Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Says Linux PCs Just Used To Pirate Windows
LostCluster writes "CNET is reporting results from a Gartner Group report that claims 40% of desktop machines sold with Linux on them are being used to run pirate copies of Windows! The report goes on to say that this stat reaches as high in 80% in 'emerging markets', the same places that the stripped down lite version of Windows is being aimed at. Gartner's making a bold prediction that the number of machines sold as Linux desktops may eclipse the number of machines actually running Linux."
There's also the unwarranted assumption that just because you didn't buy the PC with windows, you're pirating it.
I have MSDN Universal, which give me 10 XP, win2k, win2003, etc. not to mention the multilingual stuff - if I was mad enough I could buy dozens of machines, all with valid licenses (my last workplace worked entirely like that, although we had on MSDNU for every 3 developers).
When piracy is defined as any use that the vendor does not approve of, it's hard to call it a moral issue and to think of the vendor as a victim.
Exactly. This is another variant of the problem that the entertainment content industry has created for itself: By making copyright terms so long that most people don't realize they ever expire, people no longer see copyright as a good trade -- or as any kind of trade at all -- and therefore have no compunction about violating the hell out of it.
It's a slashdot cliche, but it really is true: The more you tighten your grasp, the more copies will slip through your fingers, as the majority simply stops paying attention to your restrictions.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I have never entered into a contract with Microsoft. Indeed, the last few machines I have bought had MS Windows pre-installed, so I never even had to click on "I accept" to install it. Under the doctrine of First Sale, in the absence of a contract I can do what I please with the goods that I purchase. Can someone explain to me how Microsoft's wishes could possibly be binding on me?
For me this is a purely hypothetical question since I have no interest in running MS Windows, but I am perplexed by the idea that Microsoft's EULA's can be binding on people who either never saw them until after they purchased the software or on people who have never even looked at the EULA. Haven't the courts ruled that such "shrinkwrap licenses" are invalid?
Turns out that most of them, even if they do claim to be contractually obliged etc, will oblige for the simple reason that it's a sale they wouldn't otherwise get.
Let me tell you a little story. Last year, my appartment was broken into and my computers stolen. Of two Windows copies, the insurance company agreed to reimburse only one. Apparently they have problem with paying for software...
Since I keep all my CD keys seperately, I ended up calling MS to get a new key because the old one refused to install on the new computer.
Guess what, they refused to cancel the old one and give me a new one because the license is tied to the stolen hard drive. Great.