Why Software Piracy is Good for Microsoft

jcphil writes "Salon has an article that explains why Microsoft has toned down its anti-piracy actions in China and other developing markets. The answer is simple: due to the network effect, the more users you have, the greater your strength in the marketplace. And it doesn't matter if their Windows is pirated or not. So, in effect, software piracy in countries like China helps Microsoft to compete with Linux." Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't feel the same logic applies to record sales in the U.S., and has started an ad campaign to convince the public that sharing music hurts artists.

Comments

Beggar.

[DarkHelmet]

Hey Microsoft, ummm... Got any goods that you can offload to me?

I won't put linux on my machine! Pinky Swear!

Note: I'll just put FreeBSD on instead.

Groan

[Reality Master 101]

Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't feel the same logic applies to record sales in the U.S., and has started an ad campaign to convince the public that sharing music hurts artists.

Sheesh, talk about missing the point of the article. The article is talking about developing markets, not the US. Microsoft cares deeply about piracy in the US. The point is that in developing markets, Microsoft wants to establish a foothold.

The other difference is that Microsoft has competition, while there is no direct competition for music. In other words, if you don't like the price of Bruce Springsteen, you're not going to switch to Broos Sprigstein who might be cheaper.

Re:Groan

[Reality Master 101]

while there is no direct competition for music.

I should have mentioned that this is not true for most classical music, where someone may very well compare prices between the Boston, London and New York symphony orchestras who are probably all interchangeably excellent. [there are certainly exceptions to this, of course]

Re:Groan

[FortKnox]

But this article points out something that makes the majority of slashdot users hate microsoft more!

Isn't that the point?

Re:Groan

[Reality Master 101]

Yeah and SOOO many people listen to Classical music.

Huh? You must be young. Sorry dude, but music doesn't survive for 300 years if no one listens to it. And they'll be listening to it in another 300 years. Think they'll still be listening to the latest release of "L33t D3ath P1zza" in 300 years?

Re:Groan

[Dthoma]

"Sheesh, talk about missing the point of the article. The article is talking about developing markets, not the US. Microsoft cares deeply about piracy in the US. The point is that in developing markets, Microsoft wants to establish a foothold."

Or, to sum it up, Microsoft won't bother alienating their market until they've got a market to alienate. ;-)

Re:Groan

[Washizu]

In other words, if you don't like the price of Bruce Springsteen, you're not going to switch to Broos Sprigstein who might be cheaper.

Don't knock us Broos fans until you've heard his early stuff.

Re:Groan

[Otter]

And the other, other difference is that network effects are not nearly as powerful for music as for software. If 85% of the people around me suddenly start listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks, my Buju Banton CDs don't become any less valuable to me. 85% of users is more than enough to force me to have a way to open .doc files.

Anyway, I've read that Microsoft sees piracy as a way to gain market share asserted here hundreds of times. Usually it's not even worth a mod point, let alone a story.

Re:Groan

[KelsoLundeen]

I wonder how all this stuff with the piracy and RIAA is playing out with the classical music market.

I know the market was fragile long before Napster made its mark -- budget cuts at labels, artists being forced out of contracts, fewer and fewer recordings being released -- but I'd be curious to hear what the outlook is for classical music these days.

Dim, I suspect -- and getting dimmer by the year. Is Naxos still putting out budget CDs?

Re:Groan

[octalgirl]

Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't feel the same logic applies to record sales in the U.S., and has started an ad campaign to convince the public that sharing music hurts artists.

It's about the time the RIAA begins educating the public about this instead of bashing them over the head and calling everyone a thief. The concern remains though if they will truly educate and not bash them over the head and call everyone a thief.

Quotes like Britney's Spears "Too many people don't realise that when you download a song you like from a peer-to-peer network or some other unauthorised internet service, you're stealing music", " calling P2P an unauthorised internet service when it has dozens of perfectly legitimate and legal uses, just puts a negative spin on an incredible software tool and really doesn't educate after all.

Re:Groan

[Gaijin42]

yeah yeah yeah. There are theoretically some legitimate uses. but 99.999999999999 percent of all users out there, and 99.9999999999999 percent of all files downloaded are illegal.

Now, from a legal standpoint, the theoretical legal use should have just as loud of a voice as the illegal use.

From a practical making your point type of speech, the .000000000000000001 can be ignored.

Cocaine is illegal. Even though there are some very narrowly defined places and circumstances in which it is legal (research, some medicine etc). However if I say cocaine is illegal, nobody is going to get into a debate with me. They might debate if it SHOULD be illegal, but not that it IS illegal.

Re:Groan

[duffbeer703]

The CD market has little or no effect on classical music.

No artist makes money on CD sales -- the music monopolies take care of thet. The money is made in live performance and by sponsor contributions.

Re:Groan

[s20451]

if you don't like the price of Bruce Springsteen, you're not going to switch to Broos Sprigstein who might be cheaper.

I don't listen to Bruce, I listen to GNU/Bruix. It doesn't play in every CD player, but the sources are included, so I can play the music myself and record it using a non-proprietary standard.

Re:Groan

[Triv]

(rant)

It's human nature, but it's a fallacy for young people to think that whatever music you listen to is in the majority. Even Britney's not the majority. It might be in 30 years, but it's not now. In a way, the record and radio companies are planning way in advance to clean up when the teenie-boppers come of age.

The majority right now is easy listening, classical and lite jazz. Elevator music. Billy Joel, Elton John, Kenny G, yada yada yada. Music people put on while doing dishes because it's comfortably ignored as background music. As time goes on the chaff will separate from the wheat and the 'best' stuff will stick around. That's how music works - we look at Beethoven as a singular event, but he wasn't: There were hundreds of other romantic composers, but the ones we have around now have stood the test of time, as cheezy as that sounds. He was part of a timeline and everything else gradually faded away because it really wasn't anywhere near as good.

A friend of mine has a sticker on his locker in the music department in college which said "It is a great tragedy that we don't have all the music ever written, but it is a greater victory that we don't have all of the music ever written."

In thirty years the musical landscape will be quite different than it is now. Britney will be easy listening. Billy Joel will be popular music like Rodgers and Hart and Cole Porter are now. Duke Ellington, Cole porter et al will be considered classical (parts of Gershwin already are, it's just a matter of time).

Classical music doesn't just stop at 19?0. It will swell to engulf everything that lasts in the public conciousness for more than, say, 75 years. Hang onto your pants, kiddo. :)

Triv

Re:Groan

[3583 Bytes Free]

I remember circa 1992-1995, you could easily get windows 3.1, office 6, etc. PC presence in offices was growing faster than IT departments could manage the chaos (if an actual IT department existed at all). An awful lot of people copied all their software. The result: Windows and Office was everywhere. Microsoft didn't have the BSA cracking down like crazy. They deliberately let copying continue in order to spread their product. And it worked. Now the junkies are hooked.

Re:Groan

[io333]

I wonder how all this stuff with the piracy and RIAA is playing out with the classical music market.

As a classical violinist, I have some sense of how the current classical scene is and has always been:

Since western musicians have existed, they have always been considered weird (though not nearly as weird as *actors* (!)), treated as servants, and paid accordingly (i.e., little to nothing).

While that changed for a few pop musicians during the 20th century, most classical instrument players have continued, as usual, to either barely stay above the starvation line, or have found a real job to supplement their meager income. There have been a few extremely rare exceptions (e.g., Pearlman) though even those folks make quite a bit less than you might think.

If you dig around and find out how much say, the basoonist in a famous world class orchestra makes, you'll immediately realize that classical musicians are in it for love of music as it is impossible to be there for love of money.

My gut feeling is that as the younger generations get used to paying *nothing* for any music that they want, the highly paid pop performer phenomenon will be considered a 20th century anomaly, and the only money left to be made in the pop scene will be, like it is for classical players, through performance, or through hire.

It wouldn't surprise me if in 15 years BonJovi's main source of income is weddings and birthday parties. I am saying that with a serious tone and a straight face. (no emoticon)

Re:Groan

[Darren Winsper]

But there is no law explicitly stating P2P networks are illegal, therefore they are legal until a court ruling says otherwise.

Re:Groan

[cjpez]

Think they'll still be listening to the latest release of "L33t D3ath P1zza" in 300 years?

Hey, don't start ragging on L33t D3ath P1zza, now. They r0x0r. h4rdk0r3. Their latest album, "ph33r th3 t0pp1ngz" is nothing short of genius. Frankly, I'd be surprised if they're not required listening 300 years from now, in universities all over the solar system, as an example of the Golden Age of Music.

Re:Groan

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA: Don't steal from the artists. That's our job.

Re:Groan

[Gaijin42]

She didn't say P2P networks were illegal. She said downloading the music off of a P2P network is illegal, and it is. Its the copying of the music that is illegal, not the medium used.

Yes, you can debate if it SHOULD be illegal (just like the cocaine!) but it currently is.

Yes, tehre are probably people using P2P for backups, space shifting, but the vast majority are doing it to get free music. (See grandparent post)

Re:Groan

[sacrilicious]

if you don't like the price of Bruce Springsteen, you're not going to switch to Broos Sprigstein who might be cheaper.

Hey, what do you have against Broos anyhow? Granted his first two albums were cheap knockoffs of NSync, and his third album accidentally shipped before it was recorded by the studios, but since then he's been positively musical. I advise you to give him another listen.

.

Re:Groan

[Dephex Twin]

No, in 300 years we'll all be listening to the music of Wyld Stallyns!

Didn't you watch Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure?

Re:Groan

[The_Rook]

i don't remember seeing too much classical music on napster or the peer-to-peer networks. i always figured the reasons were:

#1 - classical music listeners have a reference point as to what the music is supposed to sound like (live concerts) unlike most pop music which is manufactured in a recording studio. compared to how classical music is supposed to sound, mp3s suck.

#2 - classical music files are big. a three or four minute song only takes three to six megabytes of storage. a major classical work can be ten times larger. even if you have the disk capacity, you are looking a long download times even on broadband. even if you are willing to download a 30 or 60 megabyte file, how many users are willing to upload 30 or 60 megabytes?

#3 - version management. when you finally track track down a recording of, say, "Mathis der Mahler", which version is it? otto klemperer and the london philharmonic? charles solti and the chicago symphony orchestra? orgazmo podunk and his jug band? mp3 labelling is not efficient at storing all the variables needed to describe classical music.

Re:Groan

[slipgun]

Put some more effort into it. I know you can be a bit more condescending then that.

Haven't got the time or the inclination... I've got better things to do than argue with ppl on slashdot all day.

Re:Groan

[Dirtside]

Indeed -- it's "Dijkstra". :)

That aside, there's no excuse for poor spelling on Slashdot. Given the fact that we're on the Internet, looking up the spelling of just about anyone's name is a trivial task.

That is, of course, assuming you know how to spell "Google". :)

Re:Groan

[Dirtside]

I disagree with your main contention. The superstardom of the 20th century has been possible because of three things:

1) Recorded music. No longer do you have to have a trained human play music for you -- you can have a machine do it, and have it sound just like the original performance (more or less), exactly the
same, every time.

2) Transportation technology (trains, planes, and automobiles). Copies of music can be shipped across the entire country; music is no longer as highly regional as it once was (someone living in California in the mid-1800s might never even hear of a famous performer from the East Coast).

3) Electronic communication (radio, TV, telephones, the Internet). Now you don't even have to have a physical copy of the music sent to you -- it can be sent electronically, faster-than-light.

As a result, mass knowledge of individual musicians has become possible. Two hundred years ago, a few thousand people might have heard of a famous artist. Today, millions and millions of people have heard of them, and can hear all of their music. The only thing that's still "limited" is live performance -- the artist can only be in one place at a time, and due to various physical limits, only so many people can be within sight of the artist at once, watching him perform.

Even if the big labels all go away forever and are replaced by countless independents, we will still see a few superstars packing venues. The best artists with the widest appeal will still be successful, and will still have numerous fans, who will be willing to pay to see them live.

Re:Groan

[duffbeer703]

The "owner" of the Beatles portfolio will in 200 years though, if anyone is still listening.

Re:Groan

[Kragg]

I think the point is that even if all illegal downloads stopped dead, however that might happen, you'd still want to download trailers or whatever via p2p.
Anyway, on the somewhat broader topic at hand, what the *fuck* has this got to do with the morally questionable activities of microsoft except that they both appear on slashdot?

Re:Groan

[nathanm]

There have been a few extremely rare exceptions (e.g., Pearlman)

Cool, a classical violinist who can't spell Isaac Perlman's last name.

And you can't spell Itzhak Perlman's first name correctly! (His spelling was closer than yours.)

Re:Groan

[Ironica]

Interesting and valid points, all... though you didn't actually comment on why these things have created the superstar effect in pop music and not in classical music. I think it's for two reasons, mainly...

For one thing, classical music is heavily dependent on multiple artists, often a very large number. There are famous soloists, but by and large classical music is produced by an orchestra of a great many people. That makes "star quality" harder to develop.

But most importantly, classical music is an art which still loses a lot in translation to a recorded medium. An orchestra, unlike a four-person rock band, can envelop you with sound... provided you're right in front of them. Classical music has a multilayered quality that benefits hugely from live performance.

Re:Groan

[Reziac]

I'm reminded of when I was DJing ca. 1980; my show was nominally "New Wave" but I never specified new wave WHAT. So I'd occasionally astonish my listeners with stuff like Waylon Jennings (country could be called new wave blues) and Mike Batt (new wave classical?!)

But seriously, you're right. Frex "classic rock" (as incarnated by Los Angeles commercial radio) seems to be a period of 15-20 years behind the present, regardless of what that might be.

Re:Groan

[richieb]

If you dig around and find out how much say, the basoonist in a famous world class orchestra makes, you'll immediately realize that classical musicians are in it for love of music as it is impossible to be there for love of money

Isn't this as it should be? People should work at what they love. It's great if they can actually make a living at it.

What you say about classical musicians, can also be said about jazz musicians.

Anyway, isn't the point of being a musician playing music for people, not selling records. This whole "recording artist" thing is an abberation of the 20th century technology.

I've always known this

[outsider007]

Let's say you're a 14 year old kid and you're running a pirated copy of windows vs. a legal copy of linux. What happens when you grow up and get an IT job for a small company? you recommend using windows because you're familiar with it. The same is true for productivity software (office,photoshop...) but not games and definitely not music.

Re:I've always known this

[YrWrstNtmr]

The same is true for productivity software (office,photoshop...) but not games and definitely not music.

Maybe, but also it is the creative process, not just the specific tool. Knowing how to navigate around in a pirated copy Word vs using a free tool like OpenOffice does not give you the ability to write well. But the personal skills that make good writer with a free tool like OpenOffice WILL transfer over to the more expensive tools like MSOffice.

Same with graphics apps. If you can create something spectacular with GIMP, you can definately do the same with Photoshop.

Ability, not just tool familiarity, is the key.

Re:I've always known this

[mr3038]

but also it is the creative process, not just the specific tool [...] a pirated copy Word vs using a free tool like OpenOffice [...] If you can create something spectacular with GIMP, you can definately do the same with Photoshop.

IMO, those cases aren't really that close to each other. When you use OpenOffice or MS Word the real work you do is typing words via keyboard. When you use GIMP or Photoshop the UI is everything--any graphics manipulation program with ability to modify unique pixels can be used to make any given spectacular work but the difference between tools is how easy or hard making of it will be.

With OOffice and Word there might be a little different way to specify margin for a paragraph but the real creative work consists of hitting the keyboard which hopefully follows the same keymap for both of the applications. I'm sure you all agree that if you have to use keymap you're not accustomed to your performance suffers greatly.

In addition to different input methods between different graphic manipulation applications there's a change that you can do something in GIMP with a filter and you have to modify 1.5 million pixels by hand to achieve similar result in Photoshop. The difference can be quite huge.

Though, there's the always friendly Clippy in the MS Word that can do the writing for you, right? ;-)

Re:I've always known this

[YrWrstNtmr]

Yes, there are different ways of doing the same thing, especially with the various graphics tools.

But again, it is only the specific tool familiarity, and not the creative process that is being obtained (legally/illegally/on the sly). Provided the two in question aren't THAT far apart. GIMP and PS both use a wide variety of filters. PaintshopPro ($100) and PS($600) can both use the same filter set. Show me a good portfolio done in (whatever) and I'll teach you the differences from that, and the tool we use.

Similarly, you get the comment "Waaa...I want to be a good 3D artist, so I have to pirate Maya/3DSMAX/Lightwave. They are too expensive for a poor student like me". Nonsense. There are a wide variety of somewhat lesser quality, but free/lowcost tools out there. Show me what ya got on your demo tape (composition/timing/inventiveness/etc), and then I'll bring you up to speed on the tools we use HERE.

Microsoft has always done this

[pheph]

Here is an article that quotes Gates in 1998:

"They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

1.) Get user's addicted to our software
2.) ????
3.) Profit!!!

Re:Microsoft has always done this

[sporty]

Isn't that how drugs are? The first hit is free....

Re:Microsoft has always done this

[Amazing Quantum Man]

"They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

"Here, kid... the first sample's free!"

JUST SAY NO!!!!

Brought to you by the Coalition for a Drug^H^H^H^HMicrosoft Free America

Re:Microsoft has always done this

[Billly Gates]

More like.......

1.) Get user's addicted to our software
2.) palladium with product activation which uses it
3.) Apple profits
4.) ??????

Re:Microsoft has always done this

[Schnapple]

'???':

2a) Get users used to using Windows since they have it.
2b) Make users want Windows on their next PC
2c) Makers of their next PC buy OS from us
2d) Sell users tons of software which requires Windows to run on
2e) Sell developers software to write more software which runs on Windows which everyone has
2f) Since users are used to Windows and everything runs on Windows then organizations and businesses have to buy all the above mentioned software.

Also, don't forget Phase 4:

4) Then make Windows XP difficult to casually pirate.

This is clearly what happened. Force the PC makers to buy copies of DOS/Windows for every PC they make. Then when the DOJ says you can't do that anymore you've already got the market share.

Then, when you've got > 90% of the PC market, put the screws to the end users by forcing product activation on them. Make more money.

Now, I actually like Microsoft and Windows and I don't have a problem with paying for software and operating systems. I've never been "bitten" by product activation and I don't think many people have. But with every person who you could concievably prosecute for piracy there's another one that goes to your alternative (Linux). Microsoft's not stupid. Microsoft just thought of us (USA) as a "developing" country prior to XP.

Re:Microsoft has always done this

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Which is why schools, students, teachers, and libraries can get Microsoft products free or cheap - they wouldn't make much money directly by selling to these institutions/people, but they make a lot of money indirectly when the people become skilled in their software.

Let users understand the cost of Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why i do not offer to give copies of Windows to people anymore.

If you want Windows, you can go ahead and pay for it yourself. Then you'll understand even better why Microsoft is losing market share to Linux. It's not cheap for an individual, and for a business it's highway robbery. If the price is too high for you, well, why not install something free?

Re:Let users understand the cost of Windows

[netphilter]

What about turning people into Microsoft for pirating their software? Talk about an effective technique to get people to switch to Linux!! Seriously, we'd all probably lose some friends along the way, but if you think about it the idea in the parent post really won't be that effective without reasonable enforcement. I can tell people I won't give them pirated copies of Windows, but there's always someone out there willing to pirate a copy. Think about it. Have you ever really wanted a piece of Microsoft software and not been able to find someone who had it? If we really want to push this let's start turning people in. The best part of it is that you're doing exactly what Microsoft wants, but in the end it's just going to come back to bite them. As more people find themselves actually being forced to either shell out the cash or go open source, I think Microsoft would find their install base shrinking dramatically.

Re:Let users understand the cost of Windows

[swillden]

... we just "borrowed" a single win2k server cd from the old compay and went with it cause it was easier (from my managers point of view). When I brought up the fact that we really could go with a free linux and save some cash, he basically said that we weren't paying anything for windows anyway.

The SPA has a hotline for just such situations. Call them at 1-800-388-7478 and your boss will soon see the (klieg) light. Of course, your small company just might be run out of business, putting you out of a job, but...

Re:Let users understand the cost of Windows

[RealAlaskan]

This is exactly why i do not offer to give copies of Windows to people ...

For once, morality meshes with expediency.

I have installed Windows for people a few times in the last couple years. I have always insisted that they provide a legitimate copy of the software. I didn't ask for proof up to Microsoft's standards, of course: no one keeps records that well. I did insist that they have the install media and the authentication thingy with the product key.

There are a couple of very good reasons for this:
1) As you say, this gets across the point that Windows is expensive.
2) This lets me satisfy my own consience. I detest MS, but I don't want to rob them.
3) Many people think that they have a right to buy Windows once, and install it many times. My policy spreads the word about the reality of MS's license terms.
4) This has gotten me out of doing several Windows installs.

Re:Let users understand the cost of Windows

[guybarr]

What about turning people into Microsoft for pirating their software? Talk about an effective technique to get people to switch to Linux!! Seriously, we'd all probably lose some friends along the way,

some friends ? you'd probably lose all of them, for a good reason. Every one is human, and good friends criticize your shortcomings, but do not prey on, or exploit them.

Your suggestion leads towards a society of fanatic, obnoxious little snitches, like the one my friends from the former USSR describe. It is a cure much worse than the disease.

Re:Let users understand the cost of Windows

[twitter]

4) This has gotten me out of doing several Windows installs.

The line is, "I don't do windows." It saves more than another horrid M$ install. It saves you all the calls when the stuff quits working.

Timothy, you fucker

[Uttles]

Damnit, at least you could have given me some credit for submitting that link instead of attaching it to another story. Thanks a lot.

Please think of the starving artists!

[sys$manager]

Because when you download music, you're taking bread from Britney's mouth! She can barely afford to LIVE! Please, think of the starving artists before you download that next MP3.

Come on, does the RIAA really expect me to take a PSA from Britney Spears or bling blingin' Nelly when it comes to theft of music? Are they trying to make us feel bad for these people who get paid truckloads of money and have no talent? Maybe they should show me a non-RIAA artist who lives out of their car and plays dumpy clubs instead.

NOTE TO RIAA: GET A CLUE.

Re:Please think of the starving artists!

[iCharles]

Likelihood of making anti-piracy ads increases as (one of the following):

1. Your celebrity clock approaches 14:59.
   
2. Your street cred approaches zero
   
3. Your talent approaches zero
   
4. The average age of your audience approaches 18 (or 40, depending on Britney vs. Madonna)
   

Re:Please think of the starving artists!

[rmohr02]

Kid Rock Starves To Death: MP3 Piracy Blamed.

Linking to an Onion article on /.: -1 Karmawhore.

Re:Please think of the starving artists!

[dimator]

Not to mention, every CD out there has 18 songs of filler, garbage, and ONE song that you actually can listen to. Oh, you want a single? Sorry, it doesnt exist, buy the whole CD.

Re:Please think of the starving artists!

[Kierthos]

Tell me about it. This is why a lot of people pirate music. Because they would rather have that one song for free then 17 songs of crap and that one song for $12-$18.

I mean, sure, there are people who collect every single mp3 ripped from an album. But they are the only ones that RIAA should be super-pissed at, because the obvious indications is that they would have bought the album. Me, I'm not about to buy a 80s anthology album just to get After The Fire's "Der Kommisar". I am likely to go out and buy System of a Down's "Toxicity" album though, but only because every song I have heard off of it is good (IMAO, of course).

What the RIAA needs to go is remove their heads from their asses and come to the realization that piracy, in some form or another, will always exist. If they can offer a product that is better in terms of quality, availability (as in being able to buy select songs instead of the entire album), and lower the price, they will see a greater return on their investment.

Kierthos

Re:Please think of the starving artists!

[Quasar1999]

Because when you download music, you're taking bread from Britney's mouth! She can barely afford to LIVE! Please, think of the starving artists before you download that next MP3.

Britney? no, you mean Christina, she's so damned skinny, just look at her, she's pratically a walking skeleton... We should start a non-profit foundation for her... "feed the genie in the bottle"... :)

Re:Please think of the starving artists!

[flacco]

Because when you download music, you're taking bread from Britney's mouth!

That's OK, I like my bitches skinny.

Re:Please think of the starving artists!

[nolife]

The RIAA and music distributors can save (or make more) money if they only have to pimp for a few artists. That is why we appear to have premade molded megastars like Britney Spears, a couple boy bands and a few rappers. This is all they can realistically promote and push along without saturating their business process and not have to compete with themselves. By allowing more bands through, or allowing uncontrolled distribution outside of their control will cut into this business plan. IMHO this is why they must maintain control of the music. Piracy, although probably not near the problem they make it out to be, is more a front for this agenda. The media conglomerates fought tooth and nail to prevent small lower powered "local" radio stations for this same reason, to maintain control of the consumers and limit your choice to their choice.

I really have to wonder...

[gosand]

I have to wonder if the artists who are supporting this ACTUALLY believe it, or if their record company is forcing them to do it. After all, they are indentured servants, they do what they are told. if they aren't being forced, I'll bet the company has bombarded them with FUD until they actually start to believe it. I can see the record company telling them all about how they need to change the contract for this new "piracy" fee that is stealing all their money. Phbbt. Fine, let the music industry go down the tubes, I don't really care.

The Music Artists need ad an campaign...

[raehl]

That the record company hurts artists.

Maybe a picture of some big-name musician begging as record execs walk by.

? HA!

[motorsabbath]

Humorously, all the artists supporting the RIAA are garbage pop stars anyways. These people woundn't know good music if it fell on their head. It's commercial fodder, produced (sic!) only to bilk the public out of their money anyway. Spears, an artist? HAHA!

Real musicians make their money on the road.

It's the other way around

[GreyWolf3000]

The answer is simple: due to the network effect, the more users you have, the greater your strength in the marketplace. And it doesn't matter if their Windows is pirated or not

I disagree with this article--Microsoft already got it's massive marketshare for PC's in China, and then tried to crackdown on piracy because it already had hundreds of millions of users there. It's not like Windows is just now entering the country. The 'network effect' worked its magic years ago...

Re:It's the other way around

[geekoid]

except shortly after MS started 'cracking' down on China, China stared going to Linux.
MS wants to make money online, and control what you can do. They can only do that if most people have there OS.
In the long term, it might be worthwhile for them to not care if you pay for there OS, because they will be getting money everytime you purchase soimething online. That is the big dollars, even by MS standards.
Of cource that can't just come out and say, ok are OS is now free, because the Stock would plummet.
From a market positioning stand pooint, I can see somethings they have been doing could be a stratagy to eventually give away there OS, with minimal share holder panic.

Repeat

[Beatbyte]

I don't want to hear anyone else bitch about how the users on slashdot don't read the story before they post.

Reason being? The people posting the story don't even read Slashdot stories.

This is yet again another repeat.

Get them hooked

[mikewas]

Just like drugs?

Give the poor slob some free hits, get him hooked before he knows how bad the dope is, then start charging big bucks.

Re:Get them hooked

[kin_korn_karn]

For you cynics out there, remember that China has a History of responding to these kinds of tactics.

Re:Get them hooked

[mikewas]

The history seems to be of losing. Not to say that we're winning the war on drugs either.

This is a marketing stratagy for Autodesk

[Brigadier]

In my field (architecture) AutoCAD has pretty much the monopoly, despight other packages such as ArchiCAD, Microstation and DataCAD. Why ? It's simple, this is the tool that everyone knows. By filling schools and colleges with thier software and having student version for little and nothing ($200 for a AutoCAD12,3DStudio,AA package)the only software package that anyone knows is AutoCAD. Since it's very expensive to train someone to use a new software package proficiently can costs upards of $3000 most employers just settle with AutoCAD even though it may not be the best or cheapest package.

Re:This is a marketing stratagy for Autodesk

[teslatug]

I can see how it matters if AutoCAD is not the best tool for the job, but it doesn't matter much if it's more expensive since the companies are saving money by not doing training. AutoCAD has thus sponsored training for them. Would it be better if schools kept using all sorts of software, and changing it every so often? It's better to stick to a package that works and put pressure on the company to implement the changes you require.

Re:This is a marketing stratagy for Autodesk

[wazzzup]

I've used AutoCAD extensively. Now I use MicroStation J. AutoCAD's is a better CAD program by far. J might compete with R12 or R13.

Remebering the days when I could use the keyboard as an input device with user-defined shortcuts no less. Not having to put up with constant screen regens and artifacts, not having crashes on a weekly basis - aaaaaah scads of Lisp routines and Bonus Tools. I could go on. Those were the days.

AKA The Photoshop Effect

[SirSlud]

This is called The Photoshop Effect.

The sad thing is that it took them this long to figure it out. How many windows users would there be if we had to pay for windows?

It's an interesting effect on 'supply and demand' however. How do you evaluate demand and scarcity when there is unlimited product available and production costs (ie, duplication) are nil? How does the market work when you're trying to sell information that can be free?

Re:in other news....

[jgerman]

In other, other news, yet another bad anlogy made on slashdot. If getting hooked up at MacDonalds made you more likely to spend money in the future at MacDonalds rather than Wendy's then the analogy would be stronger. Oh but wait, that destroys your attempt at a joke. Sheesh, wait again, THAT'S WHAT CORPORATIONS do to drive peopel in, give away a little now to get business in the future.

Back in the day...

[telstar]

PC Tools leaked early versions of their software into the pirate (Arrrr!) market in order to compete with the already-established Norton Utilities. It worked to a certain degree ... and it spread the tool's use through some circles ... but we all know who's still standing today.

I've just realised something.

[Dthoma]

I'm starting to think that the returns by allowing privacy are something like the Laffer curve with piracy along the x-axis and benefit along the y-axis; by allowing no piracy, then you don't benefit, nor do you benefit by having all copies of your software pirated. However, if you give some leeway and allow some of the copies of your software to be pirated, then it gives you maximum benefit. Unfortunately, it is entirely possible that the whole piracy vs. benefit graph is more reminiscent of a Neo-Laffer curve, where there are so many possible factors which can affect it that it is impossible to tell in advance what effect piracy will have.

Re:I've just realised something.

[Kenja]

Sounds about right. However there are other factors involved. I refuse to release cripple-ware (software that has features missing until you register it). This leads most of my software to be pirated (note that due to the license, using the shareware after 30 days constitutes piracy). I have close to a half million downloads from various sources for my last program, Net Weasel (http://www.klassy.com/NetWeasl/) and I cant justify finishing the web page for it because I have gotten 0 registrations. I know for a fact that a good selection of the downloaders are using the program but I've not seen one cent from them. If I where to add feature or time limitations to my release odds are I would see return on my investment. However that would require compromising my ideals. Ah well.

Re:I've just realised something.

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Do you remember a really old TSR (Terminate and Stay Resident) program called Sidekick?

Their license agreement allowed you to install the program on as many PCs as you wanted, as long as it was only used on one PC at a time. This allowed you to put it on your home PC, your work PC, your laptop PC, etc., and you only had to pay once.

That's one way to allow "some" piracy to occur. Not the only way by any means, but it's one way.

Re:I've just realised something.

[Lemmy Caution]

This is exactly correct.

In Mexico, there was a crackdown on small cybercafes using pirated copies of Windows. A few big busts happen, word gets out, and everyone panics. Many cybercafes start installing Linux everywhere, since they simply can't afford the retail price of Windows.

This hurts Microsoft more than it helps. It weakens their monopoly. On the other hand, they can't lower their prices in Mexico significantly below what it is in the US, or else everyone in the US will simply go down to Mexico to get their licenses. It makes better sense for them to selectively enforce against deep-pocketed violaters (including legitimate businesses that might have just a couple yahoos who install a couple too many copies of a piece of software they otherwise legitimately license) and to leave the streets and schools alone. This is a logic that everyone had been citing for ages, but the BSA had been "debunking" it - until the free software started getting installed everywhere.

Re:I've just realised something.

[gpinzone]

Perhaps the reason no one registered you product is because no one found it to be useful enough to pay for. Your program offers less to the hardcore HTML coder than a fancy text editor and is not nearly as robust as a full blown GUI product. I'm sorry if this sounds like flamebait, but your complaint is the same one that many other software developers cry when their product doesn't generate the revenue they expected.

Re:I've just realised something.

[cioxx]

...and is not nearly as robust as a full blown GUI (Front Page) [sic] product. [microsoft.com]...

Front page is robust? A Full blown GUI?

Hell, I'd rather use Qbasic in MS-DOS to write HTML than resort to Front Page. Remember, every time you use Front Page, somewhere in a 3rd world country a baby seal is clubbed to death.

Re:I've just realised something.

[Reziac]

How do you know people are using your program? does it watermark its output? I'd never even heard of it, tho I suppose now I'll take a look at it. (Tho what I *really* want is an updated version of AOLpress, with all existing features intact. :)

In my observation (way back to the BBS era), 95% of downloaded shareware gets used a few times, then forgotten, often because, as another reply pointed out, it proves to be a "not quite there".

As to your ideals, I commend you for sticking to them. BTW I don't dl timebombed or crippleware in the first place, not even to check it out, and I know I'm not alone.

Re:I've just realised something.

[Reziac]

Frontpage used to suck donkey dicks, but the latest incarnation is actually decent, and makes reasonably clean code. Apparently M$ got tired of being the laughingstock of the HTML world.

Re:I've just realised something.

[Reziac]

That used to be common even for commercial software. Even M$Office used to have a license provision that you could install it on two computers (one for work, one for personal or portable use) so long as only one was in use at any given time.

This tactic works...

[nizo]

the more users you have, the greater your strength in the marketplace.

Don't crack dealers use similiar tactics?

I see this all the time

[eastern]

Absolutely true. Here in India (a very China-like piracy situation) there are plenty of small businesses which want to move to Linux in theory but they continue to use Windows-Office-Exchange etc because its free to them.

At zero cost (actually approx. US$ 2.15 per CD that all software costs here), its pretty hard to convince yourself that the effort of migrating to Open Source is worth it!

Funnily enough, Linux costs more than Windows because none of the regular pirates stock Linux. So Win2K is US$ 2.15 but Redhat is about US$15 which is what the cheapest unoficial Redhat CD costs

Re:I see this all the time

[geekoid]

Can you get me a copy of Win2k professional. I'll pay 5 bucks plus shipping...

I can see it now!

[asdfasdfasdfasdf]

A wrinkle laden aging speed metal rocker, wrapped in shredded leather pants; he's drinking from a bottle in a paper bag; sad music is playing.

The voice over says "When you pirate music, you steal money out of artists pockets. Now, how is this poor man going to afford his presidential suite, hookers, and 3 day liquor and heroin binges?"

Then a black screen with white text comes up:

"Help the Fella, Don't Gnutella."

Re:Duh.

[cscx]

or low cost, like 10 bucks

How much to you think the OEMs pay for Windows?

Re:Microsoft Ads?

[Jon Shaft]

how did we get M$ ads on Slashdot? that's very interesting to me.

Well, I thought Slashdot went for a nose dive this early morning, but I think the servers were just being a little naughty. This was around 2am or 3am...

Slashdot in a Microsoft party and maybe they really need people to buy those Penguin Computing racks!!!!

I understand some servers could die, but this was just a bit flimzy! And of course I had to take 2 snapshots of the Slashdot website for it.

Talk about double standards.

[miffo.swe]

After all their rants on how pirating destroys intellectual? property they turn on a dime.

If people in china gets used to pirating its hard to reverse it. A culture of pirating blessed by MS will be almost impossible to reverse.

I guess their campaign against pirating didnt turn out like they liked it to. From what i could see the only thing it did was to spark a new wave of linux companies.

Oh my god, I feel soooo bad...

[E-Rock-23]

Not. Come on, do you actually expect us to believe that the artists are suffering because we download their tunes? That's complete bullshit. The artists suffer because of the lopsided contracts that the RIAA companies make them sign. They get an advance, sell so many copies, and still end up oweing the record companies money. That's an insane way of doing business.

The only ones hurting are the RIAA companies themselves. "Wah wah, we're not making the X number of billions we made last decade thanks to services like Napster(RIP), KaZaA, Limewire; We're only making Y number of billions now thanks to users downloading music. X Billions > Y Billions. We want more billions." Cough-bullshit-cough.

If we're smart, we'll continue downloading and taking a chunk out of the RIAA's profit. They're spending millions on this ad campaign, which won't work at all, and lose said millions. What we need is a commercial detailing the evils of the record companies' underhanded practices and how they are hurting artists.

And, for the record, I'm in total agreement with sy$manager's post on the subject. There is no way that downloading "Baby One More Time" is hurting Brittany "I've got fake tits before they're even done developing" Spears' bottom line. Duh, she has a multi-million dollar endorsment deal with Pepsi, is doing movies (that probably net her a few milion apiece), and has several other sources of income besides her contract with the RIAA. Nelly? What the hell kind of name is Nelly, anyway? I can't even take him seriously. And Missy Elliot earns her papers because she herself is a producer. There's no way downloading "Get Your Freak On" is hurting her wallet, that's for sure.

Just another case of RIAA Spin trying to get us to shill out damn near $20 for a CD with 12 lame songs on it, when we can download what we want for free, spend $0.20 on a blank CD-R, and put 150+ songs that don't suck on it ourselves. Who's going to win this fight? We are, plain and simple. The RIAA is wasting their time, and ours.

Re:Microsoft Ads?

[unicron]

Remember driving down the street last night? That trick working the street corner with the leather miniskirt, 4 inch pumps, and frazzled hair? That was slashdot's advertising department hard at work.

not really suprising

[jcsehak]

from the article: A print campaign, featuring such performers as Eminem, Madonna, Missy Elliott, Elton John and Luciano Pavarotti

Pavarotti is quoted to have said "Downloading music is wrong, because it's virtual. You're not getting the real thing. You're using technology to circumvent actually paying for it; you're taking the easy way out... Lip-synching a concert however, is perfectly okay; there's nothing wrong with that, the audience can't tell anyway, ...*sigh*... yes, I'm a tool."

Elton John on the matter: "Um, I really really need you're money since I'm WAY in debt, no, I didn't get screwed by my label, at least I don't think so, I was kinda high all the time."
"Elton, you spent $40,000 a month on flowers."
"They were pretty..."

disclaimer: don't know if it was exactly $40k, but it was some insane amount like that.

Re:not really suprising

[Slak]

Did anyone else think it ironic that some rap artists are endorsing the RIAA's position, considering that "sampling" is little different from consumer use of Napster?

Cheers,
Slak

Re:not really suprising

[Phroggy]

Did anyone else think it ironic that some rap artists are endorsing the RIAA's position, considering that "sampling" is little different from consumer use of Napster?

It's very different: consumers using Napster aren't doing it commercially for profit.

Re:not really suprising

[swillden]

No, they don't have to have permission.

But they do have to pay the statutory rate for compulsory licensing if they don't get permission. Getting permission is actually just the process of negotiating a lower rate. Although the statutory rate isn't too high.

Classical Music

[Yokaze]

...who are probably all interchangeably excellent.

Well, I have only limited experience in classical music, but even to my ears there is a noticeable difference between different conductors.

Re:Classical Music

[Yokaze]

Well, maybe Britney Spears is not without merit, too. But her music does not appeal to me. :)

Let me elaborate:

The recordings of Brandenburgische Konzerte performed by the Berlin Symphony Orchestra directed by v. Karajan are too expensive for me.
So instead, I buy the recordings performed by the London Symphony Orchestra by Sir Colin Davis?
(Just making it up, don't know wether such recordings actually exist)

At least to my eyes (or ears) this is like suggesting: instead of buying "With a Little Help from my Friends" from Joe Cocker, buy it from the Beatles.

Notes are not as exact as code. What is adagio? What is forte?

Both may be of exceptional quality, and may even play the same notes, but one interpretation of the notes may be the one which appeals you, the other not.

Re:Classical Music

[Reality Master 101]

At least to my eyes (or ears) this is like suggesting: instead of buying "With a Little Help from my Friends" from Joe Cocker, buy it from the Beatles.

It's not exactly the same situation, since you can't buy a recording of Mozart performing his own music.

I agree with you that there are distinct differences between recordings; in fact, many Baroque recordings are done with "original" instruments versus using modern instruments.

But if I'm Joe Amateur and I want a copy of The Four Seasons because I like it, I'm probably not familiar enough with the various styles of orchestras to make that judgment. Sure, if I heard a particular rendition that I particularly likes, I might go after that particular one. But I think there is more similarity between the typical classical recording than there is between the Beatles and Joe Cocker, so there is less reason to seek out particular flavors.

Re:Classical Music

[Yokaze]

Well, a different instrument is of course much more obvious than a different conductor.
But I find it hard to believe, that they're willing to classical music performed by anyone. Especially their favourite one.
Or maybe is "willing to listen" the same, like I'm willing to listen to Britney Spears? I won't die from it, it even doesn't cause discomfort to me like ABBA, but I wouldn't actually actively choose to listen to it.

> For example I dislike Toccata and Fugue in D Minor by J. S. Bach when it is played on harpsichord but I enjoy it on pipe organ.

Interesting, that you are noticing this particular piece. Actually this one of the pieces that made me aware of the (subtle?) differences. Do you remember the initial part? There are several pauses in the beginning. In the recording I have the timing doesn't seem right to me. Actually the whole dynamic (emphasis, timing) (I'm lacking the correct words) seem to be odd to me.

P.S:To alleviate the effects of my display of lack of knowlegde on my reputation, the unessecary display of unessecary knowlege :):
Rumor says that Bach didn't wrote Toccata and Fugue, one of his disciples did.

P.P.S:
Actively choose: perform an act to make it happen, in contrast to
Passivly choose, it happens, now I have to do something do make it unhappen
English is not my native tongue, so I have to be bit more explicit, as I'm not so sure about the connotation of choose in that context.

Anti-RIAA campaign?

[brunes69]

Perhaps it is time for some of those wealthy artists like the Offspring and Courtney Love who in the past have spoke out against the RIAA to fund a campaign of their own, promoting music downloads and against the RIAA.

Re:Anti-RIAA campaign?

[Twister002]

If you look through the news section of the Offspring web site you'll see where they've played lots of benefits and tried to give away their last album for free on the net. Sony sued them to prevent them from giving away their album.

Up here in Redmond country.

[BrookHarty]

Lots of people I know wont buy an X-box, because its an m$ product. But, with so many m$ employees, always a couple of your buddies seem to work for m$.

So, m$ employees get to buy software for 10 bux. Now theres a reason to buy an X-box, when you can get 10 games for 100 bux. No reason to pirate your M$ OS either, when M$ gives it away for free. You just go to an m$ events, training, etc (and there are many around...) Hell, work alone (sun shop) M$ has given me (personally) multiple copies of NT server products with full licenses to keep. Too bad I cant sell them on E-Bay.

I hope Halo for PC runs under wine. :)

This reminds me....

[unixmaster]

the myth of getting windows xp betas on irc even before official beta testers...Even there was some claim that Window XP Beta 2 Build 2474 was *internally* leaked by Microsoft.

Mmmm maybe microsoft has more evil tactics we may ever think of?

Hey, you can't use "RIAA" and "logic"...

[Quixadhal]

...in the same sentance!

Music "sharing" is another name for FREE ADVERTISING! The real money is in merchandising anyways, concert ticket sales, T-shirts, branded notebooks, action figures...

When are those idiots going to learn that they can never stop the free exchange of data, without changing the country into a police state? Our friends in the White House (courtesy of many big business lobbiests) are trying their best to do this, but we don't YET need tongue tattoos to authenticate our cognitave brain centers. We retain the ability to think for ourselves, for just a little while longer.

MPAA/RIAA! It's really simple. You adapt your business model to become a service industry, which is what you are. Stop trying to treat content as a commodity (which it is not). Make tangible goods and sell those, but stop pretending that a song is something you can put in a box.

Re:Hey, you can't use "RIAA" and "logic"...

[Jonny Ringo]

Action figures!!! Action figures??

Oh man if you buying action figures of your favorite music artists your more of a tool than any radio listening, top 40 buying, teen boping sons of bitches that have ever existed.

Well, ok I can maybe understand an Elvis action figure.

Re:Hey, you can't use "RIAA" and "logic"...

[teslatug]

Sure you can, it's logical for them to use whatever means necessary to get more money as long as they are allowed.

Re:Hey, you can't use "RIAA" and "logic"...

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Tell that to Gene Simmons.

Kiss Coffin anyone?

Re:Hey, you can't use "RIAA" and "logic"...

[CaffeineAddict2001]

If your product is just sound vibrations, anyone can replicate them for free.

Why should they pay you for something they can do themselves?

Could they have written your song? Probably not. But you arn't selling originial composition, you are selling the distribution of a performance.

Can't wait for the commericals

[GuyMannDude]

With any luck, the anti-music-piracy commericals will be as much a scream as those "Today I killed a judge (because I bought drugs)" drug-terrorism ones:

• "Today I starved a song writer"
• "I just destroyed a pop-star's lifelong dream."
• "Hey, it's not like I'm hurting anyone!" (jump cut to a fired record company executive taking out his anger on his wife and child)

GMD

Re:Can't wait for the commericals

[LittleGuy]

Make it simple:

"When you pirate MP3s, you make Baby Jesus cry."

Re:Can't wait for the commericals

[Jonny Ringo]

Great anology.

I love the headlines to the bbc article.

"Spears warns against piracy"

That's right Spears punish me!!! I've been a bad boy. :-)

Well, I think its booty.. booty, yeah that's what it is!!

Re:Can't wait for the commericals

[flacco]

"When you pirate MP3s, you make Baby Jesus cry."

Well STOP then - jesus fucking christ, is there anything more annoying than a squealing brat?

Boo-fucking-hoo.

[ebbomega]

Britney Spears is now crying her ass off saying that pirated music is "hurting" the artists?

From age 15 she had a golden music career. She still makes more in a day than I will all year.

Cry me a river. How does this hurt you? Can't buy that fourth sports car to fill up your garage?

Jesus. And people wonder why I dislike money.

Who's stealing what?

[Anonvmous Coward]

If I buy a watch today, and it turns out I don't like it, I can take it back. Afterall, I won't know if the product is satisfactory until I've had time to get to know it. But if I buy a CD, good or not, I'm stuck with it. Because of this, I'm forced to either gamble with my satisfaction, or find a way to sample the music before I buy.

It's hard for me to rationalize music downloading as stealing when the RIAA is happy to take my money without guaranteeing my satisfaction. Frankly, I think they're stealing my money when they sucker me into buying a CD.

I think their biggest concern is that P2P makes the market for music fair for the consumer instead of biased in the RIAA's favor.

Re:Who's stealing what?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"I think somebody was inspired by my sig. *G*"

Heh. Though I've seen your sig before, that's not what caused me to post this. I just moved a couple of weeks ago and took an inventory of all my CD's. I did a little math comparing the cost of the album I bought to the number of songs on that album that I enjoyed. I averaged about $5 a song. It's in my interests to be able to buy songs individually, and I don't think it's fair for the RIAA to deny me that ability.

I mean seriously, why doesn't the RIAA set up a website where you can buy licenses to songs in digital format? Send me a certificate saying "yep, he paid for it" and let me go find it on my own. They could make money for nothing.

Re:Who's stealing what?

[teslatug]

What if you could put that watch in a matter replicator (for argument's sake) and have an exact copy of the watch in a matter of seconds, would you still be allowed to return the watch?

Re:Who's stealing what?

[i_am_nitrogen]

Yes, because if we had matter replication technology, there would no longer be an economy for anything but the utilities to power those matter replicators.

The problem is, once you had a matter replicator, you could replicate some solar panels for you and all your neighbors, and then live off the grid! Use the sun's energy to matter replicate all your food, clothes, toys, batteries, etc.

Re:Who's stealing what?

[Anonvmous Coward]

That problem exists with watches, or any other items today. I could buy a VCR, tape a show I want for up to 30 days, and then return it. Despite that risk, they offer 'satisfaction guaranteed' return policies anyway.

The problem is that you have virtually no way to find out what's on the CD before you buy it. Some (and I emphasize some) places offer a way to listen to the CD. But let's be realistic: Who's going to spend 60 minutes in a store just to hear one CD?

I realize that rational's a little extreme (who's really going to listen to an entire CD to determine purchase of it?, but P2P makes it easy to do exactly that, at 0 cost to the RIAA other than they lose the opportunity to keep your money.

Sorry, but I don't sympathize with the RIAA. If the customer says "we prefer buying individual songs" their strategy shouldn't be "well we'll grease up the politiicians so that the law says you have to follow our business model."

Re:Who's stealing what?

[Anonvmous Coward]

Just wanted to thank you for understanding my point. People like to argue with me even though I'm on the right side of the fence. heh.

RIAA's ad vs. the Onion's

[RicochetRita]

A much closer-to-life version ;-) Kid Rock Starves To Death: MP3 Piracy Blamed

R

not just developing markets

[asv108]

Its not just developing markets where piracy could be seen as beneficial for microsoft.

Even in the US, Microsoft would probably prefer people using pirated MS software over using no MS software, as long as they couldn't afford to buy the Software from MS. This is why MS gives millions worth of their products to college students every year. Up to this month, my university had an agreement to give out free ms software including: Office, Windows XP, Visual Studio, and more. This agreement has finally ended, and I can't help to wonder if MS tries use a drug dealer approach to software, to come in to a University and set up an agreement to give away software and then end it after a couple of years in hope that the University will shell out big bucks to keep the agreement.

For the pirates that can't afford MS software, they want then to become accustomed to MS software to the point where when they leave school they will buy computers with the latest version of windows preloaded and more importantly, demand that windows be in their computer at work.

Re:not just developing markets

[i_am_nitrogen]

Sounds like what AT&T did with UNIX back in the day... They would give it to the universities, so that the graduates would install it instead of something else, like TOPS10, on their corporate mainframe.

Multiple copies

[Quill_28]

How many here have one legit copy of Windows and copy for their other computer(s), or know someone who does? How many of those people would switch to Linux/FreeBSD etc if they had to pay?

How many of those people would eventually switch to Linux for both boxes? A good number I suspect.

Osorio's paper

[trb]

This article cites (without reference) a working paper by Carlos Osorio of Harvard. I think it's here: A contribution to the understanding of illegal copying of software: empirical and analytical evidence against conventional wisdom (PDF).

Drug dealer tactics...

[sterno]

This is simple drug dealer tactics. Look, you can have the first one for free. You can quit anytime you want to, honest! Then down the road once Microsoft is firmly entrenched they can start playing hardball on licensing.

Let's say you're a 14 year old kid

[oliverthered]

Let's say you're a 14 year old kid, you don't get much pocket money but you want to be with the 'in' croud.

You've scraped together enough cash to by some DC's or Nikes so that people stop hitting you every time you walk past, but now there's this cool some they keep playing any you don't have the cash.

Do you
a:, buy it
b:, blag a copy off of a mate on tape cassette,
c: download it from gnutella

Put activation on 'enterprise' copies

[mgkimsal2]

If MS was really serious about stopping piracy, they would have required the 'activation' home users of XP have to go through for 'enterprise' licensed copies as well. The 'enterprise' licensed copies have no activation requirements, which means that people will still continue to sneak home copies from work to install, bypassing the activation scheme completely.

They've never been serious about stopping piracy. Collecting money - yes. Stopping piracy - no.

Why piracy will not die

[dennison_uy]

The keyword in piracy is the word: ECONOMY.

A country with a very poor economy will always suffer from piracy and counterfiets. The reason for this is that majority of the population simply cannot afford things such as original software that a member of a rich country can easily afford.

Take, for example, my country - the Philippines. An average worker here earns around $160 a month, as opposed to 1st-world countries where $2000 a month is more or less normal. Here, lunches cost around $1-$2, with $2 being already considered "expensive". Assuming an individual purcheses food at $1 and eats 3x a day, for 30 days, that would be a total of 30 * 1 * 3 = $90, which leaves you with $70 to spend on rent, electricity, water, phone, etc. That isn't much, and it's only ENOUGH to keep you sustained. If you have a family, things become worse.

Now this doesn't leave us much for luxury goods such as $40 PC games, let alone a $200 operating system. Hence, the solution - piracy.

Will Microsoft bother going after these small third-world home users? I don't think so. Since we don't have the capacity to buy, we aren't very high in their target market list, or they would be relentlessly knocking down pirated CD stalls everyday.

And others get the bill from piracy

[caesar-auf-nihil]

Awhile back I read an article in the Detroit News on the "Grey Market" for Autos made in the US but sold in Canada. Given local market conditions, the US car sold in Canada is cheaper than if you sold the exact same car in the US. The "Grey Market" comes from Detroit dealers driving up to Canada, buying a lot of the cars cheaper, shipping them back to Detroit, and then charging full price - making a handy profit. The big three (GM, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler) are trying to put a stop to the practice, as they sometimes sell the cars in Canada at a slight loss, but charge more south of the border (the US) to make up for it, while still maintaining market share in Canada.

Now let's look at Microsoft. MS decides not to pursue piracy to gain an "advertising" edge in the OS market. So how do they make up for those losses? They charge more for the software in markets with a higher cost of living, or markets where they really chase after the software pirates, as it really cuts into their profit margins. So basically we consumers (who may be stuck buying Windows - that's a different story) are stuck with the bill for the piracy. Why would a company in a monopoly position really care if they loose money in one place when they can get away with charging more for it in another place?

This problem even hits the health care industry. Once I had a workman comp case when I was a student (injured in the lab) and had to get an itemized bill back from the hospital. $25 for a throw away stiches kit, $50 for gauze, $220 for "Emergency Room Service/Bed Rental". When I asked why so high - I was basically told that the hospital pads its costs do be able to provide care to those who don't have insurance, or those who decided to not pay their bills. Not piracy, but you get the idea. Those of us who have the money carry the burden for those who don't. I don't mind the angle of providing care for the poor, but for those who didn't want to pay their bills?!? WTF?!?

So how does this all relate to MS's non-piracy clause. Simple, they now have subscription based software costs to make up for lost money due to piracy. They also charge more for the base OS, which is so buggy and unstable it ought to be them paying me to use it. So now not only might I be paying for software which doesn't work as well as it should, but I'm paying for MS's advertising in new markets where they lose money. Grumble. One more reason I plan to try and make my house MS free.

Re:And others get the bill from piracy

[geekoid]

A word about the emergency room.
You may know this, but i'll tell it anyway.

The US federal Government passed a lwa that said hospitals can not turn away emregency patients, regardless of there ability to pay.
IMHO this is a good law, however, they did not come up with a way to reimburse the hospitals for this. I think this is bad.

Re:And others get the bill from piracy

[caesar-auf-nihil]

Thanks alot for the info. I do appreciate it.

So turn in software pirates?

[Titusdot Groan]

It would seem then, that the best thing us open source guys can do is to rat out everybody copying MS software to the SPA?

I'm gonna take a while to get me head wrapped around that one :-)

What took you so long to figure this out

[ToasterTester]

Microsoft learned this from the IBM PC. IBM didn't go after the clones and gained market share to knock out CP/M and Apple II. Microsoft has only gone after major software pirates, because they knew building a market of pre-trained users will build market share in business. Businesses no long had to spend lots of money on training on basic computer skills. By people pirating Windows and Office, they are self training themselves.

Then you forgeting Microsofts other marketing weapon development tools. Say what you want about VB, but companies don't want to spend a lot on in-house development for app's they won't keep long. Quality code isn't important, disposable programs are cost efficent. Microsoft has specilized in development tools to get task done quickly.

Last your RIAA and Microsoft looking away on copying is an Apple and Oranges comparison. One is trying to sell products, and other is trying to build market share for long term sales. Very different.

Re:What took you so long to figure this out

[phillymjs]

Microsoft learned this from the IBM PC. IBM didn't go after the clones and gained market share to knock out CP/M and Apple II.

Whaaaaa? Where the hell did you get this idea?

IBM did no such thing. IBM hated that PC clones were available-- it was an unintended side effect of their building the PC as an open system. That's why the PS/2 systems they came out with in the late 80's had the MicroChannel architecture... a closed, proprietary architecture that was protected by law. They tried to wrest control of the PC market back from the cloners with the MicroChannel, but their attempt failed because they were greedy and offered ridiculously draconian licensing terms (something like, to license the MicroChannel bus, a cloner had to pay a fee for all previous PC clones they had ever sold).

Needless to say, nobody with an ounce of sense went for this, and the industry moved on in a direction different from IBM.

~Philly

Re:What took you so long to figure this out

[ToasterTester]

True IBM wasn't happy with the Compaq and other clone, but never did anything even though they could. They realized it was building market share for the "PC". Remember at the time the PC you still had a strong market for S100 bus systems, lots of Z80/8080 based system. Apple II, DEC Rainbow. Yes IBM experimented with MicroChannel, but I believe they still has ISA models available. Look at IBM's history they are a great marketing machine and cover all bases.
For example even when they were starting to support Linux they were also bulking up their Windows professional services team. Even when they were still pushing OS/2, they were the biggest publisher of Windows application software. IBM has the money to spread themselve out and experiment in new markets, they do all the time. They are also willing to pull the plug when things don't work. As the people who said OS/2 would never die found out.

Intersting

[karb]

Here are some more excerpts from the ad series. Very informative.

• Dave Matthews : "When you create programs to help blind people read things, it's the same as going into the store and stealing a CD."
• Pink : " When you research copy-protection schemes, it's the same thing as mugging a homeless man on the street and stealing his wheelchair."
• Eminem : "When you listen to internet radio, it's the same thing as assaulting somebody outside a club, except without high-priced lawyers."
• Bruce Springsteen : "Not letting the RIAA hack your computer is the same as clubbing a seal."
• Michael Jackson : "Creating digital to analog converters is the same as running a massively corrupt oligopoly that uses payola and political influence to maximize profits."
• Busta Rhymes : "Using open source media players is the same as screwing artists out of money, only without the exorbitant salary of a record executive."
• Jonathan Davis of Korn : "AGH WHOO HAGH BOOM BAGHCK, CHA CHA CHA!"

Too true. Stop the insanity.

Piracy Helps Microsoft and in Hurts Free Software

[Alethes]

Here's an editorial I wrote on Newsforge called How software piracy hurts Free Software that addresses this subject from the opposite angle. The Freedom of Free Software is worth nothing to people who don't feel the burden of restrictive EULAs.

Are you really that obtuse?

[anthony_dipierro]

Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't feel the same logic applies to record sales in the U.S., and has started an ad campaign to convince the public that sharing music hurts artists.

Of course they do. Both companies are against piracy. Both companies run ad campaigns trying to convince people to not pirate. Both companies sue some pirates, and ignore others.

Of course the RIAA realizes that limited trading over P2P networks can help them. But they'd be incredibly stupid to admit that, cause then the trading would become anything but limited.

First hand experience, this is true.

[cswiii]

My girlfriend is from Beijing originally; We went over there back in April-May, on vacation. I was talking with her brother once about computers -- well more realistically, my gf was translating for us -- and I mentioned that I don't use Windows, that I use Linux. When he asked why, I went on about a few of its strong points, one of them being that it was pretty much free.

His response was that since piracy is so rampant in China, Windows is, in essence, free as well. He added that he doesn't forsee people leaving the windows platform, as long as it's so readily available on the black market. If serious crackdown began to occur, there might be a move otherwise, but until then, there was very little chance of an alternate OS being adopted.

There was a bit more in the discussion too, but I can't remember offhand what it was. In any case, it put things in a really interesting light.

You do realize...

[TheAwfulTruth]

that you USED to be able to do that. Until it turned out the people were just installing the software and returning the disks for a refund.

It was the criminals in the first place that casuse such actions to be taken.

My anger is aimed where it belongs. On the pirates and defrauders that started this entire mess.

Developing Markets vs. Ours

[siskbc]

Microsoft does indeed fight piracy here (ever hear of the BSA? 'Nuff said). I contend, however, that they probably shouldn't fight piracy of windows, though with XP they have upped the ante a bit. They are benefited immeasurably by their monopoly (ask the DOJ, eh?), something that would be harmed if everyone had to pay for it, or couldn't reuse old OEM copies. I really think that people aren't going to pay an extra $150 to throw XP on their second computer - so here comes Mac OS or linux, which people might find they like more.

When you get down to it, wouldn't disregard for piracy be the best way to engage in dumping of product to eradicate competitors (a practice that would be illegal under antitrust, in their position)? This would be the best way to maintain their install base. I mean, they would still extort the OEM's to get money out of windows, but let anyone who builds their own box or wants to upgrade to do it for free. Unofficially, of course.

Anticompetitive Dumping

[Dr. Evil]

I wonder if you could view a soft stance towards piracy as "dumping" in the marketplace. It is, after all, exactly what you're doing -- saturating the market with product, under cost, knowing that it is hurting your competitors.

IMHO, shareware fits into this, bennefiting from the network effect and hurt competition, while crying that only a small fraction of their customers are paying.

Yeah, I know, it is a stretch.

I like to think of Microsoft as Crack Dealers.

[jerkyjunkmail]

I like to think of Microsoft as Crack Dealers.(no offense to crack dealers) Their business practices share some similiarities. They let you get hooked with some "free" shit and before long you've got to pay out the ass to keep operating smoothly. Then you either cut the shit out and start over clean or keep paying the dopeman.

Re:Sorry. X0X

[Rader]

You're missing the original question to you. How to you "allow" 20-30% vs. 99%.

You can't.

Britney

[JohnG]

Britney isn't the best spokesperson for something that requires a thought.
"I go to lot's of overseas places, like Canada"
"My love for New York is indefinite."
"Where the hell is Australia anyway?"
(paraphrase)"I covered 'I love rock and roll' because I'm a big Pat Benatar fan"
"Downloading music is like stealing a CD"

Does the RIAA really want those quotes associated with one another? To late now I guess.

Competition from Linux forced M$ to do a 180

[dcavanaugh]

I have been to China, and believe me, piracy is a way of life there. You can get any Microsoft product for about $4 per disc. It seems that many people view it simply as buying a less expensive version, much as Americans might buy the store brand of paper towels instead of Bounty(tm). There was a time when the same attitude was common in the US. Ironically, copy protection simply added to the "possession of media == right to install" mindset.

The end result of all this piracy was massive market penetration, to the point where the average Chinese IT worker is "born and raised" on Microsoft products. It's easy to abandon industry standards in favor of the M$ proprietary trap when everything costs $4 per CD.

M$ first introduced product activation in Asia, allegedly because of the rampant piracy. When they realized how quickly the Chinese were prepared to drop M$ in favor of Linux, they couldn't give away the products fast enough.

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft handles product pricing in the various markets around the world. Their current pricing is encountering resistance from US companies, but not [yet] to the point of wholesale abandonment. US prices would be dead-on-arrival in less developed parts of the world, where the commitment to Microsoft is less, as is the availability of funds.

Sure, they can give away the product, but what happens when the market will tolerate a price that not free but far less than full price? Hypothetically, if Microsoft sells a product for $500 in the US and they blow it out for $5 in China, is that not a classic case of product dumping? If they do this, shouldn't I buy all my US licenses via my Beijing office?

From here on out, it will be damn hard for M$ to control who gets the freebies, who gets a steep discount, and who pays a fully-monopolized price.

Re:Competition from Linux forced M$ to do a 180

[scharkalvin]

If M$ starts dumping product in asia it is going to show up as gray market goods in the US. What are they going to do about that? Guess we will be buying M$ products at 47th Street Photo in NYC.

Re:Competition from Linux forced M$ to do a 180

[dcavanaugh]

Actually, they will end up selling the US/English version. Most of the computers my company has in Hong Kong and mainland China are set up as US/English because our people need to produce documents in English to be e-mailed to the US. There are quite a few products with bugs that prevent them from working properly with anything other than US/English localization.

Our IT manager in Hong Kong told me that he thought that learning English was easier than learning to use a Chinese keyboard!

It's simple

[SIGFPE]

In order of preference MS want:

• You to buy their software
  
• You to use their software but not buy it
  
• You to use an alternative to their software
  
• You to pay for an alternative
  

Re:Depends on the artist

[gosand]

Some artists like Dr. Dre, Eminem, Metalicca are very opposed to piracy, and p2p in general. You have other artists like Prince, KRS-1, Tribe called Quest, who are all for it. The question is, why are you in the game? Are you in the for the love of the music or the love of money?

I don't think anyone argues that the artists should be compensated for their work. But there is this huge, controlling middleman between the artists and the public who compensates them. The artists who are against online music (let's not call it piracy, more on that later) are against it because they believe, or have been lead to believe, that it threatens their livelihood. It doesn't.

The only reason online music is considered piracy is because of the business model of the music industry. If CDs were available for a reasonable price, there wouldn't be as much incentive to copy and distribute music online. But beyond that, it is obvious that being able to download music is popular. Why not embrace it? Most artists make their money from touring anyway, because their contracts with the record company gives most of their royalties away. So they have to tour to make money. How is this different than giving the music away, and still making money on touring and merchandise? Or special edition CDs with extra features?

It is painfully obvious that online music could be a huge business, but the record companies refuse to acknowledge that because they fear it. They should embrace it! If it is so easy for average music fans to make digital copies of music, why is it so hard for them to do it and still make money? It isn't, they are just stupid , power-hungry, greedy bastards.

I don't care if this gets modded as flamebait or troll, it is the truth.

piracy hurts artists

[pizza_milkshake]

Britney Spears is among the pop stars fronting a new advertising campaign aimed at warning people against online piracy.

It has been funded by the world's biggest record labels to educate people about illegally downloading music off the internet, which is being blamed for a dip in sales.

According to industry estimates, over 2.6 billion music files are downloaded illegally every month, mainly through unlicensed "peer-to-peer" services.

CD sales reportedly dropped by 7% in the first half of 2002.

sorry, but Britney Spears telling me that "due to piracy my sales went from $10,000,000.00 in 2001 H2 to $9,300,000.00 in 2002 H1" will not jerk any tears from my eyes.

and yes, i know there are many artists out there that are just scraping by; IMHO i believe that an artist's popularity and success are directly related to how many songs of their are pirated on file-sharing services (i.e. kids are more likely to pirate songs from bands they see on MTV's TRL than they are a small-time supporting act).

my $.02

Re:Isn't this

[mentin]

May be the answer is whether you are a monopoly or not? From the post:

So, in effect, software piracy in countries like China helps Microsoft to compete with Linux." Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't feel the same logic applies to record sales in the U.S.

Even the poster of the article argees MS has something to compete with (Linux). RIAA does not, it owns every record. So it can crack down on piracy without benefiting competitor.

Download Music, Hurt Nelly?

[Alkaiser]

Dude, I'm SO getting a bunch of people started on downloading as many songs as possible. I only hope this hurts Celine Dion, too.

Since when can a guy who comes up with the lyric, "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes!" be considered an artist?

Re:Download Music, Hurt Nelly?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Since when can a guy who comes up with the lyric, "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes!" be considered an artist?

How about some guy who paints someone sitting in some grass on paper like here or perhaps someone who paints some fruit in a bowl like here. How the hell can fruit a bowl be art? Now the line you stated may not be art in of itself, but when tied with all of the songs lyrics and background music it does becomes Nelly's expression of something(not sure what it is though ;). Also, I may dislike it and you may dislike it, but that doesn't mean it is not some form of art.

Re:Download Music, Hurt Nelly?

[srvivn21]

Same song:

What use is being at the bar/
if you ain't hittin' the bottles?

What good is the fame/
if you ain't fuckin' the models?

I see you drivin' sports cars/
and ain't hittin' the throttle,

And I be down doin' a hundred/
top down in goggles.

It may not be art to you, but I find it clever. IMO it's more creative than four and a half minutes of silence. I also don't understand taking one small piece of a one song designed for radio airplay (and hence probably not his most "artistic" work) and judging artistic worth on that.

On the other hand, "Hot in Here" is the only worthwhile song on the CD.

Britney Spears Hasn't Lost a Cent Because of Me

[Nintendork]

I download just as much of her music as I purchase...None

Grrr, Piracy != Stealing

[codemachine]

Quote from the article:

"We want to hit fans with the message that downloading music illegally is, as Britney Spears explains, the same as going into a CD store and stealing the CD," said Hilary Rosen of the Recording Industry Association Of America (RIAA).

"Too many people don't realise that when you download a song you like from a peer-to-peer network or some other unauthorised internet service, you're stealing music," she said.

The problem there is that you are NOT stealing, it is NOT the same as going into the CD store and swiping the CD. "Piracy" (or preferrably Unauthorized Copying) is breaking copyright law. In the eyes of the law, this is completely different than theft. I could understand if they take the somewhat biased view that Unauthorized Copying is similar to stealing from the artists, but to say it is the exact same thing as stealing is untrue. Hilary Rosen knows that more than anybody, but it is in her best interests to associate p2p file traders with pirates and thieves.

Of course new draconian laws in the US will likely give much harsher penalties to those who share files than to those who shoplift from stores. When will the madness stop?

Re:Isn't this

[nelsonal]

Its not about the monopoly, but you are close, the network effects of software are why the monopoly formed. The value of an operating system to a potential new user increases with each current user and more importantly developer. If a developer creates a software package for Windows on a pirated version of Windows, and others buys Windows specifically to use that software package, letting the developer pirate Windows was a net benefit for Microsoft. This is why Microsoft generally gives away copies of Windows and Visual Studio to likely developers.
However, music is not affected by network effects to the same level. Sure there is some benefit to culturally influential listeners playing your music, which is why critics, radio stations, and DJs can sometimes recieve early copies of a record, to stimulate demand. When everyone can trade music wholesale, the record companies fear too many lost sales outweigh the advertising benefits. Also consider that the RIAA is less likely to go after a Chinese piracy problem, since the gains from removing piracy are more limited, than they are in the US, where spending on music is much higher.

Hurts Artists?

[Coplan]

Okay, I'll admit, piracy might hurt some indie label artists who are up-and-coming. But people like Britney Spears? Missy Elliot? Doubtful.

Because of piracy, the queen of lip-synch (Spears) will only get $5 Million this year as opposed to her normal $6.5 Million. Only you can prevent this.

Whereas, if I pirate 20 albums this year, I save $400. My share contributes $.025 to her profit? If that? Wired has an interesting article this month in their published magazine about how much money actually goes to the artist. Usually less than 11% for top-line artists like Britney.

Meanwhile...I don't like the campaign at all. It's retarded, and it just makes the artists and especially the RIAA appear much more greedy. AFter all, I make $40,000 a year? What does that compare to Britney? I feel no pity. I'm one who feels music should be free. When I buy CDs, I buy them for the convenience and the packaging. The CD sits on my rack as I'm almost 100% MP3 now.

Re:True only to a point.

[Tackhead]

> Computer software embodies loyalty. It doesn't work for music (or other "pure data") because those are just inactive data. When you pop a George Tennison CD into the drive, there's no Clippy popping up to say "Would you like me to reset your preferences so that you will always hear George Tennison?"

"Someday, you kids! Someday!"
- Hilary Rosen after six beers and a Palladium conference.

ID Did this, non?

[Astin]

I seem to recall ID approving of the piracy of Doom after it had been out a while. Their belief was that it was such a huge phenomenon BECAUSE so many pirated copies were out there, and that it drove sales higher because everyone felt they needed a copy, but not everyone pirated it.

If roles were reversed?

[Andy Smith]

This argument about the effects of music theft is getting really old. Record companies pay for A&R, studio time, producers, duplication, distribution, etc, and if they don't want people to download their music then quit trying to argue that pirates are actually helping them. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but it isn't the Slashdot editors place to take sides.

I wonder, if people using ad blockers insisted that doing so was actually good for Slashdot and was increasing revenue for the site, would the editors put stories up every day arguing that ad blockers were a good idea?

No, they'd look at the bottom line, see that revenue was down, and do whatever they could to work around the ad blockers. Just like record companies are trying to block p2p networks.

Windows anti-piracy mechanisms

[caluml]

I can't wait for the day that Microsoft finally crack (no pun intended) the lockdown of Windows.
People everywhere will be so pissed off, and will be reaching for the Linux CD's faster than you can say insmod ntfs.o.

I think they know that though. Their current tactics are just to warn corporates to pay up. To be honest, I think Microsoft are resigned to home users running Windows for free, although they don't mind if they can get a few of the old timers to actually fork out.

Uh...no

[SomeOtherGuy]

Brittney honey -- it is not music sharing that is causing a drop in your record sales...Hell just ask Tiffany & Paulla Abdual (sp?) -- they went through the same tough times, and could not even blame the big bad music sharing thugs. And to M&M -- What would it be 15.5 million instead of 15.3 million units moved if there was no music shareing? (Somewhere Vannila Ice is dreaming of being so popular that millions would download his music for free...)

I'm so torn

[rattler14]

Do I keep pirating their software and let them gain market share or do I stop using all of there software and let them win the war against piracy?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Re:Sorry. X0X

[gpinzone]

Sure you can. Sell it for a price that makes the act of piracy an unworthwhile endeavor.

If MS really wants to enforce a strict DRM policy, they've got to sell their product for a hell of a lot cheaper. Imagine if Windows XP only cost $20-$30 and MS enforced super-strict protection on the serial numbers? Who's going to bother using a cracked version of XP and take the risk of MS disabling their PC when the legal alternative is so cheap?

Re:Groan -- The Truth

[Lucas Membrane]

The musicians who worked on the Titanic were charged for not returning their uniforms. You can make a decent living playing music, but you must be willing to play in an amusement park dressed up in an animal costume. Aged rock and rollers and country music stars keep playing until their sequins fall off around age 80 because they can't afford to retire. Renowned cultural icons sell their houses to corporations that will operate the houses as museums after the stars decease, with a clause that lets the star live in the future museum until then.

Re:Sorry. X0X

[Rader]

well THAT is certainly unlikely (XP for $30)

But then again, a nickel for each use is where they'd like to go.

Re:True only to a point.

[sfe_software]

I've worked on projects that had close to 100% piracy rates. That is to say that almost everyone who used it was stealing it. This in no way helped me, in fact it drive the company under.

The difference is in the users. Your product was probably targetted toward the type of user more apt to steal the software. Windows is targetted at a much broader audience, and the majority of people do not pirate windows (if only because they pay for it when purcahsing a PC).

I know your situation is common though with smaller projects. Back in my shareware days, my product (DJ software) had about 100 downloads per day for a solid 3 years; yet, registrations were maybe 2 or 3 per week (add up bandwidth and it was generally a loss). Granted not everyone who downloaded it necessarily used it, but with less than 0.5% registrations, and the easy availability of cracks/serials/keygens for it...

Note that this product also had an unusually high rate of credit card fraud on attempted registrations, which coincides with the high piracy rate.

So Windows has the following advantages over "niche" software:

- Many users pay for it (eg, PC purchase) who may not have otherwise
- It's a much larger piece of software (more difficult to just find floating around the 'net, download and install)
- The more people use it, the more people standardize on it. Generally not true with software for which there exists compatible choices and competition.

And so on. These are luxuries smaller developers don't have.

Unrelated note, the RIAA is an unnecessary middle-man and I hope they go broke and leave, or wisen up to the times, I don't care which. I long for the day a motion picture soundtrack costs less than the motion picture itself (DVD) by at least half.

Re:Normal MS business

[interstellar_donkey]

Way back then, I always thought this was the best business model you could have. Give your software away for free, make your cash on related support (books, phone support, etc.)

It was partially to address a mindset I had at the time (and still do today to a lesser extent); If I'm going to pay a good chunk of cash for something, I want to have something tangible. It just didn't seem right to plunk out $50+ for a floppy disk, but perfectly already to spend the same amount of money for a well written and comprehensive text I could keep on my bookshelf.

In a round about way, I think many software companies are going that route, espically when it comes to games. The software still costs way too much, but now comes with little or no documentation often requiring you to purchase supplimental texts just to figure out how the thing works.

Linux embrases this philosophy much better. Go to a software store today, and it makes a heck of a lot more financial sense to buy a large user guide that happens to include a free, full working copy of the OS then to spend twice as much for an OS that only includes a 12 page booklet on installation tips.

I know for one I've helped out MS far more by pirating windows then hurting it. I can think of at least a hundred people I've helped become comfortable with windows for no other reason then I gained a high level of technical mastery of the product from my pirated copies (which I would probably never have purchased on my own).

Of course, now that I have a job I make sure we have legal copies of MS products, partially because I'm afraid of the hammer comming down if the BSA decided we were naughty, but partially because it's the right and moral thing to do. I'm no longer a kid messing around, I am dealing with a company who actually uses these products to make money.

All in all it's turned into a beautiful symbotic relationship. I pirate windows so I can learn how to fix it when it breaks and help keep the market share up for paying customers, while MS makes buggy bloated software that requires technical people to keep running properly, keeping me in a job. It's win win.

Damn it, it's NOT the same as stealing a CD...

[weave]

"We want to hit fans with the message that downloading music illegally is, as Britney Spears explains, the same as going into a CD store and stealing the CD,

Bullshit, it is not. First of all, if you steal the CD from a store, the person who gets hurt is the store owner. He's already bought that CD from the distributor who bought it from the label, who paid the pittance of a royalty to the artist. So if you go in and steal a CD from the store, it isn't hurting the artist, or the distributor, or the label. It's hurting the store owner only.

Now if you download a CD's worth of stuff from the net, it's a theoretical loss only. No real money is lost, just the *possible* opportunity for a sale. One would have to prove that the person would have went out and bought the CD and didn't because they got it off thet net before you could legitimately count it as a realized loss. And even so, it's a loss of income, not a theft loss where property or money was deprived of the owner (as in, their net worth went down by their share of that CD).

Now both cases are "wrong" but they are in no way "the same thing." There is a real victim in one case, and theoretical victims in the other case.

No, not for free

[tkrotchko]

Since most home users buy a computer, and that computer will come with a legitimate copy of Windows installed, I'd wager there are actually few consumers in the US pirating windows.

I'm assuming that only fanatics replace their OS.

Anyway, MS Office might be a different story; I don't know since Open Office now suits me fine and I don't need to pay $400+ to write a letter.

Don't Forget Eminem's commercial

[commodoresloat]

"Pirating music is muthaf*ckin' wrong, and if I catch the biznitch who put my songs on Gnutella I'm putting a cap in his ass. You see, kids, encouraging rape and violence and pistol-whipping bouncers while whining about my white trash momma is art, but encouraging music-sharing is muthaf*ckin theft. Besides I'll go broke without people buying my f*ckin records; yo Dre, pass me the f*ckin 40 oz, Dog!"

Re:Depends on the artist

[G-funk]

Some artists like Dr. Dre, Eminem, Metalicca are very opposed to piracy, and p2p in general. You have other artists like Prince, KRS-1, Tribe called Quest, who are all for it

Disclaimer: I own music from all of these artists, and like it.

In that short little list, is it much of a suprise that the ones who support file sharing are the ones who innovate in their art? Metallica and Dre were breaking new ground once (metallica less so), but that was a long time ago. But Prince and KRS have continued to challenge themselves and their audiences, often at the expense of mainstream exposure.

m$ became ubiquitous via piracy in the first place

[pedro]

This one's a no-brainer for anyone who's been in the biz for even a small time.
gates, realising that his initial release of x80 basic would be pirated big time, despite his protests to the contrary, always released his own software (to my knowledge) protection free.
I believe that he subscribed to the model that this article suggests.. namely that ubiquity equals market control.
Gain a market.. then tighten the reigns.. as he has done recently with XP.
This is not a fair business model, in any way or shape, and should be subjected to some really tight DOJ scrutiny.
Unfortunately, we do not have in place a true republican administration at present.
We have, instead, a bunch of testicularly over tourqued dopes who seem to have the need to blow a lot of stuff up.
This Is Not Good.
If these guys (GWB and his buddies) succeed, be prepared to see many markets, including our own, crumble to 3rd world status.
No. I'm not kidding.
It will happen.
I promise you.

Re:Isn't this

[hacker]

RIAA does not, it owns every record. So it can crack down on piracy without benefiting competitor.

Unfortunately, no. RIAA is one company, that holds a controlling share in many record companies, but certainly not ALL record companies. There are hundreds of others, but for bands who see the "sparkle", they go for the one with the biggest bucks, and chances are those labels are controlled by the RIAA.

Kill everything at random

[Anarchofascist]

while :; do r=$RANDOM; if [ "$$" != $r ]; then kill -9 $RANDOM; fi; done

getting to know you.

[twitter]

Let's say you're a 14 year old kid and you're running a pirated copy of windows vs. a legal copy of linux....you recommend using windows because you're familiar with it.

Anyone who ever ran both OS would know better than to pirate Windoze.

everyone replaces their OS

[twitter]

I'm assuming that only fanatics replace their OS.

Nope.

The windoze user has to replace their OS every two years thanks to various upgrade mill tricks. They may replace it with the CD that came with the computer, but these days nothing comes with the computer! Eventually, their poor bloated "registry" and hard drive packed with scumware, theftware, apps that beg and adverts that pop up render the computer useless. At this point they feel compelled to buy either a new computer or a new OS. There's nothing new on M$ platforms, users are simply forced to buy the same things again and again. Game users might seek out and "pirate" windoze, but that's bout it.

The linux user notices such a vast improvement in two years that they feel compelled to swap out. Or maybe not.