Re: WGA Questions

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

From: kurttrail (dontemailme_at_anywhereintheknowuniverse.org)
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:04:20 -0500

Vagabond Software wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:%23hrpbmsDFHA.148@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Vagabond Software wrote:
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:eToXFqrDFHA.2232@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> MS "discounted." The OEM copy will still probably be cheaper. And
>>>> which of the 10 customers is the lucky one, or does MS force all
>>>> ten to buy a new OS?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hell if I know. Call Microsoft and ask them.
>>
>> LOL! I think I already know there answer. They'd want the money
>> from all 10.
>
> If the reseller wasn't selling legal licenses, of course all ten
> would have to buy legal licenses to use the software. That is true
> with every piece of licensed software.

Yet MS was paid for one license. And then gets paid for 11 copies for
10 people?

>
>>>> But I was talking about WGA VALIDATION, not PA. WGA gives MS both,
>>>> BIOS info (make, version, date) and BIOS MD5 Checksum. So if that
>>>> changes, and some motherboard manufacturers release BIOS updates
>>>> quite frequently, do you have to re-VALIDATE for WGA?
>>
>> Don't have an answer? How many times will people need to reValidate
>> and why?
>
> Who cares?

People that don't want to get nagged. People that believe that they
should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

> Validation takes all of five seconds.

The first time. How about the second time validating with the same
Product Key?

> However, we'll
> know the answer later tonight when I flash a BIOS, install a video
> card, and attempt to download the anti-spyware beta.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/1/5/815d2d60-49b5-44dc-ae35-fca2f2c6f0cc/MicrosoftAntiSpywareInstall.exe

>
>>> So, reactivate! I don't understand what the difficulty is here.
>>
>> It's that PA doesn't always work as it is supposed too.
>>
>> Here is an incomplete list of Licensing Check errors that can happen
>> with PA, where a user wouldn't be able to reactivate
>>
>>
>>
>> 0x80090006
>>
>>
>> 0x80070002
>>
>>
>> 0x80004005
>>
>>
>> 0X800700C1
>>
>>
>> 0x8007007e
>>
>>
>> 0x80070003
>>
>>
>> 0x80090019
>>
>>
>> 0x8007007f
>
> Again, so what? If I received one of these errors, I would call in
> with my product key. What's the problem?

The problem would be that that wouldn't work, as you couldn't log in to
activate by internet or by phone.

>
>>> Look, rather than try and dream up all these fringe scenarios, it's
>>> better to work in the realm of reality. Like I tell all of my
>>> clients who buy hardware from me, the Product Key is your proof of
>>> purchase regardless of any other circumstances. I have yet to sell
>>> a copy of Microsoft Windows that did not have its own unique Product
>>> Key.
>>
>> LOL! So say you change your business name, and your customer puts
>> down the new name when reValidating, it's OK that MS will
>> incoveniences them for being truthful?
>
> What are you talking about? I'm sorry, but the name of my business
> or any other business is not necessary for product validation.

"Q.What information will Microsoft request from me as part of the
genuine validation process?"

"A.Microsoft may ask you to input some or all of the following
information during the genuine validation process:
Home, small business or enterprise user
Brand of PC
City where PC was purchased
Country/Region where PC was purchased
Place of PC purchase"

Place of purchase.

> In
> addition to running the ActiveX validation component, my customers
> can use the "compare security features" method to validate against
> the sticker I have affixed in a conspicuous location on the outside
> of their new computers, and they can also compare against their
> genuine hologram CD that I provide with every system I sell.

LOL! And then they don't have to validate with the WGA ActiveX
component.

>
> My name, their name, my company name, their comany name... all
> irrelevant for validating genuine Microsoft products.

Not if you read the WGA FAQ.

>
>>>> Do you have a MS Passport?
>>>
>>> Yes, I have three for my own use and have registered dozens of
>>> passport accounts from this IP address just in the last few weeks.
>>> Of course, then the systems got delivered to various regions from
>>> Azusa to Tijuana where the computers and the Passport accounts will
>>> actually be used. See how meaningless the IP address is as a piece
>>> of information?
>>
>> And every time so when they contect to the passport server from
>> Tijuana, MS Passpost still logs your IP address? And when they
>> validate from Tijuana, MS will log your IP address?
>>
>> No.
>
> Exactly my point! The IP address is meaningless.

No it's not. Their logging on to the Passport server can identify them,
and if they validate, all MS has to do is compare the WGA server logs
with the Passport logs.

> Who cares what IP
> address is logged on the MS web-server? I install Adobe Reader on
> dozens of machines and my IP address is logged on their web-server
> when I download the install file, but the end-users IP address will
> be logged by the Adobe web-server when they go to update their Adobe
> Reader. Who cares? It's a meaningless number.

Not for people with broadband whose IP Address rarely changes. Not for
MSN customers.

>
>>>> It does nothing for me. Windows Messager does nothing for me, and
>>>> I uninstall it.
>>>>
>>>> PA and WGA are totally unnecessary to the End User, and just adds
>>>> another element in MS software that can cause grief to the End
>>>> User. MS software screws up enough without more layers of
>>>> bullsh*t, that does nothing for the End User.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Of course they are unnecessary to the end user. Copy protection on
>>> CDs and DVDs are totally unnecesary to the end-user.
>>
>> And not one individual has been charged, let alone convicted for
>> circumventing copy-protection for their own fair use.
>>
>> Even the DMCA protects the cirvcumvention of copyprotection for a
>> fair use.
>>
>> "Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.-(1) Nothing in this section [DMCA]
>> shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright
>> infringement, including fair use, under this title." -
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
>>
>> And as the Supreme Court has said, "Any individual may reproduce a
>> copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not
>> possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
>> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
>>
>> Now this wouldn't affect, businesses. They cannot legally circumvent
>> copy-protection, or sell something that does, but individuals have
>> rights to fairly use the copyrighted material that they have legal
>> access to that business don't.
>
> That's wonderful! So, your vendor selling unlicensed copies of
> Windows at the computer show would be legally liable while the
> victimized end-users would be protected from prosecution. It sounds
> like the system is working.

Yet MS will still disallow 9 out of the 10 easy access to updates, and
never go after the real crook.

>
>>> The Autodesk
>>> license server is totally unnecessary to users of AutoCAD, except
>>> they can't run their software without it! Yes, end-users of
>>> Microsoft products have been shouldering the consequences of
>>> software piracy for years now. I am confused by your shock that
>>> Microsoft might deploy their software with some sort of
>>> copy-protection, and I am unconvinced by your crocodile tears for
>>> the average end-user.
>>
>> How many copy-protection schemes is enough before it becomes more
>> intrusive? In four years MS will have introduced 2 copy-protection
>> schemes on the same product, howm many will there be on their OS in
>> eight years from now. How many hoops must MS's PAYING customers jump
>> through for MS?
>
> If not the subscription service, software products may go the way of
> many new games. The license key will need to be validated over the
> Internet to receive patches or even to permit use of the software.
> At least, that is my prediction.

That doesn't seem the root MS is taking.

>
>>> I actually service computers for residential and commercial users,
>>> and I can tell you that these users are victimized far more
>>> frequently by software pirates than by Microsoft.
>>
>> Yet MS expects the victims to pay not the pirates.
>
> The victims already did pay, but they paid the pirates; that's why
> they are victims. Microsoft wants the end-users to get what they
> paid for, and so do I.

And pay for it twice. If MS were truely serious, they go after those
selling the illegal software, not the victims!

> Personally, I hope they do away with this
> "Restore CD" crap that OEMs are selling with their hardware. That is
> a true injustice and real material grievance.

I agree, but it has nothing to do with WGA.

>
>>> Yes, the hackers
>>> will still get around all of this, and they will still be the usual
>>> suspects; small-time tinkerers with a toolbox of various software
>>> cheats and workarounds but otherwise incapable of keeping a
>>> point-n-click operating system stable and secure.
>>
>> LOL! How many people running geniune MS OS can't keep a
>> "point-n-click operating system stable and secure?" WGA doesn't do
>> anything to really protect the paying customer. It's about
>> protecting MS's cash flow.
>
> How does WGA affect MS cash flow? I'm a paying customer, and I have
> a CD and a product key. There is certainly a level of protection in
> that. Whether I need to use the Recovery Console or install Internet
> Information Services to develop applications with the .NET Framework,
> I'm secure in knowing that I have full access and privilege to use
> those applications. Also, I'm setting up many of my small business
> users with Microsoft's Anti-Spyware tool rather than paying for
> additional Adaware licenses.

Adaware is free for personal use. And you might want to read this link
before setting up your customers with MS Anti-Spyware tool.

http://msn.com.com/2100-1009_22-5569429.html?part=msn&subj=ns_2543&tag=mymsn

>
> By the way, do you think it is appropriate that some businesses are
> running Adaware SE Personal on their commercial computers?

Nope.

> How do
> you feel about personal and professional end-users that continue to
> use unlicensed copies of Winzip well beyond the 30 day "shareware"
> period?

That is copyright infringement, and WinZip should go after those that do
in court.

>
>>> However, at least
>>> legal end-users will be able to immediately identify whether or not
>>> your friends at the computer show have sold them an illegal copy of
>>> Windows with, perhaps, a backdoor trojan pre-installed as well.
>>
>> People get trojans running WGA OSs too. And in the case of the
>> vender that sells the same OS ten times, at least the first customer
>> to Validate will think they have a legal copy, although they might
>> have been the last customer to purchase that same copy.
>>
>> WGA flawed right off the bat.
>>
>> And let's not mention retail customers, whose product key may be
>> generated by the XP Keygen! If someone who gets their key through
>> the keygen validates it first, the valid user of that key will be
>> inconvenienced until they can prove that they have are the valid
>> user.
>>
>> Guilty until proven innocent. Tis' the French and Microsoft way!
>
> And the way of every tax paying American, and the way of everyone who
> has ever received a traffic ticket, and so on and so forth...

LOL! You have the right to a trial before you are considered guilty of
tax evasion, or a traffic violation, so what the hell are you talking
about. 

-- 
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Quantcast