Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Changes Tune Again On SP2 Installs
KidHash writes "Following on from last months Slashdot story, it appears Microsoft has changed its tune with the BBC reporting that SP2 will not install on XP installations using the '20 most pirated product IDs.'"
What I see happening is that the 21-40 most-pirated codes rapidly displace the top-20 most-pirated codes, and everyone who cares about being up-to-date is happy with no benefit to MS. Instead, the chances they missed were:
All in all, I am somewhat surprised - an uncharacteristic faux pas.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Just go here: http://omnitechdesign.com/cdkey.html
Most of us run something other than Windows(TM) right? This IS slashdot after all.
Last month, I got hammered for taking a skeptical position about MS' attitude and motivations. What bothered me at the time was the disingenuous wording of their original announcement (not the act itself) wherein they professed concern only for the pirate users' safety.
The problem MS faces is that the reputation of their OS is gradually eroding with virus after virus and a lot of this comes from those rouge boxes that lack the securtiy patches. This puts MS in an interesting quandry: help theives or save the OS. Heh.
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
I was under the impression that it wasn't done yet. So you're saying that an incomplete update doesn't run perfectly yet?
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
By Larry Seltzer
May 11, 2004
Despite reports indicating that Microsoft Corp. was planning to allow users with pirated copies of Windows XP to install Service Pack 2, the company has confirmed to eWEEK.com that this will not be the case...
How is this going to help when there are programs that search for keys?
I'm not sure how they work but I am *ahem* aware of one that finds keys for home, professional, corporate etc
Takes a while but they keys seem to be random.
Fairly unrelated, but has anyone else noticed that it usually takes about 10 times longer for an XP service pack or update to install versus win2k?
This is based on observations doing windows updates on similar spec machines, 20+ win2k boxen and a few XP boxen.
Please help metamoderate.
While it will generate bad press, and allow many unprotected PC's to propagate worms/viruses, it's their right to withhold updates.
Unless that is, a class action law suit forces them to be responsible for their mistakes, much as car dealers are now. True it's not actually a 'safety' issue, and you don't 'own' the software like you do a car, but now that the government believes the internet is 'needed and a national issue', who knows.
Personally I think they should offer it to everyone, they aren't going to loose any revenue over it. And it makes it look to the common man ( and the government ) that they care.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
SP2 is not a car wreck, and it installs fine on the wdr2y keyset....
what sp2 ___IS___ is effectively a set of patches and updates to cover existing vulns and perhaps more importantly the installation of a new system service that monitors 3 items
windows updates
windows firewall
anti-virus (3rd party)
left to defaults it will enable auto update and do all critical updates, enable the windows firewall, and check you have installed a current working AV application.
left to defaults SP2 is something that will increase security and workability for the vast majority of winows users.
left to defaults SP2 will be a complete pain in the ass for all clueful windows users who religiously replace IE and Outlook with better options, run behind a hardware firewall, do not just download and run software blindly, etc, and scan all new files with a decentish free AV package such as http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php
Bear in mind that compromised windows boxes are extremely likely to be running warezed copies of windows and operated by people who habitually use sites like astalavista to download cracks for software, never suspecting, despite their leetness, that a significant proportion of cracks and exploits contain malware of their own.
HTH etc
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
If the pirates are trying to install SP2, then they already have Windows installed. That means MS has already got their marketshare boost, and need not worry about actually supporting the pirate.
After all, do you really think all those pirates are going to say, "Darn you, Microsoft!" and go install Gentoo?
I think not.
I am wondering how many 'regular users' go out and buy a copy of Windows at the store. They retail for about $250-300, and I never see a shelf with a slot missing. Every single user that I know that has windows, got it with their computer.
So how many *retail* copies of Windows does MS sell?
It's rare that I encounter a pirated copy of Windows anymore, except on home made PCs. The funny part is, those that pirate usually have the key written on the CD. In contrast, whenever I have to reinstall at a relatives with their legitimate copy, they never can find their key.
Microsoft should just go back to the C64 days of 'What is the third word of the fifth paragraph on the fifteenth page of your EULA?'
This is, of course, assuming any printed copy of the EULA would be kept by Joe User. Estimates vary.
-- I have fans? Wow.
*sarcasm*
Does Microsoft REALLY want to alienate the 1-2 million loyal customers who are using those 20 codes?
*/sarcasm*
It doesn't sound much different to me than charging higher insurance rates to people who have multiple traffic violations or at-fault accidents, and it apparently won't affect more than... maybe... 20 legitimate customers who can pick up the phone and call Microsoft if they need to update properly licensed installations.
The only thing I'd worry about is if SP2 breaks backwards compatibility, once again using their de-facto OS monopoly to force EVERYONE to upgrade, just because they want to hurt software pirates or sell their next generation OS. That would be unfortunate and annoying.
Are there any security patches in SP2 that will NOT be released separately? If so, I'd say this is one amazingly reckless move on Microsoft's part. In the end the legit users (even non-MS customers) will bear the brunt of Net attacks by compromised machines. After all, those "Top 20" licenses must account for a large number of machines, else why bother singling them out?
Let's face it, even WITH the release of security patches its damn hard to get John Q. Public to keep up to date.
Now if SP2 is only a "features and stability" release, more power to the software vendor, MS or not. (Wow, did I just conditionally support MS' position? I need a drink...)
Okay here's the major weakness - after the machine chugged away processing the SP2 installation for approximately 45 minutes, it suddenly decided it couldn't find files that apparently existed.
This stuck the whole routine in a loop, and forced me to reboot, at which point, my XP installation was trashed and could not even be recognised by a Windows XP recovery CD.
Yeah this sucks, and beta software is unstable, but surely not THIS unstable?
Since installing SP2, I've found the most annoying thing is the box that pops up constantly when you need to reboot your machine - especially since it is set to "reboot" as default. So you'll be tapping along on xchat, hit enter to send a message, but at that point, the little reboot window has decided to maximise itself from the system tray as it will do approximately every 15 minutes. As you hit enter, rather than sending your message, you are confirming a reboot. 30 seconds later, everything's shut down - including the loss of unsaved documents..... Now does this really seem usable to you?
Add to that that most of the firewalls and virus checkers I have tested it with are not recognised by the new security tool (which is hardly a tool, as it does nothing more than show you if you have the software installed in the first place), and the fact that SP2 has made a clunky operating system even S-L-O-W-E-R, and I have to wonder exactly *why* it's taken so long for Microsoft to produce a poor firewall, a splash screen to show you whether you have a virus checker and firewall enabled, and an irritating popup to constantly remind you to reboot your machine after installing an update. *sigh*
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
The next time you get 1000 spam messages with forged headers due to a unprotected machine, that cant be patched due to the key code, you will care.
This issue is not about the actual pirates, its the effect they have on the rest of us, and having Microsoft extend the patches to them only makes sense.
It doesn't take ANY extra effort, cost or time on the part of Microsoft to do this, and benefits paying customers.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's not as straightforward as you think. Microsft isn't just screwing that particular user -- they're screwing (virtually) everybody connected to the Net.
A case in point: even though there's a patch I have received hundreds of copies of Swen/Sobig. Now imagine that users of pirated XP installations can't get the patch. Imagine the chaos.
So by screwing that user, they're screwing me. Even though I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. That's just not on.
Allergy advice: Contains eggs.
that they did the same thing with Service Pack 1. Service pack 1 didnt install unless you had a valid key.
I also wonder how many people here realize that a Service pack is usually nothing more than a collection of security patches and bug fixes that you install in one shot instead of downloading 50+ updates from windowsupdate.com
When SP1 was released and if you couldnt install it, you could still damn well download every update that SP1 contained as a seperate download and install.
The big difference here is that SP2 will add new functionality to IE, WMP and a couple other included applications. Any other update (Security and bug fixes) will always be available seperatly on windowsupdate.com, just as they've always been
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
What the heck were you (parent) talking about? SP2 is not a Car wreck at all. I downloaded the Beta SP2 a few months back (I need windows for my Pocket PC, stupid active sync). It went flawlessly and will work wonders IMO, with auto updating in the background and such. I can't wait till this things goes to the masses. It will definitly be a good thing.
Help Fight SPAM today!
Funny... I've tried SP2 (RC1) and really liked it. And I don't even use Windows (the installation was in my father-in-law's laptop).
:)
The RC1 does NOT include an AV (contrary to popular belief), but does recognize a bunch of AV vendors and is capable of verifying if the DB is up-to-date.
They now have a bunch of visible security measures (not counting the hidden ones like bugfixes and NX). It has the firewall enabled by default, and a "Security shield" or something like that in the systray and control panel. The damn thing is a PITA unless you have 3 things:
- All critical updates in place AND auto-updates enabled
- An up-to-date AV
- The firewall enabled
If all 3 are OK, the shield stays out of sight and doesn't bother you. Oh, and Windows Update is MUCH more intuitive. The updates to IE6 are minimal, but very useful:
- No ActiveX unless you allow it on a case-by-case basis (including WinUpdate, but that may be a bug)
- Options like "Always accept content from this provider" are now _hidden_ by default instead of being visible checkboxes in the installation dialogs. Users who push every checkbox and "OK" button in sight will now have to go an extra-step in order to blindly accept these things.
Remember: this is coming from a guy who does not use Windows; not for "philosophical" reasons, but simply because I do a lot of Unix-related work and like developing on my workstations and laptops. I also get more kicks out of using Linux or OSX.
Use keygens guys! :)
a) Finding pirated copies of MS is about as easy as finding pirated music on KaZaA. It's not exactly a problem.
b) Joejobs. Imagine a virus that swaps your installation key, inserts fake messages in Word/Office documents and so on.
c) The real reason: They don't want to. They want to turn pirates into legitimate purchasers "softly" - kinda like boiling a frog. If they made it really anal to pirate Windows/Office many people would be likely to switch - look at how many compare x86 without software to Macs with software - since x86 software is "$0". Or to Linux, they both cost $0 and are thus equal.
Particularly the massive amount of skilled programmers hacking away at pirating software - imagine if a significant portion of those instead used their skills to develop software for say Linux. No, Microsoft knows what they're doing. It's simply about sacrificing a little profit right now, against keeping the platform and monopoly profits a while longer.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Because then the slashdot community will scream bloody murder, invasion of privacy, etc.. And they will probably be right. Why is this modded +5 ?
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Well, I guess it's time for everyone to go copy the numbers off the stickers on the floor displays at Best Buy again.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
awesome if you're using one of the 21st or more pirated ID.
Second, there are millions of casual pirates who install Windows on more machines than they've licensed, or who "borrow" a copy from work. Many of these people just aren't ever going to buy the appropriate number of copies of the OS, especially at retail prices. However, they do benefit Microsoft by remaining in the Windows "ecosystem", increasing its value through the network effect. If they crack down on these people, many of them will go to the effort to learn Linux or some other solution, thereby increasing the influence of alternative ecosystems at the expense of Microsoft's influence. This increased familiarity of alternative solutions in the general public would lower the barriers for Microsoft's lucrative customers, like entire businesses, from dumping all of their Microsoft products and switching to alternatives.
I can understand Microsoft NOT making any effort to support unauthorized copies. But they don't need to make any extra effort; all they need to do is make a patch and let it float around the net. Instead, they're going out of their way to detect and "punish" the "pirates." That's a bit vindictive (though not to the extent you suggest).
I think Microsoft is still within their rights, but as a Linux user and an Internet user I feel I'm helping pay a bit of the price for Microsoft's sweet revenge.
The problem for Microsoft is that their desktop OS market share has only 1 way to go from here, and that's downwards, which is going to freak out stock analysts, and give them a lot of bad press. They can't compete with Linux on price, and the days of competing in usability are numbered. All they will soon have to compete on is public opinios, and in this arena, they have the benefit of a practically infinite publicity budget vs Linux's zero budget.
This anti-piracy move is going to force at least *some* of the people who won't pay for an OS to switch platform away from pirated XP straight into the arms of Linux - of course people in the know realise this won't be a large number, because codes 21 onwards will take 99% of the switchers, but it's enough for their FUD PR purposes.
I'm guessing MS are doing this as a preemptive move so that when analysts point to their declinig share of the market and Linux's rise, they can blame it *all* on pirates switching platforms and claim that it's not going to translate to a loss of revenue. They will probably be branding Linux as 'the pirate's OS' pretty soon.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
XPKey.exe no longer works with XP SP2, because they aren't just banning certain CD Keys, they are banning most possible corporate keys, which works out to 99.99999% of the ones XPKey makes.
:D
/rO25zSA8Vrpwwfy5Gdbq86j3
They are bannign them based on Product ID. All non-640 PIDs are banned, and most of the ones in the 640 group are, as well.
To find your PID, right-click on My Computer and hit properties to bring up the System control panel. The PID will be right under the "registered to" section. It will be, e.g., aaaaa-bbb-ccccccc-ddddd. If bbb is not 640, you or definately out of luck. If it is 640, feel free to give it a shot. Or, you can slways make you a new CD Key that works.
Yep, there's a new keygen (which, BTW, also makes keys for Win Server 2003 Corp, but we aren't concerned with that right now). It's called MSKey. Start it, set Product Family to "Windows XP Pro. VLK", set Product ID range from 640-500 to 640-600, and gen away.
Here's the keygen in Base64 format... I hope Slashdot doesn't mangle it.
Begin MSKey4in1.zip
UEsDBBQAAAAIAFBHpDAN2TO4Do8AAAFwA QANAAAATVNLZXk0aW4xLmV4Zex9C3xU5Zn3TOYk
OZADc4Q RRhnLuI4aDWI0VIOH2gRCEpHLTCYzo3KzW20VrVAyY8WGwTCZT 49vx2prr7u9fL38
1m3rsq62onZrhpEM4Mq1IkpF0K0eGJE AJYncZv/Pey6ThNqv26LD7/sxmjnnvJfn/jzv8144
M+uWR 20Om80m4C+ft9lW2/RPne3//dmBv5Hjnx9pe2bYKxeuts985cL WO+5s8y5ZuviLSz/3
Je/nP3fPPYuj3n+83bs0do/3znu8D XOC3i8tvu32iSNGDPcZMP6lbd7Jd0Zd/aT51zHiwiff
w/X WkVOe3I1rxYhrnnyX19U8+RX+PPnJP/Jr7ZPbcJ3rmvTk27i23 Pn5O6i/SZt/us020y7Y
Rv1mjsXKbpvTXmEvs9lkOxroZb+ vwL2MG6+duKZ7/ifw2sLVtsRoh08J/viDbF3NEuuzeYbd
d hvd3Gq3+Z220/cBnTNLPrp6YvT2+6K4PmU36JXpOgQEqJq49Lb PRT9ns3VfafBerV8Hfurw
/0RqRvcSCdWA5T+lXdfEpW1LP 09VTuKZ2tH1VHi2s5+zn7Ofs5+zn7Ofs5+zn7Ofs5+zn7Of
s5+ifIJhFvXJEdbuc7MFEmuSajLRxuTOaBnrZn2sPxLW9t1ps yVeEpNdy8dSWxeKrrVTkZTs
il2zcMHcTITK3WHNaxVfObB 4ss0sFqgYwOVso2RH6cIFq+kyN4Nn28DnR60Pa/BJwVCY+QWd
xjmCsmH5cLaJ9aszfR6WZosFIordJLDZYmq6XUmvEFh3brg
COyz7BpWEvSDjx+JNltK+ oGNEyg7Djo+THaxbdEq5c3lY1n51ERWSHQLqWa7Ovu4sq7Npbz a
vhf0uLJlRCWq8nWC0hcdrby63Fm1j5WjvVqG4lmxw2ymz wWk2XrO1wCuEu+LBCIYYndDNhE2
X2D3Ccpb6jyfV233uZY PR6+arrmgOwO+PMoCUecnGNbOsfgR0Yg3ARofm25jY2p62WU16 5P5
+BcAxQfx1LL5tkSXkFgrJHsBXI7KylvjehMv56vw0Og 4lhOVY+N6+3ZVHVOvY+iSWCPMoa6x
tQykJHujF0yeB3LGs up6gEFtKp5X7z+u9H1FUF6GGIi2zdHPsg/rlWPLa1ktoPDbK8C Oer+g
P3jZfaJ6v6g/jGb3SYkuWb1fSqyReVH7uuROdYFgK D/uYWNS875/nDkSOQFMjmCzhRtYWp2N
hxX7wDGXImf70cI nCHIlbpdsmhSB+hql6OXJruh4lmG7WA+bJgAMjKKEpcGmrDSJK yaxbO66
FwlYrgwt/1CT5/0h4a+fyOcHWKoalyyL9Ee0x/6 Ry9+sDQe1TV8wXeOiYDiieU8O6p5tGmTk
6BDRTpwY0mSo3 UOjUk1Xcv0Ke8awEfZmpOMdWppL75dR62bnsA3pfXLHHipjh9g WdtK56lXn
qmOO15yrXnauOqK81lbW0W2z2W3saPptOX1Ad mxw9Ckb2uyNjnXsJCzZkYrbWStEVuJYh0d7
kzockD03sCw 5lbNzEahBvZvNEFg6vVe+mFAB0Tp2yLnqFeeqw46NzlUZYFU2A tUajupgeo+c
/kB2pB3blXSbfWpKqlVbfV5lU1vpVLrh+KY KHKGQb0AB/lQgIMQ62sOQAUrdrFn8m9GyKCAf
TUnVaONI3 W/X0YomnzPEQYx2ACOX6Q3S38MoO6RsAralBjZJx9aozpB0bN2 ELTqWwmGiW4b5
q7hT0XZvFUwGpm1GvE9a/1koviD/Brsp/ 9Or9lM1/cbHpemsqWEu8Xt1HH+XbsEJcK0h6NBn
Afb5pM3 nZDCCcWOLpdBbLIUW4pMcCid3RpyP7EFj6sXaQekYtkFXIXTJ0 s5V652r1jhXbWVa
evc56f1OxzrHq2REU29UnWpEcHb+jDq Hhb+61xxRjUjRL7Ow+Nd3kdWIK3o9C0t/fRe3GvFE
K8iqs 969l+YHM8/HO4nM2JPcn23wiRTscBVKcI2JiXX5+QiGGcTOkJa 4BfxhAHrey0djoWqz
cmJpSdWJ5NboRVCjj23Y9sfnqI71V G3Y9gHboN7tq9z2XsXJbbtVqn4znZM7/khEo8LLsmlN
VjK x8tUoQZxn2ZqtfYfZZrbJuWobQYCf9KVpyyP2aZDng2+hmzsnk MvBCCpeUQ7eO5YBUtU2
tqm5akOV0Ty6C20IwUaYlGMLDcD pd2VlI6RRtVE52lYOBVc6TjbjIs9W8RWtTO+WQaGLrcFN
1 Rq2xZHFDeuHbCuOApUKEHtnQnJ6zjC3Is2FUogHMqKBo6YL8UD PvyAlDytj
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Redhat will not let you patch your Enterprise Linux system unless your subscription fee is current.
Why does no one complain about this?
Well, what do I know - - I run a small network. But with Windows 2000 Pro on the desktops, 2000 Server and Linux in the back office, and an enterprise license for Norton AntiVirus Corporate, we keep 250 or so machines clean and updated. We run the free MS SUS for updates, by the way. Not a bad little system - - we set up Active Directory to force clients to hit our SUS server once a week, and have another method of shooting out emergency patches rapidly if we need to. XP seems to be another black eye for MS - - I don't know any admins who have been pleased with upgrades from Win2k to XP. Thank Zeus we didn't buy Software Assurance and feel compelled to "get our money's worth" by moving to this pretty, but deeply flawed piece of work from Redmond. Reminds me of the Windows Me fiasco - - it was all about needing profits, had nothing to do with improving the product line. XP is another one for the "Bob" file.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Pirates = "I want my Windows XP"
MS = "I want your money"
MS could easily charge a few bucks per patch or charge another fifty bucks or so per service pack so that our friends that are using extended demos can keep their OS up2date (hint hint)while continuing to *ahem* try out the operating system. Over a few years MS would easily recover the cost of the pirated copy, the pirate wouldn't have to be a test person for new viruses with old exploits and it would enhance the security for the net as a whole.
The problem with MS is that they HAVEN'T adopted the cell phone or razor blade model of business. Let's face it. If the OS were REALLY inexpensive then they could reasonably charge for services outside of the OS such as service packs or feature upgrades. Red Hat, IBM, Apple, they all do it and are profitable.
The presence of compromised machines, even if they are not your own, result in increased network traffic, resulting in a slower overall connection if you don't happen to have a dedicated bandwidth connection. Further, the compromised machines can be used by spammers to harrass pretty much everyone, even if they use non Windows OS's.
In principle, this is no different from people who have hacked into the computer system on their car to figure out what the diagnostic codes mean (a violation of the DMCA), and then if the car is recalled due to a safety flaw, they are not allowed to get the problem fixed due to their violation.
Now I realize that this is hardly a safety issue and lives are not likely to be lost, but the principles are ultimately the same... the only difference is a matter of degree.
That's why so many people are upset about this. At least, that's what I would imagine is the reason.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Don't worry, the keygen is in the public domain.
What you do with it is your business.
I personally have 8 licenses of Windows XP and only 4 computers.
Why do I use a keygen? Mostly because I don't like activation.
Of course I also edited my license agreement to "I agree to use this software in any manner I see fit under existing copyright law" and had it signed with the same signatures that the original agreement had. Which would be none.
They hate OSS users more, because at least, the pirates could theorically be brought to justice and/or made to cough-up cash to Billy-Boy, whereas they just can't LEGALLY lay their hands on OSS users and squeeze cash out of them...
No, they hate OSS users more because they don't contribute to making Microsoft the standard. If every pirate switched to Linux, you wouldn't be able to use a word document and figure most of the people you talk to will be able to read it. Instead you'll have to use another, non-Microsoft file format. But if you do that, then there is less reason for you to be using Windows, so more people will be inclined to move over to other operating systems.
Pirates make Microsoft the standard among home users.
I used to be really unhappy that Microsoft would not allow service patches to be used on pirated copies of windows.
It means that compromised machines will remain on the net for a long time, and it also means that eventually, a killer virus WILL shut down a bunch of computers, and really piss a bunch of people off.
Why? I know you can apply hot fixes anyways. But people are too lazy to find the ~200 hotfixes that comprise a service pack.
Anyways, back to why I'm happy about it:
Back in the day (Win95 era) MS basically encouraged piracy. It ensures vendor lock-in, and substantially hurt the revenue of any competitive offerings. Most piracy was petty, anyways-- You bought a new computer, it came with an OEM copy, you bought a laptop, it came with an OEM copy. But that computer you built for your mom, or that older computer you gave to a friend, got upgraded to the latest and greatest windows for free.
Until now. Now, that is no longer really possible.
Hopefully, this will give greater impetus for people to switch to alternatives (like Linux).
Linux looses a lot of its competitive advantage when windows is effectively 'free' too. Windows pirate has typically been rampant.
If even a small portion of those pirates switch, it will be a substantial move of the market.
I know this business (both the absurd patching regime, and the inability to 'soft' pirate) made me switch.
I can't keep track of all those serial numbers. I think all the computers in my home (5? 6?) have valid copies of Windows XP associated with them. I'm sure all the laptops came with them. But it is too much trouble to keep track of all that stuff.
Now everything runs SuSE. I bought one copy, reasonable cost ~$70.00, and I'm in the clear, legally.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
ed2k://|file|-MSKey4in1-.zip|39027|7FD0D67CB1C0DB
obviously run it at your own risk,virus scanner,worms yada yada
Here in mexico, piracy is a major concern... everybody uses a pirate copy of windows, nobody ever thinks about paying for a copy, it's not an option.
Microsoft did the same thing with SP1, everybody downloaded a crack from cracks.am and changed windows' serial, SP1's restriction was bypassed, I 'm sure microsoft hardcoded most (if not all) all those serials, but I bet a new batch of serials will come.
The solution is not "punishing" the market or whatever (can't find the right word), the solution would be lowering the prices, it's not like they NEED the liceses to be so expensive, is it?
In the mean time, Mexico (for one) will continue the piracy practices.
Fortunatelly I dont need it, I own the windose version that came installed in my notebook, and I use linux 99% of the time anyway.
Cheers