Wat update - yes/no?

[sanford]

So unless I want to further "help the MS shareholders" (being I already purchased Windows 7), installing the update is in fact pointless?

No wonder why I fail to understand people intentionally installing this (given a choice)....

 

[Tews]

If you purchased the software, you have already helped the stockholders and on their behalf, I thank you! :roflmao:

 

[Kari]

Maybe it is important to add something to what I said earlier: You have no obligation to install Windows Activation Technologies (WAT) Update KB971033 as long as it is voluntary. You can just uncheck and hide it. It's OK, your choice, as EULA states. No problems with that.

I just don't see the point fighting the inevitable. Sometime in the near future this update is no longer optional. You let it be installed, or you don't use the Windows. (I'm intentionally not mentioning other options; we are all honest, aren't we?)

This is only my subjective opinion, not a fact, but from every peace of information I've gathered I think Microsoft is beginning to fight piracy with more powerful and innovative means. Please do not tell me, once again, that pirates are already working, too, with cracks to fight back. I know that already; this is not an ideal world and we have to admit criminals are here among us to stay.

I've used this Norton AV as an example a couple of times. Let me ask this: why aren't the Norton (or any other commercial AV) users fighting against the policy to almost daily check the validity of the licence?

Please give a valid reason to object WAT. A connection four times a year, lasting no longer than a couple of seconds, is in my opinion not enough.

Kari

 

[Staple Head]

what part of the fact that we do not want something phoning home do you not understand? that is the main issue. as for the patch being forced on user that do not want it, NOT. as previously stated in this thread kb971033 has already ben cracked and microsoft will fix it and it will be cracked again. when it is included in sp1 hackers will simply rewrite sp1 to not include it. regardless of the eula most user consider the copy of the os that they paid for theirs, and this is not going to change just because microsoft says so.

What part of facts stated in the Windows 7 EULA you agreed to 'obey' and follow when you installed Microsoft's property (Windows) do you not understand?

EULA, paragraphs 4 and 5(a) & (b):

4. MANDATORY ACTIVATION.

Activation associates the use of the software with a specific computer. During activation, the software will send information about the software and the computer to Microsoft. This information includes the version, language and product key of the software, the Internet protocol address of the computer, and information derived from the hardware configuration of the computer. For more information, see Windows 7 Privacy Statement - Microsoft Windows. By using the software, you consent to the transmission of this information. If properly licensed, you have the right to use the version of the software installed during the installation process up to the time permitted for activation. Unless the software is activated, you have no right to use the software after the time permitted for activation. This is to prevent its unlicensed use. You are not permitted to bypass or circumvent activation. If the computer is connected to the Internet, the software may automatically connect to Microsoft for activation. You can also activate the software manually by Internet or telephone. If you do so, Internet and telephone service charges may apply. Some changes to your computer components or the software may require you to reactivate the software. The software will remind you to activate it until you do.

5. VALIDATION.
a. Validation verifies that the software has been activated and is properly licensed. It also verifies that no unauthorized changes have been made to the validation, licensing, or activation functions of the software. Validation may also check for certain malicious or unauthorized software related to such unauthorized changes. A validation check confirming that you are properly licensed permits you to continue to use the software, certain features of the software or to obtain additional benefits. You are not permitted to circumvent validation. This is to prevent unlicensed use of the software. For more information, see Genuine Microsoft Software.

b. The software will from time to time perform a validation check of the software. The check may be initiated by the software or Microsoft. To enable the activation function and validation checks, the software may from time to time require updates or additional downloads of the validation, licensing or activation functions of the software. The updates or downloads are required for the proper functioning of the software and may be downloaded and installed without further notice to you. During or after a validation check, the software may send information about the software, the computer and the results of the validation check to Microsoft. This information includes, for example, the version and product key of the software, any unauthorized changes made to the validation, licensing or activation functions of the software, any related malicious or unauthorized software found and the Internet protocol address of the computer. Microsoft does not use the information to identify or contact you. By using the software, you consent to the transmission of this information. For more information about validation and what is sent during or after a validation check, see Genuine Microsoft Software.

Microsoft does not force us to use Windows. If you pay for the licence, or obtain it in another legal way, Microsoft allows you to use Windows as long as you agree to EULA. If you don't agree, you should IMO use Linux or other OS instead.

Windows is not the first OS or application to call home and certainly not the last, quite a number of applications do this. The AV program checks the validity of the licence etc.

I repeat what I've said numerous times: If the user has nothing to hide, what harm can be done and how the h*** would user even notice it, if Windows 'calls home' 4 times year without user even noticing it?

Kari

what part of that the eula is just a click through and nothing more do you not understand? i as most users believe that once we pay for OUR copy of the os / software it is OUR copy. we did not miss understand anything. it is microsoft that misunderstands and believes that they are only loaning us that copy. so again the eula means nothing to the average user. as for the calling home yes we will know if it attempts to call home. this is why i always strongly recommend the end user remove / disable all microsoft security software and replace it with much better third party security software. another note on phoning home here in the states the software by law has to be designed to tell the end user when it is doing so.

 

[Kari]

what part of that the eula is just a click through and nothing more do you not understand?

Every part. If the user is too lazy to read, or reads but doesn't understand what it means when he / she clicks the 'I Agree' button, it's hardly Microsoft's fault.

For those who read and understand, there's always the 'I do not Agree' button if EULA causes a problem.

i as most users believe that once we pay for OUR copy of the os / software it is OUR copy. we did not miss understand anything. it is microsoft that misunderstands and believes that they are only loaning us that copy.

Yes you did miss the most essential part of Windows Licence Agreement. It's just as the name says, a licence agreement which determines the rules that let you use the Windows. It is not a proof of ownership.

so again the eula means nothing to the average user.

The principle is same than in western law: not knowing the law is not a reason enough to avoid sanctions if the law in question is broken. Or more common situation: You can not sue the microwave manufacturer if it explodes when you heat metal objects in it, even when you had not read the warning in the manual.

as for the calling home yes we will know if it attempts to call home. this is why i always strongly recommend the end user remove / disable all microsoft security software and replace it with much better third party security software. another note on phoning home here in the states the software by law has to be designed to tell the end user when it is doing so.

This interests me. Please could you be so kind and tell me which commercial security applications do not 'call home' to check the validity of the licence?

Kari

 

[Staple Head]

what part of that the eula is just a click through and nothing more do you not understand?

Every part. If the user is too lazy to read, or reads but doesn't understand what it means when he / she clicks the 'I Agree' button, it's hardly Microsoft's fault.

For those who read and understand, there's always the 'I do not Agree' button if EULA causes a problem.

i as most users believe that once we pay for OUR copy of the os / software it is OUR copy. we did not miss understand anything. it is microsoft that misunderstands and believes that they are only loaning us that copy.

Yes you did miss the most essential part of Windows Licence Agreement. It's just as the name says, a licence agreement which determines the rules that let you use the Windows. It is not a proof of ownership.

so again the eula means nothing to the average user.

The principle is same than in western law: not knowing the law is not a reason enough to avoid sanctions if the law in question is broken. Or more common situation: You can not sue the microwave manufacturer if it explodes when you heat metal objects in it, even when you had not read the warning in the manual.

as for the calling home yes we will know if it attempts to call home. this is why i always strongly recommend the end user remove / disable all microsoft security software and replace it with much better third party security software. another note on phoning home here in the states the software by law has to be designed to tell the end user when it is doing so.

This interests me. Please could you be so kind and tell me which commercial security applications do not 'call home' to check the validity of the license?

Kari

i did not miss anything. again as stated most user could care less what the eula is. is is a click not a signature.

 

[Kari]

i did not miss anything. again as stated most user could care less what the eula is. is is a click not a signature.

Please if you do not mind, I'm still waiting the answer to my question. Could you be so kind and tell me which commercial security applications do not 'call home' to check the validity of the license?

 

[Tews]

i did not miss anything. again as stated most user could care less what the eula is. is is a click not a signature.

What you or others care about is irrelevant...when you click "I agree", you are binding yourself to that agreement, just as if you in fact signed it...

 

[Staple Head]

i did not miss anything. again as stated most user could care less what the eula is. is is a click not a signature.

What you or others care about is irrelevant...when you click "I agree", you are binding yourself to that agreement, just as if you in fact signed it...

no we are not. we do not care about the eula. with the eula if you tweak even the smallest thing in windows you have violated it. it is my copy i will tweak it as i see fit for my use. as for kari's question most security only checks to see if you defs are up to date. only a hand full actually check validation while check the def versions.

 

[mpcrsc562]

tweaking and tampering are two different things...

and if people like to sign / click blindly, i have a draft for you to sign that would give me total control of your assests and property. wanna sign it without reading it first?

 

[Kari]

I'm trying to control myself but it is surprisingly difficult. As I hinted in my previous post, I do not blame you. Your ignorance is not, I believe, your fault. Be it lack of education or civilization, low IQ or something else, I honestly don't think it's your fault.

I'm proud to be a Seven Forums member, trying to do my best to explain things I know to those who don't, and learn from those who know things I do not know. So let's try to start educating you.

Lesson One: EULA

A software license agreement is a contract between the "licensor" and purchaser of the right to use software. The license may define ways under which the copy can be used, in addition to the automatic rights of the buyer including the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. § 117 (freedom to use, archive, re-sale, and backup).

Lesson Two: Ignorance:

Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. This should not be confused with being unintelligent, as one's level of intelligence and level of education or general awareness are not the same. The word "Ignorant" is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware.

Let's try if you can understand this, I'll try to put it very simple:

You rent a car for a certain fee for a certain time period. After the rental agreement is ended, you are expected to return the car as stated in that agreement. If you do fail to do so, you have to face the consequences EVEN if you do not know what that agreement stated.

Kari

 

[Thorsen]

ouch Staple Head got banned....not good..... ok so: EULA it means End User License Agreement.
I don't see why he was debating this so thoroughly.

 

[CarlTR6]

Like it or not, WAT is inevitable - MS has the legal right to impose it. For the time being it is entirely voluntary. So if you don't wish to install it, don't, period. Reading this thread, I see that some folks are just anti-Microsoft. It appears to be OK for a game program or a security program to phone home; but it is not OK for an MS O/S to phone home. Not very logical is it?

That said, I found that that I can require WAT to ask me to phone home through Comodo Firewall. I can also edit the date and time for WAT to phone home via Task Scheduler. I can also uninstall WAT or disable the service - for the present anyway.

Edited to add: I'm sorry Staple Head will not be able to see this post.

 

[Thorsen]

Excellent post Kari, Ignorance is very different from Stupidity.

 

[Tews]

And thats the name of that tune... Well said Carl!

 

[mpcrsc562]

ouch Staple Head got banned....not good..... ok so: EULA it means End User License Agreement.
I don't see why he was debating this so thoroughly.

he debated it so thoroughly because he thought he "owned" the software. if he truly wanted an os he could tweak and tamper with to his heart's delight, he'd make his own...

maybe he will now...

 

[wallyinnc]

ouch Staple Head got banned....not good..... ok so: EULA it means End User License Agreement.
I don't see why he was debating this so thoroughly.

He should not be allowed to use a computer in the first place.

For the record, for the MS-haters: I can surely say nobody here arguing in favor of following the EULA is paid by or associated with Microsoft. They are just reasonable people who follow the law. Arguing you are allowed to brake it because you think you have a right to do so is just moronic.

 

[Thorsen]

in my post, I meant 'not good for Staple head' lol. I agree with the both of you mpcrsc562 and wallyinnc

 

[Mark Phelps]

Interesting thread ...

I never cease to be amazed by the "arrogance" of folks that believe that the rules don't apply to them simply because they choose to ignore them.

Saying the UELA doesn't apply because you chose NOT to read it ... is like telling the cop that just pulled you over that the 20PMH speed limit sign in the School Zone did not apply to you -- because you chose not to read it.

See how well THAT explanation gets you out of a speeding ticket!!

 

[Mark Phelps]

As to legitimate reasons to avoid the WAT KB ... my own is to avoid false positives -- the situation where my bought-and-paid-for Win7 install suddenly become "invalid" because of some bug in the WAT code that didn't get throughly tested in the rush to get it "out the door".

So, while I've read that this KB is going to be included in Win7 SP1, I've excluded it for now and will wait and see about false positive reports before I install that SP.