Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Technology Your Rights Online

Symantec Adds Product Activation 401

Posted by simoniker from the please-see-the-front-desk dept.
maliabu writes "GlobeTechnology/CNET reports that Symantec has added an antipiracy technology to the new version of its main virus-zapping program, in the form of compulsory product activation. It is intended to protect consumers from widespread counterfeit copies of Symantec programs. The company estimates at least 3.6 million bogus copies of its programs are sold annually, causing headaches both for Symantec and unsuspecting buyers, who find out too late that the software isn't doing the job."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Symantec Adds Product Activation More

Symantec Adds Product Activation

Comments Filter:

  • lie (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:25AM (#6812280) Journal
    It is intended to protect consumers from widespread counterfeit copies of Symantec programs.

    I don't believe it as a main cause.

    • Re:lie (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NetJunkie ( 56134 ) <jason DOT nash AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:29AM (#6812298)
      Not sure if it REALLY is, but Symantec has a serious problem with counterfeit copies. I get TONS of spam trying to sell me all sorts of Symantec products that are surely counterfeit. I've read before they have a support nightmare from people that buy them.
      • They also have a legal hitsquad that has managed to successfully prosecute [go.com] some of the spammers and software copiers too. So, if Symantec's product activation scheme works, then they are at least, preventing a few people from helping spammers stay in business, and that's a good thing, right?

    • Re:lie (Score:2, Funny)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 )
      I dunno. Its pretty popular on Kazaa

    • Re:lie (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mhtsos ( 586325 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:36AM (#6812339)
      True. Symantec has no delusions that a cracked version will be available. But those who use it will know they have pirated software (because there will be no need for activation). This is trying to protect users that try to buy a legitimate product and find out that they have an illegal copy instead. This is IMHO a Good Thing if implemented correctly. I know it can turn nasty though if enough thought dosen't go into it to make sure legit users can always activate their product no matter what.

      • Re:lie (Score:5, Insightful)

        by grahamtriggs ( 572707 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:52AM (#6812825)
        Making it 'easier' to use a cracked version of the software than a legit version is *never* a good thing.

        Simple 'solutions' - like checking for another copy of the software on the network running with the same serial number - are far better...

        It targets the people that really should be paying for more licenses, and doesn't generally affect a 'legit' user in *any* way...

        Making it harder to use 'legit' software only drives more people to look for alternatives...

        • Re:lie (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dasmegabyte ( 267018 )
          Yes...except that these 'solutions' don't solve the problem of people cracking a product and then selling it, without the support contract necessary for virus programs to stay up to date, at a massive product.

          Because the end user STILL doesn't know that his software is not effective.

          I don't see why a simple online activation system makes things "harder." It's certainly not harder than downloading and installing hacked software. So the only reason people who want protection from virus would actively seek
    • Hmmm, if it's intended to protect consumers... I wonder if they'll let me register a legit copy from two different home computers?

      (I'm guessing NO!)

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:25AM (#6812283)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • How? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brokencomputer ( 695672 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:27AM (#6812290) Homepage Journal
    How would product activation protect users? Piracy prevention only protects symantec.

    • Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) * on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:31AM (#6812319)
      How would product activation protect users? Piracy prevention only protects symantec.

      Because Symantec's product relies on regular updates of virus definitions from Symantec. I assume - tho' I have not checked - that Symantec requires some form of authentication for this, after all, they sell subscriptions and that's what pays for the database to be kept up to date. Counterfeit copies of the product will be unable to access these updates, lulling users into a false sense of security. Everyone loses - Symantec lose because they don't get the money, the user loses because they paid for a counterfeit. The only one who benefits is the pirate.

      • Re:How? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Just sign the installer. Heck, a list of valid MD5 sums published on the Symantec website would do the job. All legit copies are identical, so verifiying that the user has a unique key is overkill if you just want to verify that it's the right program. Unmodified software should tell the user when it can't sync the virus signature database. Ergo, no activation for that purpose.

        • Re:How? (Missed the point) (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Goldenhawk ( 242867 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:34AM (#6812684) Homepage
          You missed the point of product activation. It's a sure bet that 99.9% of the pirated copies being sold are bit-for-bit identical to the original. Ergo, any MD5 sums would match anyway, convincing the poor sap who purchased the pirated version that he/she was okay. Software doesn't have to be modified to be pirated.

          By contrast, product activation seeks to ensure that users register their copy with the manufacturer, and that only one copy is in use at any time. This (sort of) effectively prevents selling duplicates of a CD, and (if properly managed) prevents selling duplicates of a registration number too.

    • Re:How? (Score:2, Informative)

      by farnz ( 625056 )
      It means that users who pay for counterfeit copies of Symantec's products discover that they are counterfeit; there has been a spam going round which advertises Norton SystemWorks. In fact the copy they send you is pirated.

      Users who aren't currently bothered about the origins of their Symantec software lose out; users who thought they had bought Symantec-blessed copies will be notified at install time, not 12 months down the road when they can't get updates, and get accused of piracy if they complain.

  • That's the standard (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cspenn ( 689387 ) <<financialaidpodcast> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:29AM (#6812296) Homepage Journal
    Seems like the new standard - now they can enforce virus definition subscriptions as well - previously, reinstalling the product after a clean deinstall + registry clean would reset the subscription date for definition updates.

    So the real question is - if there are 3.6M bogus copies sold, and (by RIAA numbers) an additional 360M pirated freely online, by enforcing the product activation, will the Internet see more viruses or less? (and yes, I know it's technically virii)

    My vote is on more...

  • Need antivirus? (Score:4, Informative)

    by w.p.richardson ( 218394 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:29AM (#6812299) Homepage
    Check this out! [grisoft.com]

    Symantec antivirus for home use is bloated as hell and has required yearly "subscriptions" for some time now. When that nonsense started, I bailed. Antivirus software should at the very least offer free updates to the virus definition files, given the havoc that these things have been causing of late.

    • Re:Need antivirus? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Soothh ( 473349 )
      I agree, grisoft, its free, and if you do want the pay version, its only what 33 bucks?
      I think in the long run, the big boys are going to lose out to the little guys that offer free products or products with a very reasonable cost.
      Ofcourse big business' needs the write off, time will tell but atleast we have options.

    • Re:Need antivirus? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by zakezuke ( 229119 )
      If i'm not mistaken, f-protect offers free updates, though i'd have verify this. I use the dos version of their product, which is free for personal use, requires no subscription what so ever. It looks however on their page that their definitions can easily be downloaded.

      http://www.f-secure.com/download-purchase/updat e s. shtml

      While I won't go as far as saying Symantec *should* give away free updates, but i'm saying these other people do. Symantec after all pretty much gives away their product with the

    • Re:Need antivirus? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      For people who use AVG, has anyone noticed (on w2k) how:
      • yes, the free AVG (I don't know about the payware version) will tell you the program you just launched had a virus attached
      • no it won't prevent the virus from installing

      Now sure, you can right click on the file and test it for viruses before launching it (surely, everyone does it, right? or compile from source just to make sure or you know the other options...).

      Anyway, just wanted to ask if anyone else had noticed that. I'm sure that on 98, the so

    • Yes, exactly (Score:4, Insightful)

      by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscoward AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:27AM (#6812613) Journal
      We bought Symantec licenses for our Windows workstations last year, and despite keeping everything up to date, several PCs got infected (silly people clicking on attachments, mainly). We switched to Grisoft's AVG. Free, simple, and very good.
      This move by Symantec is an attempt to bolster revenue, and it will fail. They should (a) improve the quality of their product and (b) provide a free version for home users. If they do not do both of these, they will simply drop into obscurity, and this copy-protection move will speed-up their demise.

      • Re:Yes, exactly (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Gunzour ( 79584 )
        I see it as more of an attempt to reduce costs, not bolster revenue. The number of non-legit copies of NAV out there is very high, and Symantec is stuck providing virus updates for everybody, because they didn't have a good way of telling legit users from copiers. The cost of bandwidth to allow millions of people to download virus updates weekly has got to be pretty high.

        From what I've read, Symantec's activation will be fairly liberal -- not kicking in until an activation code has been used on at least
    • Here's a question, how come there are no prominent Open Source Anti-Virus scanners out there? I mean this would be the PERFECT market to go for if it were feasible.

  • Not effective anyway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:30AM (#6812307)
    I am very disappointed with Symantec/Norton anyway, in recent weeks I have replaced 20 desktop licences with AVG by GRISoft. AVG found viruses on about 15 systems where Norton did not complain at all. Yes, Norton was up to date in all situations and many of the desktops were installed by other people, so no commonality there.

    If I had shares in Symantec I'd be selling them now.
    • hmm...two comments in a row about AVG.

      i smell shill here.

      I hope the rest of the readers here will see through this desperate cry for publicity.

      So what!?!?

      You sound like a shill trying to protect Symantec's business interests.

      If AVG does a better job than Symantec, I'll use it and let my NAV subscription run out. It's certainly priced at what the market will bear.
      • I use it (as it fulfills my price/performance ratio nicely :) but I'm not convinced it works. Whilst I've only seen it detect a virus once, I could be lucky, (or not download the kind of things that have viruses).

        However. http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.x m l?avg.xml says that it isn't so good. In the VB labs, I think Norman is one of the better ones, but costs money!! So until I do get virused, I'll stick with the free AVG.

        symantec did quite well though http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archi

  • Product activation works. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:31AM (#6812313)
    I dont care what the tin-foil-beanie crowd here thinks - product activation is a reasonable anti-piracy strategy.

    while NO anti-piracy strategy is foolproof (we can only talk about rates of piracy, not absolute values), the fact of the matter is that product-activation can be done without sending the user's SSN and first-born through the lines.

    Actually, I'm just pissed off that some asshole russians wrote "crack" programs (still widely available on all those cracks sites) to break the security of a previous version of some shareware i wrote (cost of shareware: $20 and for a very specialized audience). So, in a later version of my software, I included a type of product activation and wrote a code in such a way that the compiled stuff would be harder to figure out. 2.5 yeas later - still no crack out fot the software that I can find anywhere, plus I am secure in the knowledge that my reg codes are doing a lot less walking.

    Fair is fair.

    • pretty much anything short of an xskey is trivial to generate a serial number for...no person in their right mind is going to do kernel level debugging to crack some app. just forcing the return address of some funct to always return some value or just nopping over a bl is much easier most of the time. if someone wanted to make another crack for your program, im sure they could do it pretty easily...except now it would only be distributed in tighter circles so you'll never know about it

    • Re:Product activation works. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:47AM (#6812400)
      As you said, your program is for a very specialized audience, traditionally, the more popular the software, the more likely a crack.

      It tends to be very easy to find a copy of windows xp and ways to crack it's copy protection system, gets a little harder to even find a copy of exchange server for instance, the more specialized the program, the less useful it often becomes to your average pirate.

      in your case you were lucky as it sounds like there wasn't much of a demand for a crack for your code, however, I have no doubt that if it was being used by even... 1 in 100 computer users out there, that someone would have spent the time to develop one.

      Copy protection, even product activation is nothing more then a lock on a door, often before someone even starts to pick a lock, they see if there is anything worthwhile which it protects, to offset the time of breaking in. Same goes for software.

      So in a way... as sad as it sounds... it is good to be small, and thus less of a target.
      • As you said, your program is for a very specialized audience, traditionally, the more popular the software, the more likely a crack.

        You're absolutely right. I don't want to say too much about it, but my software is also of interest to people in the USA 99.99% of the time, and it would be clear to anybody that I am not making money off the $20 that I was charging. therefore, it was very obvious to me that somebody cracked my previous software simply for the sport of it (it was done by a russian, or, at le

    • I will gladly second your opinion. If Symantec writes the software and distributes it under a proprietary license then the user has two choices regarding getting and using the software:

      One: The user buys the software therefore ACCEPTING whatever license that comes with the software. No one forces you to buy the software and if you do then you are liable for your own actions. Symantec then has the right to do whatever it pleases with ITS property (you own the right to use it under the EULA, you do not o

    • Product Activation is a reasonable reason NOT to buy a piece of software.

      When I buy something I want it, I don't want to get permission to use my DVD everytime I move apartments.

      Yes, I know that I am buying a license to use software but don't make me go through hoops to use it. Yes, to me it is hoops. This was the major reason for me moving to Linux.

      Fair is fair.

  • Isn't doing the job? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Channard ( 693317 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:31AM (#6812317) Journal
    I'm not sure how software not doing the job is related to it being pirated. Barring a few programs - eg Operation Flashpoint which uses FADE technology to supposedly degrade in performance if a pirate copy is used, I can't see why pirate copies aren't functionally identical to shop versions.

    And like most methods of protection, I wouldn't be surprised if Symantec's product activiation was cracked pretty quickly indeed. I suspect Symantec would be better off spending the money they spend on developing/buying this technology adding to the fund they use to pursue and close down the spammers who try and sell pirated copies of Norton AV, System Works et al.

  • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:32AM (#6812320)
    If you're going to inconvenience your legit users in order to reduce illegal copying, just tell it like it is. Protecting the consumer against illegal copying would just require signing the software, no mandatory activation.

  • why don't ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jlemmerer ( 242376 ) <xcom123@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:32AM (#6812321) Homepage
    ... they tell honestly that they want people to actually pay for the program? Norton AntiVirus is worth every buck you pay for it, and the online update features are very comfortable. I can't imagine of "bogus" copy's that don't work, and even if they existed, why counteract with a registration. if the bogus copy doesn't work, they don't have to fear it. Furthermore Symantec does a great deal in helping us for FREE (do you remember the W32.Blaster removal tool you could download even when you weren't a costumer of them?), so i think if you want to use AntiVirus from Norton you should pay for it, if you are greedy there are a lot of free alternatives
    • I don't believe it's worth every penny.

      In the last 5 years of internet use I've been infected by 2 viruses. The first was one of the Chernobyl strains and I have no idea where that came from. The second came from a silly shockwave flash exe that I ran - I was new. These two happened within the first 6 months. I then bought NAV.

      In the last 4.5 years I've not been infected*. Why? I'm educated now, not because NAV is doing its job.

      I still run a NAV to this day but I have never renewed my licence. I use the

  • Yeah right... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SerpentMage ( 13390 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:33AM (#6812323)
    Just like the copy of my Symantec Anti Virus software I got for free with my DELL.

    Installed, and what pops up... Oh your virus files are out of date! Please visit our website. ...Visit the website... Oh your version of Anti Virus has expired, please consider upgrading or buying our one year service plan...

    The notebook was BRAND NEW...

    This is called a money grab, boys and girls...

    • Re:Yeah right... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ergo98 ( 9391 )
      So who do you blame for that? Sounds more like a Dell problem, in that apparently they're loading crippleware and time expired software on their systems and offering it as a feature.
      • You are right you could blame DELL OR you could blame Symantec. Why? Because all of the other software that came with my Dell worked. Hence I am guessing Symantec does this on purpose to get more clients.

  • Not suprised (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <giles@jones.zen@co@uk> on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:33AM (#6812325)
    Not suprised, whenever I've bought or installed their software it has never used a serial number.

  • content vs software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by axxackall ( 579006 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:33AM (#6812328) Homepage Journal
    1. make the update protocol encrypted and secured;
    2. make virus pattern update sucription for money;
    3. release the client software itself for free;
    4. ???
    5. Profit!
    Why? I hate product activation - it never works and users are always frustrated.

    Besides, the scanning and curing are not complicated operations per se. Virus patterns are the content that I am ready to pay money. Therefore the the other business model: charging for content rather than for software.

    • Virus patterns are the content that I am ready to pay money. Therefore the the other business model: charging for content rather than for software.
      Isn't this the same give-away-the-razor-sell-the-blades marketing technique that makes us hate the printer manufacturers?

      • Isn't this the same give-away-the-razor-sell-the-blades marketing technique that makes us hate the printer manufacturers?

        No, because I for one just hate the people who are stupid enough to buy these printers, and therefore add to a just-buy-cheap-and-throw-away-later culture.
        And no, because in this case, the cost of creating the "content" (virus definitions) _constitutes_ the main expenses of the antivir software companies (as opposed to your printer example).
        Therefore this prize model is better for the c
    • 4. Unleash new and more potent viruses at regular intervals;

      Finally, the plan is complete..!
    • Why? I hate product activation - it never works and users are always frustrated.

      Sorry to say this, but it does, at least with Windows XP. Most of the time, the auto-activate feature works fine on the first try, and if you do have to call Microsoft, they are quite reasonable.

  • So what is wrong with that? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by abhikhurana ( 325468 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:38AM (#6812348)
    I personally don't mind product activation as long as consumers are aware of it before buying. I mean it is a matter of choice. I am sure you can find alternatives without product activation if you like. So it is simple. If you want to buy Symantec (Symantec is not a monopoly like MS so you do have many alternatives), then you will have to activate the product. I mean why do people talk as if trying to prevent piracy is a very bad thing. Only requirement is that the consumer should be informed, and after that let the consumer decide. I know some will argue that if Symantec is successful, others will incorporate same technology in their products as wel, but the point is that if Symantec succeeds, that means that a majority of consumers don't mind activating anyway. So in that case other would be fully justified in adding this technology to their own products. On the other hand, if people are bothered by it, they simply won't buy it. So just let the invisible hand of market take its course. I am sure we will reach an outcome which is benificial to the maximum number of people.

  • Anti-piracy technology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:39AM (#6812352) Journal
    The only anti-piracy technology that really works is that which uses hardware.

    It's difficult if not impossible to duplicate a hardware lock (parallel port dongle), and it costs money to do.

    It would cost Symantec about $5 in mass production to include a dongle with their anti-virus software. It would cost the average person $25 to make that same lock, and would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate the firmware...

    Software methods for anti-piracy were killed by copyiipc back in the 80's....

    • Looking at their pricing nowadays you'd think they WERE incorporating HASP or some other hardware method!

    • It's difficult if not impossible to duplicate a hardware lock (parallel port dongle), and it costs money to do.

      The average joe can't duplicate a port dongle, but it's not like it can't be done. I remember this was the fad in the 1980's. Usually if it's a popular application, someone will post the plans to duplicate it. PC users were most annoyed because they couldn't use their printer with the parallel port dongle, so they found cracked versions of the software.

  • I ditched their products ages ago.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:40AM (#6812358)
    The thing is, in newer versions they do not include "innoculation". Innoculation used to simply take a fingerprint (CRC32) of your executables/libraries, and could be set up to refuse to run unknown, or, more importantly, changed executables. This is great because even if you're behind in virus signature updates, your virusscanner will still detect new and unknown virusses as long as they don't compromise the virusscanner engine itself; such virusses (as well as engine updates) are far and wide between, unlike signature updates.

    Recent version do NOT check binaries' integrity using any sort of fingerprinting, be it crc32, md5, sha1 or whatever, thus forcing you to rely on the yearly subscription of virus signature updates. That's not because innoculation was broken or even not user-friendly enough (it was off by default), that's was a pure 100% unadulterated marketing decision!

    Interestingly, the free-for-personal use personal firewall product I'm using DOES use checksums to check whether binaries that may have specific permissions (to access the internet or open ports) have changed!

    • Re:I ditched their products ages ago.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ramk13 ( 570633 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:09AM (#6812515)
      Isn't there an issue with how often binaries are actually changed these days? I unzip new Mozilla builds all the time. I'm sure Windows update changes exe/dll files. Wouldn't all those legitimate changes cause false positives with the innoculation scheme? Would you set up some sort of authority system for editing then? I don't think that would work, because viruses usually run under as a normal user (read: admin in windows).

      I remember long long ago in the DOS days, when software came by way of floppy that these executables didn't change much. I think things are different now.
    • that's was a pure 100% unadulterated marketing decision!

      Their marketing department stopped making decisions based on adultery - what is this world coming to? I always fancied a romp in the sack with my married coworker before deciding on any marketing decision.

  • Too late as well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karamchand ( 607798 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:40AM (#6812362)
    The company estimates at least 3.6 million bogus copies of its programs are sold annually, causing headaches both for Symantec and unsuspecting buyers, who find out too late that the software isn't doing the job.

    Well, when the customer tries to register the (bogus) product he probably bought it already. So it's too late as well, isn't it?

  • I wonder why not earlier... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rzei ( 622725 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:42AM (#6812366)
    because if you have every used a Symantec product like Norton Internet Security (NIS) or Norton Antivirus (NAV) you must have realized how easy those have been to install on multiple computers.

    I've bought one back home and run it on all of my (2) home Windowsses, after all Norton is almost a synonym for quality when it comes to Windows utilities. I've also installed few from some public www page, where NIS 2003 (includes NAV 2003) was spread in 40MB fully working package.

    Maybe they are just playing it wisely, waiting for the fuzz about M$ fascistic moves calmed down and then switching their own system on.. Can't blame them, this is IMHO the only way to go, no other realistic options.. However, I doubt that this will give them much more money, as hopefully most of the commericial side is already using their products legally so this would mostly target home and lifeless w4r3z d00ds :)

    Though I have to admit that I haven't read any recent statistics about pirated stuff used at workplaces, only heard news that it'd be going down all the time (at least here in Finland or Scandinavia.. I have very bad memory :)).

    -rzei

  • The REAL problem with their products... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chordonblue ( 585047 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:43AM (#6812373) Journal
    ...is their PRICING. When our school went to purchase a new license for Exchange it cost as much as the Exchange server license plus Windows 2003 license plus 200 CALs. And that's ACADEMIC pricing. Unbelievable.

    They think they're God because they are a gold partner with Microsoft. Well, basically, I told them what they could do with themselves and went with Sophos instead who offered much more (an entire SITE license) for only half that price.

    In light of this new info (concerning product activation), I'm that much gladder we didn't go with them this time around. Too bad, I rather liked Norton on Exchange 2000. But, there comes a time when you realize that paying more for the anti-virus software than for what the anti-virus software is running on simply doesn't make sense.

  • This could lower the price (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LINM ( 255706 ) <mbego00&gsb,columbia,edu> on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:45AM (#6812386) Homepage
    If Symantec were to recover a decent percentage of the currently pirated copies, this would generate more revenue to cover overhead and profit growth.

    There then is an argument that this could lower the price that Symantec needs to (and does) charge the legitimate users.

    I'm a big Linux enthusiast, but also fully support closed source and charging if that's what software companies need to do to make money. Without this, they wouldn't be in business so it's naturally their right.

    • Re:This could lower the price (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pointbeing ( 701902 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:54AM (#6812444)
      I mentioned this in a seminar in Redmond when we were discussing MS product activation and Windows XP. I'll admit that software companies are entitled to make a profit. I'll even admit that they have the right to license every copy of that software that's in use if that's the model they choose. I won't argue MS' claim that about half the commercial software in use is pirated - but: Since these companies are showing a profit now, the price of piracy is clearly built into the software now. If product activation is effective then the previously unregistered copies that get purchased are clearly pure profit for the software manufacturer. Everyone pays the price for software piracy - so I'd like to ask Symantec the same question I asked Microsoft a couple years ago - are you going to reduce the price of your products now that all those previously unregistered copies are bought and paid for? Anything else seems like a grab for profit under the guise of protecting intellectual property.
      • so I'd like to ask Symantec the same question I asked Microsoft a couple years ago - are you going to reduce the price of your products now that all those previously unregistered copies are bought and paid for? Anything else seems like a grab for profit under the guise of protecting intellectual property.

        That is a rather large assumption. The Windows XP activation scheme has been cracked since day one. For a popular product, activation means that less illicit use rather than no illicit use.

  • Avast (Score:5, Informative)

    by yarisbandit ( 608829 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:52AM (#6812428) Homepage
    Er, freeware anyone? Try avast [avast.com] for example - it's free for home (desktop) use, and has free definition updates as long as ye register.

    I personally can't see what extra features would make me fork out on a costly alternative, that i can only install on one machine due to product activation, even though i have more that one pc at home...

  • So use AVG (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:56AM (#6812447)
    Get it here [grisoft.com]. It's free for non-commercial use, even if the interface is a bit baroque. But so is Norton's.
    • Thanks for the link. I'll be removing my copies of NAV from all of my home PCs now. Got links to anything like this that runs on a server?

      I used to use McAfee. Then the last update installed some 'malware' cartoonish GUI that would pop ads for their products up all the time. I couldn't get the POS to go away. I had to get McAfee support on the line to tell me how to rip it out.

      I preferred McAfee until then. Now I'll never use them again. With Norton moving to this 'everyones a pirate unless they register'

  • I guess we saw this one coming (Score:5, Interesting)

    by martingunnarsson ( 590268 ) <martin&snarl-up,com> on Thursday August 28, 2003 @07:56AM (#6812448) Homepage
    I've always thought it's a bit strange that a piece of software that has to phone home to work well (i.e. download signature files) was so incredibly easy to copy. I installed Norton Antivirus on my parents' old computer, and when they bought a new one I thought I'd have to go through some more or less complicated procedure to get the program to run on it. But nope, I installed it and not only did it work, I got 12 new months of free updates (only one year is included, then it's like $10 per year).
  • causing headaches both for Symantec and unsuspecting buyers, who find out too late that the software isn't doing the job

    Yes, let's protect buyers from the genuine Symantec versions; the fake ones simply have to be working better--they couldn't work any worse.

  • If they really "care about consumers"..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:00AM (#6812475)
    If Symantec, M$, et al really care about consumers, then they should change when consumer's credit cards are charged for buying the product. If the box and CD are useless until product activation, then consumers should not have to pay until they have successfully run the activation procedure.

    I have nothing against antipiracy/product activation per se. But I do object to schemes that force people to pay up front and then jump through a series of hoops that have a non-zero probability of failure. Until a company delivers value, it should not expect consumers to deliver payment.
  • Activation is nothing new. In 1998-1999 (I forgot exactly when) we had to install 3dStudio Max on several lab computer and had to activate it each time despite the fact the program required an additional hardware dongle. Activation is, simply, the most hellish pain in the ass that you can inflict on any consumer. I don't believe there are many severe privacy concerns, but the functional concerns (say a virus that changes a bit or two in nortons product key so it becomes deactivated) are many.

  • I hope more software providers do the same (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sri Lumpa ( 147664 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:10AM (#6812526) Homepage

    I, for one, am happy with Symantec's decision and hope that many much more Windows software companies do the same. The more obnoxious they get the more likely people are to go and look for alternatives that actually allows them to do their job instead of going in their way.

    This trend looks like the proprietary software industry trying to shoot itself in the foot to me, and I welcome them to try.

  • Recent Live Update changes ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PhiltheeG ( 688063 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:25AM (#6812593)

    I've also noticed that after a recent "Live Update" and reboot of my machine that one of the Symantec executables (ccApp.exe I think) insists on contacting crl.verisign.com when it didn't before...

    Personally, I am getting tired of all this extra effort just to use a damn piece of software I purchased legally. I'm also tired of every single application wanting to contact the mothership for some reason.

  • I own Norton SystemWorks 2002 and I noticed that there's no CD key, no activation, etc. Consequently, while it says the subscription to virus updates lasts a year and has to be renewed, it's from whenever the product is installed - and it has no way of ensuring when that is. For example, if you reformat your hard drive before a year is up and reinstall it, that year starts from then. There's no way for it to tell you've installed it before.

    Of course last week when the SoBig/Blaster fiasco was in full bloo

    • The subscription that everyone is talking about is a subscription to the "live update" service whereby the latest virus definitions may be downloaded and installed automatically.

      Symantec make the virus definition updates freely available for you to download EVEN IF YOUR LIVE UPDATE SUBSCRIPTION HAS LAPSED. - Just yse teh "manual" definitions and teh "intelligent updater" - it's a bt more tedious because you have to remember to go to the site, download the updates and install them by hand - but it CAN be do
  • It is possible that some technical users might be more comfortable taking the plunge with Linux/BSD than having to buy a Symantec license. Im not condoning piracy, far from from it, but the reality is that most home Windows/Office/Outlook/Antivirus users out there today do, or at least have in the past, used a pirate copy of (insert product name here).

    In fact, there is evidence that the big players even tolerate a bit of this kind of thing because they recognise that to penetrate this "lower end" of the m

  • damn... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GreenKiwi ( 221281 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:34AM (#6812675)
    [i]causing headaches both for Symantec and unsuspecting buyers[/i]

    Damn!!! my $5 copy of Norton Antivirus 2008 isn't legit.

    Wow! Who'da thunk.

  • Product activation will kill the computer industry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @08:59AM (#6812877) Homepage
    Imagine if every bit of software on your computer was tied to that one computer. All of your games, all of your utilities, your office software, etc. Everything.

    Now imagine thinking about buying a new computer. You have all of that money invested in software which is tied to old computer. Suddenly, the cost of that new computer is a LOT more because you have to buy your software all over again.

    Of course, defenders of product activation will say that you'll be able to remove the software from the old system and install it on the new system. But do we know that for certain?! It certainly didn't work that way for TurboTax users.

    Essentially, switching will become a risk. You might be able to use some of your software, but some you will not. Plus, that old computer will have absolutely no software on it, thus, it'll be rendered useless.

    Some will argue that installing software on two computers you own is illegal. They'd be right, BUT, and this is a big BUT, CONSUMERS ARE USED TO IT. They've been doing it that way from the very beginning. When consumers get used to doing something one way, they get pissed when it changes.

    When product activation is widespread, Dell, Gateway, and every other computer manufacturer can kiss their asses goodbye.

  • Q. Who really loses out with product activation?

    A. The companies that include them in their products.

    Explanation: Private people who know where to find cracks for products will do so regardless of whether there is PA or not. WinXP, OfficeXP, etc, and pretty soon NAV as well have or will be cracked. Businesses in poorer countries especially, will revolt against PA, not only because at least some of the products they were using were cracks, but because they often installed one product on all the computers i

  • We switched last week (Score:3, Informative)

    by mattr ( 78516 ) <mattr.telebody@com> on Thursday August 28, 2003 @09:12AM (#6812974) Homepage Journal
    Our office of 50 people just removed McAfee from all computers and installed Virus Buster (Japanese edition) by Trend Micro (antivirus.com). Check it out, you might find it is useful.

  • Uninformed discussion is so entertaining (Score:3, Informative)

    by stevel ( 64802 ) * on Thursday August 28, 2003 @09:36AM (#6813201) Homepage

    It would appear that few here have bothered to go look at Symantec's web site [symantec.com] to see what they have to say about activation. Some of the things people have complained about, based solely on reading the Slashdot blurb, have no basis.

    Interesting points are:

    • You get 15 days after first install to activate
    • You can activate over the phone
    • You can transfer to an upgraded or new PC without repurchase

    As a commercial software developer myself, I can understand why Symantec is doing this, though I too am amused at the "for your protection" approach that is so common. I also see activation is becoming more common (PowerQuest's new DriveImage 7 has it too), especially in products that people tend to buy once and install on multiple systems.

    If formal and informal piracy wasn't so pandemic, such things would not be necessary. But it seems so many people believe that it's their RIGHT to steal software (or music), if they don't feel like paying for it. I know this is heresy for Slashdot, but there it is....

  • Best anti-virus is free (Score:5, Informative)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @09:47AM (#6813319) Journal
    AVG Antivirus [grisoft.com] is pretty good, got automatic updates and it's free for personal use.

  • Allowing piracy invalidates copyright? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @10:00AM (#6813440) Homepage

    Last time I talked to Symantec Tech Support about this, the support representative said that Norton SystemWorks was the most pirated software [google.com] in the world. He sounded proud. He said that all copies that are "CD only" are pirated, as are lots of the others. He said that the price should never be less than $60. (SystemWorks includes Norton AntiVirus.)

    Even some of my distributors, very legitimate companies, offer a pirated SystemWorks, apparently unknowingly.

    Allowing piracy until now seems to be a deliberate marketing policy of Symantec. The idea seems to be that people invest time in learning how a product works. Those who discover they have pirated copies may not want to invest time again. They may then buy a legitimate copy.

    If allowing piracy is not a deliberate marketing policy of Symantec, does that mean that no one at Symantec is smart enough to use Froogle? It's not as though finding the illegal copies [google.com] is an expensive task.

    Microsoft seems to have used this as a way of destroying competitors to DOS back in the old days, and with Microsoft Office more recently. There was a time when ALL local distributors were selling pirated copies of DOS (often unknowingly). I don't know if it is happening now, but at one time everyone who bought a computer from local builders was offered a "completely legal OEM copy" of Microsoft Office for $50. I called Microsoft and was told that all such copies were pirated.

    Apparently, Microsoft's policy of allowing piracy was a way of killing competitors. Instead of Microsoft Office for $400 and Corel Word Perfect for $50, it was Microsoft Office for beaucoup moolah and Microsoft Office for cheap. It was impossible for Corel to establish Corel WordPerfect as a reasonable alternative. All second-tier products were crushed by the piracy of the most popular products.

    Here's a question: Doesn't allowing piracy as a marketing tool invalidate the copyright?

    When companies allow piracy, that makes it difficult for legitimate companies like ours. Our price doesn't seem competitive. Piracy as a marketing tool makes it seem like we are over-charging customers. It damages our reputation, and often prospective customers don't even give us a chance to explain.

    Legal notice: I'm stating here my long-standing opinion only. I'm not saying I know anyone is a pirate, or a piracy encourager, only that they appear to me to be.

  • You Only Get 5 Activations with NAV 2K3! (Score:5, Informative)

    by volpone ( 551472 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @10:02AM (#6813469)
    I was a Norton AntiVirus user for several years. I bought my first NAV copy back in 1997. I loved it, paid yearly for the virus def. subscription, and upgraded three times, most recently to NAV 2003.

    NAV 2003 turned out to be a dog. It took 4 installs & activations before it worked properly on my Win 98 box.

    A month later, I replaced my Win 98 box with a P4 box with Win XP. I installed & activated NAV 2003, which failed. I uninstalled and reinstalled it, then tried to activate it. I was informed (by Symantec's web site) that I had exceeded the maximum number of installs and was politely asked to purchase another license.

    Three phone calls to Symantec tech support were useless. They repeatedly told me that this was Symantec's policy and absolutely refused to give me more installs FOR THE PROGRAM I BOUGHT FROM THEM. (Not from a store, but from Symantec's Web site itself!)

    I just bought MacAfee's product earlier this week. To hell with Symantec and all of their crap.

  • Free virus scanners (Score:3, Informative)

    by celerityfm ( 181760 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @11:35AM (#6814620) Journal
    So far we've seen people mention Grisoft's AVG [grisoft.com] (which I use at home), Avast [avast.com], and even F-prot for DOS [f-prot.com] - but I haven't seen anyone mention this yet

    Housecall [trendmicro.com] - online virus scanner-- got someone who thinks they have a virus? Just send em to this site, while it doesn't prevent viruses, it will tell you if any show up! Its good in a pinch, and if you think your current virus scanner might be missing something.

  • #@$% AntiVirus NAG pop-up! (Score:3, Informative)

    by volkerdi ( 9854 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @02:55PM (#6816800)
    I installed SystemWorks 2002 on my wife's computer (yes, I let her run Windows ;-), and once the virus subscription ran out it went into daily nag-mode, popping up a subscription renewal box at random times throughout the day, and with NO WAY to tell it to never pop up again. As far as I can tell, Symantec will not allow me to continue with the current level of protection without the continual nag box -- either I live with it, subscribe, or uninstall.

    I'll never buy anything from them again.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close