WGA Turning Off PCs in the Fall? 857
thesaint05 writes "We all know about Microsoft's WGA initiative that started last July. Most of us were troubled to learn that the WGA has been 'phoning home' to Microsoft at every boot. Well, get ready, because eventually Microsoft may be turning off copies of Windows without WGA installed. According to a Microsoft technician, 'in the fall, having the latest WGA will become mandatory and if its not installed, Windows will give a 30 day warning and when the 30 days is up and WGA isn't installed, Windows will stop working, so you might as well install WGA now.'" A new version of WGA was released on Tuesday and, at least for the time being, Windows users have the option of removing WGA from their systems.
How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us spy on you... (Score:0, Insightful)
TOLD YOU SO! (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I've been ranting on Slashdot and elsewhere about the dangers of XP's "product activation" and Treacherous Computing and such for years now, but few people wanted to listen. Well, one of the scenarios I predicted is coming true! Now just wait for the screws to tighten even further...
I jumped ship to Linux when XP came out. It's not too late for you to join me!
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure... they could go to Linux or other open source based systems but the fact that most have never heard of it and just want their PC to work exactly as it did before basically precludes this possibility.
Microsoft is the new Sony (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to upgrade my PC (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, I've got a Home PC running my office's license of XP. I get some crazy messages at home from the WGA.... strangely the office PCs hardly grumble.
No wonder Gates is leaving the party...
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, they did have this all along: it's called Windows Product Activation. C'mon, you should have seen this coming from the beginning!
Second of all, doing it slowly like this actually works out better for Microsoft. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. But if you put him in a pot of cold water and heat it up to boiling, he'll get cooked. Similarly, if you started this with Vista people would simply choose to keep their existing XP, or upgrade to Linux instead. But doing it this way, by stealthily installing it and then turning off the software they already have, you get more of them to "fix" it (by doing whatever they have to do to make it "genuine") because they're already invested.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
This may end up hurting microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, I would be surprised if the real pirates didn't have a crack for this less than a week after WGA is made compulsory.Secondly, the fact that people HAVE to pay for a windows version rather than just sticking on an illegal version will cause these people to migrate more and more to free OS's like linux.
People don't use windows because it is a "good" OS, they use it because everybody else does and programs are written for it. Lessen the number of people using windows, and you lessen the reason for companies/people to code specifically for it, hence you lessen the reason for using it.
Re:TOLD YOU SO! (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a Linux box, and I love the new Fedora Core 5. But it's too much of a pain to run some games to make it worth my time.
Let me know when developers start making games designed to run on Linux, and I'll buy em and switch completely. Until then, no matter how much I hate it, M$ is still gonna be getting my money.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there anything in the EULA that allows them to get away with this?
Sure, lots of crap... not that it matters. The EULA contains plenty of enforceable clauses that conflict with federal and start laws. Eventually someone will probably take them to court and five years later they will win and get a settlement. Of course what that means then will be a whole different ball game, since by then the market will have completely changed. MS may well be providing applications only as online services, and Windows as an OS will be irrelevant to their monopoly.
The court systems are too slow, too corrupt, and too much affected by money to act effectively against MS. They should have busted them up into multiple, competing companies years ago.
Re:Would they risk it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the summary that's everyone, legit or not. How is that legal? What if I don't want to install it, even if I own a legit copy of windows?
Re:How is this legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only possible snag is if it shuts down some valid copies, but the time between now and then will give ms time to iron out those bugs.
It may seem crazy to be doing this midcycle, but ms actually thought this one out. Revenue from XP is flatlined, the market is saturated already. How then to increase revenue in the quarters remaining before Vista? Easy, shut down all the freeloaders and make them go pay you.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
We have charges, indictments, and trials to decide these matters.
Oh this is going to be good for PR... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm just a little bitty guy with one server running. What happens when this hits some company's server farm and they all shut down? How much liability is MicroSoft going to have when that happens?
And every time they "fix" my copy after the new WGA comes out, I have to make manual registry changes. Can you imagine having to do that on a 500 machine server farm?
Great idea MicroSoft, if your product actually worked.
Re:BULLSHIT! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying it's impossible but consider the source.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Money is a suprisingly efficient motivator.
How could this possibly be a good idea now ? (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you going to do about it? Hold your breath until you turn blue?
No, I'm not trolling -- the reality is that Microsoft has the whip hand and all the sound and fury is coming from people who know that in the end they're going to do as they've been told.
Re:How is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's some reasons for you.
Firstly, it would be the best PR they could ever give to every other operating system on the market; Linux, BSD, heck, even ReactOS; and, yes, also Apple. "Hey, our operating system isn't designed to break deliberately." MS have a marketing department. They wouldn't like that.
Secondly, ever wondered just how much critical infrastructure REALLY runs on unlicensed copies of Windows? MS has a CEO. He'd get angry presidential phonecalls. He wouldn't like that.
Thirdly, the fact that such a thing existed would represent a single critical point of failure for all internet-connected Windows PCs, a global killswitch. MS do have a security department, as do many other people who use Windows as part of their global businesses, many of which are larger than Microsoft. They wouldn't like that.
And finally, ever think what #1 and #2 would do to the share price? Assuming the stock markets keep running, that is. Microsoft would stand a very real chance of being put out of business overnight. The board and the shareholders wouldn't like that.
Oh yeah, one more thing; the pirates would crack it so fast and so hard, and the crack would be such big news, it wouldn't have nearly as significant an effect on the number of unlicensed Windows boxes as you think (though it would mean that no-one, anywhere, would ever trust Microsoft again for anything).
Microsoft are't always the brightest bulb in the box, but they aren't literally suicidal.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh, so the "bright" thing to do would be to go out and install a brand new OS that you've never used before (and hope it installs in such a way that it will leave your current partition intact so you can get to your data files), install a bunch of software that you've probably never used before, live with the fact that you possibly won't be able to use some of the software packages that there is no OSS counterpart (or the OSS counterpart sucks), that you may have hardware that may or may not have Linux driver support. All that to save $100? I guess there is a faction of users out there who thinks that that is a reasonable trade off, but I'm guessing that many/most would say "hey, my time is worth waaaaaay more than that. Doesn't seem so "not very bright" to me to just spend the damn money and get on with life.
Some of us are forced to use Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
First off I did pay. Second I do not like having to have it call home and it giving them any personal information including my IP and prod ID to activate which seems to happen every time a tech savy person does anything significant to their computers. Third, I do not like having them infect my computer with endlessly growing DRM shit to support all this. Forth once you grant them this right you give them the power to do so much more than they are currently claiming they are going to do. Imagine forced DRM installation, expiring software leases, and complete user tracking from purchase to forced obsolescence. Fifth, we are the customer, it is their job to meet our demands, not make us their slaves.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't get it. If Microsoft has the ability to remotely disable Windows, they could do it to anyone. Today it's copyright infringers; tomorrow it could be people who run P2P apps or who use iTunes or who aren't white or any other thing. Or, for that matter, some malicious employee or outside hacker could do it. There are any number of scenarios where your computer could get disabled whether your copy is actually legitimate or not.
Apparantly you're a sheep, but I care enough about my own property that giving somebody the ability to cut off my access to it is Not Acceptable. I don't care that it doesn't affect me because I use Linux; it's still a moral outrage!
Windows Genuine Activation (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they seem to be telling us, "Oh, no, Activation never really worked. We need to continuously validate the system."
No. You don't. And you won't.
I just built a brand new machine, primarily for gaming. Oblivion has been fairly sweet. But it looks like I won't be playing those games anymore -- not unless the entire game industry decides to support Linux.
This is morally and ethically reprehensible, and Microsoft knows it, and apparently doesn't care. Well, I do care. I do not, and shall not, grant consent to Microsoft to remotely snoop on my machine, regardless of their ostensible reasons. If my copy of Windows stops functioning as a result, I will take that as a maliciously incorporated product defect, and respond accordingly.
Schwab
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the guy who DID buy his copy of Windows, or got it bundled with his machine. If his copy got turned off by mistake, he will be QUITE unhappy to pay again for something that he already owns. In some circles this is called "extortion" if done intentionally. This will breed a LOT of ill will.
The other thing that totally honked me off is that WPA was supposed to reduce piracy. If it actually worked, Microsoft would lose less to piracy. Shouldn't the consumers get reduced prices to compensate for the inconvenience? After all, Microsoft is now making more money, right? Somehow, I bet that Microsoft will not lower the Vista prices even after WGA turns on fully.
Personally, I am grabbing some popcorn and am going to enjoy watching the meltdown of Microsoft if this thing happens. If I were suddenly forced to give up Windows, the only thing that I would miss besides games is my accounting package (and no, Gnucash can't replace that until it learns how to handle inventory tracking).
BS meter pegged (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't be surprising if the whole thing was a hoax. At best it's some OneCare peon trying to socially engineer a customer into installing WGA.
What is "WGA"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, Slashdot submitters and admins, PLEASE -- give us the courtesy of defining uncommon acronyms the first time they are used. It is not good editorial practice to force the reader to look up unfamiliar terms on their own in order to understand the content.
You can argue that most Slashdotters should know what WGA stands for already -- but should we? This is one of the more Linux-centric sites on the internet. It's far from a given that we would all be familiar with a Windows-based authentication system, even among those of us that are Windows users.
You can argue that it only takes 5 seconds to slap the acronym into Google and find out what it means -- but that doesn't change the fact that the effort would be better made by the one than by the many. Ten thousand Slashdotters Googling the answer is a net loss of 13+ hours of time that could be better spent on other things.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the pirate knew everything that you and I know, including (1) how to install, configure, and use linux, and (2) how to recover all his important files and make them work in linux, then he might consider switching to linux full-time.
Unfortunately, I don't know the profile of the average windows pirate, but I would assume that he doesn't know the things that we know, and that retaining access to the files that are important to him and the other software (office, iTunes, digital camera, etc.) that he is used to - and may have paid for - is going to outweigh the cost of purchasing windows (which is like $88 [newegg.com]).
Re:Not Likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Likely (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... the average gamer will find a hack for their copy of XP, Turn off windows updates, and firewall the microsoft domain.
Non gamers, on the other hand who might be inclined to buy a new computer after microsoft decides to hold the one they have for ransom may very well be inclined to buy a mac. Especially as it will give him the satisfaction of giving the company that reached into his house and took his data hostage the one finger salute.
Frankly though I'm surprised MS would be stupid enough to disable XP BEFORE VISTA ships though. People would be more inclined to buy a NEW product when their computer demands money than to fork over money to use a product they've had for free for 4 years.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
What's that? The Linux pricing problem?
Cost of Linux = Cost of Pirated Windows. As such, many, many, many, many home users continue to use Windows.
Bring up the cost of Windows?
Cost of Linux 35 percent of PC software is pirated. I'm guessing that Windows XP is highly represented in that group (of pirated software; i.e. at least 30% of worldwide Windows installs are not legal). If even 10% of that user base decides to switch to Linux rather than pay the Windows tax, it'll be a substantial marketshare boost.
And the remaining 90%? They might decide that the MSRP cost of Windows is too close to the MSRP of a brand new dual core Mac.
I'm thrilled. MS has ridden on piracy marketshare for far too long. I hope they do every thing they possibly can to stamp out software piracy, and I hope they succeed.
Opensource Zealots, take heart; Our strongest licenses are copyright based. Should we wish to see the GPL upheld, we should support upholding MS's copyrights. The beauty of the OpenSource ecosystem is far easier to explain to people when they can't get pirated software free or for a minimal $1. Although Free is about Freedom, not Beer, it's much easier to explain that to the layman when it is Free, as in Freedom AND Beer.
Re:TOLD YOU SO! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because you didn't notice Scenario 3:
I legally paid for my copy of Windows but WGA screws up, a malicious person gets control of it at Microsoft, or any number of other things happens and my computer gets shut off anyway.
Or, for that matter, Scenario 4:
I care about my right to property, and I have a moral objection to someone being able to arbitrarily take away my property as a matter of principle.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I've still got XP on a tablet. Too bad the inking and character recognition were better on Linux, or I'd switch that over too.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Virus that breaks WGA compliance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:2, Insightful)
How long before some script kiddie creates an exploit to this that turns off millions of legit systems just for fun?
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What is "WGA"? (Score:3, Insightful)
What in particular is confusing? WGA? It has been all over the press recently. This is a geek site, WGA is a well known term for a component of a popular(huge understatement) operating system. It is also a subject that has been covered on this very site countless of times before.
I keep seeing people complain, but I don't understand how they can miss things that have been paraded before them countless times before if they actually ever read the site.
As a side note, even zdnet and news.com are referring to it by this acronym, typically without any further explanation, and I doubt their editors are getting fired.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
In a contest between you and they, I'd suspect Microsoft is in the better position to understand the nature of the addiction they have created. And I'd feel safe saying that even if you yourself had succeeded in completely breaking your addiction to Windows, which I suspect you haven't.
Most people, most businesses are so hopelessly addicted to Windows that they literally can't even conceptualize their own survival without it. I'm always amused when I read the latest rant about a Windows vulnerability on an IE-only site, or read about some program manager publishing their "Linux Strategy" document as a PowerPoint chart.
Think of all the hundreds of thousands of Microsoft Office documents the average business has, or the potential millions of dollars worth of intellectual property and business intelligence those documents represent.
Now, even if they have the skill and determination to propose leaving Windows behind, think of the complexity of dealing with a customer base which might not be as skilled, or determined.
I suspect we may see a lot of people get pissed-off at Microsoft over this, temporarily. Then, as soon as they realize just how screwed they've allowed themselves to be, it's "how do I get a legitimate license again?"
Let's not get silly here (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, of course, there's the fact that if you install WGA today on a pirated copy of Windows, all you get is the notification message that pops up. You don't get shut down, and you don't even get cut off from Windows security updates (which are truly the only updates that matter, and even they aren't that good). I find it very difficult to believe that Microsoft is going to go from "Hey, your copy of Windows doesn't look genuine, but you can still install our security updates" to "I don't know if your system is pirated or not because you haven't installed WGA, but even if it is a legitimate copy I'm just going to shut you down simply because I have no way of verifying it." Especially not in the span of 6 months.
Let's think about this for just a second. If this shutdown is a function of WGA, and you don't install WGA, then how are they going to a) know that you don't have WGA and b) shut down your PC? Assuming that you only install security updates to your copy of Windows (legitimiate or pirated), then it seems that the only way they can get this "remote killswitch" functionality is to hide it in a security update. You know, kinda like a Trojan horse. Which would of course be unethical at the very least, and most likely illegal. Especially if they killswitched a legally licensed copy of Windows who just didn't have WGA installed.
But hey, it's Microsoft. So let the FUDslinging begin.
Re:Can't Tell (Score:3, Insightful)
Put this beast on a direct IP to the 'net with no updates. 5 minutes later, disconnect it. Run a virus scan. 5-10 viruses detected.
Put it behind a router with not NATing. Don't do any Windows Updates. Don't worry about a firewall, it's not important. 5 months later, disconnect it. Run a virus scan. 0 viruses detected.
Seriously.
My parents switched their ISP a while back, and in the course of getting their stuff working, I removed a $30 router that I'd placed there over a year earlier (firewall features DISABLED), not thinking anything of it (I mostly run Linux). They'd had AVG scanning every night, nothing detected over that whole time. Day or two later, I get a phone call. Yep, suddenly AVG is finding all kinds of crap.
Oops.
Point is, use Firefox and a $30 router and you can forget about updates entirely. Most (all? I've never seen one get through) of the no-interaction-required sorts of attacks are pretty fragile, and will break in this setup.
So yes, it is VERY possible to run an XP machine with no updates (hell, you can probably just run it stock without SP2) without issue. I'm sure that many people do this without realizing it.
So, unless WGA is included in SP2, lots of people will have no worries. It's not, right?
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, if you've been paying attention, you know a lot of legitimate users run into trouble too. When you're sitting there with a legitimate copy and the best MS support can tell you is buy another copy, that's a problem.
They laughed at "arbitrary code execution" (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyhow, just FYI, WGA checks for updates and can install them without any user input. That's right--nothing. When I put "arbitrary code execution" in the story I submitted on this, folks laughed, but think about it: any auto-update function from an untrusted source *is* arbitrary code execution! They could send you a freaking "format the PC" program and your system, like a dumbass, would simply run it! Now, I *hope* they won't go that far, but how can we trust them? You can't. I won't play WoW for the same reason (their "warden" program may currently only snoop on a few things, but *nothing* prevents them from modifying that, and it's damned hard to reverse since it's only ever memory resident, etc. so only cheaters were monitoring it...).
You can say that I'm paranoid or whatever, but it's *my* computer and I sure as hell don't like giving untrustworthy people the ability to silently install software on it. For the same reasons, I will never support DRM. It's all about their ability to control my computer. I won't stand for it. It's mine and they can go screw themselves if they want to pretend otherwise.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had conversations about those ads with probably a dozen people - none of them Mac users; most are Windows people - and all of them LOVE them. A few of them have wondered aloud why Microsoft, with all its millions, can't produce engaging ads like that.
I wonder if maybe, just MAYBE, the Slashdot crowd isn't the target audience...?
<aside>My brother is an ad copywriter/director and has worked on some Microsoft campaigns. He tells me there are just too many people within MS that have to give their "thumbs up" before a campaign gets the go-ahead, which pretty much guarantees banality.</aside>
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
The pirates WON'T be the ones encountering this problem.
The folks running pirated corporate editions or counterfeit install keys? They already work around WGA as it is. They know the score and will not be affected in the slightest.
End result? Microsoft will alienate legitimate customers. They're taking cues from the RIAA in the worst possible way.
This is nothing new. Ask Everquest players. (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you were playing EQ on a pirated copy of Windows, you just went into Evercrack withdrawal because EQ wouldn't load at all. That's a quick way to boost their sales. Most hardcore EQ players would sell their first born to keep playing. This is extremely annoying to say the least. I wonder what it will do to game companies that bundle the latest DirectX with their games to make sure you can play it on install. I can hear the tech support phones ringing now!
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
windows stickyness.
Once you switch to mac, and start buying mac applications you might want to to use a mac at work, you might decide not to deploy exchange server because it won't work well with your mac, you might choose a pda with PalmOS instead of Windows Mobile 5 because Activesync won't sync to Mail.app, and when you launch your browser it will be safari not internet explorer, and you won't be taken to the MSN home page, and when you hit search you won't see MSN results. You'll probably rip your music to AAC or MP3 instead of WMA, etc.
Big whoop, they aren't making money either way.
The hell they aren't.
Why do you think dell pays like 15 bucks to install XP Home on a PC? Sure Microsoft wants to convert as many 'pirates' into paying customers as possible, but given a choice between having users run pirated Windows or Mac OS, Microsoft comes out way way ahead with pirated windows.
Their monopoly on the desktop feeds their search, advertising, applications, browser, and server divisions. Microsoft would be dead if they lost their desktop monopoly. Most of their products aren't priced competitively and most of them are not best of breed, but they perform well simply because of leverage they get from the desktop.
How many people do you know that use MSN search that do not use Internet Explorer?
Zero? Pretty close to it.
And if someone has critical data on a system running a pirated OS, I'm not inclined to feel much pity.
Who said "critical data". We aren't talking enterprises with pirate xp installs for servers here.
The average home user will have their vacation photos, some music, their resume, and so on. Its may not be "critical" but anyone would be pissed if microsoft tried to hold it hostage. Not to mention blocking you from doing online banking, chatting with friends, reading the news, listening to music, and playing solitaire.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
And the flip-side --every computer connected to the net will have to "talk" to MS on occasion or get shut down.
How does that sound for individual/company/military/government computers that need to be secure?
The US government is worried about the security risk of Lenovo computers. Wonder what they, and other governments, think about this?
Ed Foster already wrote about this (Score:5, Insightful)
See http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/6/27/054
Personally, I think he's correct -- why else would WGA suddenly become a "required" part of any update?
Furthermore, why should WGA ever need to confirm that a copy is legit more than ONCE? if a given install was legit last week, how could it possibly become pirated next week?
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a legitimate user of Windows. I know I am, because I bought a licenced copy from a reputable dealer. Thus, I figure, I don't need the WGA to *tell* me if I have a legitimate copy. I *do* have a legitimate copy.
And Microsoft doesn't get to know anything else about anything I do, or affect me. The idea that I can be held hostage because I don't want to trust software from Microsoft. Well, that's kind of crazy.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:1, Insightful)
"so you might as well install WGA now" (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who didnt see this coming is either a fool or a moron.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
It smacks of MSFT needing to find a way to boost stagnant earnings and keep their quarterly numbers up and that's exactly what it is.
All they can do is squeeze existing users for a few more pennies and try to generate sales with the strong arm product activation requirements. The security package is one way to extract a few more dollars from your wallet, racheting up the EULA restrictions so you can't transfer Windows between machines you own is another, and trying to sweep in sales from those using a pirated copy of Windows just to play games, which is the only reason many of you want Windows around at all. I've seen similar tactics going on on the commercial side of the house as well. Many of my business customers are flat unhappy with MSFT license fees and restrictions.
It's an interesting spiral. The more people switching to open source, the more MSFT has to squeeze their remaining customers for revenue, which always pisses off a small fraction who then jump to OSS. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Re:BULLSHIT! (Score:3, Insightful)
Making people THINK they're going to go through with it, however...
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
How much do you want to bet this turning the computer off thing won't work quite perfectly?
Besides, I wouldn't want my computer providing MS with a back door and calling them up every week anyway.
Re:They laughed at "arbitrary code execution" (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone with less than good intentions ever gained access to wherever WGA connects there could be a very, very bad situation.
Re:A disturbance in The Force? How stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does WGA have a click-thru licence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like just about every update from windows update has a click-through licence. Don't know what's in them, I've never read one. But, by definition, a click through gives you the choice of agreeing (installing the update), or disagreeing (and continuing to use the non-updated software under the original, unmodified EULA licence).
But the description of WGA in the original post sounds like it's a mandatory update, i.e. either you accept it, or you stop running windows. If there's also a click-through licence associated with it, that's equivalent to Microsoft saying: "You must agree to modify the licence agreement, or we won't uphold our side of the original licence (i.e. let you use the software you paid for)."
Isn't this coercing acceptance of a contract under threat of unilaterally breeching an earlier contract? How is it legal?
I suppose it's possible that WGA is an exception to the rule, and doesn't have it's own click-thru licence. But that seems highly unlikely. I've yet to see _any_ update from windows update that doesn't require a new click through.
Anyone know the answer?
Re:Ed Foster already wrote about this (Score:3, Insightful)
It couldn't. But maybe the install that passed the legit check last week was really pirated, and Microsoft just discovered the hack. They'll want to push out a new legit check at the next opportunity so they can nag/spy on/remotely disable the latest group of perceived pirates.
How many legit customers get shut out of their own machines as a result of this remains to be seen... For as many times as I've seen 100% legal systems spontaneously "de-activate" themselves as a result of moving a PCI card, installing a driver, or for no apparent reason at all, I think it's bound to happen.