Ed Foster's Gripelog || Symantec's DRM of Choice

» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters Technology & Business Daily

INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER

Bookmark this page

Symantec's DRM of Choice

By Ed Foster, Section Columns
Posted on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 09:09:27 AM PDT

Which would you rather get: lots of spam advertising Symantec products or Symantec products with product activation? Well, you don't really have to choose - you get to have both.

We had warning this was coming. You may remember that last year I asked Symantec about the flood of spam advertising Norton products and why Symantec couldn't put a halt to such blatant abuse of its brands and copyrights. Company officials said the basic problem was large Asian-based counterfeiting operations producing copies at a cost of 50 cents a disk or less. Implementing a DRM (Digital Rights Management) solution might prove necessary, they said.

This struck me as a bit odd at the time, since even the biggest advocates of DRM (like Microsoft, for instance) admit that most forms of copy protection do little to hinder sophisticated counterfeiters. But I put such thoughts aside until recent weeks when I begin to get gripes from readers having problems with the product activation scheme Symantec has now implemented in the consumer version of Norton AntiVirus 2004. In particular, a number of readers who had paid to download the product reported installation difficulties that caused the product activation to treat the download copy as an expired trial version that could not be reactivated.

Readers reported little or no success when calling Symantec support for help in these situations, and several pointed out a curious aspect of the Norton download process. Along with the $49.95 for NAV 2004, customers can purchase the "Extended Download Service" for an additional $6.99 in order to redownload the software over the next year "in the event the End User has reformatted his/her hard drive, inadvertently uninstalled the Symantec Product, or changed computers."

The Extended Download Service struck some customers, particularly those who had installation problems, as if Symantec was charging an insurance fee against reactivation problems. "Why should I pay seven bucks to guarantee I can download this again if there's a problem?" wrote one reader. "I paid for the product, and now I have an expired version and I have to order another copy. Something's wrong there."

After arguing with Symantec support and download services, that reader eventually received a CD to replace the copy she couldn't activate. Symantec officials say they are unaware of any specific problems involving activation and NAV downloads, and it's possible that the complaints I'm hearing are normal installation glitches that only appear to be related to product activation. Maybe so. Certainly it's true we aren't yet hearing the cascade of complaints engendered by TurboTax product activation, although plenty of people aren't happy about the idea.

As for the Extended Download Service, Symantec officials said they were offering that service months before production activation was implemented. The service - - which essentially offers the right to download a back-up copy -- is not related to product activation.

OK, there may not be a relation in Symantec's mind between product activation and their download insurance, but perhaps there should be. If a company is going to make you jump through DRM hoops to certify that you really have a valid license for its product, why can't it use the same technology to verify you have the right to get a back-up copy? It just says loud and clear that only the company's interests matter, not the customer's.

Of course, DRM is never about the customer's interests. And that brings back to the bigger question: what is Symantec's purpose in implementing product activation? Symantec officials continue to insist that it's all about reducing large-scale counterfeiting. But will it? Won't those Asian operations just keep on cranking out those 50-cent CDs anyway? After all, the counterfeiters and the spammers can slap a logo on whatever and say it's Norton AntiVirus 2004. How is having product activation in the real thing going to stop them?

Symantec officials answer that product activation is not a silver bullet, and more customer education is needed. And as long as there are people stupid enough to buy software - or anything else - from spammers, it's certainly true that more customer education is needed. But is product activation the way to educate them? The last thing Symantec should be teaching its customers is that the only way to tell the difference between the real thing and the phony stuff is to see if it has product activation. After all, given the choice between software with DRM and software without, which would you choose?

--------------------

Post your comments about this column below or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com. To receive this column every week in my free e-mail newsletter, please go to my subscription page and follow the instructions to opt-in for the EdFoster mailing list.

< Is Comdex Worth It? | Attacks on Anti-spam Sites Show Unresponsiveness of Legal System >

Symantec's DRM of Choice | 41 comments (41 topical) | Post A Comment

Remember Lotus 1-2-3[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 10:10:34 AM PDT

In the 1980's, a friend of mine made part of his living by installing Lotus 1-2-3 on PC/XT hard drives for his clients so that they would not need the original floppy disk in the slot ALL THE TIME when it was being used. This was the Lotus copy protection scheme and it was awful. My friend had patched Lotus 1-2-3 so that it did not look for the floppy at all. He made sure that there was an original 1-2-3 disk for each machine, to be perfectly ethical, but he didn't actually have to do that. It's just that he was an authorized Lotus distributor and his edge was making it work better on his client's computers. As you say, DRM only hurts the honest customer but does not deter a real counterfeiter. All the counterfeiter needs to do is bypass the DRM checking code for the copies they sell. If they actually did a good job of this, I might be more inclined to purchase a DRM-crippled version instead of the official DRM-encumbered version from Symantec.

[ Reply to This ]

Symantec's new DRM[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 10:14:44 AM PDT

I first began to be disillusioned with Symantec when I pre-ordered SystemSuite 2001 back in 2000 and then spent almost a month trying to get the bloody thing to even install. Then came the escalating price of subscription renewals. I would have ditched them this year but for having gotten NAV 2003 free after rebates (although it took almost four months to receive the upgrader's rebate portion, I did finally get it). Now this.

Sorry, Symantec. You've got a pretty good product as far as efficacy is concerned, but you've stepped on your d**k with this one. You can wave bye-bye to a loyal customer who has been using Norton products since Norton Utilities Advanced Edition 4.5 'way back in the DOS days.

C'mon folks, the Intuit debacle has demonstrated that we still have the power. If enough of us vote with our wallets, Symantec, like Intuit, will have to rethink this asinine policy. Avoid them like the plague (ALL of their products) and let's see if we can't turn them around.

[ Reply to This ]

It's not about DRM...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 10:37:14 AM PDT

Duh! Product activation is not about DRM - and certainly not about stopping commercial piracy - it's about market harvesting your personal and system data. You think it sends back just the product name and version number when it goes through activation? If you do, then I humbly suggest you go read some of the marketing materials on the websites of "software copy protection" manufacturers. The ones that I've studied offere extensive information reporting - many of them after product activation on an ongoing basis too - although they say it's up to the implementing vendor how much and how often the data is gathered. Why stay with Symantec at all after this? McAffe gives you a long, long period before you need to pony up $ for more updates. And what's wrong with free anyway? AVG has a free edition. Get it from www.grisoft.com.

[ Reply to This ]

Symantec's DRM of Choice[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by schda on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 11:04:47 AM PDT

Someone suggested voting with our pocket books in an earlier response. Unfortunately, the big software companies of the world have been so successful that we now have limited choices. I know you want to keep the gripe column/website non-commercial, but I would love to know of other choices. Perhaps a listing of software types with fields to indicate price, method of actuation, method of copy protection, etc. would be appropriate. I for one am ready to vote with my wallet, but I have used Microsoft-Symantec-Intuit software for so many years that I have little or no knowledge of alternatives. I am frustrated enough that I would be willing to live with a little less software functionality and even a little higher price if I knew I could escape wasting time hassling the protection schemes being forced upon me and my IT people. It hardly seems fair that a company should have to pay the increased support costs to hassle the protection schemes. That is not value-added -- that is value substracted. Often my IT people have spent more time hassling these schemes than the product cost initially. Bottom line is that I want to break the "addiction" to these software companies, but I need to some help to do it.

[ Reply to This ]

Norton DRM Alternatives[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 11:21:04 AM PDT

Here! Here! non-commercial is great and I think that the list suggested would not make you commercial and would be a great benfit to all of us who are looking for alternatives.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Activation: just say no[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 11:32:05 AM PDT

Activation is the refuge of the monopoly. How many competitive products use it? Few, if any!

Consider the expense of implementing, maintaining, and administering intrusive DRM schemes. That is resource a smaller company can pour into making their product better. So if you hate DRM, reward the smaller players who don't use it.

"But what can we do, when 95% of computers are sold with an operating system that use an oppresive, intrusive activation scheme?" Use the other 5% -- Think Different.

Apple users traditionally favor functionality and ease of use over "features" implemented for the convenience of the manufacturer. Consider that Adobe's new Creative Suite is DRM'd for Windows, but not for MacOS. Consider that numerous products -- from Quark to Quicken -- were once DRM'd on the Mac, but removed it after users refused to upgrade.

I don't steal software, and I don't deal with companies that treat me as if I do. When Adobe gets around to DRM'ing Photoshop for MacOS, that's when I start investigating Painter, Canvas, even Corel Draw.

But in the meantime, MacOS X is largely a haven from the storm of oppressive, intrusive DRM schemes. Even the music software vendors (a real hotbed of DRM schemes) have largely thrown in the towel, since the companies with the most oppresive schemes have all gone out of business.

You can say "No" if you hate DRM enough. Compare the cost of switching to a Mac to the frustration of re-activating all your software after Windows or Norton eats your hard drive.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Activation Reactivation[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jun 23, 2004 at 09:11:39 AM PDT

I still have no answer from a major software vendor to whether I have to buy new software when my uninsured machine is stolen and how many headaches do I have to go through to reinstall on a new machine when I buy one. How intrusive it has become to have the clamps put on how or what you upgrade from your hardware so as not to upset the activation sequence. Piracy control is the domain of governments and not that of software vendors, whereby they can effectively intimidate and irritate users with threatening and intrusive methods. So what if my machine is stolen, do I spend another thousand pounds on another program, do I go back to OS9 to use my user friendly and actually perfectly adecuate software? If I want a new machine I do not feel obliged to justify such a simple consumer act to a software producer who will probably not give a damn if that precious item gives me grief for instance. I have nothing left for the new activation system, I am an honest user and I think that these companies should lobby governments for more agressive piracy control.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Symantec[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Thu Nov 06, 2003 at 10:20:49 AM PDT

I switched to a site license for F-Prot at $2 a seat and love not having to read the "If you have Norton" sections of other vendors troubleshootng manuals anymore.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Product Activation is reasonable[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by ajcook on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 11:39:02 AM PDT

It seems to me that we are being selfish when we rail against product activation. I think of it as the "ignition key" to the product. When you buy a car, the dealer gives you a key that is specific to the car you bought. You don't get to just walk up to any car, push a button and drive it away. If you could, you could have your friend drop you off after hours and pick up a second, third, or fourth car that you didn't pay for. Or, some shady character claiming to represent the dealer could "sell" you a car, pocket the money, and you drive away with a stolen car. No one complains about those "evil car manufacturers" forcing us to use these insidious keys. I don't view the concept of product activation, or DRM in general, any differently. Much as I'd like to enjoy saving money reinstalling from the same CD on multiple machines, I recognize the author's right to get paid for every copy, and DRM is one way to ensure that. We can observe that product activation may be of dubious value against sophisticated conterfeiters. But, it seems that that would be mostly acedemic...it doesn't change the author's right to make the attempt. We can, and should, quibble over implementation details. When Intuit affects my over all machine performance with Macrovision's DRM software, when I don't run TurboTax 24x7, that's worth complaining about. If Symantec collects other info about me in activating a product, I'll stand up and complain. But, it seems that we have little ground to stand on when we complain about the over all concept of product activation/DRM. It would be more usefull to accept DRM and let's work on making a difference on the details. Just my 2 (or 4) cents worth.

[ Reply to This ]

Clever analogy[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 06:37:21 AM PDT

Now tell me this: How long would you put up with it if you had to call the dealer to get your car key to work again every time you filled up the gas tank or had the car worked on?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Clever analogy defended[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by ajcook on Wed Dec 03, 2003 at 02:30:32 PM PDT

I agree, I wouldn't be happy, but I don't have to get with Symantec (when the activation is working correctly) each time I download new virus definitions (new gas), or install a patch to the software (have the car worked on). When I upgrade to a new version of the software (buy a new model of car), then I do need a new activation key. So, it seems to me that my analogy still holds.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

DRM[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by Ace on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 12:02:01 PM PDT

You Like the keys. Well, I had an unused Turbo Tax purchased late last year. Intuit is now spamming me, trying to sell me more. They have not responded to the mail I sent then, nor after the latest SPAM. The activaation did not work, therefore the money I spent was for sh*t. Had I not thrown it away, I would be only to happy to send it to you, as there was no way to get a response from them to fix it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I'm not necessarily happy with keys[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by ajcook on Wed Dec 03, 2003 at 02:37:50 PM PDT

Read my comment carefully. I didn't say like activation keys (though, in the case of Symantec's implementation, I've not personally had any problem--technical or otherwise--it's working for me from the start).

What I said that I find the vendors' attempts at property protection to be conceptually justified.

While I haven't personally experienced technical problems with activating any of the software that I use, when that causes technical problems, or invades my privacy unnecessarily, then I agree that the vendor owes us remedy.

I'm merely saying that many people take a valid problem with technical implementation of DRM, and turn it into an emotional/angry/moral attack on DRM itself.

I disagree with that position, and wish people would confine their complaints (and call to action) on implementing a workable DRM, instead of calling for the abolition of DRM altogether

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Poor analogy[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 02:52:09 PM PDT

You've made the same analogy that software companies have been making for years, and it's inherently flawed. The car used in yours is "real" property. It is a fixed asset which has had X amount of materials and labor invested in it. Stealing such a car would cause irrefutable loss and damage to the dealer or legal owner. Despite what they tell you, software is not such a concrete asset. It's INFORMATION. Sure it needs to be protected and shouldn't be stolen -- I'm a software developer myself and don't want my product stolen -- but it's rediculous to compare it to real property. If I bought the software, I should be able to install it on my own system as many times as I feel like it. I shouldn't be able to give it to my neighbor or my brother or my mother, but for my own use there should be no such limitations. It's kinda like how the old BSA saw "Software piracy cost the industry X Billion dollars last year" is total BS -- you can't count every incident of piracy (not that they can even *count* every incident of piracy) as a lost sale. How many 15-year old "warez kiddiez" would buy that $600 copy of Photoshop if they couldn't steal it? How many developers would purchase a $1000 copy of the compiler/IDE they use at work so they can work at home, or how many designers would buy their own $3000 copy of AutoCAD if they couldn't use their copy from work? (not counting those employers of course who would purchase home copies -- most won't). Bottom line is that DRM only hinders honest customers and does absolutely nothing to hinder serious thieves. If you don't believe me, just search the web or your favorite P2P application for any DRM "enabled" title you can think of.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I'm not sure we disagree[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by ajcook on Wed Dec 03, 2003 at 02:45:24 PM PDT

You yourself said that you should not be able to install software for your neighbor, brother, mother. So, you appear to agree with the principle of DRM. What I see you taking issue with is that current DRM implementations interfere with your ability to reinstall your own copy as needed.

I never suggested that we all ought to lay down and accept poor DRM implementation.

What I have observed is that many people start with an issue that is really one of implmentation (like activation being broken), or unnecessary invasion of privacy (collecting personal information that truly isn't needed), the call to arms turns into an unreasonable (in my opinion) attack on the very idea of DRM itself.

I'm suggesting that we all accept as justified the overall concept of DRM, and focus our complaints and angst on successful/workable implemenations (so that we can reinstall our own copy when our machine crashes, or we replace the machine).

Oh, and by the way, I agree completely that estimates of lost sales aren't work sh*t, because many pirated copies wouldn't have been purchased....but that does not justify theft.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Reasonable?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 03:50:51 PM PDT

How much of your automobile is computer aware? A very few years ago, you could easily have said "none" and that would be the end of it. Today's cars are entirely dependent on computers. Guess what those computers use to get the fuel mixture right, and the ignition timing right, and all those little do-dads on your instrument panel that you have little clue as to how they really operate. Software. Programs that have to be licensed. Oops. When the programmer demands that you pay him a new license fee when you want to sell your fancy computer driven vehicle on the second hand market, I am sure you will pony up without a wimper. You did read all the fine print when you bought that car, right?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

We're not talking about transfer of copyrights[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by ajcook on Wed Dec 03, 2003 at 02:50:57 PM PDT

In my opinion, you're taking my analogy which was meant for a 50,000 foot conceptual view of DRM in general (which I still hold as justifiable), and bringing it down several notches in detail to include side issues of transferring goods to another party.

It seems to me that existing copyright law speaks to the issue you raise...that of the purchaser of a copyrighted item (such as a book), to sell/transfer that material to a subsequent purchaser.

Vendors that try to step around those long-held copyright principles should be held accountable for that, but I'll still defend their right to protect the number of copies that are in use against the number of copies that are legitimately purchased.

Where I agree that we all have legitimate complaint is with the current implementation of DRM. That's all.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Piffle![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 04:22:57 PM PDT

I pay a lot more for a car that is often left in public. Since I don't leave my software in public and don't need it protected from theft, I don't need software activation.

I have removed all traces of all Symantec products on my personal PCs and as a consultant I will never recommend their product to my customers. I've been using Norton Products since the late 80s and it's time to say goodbye. Apparently they don't understand history and appear doomed to repeat it.

Cheers.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I think you're missing my point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#35)
by ajcook on Wed Dec 03, 2003 at 02:59:32 PM PDT

Ok, yes, a car gets left in public, and your installed software does not. Yes, the automobile key protects you against loss of your purchased property, which does not hold for software that you've installed.

But, that automobile key also protects the manufacturer/dealer from theft prior to you buying the car, just as the activation key protects the publisher from theft of unpurchased copies of their software.

Can you honestly tell me that publishers have no right to protect their software from unpurchased installations? That is clearly theft, it seems to me. Sure, it saves me money, and it's easy/convenient. That doesn't make it right.

I'm not, on the other hand, defending the current activation key and other DRM schemes as perfect.

But, that's my point. What I tire of is everyone bitterly complaining about DRM in general, as if we all ought to have free reign to copy software 'till the cows come home. I disagree.

But, what I do agree with is that broken DRM implementations should be fixed. Yes, let's attack the implementations that interfere with using the copies we've purchased. Let's not attack publishers as "evil" merely because they attempted to protect their licensing rights. That's what I was speaking against, and have a hard time believing that a truly reasonable person would argue against.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Wrong[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:52:08 PM PDT

A car key allows me (the consumer) to protect my investment and gives me a measure of security. DRM only hinders my use of the purchased product. It does nothing for me. Your flawed analogy overlooks that obvious point.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Symantec DRM[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 12:03:36 PM PDT

It looks like after being a loyal customer of Symantec's for over a decade I will be switching vendors for anti-virus and utility software. DRM does not work to prevent professional pirates from copying and selling the software. I purchased TurboTax last year before I knew about their copy protection as I had done for well over a decade. This year I will be purchasing TaxCut instead. Intuit and Symantec really know how to destroy their loyal customr base.

[ Reply to This ]

I also rejected Symantec[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by itdwebman on Wed Oct 08, 2003 at 04:21:40 AM PDT

This year after being a loyal customer of Symantec utilities (since the norton days) I rejected Systemworks and went with System Suite. I purchase legal software and do not like being treated like a potential thief. Loyal customers should revolt.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Product Activation DWM (Digital Wrongs Management)[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 12:24:15 PM PDT

Your final sentence: "After all, given the choice between software with DRM and software without, which would you choose?" seriously cracked me up. Ed thanks for your efforts on behalf of all us computer users. A Computer "Hobbyist"

[ Reply to This ]

Symantec DRM[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 12:26:55 PM PDT

I have been a purchaser of the Norton Antivirus products for many years. But their intrusive product activation scheme has cost them a customer. Rather than purchase NAV 2004, I was able to find a copy on the Bit Torrent P2P network. This copy installed perfectly with no activation and as a bonus my subscription expires in 2115. This is not a money issue with me. If Symantec were to remove activation, I would gladly buy a copy as I have done for many years. But I will not spend my money on a company that forces intrusive activation schemes on their customers. By the way I run corporate versions of Windows and Office that do not reqire activation.

[ Reply to This ]

Customer Service by any other name ...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by ChiBritGuy on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 01:04:02 PM PDT

I had exactly the problems with Symantec that you describe. I can give
them specifics if they want them. Their systems are terrible!

I purchased a PC for my son and selected Norton as the AV provider.
(I've had so many problems with McAfee I decided to change). I paid to
download the Norton AV including getting suckered into paying Extended
Download Service. Symantec emailed me receipt of my order, plus one
other email. Neither contained the activation code. When I installed the product, it came up as trial-ware and wanted a code. I emailed Symantec at the address given. After several days, I received a reply saying that they could not help; I had to mail "Customer Service". The email was signed "Customer Service"! It gave another email address, so I duly mailed that address. After three more days, I received a reply saying "We cannot help, please contact Customer Service" giving an email address that was the same as the sender!!!

By this time, my "trial" had expired and the product wouldn't work. I
then called their Byzantine call system. After 50 minutes on speaker-phone, I finally got a real person, who didn't seem at all
surprised at my difficulties. She directed me to a time-expiring web
address where I could download a "full" version. I followed the
directions and downloaded the full version, installed it and found it,
too, was expired. Just in case the previous settings were affecting
things, I un-installed it, removed all references from the registry and
re-installed the "full" version. Same issue.
Many more emails followed, all achieving the same result: Customer
Service telling me I should contact Customer Service. After six weeks
of frustration I spent another 30 minutes on hold to request my money back.

Still waiting to see if, as promised, I get the money back.
Symantec=never again.

I never thought I'd say this, but I am looking forward to Microsoft
including AV software with their OS. My experiences at the hands of
McAfee and Symantec have left a bad taste in my mouth.

[ Reply to This ]

AVG - www.grisoft.com ![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by rodak on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 01:20:51 PM PDT

Don't even bother waiting for MS to provide an AV solution (what a joke that's likely to be!), and don't stand for Symantec and McAfee/NAI foolishness any more. Just go to www.grisoft.com and download the Free version of AVG. Great program, unlimited, totally free updates - no nagware or spyware included. It's never failed me yet, and I've heard the same over and over from different people. They've been around for at least 3 or 4 years, maybe much longer, I don't know. It's caught several viruses for me, and I've not yet found a new virus that they didn't already have an update for (I'm the email administrator where I work, so I'm usually pretty on top of the latest virus stuff). Grisoft makes their money on other commercial products, but the personal AVG has always been free. Ed, you really should check them out.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

How to Get Your Money Back[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 12:53:41 PM PDT

If you paid Symantec with a credit card, put the charge into dispute status with your credit card company. Send the credit card company the text of your posting when they ask for you to provide a written dispute. Companies hate chargebacks and Symantec will be forced to deal with your credit card company. Don't let your card company talk you out of filing, and don't accept any decision in Symantec's favor--it's much easier arguing with your card company than Symantec, and the card rules say you'll prevail, especially if it's an internet transaction. Whenever possible, use an American Express card instead of Visa or MC.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Ext download service [ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 03:15:49 PM PDT

My exp. isn't any better. purchased ext. download fm symantec, started download and got no choice to save the download or decide where it was saved, now I have a download on my desktop that I can't delete because Window's can't read it. Trying to make email contact is like pulling teeth. Regretfully, I also purchased partition magic from them, yvetch.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Latest NAV pain[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by spocko on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 01:16:21 PM PDT

So after using NAV for years and recommending it for several clients as well as buying it for clients I'm getting annoyed enough at them to hunt for alternatives too. Check out this nightmare I just went through. On my father's computer in Omaha his NAV 2003 didn't update correctly with the Symantec common client. I'm in San Francisco so I check the problem out with online support. They say if installing and uninstalling all Symantec products doesn't work here are some registry hacks you can do. Yeah right. Like I'm going to ask my Dad to do registry hacking. I might consider it if I had PCAnywhere working, but I can't because I had to REMOVE IT to attempt to fix the problem with NAV. So should we call Symantec to fix the problem? That would be $29.95 for the call for the incident or $2.95 per minute (That's $177 an hour, pretty good profit center). Or I could buy the 2004 version of NAV even though I have 7 months left on the NAV 2003. How much is 2004? $29.95. What a coincidence! I can pay them to walk me thought the process of fixing their crappy software for $29.95 or buy the new product for $29.95. I choice the new product since I figured the time on the phone would be more painful than installing the new software.

Extended Extortion Fees

Luckily when we bought PCAnywhere 10.5 I paid the extra 7 bucks for the privilege of redownloading the product I bought. I had to buy 10.5 because the version I just bought a month before XP came out was 10.0 but it didn't work on XP (which my father has)!

This 7 bucks extended extortion fee was actually a good idea because if I hadn't bought I would have to buy the next version of PC anywhere (11.0) for $99.

I uninstalled the PCAnywhere and NAV 2003. We tried installing NAV 2003 but it still didn't' work. Then my dad tried to buy and install NAV 2004. Because we had uninstalled PCAnywhere to see if that would fix the problem he had to download and buy the NAV 2004 software himself. Unfortunately he accidentally bought Norton Personal Firewall. Now, I'm all for branding and stuff, but because the products looked so much alike and I couldn't have PCAnywhere on to look over his shoulder he bought the WRONG product because they looked so much alike on the website photos. So he installed the firewall software (I thought he was installing the Anti-virus until he told me what the software installation was saying). I was okay with that installation because it's not a bad idea even though I have him behind a router.

Then we bought the NAV software. (Heaven forbid trying to get your money back. Can you hear me saying "Could we have our money back because my dad bought and installed the wrong software because it looked just like the anti-virus software?")

After installing it and getting it to update correctly we installed PCAnywhere and I was able to see what was going on. It turns out that in the process of removing NAV 2003 and PCAnywhere my Dad accidentally removed Office XP. Arghhh! Here we go again with reloading and dealing with product activation from Microsoft!

I'm so glad I'm the son with the computer experience. I should have forbidden him to get a PC and bought him a Mac!

I can hardly wait for Christmas, he has a scanner that isn't working and I'm sure my buddies at Umax will have a nice time explaining why they don't support his ancient scanner and why they need to charge 9.95 for the new drivers for XP...
Spocko. Author of www.spockosbrain.com the blog that is sweeping the nation! Now with 19 readers!
[ Reply to This ]

Umax drivers[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by FoneMan on Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 07:48:55 AM PDT

Well, I'm just happy that my NAV 2003 doesn't expire until next year. Maybe Symantec will have come to their senses and I can go straight to NAV 2005. (Yeah, like this is going to happen!) Concerning the Umax drivers- Up until a few weeks ago, all of the dirvers for their older scanners were available for download, for free, at their UK site. I downloaded the drivers for my old Astra 1200S. Better get them soon, before they realize that customers in the US can use the internet to go to sites in other countries.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Thanks for the tip![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by spocko on Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 05:57:37 PM PDT

Regarding UMAX scanners. That's a great idea. I'm going to do just that! I stopped buying UMAX and now I have two epson scanners. Better, but still not as snappy as I want them to be. Plus I think that a lot more knowledge needs to go into scanning correctly than people realize. I'm all for wizards, but you need to know the assumptions underneath them so you don't screw stuff up.
Spocko. Author of www.spockosbrain.com the blog that is sweeping the nation! Now with 19 readers!
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Car keys versus software authorization[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 05:48:52 PM PDT

For the fellow comparing car keys to authorization - there are big differences, as other posts have shown. A car key is for the user, to prevent others from stealing their car. An access password would be a software equivalent. This software authorizaion gimmick is of no help to the user, only the manufacturer. It isn't too bad if there are only one or two doing it, but if all the software companies do it, it makes computer use much harder. A proper car analogy to this mess would be something like this: Your engine needs repair. Once this is completed, you have to get out the documentation and contact each and every manufacturer for the steering wheel, brakes, lights, battery, gas tank, seats, tires, etc for reinstallation. If you lost or misplaced the documentation for any of them, you have to buy new ones. Depending on how you adjusted the seats or radio, the reinstallation may fail. If the manufacturer of a key component has gone out of business, you may have to replace the car. My hope is that as the companies keep piling on more and more nonsense, along with all the other user hostile "features" we're seeing, consumers will finally force a change - as was done with telemarketing calls. And, yes, I fully expect software companies to fight any such change, but that can backfire too, and get folks REALLY annoyed.

[ Reply to This ]

Next Step[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 07:44:42 AM PDT

Don't worry folks, soon Activation will be gone. Why? Because thanks to the almost universal presecence of multiple USB ports and USB hubs these days, I see us returning full circle and the re-emergence of DONGLES. Wanna check for viruses? Better have your Symantec USB Dongle plugged in! Wanna boot to Windows? Better have your (totally separate from the Symantec one) M$-Windows DONGLE connected! Wanna write a lettter? Better have your separate M$-Office DONGLE connected! Wanna use the internet? Better have your government-mandated User ID DONGLE installed! etc. etc. ad nauseum... It's coming as big business tries to lock us into a pay-per-use/view/listen/think/second profit-for-them, nonthing-for-consumers world....

[ Reply to This ]

You're all missing it![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 10:37:25 AM PDT

The point of product activation is the establishment of an actual (as opposed to fictitious) license in order to get around the First Sale Doctrine of copyright law! The term perpetual license came straight out of the courts as they decided that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck (i.e. software "licenses" sure look like "sales" to the court). Microsoft and other software vendors looked at the court's judgement and have been changing their practices to make their sofware sales qualify as licenses rather than sales. Professor Nimmer stated that "Merely labeling a transaction as a lease of license does not control. If a transaction involves a single payment giving the buyer an unlimited period in which it has a right to possession, the transaction is a sale." Courts have already used his reasoning in striking down lawsuits by Adobe against resellers of bundled software (the resellers broke open the bundles and sold the pieces separately).http://law.wustl.edu/journal/8/p241Braucherbookpages.pdf

[ Reply to This ]

DRM[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 07, 2003 at 01:04:20 PM PDT

I have used NAV almost exclusively since it came out. I once tried McAffee but had too many problems and got tons of spam. I will no longer purchase a Symantec product. Why? My machine is upgraded constantly as in my business I use/need cutting edge equipment. I have reinstalled Windows countless time causing me to reinstall everything. I use a multi-boot machine to test programs under different operating systems. All of these cause DRM to fail. Most licenses state single user or machine - how does multi-boot comply? Hmm - you need to purchases a separate license for each operating system even if they all point to the SAME program on the SAME machine installed just once! I will not go back to Turbo Tax because Intuit betrayed me as a customer. I will not purchase the new Photoshop even though I have purchased almost all Adobe products in the past and love their features and performance. I will not be treated this way by a company that obviously doesn't not care about its legitimate customers. I guess vendors will not learn from others mistakes. The versions of their products I own work very well. I will just keep them running as long as possible then hunt for alternatives produced by reasonable alternative companies.

[ Reply to This ]

How to Counter DRM[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 01:17:13 PM PDT

Here is one tack we honest users can take: Pay for the "Extended Download Service" with your credit card and then when the bill comes, protest the "Extended Download Service" part of the fee as unreasonable. Then the burden is on (my former favorite software company) Symantec. If enough people did this, it would either totally overload Symantec's staff, or more likely, they would have to just allow the protests to stand. Of course, it is an abuse of a feature/service of the credit card companies, and impacts them adversely. A FORMER Symantec user since DOS days.

[ Reply to This ]

norton 2004[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by wongmama on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 05:55:43 PM PDT

one of the real cute bugs that norton 2004 has is that activation,while being Orwellian in its' complexity,does not guarantee that the app will work.for some of us lucky souls,after you 'successfully' instal and get a live update to download and install,then norton will only run about a third of a system scan and then abort.the error code leads you to the symantec site,where you learn that this "happens sometimes" and the only recommended action was to do the old uninstall and reinstall trick,which everyone knows a.)rarely works ,and b.)is never easy.i made the change to NOD32 and haven't had a moments trouble with it,and enjoy about 200 MB more free memeory as a result.

[ Reply to This ]

More on Symantec; Censorware (from /.)[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 03, 2003 at 02:55:10 PM PDT

Check out: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/11/02/1729239.shtml?tid=103&tid=153&tid=99

[ Reply to This ]

kobe[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#110)
by Anonymous User on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:04:57 PM PDT

wow gold cheap wow gold buy wow gold world of warcraft gold wow world of warcraft wow gold WoW Warrior WoW Hunter WoW Rogue WoW Paladin WoW Shaman WoW Priest WoW Mage WoW Druid WoW Warlock maple story maple story mesos maplestory mesos maplestory maple story mesos maple story cheats maple story hacks maple story guides maple story items power leveling powerleveling wow power leveling wow powerleveling wow guides wow tips food flower google�� google�� google�� ٶ��ƹ� �ٶ�� վ�ƹ� ��ҵ�� LED�� ״� Ⱦ�� Ʊ�� Ϸ�� ħ�޲�� Բ�� Բ�� powerlin518 logo design website design web design �̱��

[ Reply to This ]

wowgold[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#111)
by yiwai on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:03:09 PM PDT

wow gold Store Welcome you! Look here to Buy World Of Warcraft Gold, Cheap WOW Power Leveling, Buy cheap WOW PowerLeveling, World Of Warcraft Power Leveling, World Of Warcraft PowerLeveling on Sale with Fast Instant Gas Detector Systems Co Detector - Gas Alarm Systems provide Co Alarm systems for Alcohol Tester, Breathalyser,Breathalyzer,Alcohol Tester,carbon monoxide more.

[ Reply to This ]

Symantec's DRM of Choice | 41 comments (41 topical) | Post A Comment

Recent Entries

Apple Leaves Hawaiian Investor in the Cold
2 comments

Riding the Autorenewal Express
8 comments

Comcast Gets Nominated for Worst ToS
3 comments

Taxing Software Experiences
12 comments

Terms of Ridicule
8 comments

Sneakwrapped Medical Forms
7 comments

More The Gripelog...

�Submit a gripe
�About the Author
�Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login

Make a new account

Username:

Password:

Live Gripes

Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
4 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
15 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
12 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
28 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
30 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
16 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs

• Jon Udell
• Kevin Railsback
• Paul Venezia
• Bob Lewis
• Tom Yager
• Ed Foster
• Enterprise Mac
• The Storage Network
• Database Underground
• Open Sources
• Zero Day
• InfoWorld Daily
• Grid Meter
• Real World SOA
• SMB IT
• IT Troubleshooter

Recomended Sites

The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds

How this works
• Top News
• Columnists
• Tech Watch
• Test Center Reviews
• Applications
• App Development
• E-Business Solutions & Strategies
• End-user Hardware
• Networking
• Operating Systems
• Platforms
• Security
• Standards & Protocols
• Storage
• Telecommunications
• Wireless
• Web Services

create account | faq | search