C27901RP%WUVMD.BITNET@wiscvm.arpa (11/01/85)
Here is something from COMPUSERVE that was briefly discussed
on the Michigan system.
Bob Parks (C27901RP@WUVMD.BITNET)
Taken from Compuserve.
A tale of malicious copy protection by Microsoft Access. If you think
that all software companies are genuinely concerned with their
customers, if you believe that Microsoft can do no harm, read on!
The Day Microsoft Access Ate My Hard Disk by Sheldon L.
Richman Computer Columnist, Washington (D.C.) Times
I am an even-tempered person, but I am writing this in the
white heat of anger. In Peter Finch's immortal words (from the movie
Network), "I am mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore."
Last week I reported on my problems with Microsoft's new
communications program Access. To recap, the program refuses to
connect to MCI Mail. But that's not what I am mad about. The other
night when I tried to load Access a most unsettling thing happened:
the program displayed a screen of threatening text that said in part,
"The weed of crime bears bitter fruit. Now trashing your program
disk."
This mean-spirited message was a baseless accusation that I
had illicitly copied the program; Microsoft was avenging this
imaginary offense remotely by attacking my hard disk. After recovering
from the shock I realized that every program in the root directory of
the hard disk was gone. Luckily, those files were replaceable and no
subdirectory was touched.
Let me calmly discuss the significance of this incident.
First, I was accused of having made an improper copy when in fact I
had installed the program from the master disk Microsoft sent me.
Second, my disk (it felt like my person) was violated by
Microsoft's obnoxious protection scheme. I could have lost valuable
files. It could happen to you.
It is clear what happened: Access's copy-protection scheme
went berserk.
The companies still using copy-protection--many have dropped
it-- complain about lost revenues from piracy. Is copy-protection the
solution? No. Copy-protection consists of deliberately putting bad
sectors on a disk. When a protected program is installed according to
the manufacturer's instructions, are the bad sectors transferred to
your disk? I imagine so. How do you know that the program won't eat
your disk late one night when your in the middle of a crucial project?
You don't.
My case proves that manufacturers can't guarantee that
innocent users won't suffer. That makes copy-protection an odious
intrusion.
I have a proposal. Let's refuse to buy any more copy-protected
software. We should do this to protect our property. A boycott is also
a good way to tell these companies that customers deserve respect.
It's hard to like a company that restricts my ability to make backup
copies of programs. If that's how a company treats me, I'll take my
business elsewhere.
By the way, Microsoft attitude about this was disappointing. A
technician theorized that Access had a conflict with a memory-resident
program, such as Sidekick. It apparently wasn't Access' fault. He made
no offer to send me a new copy or a refund. (This person did not know
I am a reviewer.)
Would I have had recourse had an irreplaceable file been
destroyed? Not according to Microsoft. Peruse this excerpt from its
"license agreement":
"Limited Warranty: The program is provided 'as is' without
warranty of any kind. The entire risk as to the results and
performance of the program is assumed by you. Should the program prove
defective, you (and not Microsoft or its dealers) assume the entire
cost of all necessary servicing, repair, or correction. Further,
Microsoft does not warrant, guarantee, or make any representations
regarding the use of, or the results of the use of, the program in
terms of correctness, accuracy, reliability, currentness, or
otherwise; and you rely on the program and results solely at your own
risk."
In other words, you're lucky if there's even a disk in the
box. Nothing is promised. Now there's respect for you. Let's not take
it anymore. Down with copy-protection! Whatever happened to "the
customer is always right?"
-30-
Part II:
I think we are within striking distance of having Microsoft
remove copy-protection from its software. My bad experience with its
program Access, described here last week, may be the incident that
wins the day. For those who missed it, Microsoft's new communications
software destroyed several files on my hard disk when the program's
copy-protection scheme went berserk. Since my report I've had several
interesting conversations with Microsoft people.
I tried Chairman William Gates, but I couldn't get through.
Microsoft's contrite public relations man, Marty Taucher, called me,
wanting to know all the details so the technicians could explain why
the program turned on me. Then product manager Jeff Sanderson called.
He also wanted the details.
They asked the questions, but I learned the interesting
things. Both Sanderson and Taucher insisted that the screen of
threatening text, culminating in the message, "The weed of crime bears
bitter fruit. Now trashing your program disk," was only meant to
scare. "There is nothing in the code to cause any erasure," Sanderson
said.
They both said that the message had been removed from the
product a couple of weeks ago and that I had an older version. Owners
who were concerned could exchange their software, Sanderson said.
Oh, they also said the offensive warning was inserted in the
program without authorization by a "summer programmer." When it was
discovered, it was removed.
How about that! The idle threat about disk-trashing was
inserted without the knowledge of this large and prosperous software
company. And the threat that was supposed to merely scare innocent
users somehow came alive and destroyed my files.
Microsoft has good reason to be worried about this incident.
It is a software company's nightmare to have its program eat the
customers' files. If my misfortune pushes Microsoft into giving up
copy protection--and I have a hunch it might--then I am happy to have
contributed to the cause.
Several major companies allow buyers to freely make backup
copies. They include Micropro International (WordStar and WordStar
2000), Microrim (R:Base 5000), Sorcim (SuperCalc 3), Satellite
Software (WordPerfect) and now Living Videotext (ThinkTank). These are
topnotch programs. So why buy the protected Lotus 1-2-3, dBase III,
Multiplan, or Microsoft Word when you can have one of those without
the headache of copy protection? Ask your dealer and have him ask the
manufacturer. We can beat this thing if we try.
-30-
>>>>>>>>> From Michael Palmer C03640JP@WUVMD.BITNET
> "The weed of crime bears bitter fruit. Now trashing your program
> disk."
> Oh, they also said the offensive warning was inserted in the
> program without authorization by a "summer programmer." When it was
> discovered, it was removed.
Somebody is lying. Any old-time MicroSoft WORD user knows that the
message has been in WORD (except that it is the "tree of crime")
since version 1.0 (at least two years now) as has been mentioned
in BBS's many times. There is much more good stuff about the
MICROSOFT FREEDOM FIGHTERS and all kinds of rhetoric in the
hidden protection files.
(1) maybe microsoft is lying -- I believe them when they say the
warning is not associated with any destructive code. I just
don't believe they could be that stupid. But if they really
did try to tell him that the message was just recently and
unknowingly inserted, they are lying through their teeth or
else have no idea what their programmers are doing, since the
messages have been common BBS fodder for years. (And, indeed,
we have discussed these very messages with reference to WORD
here before.)
(2) maybe the columnist is -- I know nothing of him, but maybe he
dislikes copy protection enough to lie about the damage after
really receiving the message (though every mention of the message
I have ever seen has been from someone who dug it out with
DEBUG, not someone who has gotten it on the screen).
(3) maybe both
Bob Parks C27901RP@WUVMD.BITNET adds->
Certainly erasing files via a copy protection scheme is arguable in
court - As everyone knows, courts decide in ways (precedents) that
some do not expect. But if this story is true, then it would seem in
the Times' interest to sue MicroSoft if for nothing more than the
publicity that it would generate for the paper. Hence my suspicions
lead me to believe Michael's point (3) - i.e., both the columnist
and MicroSoft are not telling the whole truth. MicroSoft could not
be so dumb as to not know about the message, and if the columnist had
suffered erasure, then he would certainly sue. Who knows, maybe he
will - asking for Punitive damages.mdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Mike D McEvoy) (11/10/85)
>RE: The Day Microsoft Access Ate My Hard Disk by Sheldon L. > Richman Computer Columnist, Washington (D.C.) Times > >Certainly erasing files via a copy protection scheme is arguable in >court - As everyone knows, courts decide in ways (precedents) that >some do not expect. How about an opinion from some of the legal eagles out there in net land. Are there any legal grounds for suit against Microsoft for installing disk eater copy "protection" schemes" Are they liable for damages due to the destruction of file due to the action of deliberatly installed code to avenge the user??? Big Mac