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".
This is only a pilot program for the UK, and it requires a proof of purchase (so they have someone to go after).
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.
I seriously doubt many knowing pirates are going to turn themselves in after a sudden guilt trip. M$ knows this too. But this puts them in the blogs and the papers, and they appear to be the good guy.
It's a PR move, nothing more, nothing less, move along.
+ Donald Gunth
+ Email: dgunth@quicktek.net
"Caffeine is the greatest lubricant ever created." -ESR
How do you know if you have a pirated copy of Windows?
What if someone buys a computer from some small company, and then installs a pirated copy on it (say they screw up and lose whatever discs they have) and claims the small company put it on there to get another licensed copy. Or what if they buy a computer without an OS (or with Linux) and claims the pirated copy they got was from the small company?
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...
...as a gun buyback program in Iraq...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
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
Microsoft Replaces Your Pirated Windows, For Free
There's another group offering to replace your copy Windows, no questions asked! Check out the free downloads. And there's no limit of five free replacments. Replace as many copies of Windows as you want!
Software Wars
This is a great idea! Linux and the BSDs should start a similar initiative.
"How do you know if you have a pirated copy of Windows?"
The flying flag screensaver is replaced with the skull and bones.
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 also got this notice from the police station today that says I have won a speed boat! All I have to do is go down to the station to sign the title and get the keys! I hope it won't be a problem that I have like 11ty billion unpaid parking tickets!
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable con
What stinks about this scheme is that first of all most people that buy from the corner shop guys are not mum and pop (they tend to buy from the larger retail stores), they are the semi computer savvy people and small business owners that need computers a the cheapest prices and probably know very well that they aren't getting a fully licensed version but don't really care. However now that MS are going to reward them with a legit copy and give them a golden handshake - the people that are going to cop it are the PC sellers who (while they should have known better anyway) have probably done the thing on the buyers request anyhow.
Even more scary is if you've built a system for a family member and they think they are doing the right thing by getting a legit copy may implicate you without purposely meaning to but they are trying to get something for nothing.
Another thing, to drive the local competition out of business go buy a few machines from them with a pirated version and then graciously line up for your free legit copies then drop their names and then profit.
I just can't be bothered.
"Our goal is not to prosecute the individual, our goal is to get to the source"
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Microsoft is asking for someone to make their source available?
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
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.
1. Allow users to get free, pirated copies of your product.
2. Contact those users and offer to give them a free, unpirated copy of your product.
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Shame on Google.
> 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?
I bought my PC from Dell and it came with WinXP preinstalled. Can I swap this stupid "restore" CD for an honest to god Windows CD????
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]
Yeah. There. I Said it.
If Microsoft had bulletproof copy protection back in the Microsoft Windows 3.1/WFW3.11 days, they wouldn't have become the giant they are today. "Back in the day" lots of folks made a copy of the Windows floppies (yep, people used to sell software on floppies!) that came with the new PC delivered to the office for use on their home PCs, or even to 'update' older PCs in the office. It was a trivial task and it made Windows so prevalent in the work and home environment that by the time Windows 95 was launched people were hooked. Think crack dealer ("first one's free, dude.").
Whether by guilty conscience, rabid fan-dom, or dare I say consumer satisfaction, people were ready and willing to pony up the bucks to get the latest goods, even using a very liberal and unchecked upgrade policy. How many folks here remember doing the math on upgrades and realizing you could save a hundred bucks by using your copied diskettes as a "qualfying upgrade" product? This was also the case for Microsoft Office - you could go out and buy MS Works and an Upgrade Edition of MS Office 4.2 for less than the shelf price of a full-blown Office Standard install and feel like you've laid a can O' whup-ass on "the man".
That's about to change, the hammer is coming down, World Domination has been achieved. Every potential customer has been tapped. Format lock-in and closed document 'standards' ensure consumer lock-in for the next upgrade round. Maybe.
Consumers are geting really tired of the upgrade mill caused by operating system version changes/upgrades which invariably require them to upgrade all their applications as well, and the insufferable gymnastics involved in something as simple as moving or *gasp* copying their root install to a new hard disk. People really are getting smarter about software and the realize that Microsost is more worried about their intellectual property than the users' precious data. In short, they're treating us like criminals; guilty until proven innocent. SOP.
I like it. I see more and more customers looking at alternatives, and even if that means that have to buy a Linux install from us with Crossover Office just to run their MS Office stuff, so be it. The sooner the end user, the part of the equation that really matters, realizes how badly they've been treated, the better.
Sure, beige box twits who install dodgy copies of XP, and Joe Sixpack users who find themselves unable to update the pirated version they just "bought" with their new whiz-bang PC will find their machine rendered more useless with each newly discovered exploit to go wild, are gonna sweat it huge, but it just means more clients to me. I'm armed and ready with whatever distro they think is pretty enough, and can sell it with a clear conscience.
Are you?
one better than mcleodeight
RTFA. Then think. Then post. In that order.
The program is clearly designed for those who paid for a comp with bootleg Windows or who paid an OEM to install bootleg windows. Not at those with the half a brain required to install it themselves.
Thus if they start busting doors, instead of increasing consumer confidence and market share, they'll end up on the front page of CNET and gain nothing but bills for replacing Grandpa's front door.
Instead, they're going after those who sell pirated copies of XP. This is essentially a much more ethical move than suing your 12-year old fans, and it will hit the one branch of piracy that could use the hitting: asshats that sell it to idiots that couldn't figure out IRC to save their lives.
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
This will cost them a fortune! Don't those things cost hundreds of dollars a piece?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
We'll believe they don't only after they prove that they don't.
But see, we don't read the article. So summaries from readers who KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW make for awesome comments....
Where's +1 Unfortunately True?
It used to be like this;
1. Create a crappy OS.
2. Let every pirate copy it for free.
3. Everybody uses crappy OS.
4. Every company switches to crappy OS because everybody already uses it.
5. Profit
Now they've protected WinXP a bit too good;
1. Create a crappy OS.
2. Nobody can pirate it.
3. Nobody uses it.
4. No company switches.
5. No profit.
So they're fixing it like this;
1. Create a crappy OS.
2. Nobody can pirate it.
3. Distribute it for free to pirates.
4. Everybody uses it.
5. Every company switches.
6. Profit.
Sounds familiar?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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!
Some mods use "the real" +1s on funny because "+1 Funny" does nothing for that persons karma, so that "+3 Funny, -1 Overrated" actually lessens the karma of the poster.
Different variations on this reason can be given, I'm just too lazy to type them, so I'll let you think for yourself.