Slashdot Mirror
BusinessWeek Advocates Microsoft Piracy
xzvf writes "In a lengthy editorial, BusinessWeek advocates allowing users in China and India to pirate Microsoft software so that it can obtain the same level of market share there as it has in the US and Europe. From the piece: 'If Microsoft succeeds in discouraging piracy of Windows in China and India, it is far more likely to drive the user of the pirated software into the Linux camp than it is to steer them into the land of paid-up Windows users. Microsoft's IP management strategy in China and India should instead focus on securing the victory of Windows on the desktops of all PC users. That may require deliberately lax enforcement efforts against pirated copies of Windows for the short and medium term. Only after the Linux threat lessens might Microsoft have the luxury of tightening up piracy protections, as it is now doing in the West. Microsoft can afford to be patient.'"
BusinessWeek was just wondering, like, if any of its readers or anyone they know
It's totally cool if you don't want to but, like, everyone's doing it and you get to use each license like three times before they stop considering it 'genuine' so BusinessWeek doesn't know what you're afraid of. You're not afraid are you? You're not going to wuss out on BusinessWeek like that dweeb BusinessEthics, are you?
This is so stupid, Windows would rather have me using this than something else or telling everyone not to use Windows at all
Didn't think so.
Fine, whatever, BusinessWeek doesn't have to beg, BusinessWeek has magazine friends in high magazine places. BusinessWeek is just going to go talk to MacWorld or maybe even LinuxMagazine (as a last resort). BusinessWeek is going to tell National Lampoon's Magazine about you, you'll be on his next cover. Oh, and don't expect to get any from Playboy either because BusinessWeek is stopping by his slot right now.
What happened to you, man? You used to be cool.
Why is this story not tagged itsatrap?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The headline suggests Business Week could be advocating piracy of Microsoft software. This could suggest some bizarre alignment of the stars such that Business Week is Microsoft-averse, but it's clear the opposite is true.
Basically Business Week lays the groundwork as a recommendation to Microsoft to extend and maintain their monopoly, hardly an adversarial position.
I wonder that Microsoft needs this prodding. I suspect they wink and nod as much as they have to to maintain their reach into all markets however they need to do just that. This while screaming publicly about how ripped off they are in countries like China.
From the article, signs point to the very fact Microsoft alreay knows the strategy:
Microsoft is eating their cake and having it too (the correct form, btw).
Isn't this their strategy anyway? That and with working officials to make sure that all government PCs are running Microsoft too.
So is the moral of the story is "Let them pirate your merchandise or they might use the competitions"?
this would be a good thing for Microsoft. Their stranglehold on the software market has a Windows-based cornerstone.
All of us would reap benefits as well - the pirated copies of Windows in these countries are not patched to get rid of security issue, and many are now zombies in some huge bot network.
Assuming customers kept patches up to date with a legit OS, it could decrease the amount of spam, DDOS attacks, etc.
MS has been going after the large suppliers in China. They have. If they do not, then China and India get it for free, and then the western world will wonder why they are paying an arm/leg for crap software.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This isn't news. MS has already (unofficially) said they'd rather India and China used their software illegally than use the competition.
j html?articleID=198000211
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.
Why is business week trying to stop MS from shooting themselves in the foot? Honestly-- whether or not you like linux or other "alternative" operating systems having several widely used OSs encourages innovation. Microsoft has been trying harder than ever to create a worthwhile product and a lot of that has to do with trying to stay ahead of competition (especially in the server arena).
So BW is telling MS to pull a dope pusher routine.
A commentary on IP, MS, or BW?
All my life I have heard... "Yeah... but Windows is free."
BusinessWeek has built good thesis on a bad assumption. Windows piracy is already rampant in China and India. It's harvesting time for Microsoft.
For some reason that line from Godfather I popped in my head where Michael told Kate:
"The Corleone family will be totally legitimate in five years Kate."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
One of the "magic" MS product keys was all ones? It wasn't exactly a secret - piracy creates market share. MS business practices surely encourage a certain amount of piracy, especially in emerging markets.
hmmm, I wonder if there's any profit to be made ratting out known pirates to China's and/or India's BSA equivalent? If they have one that is since IIRC, didn't Microsoft start that organization in the US.
This idea came to mind after reading how Microsoft put the BSA onto various school districts in the US in an attempt to force them into that foolish Microsoft Software Assurance contract. It backfired and a number of school districts switched out from Microsoft Windows to GNU/Linux software instead. The name Ernie Ball comes to mind also.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Things that are cheap or free are soon seen as worthless - Like the Motorola RAZR for example. The RAZR used to be a high end status symbol, but now that the price has dropped to near zero (with a 2 year plan) there is no way they could start charging $600 for anything else even remotely like the RAZR. Once a couple generations has gotten used to Windows being free, there is now way that they would start paying money for it.
I have mixed feelings about the logic of differential pricing. Companies are free to charge whatever price they please, but the trouble is that in a global economy where anyone can buy anything from anyone anywhere else, how do we know what is 'fair'? What makes it 'fair' to charge Americans and Canadians more than Chinese and Indians for goods and services? Who decides what is a fair price? Apparently it is 'the market', but if that's the case then why can't I buy Region 6 DVDs from Circuit City for $1? Why is there a stink made by companies and economists who say that free trade is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but then complain when they see products sold on eBay for prices that are genuinely fair given the elimination of transaction barriers in the global economy.
A-Bomb
What I would like to see MS do is come up with fullproof piracy protection.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
It's bad enough we have to compete with low wages in other countries but we also have to compete with the fact countries like China and the India largely don't pay for software. I have tens of thousands a year in hardware and software purchases just trying to survive. It's impossible to compete against foreign companies. Already my primary client wants to shop part of the work I've been dealing with to a foreign source because they can save money. The situation will get radically worse before there's any hope of improving. It's competely rediculous that I have to pay many thousands a year just in upgrades while most of Asia pays $5 for most any software you can name on pirate disks. I'm not complaining about software prices I just don't see why they should be allowed to get essentially get for free what I pay a bundle for. My money is going to support their free software since I have to help pay for development costs where as they freeload.
MS is thinking about giving away Windows for Free but with Ads. I think that is better from business perspective.
the question is not whether or not microsoft should or should not fight piracy in india and china, the question is whether or not microsoft (and business week) understands that microsoft can't do ANYTHING substantial about piracy in india and china
it's not like microsoft has a gun in it's hand and the question is when microsoft should shoot. microsoft simply has nothing in it's hand at all
and it's just desserts: in the 1800s, american publishers openly flaunted european copyrights. now it's the usa's turn to be on the receiving end of a growing power ignoring the "rights" of an established power base
but don't worry about it microsoft, in 200 years, chinaslashdot.org will carry a story about when china should release the nanobots to punish bangladeshi genome pirates stealing chinese biotech copyrights... and bangladeshi and enlightened chinese observers pointing out that the nanobots would have no effect on stopping the illegal conception of pirated organisms
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is that an hour later you're hungry for warez again.
BusinessWeek seems to be encouraging Microsoft to aid and abet a criminal enterprise (piracy).
At the very least this is encouraging Microsoft to behave in a manner that would affect the RICO judgement against them. What would BusinessWeeks liability be?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
IANAL - isn't there something that says if a copyright isn't enforced, the copyright holder loses all rights to enforce? Or is that something else? I thought they had to vigorously defend their copyrights... so if they are implicitly allowing someone to pirate their software, could that be termed abandonment?
Basically Business Week lays the groundwork as a recommendation to Microsoft to extend and maintain their monopoly..
When we consider what an abusive monopoly that has been, we have to wonder why Business Week would advocate it. What is a news magazine doing advocating any single business, much less one that has destroyed so many others?
It's doubtful people actually making decisions read Businessweek so it's purpose is not to inform. Most people who really know what's going on in the predatory companies that fill BusinesWeek's glossy pages do not talk to reporters. They have PR drones spin some kind of story. The target audience is gullible young MBA types and others thinking about how to build a retirement fund. For the MBA types it's like porn, where their hero's are portrayed in everything but a centerfold. Those who's earnings are invested in big dumb savings plans can take false solice as big dumb companies like M$ are claimed to be solid, eternal and not in anyway like that other Worldcom or Enron stuff that cost them so much.
Real news and enlightenment come from considering simple facts. M$ can put off their "anti-piracy" efforts, but it might as well be forever. M$ is no more going to be able to exploit the world with a software monopoly than they are ever going to understand why. There is no way M$ will be able to purchase the kind of complicity it would take to re-create their monopoly world wide. The US, for all it's talk about business freedom, was far easier to purchase than India and China will be. Those governments have their own self interest to consider and arguments about the well being of a US company won't apply there.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The first one is always free.
Ha-ha! I found some unprotected disk images on the web and installed it on every one of my machines at home. It didn't cost me a dime. Hacked my way around the registration and got it running.
Those looo-hsers at the Kubuntu corporation don't even know I have it!
I'm l33t! I r3w1!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
There was a time when the #1 most pirated software was DOS. DOS, and then Windows became ubiquitous and Microsoft became a world-beating powerhouse. It can work again.
Give away the core Windows OS for free. Charge for the applications (which only work with Windows.)
Move to subscription based application software and/or charge the larger third party application developers a small fee to make up the loss (SDKs, programming tools, license fees for using SDKs/DirectX, etc..) The Microsoft tax moves from the PC manufacturer to the software developers and users. Either way, the customers pay the cost as normal. More importantly, people will choose free Windows, Microsoft eventually gets a stable OS, and finally focuses more on making quality applications. Applications, not operating systems, make a computer useful, eh?
Instead of a depending on near monopoly status and lawyers, it would be nice to see MS compete by producing quality products for a change.
I remember a rep from MS coming into our Intro to CS class (it was a Fortran class, if that gives you an idea when this was), and instead of offering anything insightful or inspiring in regards to computing and software, he proceeded to use the talk as a platform to tell all us evil kids that piracy was to blame for high software prices. The ensuing 32-bit, 64-bit, and OOP eras have done nothing to dissuade them from this silliness, apparently.
...to this article, being that it seems virtually devoid of morality?
Mr. Chesbrough isn't even subtle about it either--he openly advocates "selective enforcement" of the law to maintain dominance and smother the competition. He goes on further to explain how as a market goes from creation and growth phases into maturity (ie. they have their users trapped) that MS should then suddenly ramp up enforcement and start collecting payback. This is how drug dealers and the mafia operate, not how legitimate businesses are supposed to operate!
Either this clown is as ethically challenged as an Enron accountant or else he is a masterful troll. I can only hope it is the latter and he is trying to bring "A Modest Proposal" into the information age. I'd be careful if I were him though, because over the years, MS has gradually been moving towards the "Mafia business model" and is very nearly there: They already have the opinion that "if the Chinese are pirating it should at least be our stuff", have "favourite customers" that pay only a small fraction of the US retail price...and they are already making patent "protection money" deals with skittish Linux companies. They need no more encouragement from the likes of Business Week and its editors.
..it pays to R past the end of TFA sometimes:
Henry Chesbrough is Executive Director of the Center for Open Innovation at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. He is the author of Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape (Harvard Business School Press, 2006). He is an authority on open innovation, open business models, and more open approaches to intellectual property management.
'twas a masterful troll Mr. Chesbrough. Jonathan Swift would be proud.
Software publishers have been doing this for years to gain market and mind share. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to realize that even if you pirate MS Windows; the price is still too high.
Like Bill Gates needs to take business lessons from Businessweek:
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
CNET News.com, July 2, 1998
Only after the Linux threat lessens might Microsoft have the luxury of tightening up piracy protections, as it is now doing in the West. Microsoft can afford to be patient.
Right, 'cause if Microsoft would just sit patiently and wait, this whole "Linux" fad will just blow over. Hee hee hee.
include $sig;
1;
Businessweek has at least one idiot on the payroll. That has got to be the most bone-headed idea I have ever heard. Sleep with Bill Gates much?
For the Chinese government and their larger businesses I think their major concerns are not price. They are being "driven to the Linux camp" because they can review the source code and make sure MS isn't facilitating spying on behalf of the US government. This is why efforts like Red Flag Linux were initiated, IMO.
<tinfoil>
Likewise, having access to source and their own distro allows them to add hooks and backdoors to spy on their own citizens.
</tinfoil>
I realize that the above doesn't apply to the average user in China but considering the majority of the market over there right now is government and business I'm sure MS is more concerned with them switching to Linux then the average Chinese citizen...
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Actually, they do
Firstly: Microsoft takes a profit hit from not being able to sell legitimate copies of their software. Result: bad for Microsoft Secondly: People get to use MS products for free, elbowing out others products, ie a vendor lock-in. Result: good for Microsoft. Which will happen, do you think?
My web domain.
Are not Windows (tm) and Microsoft (tm) trademarks of Microsoft Corporation? If Microsoft allows others to use their trademarks and doesn't defend them does not Microsoft lose enforceability of these trademarks regardless of locale?
IANAL but...
Codifex Maximus
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I wonder what does BusinessWeek gain by being pro-Microsoft. Are they owned by the software giant? Is their growth somehow tied to that of proprietary software? Do they think their licenses will be terminated if they show disrespect for MS? The real question BusinessWeek should address is not how to make Microsoft more implanted in the developing nations but why they think that situation would be a good thing.
Makes me think of a (possible) new charity for people that want to support Free/OSS: a Chinese variant of the Business Software Alliance. Not the BSA itself perhaps, but some organisation that a) fights piracy*, and b) works primarily in China (or other growing IT-markets like India and South America).
If you support anti-piracy efforts in established markets like the US or Western Europe, I suspect targeted people/businesses would just cough up the money, and thus put more of that in the pockets of MS and the likes. But in places where most people and small businesses are short on cash, that would mean: bleed $ big time, or switch to free alternatives (the 'free as in beer' helping forward the 'free as in freedom' in this case).
Your thoughts on this, if it would be a good idea for folks that are considering a donation to a Free/OSS project? Donate to a 'Chinese BSA' instead? To help boost the number of Free/OSS software users there (and indirectly, elsewhere in the world, through increased use of open standards)?
* read: 'copyright infringement', the word piracy only used for brevity and common use (normally it involves ships & gunmen on the high seas).
Look, you can't just go around telling everyone that the world is unfair. It is. 'Nuff said. No one needs convincing. That said, it sounds to me like you have a losing business model, considering the realities of the global economy.
./, you should understand that getting free software is easy, legitimate, and encouraged, if you're not particular about which free software. Certainly, foreign companies aren't getting free hardware, so I don't think this is an issue. In fact, hardware is frequently more expensive in many third-world countries, since it needs to be imported.
You complain that foreign companies are getting software for free, but, as a reader of
My advice to you, though I guess you didn't really ask for it, is to change your strategy. Start stressing the importance of F/OSS to your clients, leading with the lower cost aspect and finishing up with higher reliability and ROI. When you look for new clients, look for ones that will let you have freer reign to use the software of your choice. If they ask, tell them that you typically use F/OSS infrastructure for your projects, due to concerns about the availability of source code, ongoing support, future upgradability, more regular release cycles and development transparency, etc.
If they're concerned about administration of F/OSS, you might consider the feasibility of giving them appliances with a nice web interface and automated maintenance cycles, a la the Google appliance.
The point is that you know that F/OSS is superior quality - especially on the server side, and I'm sure you know all the reasons for it. Use them as selling points. Don't apologize or even hint that you're apologizing. This isn't 1997. Linux is a big name, and most businesses have heard it or read about it in their trade magazines as the "hot new tech from a bunch of hippies in their mom's basement (a.k.a. IBM, RedHat, Novell, etc.)"
There isn't a single thing that a proponent of expensive software can say about closed-source platforms that you can't counter or diffuse. At that point, you'll have levelled the playing field. They get free software, you get free software. The difference is that one day, Microsoft is going to go after them, but you're legit with your freebies. Don't forget that that's a selling point too.
I know very little about your business, but I'll be surprised if you can't apply this tactic at least a little. If you are a software shop producing Windows software, consider a web-based version. If you're a service provider who uses Windows software internally, consider using and adapting F/OSS alternatives or writing your own. Everything you manage to move to F/OSS will increase your bottom line, even if you don't manage to convert everything. It will also make you much more competitive, and that's really what you're looking for, right?
Kubuntu.
Next!
Pirate Party UK
It'$ doubtful people actually making deci$ion$ read Bu$ine$$week $o it'$ purpo$e i$ not to inform. Mo$t people who really know what'$ going on in the predatory companie$ that fill Bu$ine$Week'$ glo$$y page$ do not talk to reporter$. They have PR drone$ $pin $ome kind of $tory. The target audience i$ gullible young MBA type$ and other$ thinking about how to build a retirement fund. For the MBA type$ it'$ like porn, where their hero'$ are portrayed in everything but a centerfold. Tho$e who'$ earning$ are inve$ted in big dumb $aving$ plan$ can take fal$e $olice a$ big dumb companie$ like MS are claimed to be $olid, eternal and not in anyway like that other Worldcom or Enron $tuff that co$t them $o much.
Real new$ and enlightenment come from con$idering $imple fact$. MS can put off their "anti-piracy" effort$, but it might a$ well be forever. MS i$ no more going to be able to exploit the world with a $oftware monopoly than they are ever going to under$tand why. There i$ no way MS will be able to purcha$e the kind of complicity it would take to re-create their monopoly world wide. The U$, for all it'$ talk about bu$ine$$ freedom, wa$ far ea$ier to purcha$e than India and China will be. Tho$e government$ have their own $elf intere$t to con$ider and argument$ about the well being of a U$ company won't apply there.
Last!
No way in hell is FuckCuntu a threat to anything but the waste of a good machine, that could've had a real operating system in it's place.
That it's "theft". It's really just "unauthorized - and unpaid - marketing and distribution."
And many business people understand that. If they can use it to their advantage, they do, without any of the moral "hand wringing" that others do.
There was a clothing company who discovered that a Hong Kong or Taiwan outfit was counterfeiting their brand. Instead of bringing legal action, they went to the company and bought it out, subsequently releasing the same "counterfeit" product as their "bargain brand."
It's only people who don't have control over their own product - like artists under contract to music companies - or companies who don't know how to take advantage of or compete with so-called "piracy" who moan and groan about it.
The solution to every problem of this sort is: how can I take advantage of it?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Question for a lawyer: Does Microsoft's deliberate allowance of piracy create a case of estoppel?
Estoppel by silence: "A type of estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when she had both the duty and the opportunity to speak up earlier..."
Since Microsoft allows piracy, can the company lose its copyright?
Microsoft definitely encourages piracy, in my opinion. For years, local computer stores carried to office suite alternatives: Legal Microsoft Office, and pirated Microsoft Office for $50. Word Perfect and Lotus could not compete. I'm not sure what local computer stores are doing now.
I could give other examples.
Imagine if were an area where Linux user groups could work hand-in-hand with Microsoft: Turning the screws on local business by strengthening software copyright and by enforcing laws against illegal software distribution.
Companies who compare Linux to pirated Windows look at the cost: $0 to $0, having the source code likely does not factor into the equation. But, when Microsoft users are forced off pirated Microsoft products, Linux advocates can accept these Window refugees with open arms, thus expanding the Linux operating system market.
With stricter the copy protection enforcement, the more popular Free Software solutions. Take a look at those "ClusrMaps" applets found on some websites. For example, there is more interest in Linux websites from Spain than Mexico. Why? They both speak the same language, they both have similar GDPs... but I suspect there are tighter controls on software piracy in Spain than Mexico. Note: The GDP per person is much higher in Spain. Yes, this could be a factor. It is hard to say for sure, because the level of wealth and the level of piracy seems proportional, so how can you say whether it is one or the other. Even so, you would think those who could afford computers would be making these same decisions.
If you can avoid it, do not get yourselves stuck in the black fucking hole that is Windows Vista.
What a fucking piece of shit OS this turd is.
Oh, wait... unless you like an OS that consumes a retarded amount of system memory (w/ nothing running, and all apologies to the retarded among us) and makes you click on a million different approval buttons -- yes, for the last fucking time, I would like to go into the wireless networking section of the Control Panel -- then Vista may very well be the OS for you.
But if you want something that just works, Vista ain't it.
Thank you, that is all.
Microsoft owns the Chinese market.
Today Gates openly concedes that tolerating piracy turned out to be Microsoft's best long-term strategy. That's why Windows is used on an estimated 90% of China's 120 million PCs. "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not," Gates says. "Are you kidding? You can get the real thing, and you get the same price." Indeed, in China's back alleys, Linux often costs more than Windows because it requires more disks. And Microsoft's own prices have dropped so low it now sells a $3 package of Windows and Office to students.
Microsoft's China strategy is clearly paying off. More than 24 million PCs will be sold this year, adding to the 120 million already in place. Although the company's China revenues average no more than $7 for every PC in use (compared with $100 to $200 in developed countries), Gates says those figures will eventually converge. "What we have here is not about me, and it's not about where President Hu went to dinner. It's a relationship, where we've really found a way of doing things together that will generate a substantial part of Microsoft's growth in the next decade. I don't know any company in the IT industry where things have worked out as well as they have for Microsoft."
-----
Mr. Bill Gates! Mr. Bill Gates!" a young woman shrieks as the black car pulls up. A pallid student in a nylon windbreaker pushes his way through the security line and hands the world's richest man a small envelope with a floral design. "It's very important," he pants.
Another day in China, another round of adulation. Today the Microsoft chairman is being named an honorary trustee of Peking University. Yesterday it was an honorary doctorate from Beijing's Tsinghua University - the 13th in the school's 82-year history. Gates, wearing the same lopsided grin he has had on his face for the past few days, takes the envelope from the young man. For him this is a triumphant visit to China, a victory lap of sorts, on which I've been invited to tag along. The country is his.
No other Fortune 500 CEO gets quite the same treatment in China. While most would count themselves lucky to talk with one of China's top leaders, Gates will meet with four members of the Politburo on this four-day April trip. As one government leader put it while introducing Gates at a business conference, the Microsoft chairman is "bigger in China than any movie star." Last spring President Hu Jintao toured the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Wash., and was feted at a dinner at Gates' home. "You are a friend to the Chinese people, and I am a friend of Microsoft," Hu told his host. "Every morning I go to my office and use your software.
How Microsoft conquered China [July 17, 2007]
I stopped reading at "Linux threat lessens". BusinessWeek obviously doesn't get it.
The Linux threat is not going to lessen. BusinessWeek seems to think that MS can give the software away, get a monopoly, and then there will be no threat. That strategy has not worked even in the US, where people are rich enough to afford Microsoft software and where there are no political reasons to avoid Microsoft. (If I were in a foreign government, I wouldn't want to count on a US software company, just as some US government folks got skittish when Lenovo took over the ThinkPads.) People are not switching to Linux solely because of price. They are switching because it is in some ways a superior product.
Microsoft's problem is not Linux; Microsoft's problem is that it has an antiquated business model: selling shrink-wrapped commodity software at astronomical prices. Giving the software away will delay the inevitable, but the key word is "inevitable".
Penny - plain text accounting
The copyright owner can distribute his work under whatever terms he damn well pleases. It is constitutionally derived property right. It is not a trade or service mark that has to be defended against all comers.
For years, local computer stores carried to office suite alternatives
And for at least the past decade MS has offered a home office suite priced at around $100. Cureently MS Home and Student 2007, retail boxed, three seat license, is $122 at Amazon.com.
Word Perfect faded even as it began appearing as the free - default - OEM office suite.
I can't run bounzibuddy or Gator in Kubuntu! IT is not a good competitor to windows!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
"It's only people who don't have control over their own product - like artists under contract to music companies - or companies who don't know how to take advantage of or compete with so-called "piracy" who moan and groan about it."
Really? And "whom" or "what" will the content creators "buy out" in order to make piracy legitimate in your eyes?
This is so true... However if you look at the "piracy" phenomenon from a "to whom does the crime benefit" perspective, Microsoft is probably playing both sides: they need to reassure their investors that they're doing something about pircay, all in the meanwhile doing *nothing serious* about it, therfore gaining/keeping market share, keeping Linux out of the game and looking like they're doing something about pircacy all at once. As we say in French "vous ne pouvez avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre" (i.e. "You can't have both the butter and the money you used to buy it".
...that used car salesmen and drug dealers use the bait and switch tactic! How sad that this completely amoral idea is being recommended to MSFT as a good way of avoiding real competition. OTOH, it does seem to be another win for the FLOSS movement. The author of TFA must believe that MSFT's products offer such little intrinsic value that underhanded business techniques are the only thing that will allow them to keep market-share.
The distribution of copies of Microsoft products that have, shall we say, "uncertain provenance" has frequently been a major factor in Microsoft's ability to infiltrate new markets. At times Microsoft has allowed users to use at home... on their own computer... the Microsoft software they use at work, if not explicitly then with rules and guidelines so worded that people could be forgiven believing it was legal.
:)
When people have said that piracy was "hitting back at Microsoft" that's always been a sure way to elicit a response like this from me... because by using a pirated copy of Word or Excel instead of a cheaper product that you could actually afford, that helped cut off the oxygen to Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft's only taken a strong stand and employed strong copy protection after they've become so dominant in a market that there was no chance of a significant number of people bailing out and buying a cheaper product rather than paying Microsoft's fees.
I've been hoping that Microsoft would continue their crackdowns and push people away from Windows. Hopefully the won't read this article.
Business practice and law keep consumers from having access to the information that they need to make informed decisions. The EULA model defines the legal relationship between a buyer and a seller. The seller gets to define any relationship they want with the buyer, and it is legal. The seller has no responsibility and they buyer has no right and no recourse.
Why is the called Tooth Fairy Capitalism? Because if you think that it is actual capitalism, then you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.
The only thing this article proves is that the whole "But I'm not hurting anyone" argument was a bunch of BS. Yeah someone's being hurt. YOU!* Suckers!
*General YOU.
"I've been hoping that Microsoft would continue their crackdowns and push people away from Windows."
You're contradicting yourself.
[quote]BusinessWeek seems to be encouraging Microsoft to aid and abet a criminal enterprise (piracy).[/quote] Sure, except that it's impossible to aid and abet somebody to commit a crime against yourself. For example, if you aided and abetted somebody to steal your refrigerator, guess what? It isn't a crime anymore. It's a gift. Therefore, you haven't 'aided and abetted' anything. Therefore, BusinessWeek hasn't encouraged any aiding and abetting, since said aiding and abetting did not happen.
so we in the eu get the proof, that ms products are substantially overpriced ... thanks :)
For some reason, this reminds me of a great line from one of the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas (Gilbert was himself a lawyer): "It is a legal fiction! And a legal fiction is a solemn thing."
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
I've been wondering exactly the same thing. I can't figure out who BusinessWeek is targeting with this article.
Surely they're not trying to influence Microsoft, who would almost certainly have considered all of this and thought it through long ago. The only other logical reason for this article that comes to mind (besides flaimbait) is that BusinessWeek is trying to convince other readers that if Microsoft tries to dominate and control the software world, it's somehow good for everyone.
I tried to find something in the article that would explain why a Microsoft-dominated world is good for anyone except Microsoft, including typical readers of BusinessWeek, but I couldn't.
That said, this article really is classic flamebait. The whole structure of the article is designed to frame Linux and Open Source to look like some kind of enemy, with Microsoft being the valient allies out to crush it. I'd laugh if I didn't think some people might actually take it seriously.
...Microsoft has lost the ability to compete in a free market?
The article is suggesting that under a free market where the law were enforced and the contract of the EULA (as enforceable under local law) is respected, Microsoft would not, in fact, be able to compete with the alternatives available in the market.
They know this. That is why they are taking advantage of the general laxness of laws regarding copyright infringement in India (for the sake of full disclosure, let me say that I'm an Indian) and China to ensure that their marketshare remains dominant, as part of a longer term strategy to wait until the standard of living rises in these two countries, at which point they can start milking.
Though it may not seem like it, this differential behaviour towards customers in the West and in India and China is not only patronising to someone like me here, it is also anti-competitive, and detrimental to the health of the entire economy in the long run, as such differential rules interfere in the market's working, and prevent the optimal allocation of scarce resources the market is so good at. Coercion to protect marketshare is one thing, and the analogy may not be immediately seen, but this is exactly what is going on here - the misapplication of laws for the pursuance of your goals. It doesn't matter whether you buy out the state and try to have a law enforced which shouldn't exist in the first place - it has the same effect as the non-enforcement of a law that should be - namely, the misallocation of resources in a marketplace.
Even from the perspective of a person who was not comfortable with the Microsoft anti-trust case (a monopoly is impossible to sustain for any length of time in a free market where the actors cannot buy the coercive power of the state), I still think that this is ethically absolutely wrong.
As a supporter of free market policies for the simple reason that they're the only ones that work most efficiently in the long run, one of the best reasons I give for supporting free software is that it allocates scarce resources most optimally, and that it therefore will outcompete other, sub-optimal allocation systems and methods (such as the ones used by Microsoft). An intrinsic assumption to this view is that the laws and contracts regarding Microsoft software will be enforced. Such behaviour, however, calls that assumption, which underlies the entire legal and economic system, into question. Microsoft's behaviour in this case is completely and insupportably unethical.
I would LOVE it if the distribution channels for copyright infringing software became practically inaccessible - it would mean a HUGE boost for free software. By trying to wriggle out of the market's grip by selective enforcement of laws, Microsoft has lowered itself in my eyes, much more so than by most of its previous actions.
For me, the price of a new MS Windows OS would be less than a day's wages.
I wonder what is the price in man-hours for the median-income American? and what is the price of the same in China for a median-income Chinese worker? Is there a correlation between these figures and the likelihood that a user will pirate the software rather than purchase it from a legitimate source?
This will "backfire" in the sense that Microsoft will loose many millions of dollars as they patiently "wait" for linux to go away (which will not happen). Even if (IF) linux were to melt away, you forget about the time value of money. One billion dollars now is worth perhaps 7 billion expected 10 years from now. If I were them, I would take the money now, and work to take it again later. Out with the old vista, in with the new.
But this doesn't make any sense. Why steal something if a superior product is available for free? Does this mean FOSSies concede that, in the real world, Lunix isn't the superior product?
One amazing thing is how, in the US and Europe, Windows is competing AGAINST free... and despite that Lunix can't make any headway. So how on Earth does anyone think teh Lunix can win against pirated Windows? People would literally prefer breaking the law to using the FOSSie flagship product.
I think the man is both right and wrong. Given his myopic and misguided goal (that Microsoft "win" and Linux "loose"), his strategy is probably good. It is, after all, the time tested stategy successfully used by drug dealers everywhere (e.g., deliver product at a loss until user's are hooked, then jack up the price).
Unfortunately, however, it is also the moral equivalent drug dealing, and is immoral for almost exactly the same reasons -- the whole purpose is to entice people into "habits" that the seller knows they cannot afford, and that will subsequently be delivered at absurdly high prices because the associated market lacks competition (the reason for lack of competition differs between the two -- with MS, it's the IP-law-assisted monopopy, and with drugs, it's the absence of a free market created by "law enforcement" and (IMO) misguided drug laws).
On top of that, of course, is the problem that the whole idea contributes to disrespect for honesty and the law, thoughout the culture, and goes a long way towards destroying the moral fabric of the culture. But, that's a small price to pay in the name of a good "business strategy" (not!). At least, I think that is what they would teach an MBA student these days.
In some way, it's interesting that a magazine could produce an article like this without understanding how far off base it is. Interesting, but no longer surprising.
Wally Bass
At least once upon a time it was routine for Cable-TV companies to maintain a "war chest" by charging monopoly prices in nearly-all communities. Should a rival attempt to set-up-shop in a community, this "war chest" could be tapped in order to sell Cable-TV BELOW-COST in that one community. The rival cannot compete with the war-chest-funded-BELOW-COST pricing, and goes out of business. There's a difference-of-degree between tolerating-piracy and Predatory Pricing. In some other article it was mentioned that Microsoft was selling LEGAL copies in China at way-below-USA-cost. If true, this would be Cable-TV-Style predatory pricing at the International level.
I think MS should attack Chinese pirates with the kind of enthusiasm that even the R/MPAA would consider over the top and take then out by any means necessary.
Of course, I'm a Linux advocate and think that the highest and best purpose for MS is to provide us with entertainment, and if they send goon squads into China, the results will indeed be entertaining.
Tech Public Policy stuff
is equivalent to "dumping" the product.
It is also equivalent to Microsoft giving a huge subsidy to companies that compete with us. My company spends a couple million a year on Microsoft licenses. I'm sure they would be ecstatic to hear that their indian and chinese competitors are getting the same software for free.
Yet another reason for them to move everything except the executives over to india and china.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
From the man himself.
Gates used that tactic for years, and it worked brilliantly
If the Chinese and Indians are allowed to run this unlicensed on a large scale (I do not like the word pirated, since essentially all you are doing is violating a license agreement) then this is the end for either Vista or the end of the Vista activation. I for one would welcome the end of the Vista activation! (Or Vista... I really couldn't care less about that OS).
This has been mentioned before by Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes according to http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/13/121125 8.
"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else," he said. "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."
Only after the Linux threat lessens
I don't get it, are they speculating in an article? Their job is to report, not suggest things or make shit up.
Bah, I run a real "Pirate OS". I just modded the graphics subsystem to draw an eye patch over at least one object it is programmed to recognize as an "eye". Instant Pirate everywhere!
Though, I did almost have a graphics stall when I accidentally loaded up the goatse picture... that was one hell of an "eye patch" to render there!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Why use this obcene piece of slime 'vista' anyway except for games and nothing else. After all, that is how micro$$ got its market share anyway, by running games. Those early micro$ games usually contained a 'boss' key, so that if the 'boss' came around to Dilberta's cubicle and was in danger of discovering that Dilberta was really gaming and not working, a single key press would blow the game off the screen and replace it with a 'spreadsheet' of numbers that would look like work if one did not look close. So micro$ got into the desktop and on to the boardroom by fraud and deception. What better fate for it than to have it go out the same way. Only use if for games! Just for games! No fone numbers to mine for adware purveyors and fone fishers. No credit card numbers to sell to Chinese terrorists. Just call your machine anything or be anybody. Imagine a million Osama's registered users of micro$. The US secret police commissariat would stop listening to them after finding the fourhundred thousandth six year old with a small mind and a big ego for Dungeon Siege. Better yet, only use window$ as a client of VMWare under linux so windows cannot pull any of its known shenanigans as soon as it gets on a machine connected to the internet. Of course the best of all is only use this now useless malicious spy in your home as a dedicated game machine with no connection to the internet whatsoever!, so window$ will nowhere to go no matter how the redmond/Beijing hacker squad work to invade your privacy, undermine your freedom, outsource your job, poison your dog, put antifreeze precursers in your tylenol...check it out..every bottle of Tylenol contains polyethylene glycol. And, oh yeah, don't buy any fish from Wal-Mart that is frozen and in the 'fresh fish' section. It is ALL Chinese. The Chinese fishers are even stealing fish from Russian waters and daring the Russians to do anything about it.
A virtual machine set up, backed up and stored on a linux host would only live a few hours at best while playing some game that the monopolists wanted to reserve for 'vista' or whatever craptacular OS micro$$ wants to inflict on us at any given time now or in the future. Then back in the box and under the rock from which it sprang until next game when it is born anew with no memory of its previous incarnation since one of the ways to best set it up is to guarantee this digital amnesia by shredding the old system when done with it like a dilapidated car in a junkyard. Use it like it used us. Bottom line...NEVER trust window$#@$ with anything!!!