Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
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...
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.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
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.
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.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.
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?
This is genuinely a word-mincing exercise to discredit Microsoft. Is this really suitable as /. news?
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.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
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?
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.
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.
With great power comes great fan noise.
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:-
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.
More than mere navel gazing.
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.
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?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.