Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Goes After "Career Pirates"
Stony Stevenson writes "Microsoft has filed 21 lawsuits in US Federal courts as part of an effort to stop those who continually pirate its software. The suits span 14 states and target people and businesses that have allegedly sold pirated copies of Microsoft software. Eight of the suits target companies that Microsoft refers to as 'repeat offender software pirates.' The eight firms had already been sued by Microsoft for selling counterfeit software."
but this is one of the few cases where I agree with Microsoft, assuming the facts they're presenting are correct at least. If you want to argue that information should be free and pirate music/games/software/whatever for yourself, that's up to you to decide. And the same applies if you want to give away copies of whatever you've pirated to others for free. However very few things disgust me as much as people pirating someone else's work and then selling it for a profit to others.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Seriously. I think the best thing Microsoft could do to speed the adoption of Linux and Mac is crack down on those wanting its software at below market prices.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
I'd bet that the persons receiving the computers loaded with pirated software would be pretty upset to find out that they didn't have licensed software.
this is the area where piracy really does hurt companies. I am against Microsoft as much as most of slashdot is, but, this is the kind of thing that copyright law is meant to prevent.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
I'm all for Microsoft going after those who violate the terms of the license agreements. But what I don't want to see is Microsoft turning into the **AA and sticking it to the petty offenses and shady legal tactics. That would just be bad PR for a company that actually produced something... unlike the **AA.
The game.
If Windows is harder to buy at dirt-cheap or free prices (stuff gotten under-the-table at a geek-shop), and getting it P2P is unpalatable (getting an OS that way is begging for a high-hard reaming via pre-installed trojans anyway)... what other options will there be?
Not that its likely that such a scenario would ever happen, but if MSFT had to compete on full retail (or even an actual-charged-for-OS OEM) playing field, Windows would have been seriously struggling by now. Thanks for free copies, 'promotions' and 'discounts', most people perceive (and get) Windows that is at no cost to them.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
And sometimes you have to be willing to burn karma to say it. Well said, roster, well said.
damaged by dogma
What's interesting to me isn't the story itself but rather the number of people posting AC to avoid the MS Troll-mods.
MS needs to come up with Windows Lite. Such a product could be their answer to the OLPC and the problem with regional pricing. If they decide to omit Direct-X they better come up with a sticker "Just for Business".
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
Yeah yeah, but if you think about it, software used to have a tangible monetary value before the internet, when distribution was costly and the major determinant of market spread was the company's investment in stamping CD's, packaging and delivery. But now the price of shipping software is close to zero. Is this reflected in the price of Microsoft licenses?
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy. They see value in things they just can't get another way, or quality they can't get elsewhere. That's where Apple's business model is somewhat viable, since they go to the effort to make a package that works as advertised that you can't really get anywhere else (OS X is basically inferior on non-Apple hardware and not really worth mass-piracy).
The Linux vendors survive on providing service and support. There gets a point (mostly for corporations) when it's cheaper to pay the Linux vendor to do things for you than to do it all yourself. That's fair trade.
Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
why not sell Microsoft software at affordable prices so there will be no need of Career Pirates to sell Counterfeit Microsoft software at affordable prices?
Also how about Pirate Amnesty, where people can trade in their pirated copy of Microsoft software in exchange for a discount on genuine Microsoft software?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
When I was a kid, we had a neighbor who worked in the rail yards and made presents of things which "fell off a train." It gave him quite a boost -- better than any weed. I never cared much for the smell of it myself.
Ok, honestly, it is sorta hard to justify pirating a program and then selling it. Because unlike downloads for free (like as in the pirate bay) this form of copyright infringement is not a victimless crime as MS could have gotten money for it that the people were willing to pay the pirates. Now if this was an attack on home downloaders it would be wrong, but I see little reason to say what the pirates were doing was just.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Going through the trouble of counterfeiting Microsoft products is like throught the trouble of counterfeiting a Yugo.
BTW..... I thought Microsoft was supposed to have solved the problem of pirates with server-side authentication, codes, hologram discs, codes physically imprinted on discs, and Windows Genuine Advantage.
Guess not.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The cost of a product isn't just its marginal cost of production. You also have to cover the costs of design. Perhaps you could charge millions for the first copy, and then charge only the marginal cost for the rest. But it's much more common to amortize the cost over the production run of the product.
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy.
How is this insightful, and why should someone who ignores the cost of years of development be an economist?
Why do you need a "popular" application? Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
Or do you mean, "popular" applications such as Microsoft Office, that deliberately sabotage compatibility with everything but themselves? Then we are already working on the right solution -- to make those applications, and especially their proprietary formats, unpopular.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I thought that was implied by the fact that this is slashdot, and my post was a comment :). Feel free to state your own opinions and justify them as you see fit.
This proves the point I've made again and again: Microsoft just gets it compared to the media industry. You don't sue nobodies who download bootlegs; you sue the people who are actively trying to profit from it. It used to be the same for media. Sueing the little guys over every "illegal" copy being used is short sighted and counter productive. You lose respect from potential costomers, provide motivation to engage in piracy on principle and turn generations against the very idea of copyrights. Microsoft on the other hand creates agreements to provide their software to programming students for free. It gives those who can't afford your software a break and gains their respect. Any preference for Microsoft software later becomes an asset as it encourages future employers to buy licenses for the software. In short, winning people's support and respect by using the laws more reasonably is a better long term solution.
Just put Ubuntu's newest on my dad's spare computer. (One that sits in the living room under my mom's desk where she uses a laptop.) He broke it within a day with the update process. Never really used it, just selected every single one of the updates that was available and it died on him - or so the story goes.
"And now, for the rest of the story..."
Unless you're a paid subscriber you probably can't see all of my comments but I am one of the few people here who is a Windows fan. From a business point I admire almost every choice Microsoft has ever made. From a moral viewpoint I can see why people are pissed off. I mean, come on now, I'd be pissy too. But, well, I also see the reality of the world and accept that it is not the role of a business to be humanistic. So I don't forgive them, I grudgingly admire their business practices. More?
I'm also one of the few here who really does use Linux in their daily job. I just opt, knowing the differences and benefits, to use Windows at home. I own a small, sort of realistically priced, webhosting company and about 90% of our servers are running CentOS. I deal with, and even like, Linux for this task. At home, and as a hobby, I use Windows. I keep it as secure as anything out there that is connected to a network and I happily deal with the quirks and silliness that comes with it. More?
You might be wondering why I am responding to your post. Well, I also get to do a lot of interaction at local businesses, schools, design shops, and the local college. I spend more time than I'd like on a Mac. To me, not for lack of trying, I don't like the interface and that's what really matters to me. But... Well... I just ordered an Air from the nice Apple people. It took me a while, I've been drooling about it for a few weeks. I ordered it on Tuesday and I'm eagerly awaiting the time when I can run XP on it. It, I hope, is worth every penny. I know I paid more for it than I needed to but I know there isn't one single other laptop of that caliber at that size and so perfectly suits my personal travel habits. So, yeah, it is expensive but I have to hand it to Jobs-and-Crew®... They make some damned nice hardware. And that was mostly my point.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Why do you need a "popular" application?
Because if I you have a question there are lots of real people around that can answer it. Sure linux has great online support, but nothing beats asking your grandkids/kids/friends or being able to phone the number on the box to figure out how to do something.
And as easy as apt-get is to use, the software that comes on a disk bundled with your new ipod is even easier to find.
Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
That's a load. It is simply not remotely out of the box compatible with an ipod. There are lots of gotchas when using the newest ipods. Amarok doesn't work at all with an iPod touch or iphone unless you jailbreak it and then jump through hoops, and that has its own set of gotchas.
Sure Amarok might be a pretty robust music player, but its no substitute for itunes given that most of the people running itunes are either using a Mac, or an iPod, or both.
In a free market, the price of a product is an agreed value negotiated by both buyer and seller.
In a monopoly, the seller is able to set the price much higher that the true market value. That's why they're called "monopoly rents"
Microsoft has an estimated 87% profit margin on each Windows sale. Typical profit margins in open industries range around 15%. Since most of Microsoft's profits come from OEM sales at around $50/license, I'd say the OP's offer of $35/license would be generous in a free market.
This is borne out by the cost of similar products ($0) which are available to buyers who aren't locked into the monopoly by proprietary formats.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Software that is desired but not yet existing can have a large price, having some demand and a zero current supply, potential supply and therefore price being determined by the number of available programmers capable of writing it and the price they would be willing to accept to write it (being affected by the effort required). In such a case, the price would need to be determined by contract before releasing the software.
Software that already exists has an effectively unlimited supply and therefore approaches zero in price, given an unregulated market. Whether you see this as a positive or negative is subjective and dependant on your philosophy. There is evident dissatisfaction with the current regulated market, but there is no unregulated market currently existing (that I am aware of) to display a superior result.
Purely in terms of economic theory (which often has a tenuous relationship to reality) it is true the price of an already existing product that is infinitely copyable approaches zero regardless of development cost, as development cost no longer affects supply.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
iTunes is tied to iPod and tied to iTunes service - they are made deliberately incompatible with anything else ....
... debateable ... no
This is what proprietary means
Is an iPod the best MP3 player
Is iTunes the best interface for an MP3 player - many think not
Is the iTunes service ideal
Only together are they the (current) best solution
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Because in a free market, the proper cost of a product is how much someone is willing to pay for it; ask for more, and it won't get sold. This cost is clearly influenced by how difficult the product is to get; Internet makes it very easy to get software, so it makes its cost approach zero.
The one thing muddying the matter is copyright, a socialist measure to limit the actions people can take and therefore artificially drive up the price of whatever is copyrighted. I've noticed that the people who are all for globalization and preventing governments from interfering with the market are - for some strange reason - excluding copyright from this fight against interference. I suspect it's because most socialist measures benefit the people, while copyright benefits corporations.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Which is why MS should be suing themselves also.