Slashdot Mirror
Pirating Software? Choose Microsoft!
An anonymous reader writes "ArsTechnica is running a story regarding comments by Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes, who had a pithy comment on the subject of software piracy. His view is that, should software piracy occur, Microsoft's desire is that the pirated software should be theirs. Potentially, in the future, they could then convert the illegal users from the 'dark side' into legit users who obtain licenses. 'We understand that in the long run the fundamental asset is the installed base of people who are using our products. What you hope to do over time is convert them to licensing the software.' Obviously Microsoft prefers the market to use their software even if it's pirated, rather than the alternative: the use of free software."
Pirate away!
But most people don't like the settlements and license compliance audits that eventually catch up to them.
But does the linked article come with instructions on how to install vista without getting owned by product activation/genuine advantage and with the ability to successfully receive and install automatic updates ;) ?
Does this surprise anyone? An installed base is marketing base. If people have pirated your OS instead of installing a competing product, the only issue you have is getting them to pay for it instead of convincing them to switch. Seems the former is much easier than the latter from all experiences so far. You also have the ability to sell them additional packages for your system without having to develop/sell such product supporting third party software. Another win, even if you can't convince them to pay for the OS to begin with.
I recall in the late 80s early 90s MS almost encouraged piracy, in an effort to kill off a slew of alternate OSes.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
...and this has long been one of the reasons I love to see Microsoft trying to crack down software piracy.
:)
The more they tighten their grip, the more star^H^H^H^H people will slip through their fingers.
This has been going on for years. Plenty of software companies who sell high cost specialist software applications accept and don't bother with low level piracy because it ensures there is a base of users who when they grow up/get a job will be most comfortable with that specific product. It has been the case for years in 3d design software.
The "logic" behind those comments vary little from the neighborhood crack dealer who gives the first "hit" for free.
Get you on the habit, get you hooked, then pay through the nose... so to speak.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Now that they've finally admitted it, will they stop with their WGA and activation junk? Activation is a pain for legit users, and now it seems that MS wants illegitimate users to work around it. I'm not really sure what it's there for anymore.
Um...no. The won the home user market through preload agreements with OEMs. The vast majority of people just use whatever is preloaded on the PC they buy.
It's easyer to convert users using "free" (read: pirate) software to legit users for the SAME software than converting users from an alternative, even if that is free.
So, if I wanted to pirate a readily-available closed-source proprietary operating system for my PC other than Windows, what would I pick?
More Twoson than Cupertino
I often hear that people pirate PC games to try them out and see if they enjoy them, and then buy later. It appears that Microsoft is in a sense indirectly giving this argument validity. I.e. They think its better for us to try out their products, see if we like them and buy later, rather than using their competitors' software. Feel free to correct my logic if I'm reading this wrong.
Think of all the people you've heard of who won't use Linux because their favorite game or tax software won't run on it.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Interesting view - shaft them, then they'll come to us! The Open Source movement adopt the Microsoft mantra?
Just to add to my post, for fear of being marked troll - as a student, I've long argued piracy is good for the various companies. I'm just doing a module at Uni on various Macromedia and Autodesk tools - and to do so, I know of 'some students', who have pirated the various programs.
If said students then become proficient in their use, when they've got their degrees, they become skilled workers, trained in the use of specific tools, and often in positions to influence company purchase. Thus, piracy in the short term can be profitable in the long term - Microsoft being a prime example.
And yes, where there are suitable Open Source tools for the job, great. Firefox, PHP, MySQL, yadda yadda. However, with no offense intended, please don't give me Gimp when I ask for Photoshop.
> Interesting view - shaft them, then they'll come to us!
Not at all. But remember, we DO believe in copyrights, it is what makes our licenses work. If we expect people to obey the GPL it isn't much of a mental leap to believe people should honor Microsoft's copyright. Forget the EULA, it is worthless and almost certainly unenforcable outside of site licenses which are real signed contracts. But Windows/Office ARE copyrighted works and people shouldn't be bootlegging em.
If someone tries to justify it correct them. No, it isn't right to pirate Windows/Office just because you can't afford them. When there was no other choice some people would fuzz the issue and try to justify it. But when there are safe, legal and FREE alternatives there is no moral argument possible for stealing.
And if a site still insists on running bootleg, drop a dime to the BSA and make sure they suffer the consequences of their moral failings. Even if they are too stupid to learn they can at least be an example to others. What is wrong with seeing the wicked suffer? Would you ignore a drug dealer? Pimp? Pawn shop knowingly dealing in stolen goods? Someone knowingly buying stolen goods? No, be a good citizen and take a bite out of crime.
Democrat delenda est
The user who pirates software is less likely to buy the product; this is a classic case of "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
On the contrary. After buying software that had demos that worked much better than the product, I have on many occasions tried a pirated copy before buying a legit copy.
Most of the times it was related to copy protection problems. I have a hard drive. The demo can be installed and runs fine. The actual product won't run without the disk in the drive. This is unaceptable and not stated in the product literature prior to purchase. Running more than one application at once is normal operation of a PC. Running more than one CD in the drive at once is not an option.
Programs which work get purchased. Programs which don't work or don't have a working crack, get rejected. I have simply bought too much software which simply can't be installed and run without the CD. I no longer buy off the shelf software without finding if it meets my needs first. Overpriced software is not pirated. It is simply rejected. For example, I use Open Office and the Gimp instead of Adobe Photoshop and MS Office.
The truth shall set you free!
> and to do so, I know of 'some students', who have pirated the various programs.
Find a vendor who doesn't offer a student discount. Oh, you don't want the crippled student version? It does everything you need to pass the course, so don't use that watermark on every page to justify stealing the full edition.
> please don't give me Gimp when I ask for Photoshop.
If you can AFFORD Photoshop, great! Many people who edit photographs professionally believe the price is more than offset by their increased productivity. But if you can't afford Photoshop you have no right to steal it. Don't you even try justifying it either. Try Paint Shop Pro if you just can't learn The GIMP. PSP is well regarded and much less expensive.
Democrat delenda est
I agree. I think part of the reason MS Office is ubiquitous was that it was so easy to pirate back in the day. As a result it got huge traction in offices and homes. Now it's the 'defacto standard.' If it hadn't been as easily pirated I think users (particularly at home) would have sought out other (cheaper) options like MS-Works, WordPerfect, StarOffice, OpenOffice etc. and MS-Office wouldn't have the market share it has today.
This is is a nice opportunity to point out that `unauthorized copying equals theft' cannot be true.
Ever heard e.g. a car dealer say: `We don't like people stealing cars, but if they do steal cars, we'd like them to steal ours'??
Or Joe Sixpack: `I don't like people stealing money, but if they do, please steal mine'?
That won't work for a variety of reasons; the primary one probably being social. "Yes, I'm immediately going to switch to X's software because X just reported me to the BSA and had me fined 65,000 dollars!"
Moreover, as the article clearly indicates, Microsoft wants consumers to pirate Microsoft software. They'll go after business if those businesses are large enough to make it worth Microsoft's while, but consumers? The backlash would be enormous (see the RIAA) and the gain minimal, if any.
Basically, you're going to try to stop people pirating Microsoft software... against Microsoft's will. Not only is that going to call Microsoft's wrath down your head, its going to turn OSS into some sort of anal-retentive legal freakshow in the eyes of the public, who will be even more repulsed by the 'communist hippies'.
What, exactly, does anybody stand to gain from this?
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
> If you can AFFORD Photoshop, great! Many people who edit photographs professionally believe the
> price is more than offset by their increased productivity. But if you can't afford Photoshop you
> have no right to steal it. Don't you even try justifying it either.
Er, why not?
If you can't AFFORD Photoshop, who loses out if you use the WAREZ(TM) edition instead? Perhaps the developers of the GIMP should sue you because they lost out on a "sale"?
This is just speculation, and I wouldn't expect them to admit it; it would reveal their mentality and justify piracy, which they can't be seen to be doing. But I'd be very surprised if this weren't the case...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Yes but the point of his argument is that right now the publishers are having it both ways.
They allow (in the past *ENCOURAGED*) piracy among certain users to gain the benefit of the "network effect".
The day everyone has to pay the appropriate price for microsoft software is the day they start losing.
Win3.11 was *given* to pirates to pass around for free back in the day.
Basically, companies that sell to businesses don't mind home users pirating (because they wouldn't buy it anyway), they get the network effect, they and the businesses get essentially free training, and businesses still have to pay because they have something to lose (unlike your average home owner/pirate).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I recommend you give OOo 2.1 a look.
I have some enormously complicated documents with hundreds of graphics and 2.1 is the first version to import them correctly.
I also recommend you open your wife's document *every* release and generate any crash reports you can. That's the only way it will meet your eneds.
2.3 looks to be a fabulous release too.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You aren't screwing The System at all by pirating a proprietary application that you were never going to buy anyway. All you're doing is proving you're dependent on The System. And they already know that.
If, on the other hand, you actually applied yourself to learning how to use a competing, Open Source application instead of their proprietary one (sure, the keyboard shortcuts and menu items may not be in the same place, and the procedures to accomplish certain tasks might be a little different -- are you really telling me you are so fucking thick that you can't learn the new ones?), you would be doing something to screw The System. You'd be breaking your dependency on The System.
Microsoft have driven competitors out of business by tolerating piracy. Thanks to closed protocols which make for poor interoperability, it's more attractive to use a Microsoft product than a competing product. And ease of piracy means that, for those who are prepared to do it, all software is effectively available gratis; price is not an issue. Thus, "everybody" pirates MS Office, and vendors of alternative office software lose out on sales. Now, if it were technically impossible (or just highly undesirable) to pirate MS Office, then maybe we'd see competing office suites.
Open Source Software throws another spanner in the works. Sun can't be driven out of business by Microsoft's tolerance of piracy, since their bottom line isn't affected by people not using OpenOffice.org; which is why Microsoft hate OSS so.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!