Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Replaces Your Pirated Windows, For Free
th3d0ct0r writes "ZDNet reports that Microsoft is now willing to replace your pirated version of Windows XP. As part of the recently started "Windows Genuine advantage" program, Alex Hilton explains that this incentive aims to bring out customers who bought PC's with Windows XP preinstalled from vendors that pirated the Microsoft OS. Not only do they offer amnesty to anyone coming forth with a pirated version, but also to ship an original version of their product with a valid license to replace the pirated one, each customer being able to get up to 5 such replacements. Hilton says: "Our goal is not to prosecute the individual, our goal is to get to the source".
Cudos to Microsoft for a great move that should hopefully encourage customers to report on their pre-installed pirated copies of Windows XP. Rather than attacking the user, they can go to the supplier. This can only be a move in the right direction, in my opinion, and I feel this sort of move should be lauded and supported by the general public.
I'm curious to see what the general reaction to this move is.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
Nope, this is not a PR move.. this is an attempt to find people who SELL pirated software
MS gets to identify and crack down on hardware vendors abusing their licensing programme and is more likely to generate future revenue stream via product upgrade fees.
a world in progress...
"Our goal is not to prosecute the individual, our goal is to get to the source".
Translation: Our goal is future upgrade revenue.
I'm thinking a LOT of slashdotters would be wary about giving up their names and addresses to this sort of program, regardless of the promises of Microsoft.
IMO, I think Microsoft is honest in their intentions, but I can see where this might come back to bite some people, with the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits as an example.
All in all, though, this is good business for Microsoft - they've ALWAYS been quite generous with their licenses (developers, network admins, etc have always enjoyed a lot of freebies or outrageously generous package deals). Microsoft knows that once they get you on the straight and narrow, you'll probably keep coming back to them with legitimate purchases.
Of course, an outfit like the RIAA has the opposite business model and problem - selling crap CDs at inflated prices and chasing down, threatening and prosecuting every last potential user. The real problem for them is that for every person they "catch", there are 100 more who decide the RIAA and their ilk deserve no business and pirate out of spite.
Microsoft doesn't have that problem... the "haters" would be hipocritical to pirate Microsoft products, after all, they hate the product, right? So pirated copies almost become "free samples" to entice people in, and amnesty is the way to get that user back to buying the product (or at least the next cycle). Sure, they'd prefer you paid for the license, but they aren't as stupid as the record labels and movie people... they know many users either won't pay or paid a dishonest vendor; if you couldn't afford it anyway, they haven't lost a customer - but if you could afford it, you'll probably BUY the next version, or perhaps other Microsoft packages, because they were nice to you.
In short, it's a win-win for people who bought PCs with pirated Windows on them (and the vendor comes out as a loser when Microsoft comes knocking on THEIR door).
You still have to shop the guys who you bought your unlicensed copy of the OS from. And that includes signing a sworn statement to the fact.
So, in essence, Microsoft gives you a legitimate copy of the software (or at least a license for the software that you already have installed) and you give Microsoft a mid-sized piracy outfit on a silver platter.
Total cost to Microsoft for eliminating a pirate that might be costing them tens, if not hundreds, of thousands: next to nothing. The pirate outfit will probably end up forking over the lost income one way or another (in court or out of court, whichever Microsoft decides) and even it it doesn't (because it declares bankrupcy or something similar) it'll never be selling another pirated copy of Windows XP again, which means more legitimate Windows XP sales for Microsoft in the long run.
You have to admit, it's one helluva smart play by Microsoft. It gets to make more money and it gets to look like the good guy too.
Oh, and why not totally free? Well, apart from the legal stuff that you have to sign, there's a good chance that any outfit that's pirating Windows XP on a large scale barely has its head above water. The cost of getting caught by Microsoft, or even the cost of going legitimate from there onwards, is likely to drag such a company down like a stone. If that happens, your PC's warranty won't be worth the paper that it's written on.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Hmm... there is about nothing in this post I agree with. First off, patches are easy as pie to get for Microsoft products once they release them. They have some pretty damn fast servers waiting to upload all the patches they've ever released. Second, backwards (reverse?) compatibility is also impressive. You can run many many old programs on new Windowses and often vice versa. Microsoft has WAY better backwards compatibility than Linux, as things often get rearranged and rethought in Linux. The problems with MS are vendor lock-in, security holes, instability. (stability being more of a problem with Microsoft Playstation OSes of 95,98,Me) To be honest, I think backwards compatibility holds Windows back... you get tons of remnant erroneous junk from old Windowses that piles up in the garbage heap that is Microsoft Windows code. Example: The Windows Registry... big disaster, but we still have it around. Why? The registry is a pathetic unmaintained cob-web-full configuration system with information about programs you thought you'd eradicated years ago. *shudders*. It is the single biggest cause of the common view of Windowsites that Windows should be reinstalled annually. And finally, the quantity of bugs in code is irrelevant to how many people use it. More people means more get exposed, and it also means that people will try to exploit flaws in the code, but having many users doesn't automatically make you a sloppy coder. Ever wonder why Microsoft releases service packs? I figure that once they think they've squashed a good number of bugs, they need to rewrite some things in order to introduce new ones. They rewrite a bunch of now-working code in order to create new bugs just waiting to be exposed. SPs are the means to hide these among innocent security fixes and other additions. So yes, this brings me to that I do sort-of agree with your last point. They really do want you to upgrade to their latest incarnation of Windows.
I live in the Philippines and here pirated software is part of the culture. You walk down to the mall and buy it. I'd be surprised if you can actually get very much original software.
Even our school was using pirated software until a year ago. The government is trying to launch an anti-piracy campaign, but when the computer stores themselves sell and install only pirated software, you can't get very far. Microsoft needs to acknowlege that nobody wants to pay that much money for a piece of software full of bugs.
It's called a sting... Once you have a list of people/shops selling pirated software, you send an undercover 'buyer' for proof.
I don't know who at microsoft thought of this but once you get over the initial shock, this makes sense.
The people who already have a pirate version of Windows that came pre-installed in their pc have no reason to buy a legitimate copy ; therefore, giving them one for free does not represent a loss for microsoft. They'll spend the same money they spend on manufacturing an SP2 update cd which anyone can order for free.
And I imagine quite a few people will turn on their "shady" local pc stores if it means getting something for nothing. Even if the something is only an imagined peace of mind. Microsoft can in turn sue those stores for tidy amounts of money. I suspect they'll make enough of it to pay for the cds, the publicizing and the lawyer fees.
Of course, any profits from these lawsuits would be too small to be of interest to Microsoft. However, once enough stores are sued, not only will that ensure most of them will start paying microsoft for legitimate copies of winXP, but it will also ensure that many other stores will fall in line because they fear some of their customers will report them.
Divide and conquer : The oldest trick in the world
And while I do not harbor any affection for Microsoft because of their condemnable business practices, I have take my hat off to the guy who thought of this.
Microsoft then checks your version to see if it really is genuine. If it isn't, they assume you are innocent (since you have receipt to demonstrate that you bought it believing it was the real deal). Then, they go after the company that sold you the pirate version.
So it's not a trick, it's not about converting pirates, and it's not a PR move. If you pirated your copy deliberately, then you won't be able to get a legal copy for free without getting in trouble. If you believe you have a legal copy but want to check, this is a way to do so for free.
I'm a member of the popular Microsoft hating slashdot group, but this is not what you suggest - not as far as I understand it.
> And if John Q Jackass has his vendetta, he'll wind
> up spending more time behind bars than the PC
> store for slander, possible perjury, whatever the
> formal charge is for inciting a malicious
> prosecution, etc.
I realise this is a totally hypothetical example, but what law has he broken?
JQJ says "Vendor X sold me a PC with dodgy Windows on it" to Microsoft (note: not someone with any legal authority to act in this matter).
MS gives JQJ a shiny new Windows, which JQJ then dutifully installs on the PC.
MS then confronts X with a "Please explain" email or visit from BSA or whatever. All X has to do is say "I didn't do anything wrong", produce some sort of supporting paperwork and that's game over.
If MS goes back to JQJ and says "You've been telling porkies", JQJ can say "This PC had the bogus version of Windows on it since I bought it. Now I've installed the shiny new version you gave me". How is MS (note: without any legal powers) to decide which of X and JQJ is telling the truth?
MS isn't about to visit every JQJ out there and examine the InstallDate registry entry to find out when Windows was installed on that particular PC. MS and/or the BSA can jump up and down and try to get local law enforcement involved, but any evidence that did exist would be well and truly gone by then.
Have I missed anything?
They've been dealing with piracy for ages.
They aren't going to be taking Joe Numbnut and his personal pirated copy to court now or in the future. An individual person simply isn't worth going after.
Obviously OS piracy is easier to target. People generally expect computers to come with an OS so computer makers pirating in a nice physical location make a nice target.
With music/movies there's no need for such centralisation.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I'd hate to see karma whoring evolve to people restating a few lines from the article.
But see, we don't read the article. So summaries from readers who KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW make for awesome comments....
This has very little to do with converting pirates (which I'm sure even M$ realizes is a losing battle). The piracy sector M$ is genuinely worried about is people who get suckered into buying pirated copies from bootleggers or shady computer shops.
Does anyone else find this post disturbing? It starts off with the comment that the crooks operate with impunity (even M$ realizes they can't stop the pirates). This "M$" moniker stems from the idea that somehow Microsoft is this evil empire stealing from the very people that buy their software, and ends with the idea that uSoft is really only victimizing the victims (those who get suckered).
I think I understand this sentiment. Its a feeling that "Oh Geez, those guys at Microsoft have the market, and all that money, and all those advantages." I worked at a large software server company that was annihililated by Microsoft. But, they out marketed us, they out CEOd us, they out engineered us, and most importantly, they out executed us. I have every reason to hate these guys: my company was decimated, and it had a very personal effect on my life and future. But I don't even with their deep pockets, because they managed to execute whereas my company did not.
Say what you want, I do not believe that Microsoft is the evil empire. Leave that to ATT or the tobacco companies, which have leagues of lawyers manipulating the government. And if you still feel that way, consider that Microsoft has managed to evolve itself inspite of its huge size, for example adding a gui to DOS, adding IP to its system, or even adding ie as an intrinsic part of its OS.
Regardless of how you feel about microsoft, its ability to adapt and evolve given its size is remarkable and should be admired.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
This has been well documented. Basically, its the best of both worlds for Microsoft because the illegal copies are not counting towards Microsoft's sales (and therefore not helping antitrust prosecutions), the governments and large businesses were the majority of desktop PCs are (who have to obey the law and can afford the ludicrous per-seat prices of MSW) have to buy MSW because it is ubiqitous as everyone else uses (illegal copies of) MSW. If MS inflates the prices of MSW enough (as they have) they will get illegal copying but that just encourages the ubiquity of MSW, but they will be more than payed back by the sales to the few who own the majority of PCs, need to stay within the law and will pay any ludicrious price.
Also, as Bill Gates stated in a frank moment, Microsoft want to introduce pirated copies of MSW "like a drug" into less-econmically developed countries in order to "get them hooked on" and lock them in to MSW and remove usage of free software in these countries.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Even if it is only a pilot program, I must say, Microsoft has much better PR (and marketing) people than the RIAA et al.
I feel too lazy right now to draw up a "step 1, step 2, profit!" list, but I think this is a pretty smooth move by Microsoft: increase consumer trust/goodwill, nail pirate "hubs" and generally solidify market share.
I'm no fan, but I have to say, Microsoft has its act together on this one.
Why is this funny?
The real upgrade to windows 2000 is windows 2003 (server).
Well, they were also here illegally so fuck them and fuck you.
Which "pirate" in his right mind is going to sell pirated software to anyone and leave a paper trail long enough to implicate him in the form of a bill?
Ah, but lack of a paper trail will not make your pissed off users forget where they bought their computer. Say, a policeman out of uniform stops by at your store to do a little shopping, then makes a call to Microsoft to validate the Windows copy they got on their HD?
And abandon it they will because the only way to sustain this is to keep dishing out Windows free, which of course MS cannot possibly do.
What's the harm to give a free copy to people who are already using your stuff without paying and are likely trying to come clear?
It's funny that you mentioned it though, because I believe eventually Microsoft will have a free basic OS and sell stuff that runs on top of it. Think of what happened when Netscape released a good, free web browser. Once Linux functionality reaches certain level and PC+monitor can be had for $200 or so, vendors will start to take a notice of even $20 OEM copy price. Then there is only one thing Microsoft can do to compete.
which they've already lost due to piracy, so it's not really any price at all to hunt out the people at the top.
Windows XP has always been Microsoft's first big step into clamping down on the freedoms that most users have taken for granted up until now.
From Microsoft's perspective, there is very little money to be made from just selling OSes any more, hence the licensing lock-ins that most guarantee regular income to MS.
With regard to home and private users, make no mistake that MS intends to become a utility company alongside your electricity, gas and telephone provider. They want everyone to rent software and licenses that allow all of us to use the data we freely had access to and control over ourselves.
Windows XP, along with WMP 10 and ultimately DRM hardware will force the rental model upon all Windows users - sure, it will be sold as security enhancements to Joe Public but will ultimately force all Windows users to continually pay to use their software or suffer deactivation.
This is why Microsoft can afford to give away XP because, in the longer term, they will gain from this.
It's important that, in the Open Source user-base, we continue to push home the message that it's not just about security & stability when choosing to use FOSS - its primarily about personal freedoms and maintaining our rights to use whatever software we want on our computers.
So don't get lost amongst the smoke and mirrors of what MS is doing here by giving away XP - it's ultimately about everyone paying money to MS in the future for the rights to do the things they did freely in the past.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
In all my born days I have seen about a dozen legit copies of any version of Windows {including 3.11 on a stack of floppies} -- including about six at my workplace. Everyone else I know has an operating system they didn't pay for: either a dodgy copy of Windows, or Linux.
.sxw and .sxc files, would be a little baffled at first; but soon come to realise that they are OpenOffice files. Then they would install OpenOffice -- and maybe notice that instead of dire warnings against copying, comes a notice encouraging you to copy and spread their software!
This is how it works in the UK. If you go to a back-street computer shop -- not PriCey World, not Dixons, but an actual independent retailer, a 21st century artisan -- to buy a machine, you get told the cost of the hardware not including software. Not even Windows. You are then given a choice: either you can take the machine away like that and install your own software, or you can pay for a legitimate copy of Windows and Office and all the usual crap like Outlook Express and Internet Exploder.
At this point the customer probably is going to be shocked by how much the software will cost; and unless they are particularly straight-arsed about such matters, will inquire discreetly about a cheaper way. The shopkeeper's younger assistant will offer to do the job, strictly on the quiet and subject to the customer never breathing a word. The receipt says "No Operating System" and the cost of the software is paid, in cash, straight into the assistant's sky rocket. Lovely!
The customer leaves, thinking they got one up on Microsoft by ripping off "hundreds of pounds" of software. Hey, it feels so good, stickin' it to The Man! And Ballmer cackles, because he knows the customer still believes they need Microsoft. Truth is, it's The Man who stuck it to you. Just because you didn't pay for it, doesn't make it less buggy or crash-prone. You still haven't got the source code -- and having a competent programmer look at the source code is the only way ever to make it less buggy and crash-prone. You still get every disadvantage you would have got if you had paid full whack for a legit copy, on top of the twin disadvantages that it's illegal and you know full well.
In a more sorted universe, the shopkeeper would of course say, "Sure! You could have Linux and OpenOffice instead, for nothing." The customer would spend a day or two getting used to it and then realise they didn't need Microsoft. The customer's friends, being emailed loads of
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!