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.'"
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.
The line for all the "cunning linguist" jokes starts right -----> here.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
If that bothers him, it sounds like he would have a field day with "Ginuwine". And shortly after, "Ludacris".
Push Button, Receive Bacon
"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.
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Yeah, I think this guy is using an outdated version of the word.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".
Push Button, Receive Bacon
We know what they want to say but can anyone suggest, in a word, a better way?
...a word so simple it could only be misunderstood by a person with a Ph.D in linguistics.
Pathetic.
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.
Does anyone outside of a marketing organization use the word "Genuine"? Let the marketeers bastardize it any way they want.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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*
Obviously the answer would be to pass a law that specifically states that computer programs cannot be copyrighted.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I'm tempted to subscribe to Slashdot for a day just so I can demand my money back in outrage.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
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.
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"!
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
Oh yeah? C'mere a minute!
Game... blouses.
A pirated copy genuinely does not come with the same support from the publisher that a properly licensed copy does. It's that simple.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
Brilliant!
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).
...is somewhat disingenuous.
Wikileaks, no DNS
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.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
In your example, what if the duplicate is indistinguishable from the original (which pirate copies often are, as far as the data goes).
.pdf files and print them from the PC).
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
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?
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.
- Nothing to see hear.
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.
This is genuinely a word-mincing exercise to discredit Microsoft. Is this really suitable as /. news?
I've never seen /.ers back up Microsoft so much before until these pompous linguists came along.
Bloody word jockies!
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
> 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.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
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.
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I already wondered when "trustworthy" changed its meaning to the opposite.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
He needs some updates, or doesn't he have a Genuine copy of Windows?
Firehed - Unfortunately, thanks to medical breakthroughs, common sense is not as common as it once was.
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.
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!
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.
HD Trailers
"'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.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
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.
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...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Likewise, the value of a Windows disc isn't in the plastic and metal.
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.
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
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.
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.
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....
Great Intellect...
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
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
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
They haven't redefined "genuine", they've simply "embraced and extended" it.
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.
They've redefined so many words, why just pick on their use of "genuine". Consider: windows, reliability, Start, exciting, innovation, micro....
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
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.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Come on... Who ever defined the word genuine in the context of software or even worse, licenses ?
:"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."
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
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...
Ok, it's not FUD. It's just a pile of horseshit, which uses an already tenuous argument as an excuse to bash Microsoft.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
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.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/genuine
x =12&y=22
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genuine&
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?
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Lets check dictionary.com for "steal".
steal
-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.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
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
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.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
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.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
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.
that microsoft gives you phone support on your unregistered windows installation?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
You know, when considering how "Genuine Advantage" is misusing the English language, "Genuine" is not the word that I would focus on.
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.
Has it ever asked you to look for the hologram?
That applies to Microsoft's GWA strategy, not the linguist's objection.
If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
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
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.