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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

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?

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!

[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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

[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.

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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

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]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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

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.

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: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.

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.