Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Pirating Software? Choose Microsoft!

Posted by Zonk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 08:22 AM
from the where-do-you-want-to-keycrack-today dept.
An anonymous reader writes "ArsTechnica is running a story regarding comments by Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes, who had a pithy comment on the subject of software piracy. His view is that, should software piracy occur, Microsoft's desire is that the pirated software should be theirs. Potentially, in the future, they could then convert the illegal users from the 'dark side' into legit users who obtain licenses. 'We understand that in the long run the fundamental asset is the installed base of people who are using our products. What you hope to do over time is convert them to licensing the software.' Obviously Microsoft prefers the market to use their software even if it's pirated, rather than the alternative: the use of free software."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • The link (Score:5, Funny)

    by thammoud (193905) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:23AM (#18330909)
    missed the first couple of sentences.
  • by dattaway (3088) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:25AM (#18330923) Homepage
    Pirate away!

    But most people don't like the settlements and license compliance audits that eventually catch up to them.
    • Death to pirates! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris.beau@org> on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:52AM (#18331289) Homepage
      Which is precisely why Free Software/Open Source folk need to be even more anal retentive than the BSA regarding software piracy. Zero tolerance! Report em all. Take piracy off the table as an option and we can make some major inroads from people who can't afford Microsoft and other commercial products now. And later they wouldn't bother switching from something that they already know and is free.

      There really isn't an excuse to pirate anymore. In days gone by there just wasn't an option for people who couldn't afford software that cost far more than the hardware, especially in the developing world, starving students, etc. But now we can offer those people a safe, legal and effective alternative. Piracy is just unfair competition for us. :) So lets help stamp it out. Microsoft wants to make WGA even more locked down? Great! How can we help!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Just to add to my post, for fear of being marked troll - as a student, I've long argued piracy is good for the various companies. I'm just doing a module at Uni on various Macromedia and Autodesk tools - and to do so, I know of 'some students', who have pirated the various programs.

          If said students then become proficient in their use, when they've got their degrees, they become skilled workers, trained in the use of specific tools, and often in positions to influence company purchase. Thus, piracy in the
          • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris.beau@org> on Tuesday March 13 2007, @09:37AM (#18331981) Homepage
            > and to do so, I know of 'some students', who have pirated the various programs.

            Find a vendor who doesn't offer a student discount. Oh, you don't want the crippled student version? It does everything you need to pass the course, so don't use that watermark on every page to justify stealing the full edition.

            > please don't give me Gimp when I ask for Photoshop.

            If you can AFFORD Photoshop, great! Many people who edit photographs professionally believe the price is more than offset by their increased productivity. But if you can't afford Photoshop you have no right to steal it. Don't you even try justifying it either. Try Paint Shop Pro if you just can't learn The GIMP. PSP is well regarded and much less expensive.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Yes but the point of his argument is that right now the publishers are having it both ways.

              They allow (in the past *ENCOURAGED*) piracy among certain users to gain the benefit of the "network effect".

              The day everyone has to pay the appropriate price for microsoft software is the day they start losing.

              Win3.11 was *given* to pirates to pass around for free back in the day.

              Basically, companies that sell to businesses don't mind home users pirating (because they wouldn't buy it anyway), they get the network eff
          • I've long argued piracy is good for the various companies

            I agree. I think part of the reason MS Office is ubiquitous was that it was so easy to pirate back in the day. As a result it got huge traction in offices and homes. Now it's the 'defacto standard.' If it hadn't been as easily pirated I think users (particularly at home) would have sought out other (cheaper) options like MS-Works, WordPerfect, StarOffice, OpenOffice etc. and MS-Office wouldn't have the market share it has today.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I've long argued piracy is good for the various companies

            Indeed.... and I'd daresay that the article summary only gives half the story. Specifically, that not only "should software piracy occur, Microsoft's desire is that the pirated software should be theirs", but that given the choice between someone legally purchasing a rival's software or pirating MS's, MS would rather that person pirated *their* software.

            This is just speculation, and I wouldn't expect them to admit it; it would reveal their mentality and justify piracy, which they can't be seen to be doin

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            However, with no offense intended, please don't give me Gimp when I ask for Photoshop.

            Serif Photo Plus [freeserifsoftware.com] is free as in beer, and it does 80% of what Photoshop does.
            • by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2@earthshod.c o . uk> on Tuesday March 13 2007, @11:39AM (#18334315)
              You aren't screwing The System at all by pirating a proprietary application that you were never going to buy anyway. All you're doing is proving you're dependent on The System. And they already know that.

              If, on the other hand, you actually applied yourself to learning how to use a competing, Open Source application instead of their proprietary one (sure, the keyboard shortcuts and menu items may not be in the same place, and the procedures to accomplish certain tasks might be a little different -- are you really telling me you are so fucking thick that you can't learn the new ones?), you would be doing something to screw The System. You'd be breaking your dependency on The System.

              Microsoft have driven competitors out of business by tolerating piracy. Thanks to closed protocols which make for poor interoperability, it's more attractive to use a Microsoft product than a competing product. And ease of piracy means that, for those who are prepared to do it, all software is effectively available gratis; price is not an issue. Thus, "everybody" pirates MS Office, and vendors of alternative office software lose out on sales. Now, if it were technically impossible (or just highly undesirable) to pirate MS Office, then maybe we'd see competing office suites.

              Open Source Software throws another spanner in the works. Sun can't be driven out of business by Microsoft's tolerance of piracy, since their bottom line isn't affected by people not using OpenOffice.org; which is why Microsoft hate OSS so.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          > Interesting view - shaft them, then they'll come to us!

          Not at all. But remember, we DO believe in copyrights, it is what makes our licenses work. If we expect people to obey the GPL it isn't much of a mental leap to believe people should honor Microsoft's copyright. Forget the EULA, it is worthless and almost certainly unenforcable outside of site licenses which are real signed contracts. But Windows/Office ARE copyrighted works and people shouldn't be bootlegging em.

          If someone tries to justify it
          • Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Interesting)

            by networkBoy (774728) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @10:08AM (#18332551) Homepage Journal

            Pirate Office or suffer the minor inconviences of OO.o [...] almost nobody who pirates is a heavy user most would find OO.o more than adequate for their needs
            I have at least one case where this is not true.
            My wife is working on her masters thesis. OO.o is simply not compatible enough with MS office to be usable. A couple years ago I made a big push to go legit on all my apps. This meant dumping or paying for many tools I use regularly. I own Premiere 6 and PS6, but I was using newer versions. Dumped the newer versions. I was using many instances of windows not licensed, thus having a nice homogeneous network. Now I have a couple win2KPro machines and a couple WinXP Pro machines, my server was migrated to SOL18 (hey, it works for my needs perfectly), and my kids PCs are now running ubuntu and Wine for the reader rabbit software they so love.
            When it came down to office I tried to migrate to OO.o because of the rather enormous cost of MS office Pro. No dice. Popwerpoint and its OO.o equiv were horribly incompatible. Word and it's equivalent had irreconcilable differences. I simply owned up to having to buy a copy and purchased the student edition, bummer it can't be in two places. I acquired an old site license for office 97 and am using that on all the windows machines other than the wife's notebook.

            Until there is a good office suite with exchange compatibility there will be real trouble getting people off windows.
            Until the linux community comes to an agreement and throws their support to a desktop linux distro and quits with the religious wars there will be trouble getting people off windows (linspire/ubunto maybe?).
            Until the random hardware from the random computer store plugs and plays on the above intra-distro supported desktop there will be trouble getting people off windows.

            Face it. While we can all have our boutique distro, if you want joe sixpack to use linux it the community must standardize on 1 (one) window manager, 1 (one) desktop, and 1 (one) functional application suite. Joe doesn't like choices, joe likes feeling safe with the default choice.
            -nB
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              I recommend you give OOo 2.1 a look.

              I have some enormously complicated documents with hundreds of graphics and 2.1 is the first version to import them correctly.

              I also recommend you open your wife's document *every* release and generate any crash reports you can. That's the only way it will meet your eneds.

              2.3 looks to be a fabulous release too.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Why is this modded +5 interesting? The comment is either based on a very old version of OO.o or the author is just plain wrong.
              Also, I don't see him mentioning any concrete example.

              I've been using OO.o for years, even while exchanging quite large and more complex documents with MS Office users, I've had only very minor issues. Now with OO.o 2.1 document exchange with Word, Excel and Powerpoint is almost flawless.

              We're even had a pilot with OO.o at work, we have found much less issues than I imagined. Now we
          • That won't work for a variety of reasons; the primary one probably being social. "Yes, I'm immediately going to switch to X's software because X just reported me to the BSA and had me fined 65,000 dollars!"

            Moreover, as the article clearly indicates, Microsoft wants consumers to pirate Microsoft software. They'll go after business if those businesses are large enough to make it worth Microsoft's while, but consumers? The backlash would be enormous (see the RIAA) and the gain minimal, if any.

            Basically, you're
  • Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Xest (935314) * on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:26AM (#18330951)
    But does the linked article come with instructions on how to install vista without getting owned by product activation/genuine advantage and with the ability to successfully receive and install automatic updates ;) ?
  • by Gr8Apes (679165) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:28AM (#18330969)
    Does this surprise anyone? An installed base is marketing base. If people have pirated your OS instead of installing a competing product, the only issue you have is getting them to pay for it instead of convincing them to switch. Seems the former is much easier than the latter from all experiences so far. You also have the ability to sell them additional packages for your system without having to develop/sell such product supporting third party software. Another win, even if you can't convince them to pay for the OS to begin with.

    I recall in the late 80s early 90s MS almost encouraged piracy, in an effort to kill off a slew of alternate OSes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It's not even a surprise historically...Microsoft could have tightened up it's copy protection years ago, but didn't. Why? Because they wanted to be the standard!

      Lot of people don't remember it, but it used to be that Microsoft software was the easiest to install. Other people were doing dongles, and phone activation, and all this crap, and to get Office, you just bummed a disk, and copied an activation code off the internet. Easy as pie.

      Then they clamped down on the business users, and made a mint. Now the
    • Validation? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hemogoblin (982564) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:56AM (#18331367)
      I often hear that people pirate PC games to try them out and see if they enjoy them, and then buy later. It appears that Microsoft is in a sense indirectly giving this argument validity. I.e. They think its better for us to try out their products, see if we like them and buy later, rather than using their competitors' software. Feel free to correct my logic if I'm reading this wrong.
      • Re:Validation? (Score:4, Informative)

        by hackstraw (262471) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @09:57AM (#18332337) Homepage
        They think its better for us to try out their products, see if we like them and buy later, rather than using their competitors' software. Feel free to correct my logic if I'm reading this wrong.

        Microsoft doesn't really make any money off of Windows via off the shelf retail editions. They make money off of taxing OEMs by shipping their OS with new boxes regardless if you want or need a license, they get paid. They then make money off of site licenses where its common for the box to come with a license and then the site pays a separate license.

  • by bad_fx (493443) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:28AM (#18330971) Journal
    ...and this has long been one of the reasons I love to see Microsoft trying to crack down software piracy.

    The more they tighten their grip, the more star^H^H^H^H people will slip through their fingers. :)
    • by babbling (952366) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:37AM (#18331087)
      Yeah, this is obvious, and I'd argue that it's not really even news. I'm not sure that Microsoft has ever tried to hide the fact that they would prefer people run their software, even if that means they're running a pirated version. It's just that they've never openly stated this until now.

      If every person who pirates Microsoft software suddenly switched to Ubuntu and OpenOffice, suddenly the Microsoft lock-in (eg. doc files, wmv videos, wma audio files, etc) would not be quite as powerful as it is at the moment.
  • Not New (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This has been going on for years. Plenty of software companies who sell high cost specialist software applications accept and don't bother with low level piracy because it ensures there is a base of users who when they grow up/get a job will be most comfortable with that specific product. It has been the case for years in 3d design software.
  • by blcamp (211756) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:31AM (#18331009) Homepage

    The "logic" behind those comments vary little from the neighborhood crack dealer who gives the first "hit" for free.

    Get you on the habit, get you hooked, then pay through the nose... so to speak.
  • why (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amazon10x (737466) <amazon10x@ho!tm! ... nus exclamations> on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:32AM (#18331025)
    Now that they've finally admitted it, will they stop with their WGA and activation junk? Activation is a pain for legit users, and now it seems that MS wants illegitimate users to work around it. I'm not really sure what it's there for anymore.
    • Because they want most people to pay and be sure they pay. They prefer piracy to free software for the people who would never, ever pay in first instance.
      • It's simple, they haven't changed monopoly thinking. They have not recognised their actions could or would have consumers looking at alternatives. They were fully expecting everyone to migrate to Vista. Vista has had a pretty cool reception.

        Very much so. Let me add my blog here on what I observed last weekend w.r.t. piracy of Vista:

        Last weekend saw me in Low Yat, the almost world-famous place as far as 'cheap' software is concerned. No, I don't buy my software in Low Yat, I download legal software for free
  • It's easyer to convert users using "free" (read: pirate) software to legit users for the SAME software than converting users from an alternative, even if that is free.
  • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:40AM (#18331121)
    I'm running a pirated version of Gentoo, and that's where I'm staying.
    • by manno (848709) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @09:19AM (#18331709)
      I think that's what I'm going to tell people about OpenOffice.org. I'm just going to say it's a super premium software package that costs upwards of $1000, and that I'm giving them a pirated version.

      When I tell people that I refuse to install a pirated version of MS office on their PC's they get peeved at me, and when I install a free alternative they give it 5 seconds, don't try to learn it, and get a pirated version of MS Office from someone else. Furthering Microsoft's hegemony.

      Maybe if I tried to sell OO.o, with a pitch like.

      "I don't even have a copy of that piece of junk(MS Office) I use a more robust office package for the business, I got it for a song at $1,100 per seat. I can let you bum a license off me for free."

      But these are friends mostly, and I hate being dishonest particularly with people I choose to do favors for. If only I had the soul of a MS marketing director...

      -manno
  • Alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:42AM (#18331153)
    So, if I wanted to pirate a readily-available closed-source proprietary operating system for my PC other than Windows, what would I pick?
  • Nothing new (Score:2, Informative)

    Apart from it now being about keeping people off gnuware there's nothing new about this, they were saying what, 10, 15 years ago?, that they didn't really mind the rampant piracy of their software because it would get people hooked and they'd come back and buy legit. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

    -uso.
  • Drug dealer methods (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JOrgePeixoto (853808) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:48AM (#18331231)
    Here in Brazil, Sérgio Amadeu, head of ITI (Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia da Informação, Portuguese for National Information Technology Institute), claimed that Microsoft tactics are those of a drug dealer: provide the stuff for free or nearly free, get the "customer" to be addicted, and then get money out of him. He was legally threatened by Microsoft for saying so. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7654 [linuxjournal.com].
  • Any company with half a gram of common sense would rather you pirated their software than use a competing product. Of course they'd also rather you paid for their software, but given the choice of course they'll value install base for themselves over install base for a competitor.

    I really don't see how this is news, or that there's really anything to discuss.
  • Every pirated license is someone who is not seriously using a competitor's operating system. If it were really, really hard to pirate Windows, Apple's customer base would explode and the number of people who would demand serious usability on par with OSX and Windows out of desktop Linux would expand tremendously. Microsoft knows. This. It's just a form of total war. Microsoft would rather burn the fields down than allow their enemies to use them, if you need an analogy.
    • I'm sorry, I did not get that. Can you restate your analogy using a car? We on Slashdot do not understand analogies unless they're really bad car analogies. ;)
  • Hello? Adobe? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by old_skul (566766) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @08:58AM (#18331375) Journal
    Adobe has been doing this for years. And it works. I don't know how many of my peers pirated Photoshop 3.0 only to go on to buy a license for 7 and CS and CS2 later in life.

    What I don't get is the validity of TFA's statement in parallel with Microsoft's scarily effective product activation.
  • by geert (2624) on Tuesday March 13 2007, @10:01AM (#18332437) Homepage
    This is is a nice opportunity to point out that `unauthorized copying equals theft' cannot be true.

    Ever heard e.g. a car dealer say: `We don't like people stealing cars, but if they do steal cars, we'd like them to steal ours'??

    Or Joe Sixpack: `I don't like people stealing money, but if they do, please steal mine'?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Um...no. The won the home user market through preload agreements with OEMs. The vast majority of people just use whatever is preloaded on the PC they buy.
    • OK that was even crappier than the car analogies.

      If you insist on a relationship analogy, its more like co-habiting with someone you want to marry, in the hope they marry you later.

      The main difference is that you get the lock-in immediately.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      The user who pirates software is less likely to buy the product.
      Sure, but even piracy improves the product's value as a developer target. The more machines running an OS, the more likely developers are to develop for that OS. And having more third-party applications available for Windows will drive up sales, or at least will reduce defection.

      Think of all the people you've heard of who won't use Linux because their favorite game or tax software won't run on it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The user who pirates software is less likely to buy the product; this is a classic case of "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

      On the contrary. After buying software that had demos that worked much better than the product, I have on many occasions tried a pirated copy before buying a legit copy.

      Most of the times it was related to copy protection problems. I have a hard drive. The demo can be installed and runs fine. The actual product won't run without the disk in the drive. This is unac
    • Why's my post modded redundant? I only see one other post here on the same thing AND it's was posted AFTER my post.