Microsoft celebrates antipiracy day

Microsoft has announced that today, October 21st 2008, is Global Anti-Piracy Day and will proceed with a simultaneous launch of education initiatives and enforcement actions in 48 countries on five continents to combat the sophisticated, illegal trade of pirated and counterfeit software.

On their Global Anti-Piracy Virtual Pressroom a statement read: "Microsoft is taking these steps as part of its commitment to working with communities, national governments and local law enforcement agencies around the world to protect its customers and partners and promote the value of intellectual property as a driver of innovation."

Microsoft antipiracy map
Click on the map to go to the Microsoft site for the interactive aspects of the map.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Filter Pack For Windows Search

Next Story

Dude, someone hacked my keyboard

50 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think people didn't even check the map. If you hover your mouse over the dot it tells what its about, and their all about people using Windows that they BOUGHT from someone that is counterfeit.

MetalHellsAngel said,
You could just use Open Source Software then your not pirating anything...... :D

That's what i'm doing.

I use gimp, inkspace, openoffice, notepad++, Eclipse, ....

But companies don't have this luxury they are tied to MS proprietary formats. Even me i can't escape it making Eclipse compile directx code is a pain in the ass if it's even possible. That's why i have a perfectly *cough* legal *cough* installation of the ultra expensive Visual Studio 2008 at home. I use it to practice directx and .net programmation only.

And frankly the only reason i have Vista is to play Directx games because for anything else Linux is as good and free.

By supporting proprietary format the customers just hurt themselves and sadly people who want to use open source software must live with it.

BTW i'm not 100% for opensource software as i'm a programme myself. I need to make money to pay my house, car and such. And i would not make my work opensource.

But 250$ for an OS is just sick. Really really sick. There's not enough competition in the computer market and companies can set the price as they want. There's no Wall Mart. Also the big companies buying software at a ridiculous price while alternative can make the job doesn't help. For exemple i'll never understand why people are still buying Photoshop while XataXtreme do the job for most of them for something like 2 times less money.

The first step would be those big companies putting pressure on software makers to support open format like Open Document and SVG so Open Source alternatives become more accessible since most of them support open format of course.

Open source users CHOOSE to use open source and CHOOSE to live with the consequences. If you think you are "suffering" then CHOOSE to use something else. How you think you deserve to be paid as a programmer but Microsoft's employees should work for free is beyond any logic. But I suppose you need to justify your theft somehow. You poor victim you.

If your product ever hits the shelves I hope it is pirated. You can't pirate Microsoft's stuff and then expect everyone to pay for yours. That's not the way the world works.

C_Guy said,
Open source users CHOOSE to use open source and CHOOSE to live with the consequences. If you think you are "suffering" then CHOOSE to use something else. How you think you deserve to be paid as a programmer but Microsoft's employees should work for free is beyond any logic. But I suppose you need to justify your theft somehow. You poor victim you.

If your product ever hits the shelves I hope it is pirated. You can't pirate Microsoft's stuff and then expect everyone to pay for yours. That's not the way the world works.

If all people think like you things will never change. Glad you are happy to be [consored] by the computer industry. I guess it takes all taste to make a world ...

Wow seriously.

Like i said i use for the most part open source softwares so i have nothing to justify. My copy of Visual Studio is an academic one downloaded at school but since i finished my school last spring it's not "legal" anymore. But i still use it for academic puspose as the work i do with it is done to learn MS .NET (something i must do as a programmer) and all the work stay on my comp of course. Sorry dude but i don't have 1000$ to spend to learn .NET. All other softwares on my computer are legals yep i'm actually one of the really few people who paid for PowerArchiver cause i like it and it is cheap.

MS employees are really far from working for free (i know someone who work for MS actually). You implying that just show how disconneted with real life of normal people you are.

Oh and btw ty to care for myself but i'm wealthy and if you pirate one of "my" software (our software in fact cause you know it takes a team to make software) you'll only hurt the company i'm working for and honestly this company if far from closing its doors lol

The end of the story is 250$ is way too much for an OS and the computer market needs more competition and standard that are open and not the proprietary of a company.

Plus there is no doubt in my mine they don't want to crack down on piracy too much as it undermines their domination. This is just parading.

Each time MS is threaten to loose market to linux or apple, MS comes up with a hugely discounted version for that market. Which in the end tells everybody we don't care how much you paid for it, just don't switch. In my mind piracy is helping MS.

It's too late for me... I already switched

My country doesn't even sell legal Windows lol how am I supposed to get a genuine one. Albania FTW. shops sell illegal stuff.

Oh... so... you exchanged money for a good? I see. So, you helped Microsoft pay the wages of the people who worked to make the product you want to own? Hhmmm seems logical to me. Not sure why so many people have entitlement issues. After all, they wouldn't work for free, why they expect Microsoft's employees to I have no idea.

Impact said,
I have a feeling that Microsoft will be the only one celebrating this day.

Are a fool who enjoys PAYING money for pirated soft?
Dumb one =)

theyarecomingforyou said,
And who decides if it is "worth the money"? People shouldn't just steal products because they don't agree with the price.


Exactly. If you don't want to pay for the software you ARE NOT entitled to use it. Simple. I'd love an iPhone, but I wouldn't steal one because I couldn't afford one!

bbfc_uk said,
Exactly. If you don't want to pay for the software you ARE NOT entitled to use it. Simple. I'd love an iPhone, but I wouldn't steal one because I couldn't afford one!

Not pirating software would not change the fact that people would not buy it. Pirating or using Linux/Gimp equals the same for MS or Adobe. The end result is you did not buy Photoshop or Vista.

In fact companies don't complain about you pirating their softwares they complain about you not buying them.

AT the price MS and Adobe sell their product piracy or not people wont but them.

I'm sorry but we have reached the point where the operating system cost near as much as the computer itself.

My friend bought a new computer last year for 500$ CAD. This is a good computer with 2GB of RAM, a Core 2 duo and a 400GB HD. The only weak part of the computer is the integrated Intel gpu but she doesn't play games beside WoW so this is not a problem since WoW runs fine on it.

MS sells vista Home Premium for 250$ CAD so this is half the price of a good computer only.

That is ridiculous and you can't say it's not.

And i wont start with Photoshop ...

LaP said,
Pirating or using Linux/Gimp equals the same for MS or Adobe. The end result is you did not buy Photoshop or Vista.

No, they'd actually prefer people to pirate their products instead of using something different.
Piracy provides mindshare and user lock, needed to hold the marketshare.

bbfc_uk said,
Exactly. If you don't want to pay for the software you ARE NOT entitled to use it. Simple. I'd love an iPhone, but I wouldn't steal one because I couldn't afford one!

If you steal an iPhone, the person you stole it from doesn't have their iPhone anymore. If you pirate software, the person your pirated from still have their software.
Please can you give me examples where your stealing something from someone results in them still having what you've "stolen" and then I shall believe pirating is stealing.
I do agree, however, that in some cases you may not be "entitled" to use digital information that you've broken the license of.

Quote: exotoxic on 22 Oct 2008 - 00:07
To cut piracy make software cheaper and worth the money.

Obviously didn't pass basic economics.
The price of a good bears no relation to the cost of manufacture and distribution or the number of copies sold.

The price of a good is determined by what the market will bear.

Most people were unwittingly conditioned to pay exorbitant prices for their OS because it was bundled with the computer.

They charge exorbitant prices because they figure people will pay whatever they ask.

Bill Gates did not go from the back of his garage to the richest man in the world in ten years by charging reasonable prices and creaming normal profit margins.

ID2 said,
The price of a good is determined by what the market will bear.


That's true of most good. But in this case, you're dealing with a quasi-monopoly and MS is able to overcharge.

If there was more operating system available out there or if Linux would finally start to become more mainstream, the price of Windows would go down.

MS, you can price your software however you want, but, would you rather have (as an example) 75% profit on
software, with 80% piracy, or say 40% profit with 10% piracy?
I think if they really marketed their software price "Wal-Mart" style, there would be a lot less piracy.
Considering the bad press with Vista, you would think they would drop the (retail) price down a little to encourage
people to buy it, instead of stealing it.

naap51stang said,
MS, you can price your software however you want, but, would you rather have (as an example) 75% profit on
software, with 80% piracy, or say 40% profit with 10% piracy?
I think if they really marketed their software price "Wal-Mart" style, there would be a lot less piracy.
Considering the bad press with Vista, you would think they would drop the (retail) price down a little to encourage
people to buy it, instead of stealing it.

and when they cut prices , people will just says "see see ! windows is failure that why they cut prices"

Actually, this is EXACTLY what MS and Adobe do in particular. By design.

They know businesses must buy it and have the BSA fascists to enforce this. So, they allow Photoshop to be pirated by individuals but require it to be paid for by professionals.

That way they can make $1,000 on 10,000 units instead of $10 on 1,000,000 copies. And yet for the same sales ($10 million) they save 100:1 on tech support, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, etc. etc. etc. This means more profit, less infrastructure, less work.

It's very simple. It's very obvious. And actually, it makes a lot of sense.

That's why they don't care about you doing this at home, etc. They DO care about street vendors SELLING it in Hong Kong, for example, even though they don't support a sale price for their product in Hong Kong that is tied to the local value of goods and services. This is because people who THINK they have legitimately paid for it cost them tech support calls, without having generated the requisite profit. It is a net drain on profit to allow the gray market/counterfeiters to continue. They KNOW they'd have never gotten the money out of these buyers (they just don't have it), but they don't want to assume the costs vs. benefits of course.

It's why studios complain about piracy of DVDs even though they have decided there isn't enough profit in shipping those DVDs for sale in these areas (so you CAN'T buy them legitimately!). They also know that if the same DVD is legally sold for $2 in Hong Kong and $20 in the US, some enterprising entrepreneur will find a way to sell the $2 in the US and PROFIT. They see this as at their expense. So, that's why the MPAA etc. developed region encoding to try and stamp this down.

It's all a game to milk as much money out of us for the least amount of cost, of course. Fortunately, the world gets smaller every day and digital distribution and technologies are forcing them to adapt or go the way of the dinosaurs that they are.

Pricing isn't the problem, Windows could cost $1 and people would still pirate it. The problem isn't really the price, but the fact people want stuff for free. You know? why pay any amount for something, when you know there are way to get it and not pay a cent. Unfortunately there are many people who feel that way, so I think changing the price would have little effect honestly. What needs to be done really is educate people on why they *should* pay for it, but that is an epic challenge in it's own right :P

Xerxes said,
Pricing isn't the problem, Windows could cost $1 and people would still pirate it. The problem isn't really the price, but the fact people want stuff for free. You know? why pay any amount for something, when you know there are way to get it and not pay a cent. Unfortunately there are many people who feel that way, so I think changing the price would have little effect honestly. What needs to be done really is educate people on why they *should* pay for it, but that is an epic challenge in it's own right :P

i think that's the bottom line for a high percentage of people.

BUT... i think it could be possible to give people more incentive to buy your product if you making using a shady copy difficult to use or update etc etc as if the price was cheap enough 'some people' might actually just saying 'this aint worth messing with, im just going to buy it'

excalpius said,
Actually, this is EXACTLY what MS and Adobe do in particular. By design.

They know businesses must buy it and have the BSA fascists to enforce this. So, they allow Photoshop to be pirated by individuals but require it to be paid for by professionals.

That way they can make $1,000 on 10,000 units instead of $10 on 1,000,000 copies. And yet for the same sales ($10 million) they save 100:1 on tech support, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, etc. etc. etc. This means more profit, less infrastructure, less work.

It's very simple. It's very obvious. And actually, it makes a lot of sense.

That's why they don't care about you doing this at home, etc. They DO care about street vendors SELLING it in Hong Kong, for example, even though they don't support a sale price for their product in Hong Kong that is tied to the local value of goods and services. This is because people who THINK they have legitimately paid for it cost them tech support calls, without having generated the requisite profit. It is a net drain on profit to allow the gray market/counterfeiters to continue. They KNOW they'd have never gotten the money out of these buyers (they just don't have it), but they don't want to assume the costs vs. benefits of course.

It's why studios complain about piracy of DVDs even though they have decided there isn't enough profit in shipping those DVDs for sale in these areas (so you CAN'T buy them legitimately!). They also know that if the same DVD is legally sold for $2 in Hong Kong and $20 in the US, some enterprising entrepreneur will find a way to sell the $2 in the US and PROFIT. They see this as at their expense. So, that's why the MPAA etc. developed region encoding to try and stamp this down.

It's all a game to milk as much money out of us for the least amount of cost, of course. Fortunately, the world gets smaller every day and digital distribution and technologies are forcing them to adapt or go the way of the dinosaurs that they are.

That was an interesting read, thanks. I think you're onto something.

Xerxes said,
Pricing isn't the problem, Windows could cost $1 and people would still pirate it. The problem isn't really the price, but the fact people want stuff for free. You know? why pay any amount for something, when you know there are way to get it and not pay a cent. Unfortunately there are many people who feel that way, so I think changing the price would have little effect honestly. What needs to be done really is educate people on why they *should* pay for it, but that is an epic challenge in it's own right :P

Yes, *some* would still pirate at $1, but there's no doubting a huge percentage of people would pay that dollar to buy it legitimately.

excalpius said,
It's all a game to milk as much money out of us for the least amount of cost, of course. Fortunately, the world gets smaller every day and digital distribution and technologies are forcing them to adapt or go the way of the dinosaurs that they are.



I've always said if they price it less, they would sell more.

But your argument make tons of sense.

OTOH Windows is indeed way too expensive. When I build a machine and the price of Windows represent 40% of the cost of that machine, there is something wrong.

Xerxes said,
Pricing isn't the problem, Windows could cost $1 and people would still pirate it.


You are completely wrong about this. If Windows would sell for $49., piracy of Windows would drop to a negligable 2 or 3 %.

Captain555 said,
You are completely wrong about this. If Windows would sell for $49., piracy of Windows would drop to a negligible 2 or 3 %.

Again, MS has no incentive to do this. Why increase costs 1000% for the same NET profit?

It's the same reason they won't release their products in China at a price the average Chinese citizen can afford.

How about buying the software, and getting locked out of windows for just a few hardware changes/bios flashes, then being forced to use telephone when the caller is deaf and being treated a criminal. No.

Matan Mates said,
****, they're coming to israel.
means i gotta fry my hard drives :/


Sure they're coming to israel, did you thing they would Passover?

justlooking said,
Sure they're coming to israel, did you thing they would Passover? ;)

I have a clever response to that, but it would be in poor taste, though.