about the legal issues before you started "educating" others.

    Sunday, August 26, 2007 4:32 PM
  • All Microsoft software is licensed.  A purchaser does not "own" the license....they purchase the software and before installing it, agree to use the software under the terms of the licensing agreement therein.  This is commonly known as a "shrink wrap license".  If a user does not agree to the terms of the license and does not accept the EULA, they should not install it.

     

    Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:01 PM
    Moderator
  • No, that's what MS says, but if you examine it reasonably, they'd have to have informed you of this before purchasing the software. If you've bought it in a traditional sale then you own the product.

    Shrink Wrap "Licenses" are so-called because you'd have to open the shrink-wrap to read the license. This is obviously not going to be a binding contract.

    Please post a non-Microsoft/BSA site which supports your theory or stop lying to people.

    Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:14 PM
  • If you wish to install software, you are initially presented with the EULA.  If you accept the EULA, you agreed to the terms of the EULA and it becomes a binding agreement (contract).  If you do not accept the terms of the EULA, then you cannot install the software.  I think that's pretty straightforward.

    Sunday, August 26, 2007 7:44 PM
    Moderator
  • How could it possibly be "straight forward" that you could purchase something and then yet, have to enter into another contract to use it? It would be as if you bought a new car and as you got in, the steering wheel was taped over with a contract requiring you to buy tires and gas from a specific store.

    The law is *very* clear about this. You can NOT change the conditions of a contract after it has been agreed to. A sale is a contract, albeit an implied one. If you don't state conditions beforehand ("You must also click through...") then it can't apply.

    US copyright law specifically allows use of software without an explicit license and most other countries do as well. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html for details.

    Technically it's probably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(tort) for Microsoft to force you to accept a contract under duress, but it certainly nullifies the contract.

    No, however you look at it, a EULA is not required (per copyright law), not allowable (post-sale contract), and not legal (duress). You can "Agree" all you want and it's no more binding than if they held a gun to your head.

    Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:44 PM
  • Since I'm not a lawyer, perhaps you should write a letter to those that could address your "legal concerns".

     

    Microsoft Corporation

    Legal Department

    One Microsoft Way,
    Redmond, WA 98052-6399.

     

     

     

    Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:57 PM
    Moderator
  • Perhaps you could get one of them to post in here, re my concerns. That'd be a lot handier because then everyone would know.

    Thanks!
    Sunday, August 26, 2007 11:16 PM
  • DoublyLinked,

     

    MS software products sold at retail come in packaging that explicitly states the software on the media in the box is subject to an end user licensing agreement.  The packaging states that if you do not want to abide by the EULA that MS will give you a full refund of the purchase price.  Thus, the purchaser is amply notified and informed that there are additional conditions to the contract, and that using the software constitutes the purchaser's acceptance of overall contract which incorporates that EULA.  The EULA therefore is not a post-sale contract.

     

    MS software products sold as part of a computer manufacturer's product (such as Vista preinstalled on a Dell, for example), are sold by the seller such as Dell under terms of sale agreed to by the buyer.  These sellers explicitly inform the buyer that any software that comes with the computer system are sold subject to the EULAs that apply to the software.  Here is what Dell has in its Terms of Sale:  "5. Software.  All software is provided subject to a license agreement and you agree that you will be bound by such license agreement."

     

    It is the height of hyperbole to claim that Microsoft is "forcing" anyone to accept any contrct "under duress."

     

    Monday, August 27, 2007 4:30 AM
  • Have you ever worked as a sales associate in retail computers? No associate goes through the time to explain the EULA, or even touches on the fact that by purchasing the products you will have to agree to an EULA to use the products.

    Monday, August 27, 2007 5:16 PM
  • Exactly! There are small warnings, for those who read everything on the package, but they are in no way reasonable for what often ammount to 20+ page EULAs. Many customers who buy open box items don't even see the first login screen or anything.

    Contracts require both parties to understand, and to actually go over a contract like that would take a lawyer hours to do and even then they wouldn't guarantee to remember every detail without further reference. You simply can not expect a customer in a store to understand that EULA without a law course attached, let alone all the implications it may have, and especially not from a warning on the back of the box.

    Dan, duress simply means with forced options. I have a legal right to use software that I own, as copyright law allows. As you admit, there is no normal way around seeing the EULA and clicking "I Agree". Therefore I *can't* exercise my legal right by saying "I Disagree", and therefore you have forced my hand. As such, that "decision" is absolutely unbinding. If you're forced to sign one to get access to something you already own, the contract isn't binding.

    If Microsoft wanted to make a binding contract they'd have to offer the user something beyond access to the software (that they already own) and make it optional. Perhaps they could offer the user free tech support and a laser mouse for signing up. Not providing everything promised on the box is likely fraud.

    Dan, from IT Associates, if you're in here saying these things you have an obligation to do the research you would if I asked an API question. You too Carey.

    Read the copyright link I posted, it explains how no license is needed to use a software product. Read about contracts.

    Please explain how software products can somehow slip in huge contracts that you don't see until after you buy but no other type of product (even music and books) can include these? How is a "there are restrictions" warning ample for a multipage EULA that's written by a lawyer for a lawyer when the salespeople and the store make it look like a sale?

    No version of Windows is "licensed" unless you sign a specific deal with Microsoft before the transfer of money. Absolutely.

    Monday, August 27, 2007 7:41 PM
  • DoublyLinked:

     

    From the official Microsoft Public Forums standpoint - we cannot comment/analyze legal documents such as the EULA.

     

    Though you are absolutely allowed to have your own interpretation/viewpoints for EULA's, I would request that this discussion be taken with our Legal team at www.microsoft.com/legal.

     

    -phil

    Monday, August 27, 2007 7:45 PM
  • What a ridiculously corporate thing to say.

    Your MVPs and your stated policies comment heavily on this legal issue in here all the time!

    I'm merely letting others on this forum know what the actual laws governing these issues are. I suggest you get someone here from that legal department you are so eager to shunt me off to and let them at least properly explain Microsoft's quasi-leaglities for everyone to see.

    If this is Microsoft's policy you shouldn't be afraid to explain it. It should withstand the light of day.
    Tuesday, August 28, 2007 4:21 AM
  • People who are MVPs are free to comment on just about anything.  However, please note that MVPs are not Microsoft employees and anything they say, post, or quote is not officially sanctioned by Microsoft.  If it is Microsoft's company policy that Microsoft employees are not to comment on issues outside their realm of expertise, such as licensing interpretations, then they cannot comment.  This is true of any company that has policies in place.

     

    The best resource for discussing Microsoft licensing can be found in the Microsoft OEM System Builders newsgroup:

    https://members.microsoft.com/communities/oem/default.mspx?dg=microsoft.communities.oem.licensing&lang=en&cr=US&r=2e6df0a1-ef25-40e8-9a8b-3550b586f14c

     

    Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:29 PM
    Moderator
  • Carey, you're free to comment, but I feel you have a professional obligation both as an MVP and personally to do at least minimal research into these areas to make sure you're giving good advice.

    Consider that "MVP" under someone's name says they speak for Microsoft much more loudly than a disclaimer says otherwise. Anyone who has received special certification from Microsoft (even just MVP) is assumed to at least be minimally skilled areas they participate in. If not, why are they valued...?

    As for Microsoft employees, I'm not soliciting the opinions of the uneducated and uninformed. I'm asking for the specific input of those trained in this topic and employed to answer these questions.

    Phil, could you please drop a line to the legal department and ask them to comment in here? I'm sure your asking would carry more weight than mine and we all really would be served by knowing the answers!

    Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:54 PM
  • Sorry, but attorneys do not participate in forums or newsgroups.

     

    Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:45 AM
    Moderator
  • I didn't think you were an official Microsoft spokesman, Carey?

    If Microsoft can't even find one of their umpteen thousand lawyers to answer these basic questions it's pretty obvious they know their stance is unsupportable.

    As for you Carey, you certainly do comment on legal issues in forums, have you read that copyright link I posted? Or is it easier to just repeat Microsoft's claims without looking for any actual evidence?

    Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:40 AM
  •  

    You know, I very much appreciate the input on this thread. There are some things that I still do not follow, however.

     

    I noticed the snipped part of my original post which was addressed by Dan. What I am getting here is that although I have purchased the disk with the programs on it (physical property) and have thus agreed to the license of the software (intellectual property) when installing it, it sounds as though, somehow, it is not really mine. That is most certainly the impression I get from all this, that even though the money has come out of my pocket for both the physical property and the licensing for the intellectual property, it -still- isn't mine, and therefore, not under my control. I might as well have bought a blank disk then, right? I mean, if I don't own the "intellectual" property contained on the disk I bought? Did I purchase this or am I merely renting it? Can someone please explain why that is? Tell me, please, what in fact did I purchase with my money? Did I even purchase anything? Do I own any single part of the program that I paid my money for? Sure seems to me, from all that I have read, that I really don't own any part of it except for what essentially amounts to a blank disk. Is that right?

     

    Dan, you also brought up the intellectual property of a DVD. Alright, this might sound simplistic to you, but what if I chose to destroy that disk? Isn't that disk, and therefore the contents of that disk, mine to destroy if I so choose? Is someone going to come after me for destroying their intellectual property?

     

    I am a writer. I write stories for sale. If I write and get a short story printed, and someone buys it, doesn't it then belong to them? If they choose to give it away, sell it, burn or tear up the story I wrote, am I supposed to prevent that because it is, in truth, my intellectual property? The book, the THING, belongs to them after they have paid for it. The story itself is my intellectual property, and the only thing that I can do anything about is plagiarism. I can do nothing about what anyone might choose to do to the physical property they bought which contains my intellectual property. The only thing I can possibly protect is my work itself against someone using my words. That's it, really.

     

    If I buy software, then, doggone it, it had better be mine. My point of this whole thing is still this-- I don't like the WGA, I don't want the WGA on MY computer. It takes away the control of MY physical property, my computer, from me. Unless you, aka Microsoft, wants to start giving away computers and software, then you have no right to control what goes on with someone's computer in the form of what is essentially a trojan. You want to retain control of this "intellectual" property? Fine. Then don't sell, or should I more properly say, LICENSE, the software to begin with. Loan it or rent it in order to retain control of that property. Property is still property, intellectual or otherwise. If you sell it, then you no longer own it. That is the simple truth. Trying to say otherwise is just trying to turn black to white and white to black. When someone goes to a store and buys something, regardless of what type of item or property it is, then naturally they presume to own it. This is a logical presumption, is it not?

     

    And I still hold with my point about piracy. If there is no market, then the practice will fade. Markets rise and fall with supply and demand. Most people would not honestly go for something illegal if they can afford the legal copy. I mean, seriously, take prohibition as an example. During prohibition, bootlegging alcohol was a major business. Once alcohol became legal again, the bootleggers had no customers for their business, and down went the market and down went the bootleggers. My "theory" is proven right there. That principle remains the same no matter what product you are discussing. Again, allow me to point out that the cost of the software is more than high enough, and the cost of a second license is ridiculous when someone only wants to be able to use it on a second machine that is their personal physical property and the software is already paid for once over. All I said was to make the costs of both the initial investment of PURCHASING the software and PURCHASING a second license reasonable. The costs of both initial purchase and secondary licensing fees are not currently reasonable; therefore, those factors in themselves encourage pirates who are more than willing to fill the market for lower income families, which, sad to say, are increasing in number. The range of cost for Windows XP Home Edition still run from about 80.00 to over 200.00; tell me that's affordable for everyone? My goddess, that is a range of under a sixth to nearly a third of my rent for me and my kids. Can you at least admit that I have made a point?

     

    Now, in reference to the EULA, Dan posted that I would not be able to sell the program and still keep it installed on my own computer. Alright, that's going a bit far. Why in the name of whatever one holds sacred would I want to do that??? Why would I want to sell something if I still had it installed on my own computer with the intent to use it? Get real on that one. I would only sell it if I no longer wanted to use the program. That was a convolution of my question about selling a program that I bought and paid for. And, wait a second here, if it's not really mine to begin with, then how am I permitted to sell it at all? And, if I am following this concept correctly, then, by the definitions presented here, I would actually be permitted to sell only the rights and license but not be required to sell the disk that contains the software, since they are presented here as two separate things. So, I could keep the disk, because I do own the disk, and sell the license, right? Since they are evidently two different things, that is. And please don't say that is a ridiculous notion, because I am basing that on what I have seen here and yes, also read in the EULA.

     

    And frankly, the EULA is a contract under duress. It's ridiculous to purchase a disk, regardless of whatever is on it, if one does not intend to use it. The fact that one must agree to the EULA in order to use the software makes it duress. Otherwise, I have just wasted my time in "purchasing" the disk, containing the software, if I do not agree to a further "contract", haven't I. And that EULA, which I have no choice but to agree to, sure as heck gives the "Manufacturer" a great deal of leeway, and gives the now much-poorer consumer precious little as to rights.

     

    I still do not want the WGA tool on my computer. It is still there, and I still have to keep it there in order to update my OS, so that I can continue to work and support my children. I have disc damage in my back; this is the sort of work that I am able to do. And, no, I receive no aid of any kind, thank you very much. I still think this is unfair; my copy has been validated, more than once, I should be able to remove the damnable thing and that should be the end of it. It's validated, it's genuine, now drop it and let me get this trojan off my machine.

    Whether we are speaking of the WGA tool or the EULA, the consumer is still in a box, yes, under duress, when it comes to this software.

     

    Have a lovely day.

    Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:16 AM