Let me raise a more general issue, based upon the original article.
What is "correct" and not "correct" in copy protection schemes?...
I'll raise a practical example, which I presently have in my hands.
The Company I work for will not upgrade XP Professional to Vista before the next 2 years or so.
Meanwhile, as a home user of XP Pro (corporate Select agreement, given to me by the Company - after all, I work to tem from home and in fact from anywhere...) I ahave not had to bother with "machine-tied" licensing.
Right now, if I don't want to wait 2 years until my Company upgrades my copy of the OS, I'll have to buy a new copy of Vista. So far so good, it's a typical money decision - or is it not?
No, it's a lot more than that.
I change vital hardware components every 6 months to 1 year, at the most. The things that I change are exactly those requiring re-activation from the software vendor!... I change disks (right now, I have a new 750 GB vertical recording Seagate waiting to me mounted...), burners (still waiting for the HD-DVD one, too costly now), Graphics boards (now looking warmheartedly at the Nvidia 88800 GTX and the combo Motherboard + Processor + RAM.
Both the Disk and the main board combo cause always licensing issues. I've had to switch back in the past as well, because of things that went wrong.
HOW MANY TIMES will Microsoft (or any other vendor, for that matter) accept my frequent changes of Hardware?... It's not only a hassle - it's that you risk them saying "no" at any one point - without the right to do so, but with the might to dump you as they please. There are even no clear rules as to how many times you can apply for a reactivation, or within which time frame those reactivations may occur.
I am violently against these discretionary and arbitrary powers given to the software vendor - restrictions to the use of the software are already too great. And, of course, I do not like to be treated like a bandit.
Every day, I have the trust and the confidence my bosses and co-workers and my Company places on me (I'm IT Manager and IPO). It's one of the top 20 in its field. And now they come and say "ah, wait, you want to use this expensive piece of software that you paid for?... Not until "we" check your machine guts to see if you're cheating!"
I have nothing against this, in principle - providing that I would be controlled by a database in the vendor that would allow ME (not them) the option to control how I want to use my own copies of the software. Let me explain. The process COULD be the same as the current one - UP TO THE POINT and no more where they match my machine with their database.
OK, so they would know the serial number and the "finger ID" of my machine. Now I want access to their database, to my records.
I and not them should be able to say - OK, that machine is dead. I want to move my license to this new one. And that's it - period. So their database software takes care of the registration, it could place a restriction (say, 1, 2, 3 days or so, but no more, before I could switch machines again- to prevent me from going back and forth abusivelly.
This would ber acceptable, albeit not the ideal scenario. That's how far I'd let them go.
I own ONE COPY - so let me decide where I want to use it - and if you want to keep tabs on it, fine, as long as I am still in control. The vendor would control HOW MANY copies I have active - and I would control WHERE I use them.
More intrusion and power to the vendor is completelly unaceptable.
What do you think?...
(I don't want to disclose publicly where I work or my e-mail, because that's involving 3rd. parties not interested in it, but my ID is known to the publishers of this site).