Slashdot Mirror
Ebay and Microsoft Fight Software Piracy
illeism writes "E-commerce News is reporting that Microsoft is going after Ebay sellers offering pirated copies of Microsoft software. From the article 'The suits do not name eBay as a defendant and Microsoft indicated that it has received extensive cooperation from the auction giant in the past as it tried to ferret out piracy. In fact, Microsoft said it asked eBay to remove some 50,000 suspicious auctions during 2005 alone ... The suits are mainly against individuals and cover alleged counterfeit sales of several Microsoft programs, including Windows and Office XP and older versions, such as Office 2000.'" More interestingly, the article flatly states that MS has no hope of ending piracy. The suits are apparently meant to 'protect consumers'.
This article is so slanted, it's positively perpendicular.
From TFA: Yes, of course....this incentive is to protect the consumer...not the multi-billion dollar software giant the Yankee Group is actually beholden to. 'Won't somebody think of the children', indeed. It's clear that if you have reservations about this in any way, you are un-american and hate our children. Why do you hate our children? Why do you hate America?
Here's another gem from TFA: Replace 'let' with 'force', and we might have a statement approaching truth. Checking if your Windows install was legal used to be entirely voluntary. WGA is voluntary only in the sense of 'you don't need to participate...and we don't need to give you non-critical updates'. This is analogous to a bank requiring your SS number to open an account, despite the fact that that number was meant soley for government use, and never designed for that sort of application. When asked why a SS number is required, when in fact, this requirement is illegal, bank managers invariably reply, "oh...you have every right to refuse to divulge your SS number...as we have every right to decline your account application". Same situation.
And finally: That depends on your definition of significant. Any headway they make is likely to save them much more than it costs, and that's all Microsoft really cares about in the final analysis....not stamping out piracy...not 'protecting the children', but enhancing the bottom line.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
It's always heartbreaking to see people pay money for MS products.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I make it a strong personal policy to completely disbeleive anything with Laura Didio's name associated with it. She's long been a special friend of Grocklaw
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
As a programmer, I understand where Mico$oft is coming from. I wouldn't want someone stealing my code and making a profit off of it by stealing my programs. My Question is, why does it seem that the Tri-State COmputer Show here in NY always seems to have pirated software/OEM software (without the hardware piece) for sale and they never get in trouble? Theres something fishy there... But not to digress, I think that Microsoft is doing a good thing by attempting to stop piracy.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
The upside for smaller software companies is that law governing this kind of activity is more fully developed. Down the road this may help them if they find themselves in the same situation.
Just because technology allows copying of 1's and 0's doesn't mean one should do so.
Here's a question- if MS software is disliked by so many then why do so many pirate it?
Cogito Ergo Sum
"MS has no hope of ending piracy."
At least until they implement end-to-end hardware-supported trusted computing, with laws making it illegal to circumvent or produce analog peripherals.
So are these human emplyees that are manually reading, inspecting and analysing all the individual auctions, sending the removal requests by hand or is there some automated system replying to anything containing "Windows"? Is it illegal to resell your original copy of Windows?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Also realize that counterfeit software more than likely has hacked CD Keys. Microsoft does not want people buying this hacked software only to find out that it doesn't work like it should. Microsoft doesn't want that simply because it could make the customer (who was a fool to buy it on ebay in the first place) think that it's Microsoft's fault. Because then the customer would have wasted money and be pissed off at Microsoft. All debates on how good or bad Microsoft products are aside, from a business standpoint, counterfeit software can hurt any software company, Microsoft or otherwise.
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
ian
The article is by Laura DiDio - the SCO supporter shill.
You get what you paid for - it's a venomous piece.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
When I was trying to sell a used Mac, I was competing with many, many auctions with descriptions like:
"Selling used iMac G4. Comes installed with, Adobe, Maya, Final Cut Pro, etc. Includes "backup" disk with "backup" copies of this software."
It included EVERY major OSX software product imaginable, and I knew it was in no way legitimate. It had to be $5000+ worth of software, total.
The retail value of the iMac G4 was maybe $1000, but the auctions were going for $1600-$2000. Clearly, people were willing to pay the extra money to get a copy of the software. I would be willing to bet that some of those people thought they were getting used legitimate copies.
This isn't fun+happy software piracy, where the 19 year old college kid wants to play with the $3000 professional video editing tools, this is a criminal selling someone else's software for profit, and I hope the hammer comes down on them...
When I bought my computer off eBay, I asked the seller if it had Windows XP Pro (my school required XP 'Pro,' and not 'Home'). He told me that it does, and Office too, but that eBay shut his site down when he advertized it. I thought, that's odd... (I was so naiive).
Anyway, I bought the computer, and it came with a burned version of the resource CD, and the hard drive had images of windows XP, Office, Nero, Norton (no, I didn't install Norton!) and several other programs. Mind you this computer was cheap too. I though, wow I got a deal!
But obviously everything on here is pirated. However, whenever I download something from Microsoft, they check to make sure my copy of Windows is "genuine" and it seems to think everything is in proper order...
It is legal for individuals (and companies?) to re-sell OEM licenses in Europe under the 1991 European Computer Software Directive.
e m_windows_copies_you/
Here is a link to the story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/08/selling_o
Europe does tend to stand up to MS no matter what Bill puts in his EULA.
I don't know, but with the required "call home" for many software packages, I'd be very hesitant to buy any software second hand. I'd be afraid that when I installed the second had software, it'd call home to activate and refuse to activate because there have been too many installs for that particular license.
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I must say I'm surprised at the amount of money people manage to make selling warez. I can't imagine many of these look like the real thing, I suppose it must be the "allofmp3.com" factor - you paid for it, so you've legitimized yourself. I certainly wouldn't trust anything I bought on eBay to be more genuine than the nearest bittorrent site. Without starting a "buy vs pirate" flamewar, getting it off eBay seems to be the worst of both worlds.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Goddamn corporate whores are colluding to not just monopolize an industry, but the market itself. That's just wrong.
If I'm forced to buy a copy of Windows that I don't want with my new computer, I should be able to freely re-sell that copy. (Ok, so being software, someone could make a "backup" copy and sell their original. That's not right either.)
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
A lot of these 50,000 'suspicious' copies are probably legitimate, you just can't sell it on Ebay because that would price the software at its true market value. First-sale doctrine, we hardly knew ye.
E-bay makes it incredibly easy for people to sell pirated software but makes it very difficult for owners of the software being pirated to stop the sellers. You have to join a program and then swear on your mother's grave and under threat of purgery that the person selling software is absolutely breaking the law and then you have to fax in documents to substantiate your claims (yes fax not e-mail). E-bay does eventually take action but they make the process as difficult as possible for owners of IP to defend their ownership. If I ran a business out of a store where I unknowingly (wink wink) facilitated the sale of stolen property, the police would still bust me and I'd find myself in court. E-bay does the same thing and somehow just waltz along with no repercusions.
About five years ago I tried to sell the copy of Microsoft Works that came with my Dell on eBay. Never wanted it, would have gladly passed on buying it with my system had that been an option. It was sealed in the shrink wrap with the authenticity sticker still on it (the "opening this package means you consent to the licensing agreement" message sealed inside). Never used... never openend... pulled off eBay.
I now understand that OEM Software is to stay with the machine it was bought with, but when the software is pushed to buyers that don't want it and are not allowed to resell their unused licenses, that's just too great a deal for the software publishers. I want in on that deal, heck, the mob wants in on that deal.
I think Microsoft should provide some sort of refund for their software that has never been licensed. My workplace has several XP licenses never used because those machines are running linux and it was cheaper to buy them with XP and take it off than to buy without.
Microsoft would likely classify this as an illegimate sale on the basis of some sort of logic. Remember just because you paid for them doesn't mean you own them, not at all... At least according to Microsoft.
Now if they made this plainly known and explicit on the package from day one, this would be a rather large dis-incentive to potential sales. A variant on the classic Bait and switch.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Funny how many scams are run on Ebay and they do little about it. Trying to contact a human is close to impossible. Their safe harbor department rarely gives a shit. Known scammers are allowed to keep their sellers id's even after numerous complaints.
Given Ebay history, my guess is that MS threatened to sue Ebay, so they are cooperating.
If you auction second-hand diamond jewellery, it suddenly has resale value. Since diamonds don't wear out, deBeers really don't want that, because their fortune depends on their control of the price of diamonds. If you could sell diamonds for anything like their market price, people would be more inclined to do so, the market would be flooded with the enormous number of precut diamonds in the hands of people everywhere and the price would drop like a (shiny but pointless...) stone.
De Beers spend a great deal of effort persuading you to attach sentimental value to these small chunks of carbon, in order to dissuade you from selling them. Jewellers will rarely offer anything close to market price for second-hand stones, because they know if they do, their lucrative first-hand business would dry up.
Ok, Office maybe, but would anybody want to or need to buy Windows on eBay? Maybe I'm out of touch with the masses, but with the abundance of Free software out there, and with Windows coming with every new PC (whether we want it or not), what's the point? Add to that the fact that you can get pretty much any piece of commercial software you want off of BitTorrent, and I can't imagine the market for used software being very big. And don't tell me the buyers don't realize that the burnt CD with the hand-written label is counterfeit. These people know exactly what they're doing, but they don't have the technical savvy to use P2P.
Furthermore, I would be willing to bet Microsoft is spending more money on these lawsuits than they save by stopping the handful of pirates they sue. Basically, this is just a PR game to try and disuade potential pirates with the threat of a lawsuit. The majority of Microsoft's profits come not from individual consumers, but companies, and most companies are not going to be buying their software off of eBay.
Listen, I have no problem with a company trying to protect its source of revenue. They sell software. That's what they do, that's how they make money, so if they want to go after those who violate the software license agreement, good for them. But don't tell us you're doing it for the consumer. You're doing it for yourself and your bottom line. Maybe if Microsoft would be a little more straightforward and just come out and admit their motivations, they wouldn't have as much of a credibility issue as they have now.
My guitar chord generator.
It's a little odd to compare Tiffany and Microsoft. If you buy your girlfriend a copy of Windows XP, she'll just look at you funny. If you buy her a Tiffany bracelet, well, let's just say the results will be significantly more positive in your favor. Then again, if you'd buy your girlfriend a copy of Windows XP, chances are you don't have a girlfriend anyways (or you won't for long), so I guess it doesn't really matter.
stuff |
Citing a "time management issue", he literally had to agree to disagree, but now can't discuss it at all. My guess is to discourage others from succeeding as he has done.
Couple of disclaimers: IAAL in IP. That being said:
A couple of posts in this thread refer to the First Sale Doctrine and lament the fact that one can buy software from Best Buy, EB, newEgg.com, etc., but then runs into legal trouble because that same person cannot turn around and sell that same software to a third party, claiming that the first sale doctrine should protect such a sale. But does it?
I think we can all understand the first sale doctrine as it relates to physical objects, e.g., chairs, tables, books, etc. Only one copy or one article of a particular object can exist at any given time. Thus, while two books, such as Ender's Game, may contain the same text, same layout, etc., and be virtually identical in every respect, there is only one copy of each book in existence. Thus, the first sale doctrine exists allowing me (or the original buyer) to sell that book to another person without repercussion from the original copyright holder for copyright infringement (specifically, the right to distribute).
However, software is a little different though. Arguably, the first sale doctrine should apply to the CDs (or DVD) on which the software resides, the box in which the CDs came, etc. Thus, I should be able to sell my original CDs to a third party without repercussion from the copyright holder. However, with respect to the software, what did I initially buy? Because the software on the CDs can exist in multiple locations at the same time (unlike physical objects), arguably, the copyright seller did not actually sell me the software, but the license to use the software. Furthermore, EULAs often contain language that the license is non-transferable. Thus, I could probably not sell my license to a third party even though I can sell my original CDs.
I could say that while the first sale doctrine applies to the physical storage medium of the software, the first sale doctrine may not apply to the license to use the software residing on the storage medium. If the EULA states that the license is transferable, so be it and I can sell that license. However, absent such terminology, it can probably be argued that the first sale doctrine, while applying to the physical absects of the sold package (CDs, manuals, packaging materials, etc.) it probably does not apply to the right to use the software.
Now, one might argue that movies on DVDs are comparable and therefore my argument with respect to software is negated or diminshed. However, I would put forth that Macrovision was designed specifically to prevent movies on DVDs from existing in multiple locations at the same time. Therefore, what you are buying from the copyright holder is not a license to view or play the movie, but an actual copy of the movie for personal use.
Does anyone else remember the Microsoft eBay buddy account they used to object to many legitimate auctions? Sellers of legitimate Microsoft products put up harsh comments and negative ratings for the MS account, and eBay switched them all to neutral. Later, after this trick went pretty public, they shut the account.
Yea, everyone wants to spend their hard earned money on $400 of software on a machine that cost $350 to build. Im sure of that.
Slashdotters insist on devaluing software just because it consists of bits rather than atoms.
Generally, software is always more valuable than the hardware that "plays" it. My DVD collection is worth far more than my DVD player. My video game collection is worth far more than my game console. My CD collection is worth more than my CD player. In the 80's my cassette collection was worth more than my cassette player, and my VHS collection was worth more than my VCR. So what's so terrible that computer programs would be worth more than the hardware that runs them?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000