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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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."