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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[tsajeff]

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

- Austin Powers

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

Cunning linguist jokes

[XorNand]

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

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,

[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.

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....

[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....

[Profane MuthaFucka]

My reference is much more obscure than yours.

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....

[mek2600]

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

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.

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?

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.

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...

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]

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]

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: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. :)

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: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.

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.

Come on.

[1310nm]

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

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?

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.

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:*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: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:The value of a dollar bill or Windows disc

[mortonda]

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

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.

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: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.