Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Cracking Down On Indian Retailers
slashthedot writes "Microsoft caught some Indian retailers selling pirated copies of Windows by sending in a dummy customer to ask for a copy of Windows to be installed on their PC. The dealers claim that they are promoting MS software in this way. One retailer said: 'Since we are are not charging anything extra for installing the software, it means that we are actually not trading in pirated software. For us this is just a sewa (selfless act) that we are offering to our customers. Besides, the pricing of their operating systems is way too high for the Indian markets.'"
I was talking to one of my friends (who happens to be from India) the other day about computers. I mentioned that I use Linux and he was absolutely amazed and asked me why I would do that. Linux is considered the poor-man's operating system and most computers that come with it are wiped and a pirated version of Windows is installed. I'm still trying to grasp the reasoning behind it, other than I think Linux has the reputation as "too poor for Windows"
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Well then Linux should be designed for windows compatibility. The only way Linux can take over is by providing a seamless transition to the point where it doesn't matter what application you need, your data will be accessible from both operating systems. Then, and only then Linux can excel. $$$ for windows, or $0 for linux. They both do the same thing give or take, they are compatible, the apps are cross platform, and it just comes down to money.
Regardless of whether or not that is true, Microsoft certainly does not think so by their actions.
"Some guys are taking our software without paying for it."
"That helps us. Network effects and stuff."
"Great! So we'll tell everyone to just go ahead and make all the copies they like."
"No, dumbass. Then we get no money."
"Okay, what if we just don't say anything?"
"We're real popular, and people will figure out pretty quick that we don't do anything if they copy it, and we'll lose a ton of money."
"How about we quietly enjoy the piracy while making a big show of going after a few of them so people still have that tiny, little bit of fear to keep them honest?"
"Sounds good to me."
The crackdown is not nearly as interesting as the vendor reaction: a general strike against M$. They have a guild and 350 shops have boycotted a M$ training session and pledged to purchase nothing from M$ for the next quarter.
This is a real culture clash and M$ is going to lose. Compare it to Gandhi's Salt March to Dandi and you can see where this is going. If M$'s $3 "education pack" is not good enough and they won't quit making alternate software difficult by vendor and driver manipulation, the people of the world will simply take what they want. M$ can no more stop this than the British Empire could keep people from taking salt from the sea.
I'd rather they discovered free software. It would be better for them and they could more easily implement things like DVD playing and advanced video codecs than people endumbered by dumb laws like the DMCA. Using M$ leaves the user open to M$ violation down, powers the botnet and props up M$'s awefull non free formats.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
For exactly this reason.
When I was in Indonesia, a similar crackdown happend (by the government). The reaction by businesses was immediate and strong: develop roadmaps for migrating all possible systems to Linux.
Full-page advertisements were seen in major newspapers advertising open source migration services.
It was really interesting. Nearly every computerized business that I came in contact with asked me about Linux and how suited it would be for their work.
Yes, a lot of them will install Linux.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
My basic theory (born out as I have seen in other countries):
Given a choice of free of charge software, people usually always pick those they perceive to be the industry leaders. When they have to pay for that software (especially when the real income equivalent, i.e. hours of labor to pay for it, is high), they have to slow down and ask what they need.
Piracy thus reduces the effective size of the total market. People aren't forced to decide whether to pay for new copies of the software, so they pick what they think is the path of least resistance. Add cost, and these people are brought back into the market and have to choose.
When I worked at Microsoft, I used to say that we had to do something about piracy because, "Piracy is anticompetitive and it hurts our competitors even more than it hurts us." I got a wide range of reactions from that statement. If there was no piracy of Windows, Microsoft *might* make a little more money. But I guarantee you, there would be a *lot* more Linux use out there too. Heck, there might even be more users of OS X...
I personally think we all need to do what we can to discourage software piracy. I think it is the greatest obstacle out there to the total dominance of open source software.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm an Indian, and I can tell you that your information is wrong.
Linux is not considered a poor man's OS. It is just that most of the software here is pirated and available almost free, that people don't have the incentive to learn Linux, except the technically oriented people.
I've seen people buying high end systems (about 800$), from local dealers with pirated window xp, ms office and loads of cracked games, and 1000s of mp3s all free as part of the deal.
In big cities like Bangalore they have started cracking down on people selling pirated CDs.
god n. : the Supreme Being, indistinguishable from a good random number generator.
Linux is NOT considered the poor-man's OS. It's mostly the elite OS used by a bunch of college-goers. There aren't any computers which come with linux in India (excepting a few acer models which I doubt anyone buys). Most windows pcs are running pirated versions and they're mostly for gaming or, as the other parallel comment says, for .NET and windows specific programming.
There are some interesting ethical situations here.
While the 'selfless' act helps the customer directly, it robs the producer of what is being 'selflessly' given away, whether it is Microsoft, or a small software company. The people doing the distributing may be gaining 'karma' points on one side but are losing them on the other side of the transaction.
The excuse of not being able to afford the 'real' product because of discrepancies in income between the United States and other countries has a lot of bearing here. In today's globalized world you need to keep up with current tech in order to succeed. If you can't afford it, then copying it can almost be rationalized.
The rationalization falls apart when you reach the point that you want your own products protected on the global market. It is hard to demand IP protection when you are not doing a good job of protecting other people's products.
To add another level of complexity to things, consider the fact that a lot of software businesses in the United States are creating service and research centers in places like India. While I trust that the businesses are buying legitimate copies of Windows and other software, are they keeping track of what their employees and subcontractors are doing? While these people may be making a lot more than the average citizen of India, the temptation of getting something 'free' might outweigh the ethically correct action of paying for it. (Of course there may be reduced cost programs that get hardware with legitimate software to this subgroup. But being in the United States, I don't hear of them.)
Ideally, everybody should be held to the same ethical standards, with allowances for all types of income discrepancies. Perhaps software, movies, music and other IP products should be priced based on personal income by country, with limits on what you can own based on what you earn. If you want more, you need to earn more, relative to the personal income ranges of your country.
It is something to think about that will continue to be a problem until all people world wide have similar income ranges.