Linguist Tweaks MS For Redefining "Genuine" 346
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.'"
Re:Genuine? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic.
And the definition of counterfeit?
To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge:
Inasmuch as pirated copies of Windows are fraudulent copies, they are NOT genuine. It doesn't take a linguist to understand this. Just goes to show you that claiming authority in a given field doesn't make it so.
Genuine... (Score:1, Insightful)
Pathetic.
stupid article plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The logic of the article is just flawed. Even assuming a counterfeit version has an authentic CD, serial numbers have to be unique if it's being used by lots of people this serial has been COPIED. An unauthorised copy = counterfeit.
Re:Genuine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where have you been ? It's called advertising and it isn't just private companies that do it. You'll find that political "spin doctors" are doing exactly the same thing.
*sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore, must we have such useless ego-stroaking stories on slashdot? "On look! Some blog dissed Microsoft! Quick, post it on slashdot!" *sigh*
He picked the wrong word (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's just me...
This is actually correct (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to discuss redefining terms, how about discussing Microsoft's definition of downtime vs. the rest of the industry's definition of that term.
Re:Riddle me this (Score:3, Insightful)
- Well officer, I had a license to drive cars but you know I didn't keep track of it so why do you care if I use this one someone else gave me? I mean I had a license at one point!
- I had a ticket to get on this plane, but since I lost it I just made this one in photoshop. What do you mean you won't take it? I'll just take an empty seat!
This boils down to main issue of the digital revolution which is the pathological belief of a large number of individuals that if it's easy to copy then there is no harm in stealing it regardless of the resources put into creating it. Yes, open source yada yada but it's a different matter if something was created with resources and plans designed around free distribution compared to copying something that was created under a business model expecting a return on the investment. You can argue all you want about which model is better but that doesn't change the fact that if you copy something created by people expecting to get paid for it, you are stealing.
Wow, that went a little farther then I expected when I hit reply.
Re:Genuine? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not sympathy they're after (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Genuine? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Genuine? (Score:5, Insightful)
Process is every much as much part of geniuneness as material. At any rate, the certificate and license key that comes with an unauthorized copy of windows isn't genuine, no matter how you slice it.
Methinks the intellectual rigor of our cunning linguist friend doesn't quite meet Webster's second definition of genuine: Free from hypocrisy or pretense.
Re:Genuine? (Score:5, Insightful)
what the linguist ought to object to . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Genuine? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Say I buy Windows XP, and then make a backup copy of the CD, so that should my original CD be destroyed, I still have a CD I can install from. Is that a genuine copy? There's no intent to defraud, and dictionary.com's definition of "counterfeit" (sense 3, the only noun sense that's not marked as "archaic" or "obsolete") is "an imitation intended to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine; forgery." A backup copy is quite definitely not intended to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively.
And it's also not a forgery. "Forgery", according to the esteemed dictionary.com, has a few senses which might apply. Sense 3 is "something, as a coin, a work of art, or a writing, produced by forgery." "Forgery" in that sentence refers to sense 2: "the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, as a coin, a painting, or the like." Does that sense apply? I'll be generous and assume that "or the like" could cover digital information such as software. Is a burned copy of a Windows XP CD a "spurious" copy? Since it's indistinguishable, and preserves (in an information theory sense) 100% of the information in the original, it can't reasonably be called a "spurious work"; it IS the original work, by definition.
Now imagine, six months later, I lend that backup copy I made to a friend so that he can install XP for free. He knows I bought XP, he knows I made a backup, and he's under no illusions that he has the legal right to install it. Now is it a counterfeit copy? If it is, then you're claiming that whether or not something is "genuine" can change depending on what someone does with it, irrespective of the nature of the object itself. A genuine Picasso can never become a counterfeit, even if I were to steal it from its owner and sell it to someone else. It's still a genuine Picasso.
But a copy of Windows that was previously "genuine" can suddenly become "counterfeit" merely because I give the copy to someone? I reject that on strictly linguistic grounds. And I'm not even a linguist.
The general problem is when people take metaphors that apply to physical objects and then try to apply them to the replication of information. The specific problem here is that MS touts "Windows Genuine Advantage" as if it's somehow advantageous to you to confirm that you have a "genuine" copy of Windows. It is not even remotely so; it is only to Microsoft's benefit.
Re:Genuine? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the previous argument doesn't even take into account the second part of the definition of "counterfeit," which reads on intent -- namely, the intent to commit fraud.
Taking my chain of definitions one step further, what is fraud? According to the thesaurus, fraud is...
An act of cheating
Anyone care to argue that pirating software isn't cheating?
Re:Genuine? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:if *that* bugs him, (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy, you win the irony award today. The term "illegal alien" is the loaded, non-technical word ("PC speak," as you say, is another loaded, non-technical word). The correct term is "EWI" or entered without inspection.
Now the term "undocumented immigrant" does not mean quite the same thing, because an immigrant is someone who intends to remain in the U.S, and EWI does not imply that the person intends to remain in the U.S. Additionally, there are people who enter under visas (or visa waivers), and then simply fail to leave when their time is up. These are not EWI, because they were inspected when they entered.
However, as a matter of practice, people who are here as tourists and for business trips do it the proper way, being inspected at the border. Thus "EWI" tends to imply "immigrant." And there are relatively few working-class people who take the trouble to get a visa, then overstay. Much simpler just to cross the border. Thus, it is accurate in practice to refer to EWI persons as "undocumented immigrants" and vice-versa.
Now, as for the "illegal alien" word, I would like you to conduct a simple exercise, since you seem to have picked up so much erudition from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or whomever. I would like you to find me the statute in the U.S. Code which says that it is a crime for someone to enter EWI, or to overstay a visa. Go ahead, I can wait. Are you back yet?
The answer is, there is no such statute. Someone can be deported for not having authorization to be here (or the more modern term, "undergo removal proceedings"), however deportation proceedings are civil in nature, not criminal. They're not even a misdemeanor. (It is a crime, a felony in fact, to return to the US after being deported, but that's altogether different.)
So how's your driving? Do you ever exceed the speed limit? Do you coast through stop signs when you think nobody's around? Do you ever smoke weed? When you were a freshman in college, did you drink beer? I'm sure you do and did, because condescension and hypocrisy go hand in hand. My real question then, is whether you feel shame for being an "illegal driver" or an "illegal student" for having committed misdemeanors. I am equally sure you do not.
Re:Genuine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pure drivel. Do you think that if somebody were to produce an absolutely perfect replica of a U.S. Mint hundred dollar bill, the government would stop caring? Believe it or not, the government's reasons for pursuing counterfeiters are not aesthetic.
Re:Genuine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Genuine? (Score:1, Insightful)
A good proportion of "non-genuine" copies of Windows are cracked versions which have been downloaded in an ISO or similar method. The cracking of the software automatically makes the copy different from one purchased from Microsoft, and so no genuine. In the case of OEMs which have a customized version, they were authorized by Microsoft to do so and therefore the term "genuine" can be expanded to do this.
And for multiple installations from the same CD pressed by Microsoft, the CD itself is genuine, but the liscense used is fraudulent making the installation fraudulent or "not genuine."
Re:Genuine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your interpretation of "genuine" is inflexible and ignores all logic being presented to the contrary. You are repeatedly ignoring the "intent" component of counterfeiting.
Think about it. Your definition of "genuine" would also abolish all trademark law, simply by passing an original logo through a copy machine (analogous to a CD burner). Somehow I don't think that's really the direction you want to go with this.
genuine advantage (Score:3, Insightful)
If I made a copy of my favorite CD or DVD, would that copy be genuine/authentic? Would it have the same value as my original CD/DVD? Some may argue that the material itself is different. What if I can get the exact blanks and even stamp them instead of burning and even apply the correct cd cover. I mean, it's just bits right? What if I photocopy every single page out of a book? Would that book be an authentic copy? All the words are the same and I can even use the same paper and cover. To me, an genuine software isn't just the bits, but comes with the manual, the box, the support, the warranty, etc. I personally wouldn't call any of these home-brew copies authentic or genuine, but that's just me.
As for the word advantage, I noticed some people were saying how that's being redefined too. Let me ask you this. Do you think there's an advantage to having free support and updates? Do you think any company should provide free support and updates to people who stole from them?
Just my 2 cents.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, it's not him that's not making the distinction, it is Microsoft itself. Here's the original quote that LanguageLog had a problem with:-
The question here is if a copy of Windows, albeit gotten with an, shall we say, illegal licence, is less genuine than one with a legal licence. Bill Poser seems to think otherwise; because functionality is the same, the product is still the same, even if the licence isn't genuine, as you rightfully said.
So yeah, it is not him who's confusing between 'licences' and 'products', it is Microsoft. Microsoft isn't trying to sell genuine Windows software here through their "Microsoft Genuine Software Initiative" programme, it is merely trying to sell genuine licences. Microsoft doesn't seem to think this distinction is important, but the good linguist (who, despite your apparent disdain, is actually very highly respected in linguistic spheres) does.
Re:Genuine? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, the discussion isn't about whether I should be allowed to do that or not (that is where you would be going off topic). It is about semantics.
Re:Umm...No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is not secure when in the hands of people who have always-on connections, but zero interest in working to keep their machines secure. Has there been a distribution yet shipped which did not have significant security issues, especially for people who want to -use- their computer, not learn about it?
I know quite a few people who -do- like computers, got their degrees in the field, continue to work in that field, who are the sort of person who'd build their computer rather than buying pre-made, and who still get pwn3d due to not keeping up with all the updates, especially when distributions shipped with entirely too permissive configurations. It's no panacea.
Re:Genuine? (Score:3, Insightful)
The second one is counterfeit -- when you installed the first one, you were still within the bounds of the EULA. But you knew that you were breaking the EULA by installing the second one. Therefore, going back to the link between counterfeiting and intent, the second copy is the counterfeit.
Remember, the discussion isn't about whether I should be allowed to do that or not (that is where you would be going off topic). It is about semantics.
I'm not making any moral arguments. I'm just making the case that Microsoft's use of the term "genuine" is perfectly acceptable.
Re:The value of a dollar bill or Windows disc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Genuine? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Genuine? (Score:3, Insightful)
As freedumb2000 said [slashdot.org], "a stolen BMW is still a genuine BMW and nothing can change that. I could even remove the BMW emblem and hammer out the serial number from the motor block. It will still be a genuine BMW. And a pirated/stolen copy of Windows is nothing else."
Re:Genuine? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, here's what you should have your analogy be: "If you go to a movie theater and pay to watch a movie, but you also record it (illegally) with your well-concealed camcorder, and then you bring that back and I watch the recorded copy, did we both watch the genuine movie?" The answer is of course no. You watched the illegal copy, whereas he payed to view the legal copy (and then illegally copied it.) Likewise, if the movie theater illegally copied their print of the film, and then played that, that would be a non-genuine copy. And though I can't imagine any movie theater in the world that has the equipment to perform a frame-by-frame copy, not to mention the copy would probably lack a great deal of quality.
Oh and, is that you, Bad Analogy Guy?
Re:Genuine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I now declare the term "FUD" officially dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Genuine? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's a bad analogy.
(1) If Microsoft were in the business of selling CDs, then you would be correct: unauhorized copies are not genuine. What I mean by "in the business of selling CDs", is that a significant part of the value lies in the fact that it is a Microsoft CD, not an undetectable copy. This is like the difference in value between a genuine Egyptian antiquity and a clever copy. They both have a certain degree of value intrinsic their observable properties: their aesthetic value, their utility as ballast in the hold of a ship. But the statue that was created 4000 years ago has immensely greater value than the one create four days ago.
(2) If Microsoft is in the business of selling copies of their software, then a "pirate" copy of the software can be just as genuine as one that comes on a CD made by Microsoft -- even if the copy was made illegally. The issue of the genuineness of a copy is entirely a matter of the faithfulness of the copy to the original.
(3) If Microsoft is in the business of selling licenses, then talking about "genuine" copies of Windows is copies is sloppy and misleading. It is not the authenticity of the copy that's at stake, but the license.
I would argue that in this case, the use of the word genuine is a form of marketing deception.
The reason that this deceptive language is that it conflates the consumer's concern for having a genuine copy, which is rooted in his concern about giving unknown third parties control of his computers, with Microsoft's concern that he have a genuine license, which is rooted in their interest in maximizing revenue.
These concerns are different. Microsoft's activation program does nothing to ensure that the copy the consumer has in his possesion is a genuine copy. If an evil hacker working in Lenovo's plant puts a back door in the preinstall image, then the the consumer will have a non-genunine copy with a perfectly genuine license.
The ethical problem with this is that Microsoft is trying to get the consumers to act in a way that is in Microsoft's interest by misrepresenting what the consumer gains in cooperating. While it is arguably in the consumer's broad interest that copyright is and license rights are properly observed, this is not a direct benefit to them. Employing force (which deception is a form of) to make others act in a way that we think is good for them is paternalism.
That said, it's not an uncommon kind of deception in marketing at all; certainly not the kind that amounts to the crime of fraud. It's the kind of vague assertion that we are supposed to assume is untrustworty when we told caveat emptor.
What I am saying here is that to be strictly truthful, when you say "genuine" in regard to a thing, you must be referring to the aspect of authenticity that you know the hearer is likely to be concerned with. Deliberately using a difference in point of view in order to convey a false impression is lying.