The hack depended on a leaked bulk OEM license, which installs on an unlimited number of PCs, assuming they match the assigned hardware certificate. Traditionally, once these cracks are out the the bag they're, well, out of the bag—any measures that could take down pirated copies would also disable installations that use the key legitimately, leaving Microsoft with their hands tied.

Seeing as Windows 7 isn't even out yet, this particular master key hasn't been used for any software that's actually shipped yet, so Microsoft is free to blacklist to their heart's content, which they have. Don't fret, sad thieves: this doesn't necessarily mean that a future key with some useful collateral couldn't accomplish the same thing, someday. [Ars Technica]

In Vista, you couldn't shoo the little bastard away for at least 15 seconds. In Windows 7, you can make it vanish immediately by telling it you'll activate later, and all you get is a second little box telling you how awesome activation is.

Also, it seems like you won't have to worry about a non-genuine copy blowing up on you, since Microsoft's Genuine Windows unit's Alex Kochis talked about the "effective balance" Microsoft has acheived in annoying pirates, but not annoying them too much—so that Windows kill switch probably isn't coming back.

They're even trying to wash the bad taste Windows Genuine Advantage left in people's mouths by renaming it Windows Activation Technologies. Yeah, that sounds a whole bunch friendlier. [Cnet]

Another man, who said he wasn't seeking damages, sued Microsoft in a Beijing district court for “violating the integrity of his computer.” He argued that “Microsoft has no right to judge whether the installed software is pirated or not” and demanded that the company remove the notice that he was software piracy victim from his software.

Just to refresh, the "illegal measure in question" is a nagware that turns the screen black on allegedly pirated copies of windows every hour. No data is lost, you're given a countdown for when your screen will return to normal... it's basically just a major annoyance (assuming that it is only pirated copies getting nagged). Is it just me, or does this seem a little brazen of people to sue for what's basically stealing? I think I'm actually starting to feel sorry for the big guy. [Shanghai Daily]

If the price of genuine software was lower than the fake one, who would buy the fake one?

Someone should tell Microsoft!

Another Reuters interviewee and noted villainous software thief kind of agreed:

If, when I'm programing, the computer screen goes black, that will probably cause some important information to be lost," he said. "Who will pay me for my loss then?

Microsoft, after considering the plan to pay software pirates for not knowing how long an hour is, (probably) decided to stick to their guns on this one. Not to mention the fact that the WGA scheme is just nagware — it won't cause any data loss.

Dong Zhengwei, a lawyer from Beijing, doesn't care about that minor detail. He offered a more sober opinion on the matter, but only after spending a short paragraph accusing Microsoft of being the "biggest hackers in China:"

I respect the right of Microsoft to protect its intellectual property, but it is taking on the wrong target with wrong measures. They should target producers and sellers of fake software, not users.

All this really means, though, is that we can probably expect a whole new breed of more effective WGA cracks in the next couple weeks.

NOTE: Reuters' story implies that this software will disable PCs. This is not true, as the new WGA program just prompts users to get a legitimate copy of Windows every 60 minutes. Pretty annoying, but not catostrophic. [Reuters]

"You don't need to pour a sh-load of money into entertainment to find an audience." But having an audience and being good are not the same thing— YouTube, reality TV and Air Bud have taught us this, if nothing else. [NewTeeVee]

So when all these talk-format entertainment shows come back (Leno, Jon Stewart, etc), Letterman will have a competitive advantage that we can't help but to sympathize with at least a little: he will have his full staff of writers behind him.

Of course, CBS isn't too happy about the agreement...

Because while CBS doesn't own The Late Show, they do license rights for electronic distribution. So it's hard to imagine how the undisclosed agreement between Worldwide Pants and the WGA accounts for this arrangement. CBS clarified that they will not comply with third party agreements.

But for now, it's a small, needed victory for the WGA and, of course, your hungry, hungry television sets (which are in no way affiliated with the domestic breed of hippos).

Mr. Letterman, we'll be tuning in. [nyt]

So here's the deal: There's an initial check that okays software to run on a particular hardware platform. (Like OS X on your Mac.) Then there are periodic checks to make sure the software is still running on the kosher platform. If it's all shiksa, the software's execution string is stopped cold, killing the application. Vista pulls the same neat trick, keeling over if WGA says it's not the real deal (even when it sometimes is).

OS X is name-dropped in the patent app, so while it could be just about keeping it off non-Macs, this bit in the "background" section of the application's pretty illuminating, given the lack of copy protection on OS X currently:

The application owner may, of course, require the user to promise not to copy, distribute or use the application on another platform as part of the transaction by which the user obtains their copy. Such promises are, however, easy to make and easy to break.

If you write for a show and are on strike and are interested in doing some writing for us on pretty much whatever the hell you want (as long as it's somewhat related to the sort of stuff we cover now), shoot me an email and lets talk about it. We'd love to get you in front of the keyboards again, even if it's not for the shows that you're used to writing for. And hey, we pay based on traffic, which is just like residuals, so you can get used to that for when you do go back to work after getting your demands met from those dickbags at the studios. Note that we won't be able to toss work to every single writer who's interested, but we'll do what we can. Those of you who write for sci-fi shows such as Futurama or Battlestar Galactica will get first dibs and big, wet, sloppy, fanboy kisses.

Zero Episodes Left
Heroes
The Family Guy
The Office

1 Episode Left
Chuck
Pushing Daisies

3 Episodes Left
CSI
House
Journeyman

4 Episodes Left
30 Rock

7 Episodes Left
Boston Legal

10 Episodes Remain
Battlestar Galactica (SUHWEET!). Episode 11 was planned to be a Ronald D. Moore- directed pile of awesome (NOOOO!).

Unlimited Episodes Left
Dancing With The Stars - TACKY, they are continuing without writers. Because of BBC connection maybe?

For a complete list of dying television, hit this link: [brentevans via zatz]

To be fair, this probably has a lot to do with the fact that Vista is a lot harder to pirate than XP, which is pretty much cake to get for free. I mean, what kind of pirate would willfully put up with Windows Genuine Advantage when they could just not worry about it and use XP? But yeah, I'm sure a lot of people are pirating XP for the same reason people are still buying new computers with XP: Vista is still scary. [News.com]

Ars points out that right now writers pull about four to six cents a DVD, so a two-million seller will bring them between $80,000 and $120,000 on a title raking in millions for the studio. Even though it's a less-than-stellar deal, at least it scales. The $250 flat internet re-distribution payment and fixed $1300 for 15 minutes of internet-only content doesn't, which is a problem in a couple of ways.

For one, these contracts are in place for a long time—when the initial deal regarding DVD sales were made, DVD wasn't very big. In today's climate, they're studios' biggest cash cows, and writers get the short end of the stick. This deal would lock them into the same rate for internet distribution and content, no matter how big new media gets, and it's obviously going to be huge, so they're standing to get screwed even harder here.

On a smaller scale, it means no matter how many clicks—and therefore ad dollars—a video drew, writers would still get the same tiny compensation. The guild's going over this "proposal" until Tuesday, when talks resume, but our feeling is that you better have a hard love for reruns, reality TV or YouTube. [Ars Technica]

TV is not disappearing anytime soon, but clearly, it's going to be replaced by either the internet or some TV/internet hybrid. Like the music industry, the TV industry realizes that their tried-and-true business model is about to be useless, and it's lashing out in panic. Unlike the music industry, who stupidly attacked its fans, the TV industry is attacking its own creative source: writers. But the WGA wouldn't be striking if this wasn't important. We talked to both sides to get at the root of the trouble.

Eric Appel, who's written for Crank Yankers and The Andy Milonakis Show and consulted for MTVs Human Giant, told me:

"New media is where television is going. In a few years cable is just gonna be the internet. And unlike TiVo where you can skip the advertisements, in [new, network-run] streaming players you're forced to sit through the ads. The networks are making money on that, and the studios don't want to give writers any of it."

Imagine if the recording industry decided that the internet was merely a way to promote CDs and that no songs sold online counted when paying musicians. Their argument would be that people were just checking out those songs and might go buy the CD later, at which point the artist would get paid. This is essentially the argument the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) is making.

Here's what a spokesperson told me:

"New media has proven to be an effective and cost-effective promotional and marketing tool for both films and television but there is not enough marketplace data to judge its true potential, ultimate impact on traditional media or viability as a business."

As it stands, writers get a small percentage of revenue if a show is successful and reruns often, which is why Jerry Seinfeld drives a gold-plated flying car between his mansions in the Hamptons and Dubai. At the moment, they aren't paid any residuals for new media distribution, despite the fact that online content delivery is the future.

The problem with this logic is that if new media really didn't bring in any money, there wouldn't be a problem. The writers are asking for a percentage of profits from new media — a percentage of nothing is nothing, after all.

So what this battle basically boils down to is the producers trying to move away from a residuals system, one in which writers are paid once for their work and get nothing for creating huge hits. It'll make them a whole lot more money and writers a whole lot less. And it's not just the livelihood of writers at stake; this same issue is going to come up with actors and directors as well in the near future. It's a battle for how business will be done in TV's new age, and one that will affect the entertainment that all of us consume for the foreseeable future.

What the guild's asking for with online or mobile distribution is 2.5 percent of the "distributors' gross revenue." Apparently this is tricky for distributors because it's difficult to tell what percentage of the online audience is new to a show or old hands simply shifting to a different medium—I'm guessing this is a problem for the issue at hand because producers don't want to pay writers twice for the same audience.

But, it seems unfair to only compensate writers for content explicitly purchased by viewers (like on iTunes), particularly as more and more content shifts online supported by ads, even if that ad revenue is nowhere near what is for broadcast for the time being. It's only going to get bigger, so they should get a hold of what they can, while they can, lest they feel screwed once again in a few years. [WSJ]

Sort of innocuous in the grand scheme of things, the new update from Apple adds a widget verification program. This program verifies whether the widgets present in the dashboard is authentic by sending an HTTP GET command to Apple's servers every eight hours.

There's no way to turn this off (yet, but maybe you could use Little Snitch), and there's no prompt for the user to allow or disallow this action. People have been giving Microsoft heat for their Windows Genuine Advantage software phoning home, but it looks like Apple's doing something similar.

It's like when your neighbors hold a party. You may not care, or want to go, but it's nice to be asked. – Jason Chen

Update: Reader Scott says it's simple to disable this. Open up the terminal and type (one command):

sudo launchctl unload -w /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.dashboard.advisory.fetch.plist

It's not just Windows, OS X phones home too [Systadmin.it]