Computer Question:Windows Updates?

[fyo]

This should not cause a false positive, it will however require you to reauthenticate.  That's 2 seperate issues.  Anytime you change components you have to reauthenticate, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to fail WGA.

WGA will trigger an authentication failure in certain circumstances (I've seen it happen, so I know it happens). I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the IP address has to change as well. I believe this category of failures is why MS has introduced the new intermediate status.

Depending on the circumstance this might be perfectly reasonable.  If the product key had been previously registered you might have to have customer service "clear" it.  That has actually happened to me when I've had to reinstall my OS several times.

BS. That's a false positive. Like I said, MS might not consider it one, but it is. WGA claims piracy. You product is properly licensed. ==> false positive.

Sure, these issues can be cleared by a simple phone call to MS, but I shouldn't HAVE to call MS (and doing that might not be so simple, esp. after work hours or during weekends / holidays) just to get the product I PAID FOR to work.

The simple fact is that if they didn't have a monopoly on operating systems (there are alternatives, yes, and I use one, but what they have is a monopoly), they wouldn't be pulling sh*t like this. They are making things difficult for their users, but they don't care. They have no incentive to care.

[Spider-Dan]

Your usage pattern doesn't seem to point to a NEED to run Windows, so why not jump ship completely?

Games.

[Pappy13]

BS. That's a false positive. Like I said, MS might not consider it one, but it is. WGA claims piracy. You product is properly licensed. ==> false positive.

Failing WGA does not claim piracy, it simply claims that your system is not legally licensed which can happen for all sorts of reasons, piracy just being one of them.  Having a legal version of Windows on 2 different PC's for example is a license agreement failure of the WGA, it's not a piracy claim, so it depends on the situation.  Without knowing the specifics you can't really know why WGA failed and if MS can just clear it, it's not because you have an illegal copy of the software, it has something to do with the licensing agreement.  It's not really that they simply allow it to bypass the WGA, it's that MS already had some information on that particular license which conflicts with what it's now been given.  MS clears the old information and allows the new information to replace it which makes that system valid and the old one invalid.

[fyo]

I don't agree completely with you about what constitutes piracy, but since that's neither here nor there, I'll stop using the word in this discussion.

The bottom line is that when WGA reports a failure for a licensed copy of Windows, that's a false positive -- regardless of WHY that WGA failure happened. MS (and you, to some extent) seem to be redefining false positive to get as small a number as possible.

If I'm not breaking local legislation and have paid for my copy of Windows... ANY and ALL failure reports by WGA constitute a false positive.

[Pappy13]

If I'm not breaking local legislation and have paid for my copy of Windows... ANY and ALL failure reports by WGA constitute a false positive.

And how does MS determine if you have paid for your copy of Windows?  They use the Product key that you provide to them.  If you provide a product key that is already registered within their database and you are using it on a different PC than it was registered with than that IS a violation of the license agreement.  There's no way for MS to know for sure whether it is in fact the same PC only with different hardware, so it makes you reauthorize that license key with that PC.  That is not a false positive, at least I don't agree that it's a false positive if you are saying it is.  Now if that's not the case, it may in fact be a false positive, but this is the most common reason as to why you have to reauthenticate and in most cases it's done automatically.  Sometimes it won't do it automatically and you have to call in and MS will do it manually for you, but MS will do it.

Is it flawless software?  No.  Is it Malware?  Hardly.

[fyo]

Is it flawless software?  No.  Is it Malware?  Hardly.

We're arguing a lot of different things, but let me just address some of the issues I have with WGA *on principle*:

- Microsoft added WGA after-the-fact, so the product that I purchased (of which Automatic Updates is a prominent feature that Microsoft advertises) was neutered to some extent. That's not generally permitted, as Sony recently found out with their removal of the "Install Other OS" option on the PS3.

- Microsoft tailored WGA to an internal ideal of what they would like the law to be. We like to call it a license and what-not, but the fact is that in most places, if I go down to a store and purchase a boxed version of Windows, I'm buying a PRODUCT (not a license to use a product) and those consumer rights cannot be taken away from me. What they should have done, although not as effective I grant, is tailor the WGA to the ACTUAL applicable laws. It would be a hassle, but that's what they should have done, if they really wanted to push something like  WGA on the public.

- Microsoft originally misrepresented what WGA was in an effort to get the widest possible adoption and subsequently refused to release instructions on how to remove the "update".

- Microsoft still won't come out and say clearly what information WGA collects and what their procedures are with regards to data retention. Just take a look at their FAQ on WGA. It says "The tools collect such information as..." (my emphasis).

- In fact, Microsoft harvests a lot of information that is absolutely none of their business, including the MAC address of any networking cards installed and a GUID that, if leaked, can subsequently be used to connect MS Office documents uniquely to your system. No, I don't trust MS with my data.

So, yeah, I have a lot of problems with WGA and I don't think it should be legal in its current form. I also think its very clear that it qualifies as spyware under most definitions. Basically, if you explained exactly what WGA does without giving the product names, most people would consider it spyware. Why is it suddenly okay just because it's Microsoft? That makes no sense.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Is Windows a Virus?

No, Windows is not a virus. Here's what viruses do:

**** They replicate quickly - okay, Windows does that.

**** Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so - okay, Windows does that.

**** Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk - okay, Windows does that too.

**** Viruses are usually carried, unknown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems. Sigh... Windows does that, too.

**** Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware. Yup, that's with Windows, too.

Until now it seems Windows is a virus but there are fundamental differences:

**** Viruses are well supported by their authors, are running on most systems, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and they tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.

So Windows is not a virus.

It's a bug.

[Pappy13]

- Microsoft tailored WGA to an internal ideal of what they would like the law to be. We like to call it a license and what-not, but the fact is that in most places, if I go down to a store and purchase a boxed version of Windows, I'm buying a PRODUCT (not a license to use a product) and those consumer rights cannot be taken away from me.

The courts disagree with you.  There are numerous cases where an End User License Agreement has withstood the test in a court of law.  Most recently the one with Blizzard and MDY industries comes to mind that Blizzard won. MDY is appealing.(http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2006cv02555/322017/)

The fact of the matter is that even if you don't realize it you are not purchasing the software you are licensing it from Microsoft and Microsoft is within it's rights to try to enforce that license agreement including preventing you from having full use of the software if you break it.  You may not agree with it, but companies can and do win lawsuits based on licensing agreements all the time.  This isn't something specific to Microsoft.

So, yeah, I have a lot of problems with WGA and I don't think it should be legal in its current form. I also think its very clear that it qualifies as spyware under most definitions. Basically, if you explained exactly what WGA does without giving the product names, most people would consider it spyware. Why is it suddenly okay just because it's Microsoft? That makes no sense.

The fact of the matter is that someone sued MS over this very concept and the case was dismissed.  So while I respect your opinion, I think you have to admit that it doesn't seem to be supported in a court of law at the moment.  That could change and if it does, you won't see me trying to defend MS.  My problem is that a lot of folks don't like MS for the wrong reasons and they try to find any reason they can to put MS in a bad light regardless of the facts.  I'm not saying you are doing that here, just that it's a common problem.  As soon as someone comes up with the hard facts that prove MS is trying to push spyware on us, I'll be the first one on board to throw rocks at them, but opinion alone, I don't care how much of it there is, is not enough for me.

[fyo]

The courts disagree with you.

No, they don't.

Most recently the one with Blizzard and MDY industries comes to mind that Blizzard won. MDY is appealing.(http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2006cv02555/322017/)

Blizzard was selling an account in addition to the physical product. Microsoft is not. Blizzard cannot prevent someone from selling the product. The account is another issue. Perhaps Microsoft could leverage this concept and put essential parts of Windows "in the cloud", I don't know, but that's not what they are doing.

The fact of the matter is that even if you don't realize it you are not purchasing the software you are licensing it from Microsoft and Microsoft is within it's rights to try to enforce that license agreement including preventing you from having full use of the software if you break it.  You make not agree with it, but companies can and do win lawsuits based on licensing agreements all the time.

Companies can and do lose lawsuits all the time where they try to act like they are not selling a physical property when in reality they are. The first-sale doctrine, for example, has been held to apply to software products.

I'm not saying EULAs are illegal or not enforceable, although their legal basis is not nearly as solid as you infer. However, EULAs cannot take away fundamental consumer rights.

When I purchase Windows, I purchase the product. No, I am not allowed to COPY the product (except for making a backup, although companies try to prevent that all the time -- fortunately, it appears the SCOTUS has struck down even the DMCA barrier to making backups), just like I would not be allowed to make a copy of any number of other products, including music and books. The PRODUCT, however, is mine to do with as I please (in this context, doesn't include copying / distributing etc) and courts have held that time and time again (with a few mishaps here and there, sadly).

Companies, including Microsoft, are constantly trying to increase their control over how we use their products. That is NOT LEGAL. They have NO RIGHT to do so and the courts have held as much. However, when people like you (it appears -- sorry for the ad hominem attack) believe that whatever they write in EULAs, TOSes etc is valid, regardless, then they've pretty much already won.

I brought it up earlier, but it's not entirely unlike the warnings at the beginning of sports broadcasts or DVDs. I recall discussion on this very site where people simply took that for granted (not being allowed to reproduce, in whole or in part, for any reason) and were completely sold on it. While the courts hold that this is in fact NOT the case (despite the "TOS" displayed), it doesn't really matter if everyone believes the companies.

My problem is that a lot of folks don't like MS for the wrong reasons and they try to find any reason they can to put MS in a bad light regardless of the facts.

There are plenty of valid reasons for disliking, and distrusting, Microsoft -- including the numerous times they have been found (in a court of law) to be breaking laws, repeatedly and deliberately, and their top officers lying under oath. Sadly, if you're the CEO of a big corporation, you can get away with lying under oath in court or before Congress. Such has always been the case, it seems.

[Pappy13]

Ok, I'm done.  I won't argue with you over whether or not the courts agree with you on license agreements.  That was in fact one of the exact arguments that MDY tried to use in the case they lost.  I guess they didn't actually lose the case either.  Below is the judges ruling in the case they lost.

Public Knowledge’s amicus brief contends that WoW users are “owners” of copies of the game client software within the meaning of section 117, that copying the software to
RAM is an essential step in using the game client software, and that the act of copying to RAM is, therefore, not an infringement, even when done in connection with Glider.
Dkt. #65. MDY adopts this argument in its reply memorandum. Dkt. #69 at 2, 5, & n.7.

The resolution of this issue is controlled by Ninth Circuit law. At least three cases – MAI, Triad, and Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 447 F.3d 769
(9th Cir. 2006) – hold that licensees of a computer program do not “own” their copy of the program and therefore are not entitled to a section 117 defense. See MAI, 991 F.2d at 518
n.5; Triad 64 F.3d at 1333; Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 784-85. Wall Data provides a two-part test for determining whether the purchaser of a copy of a software program is a licensee or
an owner: if the copyright holder (1) makes clear that it is granting a license to the copy of the software, and (2) imposes significant restrictions on the use or transfer of the copy, then the transaction is a license, not a sale, and the purchaser of the copy is a licensee, not an “owner” within the meaning of section 117. Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 785.

Under the two-part test for ownership in Wall Data, the transactions between Blizzard and persons who acquire copies of its game client software are licenses, not sales.

First, Blizzard makes clear that it is granting a license. The EULA expressly states in section 1 that Blizzard is granting a “limited license.” Dkt. #42 at 2. Section 3 goes further and states that â�

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Ok, I'm done.  I won't argue with you over whether or not the courts agree with you on license agreements.  That was in fact one of the exact arguments that MDY tried to use in the case they lost.  I guess they didn't actually lose the case either.

I have only read two court cases on software licenses agreements. (They were in my contract text book.) Two different courts.  Exact same issue regarding enforceability.  Two exact opposite results.

While I am not an expert on this particular area of law, it is my understanding that this is still very much an area of unsettled law.  That what the courts have said in one state or one federal circuit can vary greatly from another state or federal circuit.  And that both Pappy and fyo can find case law that supports their position.

[Spider-Dan]

Pappy13, you keep saying that the lawsuit against Microsoft (re: is WGA spyware?) was "dismissed," but it was dismissed the day after Microsoft and the plaintiffs agreed to drop the lawsuit.  This hardly proves anything about whether or not WGA qualifies as spyware.

As I already said, according to Microsoft's own definition, WGA is spyware.

[Pappy13]

Pappy13, you keep saying that the lawsuit against Microsoft (re: is WGA spyware?) was "dismissed," but it was dismissed the day after Microsoft and the plaintiffs agreed to drop the lawsuit.  This hardly proves anything about whether or not WGA qualifies as spyware.

As I already said, according to Microsoft's own definition, WGA is spyware.

The plaintiffs agreed to drop the lawsuit a month after the Judge ruled they couldn't make the case a class action suit which is what they were wanting.  When you are the plantiff and you agree to drop the lawsuit, you know you have lost or at the very least the odds are stacked against you and it's not worth pursuing.  If it's so clear, why did they drop the lawsuit?  Strange thing to do when it's so clear wouldn't you say?

[Pappy13]

I have only read two court cases on software licenses agreements. (They were in my contract text book.) Two different courts.  Exact same issue regarding enforceability.  Two exact opposite results.

While I am not an expert on this particular area of law, it is my understanding that this is still very much an area of unsettled law.  That what the courts have said in one state or one federal circuit can vary greatly from another state or federal circuit.  And that both Pappy and fyo can find case law that supports their position.

Well this was a fairly recent case and fairly well known.  I know there were a lot of very upset people with the outcome, like Public Knowledge for instance because of the precedent it set. Public Knowledge did argue almost exactly what FYO mentioned in his post and the judge ruled against them.

I'd be interested to read about the other case if you have it.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Well this was a fairly recent case and fairly well known.  I know there were a lot of very upset people with the outcome, like Public Knowledge for instance because of the precedent it set.  I'd be interested to read about the other case if you have it.

I am pretty sure neither of the cases I read is the ones you are referring to.  My point is on various issues regarding legal issues in this area there is no settled law.  There is a split among the courts. Unless or until the supremes weighs in, it will remain that way.  Cases being well known or more recent do not make them more important. 

And if it is the situation where the parties settled out of court it is completely meaningless. 

It is possible that there has been s.ct cases that have settled some of the conflicting issues, I haven't really been following along much as this is an area of law I find about as interesting a paint drying.