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.
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 figured I could become a career pirate if I had a house boat...you know, sail around raping and pilaging yacht owners in the south pacific and eventually make it big by becoming friends with some pacific islanders who would band together and terrorize the sees around asia and india. I'd never have to worry about paying taxes or paying for anything since I could always sail away. Of course my wife mentioned we could be shot and of course attacked by pirates ourselves, but I'm sure my plan would work in the long run...
Ave Molech Setting
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.
Some of the programs targeted are referred to by the pirates as "repeat offender monopolist OSs".
... it's the year of Linux on the Desktop
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.
http://projectleader.wordpress.com
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)
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?
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.
Err... You must be new here. Here all things must be free, in both meanings, or some of the vocal few will rage. They're quite obsessed and if you don't agree you are just asking to get flamed. I wish you luck.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
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.
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.
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
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