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.
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.
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.
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.
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