Why Software Piracy is Good for Microsoft 522
jcphil writes "Salon has an article that explains why Microsoft has toned down its anti-piracy actions in China and other developing markets. The answer is simple: due to the network effect, the more users you have, the greater your strength in the marketplace. And it doesn't matter if their Windows is pirated or not. So, in effect, software piracy in countries like China helps Microsoft to compete with Linux." Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't feel the same logic applies to record sales in the U.S., and has started an ad campaign to convince the public that sharing music hurts artists.
Beggar. (Score:5, Funny)
I won't put linux on my machine! Pinky Swear!
Note: I'll just put FreeBSD on instead.
Groan (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't feel the same logic applies to record sales in the U.S., and has started an ad campaign to convince the public that sharing music hurts artists.
Sheesh, talk about missing the point of the article. The article is talking about developing markets, not the US. Microsoft cares deeply about piracy in the US. The point is that in developing markets, Microsoft wants to establish a foothold.
The other difference is that Microsoft has competition, while there is no direct competition for music. In other words, if you don't like the price of Bruce Springsteen, you're not going to switch to Broos Sprigstein who might be cheaper.
Re:Groan (Score:2)
while there is no direct competition for music.
I should have mentioned that this is not true for most classical music, where someone may very well compare prices between the Boston, London and New York symphony orchestras who are probably all interchangeably excellent. [there are certainly exceptions to this, of course]
Classical Music (Score:2)
Well, I have only limited experience in classical music, but even to my ears there is a noticeable difference between different conductors.
Re:Groan (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah and SOOO many people listen to Classical music.
Huh? You must be young. Sorry dude, but music doesn't survive for 300 years if no one listens to it. And they'll be listening to it in another 300 years. Think they'll still be listening to the latest release of "L33t D3ath P1zza" in 300 years?
Re:Groan (Score:2)
I know the market was fragile long before Napster made its mark -- budget cuts at labels, artists being forced out of contracts, fewer and fewer recordings being released -- but I'd be curious to hear what the outlook is for classical music these days.
Dim, I suspect -- and getting dimmer by the year. Is Naxos still putting out budget CDs?
Re:Groan (Score:2)
No artist makes money on CD sales -- the music monopolies take care of thet. The money is made in live performance and by sponsor contributions.
Re:Groan (Score:5, Insightful)
As a classical violinist, I have some sense of how the current classical scene is and has always been:
Since western musicians have existed, they have always been considered weird (though not nearly as weird as *actors* (!)), treated as servants, and paid accordingly (i.e., little to nothing).
While that changed for a few pop musicians during the 20th century, most classical instrument players have continued, as usual, to either barely stay above the starvation line, or have found a real job to supplement their meager income. There have been a few extremely rare exceptions (e.g., Pearlman) though even those folks make quite a bit less than you might think.
If you dig around and find out how much say, the basoonist in a famous world class orchestra makes, you'll immediately realize that classical musicians are in it for love of music as it is impossible to be there for love of money.
My gut feeling is that as the younger generations get used to paying *nothing* for any music that they want, the highly paid pop performer phenomenon will be considered a 20th century anomaly, and the only money left to be made in the pop scene will be, like it is for classical players, through performance, or through hire.
It wouldn't surprise me if in 15 years BonJovi's main source of income is weddings and birthday parties. I am saying that with a serious tone and a straight face. (no emoticon)
Re:Groan (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Recorded music. No longer do you have to have a trained human play music for you -- you can have a machine do it, and have it sound just like the original performance (more or less), exactly the
same, every time.
2) Transportation technology (trains, planes, and automobiles). Copies of music can be shipped across the entire country; music is no longer as highly regional as it once was (someone living in California in the mid-1800s might never even hear of a famous performer from the East Coast).
3) Electronic communication (radio, TV, telephones, the Internet). Now you don't even have to have a physical copy of the music sent to you -- it can be sent electronically, faster-than-light.
As a result, mass knowledge of individual musicians has become possible. Two hundred years ago, a few thousand people might have heard of a famous artist. Today, millions and millions of people have heard of them, and can hear all of their music. The only thing that's still "limited" is live performance -- the artist can only be in one place at a time, and due to various physical limits, only so many people can be within sight of the artist at once, watching him perform.
Even if the big labels all go away forever and are replaced by countless independents, we will still see a few superstars packing venues. The best artists with the widest appeal will still be successful, and will still have numerous fans, who will be willing to pay to see them live.
Re:Groan (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Groan (Score:4, Interesting)
It's human nature, but it's a fallacy for young people to think that whatever music you listen to is in the majority. Even Britney's not the majority. It might be in 30 years, but it's not now. In a way, the record and radio companies are planning way in advance to clean up when the teenie-boppers come of age.
The majority right now is easy listening, classical and lite jazz. Elevator music. Billy Joel, Elton John, Kenny G, yada yada yada. Music people put on while doing dishes because it's comfortably ignored as background music. As time goes on the chaff will separate from the wheat and the 'best' stuff will stick around. That's how music works - we look at Beethoven as a singular event, but he wasn't: There were hundreds of other romantic composers, but the ones we have around now have stood the test of time, as cheezy as that sounds. He was part of a timeline and everything else gradually faded away because it really wasn't anywhere near as good.
A friend of mine has a sticker on his locker in the music department in college which said "It is a great tragedy that we don't have all the music ever written, but it is a greater victory that we don't have all of the music ever written."
In thirty years the musical landscape will be quite different than it is now. Britney will be easy listening. Billy Joel will be popular music like Rodgers and Hart and Cole Porter are now. Duke Ellington, Cole porter et al will be considered classical (parts of Gershwin already are, it's just a matter of time).
Classical music doesn't just stop at 19?0. It will swell to engulf everything that lasts in the public conciousness for more than, say, 75 years. Hang onto your pants, kiddo.
Triv
Re:Groan (Score:2)
Isn't that the point?
Re:Groan (Score:5, Funny)
Or, to sum it up, Microsoft won't bother alienating their market until they've got a market to alienate. ;-)
Re:Groan (Score:5, Funny)
Don't knock us Broos fans until you've heard his early stuff.
Re:Groan (Score:2)
Anyway, I've read that Microsoft sees piracy as a way to gain market share asserted here hundreds of times. Usually it's not even worth a mod point, let alone a story.
Re:Groan (Score:2, Interesting)
It's about the time the RIAA begins educating the public about this instead of bashing them over the head and calling everyone a thief. The concern remains though if they will truly educate and not bash them over the head and call everyone a thief.
Quotes like Britney's Spears "Too many people don't realise that when you download a song you like from a peer-to-peer network or some other unauthorised internet service, you're stealing music", " calling P2P an unauthorised internet service when it has dozens of perfectly legitimate and legal uses, just puts a negative spin on an incredible software tool and really doesn't educate after all.
Re:Groan (Score:2)
Now, from a legal standpoint, the theoretical legal use should have just as loud of a voice as the illegal use.
From a practical making your point type of speech, the
Cocaine is illegal. Even though there are some very narrowly defined places and circumstances in which it is legal (research, some medicine etc). However if I say cocaine is illegal, nobody is going to get into a debate with me. They might debate if it SHOULD be illegal, but not that it IS illegal.
Developing Markets vs. Ours (Score:3, Insightful)
When you get down to it, wouldn't disregard for piracy be the best way to engage in dumping of product to eradicate competitors (a practice that would be illegal under antitrust, in their position)? This would be the best way to maintain their install base. I mean, they would still extort the OEM's to get money out of windows, but let anyone who builds their own box or wants to upgrade to do it for free. Unofficially, of course.
I've always known this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've always known this (Score:2)
Maybe, but also it is the creative process, not just the specific tool. Knowing how to navigate around in a pirated copy Word vs using a free tool like OpenOffice does not give you the ability to write well. But the personal skills that make good writer with a free tool like OpenOffice WILL transfer over to the more expensive tools like MSOffice.
Same with graphics apps. If you can create something spectacular with GIMP, you can definately do the same with Photoshop.
Ability, not just tool familiarity, is the key.
Let's say you're a 14 year old kid (Score:2)
You've scraped together enough cash to by some DC's or Nikes so that people stop hitting you every time you walk past, but now there's this cool some they keep playing any you don't have the cash.
Do you
a:, buy it
b:, blag a copy off of a mate on tape cassette,
c: download it from gnutella
Microsoft has always done this (Score:5, Funny)
"They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
1.) Get user's addicted to our software
2.) ????
3.) Profit!!!
Re:Microsoft has always done this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft has always done this (Score:5, Funny)
"Here, kid... the first sample's free!"
JUST SAY NO!!!!
Brought to you by the Coalition for a Drug^H^H^H^HMicrosoft Free America
Re:Microsoft has always done this (Score:2)
1.) Get user's addicted to our software
2.) palladium with product activation which uses it
3.) Apple profits
4.) ??????
Let users understand the cost of Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want Windows, you can go ahead and pay for it yourself. Then you'll understand even better why Microsoft is losing market share to Linux. It's not cheap for an individual, and for a business it's highway robbery. If the price is too high for you, well, why not install something free?
Re:Let users understand the cost of Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Anticompetitive Dumping (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if you could view a soft stance towards piracy as "dumping" in the marketplace. It is, after all, exactly what you're doing -- saturating the market with product, under cost, knowing that it is hurting your competitors.
IMHO, shareware fits into this, bennefiting from the network effect and hurt competition, while crying that only a small fraction of their customers are paying.
Yeah, I know, it is a stretch.
Timothy, you fucker (Score:2, Offtopic)
Please think of the starving artists! (Score:4, Funny)
Come on, does the RIAA really expect me to take a PSA from Britney Spears or bling blingin' Nelly when it comes to theft of music? Are they trying to make us feel bad for these people who get paid truckloads of money and have no talent? Maybe they should show me a non-RIAA artist who lives out of their car and plays dumpy clubs instead.
NOTE TO RIAA: GET A CLUE.
Re:Please think of the starving artists! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please think of the starving artists! (Score:3, Funny)
Linking to an Onion article on
Can't wait for the commericals (Score:5, Funny)
With any luck, the anti-music-piracy commericals will be as much a scream as those "Today I killed a judge (because I bought drugs)" drug-terrorism ones:
GMD
Re:Can't wait for the commericals (Score:2)
"When you pirate MP3s, you make Baby Jesus cry."
Re:Please think of the starving artists! (Score:2)
Re:Please think of the starving artists! (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, sure, there are people who collect every single mp3 ripped from an album. But they are the only ones that RIAA should be super-pissed at, because the obvious indications is that they would have bought the album. Me, I'm not about to buy a 80s anthology album just to get After The Fire's "Der Kommisar". I am likely to go out and buy System of a Down's "Toxicity" album though, but only because every song I have heard off of it is good (IMAO, of course).
What the RIAA needs to go is remove their heads from their asses and come to the realization that piracy, in some form or another, will always exist. If they can offer a product that is better in terms of quality, availability (as in being able to buy select songs instead of the entire album), and lower the price, they will see a greater return on their investment.
Kierthos
I really have to wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Depends on the artist (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone argues that the artists should be compensated for their work. But there is this huge, controlling middleman between the artists and the public who compensates them. The artists who are against online music (let's not call it piracy, more on that later) are against it because they believe, or have been lead to believe, that it threatens their livelihood. It doesn't.
The only reason online music is considered piracy is because of the business model of the music industry. If CDs were available for a reasonable price, there wouldn't be as much incentive to copy and distribute music online. But beyond that, it is obvious that being able to download music is popular. Why not embrace it? Most artists make their money from touring anyway, because their contracts with the record company gives most of their royalties away. So they have to tour to make money. How is this different than giving the music away, and still making money on touring and merchandise? Or special edition CDs with extra features?
It is painfully obvious that online music could be a huge business, but the record companies refuse to acknowledge that because they fear it. They should embrace it! If it is so easy for average music fans to make digital copies of music, why is it so hard for them to do it and still make money? It isn't, they are just stupid , power-hungry, greedy bastards.
I don't care if this gets modded as flamebait or troll, it is the truth.
The Music Artists need ad an campaign... (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe a picture of some big-name musician begging as record execs walk by.
? HA! (Score:2)
Real musicians make their money on the road.
It's the other way around (Score:2, Interesting)
I disagree with this article--Microsoft already got it's massive marketshare for PC's in China, and then tried to crackdown on piracy because it already had hundreds of millions of users there. It's not like Windows is just now entering the country. The 'network effect' worked its magic years ago...
Repeat (Score:2, Interesting)
Reason being? The people posting the story don't even read Slashdot stories.
This is yet again another repeat.
Get them hooked (Score:3, Insightful)
Give the poor slob some free hits, get him hooked before he knows how bad the dope is, then start charging big bucks.
Re:Get them hooked (Score:2)
The same logic DOESN'T apply! (Score:5, Insightful)
It does, in a way (Score:2)
Listening to that music gives you a social connection to other people who listen to it (i.e. something to talk about, etc.), which is a (very) rough parallel to "getting your job done better".
The parallel between software updates and music are obvious: when an artist you like releases a new album or single, you are more likely to buy it because of the stuff you've already heard.
The logic DOES apply! (Score:2)
This is a marketing stratagy for Autodesk (Score:3, Informative)
In my field (architecture) AutoCAD has pretty much the monopoly, despight other packages such as ArchiCAD, Microstation and DataCAD. Why ? It's simple, this is the tool that everyone knows. By filling schools and colleges with thier software and having student version for little and nothing ($200 for a AutoCAD12,3DStudio,AA package)the only software package that anyone knows is AutoCAD. Since it's very expensive to train someone to use a new software package proficiently can costs upards of $3000 most employers just settle with AutoCAD even though it may not be the best or cheapest package.
Re:This is a marketing stratagy for Autodesk (Score:2)
AKA The Photoshop Effect (Score:2)
The sad thing is that it took them this long to figure it out. How many windows users would there be if we had to pay for windows?
It's an interesting effect on 'supply and demand' however. How do you evaluate demand and scarcity when there is unlimited product available and production costs (ie, duplication) are nil? How does the market work when you're trying to sell information that can be free?
Back in the day... (Score:2)
This tactic works... (Score:2)
Don't crack dealers use similiar tactics?
I see this all the time (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely true. Here in India (a very China-like piracy situation) there are plenty of small businesses which want to move to Linux in theory but they continue to use Windows-Office-Exchange etc because its free to them.
At zero cost (actually approx. US$ 2.15 per CD that all software costs here), its pretty hard to convince yourself that the effort of migrating to Open Source is worth it!
Funnily enough, Linux costs more than Windows because none of the regular pirates stock Linux. So Win2K is US$ 2.15 but Redhat is about US$15 which is what the cheapest unoficial Redhat CD costs
I can see it now! (Score:5, Funny)
The voice over says "When you pirate music, you steal money out of artists pockets. Now, how is this poor man going to afford his presidential suite, hookers, and 3 day liquor and heroin binges?"
Then a black screen with white text comes up:
"Help the Fella, Don't Gnutella."
Talk about double standards. (Score:2)
If people in china gets used to pirating its hard to reverse it. A culture of pirating blessed by MS will be almost impossible to reverse.
I guess their campaign against pirating didnt turn out like they liked it to. From what i could see the only thing it did was to spark a new wave of linux companies.
Oh my god, I feel soooo bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only ones hurting are the RIAA companies themselves. "Wah wah, we're not making the X number of billions we made last decade thanks to services like Napster(RIP), KaZaA, Limewire; We're only making Y number of billions now thanks to users downloading music. X Billions > Y Billions. We want more billions." Cough-bullshit-cough.
If we're smart, we'll continue downloading and taking a chunk out of the RIAA's profit. They're spending millions on this ad campaign, which won't work at all, and lose said millions. What we need is a commercial detailing the evils of the record companies' underhanded practices and how they are hurting artists.
And, for the record, I'm in total agreement with sy$manager [slashdot.org]'s post [slashdot.org] on the subject. There is no way that downloading "Baby One More Time" is hurting Brittany "I've got fake tits before they're even done developing" Spears' bottom line. Duh, she has a multi-million dollar endorsment deal with Pepsi, is doing movies (that probably net her a few milion apiece), and has several other sources of income besides her contract with the RIAA. Nelly? What the hell kind of name is Nelly, anyway? I can't even take him seriously. And Missy Elliot earns her papers because she herself is a producer. There's no way downloading "Get Your Freak On" is hurting her wallet, that's for sure.
Just another case of RIAA Spin trying to get us to shill out damn near $20 for a CD with 12 lame songs on it, when we can download what we want for free, spend $0.20 on a blank CD-R, and put 150+ songs that don't suck on it ourselves. Who's going to win this fight? We are, plain and simple. The RIAA is wasting their time, and ours.
not really suprising (Score:5, Funny)
Pavarotti is quoted to have said "Downloading music is wrong, because it's virtual. You're not getting the real thing. You're using technology to circumvent actually paying for it; you're taking the easy way out... Lip-synching a concert however, is perfectly okay; there's nothing wrong with that, the audience can't tell anyway,
Elton John on the matter: "Um, I really really need you're money since I'm WAY in debt, no, I didn't get screwed by my label, at least I don't think so, I was kinda high all the time."
"Elton, you spent $40,000 a month on flowers."
"They were pretty..."
disclaimer: don't know if it was exactly $40k, but it was some insane amount like that.
Re:not really suprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers,
Slak
Anti-RIAA campaign? (Score:2)
Perhaps it is time for some of those wealthy artists like the Offspring and Courtney Love who in the past have spoke out against the RIAA to fund a campaign of their own, promoting music downloads and against the RIAA.
Up here in Redmond country. (Score:2, Interesting)
So, m$ employees get to buy software for 10 bux. Now theres a reason to buy an X-box, when you can get 10 games for 100 bux. No reason to pirate your M$ OS either, when M$ gives it away for free. You just go to an m$ events, training, etc (and there are many around...) Hell, work alone (sun shop) M$ has given me (personally) multiple copies of NT server products with full licenses to keep. Too bad I cant sell them on E-Bay.
I hope Halo for PC [bungie.org] runs under wine.
This reminds me.... (Score:2, Funny)
Mmmm maybe microsoft has more evil tactics we may ever think of?
Hey, you can't use "RIAA" and "logic"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Music "sharing" is another name for FREE ADVERTISING! The real money is in merchandising anyways, concert ticket sales, T-shirts, branded notebooks, action figures...
When are those idiots going to learn that they can never stop the free exchange of data, without changing the country into a police state? Our friends in the White House (courtesy of many big business lobbiests) are trying their best to do this, but we don't YET need tongue tattoos to authenticate our cognitave brain centers. We retain the ability to think for ourselves, for just a little while longer.
MPAA/RIAA! It's really simple. You adapt your business model to become a service industry, which is what you are. Stop trying to treat content as a commodity (which it is not). Make tangible goods and sell those, but stop pretending that a song is something you can put in a box.
Boo-fucking-hoo. (Score:2)
From age 15 she had a golden music career. She still makes more in a day than I will all year.
Cry me a river. How does this hurt you? Can't buy that fourth sports car to fill up your garage?
Jesus. And people wonder why I dislike money.
Who's stealing what? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's hard for me to rationalize music downloading as stealing when the RIAA is happy to take my money without guaranteeing my satisfaction. Frankly, I think they're stealing my money when they sucker me into buying a CD.
I think their biggest concern is that P2P makes the market for music fair for the consumer instead of biased in the RIAA's favor.
Re:Who's stealing what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that you have virtually no way to find out what's on the CD before you buy it. Some (and I emphasize some) places offer a way to listen to the CD. But let's be realistic: Who's going to spend 60 minutes in a store just to hear one CD?
I realize that rational's a little extreme (who's really going to listen to an entire CD to determine purchase of it?, but P2P makes it easy to do exactly that, at 0 cost to the RIAA other than they lose the opportunity to keep your money.
Sorry, but I don't sympathize with the RIAA. If the customer says "we prefer buying individual songs" their strategy shouldn't be "well we'll grease up the politiicians so that the law says you have to follow our business model."
RIAA's ad vs. the Onion's (Score:2, Funny)
R
not just developing markets (Score:2)
Even in the US, Microsoft would probably prefer people using pirated MS software over using no MS software, as long as they couldn't afford to buy the Software from MS. This is why MS gives millions worth of their products to college students every year. Up to this month, my university [psu.edu] had an agreement to give out free ms software including: Office, Windows XP, Visual Studio, and more. This agreement has finally ended, and I can't help to wonder if MS tries use a drug dealer approach to software, to come in to a University and set up an agreement to give away software and then end it after a couple of years in hope that the University will shell out big bucks to keep the agreement.
For the pirates that can't afford MS software, they want then to become accustomed to MS software to the point where when they leave school they will buy computers with the latest version of windows preloaded and more importantly, demand that windows be in their computer at work.
Multiple copies (Score:2)
How many of those people would eventually switch to Linux for both boxes? A good number I suspect.
Osorio's paper (Score:2)
Drug dealer tactics... (Score:2)
Put activation on 'enterprise' copies (Score:3, Insightful)
They've never been serious about stopping piracy. Collecting money - yes. Stopping piracy - no.
Why piracy will not die (Score:2, Insightful)
A country with a very poor economy will always suffer from piracy and counterfiets. The reason for this is that majority of the population simply cannot afford things such as original software that a member of a rich country can easily afford.
Take, for example, my country - the Philippines. An average worker here earns around $160 a month, as opposed to 1st-world countries where $2000 a month is more or less normal. Here, lunches cost around $1-$2, with $2 being already considered "expensive". Assuming an individual purcheses food at $1 and eats 3x a day, for 30 days, that would be a total of 30 * 1 * 3 = $90, which leaves you with $70 to spend on rent, electricity, water, phone, etc. That isn't much, and it's only ENOUGH to keep you sustained. If you have a family, things become worse.
Now this doesn't leave us much for luxury goods such as $40 PC games, let alone a $200 operating system. Hence, the solution - piracy.
Will Microsoft bother going after these small third-world home users? I don't think so. Since we don't have the capacity to buy, we aren't very high in their target market list, or they would be relentlessly knocking down pirated CD stalls everyday.
And others get the bill from piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Now let's look at Microsoft. MS decides not to pursue piracy to gain an "advertising" edge in the OS market. So how do they make up for those losses? They charge more for the software in markets with a higher cost of living, or markets where they really chase after the software pirates, as it really cuts into their profit margins. So basically we consumers (who may be stuck buying Windows - that's a different story) are stuck with the bill for the piracy. Why would a company in a monopoly position really care if they loose money in one place when they can get away with charging more for it in another place?
This problem even hits the health care industry. Once I had a workman comp case when I was a student (injured in the lab) and had to get an itemized bill back from the hospital. $25 for a throw away stiches kit, $50 for gauze, $220 for "Emergency Room Service/Bed Rental". When I asked why so high - I was basically told that the hospital pads its costs do be able to provide care to those who don't have insurance, or those who decided to not pay their bills. Not piracy, but you get the idea. Those of us who have the money carry the burden for those who don't. I don't mind the angle of providing care for the poor, but for those who didn't want to pay their bills?!? WTF?!?
So how does this all relate to MS's non-piracy clause. Simple, they now have subscription based software costs to make up for lost money due to piracy. They also charge more for the base OS, which is so buggy and unstable it ought to be them paying me to use it. So now not only might I be paying for software which doesn't work as well as it should, but I'm paying for MS's advertising in new markets where they lose money. Grumble. One more reason I plan to try and make my house MS free.
So turn in software pirates? (Score:2)
I'm gonna take a while to get me head wrapped around that one :-)
Intersting (Score:5, Funny)
Too true. Stop the insanity.
First hand experience, this is true. (Score:5, Insightful)
His response was that since piracy is so rampant in China, Windows is, in essence, free as well. He added that he doesn't forsee people leaving the windows platform, as long as it's so readily available on the black market. If serious crackdown began to occur, there might be a move otherwise, but until then, there was very little chance of an alternate OS being adopted.
There was a bit more in the discussion too, but I can't remember offhand what it was. In any case, it put things in a really interesting light.
Britney (Score:3, Funny)
"I go to lot's of overseas places, like Canada"
"My love for New York is indefinite."
"Where the hell is Australia anyway?"
(paraphrase)"I covered 'I love rock and roll' because I'm a big Pat Benatar fan"
"Downloading music is like stealing a CD"
Does the RIAA really want those quotes associated with one another? To late now I guess.
Competition from Linux forced M$ to do a 180 (Score:5, Interesting)
The end result of all this piracy was massive market penetration, to the point where the average Chinese IT worker is "born and raised" on Microsoft products. It's easy to abandon industry standards in favor of the M$ proprietary trap when everything costs $4 per CD.
M$ first introduced product activation in Asia, allegedly because of the rampant piracy. When they realized how quickly the Chinese were prepared to drop M$ in favor of Linux, they couldn't give away the products fast enough.
It will be interesting to see how Microsoft handles product pricing in the various markets around the world. Their current pricing is encountering resistance from US companies, but not [yet] to the point of wholesale abandonment. US prices would be dead-on-arrival in less developed parts of the world, where the commitment to Microsoft is less, as is the availability of funds.
Sure, they can give away the product, but what happens when the market will tolerate a price that not free but far less than full price? Hypothetically, if Microsoft sells a product for $500 in the US and they blow it out for $5 in China, is that not a classic case of product dumping? If they do this, shouldn't I buy all my US licenses via my Beijing office?
From here on out, it will be damn hard for M$ to control who gets the freebies, who gets a steep discount, and who pays a fully-monopolized price.
Britney Spears Hasn't Lost a Cent Because of Me (Score:4, Funny)
ID Did this, non? (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows anti-piracy mechanisms (Score:3, Interesting)
People everywhere will be so pissed off, and will be reaching for the Linux CD's faster than you can say insmod ntfs.o.
I think they know that though. Their current tactics are just to warn corporates to pay up. To be honest, I think Microsoft are resigned to home users running Windows for free, although they don't mind if they can get a few of the old timers to actually fork out.
Uh...no (Score:4, Funny)
I'm so torn (Score:3, Funny)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Damn it, it's NOT the same as stealing a CD... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit, it is not. First of all, if you steal the CD from a store, the person who gets hurt is the store owner. He's already bought that CD from the distributor who bought it from the label, who paid the pittance of a royalty to the artist. So if you go in and steal a CD from the store, it isn't hurting the artist, or the distributor, or the label. It's hurting the store owner only.
Now if you download a CD's worth of stuff from the net, it's a theoretical loss only. No real money is lost, just the *possible* opportunity for a sale. One would have to prove that the person would have went out and bought the CD and didn't because they got it off thet net before you could legitimately count it as a realized loss. And even so, it's a loss of income, not a theft loss where property or money was deprived of the owner (as in, their net worth went down by their share of that CD).
Now both cases are "wrong" but they are in no way "the same thing." There is a real victim in one case, and theoretical victims in the other case.
Re:in other news.... (Score:3, Funny)
I've just realised something. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've just realised something. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I've just realised something. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've just realised something. (Score:2)
Their license agreement allowed you to install the program on as many PCs as you wanted, as long as it was only used on one PC at a time. This allowed you to put it on your home PC, your work PC, your laptop PC, etc., and you only had to pay once.
That's one way to allow "some" piracy to occur. Not the only way by any means, but it's one way.
Re:I've just realised something. (Score:3, Insightful)
In Mexico, there was a crackdown on small cybercafes using pirated copies of Windows. A few big busts happen, word gets out, and everyone panics. Many cybercafes start installing Linux everywhere, since they simply can't afford the retail price of Windows.
This hurts Microsoft more than it helps. It weakens their monopoly. On the other hand, they can't lower their prices in Mexico significantly below what it is in the US, or else everyone in the US will simply go down to Mexico to get their licenses. It makes better sense for them to selectively enforce against deep-pocketed violaters (including legitimate businesses that might have just a couple yahoos who install a couple too many copies of a piece of software they otherwise legitimately license) and to leave the streets and schools alone. This is a logic that everyone had been citing for ages, but the BSA had been "debunking" it - until the free software started getting installed everywhere.
Re:True only to a point. (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is in the users. Your product was probably targetted toward the type of user more apt to steal the software. Windows is targetted at a much broader audience, and the majority of people do not pirate windows (if only because they pay for it when purcahsing a PC).
I know your situation is common though with smaller projects. Back in my shareware days, my product (DJ software) had about 100 downloads per day for a solid 3 years; yet, registrations were maybe 2 or 3 per week (add up bandwidth and it was generally a loss). Granted not everyone who downloaded it necessarily used it, but with less than 0.5% registrations, and the easy availability of cracks/serials/keygens for it...
Note that this product also had an unusually high rate of credit card fraud on attempted registrations, which coincides with the high piracy rate.
So Windows has the following advantages over "niche" software:
- Many users pay for it (eg, PC purchase) who may not have otherwise
- It's a much larger piece of software (more difficult to just find floating around the 'net, download and install)
- The more people use it, the more people standardize on it. Generally not true with software for which there exists compatible choices and competition.
And so on. These are luxuries smaller developers don't have.
Unrelated note, the RIAA is an unnecessary middle-man and I hope they go broke and leave, or wisen up to the times, I don't care which. I long for the day a motion picture soundtrack costs less than the motion picture itself (DVD) by at least half.
Re:True only to a point. (Score:3, Funny)
"Someday, you kids! Someday!"
- Hilary Rosen after six beers and a Palladium conference.
Re:Duh. (Score:2)
How much to you think the OEMs pay for Windows?
Re:Microsoft Ads? (Score:2, Funny)
Well, I thought Slashdot went for a nose dive this early morning, but I think the servers were just being a little naughty. This was around 2am or 3am...
Slashdot in a Microsoft party [sconnolly.com] and maybe they really need people to buy those Penguin Computing racks [sconnolly.com]!!!!
I understand some servers could die, but this was just a bit flimzy! And of course I had to take 2 snapshots of the Slashdot website for it.
Re:Microsoft Ads? (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Re:Isn't this (Score:4, Insightful)
So, in effect, software piracy in countries like China helps Microsoft to compete with Linux." Meanwhile, the RIAA doesn't feel the same logic applies to record sales in the U.S.
Even the poster of the article argees MS has something to compete with (Linux). RIAA does not, it owns every record. So it can crack down on piracy without benefiting competitor.Download Music, Hurt Nelly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when can a guy who comes up with the lyric, "It's getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes!" be considered an artist?
Re:Download Music, Hurt Nelly? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about some guy who paints someone sitting in some grass on paper like here [nga.gov] or perhaps someone who paints some fruit in a bowl like here [nga.gov]. How the hell can fruit a bowl be art? Now the line you stated may not be art in of itself, but when tied with all of the songs lyrics and background music it does becomes Nelly's expression of something(not sure what it is though
Re:Download Music, Hurt Nelly? (Score:3, Informative)
It may not be art to you, but I find it clever. IMO it's more creative than four and a half minutes of silence. I also don't understand taking one small piece of a one song designed for radio airplay (and hence probably not his most "artistic" work) and judging artistic worth on that.
On the other hand, "Hot in Here" is the only worthwhile song on the CD.