Posted on 10/04/2006 11:35:01 AM PDT by ShadowAce
SEATTLE (AP) - Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)'s forthcoming Windows Vista will take much harsher steps to curtail piracy than previous versions of its operating system, including crippling the usefulness of computers found to be running unlicensed copies of the new software.
The world's largest software maker said Wednesday that people running a version of Windows Vista that it believes is pirated will initially be denied access to some of the most anticipated Vista features. That includes Windows Aero, an improved graphics technology.
If a legitimate copy is not bought within 30 days, the system will curtail functionality much further by restricting users to just the Web browser for an hour at a time, said Thomas Lindeman, Microsoft senior product manager.
Under that scenario, a person could use the browser to surf the Web, access documents on the hard drive or log onto Web-based e-mail. But the user would not be able to directly open documents from the computer desktop or run other programs such as Outlook e-mail software, Lindeman said.
Microsoft said it won't stop a computer running pirated Vista software from working completely, and it will continue to deliver critical security updates.
The company also said it has added more sophisticated technology for monitoring whether a system is pirated. For example, the system will be able to perform some piracy checks internally, without contacting Microsoft, Lindeman said.
Microsoft also is adding ways to more closely monitor for piracy among big corporate users, who tend to buy licenses in bulk.
Microsoft plans to take similar tough measures with the forthcoming version of its Windows server software, dubbed "Longhorn," and to incorporate it into other products down the road.
The crackdown shows how much more seriously Microsoft has started taking Windows piracy, which for years has been extremely widespread in areas such as Russia and China. The Business Software Alliance, a software industry group, estimates that 35 percent of software installed on PCs worldwide is pirated.
In recent years, the market for Windows - one of Microsoft's main cash cows - has become more saturated. That's left the company eager to make money from users who may otherwise have obtained illegal Windows copies.
Microsoft has already instituted tougher piracy checks for Windows XP users who want to get free add-ons such as anti-spyware programs. But until now, the warnings and punitive measures were mainly seen as annoying, rather than debilitating.
Cori Hartje, director of Microsoft's Genuine Software Initiative, said the company now wants users to notice the difference between legal and pirated copies of Vista.
"Our goal is to really make a differentiated experience for genuine and non-genuine users," Hartje said.
Analyst Roger Kay with Endpoint Technologies Associates noted that Microsoft has the right to curtail illegal distribution of its software. The new piracy measures, he said, "seem harsh only in comparison to how lenient it has been."
Nevertheless, Kay said he expects that the anti-piracy tactics will keep some people from upgrading to Vista from the current operating system, Windows XP.
"There will be an XP backlash, which is to say people (will) cling to XP in order to avoid this," he said.
Kay also doesn't expect the new piracy measures to be that effective against hardcore pirates, who have built de facto businesses selling illegal Windows copies. But he thinks it will stop some lower-level piracy.
After many delays, Redmond-based Microsoft is expected to release Vista to businesses in November and consumers in January.
No. WE are talking about copyright infringement.
YOU are fixated on using the wrong words.
Copyright infringement is illegal (mostly) but it is NOT theft.
To call it so is as silly as to refer to burglary as embezzlement.
You were referred to a reference that outlines what copyright infringement is. You referred to it in your remarks. For you to continue to refer to copyright infringement as theft marks you as a troll.
To continue to try to justify your theft marks you as a liberal.
1. I'm not the one that's decided to "reframe the debate" by changing the meaning of words, a classic liberal tactic.
2. I find it more than funny that you refer to it as "my" theft. I don't use Windows and I won't be using Vista. You might want to check out my tagline.
It has to do with copying (stealing) software you haven't paid for, not to mention agreeing to a contract when you install the product and then reneging on your word.
You might not have ever done that, but based on your entire attitude, a liberal attitude, I'd bet plenty you have done it dozens, if not hundreds of times.
Anyway, carry on. This conversation is going no where and I'm sure you will never be reformed but always think that things are free and your word is just a tactic to get what you want.
You can have the last rant. Use it to justify theft to yourself, you will never convince any ethical person.
I agree, it's getting a bit ridiculous. An OS shouldn't be a big resource hog, eating up most of your computer's power just for eye candy. I'm thinking I'll just stick with XP, for now.
"It seems like everyone around here (conservatives?) focuses on their inconvenience, but never on the filthy, lying, thieving scumbags who steal software.
That's my only point. They have a frickin right to protect their property. Particularly from commie bastards."
Yes, they do. I can't deny that no-one has a "right" to use pirated copies of a copyrighted piece of software. It's a vicious circle, though - Microsoft introduced all sorts of anti-piracy features in XP that made power users less likely to want to install a legal copy on their computers. Also, Microsoft's retail prices for boxed, non-upgrade versions of XP are ridiculous. They say they want to bring people using pirated versions back online, so why don't they offer them XP at upgrade or OEM prices?
Yes, I run a bootleg version of XP Professional corporate edition, for all the reasons listed above. And no, none of them justifies using pirated software. But like many people I'm weak and couldn't turn down a "free" copy of XP professional. I don't plan to go to Vista anytime soon, but if they want people like me to pay for Vista for their machines that don't come with it OEM, they really need to consider lowering the retail-boxed pricing.
"I don't plan to go to Vista steal a new BMW anytime soon, but if they want people like me to pay for Vista for their machines that don't come with it OEM, my own luxury car they really need to consider lowering the retail-boxed pricing."
Sometimes things just need translating.
Let's see, you are a thief because MS made you do it. I get it now.
Look, I already conceded that I have knowingly violated their copyright, and that I have no valid justification for it. And has already been pointed out, violating copyright is not "theft" - it may be illegal and/or immoral, but it's not "theft". In any case, I was just pointing out that if Microsoft want to bring people like me back into the fold, they might want to reconsider their pricing structure.
On to the next thing,,,I admitted it, I don't feel bad about it, I never apologized for it, and most important, IT'S STILL THE FAULT OF THE VICTIM!!
High prices are the cause of crime.
I'm really glad you did somthing illegal and immoral, but thank goodness it's not "theft" in your mind.
They shouldn't bring you "back into the fold", they should throw your sorry butt in jail.
Yeah, that's right, I don't feel too bad about it. And no, it's not theft in my mind. If I steal a car, somebody else is out a car. If I break copyright on intellectual property, somebody else is out a potential sale, at worst, assuming I would have otherwise paid for a copy. And I'm not blaming the "victim" (hard to see Microsoft in that light, though), I'm just suggesting they might have more success getting people to come back to legal software if their prices, particularly for the stand-alone retail versions, were lower.
And, BTW, even if they could find me and prove that I "stole" their software, they couldn't lay charges against me - individual software piracy is not a criminal offense (unlike actual theft of real property). The worst they could do is sue me, which would likely cost them more than they could recover.
Meanwhile, I have pirated software that works just fine despite their nagging, and their offer is to set me up with a legal copy for their inflated retail boxed price. I might even take them up on it, just to put myself right, but many others won't. They might, however, and I'd certainly be more inclined, if the price was more reasonable. Sorry if that doesn't fit your black and white view of the world, but that's how it is in the real world. A carrot and stick approach works better than just the stick, and really, where current versions like mine of XP are concerned, their stick is non-existent and the carrot is very tiny (an appeal to your conscience with a high price tag). Even if I go for it, many like me will not.
You are as thief, a criminal, and an immoral slob. But hey, at least you are arrogant about it.
Now, don't post to me anymore, I feel like puking after seeing you on this site. You belong on DU.
In other news, Customers to take a hard stand against Microsoft.
There. Clarified.
As long as you use the original Serial number for Windows, you're not doing anything wrong, and nothing that Microsoft would have a problem with. If you try to use the same serial number on varios PCs, then you'll have some issues. If your PC is from a legitimate builder that buys legal Windows OS software for their systems, somewhere on the machine will be the serial number for that installation of Windows. You can also obtain replacement disks from MS for your version, sans the serial number.
Whether or not I have "stolen" something is debatable. Many, many people, including those who don't have vested interest on one side or the other, would agree with that statement. And I am not a criminal since I have broken no law. As a poster on a conservative site, I would have thought that you understand that words mean something - something specific, and not just how you want to use them.
You're a fine one to talk about arrogance. Your holier-than-thou, self-righteous comments have more than a slight odor of arrogance about them. You and the other guy you were verbally sparring with certainly managed to kill this thread (which I hadn't yet noticed when I replied to the earlier posts). Maybe you should go over to DU so you can get off on verbally castigating them all for their wickedness and immorality.
I think what MS is counting on is that there are a whole bunch of IT departments out there just like mine. If it's MS, they buy it. If it's not, they don't want to hear about it. The computer manufacturers are salivating at Vista because you'll have to get a more powerful computer to run it.
There is a world of difference between copyrights (which are broken but fixable) and EULAs (which are generally considered to be unenforceable.) But since you seem to be incapable of differentianting between copyright infringment and theft, I'm sure the distinction is lost on you. Then again, the distinction between your head and a hole in the ground is probably lost on you as well.
You might not have ever done that, but based on your entire attitude, a liberal attitude, I'd bet plenty you have done it dozens, if not hundreds of times.
I'll take a piece of that action. Only a fool bets when he doesn't know the odds.
Anyway, carry on. This conversation is going no where and I'm sure you will never be reformed but always think that things are free and your word is just a tactic to get what you want.
Well, for once you are right. This conversation is going nowhere. Because you are an idiot. I wil never be reformed because I can read the Constitution and I understand that what passes for copyright today bears little resemblance to what the original intent of the founders was (and you might want to take a look at the front page of this site on that subject) and what I want is a return to fair and just copyrights.
You can have the last rant. Use it to justify theft to yourself, you will never convince any ethical person.
I don't have to convince any "ethical" person. Not that you fit that description anyway.
You are a thief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.