[redmenace]

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050506_133943.html

Considering there have been many people that have been screwed over by others that give them pirated versions without their knowledge of what they were buying.

[Fineus]

This doesn't seem quite as rosey as it might though.

By telling Microsoft you've bought an illegal version - you're letting Microsoft know you exist and have bought illegal software. Call me a conspiracy nut, but if I was them I'd keep a list of contact details for these people, and keep an eye on them and their software purchasing habits. It's like waving a flag and saying "yep, I bought the illegal software. Look at me!".

If they were to indivdually brand the replacement genuine OS CDs with a number, they could easily keep tabs on that when users go to perform software updates etc. No doubt they could also repetitively scan the users system for other illegal files etc. It says in the Toms Hardware guide that users must agree to a full system scan anyway. Essentially - you're marking yourself for being watched.

I don't like it one bit.

[aldo_14]

[q]The participation in the program also requires users to agree to a full scan of their system files and to reveal the identity of the seller of the counterfeit software.[/q]

what happens if they find other pirated files?  Say, Office, for example?

[Zarax]

Some people is never happy it seems...
Anyways...
Do you really think MSFT is concerned with a few users that have been subjects of fraud or some others that thinks "$734L1NG from Micro$oft is cool"?
Lol, you're widely overestimating your importance guys...

MSFT aim is to get those vendors that does it on large scale and possibly the international pirating groups rather than the smaller fishes around there...
If they wanted to screw the users they just would make a little add-on on the next windows update and effectively shut down their systems, that being perfectly legal on their side...

What they did is to give an hand to those that have been fooled by counterfeited copies and to offer a friendly way to get a regular position to those that should have been aware that their copies weren't regular...

[Fineus]

That's the other way of looking at it, suffice to say that the data Microsoft is collecting - legally - since the user signs an agreement agreeing to a full system scan, is quite capable of screwing individual users over if they see fit.

As for evidence of large companies not going after individual users? I need only point at the recent line of lawsuits against individuals including a 14 year old girl for the downloading and limited sharing of music and media files via P2P programs.

Clearly then, large companies are not only going after the "large scale" movers and shakers of the piracy industry. I'm not suggesting we all panic right now, but certainly in this digital age, everyone should be vigilant of their own freedoms.

[redmenace]

And what of a person's economic rights. Every one scurries arounds worrying about their civil liberties, but it seems no one cares that for the economic rights of the companies. These are everybit as important as your civil liberties. These companies have the right not have software stolen from them. Additionally, a person agrees to a scan and give up the sellers info. They are protecting their investment and interest by going after the source of bootlegs. Also I think this is quite nice to the people who actually have beem victimized unknowingly by counterfeiters. And if people have illegal versions of office or other pirated software packages, they deserve what happens to them for breaking the law.

If you break the law, you must pay the price, even if you are a 14y/o stealing music. If you can steal it, and especially after all the others on the news, you most likly know what you are doing.

[Fineus]

I could go into Microsofts monopoly practices in the market place and their disregard for the wellbeing of their customers in favour of turning a profit.

Besides, I don't like the idea of large companies fooling customers into giving up information while, in the background, another agenda could be what's really on their mind. If companies like spam companies and ad-infested products that (while telling you what they do) hide it in a lengthy EULA that nobody ever reads, are able to cause real problems for the individual, what's to say that larger companies like Microsoft can't do what they like as well? Sure there are business practices and what have you.. but we've already seen Microsoft reviewed for monopoly practices with a view to its product design.

At the end of the day you can say what you like - I simply distrust large companies that "help" the small user but require them to share their entire information first. Sure, if they've done nothing wrong they've nothing to hide. But I'm sure that information will still be picked over with a fine tooth comb regardless.

Each to their own I guess. I own a retail copy of XP Pro, as the hassle of obtaining a working "cracked" version was too much to be worth the bother. However as a student, it was a hundred pounds I really rather grudgingly gave up. If you think about it that way, these honest people that Microsoft is targetting with this concept - they're the ones that thought they were getting a "real" copy of Windows XP, but cheaper. If they dropped the price of the software to even £50 a piece they'd still turn a profit but probably find a lot less people went for "potentially" unsafe versions. Same goes for music and media.. if it were cheaper then no doubt fewer people would turn to the internet for pirated versions. I know I would.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
I could go into Microsofts monopoly practices in the market place and their disregard for the wellbeing of their customers in favour of turning a profit.

Besides, I don't like the idea of large companies fooling customers into giving up information while, in the background, another agenda could be what's really on their mind. If companies like spam companies and ad-infested products that (while telling you what they do) hide it in a lengthy EULA that nobody ever reads, are able to cause real problems for the individual, what's to say that larger companies like Microsoft can't do what they like as well? Sure there are business practices and what have you.. but we've already seen Microsoft reviewed for monopoly practices with a view to its product design.

At the end of the day you can say what you like - I simply distrust large companies that "help" the small user but require them to share their entire information first. Sure, if they've done nothing wrong they've nothing to hide. But I'm sure that information will still be picked over with a fine tooth comb regardless.

Each to their own I guess. I own a retail copy of XP Pro, as the hassle of obtaining a working "cracked" version was too much to be worth the bother. However as a student, it was a hundred pounds I really rather grudgingly gave up. If you think about it that way, these honest people that Microsoft is targetting with this concept - they're the ones that thought they were getting a "real" copy of Windows XP, but cheaper. If they dropped the price of the software to even £50 a piece they'd still turn a profit but probably find a lot less people went for "potentially" unsafe versions. Same goes for music and media.. if it were cheaper then no doubt fewer people would turn to the internet for pirated versions. I know I would.

Lets pretend for a second that anti trust laws actually make sense for a second and are 100% unambiguous, in other words a company can make a decision and know how the government will act. We will also pretend that it is not an defacto assault on basic economic rights, just like the "war of drugs." If one person breaks the law that does not give anyone the right to break it as well and therefore is irrelevant. Also, if you do not read a EULA that is your fault. By hitting I agree you agree. The company really should not have you make sure you know something as long as it is clearly and unambiguously written in the said agreement.

As per the users, they should expect that their info would be gone over like that. They agree to it.

I also would not go so far as to say that reducing windows OS to 50 dollars or pounds would still turn a profit. Until you, and please take no offense, have an understanding of financial accounting and can take a look at microsoft ledgers.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
That's the other way of looking at it, suffice to say that the data Microsoft is collecting - legally - since the user signs an agreement agreeing to a full system scan, is quite capable of screwing individual users over if they see fit.

As for evidence of large companies not going after individual users? I need only point at the recent line of lawsuits against individuals including a 14 year old girl for the downloading and limited sharing of music and media files via P2P programs.

Clearly then, large companies are not only going after the "large scale" movers and shakers of the piracy industry. I'm not suggesting we all panic right now, but certainly in this digital age, everyone should be vigilant of their own freedoms.

I don't want to start the usual hassle about the Microsoft topic but let me tell you one small thing: Don't make the mistake of putting MSFT and RIAA on the same level...

As Digital Media MVP i'm an active part of the Microsoft Communities i think i have a slightly better view than the average customer, though i can't share many details due to NDA...

The Windows Consumer branch (that's the one that deals with XP, MCE and all non-office user apps) is the third money bringer inside MSFT and that's by far, bringing about 14% of the actual revenue...
Of this 14% almost 93% is made through the OEM, and the last 7% by direct selling through vendors.
While still a big amuont of cash in absolute amounts in terms of policy it means it's cared only at little more than image level...

In simpler terms this means that the main MSFT concerns on this are based on security rather than pure economical terms, that is unless OEMs or large vendors tries to get smart about it...

[redmenace]

The point I am trying to make about microsoft they don't make huge profits. They have a 22% profit margin.  Which is respectable, but is by no means huge.

On the same token, information from zaraz suggests that cutting the price of the OS would mean a 1.4% loss in their profit margin or 20.68%. this isn't huge, but considerable. But as a business unit of microsoft, it would be a serious hit.

[vyper]

[q] These are everybit as important as your civil liberties[/q]

Nothing is as important as civil liberties.

[redmenace]

ok, your not allowed to trade, work the job you want to work, you have to do what we say. But hey you can have all these wonderful civil liberties but no option to make a profit or better ones self except in service to the state. To be frank, if anything other than equally important, they are intertwined.

Do you honestly think that  Benjamin Franklin was speaking strictly about civil liberties when he said "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security?"

Again, this is said with all due respect to others.

[WMCoolmon]

Hmm, sorry, but civil liberties come first. Companies don't think for themselves, although they are technically individuals under the law.

In some cases, it's a matter of giving up both liberty and security for the economic liberty of others. I suppose you could call that greed.

The thing about the "it's law and they should follow it" is that it's really not that great a stance. Laws are not the end-all be-all. They should be followed, but should not be something to follow for the sake of following. First and foremost laws are there to protect the people...whether it's all people, or just a certain group.

The problem comes when laws are used to benefit rather than to protect. Is a law protecting profits, or is it protecting rights? Saying that a company should be getting a certain amount of profits in a free market system is a very slippery slope; and at this point, the US isn't really a free market. In fact the current system is very monopolistic. What with the widespread ownership of 'ideas', it's very difficult to do anything because you might 'infringe' on someone's 'rights'. You put double-clicking in a program? Oh, that's owned by Microsoft. Your product is illegal.

Money used to be a form of compensation, now it's basically a transferrance of power.

In this case, I suspect that the full system scan will only be used to generate internal lists and statistics on software piracy by Microsoft. If they start suing any of these people, their plan to get them to rat out the distributors will fall apart. Keep in mind that software piraters are going to be some of the more well-informed computer users out there; if any legal cases relevant start to happen, they're more likely to know.

When it comes down to civil rights vs economic rights, you do need some economic rights to live enjoyably, but not as many as civil rights. And if you give too many economic rights, you end up with people 'bettering themselves' by just getting richer and richer. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's more important that one be allowed to be free of discrimination than to be forced to have less than 27 billion dollars in the bank. (Well, at that point, you'd probably be able to  fund a regiment of the USM to build a military base around a heavily guarded vault)

[vyper]

[q]ok, your not allowed to trade, work the job you want to work, you have to do what we say.[/q]

They intinsically ARE civil liberties.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Hmm, sorry, but civil liberties come first. Companies don't think for themselves, although they are technically individuals under the law.

Companies are still owned by shareholders and shareholders are people or other companies which have shareholders themselves. These share holders have a board of directors that selects Executive Officers to manage the company for them so it is no the economic freedom of the company, but the economic freedom of the individual ultimatly.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
In some cases, it's a matter of giving up both liberty and security for the economic liberty of others. I suppose you could call that greed.

But who is giving up their liberty or their security? The people, willingly agreeing to be scanned.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon The thing about the "it's law and they should follow it" is that it's really not that great a stance. Laws are not the end-all be-all. They should be followed, but should not be something to follow for the sake of following. First and foremost laws are there to protect the people...whether it's all people, or just a certain group.

It is also supposed to be a productive asset that is supposed to outlay, in no ambiguous manner, how the government will react if I do something as well as a guide to know how others will conduct themselves as well.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon The problem comes when laws are used to benefit rather than to protect. Is a law protecting profits, or is it protecting rights? Saying that a company should be getting a certain amount of profits in a free market system is a very slippery slope; and at this point, the US isn't really a free market. In fact the current system is very monopolistic. What with the widespread ownership of 'ideas', it's very difficult to do anything because you might 'infringe' on someone's 'rights'. You put double-clicking in a program? Oh, that's owned by Microsoft. Your product is illegal.

Actually I wasn't saying they should have a certain level of profits but pointing out the problem with cutting the retail price by half. If I would not be advocating a Free Market system. Instead I would advocate socialist policies of sorts. And yes the US economy is very monopolistic. The only problem is many of these monopolies are maintained or created by the government such as utilities. Property rights are rights also. Even intellectual propert. However, on a side note, the market eventually will take care of monopolies, especially if they act like one by definition.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon Money used to be a form of compensation, now it's basically a transferrance of power.

How so?

Originally posted by WMCoolmon In this case, I suspect that the full system scan will only be used to generate internal lists and statistics on software piracy by Microsoft. If they start suing any of these people, their plan to get them to rat out the distributors will fall apart. Keep in mind that software piraters are going to be some of the more well-informed computer users out there; if any legal cases relevant start to happen, they're more likely to know.

I am not sure that this is aimed at hardcore pirateers.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon When it comes down to civil rights vs economic rights, you do need some economic rights to live enjoyably, but not as many as civil rights. And if you give too many economic rights, you end up with people 'bettering themselves' by just getting richer and richer. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's more important that one be allowed to be free of discrimination than to be forced to have less than 27 billion dollars in the bank. (Well, at that point, you'd probably be able to  fund a regiment of the USM to build a military base around a heavily guarded vault)

Liberties are only taken a little at a time. If a government is willing to take your economic freedoms or to limit them, what is to stop the from the civil ones as well.

Originally posted by vyper
[q]ok, your not allowed to trade, work the job you want to work, you have to do what we say.[/q]

They intinsically ARE civil liberties.

They are economic freedoms as well. To trade, to work, to create wealth and not have it confiscated.

[vyper]

You were talking about an invidual's economic rights in the post I addressed. Corporate responsibility is another matter.

[redmenace]

The thing about corporations is that they are owned and operated by individuals as a group. Economic rights pertain to both individuals and groups of individuals. BTW, I am really enjoying this thread.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
That's the other way of looking at it, suffice to say that the data Microsoft is collecting - legally - since the user signs an agreement agreeing to a full system scan, is quite capable of screwing individual users over if they see fit.  

Ironic that people will scream bloody murder at something as simple as an ID-card but will sign their privacy away to some corporation just like that...

as always new technology is bringing up new opportunities as well as new dangers for the very survival of our democracy.

[redmenace]

the difference is that ID cards are compulsory. A scan is not and you recieve something in return.

[WMCoolmon]

I'll respond to your "How so?" to my "Money used to be a form of compensation, now it's basically a transferrance of power."

I point you to the concept of copyright. Say that a friend of mine missed an episode of Stargate because he was out of town and busy. Now, he fully plans on getting the DVD for the season when it comes out. But I make a copy of my recording of the episode in question so he can watch what he missed.

Technically, I owe MGM a royalty fee. But what damage has been done to the company? What have I removed that they had? I haven't depleted the uniqueness of the item by any noticeable value, and I haven't hurt their profits in any way. I didn't cause them to expend any time or energy. Were MGM to take me to court, the fees that I paid wouldn't be there for any reason except the law says they're entitled to them.

And what really bothers me is the copyright law - something like 50 years until an idea becomes public domain until after the author's death. It's ridiculous. The only possible for such a law is profit; it grants a virtual monopoly on a person's ideas to whoever or whatever owns them, and monopolies generally hinder the idea of a free market.

Edit: As I see it, the purpose of such laws should be the opposite; they should encourage diversity of business, so that someone who has an idea can get a business started without someone simply taking their idea and mass-producing it. But as it's used today - to limit products while maximizing profits - is absurd and encourages companies to simply stick with the old thing rather than innovating and coming up with something better.