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.'"

Genuine?

[mkosmo]

From Dictionary.com:

genuine
-adjective
1.possessing the claimed or attributed character, quality, or origin; not counterfeit; authentic; real: genuine sympathy; a genuine antique.

Thus, Microsoft I guess has some legitimacy in using the word Genuine. However the word leaves some room for pirated copies to qualify. Perhaps Microsoft shou ld have chosen a better word for their test? It seems unfair that a private com pany should be able to bend language to their will to mislead consumers... which should be illegal. On the other hand, "origin"... manufacturer? I think it su its well enough as-is. Otherwise the definition of "Genuine" will be as long as the MS EULA.

Re:Genuine?

[UbuntuDupe]

I would also add that, since one of the commonly given(though not necessarily true) reasons the Business Software Alliance et. al. will tell you not to use illegal copies is that it might not be a *genuine* copy of the real thing, and thus not work properly. Thus, from MS's perspective, trying to make sure everyone using it has a licensed copy would constitute a "Genuine Software Initiative" in that they believe it will ensure people use the "genuine" version. So the linguist really is making a hissy-fit over nothing. I generally don't object to a usage unless I can think of *no* usage that would fit, or that usage causes confusion, rather than object the moment it doesn't fit the one I'm thinking of.

Microsoft's Warning

[slowbad]

(and) prevent "the latest harmful and unwanted software from running on your computer"

Every week, Windows Defender repeats the above pledge. There are two problems here:

I am not sure that Microsoft's definition of unwanted software is the same of mine; I *am* sure that my definition of unwanted software includes things that Microsoft is doing that are not in my interests.

Re:Genuine?

[Vicissidude]

Please stay on topic.

The actions of the US Government or Microsoft against counterfeiters doesn't matter to this discussion. The fake bills are NOT from the US Government, so they are NOT genuine. However, the copied software code IS from Microsoft, so it IS genuine.

What Microsoft wants to do is attach the idea that their license is what makes Windows genuine or not. That IS a departure from the traditional definition of genuine.

Re:Genuine?

[belmolis]

Analogies based on currency are false analogies because of a special property of currency. Currency gains its value by fiat, in contrast to money with intrinsic value, such as gold and silver throughout most of known economic history. A $100 bill has an intrinsic value of maybe a few cents (I ignore, for expository purposes, the cocaine residue:); the fact that it is worth $100 is due to the fact that the US government says it is. If the US government suddenly declares that that bill is no longer legal tender, or people lose confidence in the US treasury, or the US revalues its currency, the very same bill will cease to be worth $100. An ounce of gold, on the other hand, has a value that does not depend on who produced it.

Software in and of itself is like gold and silver, not paper currency. If a million monkeys by chance produce an OS identical in every respect to MS Windows (thereby avoiding copyright, though not patent, problems) it will in fact have the same utility as the copy produced by Microsoft.

Microsoft also provides certain services, such as updates and support, that you do not get without the right license, but the software itself is the same whether or not it is validly licensed just as an ounce of gold has the same value and utility whether you earned it by hard work, received it as a gift, or stole it.

Re:This is actually correct

[Dirtside]

No it isn't. The physical medium wasn't prepared by Microsoft or one of its legitimate manufacturing partners.

The "copy" is the data, not the medium it's on. If I (illegally) download a Windows XP ISO from the Internet, and burn it onto a CD-R, I still own the physical CD-R, just not the copy of Windows on the CD-R.

What if buy Windows XP legally, and rip the CD to an ISO image, as a backup? Legit and legal, yet the physical medium (my hard drive) was neither "prepared" by MS or one of its "legitimate manufacturing partners." (I'm assuming it's legal to back up my XP CD, anyway; if it's not, we've got bigger problems.)

Then let's say I transfer that ISO image over the Internet, to someone else's hard drive. The ISO they have is identical bit-for-bit with the ISO I have, and yet neither hard drive was "prepared" as you suggest. My ISO is "genuine" and his is "counterfeit"? Those terms are nonsensical for indistinguishable items. (Hell, the term "Genuine Copy" is enough to provoke gales of laughter by itself.)

I'm not saying it's not illegal to do this, I'm merely arguing with Microsoft's attempts to redefine English to suit their purposes.

Here's a fun thought experiment: Buy Windows XP. Install one copy on each of two identical computers, at exactly the same time, in violation of the EULA (and, presumably, copyright law as well). Which one is the genuine copy, and which one is the counterfeit?

Having a fake hundred dollar bill that's identical right down to the fiber doesn't make it any less counterfeit.

I posted elsewhere about people who try to apply physical metaphors to the duplication of information. You make a fine example.