Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Goes After "Career Pirates"
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jun 12, 2008 06:08 PM
from the awesome-gold-watches-at-retirement dept.
from the awesome-gold-watches-at-retirement dept.
Stony Stevenson writes "Microsoft has filed 21 lawsuits in US Federal courts as part of an effort to stop those who continually pirate its software. The suits span 14 states and target people and businesses that have allegedly sold pirated copies of Microsoft software. Eight of the suits target companies that Microsoft refers to as 'repeat offender software pirates.' The eight firms had already been sued by Microsoft for selling counterfeit software."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:good (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah yeah, but if you think about it, software used to have a tangible monetary value before the internet, when distribution was costly and the major determinant of market spread was the company's investment in stamping CD's, packaging and delivery. But now the price of shipping software is close to zero. Is this reflected in the price of Microsoft licenses?
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy. They see value in things they just can't get another way, or quality they can't get elsewhere. That's where Apple's business model is somewhat viable, since they go to the effort to make a package that works as advertised that you can't really get anywhere else (OS X is basically inferior on non-Apple hardware and not really worth mass-piracy).
The Linux vendors survive on providing service and support. There gets a point (mostly for corporations) when it's cheaper to pay the Linux vendor to do things for you than to do it all yourself. That's fair trade.
Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone.
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Interesting)
Even before CD-ROMs existed there was free software. In 1991, when I lived in LA, I sometimes went to a little shop in Venice Beach where I paid $6 for each 5 1/4" diskette with free software. Linux was in version 0.01 by then, I had never heard of it. But I got several of the GNU packages, running in DJGPP [delorie.com], a "DOS extender".
Funny thing, I remember once I was in a meeting with some high-level managers in my company. I had that store's brochure among my papers, and a vice-president saw it before the meeting started. He was curious, so I gave him that catalog. He spent the whole meeting browsing it, giving only some distracted generic answers when anyone spoke to him. So, you see, long before "free software" became popular among geeks, there were managers who became interested in it when they got informed.
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Interesting)
Free software was also pre-PC. Most major vendors had user groups that used to distribute software., generally on half-inch mag-tape (about 80MB). You could get some GNU stuff like emacs and gcc on the tapes from DEC's user group DECUS, (the DEC VAX C compiler cost over $10K in those days) just for the cost of copying as well as lots of other stuff like the LBL tools, etc. I think around that time, there was a fuss because the US decided to export-restrict SPICE variants and they had to be removed from the tapes.
At least lower management knew about this stuff because the tapes used to cost 100$ or so (media plus copying costs) and they had to ok the purchases. They tended to see the benefit in that we were able to implement stuff faster on the back of these tools.
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument that because copying costs are now lower than before people should no longer charge for creative or intellectual works is essentially flawed. A low cost for reproduction is assumed otherwise copyright law would be unnecessary. Copyright law is a government granted monopoly to the creator of a work saying that you will be the only person who can copy it for X number of years. The government gives you this monopoly as an incentive for you to produce something of value since you know Joe down the street won't be able to set up your content on his printing press or modern equivalent and sell it too making your initial investment worthless (why not just wait for someone else to make something and then sell their thing). This is a pretty good idea and the US constitution even gives the reason for it when it grants the government the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Where this all doesn't make any sense is when the terms get beyond the original 20 or so years. In fact, extending the term is counterproductive because an author of a really good book/song/painting/program only has a greater incentive to write more if they know they will lose the income from the first one.
Copyright's fine. Open Source / Free Software is fine in that it provides other incentives for progress (recognition, communal sponsoring of something that benefits several companies in tangential businesses such as hardware, consulting, update services, etc as you mention). Each has its place and inherent pros and cons (typically open source software best serves the needs of those who write it - either the uber geeks who use emacs or IBM who sells mainframes. Commercial development typically serves best audiences who will pay the most per unit of effort of a developer).
Where you get into trouble is where a few strongly interested parties (publishers) can successfully lobby to have terms extended beyond serving what a reasonable person would understand the intent of copyright to be. They can do this because they are a small moneyed interest with strong individual motivation to see copyright terms extended. Whereas the general public sees a small benefit if the term is short as originally intended. However the amount of caring per person does not usually even hit the level of staying informed of the issues or even the reason behind having copyright (people often assume it's an ownership issue - I should own this thing I made rather than a public good issue - you get to make money off this thing exclusively so you have sufficient financial backing to produce it and more things in the future). It really doesn't reach the point where the general public is willing to hire lobbyists and since they are uninformed are unwilling to put forth the effort to organize and each contribute the $3.02 that it is worth to each person to provide lawmakers opposing views to those of Hollywood and the **AA's.
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Interesting)
Harper Lee has published nothing of significance since To Kill A Mockingbird in 1960.
That single book remains in print to this day. It won her the Pulitzer Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The film remains a classic. The play a staple of the festival stage.
What more would you ask of her? What greater incentive could you offer?
The incentive to create is only to be found in money or recognition - but in the certainty that you will retain ownership and control of your creation.
But let us be honest here.
When the rights agencies pursue the geek it ain't for Steamboat Willie.
It is for the movie still in first run theatrical release or new in print on DVD or Blu-Ray.
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this insightful, and why should someone who ignores the cost of years of development be an economist?
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Interesting)
When is the last time that an employer asked you to send them a resume/CV in ANYTHING other than MS-Word format? "Please send LaTex formatted resume. Please send CSV plaintext document (as a spreadsheet)??? Nope; "Please send us your MS-overload formats or do not even enter the picture as a potential employee. kkthx!"
Linux/BSD - free, open office - free, TeX - free
OSX Leopard - $99 iWork - $79
Vista Ultimate/XP Pro - $299
MS Office - $449
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Interesting)
No they don't work.
Agencies require MS compatible formats so they can redact your contact information and add their own branding.
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Insightful)
Software that is desired but not yet existing can have a large price, having some demand and a zero current supply, potential supply and therefore price being determined by the number of available programmers capable of writing it and the price they would be willing to accept to write it (being affected by the effort required). In such a case, the price would need to be determined by contract before releasing the software.
Software that already exists has an effectively unlimited supply and therefore approaches zero in price, given an unregulated market. Whether you see this as a positive or negative is subjective and dependant on your philosophy. There is evident dissatisfaction with the current regulated market, but there is no unregulated market currently existing (that I am aware of) to display a superior result.
Purely in terms of economic theory (which often has a tenuous relationship to reality) it is true the price of an already existing product that is infinitely copyable approaches zero regardless of development cost, as development cost no longer affects supply.
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:goodhe LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you mean, "popular" applications such as Microsoft Office, that deliberately sabotage compatibility with everything but themselves? Then we are already working on the right solution -- to make those applications, and especially their proprietary formats, unpopular.
Parent
Re:goodhe LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if I you have a question there are lots of real people around that can answer it. Sure linux has great online support, but nothing beats asking your grandkids/kids/friends or being able to phone the number on the box to figure out how to do something.
And as easy as apt-get is to use, the software that comes on a disk bundled with your new ipod is even easier to find.
Popularity of iTunes does not make it any less inferior to Amarok, that is free and provides the same useful functionality on Linux.
That's a load. It is simply not remotely out of the box compatible with an ipod. There are lots of gotchas when using the newest ipods. Amarok doesn't work at all with an iPod touch or iphone unless you jailbreak it and then jump through hoops, and that has its own set of gotchas.
Sure Amarok might be a pretty robust music player, but its no substitute for itunes given that most of the people running itunes are either using a Mac, or an iPod, or both.
Parent
Re:goodhe LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what proprietary means
Is an iPod the best MP3 player
Is iTunes the best interface for an MP3 player - many think not
Is the iTunes service ideal
Only together are they the (current) best solution
Parent
Re:goodhe (Score:4, Insightful)
In a free market, the price of a product is an agreed value negotiated by both buyer and seller.
In a monopoly, the seller is able to set the price much higher that the true market value. That's why they're called "monopoly rents"
Microsoft has an estimated 87% profit margin on each Windows sale. Typical profit margins in open industries range around 15%. Since most of Microsoft's profits come from OEM sales at around $50/license, I'd say the OP's offer of $35/license would be generous in a free market.
This is borne out by the cost of similar products ($0) which are available to buyers who aren't locked into the monopoly by proprietary formats.
Parent
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Sniff, poor Computer Heaven (Score:5, Interesting)
Making shit up and spelling Microsoft's name with a dollar sign doesn't help. Start writing to your congressman and organize grassroots efforts to change copyright law instead.
(posting AC because if you know about this then you'd probably know who I am, and I didn't get along with any of you except Derrick)
Parent
Re:good (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately often your definition of pirated software and Microsoft's version is not the same. What we call "Right of first sale" or "Used" is called "Pirated" by Microsoft.
This includes things as replacing your old XP software with Ubuntu and selling the disk, certificate, box and packaging on ebay. Selling the OEM factory shipped version you wiped to install Red Hat, and selling a P4 box with the OS installed but somehow missing the original sales receipt. MS should simply go after those who Counterfeit software, and not those selling used software with original disks, product keys and certificates.
There should be a good market for used copies of XP. Unfortunately, MS calls these genuine copies of the real thing "Pirated" and prohibits their sale.
What definition of Pirated is the article covering?
The article seems to mostly cover illegal duplication such as more than one install from 1 copy on machines for sale and doesn't touch on the selling of used software.
Parent
Seeling on eBay (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Seeling on eBay (Score:5, Informative)
Only if a court has ruled that the "Retail"/"OEM" distinction actually ment anything. In Germany courts have ruled that there is no distinction. In the US courts have ruled that the doctrine of first sale is just as applicable to "promo" CDs as it is to "retail" ones.
Like many large corporations Microsoft tends to pretend that the law is something other than what it actually is.
Parent
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
You have right of first sale for a Retail copy of windows. It can be installed an uninstalled from any number of machines as long as its only on one machine at a time.
You also have right of first sale for an OEM copy of windows. However it has to be used with the same system(usually defined as motherboard) as it was sold with/originally installed on. Yes it is a restriction but that is why it is sold at a discounted price.
Someone with a Technet subscription can get any operating system and a legal key for that operating system for a yearly licensing fee. The usage license for the software restricts it to use in a test environment only but that allows you access to thousands of dollars of software for a fraction of the cost.
If they start building and selling systems using those keys then thats piracy. If they use those keys in a production environment then thats piracy.
Remember that you can get a refund for the OEM copy of XP when you buy a computer prepackaged with it.
"There should be a good market for used copies of XP. Unfortunately, MS calls these genuine copies of the real thing "Pirated" and prohibits their sale."
To reiterate - you can resale a retail copy of XP by itself. You can sell a OEM copy as well but it is piracy to use it on any computer but the one it was originally installed on.
Parent
Re:good (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of moron goes to the trouble of setting up and registering and licensing a full-blow business and the sells counterfeit software? I mean, I can understand doing it at swap meets and out of your car or something, but this is like someone setting up a watch store that sells fake Rolexes. It just seems crazy that it happens in the US.
Parent
Re:good (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
The analogy isn't anywhere close... These aren't software stores that have boxes of counterfeit products on their shelves. These are COMPUTER HARDWARE stores, which just happen to bundle unlicensed copies of Windows with the hardware they sell.
I can assure you, there is a very small number of such companies, and they only get away with it because they are small enough that even Microsoft and law enforcement doesn't care enough to put any effort into closing them down.
Parent
I hate to say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate to say it... (Score:5, Funny)
The only reason Microsoft could have to do something Non-Evil would be to mask an even deeper and more nefarious purpose.
Parent
Re:I hate to say it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I hate to say it... (Score:5, Interesting)
First, assume that we're talking about piracy (customers know they're getting illegal copies) rather than counterfeiting (customers think they're getting legal copies). Assuming pirated copies can be had for free, what are these sites offering? It's a value-added service over normal pirated goods, mostly convienience. Are they extracting profits Microsoft would have made, or are they compensation for an actual service from people that otherwise have pirated it anyway? Apart from some being big fish and others small fish, does it matter to Microsoft whether 10000 people pirate and share it for free or if 10 sites each serve 1000 customers? Money changes hands but nothing goes to Microsoft regardless, so is it ethically okay for 10000 people to rip them off a little each but not for 10 sites to rip them off a lot? Is there really any fundamental difference?
Parent
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
So Copyright Infringement is Not Theft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So Copyright Infringement is Not Theft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So Copyright Infringement is Not Theft? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:So Copyright Infringement is Not Theft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So Copyright Infringement is Not Theft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
How cute (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
YES (Score:3, Interesting)
They'll buy it from eBay, because it's cheaper. They'll buy it when they purchase a new "custom built" white box with cheap Office/Windows.
I run into clients over and over who don't want to pay retail price for software. They run profitable businesses and balk at spending $400 (when I charge that much they don't blink an eye).
Side note: I have recommended FOSS and get different responses. I'm everything independent. Just pay me a
This is news, but it doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft and litigation (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I wanted a house boat... (Score:5, Funny)
Here is a creative idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Also how about Pirate Amnesty, where people can trade in their pirated copy of Microsoft software in exchange for a discount on genuine Microsoft software?
Pirates go after "Career Monopolists" (Score:5, Funny)
This doesn't matter because... (Score:5, Funny)
M$.....? (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW..... I thought Microsoft was supposed to have solved the problem of pirates with server-side authentication, codes, hologram discs, codes physically imprinted on discs, and Windows Genuine Advantage.
Guess not.
Microsoft actually needs pirates. (Score:5, Interesting)
But in developing countries the corporation actually depends on pirates - they help to capture vast amounts of marketshare and user base. And id doesn't cost them a penny to establish a close-to-absolute monopoly in said country. It is called dumping and it is illegal and forbidden. But Microsoft can act as a victim while enjoying all benefits of dumping.
Afterwards MS representatives begin to talk with the government urging them to buy the software. First for government organisations then for schools (them may even give some Starter Edition for free - let the pupils know only one OS so they can eventually buy it later in their career). Commercial organisations follow - police raids searching for counterfeit copies are conducted if needed.
Microsoft uses these tactics all over the world. It all starts with pirates. They do dirty job and are fought afterwards.
Copyright I can accept (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright I can accept (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather it stops the students from learning other better programming languages. Dirty dirty Microsoft tactics!
Parent
some truth is tragically funny (Score:3, Insightful)