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."
I just went ahead and installed Linux. Saved thousands in mac hardware premiums, plus I could still use my old Windows software until I got used to the free alternatives.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
This story feels like a dupe (may or may not be, I haven't checked) but that's probably only because there's a story like this every few months. Microsoft (or someone else) sues a bunch of people who should be sued. I mean, is it news because Microsoft is using the courts as they should be used?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Windows IT consultant here to report that yes, people BUY pirated software.
:)
They'll buy it from eBay, because it's cheaper. They'll buy it when they purchase a new "custom built" white box with cheap Office/Windows.
I run into clients over and over who don't want to pay retail price for software. They run profitable businesses and balk at spending $400 (when I charge that much they don't blink an eye).
Side note: I have recommended FOSS and get different responses. I'm everything independent. Just pay me and I'll maintain it.
I was called in to help an elderly couple learn how to use their new computer. I looked at their receipt, and (as expected) Windows and Office were not listed. They went to their spiritual counselor, who told them using "pirated" software was not a good thing. So they went to the shop and bought Windows. But when I mentioned that their Office installation was still not legal, they balked at paying for that. Nor were they willing to have it removed.
Note: This isn't my opinion, but I just wanted to try arguing the position.
First, assume that we're talking about piracy (customers know they're getting illegal copies) rather than counterfeiting (customers think they're getting legal copies). Assuming pirated copies can be had for free, what are these sites offering? It's a value-added service over normal pirated goods, mostly convienience. Are they extracting profits Microsoft would have made, or are they compensation for an actual service from people that otherwise have pirated it anyway? Apart from some being big fish and others small fish, does it matter to Microsoft whether 10000 people pirate and share it for free or if 10 sites each serve 1000 customers? Money changes hands but nothing goes to Microsoft regardless, so is it ethically okay for 10000 people to rip them off a little each but not for 10 sites to rip them off a lot? Is there really any fundamental difference?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Really, that's who they should be going after. The people selling pirated software.
Unfortunately often your definition of pirated software and Microsoft's version is not the same. What we call "Right of first sale" or "Used" is called "Pirated" by Microsoft.
This includes things as replacing your old XP software with Ubuntu and selling the disk, certificate, box and packaging on ebay. Selling the OEM factory shipped version you wiped to install Red Hat, and selling a P4 box with the OS installed but somehow missing the original sales receipt. MS should simply go after those who Counterfeit software, and not those selling used software with original disks, product keys and certificates.
There should be a good market for used copies of XP. Unfortunately, MS calls these genuine copies of the real thing "Pirated" and prohibits their sale.
What definition of Pirated is the article covering?
The article seems to mostly cover illegal duplication such as more than one install from 1 copy on machines for sale and doesn't touch on the selling of used software.
The truth shall set you free!
What kind of moron goes to the trouble of setting up and registering and licensing a full-blow business and the sells counterfeit software? I mean, I can understand doing it at swap meets and out of your car or something, but this is like someone setting up a watch store that sells fake Rolexes. It just seems crazy that it happens in the US.
A-Bomb
Admittedly, I read that line out of context...
"Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally."
which prompted me to quickly remind people of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w
and
http://www.google.com/search?q=compiz+linux+youtube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
And let people ask WHY vista requires soooo much RAM and CPU power to do what Linux/FOSS/Compiz-Beryl can on semi-modest hardware. I got 3D effects out of Mandriva on a 700 MHz, 256 MB RAM, but new (64MB, I think) ATI vid card in *Nov 2006*.
But, to get THAT much eye-candy out of vista, what would users have to pay? Not with vista home, that's for sure. And what with stores back then re-imaging underpowered laptops and desktops on display with vista, and barely or reasonably doing ok with XP...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Even before CD-ROMs existed there was free software. In 1991, when I lived in LA, I sometimes went to a little shop in Venice Beach where I paid $6 for each 5 1/4" diskette with free software. Linux was in version 0.01 by then, I had never heard of it. But I got several of the GNU packages, running in DJGPP, a "DOS extender".
Funny thing, I remember once I was in a meeting with some high-level managers in my company. I had that store's brochure among my papers, and a vice-president saw it before the meeting started. He was curious, so I gave him that catalog. He spent the whole meeting browsing it, giving only some distracted generic answers when anyone spoke to him. So, you see, long before "free software" became popular among geeks, there were managers who became interested in it when they got informed.
In my opinion, no.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
The argument that because copying costs are now lower than before people should no longer charge for creative or intellectual works is essentially flawed. A low cost for reproduction is assumed otherwise copyright law would be unnecessary. Copyright law is a government granted monopoly to the creator of a work saying that you will be the only person who can copy it for X number of years. The government gives you this monopoly as an incentive for you to produce something of value since you know Joe down the street won't be able to set up your content on his printing press or modern equivalent and sell it too making your initial investment worthless (why not just wait for someone else to make something and then sell their thing). This is a pretty good idea and the US constitution even gives the reason for it when it grants the government the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Where this all doesn't make any sense is when the terms get beyond the original 20 or so years. In fact, extending the term is counterproductive because an author of a really good book/song/painting/program only has a greater incentive to write more if they know they will lose the income from the first one.
Copyright's fine. Open Source / Free Software is fine in that it provides other incentives for progress (recognition, communal sponsoring of something that benefits several companies in tangential businesses such as hardware, consulting, update services, etc as you mention). Each has its place and inherent pros and cons (typically open source software best serves the needs of those who write it - either the uber geeks who use emacs or IBM who sells mainframes. Commercial development typically serves best audiences who will pay the most per unit of effort of a developer).
Where you get into trouble is where a few strongly interested parties (publishers) can successfully lobby to have terms extended beyond serving what a reasonable person would understand the intent of copyright to be. They can do this because they are a small moneyed interest with strong individual motivation to see copyright terms extended. Whereas the general public sees a small benefit if the term is short as originally intended. However the amount of caring per person does not usually even hit the level of staying informed of the issues or even the reason behind having copyright (people often assume it's an ownership issue - I should own this thing I made rather than a public good issue - you get to make money off this thing exclusively so you have sufficient financial backing to produce it and more things in the future). It really doesn't reach the point where the general public is willing to hire lobbyists and since they are uninformed are unwilling to put forth the effort to organize and each contribute the $3.02 that it is worth to each person to provide lawmakers opposing views to those of Hollywood and the **AA's.
"Really, that's who they should be going after. The people selling pirated software."
I'm for ruthless enforcement of any law that inconveniences Windows users. The more MSFT turns the screws, the more people will consider alternatives.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Making shit up and spelling Microsoft's name with a dollar sign doesn't help. Start writing to your congressman and organize grassroots efforts to change copyright law instead.
(posting AC because if you know about this then you'd probably know who I am, and I didn't get along with any of you except Derrick)
The basic structure of a free market economy dissolves as a monopoly is introduced. If microsoft was producing QUALITY software during those "years of development", then the (free) market price would be much higher, since consumers would want the superior system to work on, and be willing to sacrifice the funds to get there. But, by forcing just about everyone, including just about every fortune 500 company, to use their product or be "cut off from the world", they feel free to develop crap, treat their employees like crap, and charge a very hefty price tag because people NEED the software in order to interact with every other person/company who is also caught in MS's monopoly on closed-source, proprietary software.
When is the last time that an employer asked you to send them a resume/CV in ANYTHING other than MS-Word format? "Please send LaTex formatted resume. Please send CSV plaintext document (as a spreadsheet)??? Nope; "Please send us your MS-overload formats or do not even enter the picture as a potential employee. kkthx!"
Linux/BSD - free, open office - free, TeX - free
OSX Leopard - $99 iWork - $79
Vista Ultimate/XP Pro - $299
MS Office - $449
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
"Then structure the product in such a way that people need to pay you for it."
You mean like copy protection or locked hardware?
"Firstly, it's stupid to sell a product that can be so easily ripped and then complain when it does get ripped (but not complain that suddenly it has become prevalent, thereby creating your market for you)."
This may work for a few very large companies, but if a small company's product is ripped and spread, they will eventually start losing sales until it drops off to 0.
"Secondly, if you had to charge millions for your first copy of a software product in the fear that your easily-rippable product will get ripped, then you need to go back and rethink your product, such as recovering costs by providing support or selling hardware that runs your product beautifully."
If the the first copy was a million dollars, the person or company that bought it would not be sharing it on the Internet.
"If the IP is music, then make money from performance or maybe printing sheet music or something else that is tangible."
performance is tangible? It's just sounds coming from an artist. Music and movies are on DVDS and CDs..how is this not tangible?
Like making it theft when you don't pay for it? Is that the structure you crave?
I mean why not steal an old lady's credit card numbers. She is only on the hook for $50 so it's not REALLY hurting her and if she is stupid enough to go to a phishing website then she deserves it.
Then you could charge up all sorts of software on the card, maybe some CD's thrown in, and a few books and magazines as well. It's all just IP, doesn't really matter how you steal it because there shouldn't be any copyright law anyway.
Of course, in US and W. Europe Microsoft will track down software pirates - people there can afford to buy MS software.
But in developing countries the corporation actually depends on pirates - they help to capture vast amounts of marketshare and user base. And id doesn't cost them a penny to establish a close-to-absolute monopoly in said country. It is called dumping and it is illegal and forbidden. But Microsoft can act as a victim while enjoying all benefits of dumping.
Afterwards MS representatives begin to talk with the government urging them to buy the software. First for government organisations then for schools (them may even give some Starter Edition for free - let the pupils know only one OS so they can eventually buy it later in their career). Commercial organisations follow - police raids searching for counterfeit copies are conducted if needed.
Microsoft uses these tactics all over the world. It all starts with pirates. They do dirty job and are fought afterwards.
Don't believe this assurance. The number of companies that do this is NOT small. In fact, it is nearly universal. I deal with the after-effects of a lot of small and medium-sized computer makers and consultants, and every single one of the people I deal with asks if we can "get us a copy" of this or that software like their last guy did. I have lost clients because there came a time after which I just flat out refused to install any software that I knew wasn't legally obtained. I've walked into multiple new clients to reinstall Windows with burned CDs of Office and/or Windows XP, no key on the computer and had to endure plenty of dirty looks when I tell them that I can't reinstall it, and they're going to have to buy a legal copy before I can do anything. One client bought several copies of MS Office which all had the same key when they arrived. Random Internet company, just happened to have a good deal (obviously too good to be true). All the holograms were exact, everything was apparently fine about the packaging, just only one key.
They'll talk a good line, but every single small time computer maker I've ever dealt with will install unlicensed software if you know how/who to ask in the organization.
No, the prices are set (indirectly) by you, the consumer. After all, if you're not willing to buy, then the producer has to lower its price until you are.
The reason most people don't complain about the cost of Windows is that they never see it. Computer manufacturers include Windows in the cost of the hardware, and customers never see it when they configure their machines, so many assume that Windows is free.
Second, Microsoft is able to engage in price discrimination because of its position as a monopoly supplier. It charges OEMs like Dell, HP and Lenovo far less than it charges consumers, because OEMs are able to place large orders, guaranteeing a revenue stream.
I bet a lot more people would complain about (and perhaps even forgo) Windows if Microsoft charged OEMs the same amount it charged retail, and the federal anti-trust regulars forced computer manufacturers to offer other operating systems (like retail copies of SuSE, or Red Hat) so that people could compare prices and make an informed choice.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Because it's been 13 years since Microsoft developed anything of moderate value.
Windows XP is just 95 with a retooled engine, but to most people's eyeballs it's the same damned thing with more gradients on the UI chrome.
Vista adds ZERO value, it removes value by crippling the system with far-reaching DRM and disappointing performance. Even its revamped security model is full of holes and users are just as likely to get confused (or annoyed).
If Vista offered anything the users really wanted, we would have stood in line at 12:01 A.M. to buy it. Remember MS-Dos 6.0 ? People stood in line for that one, we all wanted to get our hands on Memmaker, Doublespace and a handful of refinements that actually made our computers work better and play harder. It was worth the money.
Remember Windows 95 ? People stood in line for that one too. It was a leap forward from Windows 3.11 (which stank). W95 was a mess, buggy and temperamental, but it was fresh and offered new opportunities for multitasking and, at long last, long file names. It, too, was worth the money.
Windows XP ? It was just a cheap consumer version of Windows 2000, minus the stability. Not until SP1 was it any usable for more than a day or two, but today it's pretty solid, after SEVEN YEARS of patches. Not really worth the money.
The main reason people upgraded from 95/98/ME to XP was for hardware support. The OS itself didn't offer much in the way of new features, which is why a lot of older computers still run Windows ME or 2000, because that's what they came with and there's no real value in upgrading.
Now with Vista, there's even less of an incentive to upgrade because the new OS has worse hardware support for _current_ equipment than the old OS it supposedly replaced. Vista (32-bit) still doesn't support more than 4gb of Ram, and 64-bit support is spotty. Why the hell anyone would want to run Vista on a non-64-bit-capable machine is beyond me, but stupid makes this world go round.
If I were dying to have blingy blurry jiggly UI chrome, I'd keep XP and load something like WindowBlinds, or whatever the gimmick-du-jour is. Cheaper, more reliable (go figure!) and I'll still be able to do the same things I do today.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
No they don't work.
Agencies require MS compatible formats so they can redact your contact information and add their own branding.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Harper Lee has published nothing of significance since To Kill A Mockingbird in 1960.
That single book remains in print to this day. It won her the Pulitzer Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The film remains a classic. The play a staple of the festival stage.
What more would you ask of her? What greater incentive could you offer?
The incentive to create is only to be found in money or recognition - but in the certainty that you will retain ownership and control of your creation.
But let us be honest here.
When the rights agencies pursue the geek it ain't for Steamboat Willie.
It is for the movie still in first run theatrical release or new in print on DVD or Blu-Ray.
Guys, I put forward an opinion and I'm glad so many people commented (and disagreed).
Think of all the R&D that goes into programming something like an OSYes, software is labour intensive. Generating software costs money, yes. Marketing costs money, yes. It's all very expensive, yep. I am not saying there should be no way to recover costs for making software, but I am questioning the conventional method. Why has Microsoft put itself in the path of blame for all the botnets, viruses, whatever that are lurking all over the place? By selling the software for money in the first place it is, IMHO, liable for all the defects that persist out there. Instead, if they sold support for a time (eg: if Windows cost $200, and the estimated shelf life is 5 years, charge $40/year for support including software updates), then people would consider that quite reasonable. After all, that's easily how much Linux professional support costs. Those people who don't pay for support and get pwned are nobody's idiot but their own. In many respects that is the defacto status of XP now that it's gradually going out of print.
But people who say "Linux vendors are making money off the blood sweat and tears of people who did it all for nothing" are wrong. They are, by and large, providing a service contract for the software. They support the product for money. Sure, there's free support for home mum's and dads and do-it-yourselfers, (eg: Ubuntu) but we know that isn't where Canonical is hoping to get their $$.
From elsewhere:
Do you know that distributing boxed software was a major determinant in their marketshare..?Well from what I understand, getting Windows as a box set bundled with OEM computers or on PC-shop and even supermarket shelves has been a major determinant in its spread, along with piracy. Open source software is spreading because of the Internet. Microsoft also uses the Internet to spread its licenses without shipping as many physical boxes.
And elsewhere:
That's just kinda ass-backwards...give people crappy software for free...and then charge them for support to fix it...The various Linux vendors don't see it that way. And just because Microsoft's product cost them a heap of money to make (crap though it is) doesn't mean it should have cost that much. They deserve to sink for producing a dud product, just as any other enterprise would. If Windows was so fantastic, for all its bugs (nobody pretends software is perfect), people would want it on their PC's over anything else, and many do. But instead of going around with a gang of lawyers and frightening the market they depend on, they could just work with the psychology of people out there. People are used to paying for services such as telephone, or mail redirection or some other thing they need. If they are using their computer for anything that they consider to be serious, then nobody will argue with getting support for the product to ensure that it is reliable and safe.
The current situation which leaves most people somehow incriminated (eg: because the freakin OEM windows that came with someone's laptop won't validate.. WTF! so instead they install a friend's XP pro corporate edition that at least works) is broken. No wonder piracy is rife when they set the deal up this way.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Free software was also pre-PC. Most major vendors had user groups that used to distribute software., generally on half-inch mag-tape (about 80MB). You could get some GNU stuff like emacs and gcc on the tapes from DEC's user group DECUS, (the DEC VAX C compiler cost over $10K in those days) just for the cost of copying as well as lots of other stuff like the LBL tools, etc. I think around that time, there was a fuss because the US decided to export-restrict SPICE variants and they had to be removed from the tapes.
At least lower management knew about this stuff because the tapes used to cost 100$ or so (media plus copying costs) and they had to ok the purchases. They tended to see the benefit in that we were able to implement stuff faster on the back of these tools.
See my journal, I write things there
Why do you people use such stupid pieces of hardware that require fancy software to put music onto them?
I just plug my MP3 player into my computer, it opens a folder and I drop the files in it.
Is that hard for people who know how to use a computer?
If you have an ipod or are around family with ipods you will have to use itunes at some point to set it up or restore it. I actually found it harder to explain to my Mum and for everyone else I just put the music on the ipods. Amarok and GTKPOD are much better because you can quite happly put four ipods in it without one being a master. You can then copy the music off the ipod and put it on another one. All legally of course ;).
Although I am an amarok/gtkpod fan I found that the itunes shop was really nice until I remembered that it would be all drmd aac and prob wouldn't run on my nokia/windows mobile/laptop. This just put me right off the whole idea as I prob wouldnt even be able to give it to another family member to listen to like I would with a book. So I would rave on about something like freakonomics and then say go and buy it yourself hmmmmm. die die die drm
On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
you are correct, but don't expect anything but abuse here on slashdot. Apparently linux is the best O/S in the universe, despite the fact that 99% of people will actually choose to buy a more expensive O/S instead of using it.
Apparently, being able to go buy any piece of hardware, such as a digital camera, and plug it into your PC and the O/S work seamlessly with it, without any required updates, patches or problems, is not something that people want. they prefer an O/S where they have to know about recompiling kernels and other such geekery.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
This is a pretty good idea and the US constitution even gives the reason for it when it grants the government the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
That part, about promoting the progress of science and useful arts has been proved again and again to be bollocks. Monopolies don't create progress, they create stagnation, milking their money makers to the end, and then introducing a "new and shine" product which is basically the same with a different UI (see Office 2k7, Vista).
This has nothing to do with copyright being expanded above 20 years. Look back 20 years... That's 1988. That's Windows 2.1. No, not 3.1. Would it change a thing for Microsoft, if the copyright on Windows 2.1 expired this year? Would Windows 2.1 be any kind of competition to Vista? Enough to make them improve Vista one single bit?
No, it most likely won't even run on todays machines. It would be useless. 20 or 70 years, it doesn't make any difference. It's not about the timespan of "temporary", it's about "monopoly". A monopoly created by the government. Just like the phone companies used to be. Just like the entire Soviet Union used to be. It didn't create progress when applied to cars (Compare a Trabi to an Audi), and it doesn't create progress when applied to software.
In short: Monopolies don't create progress. Creating them "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is a load of bollocks.
Hey now, watch it buddy. 99% of people will BUY a more expensive OS than use Linux?
I beg to differ.
I'd say it's more like 97% to 98% will USE a more expensive OS, and about 15% will install a non-legal copy, 15% will buy a legal copy and install it, and the other 70% will get it with their Dell, HP, Everex, Gateway, Mac, etc.
Just thought I should clarify a little bit there.
Yes, I do have a machine with Linux on it, BTW. Works fine. I'm not in the majority on a few other things, either.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name