Windows Vista will have new antipiracy technology that locks people out their PCs
if the operating system isn’t activated within 30 days after installation.
Full story at:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6122462.html?tag=nl.e550
This is good and will help stop piracy, that is until somebody finds a way around it.
Locking someone out if they haven’t activated their copy also doesn’t mean the user has a pirate copy.
I also don’t believe it will stop the mass pirating of copies of vista all it will do it catch end users who may think that they bought a legit copy. The mass copying wont stop it will be little different from now the end user is the fall guy.
Ed Bott is covering the story on his blog:
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1495
He’s also been covering the WGA story. (Users of genuine Windows whose copy was wrongly identified as pirate.)
Put the two together and you could have your computer pressing its own self destruct button.
At least they can’t decide that their users are malfunctioning and decide to terminate them like HAL in 2001. Yet.
I’m using a pirated copy and mine disables the activation that Windows Xp comes with. The only thing I’m unable to do is download and install IE7 and WMP11. People WILL find a way to crack through it.
Hi all,
What is upsetting me is the restrictive eula conditions, and recently with DRM phasing in etc, they’re only becoming more restrictive. But, and that is the disbalancing factor of it only towards the user. The user has to pay for the software, the user has to abide by the eula, the user has all sorts of obligations to live by, and the user’s rights are limited more and more and more. I know there is piracy, and I know that the average person in mainland out of the first world would not be able to pay 35 bucks for the OS because that is the price the industry pay for it, and it is way to high. In the software shop the end-user has to come up with 170 bucks to install a fresh machine. Restrictive measures will even forbid people to self-build computers. These people are like butchers, I have said, selling horsebeef by the ounce, even if they came across a racehorse, they would chop it up for profit.
If, and thank Golly that is only for the States, because it is their laws and regulations, and some of it in the Berne regulkations we have to abide by or they make us with their restrictive technology, you hesitate to install within thirty days, you can forget it, lick your lips, sorry folks, give the installation cd or dvd to the dog, make a frisbee out of it or place a plant on it. Don’t the general public see that this goes way too far, that this is endangering free culture, the way to tinker and the realms of free culture as we always knew it in a free world???
DRM and RIAA, well the whole content industry, they set the wrong examples, and we bought into it. But this is completely my personal view, anyway it is your free choice, if you vote in, vote in, you and your next generations have to live in such a world. But I have to add an example of where a more restrictive license is the only fway forward for the developer, but because of complete other grounds than big corporational:
http://www.pierceive.com/filtersetg/license.txt
And read the other opinion on DRM, and why it is not going to work:
http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
polonus
polonu,
You forgot one more very important thing:
The consumer has a right NOT to buy the product.
If you don’t like the rules imposed by the seller, don’t buy the product.
Hi Bob3160,
I think compatibility gonna play an important part, if you have full functionality, people won’t protest. Sony found the way how it was not done.
polonus