Paul Thurrott's WGA Woes Solved 250
David Horn writes "Last week Slashdot ran an article regarding the trouble Paul Thurrott had with WGA. It turns out that after talking to Microsoft, he was actually running a pirated version of Windows, legitimately purchased from an online vendor. Paul admits that 'the truth is, I just made a mistake. If we learn something from that mistake, fantastic, but I wasn't trying to set up a life lesson for anyone, let alone myself.'"
Re:Ouch (Score:1, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
He is full of shit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to make others safe from that company. He didn't that leads to conclusion that he is full of shit. Also posting such insult requires me to be real about it since if I wouldn't the resseler would sue my ass.
Now after reading (yes I did read that crap) a bit lenghty article on how MS is great, how they suprised him with their support and kindlyness, how it can happen to anyone, blah, blah, blah. I just see MS marketing bullshit in it and the guy getting kind of rich from just blogging what MS suggest him to blog.
It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in his other works.
Hey is that crow on the table? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's classic debugging to know that when you try to solve a problem and keep thinking, "But this HAS to work!" you are making an incorrect conclusion somewhere. In this case, trusted person who knows how it is supposed to work has (he incorrectly assumes) a legit copy of Windows, Windows says it's a copy, nobody believes it is a copy. Many jump on anti-Microsoft bandwagon (the knee jerk helps with the jump) and just assume it's evil Microsoft. Did anyone ever post in the thread, "Gee maybe he has an illegal copy?"
The Real Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has made a nuisance with its "Certificate of Authenticity", but something that actually works like that seems necessary here. We deride the "broadcast flag", but what about a "copyright hash" that lets us know our transaction was made with the legitimate grantor of even limited copyrights (for our consumption)?
So much DRM is just a hassle or a ripoff that the publishers have poisoned the debate. How do we do what we need to do with DRM, without hanging ourselves from all the extra red tape it creates?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, But I can't believe it (Score:1, Insightful)
End result? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see any win here for the consumer, it's not like the price of Windows is going to come down as a result of this, the only thing we're going to see is this possibly helping Microsoft's bottom line at the expense of disrupting their users.
Wouldn't it be preferred if MS used another method to find their lost revenue? Instead of relying on end users to go through the confusion (and possible further consequences of WGA). Afterall, how many end users are going to call Microsoft to report that their vendor is selling pirate copies of windows(or even realise this, a basic user won't understand) versus just buying a new code online from MS right away.
You can't cheat an honest man. (Score:4, Insightful)
So he was buying from a company that he knew was already playing a little loose with the rules.
So, a company willing to bend rules is also willing to break laws? Big surprise.
The real surprise is that he wouldn't check the software. And that he'd forget how he got it. And so on and so forth.
This story is just
Re:Sorry, But I can't believe it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hey is that crow on the table? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You can't cheat an honest man. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Real Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you care? Its not your problem who gets paid.
The only way this can work is with personalized copies and phone-home schemes. Everything else is just bits that can be duplicated. I'm sure not ready to sign up for such an orwellian system just to fix somebody else's problem.
Re:You can't cheat an honest man. (Score:5, Insightful)
The company was willing to 'break the rules' (obviously) by selling a dodgy copy of an OEM CD. This was doubtless not brought to his attention while he was doing business with them.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
As he says, they were looking for a way out and he handed it to them. I do not see that this story clears up or changes anything. This guy is an M$ fanboy and he got caught in their trap. I think that he is enough of a fanboy that he gave them an excuse for their mistake when it was discovered.
Wonder how much $$$ changed hands for that . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
The Real Absurdity is Intellectual Property (Score:5, Insightful)
How do I know, when I buy a copy of some content (movie, song, app, OS, whatever) that it's "legitimate"?
You can't. There is no difference between the "legitimate" copy and any other copy and that fact demands a rethink of copyright laws designed to protect dead tree publishing.
Copyright law in the US was formed a devil's bargain from the beginning. The founding fathers understood the purpose of such laws was the promotion of creative arts. They never wanted people to own ideas, which they correctly understood as something other than property. They did not even want people to own their publications forever. The goal was to encourage as much expensive publication as possible so that as many people as possible could be exposed to the country's current thoughts. They liberated their presses in a way the old world refused. The goal was to share. Exclusive franchises were established because that sharing was fiercely expensive.
Today the cost of information is now entirely in it's creation. A worldwide network has been built where it is possible to transfer entire libraries without significant cost. The marginal cost of copies is neglegible. There is no reason anyone should be without any knowledge. Once the knowledge is create, it should spread without bounds. People will continue to solve problems and create knowledge because they must if they want to get things done. Most people want that knowledge spread in their lifetime.
The problem comes not from the creators of knowledge but from those who would own it. Large publishers and others, long used to being gate keepers of information, want to retain that position. Windows is an example. The code was acquired though means both fair and foul. Much of it has been used to suppress rather than express as the death of Word Perfect, OS2, Palm and a host of other superior "competitors." In a few cases, such as Netscape, the code was liberated. In other cases, like Fastback and other backup programs, the code was discarded. Outside the computer industry things can be even worse. For every book you see at the major chain stores, there are hundreds in warehouses and thousands that never saw publication. For every song you hear on the radio, the story is much the same. Music, writing and other arts are part of human nature which preceded and will outlast the growing tyranny of IPA ownership. People are trying very hard to get around these would be owners to share and profit from that sharing. The current owners are not offering any share of those profits and will be routed around eventually. In the mean time, they are encroaching further and further into our basic rights to maintain their position.
Copyright needs a complete rework. Strong protections and exclusive franchises are no longer required to promote the creation and spread of the usefull arts. Strong "IPA" laws are now the largest barrier to the innovation and education they obsessively promote.
This is bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
HEY MICROSOFT: IF LOGONS ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR MY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS RELATIONSHIP WITH AMAZON THEN IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOUR $79 OPERATING SYSTEM, YOU FUCKING RETARDS !!!!!!!!
loss of control of supply chain (Score:5, Insightful)
No, all that is happening here is MS creating such a complex system of distribution and prices, with registration codes that are long and difficult, all while trying to personalize a commodity product. Start with the first item. MS fought for regulations that mean that any manufactured PC must, for all intents and purposes, have Windows installed. So, even if a site license exists, you are still paying for windows. Yet even in light of this, MS still insists on selling upgrade and full products, even though the percentage of people who have not bought a previous copy of windows is small. Of course a copy of windows is linked to a machine, which is another senseless complication. Such complications as upgrade versions, home versions, pro versions, etc, simply allows the crooks an opportunity to manipulate the already confused end user.
Which leads to the second issue. MS Windows is now a fully commoditized product. It owes it's success to being part of fully interchangeable system, which allows beneficial cost reductions for all concerned. The problem is, of course, that MS does not want MS Windows to be a commodity, and therefore treats it as a vertical market application. So, I can't take my copy of MS windows and choose to install it on a single given machine. I am told which machine it belongs to. This does not happen with any other component of the system. OTOH, every copy of MS Windows is all but identical, so the machinations necessary to create this leads to a rube goldberg machine.
If MS would just sell MS Windows for $100 and get over all the hubris that somehow MS WIndows is a special thing would go away. If they want to continue the fantasy that somehow MS WIndows is not a cheap commodity, then they should do something like individualized DVDs, each encoded with their own ID.
Re:He is full of shit... (Score:2, Insightful)
One day he's your hero, a sage, an oracle. The next he's full of shit.
It's too funny.
The truth is that you and your ilk are the ones that are full of shit, and that's quite apparent to anyone that's not an anti-MS lemming.
"It is too obvious. I am not a language expert but I can even see different style of writing/expressing in discussed post that in his other works."
You're seeing what you want to see. The reason for the different style in writing is because he's essentially writing a retraction of his original charge. The initial report was charging Microsoft with wrongdoing, and therefore had a judgmental tone. The amended report is a retraction of sorts, so will have a contrite tone (and an embarrassed tone, since he got caught running pirated software).
The publicly stated reason for WGA is to uncover usage of pirated copies of Windows by users who unknowinly bought pirated copies. WGA did its job in this case, and you just can't stand it.
Re:He is full of shit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you suggest that if some moron pays $20 to download a "legitimate" copy of Adobe Photoshop CS 2 from any of the probably scores of vendors claiming to offer "OEM" software (note: a cursory search shows that there is no legitimate OEM Adobe Creative Suite 2... from the horse's mouth; and furthermore, how clueless do you have to be to think that $20 for a product with a market price well above $500 isn't indicative of a problem?), that Adobe owes anything to that loser other than a sharp rebuke?
Re:He is full of shit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone here who spotted it from the time of the first article gets +5 perception points.
The people who think Paul really did buy his Windows licenses from some guy in a dark alley... get -5, eh, dupe points.
Microsoft is setting themselves up as the "great source of truth and trust" as it is one part of their strategy to keep their franchise strong. In case you don't know, Microsoft's franchise is providing governments and other agencies direct access to anyone's desktop, datamining, composite usage statistics, etc. Every single Microsoft app and OS has been extensively wired with backdoors and spyware. This we know.
Vista will appear to be better but still have all the backdoors. This time using more advanced technology so only Microsoft's paying partners (like the US and Chinese governments) can get into your computer.
Poor 'ol Paul is just trying to keep up his gravy train, and will do anything for his master. Never forget this.
You can't get an honest deal from M$. (Score:1, Insightful)
he was getting the disk through a "loop hole" where he could buy it if he also bought some "hardware". ... So, a company willing to bend rules is also willing to break laws? Big surprise.
No one would be able to play these games if M$ did not in the first place. Their licensing and price structure is insane and some think there's a method to the madness - the ability to extort.
If you can step outside the Bill Gates distortion field for a minute, you might see the absurdity of it all. How are you, your retailer, their wholesaler or even M$ themselves supposed to be able to tell one pressed CD from another? They are identical as the "pirates" have presses just like the "legitimate" publisher. The only difference is where the money goes and I doubt even Carnivore can track that mess. Reality is that you don't need Windoze in the first place and that software ownership is an obsolete business model that never had a legitimate foundation. It was a swindle all along.
I'm c alling bullshit! (Score:1, Insightful)
Another time, I had a legitimate copy of Windows 98, that I had purchased and been unable to return after finding that my PC came with an OEM copy (it was still shrink wrapped.) I listed it on eBay. My auction was closed under eBay's organized criminal activity (they call it VERO.) I asked why, and M$ said that any copy of any M$ software listed with an OPENING bid below the retail price had to be pirate. They said the secret service would be arresting me shortly. After I sent a demand letter, they said I could send them the copy and they would determine if it was pirate. I documented the hell out of it, and sent it to them. They eventually said that it was legit, worth more than $100, and that they had destroyed it because it was not feasible for them to return every legit copy they evaluate. You see, M$ claims that some of their products are pirate so they can stop resale, and thereby drive up the price. They also use this tactic to shut down bargain resellers to fix the price. M$ bribed the judge, and my case for slander, extortion, and price fixing never went to trial.
I have been thrown out of several job interviews after I was asked what software I run on my home computer. I run Linux, which I do not pay for. According to one bimbo who worked for IBM in 1998, "Anyone who does not pay for their operating system is a pirate, and should be dealt with."
Let's face it, piracy is a cry that is used to extort customers of the BSA / MPAA / RIAA into doing anything the companies say. If you use commercial software, you are a fool. If you pay for commercial software, you are committing racketeering, and should be "dealt with".
Sic Semper Gates!
Andy Out!
Re:Hey is that crow on the table? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you have not purchased a license for Windows. You have purchased a counterfit product. It's as if you purchased concert tickets from a scalper that turned out to be fake - they are not tickets to the concert, they are a forgery.
now I have to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to get everything straightened out. I'm not eating crow.
You puchased a fradulent product and now Microsoft is preventing you from using your illegal copy of Windows. What is wrong with Microsoft trying to stop people from running their product without a valid license?
You know what, this whole WGA thing is stupid. I have never had a problem with WGA, nor has anyone I know who has a legal copy of Windows. I have yet to see WGA deem a valid copy of Windows "illegal".
I think that a lot of the complaining is coming from people who are running illegal copies and refuse to admit it. It's not hard to tell if a copy of Windows is legal. My OEM copy of Windows came with a holographic CD and a COA with heat-sensitive features that demonstrate authenticity. I've seen pirated software at computer expos - it doesn't look genuine. If you buy a copy of Windows from a reseller and it ends up being counterfit, you should be angry at the reseller - not Microsoft.
Again, in response to the original post, you have not legitimately purchased a license. You have purchased a counterfit product. If you didn't know that, then your complaint is with the reseller, not with Microsoft. If anything, you should be happy that Microsoft is letting you know that you were screwed.
Moreover, since you never paid Microsoft a dime for that copy of Windows, Microsoft owes you nothing. Why should Microsoft provide updates for people who never purcahsed a valid license in the first place? Do you expect up2date to work with a counterfit RHEL subscription?
If, on the other hand, you purchased a copy of Windows with the knowledge that it was counterfit, or if you pirated Windows, then you are probably pretty pissed at Microsoft right now. But, then again, Microsoft probably doesn't care.
Re:I don't get these parts... (Score:3, Insightful)
I told you. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I said in a related comment [slashdot.org] when this story broke out.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, he's breaking the ToS anyway if he's using an MSDN key as his personal machine. You can use them for development machines (Hence the D = Developer) but not for commercial or personal use.
What an absolute twat (Score:4, Insightful)
For one site that he can't use IE7 on he's decided the best course of action is to run WinXP in a VM so he can use IE6. Do Firefox and Opera not run on Vista? Or are they also unable to post to WinInfo?
This guy, his favourite OS and the sites he is affiliated with are poster childs for stupidity.
Also consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just tossing that out there as a possibility. People trade dignity, self-respect and the respect of others for money all the time.
Has Thurrott never seen an OEM sticker? (Score:4, Insightful)
When you buy a legitimate OEM copy of Windows - from someone like Dabs.com or NewEgg - it comes in a cellophane wrapper with a hologrammed CD inside and a license sticker on the outside. There's also a scantly little booklet in there entitled "Welcome to Windows XP" or somesuch.
I could understand Thurrott not expecting the hologrammed CD if he's never bought a separate copy of Windows before. Windows 98 & 2000 used to come with a screen-printed CD, and I guess many PCs with Windows pre-installed still do; for some reason if you're a small OEM then you get the full pack of hologrammed CD, sticker & leaflet that I describe above, but it seems that if you're a major-volume OEM like Dell or Packard Hell then you're allowed to buy the stickers separately & stamp your own "restore CDs" or (as many big OEMs are now doing) offer to let the user burn their own restore CD. I guess they get a discount for this.
But does Thurrott really expect us to believe that he doesn't know what an OEM sticker looks like? When he purchased this alleged copy of Windows, the license number must have been printed on something! Wouldn't you be a little suspicious in this day and age if you were buying an OEM copy of Windows "just like all the PC manufacturers use" and the license key was hand-written on a scrap of paper? Ok, I'm exaggerating, but everyone knows what an OEM sticker looks like - Thurrott must have bought a laptop with Windows pre-installed; he may build all his own PCs, but he must have worked on a friend's PC, or handled an OEM-built PC in someone's office. All these computers will have a proper OEM licence sticker on them - stuck on the underneath of the laptop, for sure; on many PC towers I see nowadays the sticker is on the top of the PC, right at the front, but they're rarely hard to find. Microsoft deliberately make these stickers distinctive and hand to fake - the one I have here even has hologramming along the edge.
If Thurrott bought this copy of Windows for an article then he would have kept the receipt to claim against tax. And I concur entirely with Kosmosik that if he was burned by a retailer sending him a dodgy copy in this way then he'd be shouting their name to the rooftops! Also, as a tech-savvy computer professional * cough* there's no way he'd throw away the original disk and license number that they sent him - it's obvious that you might need it to reinstall some day, and it's no effort at all to drop the disk in a file or folder with all your other software licenses.
So something here really doesn't add up. He might not be prepared to admit that this is a copy he pirated because he didn't have the MSDN subscription disk handy at the time, but that's the only conclusion I can come to.
Stroller.
Re:You can't cheat an honest man. (Score:2, Insightful)