Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sets Value Of Pirated Windows: $1
nick_davison writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft has reached a deal with the Indonesian government on pirated software - which is believed to affect around 50,000 government PCs. Under the deal, Indonesia will pay $1 per copy and agree to buy legally in the future. Indonesia's information minister, Sofyan Djalil, said, "Microsoft is being realistic. They can't force developing countries like us to solely use legal software since we can't afford it. They want us to gradually reduce our use of it." Somehow it seems unlikely the same rules will be applied to developing companies and poorer individuals in the United States."
but they want to keep their customers.
Let me get this straight... a copy of windows is worth 1$ illegally pirated, but a CD is worth what was that again? $20,000? Someone PLEASE explain that one to me.
Okay, so they are more or less going for people officially being their customers (in a sense), rather that unofficially pirating the same software? It's interesting how piracy does seem to encourage such companies to drastically lower their prices...
see a Text Widget
Not worth it - that's still more than twice what Debian charges.
"At least we know what the true value of Microsoft Windows is."
Yeah, my biases affect my ability to estimate value, too.
"Derp de derp."
"Somehow it seems unlikely the same rules will be applied to developing companies and poorer individuals in the United States."
You scream Linux, OpenOffice and not bluff you'll get big discounts. MS is rich because people simply pay up. Start being an *informed* consumer, markets work better that way.
Deleted
fools! MS would rather PAY YOU to maintain its monopoly and mindshare than have you turn to linux.
...and about as good for you, too.
Seriously, though -- why do people still pirate MS products when you can have the free (better?) alternative operating system, office suite, e-mail client, yadda yadda?
Is this a statement of "joe sixpack" and his relative ignorance of the alternatives or is this more a shot at OSS -- "we'd rather break laws than use your free (no-good) stuff?" The former seems to be a quest for a Linux marketing department. The latter is one for the usability experts to hammer out with the open source coders.
Either way, there's some truth to be revealed in the answer to why people still pirate Microsoft products.
Can this set any precident for the "value" of MSFT software in general? If someone is caught with pirated software, could this overturn the (potential) $150,000 copyright violation because of this precident?
I assume MSFT knows what it's doing (what with their fleet of lawyers).
The Indonesian information minister's statement is ridiculous: "They can't force developing countries like us to solely use legal software since we can't afford it." WTF? Why not? If you can afford Windows, give it a shot. If you can't, try OSS. It'll work. Maybe better, maybe worse. But you sure as hell can be forced to do things legally.
It's not like they're being forced to pay outrageous prices for their sole source of food or something. They have a choice of software, and they choose an expensive, proprietary, non-free one. The shiny, fancy one. Guess what? It costs money.
They can't force developing countries like us to solely use legal software since we can't afford it.
By "developing countries" he means 3rd world and poorer than dirt.
According to my tax returns, I'm poorer than dirt. Is MS going to force me into using software I can't afford? Why do THEY get a break when I probably make something comparable to their salary?
Look at just about *any* large software company that sells to businesses. Their goal is to get you locked-in to a software package, and then milk as much money as they possibly can from you. The real money to be made is in hidden costs. Sure, Bob the Purchasing Manager *thinks* that he's bought a copy of the software, but in fact he's signed off on spending money on the software package for the next fifteen years until the company is frusterated enough to ante up enough money to jump ship to another package.
And the best tool of all in the software world to squeeze those-money engorged corporate udders is incompatibility -- file formats, APIs and protocols that only *you* can provide. (And user expertise in your software.)
The smart purchaser stays the hell away from any proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols.
The main reason that the open source world is nice for the corporate world is not the up-front price benefits. It's the fact that open source software inherently has non-proprietary file formats, APIs, and protocols, means that a choice of open source software ensures that you can't be milked (well, *too* much) or else someone else will toddle on in and start providing an alternative.
Consider an example: People using Subversion for their source control aren't going to pay a cent for anything in the future. Even if Subversion cost $5000 a seat, instead of being gratis, it would still mean only a one-time payment. People using ClearCase have many years of rich milk-giving ahead of them.
Microsoft lets people use Windows for minimal cost in areas that it wants to enter because it establishes one of the above pillars of lock-in -- it builds user expertise in their software. Any software with a different interface or behavior immediately represents a barrier to change. That retraining has a cost, that cost can have a dollar value assigned to it, and that dollar value is exactly how much Microsoft can milk you for in the future.
Microsoft's most-used mechanism to help *spread* lock-in is not contracts or dirty legal tactics, but bundling. Get one element of lock-in into play (say, file formats, with Windows binary compatibility), and use it to get Windows deployed, then try to use that to get people to use another element of Windows that can provide its own lock-in benefits. The economic potential, the amount of money that Microsoft can milk users for, increases with every increment of lock-in.
Microsoft didn't give away Internet Explorer for free because they love you and like petting kitties and giving candy to babies. They did it because (a) it builds user expertise in a feature of their software that then is difficult to move away from, increasing lock-in, (b) enough use of Internet Explorer results in network-spanning lock-in as people start dabbling in things like ActiveX, which are a big milk-producing mechanism for Microsoft, and (c) it provides another, significant, platform to use to introduce file format and protocol incompatibility, and thus further milk-producing lock-in. Internet Explorer is an *investment* in producing economic potential, lock-in, which they can cash in for loads of money over time in the future.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
end rant
WHY does M$ needs $50k from Indonesia? Maybe they could donate the windows copies to the Tsunami Relief efforts...
How stupid are slashdot readers?!
$1 is for each pirated copy the government declares so far. After that, the government stops pirating, and starts paying money! Thats right - for having an initial amnesty to get the ball rolling, Microsoft gets another lucrative government IT contract.
So why doesn't Microsoft charge different prices depending on the country? Wouldn't that maximize their profits?
Then we'd all buy our MS products overseas.
Essentially 50,000 pirated copies of windows are worth $50,000 more than 50,000 real copies of windows.
This makes the punitive side of the damages pretty low, but the scale of this settlement means very little for casual pirates.
Now granted, someone that owns a PC generally seems like they'd be someone that can afford an OS. But thats not the case alot of times. I mean you go into any place that sells software, and you STILL see Windows Xp Home at the $80 mark or more. Often or not it's still $100 in most big chain stores like Best Buy.
I know plenty of people who have small, self built PC's they've built slowly over time. Just like some people put together a decent car by buying the core parts seperately. Or better yet I know people whom have been given an average PC that you normally see in mom & pop type stores, as a gift. These PC's are monsters in terms of hardware or specs, they probably run the basics like Office and IE. Parents buy these all the time for kids, the bare essentials for doing homework and studying (of course kids use them for IM's online and games)
Case in point is M$ will never show love to poor people. If you're still in school (before or during college) you're more than likely going to need a PC. Sure most schools offer campus use of their PC's but often it's under their timetables, under their rules, which not everyone can meet. When an OS costs almost 1/3 of what you paid for a simple PC to use Office or to browse the Internet (with dial up mind you, most often), it's obvious it costs too much.
Some will say "but you can use something older like Windows 2000 or 98". Sure, you can. Check the date lately? Official support for 2k runs out soon, and 98's + 95's has been out for a while. What happens when a critical flaw is found after support has been cut off? Hope that Symantec or some other company might be kind enough to patch the OS itself even though they are virus scanning providers not the OS makers? It's not a HUGE deal now but as more and more flaws + crippling virii come out each year (MS Blast anyone?..) it's a matter of time before that family of 5 living in a small apartment have to pirate XP or Longhorn to simply guarantee their computer is safe so use.
This is why M$ has a damn monopoly. Sure you can choose a cheaper OS, hell some are even free. But then you lose support for A), most major software titles or games that are not ported to your non-Windows OS, and B) you have to spend time learning a new OS that's not support alot. Example, imagine a family buys one of these low end PC's for their kids, and manages to find a real affordable broadband provider. Since they can't afford to shell out $100+ for Windows XP Home they get a copy of some Linux distro. At some point their broadband cuts out so they call tech support. Tech support says "Oh we're sorry we can't help you, you aren't running Windows". Or you take it into a shop to get something fixed, say the disk drive goes out. Alot of mom & pop repair places don't do Linux OS'ed PC's, at least not here locally. You might be fine at some big place like Best Buy but then you're stuck paying outrageous prices for a 5 minute drive switch.
You can see how the list goes on. In the end the poor get shafted, so yes we do pirate. Not because we can, or because we are cheap, because we simply cannot afford it and in alot of cases it's nessicary.
Aw Frell this
I am sure there are going to be many Microsoft bashers about this article, but the fact is the software is not FREE. If you don't like it use Linux, BSD, or some other FREE software. Microsoft does have a right to collect on their software, and yes Mr. Inormation minister they can and should enoforce their copyrights. If they don't then they could forfeit them.
Windows is popular because Apple blew it, and Linux was just recent and not very user friendly at the time. I am a Linux fan, but whether or not you like it Microsoft deserves the price they set. However, no one said you had to buy it.
Nonsense.
Thieves in Indonesia remain theives.
It's ludicrous for an Indonesian government minister to justify theft on the grounds that the government can't afford to buy Windows. How did they pay for the hardware the stuff runs on? Or, did they steal that, too?
Smacks of a con to me.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
* Most corporations are corrupt ...
* All governments are corrupt
* Individuals are powerless when the two get together, unless they get together, too
* Resistance is not futile, but is bloody
* You will be assimilated quicker if you buy Nikes, eat at McD's, use MS products
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Ever consider the possibility she is innocent? How unlikely is it that baggage handlers are not involved, or do you think that they, their employers (ie Qantas) and any other agency are more concerned with their reputation than trying to free an innocent victim.
VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT
now if we can just do something about that damn Intel tax ....
This is another country you are talking about. This is a sovereign conuntry. Your law need not apply here. You want to force them to cooperate? You can use diplomacy, or you can invade.
Ah, in my opinion, its worse than all that. I consider it a human rights issue when people are subjected to show trials, without the benefit of innocence until proven guilty, and when a person is prevented from mounting an affirmative defense. Show trials like this one are the kind of stuff you normally think about when a spy plane pilot is shot down over soviet territory, not when a rather normal (as far as Aussies are normal) civilian is caught with some naughty plants in her luggage.
Innocent or not, she wasn't even given the chance to defend herself. It seems obvious to me that the judges in this case had decided guilt from the beginning, and were expecting her defense to be a plea for leniency. This is not justice. This is the opposite of justice, and its an outrage. However, the fact that no western nation is actually DOING anything about this is indicidive of world politics today. Indonesia is important economically. Thats all that matters. Let Miss Corby rot in prison the rest of her life, as long as Indonesia's markets remain open.
Such little, unimportant things like Human Rights are never going to get the attention they deserve from the west, not as long as our politicians, and the people they represent, refuse to grow some balls and make some (economic) sacrifices for what should rightly be percieved as the greater good.
No sig now
What are those export restrictions you speak of? Sheesh! When America talks to the third world, all they talk about is trade liberalization. Get on with the global show. /sarcasm off
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
And Visual Studio = $300
and
and...
Namaste
You forget that by doing that they won't make a profit. For example you sell MS Office 2002 to Indonesia for lets say $10, out of that $10 at least $5 is used for cd stamping, cardboard box, etc., $3 the development of the software, and $3 for the reseller themselves. Well they just lost $1 by doing that, or they can sell it for $200 and have enough people buy the software to make a slight profit. As a business which would you rather do? lose money or make a profit? Microsoft has gotten used to people pirated their software. With Windows XP they put enough protection to stop the casual users, but they knew people would find a hack (or use Volume Licensed keys) and people who would use the pirated software still would.
To me the article sounds like a good PR move. make an agreement with another government so they seem like less of a bad guy and try to get them to buy more and more legal software. If you notice its $1 per computer not $1 per peice of illegal software per computer.
So should I get caught for pirating a copy of windows (which I'm not), can I cite this as a precedent for a settlement of $1 per copy? Or is it that since this is overseas that it doesn't count somehow, even though Microsoft would have to pay US taxes on the monies earned abroad under current laws? And should Microsoft be able to sue me for pirating their software, could I countersue them for price-gouging if their asking price is the US price while they demand a lesser price abroad? This is a serious question so don't waste your moderator points.
innocence until proven guilty
This is only *one* way of running a trial. Some countries practice guilty until proven innocent, including as it happens, Indonesia.
In the "western" system of proving guilt over a presumption of innocence we have the possibility of releasing (perhaps dangerously) guilty people because we couldn't adequately prove thier guilt, but it's very hard for innocent people to get locked up.
However in countries where we must prove innocence over a presumption of guilt we have the possibility of locking up innocent people because they couldn't adequately prove thier innocence, but it is very hard for guilty people to be erroneously released, without bribery of course.
Six of one, half dozen of the other really, both systems have advantages, both have problems. You have to decide for yourself if you would rather have some guilty people get away with it, or some innocent people serve time erroneously.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Indonesia's information minister, Sofyan Djalil, said, "Microsoft is being realistic. They can't force developing countries like us to solely use legal software since we can't afford it. They want us to gradually reduce our use of it."
So it's okay to pirate software if you can't afford it? Oh hey, I can't afford the normal license price for Adobe Premier Pro, should I go ahead and pirate it? Bottom line is, if they can't afford MS's products, they should look at the other, legal alternatives; for example, OpenOffice, *nix, etc. Not being able to afford something doesn't mean it entitles you to illegally obtain it otherwise, or similarly.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
For the sake of the village let a family make a sacrifice - old saying. You seem to say let ten children starve (that is what economic sacrifice can mean) to ensure one person gets justice.
What is right, depends on your view point. Some might say let the children starve but one lady must get justice. Someone else might argue that for the sake of a village we might have to sacrifice one person. I presume there are a lot of villages in the western world and, lots of people are going to be sacrificed.
We can punish countries like Indonesia and push thousands of families in the west to penury, despair & possibly suicide (economic cost) but I am not sure if that will teach Indonesia a lesson and are we willing to bear the economic cost? The third option is to invade and "fix" those countries.
Sriram
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
No, not heroin, marijuana. You're thinking of the Bali Nine. They're toast.
Schapelle Corby only made the mistake of forgetting to lock her boogie board bag, so that airside baggage handlers in Brisbane could add a 4.1kg "going-away-for-a-long-time present" of weed that their mates in Sydney forgot to collect before her connecting flight. Tragic.
Ask your doctor if getting up off your ass is right for you! -- Bill Maher
The guy from Indonesia is full of crap. "developing countries like us ... can't afford [legal software]". They can afford legal software, (Cue OSS) just not Microsoft.
HOw is that any grounds for guilt? Glad I dont inhabit your world, we'd all be in prison for association.
VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT
Why is it that I have to compete on a global market labor-rate-wise, yet they don't have to pay global rates for software? You can't have it both ways, guys. If you stab my job with your $4/hr labor rates, then we get to stab you with $200 software.
If you go global, then do it fair.
Table-ized A.I.
This is only *one* way of running a trial. Some countries practice guilty until proven innocent, including as it happens, Indonesia.
e n_guilty)
1 6230239/http:// www.talkleft.com/archives/001907.html)
I beg to differ. "Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_prov
"It is better than 5, 10, 20, or 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be put to death. This prinicple is embodied in the presumption of innocence. In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision in the case Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394, traced the presumption of innocence, past England, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and, at least according to Greenleaf, to Deuteronomy."
(http://web.archive.org/web/200302
Presumption of guilt is crazy, simple as that. That's not a case of "okay, they have a different culture, so them treating suspects a tad different than us is fine", this is a case of "if we presume guilt we might as well just imprison everyone since nobody will be able to prove innocence on EVERY crime ever commited".
Free as in mason.
Pirated Britney single = $150,000
Who has the best accountants? MS or RIAA...
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
At the same time, blowing up a nightclub & killing 200 +/- western tourists will get you only 2 years in prison. Yeah, that's what one of those guys got. 2 years.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Oh so that is why our north-american politician are over paid,,,to keep them from being corrupt!!!
Oh wait that still doesnt work!