Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:17 UTC
Windows Microsoft disclosed Monday that over one in five Windows installations were deemed non-genuine through the company's Windows Genuine Advantage program, which requires users to validate their operating system before downloading updates from the company. Since WGA launched in July 2005, over 512 million users have attempted to validate their copy of Windows, Microsoft said. Of those, the non-genuine rate was 22.3 percent. 56000 reports have been made by customers of counterfeit software, which grants that user a free replacement copy of Windows.
Order by: Score:
22%?
by Eugenia on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:26 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

Just 22%? In the non-developed countries (and the semi-developed ones), I would think that it's over 60%.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 22%?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:27 UTC in reply to "22%?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Underdeveloped countries barely have drinking water, let alone a computer. I would not be surprised if less then 3% of the world's computers is in Africa.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 22%?
by Eugenia on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I am not talking about countries that they don't have water Thom. I am talking about countries like Greece, where I have experience. Most people there, pirate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 22%?
by aGNUstic on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
aGNUstic Member since:
2005-07-28

You do know you are under the obligation to turn criminals in.

<evil grin>

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 22%?
by Ventajou on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
Ventajou Member since:
2006-10-31

Since when is Greece underdeveloped? What's your definition of the word? Is it any place other than the West Coast of the US?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: 22%?
by h3rman on Wed 24th Jan 2007 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 22%?"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Since when is Greece underdeveloped? What's your definition of the word? Is it any place other than the West Coast of the US?

More olives. ;)
By many standards, quite a few states in the US are developing countries too, BTW.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 22%?
by tacit_one on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
tacit_one Member since:
2005-12-09

Don't think you're completely right. There is China, India, Russia, Brasil and Eastern Europe. There are a lot of PCs there, and there are not so many licensed versions of Windows in these regions. I don't think that you will find even 15% of licensed versions.

Edited 2007-01-23 21:49

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 22%?
by FooBarWidget on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

What about countries like China and Philippines? They're not exactly underdeveloped countries. But from what I know, over 90% of the people in Philippines use pirated Windows XP, and they don't even seem to care that they can't install SP2.

Actually 22% surprised me a bit. It's surprisingly low. These days, PC vendors don't even give you the Windows install disk anymore, which almost forces people to pirate Windows if their Windows installation b0rked and they need to format and reinstall. In the past few years, everybody who came to me with a Windows problem said that they don't have the Windows CD.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: 22%?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not the Windows CD that matters. My Dell laptop came without a CD as well, but the license code is printed on the bottom of the laptop; I can install XP MEdia Center using any medium I want.

It's not the downloading of Windows that is piracy; it is installing it with an license key already in use by another user.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: 22%?
by grat on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 22%?"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

It's not the Windows CD that matters. My Dell laptop came without a CD as well, but the license code is printed on the bottom of the laptop; I can install XP MEdia Center using any medium I want.

Our campus agreement Windows CD's will *not* install with a Dell OEM cd-key, and vice versa.

Aside from that, what I want to know, is how many of those are machines which *are* genuine, but fail the WGA check?

The version of windows I install from is a pre-SP2 corporate CD (And yes, I'm licensed for it). It will not pass the WGA test until SP2 is installed.

Of course, getting SP2 without passing WGA is kinda entertaining. You have to download and install the network-admin version.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: 22%?
by rayoleary on Wed 24th Jan 2007 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 22%?"
rayoleary Member since:
2006-12-22

Volume license agreement Windows and "retail" Windows keys aren't interchangeable, if I recall correctly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: 22%?
by archiesteel on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 22%?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

It's not the downloading of Windows that is piracy; it is installing it with an license key already in use by another user.

Actually, that's not piracy either, that's breaking the EULA.

The act of piracy entails copy of the IP *and* its redistribution to a third party. So it's not piracy to download and install an illegal copy of Windows - it is, however, piracy to copy Windows and then distribute it to others.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: 22%?
by Wrawrat on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 22%?"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

We could debate on the semantics of the word for days (for instance, many people consider unauthorized distribution doesn't fit piracy, which involves goods rather than bits of information), yet I am pretty sure Microsoft or the BSA doesn't make a distinction between piracy, copyright infringement or non-respect of the EULA.

--

As for the statistics, some people are making the conclusion that 22.3% of the Windows copies out there are illegal, which is wrong.

Like the PR stated, 22.3% of the validated copies were deemed non-genuine. That's all you can conclude with the data. It doesn't take account of those who didn't tried validation or used valid keys in an illegal way. For instance, I know many people that managed to get their hands on a corporate key or installed a single copy of Windows XP on many computers.

Looks like they got some success with WGA, although 56000 piracy on the non-genuine lot isn't exactly impressive (0.049%). It certainly won't cover the cost of their WGA operation, without taking account of the bad reputation they are getting...

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: 22%?
by archiesteel on Wed 24th Jan 2007 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 22%?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

We could debate on the semantics of the word for days (for instance, many people consider unauthorized distribution doesn't fit piracy, which involves goods rather than bits of information),

Of course we could debate this, but it's not really a matter of interpretation - it's the law. The act of downloading in itself is not illegal, and the enforceability of EULAs is doubtful at best outside of a few american states, however it *is* illegal to distribute unauthorized copies of the software.

yet I am pretty sure Microsoft or the BSA doesn't make a distinction between piracy, copyright infringement or non-respect of the EULA.

They have to make that distinction...it's the law. Despite its vast resources, MS must still operate within a legal framework... :-)

Anyway, to get back on topic...I am quite surprised at the 22% figure myself. I honestly thought it was going to be higher. That said, there are lots of people who have older versions of Windows still installed (pre-XP SP2) and good number of "illegal" Windows users might not use Windows Updates at all (which is a bit scary in its own right).

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: 22%?
by B. Janssen on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

FooBarWidget: But from what I know, over 90% of the people in Philippines use pirated Windows XP, and they don't even seem to care that they can't install SP2.

I'm surprised that this "you can't install SP2" myth is still around. You can install SP2 on pirated MS Windows XP copies, MS said so themselves. And you won't get noticed, because the WGA patch is not part of SP2, it came later. Having a pirated MS Windows XP copy is no excuse to not annoy us with your spambot host.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: 22%?
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 22%?"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

I'm surprised that this "you can't install SP2" myth is still around. You can install SP2 on pirated MS Windows XP copies, MS said so themselves. And you won't get noticed, because the WGA patch is not part of SP2, it came later. Having a pirated MS Windows XP copy is no excuse to not annoy us with your spambot host.

Not if you are using one of the original pirated XP keys you can't, I know a guy who was stuck with SP2 failing to install due to his questionable key. (not that I care that a software pirate couldn't install an update)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 22%?
by makc on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 22%?"
makc Member since:
2006-01-11

You can change the registration key after install...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 22%?
by DrillSgt on Wed 24th Jan 2007 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"In the past few years, everybody who came to me with a Windows problem said that they don't have the Windows CD."

I have run into the same problem, though after researching I found out that the people didn't bother to keep the CD, not they never had one. They threw it out with the manuals they didn't bother to read.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 22%?
by Barnabyh on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

Have you been to Africa? There's computers everywhere you go and as many internet cafes as in Western Europe, albeit quite often in roadside shacks and with donated computers from Universities over here but that's just the outside.
Some are well equipped with flat screens, webcams, mic and headsets as standard on their 25 or so machines. Yes, I was surprised too.
(Fun when the power cuts out, but that's happening here more and more as well. Had my second outage in six months yesterday and this one lasted over two hours, in cosmopolitan London. They seem to be better equipped for things like this over there.)

Edited 2007-01-23 22:54

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 22%?
by Vinegar Joe on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

Thom.....you need to get out in the world some. The Dutch are the ones begging for high tech investment from countries like Taiwan.......and Taiwan is not 3rd world.....but neither does it have clean drinking water. The odds are your computer was built by Taiwanese.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 22%?
by rayoleary on Wed 24th Jan 2007 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
rayoleary Member since:
2006-12-22

Wow, what a dismissive attitude. Thom, I'm sure by some measurements you could be considered under-developed (hint, grammar), or the Dutch sense of humility could be considered under-developed, but that doesn't make you an idiot or the Netherlands a country of arrogant smug gits, does it? Similarly, countries can be under-developed and still have such astonishing developments as clean drinking water, the wheel, telephones and <gasp> computers.

Don't be such a snotty asshole.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: 22%?
by raver31 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 08:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I would not say Thom was an idiot, for that, we need more proof, hehehe

However, I concur with the general Dutch attitude. They are arrogant. We have a lot of them that work with us, sometimes this arrogance is required, but other times it is just annoying.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 22%?
by microFawad on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:34 UTC in reply to "22%?"
microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

Yeah! You are right. People in third world countries don't care for piracy. I myself have seen this. They say why should we pay hundreds of dollars if we are getting it for just 2 or 3 dollars. lol

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 22%?
by justin.68 on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
justin.68 Member since:
2006-09-16

Theoretically, software piracy may hit as high as 80%, but MS did their job too well this once: Vista is so resource-hungry that in less developed countries it's no good trying to get an illegal copy of the OS, because there's hardly anybody who can afford the hardware that can run it. ;-P

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: 22%?
by Ventajou on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
Ventajou Member since:
2006-10-31

They're already pirates, all they need to do is attack a container ship full of new PCs traveling from China to Europe... ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 22%?
by Soulbender on Wed 24th Jan 2007 07:07 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"They say why should we pay hundreds of dollars if we are getting it for just 2 or 3 dollars."

Especially when, as is common, $100 is a significant chunk of your monthly salary. While $100 may still be a bit painfull to pay if you live in Europe or U.S it won't leave you broke.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: 22%?
by dtiziani on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
RE: 22%?
by Priest on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:45 UTC in reply to "22%?"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

22% of the people who tried to get past Microsofts Windows validation tool had pirate copies anyway.

I suspect there is a large install base of pirate copies who decided not to try running the validation software.

So the actual number likely is higher.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: 22%?
by progster on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
progster Member since:
2005-07-27

not to mention the number of pirate copies that get around the genuine check (a couple of my friends do this). So I believe the actual number of pirate copies will be quite a lot higher

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: 22%?
by zerohalo on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
zerohalo Member since:
2005-07-26

I agree. 22% is too low to be true. Maybe in the US, but not other countries, as others have pointed out. In countries I've been to you'd be hardpressed to find someone with a genuine copy. Of course if you buy from Dell or HP in those countries you'll get it, but a lot of people buy computers from local computer stores that put pirated copies on themselves. And when it comes to upgrades, forget it; no one buys them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 22%?
by Charles A Landemaine on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:47 UTC in reply to "22%?"
Charles A Landemaine Member since:
2005-11-11

In Brazil, there's a computer in almost every house and office. Virtually all computers are pirated. The only case where Windows is genuine is in medium-size and large companies. So, there are millions of pirated copies. Small computer stores even sell computers with a free copy of Windows. You can buy CD-ROMs of popular software such as Windows Vista for $5 in the street.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 22%?
by mark_in_rdjbrasil on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: 22%?"
mark_in_rdjbrasil Member since:
2005-11-30

charles, where are you in brazil ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 22%?
by Joe User on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

In Russia you can get windows DVD's for cheaper.

Edited 2007-01-24 13:35

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: 22%?
by sbergman27 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 22%?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
In Russia you can get windows DVD's for cheaper.
"""

In Soviet Russia, the Windows DVDs get you!

Sorry, guys...

Really! ;-)

Edited 2007-01-24 17:33

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 22%?
by bsdnewbieee on Wed 24th Jan 2007 02:25 UTC in reply to "22%?"
bsdnewbieee Member since:
2007-01-24

I think it's aobut 50% or more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 22%?
by ma_d on Wed 24th Jan 2007 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22%?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I strongly doubt that. I think 50% of desktop computers are probably business based, and I doubt they have higher than a 10% piracy rate (the major players just can't get away with much piracy there, and the little guys are comparatively ... little).

And in the home most people buy Windows from Dell or a big box store. The little retails stores occasionally pirate and occasionally they're completely honest about their use of Windows. I happened to work in one that did the latter, and we were carefully told what you could and couldn't do with a Windows license.

Most users with the know-how to pirate make up a small percentage.

Now that's all in the US. I'd guess that US piracy is far lower than 22%. Maybe places where you can actually purchase pirated copies (from a distributor, not your friend) have a higher rate? But I bet a lot of those computers never get online!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: 22%?
by DrillSgt on Wed 24th Jan 2007 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 22%?"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"strongly doubt that. I think 50% of desktop computers are probably business based, and I doubt they have higher than a 10% piracy rate (the major players just can't get away with much piracy there, and the little guys are comparatively ... little). "

I agree on the point of piracy being extremely low in business. As for the 50% of all desktop computers being business based, that I don't agree with. In most businesses each employee has 1 computer to work on, with a few exceptions. In Census records the average home in the US has 3 computers in use by the family. Those are not business desktops, but consumer desktops.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 22%?
by dsfsdfsdfsdfsdfsd on Wed 24th Jan 2007 08:34 UTC in reply to "22%?"
dsfsdfsdfsdfsdfsd Member since:
2007-01-19

22%? Just a *little* optimistic wouldn't you say?

Reply Score: 2

RE: 22%?
by mark_in_rdjbrasil on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:09 UTC in reply to "22%?"
mark_in_rdjbrasil Member since:
2005-11-30

ok, here is my pointless example. i am doing this comment on my wifes' pirated copy of xp professional with portuguese language. but, all i care about is the official copy of firefox 2 with english language that allows me to browse this website, or distrowatch, cnn, etc. etc. etc.

Reply Score: 1

22% ?
by gregf on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:43 UTC
gregf
Member since:
2006-06-23

Everyone knew this was coming so let's get it over with... 20% of Non-Genuine installs are actually legal copies. 2% of Non-Genuine are pirated copies. Enjoy!

Reply Score: 3

RE: 22% ?
by Mathman on Wed 24th Jan 2007 03:24 UTC in reply to "22% ?"
Mathman Member since:
2005-07-08

2%? I don't buy it. Well, sure. Maybe. But I don't buy it. But then here I'm a guy that would argue that I can't even prove you exist! So there you go. Or maybe I should make that clearer? I'd like to see a copy of the study that has those figures you came up with.

At any rate let me put it this way, and mind you this is going to be a very limited sample size I'm going on, but everyone, everyone I've ever known that has merely owned a computer, has pirated software. And certainly more than 2% of the people I've known have pirated Windows at some point in their lives. Probably more like 95% of the people I've known. Or at the very least, let's give them all the benefit of the doubt and say they've at least had a friend that installed a pirated copy of Windows for them.

Of course the point is, the sample size and various other factors regarding any statistics you throw at me are going to affect those statistics quite a bit (Sorry to everyone if this is review, but the fact we're even having this means it's at least review for gregf. Or did I just blow my humor roll? Some how I doubt it).

Or what is it that gregf is saying? At any given time 2% of the people on this planet pirate Windows? Perhaps. I'd still like to see the study. The article says 35%.

But then let's define pirating Windows. Maybe that's where the problem lies. Is it pirating Windows when you install the copy you've bought on two different computers you own, even though the license tells you you're not supposed to? Have you ever done that gregf? I'm curious. How about on a friend's computer? Or how about if I merely gave my friend a copy of a tape I own? Or better yet a mixture of my favorite songs, some off of television, some the radio, other on cds I own, others tapes, and still others the internet. Is that pirating? Perhaps. So where do we draw the line?

Edited 2007-01-24 03:33

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 22% ?
by gregf on Wed 24th Jan 2007 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE: 22% ?"
gregf Member since:
2006-06-23

Why did you take my so serious? It was clearly a joke.....

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 22% ?
by Mathman on Wed 24th Jan 2007 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 22% ?"
Mathman Member since:
2005-07-08

Guess I did blow my humor roll then.

Reply Score: 1

cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

I guess piracy is not an excuse to the high prices.

Reply Score: 4

Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Full ack. Piracy is a morons way to think.

Reply Score: 0

vlado Member since:
2005-10-26

In this case I would recommend an alternate validation address: http://www.debian.org/

Reply Score: 1

I live in a 3rd world country ...
by dcibils on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:53 UTC
dcibils
Member since:
2005-12-28

We have plenty of water...

And I cant tell you that 99% of the software sold is pirated.

Non-brand PCs are sold with "non genuine" Windows, Office and any other software you want at no extra cost.

Eveyone is used to download software over p2p networks. Let alone the movies and music!

Here it's just non-sense to buy software ... really!

Reply Score: 4

That's probably low
by Dubbayoo on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:54 UTC
Dubbayoo
Member since:
2006-02-09

If you KNOW your copy is pirated are you even likely to try using WGA?

Reply Score: 5

RE: That's probably low
by Touvan on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:33 UTC in reply to "That's probably low"
Touvan Member since:
2006-09-01

There are situations where you can trip over it, without even realizing it before hand.

I think what will be interesting to see, is if Microsoft keeps adding more and more nag/cripple-ware, will users pony up or will they move to a new platform.

Maybe these stats show proof that people don't want to shell out the cash for Windows. And the truth is, there are free (as in beer) platforms that for most people will work out of the box (well almost, it's getting there) as a suitable replacement.

It'll be interesting to see which way people go. I'm thinking they'll go Ubuntu, or similar (over the long haul, not in the next few months, or even the next few years).

Just to go a bit off topic, I wonder what percentage of these users are gamers or hardware enthusiasts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: That's probably low
by DrillSgt on Wed 24th Jan 2007 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: That's probably low"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Maybe these stats show proof that people don't want to shell out the cash for Windows. And the truth is, there are free (as in beer) platforms that for most people will work out of the box (well almost, it's getting there) as a suitable replacement."


These stats do show that people do not want to shell out the cash. As for there being free as in beer distros out there that will suit most people's needs, wouldn't they be using them instead of stealing Windows? That alone kind of says that the free as in beer stuff does NOT suit the average persons needs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: That's probably low
by raver31 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's probably low"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

That alone kind of says that the free as in beer stuff does NOT suit the average persons needs.

It does not, there are still a lot of simple people who have the idea that if something is free it is crap, but if it is expensive, then it must be worth stealing.

Why should these thieves try something for free when they can get the pleasure of stealing, then feeling smug that they got something for free, that I and maybe you paid good money for ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's probably low
by gfx1 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 09:17 UTC in reply to "That's probably low"
gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

It's not if you have a choice, if you want to update something windows is pushing wga in your face.

And I know people who paid for a legal windows who run a copy because the original one got hosed by viruses.
Or the orignal version didn't want to install anymore or was as usual (oem) delivered without an install cd but on harddisk only and they could figure out to retrieve that one.

Reply Score: 1

Thanks
by merkoth on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:54 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

Here, in Argentina, we have water to drink, food to eat, and a hell of piracy. It's not about not being able to pay for the thing, its about not willing to pay it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Thanks
by Doc Pain on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:05 UTC in reply to "Thanks"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"It's not about not being able to pay for the thing, its about not willing to pay it."

I'm from Germany and can confirm this for my country. People just don't care about it. They know someone who installs "Windows" for them and don't care where the media, the registration key or the license comes from. Paying for software? For something you can't touch? Silly idea. :-) People have no problem for using pirated software as long as it is for free and someone does the "registration tricks" for them.

Reply Score: 4

MS is a swell company!
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:06 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

So 22% of the users are cause for MS to put close to 80% of its legit customers through the PITA that is WGA.

What a nice way to treat your paying users, like criminals!

It seems all MS is good at these days is figuring out better ways to squeeze every penny out of their users.

I hope it dosen't surprise them when the exodus of users to other operating systems picks up more steam as time goes on.

Reply Score: 5

RE: MS is a swell company!
by Jon Dough on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "MS is a swell company!"
Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

So 22% of the users are cause for MS to put close to 80% of its legit customers through the PITA that is WGA.

If you were trying to make a living selling a product, and people stole 22% of said product, wouldn't you take some major steps to prevent the theft of said product? I certainly would.

For those who don't understand, piracy == stealing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: MS is a swell company!
by nevali on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is a swell company!"
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

If you were trying to make a living selling a product, and people stole 22% of said product, wouldn't you take some major steps to prevent the theft of said product? I certainly would.

For those who don't understand, piracy == stealing.


For those who don't understand, copyright infringement and theft are two completely different types of illegality, covered by completely different types of law, and have completely different effects. If you steal something, you take it from them: you remove it from their possession and they no longer have it. That does not apply to copyright infringement. How many people who run pirated copies of Windows would have actually paid for it if they were somehow prevented from it? Businesses, more than likely (and there are plenty of legal instruments protecting software developers from them). Consumers? Not remotely so likely.

Priacy != stealing. They're both against the law, but they're not by any means equivalent. To claim otherwise is blatant misrepresentation; the same patronising hyperbole that rubs legitimate consumers of the movie and record industries on a regular basis.

If you make your living from software and piracy such a big problem for you, perhaps you ought to be asking yourself why people aren't willing to pay for your work.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: MS is a swell company!
by Jon Dough on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MS is a swell company!"
Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

Your arguments sound a lot like the ones I've read in many posts & blogs by those who don't see a thing wrong with piracy.

But, hey, whatever. The end result is the same; the law and/or lawyers are gonna come knockin'.

If ya don't wanna pay for software, there are plenty of free-of-charge solutions out there that, in my and many people's opinion, are as good or better than fee-based software solutions.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: MS is a swell company!
by ma_d on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MS is a swell company!"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Please find another forum to insult people on. Nothing he said calls for you referring to him as a software pirate.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: MS is a swell company!
by archiesteel on Wed 24th Jan 2007 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MS is a swell company!"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Your arguments sound a lot like the ones I've read in many posts & blogs by those who don't see a thing wrong with piracy.

I disagree. I am totally opposed to piracy (for one, if MS chose to enforce its anti-piracy efforts further it would convince more people to use Linux). I don't pirate software, games, music or movies. Still, I can make the difference between theft and piracy, and understand that the two are not the same thing.

I am also opposed to DRM because I don't think that content providers can win this battle by a) trying to lock down the whole hardware/software stack and b) treating their customers like criminals.

Things aren't as black-and-white as the RIAA and the MPAA would like us to believe.

Reply Score: 4

also opposed to DRM
by cjcoats on Wed 24th Jan 2007 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MS is a swell company!"
cjcoats Member since:
2006-04-16

NOTE: The following is US-only.

I am opposed to DRM (and DRM-enforcement laws) because
DRM is itself illegal.

In the US, the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and in Article 1 Section 9, it mandates that IP protections must be "for limited times." Since DRM never expires, it is itself illegal, as are Congressional actions like the DMCA that try to enforce it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: also opposed to DRM
by archiesteel on Wed 24th Jan 2007 17:38 UTC in reply to "also opposed to DRM"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

In the US, the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and in Article 1 Section 9, it mandates that IP protections must be "for limited times." Since DRM never expires, it is itself illegal, as are Congressional actions like the DMCA that try to enforce it.

That is a very good point, and one that needs repeating.

Reply Score: 2

RE: also opposed to DRM
by MollyC on Wed 24th Jan 2007 20:47 UTC in reply to "also opposed to DRM"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"I am opposed to DRM (and DRM-enforcement laws) because
DRM is itself illegal.

In the US, the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and in Article 1 Section 9, it mandates that IP protections must be "for limited times." Since DRM never expires, it is itself illegal, as are Congressional actions like the DMCA that try to enforce it."


I think you're referring to Article 1 Secion 8 (not Section 9)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#...
"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;"

I don't think it makes DRM illegal. It rather makes copyright and patents non-permanent. So, after the copyright expired you'd then be in your rights to break DRM and do what you want with the resulting non-DRM content.

There's nothing in the Constution that would prevent me from writing a story and encrypting it and never disclosing the decryption key, or only disclosing it to those who I want to (e.g. friends, family, or whoever wants to pay for that key). Because it's me doing that as a private citizen. But the govt will only recognize the copyright on my work for a "limited time" (whatever the copyright laws happen to specify at that time). And after the "limited time" someone would be free to distribute my work in unencrypted form (if they can decrypt it (perhaps they were one of those to whom I had given the decryption key)). But that doesn't mean I have to disclose my decryption key to anyone I don't want to.

If you disagree, find a lawyer and take it to the Supreme Court.

Edited 2007-01-24 20:52

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: MS is a swell company!
by bolomkxxviii on Wed 24th Jan 2007 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MS is a swell company!"
bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

So registering with MS is not a PITA? Practically every PC bought in the US already comes with windows installed and PAID for (just try and purchase a complete computer [intel/AMD] without an OS). I decide I want to play some new game on my computer. It needs a new video card and a bigger hard drive to do so. Please MS, can I use my computer again. I promise I only upgraded the box that came with the license. Thank you for the right to use MY computer again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: MS is a swell company!
by tomcat on Wed 24th Jan 2007 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MS is a swell company!"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

For those who don't understand, copyright infringement and theft are two completely different types of illegality, covered by completely different types of law, and have completely different effects. If you steal something, you take it from them: you remove it from their possession and they no longer have it. That does not apply to copyright infringement.

That's not really true. Copyright infringement effectively devalues a product because the product now has to compete against copies of itself, many of which are sold far below the price of the original product. So, consequently, it has the same affect as theft (ie. reducing/eliminating profit).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: MS is a swell company!
by h3rman on Wed 24th Jan 2007 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MS is a swell company!"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Copyright infringement effectively devalues a product because the product now has to compete against copies of itself, many of which are sold far below the price of the original product. So, consequently, it has the same affect as theft (ie. reducing/eliminating profit).

I can see you're not an economist.
Physical theft of a product increases the value of that product in the market, and/or is due to this value. Producers of goods love it when their products are stolen (ok, after sales ;) ). It means people want to have it.

Anyway, since MS thanks its marketshare partly to "piracy", and since it has deals with virtually every larger OEM on the planet, "piracy" is a victimless "crime" here.

As far as I'm concerned, for every Linux/BSD/etc user that tossed Windows off a new machine that had it preinstalled (without getting the money back), one random other person may freely use an "illegal" copy of Windows. It's been paid for. So bring down that "22%" once again.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: MS is a swell company!
by tomcat on Wed 24th Jan 2007 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MS is a swell company!"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Physical theft of a product increases the value of that product in the market, and/or is due to this value. Producers of goods love it when their products are stolen (ok, after sales ;) ). It means people want to have it.

First, you're confusing "theft" with "demand". They aren't the same. Demand within a marketplace isn't changed by a theft. It's an independent variable. Demand may increase or even decrease. For example, insurance companies publish a list of cars that are most often stolen by car thieves. Some consumers may look at that data and conclude that greater potential for car theft ISN'T a good thing -- and demand may decrease for that model.

Second, when a product is stolen, it is usually resold at a lower price. That's a necessity for thieves because they can't exactly sell their ill-gotten goods through legitimate outlets. Thieves may sell the goods on a street corner or a flea market or eBay. Either way, whoever buys the product is going to pay less than they would if they bought it from a legitimate source. So, how does that affect the producer? Easy: It's negative, because the producer's existing products have to compete against an artifically-lower-priced product. If there are enough stolen goods in the pipeline, many consumers will have ZERO incentive to purchase legitimate products.

The same holds true for copyrighted goods. If consumers can acquire the copyrighted goods for substantially less due to piracy, it harms the producer. You can dress that up any way you like, but it's true.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: MS is a swell company!
by h3rman on Wed 24th Jan 2007 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: MS is a swell company!"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Thieves may sell the goods on a street corner or a flea market or eBay. Either way, whoever buys the product is going to pay less than they would if they bought it from a legitimate source. So, how does that affect the producer? Easy: It's negative, because the producer's existing products have to compete against an artifically-lower-priced product.

Positive, because the person stolen from will buy a new one, which wasn't what he or she planned to do. Insurers pay. And stolen products often go places where people may never buy the real stuff for the real price.
These mechanisms are well-described in the economy of theft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: MS is a swell company!
by ari-free on Wed 24th Jan 2007 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MS is a swell company!"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

piracy may have helped with Windows domination just as making Internet Explorer free knocked out Netscape, but now that it has the market locked up, they want to make money from it.

Every new linux/openoffice user means fewer customers for Vista and Microsoft apps. of course, if they get a new pc they will get vista that way

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: MS is a swell company!
by nevali on Wed 24th Jan 2007 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: MS is a swell company!"
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

That's not really true. Copyright infringement effectively devalues a product because the product now has to compete against copies of itself, many of which are sold far below the price of the original product. So, consequently, it has the same affect as theft (ie. reducing/eliminating profit).

Ehh, you're equating a possible (and it's very theoretical: the numbers do swing both ways depending upon your reading) devaluation with an absolute deprivation.

When I said 'completely different', it wasn't for kicks. It's apples and oranges in almost every sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: MS is a swell company!
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is a swell company!"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

If you were trying to make a living selling a product, and people stole 22% of said product, wouldn't you take some major steps to prevent the theft of said product? I certainly would.

Been there and what I've learned is that its a fine line between getting some lost revenue back and alienating your long time supporters.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: MS is a swell company!
by elsewhere on Wed 24th Jan 2007 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MS is a swell company!"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Been there and what I've learned is that its a fine line between getting some lost revenue back and alienating your long time supporters.

Agreed. I had a buddy that worked at Adobe a few years back, and we'd get on this topic. He'd brag about being the market leader, I'd challenge him on how many users actually paid for their copies of Photoshop or Acrobat (full product, not reader).

He basically said they were well aware that a high volume of users were using illegitimate copies. They didn't really care because these casual users didn't represent a revenue loss since they were highly unlikely to purchase a copy even if they had no other alternative. The interesting side effect is that it helps reinforce the dominance of the product (think about all the people who pipe up and brag about how superior photoshop is to something like the Gimp, and wonder how many of those people actually shelled out $500 for a copy). Software isn't like a Rolex watch, where you need exclusivity to justify the price select customers capable of paying are willing to pay; quite the opposite, you often need to establish brand dominance and de facto market leadership to ensure customers capable of paying are willing to pay.

The people Adobe cares about are the professional users, and they're the ones that will be policed because they're the ones that do represent a potential revenue loss when using unlicensed copies. They're the ones that Adobe will focus their efforts on enforcement, including legal action when possible.

As for the kids downloading warez, Adobe doesn't care. They'll make the software difficult enough to install without a reg key to discourage casual sharing but won't expend massive engineering efforts to hamper it, particularly if it impacts the ability of legitimate users to use the product conveniently.

It makes sense, because it seems to me that you hit a point where the enforcement mechanisms become so complex and obtrusive that they yield a questionable return against true potential revenue loss (as opposed to the perceived revenue loss determined by simply attaching a dollar value to every illegitimate copy out there, which is flawed logic that the manufacturers/RIAA/MPAA et al. like to fall back on to get their point across).

People have been illegally copying software since the day companies first started charging for software. Microsoft's dominance in the early days was even built on "pirated" copies, who actually paid for copies of DOS, or Win 3.1, or MS Office 95? Only the corporates did, everybody else copied from their work versions. Nothing will change, and expending more and more effort on stemming that will ultimately result in an ever diminishing return.

It's a balancing act between protecting your own business interests and serving your customers, and an important part of it is charging a price that is no greater than the price your customers are willing or able to bear; human nature is human nature, and people will be less likely to steal if they feel the asking price represents fair value lest they consciously rationalize unlicensed software as an equivalent response to "corporate greed". Doesn't make it right, of course, but it's something for companies to think about regardless. I remember reading about a university study a few years back to the effect that within a random sample group, there were consistent price points at which the vast majority would choose to legitimately purchase rather than "acquire" various types of software based on their personal perceived value / return equations, and those prices rose, more and more felt justified in taking the software for free since they didn't perceive it as being a loss to the vendor, a soft-crime basically. Can't remember the exact details on the study, but the results stuck in my mind.

What will be interesting to see is how resilient the new activation mechanism will be in Vista. Microsoft has every right to ensure they're receiving as much revenue as possible, and the gamble to brand reputation, public relations and customer service is theirs alone to take. There were a number of reported issues with false positives in WGA, so what are the potential customer service liabilities now? Will home users run the risk of having their copy trip a false positive and shut down? What about if corporate keys become unwittingly cracked, will enterprises find their workstations shutting down? Hope for Microsoft's customers' sake that they've really got this process well thought out.

And I hope for Linux's sake that they don't. ;)

ps. Before anyone replies back complaining about Adobe this or that, I should point out that my aforementioned buddy hasn't worked at Adobe for a while, since before the Macromedia acquisition anyways; maybe they've had a change of heart, I don't use Adobe software at home or work so don't know if anything's different now. Nevertheless, that's not really the point, I was just presenting their perspective as a counter to Microsoft's approach.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: MS is a swell company!
by CowMan on Wed 24th Jan 2007 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is a swell company!"
CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

But those 22% don't represent a material loss. More like someone rips off your great shirt-idea. But 78% are still paying you.

That's nearly an 'A' average.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: MS is a swell company!
by archiesteel on Wed 24th Jan 2007 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is a swell company!"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

For those who don't understand, piracy == stealing.

Actually, no. As others have pointed out before, piracy is *not* stealing, it is copyright infringement. The two crimes are totally different from a legal point of view. It doesn't do anyone any good to muddle these issues further.

Reply Score: 3

RE: MS is a swell company!
by jwhazel on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:27 UTC in reply to "MS is a swell company!"
jwhazel Member since:
2005-10-07

>So 22% of the users are cause for MS to put close to 80% of its legit customers through the PITA that is WGA.

So your suggestion is to remove WGA so the number of pirate copies can be even higher? I'm sure that right now MS execs are in a chopper on their way to your house to pick your brain about your brilliant marketing strategies.

>What a nice way to treat your paying users, like criminals!

You really hit the head on the nail of that one. I feel like a criminal everytime I have to take an extra 10 seconds out of my life to hit that "validate" button when I install a new copy of XP. You know, out of all of the things that I could complain about with windows, having to validate it is by far the least of my troubles.

>It seems all MS is good at these days is figuring out better ways to squeeze every penny out of their users.

So please explain to me how WGA "squeezes money" out of paying customers? It squeezes money out of non paying customers. A pretty good idea IMO. I hate the thought that I have to pay for my software while others are getting it for free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: MS is a swell company!
by Barnabyh on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is a swell company!"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

"You really hit the head on the nail of that one. I feel like a criminal everytime I have to take an extra 10 seconds out of my life to hit that "validate" button when I install a new copy of XP. You know, out of all of the things that I could complain about with windows, having to validate it is by far the least of my troubles. "

You won't know what you've missed until you've tried it: Freedom!

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: MS is a swell company!
by BluenoseJake on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MS is a swell company!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

WGA is no big deal, it's not immoral to ask for people to pay for your product, and WGA works ok, it has never stopped me from doing anything once, even using Firefox, so grow up a bit, it is only a big deal if you stole Windows and it fails WGA, otherwise, worse case, you spend 5 minutes on the phone, and you're done

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: MS is a swell company!
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is a swell company!"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

So your suggestion is to remove WGA so the number of pirate copies can be even higher? I'm sure that right now MS execs are in a chopper on their way to your house to pick your brain about your brilliant marketing strategies.

Yes I'd remove it and treat my paying customers with a little respect.

You really hit the head on the nail of that one. I feel like a criminal everytime I have to take an extra 10 seconds out of my life to hit that "validate" button when I install a new copy of XP. You know, out of all of the things that I could complain about with windows, having to validate it is by far the least of my troubles.

The extra 10 seconds is fine, when it WORKS or you haven't moved to new hardware too many times.

I had an XP Home edition, installed it apparently one too many times on my laptop (not my fault the OS is a freakin' magnet for malware) and then was told I had to call someone on the phone to get it activated, this == hassle in my book.

Or the time when a family member of mine with a legit OEM copy of XP that shipped with his HP laptop suddenly started failing WGA and was re-directed to a nice red IE window that said "This copy of windiws is not genuine". He felt great after all the money he spent.

So please explain to me how WGA "squeezes money" out of paying customers? It squeezes money out of non paying customers. A pretty good idea IMO. I hate the thought that I have to pay for my software while others are getting it for free.

The only reason they are advertising this information is to sell you on even more activation hoops you'll soon be jumping through. Thats what I mean by squeezing you. Maybe my wording was a bit off, I should have said they are always thinking of new ways to squeeze their paying users with new fangled 'activation' schemes or 'checkpoints' to pass just to continue using the software.

With every release of Windows the price goes up and you have to jump through more hoops than the last time just to get the OS installed on your hardware. Thats a fact.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: MS is a swell company!
by atsureki on Wed 24th Jan 2007 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE: MS is a swell company!"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

So your suggestion is to remove WGA so the number of pirate copies can be even higher?

Pirates will be pirates. They'll get their copies no matter what. I'm sure some proportion of Windows users has folded and decided to buy the box, but by the time Microsoft gets to where it wants and needs to be to poison the root (=machine won't even boot without calling home), you'll probably be complaining, too.

I feel like a criminal everytime I have to take an extra 10 seconds out of my life to hit that "validate" button when I install a new copy of XP.

When it works, and the more it works, the worse it'll get. They're working the bugs out inch by inch so they can finally take that mile.

Everyone's heard a dozen stories of legitimate copies failing to activate, but I have a different issue. I only need one copy of Windows, on the machine I use to play games. I should be able to use the license that I bought with my Compaq laptop on that machine, since I don't need it on the laptop. Am I allowed to do that? Of course not. They'd rather take more of my money instead.

Generally speaking, a pirated copy is more flexible and reliable than the fabled Genuine Advantage. Microsoft is treating you like a criminal by not trusting you to make ethical use of your license(s). Instead, they use their resources to come up with schemes like creating a bunch of unique hashes to marry your license to your hardware, because lord knows you'll never get a new games machine and turn the old one into a Linux server, and buying a new version of their software and trying to move the old one to different hardware is clearly high seas piracy. I don't buy Microsoft products because they kill the one great advantage of PC hardware: a flexible upgrade path.

So please explain to me how WGA "squeezes money" out of paying customers?

Apart from the example above of the grievous offense that is non-transferrable licenses, there's the fact that not everyone fights the system. Guy who doesn't know much about computers gets a WGA notification, takes it to Geek Squad, employee says he needs to buy Windows, so he does. Sale under false pretenses. There was a license behind that copy all along; Microsoft's Minority Report server just didn't think so.

I read Microsoft.com's page about failed genuinifications a couple weeks ago and found the one in five statistic pretty amusing. I wonder if they counted when I tried to get that file I needed for school from my MacBook. What a shock, OS X isn't a genuine copy of Windows, and Safari failed to run the ActiveX control, so Microsoft won't help me out with the class I'm required to take to learn about their product. Anyway, one of the top reasons Microsoft.com gives for false negatives is the repair shop replacing something. Hardware components fail. Selling something permanent (software) and binding it to something temporary (hardware) should be illegal.

Reply Score: 3

RE: MS is a swell company!
by MollyC on Wed 24th Jan 2007 00:10 UTC in reply to "MS is a swell company!"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"So 22% of the users are cause for MS to put close to 80% of its legit customers through the PITA that is WGA.

What a nice way to treat your paying users, like criminals! "


And the shoplifting rate at a retail store is probably less than 5%, yet everyone suffers the indignity of having to pass through scanners at the entrance/exit.

And it must *really* piss you off to actually have to display a ticket to the movie attendent when entering a theater. Or a ballgame, plane, ferry, etc. After all, someone demanding to see your ticket is the same as treating you like a criminal, right?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: MS is a swell company!
by Bit_Rapist on Wed 24th Jan 2007 00:33 UTC in reply to "MS is a swell company!"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

And it must *really* piss you off to actually have to display a ticket to the movie attendent when entering a theater. Or a ballgame, plane, ferry, etc. After all, someone demanding to see your ticket is the same as treating you like a criminal, right?

I'd be cool if they checked one time and that was it, but it does not work like that, they check everytime you download something and with Vista they check every so many months. There is no one time check like your examples.

Yes I'd be pissed off if in the middle of watching a movie they came in to validate my ticket and make sure I was still 'legit' to be in the theatre.

Reply Score: 5

Ratios
by Buck on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:11 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

1 to 5? I was expecting 5 to 1 honestly.
And it's a sure sign, where there's rampant piracy going on, something must be fixed - either the price is too big for what's being offered, or the product is inferior or creates inconveniences for the user (registration process for example), or something else.
I believe if you market it right the piracy would be as low as it gets. So much in contrast with breaking into homes/offices to check if you have a genuine version of software or not. Not gonna work, that.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ratios
by MollyC on Wed 24th Jan 2007 00:05 UTC in reply to "Ratios"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

1 to 3.5, actually.

And the piracy rate is probably where Microsoft thinks they can bring in the most money. You seem to suggest lowering prices, but the resultant lower profit margin wouldn't be made up by the resultant cut in the piracy rate. You plot a price vs profit graph that takes piracy into account, and you try to pick the pricepoint that brings in the most revenue.

Also, a healthy piracy rate keeps down Linux and the like, as the "free as in beer" advantage is eliminated.

Reply Score: 2

so...
by broken_symlink on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:16 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

what does that mean, "a free replacement copy of Windows."? do you a get a free cd in the mail and a bill for $300?

Reply Score: 1

RE: so...
by GhePeU on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:25 UTC in reply to "so..."
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it's something like "you denounce the dishonest vendor who sold you the computer with the pirate copy of Windows, we give you a free legal copy."

Reply Score: 2

RE: so...
by zerohalo on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:32 UTC in reply to "so..."
zerohalo Member since:
2005-07-26

probably a free 30-day trial version :-P

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: so...
by ma_d on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE: so..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

But you already have that.

Reply Score: 2

I was back in Bulgaria for a month
by malkia on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:50 UTC
malkia
Member since:
2005-07-17

And the local ISP's were trying to lure customers with lucrative ftp-sites containing tons of illegal software (our games included - i work for Activision).

The only one company - BTK (I'm talking only for the city of Burgas), a new player on the ISP market doesn't do that.

So yes - illegal software is huge back in my country...

Reply Score: 1

excessmind Member since:
2006-09-11

Your information is very old. There aren't any ftp sites anymore. The old FTPs are masked as torrent users on the largest torrent sites. So everybody uses torrents now. You can find everything there just hours after the release, sometimes even earlier.
BTK is offering the most expensive internet (combined with 1-2 years contract) in the whole country, so it isn't much of a choice.
And piracy (or EULA breaking) is big. The government is making stupid PR campaigns against piracy, losing taxpayers money, and losing money again buying Microsoft products, which they don't need.
We are a small country, we cannot afford expensive software, this is true. And yet the government is buying it, with my money (because I pay taxes too) instead of promoting the use of free software. But they would not reach people's minds, when thet tell them "You are pirates". Yes, we know, we are. We just don't know other way. Or the majority of us don't.

Reply Score: 1

At what point is enough enough?
by zombie process on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:57 UTC
zombie process
Member since:
2005-07-08

Microsoft is obviously not suffering financially. When does a desire to protect your IP become greed? I'd say their plans for trusted computing and the future of WGA have crossed that line.

Reply Score: 1

RE: At what point is enough enough?
by tomcat on Wed 24th Jan 2007 18:02 UTC in reply to "At what point is enough enough?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Microsoft is obviously not suffering financially. When does a desire to protect your IP become greed? I'd say their plans for trusted computing and the future of WGA have crossed that line.

Huh? Corporations exist to make profit for their shareholders. As long as they aren't doing anything illegal, I see nothing wrong with that.

Reply Score: 1

A couple of points
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:03 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

1)Software piracy: the Italian Supreme Court decreed a few days ago that downloading and using copyrighted material (software, music, movies) is not illegal, provided it is not for profit.
2)Has anybody ever heard of the Windows XP student edition? That passes every validation check without problems and it is one of the most popular illegal versions. So one might wonder about the above stats...

Reply Score: 5

RE: A couple of points
by Ventajou on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "A couple of points"
Ventajou Member since:
2006-10-31

That's it, I'm moving to Italy...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: A couple of points
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 24th Jan 2007 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE: A couple of points"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

LOL, good idea. We have also other good things to offer ;)

Reply Score: 3

My thoughts on piracy
by melkor on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:16 UTC
melkor
Member since:
2006-12-16

OK - let's look at this logically. Why do so many people pirate Microsoft Windows? Is it because they're criminals? Is it because it's just too easy to do so? Is it because they're following the 'joneses', or is it because they feel that the asking price for Microsoft Windows XP is outrageous? That it's poor value? It's probably a combination of all of the above, but I also suspect that a growing number of people are not enamoured of the software industry (and rightly so). The prices are outrageous, it's not covered by the same consumer protection rights that other consumer products are, it's shoddy and unreliable, and it's vastly overpriced imho.

The only real reason why Microsoft Windows piracy is so high is that because most of the people pirating it are not bright enough to use an alternative system such as Linux or BSD legally, and of course, the infamous Microsoft lock-ins that make it the largest illegal monopolistic and anti competitive company in the world. Since this monopoly exists, the only real way to communicate with friends and family is to use a Microsoft product (well, to a large extent). Alternative operating systems cannot compete, at least for the average person. If we legally got rid of Microsoft's monopolism of the software operating system market, it'd be a lot healthier, and you'd see more people using alternatives. You'd also see Windows piracy drop, because to be quite honest, Microsoft's market share would drop.

Dave

Reply Score: 4

RE: My thoughts on piracy
by Rayz on Wed 24th Jan 2007 08:13 UTC in reply to "My thoughts on piracy"
Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

but I also suspect that a growing number of people are not enamoured of the software industry (and rightly so). The prices are outrageous, it's not covered by the same consumer protection rights that other consumer products are, it's shoddy and unreliable, and it's vastly overpriced imho.

Nope. The reason folk pirate software is because they can't get their head round paying for something that they cannot touch. Since they're not actually stealing anything physical, then no harm done, right? Same reason they steal music and they steal films.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: My thoughts on piracy
by Soulbender on Wed 24th Jan 2007 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE: My thoughts on piracy"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Since they're not actually stealing anything physical"

They're not stealing anything at all. Copyright infringement != theft, no matter how much the MPAA and RIAA would want you to think so.
In fact, most consumers who get their pirated copy with their new computer are most likely acting in good faith and thus not infringing on any copyright.
Now, the company who sold them their computer with pirated Windows is a different matter but it is still not theft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: My thoughts on piracy
by melkor on Wed 24th Jan 2007 11:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My thoughts on piracy"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Possession of stolen goods is considered a crime in most western countries - whether or not you knew it was stolen. True, it's rare to be charged with 'possession of stolen goods', but it can, and does happen.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: My thoughts on piracy
by chemical_scum on Wed 24th Jan 2007 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My thoughts on piracy"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

Possession of stolen goods is considered a crime in most western countries - whether or not you knew it was stolen. True, it's rare to be charged with 'possession of stolen goods', but it can, and does happen.

An unauthorized copy of Windows is not stolen property which falls under criminal law in most counties with a British derived legal system. It is however a breach of copyright which is a civil matter.

Which means you can't be arrested for possessing an unauthorized copy but MS can try to sue the pants of you if they know and decide to do so.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: My thoughts on piracy
by archiesteel on Wed 24th Jan 2007 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My thoughts on piracy"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Possession of pirated software is not equivalent to possession of stolen goods, since nothing was actually stolen...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: My thoughts on piracy
by drynwhyl on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My thoughts on piracy"
drynwhyl Member since:
2006-05-14

> Possession of pirated software is not equivalent to
> possession of stolen goods, since nothing was actually
> stolen...

The case is that proponents of "intellectual property" would like have to have legislation that sees no difference between an armed robbery, and copying of a mp3 file, because such draconian legislation would, simply put, bring them money by removing someone elses rights to copy something.

Especially dealing with you americans, who once were so proud with you democracy, have you never thought about the fact that "intellectual property" wouldnt last a day if this were a decision the people were "allowed" to make? But they arent, and so they just ignore undemocratic legislation.

So why do so many of you rave all the time about people pirating on your god given "copyright" when you wouldnt even have this artificial right if the legislation were decided democratically in the first place? How can it be that in the US, the "precursor of democracy", ignoring non democratic legislation now became uncool?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: My thoughts on piracy
by archiesteel on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My thoughts on piracy"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Ok, first, I'm not American. Please take it back. :-)

Second, the problem is not with the existence of copyright. I think copyright is fine, and it is always possible to *extend* what rights are given to others with copyright-extending licenses such as the GPL or the Creative Commons license.

"Fair use" is also part of copyright law, and this is the part that is threatened by the RIAAs of this world. Fair use lets you do what you want with your purchased copy of the IP (as long as you don't redistribute it), and it is this right that the "content industry" - or at least those who claim to represent it - is trying to curtail.

That said, the RIAA and the MPAA will not succeed in making piracy tantamount to armed robbery, because they do not control the legal system which, for all its flaws, is still based on rational thought.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: My thoughts on piracy
by h3rman on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: My thoughts on piracy"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

That said, the RIAA and the MPAA will not succeed in making piracy tantamount to armed robbery, because they do not control the legal system which, for all its flaws, is still based on rational thought.

I figure you haven't read the Patriot Act.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: My thoughts on piracy
by Soulbender on Thu 25th Jan 2007 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My thoughts on piracy"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Possession of stolen goods is considered a crime in most western countries - whether or not you knew it was stolen."

And thus the concept of "in good faith". If you're in good faith, ie there was no reason you should have expected the goods to be stolen, it's not a crime.

Reply Score: 2

a friend has it
by buff on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:19 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I have a friend who knows another friend who has a Russian bootlet version of XP. This friend of a friend reportedly had problems installing software and eventually made peace with Microsoft and is now legitimate and 'genuine' ;-)

Edited 2007-01-24 01:21

Reply Score: 2

WGA
by emet on Wed 24th Jan 2007 01:31 UTC
emet
Member since:
2007-01-16

Hmm.. my pirated copy of Windows XP passes WGA just fine.

Reply Score: 1

In Argentina
by enegeo on Wed 24th Jan 2007 03:20 UTC
enegeo
Member since:
2006-03-06

I live in Argentina and I never saw an original Windows CD/DVD. In fact, I know of many institutions that use a single licence CD to install it on 10+ PCs.
And about WGA, there's a lot of people using Win2k or even Win98 (yes! my co-worker likes it ahhhhhh) so they have never seen the WGA alert.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that there's a lot of PCs here (it would be irrelevant if not). All the people I know has at least one PC in their home, Athlon XPs and Pentium 4s with 128-256 MB and CRT displays.

Edited 2007-01-24 03:25

Reply Score: 1

Well!
by Sphinx on Wed 24th Jan 2007 04:35 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Certainly doesn't speak well of windows users now does it.

Reply Score: 2

good for Microsoft-better for OSS
by ari-free on Wed 24th Jan 2007 04:41 UTC
ari-free
Member since:
2007-01-22

I'm glad Microsoft is cracking down on piracy because that gives an opportunity to open source OS's, especially in the poor countries or those who have several pc's and upgrading all of them would be ridiculously expensive. Piracy was the best thing to happen for Windows domination and it's about time we put an end to it.

Reply Score: 3

pirates vs linux
by jimveta on Wed 24th Jan 2007 05:29 UTC
jimveta
Member since:
2006-09-21

so if the majority is pirating windows and apps, how is linux suppossed to make inroads in these areas? I thought it was touted that linux would win over these folks outside of the US first.. but my own impressions are counter to that.. When folks can easily get a pirated copy of Windows and their favorite apps and not worry about HW compatability, there's little incentive for them to break free.. "break free from what?" "it's pretty comfortable here" (yeah even with the viruses and spyware)

Reply Score: 1

Education.......
by raver31 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 09:20 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

I work in a company providing IT technical support. To be employed there, you need to have a degree or better in a computer subject.
We do not tolerate A+ or MCSE etc.

However, although over the last 6 months or so, there has been a lot of my collegues moving over to Ubuntu or Suse, there is still a lot of them sticking with XP.

The ones sticking with XP are all pirates. Every single one of them.

Some pirate Windows, others Photoshop, and others Nero, still others pirate games.

There is not one of them that has a fully legal and paid for system.

Does that mean I work with a bunch of criminals or just a group of normal Windows users ?

There are a few christians among them, they use Linux because the thought of them stealing was too much, so they switched to stay clean, pure and legal.

The others just stole.

We were asking them about moving to Vista and having to update the incompatible software, they said "what ? download it", that seems to be the general attitude of Windows users, all software comes from a p2p network, for free, and it is OK to steal it.

How many Windows users do you know that would have no problem sending their machines for an audit ?

I know none.

Reply Score: 3

not counting
by siki_miki on Wed 24th Jan 2007 10:32 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

..that someone having a non-licensed windows installation is much more likely not to have (permanent) internet connection and he will likely disable windows update.

They will also less often try to connect to Microsoft server multiple times (while registered users will connect often), or will simply download WGA crack off a torrent and be counted as legal. Btw. there are serials that work fine with SP2.

I'd say about 70% of world MS installs are pirated. Now imagine Linux upsurge if microsoft happens to shoot itself in the foot and makes a copy protection that actually works ;)

Reply Score: 2

or
by Mellin on Wed 24th Jan 2007 11:39 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

there's lots of people that have a copy of windows xp pro from their job and use the same licens code

Reply Score: 1

Brazil
by shiva on Wed 24th Jan 2007 11:57 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

Pirated copies ow Windows in Brazil are at least 80% of total in enterprises and at least 90% of total for domestic users. Many users here still use Win9x versions because their hardware is old, therefore these people don't contribute to WGA numbers. And the pirated Windows XP users here know that their copies are pirated, turn off WGA notifications and never do WGA validation. Therefor, these people are not counted too.

Linux is here the second operating system, used by conscient and power users, with a market share superior to worl mean.

Macs here have ridiculous market share because Apple hadrware is very expensive here and it is much easy to find pirated copies of windows programs.

Edited 2007-01-24 12:01

Reply Score: 1

Piracy
by miro on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:17 UTC
miro
Member since:
2005-07-13

One of the most common argument is that people who run a cracked version of any software would never buy it anyway. So I think that piracy can be seen as "free advertisement".
On the other hand we already had customers complaining that they can't register our shareware app, just to find out that they were running a cracked version.

Reply Score: 1

Paying for Windows XP...
by Luposian on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:40 UTC
Luposian
Member since:
2005-07-27

If Microsoft used this pricing schedule, I am sure a lot less piracy would be going on:

1) Price Windows XP/Vista (all versions), around the same price as MacOS X. (or $125, just to be "nice")

2) For the 2nd copy you buy, you get for $25 less.

3) For the 3rd copy (and beyond), you pay $50 less.

So, for example, say you paid $125 for the first copy. You then get a second copy and pay only $100. Then you buy a 3rd copy and pay only $75. And every copy after that is only $75.

Instead of getting NOTHING, Microsoft now has $125 + $100 + $75... $300! For three copies.

Reward the buyer for buying MORE copies and you make MORE money.

Or... another, even nicer, scenario.

Pay $150-$200 for one copy, but you can have unlimited copies FROM that copy.

How to prevent piracy?

The parent copy can't make but one copy of itself (it can only "spawn" once). And that copy MUST be networked to the parent copy, in order to function. You want more? Each *copy* can only make ("spawn") one copy of itself and each copy must follow the same rule. Everyone must be networked together and communicating, in order to work. If the chain is broken (a system goes down or the network is broken at some point), after about 30 minutes, the "separated" copies simply freeze, with a prompt that gives you two choices:

1) Shut down
2) Re-establish communication with the higher up copies

If you do the latter, the copies begin working again and all is well. No work is lost. Just temporarily frozen (suspended) until communication is re-established. If you do the former, when that copy is booted again, it always checks to see if it's able to "talk" to it's higher-up's, before functioning. If it can't, it never gets to the desktop...

The "price" you pay for unlimited copies is that every copy must be networked to every other copy you "spawn".

Not a bad tradeoff, if you ask me. One I would gladly accept, given the fact I'm planning on doing a lot of Folding in the future.

The retail copy knows it's the retail copy and every copy of every copy... of every copy... "spawned", knows who they are in the chain. You CAN'T pirate a copy of the original retail copy, because it's always looking for everyone that came before it, before it will function!

Sure, you could pirate the *retail* copy (CD), but I'm hoping that there would be less desire to do that, when people feel they are being rewarded for paying X amount (a fair price), rather than having to pay that *same* amount for EVERY copy they own, if they want to be legal.

Hmm?

Reply Score: 1

my issue
by maceto on Wed 24th Jan 2007 16:43 UTC
maceto
Member since:
2005-07-06

is that all pc's ship with Windows installed, and most don't come with a restore cd, and the other point I DON'T want to use a restore cd which comes with alot of apps that are promoting others like sign up for a 3 month mcafee subscription etc.

I want a pure Windows cd, how can I get one. pay $200 for a new one, only option, and having already paid for Windows, well I say... (removing my own comment for fear of modding)

Thomas

Reply Score: 1

yea... so!
by tryphcycle on Wed 24th Jan 2007 17:09 UTC
tryphcycle
Member since:
2006-02-16

as far as i am concerned, MS should be happy those 22% are using windows and not linux or OSX.... would they rather those people use somthing else? i dont think so!

the more they try to FORCE people to buy there garbage... the more people will migrate to somtihng else!

and thats a good thing!

Reply Score: 3

"legal" marketshare
by netpython on Wed 24th Jan 2007 17:17 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmm the "legal" marketshare compared to linux for example might not be that flattered after all.:-)

Reply Score: 3

drug dealer
by shiva on Wed 24th Jan 2007 18:14 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

Microsoft acts like a drug dealer

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/22/microsoft_brazil_drugs/

http://slashdot.org/yro/04/06/19/0249246.shtml?tid=109&tid=117&tid=...

Microsoft itself teach how do disable WGA notifications

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/921914

and therefore we can conclude that WGA is a joke.

Reply Score: 1

Luposian
Member since:
2005-07-27

Let's end this whole "piracy debate" with two simple sentences, quoted from a very reliable book on proper living...

1) Thou shalt not steal
2) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass

Ok, for those "not in the know", let us break this down:

1) God tells us, to take something that does not belong to us (is not paid for) is stealing. No if's, and's, or but's about it. It is STEALING.

2) God also tells us that coveting (wanting/desiring) something that belongs to someone else (in this case, Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/whatever) is wrong.

Since you haven't PAID for a copy of Windows you're pirating (i.e. STEALING), it still *belongs* to Microsoft.

Ignoring the fact that we're only "licensing" Windows from Microsoft and don't actually "own" it (according to the EULA), the rules/law are still 100% clear and obvious... including those primary two set forth by God Himself.

It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people are not totally "legit". But at $150 a pop (to go totally legal with a copy of XP Pro, that isn't legal to begin with), if you've got more than one system... that adds up to a lot of money that a lot of people simply don't have or would rather spend elsewhere they deem more important.

I'm sure if Microsoft rewarded people for "being legit" by charging a fraction of the normal retail price (or simply charged a lot less than what they do now, retail), piracy of Windows would be a lot lower.

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Let's end this whole "piracy debate" with two simple sentences, quoted from a very reliable book on proper living...

1) Thou shalt not steal
2) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass

Ok, for those "not in the know", let us break this down:

1) God tells us, to take something that does not belong to us (is not paid for) is stealing. No if's, and's, or but's about it. It is STEALING. //

Actually, (1) does not include any definition of "steal". The definition of "steal" according to the book is most certainly not "to take something that does not belong to us (is not paid for)", because that is inconsistent with "be like the birds of the field" (or whatever) ... and the birds certainly have not paid for any of the food crumbs that they eat.

//2) God also tells us that coveting (wanting/desiring) something that belongs to someone else (in this case, Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/whatever) is wrong. //

This is the same book that says: "Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave"

... it condones slavery, yet it is supposed to be "a very reliable book on proper living"? get real!

Hey, I wonder if there ever was a slave-owner anywhere who paid for the labor of their slave???? Hmmmm??? Would being a slave-owner be consistent with "do not take something you have not paid for" I wonder?

It aslo says: "You shall not murder", but then again, it also says later that if there is a person who does not keep holy the sabbath day, one should stone that person to death. Go figure.

It is not real strong on logic, that book. I'd look for a more up-to-date version, myself.

Edited 2007-01-25 03:18

Reply Score: 2

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

To attribute "Thou shalt not steal" along with what birds and animals do is the height of "round-about" speak. The bible was written for *US*, not THEM (animals)! And, as for the reference of "be like the birds...", please quote book, chapter and verse.

The bible (nor God) does not CONDONE slavery. It/He simply takes it into account, since it was going on at the time. Sheesh. What a weak approach you're taking! People were shot, stabbed and robbed over a stupid game system, called the PS3. Does God CONDONE these things, just because they happen? *sigh* I'd have a better battle of wits, arguing with a ROCK!

Just because something happens doesn't mean God approves of it. Why do you think the 10 Commandments were given to Moses in the first place?!? They were (and are) a very basic set of rules that, by man's own actions throught the ages, prove no man can live up to God's standard of perfection. And that's why He sent Jesus! To make it even SIMPLER for us to meet God's standard. Actually, that's as easy as He's ever going to make it. Take His gift of salvation. That's all! One simple thing! So simple, in fact... people REFUSE to do it!

And, finally... let's assume, for the moment, that your last comment was of massively intelligent construction...

God said: "Thou shalt not murder."

"Murder" is the pre-meditated act of killing someone, based on the malicious desire to end that person's life. God said to stone people to death for not following His rule of following the Sabbath.

Killing someone is not necessarily the same as murdering someone. Say you're driving home and someone jumps out in front of your car... they become "Fender Food". Have you accidentally killed them or murdered them? If you purposely aimed your car at a neightbor walking across the street and ran your car into them, it would be considered murder, because of your *intent*.

Are our troops *murdering* insurgents in Iraq or *killing* them? There are conditions that set the understanding between "murder" and "kill".

It's commonly refered to as... *CONTEXT!*

God, being the Creator of the universe (and all things in it), is the highest authority. What He says goes. Simple logic dictates that if God says "Thou shalt not murder.", yet he says to stone someone who breaks one of His rules... it must NOT be murder. Because, if it were, He would be conflicting His own rules and therein would be the height of insanity! God would be a double-tongued, insane dictator!

And anyone who believes He is... well... I pity them.

"God is not a man, that He should lie..."

Ah, nothing like a little biblical debate to totally throw a silly topic like "Piracy" completely off track...

Thou would do well to stick to the topic at hand and not make thy replies quite so theological... for I shalt debate this matter with you til the end of time. For I *LIVE* to defend God and His people and His lands from those who would seek to denegrate smy and/or all of them!

Be glad I'm not a radical muslim... I'd probably go rampant and call you an Infidel and seek to blow myself up in your direct presence! :-D

'Nuff said.

Luposian

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Thou would do well to stick to the topic at hand and not make thy replies quite so theological//

Pffft. You still miss the main point:

"I wonder if there ever was a slave-owner anywhere who paid for the labor of their slave?"

That one of the Ten Commandments (supposedly being the word of god) about "keep holy the sabbath" contains a contradiction with another one about "thou shalt not steal" ... according to your own stated interpretation of what is meant by "steal". You think that "stealing" means "taking something that you have not paid for". Well, that happens also to be a reasonable description of the act of keeping a slave ... you are stealing the labor of that person.

If the bible and the ten commandments as found within common translations of the early testament truly are the word of god, then the obvious conclusion is that god is not strong on logic.

There is only one other interpretation available to you ... that being that god's logic is fine, but "stealing" does not mean what you thought it meant.

PS: It was you who invoked the word of god into this discussion. I'm merely pointing out how that does and does not logically apply.

Edited 2007-01-25 05:27

Reply Score: 2

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

You can't "steal" labor. It's effort, not an item. The very premise of Slavery is all about "free labor", forced or otherwise. In order to "steal" labor, the person working would have to put a price on it and be *able* to say "I will not work for less than X amount." and have the person wanting the labor, not honor that and still force the person to work for them for nothing or to not pay the person after the work is already done. Since that never happens, the context is invalid. You can't say something is worth X amount, if the person doing the work doesn't (or isn't allowed to) put a value on it. I believe, in the context of slavery, housing and food (and a lack of whippings) was considered "payment" for said work.

Doesn't make it right, tho.

And given that clothing and food and housing and comfort (heating and warm water) is what we pay for quite frequently (monthly), are our lives really all that much different, even if we're not forced to work for whomever? We all gotta get money someway... lest we wanna live under a bridge as a homeless person.

Contrarywise, Microsoft HAS put a price on an ITEM and said "This product is worth X amount.". To take that item and not pay for it, is considered STEALING.

Rule #1: Nothing is FREE. Everyone has to pay SOMETHING for everything. If slavery were truly FREE, you wouldn't have to clothe or feed or house or train your slaves. Things which, in time or money, cost something.

Even a stolen (pirated) copy of Windows XP isn't FREE. As you have to "pay" in worry (stress) that someday, somehow Microsoft might catch you in the act and hang your carcass in legal wranglings... or you "pay" in lack of support/documentation or all the security holes and bugs that pirated copies of Windows XP can't get fixed, or... whatever.

Shoot, even if you were given a FREE copy of Windows XP that was 100% legal in every way, shape, and form, you STILL have to pay... in worrying that you may be hit by one of 50,000,000,000 different viruses, trojan horses, back doors, security holes, spyware, and/or Malware of some kind...

All of which is quite easily avoided... by owning a Mac. :-D

Latre!

Luposian

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//You can't "steal" labor. It's effort, not an item.//

OK, so this is your new working definition? OK then, we'll go with that.

OK, using our new working definition, how can one "steal" software or multimedia by downloading it?

It's electrical signals on a wire, not an item.

Oh, so it's actually the "development effort by Microsoft engineers" that we are stealing, is that it?

//You can't "steal" labor. It's effort, not an item.//

QED.

(Cheeky grin ... I just love circular logic. It is the very best kind).

PS: In respect of this comment: "Even a stolen (pirated) copy of Windows XP isn't FREE. As you have to "pay" in worry (stress) that someday, somehow Microsoft might catch you in the act and hang your carcass in legal wranglings... or you "pay" in lack of support/documentation or all the security holes and bugs that pirated copies of Windows XP can't get fixed, or... whatever."

Hey, I agree. That is why I don't use Windows, I run Linux. It is incredibly liberating.

It is in a way as liberating as the fact that I have one option that you don't have with respect to the implicit self-contradictions within the Ten Commandments. Your choices in facing that contradiction (and countless others like it in the old testament) are strictly constrained by your apparent beliefs that (a) the old testament is literally the word of god, and that (b) god cannot be illogical.

My choices are far wider, because I simply don't believe (a).

My suggestion for your conundrum is that you might try believing that "the old testament is not the literal word of god" sometime. It is incredibly liberating.

Edited 2007-01-25 09:29

Reply Score: 2

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

Try installing Windows XP (or any software) without it residing on a medium of some kind... CD, HD, floppy disk, etc. You CAN'T. You can't install "electrical signals on a wire". Once it rests on a given medium, it is now a solid PRODUCT. A product you've STOLEN!

I believe the Word of God *IS* the Word of God, because that's what being a Christian is all about... believing God is God and that His Word is true.

I suggest you come to the quick realization that, without God, our lives are utterly meaningless and will only end in a sad, pathetic form of existance for as long as we're on this earth. After that, it only gets worse... MUCH worse. As in *eternally* worse.

But, of course, you don't believe in such things. But one day you will... one day you will. I would only hope that day comes before your last breath, because, either way...

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess... Jesus Christ is Lord"

I've did it a long time ago... because those who wait until they see Jesus, will STILL end up doing/saying the same, but won't have the chance to 'make up' for having been wrong. Their chance will be gone.

You see, from a purely logical perspective, I look at it this way...

If God DOESN'T exist, I've nothing to lose. I've stayed away from those things that would be bad for me anyways (drugs, alcohol, violence, rampant sexual liasons, etc. All those worldly "pleasures" people don't want to give up) and felt great living that way. In the end, my legacy is that I lived the best life possible.

If God DOES exist (and I believe He does, of course!), then I have MUCH more to look forward to, beyond this temporal existance we call life. A future that never ends, with the Creator of the universe! Those things I do for others and my loyalty to God will be rewarded, as stated in the bible.

Contrast that with YOUR life...

If God DOESN'T exist, your life is utterly meaningless. Filled with whatever you can do to bide your time until you die. Run the rat race, get money, buy things, do whatever your temporal flesh desires... and then... one day... it's over. You simply cease to exist. Your life, for all your goals and quests and accomplishments... equals NOTHING! None of it mattered. Not how long you lived nor how much you gained. You still end up dead. A dead body in a grave or an urn full of ashes. Think of it... a life that means absolutely NOTHING in the end.

[I had a vision of that *exact* scenario one day, when I was eating lunch out in the field at Van Nuys Jr. High (around 1980-81) and it scared me S-less! In that moment, my life passed before my eyes, and it scared me. To think my life would amount to nothing, in the end.]

If God DOES exist, you will face a Holy God when you die, who will require an accounting of your life. Every jot and tittle will be recalled. And you will be forced to bow the knee and confess Jesus as Lord... realizing that you no longer have any excuse for your actions and words. You will suddenly realize that you were wrong and there is NOTHING you can do to make up for it... your chance was lost, when you died. All those years wasted in temporal pleasures... and for what? THIS! Eternal damnation for following after the god of this world... Satan. Not because God WANTS you there, but because you CHOSE to refuse His one solitary Gift. His Son.

There are two paths in this world. One wide and one narrow. The wide path leads to hell. The narrow path leads to heaven. God doesn't SEND you to hell, for being on the wide path. That's just the destination at the end of it. Simple fact. You follow Satan, you go where he goes. A very simple premise of "Follow-the-leader". And he's headed for Hell... no matter what he does. His path will end up there, sooner or later.

So, the way I see it, you can risk eternal consequences, believing God DOESN'T exist, or you can choose to believe He does and... if he doesn't... you've lived an overall better life in spite of it!

As Jesus, Himself, said... "What profit it a man, if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul or what shall he give in exchange for his soul?"

Are you willing to take that risk? Eternity in hell lasts just as long as eternity in heaven. Except your only thought will probably be... "I was wrong... I was wrong... I was wrong... I was wrong..."

There is no such suffering worse than to realize you "COULD have" and now you "NEVER will have".

Not a fun thought to have for the rest of eternity...

Amen.

Now, um... can we get back to dissing Microsoft and their over-priced OS that everyone and their unborn child is pirating? :-)

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//If God DOES exist, you will face a Holy God when you die ... All those years wasted in temporal pleasures... and for what? THIS! Eternal damnation//

Ahhh, threats now is it? The all-powerful god in heaven is so desperate for my liking him that he feels it necessary to threaten me with eternal damnation?

Please point out where I said anything about god not existing?

What I actually said was that I did not believe that the old testament book was the word of god. It is a book. It was written in ancient Hebrew many thousands of years ago by people of a primitive culture with a limited language and even more limited understanding, a people who demonstrably had no idea whatsoever about simple logic.

Hardly a likely candidate to be the divine word of god now, is it?

If an all-powerful god really, truly wanted me to worship him, why would he try to ask me via such a poor vehicle of communication as the contradiction-ridden old testament?

You believe god wants people to worship him, but he hides from us? Hardly sounds like a trustworthy character now, does it?

Reply Score: 2

MS WPA
by blitze on Thu 25th Jan 2007 01:53 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

I hope they succeed in preventing Piracy on Windows. I really do, if MS is successful in locking out the majority of their userbase and then charging like wounded Bulls, then people will be motivated to get of their asses and try alternatives.

ATM it is piracy status quo which supports MS and Windows as the dominant Desktop Computing Platform.

Please MS, Crack down on Piracy. Please?

Reply Score: 1