Taiwan Group Responsible For 90% of MSFT Piracy 229
Stony Stevenson writes "Microsoft claims that a small group led by a recently jailed Taiwanese man was the source of almost all high-quality pirated copies of its software up until his arrest in 2004. The claim suggests that Microsoft practically wiped out commercial piracy of its products with the arrest of Huang Jer-sheng, the owner of Taiwan-based software distributor Maximus Technology. Microsoft announced today that Huang and his associates. who were all recently sentenced to jail time, had been responsible for the 'production and distribution of more than 90 percent of the high-quality counterfeit Microsoft software products either seized by law enforcement or test-purchased around the world.'"
quantifying the unquantifable! (Score:5, Insightful)
90% sounds like a nice marketing department developed figure.
Re:High quality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:quantifying the unquantifable! (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys, on the other hand, seem to have been selling 'legitimate' copies of Microsoft products for real cheap -- That really does cut into Microsoft's market, which is people who are willing to pay for their products in return for either a clean conscience or to keep the MS police at bay.
Microsoft has no problems killing those pirates.
New pricing scheme? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why copy protection? (Score:1, Insightful)
Good show, but hardly enough (Score:4, Insightful)
It's darned good that they caught the bastards, but wake me up when we stop 90% of the actual piracy in Asia.
This strikes me as a fluff piece for nervous investors.
--
Toro
Re:quantifying the unquantifable! (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're only talking about the stuff they've confiscated and not claiming it's 90% of everything that exists.
It is very hard to know how much casual piracy there is. However, it is far easier to know how much high-quality piracy exists, because we are talking about actual physical products here, tangible evidence. They are also manufactured somewhere. Then, assuming that law enforcement captures such high-quality piracy in a random sampling manner (that is, all such forged products have the same chance to be caught - a working hypothesis, debatable of course), then this Taiwanese group was the source of 90% of that. So, presumably (by statistical inference) this group is responsible for 90% of high-quality piracy.
It's a little surprising that a single group is so dominant in this area, actually, I wouldn't have expected it. However, the more interesting question is what will happen now: if suddenly 90% of these forgeries vanish off the market, what will the people buying them do? Will other suppliers fill the gap, or will the buyers turn to casual piracy, or to alternate OSes?
Re:high-quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no, it is not.
I surmise pirates really do offer better quality, as they conveniently remove the WGA and similar "protection measures", thus ensuring the user's copy of Windows will never ever get blocked by Microsoft. For instance.
Though I suspect that "high-quality copy" means "CD and packaging virtually indistinguishable from the original retail copy", not "a better product". Nevertheless, sometimes pirate copies are of quite higher quality than the original.
Re:high quality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah yes, Hobson's Choice...
If the theater only has one movie, it's true that you have a choice of watching it or not, but it's not true that you have a choice of movies to watch.
I think the OP was complaining about the lack of choices for software to buy, not about the ability to choose to refrain from buying computers. Assuming you've decided to give up on the old abacus and join the 21st century, if you walk into most stores, yes, you are forced to buy Microsoft products. You only "choice" here is Hobson's Choice.
Although this is true of most stores, it's getting better. I'm seeing "Apple Stores" springing up inside more and more these days. Still not a lot of choice but better than none.
Re:good/bad pirate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:quantifying the unquantifable! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that interesting a question, methinks.
As these pirated copies were sold off as genuine, I'd guess that most of the users actually believed they were buying legitimate copies.
Therefore, most of those people will be off buying legitimate copies, directly increasing Microsoft's revenue (as opposed to casual pirates, who indirectly increase Microsoft's revenue by giving them free mindshare).
People will turn to alternate OSes when two conditions are met:
Yeah, it's a bit of a Catch-22. People use Windows because everybody else uses Windows, just as people still use Internet Explorer because web designers do not wish to lose page views by not catering to IE's broken CSS implementation.
However, contrary to the geek's instinct, some of the killer apps are already on alternate platforms — e.g. Compiz Fusion and AisleRiot on Linux, capturing the attention of two distinct groups of users.
Now, if we could hope for better-educated users, the hop would be swifter. Alas, we have to operate in the world where a casual user is a moron. C'est la vie...
Re:High quality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot needs a +1 "obligatory" modifier, so these sorts of jokes can be tagged as "obligatory" instead of "funny."
--
Toro
Re:Good show, but hardly enough (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no demand.
See, it goes like that:
* Counterfeiter fakes software.
* Counterfeiter and in between person pose as distributor, selling the windows copies with a SMALL discount.
* Computer shops, always looking for a small gain (as margins are super slim) take that. Mind you, way talk about omaybe 5% less price, but if your margin is only 5% on the product, that doubles your margin.
The shop may not know the software is fake (it was a little chaper, but it could just have been a sale), and the end user definitly does not DEMAND fake software. The whole reason it is so high quality is that the purchase chain (shop, end user) do NOT REALIZE it is fake.
Criminal like hell. Nothing compared to copy some software where both parties know it.
Re:quantifying the unquantifable! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that interesting a question, methinks.
As these pirated copies were sold off as genuine, I'd guess that most of the users actually believed they were buying legitimate copies. Therefore, most of those people will be off buying legitimate copies
Re: as opposed to casual piracy, where no money tr (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: as opposed to casual piracy, where no money tr (Score:5, Insightful)
Copying software doesn't deprive somebody of the version you copied, it deprives the creator/owner of their ability to legitimately sell copies of their work. That's what you are stealing when you copy.
Your same silly argument could be applied to counterfeiting currency: copying real money doesn't deprive anyone of their legitimate currency. The problem is, it devalues money by depriving the government of its ability to regulate the supply and value of money. That's why the Secret Service exists.
Re:quantifying the unquantifable! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I loathe and detest MS and their general operating methods, (particularly the whole BSA garbage), they are entirely justified in prosecuting this crew for fraud/forgery etc... though they may get bit by the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome as they, among others, have been claiming that every kid with a torrent client is a threat to the stability of the economic system itself. </rant>
Re: as opposed to casual piracy, where no money tr (Score:2, Insightful)
Your argument is only valid in for software that was never intended for profit. Yes, copying retail software does do real harm and IS real theft by any rational standard of law. If you prefer to think there are no laws and software is exempt from property protections, than yes, I guess your argument is unbeatable. Not through any inherent validity, but in your self-imposed view that stealing software is somehow "ok" because it doesn't change the bits in question.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and that's not what you're arguing, but it's how it comes across. Of course, I'm looking at this from the companies perspective. From a consumer's perspective, if you allow someone to copy your software, then your argument is perfectly valid. You're still breaking the law and causing real harm to real people, but I could see your point in this light.
Strategic FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, this couldn't ever really happen, but it does make you think...
Re: as opposed to casual piracy, where no money tr (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the article and comment are both talking about professional piracy - burning discs and printing manuals and shrinkwrapping in boxes that purport to be the real things. When someone honest goes and buys one of those, $60 that was heading to MS is snatched away. The fact the money never got as far as their bank account doesn't make a lot of difference - it would have got there if not for the piracy.
Even the slashdot crowd mostly condemn this sort of piracy.
By what standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it's high quality; it just doesn't meet your needs.
Vista is the first Windows infestation to officially, publicly acknowledge what serious MSFT-watchers have known for some time: the population of usees and customers are two entirely separate, non-overlapping groups.
The usees, of course, are the poor sheeple who bought a PC and naively expect Windows to "work" because it's the "market" "leader".
The customers are abviously the MPAA, RIAA and other "content" industry groups (collectively known as the MAFIAA (Media Authoritarian Fanatic Ass-farking of America) to friend and foe alike). Of course, "everyone" knows that all major media content these days is made using Macs or *nix boxen.
Their customers are happy as the proverbial clams with Vista. Especially since they never have to actually touch it!
Re:High quality? (Score:2, Insightful)
What do you people have against recovery disks? The way I see it:
Pros:
Cons:
By the time you remove the bloat-ware, you're still better off. The vast majority of customers will have a better experience using recovery disks. If it really bothers you, then you already know how to do it yourself using your own media.
Keys (Score:5, Insightful)
An exact copy of the pretty box and manuals and holograms and stuff is fine, but if it's an exact copy of the CD contents itself, it won't activate properly. Do they use hacked versions of the binaries? You'd think that would stand out (failed updates and such). Anyone know?
Re:High quality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good show, but hardly enough (Score:4, Insightful)
See, if I ask you to copy me software, and you do, we do something illegal, and we can discuss the moral. But we both KNOW it. It is a fact, I dont pay, we know what we get into.
In this fact, there is the additional dimension that not only is software illegally copied, but it is done so to swindle an unsuspecting third party for money. It means that while the copy person knows it is fake, the person paying does not know so, and in fact THINKS he purchases it legally. Besides the obvious moral issue it opens that third party to legal claims, because he is comitting a crime by using this illegal copy, albeit not knowing it.
One case where "I did not know" is a very sad defense.
And this "betraying another unsuspecting party" does add tremendously. If I steal software, this is between me and the company putting it on the market, and the person allowing me to copy. If I make counterfeit software, I involve a third party that does not want to be in this game.
Re:High quality? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:By what standard? (Score:1, Insightful)