Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Microsoft Launches Comical Effort to Fight Piracy

Posted by Zonk on Mon Jan 22, 2007 08:15 AM
from the don't-copy-that-floppy dept.
theodp writes "A week before the release of Vista, Microsoft is expanding its fight against software piracy with a new educational effort that includes comics. Making its U.S. debut Monday, the Genuine Fact Files campaign aims to make Microsoft's message more accessible to a broader audience. BTW, Vista's Software Protection Platform (SPP) can put unvalidated copies of the software into a reduced-functionality mode. From the article: 'Microsoft plans to draw attention to it through banner ads on its Web sites and promotional material that it will hand out through partners. By using comics, the company aims to make the message more accessible to a broader audience. They are black and white, in a style similar to newspaper comics.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • So uncool (Score:4, Insightful)

    by udderly (890305) * on Monday January 22 2007, @08:17AM (#17709456)

    Isn't it peculiar that when someone (an individual, gov't or corporation) tries to pander to the hip or "kewl" crowd, it actually comes off as even more contrived and lame. This Microsoft comic reminds me of junior-high school health classes about drugs or sex.

    Besides that, Microsoft has to walk a fine line with software piracy. If they could eliminate it entirely, that would be when you would see a more mainstream adoption of FOSS.

    • Re:So uncool (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TodMinuit (1026042) <todminuit@noSPaM.gmail.com> on Monday January 22 2007, @08:18AM (#17709472)
      If they could eliminate it entirely, that would be when you would see a more mainstream adoption of FOSS. ... That makes NO sense. If FOSS applications were equal to that of the closed source realm, people would be using them regardless of whether piracy was possible.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:So uncool (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MindStalker (22827) <[ude.usf] [ta] [nesralj]> on Monday January 22 2007, @08:22AM (#17709500)
        (Last Journal: Tuesday September 13 2005, @03:45PM)
        What he means is that there are a LOT of people who are using pirated versions of Windows who would switch to something free if they couldn't pirate windows anymore. There is a huge percent of the population of the world who simply can NOT pay $200+ for an OS for their personal computers. Most of China for example, and plenty of places in the US as well. Nowadays you can get a computer for $400 or so from Dell with Windows installed, but in the past when building your own computer was cheaper, there were a lot of people who the $200 difference in adding an OS would have simply opted to have no computer at all.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:So uncool by CastrTroy (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:38AM
        • Re:So uncool by camperdave (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:04AM
          • Re:So uncool (Score:5, Insightful)

            by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday January 22 2007, @09:35AM (#17710052)
            (http://thewaxwingslain.com/)
            If Microsoft, and the rest, reduced their prices by an order of magnitude, they'd find a lot less people getting their software from illegitimate sources.

            I might be the most anti-DRM/anti-Intellectual Property person around here, but this argument that a company should lower its prices to discourage stealing is ridiculous. You're saying that because Rolex charges $5k for a watch, then it's OK to steal one.

            Microsoft can charge what they want for a product and you can decide whether or not to buy it. Or, you can decide to pirate a copy, but please don't justify stealing by presenting yourself as a crusader against high-prices. [by the way, I'm not saying necessarily that I believe using a hacked version of Windows is stealing]

            I'm also not one of the "free-market" types, but the best way to get Microsoft to lower prices would be to have some competition in the marketplace that competes on price-point (which leaves Apple out).

            Linux does that to a certain extent, but it's not enough.
            [ Parent ]
            • Re:So uncool (Score:4, Insightful)

              by aussie_a (778472) on Monday January 22 2007, @09:41AM (#17710118)
              (Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)

              I might be the most anti-DRM/anti-Intellectual Property person around here, but this argument that a company should lower its prices to discourage stealing is ridiculous. You're saying that because Rolex charges $5k for a watch, then it's OK to steal one.
              I find your claim to be anti-IP while still equating copyright infringement with stealing ridiculous.
              [ Parent ]
              • Re:So uncool by PopeRatzo (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:19AM
              • Re:So uncool by jZnat (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:31AM
              • Re:So uncool by nschubach (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @12:20PM
            • Re:So uncool by TimTheFoolMan (Score:3) Monday January 22 2007, @09:59AM
            • Re:So uncool (Score:4, Insightful)

              by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Monday January 22 2007, @10:34AM (#17710752)
              "I might be the most anti-DRM/anti-Intellectual Property person around here, but this argument that a company should lower its prices to discourage stealing is ridiculous. You're saying that because Rolex charges $5k for a watch, then it's OK to steal one."

              Unfortunately the argument is not as simple as that. The 'protection' put in place hurts the legitimate customer. Imagine if said Rolex decided to stop working because for reasons unknown to you it no longer saw you as its rightful owner. You paid $5k for this new Rolex and the older models never had this functionality before. Then, the line they feed you is "It's to keep prices down!" What are you going to say besides "Really? The price is the same as it has always been!" ?? The result is that stolen Rolexes with that feature removed are going to go up in demand.

              Microsoft wants to combat piracy, right? How's that supposed to work if Windows becomes a bigger annoyance to those that paid for it? There's no justification of 'stealing' here, it's about Microsoft handling this in an unproductive way.

              [ Parent ]
              • Re:So uncool by arminw (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @01:21PM
              • Re:So uncool by Kjella (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @09:21AM
              • Re:So uncool by MobileTatsu-NJG (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @04:38PM
              • Re:So uncool by rtb61 (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @08:12AM
              • Re:So uncool by arminw (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:15PM
            • Re:So uncool by 1u3hr (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:54AM
            • Re:So uncool by Odiumjunkie (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @12:36PM
              • Re:So uncool by PopeRatzo (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @05:09PM
            • Re:So uncool by arminw (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @12:57PM
              • Re:So uncool by jacem (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @03:30PM
              • Re:So uncool by arminw (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:28PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:So uncool by LanMan04 (Score:3) Monday January 22 2007, @01:11PM
              • Re:So uncool by PopeRatzo (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:20AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:So uncool by Paulrothrock (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @02:43PM
            • Re:So uncool by daves1800 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @04:00PM
            • Re:So uncool by ymenager (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @06:25PM
            • Re:So uncool by syousef (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:30AM
            • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
          • Office costs $129 bucks, AVG is free for non-com by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:41AM
          • Re:So uncool by jweller (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @11:05AM
          • Re:So uncool (Score:4, Insightful)

            by arminw (717974) <aawmail AT waterfreeclean DOT com> on Monday January 22 2007, @12:43PM (#17712560)
            ....Software is simply overpriced......

            As with any item of commerce, don't buy it if you cannot or will not afford it. Until someone invents an atomic duplicator, it will always cost considerably more to make a copy of some tangible hardware. Software is a product of mind. All such pure mind products, especially digital ones, are intrinsically easily and inexpensively copied, without any great additional expenditure of money or effort. Acquiring the fruit of someone else's effort, whether that effort is physical or mental, without paying the one putting forth such effort is called stealing. If someone has a kid mow their lawn for an agreed price, and then doesn't pay, that person has stolen from that kid. If a particular kid wants more than you are willing to pay, you can find another one who will do it for a lower price or mow the lawn yourself.

            Writing software requires effort and expense. The people who wrote that software deserve to be paid for that effort. Copying software without paying for the mental effort it took to write, IS *STEALING*, morally speaking, and also illegal as in copyright law violation.
            [ Parent ]
            • Re:So uncool by el americano (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @05:05PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:So uncool by nick13245 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:06AM
          • Re:So uncool by MindStalker (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:21AM
            • Re:So uncool by Schemat1c (Score:3) Monday January 22 2007, @10:07AM
              • Re:So uncool by tjwhaynes (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @01:24PM
            • Re:So uncool by arminw (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @02:35PM
              • Re:So uncool by MindStalker (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @02:59PM
          • You got the key point by Lonewolf666 (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:33AM
          • Re:So uncool by EzInKy (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:36AM
            • Re:So uncool by fotbr (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:08AM
          • Re:So uncool by Maxo-Texas (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:10AM
        • Re:So uncool by coleopterana (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:14AM
        • Re:So uncool by uradu (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:17AM
        • Re:So uncool by Elektroschock (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:19AM
        • Re:So uncool by larytet (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @10:55AM
        • Re:So uncool (Score:5, Insightful)

          by shawn(at)fsu (447153) on Monday January 22 2007, @11:04AM (#17711066)
          (http://www.digitaldistortion.org/ | Last Journal: Friday December 12 2003, @05:52PM)
          There is a huge percent of the population of the world who simply can NOT pay $200+ for an OS for their personal computers.
          But yet they can pay for the computer?
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:So uncool by VirusEqualsVeryYes (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @10:08PM
          • Re:So uncool by syousef (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @02:23AM
        • Re:So uncool by hobo sapiens (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:06AM
          • Re:So uncool by AdamKG (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @12:09PM
            • Re:So uncool by hobo sapiens (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @01:08PM
      • Re:So uncool by tomee (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:26AM
      • Re:So uncool (Score:5, Insightful)

        by clickclickdrone (964164) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:28AM (#17709534)
        (http://pcbookreview.com/)
        That makes NO sense
        I'm not so sure. There are a lot of reasonably savvy people who are basically just lazy. Got a new PC? Off to your fav. appz source to grab the latest MS Office, XP Pro (probably Vista RTM now), Nero, Photoshop CS etc. If suddenly it becomes impossible to find those, they'll be happy with 80-90% of the functionality at 0% of the price by doing a bit of research, hunting around then grabbing the closest equivalent free versions.
        There are a significant number of people who used pirate software through collage when they're broke, get used to them then when they're financially better off, start to buy the real thing. You'll start losing those sales if they start off with free software right from thr word go.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:So uncool by udderly (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @08:28AM
        • Re:So uncool (Score:5, Interesting)

          by paeanblack (191171) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:46AM (#17709648)
          My wife is a perfect example of someone who *doesn't* need Windows. She logs on in the AM to check her Yahoo mail account, checks the local news, buys some stuff from Amazon or eBay, then heads to work.

          That's not a matter of not needing Windows, that's a matter of someone not needing a desktop PC at all. Imagine a cell phone cradle that supported a keyboard/mouse/monitor console. She has one console at home, has one at work, and she carries her "desktop" in her purse.

          I'm still curious why we are still years away from practical products like this.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:So uncool by grahamlee (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:07AM
            • Re:So uncool by paeanblack (Score:3) Monday January 22 2007, @09:20AM
              • Re:So uncool by grahamlee (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:52AM
          • Re:So uncool by CrazedWalrus (Score:3) Monday January 22 2007, @09:16AM
            • Re:So uncool by shutdown -p now (Score:2) Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:37AM
          • Re:So uncool by 91degrees (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:17AM
          • Re:So uncool by tbannist (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:01AM
          • Re:So uncool by gad_zuki! (Score:3) Monday January 22 2007, @10:43AM
            • Re:So uncool by merreborn (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @05:24PM
            • Re:So uncool by TheVoice900 (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:43PM
          • Re:So uncool by fang2415 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @11:25AM
          • Re:So uncool by NekSnappa (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @12:00PM
          • Re:So uncool by devnull17 (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @12:16PM
          • Re:So uncool by Matt Perry (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @12:54PM
          • PDA by nurb432 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @04:31PM
        • Re:So uncool by Mister Whirly (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:11AM
          • Re:So uncool by udderly (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @02:16PM
            • Re:So uncool by Mister Whirly (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @02:37PM
      • Re:So uncool by petermgreen (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:15AM
        • Re:So uncool by LehiNephi (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:23AM
          • Re:So uncool by petermgreen (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @12:14PM
      • Re:So uncool by Ash Vince (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:20AM
      • Re:So uncool by Maxo-Texas (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:59AM
      • Re:So uncool by hemorex (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @12:32PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:So uncool (Score:4, Interesting)

      It depends on what age group Microsoft ultimately targets with their campaign. A 9 or 10-year-old would be much more likely to accept their propaganda than, say, a 14-year-old. Microsoft seems keenly aware that older people can generally recognize their campaign for what it is, but that younger people won't be as cynical, and might not differentiate this from anything else they are taught in the classroom.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:So uncool (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Divebus (860563) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:28AM (#17709542)
      It will be just as effective as the FBI warnings on all DVDs. That's not a deterrent. Shutting off your OS remotely is a deterrent for the user - a deterrent from using the OS to start with, that is. I wonder which Einstein® thought this one up?
      [ Parent ]
      • They got me at least by Dobeln (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:21AM
      • Re:So uncool by gad_zuki! (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:36AM
        • Re:So uncool by Divebus (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:22AM
        • Re:So uncool by cpt kangarooski (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:35AM
      • Re:So uncool by TheSpoom (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:40AM
      • Re:So uncool by cloudmaster (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @01:47PM
    • Didn't stop Joe Camel by Merkwurdigeliebe (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:21AM
    • Re:So uncool by norman619 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:33AM
    • Re:So uncool by Elektroschock (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:40AM
    • Re:So uncool by BillGatesLoveChild (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:55AM
    • Comics cool? by Per Abrahamsen (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:05AM
      • Re:Comics cool? by TigerPlish (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @10:37AM
      • Re:Comics cool? by Steve001 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @11:04AM
      • Come on! by Per Abrahamsen (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @05:17PM
      • Re:Comics cool? by celery stalk (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @03:10AM
    • Re:So uncool by springbox (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:48AM
    • Re:So uncool by Afecks (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:53AM
    • Re:So uncool by jo42 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @01:33PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • I don't understand! (Score:4, Funny)

    But are they black and white like newspaper comics?
  • A _real_ feature... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2007, @08:19AM (#17709474)
    Vista's Software Protection Platform (SPP) can put unvalidated copies of the software into a reduced-functionality mode

    So you can avoid bloat and annoying requesters by not validating a copy?
  • Good for them! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:19AM (#17709476)
    Microsoft Launches Comical Effort to Fight Piracy

    Awesome! I can see it now. Popeye eating some spinach and tying an octopus' legs around three unshaven guys with eye patches. Brilliant!

    Oh, wait... did the OP mean copyright infringement? Then why did the OP use a term that means armed taking of actual property?

    • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zonk (troll) (1026140) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:44AM (#17709638)

      Oh, wait... did the OP mean copyright infringement? Then why did the OP use a term that means armed taking of actual property?
      <corporate_asshat>
      Because downloading a torrent is exactly the same as attacking a ship, killing it's crew and doing random raping and pillaging. Only dirty hippies that hate America can't see that.
      </corporate_asshat>

      Copyright infringement != piracy
      Copyright infringement != theft
      Copyright infringement == Copyright infringement

      Doesn't make it right, but be accurate when using a damn word.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Good for them! by Merkwurdigeliebe (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:29AM
      • Re:Good for them! by cliffski (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:39AM
      • Re:Good for them! by aussie_a (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:49AM
      • Meh by Dobeln (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:16AM
      • Re:Good for them! by a.d.trick (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:26AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Informative)

        by shark72 (702619) on Monday January 22 2007, @11:56AM (#17711824)

        "Copyright infringement != piracy"

        I agree 100% that many of us find it distasteful to use this word, but to claim that it does not have this meaning is, frankly, tilting at windmills.

        The word "piracy" is an example of a homonym, or as some call it, a homophone. Type "dict piracy" into your Firefox toolbar (we're all running Firefox, right?) to get the following definition:

        "2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy."

        We're all smart enough not to confuse dogs and trees when we hear the word "bark," so it's disingenuous to suddenly pretend to be homonym-challenged.

        Another common bit of misinformation is that this is some sort of new meaning of the word. Not so; it shows up in court rulings from the 19th century, and if you're lucky enough to have an OED around, it'll tell you a lot more about the etymology.

        Again: you may find the definition distasteful. But there's no point in claiming that the definition does not exist.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Good for them! by mrcdeckard (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @12:51PM
      • Re:Good for them! by twms2h (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @12:51PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Good for them! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Speare (84249) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:53AM (#17709676)
      (http://www.halley.cc/ed/)
      Give up the fight, man, the word "pirate" in this usage is hundreds of years old.
      There was very little trust in the print medium when it was first developed--it was seen as unstable and subject to piracy and fraudulent copying. Authenticity was hard to guarantee: indeed, the term "piracy" was first used by John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, circa 1675, to describe certain pernicious practices of early printers and booksellers. A "pirate" was someone who participated in the "unauthorized reprinting of a title recognized to belong to someone else." "Stationers" eventually emerged as the trusted practitioners who were placed in charge of various aspects of publishing--practices we would now recognize as printing, publishing, editing, and bookselling. Stationers worked out the conventional practices of making books, and thus made printing a viable economic enterprise with the elaborate complexity of producing a book eventually invisible to all but the practitioners in the trade.
      [ Parent ]
    • Sorry, but there is a lot of history to this usage by p3d0 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:58AM
    • Re:Good for them! by shofutex (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:34AM
  • Trojan. by Prysorra (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:21AM
  • In other news... by seven of five (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:21AM
  • Children Must Be Educated (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2007, @08:22AM (#17709496)
    I agree with Microsoft's campaign here. Piracy is rampant with kids nowadays, and they should be educated that downloading or illegaly copying software is wrong, and deprives hard working people of money that they should have been theirs.

    I understand slashdot tolerates and even condones piracy, but it is illegal and kids should know they risk the punishment of law enforcement if they get caught.
  • So lon as they respect my right ... by quiberon2 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:23AM
  • Don't Copy that Floppy! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2007, @08:26AM (#17709518)
    hmmm, a hip and cool campaign where the message is anti-piracy? I don't think it's EVER been tried before!


    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4837609090 332617729 [google.com]

  • The kids will dig it by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @08:27AM
  • Balanced Reporting by mulhollandj (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:29AM
  • Only in B&W? by kaufmanmoore (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @08:33AM
  • Typo in Headline (Score:5, Funny)

    by shadowknot (853491) * on Monday January 22 2007, @08:34AM (#17709578)
    (http://rawmentary.com/)
    The headline should read: "Microsoft Launches Comical Effort to Fight Privacy"

    Easy enough mistake to make.

  • Anyone else remember [URL=http://www.captaincopyright.ca/]Captain Copyright?[/URL]

    I don't see how he changed anything.

    Well, they're changing the site around, but [URL=http://www.midtimod.dk/blog/index.php?/archiv es/594-Captain-Copyright.html]this site[/URL] has one of the comics up.

  • Reduced functionality by Threni (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @08:40AM
  • Maybe it's just me.. by zyl0x (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:42AM
  • It ain't over yet (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dekortage (697532) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:44AM (#17709634)
    (http://www.cheapcheap.biz/)

    From the article: "The antipiracy fight is a multimillion-dollar effort, Hartje said. Although it has been going on for some time, Microsoft can't say whether the fight is paying off. 'This is a multi-inning game. We're in the first inning and it is too early to tell what the long-term impact will be,' she said."

    This is the first inning? C'mon, pirated software was online (BBSs) in the 1980s, if not earlier, and even then I could buy illegally-copied software from semi-shady PC hobby stores. Forget "don't copy that floppy" -- how about "don't copy that data cassette" or "this software download will take 16 hours on your 1200 baud modem, assuming your housemates don't pick up the phone and disrupt the signal".

    Nah, it's more like double-death overtime, and Microsoft is losing.

  • I've heard of this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by staticdaze (597246) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:45AM (#17709642)

    can put unvalidated copies of the software into a reduced-functionality mode
    Why is this news? This has been done for a while; it's called crippleware [wikipedia.org]. Microsoft just seems to have implemented their own version of it, which will probably suffer the same fate as all other protection mechanisms.
  • Give us more than ONE FREAKIN KEY (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PrescriptionWarning (932687) on Monday January 22 2007, @08:47AM (#17709654)
    Paying 200-300 bucks for a personal installation of windows for only ONE computer is incredibly lame. That may have been fine back in the days of Windows 95 when most households only had one computer because they commonly cost an average of 1500-2000 dollars. Nowadays they are going for less than 500, so it seems more common for families to have 2 or even 3 PCS. Why charge nearly 1000 dollars so they can all "upgrade" for a single house? If they ever expect to sell Vista in the magnitude they desire and get the software behind it in a reasonable timeframe, they NEED to include at least 3 personal keys for each $300 vista license, otherwise they'll have to wait for people to replace their PCs with storebought Vista computers.

    Of course after saying all that, vista upgrades will be so uncommon, buying a new PC will be pretty much the only guaranteed way most people will have Vista at all. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
  • Editor fueling by nstlgc (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:56AM
  • Piracy for the Poor by Yfrwlf (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @08:59AM
  • What is "genuine" software? by milo_a_wagner (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:01AM
  • Corporate Propaganda by Metathias (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:02AM
  • History repeats itself (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) <minh_duong @ y a h o o .com> on Monday January 22 2007, @09:02AM (#17709746)
    Remember when some soccer moms were up in arms about music lyrics? The result: all CDs with questionable lyrics got slapped with a little label. And that drove the kids to them. Nothing like saying to a child that they can't have something to make them more curious about it and want to try it.
  • What is interesting to me... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HairyCanary (688865) on Monday January 22 2007, @09:03AM (#17709754)
    ... is that they think the issue is education. Everyone I know of that pirates software does it quite knowingly. Even my parents, who are 60-70 years old, are fully aware that they are running pirated copies of Windows.

    Does Microsoft (and along the same lines, the RIAA, MPAA, etc) believe education is really the problem? I think it's just marketing to justify the draconian measures (DRM and the like) that they want to use to control as much of our daily lives as they can get away with. If it were really about piracy they'd just correct their business model.
  • A Window On Their Soul (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CmdrGravy (645153) on Monday January 22 2007, @09:04AM (#17709760)
    (http://www.joe-bunting.com/club)
    "Get the genuine facts campaign"

    Are non genuine facts still facts or are they lies ?

    It seems Microsofts understanding of the word fact is something which optionally may or not be true which leads me to believe that they are not someone I'm going to be trusting as far as I can throw them.

    Is the fact that these is a genuine facts they are presenting us with a genuine fact or its self or is it one of those other not genuine, or partially genuine facts ? Who can tell.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • The important question by thesandtiger (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:06AM
  • It's COPYRIGHT MAN! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Monday January 22 2007, @09:11AM (#17709822)
    (http://www.flying-rhenquest.net/)
    Fighting for Truth! Justice! And the American Way! Bravely defending the giant multi-billion dollar mega-corporations from the Evil Average Citizens! Watch as Copyright Man destroys lives! Breaks up families! Ruins Reputations! In defense of the the Good CEO's multi-million dollar BONUS! Copyright Man will insure that his master is able to afford his 14th house in Hawaii! Copyright Man will defend The Company's fleet of private jets! COPYRIGHT MAN!

    In this episode, Copyright Man puts the hurts on a little girl with leukemia, her puppy and her elderly Grandmother...

  • Crippleware activation death by hal2814 (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:14AM
  • Hire the pro Microsoft! by AndroidCat (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:15AM
  • Same old by gx5000 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:15AM
  • Anbody have a torrent? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2007, @09:20AM (#17709916)
    omg I gotta see these comix. anybody have a torrent?
  • In other news... by vagabond_gr (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:21AM
  • Channelling Jack Chick? by eugene_roux (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:24AM
  • Wow... by crossmr (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:25AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Boy Scouts and Computers Merit Badge by querist (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @09:40AM
  • SIGNATURE EDITION!!!! by battery111 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:44AM
  • Thanks by d_54321 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @09:51AM
  • Very anti-Blog (Score:3, Interesting)

    by forgotten_my_nick (802929) on Monday January 22 2007, @09:58AM (#17710302)
    Is it just me or did the interview and the cartoon seem to be suggesting that people stay away from blogs?

    I mean seriously, who posts pirated stuff on blogs? I thought it was all peer to peer these days?

    Only other thing I discovered from the cartoon is that if a chubby guy called Randall sucking on a chocolate bar like it was a wang comes up to your desk odds on your going to be fired.

  • It takes a criminal to enforce the law by MrData (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @10:22AM
  • I've got some comics for them... by darkvizier (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @10:25AM
  • 1994 called - wants its security feature back by MCRocker (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:27AM
  • VISTA = Disincentive by BoRegardless (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:28AM
  • "Comical" != "Comic-style" by Fjan11 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @10:38AM
  • Let your mind fill in the blanks. by mgiuca (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @10:39AM
  • Microsoft has no worries from me by jridley (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:11AM
  • The article itself is comical by symbolic (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:18AM
  • Comical effort? I know what their inspiration was by master_p (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:43AM
  • Here is what is funny... by PenguinBoyDave (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:45AM
  • Proposed Comic by jav1231 (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @11:58AM
  • DCTF by SuperJew (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @12:06PM
  • evangelical by micromuncher (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @12:24PM
  • by windowpain (211052) on Monday January 22 2007, @01:33PM (#17713328)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday February 15 2006, @05:36PM)
    But the little comic book-like video says that by using authentic software "You get: The assurance that your IT infrastructure is clean and stable"

    Oh really? Who provides that assurance? Certainly not Microsoft. I don't recall ever seeing any MS product (or any piece of software, for that matter) that isn't sold without a warranty including the implied warranty of merchantability. In other words the EULA plainly states the software is completely worthless and that by clicking through, you agree with the manufacturer that the software is completely worthless and that you are surrendering your right to sue them if the software destroys your computer, blows up you house and kills your family etc. etc.

    Like I said, I don't advocate stealing intellectual property but turning in criminals who copy and distribute what a manufacturer publicly declares is worthless crap is waaaaay down on my list of wrongs to right.
  • Most 'comical' part? by Perey (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @01:56PM
  • reduced functionality? by roc97007 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @02:30PM
  • Self Reference by Flwyd (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @03:32PM
  • Good to something good from MS... by owidder (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @05:11PM
  • Microsoft to fight piracy through comics by David Gerard (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @05:16PM
  • Trabant-Microsoft automobile unveiled by David Gerard (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @05:22PM
  • why does the link go to the swedish site? by mike3 (Score:1) Monday January 22 2007, @07:31PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • In Defense of Microsoft by flnca (Score:1) Tuesday January 23 2007, @06:40AM
  • Re:Software costs out of hand by Ash-Fox (Score:2) Monday January 22 2007, @10:32AM
  • 18 replies beneath your current threshold.