[quote]what i want to know is am i really expected to look up every single patch for every single system that i run? now i have to go and set up each machine by hand, hoping that i'm getting every update that i need?<hr></blockquote>Have you ever used automatic update or been to the windows update page? The reason it collects those version numbers is to automatically select the applicable patches and disallow patching for pirated systems. If you run automatic update it does the same thing but you don't physically have to go to the webpage periodically yourself. If you have to administer a lot of machines there's some tool that they have that can do it all remotely without end user interaction.
[quote]i'm supposed to send them info on my software and hardware so they know which DRM crap to install on my machine w/o my consent?<hr></blockquote>Again, if you don't like DRM, don't buy protected content(MP3's aren't protected) and its not an issue.
[quote]this is the biggest screw job MS has tried to pull in years. i have no idea how you can sit there and say it's not that big of a deal 'cause you can just turn off auto updates. how long until it's not something you can turn off. how long until you get another WMP situation where a security pacth requires DRM authorization?<hr></blockquote>So you're argument has changed from 'I have to sign over my privacy' to 'how long until it's something you can't turn off'. Well with this line of reasoning a lot of licenses could be changed in the future that I wouldn't be comfortable with, but that's not the case today. I suppose you mean a patch that would disallow any non-DRM content to be played or produced in your last sentence. As soon as this happens, I'll agree with you. I think users should have the choice to use both.
[quote]why is this DRM crap necessary at all anyway? <hr></blockquote>Some artists and labels are uncomfortable with releasing their IP to the public with no protection against perfect free copies.
The portion of the SP3 EULA posted previously states that DRM tools will be downloaded to the machine. It does not state that they will be installed. This is a critical difference.
Edit: xmoger seems to have said this earlier; carry on.
<strong>um, which part of this don't you understand?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems you're the one who doesn't understand, or want so badly for MS to be a rapacious gang of baby-eaters that plain English phrases won't stand in your way.
Sed j00:
now MS wants to check my machine for all registration codes i have for all MS software, OS, other 3rd party software, as well as hardware ID's, and then send the info back to MS.
Untrue.
Pretty soon you'll have twisted yourself into saying that MS has actually done something good. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Well I thought I would never see it- 2 PC knowledgeable guys (alcimedes vs. groverat) going at each other over M$ licensing. Who's right??? They are both smart guys. I just don't know!
<strong>Some artists and labels are uncomfortable with releasing their IP to the public with no protection against perfect free copies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of the funny things with intellectual property and anything that you release to the public is it can always be copied or reverse engineered. That's true regardless of the product involved. It is always merely a case of time.
Artists in this case would be better to develop a decent business plan that encompasses the internet because they aren't going to be able to outright stop piracy ever. Of course there are a few things they can do to make it far more annoying but as I once heard in a conference "The only way we can see to stop piracy is to stop people being able to view the media".
The big problem hasn't been the piracy though it has been the new found ease of distribution and they need to go about solving that in a completely different method.
[quote]Actually registration, activation and windows update are all different things. That information is used by the windows update webpage and automatic updates.windows update
I don't understand why people are up in arms. If you don't like DRM, don't buy protected content. If you don't want automatic update calling MS, disable it. <hr></blockquote>
i understand that part. my problem is that i'm in charge of at least 50 win2k boxes. they're scattered in different departments and have a wide variety of different hardware etc. inside them. for me to keep track of all of the patches that each machine may or may not need, as well as what's already been installed is a huge pain in the ass.
the only realistic way to keep those machines secure is to use windows update. what i don't understand is why could it update my machines before without collecting that information, but needs it now?
along those lines, the WMP EULA states
[quote]You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ('Secure Content'), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.<hr></blockquote>
see that part about disabling third part software? how does that not creep you out. say i pay for a copy of CloneCD (for backup purposes) why the **** do they think they can come on to my machine and disable it? so what happens when CloneCD is labeled a tool for circumventing DRM (which is totally is)?
i see no reason why i should give any company the right to come on to my machine and disable software that I WANT TO USE!
if they have issues with what i'm doing, take me to court. just leave my damn PC alone! not to mention the question of what happens when they start installing crap i haven't asked for, w/o my consent or any notice. even if it does what it's supposed to, what are the odds that it doesn't puke something else on a machine that's supposed to work. any of you install a service pack before and had it go bad? i know i have dozens of times over the hundreds of machine patches i've done. that's why i always wait and see what problems there are before taking that step. i never install any software on my computer without giving it time to work out the bugs first.
guess that's not a choice any more either.
this was a security patch. you had to have this to keep people from running any code they wanted on your machine (through a DRM exploit nonetheless).
SP3 is the first step towards this kind of crap on an OS level.
why do they need my OS registration number? (version number i understand)
why do they need my 3rd party version numbers? they shouldn't be messing with those at all anyway, should they? why do they even need to know what 3rd party software i have at all?
[quote]Again, if you don't like DRM, don't buy protected content(MP3's aren't protected) and its not an issue.
<hr></blockquote>
that would be the case if they weren't planning on installing crap onto my computer w/o my consent. that pisses me off.
[quote]So you're argument has changed from 'I have to sign over my privacy'<hr></blockquote>
my arguement is that you can still get around this if you bothered to read the entire EULA and then decided not to use windows update. however, most people don't, and they slipped this DRM crap in there nice and sneaky. to the average user who just patched their win2k install, they have no idea that their contract changed. there's no real *read: most people would notice* notification of it. (does anyone here actually read through every EULA, every time they install software, even when it's from the same vendor?)
do you really believe that it will be something you can continue to work around for long? when they're willing to make WMP unpatchable unless you agree to their cracked out EULA, why wouldn't they be willing to do the same thing for their OS.
this clause has now shown up in 2 of 2 major releases from MS. i don't think i'm being paranoid when i say that this concerns me.
groverat: just reread my statement, ignore what i said and stick with the EULA i pasted in there. got a bit over excited about the whole mess on that part.
as for the difference between saying that updates/fixes will be automatically downloaded to your computer, i'm not 100% sure that means that wouldn't also be installed. what the hell would be the point if they're just going to sit there, they'd be worthless.
case in point from the above WMP EULA
[quote]...Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer....<hr></blockquote>
you'll notice it states that these will be automatically downloaded, they may disable third party software. i have no idea how just downloading something would disable other software unless it were also installed. a word not used but without a doubt indicated by the rest of the EULA.
[quote]my problem is that i'm in charge of at least 50 win2k boxes. they're scattered in different departments and have a wide variety of different hardware etc. inside them. for me to keep track of all of the patches that each machine may or may not need, as well as what's already been installed is a huge pain in the ass.
the only realistic way to keep those machines secure is to use windows update. what i don't understand is why could it update my machines before without collecting that information, but needs it now?
<hr></blockquote>I'm not sure what updates are hardware specific besides new drivers, but if you feel that particular set of ID's, version numbers, and activation key with no personal info attached is a violation of you're privacy, then you are inconvenienced by manual patching. Like that run-on?
[quote]see that part about disabling third part software? how does that not creep you out. <hr></blockquote>According to a supposed ms rep on usenet the wmp eula is too vague and will be modified in the future. <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/pro/techinfo/administration/manageautoupdate/default.asp"; target="_blank">Here</a> is a more explicit description. Check pages 21 & 22. The only operation that doesn't require user confirmation is the application exclusion feature. Basically, once some company finds out that some software that uses certain DRM features doesn't play by their rules, they automatically issue a new license that prevents that app from making the function calls to the DRM playback, editing, copying etc library. It doesn't say anything about completely shutting down cd-burners or the like.
[quote]SP3 is the first step towards this kind of crap on an OS level.<hr></blockquote>Everything on windows update requires user confirmation to install. Automatic update is disabled by default. Maybe SP4 will be the first step on an OS level.
[quote]why do they need my OS registration number? (version number i understand)<hr></blockquote>On the link I provided earlier, it's to prevent pirated copies from receiving updates. [quote]why do they need my 3rd party version numbers? they shouldn't be messing with those at all anyway, should they?<hr></blockquote>I think that 'other software' refers to anything that isn't part of the OS or IE but comes with windows, like all the mgmnt tools, IIS, WMP, etc. I don't know how they could even reliably get version #s from third party apps if they wanted to. But if I'm wrong, then I'm concerned as well.
[quote]as for the difference between saying that updates/fixes will be automatically downloaded to your computer, i'm not 100% sure that means that wouldn't also be installed.<hr></blockquote>Only for application exclusion for DRM content. For automatic updates, it looks like
I would side with Alcimedes on this one. I mentioned this whole bit on another forum when SP3 first came out.
The following facts aren't really disturbing, but annoying:
1) MS declares itself in the right to have Windows gather version numbers and product IDs of installed software.
2) It's not limited to MS software.
3) MS give you no official way to opt out of this.
What does this mean? Basically you've just given MS your profile. MS now knows how its competitors are doing because they know what software people have installed, and how up to date they are. Not only has one more bit of your privacy been lost, third parties lose out too because MS has gained yet another advantage on them.
<strong>What does this mean? Basically you've just given MS your profile. MS now knows how its competitors are doing because they know what software people have installed, and how up to date they are. Not only has one more bit of your privacy been lost, third parties lose out too because MS has gained yet another advantage on them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree completely. But the hard part is gathering the force to put a stop to this. I mean, if the US Government couldn't stop M$ then we are going to be in for the fight of our lives.
It doesn't help that perhaps 75-80% of the Windows world has no idea what is going on and happily clicks away and agrees to anything this monopolizing bastard of a company puts out.
This opens a whole new era of monopolization. And sadly, a lot of us knew this was coming. M$ pushes the envelope of business ethics ever so slightly with each announcement or update. Hopefully people will realize where they were a year or two ago and see how much ground and privacy they have lost. Until then, don't count on anything drastic being done.
our friends at the register have now posted a nice, detailed, damn complicated way for you to shut off this crap.
of course, it's kind of like cutting off a few fingers here and there as far as usability goes, but oh well, guess that's the price you have to pay so people don't spy on you....
[quote]1) MS declares itself in the right to have Windows gather version numbers and product IDs of installed software.
2) It's not limited to MS software.
3) MS give you no official way to opt out of this.<hr></blockquote>I haven't seen any evidence of this, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Users are opted-out by default, so I don't understand the last one.
[quote]What does this mean? Basically you've just given MS your profile. MS now knows how its competitors are doing because they know what software people have installed, and how up to date they are. Not only has one more bit of your privacy been lost, third parties lose out too because MS has gained yet another advantage on them.<hr></blockquote>Well, MS explicitly states that they don't save this information after the session. So either they're lying or you haven't read the privacy statement.
Comments
[quote]i'm supposed to send them info on my software and hardware so they know which DRM crap to install on my machine w/o my consent?<hr></blockquote>Again, if you don't like DRM, don't buy protected content(MP3's aren't protected) and its not an issue.
[quote]this is the biggest screw job MS has tried to pull in years. i have no idea how you can sit there and say it's not that big of a deal 'cause you can just turn off auto updates. how long until it's not something you can turn off. how long until you get another WMP situation where a security pacth requires DRM authorization?<hr></blockquote>So you're argument has changed from 'I have to sign over my privacy' to 'how long until it's something you can't turn off'. Well with this line of reasoning a lot of licenses could be changed in the future that I wouldn't be comfortable with, but that's not the case today. I suppose you mean a patch that would disallow any non-DRM content to be played or produced in your last sentence. As soon as this happens, I'll agree with you. I think users should have the choice to use both.
[quote]why is this DRM crap necessary at all anyway? <hr></blockquote>Some artists and labels are uncomfortable with releasing their IP to the public with no protection against perfect free copies.
[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: xmoger ]</p>
Edit: xmoger seems to have said this earlier; carry on.
[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: Lucky ]</p>
<strong>um, which part of this don't you understand?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems you're the one who doesn't understand, or want so badly for MS to be a rapacious gang of baby-eaters that plain English phrases won't stand in your way.
Sed j00:
now MS wants to check my machine for all registration codes i have for all MS software, OS, other 3rd party software, as well as hardware ID's, and then send the info back to MS.
Untrue.
Pretty soon you'll have twisted yourself into saying that MS has actually done something good.
<strong>Some artists and labels are uncomfortable with releasing their IP to the public with no protection against perfect free copies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of the funny things with intellectual property and anything that you release to the public is it can always be copied or reverse engineered. That's true regardless of the product involved. It is always merely a case of time.
Artists in this case would be better to develop a decent business plan that encompasses the internet because they aren't going to be able to outright stop piracy ever. Of course there are a few things they can do to make it far more annoying but as I once heard in a conference "The only way we can see to stop piracy is to stop people being able to view the media".
The big problem hasn't been the piracy though it has been the new found ease of distribution and they need to go about solving that in a completely different method.
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
<a href="http://www.isp-planet.com/equipment/2002/sp3_bol.htmlhttp://www.isp-planet.com/equipment/2002/sp3_bol.html"; target="_blank">or this</a>
[quote]Actually registration, activation and windows update are all different things. That information is used by the windows update webpage and automatic updates.windows update
I don't understand why people are up in arms. If you don't like DRM, don't buy protected content. If you don't want automatic update calling MS, disable it. <hr></blockquote>
i understand that part. my problem is that i'm in charge of at least 50 win2k boxes. they're scattered in different departments and have a wide variety of different hardware etc. inside them. for me to keep track of all of the patches that each machine may or may not need, as well as what's already been installed is a huge pain in the ass.
the only realistic way to keep those machines secure is to use windows update. what i don't understand is why could it update my machines before without collecting that information, but needs it now?
along those lines, the WMP EULA states
[quote]You agree that in order to protect the integrity of content and software protected by digital rights management ('Secure Content'), Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer. If we provide such a security update, we will use reasonable efforts to post notices on a web site explaining the update.<hr></blockquote>
see that part about disabling third part software? how does that not creep you out. say i pay for a copy of CloneCD (for backup purposes)
i see no reason why i should give any company the right to come on to my machine and disable software that I WANT TO USE!
if they have issues with what i'm doing, take me to court. just leave my damn PC alone! not to mention the question of what happens when they start installing crap i haven't asked for, w/o my consent or any notice. even if it does what it's supposed to, what are the odds that it doesn't puke something else on a machine that's supposed to work. any of you install a service pack before and had it go bad? i know i have dozens of times over the hundreds of machine patches i've done. that's why i always wait and see what problems there are before taking that step. i never install any software on my computer without giving it time to work out the bugs first.
guess that's not a choice any more either.
this was a security patch. you had to have this to keep people from running any code they wanted on your machine (through a DRM exploit nonetheless).
SP3 is the first step towards this kind of crap on an OS level.
why do they need my OS registration number? (version number i understand)
why do they need my 3rd party version numbers? they shouldn't be messing with those at all anyway, should they? why do they even need to know what 3rd party software i have at all?
[quote]Again, if you don't like DRM, don't buy protected content(MP3's aren't protected) and its not an issue.
<hr></blockquote>
that would be the case if they weren't planning on installing crap onto my computer w/o my consent. that pisses me off.
[quote]So you're argument has changed from 'I have to sign over my privacy'<hr></blockquote>
my arguement is that you can still get around this if you bothered to read the entire EULA and then decided not to use windows update. however, most people don't, and they slipped this DRM crap in there nice and sneaky. to the average user who just patched their win2k install, they have no idea that their contract changed. there's no real *read: most people would notice* notification of it. (does anyone here actually read through every EULA, every time they install software, even when it's from the same vendor?)
do you really believe that it will be something you can continue to work around for long? when they're willing to make WMP unpatchable unless you agree to their cracked out EULA, why wouldn't they be willing to do the same thing for their OS.
this clause has now shown up in 2 of 2 major releases from MS. i don't think i'm being paranoid when i say that this concerns me.
groverat: just reread my statement, ignore what i said and stick with the EULA i pasted in there. got a bit over excited about the whole mess on that part.
as for the difference between saying that updates/fixes will be automatically downloaded to your computer, i'm not 100% sure that means that wouldn't also be installed. what the hell would be the point if they're just going to sit there, they'd be worthless.
case in point from the above WMP EULA
[quote]...Microsoft may provide security related updates to the OS Components that will be automatically downloaded onto your computer. These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer....<hr></blockquote>
you'll notice it states that these will be automatically downloaded, they may disable third party software. i have no idea how just downloading something would disable other software unless it were also installed. a word not used but without a doubt indicated by the rest of the EULA.
-alcimedes
the only realistic way to keep those machines secure is to use windows update. what i don't understand is why could it update my machines before without collecting that information, but needs it now?
<hr></blockquote>I'm not sure what updates are hardware specific besides new drivers, but if you feel that particular set of ID's, version numbers, and activation key with no personal info attached is a violation of you're privacy, then you are inconvenienced by manual patching. Like that run-on?
[quote]see that part about disabling third part software? how does that not creep you out. <hr></blockquote>According to a supposed ms rep on usenet the wmp eula is too vague and will be modified in the future. <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/pro/techinfo/administration/manageautoupdate/default.asp"; target="_blank">Here</a> is a more explicit description. Check pages 21 & 22. The only operation that doesn't require user confirmation is the application exclusion feature. Basically, once some company finds out that some software that uses certain DRM features doesn't play by their rules, they automatically issue a new license that prevents that app from making the function calls to the DRM playback, editing, copying etc library. It doesn't say anything about completely shutting down cd-burners or the like.
[quote]SP3 is the first step towards this kind of crap on an OS level.<hr></blockquote>Everything on windows update requires user confirmation to install. Automatic update is disabled by default. Maybe SP4 will be the first step on an OS level.
[quote]why do they need my OS registration number? (version number i understand)<hr></blockquote>On the link I provided earlier, it's to prevent pirated copies from receiving updates. [quote]why do they need my 3rd party version numbers? they shouldn't be messing with those at all anyway, should they?<hr></blockquote>I think that 'other software' refers to anything that isn't part of the OS or IE but comes with windows, like all the mgmnt tools, IIS, WMP, etc. I don't know how they could even reliably get version #s from third party apps if they wanted to. But if I'm wrong, then I'm concerned as well.
[quote]as for the difference between saying that updates/fixes will be automatically downloaded to your computer, i'm not 100% sure that means that wouldn't also be installed.<hr></blockquote>Only for application exclusion for DRM content. For automatic updates, it looks like
<a href="http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/xmoger/aut_up.jpg"; target="_blank">this</a>.
regards,
xmoger
The following facts aren't really disturbing, but annoying:
1) MS declares itself in the right to have Windows gather version numbers and product IDs of installed software.
2) It's not limited to MS software.
3) MS give you no official way to opt out of this.
What does this mean? Basically you've just given MS your profile. MS now knows how its competitors are doing because they know what software people have installed, and how up to date they are. Not only has one more bit of your privacy been lost, third parties lose out too because MS has gained yet another advantage on them.
<strong>What does this mean? Basically you've just given MS your profile. MS now knows how its competitors are doing because they know what software people have installed, and how up to date they are. Not only has one more bit of your privacy been lost, third parties lose out too because MS has gained yet another advantage on them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree completely. But the hard part is gathering the force to put a stop to this. I mean, if the US Government couldn't stop M$ then we are going to be in for the fight of our lives.
It doesn't help that perhaps 75-80% of the Windows world has no idea what is going on and happily clicks away and agrees to anything this monopolizing bastard of a company puts out.
This opens a whole new era of monopolization. And sadly, a lot of us knew this was coming. M$ pushes the envelope of business ethics ever so slightly with each announcement or update. Hopefully people will realize where they were a year or two ago and see how much ground and privacy they have lost. Until then, don't count on anything drastic being done.
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26750.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26750.html</a>;
our friends at the register have now posted a nice, detailed, damn complicated way for you to shut off this crap.
of course, it's kind of like cutting off a few fingers here and there as far as usability goes, but oh well, guess that's the price you have to pay so people don't spy on you....
2) It's not limited to MS software.
3) MS give you no official way to opt out of this.<hr></blockquote>I haven't seen any evidence of this, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Users are opted-out by default, so I don't understand the last one.
[quote]What does this mean? Basically you've just given MS your profile. MS now knows how its competitors are doing because they know what software people have installed, and how up to date they are. Not only has one more bit of your privacy been lost, third parties lose out too because MS has gained yet another advantage on them.<hr></blockquote>Well, MS explicitly states that they don't save this information after the session. So either they're lying or you haven't read the privacy statement.