Microsoft Sets Value Of Pirated Windows: $1 581
nick_davison writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft has reached a deal with the Indonesian government on pirated software - which is believed to affect around 50,000 government PCs. Under the deal, Indonesia will pay $1 per copy and agree to buy legally in the future. Indonesia's information minister, Sofyan Djalil, said, "Microsoft is being realistic. They can't force developing countries like us to solely use legal software since we can't afford it. They want us to gradually reduce our use of it." Somehow it seems unlikely the same rules will be applied to developing companies and poorer individuals in the United States."
They want the money (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone send a memo to the RIAA... (Score:2, Insightful)
officially okay but practically piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if we pirate enough MSFT software here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not worth it - that's still more than twice what Debian charges.
Re:God Almight American Buck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, my biases affect my ability to estimate value, too.
Value is only what someone is willing to pay. (Score:5, Insightful)
You scream Linux, OpenOffice and not bluff you'll get big discounts. MS is rich because people simply pay up. Start being an *informed* consumer, markets work better that way.
Should have held out for more! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft...now cheaper than a BK Whopper (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though -- why do people still pirate MS products when you can have the free (better?) alternative operating system, office suite, e-mail client, yadda yadda?
Is this a statement of "joe sixpack" and his relative ignorance of the alternatives or is this more a shot at OSS -- "we'd rather break laws than use your free (no-good) stuff?" The former seems to be a quest for a Linux marketing department. The latter is one for the usability experts to hammer out with the open source coders.
Either way, there's some truth to be revealed in the answer to why people still pirate Microsoft products.
Windows amnesty day? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can this set any precident for the "value" of MSFT software in general? If someone is caught with pirated software, could this overturn the (potential) $150,000 copyright violation because of this precident?
I assume MSFT knows what it's doing (what with their fleet of lawyers).
Their information minister is clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like they're being forced to pay outrageous prices for their sole source of food or something. They have a choice of software, and they choose an expensive, proprietary, non-free one. The shiny, fancy one. Guess what? It costs money.
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
By "developing countries" he means 3rd world and poorer than dirt.
According to my tax returns, I'm poorer than dirt. Is MS going to force me into using software I can't afford? Why do THEY get a break when I probably make something comparable to their salary?
Microsoft isn't the only company with lock-in (Score:5, Insightful)
And the best tool of all in the software world to squeeze those-money engorged corporate udders is incompatibility -- file formats, APIs and protocols that only *you* can provide. (And user expertise in your software.)
The smart purchaser stays the hell away from any proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols.
The main reason that the open source world is nice for the corporate world is not the up-front price benefits. It's the fact that open source software inherently has non-proprietary file formats, APIs, and protocols, means that a choice of open source software ensures that you can't be milked (well, *too* much) or else someone else will toddle on in and start providing an alternative.
Consider an example: People using Subversion for their source control aren't going to pay a cent for anything in the future. Even if Subversion cost $5000 a seat, instead of being gratis, it would still mean only a one-time payment. People using ClearCase have many years of rich milk-giving ahead of them.
Microsoft lets people use Windows for minimal cost in areas that it wants to enter because it establishes one of the above pillars of lock-in -- it builds user expertise in their software. Any software with a different interface or behavior immediately represents a barrier to change. That retraining has a cost, that cost can have a dollar value assigned to it, and that dollar value is exactly how much Microsoft can milk you for in the future.
Microsoft's most-used mechanism to help *spread* lock-in is not contracts or dirty legal tactics, but bundling. Get one element of lock-in into play (say, file formats, with Windows binary compatibility), and use it to get Windows deployed, then try to use that to get people to use another element of Windows that can provide its own lock-in benefits. The economic potential, the amount of money that Microsoft can milk users for, increases with every increment of lock-in.
Microsoft didn't give away Internet Explorer for free because they love you and like petting kitties and giving candy to babies. They did it because (a) it builds user expertise in a feature of their software that then is difficult to move away from, increasing lock-in, (b) enough use of Internet Explorer results in network-spanning lock-in as people start dabbling in things like ActiveX, which are a big milk-producing mechanism for Microsoft, and (c) it provides another, significant, platform to use to introduce file format and protocol incompatibility, and thus further milk-producing lock-in. Internet Explorer is an *investment* in producing economic potential, lock-in, which they can cash in for loads of money over time in the future.
Quite unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)
end rant
Now WHY??? (Score:3, Insightful)
so... (Score:3, Insightful)
$1 is for each pirated copy the government declares so far. After that, the government stops pirating, and starts paying money! Thats right - for having an initial amnesty to get the ball rolling, Microsoft gets another lucrative government IT contract.
Re:Hrm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then we'd all buy our MS products overseas.
Re:Someone send a memo to the RIAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
* Some corporations are corrupt
* Some governments are corrupt
* Individuals are often powerless when the two get together
* Resistance is futile
* You will be assimilated
Hope that helps.
A copy of windows is not worth a $1 (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes the punitive side of the damages pretty low, but the scale of this settlement means very little for casual pirates.
Poor Americans are still left in the cold (Score:2, Insightful)
Now granted, someone that owns a PC generally seems like they'd be someone that can afford an OS. But thats not the case alot of times. I mean you go into any place that sells software, and you STILL see Windows Xp Home at the $80 mark or more. Often or not it's still $100 in most big chain stores like Best Buy.
I know plenty of people who have small, self built PC's they've built slowly over time. Just like some people put together a decent car by buying the core parts seperately. Or better yet I know people whom have been given an average PC that you normally see in mom & pop type stores, as a gift. These PC's are monsters in terms of hardware or specs, they probably run the basics like Office and IE. Parents buy these all the time for kids, the bare essentials for doing homework and studying (of course kids use them for IM's online and games)
Case in point is M$ will never show love to poor people. If you're still in school (before or during college) you're more than likely going to need a PC. Sure most schools offer campus use of their PC's but often it's under their timetables, under their rules, which not everyone can meet. When an OS costs almost 1/3 of what you paid for a simple PC to use Office or to browse the Internet (with dial up mind you, most often), it's obvious it costs too much.
Some will say "but you can use something older like Windows 2000 or 98". Sure, you can. Check the date lately? Official support for 2k runs out soon, and 98's + 95's has been out for a while. What happens when a critical flaw is found after support has been cut off? Hope that Symantec or some other company might be kind enough to patch the OS itself even though they are virus scanning providers not the OS makers? It's not a HUGE deal now but as more and more flaws + crippling virii come out each year (MS Blast anyone?..) it's a matter of time before that family of 5 living in a small apartment have to pirate XP or Longhorn to simply guarantee their computer is safe so use.
This is why M$ has a damn monopoly. Sure you can choose a cheaper OS, hell some are even free. But then you lose support for A), most major software titles or games that are not ported to your non-Windows OS, and B) you have to spend time learning a new OS that's not support alot. Example, imagine a family buys one of these low end PC's for their kids, and manages to find a real affordable broadband provider. Since they can't afford to shell out $100+ for Windows XP Home they get a copy of some Linux distro. At some point their broadband cuts out so they call tech support. Tech support says "Oh we're sorry we can't help you, you aren't running Windows". Or you take it into a shop to get something fixed, say the disk drive goes out. Alot of mom & pop repair places don't do Linux OS'ed PC's, at least not here locally. You might be fine at some big place like Best Buy but then you're stuck paying outrageous prices for a 5 minute drive switch.
You can see how the list goes on. In the end the poor get shafted, so yes we do pirate. Not because we can, or because we are cheap, because we simply cannot afford it and in alot of cases it's nessicary.
Re:$1... (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows is popular because Apple blew it, and Linux was just recent and not very user friendly at the time. I am a Linux fan, but whether or not you like it Microsoft deserves the price they set. However, no one said you had to buy it.
Re:They want the money (Score:5, Insightful)
A very true observation. But it's not so much about money itself anymore as it is power and control. They want the guarantee of a steady flow of money more than the money itself, and the only solution that can put that guarantee in place is the lock-in of a single vendor solution. They're willing to all but give Windows away to establish that lock-in, and that's what this agreement is designed to do.
Being Poor Excuses Being A Crook? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thieves in Indonesia remain theives.
It's ludicrous for an Indonesian government minister to justify theft on the grounds that the government can't afford to buy Windows. How did they pay for the hardware the stuff runs on? Or, did they steal that, too?
Smacks of a con to me.
Small corrections (Score:5, Insightful)
* All governments are corrupt
* Individuals are powerless when the two get together, unless they get together, too
* Resistance is not futile, but is bloody
* You will be assimilated quicker if you buy Nikes, eat at McD's, use MS products
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well alright then (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you are clueless (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
Innocent or not, she wasn't even given the chance to defend herself. It seems obvious to me that the judges in this case had decided guilt from the beginning, and were expecting her defense to be a plea for leniency. This is not justice. This is the opposite of justice, and its an outrage. However, the fact that no western nation is actually DOING anything about this is indicidive of world politics today. Indonesia is important economically. Thats all that matters. Let Miss Corby rot in prison the rest of her life, as long as Indonesia's markets remain open.
Such little, unimportant things like Human Rights are never going to get the attention they deserve from the west, not as long as our politicians, and the people they represent, refuse to grow some balls and make some (economic) sacrifices for what should rightly be percieved as the greater good.
Re:Hrm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah but Office 2003 Pro will cost you $300 (Score:2, Insightful)
And Visual Studio = $300
and
and...
Re:Hrm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
To me the article sounds like a good PR move. make an agreement with another government so they seem like less of a bad guy and try to get them to buy more and more legal software. If you notice its $1 per computer not $1 per peice of illegal software per computer.
Re:Their information minister is clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, you are clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me guess that you are American? There are actually plenty of retaliation possibilities beyond diplomacy that do not use bombs: import and export quotas, trade tarifs, and so on.
Anyhow, in this case we are not talking primarily about American or Indonesian law but international law, and Indonesia is a signatory [usembassyjakarta.org] of several treaties regarding intellectual property. They signed them. They should follow them.
Re:Now WHY??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft denies this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Their information minister is clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hrm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
This is only *one* way of running a trial. Some countries practice guilty until proven innocent, including as it happens, Indonesia.
In the "western" system of proving guilt over a presumption of innocence we have the possibility of releasing (perhaps dangerously) guilty people because we couldn't adequately prove thier guilt, but it's very hard for innocent people to get locked up.
However in countries where we must prove innocence over a presumption of guilt we have the possibility of locking up innocent people because they couldn't adequately prove thier innocence, but it is very hard for guilty people to be erroneously released, without bribery of course.
Six of one, half dozen of the other really, both systems have advantages, both have problems. You have to decide for yourself if you would rather have some guilty people get away with it, or some innocent people serve time erroneously.
Stupid reason (Score:2, Insightful)
So it's okay to pirate software if you can't afford it? Oh hey, I can't afford the normal license price for Adobe Premier Pro, should I go ahead and pirate it? Bottom line is, if they can't afford MS's products, they should look at the other, legal alternatives; for example, OpenOffice, *nix, etc. Not being able to afford something doesn't mean it entitles you to illegally obtain it otherwise, or similarly.
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
What is right, depends on your view point. Some might say let the children starve but one lady must get justice. Someone else might argue that for the sake of a village we might have to sacrifice one person. I presume there are a lot of villages in the western world and, lots of people are going to be sacrificed.
We can punish countries like Indonesia and push thousands of families in the west to penury, despair & possibly suicide (economic cost) but I am not sure if that will teach Indonesia a lesson and are we willing to bear the economic cost? The third option is to invade and "fix" those countries.
Sriram
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
Schapelle Corby only made the mistake of forgetting to lock her boogie board bag, so that airside baggage handlers in Brisbane could add a 4.1kg "going-away-for-a-long-time present" of weed that their mates in Sydney forgot to collect before her connecting flight. Tragic.
Re:Hrm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy from Indonesia is full of crap. "developing countries like us ... can't afford [legal software]". They can afford legal software, (Cue OSS) just not Microsoft.
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
Goddam It! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you go global, then do it fair.
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
I beg to differ. "Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_prov
"It is better than 5, 10, 20, or 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be put to death. This prinicple is embodied in the presumption of innocence. In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision in the case Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394, traced the presumption of innocence, past England, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and, at least according to Greenleaf, to Deuteronomy."
(http://web.archive.org/web/200302
Presumption of guilt is crazy, simple as that. That's not a case of "okay, they have a different culture, so them treating suspects a tad different than us is fine", this is a case of "if we presume guilt we might as well just imprison everyone since nobody will be able to prove innocence on EVERY crime ever commited".
So then, (Score:1, Insightful)
Pirated Britney single = $150,000
Who has the best accountants? MS or RIAA...
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Re:Hrm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait that still doesnt work!