It Professional's role in preventing piracy

[Mercutio]

Here's an interesting thought. I work in scads of different places, annually. I see a lot of different attitudes towards pirated software.

Some places are hardcore about not pirating software. Those are places where the secretary makes do with wordpad and no one has winzip installed.

Those places are rare.

I've also worked places where there's one copy of Office on a burned CD and it's passed around to 15 or 20 computers.

Those places are more common

There's lots of room in between.

I carry around a lot of stuff, none of it original, for the simple expedience of making sure I have what's needed on hand when I have to fix things. I'm sure I'm not the only computer guy who does this.

But it struck me as I was typing a response in another thread, that I'm extremely tolerant and indeed, accomodating, to the attitudes of my employers with regards to pirated software. Me? I don't particularly care. Every so often I'll bring it up with the guy who is signing my invoice, but by and by, it's not my problem.

So let me throw this out to everyone: Do IT folk have a meaningful responsibility to deal with piracy in an organization, and if so, at what point does that responsibilty need to lead to action?
I don't think you could go into an business anywhere and NOT find SOMETHING. Are the 50 illegal copies of Office worse than the 200 unregistered copies of Winzip? What about provable OS licenses?

Thoughts?

 

[honold]

i always mention it to people when they're doing something illegal, but as far as ENFORCING it, i only do so on organizations for which i'm completely accountable

 

[The JoJo]

I mention it in the companies I help. Usually to one of their people that might have something to say about it.

Simple reasons why:

It makes me look stupid if I ever need to call tech support etc. and blurt out (explain the scenario and it contains several programs on different computers) about the fifteen copies of the program with one license.

By trying to help keep this issue on the safe side, I might partly help secure the companies future from some trouble, and therefore might help secure my own future helping them.

 

[blakerwry]

I think it's our responsibility to make sure the owner of the computer(s) knows about it and knows some of the consequences of their actions. They are adults and they can make their own decisions as to what they want to do.


Where I used to work we had a very strict policy about piracy... because of this we didn't have winzip (hehe) and some of the computers had Star Office instead of word.

But at a friend's workplace (much bigger..tens of thousands of employees around the world) they had all kinds of pirated software on their personal computers.. things not even remotely work related (think photoshop in an accounting office).

Both companies had/have full knowledge of what was/is going on on their computers.


For a computer i just built the owner insisted I buy a legit copy of windows. I had planned to buy an OEM XP home license anyway, but I was glad that the customer wasn't trying to promote piracy.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

I think it's the IT professional's and PC reseller's responsibility. You are the ones who lose money afterall by piracy, indirectly or directly.
But the first call goes to the financial authorities of the country. They should be doing more controls, in all premises.

Said that... I have dump axx somewhere!

 

[Fushigi]

As an employee, there is a direct responsibility to the organization to bring up the matter and do whatever is reasonable to make sure the company is licensed & legal. Ensure the company can withstand an investigation by the scum-of-the-earth BSA. Remember that as an IT person and an employee, you may be held personally accountable for the actions of your employer. If asked to install software in violation of licensing laws, politely refuse in writing.

As a consultant or contractor, you are not necessarily obligated to do anything unless you are providing the software. If providing software, again it is your responsibility to make sure you are not breaking any laws. If you happen across unlicensed software that you did not provide, the event may be documented to the firm in writing to show that an effort was made. This should absolve oneself of any personal liability should the matter become serious.

If building systems for individuals, in an ideal world the same would apply. You would supply legal copies of whatever commercial software was required, document your purchase of the license, and ensure the user had the license forms. If the user supplied the software, like student copies of MS stuff, you should verify the license exists before installing. Again, this is to ensure you are safe from potential future legal disputes.

Of course, all of that is 'in an ideal world'. Reality is a bit different. What winds up happening is people either don't care or care just enough to CYA.

- Fushigi

 

[Howell]

When I see this problem, I act as the companies advocate and warn them about the problem and inform them about the fines and consequences of piracy if they get caught. I also tell them I will not install unlicensed software.

Usually they are either unaware of how severe the consequences are or have not done the math to figure out how much more expensive a violation will be.

 

[CityK]

not even remotely work related (think photoshop in an accounting office)

Seems to me that Arthur Anderson would have considered Photoshop standard issue

 

[jtr1962]

Although I'm not an IT professional I would probably let a business know it was in violation of the EULA. However, I wouldn't bother with a home user since they likely wouldn't get caught. Businesses should be held to a higher standard than the casual home user.

Nobody here has actually said they would go so far as to report a business that was pirating software. I generally wouldn't either with one exception-if it was my previous employer and I was fired or laid off for no good reason. The possibility of a disgruntled former employee ratting is one very good reason why all businesses should have properly licensed software. If I ever ran a large business with multiple machines I would use Linux so as not to be bothered with the one license per machine restriction.

 

[P5-133XL]

The only time I've informed upon people was when they approached me to sell a pirated copy. All other times I've given warnings and at all times any activities that I'm involved with are with legitimate copies or I won't do it.

 

[time]

Ethics aside, the legal onus on IT professionals is very high, particularly in the USA. Fushigi's cautious approach is justified.

Are the 50 illegal copies of Office worse than the 200 unregistered copies of Winzip?

Most definitely, and not just due to the higher value. For starters, you can't install 'trial' copies of Office and forget to uninstall them. But more importantly, have a look at who the BSA members are: http://www.bsa.org/usa/about/members/

The aggression rankings used to be, and probably still are:

1. Autodesk
2. Microsoft
3. Adobe

You do not want to cross these firms.

However, I personally have no problem with home users running two computers with a single copy of Win2K or Office, for example. I think the pricing of these products for non-commercial use is legalized extortion, particularly when you consider that a product may well not even be used on both PCs simultaneously. It's worth remembering that vendors used to allow free use at home if your employer used the product.

Of course, we notice the pricing more in a poorer western country like Australia. In fact, I'd be surprised if a country's piracy rates weren't a direct inverse reflection of its standard of living. For example, China.

Would I ever dob someone in? My attitude is similar to Mark's, in that I distinguish between real pirates and end-users. I wouldn't be happy if I saw a rich firm like Arthur Anderson blatantly avoiding license payments; but if I was engaged by them, reporting the breach would be an ethical dilemma. I think the line would be crossed for me personally if they were ripping off vendors that hadn't earned a reputation for coporate bastardry, or any genuine copyright holders (authors).

 

[EdwardK]

not even remotely work related (think photoshop in an accounting office)

Seems to me that Arthur Anderson would have considered Photoshop standard issue

Of course! They use Photoshop to cook the books! :lol:

 

[blakerwry]

Time, I have the same delema about home users... Personally, i don't feel it's right to install pirated software on a customer's PC. They can do that kind of stuff by themselves... If I find pirated software on their PC I would make sure that they know.

But it get's tricky to me when i don't agree with the EULA. Personally, I was taught that when you purchased software you could either install that software on 1 machine and it could be used by an infinite number of people or you could install that software on an infinite number of machines as long as only 1 person used it... or potentially have as many users as you have licenses.

I don't agree that a person with 5 computers should have to buy 5 copies of MS office (a $300 suite of software when purchased OEM). I believe they should have to only buy 1 copy. If they had an office CD and asked me to install office I would install it without asking if they had it on any of their other computers. However, if I was employeed at a business I would talk to my manager and make sure that we did have enough licenses to go around... if he/she told me "no" then I would be in a pickle... depends on the situation.

 

[James]

Of course, we notice the pricing more in a poorer western country like Australia. In fact, I'd be surprised if a country's piracy rates weren't a direct inverse reflection of its standard of living. For example, China.

Yes, I just went across the border from HK to Shenzen and people literally come up to you in the street and offer to sell you DVD movies and pirated software (PC, Xbox, PS2...). Oh, and to sell you manicures/pedicures, knock-off watches,

The weird thing is what is on offer. I mean, games I can understand. Norton Antivirus, fine. But why are they pushing Flash, Autocad (2004 no less), Maya, Windows 2003 EE etc. etc. - what is the average home user going to do with those?

 

[James]

I should have kept my list going. Manicures/pedicures, knock-off watches, little ornaments, jade of various types, and cheap (cheap) clothing.

The weird thing is you can be being assaulted in the street ("sir, sir, you come for pedicure and massage!") and then when you say no, they say "DVD movie?" I mean, are you a pedicure place or a pirate DVD movie place?

 

[blakerwry]

I mean, are you a pedicure place or a pirate DVD movie place?

whatever it takes to survive...

 

[Fushigi]

I mean, are you a pedicure place or a pirate DVD movie place?

whatever it takes to survive...

I think the relative saying is "It's a desert topping, AND a floor wax!"

 

[Howell]

It'll be a dangerous world when no ones moral relativism matches anyone elses. Situational ethics will ultimately result in societal chaos.

 

[Mercutio]

Your post seems to indicate that there's some absolute set of ethics or morals that should apply to everyone at all times.

Which, of course, there isn't.

 

[Tannin]

I think it's the IT professional's and PC reseller's responsibility. You are the ones who lose money afterall by piracy, indirectly or directly.

How so? There is no money in selling software, Prof. In fact, I think that's one of the reasons why retailers take little interest in preventing piracy. People can buy legit software, or people can pirate software. Either way, the retailer makes nothing, so who cares?

This is a direct result of monopoly. When there is only one product, there is absolutely no reason to buy it from supplier X as opposed to suppliers Y or Z, so the only way to product differentiate is on price. This has the effect of shifting all the profit to the very top of the distribution pyramid, and results in M$ being really gung-ho about piracy prevention, and no-one else giving a bugger.

With the major items (Windows, Office, and the like) I do the same as most places: I cover my arse in legal terms (i.e., refuse to supply pirated software) and aside from that, people can do what they like.

Why should I care? The day M$ give some thought to providing the small retailer with a little profit motive (as opposed to continuing with their existing plan to wipe us all out because the majors are easier to control) is the day I'll reconsider.

 

[EdwardK]

.....How so? There is no money in selling software, Prof. In fact, I think that's one of the reasons why retailers take little interest in preventing piracy. People can buy legit software, or people can pirate software. Either way, the retailer makes nothing, so who cares?
..........Why should I care? The day M$ give some thought to providing the small retailer with a little profit motive (as opposed to continuing with their existing plan to wipe us all out because the majors are easier to control) is the day I'll reconsider.

Thats a worry Tony. I had presumed that you and other retailers (as opposed to big OEMS like DELL and HP) would/should be given a profit margin for software sales. Man, I am respecting you more for surviving so long in this cut throat business just by selling hardware :mrgrn:

 

[Tannin]

We do our best not to sell any software, Edward, save only the stuff we can't avoid. I.e., we have to sell operating software in order to sell hardware. But, essentially, we only sell software that is bundled with the hardware these days. And, come the day when Linux on the desktop takes off, we will be absolutely delighted not to sell that either. Carrying stock (which yu have to do) puts a large hole in your cashflow - larger and larger as time goes by, as the cost of Windows relative to the cost of everything else keeps increasing - and ties up your working capital. Last time I did the sums, a year or so ago, it was 15 times higher than it was back when there was a competitive free market in operating software (that was 1994 or so). The retail margin on it, though, doesn't even cover your costs. Most retailers make less on a $300 copy of XP Pro today than we used to make on a $30 copy of DR-DOS 5.0.

Obviously, there is no incentive to sell more copies and, in financial terms, why should any retailer care about piracy in the slightest? You keep your own nose clean and sell the hardware.

I don't think we can actually blame Microsoft for the unsustainable margin, not directly. It's simply a natural outgrowth of a monopoly situation. It would be exactly the same if ome other company had the monopoly.

 

[time]

I don't think we can actually blame Microsoft for the unsustainable margin, not directly.

Maybe not, but we can certainly blame them for keeping the price of their key software at an unrealistic level. Excluding the monitor (which is a separate appliance anyway), Windows Pro and Office Pro can form virtually half the cost of the customer's bundle. These are commodities, for crying out loud, not niche software. They both have competitors (which are too incompatible to form a serious threat) that are free.

 

[jtr1962]

Maybe not, but we can certainly blame them for keeping the price of their key software at an unrealistic level.

Exactly. M$ complains about piracy but keeps prices at a high enough level to make risking selling pirated software worthwhile. If M$ Office were, say, $25 for a home user you just wouldn't get people selling pirated copies on the streets for $10 to $15. Ditto for the recording and movie studios with their overpriced CDs and DVDs.

 

[blakerwry]

Maybe not, but we can certainly blame them for keeping the price of their key software at an unrealistic level.

Exactly. M$ complains about piracy but keeps prices at a high enough level to make risking selling pirated software worthwhile. If M$ Office were, say, $25 for a home user you just wouldn't get people selling pirated copies on the streets for $10 to $15. Ditto for the recording and movie studios with their overpriced CDs and DVDs.

I don't understand exactly why DVDs cost more than VHS tapes at retail... same thing with CD vs audio cassette tapes...surely a DVD/CD must cost less to produce since I can buy blanks for something like an order of magnitude less than I can buy tape blanks... Not only that, but they are smaller and weigh less making shipping cheaper... Since DVD/CDs are also pressed I would think that they could be produced faster as well...

I guess retail will always charge what they can (something is always worth what someone will pay for it) and since DVD/CD technology is better, people are willing to pay more for it...

 

[Prof.Wizard]

Exactly. M$ complains about piracy but keeps prices at a high enough level to make risking selling pirated software worthwhile. If M$ Office were, say, $25 for a home user you just wouldn't get people selling pirated copies on the streets for $10 to $15. Ditto for the recording and movie studios with their overpriced CDs and DVDs.

Ditto over your ditto.

 

[Fushigi]

The content producers, be they the software industry or the entertainment industry, charge what they feel they can get away with. This lines their pockets and 'entitles' them to complain about the piracy that goes on. Best of both worlds for them, really, since piracy doesn't eat THAT much into their profits.

Heard on the news this morning M$ has US$46 billion in cash. I think that says a lot about Microsoft pricing policies.

I don't see much issue with the price of DVDs. A price of $20-30 to purchase a license to play the movie at will (in a non-commercial environment and in compliance with the FBI warning) isn't a bad price. Especially since getting discs at 30% off isn't difficult. Anyway, that's about what it costs for two people to see the movie once in a theater.

Speaking of movie warnings, on HK movies, why does the disclaimer always say the movie can't be played on oil rigs?

CD prices are insane. $15-20 for something that costs perhaps 70 cents to manufacture. I wouldn't mind so much if the artists got 30+% of the proceeds but they get very little. Many artists say they make mor from concert tours than from CD sales. The RIAA is, to me, even more evil than M$.

- Fushigi

 

[jtr1962]

CD prices are insane. $15-20 for something that costs perhaps 70 cents to manufacture. I wouldn't mind so much if the artists got 30+% of the proceeds but they get very little. Many artists say they make mor from concert tours than from CD sales. The RIAA is, to me, even more evil than M$.

Especially for crap like a Britney Spears CD. While I find prices for DVDs slightly more justified than those of CDs it would be better if they cost the same as VHS movies. The :evil: RIAA :evil: uses piracy to justify all sorts of Nazi-like schemes such as DRM that they wish to impose upon the masses. Yes, they are more evil than M$. :evil:

 

[Jan Kivar]

Maybe not, but we can certainly blame them for keeping the price of their key software at an unrealistic level.

Exactly. M$ complains about piracy but keeps prices at a high enough level to make risking selling pirated software worthwhile. If M$ Office were, say, $25 for a home user you just wouldn't get people selling pirated copies on the streets for $10 to $15. Ditto for the recording and movie studios with their overpriced CDs and DVDs.

I'd be willing to pay $20 a year to use Windows and Office, always the latest versions, and that's the whole payment (no upgrade fees that is).

M$ is too greedy? Perhaps, but it's not nice from M$ to abuse the monopoly it currently has.

Jan

 

[honold]

I don't see much issue with the price of DVDs. A price of $20-30 to purchase a license to play the movie at will (in a non-commercial environment and in compliance with the FBI warning) isn't a bad price. Especially since getting discs at 30% off isn't difficult. Anyway, that's about what it costs for two people to see the movie once in a theater.

i agree. i only wish the dvd release followed by the extended dvd release followed by the director's cut dvd release shit would come to a close.

CD prices are insane. $15-20 for something that costs perhaps 70 cents to manufacture.

dvds are relatively cheap to manufacture too. looking at material costs is very myopic.

I wouldn't mind so much if the artists got 30+% of the proceeds but they get very little. Many artists say they make mor from concert tours than from CD sales.

scouting, recording, marketing, promoting...a lot goes into this, and many of the people who get all this end up being loss-leading turds for the company. bands like metallica and t.a.t.u. subsidize crappy bands for the label. i think cds cost too much too, but $10 seems like a very fair price to me. consider how much reuse there is on a good cd than there is on a good dvd.

what i hate with cds is the copy protection crap. i'll just do it analog if i have to, they're wasting their money and my time.

 

[honold]

I'd be willing to pay $20 a year to use Windows and Office, always the latest versions, and that's the whole payment (no upgrade fees that is).

$20/year? come on dude, you paid more than that for your heat sink/fan, and how much of your system does that comprise?

now how much does your OPERATING SYSTEM comprise? without something common binding stuff together everybody would be busy inventing their own wheel instead of producing the products they want to produce. to this end, i think having not so many choices is a good thing.

i'd rather pay an annual fee for my os too, but i think your pricing is way off.

and on the topic of cds/dvds, i REALLY wish i could simply purchase a license for the title. i buy the license to the latest radiohead album or gangs of new york. this costs me xxx, and i then pay light fees to download it, order a copy of it on cd/dvd, etc. if i lose my hard copies i pay a few bucks to replace it, and if i don't want hard copies, i can just keep the stuff on my pc.

 

[time]

It adds up fast, honold. If we assume Windows XP Home is US$100 and Office XP SBE is US$200, that's $60 per year over 5 years - which I for one think is a reasonable life expectancy, not to mention the rulings of the the assorted tax collection agencies that we all kowtow to.

I think half that is a more realistic figure - given that for most people, these particular software products will not be the most important (i.e. indispensable). The fact is, without the monopolistic manipulations of M$, neither is an essential component. And mutterings about reinventing the wheel really don't cut any ice - go ask Apple ...

Of course, it's worse than I said because of Microsoft's outrageous license conditions, which in my book are nothing less than pure extortion. Strictly speaking, if you upgrade your hardware, they want you to buy a new copy of said software. Even though the old is non-transferrable.

No court would have supported these conditions, except for the fact that M$ managed to pay enough congressmen to push through bullsh*t legislation that gives the force of law to shrinkwrap license agreements, where none existed before. They didn't just bastardize the principle of copyright, they sodomized it around the fleet.

I don't really see the need to find good points about Microsoft. They have plenty of toadies to do that for them already.

 

[time]

honold, your suggestion about rights to CDs/DVDs is how copyright used to be. If you owned a copy of a work, you could do what you wanted with it for your own use, i.e. fair use.

The DMCA (and other pieces of legislation in the US and around the world) has changed all that. For chrissake, it's not even legal to play a DVD on Linux or any other operating system that isn't from Microsoft (or Apple).

 

[honold]

And mutterings about reinventing the wheel really don't cut any ice - go ask Apple ...

more appropriately, go ask adobe if they'd like to ship an os with photoshop. ask id if they'd like to ship an os with quake.

Of course, it's worse than I said because of Microsoft's outrageous license conditions, which in my book are nothing less than pure extortion. Strictly speaking, if you upgrade your hardware, they want you to buy a new copy of said software. Even though the old is non-transferrable.

retail copies can be legally transferred. what defines a 'system' on oem licensing is also open to interpretation.

No court would have supported these conditions, except for the fact that M$ managed to pay enough congressmen to push through bullsh*t legislation that gives the force of law to shrinkwrap license agreements, where none existed before. They didn't just bastardize the principle of copyright, they sodomized it around the fleet.

law? there's been a ruling on it, which sets a legal precedent, but i'm not aware of any laws requiring it (and thus any paid-off legislators). furthermore, iirc they granted enforcement of it because it specifically wasn't hidden and was tattooed all over the installation media in addition to the actual licenses.

it can also be observed that microsoft does honor refunds on products if you open them and disagree with the license. they are holding up their end of the deal.

I don't really see the need to find good points about Microsoft. They have plenty of toadies to do that for them already.

i'm only trying to be objective

 

[honold]

honold, your suggestion about rights to CDs/DVDs is how copyright used to be. If you owned a copy of a work, you could do what you wanted with it for your own use, i.e. fair use.

no it's not. when i bought a dvd i couldn't get a replacement copy for a couple bucks if i lost it, and there weren't officialized high-quality versions available for pc use. ditto cds. my proposal is a step further than fair use, and makes physical loss/breakage a lot less worrysome.

The DMCA (and other pieces of legislation in the US and around the world) has changed all that. For chrissake, it's not even legal to play a DVD on Linux or any other operating system that isn't from Microsoft (or Apple).

if that's still the case, it's because no linux dvd developer has purchased a license for css. if somebody did, it would be perfectly legal. this is not preferential treatment for windows. intervideo and cyberlink, among others, coughed up the money. windows cannot play dvds out of the box.

 

[time]

retail copies can be legally transferred. what defines a 'system' on oem licensing is also open to interpretation.

Retail?! What percentage of Windows sales are retail? That's how M$ escaped those class actions claiming they used their monopoly position to overcharge customers - the end-users were not considered customers! And M$ OEM licensing is very clear. The OEM is required to physically attach the single copy of the license key to the PC - this is permanent. Microsoft backs this up with their compulsory registration that includes details specific to that PC (Yes, I know they have shown some flexibility to date, but they're not required to).

law? there's been a ruling on it, which sets a legal precedent, but i'm not aware of any laws requiring it (and thus any paid-off legislators). furthermore, iirc they granted enforcement of it because it specifically wasn't hidden and was tattooed all over the installation media in addition to the actual licenses.

The terms of the agreement are only available once you begin the installation. Surely it's academic anyway, since we're not disputing that many people need to use these products for compatibility reasons? What are they going to do, cease trading because they can't stomach a software license?

The clarifying law was going to be covered under U.C.C. Article 2b (Uniform Commercial Code), the first draft of which dates back to February 1996. Since then, it's been broken out into the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. Courts take notice of these acts regardless of whether a particular state has kept up to date with enacting them and their amendments.

Mass market licenses may be presented after initial general agreement from the licensee ... Most courts under current law enforce contract terms that are presented and assented to after initial agreement ..."Step-Saver once was the leading case on shrinkwrap agreements. Today that distinction goes to . . . ProCD. . . 'Money now, terms later' is a practical way to form contracts, especially with purchasers of software"

 

[time]

my proposal is a step further than fair use, and makes physical loss/breakage a lot less worrysome.

Good point. I agree with you that there is no good reason why copyright should not be based on the principles you propose.

if that's still the case, it's because no linux dvd developer has purchased a license for css.

"Making an open-source driver, let alone a full open-source player, when CSS is done in software is not allowed by the MPAA's interpretation of the DMCA." - Ken Arromdee

I think the real question is why there should be a license fee at all, or even restrictive terms. My best guess is not revenue raising, but an attempt to keep an extremely high level of control over DVD distribution and operation. I think the MPAA regards DVDs as software that you run on their terms or not at all.

 

[honold]

Retail?! What percentage of Windows sales are retail?

a better question may be, 'what percentage of windows sales aren't from store-bought systems or retail-packaged upgrades?' answer: not close to a majority. you're speaking for the vocal minority of people who build their systems (or have them built), get oem copies of windows, and intend to use it on other systems. most people buy their hp/dell/etc, use it until they're done with it, give it to somebody, and buy another.

The OEM is required to physically attach the single copy of the license key to the PC - this is permanent. Microsoft backs this up with their compulsory registration that includes details specific to that PC (Yes, I know they have shown some flexibility to date, but they're not required to).

and it's perfectly legal to sell oem microsoft software with a pci screw. i was told this by viosoftware (major oem reseller) and i confirmed it with microsoft licensing over the phone. if a pci screw is the hardware with which it is sold, that same screw can be transferred to another system (along with the sticker). seriously.

apparently ms has changed the 'pci screw' trick around a few times in the past, but it's stuck for a long time now with no arguments.

as far as the law, don't you think you might have been going a bit overboard with the dirty, paid-off legislators bit? ;-)

 

[honold]

"Making an open-source driver, let alone a full open-source player, when CSS is done in software is not allowed by the MPAA's interpretation of the DMCA." - Ken Arromdee

uh, for good reason. if i write an open source windows app should microsoft then be required to release the source for the entire windows api? open source has a problem, SOFTWARE doesn't. nothing's stopping somebody from selling a 100% legal linux dvd player (in binary form) except the fact that people won't buy it

I think the real question is why there should be a license fee at all, or even restrictive terms. My best guess is not revenue raising, but an attempt to keep an extremely high level of control over DVD distribution and operation. I think the MPAA regards DVDs as software that you run on their terms or not at all.

well, as trivial as we found it to be, it was encryption to protect dvds from getting ripped and copied and distributed and whatnot. i don't blame anybody for trying to protect their stuff from theft as long as they don't tread on fair use. they can copy protect the living hell out of dvds so long as i can easily get a copy i can watch on my pc. ditto cds.

 

[Prof.Wizard]

IMO Microsoft programs are overpriced. And that goes to all its solutions (OSes, Office apps, developer tools, etc.). When MS commands more than 50% of the market and still demands these excessive fees for products/licenses, it's unavoidable these practices won't stimulate pirating. I know people who deliberately and out of principle copy and hack MS software because, they say, "it's the only way to limit Microsoft's unchecked growth and help competition". I know it's unfair but I sometimes think myself it's the only way to deal with the beast.

Don't start with me MS's we-sell-in-those-prices-cause-we-need-to-fund-further-development mandra, I won't buy it. Microsoft with that piece of market can still make tons of money, even if its net profit was smaller. Economics 101. Gates' vast wealth wouldn't become smaller if Windows XP was sold half the current price...