Linguist Tweaks MS For Redefining "Genuine"

crazybilly writes, "The Language Log, home blog for several professional linguists, posted a story a few days ago about how Microsoft is redefining the word 'genuine' (as in the 'Microsoft Genuine Software Initiative') in an attempt to increase public sympathy for their anti-piracy efforts. From the article: 'An unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows is perfectly genuine. It has exactly the same functionality as a licensed copy and was made by the same company... I suspect that Microsoft is attempting to redefine "genuine" because it has had a hard time getting sympathy for its actual complaint, namely unlicensed distribution.'"

Comments

Genuine?

[mkosmo]

From Dictionary.com:

genuine
-adjective
1.possessing the claimed or attributed character, quality, or origin; not counterfeit; authentic; real: genuine sympathy; a genuine antique.

Thus, Microsoft I guess has some legitimacy in using the word Genuine. However the word leaves some room for pirated copies to qualify. Perhaps Microsoft shou ld have chosen a better word for their test? It seems unfair that a private com pany should be able to bend language to their will to mislead consumers... which should be illegal. On the other hand, "origin"... manufacturer? I think it su its well enough as-is. Otherwise the definition of "Genuine" will be as long as the MS EULA.

Re:Genuine?

[rackhamh]

I'm surprised you didn't quote the second definition of "genuine" from Dictionary.com:

Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic.

And the definition of counterfeit?

To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge:

Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine. It doesn't take a linguist to understand this. Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.

Re:Genuine?

[Pop69]

It seems unfair that a private company should be able to bend language to their will to mislead consumers

Where have you been ? It's called advertising and it isn't just private companies that do it. You'll find that political "spin doctors" are doing exactly the same thing.

Re:Genuine?

[UbuntuDupe]

I would also add that, since one of the commonly given(though not necessarily true) reasons the Business Software Alliance et. al. will tell you not to use illegal copies is that it might not be a *genuine* copy of the real thing, and thus not work properly. Thus, from MS's perspective, trying to make sure everyone using it has a licensed copy would constitute a "Genuine Software Initiative" in that they believe it will ensure people use the "genuine" version. So the linguist really is making a hissy-fit over nothing. I generally don't object to a usage unless I can think of *no* usage that would fit, or that usage causes confusion, rather than object the moment it doesn't fit the one I'm thinking of.

Re:Genuine?

[randyflood]

When someone makes an imperfect copy of something, how can it be called "Genuine"? I know some of you are thinking that the pirated copies of Microsoft Software and not imperfect copies. However, there is a whole industry that forges legitimate looking physical copies of Microsoft Software complete with forged holographic logos. It is hard to imagine that this falls under the definition of a geuine copy.

Re:Genuine?

[42Penguins]

However, the word "counterfeit" was not defined in an age with computers and software that could be EXACTLY copied. A counterfeit Picasso is different, content-wise, from a real one. A "counterfeit" copy of Windows XP has the same content and MD5 hash as a "real" one.

Re:Genuine?

[EvanED]

Oh c'mon, the linguist is just trying to think different.

Re:Genuine?

[Brandybuck]

If I copy Hamlet to a CD and give it to my friend, he is receiving a GENUINE Shakespearian play. No question about it. Since the English word "genuine" makes no distinctions based on public domain, if I burn a copy of the latest Harry Potter book and give it to my friend, he is still receiving a genuine Harry Potter novel. That's because the original is the *text* not the pages it is printed on. The original of Windows is *software*, not the CD it resides on.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you steal the plates, paper, and inks that make 100 dollar bills and you roll off several thousand of them for yourself, are those bills genuine or counterfeit?

Process is every much as much part of geniuneness as material. At any rate, the certificate and license key that comes with an unauthorized copy of windows isn't genuine, no matter how you slice it.

Methinks the intellectual rigor of our cunning linguist friend doesn't quite meet Webster's second definition of genuine: Free from hypocrisy or pretense.

Re:Genuine?

[pdbaby]

the linguist really is making a hissy-fit over nothing

I thought that was their job? *duck* Good bye karma.

Re:Genuine?

[timeOday]

So what about forged currency, such as the excellent fake US currency North Korea is said to manufacture? So long as you can spend them, they are functionally equivalent to those printed in the US. So would you call them "genuine" bills as well?

Re:Genuine?

[k98sven]

Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine. It doesn't take a linguist to understand this.

Well, it seems the argument he's making is that somethign is not counterfeit/fake (and thus genuine) if it has certain properties:

An unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows is perfectly genuine. It has exactly the same functionality as a licensed copy and was made by the same company. In contrast, if you buy a "Rorex" watch, it is not genuine because it is not made by the Rolex company and does not have the aesthetics, functionality, and resale value of a real Rolex.

This is in itself an ad-hoc redefinition, since the common usages of "counterfeit", "fake" and other antonyms to "genuine" are hardly that precise. The analogy is pretty bad too, IMHO. What's the resale value of a pirated copy of Windows? Not much, I assure you. Neither article can be sold legally in most countries anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.

A "Rorex" watch may very well have the same functionality as a Rolex, insomuch as they both tell the time correctly. Maybe the Rolex is a bit better. I for one would probably not notice the difference in that respect but I'd sure as hell notice if Microsoft was refusing me tech support and updates!

The author anticipated this argument though (or realized the fallacy later), and disqualifies it as not being an 'intrinsic property' of the software - making the definition even narrower. The remaining relevant part would be that it's a matter of aesthetics. Which is hardly a good criteria for deeming what's 'genuine' and what's not.

I'd think a more realistic definition of "genuine" would be "Something that is what it appears to be."

And in that respect, a commercially pirated copy of Windows anything but "genuine". (Note that MS is indeed referring to software that was sold here.) Whether it's "intrinsically" different or not is just irrelevant. If I buy "X", expect it to be "X", if I get "Y" I've been ripped off. If you are selling me "Y" under the guise of selling me "X", that's fraud. And if you've also made an effort to make "Y" resemble "X", then "Y" is a counterfeit and not genuine.

Unlike a commercial one, a copy you made from a friend or downloaded has at least no pretention of being 'genuine'. Although one might to say the same of the "Rorex" you bought for $10 at a street market in Phuket. ;)

Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.

Well, I wouldn't be too harsh. The author didn't explicity state he was giving some kind of professional opinion as a linguist (if he is one). As usual the Slashdot summary went for the more provocative and possibly misleading take on it.

That said, if the guy really is a linguist, I find the attitude rather strange. Most linguists I know are about as far from the "spelling/grammar/definition-Nazi" type of person as you can get. Since more than anyone, they're aware of how words, spelling and grammar constantly change over time, and embrace the fact that usage constitutes the definition of language. For example, my impression is that most linguists would be the last people to chastise someone for writing in "leet". They'd take it as an interesting shibboleth. But I wouldn't count on an English teacher being equally liberal. :)

Of course, even if he's a linguist, it should probably best just be taken at face value as yet another mindless anti-MS rant. Which is of course why it got picked up on Slashdot.

I'd love to see more stories related to actual linguistics though.

Re:Genuine?

[Toby_Tyke]

I agree, MS are more than justified in using the word "genuine". I don't really feel the need to jump through semantic hoops to defend the choice either. I know what they mean when they say genuine, and it's a hell of a lot easier than calling the service "Windows Copy Produced In Accordance With The Prevailing Copyright Laws In This Jurisdiction Advantage" (WCPIAWTPCLITJA for short. Trips off the tongue huh?).

On a slight side track, I really do despise these language conservatives. The meaning of words changes over time, and if enough people understand a word to mean something, then that is what it means. The compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary (I believe the equivalent reference work for you chaps in the Colonies is Websters) do not decide what a word means, they report what it means. Witness "google" becoming a verb.

On a different tangent entirely, and one somewhat more related to TFA, I think it would be instructive if people had a quick look at Bill Poser's web site. I would like in particular to direct you the list of links at the bottom "The Beginning of the Free Software Movement ", "The Free Software Foundation ", "Groklaw [Everything about SCO's anti-Linux campaign]", "LinuxLinks", "Why You Shouldn't Send People (Including Me) Microsoft Word Documents" and "Treacherous Computing". Perhaps a more fitting headline for this story would have been "Free software Advocate Finds Tenuous Excuse To Bash MS".

Just a quick kalma protection disclaimer. I use Linux every day, it's my primary desktop OS on all my machines except the Wintendo, but if Paul Thurrot wrote an article complaining about the FSF using the wrong definition of any given word, there would be 300 posts calling him an MS shill before anyone got as far as reading the article. This article is just petty MS bashing, and nothing more.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the coders that coded the "Genuine" version of windows also coded the copied one. If Picasso made an exact copy of one of his paintings it would also be considered a Picasso.

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine.

I disagree. Say I buy Windows XP, and then make a backup copy of the CD, so that should my original CD be destroyed, I still have a CD I can install from. Is that a genuine copy? There's no intent to defraud, and dictionary.com's definition of "counterfeit" (sense 3, the only noun sense that's not marked as "archaic" or "obsolete") is "an imitation intended to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; forgery." A backup copy is quite definitely not intended to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively.

And it's also not a forgery. "Forgery", according to the esteemed dictionary.com, has a few senses which might apply. Sense 3 is "something, as a coin, a work of art, or a writing, produced by forgery." "Forgery" in that sentence refers to sense 2: "the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as a coin, a painting, or the like." Does that sense apply? I'll be generous and assume that "or the like" could cover digital information such as software. Is a burned copy of a Windows XP CD a "spurious" copy? Since it's indistinguishable, and preserves (in an information theory sense) 100% of the information in the original, it can't reasonably be called a "spurious work"; it IS the original work, by definition.

Now imagine, six months later, I lend that backup copy I made to a friend so that he can install XP for free. He knows I bought XP, he knows I made a backup, and he's under no illusions that he has the legal right to install it. Now is it a counterfeit copy? If it is, then you're claiming that whether or not something is "genuine" can change depending on what someone does with it, irrespective of the nature of the object itself. A genuine Picasso can never become a counterfeit, even if I were to steal it from its owner and sell it to someone else. It's still a genuine Picasso.

But a copy of Windows that was previously "genuine" can suddenly become "counterfeit" merely because I give the copy to someone? I reject that on strictly linguistic grounds. And I'm not even a linguist.

The general problem is when people take metaphors that apply to physical objects and then try to apply them to the replication of information. The specific problem here is that MS touts "Windows Genuine Advantage" as if it's somehow advantageous to you to confirm that you have a "genuine" copy of Windows. It is not even remotely so; it is only to Microsoft's benefit.

Re:Genuine?

[rackhamh]

I imagine the parent was modded down for the last sentence. It's too bad, because the second sentence was actually quite insightful. Counterfeiting is in the process. The resulting product may be physically IDENTICAL to the original on which it is based, but that doesn't make it any less counterfeit.

And the previous argument doesn't even take into account the second part of the definition of "counterfeit," which reads on intent -- namely, the intent to commit fraud.

Taking my chain of definitions one step further, what is fraud? According to the thesaurus, fraud is...

An act of cheating

Anyone care to argue that pirating software isn't cheating?

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, no, of course not.

In that case the artifact itself is what's important and not what is printed on it. I'm guessing you're not really as dim as your comment suggests.

Re:Genuine?

[Jerf]

I'm surprised you didn't quote the second definition of "genuine" from Dictionary.com:... Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine.

So, your argument is, if a word has two dictionary definitions, and the way the word is used matches one, but not the other, the word is unacceptable.

This is an incredibly bad argument made in bad faith.. Your entire post, this post, and nearly every written and oral communication ever, fail that standard. You pre-ordained your conclusion and bent your argument to fit.

What's really scary is nobody seems to have called you on this point yet, and insisted on trying to debate your non-point.

Re:Genuine?

[Vicissidude]

The difference between the fake currency and the software copies is that an expert can determine whether a dollar is fake or not. That is because the fake currency actually comes from North Korea and not the US Mint. However, the software code of both Windows and that copy of Windows both come from Microsoft. Once installed, no expert would be able to tell the difference between the two copies because each is an exact duplicate.

Re:Genuine?

[senatorpjt]

Speaking of which, how can you have a "genuine copy" of anything? Depending on how you look at it, it's a complete oxymoron, or means nothing, since anything that is copied is a genuine copy. The only thing that wouldn't be a genuine copy is an original, or something that wasn't a copy of it.

Re:Genuine?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Just because they do it, doesn't mean that they SHOULD do it.

Re:Genuine?

[rackhamh]

The difference between the fake currency and the software copies is that an expert can determine whether a dollar is fake or not.

Pure drivel. Do you think that if somebody were to produce an absolutely perfect replica of a U.S. Mint hundred dollar bill, the government would stop caring? Believe it or not, the government's reasons for pursuing counterfeiters are not aesthetic.

Re:Genuine?

[E 99]

However, the word "counterfeit" was not defined in an age with computers and software that could be EXACTLY copied...A "counterfeit" copy of Windows XP has the same content and MD5 hash as a "real" one.

Yes, and a forged $100 bill using plates, paper stock and ink stolen from the US Treasury contains the exact same content as a genuine $100 bill. So what? The authorized "copies" are still genuine and the unauthorized copies are still not.

Re:Genuine?

[rackhamh]

Now imagine, six months later, I lend that backup copy I made to a friend so that he can install XP for free. He knows I bought XP, he knows I made a backup, and he's under no illusions that he has the legal right to install it. Now is it a counterfeit copy? If it is, then you're claiming that whether or not something is "genuine" can change depending on what someone does with it, irrespective of the nature of the object itself.

YES. Congratulations, sir, you are a winner. Ironic, considering that you wrote this in jest.

While we've been arguing about the media on the disk, we should probably take it one step further and consider the INSTALLED copy of Windows. If you do not have a license for that copy, it is fraudulent, and therefore counterfeit. Looking back to your example, the CD that you made for yourself is legitimate (or may be, depending on the terms of the EULA). The copy that you transfer from that CD to your friend's computer is counterfeit, i.e., copied for a fraudulent purpose.

Re:Genuine?

[belmolis]

That said, if the guy really is a linguist, I find the attitude rather strange. Most linguists I know are about as far from the "spelling/grammar/definition-Nazi" type of person as you can get

You've missed the point. (I know for sure because I am Bill Poser.) My Language Log post is not a lament about how the language is going to the dogs because "genuine" is being used "incorrectly", that is, in a way that deviates from whatever I think the standard should be. The point is that Microsoft is using "genuine" in a way that deviates from the way it is commonly used and that it looks like they are doing this for a deceptive purpose. Linguistic change and variation is natural and nothing to get upset about. Use of language in deceptive ways is something that one can legitimately complain about.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case the "expert" is a piece of software (Windows Genuine Advantage) which can indeed tell (with SOME reliability, I'm sure there are false positives as well as false negatives, but not all that common) the difference between a legitimate copy and a pirated copy.

A good proportion of "non-genuine" copies of Windows are cracked versions which have been downloaded in an ISO or similar method. The cracking of the software automatically makes the copy different from one purchased from Microsoft, and so no genuine. In the case of OEMs which have a customized version, they were authorized by Microsoft to do so and therefore the term "genuine" can be expanded to do this.

And for multiple installations from the same CD pressed by Microsoft, the CD itself is genuine, but the liscense used is fraudulent making the installation fraudulent or "not genuine."

Re:Genuine?

[Vicissidude]

Please stay on topic.

The actions of the US Government or Microsoft against counterfeiters doesn't matter to this discussion. The fake bills are NOT from the US Government, so they are NOT genuine. However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine.

What Microsoft wants to do is attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. That IS a departure from the traditional definition of genuine.

Re:Genuine?

[belmolis]

Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine.

Both the protasis and apodosis here are questionable. First, since when are pirated copies of Windows "fraudulent"? If I sell you a CD that I claim to contain Windows and it actually contains Knoppix, that is fraud. If I sell you a CD that I claim to contain Windows and it actually does contain Windows, there is no fraud, even if the sale violates the licensing conditions, unless I make false representations to you regarding the licensing. So, although SOME sales of pirated software may involve fraud on the purchaser, in general they do not. Furthermore, in many cases pirated software is not sold, so of course there is no fraud.

Second, I do not accept the claim that "fraudulent" implies "not genuine". "fraudulent" describes the transaction, not the product. If you represent yourself as an authorized appliance dealer and sell me a refrigerator that fell off the truck, the refrigerator is still perfectly genuine in spite of the legal problems with the transaction.

Re:Genuine?

[rackhamh]

The fact that I disagree with your definition of genuine doesn't make me off-topic.

Your interpretation of "genuine" is inflexible and ignores all logic being presented to the contrary. You are repeatedly ignoring the "intent" component of counterfeiting.

Think about it. Your definition of "genuine" would also abolish all trademark law, simply by passing an original logo through a copy machine (analogous to a CD burner). Somehow I don't think that's really the direction you want to go with this.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

But a pirated copy itself is not identical. Comparing files once installed is only one way of comparing it. How about comparing the discs it was installed from? Most likely it wasn't made with a quality label maker and has nothing like the label on an official, or genuine Windows disc. On top of that, most cds burnt by consumers have a significantly lower lifetime than professionally manufactured copies. Compact discs do not necessarily last forever. If a copy was burned on poor quality media at a speed near the max rated for a particular burner, the lifetime could be as little as 2 years before data becomes difficult to read, and possibly fails altogether. Contrast that with genuine copies, which will possibly last decades if not abused. I guarantee you you'll start to notice a difference between your fraudulent copy and a genuine copy when yours becomes unusable.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was saying that the definition Microsoft uses does indeed fairly closely match one of the dictionary definitions, and so is a legitimate usage of the word. He then went on to express his disgust (maybe a bit of a strong term for the actual emotion, maybe disdain?) with the linguist's accusation that the word is being used incorrectly.

One thing I've noticed in any interpersonal communication, the most heated arguments generally come from one party misunderstanding what the other said. They usually are actually in agreement on the basic facts.

Re:Genuine?

[The MAZZTer]

if I burn a copy of the latest Harry Potter book and give it to my friend, he is still receiving a genuine Harry Potter novel.

You mean he doesn't receive a bunch of ashes? I'm confused.

Re:Genuine?

[g1zmo]

You'll find that political "spin doctors" are doing exactly the same thing.

It depends on what the definition of the word doing is.

Re:Genuine?

[belmolis]

The fact that you know what they mean does not change the fact that they are not using the word "genuine" as it is normally used.

On a different tangent entirely, and one somewhat more related to TFA, I think it would be instructive if people had a quick look at Bill Poser's web site. I would like in particular to direct you the list of links at the bottom "The Beginning of the Free Software Movement ", "The Free Software Foundation ", "Groklaw [Everything about SCO's anti-Linux campaign]", "LinuxLinks", "Why You Shouldn't Send People (Including Me) Microsoft Word Documents" and "Treacherous Computing". Perhaps a more fitting headline for this story would have been "Free software Advocate Finds Tenuous Excuse To Bash MS".

This is known as the ad hominem fallacy. The fact that the person who puts forward an argument may have a bias is not relevant to the validity of the argument except where the argument depends on his or her truthfulness as a witness to matters of fact. The fact that I am not a fan of Microsoft is irrelevant.

n a slight side track, I really do despise these language conservatives. The meaning of words changes over time, and if enough people understand a word to mean something, then that is what it means. The compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary (I believe the equivalent reference work for you chaps in the Colonies is Websters) do not decide what a word means, they report what it means. Witness "google" becoming a verb.

You've missed the point of my post. (You have realized that I am Bill Poser?) I am not a language conservative. My Language Log post is not a lament that the language is going to the dogs because people are using "genuine" in a way that deviates from whatever I think it should be. Rather, my point is that Microsoft is using the word "genuine" in a way that deviates from the way the word IS used and that this evidently has a deceptive motivation. This is entirely different from whining about somebody splitting an infinitive.

Re:Genuine?

[Alef]

Suppose I buy one license of windows, and get an install CD with it. Then use the CD to install windows on two computers. You're saying one copy now isn't genuine. Which one is the counterfeit?

Remember, the discussion isn't about whether I should be allowed to do that or not (that is where you would be going off topic). It is about semantics.

Re:Genuine?

[russellh]

please. that's a terrible analogy, because you know that the value of a dollar bill isn't in the paper and ink.

Re:Genuine?

[phoebe]

The linguistics of the English language vary with region to region and hence the ongoing tet-a-tet with English versus American English. I would propose an alternative reasoning to the parent threads who are suggesting an exact copy is a counterfeit. The exact copy is a copy, identical to the original, so it cannot be a fake because the primary definition of a fake is a copy that is misleading, i.e. looks genuine but is not. The second proposal is that the act of unlicensed copying is counterfeiting, whilst a pirated CD cover has the intent deceive and is a counterfeit the actual CD is a perfect copy and hence is not, it is simply an unlicensed copy.

A similar problem can be though of with Windows installation media, if you have the CD and not a license what language do you use. The CD is genuine but similarly an unlicensed copy, but is still something Microsoft do not want you to use. If an official Microsoft CD duplicator sells media outside of their contract those CDs do not become counterfeit they are still genuine by definition but illegal due to breach of contract. Another way to think of this is to imagine 1 million units manufactured out of contract, if Microsoft managed to collect all these before distribution it would be perfectly valid to re-distribute them as official copies as they are genuine. When manufacturers raid counterfeit operations they destroy fake goods because they are not identical products. If the products were exact copies or replicas of the official items the only purpose for destruction would be for misleasing marketing and to add extra pollution and waste to the planet.

The words more commonly used would be official, legal, and on the secondary tier would be replica, endorsed, approved, supported, all which are not as conducive in marketing as the word genuine.

Re:Genuine?

[belmolis]

Analogies based on currency are false analogies because of a special property of currency. Currency gains its value by fiat, in contrast to money with intrinsic value, such as gold and silver throughout most of known economic history. A $100 bill has an intrinsic value of maybe a few cents (I ignore, for expository purposes, the cocaine residue:); the fact that it is worth $100 is due to the fact that the US government says it is. If the US government suddenly declares that that bill is no longer legal tender, or people lose confidence in the US treasury, or the US revalues its currency, the very same bill will cease to be worth $100. An ounce of gold, on the other hand, has a value that does not depend on who produced it.

Software in and of itself is like gold and silver, not paper currency. If a million monkeys by chance produce an OS identical in every respect to MS Windows (thereby avoiding copyright, though not patent, problems) it will in fact have the same utility as the copy produced by Microsoft.

Microsoft also provides certain services, such as updates and support, that you do not get without the right license, but the software itself is the same whether or not it is validly licensed just as an ounce of gold has the same value and utility whether you earned it by hard work, received it as a gift, or stole it.

Re:Genuine?

[udippel]

The authorized "copies" are still genuine and the unauthorized copies are still not.

Couldn't agree less. [Though any comparison limps along the way sooner or later]

If I break into the mint and produce my own bills overnight, these bills are very genuine. Unique serial numbers and everything else identical. There is nothing not genuine about those bills. They are not authorised, though.

I would hate to call those bills 'forgery'.

Finally, it all boils down to a non-material aspect of it.

In this case, e.g. at what time of the day the bills were fabricated. Or if the supervisor was present. Materially there is no difference between bills produced when the process was overseen by a government agent or not.

Are those bills produced when he visited the restroom yesterday not legal tender ?

You see, how immaterial the whole thing can grow.

Same with Windows XP. The genuine CDs are not even pressed at Redmond. Are they not genuine, then ?

The only thing that distinguishes a CD pressed at the contractor at daytime and one pressed at nighttime (if we stick to the example) is some immaterial authority (or the lack thereof) behind both.

And to those who constantly resort to comparing the matter to paper documents and forgery thereof: That is off track. Nobody forges a paper document to look 100% as the original (not talking about artists' work here). Forgery usually includes changing names, numbers, dates here. Not point for a forger to forge my scroll 100%. It would still be my scroll, on my name with my credentials. The forger might want to put her name instead ...

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

> please. that's a terrible analogy, because you know that the value of a dollar bill isn't in the paper and ink.

And the value of a Windows CD is in the silver and lexan?

Re:Genuine?

[Waffle Iron]

Ok. Now suppose that I have an OEM copy of windows licensed for use only on the computer that it was sold with. Now, I start replacing components one at a time, rebooting after each swap. By the time I've replaced *all* of the components, my copy must not be "genuine" anymore because I'm now running the OS in violation of the EULA.

But at what point did this occur? After I swapped the CPU? The motherboard? The hard drive? Maybe it was whenever the WGA service decided that something was amiss... But then we'd be letting some logic routine written by some dweeb in the bowels of Microsoft define the English language. What's more, the definition would change when the detection algorithm is tweaked with each service pack. And what if the algorithm is buggy? Do we define "genuine" by the incorrect algorithm, or do we have to go to 3rd party arbitration?

Re:Genuine?

[Toby_Tyke]

Rather, my point is that Microsoft is using the word "genuine" in a way that deviates from the way the word IS used and that this evidently has a deceptive motivation.

My dictionary defines genuine as :

Genuine: possessing the claimed or attributed character, quality, or origin; not counterfeit; authentic; real:

OK, look. When MS say a copy of Windows is genuine, what they are saying is that they manufactured it (or it was manufactured by a third party with a license to do so), and that it is a legally held copy which they will support. What word do you believe they should use to say that if not "genuine"?

I find this use of "genuine" to be most peculiar. An unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows is perfectly genuine. It has exactly the same functionality as a licensed copy and was made by the same company. In contrast, if you buy a "Rorex" watch, it is not genuine because it is not made by the Rolex company and does not have the aesthetics, functionality, and resale value of a real Rolex.

So, what if I make a copy of a Rolex from identical materials and to the same build quality? It's not impossible. Is the resulting watch a "genuine" rolex? No, of course not, because it did not originate at the Rolex factory. You will note that origin is one of the meanings listed in the dictionary definition of "genuine".

By the way, a pirate copy of Windows does not have the same functionality as an official and, dare I say it, genuine copy, since it won't be able to use WGA. Yes, you are of course right that this is a limitation placed on the software by MS, but it IS still a limitation. Furthermore, it doesn't have the same resale value, since the CD-R with "WIN XP" written on it in magic marker is going to go for far less than MSRP. Gee, it looks like pirate copies have already failed two of the same tests your hypothetical fake rolex did. And, unless, MS have started labeling their disks with felt pens, I think it's going to fail the aesthetics test too.

Now clearly, what I'm doing here is jumping through some fairly pointless semantic hoops. What MS means by genuine is "not pirated". I doubt you and I are going to agree on anything else, so can we at leaset agree that "Windows Not Pirated Advantage" is a rubbish name? You clearly think that the "genuine" name is just MS attempting to twist the language to give greater weight to it's crusade against unlicensed distribution. But really, I know what genuine means in this context. It means legally produced, with the consent of or by the copyright holder. It means no laws were broken in the making of this CD-ROM. What word would you prefer them to use in its place? I honestly think "legal advantage" or "non-copyright infringing advantage" are going to be more confusing.

By the way, I never said your motive invalidated you're arguments. I said Slashdot would scream that your motive invalidated you're arguments if you were Paul Thurrot bashing the FSF's use of language. I do think you're argument is tenuous and petty (and try not take offense at that. I don't for a second think you are tenuous and petty), and I think that the points I raised here and in my original post invalidate it. I think your bias explains why you made such a tenuous and petty argument.

Re:Genuine?

[Stonehand]

Possibly -- it doesn't have to.

If you're an unethical vendor who's offering cheap-ass downloads purporting to be of major software products, what's to stop you from crossing one more line and including rootkits? If the customer wants to sue you, he's going to have to also admit committing obvious copyright infringement -- obvious in that no reasonable person is going to believe that the latest version of Adobe Creative Suite is being legitimately downloaded for $20, when it normally lists for many, many times that.

Re:Genuine?

[tepples]

However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine.

But the fake discs are not genuine.

Re:Genuine?

[Herby Sagues]

That only applies to the binaries. But a copy of Windows is more than the binaries. It includes also a legal agreement (the license) and an activation key. With a pirated copy you only get an identical copy of the binaries, but you get an invalid ID (in the sense that it is nonworking unless MS can't detect it is a fake or copied one) and no valid legal contract. Thus, the whole package is really not genuine. The language article's point is just plain wrong.

Re:Genuine?

[udippel]

Why so AC ?

The non-genuine part enters as forgery when the registration is removed or added. Whatever modification done, the hash will differ. One can't possibly call such a .iso "genuine".

I don't agree with your last sentence, though: When you install from one and only one CD to two identical boxes, both are genuine installs. Sequence doesn't matter. You can even register the second install with Microsoft. If you never touch the first one, thereafter, don't boot ever, is the first one not genuine ? And if you registered the first and not the second one, does registration of one box turn the installation of the other machine from genuine to not genuine ? I doubt so. It might be fraudulent or against the EULA. But that is quite another item and not covering 'genuine'.

Think about this: How can registration of box A, located in San Francisco, turn another box, B, in New York, not running, not connected to power nor network, from genuine install into a non-genuine one ?

Re:Genuine?

[k98sven]

You've missed the point. (I know for sure because I am Bill Poser.) My Language Log post is not a lament about how the language is going to the dogs because "genuine" is being used "incorrectly", that is, in a way that deviates from whatever I think the standard should be.

That's good. Naturally you know what you intended better than I do, and I wouldn't claim otherwise.

However, the attitude I mentioned and which you cite is exactly the impression I was given by your entry. And I maintain that impression on re-reading it. (I have no opinion or impression at all on the blog in general, as I haven't read the rest)

Not that I doubt the genuininity* of your claimed intent.
(*Now that's a more debatable form of the word. AFAIK the OED is the only one who lists it, and does so as 'rare'.)

The point is that Microsoft is using "genuine" in a way that deviates from the way it is commonly used [..]

And my point is that you completely failed to substantiate that. Nowhere do you contrast their use of the term against any common definition. Much less against common usage. All you do is claim that you find their usage "peculiar", and then you back that up by providing an argumentative definition of what you consider the word to mean.

And not only is it a personal definition of the word, but as I said, it doesn't resemble common usage in the slightest. You give extremely narrow definition of a broad term. Among other things you cite specific criteria for being "genuine", namely "aesthetics, functionality, and resale value".

I have great doubts you will find any dictionary citing those criteria. Or any criteria of that order of specificity. If you want to claim that they're not following common usage, then base your arguments on a commonly accepted definition and not your own ad-hoc idea of what the word means.

Using analogy to a real object to define the word is particularily bad. Is the usage of "genuine" wrong in the sentence "His feelings were genuine"? Does this imply that his feelings would have a higher resale value than otherwise? Virtually every adjective is used or can be used in a metaphorical or metaphysical sense. Assuming that they must imply some tangible property is just crazy. It would also be a major catastrophe for the art of poetry.

Now if you'd attacked the usage in the quoted "Customers recognize that the value of genuine is greater than ever.", where they're using "genuine" as a noun, that'd at least have struck a chord with some people. I don't see anything objectionable about it, though. The noun (software) has simply been omitted and replacing nouns with their modifying adjectives is quite commonplace in English. (A certain Sergio Leone western manages to do it three times in its title*)

[..] and that it looks like they are doing this for a deceptive purpose.

Hah. Well you do express that theory, yes. Not that I believe it, though. I don't personally think MS has the least bit of trouble getting support against what they're calling "non-genuine" software. Yes, plenty of people, including myself, dislike Microsoft. But most people also support the idea of copyright. While they may be split on downloading for personal use, most seem to think copyright infringement done for profit is quite wrong.

So where's the deception? Not only is it in Microsoft's best interest that people buy their software and not copies. It's also the consumers best interest that they get genuine Microsoft software if that is what they think they are paying for. The quality of that software is completely irrelevant, period. If there's anyone being decieved here, it's the guy who thought he was getting a copy when he paid for an original.

Obviously you don't like Microsoft. But I don't see why there's reason to assume there's some deception going on rather than that Microsoft's best interests for once

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said that _logo_ was genuine. Software can be definition not be physical.

Re:Genuine?

[rackhamh]

Suppose I buy one license of windows, and get an install CD with it. Then use the CD to install windows on two computers. You're saying one copy now isn't genuine. Which one is the counterfeit?

The second one is counterfeit -- when you installed the first one, you were still within the bounds of the EULA. But you knew that you were breaking the EULA by installing the second one. Therefore, going back to the link between counterfeiting and intent, the second copy is the counterfeit.

Remember, the discussion isn't about whether I should be allowed to do that or not (that is where you would be going off topic). It is about semantics.

I'm not making any moral arguments. I'm just making the case that Microsoft's use of the term "genuine" is perfectly acceptable.

Re:Genuine?

[mysticgoat]

Warning: rant follows.

Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows...

Since this discussion is overtly about proper uses of words, please use accurate wording in your statements. "Piracy" is an internationally recognized crime involving theft and violence. It has nothing at all to do with copyright violations, where nothing is stolen, there is no violence, and there is only this vague concept of "damages": something that can only be estimated statistically in terms of "lost" potential sales (where the keyword is "potential": there is no defined way to estimate the number of sales that might have occurred in some alternate universe where the copyright had not been violated).

To repeat: there is no theft here. There is no violence done to any MS employee or any MS property. There is no piracy here. Stop blowing things out of proportion.

...are fraudulent copies, ...

Again, since this discussion is supposed to be about the accurate usage of one word and the concept it conveys, please stop misrepresenting reality by abusing other words and concepts. The unlicensed copies you refer to may or may not be fraudulently represented: if the purchaser knows that the copy must be an unlicensed one, there is no fraud in the transaction. The transaction may or may not still be legal, but it certainly isn't fraudulent. I think most people who have been provided with MS software at a ridiculously low price are aware that it must be an unlicensed copy. I know that there are many transactions where the unlicensed status is a prominent part of the deal: it is a selling point, and the buyer values the goods partly because they are unlicensed.

...they are NOT genuine.

Not by the logic presented in the parent post. There was none there; only a pastiche of inappropriate terms.

Let me give all the Microsoft fanboys here the respect that they deserve. But I do wish to point out that TFA is definitely correct in saying Microsoft is attempting to erode the english language by subverting the meaning of "genuine" for its own corporate purposes.

It is clear from the usage Microsoft is attempting to establish that they want "genuine" to become an antonym for "licensed". "Licensed" already has a very good antonym: "unlicensed". "Genuine" means something entirely different: it is a statement about the provenance of the item in question-- where it came from. It has nothing to do with the quality of the item: a Rolex is still a genuine Rolex after it is hit by a sledgehammer.

All accurate unlicensed copies of CDs containing Microsoft software are as genuine as any licensed copy. Because all of these accurate copies, licensed or not, originated from the same source. That source is Microsoft.

Microsoft has a reasonable beef about unlicensed copies of its software, and can take reasonable measures to address the issue. Marketing Department attempts to redefine the jargon of law and the english language are not, imho, reasonable measures. They are disruptive and ridiculous, and a kind of FUD that is poisoning Microsoft's future market, when it becomes time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and begin selling to the Linux and BSD users (cultures that are traditionally more concerned with engineering concepts like clarity and accuracy).

Re:Genuine?

[madcow_bg]

If a million monkeys by chance produce an OS identical in every respect...

I guess you mean "If another million monkeys by chance produce an OS identical in every respect...

(Joke)

Re:Genuine?

[tsajeff]

You may be a cunning linguist, but I am a master debater.

- Austin Powers

Re:Genuine?

[belmolis]

No, your example doesn't show that process is relevant to genuineness in the normal case because currency is not like software. Currency is special because it gets its value by fiat rather than via any intrinsic property. Software is like an ounce of gold - its value, and its genuineness, depend only on whether it is actually gold and actually an ounce, not on who produced it or how it came into your possession.

Re:Genuine?

[belmolis]

Well, sure, but I wouldn't want to be accused of having it in for Microsoft. :)

Re:Genuine?

[nacturation]

If you buy a movie ticket to see a particular movie and I join you but do so by sneaking in through the back exit without paying, did only one of us see a genuine movie?

Re:Genuine?

[jthill]

But a copy of Windows that was previously "genuine" can suddenly become "counterfeit" merely because I give the copy to someone?

It was previously a genuine backup copy. When you give it to your friend, it's no longer a genuine backup copy. The copy you're using is paid for. The copy he's using isn't. You can talk all you want about the ways the two copies aren't different, but ignoring the ways they are is... disingenuous.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you violated the terms of the license agreement, you have no right to install the software at all. Thus, both installed copies are not "genuine".

Re:Genuine?

[Vicissidude]

No, both installations of Windows software are genuinely from Microsoft. One installation may be legal or not, but that does not change the fact of who made the software.

As freedumb2000 said, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."

Re:Genuine?

[Kjella]

Since it's indistinguishable, and preserves (in an information theory sense) 100% of the information in the original, it can't reasonably be called a "spurious work"; it IS the original work, by definition.

Genuinity is not ezpressable in information theory. If you have two identical bills with the same serial number, so indistinguishable that not even the best experts can tell them apart, one of them is still a counterfeit (or the mint made an error). It does not matter whether it's a casual glance, a detailed study, copying it atom by atom or even replicating the very quantum state (would be a nice trick tho). What makes a Picasso genuine is entirely external to the object - it relies solely on whether it was made by said painter or not.

In the same way, the only genuine copies of Windows are those made by Microsoft - regardless of whether or not you can make functionally and information theoretically identical copies. So how can you tell them apart? Because with every genuine copy you also get a license, and so your license is the proof it is genuine. Your backup does not exist as an independent copy - it has the same license, with the same license number. If you had no original, you also would have no right to the backup. If you sell the original, you must also include or destroy the back-up. The number of actual copies can very (e.g. you have temporary copies of the application in RAM) but the number of licenses and genuine copies stay the same.

I think most of your confusion comes from mixing genuine software and genuine copy. All copies contain genuine Microsoft(tm) software, unless it has been modified. In legal terms, that means it is not a fraud. But we still need to determine whether or not it is a legitimate copy, in other words that it is either a genuine copy or one derived from a genuine copy like a backup disk. In legal terms, that means it's not a copyright infringement. The deception or forgery is not in the software itself - it is that the copy was made with the authority of Microsoft (as copyright holder).

Now, as to your questsions in my opinion your backup copy is a legitimate copy, a flawless imitation but not a genuine copy. When your friend with "no illusions that he has the legal right to install it" copies it, it is a pirated but not counterfeit copy. If you pass it off as a genuine copy, then it is a textbook case of counterfeit copy. IANALawyer and IANALinguist, but it makes logical sense to me if you translate "genuine copy" == "copyright holder's copy" == "independent copy" and distinguish it from "fair use copy", and that the forgery is in passing one off as the other.

Re:Genuine?

[Surt]

I would expect upmods, I don't think there are many slashdotters with a great deal of respect for linguists. I don't think there are a whole lot of anybody with burgeoning respect for linguists, aside from other linguists.

Re:Genuine?

[Digital Vomit]

Analogies based on currency are false analogies because of a special property of currency. Currency gains its value by fiat

The same could be said of something that can be infinitely reproduced at no cost.

Re:Genuine?

[Anpheus]

Incorrect example, whether paid for or not, the audiovisual experience should be nearly identical for both people. But your example when applied to Microsoft would be, "If you go to a conference or seminar that requires a fee, and I sneak in, and they used Microsoft Powerpoint to do the slides, did both of us see a genuine Powerpoint slideshow?" The answer would of course be yes, but only because there's a very good chance the slideshow was made with a legal copy of Microsoft Powerpoint. Your example could also be equivocated to, "If you pay to watch somebody use Microsoft Windows, and I use my binoculars to watch from across the street, through that person's windows, then did both of us watch him use genuine Microsoft Windows?" Again, the answer depends on whether or not that person had a genuine copy.


Now, here's what you should have your analogy be: "If you go to a movie theater and pay to watch a movie, but you also record it (illegally) with your well-concealed camcorder, and then you bring that back and I watch the recorded copy, did we both watch the genuine movie?" The answer is of course no. You watched the illegal copy, whereas he payed to view the legal copy (and then illegally copied it.) Likewise, if the movie theater illegally copied their print of the film, and then played that, that would be a non-genuine copy. And though I can't imagine any movie theater in the world that has the equipment to perform a frame-by-frame copy, not to mention the copy would probably lack a great deal of quality.


Oh and, is that you, Bad Analogy Guy?

Re:Genuine?

[alienw]

Well, that's like talking about a reproduction of a Picasso vs. a genuine Picasso. The reproduction might be close/identical to the original, so it's really about the same thing. In any case, this is irrelevant in this case, since CDs are mass-produced rather than individually painted. Not to mention, you could have a perfectly genuine physical disc, certificate and all, and yet still have an illegal unlicensed copy (like if you buy an OEM license separately from a machine).

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

Genuinity is not ezpressable in information theory.

Then why do you keep using the phrase "genuine copy"? I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you have two identical bills with the same serial number, so indistinguishable that not even the best experts can tell them apart, one of them is still a counterfeit (or the mint made an error). It does not matter whether it's a casual glance, a detailed study, copying it atom by atom or even replicating the very quantum state (would be a nice trick tho). What makes a Picasso genuine is entirely external to the object - it relies solely on whether it was made by said painter or not.

And if the two copies are quantum-indistinguishable, how do you tell which is the genuine and which the counterfeit?

Here's an example using the actual topic at hand (software, not Picassos -- when will you people learn to stop using physical-object metaphors in information-duplication discussions?): I hand you two identical CD-Rs. Each contains a bit-for-bit identical copy of Windows XP. One of the copies was made as a backup for a legally purchased copy of XP; the other, I burned from an ISO downloaded off the Internet. The CD-Rs came from the same spindle, are unlabelled, and I had my wife swap them around a few times while my back was turned so that I no longer know which is which.

Which one is genuine and which one is counterfeit?

Because with every genuine copy you also get a license, and so your license is the proof it is genuine.

That would make it a licensed copy. Why do we need to misuse the word "genuine" instead?

I think most of your confusion comes from mixing genuine software and genuine copy.

The confusion comes from Microsoft's insistence on using the term "genuine copy" when we already have a term for that: "licensed copy". "Genuine copy" is semantic gibberish. <Morbo>LANGUAGE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!</Morbo>

If you pass it off as a genuine copy, then it is a textbook case of counterfeit copy.

*whistle* Conflating counterfeited physical media with unlicensed software copy! Five-yard penalty!

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

Counterfeiting is in the process. The resulting product may be physically IDENTICAL to the original on which it is based, but that doesn't make it any less counterfeit.

The problem with this statement is that this usage of "counterfeit" contains the implicit assumption that the resultant forgery is not physically identical, down to the atom or quantum state -- there are going to be differences, no matter how slight, between the "genuine" and "counterfeit" article.

Take the example of stolen money plates, paper, and inks for $100 bills. If I steal those and print them up in my basement, do you really think a proper forensic setup wouldn't be able to tell that one set of bills was printed legitimately at the Mint, and another set was printed somewhere else? The exact molecular content of the atmosphere, the humidity levels, even the amount of light the bills are exposed to during printing... The density banding in the ink would be different if it dried at different rates in slightly warmer or more humid air, etc. Obviously a clerk at the supermarket isn't going to be able to tell, but the information exists and can be detected.

But two copies of Windows? There is no way, even theoretically, to distinguish them. 100% of the information is preserved in a copy; hence, the terms "genuine" and "counterfeit" are silly and meaningless.

Note that we're distinguishing between counterfeit media and a counterfeit "copy". The CDs you buy from a street vendor in Greenwich Village are (almost certainly) counterfeit media; but the data on them is 100% identical to what you find on a legal copy of Windows XP purchased at CompUSA.

Please keep in mind that we're not discussing whether a copy is licensed or legal; just whether the term "genuine" has any meaning to an information-complete copy. (It doesn't.)

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

I'm not making any moral arguments. I'm just making the case that Microsoft's use of the term "genuine" is perfectly acceptable.

You're not making it very well. Actually, I've read a bunch of your posts, and you haven't yet presented any actual evidence that it's meaningful to use the word "genuine" in an information-theory context. :) Mostly, you (like Microsoft) seem to be assuming that genuinity equivalent to legality, which is absurd.

Here's an example I posted to someone else:

I hand you two identical CD-Rs. Each contains a bit-for-bit identical copy of Windows XP. One of the copies was made as a backup for a legally purchased copy of XP, for which I have a license; the other, I burned from an ISO downloaded off the Internet. The CD-Rs came from the same spindle, are unlabelled, and I had my wife swap them around a few times while my back was turned so that I no longer know which is which. (She didn't know in the first place, so we can assume the information is lost.)

Which one is genuine and which one is counterfeit?

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

and it's a hell of a lot easier than calling the service "Windows Copy Produced In Accordance With The Prevailing Copyright Laws In This Jurisdiction Advantage" (WCPIAWTPCLITJA for short. Trips off the tongue huh?).

Your assertion that Microsoft is even partly justified in using the term "Genuine Copy" because the only alternative is a much longer term, is obliterated by the fact that there's already a term that means what they're using "Genuine Copy" to mean: "Licensed Copy," which is exactly one letter longer. WCPIAWTPCLITJA, indeed.

On a slight side track, I really do despise these language conservatives. The meaning of words changes over time, and if enough people understand a word to mean something, then that is what it means. The compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary (I believe the equivalent reference work for you chaps in the Colonies is Websters) do not decide what a word means, they report what it means. Witness "google" becoming a verb.

No shit! You mean English dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive? Get the fuck outta town! That never would have occurred to us ign'ant, lowly Yanks.

We know language changes; the problem is that we don't like what Microsoft is trying to do to the language, and we aim to stop it by convincing other people to not follow their usage. That's allowed, too. There are plenty of changes to English that I approve of; this isn't one of them. You asserting that we should just let anyone who wants to make a change have their way is, frankly, ludicrous.

Re:Genuine?

[mattmacf]

You all miss the point (I speak for the majority of replies to this post, as well as the parent). The problem with Microsoft's redefinition of "genuine" has little to do with counterfeit or pirated copies of Microsoft software. In all reality, Microsoft secretly loves the fact that their products are pirated. It costs them absolutely nothing, and the alternative is much more threatening to MS in the long term. While they may lose a few bucks to a kid in the US who may have bought a license if he couldn't pirate it, they stand to lose a lot more if the thousands of people who CANNOT afford a license (think third world countries in Asia) were to use the alternative (free) operating system.

Call me crazy, but I think that the real reason Microsoft is trying to play word games with consumers (and the biggest reason for the registering-one-copy-of-Windows-to-a-given-set-of- hardware-and-if-you-change-your-video-card-you're- a-pirate Advantage Tool) is to prevent the legitimate resale of "used" windows licenses. I know in the past it's been tried (with varied success) for certain companies to resell copies of Windows and Office that are no longer in use. IIRC, some of the dot-bombs were able to unload leftover software licenses, and eBay has taken issue with some perfectly legitimate software sales.

What I think has Microsoft really worried is the thought of the legitimate resale of "Genuine" Microsoft software. Imagine buying a $300 Dell with Vista preinstalled on it, wiping the drive, installing Linux and making a nice chunk of change on eBay with the leftover product key. Doctrine of First Sale anybody? This of course, could put a significant dent in MS's wallet, and as dictated by shareholders, the first rule of Corporate America states that this cannot be so. Ergo, Mr. Webster takes a backseat and by our new definition, any transaction that does not directly profit Microsoft can not and will not be "Genuine"(TM)

Re:Genuine?

[Temposs]

Either way, we know what Microsoft means when they use the word "genuine". The linguists are simply pointing to a way Microsoft is using this particular word, and the social ramifications of using it in a particular context in which it may not be used often. Whether they're actually changing the definition according to the dictionary usage or not is beside the point. If they are, Dictionary.com will add another definition if this one becomes a standard. Otherwise, we know what Microsoft is saying, and we can act with appropriate amounts of docile submission or violent rebellion as we all prefer. It's enough that we simply take away from this an understanding of the social effects resulting from companies choosing particular words in their marketing campaigns.

Re:Genuine?

[k98sven]

I disagree. Say I buy Windows XP, and then make a backup copy of the CD, so that should my original CD be destroyed, I still have a CD I can install from. Is that a genuine copy?

This is completely irrelevant to the context, which quite specifically refers to "genuine" being used when referring to a copy being sold. And in that context, I agree that it's perfectly reasonable to call an unauthorized copy "non-genuine".

If you want to go off on a tangent and discuss the meaning of "genuine" in all kinds of other contexts to make your point, then you're committing the action Microsoft is being accused of here: Framing the debate by redefining a word in a nonsensical way.

I lend that backup copy I made to a friend so that he can install XP for free. He knows I bought XP, he knows I made a backup, and he's under no illusions that he has the legal right to install it. Now is it a counterfeit copy?

Most would not consider that to be a counterfeit, no. Since there's no effort made to defraud him, or any intent to do so. Of course "fraud" is out of the question regardless since you're not charging for it. The real answer here is that "counterfeit" is simply not a useful description in that context.

If it is, then you're claiming that whether or not something is "genuine" can change depending on what someone does with it, irrespective of the nature of the object itself.

Of course it can! What's strange about that? Adjective need not imply some immutable physical property. And "genuine" certainly does not. You can't determine what is meant by "genuine" outside a given context, and obviously you can't compare it between contexts.

A genuine Picasso can never become a counterfeit, even if I were to steal it from its owner and sell it to someone else. It's still a genuine Picasso.

This doesn't demonstrate your point at all, because you're using the word "genuine" in the same context in both instances. Yet, you can still create ambiguity even in that seemingly well-defined context. Is a painting made by Picasso a "genuine" Picasso? What about one which he merely signed? What about one produced in his workshop under his supervision? One produced in his workshop which he did not supervise? One produced outside his workshop but by the same workers in the same methods and designs? What about a forgery which is indistingishable from a "real" Picasso, which everyone considers to be "genuine"? And so on..

But a copy of Windows that was previously "genuine" can suddenly become "counterfeit" merely because I give the copy to someone? I reject that on strictly linguistic grounds.

And I reject it on grounds of being patent nonsense. "genuine" has no absolute meaning. "counterfeit" has no defined meaning in the given context and the assertion that such properties are in contradition regardless of context is a false dichotomy. A counterfeit Vermeer can still be a genuine van Meegeren (who's forgeries are quite valuable today).

The general problem is when people take metaphors that apply to physical objects and then try to apply them to the replication of information.

First, it's not a metaphor. It's an adjective. Second, most adjectives can be used in what's called a "figurative" sense (which is a metaphor), in which you aren't actually referring to a physical property. When somebody is described as being "cold" or "hard", you are not necessarily talking about their temperature and elastic modulus! Context is required to determine what you mean.

And "genuine" doesn't describe any particular physical characteristic to begin with! Which is why it can only be understood within its context. The fallacy that both you and the linked blogger are making is assuming the opposite: That "genuine" does refer to some physical property, and that therefore can't be applied to informati

Re:Genuine?

[k98sven]

The fake bills are NOT from the US Government, so they are NOT genuine. However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine.

A bogus argument. What if I produce counterfeit bills using the US Mint's own plates? I'm fairly sure you would maintain that they would not be genuine, as they did not originate from the US Mint.

But the engraving did! And yes, you can then describe the engraving itself as "genuine" despite the fact that the overall product, the banknote, is not.

Similarily, while the code on a bootleg Windows disc may very well be "genuine", that does not mean that the overall product is "genuine". The genuine product consists of more than just data. It consists of the disc itself, the box, manual, assorted business-reply-mail forms, a holographic sticker-thingie, a license number and a lifetime membership in the Wham! fan-club.

If any of those components are missing or didn't originate with Microsoft, then the product as a whole is no more genuine than a three-dollar bill. Even if that bill was printed on genuine US Mint cotton paper.

What Microsoft wants to do is attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. That IS a departure from the traditional definition of genuine.

No. I'd say they're attaching the idea that a product that they produced (and not just in part) and paid for is what makes Windows genuine or not. And that is not at all a departure from any "traditional" definition of genuine.

Re:Genuine?

[Achromatic1978]

If you want to take it to that extreme, the product includes the media, the hologrammatic discs, in which case then yes, they are different, and distinguishable.

Re:Genuine?

[cyber-vandal]

Apart from this particular linguist.

Re:Genuine?

[martin-boundary]

Thus, by genuinely following that definition, could one say that Microsoft appears genuine when genuinely using the word genuine, as applicable, in one or more of its genuinely intended senses?

Re:Genuine?

[timrichardson]

The "How to tell" (if you have pirated software) focuses on the media; that is, do you have genuine distribution media?
This seems to be a perfectly normal use of genuine. If you don't have genuine media, Microsoft will offer you a discounted licence if you can show that your media was a sophisticated counterfeit; this is assessed by the CD packaging, labelling and attempts to imitate physical features of genuine Microsoft media.

Re:Genuine?

[RAMMS EIN]

``Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.''

That goes for the linguist, but it goes for dictionary.com, too.

Re:Genuine?

[Ztream]

Sounds like quantum mechanics to me.

Re:Genuine?

[Stormwatch]

A counterfeit Picasso is different, content-wise, from a real one.

Picasso himself is a fraud.

He had made a painting about the death of a bullfighter. It was pretty much forgotten in a corner of his studio. When he was asked to paint something for the 1937 World Expo, he simply renamed that painting "Guernica" after a city recently bombed by the nazis. Lazy? No, far worse: he, a communist, was ordered by Moscow to use his art to draw the world's attention away from the massacre of internal rivalries that they were doing in Spain at the time.

Also, Picasso was an awful painter. Really! Forget how much his works cost, just compare them to the works of real artists, like Salvador Dalí, MC Escher, Bryan Larsen, Alex Ross, Andreas Marschall, Alessandro Barbucci, Moebius, Gabriele Dell'Otto... any of them can trounce Picasso. I think he only did cubism because his attempts to paint realistically were very crude, almost childish.

Re:Genuine?

[10101001 10101001]

Counterfeiting is in the process. The resulting product may be physically IDENTICAL to the original on which it is based, but that doesn't make it any less counterfeit.

I disagree. If the government creates a run of $50 bills and ends up calling for them to be destroyed, does that make them counterfeit? What if someone manages to take one and use it? What if by government, I mean some corrupt official intentionally overprinting money so that it can be "destroyed" (ie, hauled off by his goons)? It's still technically the government doing the printing and there's at best questionable fraud taking place (the inclusion of the bills will certainly cause inflation, but to claim that any official of the government printing bills for their own use is fraud would pretty well put most officials as commiting fraud, as clearly *all* money is printed for the use of driving the economy to retain their position in government). So, what all this means, as I see it, is that what exactly counts as counterfeit is much more difficult to define.

And the previous argument doesn't even take into account the second part of the definition of "counterfeit," which reads on intent -- namely, the intent to commit fraud.

Taking my chain of definitions one step further, what is fraud? According to the thesaurus, fraud is...

An act of cheating

Anyone care to argue that pirating software isn't cheating?

Let's start by pointing out that a thesaurus is a horribly way to figure out the exact meaning of a word. Clearly fraud isn't the same thing as cheating or they'd be the same word. Instead, fraud has a specific meaning that has elements in common with cheating. So, what is fraud exactly? Well, fraud can be said to be the intent to profit through lies. To that end, it's not fraud to print up bills that look exactly like US currency and then make it clear to the person you give it to that it's not official currency--whether it violates other laws about the use of something other than official US bills as currency is a separate matter. So, if a person is given or sold a copy of Windows that they know isn't a copy sanctioned by Microsoft, there is no fraud that takes place. Instead, copyright infringement is the act that occurs.

So, while it's true that at least those who are unaware that their copy is illegitimate would claim their version is counterfit and Microsoft could claim that their software provides authentication if it's genuine, clearly those people who *intentionally* pirate already are aware that it's a genuine pirated copy of Windows. And truthfully, it's almost certain there are more people who intentionally pirate Windows than who do it accidentally. The real irony then is that if Microsoft's software trully did manage to function properly (ie, to label both legitimate copies of Windows and known pirated copies of Windows as genuine), then it'd be the case that only people who were unintentionally pirating Windows who would suffer from the limitations imposed by WGA. Of course, given the fact that Microsoft *does* seem focused on finding those people who are unknowingly pirating Windows (as assumedly those who do it knowingly have already chosen not to pay), it's little surprise that their actions reach this conculsion.

Re:Genuine?

[Vexorian]

So, it would be possible to detect these super falsifications. And they would be circulating around as real money. Thus the genuine money wouldn't have any advantage over these super fake ones.

Re:Genuine?

[arjennienhuis]

A genuine Picasso can never become a counterfeit, even if I were to steal it from its owner and sell it to someone else. It's still a genuine Picasso.

If Mr Smith makes a copy of a Picasso and sells it as such then it's a genuine Smith. If I try to sell it as a real Picasso it became a counterfit Picasso.

Re:Genuine?

[julesh]

Not to mention, you could have a perfectly genuine physical disc, certificate and all, and yet still have an illegal unlicensed copy (like if you buy an OEM license separately from a machine).

This is a perfectly valid practice. MS like to tell you that it's invalid, but that license is totally legitimate: the only problem is, the person who transferred it to you violated their contract with MS. So it's the vendor's problem, not the purchasers.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is the second one if I connect the CD-ROM to both computers at the same time and have them boot and install at the same time? This should be possible with SCSI-CDROM. Or which one is counterfeit if none of the computers has a CDROM, and I have to use a Server to boot both over the net, and they all start and finish their installation at the same time? I could even type in the registration code at the same time with a console swith that allows key presses to be sent to multiple computers. What makes any of those copies less genuine?

Re:Genuine?

[hey!]

If you steal the plates, paper, and inks that make 100 dollar bills and you roll off several thousand of them for yourself, are those bills genuine or counterfeit?

I think that's a bad analogy.

(1) If Microsoft were in the business of selling CDs, then you would be correct: unauhorized copies are not genuine. What I mean by "in the business of selling CDs", is that a significant part of the value lies in the fact that it is a Microsoft CD, not an undetectable copy. This is like the difference in value between a genuine Egyptian antiquity and a clever copy. They both have a certain degree of value intrinsic their observable properties: their aesthetic value, their utility as ballast in the hold of a ship. But the statue that was created 4000 years ago has immensely greater value than the one create four days ago.

(2) If Microsoft is in the business of selling copies of their software, then a "pirate" copy of the software can be just as genuine as one that comes on a CD made by Microsoft -- even if the copy was made illegally. The issue of the genuineness of a copy is entirely a matter of the faithfulness of the copy to the original.

(3) If Microsoft is in the business of selling licenses, then talking about "genuine" copies of Windows is copies is sloppy and misleading. It is not the authenticity of the copy that's at stake, but the license.

I would argue that in this case, the use of the word genuine is a form of marketing deception.

The reason that this deceptive language is that it conflates the consumer's concern for having a genuine copy, which is rooted in his concern about giving unknown third parties control of his computers, with Microsoft's concern that he have a genuine license, which is rooted in their interest in maximizing revenue.

These concerns are different. Microsoft's activation program does nothing to ensure that the copy the consumer has in his possesion is a genuine copy. If an evil hacker working in Lenovo's plant puts a back door in the preinstall image, then the the consumer will have a non-genunine copy with a perfectly genuine license.

The ethical problem with this is that Microsoft is trying to get the consumers to act in a way that is in Microsoft's interest by misrepresenting what the consumer gains in cooperating. While it is arguably in the consumer's broad interest that copyright is and license rights are properly observed, this is not a direct benefit to them. Employing force (which deception is a form of) to make others act in a way that we think is good for them is paternalism.

That said, it's not an uncommon kind of deception in marketing at all; certainly not the kind that amounts to the crime of fraud. It's the kind of vague assertion that we are supposed to assume is untrustworty when we told caveat emptor.

What I am saying here is that to be strictly truthful, when you say "genuine" in regard to a thing, you must be referring to the aspect of authenticity that you know the hearer is likely to be concerned with. Deliberately using a difference in point of view in order to convey a false impression is lying.

Re:Genuine?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Just FYI: That's "tête à tête".

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

As to the person who wrote the original article being a linguist, Webster's clearly shows Microsoft's use of the word genuine to be one of the accepted uses for the word. Perhaps emotion got the better of the person, as the wording "genuine advantage" appears to be intended to fool the consumer.

When the advantage is to the company and not the customer, I'd say there is room for a LOT of debate about the appropriate usage in an ad campaign.

Definition of genuine - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
"...b : actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author ... "
(www.webster.com)

Re:Genuine?

[dfghjk]

You both saw a genuine movie and breathed genuine air and sat in a genuine seat while doing it. Only one of you bought a genuine ticket however.

Re:Genuine?

[dfghjk]

The copied Picasso may have used identical sources for canvas and paint as well but that oesn't make it a Picasso. The ingredients aren't what makes it so.

If Picasso made a copy of one og his paintings then it would be a Picasso whether the copy was exact or not.

Re:Genuine?

[dfghjk]

"Take the example of stolen money plates, paper, and inks for $100 bills. If I steal those and print them up in my basement, do you really think a proper forensic setup wouldn't be able to tell that one set of bills was printed legitimately at the Mint, and another set was printed somewhere else? The exact molecular content of the atmosphere, the humidity levels, even the amount of light the bills are exposed to during printing... The density banding in the ink would be different if it dried at different rates in slightly warmer or more humid air, etc. Obviously a clerk at the supermarket isn't going to be able to tell, but the information exists and can be detected."

I think you're wrong on that, but assuming you are right, a similar argument could be made for the physical media used for the distribution. Yes, it may be an identical bit copy but the physical pressing and the media itself might be distiguishable (and in fact it's more likely than your example of the stolen plates).

Re:Genuine?

[dfghjk]

"However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine."

The thing you hold in your hand is not copied software, it's a disc that contains it. That disc is not manufactured by microsoft so it is not genuine.

Re:Genuine?

[Vicissidude]

Then you can tell that the bills are faked from the paper or ink used. You could also tell from the manner it was printed and cut. You still would not have an exact copy.

The exact copy of Windows IS genuinely from Microsoft. As an exact copy of the Windows code, Microsoft is the manufacturer. You are stuck on the box, the manual, and the business-reply forms, despite the fact that you get none of these when order your computer from Dell or HP or wherever. The only thing that matters to Microsoft with their "genuine" Windows is whether you have a license or not. And that IS a change in the definition of the word.

As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."

Re:Genuine?

[Vicissidude]

A disk is a medium that holds data. We're talking about the data here, not the disk. It's the data that you install on your computer. And once installed, that version of Windows is no different from any other version of Windows. All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft.

As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."

Re:Genuine?

[Vicissidude]

A disk is a medium that holds data. We're talking about the data here, not the disk. It's the data that you install on your computer. And once installed, that version of Windows is no different from any other version of Windows. All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft.

As freedumb2000 wrote, "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."

Re:Genuine?

[alienw]

No. It's not. If Microsoft tells you the license is not legitimate, then it is not legitimate. Unless you want to try to argue your point in court, it only matters what they think, not what you think. There's even been a precedent not too long ago where someone got burned by buying OEM copies. They had to pay up.

Re:Genuine?

[tepples]

A disk is a medium that holds data. We're talking about the data here, not the disk.

Microsoft is talking about genuine "copies". US copyright law defines a "copy" as a physical medium in which a work of authorship is fixed, such as the disc. It's a genuine work, but not a genuine copy of the work.

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

This is completely irrelevant to the context, which quite specifically refers to "genuine" being used when referring to a copy being sold. And in that context, I agree that it's perfectly reasonable to call an unauthorized copy "non-genuine".

But why do so? "Unauthorized" covers it already. So does "unlicensed". Why start trying to use "non-genuine," which has unavoidable connotations of non-identical near-duplication? "Unauthorized" and "unlicensed" are perfectly accurate, but "non-genuine" implies that the software itself is not the genuine article. It IS the genuine article, by definition, being a perfect copy of either the original or an authorized copy, and thus mathematically indistinguishable from what you would call a "genuine copy".

If you want to go off on a tangent and discuss the meaning of "genuine" in all kinds of other contexts to make your point, then you're committing the action Microsoft is being accused of here: Framing the debate by redefining a word in a nonsensical way.

I never did any such thing. What I'm doing is examining whether any of the current usages of the word "genuine" can apply in any of the contexts in which Windows XP might be duplicated. And it turns out, they don't. Microsoft has thus introduced a new usage, one which I (and others) object to. I object to it for three reasons:

1. It omits fundamental criteria under which "genuine" and "counterfeit" historically apply. In other words, the usage is too far removed from current usages to be useful. Yes, I know language changes, but this is a bad way to change it.
2. We already have two perfectly good (and far more accurate) terms for what they call "genuine": "authorized" and, even better, "licensed".
3. They're doing it to satisfy their own interests, not out of any real desire to improve the language. Yes, this matters. It's also imposition of language by fiat, not by organic growth, and that's generally harmful to languages.

Re:Genuine?

[Vicissidude]

The software is genuinely made by Microsoft.

Re:Genuine?

[dfghjk]

"We're talking about the data here, not the disk."

Who says? I didn't find anything in this thread that says that.

To use the car analogy, the data installed on your computer is like the ride you get in the counterfeit car. The fake car still gets you to the store but that doesn't mean it's not fake.

What is counterfeited is the Windows distribution and that is physical media, not just the bits.

"All those versions, regardless of what Microsoft says, are genuinely from Microsoft."

No, they aren't. Driving a counterfeit BMW doesn't mean the ride you got came from BMW.

"And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."

A counterfeit Windows disc is not genuine. That fact that it can be used to produce a Windows installation that is identical to the real thing doesn't make it genuine.

Re:Genuine?

[Arterion]

Reconsider what you just said with respect to the fact that a very large amount of purchased software is delivered by electronic download since the advent of broadband internet. Are you telling me I'm not infringing on copyright law if I electronically redistribute copies of software, movies, games, etc.? Surely you must inform the RIAA immediately. While U.S. copyright law might define a "copy" as a physical medium, it's not really relevant, as the copyrights Microsoft calls into question are for the DATA, not the medium. I'm sure they have additional copyrights protecting their packaging and manafacturing process, but those are really tangential. "Windows Geniune Advange" has never tried to check my physical media.

Re:Genuine?

[settrans]

It doesn't take a linguist to understand this. Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.

That may be because he is actually an African click language researcher.

Re:Genuine?

[D2Deek]

Apart from this particular linguist.

There's also this one.

Re:Genuine?

[finiteSet]

If you steal the plates, paper, and inks that make 100 dollar bills and you roll off several thousand of them for yourself, are those bills genuine or counterfeit?

I would argue that software and currency are fundamentally different things. Currency is essentially symbolic, and it's only value comes from its authenticity. Software, like a car, is functional. Its value to the average user comes not from being blessed by Microsoft, but from its ability to let the user check his/her email, write papers, play games, etc. Therefore, an exact copy with someone else's genuine cd key has the same value to the end user as a legitimate copy - except, as the author points out, to the extent that Microsoft intentionally diminishes its value, by denying technical support, upgrades, etc. It is analogous to a rebel Ford plant producing a few cars outside of Ford's knowledge or authorization, and selling them on the side. The car will be of identical quality and function to authorized cars, and whose value will be diminished only by Ford refusing to honor warranties, etc. There is nothing inherently inferior about these products: if Microsoft and Ford honored warranties, upgrades etc then they would be indistinguishable to "blessed" software, and for all intents and purposes, "genuine."

Anyway, linguistics is a descriptive (not prescriptive!) study, and this author studied general usage of the term "genuine" outside of and inside of Microsoft's anti-piracy campaign. I'm sure he welcomes your interpretation, though I think your last sentence (questioning his intellectual rigor) was a little misguided.

Re:Genuine?

[TheDormouse]

If you steal the plates, paper, and inks that make 100 dollar bills and you roll off several thousand of them for yourself, are those bills genuine or counterfeit?

No. $100 bills also must have a valid serial number stamped on them in two places in order to be genuine.

At any rate, the certificate and license key that comes with an unauthorized copy of windows isn't genuine, no matter how you slice it.

Actually, the volume license keys on pirated Windows usually are genuine, but Microsoft makes sure the licensors to whom they actually belong get a new key since theirs got leaked out.

Re:Genuine?

[mcostas]

Since a pirated version of Windows is completely identical code, it is genuine software. Only the compact disc itself is non-genuine. If copying executable bits rendered them non-genuine, then nobody could run genuine Windows. All Windows software bits are copied to RAM when you boot your computer. Software licensing only deals with permission, not whether or not something is genuine. If you steal a dollar bill from someone, it is still a genuine dollar bill.

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

a similar argument could be made for the physical media used for the distribution.

I'm not talking about the media; I'm talking about the information.

To remove the media from the argument, imagine that I buy one Windows XP CD, and 20 licenses. Using non-Microsoft software, I duplicate the XP CD to a CD-R, put the original in a safe place, and install a copy of XP on each of 20 different computers.

Clearly the CD-R was not created or prepared by Microsoft; yet my actions there are entirely legal. The media is thus irrelevant; what matters is the information.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A man once criticized Picasso for creating unrealistic art. Picasso asked him: "Can you show me some realistic art?" The man showed him a photograph of his wife. Picasso observed: "So your wife is two inches tall, two-dimensional, with no arms and no legs, and no color but only shades of grey?" [source] Genuine is entirely subjective; this debate is meaningless. As a side note, Picasso is among my favorite artists, and Escher is not on my list of favorites. Escher's works are interesting only for their optical illusions. His work has no depth emotionally. They look cool -- but that's not what art is about.

Re:Genuine?

[punkass]

What about this one?

Re:Genuine?

[Zalbik]

Interesting argument, but you are confusing the software with the license.

Windows Genuine Advantage is designed to ensure that you have a "genuine" license to use Windows. It doesn't relate to the media whatsoever. You can install it from a CD, a downloaded ISO, a backup CD, whatever...the test is to check whether the installed software has an approprate license.

In this context, it is obvious why the license is no longer "genuine" when you give the CD to a friend. The license was an agreement between YOU and Microsoft, not your friend and Microsoft.

Admittedly, Microsoft makes this same confusion when describing Windows Genuine Advantage (describing it as something that ensures the software is genuine), but that's typical Microspeak. I think it would be much proper for them to describe Windows Genuine Advantage as a mechanism for fighting piracy and ONLY as such. I strongly suspect the validation doesn't do ANYTHING to ensure the actual software has been tampered with (i.e. MD5 hashes, etc)

I suppose a better description would be "Windows Genuine Licensing", but that just sounds stupid :-)

Re:Genuine?

[finiteSet]

Currency gains its value by fiat

The same could be said of something that can be infinitely reproduced at no cost.

Not from the user's perspective. As I mentioned in a different post, the value of, say Microsoft XP is the ability to check your email, play games, etc. Pirated or not, your copy of Microsoft XP allows you to do that, and is therefore valuable. Currency in itself has no value, it is only useful for trading for goods with value. With pirated software you don't have a voucher for something of value, you already have the fully functional real deal.

Re:Genuine?

[HeroreV]

The words "genuine" and "illegal" aren't antonyms. It is entirely possible for something to be both genuine and illegal or non-genuine and legal.

Re:Genuine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is windows with updates installed that are only available via Genuine Advantage still windows? I think many people would think so. Maybe a more up to date (note I didn't say "better") version but still windows. One of the things a conusmer has a right (even if only by prior example) to expect from Microsoft is that they keep their software up to date; a real, legal and genuine license from Microsoft entitles you to more updates and extra software than a terrorist communist paedophile captain-hook thief felon copy does, hence unless you're ignorant enough to never, ever update anything on your windows machine, then you actually have a discrepancy in OS features and security depending on whether you have a genuine (MS definition) copy of windows or not, therefore an invalid license is equivalent to a substandard (as far as MS would tell you) or at least imperfect copy of the software after updates that are pretty much a given for anyone who has any sense. Valid license vs. invalid --> different end result. --> Difference in OS software --> illegal copies different and therefore not genuine. Others have a point though, the definition(s) cited from dictionary.com isn't really applicable to copyright law and the windows EULA. Oh, and posting this from an Ubuntu machine has worked out just fine for me actually :)

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

Interesting argument, but you are confusing the software with the license.

Actually, no, I'm entirely clear on the distinction. Microsoft are the ones (deliberately) causing the confusion. ;)

Re:Genuine?

[jZnat]

This is Slashdot, remember? That post goes against the established stereotype!

Re:Genuine?

[julesh]

Read the license. This is case of Microsoft's marketing people saying something different to what their lawyers are saying. In court, what the lawyers wrote is the important thing.

There's even been a precedent not too long ago where someone got burned by buying OEM copies. They had to pay up.

Do you have a reference? I suspect you're talking about the guy who was buying certificates of conformity, which aren't licenses. You only get a license if *everything* is transferred, discs and all.

Re:Genuine?

[ProfFalcon]

The linguist is not arguing copies of the software (or movie in the example) being obtained through illicit means being non-genuine.

He is arguing that a copy of the software purchased legitimately through proper channels but not registered with Microsoft is still genuine despite Windows Genuine Advantage stating that it is not.

It is the act of registration that is making the copy genuine to Microsoft. It is still a genuine, authentic, legal, acceptable and fully ethical copy of the software. Microsoft gained their profit off of that copy of the software. If no one registers it, it is still genuine according to the dictionary definition. It is not genuine to WGA.

If we both paid full price to get into the movie and watch it but do not tell Steven Spielberg that we did so, our viewing was not genuine according to Microsoft's definition.

Re:Genuine?

[k98sven]

But why do so? "Unauthorized" covers it already. So does "unlicensed". Why start trying to use "non-genuine," which has unavoidable connotations of non-identical near-duplication? "Unauthorized" and "unlicensed" are perfectly accurate, but "non-genuine" implies that the software itself is not the genuine article. It IS the genuine article, by definition, being a perfect copy of either the original or an authorized copy, and thus mathematically indistinguishable from what you would call a "genuine copy".

Two reasons: The first is that an unauthorized copy doesn't actually come with any guarantee whatsoever of being an identical copy of the original software. An authorized edition does come with such a guarantee. (MS or the vendor will undoubtedly exchange it for you otherwise) So I don't see any real dishonesty in making that implication. At worst you could call it hyperbole, since most pirated copies are genuine as far as the software is concerned.

The second reason is that it's naturally in the interests of MS's marketing to play up that risk.

So the "Why?" is quite obvious. The "Why?" I'd like to ask is "Why is this upsetting to anyone?". I mean, they are not lying, and they certainly can't be expect to vouch for the quality and accuracy of pirated software. So at worst, MS marketing is being accused of exaggerating things to their advantage. Which is basically what all marketing does. It's practically their job description.

But why do so? "Unauthorized" covers it already. So does "unlicensed". Why start trying to use "non-genuine," which has unavoidable connotations of non-identical near-duplication? "Unauthorized" and "unlicensed" are perfectly accurate, but "non-genuine" implies that the software itself is not the genuine article. It IS the genuine article, by definition, being a perfect copy of either the original or an authorized

Because, "unauthorized" and "unlicensed" are pretty much synonyms for "without permission", "authorization" carries a connotation of formality, and "license" carries one of of the legal definition. (although both are used outside of formal and legal contexts).

Neither bear any direct relationship to the word "genuine". "genuine" approximately means "Being what it appears to be". So whether one implies the other or not can't be determined without any context. Also, "genuine" is a subjective description (like "ugly" is). So if it's to mean anything, you need some kind of hint from the context as to what they mean by "appearing to be something".

You are saying that a disc of software copied (with license or not) is genuine. And I agree with that; If the contents of a CD look like a Windows install CD and it's an exact copy, then its contents are genuine. Conversely, if the contents look like a Windows CD but contains added spyware, then it's not genuine.

But Microsoft that's not the context MS used. They did not talk about the contents. They were talking about something purchased under the impression of having purchased a Windows CD. Now, if the contents are non-genuine, then they bought something non-genuine. You implicitly agree to at least that much.

Now, you have (intentionally?) clouded the issue here by changing the context of "genuine" from the purchased product to the software itself in order to make licensing irrelevant. The software itself is simple: It's genuine if it's an accurate copy, regardless of licensing. Licensing is not irrelevant to the genuineness of the purchased product. That depends entirely on what impression the buyer got about licensing from the appearance of the product.

First, as I already said, an unlicensed copy carries no guarantee of having genuine contents (and a licensed copy does), so there's nothing directly dishonest in making that implication. (How dare they claim all pirated software is bad when only some of it is!)

Second, you ignore the follow

Re:Genuine?

[Dirtside]

Sorry to flame, but: Your response is bullshit.

Yeah, that makes me want to continue this conversation. Sod off.

Cunning linguist jokes

[XorNand]

The line for all the "cunning linguist" jokes starts right -----> here.

Re:Cunning linguist jokes

[drfrog]

phwew, that takes a load off my mind

Re:Cunning linguist jokes

[value_added]

Well, if the definition of "cunning linguist" includes the likes of folks like Carl Rove, then yes. It should come as no surprise that anyone who can define the terms of a discussion, controls the discussion. That's why words are important, kids.

"War on Terror" by itself is meaningless and mostly a non-sequitor, but it sounds a lot better than "Invade countries and overthrow rulers." Similarly, "stealing" is more effective than "copyright infringement". And "pro life" does have a nicer ring to it than "anti abortion". The folks who know this also know that most people are too uneducated, too lazy or too prone to going along with everyone else to question the terms of the discussion. Which is easier: using a spell-czecher or investing in a desktop edition of the OED and using your brain? Hell, who even notices? If Slashdot is any measure, sloppiness in thinking and (and by extension, sloppiness in writing) seems to tolerated, if not encouraged.

Admittedly, what Microsoft is doing is subtle enough that few, aside from a single linguist, would notice. Or complain. I think they've already won.

Re:Cunning linguist jokes

[Jerf]

Well, if the definition of "cunning linguist" includes the likes of folks like [K]arl Rove, then yes. It should come as no surprise that anyone who can define the terms of a discussion, controls the discussion.

Karl's really the repudiation of this semi-myth; he learned it from the Democrats, who learned it from the English professors, who got it from philosophers. (I'm not intending this as a political slam on the Democrats. Everybody tries to control the debate in every way they can think of, and that's not even limited to politicians. In a way, kudos to the Dems for realizing they could use it first.)

Karl proves you really can't control the debate that way, because as easily as you define the terms, somebody else can define some other terms right back at you.

The most recent interesting example I've seen comes from the right (and I give you this one even though I basically agree with the premise): "Gun control" sounds like a positive thing, how can you not want guns "controlled"? Now the new term gaining currency in response is "victim disarmament", building on the idea that only law-abiding people turn in their guns and only law-abiding people get disarmed by gun laws. I'm pretty sure that if that term manages to enter the public debate it's going to have a significant effect.

Orwell was semi-wrong, you can't control thoughts by controlling language, because language shifts, and if you make thoughts "unexpressable", the language will be strongly impelled to shift in exactly such a way that those thoughts are expressable; that's the whole point of language. (Which is why trying to outlaw racial slurs is basically pointless; outlaw the current crop and you'll just get a new generation, if the desire to express racial slurs remains.)

Re:Cunning linguist jokes

[WilliamSChips]

Yes, but can it be a cunning linguist on a hardwood floor?

Re:Cunning linguist jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

if you make thoughts "unexpressable", the language will be strongly impelled to shift in exactly such a way that those thoughts are expressable

I know what you mean. Why just last week, a family of doubleplusunwhites moved into my block!

if *that* bugs him,

[macadamia_harold]

If that bothers him, it sounds like he would have a field day with "Ginuwine". And shortly after, "Ludacris".

Re:if *that* bugs him,

[macadamia_harold]

I run only Ginuwine Microsoft Windows.

Of course, as was predicted by Nastradamus

Re:if *that* bugs him,

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if these linguists could summon up the same outrage for other PC-speak. For example, "undocumented immigrants" for illegal aliens.

Re:if *that* bugs him,

[ScrewMaster]

I dunno ... seems kinda "rediculous" to me.

Re:if *that* bugs him,

[jizmonkey]

I wonder if these linguists could summon up the same outrage for other PC-speak. For example, "undocumented immigrants" for illegal aliens.

Boy, you win the irony award today. The term "illegal alien" is the loaded, non-technical word ("PC speak," as you say, is another loaded, non-technical word). The correct term is "EWI" or entered without inspection.

Now the term "undocumented immigrant" does not mean quite the same thing, because an immigrant is someone who intends to remain in the U.S, and EWI does not imply that the person intends to remain in the U.S. Additionally, there are people who enter under visas (or visa waivers), and then simply fail to leave when their time is up. These are not EWI, because they were inspected when they entered.

However, as a matter of practice, people who are here as tourists and for business trips do it the proper way, being inspected at the border. Thus "EWI" tends to imply "immigrant." And there are relatively few working-class people who take the trouble to get a visa, then overstay. Much simpler just to cross the border. Thus, it is accurate in practice to refer to EWI persons as "undocumented immigrants" and vice-versa.

Now, as for the "illegal alien" word, I would like you to conduct a simple exercise, since you seem to have picked up so much erudition from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or whomever. I would like you to find me the statute in the U.S. Code which says that it is a crime for someone to enter EWI, or to overstay a visa. Go ahead, I can wait. Are you back yet?

The answer is, there is no such statute. Someone can be deported for not having authorization to be here (or the more modern term, "undergo removal proceedings"), however deportation proceedings are civil in nature, not criminal. They're not even a misdemeanor. (It is a crime, a felony in fact, to return to the US after being deported, but that's altogether different.)

So how's your driving? Do you ever exceed the speed limit? Do you coast through stop signs when you think nobody's around? Do you ever smoke weed? When you were a freshman in college, did you drink beer? I'm sure you do and did, because condescension and hypocrisy go hand in hand. My real question then, is whether you feel shame for being an "illegal driver" or an "illegal student" for having committed misdemeanors. I am equally sure you do not.

Re:if *that* bugs him,

[Vicissidude]

The term "illegal alien" is the term used by the government to refer to this group of foreigners.

And, "undocumented immigrant" is not accurate. Many of this group of people have forged documentation in order to get jobs and work. In these cases, these are "documented immigrants", but still illegal. And in fact, these forged documents are against the law. It is considered fraud.

Stupid

[rm999]

"Genuine" Italian food has the same ingredients and taste as something made in my asian friend's mom's kitchen. That doesn't mean her cooking is genuine italian food.

Re:Stupid

[Lehk228]

if she is making italian food, it's genuine whether or not she is italian

if it was something based on italian food but made differently or made with additional non-italian food in it then it would not be

Re:Stupid

[rm999]

No she is making italian food. According to your definition, the word genuine adds nothing to that first sentence.

Genuine *does* mean something!

Re:Stupid

[Al Dimond]

Just to clarify, you're saying that in order for it to be "genuine" Italian food it has to be made in Italy, right? Meaning that a dude from Italy cooking a delicious lasagna in his kitchen in Canada wouldn't be making genuine Italian food either. But a dude from China making scrumptious blueberry pancakes in Sicily would be? Or as a French woman making Channa Masala in Torino?

Excuse me, I have to go eat something now.

Re:Stupid

[Jeremi]

if she is making italian food, it's genuine whether or not she is italian

Wouldn't genuine Italian food be food that was made in Italy? Otherwise it's only Italian-style food...

(thus sayeth the pedant ;^))

Re:Stupid

[o2sd]

Wouldn't genuine Italian food be food that was made in Italy? Otherwise it's only Italian-style food...

Hmmm, what if the ingredients were imported into Italy from Spain and cooked by German ex-patriot?

Would it still be Italian food?

Or would it be German food cooked in Italy from Spanish ingredients?

Re:Stupid

[Pfhorrest]

if she is making italian food, it's genuine whether or not she is italian

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend in Michigan once. (I'm in California).

He was complaining that since having moved up there from down here, he's damn hard pressed to find any kind of real Mexican food, made by real Mexicans, not the crappy-ass stuff at his local (Michigan) Taco Bell, made by pasty-faced white kids .

I replied to him that if all I can find in any southern California McDonalds is "Mexican food" (by his definition - made by real Mexicans), then he can damn well enjoy authentic American food made by pasty-faced Americans at his local Taco Bell in Michigan.

it's the future....

[macadamia_harold]

Thus, Microsoft I guess has some legitimacy in using the word Genuine.

Yeah, I think this guy is using an outdated version of the word. Like when people use the word "ask" instead of "ax", or "Christmas" instead of "X-Mas".

Re:it's the future....

[Anonymous Coward]

or "bathroom" instead of "bafoom".

Re:it's the future....

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Christmas and Xmas are completely equivalent. Note that the 'X' is actually a Chi. I actually had an ignorant Christian tell me to go fuck myself over that point, but I was backed up by an actual Catholic Priest who indicated that they all write Xtian and Xmas in the seminary. I'm am getting the last laugh in that argument... right now.

Re:it's the future....

[Aidski]

*whoosh*

Don't watch much Futurama, do you?

Re:it's the future....

[mad_minstrel]

How I hate unexpected API changes.

Re:it's the future....

[Profane MuthaFucka]

My reference is much more obscure than yours.

Re:it's the future....

[sco08y]

"Christmas" instead of "X-Mas"

In Greek, Christ is spelled . X for Christ is an abbreviation that dates back to before the KJV bible was written.

As to how people pronounce "ask," do you pronounce the k, g and h in "knight"?

Re:it's the future....

[aichpvee]

I thought X was "shi"? And the proper spelling is "xian" (pronounced "shii-an"), not "xtian."

Re:it's the future....

[rosscoe]

well I certaintly pronounce the g & h or else it would be 'nit' rather than 'nigh-t'. But being British I do have the home advantage I guess :-)

Re:it's the future....

[kfg]

Like when people use the word "ask" instead of "ax"

Ax is archaic English, not a degradation of English. It's a perfectly "correct" Germanic pronunciation of the word.

KFG

Re:it's the future....

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>I was backed up by an actual Catholic Priest who indicated that...

"actual" Catholic Priest?

no thanks, I prefer to receive God's words through a Genuine Roman Catholic(R) Priest XP Cathedral Edition Update(TM)

Re:it's the future....

[Randolpho]

I was backed up by an actual Catholic Priest

You meant a genuine Catholic Priest, right?

Re:it's the future....

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, no, we don't pronounce the k, g and h in Britain. Think about silent e. You pronounce nic and nice differently - the extra letters aren't spoken, although they change the sound. The original for knight is knigget.

Monty Python is sometimes very accurate. (Other examples being the Universe song).

Re:it's the future....

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I think so, but I didn't check to see if he was circumcised.

Re:it's the future....

[Columcille]

Plus this move hardly sheds the religious implications: holiday = holy day.

Re:it's the future....

[mek2600]

FYI- Support for Genuine Roman Catholic(R) Priest XP Cathedral Edition Update(TM) ends this October unless it has SP2 applied.

Re:it's the future....

[fredclown]

No it is chi (pronounced key). I'm a Greek minor.

Re:it's the future....

[HeroreV]

I think he was just pointing out that 'silent' letters can infact affect the way the words are pronounced.

Re:it's the future....

[madclicker]

"backed up" Did you enjoy it ?

Re:it's the future....

[Petrushka]

In Greek, Christ is spelled .

Shame that Slashdot only allows the one alphabet (Roman), eh?

Anyway, FWIW, it would look very approximately like this: XPHWTOW (but rotate the W's +1.57 radians).

Re:it's the future....

[morie]

I'm a greek minor

No voting or drinking for you then...

What They're Trying to Say

[Yehooti]

We know what they want to say but can anyone suggest, in a word, a better way?

Re:What They're Trying to Say

[rkcallaghan]

Identical.

Re:What They're Trying to Say

[Socguy]

Licenced copy, Approved copy, Authorized copy...

Genuine...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a word so simple it could only be misunderstood by a person with a Ph.D in linguistics.

Pathetic.

Re:Genuine...

[Kaenneth]

I'd call those linguists the worst examples of pedantic homosapiens, but I'm sure they'll claim they never touched that boy.

Re:Genuine...

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't had as good a chuckle from a /. post as I just got from yours. Well done.

Re:Genuine...

[belmolis]

Since you don't even suggest an argument as to how I have misunderstood "genuine", I suggest that it is your post that is pathetic.

Re:Genuine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodness, the pompous pedagogue himself appears. I am honored.

As others have more than adequately demonstrated why your blog entry is arrant nonsense, I feel no need whatsoever to explain any further.

I say again, pathetic.

Re:Genuine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you don't even suggest an argument as to how I have misunderstood "genuine", I suggest that it is your post that is pathetic.

You've asserted that Microsoft's use of "genuine" is done in a way that deviates from the way the word is commonly used. That's an outright laughable assertion. Calling unlicensed and therefore unsupported software "not genuine" is perfectly reasonable. The article is not genuine. It does not have the same features as the genuine article. IT HAS NO SUPPORT FROM THE MANUFACTURER.

Riddle me this

[crazyjeremy]

Many computers genuinely had XP SP1 on them at one time, then the license and original restore cd is lost. When it comes time for the standard 6 month reformat, should we genuinely feel guilt for loading a different CD "XP SP2 copy" of this same product just because we can't find the authenticity certificate?

Re:Riddle me this

[CXI]

Try it out with some other things to see if your logic makes sense:

- Well officer, I had a license to drive cars but you know I didn't keep track of it so why do you care if I use this one someone else gave me? I mean I had a license at one point!
- I had a ticket to get on this plane, but since I lost it I just made this one in photoshop. What do you mean you won't take it? I'll just take an empty seat!

This boils down to main issue of the digital revolution which is the pathological belief of a large number of individuals that if it's easy to copy then there is no harm in stealing it regardless of the resources put into creating it. Yes, open source yada yada but it's a different matter if something was created with resources and plans designed around free distribution compared to copying something that was created under a business model expecting a return on the investment. You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.

Wow, that went a little farther then I expected when I hit reply. :)

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

- I had a ticket to get on this plane, but since I lost it I just made this one in photoshop. What do you mean you won't take it? I'll just take an empty seat!

A better analogy would be having a ticket, getting on a plane legitimately, and then halfway through the flight having the plane explode spontaneously, and then finding out that you have to buy the ticket again, cause the last plane exploded, and sorry, but you're gonna have to pay again.

Re:Riddle me this

[karmatic]

In your example, what if the duplicate is indistinguishable from the original (which pirate copies often are, as far as the data goes).

I printed myself a boarding pass for one of my flights, and couldn't find it in the morning. I knew all of the information (flight #, seat, boarding group), so I took an earlier boarding pass and edited it (the mac doesn't have a printer, so I save things as .pdf files and print them from the PC).

They most certainly accepted it, and I got on the flight without issue. Was what I did legal? Probably not. The airline got their money, I paid for my ticket, and I got on the plane. Whether or not it was technically legal, was it wrong? Who was harmed by my actions - the airline? Society as a whole? Me?

Re:Riddle me this

[o2sd]

You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.

Technically speaking you are infringing copyright. If you were stealing, then that makes every single one of us a thief. Unless of course you've never sung Happy Birthday(c).

Oh, and BTW, that copy of my post you just made to your computer's memory, I expect to get paid for it you thief.

Re:Riddle me this

[michaelmoran]

The problem is neither of those analogies fit very well in this case. If you lose your license you can get another made for under $20. This is the main difference. Most people aren't going to pay an additional $100-$200 dollars because they lost a piece of paper with a number on it. Im not sure how you deal with that for people who bought XP retail, but for OEM copies that came on the Machine it should be a 5-10 dollar charge to send them the number or cd since it would be easy to track by the computer's serial number. Also, printing the number on the case would probably go a long way to reducing people losing the number, however they may need a new copy of the media. Also, plane tickets can be tracked electronically. Some companies have kiosks where you can print out e-tickets at the terminal. As I said above, the biggest problem here is that people don't like paying for things twice. Especially when its not a "real"(as in physical) product. You aren't buying a cd or a copy of Windows(so says the respective companies) merely the "right" to listen or use it. Its a hard pill for someone to swallow if you tell them well you purchased it once, but another copy will cost you full price. This is ridiculous, since it doesn't cost full price for them to make another copy. In this brave new world of "intellectual property" where you pay money to receive a product, however, the product itself is intangible and what you actually hold in your hand is the medium which holds the product, its hard for most people to say if they lose the medium they should pay full price for the product. I think the cost of replacing the medium, but certainly not the cost of the product. You can't "use up" music or computer programs, however, you can use up the medium they are on, thus replacement price should only be the medium. Of course, that does directly affect the business model of companies who want the constant re-buying.

Re:Riddle me this

[Blastrogath]

> You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.


It doesn't change "it", but "it" isn't true. Copyright violations aren't theft, they're copyright violation.


Theft \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.]

1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

2. The thing stolen. [R.]

If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, . . . he shall restore double. --Ex. xxii. 4.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)


You don't steal by copying because you don't move or posess the original, it's still right where it was before you copied it. You can argue all you want about if it's moral but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are not stealing.

Re:Riddle me this

[rackhamh]

printed myself a boarding pass for one of my flights, and couldn't find it in the morning. I knew all of the information (flight #, seat, boarding group), so I took an earlier boarding pass and edited it (the mac doesn't have a printer, so I save things as .pdf files and print them from the PC).

Am I missing something? Every self-printed boarding pass I've ever used had a barcode on it. I sincerely doubt that you were able to forge that, especially since you were lacking the original.

Re:Riddle me this

[Kjella]

You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.

Let's limit that to people that are selling it, "expecting to get paid" is way too broad and covers everything from people skipping commercials to buying non-brand accessories to offer competing aupport and everything else that torpedos whatever "business model" they come up with. As for the rest of your legal expertise, come back when you've understood the difference between stealing a car, adn stealing the design of a car. Both are illegal though...

Re:Riddle me this

[Mr2001]

Yes, open source yada yada but it's a different matter if something was created with resources and plans designed around free distribution compared to copying something that was created under a business model expecting a return on the investment. You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.

It's not our job to make their business model work. If they think they can make money by making a piece of information to the public and then charging for copies of it, knowing full well that (1) information can be copied at little to no cost, (2) methods to stop copying are fundamentally unsound and have been shown not to work in practice, and (3) copyright violations are usually undetectable, making copyright law largely unenforceable except for the largest scale violations... then they deserve whatever happens.

Re:Riddle me this

[karmatic]

Yes, it had a barcode.

It was, however, America West (in Phoenix) - they don't scan barcodes.

When closing out the flight, it's done by manually typing in the seat number. I know this because I worked for Mesa Airlines (America West Express), and used the system myself.

This was pre merger - it may have changed since they merged with US Airways.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dude, you dictionary is 90 years old! Don't you think that the defination has changed over time?

Is the internet in your dictionary? How about a network? A computer? I guess not. Does this mean that these things don't exist in your world?

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not theft, it's copy right violation. there is a difference, they are two different crimes.

judas priest i'm getting fucking sick of the ignorance over this simple thing.

Re:Riddle me this

[vga_init]

You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.

I think that you are somehow misapplying the word "steal" or at least using it in a way that it normally isn't.

A copy is just that--a copy. If you expend resources to make a copy of something, you've essentially done all the work in the creation of it. Someone may have done a lot more work to produce the original item, but you're not depriving them of the original item or the use of it, nor anyone else.

What you are doing, however, is ruining that item's marketability by eliminating its scarcity. You could argue that such a thing in itself is stealing, but if you made such an extension in a criminal sense and apply legal enforcement, you're essentially outlawing a lot of other things that don't make sense. For example, if you manufactured product A that is twice as efficient as product B and selling it for half the price, your actions are ruining the marketability of product B and destroying the projected value of the labor that was put into its creation. Should that be illegal?

We can't simply criminalize people for actions that lead to the decrease in a commodity's desired value. Most people who labor want to see the highest possible return, but that doesn't mean the extent of what's possible shouldn't be limited by natural market forces lest the imbalance prove to be a burden on the economy. Copyright is an example of market protectionism that gives certain individuals priveleges they don't have naturally. In many cases the necessity of these priveleges are grossly exaggerated (for example, the original term for Copyright in the United States was fewer than twenty years).

That doesn't mean all protectionism is unwarranted or harmful to the economy. There are, however, cases in which we might wish to re-evaluate current systems. For example, software copyright is furnished with the belief that a foundation is provided for the existence and growth of software itself. It is feared that without such protectionism the software industry might be too fragile to exist on its own and that the creation of new software in conjunction with the improvement of current software would cease to take place or at least be so sluggish as to handicap other endeavors which depend on it.

Certainly, the success and popularity of the GPL is aided by its legal viability by reliance on the potency of copyright law. But from the perspective of Free software, "stealing" would be the act of not copying it, and the movement would be little harmed without the existence of copyright as applied to software.

What Free software does is offer us the reassurance that even without protectionism, the production of software would not be threatened. As such, I invite you to consider perhaps that we might enjoy greater social and market freedoms without the coercion of software copyright while at the same time continuing to enjoy a prosperous level of software production.

Re:Riddle me this

[ben there...]

This boils down to main issue of the digital revolution which is the pathological belief of a large number of individuals that if it's easy to copy then there is no harm in stealing it regardless of the resources put into creating it.

In this case, I'd think it actually boils down to the other main issue of the digital revolution: that most people involved in the digital revolution are too retarded to keep their certificates and original media--the actual things they purchased.

Basically every time I've asked anyone I know in real life where their Windows CD or OEM CDs are, *none* of them knew. That's like 0 out of 10, excluding me.

Of course, it's probably the only appliance in the house that forces you to keep a piece of paper with it just for the hell of it, so I can't really blame them.

Re:Riddle me this

[the_raptor]

You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.

Lets check dictionary.com for "steal".

steal /stil/, verb, stole, stolen, stealing, noun
-verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.

Hmmm 1) doesn't fit as infringing copyright is not taking property (what kind of insane world would we live in if property "expired"). You may infringe the copyright holders rights, but they still have their copyright. 2) Fits much more closely, but if it where legally enforced then MS would have gone out of business long ago. Oh and the United States of America would be sued out of existence by the United Kingdom (who would then be sued out of existence by Native Americans).

And recording artists would owe most of their money to the people who originally invented the instruments they play and the musical styles they use. Oh and the people who invented their native language would need to be compensated. Just because these people have been dead for thousands of years doesn't mean it is okay to steal from them.

Do you really want to live in a world where people use the retarded legal definition of steal that you use? Most "original" creative works are far from it.

P.S. I paid for most of the movies/music I own. But I actually understand that the natural system is for copyrights not to exist, and they are a benefit granted by the people, not an inherant right. And that corporations so grossly exploit and "steal" from people that they are the last entities that should be talking about morality. If you do not want other people using your ideas then don't communicate them.

Re:Riddle me this

[Anonymous Coward]

if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.

So in your book, copying GPL code into a proprietary application would be alright because the original authors weren't expecting to get paid for it?

Moron.

Re:Riddle me this

[Myria]

Copyright existed in 1913. Theft existed in 1913. It wasn't called theft then, and it isn't called theft now. If you really have to, go find a modern law dictionary.

Melissa

Re:Riddle me this

[CXI]

If you duplicated the ticket exactly and used the resource single time then it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Software piracy involves using a resource more times than you've paid for it, or "using someone else's seat". Your arguement doesn't apply. Like I said, people don't understand these concepts very well.

Re:Riddle me this

[CXI]

You have more than proven my point that people do not understand these concepts. You focus on the digital data as the "thing" being stolen, but it truth what you are stealing are the revenues which could have been generated by that digital data. When you take sales away from the original creator/owner of that digital information, it's gone from them, you've deprived them of that income. Your argument is the common one used to rationalize the theft of anything digital, but it just doesn't hold water.

Re:Riddle me this

[CXI]

It's not our job to make their business model work. If they think they can make money by making a piece of information to the public and then charging for copies of it, knowing full well that (1) information can be copied at little to no cost, (2) methods to stop copying are fundamentally unsound and have been shown not to work in practice, and (3) copyright violations are usually undetectable, making copyright law largely unenforceable except for the largest scale violations... then they deserve whatever happens.

Excellent theory! Please post your address, since I now know that if I can ever get into your house and take any of your stuff then you deserve it!

I simply do not understand where people come up with this kind of BS. It's easy for me to kill you, should I be justified in doing so? *sigh* Of course not, just like I shouldn't copy data I'm not supposed to just because it's easy.

Re:Riddle me this

[CXI]

Someone may have done a lot more work to produce the original item, but you're not depriving them of the original item or the use of it, nor anyone else.

What you are doing, however, is ruining that item's marketability by eliminating its scarcity. You could argue that such a thing in itself is stealing, but if you made such an extension in a criminal sense and apply legal enforcement, you're essentially outlawing a lot of other things that don't make sense. For example, if you manufactured product A that is twice as efficient as product B and selling it for half the price, your actions are ruining the marketability of product B and destroying the projected value of the labor that was put into its creation. Should that be illegal?

Unlike most of the other replies you actually understand the concept of lost revenue which I applaud. However you misapply your example. The proper way to relate copying software to real world products is that you are making product B that is identical in every way to product A and is *labeled and sold as product A*. That's called a counterfeit item and it is already illegal to do that kind of thing with physical object in most countries. It has nothing to do with marketplace competition.

Re:Riddle me this

[CXI]

Cost shouldn't factor into whether it's right or wrong to do it, however I agree with you are that having to constantly repurchase the rights to something is absurd. Digital backups are a different issue then downloading things that you've never purchased in the first place. However most pirates try to hide behind the concept of backups as if that legitimizes their activities. You know what that does? It ruins our ability to get the media corporations on our side to stop this cycle of constantly repurchasing rights to the same media as new standards come out.

Re:Riddle me this

[CXI]

As I indicated to everyone else in this thread, you are stealing *revenue* not the bits of data. This is exactly what people fail to understand. Copyright wouldn't even need to exist if people didn't steal the revenue from others by reproducing or performing works that they did not create!

Re:Riddle me this

[Mr2001]

Excellent theory! Please post your address, since I now know that if I can ever get into your house and take any of your stuff then you deserve it!

Man, talk about a stupid analogy. If you take my stuff, I don't have it anymore. If you copy information, I still have it, and so does everyone else.

Physical theft is both detectable and preventable. It's reasonable to expect that I can keep someone from stealing my stuff, and that even if that fails, I'll know it happened and I'll have some chance of finding it again. It's unreasonable to expect the same from information, because none of the methods for preventing copying actually work, and it's impossible in most cases to find people who make copies, or even to know that it has happened.

However, if you can steal my stuff without depriving me of it, in a way that's neither detectable nor preventable, then go right ahead. Let me know how you plan to do that, and I'll give you all the information you need.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

genuine -> licensed
non-genuine -> unlicensed

stupid article plain and simple

[abigsmurf]

A print of the mona lisa is the genuine article. It was still painted by the artist and it looks identical to the real thing! Anyone want to buy the genuine Mona Lisa off of me for $800,000,000?

The logic of the article is just flawed. Even assuming a counterfeit version has an authentic CD, serial numbers have to be unique if it's being used by lots of people this serial has been COPIED. An unauthorised copy = counterfeit.

Re:stupid article plain and simple

[Brandybuck]

No, the linguists have a legitimate point. It all depends on how you define "Windows". If you define it as a "valid license", as opposed to the software itself, then you would be correct. But most people do not define it that way. A genuine Windows CD, whether purchased in a shrink-wrapped box or from a suitcase on a corner in New York, is still genuine. Regardless of its legality.

Even a burned copy of a CD can be genuine! Consider a corporate site license which doesn't have a separate holographed CD for each desktop. Are you saying their Windows are not "genuine"?

The problem you are making is confusing the immaterial with the material. The Mona Lisa is a material object. Copies of the Mona Lisa are not Genuine. But software is immaterial data. Like all data and information, copies can indeed be genuine. In college I once received a copy of Hamlet on mimeographed pages. Yet it was still a genuine Shakespearian play!

Look up "genuine" in the dictionary. It does NOT mean "approved".

Re:stupid article plain and simple

[Nocturnal Deviant]

I have a unique Key and i didnt buy ms trash, i prefer to use a keygen with Windows eXperience Server 2003, and what i really prefer to use is Kubuntu when im not gaming hahaha, want to pass "genuine" validation, just use a keygen

Re:stupid article plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

a print of the mona lisa is not identical. the material it is on will likely not be the same, a print cannot duplicate the actual layers of paint, or the physical texture of brush strokes.

in fact: there is *no* analog analogy to a digital copy.

Re:stupid article plain and simple

[ben there...]

The copied Windows CD is not necessarily genuine though too. It could have been modified in some way. Hell, it could have a virus. It could be cracked, which definitely wouldn't be genuine.

Not that any of those are very likely for most downloads. But MS is just offering to verify that you've installed Genuine Windows. The only way they can have any certainty is if it's one of the controlled copies licensed to that hardware, or produced and as yet unused.

Re:stupid article plain and simple

[uberphear]

A print of the mona lisa is the genuine article. It was still painted by the artist and it looks identical to the real thing

No. The original Mona Lisa was painted by the artist, but the copy was not -- assume you made the copy. If you copied the work with intent to deceive and to put your copy forward as the original Mona Lisa, you've just counterfeited an original work, because however you copy it, it will never be identical to the original painting. Yes, I'm being incredibly pedantic, but if you try to repaint it, the brush strokes will be different. If you photocopy it, it won't be a painting anymore (assuming the definition of a painting is that it must have paint), etc. Even if da Vinci repainted one as close to the original as possible, it would not be exactly the same, and would still be liable to be labeled counterfeit *IF* it was claimed to be the original Mona Lisa. If it was designated not to be the same, then it would be a similar, genuine painting, unless you wish to argue on grounds of human perception that one could not tell the difference between the slight variations in colour, brush strokes and age, and therefore it is a counterfeit.

On the topic of a copied version of Windows being 'genuine', I would personally split up genuine into multiple senses. It is genuine in the sense that the program is exactly the same (if copied well) and functions identically, but it is not a genuine copy in the sense that one did not buy the software off-the-shelf or online, and a duplicate serial number is probably being used. I also think that a serial number is always genuine if it is valid and has been issued by the manufacturer (i.e. not keygenned), even if it has been used multiple times or for piracy. Really, the only way to sort this is for Microsoft to describe exactly what they mean by "genuine", because they clearly have an altered definition of the mainstream's.

Re:stupid article plain and simple

[lowe0]

Doesn't the EULA define the product as the license and accompanying media, if any?

Marketing

[MightyYar]

Does anyone outside of a marketing organization use the word "Genuine"? Let the marketeers bastardize it any way they want.

Re:Marketing

[HatchedEggs]

Mistah Mistah, would you like to buy one of these genuine Rolex's from me?

*sigh*

[CXI]

This "expert" in language fails to make the technical distinction between the license for a product and the product itself. The counterfeit license is definitely not genuine and was not "made (or sold) by the same company" to the end user. It gets to the root of all of the problems with digital products. People do not understand the implications of a creation that can be duplicated at will with little effort, and how or even if to control it.

Furthermore, must we have such useless ego-stroaking stories on slashdot? "On look! Some blog dissed Microsoft! Quick, post it on slashdot!" *sigh*

Re:*sigh*

[The Cydonian]

Nope, it's not him that's not making the distinction, it is Microsoft itself. Here's the original quote that LanguageLog had a problem with:-

In the month of May, 38,000 customers purchased genuine Windows software after being notified that they had been sold non-genuine software. Customers recognize that the value of genuine is greater than ever.

The question here is if a copy of Windows, albeit gotten with an, shall we say, illegal licence, is less genuine than one with a legal licence. Bill Poser seems to think otherwise; because functionality is the same, the product is still the same, even if the licence isn't genuine, as you rightfully said.

So yeah, it is not him who's confusing between 'licences' and 'products', it is Microsoft. Microsoft isn't trying to sell genuine Windows software here through their "Microsoft Genuine Software Initiative" programme, it is merely trying to sell genuine licences. Microsoft doesn't seem to think this distinction is important, but the good linguist (who, despite your apparent disdain, is actually very highly respected in linguistic spheres) does.

Re:*sigh*

[clunis]

actually? that's precisely the distinction that Bill is making in the post.

The point is that the software itself is still the exact same thing (the genuine article) regardless of the legitimacy of its license. The *license* may not be genuine and Microsoft would be using the word 'genuine' in its dictionary sense if what we were talking about here were the "Microsoft Genuine Software Licenses Initiative". "Microsoft Genuine Software Initiative" implies that an unlicensed copy of Windows is somehow really a copy of some other operating system that's merely had MS branding applied to it to help it sell.

Re:*sigh*

[MikeBabcock]

The problem here lies in the definition of the act first and foremost:

Is this an original real legitimate copy of Windows off the back of a truck? Its genuine but stolen?

Is it an original real legitimate copy of Windows copied onto new media with fake packaging? The software is genuine but illegally copied and the overall package is an imposter.

Is it a modified version of Windows so as to no longer be software-identical? Then it is not at all genuine.

Re:*sigh*

[wfberg]

The 'genuine advantage' program isn't aimed at people who copy xp from a friend, or download it, or who know their copy isn't on the up and up.

It's a program to get people who buy windows, either with or without hardware, to grass up the sellers, if the copy was unlicensed.

These people do lose out due to the fact that the copy isn't properly licensed. They won't be able to get support from Microsoft, and non-security updates will stop working to name just two.

Now, the value of this 'support' to the people who're just installing their friend's copy is negligible. But, this is a pretty self-selecting group we're talking about. The kind of people who actually expect their $199 PC to come with a duly licensed copy of windows. The kind of people who take dialogue boxes warning them their copy of windows is 'not genuine' seriously. The kind of people who call microsoft support because they've managed to install 500 pieces of spyware.

Call them 'dumbasses', 'computer illiterates', or 'consumers'. These are people who see software as a product that comes in a box, rather than digitally perfect copies of x86 binary machine code.

The point is, they expect those few additional services from Microsoft to come with the product; for them, having paid money to some guy for 'genuine' windows, and to find out it's 'not genuine' DOES make a difference.

Especially if they bought a boxed version with the fake holograms and everything - genuine software, counterfeit box, fraudulent sale.

Those are the people targetted by the 'genuine advantage' program, and in that context it does make sense.

We need legal clarification

[soft_guy]

Obviously the answer would be to pass a law that specifically states that computer programs cannot be copyrighted.

Re:We need legal clarification

[Brandybuck]

I'm all for that! It would stop people from suing over GPL violations!

Re:We need legal clarification

[rackhamh]

So... some people copy copyrighted software, so no software should be copyrighted?

Some people steal cars, too -- should cars be illegal?

Actually, you know what? Some people kill other people. We should make people illegal too, so they can't be killed.

Re:We need legal clarification

[ianejames]

The analogy is flawed. How about: "Some people steal cars, so we should outlaw locks". Which, of course, is just as ridiculous. The problem with the grandparent is not that it is a bad idea, but was a non-sequitor from the original post and should be modded off-topic. There may be good reason to repeal software patents, but Windows possibly misusing a word is not one of them.

Re:We need legal clarification

[squidsuk]

I'm all for that! It would stop people from suing over GPL violations!

Indeed it would. The corollary, of course, you would then be able to copy and share software freely. So the aims of the GPL would be fulfilled for all software, and the GPL itself would no longer be necessary. The only possible fly in the ointment is obtaining source code if there is no GPL; however that's less of an issue in practice than it might seem at first.

Provided that the abolition of copyright also implied that copying and redistributing annotated and/or modified disassemblies of binary code could be done freely, then source code can be generated if necessary, even if not distributed by the original manufacturer. In fact I'd have thought it would be an ideally suited problem for open-source collaboration to deal with - the first person need only publish the raw disassembly, then further contributors could add annotation as the program was reverse engineered, recompiling/rewriting the original disassembly as they went.

Doubtless bugs would be fixed and sections rewritten in higher-level languages as the process occured, resulting in the open version exceeding the original manufacturers product, and potentially doing so rather rapidly! Without copyright, trying to make software non-free would be exceedingly difficult, and the GPL would become only a historical curiosity that was important once.

Re:We need legal clarification

[Brandybuck]

The only possible fly in the ointment is obtaining source code if there is no GPL

That's a pretty damned big fly! The whole point of copyleft (as opposed to unrestricted licenses like BSD and MIT) is to guarantee access to the source code. But without copyright laws to force this, there's nothing to stop code from being proprietarized. When you take off the FSF blinders and look past the utopian rhetoric, the only thing keeping people from "hoarding" GPL code is copyright law.

EULAs are not based on copyright, so EULAs will still be here. In fact, software EULAs got invented back when it wasn't clear that copyright even covered software! The software hoarding RMS is so concerned about arose during a time when copyright didn't cover software!

But beyond that, what's there to stop someone from simply not providing source code? The big name legal actions regarding the GPL are all about providing source code. Currently there's a lawsuit going forward about some chess program that using runtime linkage over sockets. What's the point of the lawsuit, if not the source code licensed under the GPL? Or the software could be "locked" up with encryption. Or NDAs. Or a dozen other mechanisms.

This is the great hypocrisy of the FSF. RMS is like Karl Marx arguing that the state/copyright will whither away. In the end, the society he envisions requires the coercive force of the state/copyright.

p.s. I'm not arguing against abolishing copyright. I'm arguing against the hypocrisy of the GPL. If you don't believe software should have "owners", then put it in the public domain.

This story is so stupid...

[Shimmer]

I'm tempted to subscribe to Slashdot for a day just so I can demand my money back in outrage.

Re:This story is so stupid...

[Andronoid]

yep...regardless of dictionary definition issues this is a bit like trying to trying to argue "Burger King" is trying to redefine the word "King." I mean come on they're not really the King of burgers?

Re:This story is so stupid...

[belmolis]

The point is that using "genuine" in the non-standard way that Microsoft does puts a deceptive slant on things. Using "king" in the metaphorical way that "Burger King" does, does not. My observation about Microsoft's use of "genuine" is not that it deviates from the standard usage but that in this particular context it is deceptive.

Nice Try, But No

[Effugas]

A couple years ago, we saw the first "pre-infected" Windows CDs show up on peer to peer networks...they had extra keys added to the cert store, so essentially attackers could come in remotely and securely authenticate against pirated builds of Windows. Apparently, this has become much more common, with many builds on P2P networks going so far as to be pre-infected with malware.

On the flip side, some of the pirated DVDs floating around out there are well known for just being very fast and easy to install on random hardware; especially for system builders, going from nothing to a completely installed Windows system with XPSP2 and Office in twenty minutes is a big deal even if the system is ultimately shipped with legitimate licenses.

Ultimately though we're talking about the use of the word Genuine. Sinec there's a tangible and measureable difference between the legitimate builds (less likely to be pre-0wned, more likely to be easy to install) vs. the pirated editions, I'd say there's a hat to hang the "genuine" phrase on, at least from a linguistic perspective.

Re:Nice Try, But No

[Jaime2]

I could meet both of your conditions to be pirated (more likely to be pre-0wned, less likely to be easy to install) while still being genuine under Microsoft's definition. Microsoft encourages corporate clients to tweak installation CDs to be easier to install on their hardware and that same process could easily be used to put nasty stuff on the CD. Through Remote Installation Services, third party software like Ghost, or through Setup Manager that automates the installation process, I could easily modify my Windows installation and pass the WGA validation with flying colors. I also regularly install genuine Windows in 20 minutes with Office and other stuff preconfigured an everything is licensed properly. If I weren't using a Corporate copy of Windows, I could also easily make it stop at the product key screen so I could enter a unique key for each computer.

Re:Nice Try, But No

[RAMMS EIN]

``Ultimately though we're talking about the use of the word Genuine. Sinec there's a tangible and measureable difference between the legitimate builds (less likely to be pre-0wned, more likely to be easy to install) vs. the pirated editions, I'd say there's a hat to hang the "genuine" phrase on, at least from a linguistic perspective.''

Only that Microsoft isn't trying to distinguish between "Genuine" versions that they made or are bit-for-bit identical on the one hand and not "Genuine" versions that have malware injected in them; they're trying to distinguish between "Genuine" versions that come with a valid license (obtained from Microsoft) and may or may not be bit-for-bit identical (vendors like Dell ship modified versions), and not "Genuine" versions that aren't accompanied by a such a license (even though they may be bit-for-bit identical to a "Genuine" copy).

In other words, whether a copy of Windows is "Genuine" in the Microsoft definition is a property that is _outside_ that copy itself (it depends on the license that may or may not come with it). There's something very strange there...

Re:Nice Try, But No

[Effugas]

I think the idea is that Microsoft stands by builds of Windows that are modified by Dell, but cannot stand by builds of Windows that are modified by random Chinese concerns. Put another way:

You have a choice between the Dell image and the Chinese image. Do you:

a) Not care which image you install
b) Install the image that came from Dell

Now you can say the OEM's have played a few games with what they've shipped, but c'mon. You know there's a substantive difference between the two, and it favors the large scale corporate build.

It's the chain of accountability in case of malicious action that at least conceptually keeps the Dell build "Genuine". At least, that's the argument.

--Dan

This is news

[telchine]

Surely Microsoft is constantly redefining words.

My Windows Laptop is full of "useful", "productive", "time-saving" "software" but the bloody thing takes forever to do anything and don't get me started on the "undocumented features"!

He picked the wrong word

[futuresheep]

I would think that the way they've redefined the word "Advantage", as in "Windows Genuine Advantage" would be a bigger worry.

But that's just me...

Re:He picked the wrong word

[DaveAtFraud]

Microsoft is very careful not to clarify who's advantage their talking about. The program is *VERY* advantageous to Microsoft. In that sense, it is even a "genuine" advantage.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:He picked the wrong word

[wboelen]

as in "Windows Genuine Advantage"

Of course it's an advantage! You get to download all those great programs like Internet Explorer (t3h 1337) and Windows Media Player. I wouldn't live for long if I hadn't installed them!

Re:He picked the wrong word

[Geminii]

It's an advantage to Microsoft if more people get confused and open their wallets, yes?

This is actually correct

[kimvette]

They are fighting against counterfeit copies of Windows, so their use of the word is correct in a literal sense. This is not redefining a term. It sucks though, because they make it impossible (or difficult at least) for Linux users to download patches to take to client sites.

If you want to discuss redefining terms, how about discussing Microsoft's definition of downtime vs. the rest of the industry's definition of that term.

Re:This is actually correct

[Dirtside]

They are fighting against counterfeit copies of Windows, so their use of the word is correct in a literal sense.

Except that a "counterfeit" copy of Windows is identical in every conceivable way to a "genuine" copy. Whether a copy is "counterfeit," according to Microsoft, depends entirely and ONLY on whether you paid Microsoft what they charge for a copy. In all other respects, they're indistinguishable. That's why it's a linguistic clusterfuck.

Re:This is actually correct

[rackhamh]

Except that a "counterfeit" copy of Windows is identical in every conceivable way to a "genuine" copy.

No it isn't. The physical medium wasn't prepared by Microsoft or one of its legitimate manufacturing partners.

Having a fake hundred dollar bill that's identical right down to the fiber doesn't make it any less counterfeit.

Re:This is actually correct

[NMerriam]

No it isn't. The physical medium wasn't prepared by Microsoft or one of its legitimate manufacturing partners.

But the physical medium is not what makes Microsoft Windows, the medium is essentially just packaging for the software. Microsoft Windows is the same product whether it comes on a CD, a DVD, a download, a disk image pushed over a network, etc.

Having a fake hundred dollar bill that's identical right down to the fiber doesn't make it any less counterfeit.

No, but having a real $100 bill that is legally not supposed to exist (ie, it was heavily worn and exchanged by a bank for a new bill, after which it was supposed to be destroyed) does not make it less genuine. It is illegal, but not counterfeit.

If someone made a Windows clone from scratch that coincidentally was the exact same code as the Microsoft version, it would be counterfeit. But nobody is claiming someone recoded Windows in a counterfeit version, they are claiming that pirates distribute the actual software created by Microsoft. It is genuine Microsoft Windows in counterfeit packaging.

Re:This is actually correct

[rackhamh]

But the physical medium is not what makes Microsoft Windows

You're missing the point. We're not arguing whether it's Windows on the CD, we're arguing whether it's a GENUINE copy of Windows.

No, but having a real $100 bill that is legally not supposed to exist (ie, it was heavily worn and exchanged by a bank for a new bill, after which it was supposed to be destroyed) does not make it less genuine. It is illegal, but not counterfeit.

Pointless analogy, since the copies of Windows that we're talking about ARE copies, not original Microsoft-produced Windows CDs that are not supposed to exist. Again, you have to consider the SOURCE of the CD to determine whether it's a counterfeit.

If someone made a Windows clone from scratch that coincidentally was the exact same code as the Microsoft version, it would be counterfeit. But nobody is claiming someone recoded Windows in a counterfeit version, they are claiming that pirates distribute the actual software created by Microsoft. It is genuine Microsoft Windows in counterfeit packaging.

Moot in view of the above.

Re:This is actually correct

[belmolis]

Actually, in many cases a "pirated" copy of MS software was prepared by Microsoft. One of the kinds of pirating that Microsoft is concerned with is one in which a single, legitimate, Microsoft-produced CD is used to install MS Windows on a bunch of machines. Only one license has been purchased but multiple machines have been set up, so Microsoft loses money. Another scenario with which they are concerned is one in which CDs intended to be used only by OEMs are sold at a discount to end users. Here again, the media are absolutely genuine - the problem for Microsoft is that they are sold in a way that violates the licensing conditions. So, it may be that "counterfeited" software is not burned onto CDs by Microsoft, but much "pirated" software is.

Re:This is actually correct

[Vicissidude]

It is the redefining of a term. A software copy is an EXACT duplicate. The copied code came from Microsoft, just like all those official Windows CDs which Microsoft copied in their manufacturing process. There is no difference between the copied code and the original. The copied code is genuinely from Microsoft.

A counter-example would be a fake Rolex watch. A copied watch is NOT an exact duplicate, because it came from a different manufacturer than Rolex. In that case, the fake Rolex is not genuine.

No, in this case Microsoft wants to attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. If I copy my official Windows CD, my copy is still genuine in their eyes. However, if I then use that copy in a non-licensed manner, then it becomes non-genuine. This is a re-definition of the language around this topic, just like they re-defined the IT definitions of hacker and piracy.

(Hacker: someone who tinkers with technology. Piracy: the act of copying and reselling the copy for profit.)

Re:This is actually correct

[kimvette]

By your logic: a counterfeit $100 bill is genuine because every aspect of it is genuine, except for the serial number and the fact that it is not an agent of the Federal Reserve which manufactured it. So, by right, everyone should accept that counterfeit $100 bill for all debts, including Uncle Sam.

Right? Same logic. . .

However

I disagree with Microsoft using this tactic though, because they are making it near impossible for me to use Linux to download patches to bring to client sites, and because they already have dominance in the market, the "piracy" is not hurting them in the slightest. It can be worked around, but it's not just click-click-click, download, burn to CD and take it to the site. I need to hunt for technet downloads or tweak the hell out of wine to finnagle MSIE to cooperate and actually run the genuine advantage BS with every change they make.

I think their real goal is to detect wine/linux out of fear of losing their monopoly, rather than to fight "piracy." Even if my tinfoil-hat theory is true though, it does not make "counterfeit Windows" any less counterfeit based on your faulty logic. By your logic, wine or crossover office are not "counterfeit windows" either, because to most normal applications, the environment looks and acts just like Windows.

If they were not the dominant force and if they were trying to compete honestly, I'd have more pity for them, but hell, they buck standards at every turn, are fighting the open document format and other industry standards at every turn to create and enforce vendor lock-in, PLUS they are patenting both prior art and obvious uses of technology just because they know the USPTO will rubber-stamp anything they apply for, so I disagree with Microsoft's actions on this. They used to unofficially encourage "piracy" because they knew that it would help to create a virtual monopoly on de-facto standards, and as soon as they did achieve monopoly standards and were convicted for abusing their effective monopoly they started treating paying customers like criminals, all due to a situation they themselves encouraged from the beginning. I really think their real goal is to detect wine/crossover office on *nix variants though.

Re:This is actually correct

[kimvette]

the problem for Microsoft is that they are sold in a way that violates the licensing conditions.

Didn't the courts rule that Microsoft cannot use such methods to control the price of Windows, that OEM software cannot be restricted to bundling with machines? Oh yeah, they did, and that is not the goal of Genuine Advantage.

Key sharing? Already accomplished with Activation. If you install using the same key on too many machines, your OS will not activate. Period. Sure, you can hack and patch the machine, but installing patches, service packs, and so forth will become far more painful than it's worth compared to just shelling out the $130 or so for an OEM version of Windows.

Re:This is actually correct

[NMerriam]

You're missing the point. We're not arguing whether it's Windows on the CD, we're arguing whether it's a GENUINE copy of Windows.

No, you're missing the point. The linguists are talking about Windows, not the disc it comes on. The Windows software you get on a counterfeit disc is the actual software created by programmers at Microsoft. It is genuine Microsoft Windows, just not legal or authorized.

Pointless analogy, since the copies of Windows that we're talking about ARE copies, not original Microsoft-produced Windows CDs that are not supposed to exist. Again, you have to consider the SOURCE of the CD to determine whether it's a counterfeit.


Hey, it's the closest analogy that exists for your comparison to currency. You continue to talk about physical items while the article is talking about software. The SOURCE of the Microsoft Windows software distributed by pirates is, in fact, Microsoft. The software is not counterfeit, it is 100% genuine Microsoft Windows. It is just distributed illegally on counterfeit media.

Re:This is actually correct

[belmolis]

We read constantly about how people are able to work around Activation, so this is apparently still a problem.

Re:This is actually correct

[Anonymous Coward]

"It sucks though, because they make it impossible (or difficult at least) for Linux users to download patches to take to client sites."

That doesn't make much sense... How do you support any type of operating system you never use and when you never test out the patches first. Shouldn't you at least have 1 availiable.

Re:This is actually correct

[NMerriam]

By your logic: a counterfeit $100 bill is genuine because every aspect of it is genuine, except for the serial number and the fact that it is not an agent of the Federal Reserve which manufactured it. So, by right, everyone should accept that counterfeit $100 bill for all debts, including Uncle Sam.

Right? Same logic. . .

I don't see how that has any relationship to the logic of recognizing that Microsoft is in fact the source of the software being sold by pirates. You're positing a situation in which the source of the item is not the source claimed, which is the entire distinction between something genuine and something counterfeit.

The linguists are simply pointing out that the pirates are selling exactly what they claim to be selling: software written by Microsoft programmers, marketed as "Windows". It isn't some Korean workalike, or some Chinese software that is remarkably similar, it is the actual software produced by Microsoft programmers and sold under the Microsoft brand name in Microsoft boxes on Microsoft CDs.

Re:This is actually correct

[belmolis]

Sorry, I don't think the courts have said what you think they have said. Microsoft continues to sell copies of Windows to OEMs that may be installed only by OEMs and may not be transferred to another machine. Here's an article about Microsoft licensing and activation for XP that describes this.

Re:This is actually correct

[freedumb2000]

Exactly, just like a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else.

Re:This is actually correct

[swillden]

We're not arguing whether it's Windows on the CD, we're arguing whether it's a GENUINE copy of Windows.

So WGA is broken. To correctly detect the counterfeit copies it needs to check the hologram on the CD, since it's the CD that matters, not its contents.

Re:This is actually correct

[rackhamh]

So WGA is broken. To correctly detect the counterfeit copies it needs to check the hologram on the CD, since it's the CD that matters, not its contents.

Not at all. WGA is able to determine whether a genuine copy of Windows was used, without checking the hologram. Again, what matters is that a copy of Windows was made with fraudulent intent. Focusing on the code base, the physical medium, or any other such factor is entirely tangential.

Re:This is actually correct

[rackhamh]

You're making two arguments here, which I shall address in turn:

I don't see how that has any relationship to the logic of recognizing that Microsoft is in fact the source of the software being sold by pirates.

Microsoft is the fundamental source of the code, yes. But Picasso is the fundamental source of his paintings' designs, too. Where the product originated does not change the fact that an illegitimate copy has been made.

You're positing a situation in which the source of the item is not the source claimed, which is the entire distinction between something genuine and something counterfeit.

There are plenty of outfits that try to pass off pirated copies of Windows as legit. By your definition, do those also not qualify as counterfeit?

Re:This is actually correct

[rackhamh]

No, you're missing the point. The linguists are talking about Windows, not the disc it comes on. The Windows software you get on a counterfeit disc is the actual software created by programmers at Microsoft. It is genuine Microsoft Windows, just not legal or authorized.

If you install from a counterfeited disc (or downloaded copy), the copy of Windows on your computer is also counterfeit. Why is this so hard for you to understand???

Re:This is actually correct

[Dirtside]

No it isn't. The physical medium wasn't prepared by Microsoft or one of its legitimate manufacturing partners.

The "copy" is the data, not the medium it's on. If I (illegally) download a Windows XP ISO from the Internet, and burn it onto a CD-R, I still own the physical CD-R, just not the copy of Windows on the CD-R.

What if buy Windows XP legally, and rip the CD to an ISO image, as a backup? Legit and legal, yet the physical medium (my hard drive) was neither "prepared" by MS or one of its "legitimate manufacturing partners." (I'm assuming it's legal to back up my XP CD, anyway; if it's not, we've got bigger problems.)

Then let's say I transfer that ISO image over the Internet, to someone else's hard drive. The ISO they have is identical bit-for-bit with the ISO I have, and yet neither hard drive was "prepared" as you suggest. My ISO is "genuine" and his is "counterfeit"? Those terms are nonsensical for indistinguishable items. (Hell, the term "Genuine Copy" is enough to provoke gales of laughter by itself.)

I'm not saying it's not illegal to do this, I'm merely arguing with Microsoft's attempts to redefine English to suit their purposes.

Here's a fun thought experiment: Buy Windows XP. Install one copy on each of two identical computers, at exactly the same time, in violation of the EULA (and, presumably, copyright law as well). Which one is the genuine copy, and which one is the counterfeit?

Having a fake hundred dollar bill that's identical right down to the fiber doesn't make it any less counterfeit.

I posted elsewhere about people who try to apply physical metaphors to the duplication of information. You make a fine example.

Re:This is actually correct

[Dirtside]

WGA is able to determine whether a genuine copy of Windows was used, without checking the hologram. Again, what matters is that a copy of Windows was made with fraudulent intent.

Ah, so WGA is able to determine the intent of the person who installed it? Psychic software! Amazing.

I used to have a pirated copy of Windows 2000 on one of my boxen, and WGA thought it was legit. And I know of at least one person at my office who has Windows XP -- an entirely legit copy, purchased by the company -- that WGA thinks is not legit. This only proves that WGA is not perfect, of course, but... what good is it, exactly, if even IT can't tell the difference between a "genuine" and a "counterfeit" copy?

Re:This is actually correct

[Dirtside]

If you install from a counterfeited disc (or downloaded copy), the copy of Windows on your computer is also counterfeit. Why is this so hard for you to understand???

The problem is that you (and Microsoft) are defining "counterfeit copy" as "one that was not installed legally." We already have a term for that: "illegal copy." "Counterfeit copy" literally has no semantic meaning for indistinguishable, bit-for-bit copies of data. It's gibberish.

Re:This is actually correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the company at which I work also does tech-support for companies within it's group to pay it's office rent, we use only Linux machines and Apple Macs. We recently had a Windows machine come in which needed a complete re-install. The restore CD supplied did not have any drivers on it and seemed to only install Windows itself (and a pre-SP1 version of Windows at that). This means there was no networking available on the machine to directly download the needed files - the drivers itself were not a problem to download and use a USB drive to transfer the files, however the drivers required SP2 to install.

Luckily at the time MS did not require validation to download SP2 (and WINE seems to validate fine anyway for now), but if Microsoft required validation for SP2 and we could not use WINE we would be unable to obtain SP2 for our legitimate reason.

Re:This is actually correct

[Anonymous Coward]

The closest you get in physical land are grey imports. Though in that case, Levi aren't saying they aren't genuine levis, just saying that the company has no right to sell them.

Alternatively, if you smuggle out diamonds they are no longer "genuine SA diamonds" because De Beers hasn't authorised their distribution. However, they are genuine diamonds. Just illegally smuggled diamons.

In neither case have the originator authorised the product (in this case, not even an IDENTICAL match, unlike a rip of a kosher Windows CD) and in neither case have they tried to call it a counterfeit. They have said that they were illegal.

Re:This is actually correct

[swillden]

Again, what matters is that a copy of Windows was made with fraudulent intent.

But since WGA has absolutely no way of checking the user's intent, that intent clearly has no bearing on what WGA does. Also, intent has no relevance to whether or not a copy is "genuine" in any sense of the word I've ever heard.

Re:This is actually correct

[NMerriam]

Where the product originated does not change the fact that an illegitimate copy has been made...
There are plenty of outfits that try to pass off pirated copies of Windows as legit. By your definition, do those also not qualify as counterfeit?

The linguists are not talking about whether a copy is legitimate or not, just whether it is in fact what it is claimed to be, and it is in fact Microsoft Windows. It is an illegal, illegitmate and unlicensed copy of genuine Microsoft Windows. It might be fraudulently protrayed as a legal, licensed copy, but that fraud has no bearing on whether the software is actually Microsoft Windows or not.

Re:This is actually correct

[NMerriam]

If you install from a counterfeited disc (or downloaded copy), the copy of Windows on your computer is also counterfeit. Why is this so hard for you to understand???

Because it isn't true. The copy would be illegal, unlicensed and illegitimate, but it is actually Microsoft Windows. Why is it so hard for you to understand that if I have a copy (legal or not) of Microsoft software, that it is still software produced by Microsoft? The legality of posession has nothing to do with whether it is actual Microsoft software. Genuine doesn't mean legal, it means it is really Microsoft Windows.

Re:This is actually correct

[zippthorne]

Does not doing so void your license altogether? hence both are counterfeit!

I hate it when people point out that physical metaphors are not exactly the same as the "duplication of information" they represent as if it invalidates the metaphor altogether. Of course they're not exactly the same: they're analogies. The whole point is to map something you're ethically unsure of onto something you are sure of for the purpose of obtaining insight.

Re:This is actually correct

[Dirtside]

The problem with using such analogies is that they ignore the critical difference between the duplication of information (which has a cost so low that it can be all but ignored) versus the cost of duplicating a physical item (nontrivial in virtually all cases).

The most common such analogy is the idea that getting a free copy of a copyrighted work is equivalent to stealing, because you're getting something without paying for it. It is a flawed and ultimately inapplicable analogy because it ignores the fact that a critical feature of "stealing" is that you deprive the owner of the original object, and this does not happen with copyright infringement. Yes, copyright infringement is still illegal, but it is manifestly not the same thing as stealing. This is why we have separate bodies of law for larceny and copyright infringement.

In this case, Microsoft is trying to map the concept of genuinity from physical objects (a genuine copy of "Harry Potter and the Infringement Lawsuit") onto information (a bit-for-bit copy of Windows XP). This analogy does not work, because it ignores that "counterfeit" and "genuine" copies of Windows XP are indistinguishable.

Microsoft response:

[lewp]

Oh yeah? C'mere a minute!

Semantics shemantics - there IS a "WGA" here

[ScentCone]

A pirated copy genuinely does not come with the same support from the publisher that a properly licensed copy does. It's that simple.

Re:Semantics shemantics - there IS a "WGA" here

[Fantasio]

Well....Considering the support you get from Microsoft, that does not make a big difference

Re:Semantics shemantics - there IS a "WGA" here

[swillden]

A pirated copy genuinely does not come with the same support from the publisher that a properly licensed copy does. It's that simple.

Based on my experience with Microsoft tech support, I'd have to say that a pirated copy comes with *exactly* the same support as a properly licensed copy.

Nice! I love it!

[CXI]

Brilliant!

Pardon the Pun

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly the linguist who wrote that article was not being genuine.

It's not sympathy they're after

[HairyCanary]

It's fear. Whether or not the word "genuine" is being used for its dictionary definition is not really relevant. They want to use terminology ("genuine", "advantage") that communicates to Joe User that a pirated copy of Windows may contain malware, spyware, etc. You have no idea what it has, so you better not install it on your computer. Pay us $$$ so you can be sure you are getting safe software. (and of course, that last bit is a whole 'nother discussion).

Re:It's not sympathy they're after

[DCGregoryA]

Oddly enough, if you have a *gasp* job, paying $100 for Windows is a lot less of a risk than using a copy gotten over P2P. Are you seriously suggesting that pirated cracks, CD-Keygens and software don't contain viruses and spyware?

Then again, it never ceases to amaze me how many people blame Microsoft for non-working pirated copies they obtain. Geez, don't you hate it when someone rips an ISO from a scratched Dvd?

I don't know. I'm not afraid of Microsoft, but similiarly I don't expect them to hire 50,000 programmers and not want to get paid for their products. If you think MS is expensive, go out and pick up an Solaris/ORACLE box.

Re:It's not sympathy they're after

[westlake]

They want to use terminology ("genuine", "advantage") that communicates to Joe User that a pirated copy of Windows may contain malware, spyware, etc. You have no idea what it has, so you better not install it on your computer.

and this isn't the same lesson the geek has been trying to hammer into the heads of users for the past twenty-five years?

Re:It's not sympathy they're after

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fear.

Possibly. Another way to say it, which I bet you'll hate, is that they're warning people of a danger. Unfortunately you can't do so without creating fear at the same time. If the warning/fear is unjustified, then you are acting unethically. If it's justified, then you're doing the responsible thing.

Whether or not the word "genuine" is being used for its dictionary definition is not really relevant.

Translation: I don't care for this subject, let's change it.

They want to use terminology ("genuine", "advantage") that communicates to Joe User that a pirated copy of Windows may contain malware, spyware, etc.

Which it very well may. Are you saying otherwise? I thought pretty much every Slashdot reader would know that software aquired off P2P is not trustworthy.

You have no idea what it has, so you better not install it on your computer.

Okay. Now please explain why it is wrong to let people believe this? I certainly wouldn't vouch for the safety of pirated software aquired from some unknown third-party. I see no reason why Microsoft whould do so. Would you? And for what reason?

Pay us $$$ so you can be sure you are getting safe software. (and of course, that last bit is a whole 'nother discussion).

And..? If you buy your software from MS, then you can indeed be reasonably sure that it does not contain malware, spyware, etc. Except to the extent Microsoft's own software can be considered as such. But it's certainly safer than getting the very same software from some unknown third-party which may contain their viruses, malware and spyware as well.

What exactly do you propose they should tell Joe User? "Make sure you download from a reputable Warez site"? (as if there were such a thing?)

Is it in Microsoft's best interest that people distrust pirated software? Yes.
Is pirated software trustworthy? No.
So is the fear justifiable? Yes.

You can find fault in Microsoft for plenty of things, but I find nothing to fault them for here. And I don't think you can either. You certainly couldn't form a proper argument to that extent. All you came up with are two insinuations. The first being that they want to create fear, as if that implied there was nothing to fear. The second being that it's in Microsoft's best interest. As if that implied it had to be contrary to the consumer interest. And both happen to be false.

It's the same as many companies...

[aniceyoungman]

...with their new-fangled marketing magic and creative use of language. One example that comes to mind is the Foxwood's Casino's "The wonder of it all" campain. Now, I'm no linguist, but I don't think the pure, unadulterated term "wonder" has anything to do with sipping dixie cup sized drinks while mindlessly pushing video slot buttons for 14 straight hours.

Re: *Sigh* ..People do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell people do not understand. The Free Software people *GENUINELY* understand *EXACTLY* how digital media can be reproduced easily with essentially zero effort! "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith is *RIPPED TO SHREADS* because of it! Its been discussed over and over. Some blather that Free Software is communist. Others blather that its capitalist. RUBBISH ALL! The Wealth of Nations defined what capitalist is. Marx defined what communist is. Free Software is neither. Take Adam Smiths model, and rip every notion of SCARCITY out, and you will get free software. One developer can get returns on investment (in software only) of several million percent! Communism was a land of diminishing returns (100 people make 120 pieces of a good, each gets 1.2, but with free software, 100 people collaborate on a project with each contributing 1% each, and everyone gets 100% (so 1% input gives 100% output *FOR EACH PERSON*). Communism was never like this. And this zero scarcity model works with film, books, software, design drawings, pictures and any other human creation that can be reproduced (for now on a computer) at zero or very little cost or effort. The Free Software world understands *EXACTLY*, and so does microsoft.

KDawson is Zonk's daddy.

[Anonymous Coward]

KDawson is Zonk's daddy.

To Redefine "Genuine"

[Morosoph]

...is somewhat disingenuous.

Linguistic interpretation

[HatchedEggs]

While I can understand that there is a slightly dubious use of the word "genuine" with MS, I don't believe its as big a deal as all that. For the most part it does fit given definitions. However, every day we twist language to our own use in an attempt to communicate. MS adding a bit of branding is their attempt to fulfill a dual function. One is marketing, and the other is to attach an every day term to validate our purchasing software instead of pirating it.

That said, every marketing campaign aimed at branding a word or term is bound to devalue it linguistically.

what the linguist ought to object to . . .

[eamonjohnson]

The linguist ought to object first to using an article without a noun. From the automatic update tool:

The Windows Genuine Advantage Notification tool notifies you if your copy of Windows is not genuine. If your system is found to be a non-genuine, the tool will help you obtain a licensed copy of Windows.

Re:what the linguist ought to object to . . .

[Watson Ladd]

Just one letter error is to boring to point out.

Come on.

[1310nm]

This is genuinely a word-mincing exercise to discredit Microsoft. Is this really suitable as /. news?

Re:Come on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make MS look bad?

News? no. /. News? yes.

~janus zeal

Re:Come on.

[belmolis]

As the author of the Language Log post, I agree that this is not a big deal from a tech point of view. I didn't post it to /. Please remember that Language Log is about language, and that something that isn't very interesting from a tech point of view may be of greater interest from a linguistic point of view. If I were to submit something to /. about how awful Microsoft or some other tech company is, it wouldn't be this.

Re:Come on.

[westlake]

This is genuinely a word-mincing exercise to discredit Microsoft. Is this really suitable as /. news?

It's Saturday night. It's a chance to take a shot at Microsoft? What else is there for a Geek to do?

Re:Come on.

[1310nm]

Either way, it just seems acerbic for the sake of being so.

get a life already

[dodgedodge]

my dictionary defines "genuine" as "not counterfeit".

there are some real idiots out there.

It's quite funny...

[HatchedEggs]

I've never seen /.ers back up Microsoft so much before until these pompous linguists came along.

Bloody word jockies!

On the internet...

[rob1980]

That's known as being a grammar nazi. You have nothing constructive to contribute, all you're there for is to correct somebody else for something that's ultimately worthless.

Rorex

[Lord Kano]

As long as the watch is clearly marked as a "Rorex", it's perfectly genuine.

If the watch is a "Rorex" but has been relabeled as a "Rolex", then it's not genuine.

This guy needs to spend some more time on his examples.

LK

NOW you notice?

[Opportunist]

I already wondered when "trustworthy" changed its meaning to the opposite.

a matter of understanding more than symantics

[v1]

One needs to remember that microsoft is not selling you the software, it is selling you the license. The software just comes with it, and the license makes it legal to use the software. So in effect, it is not the software that is genuine, but it is the license. And you cannot deny that there is less hassel and better support from microsoft if you have a "genuine" windows license for your windows software.

Re:a matter of understanding more than symantics

[lachlan76]

And you cannot deny that there is less hassel and better support from microsoft if you have a "genuine" windows license for your windows software.

Yes I can. I don't have to go through activation.

I think MS has it right.. This time.

[elgee]

I really don't care if they use the word genuine or if they even tweak the definition. I don't think they did, however.

MS gives us plenty of "genuine" annoyances. Stick to complaining about those.

yeah, but I know what he needs;

[ickeicke]

He needs some updates, or doesn't he have a Genuine copy of Windows?

Re:yeah, but I know what he needs;

[belmolis]

I don't have any copy of Windows, genuine or not. A computer without Windows is like a fish without a bicycle. :)

Re:yeah, but I know what he needs;

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a mule with a spinning wheel.

Microsoft's Warning

[slowbad]

(and) prevent "the latest harmful and unwanted software from running on your computer"

Every week, Windows Defender repeats the above pledge. There are two problems here:

I am not sure that Microsoft's definition of unwanted software is the same of mine; I *am* sure that my definition of unwanted software includes things that Microsoft is doing that are not in my interests.

Ludacris

[commodoresloat]

The worst thing about this artist is people think that is the proper way to spell ludicrous. I've had two students turn in papers where they spelled out "ludacris" when they meant "ludicrous." I'm sorry, but that's just ludicrous!

genuine advantage

[krunk4ever]

genuine
-adjective
1. possessing the claimed or attributed character, quality, or origin; not counterfeit; authentic; real: genuine sympathy; a genuine antique.
2. properly so called: a genuine case of smallpox.
3. free from pretense, affectation, or hypocrisy; sincere: a genuine person.
4. descended from the original stock; pure in breed: a genuine Celtic people.

If I made a copy of my favorite CD or DVD, would that copy be genuine/authentic? Would it have the same value as my original CD/DVD? Some may argue that the material itself is different. What if I can get the exact blanks and even stamp them instead of burning and even apply the correct cd cover. I mean, it's just bits right? What if I photocopy every single page out of a book? Would that book be an authentic copy? All the words are the same and I can even use the same paper and cover. To me, an genuine software isn't just the bits, but comes with the manual, the box, the support, the warranty, etc. I personally wouldn't call any of these home-brew copies authentic or genuine, but that's just me.

As for the word advantage, I noticed some people were saying how that's being redefined too. Let me ask you this. Do you think there's an advantage to having free support and updates? Do you think any company should provide free support and updates to people who stole from them?

Just my 2 cents.

Re:genuine advantage

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think any company should provide free support and updates to people who stole from them?

Hold your horses, cowboy. Copying and stealing are 2 different things.

Umm...No.

[XMilkProject]

"'An unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows is perfectly genuine. It has exactly the same functionality as a licensed copy and was made by the same company... "

Clearly not. Microsoft has removed access to most updates and downloads as well as support for users without Genuine copies. So if you don't have a genuine copy, you aren't getting the whole package, hence it's not so genuine.

Re:Umm...No.

[paynesmanor]

"Clearly not. Microsoft has removed access to most updates and downloads as well as support for users without Genuine copies. So if you don't have a genuine copy, you aren't getting the whole package, hence it's not so genuine." In fact its not that hard to fool the "Genuine Advantage Software". Even if you did nothing with the software you can still download most of the updates, and the others that microsoft wont allow you to download, can be manually downloaded with a valid copy and Xfered to the pc that is not. But why go through all the bother, as Linux is perfectly free, and is a lot better safer, (no antivirus, Adaware, or online scanning again).. That and its more usefull then windows, as people that know what there doing are constantly tweeking the program to make it better. Don't knock it untill you try it, ( Its easier to move to linux then it is to trick a small meaning less software program. ).. As soon as people realize that Linux is better for the commen web surfer, Microsoft will be out of a job.. HumpH, 100 bucks for something that they will lock you out of if someone hacks your pc and uses your number. Not a good move by Microsoft..

Re:Umm...No.

[Stonehand]

Gosh, a fanboy.

Linux is not secure when in the hands of people who have always-on connections, but zero interest in working to keep their machines secure. Has there been a distribution yet shipped which did not have significant security issues, especially for people who want to -use- their computer, not learn about it?

I know quite a few people who -do- like computers, got their degrees in the field, continue to work in that field, who are the sort of person who'd build their computer rather than buying pre-made, and who still get pwn3d due to not keeping up with all the updates, especially when distributions shipped with entirely too permissive configurations. It's no panacea.

Re:Umm...No.

[Pecisk]

Gosh, a flameboy :)

Linux IS secure - relatively. Ubuntu and Debian is very hard to get root, if they are properly installed. Ubuntu has "zero ports open" policy and Debian default policy is to be closed and limited as much as possible, and then user can add more and more things to open his box more.

And I can work on my Ubuntu home and work computers, thank you. Windows is so very limited in many cases, only where Microsoft definetly has kicked ass so far is Office suite products. Yes, there are lot of issues in Linux desktop case, no doubt about that, but they are not such shopstoppers as many would like to paint them.

Maybe problem is that Linux usually is commented by Windows "power users" who usually very passionate about their OS of choice. It is not wrong, but they usually are ready to flame any other OS just because they are majority.

Not only that...

[phorm]

But while the installed software might be genuine (as in it *is* Microsoft Windows XP and not Linux XP or something like that, the original installation media was generally *not* a genuine Microsoft disc (unless installed illegitimately but a shop ) and the license is not a geniune microsoft license, not is the license code genuine. Moreover, since WGA only works properly (I use works loosely, sometimes it doesn't anyways) with legitimate copies, one could state that functionally it is not the same either... although said functionality difference was one implemented by microsoft.

I now declare the term "FUD" officially dead

[foreverdisillusioned]

Lately, I've seen the term being used more and more loosely and now this... Seriously, what the FUCK does this article have to do with Fear, Uncertanty, and Doubt? ...or more importantly, what does it have to do with the original concept of systematic, negative propoganda through disinformation and fearmongering and general appeal to negative emotions? It's a perfectly valid (if pedantic) intellectual argument, nearly completely devoid of emotional or manipulative overtones.

If you want to say "wrong" or "bullshit" or "Idon'tagree" then just say so, damn it. FUD is not an acceptable synonym for these terms.

[mods: This is NOT offtopic, as this is an article about a linguist complaining about the distortion of a word's original definition.]

Re:I now declare the term "FUD" officially dead

[jb.hl.com]

Ok, it's not FUD. It's just a pile of horseshit, which uses an already tenuous argument as an excuse to bash Microsoft.

The value of a dollar bill or Windows disc

[tepples]

you know that the value of a dollar bill isn't in the paper and ink.

Likewise, the value of a Windows disc isn't in the plastic and metal.

Re:The value of a dollar bill or Windows disc

[mortonda]

Yeah, the plastic is worth more than what it contains... ;)

is this deceptive?

[belmolis]

In response to the people who think that Microsoft is not slanting anything and that talking about what is "genuine" is a reasonable way to bring out the advantages of having a valid license, I suggest that a comparison with the advertising by free software companies like RedHat and Mandriva may be informative. Such companies differ from Microsoft in that you can legally obtain their software without purchasing a license, but they are similar in terms of what you get if you do pay that you do not get if you don't. That is, if you pay for RedHat or Mandriva, you get support, printed documentation, and often an advance on updates and access to additional goodies. If Microsoft were cleanly advertising the value to the consumer of purchasing valid licenses for its software, presumably its advertising would resemble that of companies like RedHat and Mandriva in focussing on exactly what you get if you pay. But what I at least have seen of Microsoft's campaign is not like this. There is actually very little specificity as to what it is you get by way of support and so forth if you have a valid license. This suggests to me that their use of "genuine" is not simply as a shorthand needed to make a reasonably short slogan but something intrinsic to their advertising campaign.

Bill Poser hates Microsoft

[Reality Master 201]

Just saying, it's pretty well known among a certain small community of persons.

That said, the man's still a great linguist, as are all the guys at Language Log. Especially Mark Lieberman. That guy's really a fucking genius. I guess those years of hanging out at Haskins as a child (with his also brilliant father) did hime some good.

"Copy"

[tepples]

Speaking of which, how can you have a "genuine copy" of anything?

Genuine can mean not counterfeit. Any good that uses the trademarks MICROSOFT and WINDOWS XP without permission of Microsoft Corporation is a counterfeit. A copy is any physical medium in which a work of authorship is fixed. Thus a genuine copy of Microsoft software is a physical medium produced under authorization of Microsoft Corporation.

The problem is the bloat

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistically, the problem is MSFT have bundled so many non-OS add-ons that they're pricing themselves out of the market for people who just want a fully functioning operating system without all the extra crap that increases the price and pads out the CD/DVD.

Back in '93, DOS and Windows 3.1 would set you back around $75 (for your 18-odd floppy diskettes). Add for inflation, minus for lower media costs, an OS-only release for $125 would offer the same sort of value and reduce the feeling that it's overpriced bloatware and reduce the demand from ordinary people for pirated software versions.

As it is, the reported $400-odd price for Vista nearly doubles the price of a basic model desktop PC. That sort of price model just isn't sustainable for basic OS software.

New uses? No...

[bky1701]

We all know how pro-copyright people NEVER use words in ways they don't apply to make their ideals seem valid to the unknowing...... that would be stealing the idea off other people....

This is officially the stupidest...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and most boring Slashdot discussion I've seen.

Cunning linguists and Master debaters

[Pfhorrest]

I've often pondered how odd it is that one must have excellent oral skills in order to be a master debater, and yet one can be a cunning linguist and perform all of one's work entirely by hand.

Re:Cunning linguists and Master debaters

[jlebrech]

Not so obligatory Austin Powers quote??

Re:Cunning linguists and Master debaters

[Pfhorrest]

If there's a relevant Austin Powers quote for this I'm not aware of it. Care to enlighten me?

My previous post is an old joke I used to tell in high school English class...

Oblig...

[Anonymous Coward]

Daffy English ka-niggits!

Microsoft new speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Genuine Software Initiative double plus good.
Piracy double plus ungood.
Choose Microsoft freedom !

Potential Sales?

[CellBlock]

This is something that gets to me, so don't think I'm attacking you. It's just an argument that gets made all the time and doesn't make sense.

You say that since you weren't going to buy something, that it's not really a lost sale, since you wouldn't have bought it. However, you're using it, exactly for the purpose it was released for. Whether it's listening to a CD, watching a movie, or installing software, you're getting the use that you're supposed to have paid for without having done so. Therefore, it is, in fact, a lost sale. As a user and a customer, you owe the creator, publisher, etc. whatever value they've set on the product, unless you've negotiated some other deal (perhaps through a rebate, coupon, or sale).

Since everyone using a stolen copy of Windows hasn't paid for it, they all owe Microsoft the going rate for it. Microsoft lost those sales.

Quibbling over definitions

[Pfhorrest]

Karl's really the repudiation of this semi-myth; he learned it from the Democrats, who learned it from the English professors, who got it from philosophers.

As a philosopher, I hope you're not meaning this as a slam against philosophers. A lot of philosophical quibbling about language comes about from the realization in a debate about the analysis of some concept that there is not actually common agreement on what, precisely, is meant by a word. Analysis of a concept is really just the "unpacking" of it's constituent concepts, or contemplating what that concept really means - which is the same thing as how that term is defined. When you're trying to write or speak about ethics, for example, and two random people are arguing about what sort of moral or ethical system would, if followed, result in the most "good", you'll often quickly realize that much of your disagreement comes from the fact that "good" itself is not well-defined. Sometimes it's merely a difference in meaning or definition between the two people, but sometimes one or both parties isn't really clear on what exactly they mean by the term in the first place. They could list off some examples of things which are "good" and "bad", but will often by hard pressed to define precisely what it is that those things have in common which makes them "good" or "bad", and thus some way by which to tell if any random new (person/action/circumstance) is good or bad.

An anecdotal example: the other day I was conversing with a friend who is a moral relativist, and I realized that his position (with which I completely disagree) does logically follow from his definition of "moral". To him, "moral" simply means "what society says you ought to do" - from which is clearly follows that morals are relative, as different societies clearly think that people ought to do different things. But that's not really a very clear definition, because "ought" itself is a normative concept that implies goodness or morality. It's akin to saying "'morality' is whatever society says is moral". That sentence is a useless definition - if I didn't already have some notion of what 'moral' meant, it wouldn't tell me what "moral" means.

My response to him was that I think it's possible to define "moral" and "good" in non-normative terms that refer to concepts other than "morality", "goodness", "ought", etc, in a way which still tracks the normal usage of such words. And once you have such a definition, then you can look objectively at any (person/action/circumstane) and see whether or not it meets that definition, and thus tell whether it's good or not. And if you have that sort of (meaningful, non-circular) definition of "morality", then his position of moral relativism is clearly false.

So a lot of philosophical questions like "is such-and-such X?" (e.g. "is lying always wrong"?) can be rightly answered "that depends on what you mean by 'X'", because a lot of values of "X" in philosophy are abstract concepts that we take for granted, and could possibly name many examples of, but haven't really clearly defined for ourselves. So answering such questions necessitates coming up with a clear, explicit definitions for the concepts involved, which still track the normal usage of the language. Which is where all the quibbling over definitions comes from: someone proposes that 'X' by defined as so, and then someone else counters that if X were defined as so, then this thing that we would normally say is not X would be considered X. But since we (the common users of the language) don't really have a clear definition of the concept to begin with, some things we normally say are X might contradict with the definition of 'X' that seems to underlay most other instances of something being X.

Thus the philosophers' job is to come up with a definition that most users of the language would agree with, knowing the full consequences of that definition. For example, many people might like Kant definitions of "right" and "wrong" at first, but then later disagree with it when they re

Yes indeed.

[Gordonjcp]

They haven't redefined "genuine", they've simply "embraced and extended" it.

Why pick on Genuine

[EmbeddedJanitor]

They've redefined so many words, why just pick on their use of "genuine". Consider: windows, reliability, Start, exciting, innovation, micro....

Re:Why pick on Genuine

[neoform]

You forgot the newly defined word "Advantage", here's my new definition due to MS's "Geniune Advantage" service packs..

Here's the old definition:
1. any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success, interest, or any desired end: the advantage of a good education.

2.benefit; gain; profit: It will be to his advantage to learn Chinese before going to China.

And here's my new version:

1. any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to microsoft's success, interest, or any desired end for microsoft: the advantage of a good microsoft education.
2. benefit to microsoft; gain for microsoft; profit for microsoft: It will be to microsoft's advantage to learn Chinese before going to China.

Re:Why pick on Genuine

[tygerstripes]

...Works.

exactly the same functionality ?!?!???!!!!??!?!!??

[zmollusc]

I can't believe that this kind of misinformation keeps getting repeated on a so-called technical site.
Young, stupid kids with little or no appreciation of quality may not be able to tell the difference, but any audiophile can easily hear the difference between the windows startup sound on an original copy of windows and that of a pirate copy. The pirate copy has a brassy colouration in the second quarter.

Redefining? I defined it first ? I have a patent!

[droopycom]

Come on... Who ever defined the word genuine in the context of software or even worse, licenses ?

1) From the blog: "What Microsoft is concerned about is the software equivalent of buying a refrigerator that fell off the truck."

How can that be true: if a Windows CD fell of the truck, its still has a valid license with it. So I'm getting a licensed copy, which is still a genuine copy (even by MSFT definition).

2) He defines genuine using this :"In contrast, if you buy a "Rorex" watch, it is not genuine because it is not made by the Rolex company and does not have the aesthetics, functionality, and resale value of a real Rolex."

Well if I can duplicate a Rolex watch in the same way I can duplicate software, it will have the same aesthetics and functionality, is the result still genuine ?

3) People are now making artificial diamonds which cannot not be differenciated from natural ones. Off course traditional diamonds busineses are calling those artificial diamonds "fakes" and "non-genuine". Are they using the word genuine wrong ?

4) Microsoft software have a "genuine" tag, those shiny stickers, which are very hard to copy, so that most copy dont have the same shiny sticker. The shiny sticker is part of the package, as much as the 'L' in Rolex is. Copies are definitely aestethycally different. If I just download a copy from the internet, I dont even get the nice CD case.

5) Again from the article "Whatever the reasons may be, a great many people have little sympathy for a campaign based on Microsoft's legal or moral rights."

If I had been "sold" (term used in microsoft, quoted in the article), an unlicensed copy of Microsoft software, I would be very grateful to Microsoft to let me know, so I could go kick the shit out of the guy who sold it to me.
If I want pirated copies of Microsoft software, I can download them for free, I dont want to pay for them.

The campaign is perfectly valid in my opinion, even though I dont really like Microsoft business practices.

6) The author goes on: "The point I am making here is that rather that Microsoft is using "genuine" in a way that deviates from the way it is commnly used and that this evidently for the purpose of putting a deceptive slant on things."

Who defined the term genuine in the context of licensed software ? Who else is using the term genuine in any different way in the context software ? And where is the deceptive slant? Who has ever been misunderstood what microsoft was talking about when they used the term genuine ?

Obviously this guy is as much "slanted" against microsoft, than microsoft is against his customers...

Genuine software: the problem with Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

We are missing a deeper message. As software literacy is growing, we are
hearing countless exclamations about Windows like "This is no software, this is a piece of ..."

So, as doubts are creeping in, marketing has decided that consumers have to be teached that Windows is *genuine* software. This is a sure sign MS is
loosing the semantic battle.

Yessir

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't take a linguist to understand this. Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.

Now, try to explain that to the critics at Citizendium.

explication underway

[Anonymous Coward]

F: Fear: That isn't Windows (not Genuine)
U: Uncertainty: You won't know until we tell you whether it's genuine
D: Doubt: Who knows what it is installing (Not Windows, see above)

Re:explication underway

[foreverdisillusioned]

That applies to Microsoft's GWA strategy, not the linguist's objection.

Genuine? What about Advantage?

[Anonymous Coward]

What ist their definition of advantage from WGA?
Phone Home?
Possible remote shutdown?

likely no intention here

[iariar]

Loads of people in the marketing department probably brainstormed a lot of names passing them to a higher level of management who evaluated them and through a process of elimation came to one that was probably the best compromise between everyones internal image of what it should be. I see the same thing happen every day at my job. I really don't think anyone is intentionally trying to redefine anything here though it is human nature to superimpose intention onto almost everything.

Wow, the man himself!

[rbarreira]

http://m-w.com/dictionary/genuine

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genuine&x =12&y=22

What kind of linguist are you, if you don't even know how to use a dictionary and then go and write an entire blog post based on that error?

I beg to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting how complex topics we've stumbled upon within the realm of the seemingly simple.

A print of the Mona Lisa is _not_ the real thing. Many reasons can be brought forth for this: A print discards the texture of the artist's brush strokes. A print contains different colour mediums, thus changing some secondary qualities of the colour. A print of Mona Lisa was never touched by Leonardo's hand, which takes away some of the allure of history.

Now I would like to believe software is a different beast than a painting. For one, there's only one genuine version of the painting. Software in this context is usually sold on CDs that come by the thousands and millions. There is no "_the_ genuine Windows CD" as MS Windows is made to be sold not as a single original, but as myriad copies.

Regarding the main topic of this discussion: Genuine lost its real meaning years ago. How many here can - without the aid of a dictionary - describe the difference between "genuine" and "authentic"? I would claim this whole discussion is pointless, as we as a crowd will never be able to agree on what we're discussing in the first place - the word "genuine" and what it means.

Personally, I'd say an unlicenced copy of Winows would be genuine, but not authentic. The reason is simple: The unlicensed and the licensed copy do the same thing! The bits and bytes of the two copies don't magically diverge to ruin the unlicensed copy.

Of course, these two copies have different legal qualities - based on whether they're authorized by the copyright holder or not. As these qualities do not pertain to the copy as such, I'd say they do not affect the genuineness of the copy. "Genuineness", if it has one distinguishing characteristic, is after all intrinsic to that which is genuine.

The extrinsic qualities, I would sum up in one word: Authenticity.

Now, does anybody care about fine word nuances of days past? No. Microsoft couldn't get away with this "redefinition" of the word genuine if the word hadn't already lost its real meaning. Therefore, this discussion will lead nowhere.

Here HEre

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. I am glad I found your post. I was about to write the same thing.

A Windows XP copy that cannot be updated with security and program updates is most certainly not genuine. Just like a diamond that cannot be certified is not genuine, even if it fools the person wearing it.

Yeah, you might be using a copy of Windows that is functional, but is it genuine? Let's run a few exploits from last month across it and see if it has been patched.

weasel words

[wap911]

MS is a "marketing company". The have created very little "innovation". Bill's dad is a big time lawyer and lobbyist, he taught Bill well. Last year the big flack was over the misuse of the words consistently and constantly. You have to read everything very carefully these days, as the use of one word that you will not catch can completely change the concept and meaning of the document. [read accept the EULA and you are screwed] --wap3

Not Offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

Though possibly tasteless.

Lots o'you are forgetting something about currency

[Mateo_LeFou]

Namely, that the intrinsic value-in-use of a counterfeit bill (if counterfeited "perfectly", atom-by-atom, so to speak) is exactly equal to that of a "genuine" bill. Use-value depends only on a thing's properties.

But the use-value of a dollar bill is not much. It makes mediocre note-taking paper and below-average art. Very good for rolling up and snorting cocaine, but that's about it.

The exchange value of currency depends 100% on the conventions that surround it. Consider: a $10 bill can be exchanged for two fives. You say "I'll give you these two fives if the ten is genuine". But you mean "if it comes from the U.S. Mint" not "if it contains x% paper, y% ink, etc." If you want the bill in order to snort cocaine, you don't care if it comes from the U.S. Mint.

Hence the difference between the movie example and the counterfeiting example. Someone who sneaks in sees a genuine movie because it has the same material affect on them as the person who bought the ticket. This affect does not require a set of conventions.

Insightful?

[UbuntuDupe]

Assuming this is a response to my post and not the parent of my post ... what?

The MPAA doesn't claim that there's a risk you'll see a fake movie when you sneak into a real theater. The BSA, however, does claim that you may be using fake software (i.e., non-functional) if you pirate. So the MPAA couldn't call a campaign against sneaking into movies a "Genuine Movie Initiative", while MS could claim that a campaign against pirating software is a "Genuine Software Initiative". That was my point.

Re:Insightful?

[nacturation]

While it's true that you might be using altered software if you get it pirated, if you simply borrow a friend's CD that he got directly from Microsoft, you'll be installing genuine software. However, if you install it using one of those hacked corporate keys then Microsoft would say that your copy of Windows is not genuine. Like the movie ticket analogy, this is a licensing issue, not whether or not the software itself is genuine. I think that's the point the linguist is trying to make with all this. You may not have a genuine software license (or movie ticket) but the software (movie) can very well be 100% genuine even so.

Genuine *copy*

[tepples]

The software is genuinely made by Microsoft.

Correct. But the fake copy (that is, the CD) is not made by or with permission of Microsoft, which makes it not a genuine copy.

Check out Microsoft's other abuses

[yubbers9]

Right here: http://malfy.org/

so you're saying

[v1]

that microsoft gives you phone support on your unregistered windows installation?

Re:so you're saying

[v1]

does dial tone count?

[OT] GAO immigration terminology

[alienmole]

Google doesn't win arguments for you if you don't bother to read the documents that come up in a search.

The term officially used by the GAO at least is "undocumented immigrant", which is defined in the definitions section of e.g. this document as "A person entering the United States without inspection by the INS or with fraudulent documentation, or one who enters legally but subsequently violates the visa terms."

The same document defines "illegal alien" as "a commonly used synonym for Undocumented Immigrant".

BTW, "undocumented" implies that they don't have legal documentation. Your idea that someone with fraudulent documentation qualifies as "documented" is a bit strange, and it's easy to see why official terminology wouldn't follow that approach, since it implicitly grants some kind of valid status to fraudulent documents -- even though it's only in language, misleading language can lead to problems.

Debating the wrong word

[FurryFeet]

You know, when considering how "Genuine Advantage" is misusing the English language, "Genuine" is not the word that I would focus on.

Look for the hologram

[tepples]

Are you telling me I'm not infringing on copyright law if I electronically redistribute copies of software, movies, games, etc.?

Yes, you are reproducing the work, turning the recipient's hard drive into a copy or phonorecord of the work. A&M Records v. Napster.

"Windows Geniune Advange" has never tried to check my physical media.

Has it ever asked you to look for the hologram?

Counterfeit != Pirated/Stolen

[finiteSet]

Counterfeiting is in the process.

And a pirated version of Windows XP was created via the same process that legitimate versions were, namely with the blood and sweat of Microsoft programmers. The OS is the product - not the distribution medium, the holographic discs, etc. If somebody steals a car, it's still a genuine car - just a stolen one. If somebody steals, bit by bit, Microsoft XP, it's still a genuine Microsoft XP - just a stolen one. Now if a bunch of Chinese pirates sit in a basement and code a Windows knock-off and sell it labeled "Windows XP" - that is counterfeit. If the same pirates sell you a copy of Windows XP, with all its features and functionality, it's not counterfeit - it's simply selling stolen merchandise - stolen genuine merchandise.

Windows = Genuine Dis-Advantage

[LowLifeScum]

Cannot run code on my own computer = disadvantage!