Vista, Office 2007 cracked. Kind of.

[remix17]

But Microsoft is still loosing. Hasn't Microsoft's license always stated that you don't actually own the copy of Windows you purchased, you just own the license that allows you to use Windows. So if you look at it that way, then regardless of whether or not you stole physical media or downloaded it from P2P network, you've stolen a license.

No not you, but the group that released the software stole it and gave it to you as a free gift.

[jedimasterk]

Why can't people just buy the damn software? :no:

Because not everyone one can afford their prices!. Especially third world countries. And they want more than just stripped down versions, like Windows XP Starter Edition. Which to me is an insult to them. And why Linux is a way better alternative for thoses countries, and even this one.

[jwjw1]

Quote - (liquidcore @ Nov 13 2006, 07:49)

Dave Penny,

Micosoft Software Advisor

PS, if your wallet is that tight, get Student XP, its free and legal

this could be more convincing if it came from Dave Buck or Dave Dollar...LOL

[jedimasterk]

Quote - (liquidcore @ Nov 13 2006, 07:49)

Dave Penny,

Micosoft Software Advisor

PS, if your wallet is that tight, get Student XP, its free and legal

this could be more convincing if it came from Dave Buck or Dave Dollar...LOL

They could just use OpenOffice 2.0, which blows Student and Teacher Edition away, in terms of functionality.

[Hurmoth]

How can one lose what one does not have? If Microsoft does not have (and won't get) my money in the first place, how is me not giving them money stealing?

And the license is just a contract that allows you to use the software, you're still just using it against the terms of the [issue of the] license, you can't steal a license.

They haven't lost anything, they just haven't gained anything. There's a difference.

You're not seeing the legal side of this though.

A person, we'll call him Bob, is at Wal-Mart and is about to purchase a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate for $399. But instead he decides not to purchase the copy of Windows Vista Ultimate, but instead he decides to download it from his favorite P2P network. Microsoft has lost $399 because instead of Bob purchasing a legal copy, he downloaded an illegal copy. If Bob decided to steal the boxed copy at Wal-Mart, only Wal-Mart really looses money because they have already purchased the copy of Windows Vista from Microsoft. Either way, there's still a company that looses.

[SweetRiverBaynes]

...how exactly do you think they'll be able to make all the hotfix's that arguably end up being needed for each product because some finds an exploit...

So do we get any money back when an exploit is found and an intruder steals our identity. I don't hear you Microsoft employees telling us that hackers are a potential threat. You just tell us how safe we will all be.

[Julius Caro]

I am getting sick and tired of hearing that stealing a car is equivalent to stealing a copy of windows. IT IS NOT THE SAME THING! A car is a real world physical object that takes money and resources to manufacture. A copy of windows is a piece of software made of bytes; it can be copied for FREE. When you steal a car, you are preventing someone else from buying it, thus the company looses profits no matter what. When you pirate Windows you are NOT necessarily lowering Microsoft's profits.

Lets as an example consider Joe, average windows user who wants to upgrade to windows vista but unfortunately for him the price is too high and while he has the money, he can't afford to spend that much money on piece of software. So he downloads it for free. Did Microsoft loose money? NO. Why? Because Joe wasn't gonna pay for it in the first place. So while Joe benefits from pirating Windows, no one is hurt by it. This is perfectly legitimate logic.

Obviously not everyone is like Joe. Some people pirate software simply because they can do it. But don't assume that everyone is like them.

Companies like Microsoft dominate the industry. There are NO alternatives to Windows. If you buy a new computer, you are forced to get Windows. You have no choice. That allows Microsoft to set prices as high as they wish, making it very difficult for some people to resist the option of pirating. It is not true that everyone who downloads software will do so no matter what the price is. It is NOT true. I know this from personal experience. Because let's be honest piracy is a hassle. And at reasonable enough prices most people would not bother with it. Again some will in fact pirate no matter what. Nothing can be done about it. Some looses are in fact inevitable, but not nearly substantial. All those figures and statistics that are suppose to tell us how much piracy hurts profits are made under the assumption that everyone who pirates would buy otherwise which is not true to a slightest bit.

100% agree with you. That's what I tried to said earlier. And to add something, I do think that is not that bad for Microsoft that windows is pirated. Because that way they ensure that windows is still on 98%(*or whatever the figure is) of the computers all over the world . I read somewhere that around 35% of windows users were not legitimate. Piracy helps Windows stay on top. The piracy that microsoft fights is the one that makes some profit out of selling illegal copies.

[PermaSt0ne]

But Microsoft is still loosing. Hasn't Microsoft's license always stated that you don't actually own the copy of Windows you purchased, you just own the license that allows you to use Windows. So if you look at it that way, then regardless of whether or not you stole physical media or downloaded it from P2P network, you've stolen a license.

the license verify's the right to use the software for whatever is specified in the license that you get, as well as product updates and all that

if you pirate vista, you won't be getting updates

like you said, even if you buy the cd you don't OWN the software that you get, you own the license. so as long as you don't use somebody elses lisence that you never purchased but still get the benefits of a legal one, then there's no problem with using the software

well, that's how i'd view it anyways

if you don't make money off of it, and you don't get updates, why not use it?

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

You're not seeing the legal side of this though.

A person, we'll call him Bob, is at Wal-Mart and is about to purchase a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate for $399. But instead he decides not to purchase the copy of Windows Vista Ultimate, but instead he decides to download it from his favorite P2P network. Microsoft has lost $399 because instead of Bob purchasing a legal copy, he downloaded an illegal copy. If Bob decided to steal the boxed copy at Wal-Mart, only Wal-Mart really looses money because they have already purchased the copy of Windows Vista from Microsoft. Either way, there's still a company that looses.

In the first case, Microsoft have lost a POTENTIAL sale. Even if he decided not to download Windows Vista, he could have equally decided to download Unbuntu.

They have not LOST $399. They've just failed to GAIN $399.

[SweetRiverBaynes]

You're not seeing the legal side of this though.

A person, we'll call him Bob, is at Wal-Mart and is about to purchase a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate for $399. But instead he decides not to purchase the copy of Windows Vista Ultimate, but instead he decides to download it from his favorite P2P network. Microsoft has lost $399 because instead of Bob purchasing a legal copy, he downloaded an illegal copy. If Bob decided to steal the boxed copy at Wal-Mart, only Wal-Mart really looses money because they have already purchased the copy of Windows Vista from Microsoft. Either way, there's still a company that looses.

I had to shed light on this as well. What if Bob never bought or downloaded it. What if no one in the US bought or pirated windows? Microsoft gained nothing. And they lost nothing. Well a waste of time is all they lost. Funny Windows Me comes to mind...

[remix17]

How does it not hurt the companies? :rolleyes:

A copy of Windows Vista Ultimate costs $399. If 1000 people pirated (and that number is probably extremely conservative) then Microsoft has lost $399,000 already. That is a small number compared to how many have actually already pirated, but you get the point. It can hurt the company.

You assume that everyone who pirated Windows Vista would otherwise buy a copy if piracy wasn't an option. But only a small percentage of those 1000 people would actually do that. Most would stick with XP, some would get Home edition, and only few would buy Ultimate. The consensus: the act of pirating software does not necessarily hurt the company.

Read below:

They haven't lost anything, they just haven't gained anything. There's a difference.

[remix17]

You're not seeing the legal side of this though.

A person, we'll call him Bob, is at Wal-Mart and is about to purchase a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate for $399. But instead he decides not to purchase the copy of Windows Vista Ultimate, but instead he decides to download it from his favorite P2P network. Microsoft has lost $399 because instead of Bob purchasing a legal copy, he downloaded an illegal copy. If Bob decided to steal the boxed copy at Wal-Mart, only Wal-Mart really looses money because they have already purchased the copy of Windows Vista from Microsoft. Either way, there's still a company that looses.

Not everyone is like Bob. Joe for example never intended to buy a copy of Windows in the first place. He pirated Vista and Microsoft never lost or gained anything.

In the first case, Microsoft have lost a POTENTIAL sale. Even if he decided not to download Windows Vista, he could have equally decided to download Unbuntu.

They have not LOST $399. They've just failed to GAIN $399.

No actually I have to disagree with you on this one and agree with Hurmoth. A potential gain = loss. Microsoft doesn't loose ONLY if the person who pirated Windows never intended to buy a copy. In this case there in no actual gain nor is there potential gain.

[Osiris]

This thread would almost make a good sociological catalogue for peoples justification of for or against software piracy. Its a pretty simple premise to just accept; unless you're in nigeria software piracy is a legally recognised crime in your nation, thats all you need to know. You can go write a thesis on the matter, but the next day its still going to be a crime.

That being said, doesnt change the reality that it has, does and will occur and I think Microsoft have taken the right approach by acknowledging that whilst they cannot stop it, they can sure as hell make it annoying and irratating not to have a genuine copy.

However, on the broader issues remember to keep this in proportion and perspective, whilst software piracy costs the industry hundreds of millions, its still only a small fraction of the billions the industry makes, therefore is that a reason to justify high prices? The unfortunate reality is though that Microsoft despite loosing ground is still a monopoly and has monopoly power which essentially means they can continue to do what they have done for years and that is charge whatever they want because the percentage of people who wont actually buy it at that price or who might pirate it is miniscule. Combine that with the upgrade package options, oem options, student options etc and the price changes to cater even more across the board.

[jwjw1]

My take on the matter is...if MS sold 5 copies of Vista...and then those 5 copies got pirated..MS didn't lose a dime because they received payment for 5 copies...they only lost 'potential revenue' on the 5 pirated copies.

The real loss is to the customer that had to pay the 'high' price of Vista..because MS invested millions to prevent 'lost potential revenue'

Would MS rather sell 37million copies @ 600.00 or 370 million copies @ 200.00

I believe the main target of 'pirates' and 'hackers' is the cost.

Edited November 13, 2006 by jwjw1

[the evn show]

Why did you pay 39,000 for your car when you could have gotten a car for say 20,000? Hell a car is for transportation not for having your nice little CD player, stereo, nice leather seats etc.

Why a $20,000 car and not a $9,000 car? Why not a $1,500 moped? Why not a $70 bicycle? Because he can. People are under no obligation to forgo their access to comfort in the endless quest of "saving the poor" or whatever other cause you dream up. Furthermore, what sort of position are you to chastise the OP for the way he exercises his wealth when you're clearly spending yours on luxuries like a personal computer and Internet access?

You need to die and reincarnate and live life thru people's shoe who are obviously not doing so well as you are and who suffer and who wish to educate themselves with new technologies but as you say "steal" it.

The obvious—and equally asinine—retort is that the poor need to work a little harder or get on with "decreasing the surplus population" rather than sponging off those of us that are making something of ourselves. I may have been a member of the lucky sperm club but that doesn't obligate me to forego the fruits of my labor any more than it does you or a single mother living in government assisted housing. All of us our thousands of times richer than people in Bangladesh and my moral burden to better others (if I in fact have one) is no larger than yours.

you need to turn off your computer, find a girlfriend (a decent one at that) and live life a little bit more because you only get one life to live and it would be a shame to waste it on worrying about piracy.

Sing it with me:

• The pot bone is connected to the black bone.
  The black bone is connected to the kettle bone.
  The kettle bones connected to the YOU bone,
  and them bones gonna dance 'round
  

Well isnt it still 'technically' illegal to make copies of your own music CD's in any form? Its just ignored since people class it as "fair use". I guess that makes them all thieves in that case.

Let's just jump on this quickly. While laws vary from nation to nation, a fairly common theme is that making a copy of a recording you own is a legal use of that album. In Canada that right extends further allowing you to make a personal-use copy of any album that you are in legal possession of including (but not limited to) ones that you've borrowed from the library or a friend. Canadians can get a fairly good overview of their copyright laws from the CIPO Guide to Copyright. The section on "fair dealings and exemptions" is well worth the read, it includes gems such as:

Infringement:

• reprinting an article without the copyright owner's permission;
  …
  

Not infringement:

• quoting a few lines of the article in a research paper (fair dealing);
  …
  
• borrowing a musical tape from a friend to copy onto a blank tape for private use (a royalty payment to the owner of the song rights has been paid when the blank tape was purchased).
  

Unfortunately this section has not been updated to cover recent rulings about P2P file sharing, computer software, post sale contracts like EULAs, etc. It's your duty as a consumer to inform yourself of the rights and responsibilities you have: do a little research, it's surprising what you'll learn about your rights.

In America the Doctrine of Fair Use is codified in copyright law and serves much the same purpose as the Canadian Fair Dealings exemptions. Those two documents are not identical but they serve a similar purpose. I'm reasonably sure most other nations have similar exemptions to copyright law but I'm neither a lawyer nor politician so I'm unable to point you to all of them.

[jwjw1]

Not infringement:

borrowing a musical tape from a friend to copy onto a blank tape for private use (a royalty payment to the owner of the song rights has been paid when the blank tape was purchased).

this is a bunch of crap...is the store gonna ask what the blank tape is for, so they can determine royalty..for all they need to know..its for recording my son's voice...and if anyone buys a blank tape and records the voices at the school play...'parents of them kids better get royalty payments'...lol

[Post-It Note]

Let's just say, for simplicity, that the difference between one version of windows and another is that the more expensive version has function x,y, and z. Now, if you downloaded (free) software that mimics those 3 functions, have you just "stolen" a license for the more expensive version of Windows? No, of course not.

If I have a burnt copy of Windows (which is entirely legal to have), and installed it, it will still allow me to use it for, say, 30 days. Would you say that the difference between the trial copy and the activated copy is that you can't use the trial copy for more than 30 days? What if I download a (free) software that mimics the "lasts more than 30 days" function of the activated copy?

What's the big difference between the two examples that I have stated above? I'm sure there are some very large holes in the argument, but why don't someone list those ;).

[Hurmoth]

In the first case, Microsoft have lost a POTENTIAL sale. Even if he decided not to download Windows Vista, he could have equally decided to download Unbuntu.

They have not LOST $399. They've just failed to GAIN $399.

But you're forgetting that Microsoft has employees to pay that create the software. So Microsoft is loosing money by paying those employees for creating software that people are essentially stealing. I just don't see a difference between stealing it from the store and stealing it off the internet. Someone is loosing either way you look at it.

[remix17]

This thread would almost make a good sociological catalogue for peoples justification of for or against software piracy. Its a pretty simple premise to just accept; unless you're in nigeria software piracy is a legally recognised crime in your nation, thats all you need to know. You can go write a thesis on the matter, but the next day its still going to be a crime.

That being said, doesnt change the reality that it has, does and will occur and I think Microsoft have taken the right approach by acknowledging that whilst they cannot stop it, they can sure as hell make it annoying and irratating not to have a genuine copy.

However, on the broader issues remember to keep this in proportion and perspective, whilst software piracy costs the industry hundreds of millions, its still only a small fraction of the billions the industry makes, therefore is that a reason to justify high prices? The unfortunate reality is though that Microsoft despite loosing ground is still a monopoly and has monopoly power which essentially means they can continue to do what they have done for years and that is charge whatever they want because the percentage of people who wont actually buy it at that price or who might pirate it is miniscule. Combine that with the upgrade package options, oem options, student options etc and the price changes to cater even more across the board.

Completely agree.

Why a $20,000 car and not a $9,000 car? Why not a $1,500 moped? Why not a $70 bicycle? Because he can.

The obvious?and equally asinine?retort is that the poor need to work a little harder or get on with "decreasing the surplus population" rather than sponging off those of us that are making something of ourselves. I may have been a member of the lucky sperm club but that doesn't obligate me to forego the fruits of my labor any more than it does you or a single mother living in government assisted housing. All of us our thousands of times richer than people in Bangladesh and my moral burden to better others (if I in fact have one) is no larger than yours.

Again easy for you to say.

[samriley]

id like to bring up the point about it not necessarily harming and often benefiting companies again since some people seem to have missed it. if someone has no intention on buying something then they will not make any impact on the companies sales. that means if piracy wasnt an option they still would not pay for it. in this case piracy is beneficial to the company, its advertising for a start, the neighbor sees the new operating system and thinks wow and goes out an buys something which he might not have done before. they might tell people wow blah is actually really good, never thought it would be again others might then go and buy it. so thats the advertising point covered.

then theres the support issue. if people didnt upgrade ms would have to support older operating systems for longer. this costs a lot of money in training, man hours in fixing bugs and security holes etc. they would have to support the older operating systems with their newer software, they couldnt just blanked out 2k and below since the number of people still using these operating systems would still be quite large.

they are just 2 simple points in how piracy can help. think about it, if they originally had no intention on buying it then they have not cost the company a single penny. if everyone that pirated ms office instead used open office, then businesses might then use open office as well more since thats what everyone was using, and if businesses start using it more then other home users would as well... really not good for ms. same goes for every other software.

when something has tangible material thats a different matter since you are stealing something which actually costs money, there is a big difference.

[remix17]

But you're forgetting that Microsoft has employees to pay that create the software. So Microsoft is loosing money by paying those employees for creating software that people are essentially stealing. I just don't see a difference between stealing it from the store and stealing it off the internet. Someone is loosing either way you look at it.

Was it not just explained like 10 times by several different people, including myself and a person above, that the act of pirating software may or may NOT hurt the company depending on the whether the person who pirated it would otherwise buy it if piracy didn't exist? And Microsoft is not loosing anything when you steal a box from the store; the store looses.

[cbosdell]

You're not seeing the legal side of this though.

A person, we'll call him Bob, is at Wal-Mart and is about to purchase a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate for $399. But instead he decides not to purchase the copy of Windows Vista Ultimate, but instead he decides to download it from his favorite P2P network. Microsoft has lost $399 because instead of Bob purchasing a legal copy, he downloaded an illegal copy. If Bob decided to steal the boxed copy at Wal-Mart, only Wal-Mart really looses money because they have already purchased the copy of Windows Vista from Microsoft. Either way, there's still a company that looses.

that wouldn't happen. if he wanted to pirate the os he would have done it before wasting the trip to the store and saving the money up, which is why WGA and Activation, etc only hurt legit customers. the hackers will ALWAYS get around activation, wga, and any other anti-piracy device, yes its an annoyance to them but its also an annoyance to the people who legally bought the operating system.

[the evn show]

this is a bunch of crap...is the store gonna ask what the blank tape is for, so they can determine royalty..for all they need to know..its for recording my son's voice...and if anyone buys a blank tape and records the voices at the school play...'parents of them kids better get royalty payments'...lol

I agree with your assertion, the way the blank media level is handled in Canada is pretty poor. Yes, you do end up getting screwed whenever you use a blank DvD or CD to backup your hard drive or if you use a mini-disc to record your garage band's single. The levy is paid by the manufacturers or importers so consumers and retailers never have to concern themselves with the mechanics of collecting the levy. If you can buy the media in Canada—the levy has already been collected.

For a brief period there was even a levy on MP3 players like the iPod that could go as high as $30 per player (it was based on the capacity of the device). The levy on MP3 players was only in effect for about 18 months but it did cause a bit of an uproar for fear that it might be further extended to regular hard drives, personal computers, back-up tapes, etc.

There is a way to apply for a refund of the levy used on blank media but the process is daunting. It requires a lengthy application and proof that all of the blank media you use will never be used to store "copyrighted" material (including material you have a legal write to copy under the Fair Dealings exceptions). Even after being granted an exemption from the levy you are subject to audits to confirm your compliance with the conditions of that exemption. On the whole the process is so complicated and time consuming that it's substantially less costly to just eat the levy than it is to try and get it refunded.

Sadly, I've been unable to find how income from the levy is distributed after it is collected. As far as I can tell there is no way for an individual or independent artist to get a share of the levy.

Edited November 13, 2006 by the evn show

[Vice]

How does it not hurt the companies? :rolleyes:

A copy of Windows Vista Ultimate costs $399. If 1000 people pirated (and that number is probably extremely conservative) then Microsoft has lost $399,000 already. That is a small number compared to how many have actually already pirated, but you get the point. It can hurt the company.

What if those people would never buy Vista if they couldn't pirate it.

And by pirating it allows them to Purchase other cheaper software which perhaps is Vista only enabling that 3rd party software distributer to continue to make more products which may in turn make more people legitimately buy Vista and move from Windows XP.

Piracy at the scale it is at now does not hurt Microsoft as many people that Pirate it (mainly in poorer communities and countries) would never be able to afford it anyway. There is no lost sale to Piracy in this circumstance, if anything it costs Microsoft more by developing anti-piracy code which could slow down development and increase costs. :p

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

But you're forgetting that Microsoft has employees to pay that create the software. So Microsoft is loosing money by paying those employees for creating software that people are essentially stealing. I just don't see a difference between stealing it from the store and stealing it off the internet. Someone is loosing either way you look at it.

I'm not forgetting that fact... I know full well that they employ people to make Windows and that they have to pay them.

What you're forgetting is that it's impossible to lose something you don't have! Microsoft aren't losing Bob's money, because they never had it in the first place -- and if Bob didn't use Windows at all and used a Mac, would you still be saying Microsoft are losing money because of it? They're not losing anything!

Nothing has been gained by Microsoft because Bob didn't buy Windows. Nothing has been lost by Microsoft because Bob didn't buy Windows.

When talking about copyright infringment or piracy, use the terms "copyright infringment" or "piracy" - this is the point of my argument entirely. You can't go into a financial meeting and get the terms gross and net mixed up without looking like a fool, so don't get the terms pirating and stealing mixed up.