Linguist Tweaks MS For Redefining "Genuine"

crazybilly writes, "The Language Log, home blog for several professional linguists, posted a story a few days ago about how Microsoft is redefining the word 'genuine' (as in the 'Microsoft Genuine Software Initiative') in an attempt to increase public sympathy for their anti-piracy efforts. From the article: 'An unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows is perfectly genuine. It has exactly the same functionality as a licensed copy and was made by the same company... I suspect that Microsoft is attempting to redefine "genuine" because it has had a hard time getting sympathy for its actual complaint, namely unlicensed distribution.'"

Nice Try, But No

[Effugas]

A couple years ago, we saw the first "pre-infected" Windows CDs show up on peer to peer networks...they had extra keys added to the cert store, so essentially attackers could come in remotely and securely authenticate against pirated builds of Windows. Apparently, this has become much more common, with many builds on P2P networks going so far as to be pre-infected with malware.

On the flip side, some of the pirated DVDs floating around out there are well known for just being very fast and easy to install on random hardware; especially for system builders, going from nothing to a completely installed Windows system with XPSP2 and Office in twenty minutes is a big deal even if the system is ultimately shipped with legitimate licenses.

Ultimately though we're talking about the use of the word Genuine. Sinec there's a tangible and measureable difference between the legitimate builds (less likely to be pre-0wned, more likely to be easy to install) vs. the pirated editions, I'd say there's a hat to hang the "genuine" phrase on, at least from a linguistic perspective.

Re:Genuine?

[Toby_Tyke]

I agree, MS are more than justified in using the word "genuine". I don't really feel the need to jump through semantic hoops to defend the choice either. I know what they mean when they say genuine, and it's a hell of a lot easier than calling the service "Windows Copy Produced In Accordance With The Prevailing Copyright Laws In This Jurisdiction Advantage" (WCPIAWTPCLITJA for short. Trips off the tongue huh?).

On a slight side track, I really do despise these language conservatives. The meaning of words changes over time, and if enough people understand a word to mean something, then that is what it means. The compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary (I believe the equivalent reference work for you chaps in the Colonies is Websters) do not decide what a word means, they report what it means. Witness "google" becoming a verb.

On a different tangent entirely, and one somewhat more related to TFA, I think it would be instructive if people had a quick look at Bill Poser's web site [billposer.org]. I would like in particular to direct you the list of links at the bottom "The Beginning of the Free Software Movement ", "The Free Software Foundation ", "Groklaw [Everything about SCO's anti-Linux campaign]", "LinuxLinks", "Why You Shouldn't Send People (Including Me) Microsoft Word Documents" and "Treacherous Computing". Perhaps a more fitting headline for this story would have been "Free software Advocate Finds Tenuous Excuse To Bash MS".

Just a quick kalma protection disclaimer. I use Linux every day, it's my primary desktop OS on all my machines except the Wintendo, but if Paul Thurrot wrote an article complaining about the FSF using the wrong definition of any given word, there would be 300 posts calling him an MS shill before anyone got as far as reading the article. This article is just petty MS bashing, and nothing more.

Re:Genuine?

[phoebe]

The linguistics of the English language vary with region to region and hence the ongoing tet-a-tet with English versus American English. I would propose an alternative reasoning to the parent threads who are suggesting an exact copy is a counterfeit. The exact copy is a copy, identical to the original, so it cannot be a fake because the primary definition of a fake is a copy that is misleading, i.e. looks genuine but is not. The second proposal is that the act of unlicensed copying is counterfeiting, whilst a pirated CD cover has the intent deceive and is a counterfeit the actual CD is a perfect copy and hence is not, it is simply an unlicensed copy.

A similar problem can be though of with Windows installation media, if you have the CD and not a license what language do you use. The CD is genuine but similarly an unlicensed copy, but is still something Microsoft do not want you to use. If an official Microsoft CD duplicator sells media outside of their contract those CDs do not become counterfeit they are still genuine by definition but illegal due to breach of contract. Another way to think of this is to imagine 1 million units manufactured out of contract, if Microsoft managed to collect all these before distribution it would be perfectly valid to re-distribute them as official copies as they are genuine. When manufacturers raid counterfeit operations they destroy fake goods because they are not identical products. If the products were exact copies or replicas of the official items the only purpose for destruction would be for misleasing marketing and to add extra pollution and waste to the planet.

The words more commonly used would be official, legal, and on the secondary tier would be replica, endorsed, approved, supported, all which are not as conducive in marketing as the word genuine.

Re:it's the future....

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Christmas and Xmas are completely equivalent. Note that the 'X' is actually a Chi. I actually had an ignorant Christian tell me to go fuck myself over that point, but I was backed up by an actual Catholic Priest who indicated that they all write Xtian and Xmas in the seminary. I'm am getting the last laugh in that argument... right now.

Re:it's the future....

[Aidski]

*whoosh*

Don't watch much Futurama, do you?

Re:This is actually correct

[Dirtside]

If you install from a counterfeited disc (or downloaded copy), the copy of Windows on your computer is also counterfeit. Why is this so hard for you to understand???

The problem is that you (and Microsoft) are defining "counterfeit copy" as "one that was not installed legally." We already have a term for that: "illegal copy." "Counterfeit copy" literally has no semantic meaning for indistinguishable, bit-for-bit copies of data. It's gibberish.