News - Microsoft fires warning to Windows 7 pirates

[kalniel]

Well, I cannot use jopypads to play FPSers, ergo I am stuck with the PC.

If I want to play on the PC, I need a Microsoft OS.

Newer games require newer OSes.

No, I do not think they are worth the money but other then "stop gaming" what others choices do I have?

Play games that aren't FPSes? Read a book? Go to the pub?

Thats right, I break Microsoft EULAs....but the bottom line is I should not be made to feel like a thief because of their monopoly and unfair practices in the market.

No, you should be made to feel like a thief if you are so addicted to FPS games with the mouse and keyboard that you would break a contract that you agree to (and possibly the law) just to feed that addiction.

Monopolies and unfair practises should be dealt with by the courts, not vigilante action outside of the law. Certainly not for something as so unimportant in life as being able to play a FPS with a keyboard and mice.

[1stfret]

Why dont Microsoft make just one version of windows and charge a reasonable price for it then? Why make several versions when they could make one with all bits and bobs on it. I do thing the overall cost is rather high but wouldn't stop me from buying it.

[kalniel]

Why dont Microsoft make just one version of windows and charge a reasonable price for it then? Why make several versions when they could make one with all bits and bobs on it. I do thing the overall cost is rather high but wouldn't stop me from buying it.

Market differentiation.

Read the posts on page 3.

[Saracen]

Well, I cannot use jopypads to play FPSers, ergo I am stuck with the PC.

If I want to play on the PC, I need a Microsoft OS.

Newer games require newer OSes.

No, I do not think they are worth the money but other then "stop gaming" what others choices do I have?

Thats right, I break Microsoft EULAs....but the bottom line is I should not be made to feel like a thief because of their monopoly and unfair practices in the market.

But there is no God-given right to play games, let alone PC-based games on an MS OS.

Like many things in life, you have a choice .... if you want to do something, you either pay for it or don't do it. Saying you break MS EULAs, and presumably therefore pirate their OS, is the moral equivalent of deciding you want to drive an Aston Martin, and because you can't (or won't) afford to buy one, breaking into the factory and nicking one.

And the "other choice" you have is to buy the OS. Currently, even at PC World, Vista Premium upgrade is under £70. So it's the equivalent of what, two PC games?

How long does a PC game last? A few weeks or, typically at best, months. But how long does an OS last? Several years. I've been using XP for some years. So even if it's just three years, at £70, we're talking about less than the cost of a single game per year.

Assuming, of course, that you actually had a legit OS at some point in the past at all.

And if you want to play the latest PC games, you're going to need to keep at least reasonably up with hardware requirements, so you'll need a decent processor, and a decent video card. Both of those will cost you more than that £70, but I'll bet you manage to find the money for that.


I'm sorry, but if gaming is your objective, I just don't believe the "can't afford it, I don't have a choice?" argument. If you were hard enough up that you can't afford £70 every few years for the OS, if playing games is that important, then you couldn't afford either the games or the PC upgrades to play them on either.

The difference, of course, is that you can't pirate the PC. And if you steal the PC or hardware, you run a decent risk of ending up with the police at your door and a criminal record. Pirating the OS, and by and large, the games, is reasonably safe, though, if you're at least half intelligent in going about it. The chances of getting caught and held to account? Close to zero.



Oh, and by the way, what games won't even run on XP? Even if there are any, what game is so important that it's a must-have?


I can't see it, personally, I think it's all just rationalising to self-justify piracy. If people want to pirate the OS because it saves themselves a few quid, just say so.


That's why I said ages ago that any reduction in price large enough to have a significant impact on piracy would have to be large enough to have a VERY serious impact on profits. After all, if people are tight enough to pirate a £15 audio CD, and they are, then at what price would MS have to sell Windows to eliminate the motivation to pirate?

[dangel]

I'm sort of in the - could be priced a bit better camp. MS aren't short of a bob or two but the fact is there's nothing really forcing them to keep prices down. One has to remember too that it's primarily about commercial piracy - it's where the big bucks are after all (most consumers get Windows via an OEM with their new PC).

[Splash]

Well, I cannot use jopypads to play FPSers, ergo I am stuck with the PC.

If I want to play on the PC, I need a Microsoft OS.

Newer games require newer OSes.

No, I do not think they are worth the money but other then "stop gaming" what others choices do I have?

Thats right, I break Microsoft EULAs....but the bottom line is I should not be made to feel like a thief because of their monopoly and unfair practices in the market.

Millions of console owners somehow manage to play FPS games on consoles. Why are you special?

[kalniel]

Millions of console owners somehow manage to play FPS games on consoles. Why are you special?

Well he's not alone in that regard - I don't enjoy FPSen on a gamepad, but it doesn't bother me enough to break the law over it There are plenty of other types of game I could enjoy on a console.

[dangel]

Millions of console owners somehow manage to play FPS games on consoles. Why are you special?

I hate it too though - although i like the idea that i'm special

[Splash]

I hate it too though - although i like the idea that i'm special

I'm not a fan myself, but not liking something is most definitely *not* the same as being unable to do something. It's not impossible, and the number of FPS units shifted on consoles suggests it's actually quite popular. To me Shaithis wants to have his cake and eat it.

[badass]

No, you should be made to feel like a thief if you are so addicted to FPS games with the mouse and keyboard that you would break a contract that you agree to (and possibly the law) just to feed that addiction.

What if the contract you are breaking is probably against the law?
In the same way bank charges probably do and now the OFT has started a test case against the major banks because of this?

I don't care what the EULA says. Once software has been purchased, it is none of the publishers business how it is used in the same way that if you buy a van and add lots of seats to to to carry more people, the manufacturer doesn't care. Nor do they care if you move house.

[Splash]

What if the contract you are breaking is probably against the law?
In the same way bank charges probably do and now the OFT has started a test case against the major banks because of this?

I guess untill a developer brings a test case to court we won't know, will we?

I don't care what the EULA says. Once software has been purchased, it is none of the publishers business how it is used in the same way that if you buy a van and add lots of seats to to to carry more people, the manufacturer doesn't care. Nor do they care if you move house.

I disagree - if you don't agree with the license then you don't use the software. Seemingly I'm in the minority. If you want to be able to do whatever you like with the software I suggest looking into the GPL (though even then you're restricted)

[kalniel]

What if the contract you are breaking is probably against the law?

With MS's team of lawyers that's very unlikely to be the case. But either way the correct proceedure is to challenge that in the courts rather than take the law into your own hands and break it. The most recent case I can remember is when Blizzard's WoW EULA was challenged in court and it was found in Blizzard's favour that the EULA was legally binding.

I don't care what the EULA says. Once software has been purchased, it is none of the publishers business how it is used

Of course it is - if you buy a license to use a product in a particular way (rather than buying the product outright) then you are bound by the license you bought and agreed to. If you want to buy the rights for Windows XP outright then I'm sure MS will sell them, for about a trillion dollars perhaps, but that's quite a lot of money really for an OS.

If you license a van for 7 days and 1000 miles then you can't turn around and say, well now it's my van so I'm going to use it for 100 days and 20000 miles. But at the same time you'd expect buying that restricted license to be cheaper than buying either a license that allows more use, or the van outright, which is the case here too.

[badass]

I disagree - if you don't agree with the license then you don't use the software. Seemingly I'm in the minority. If you want to be able to do whatever you like with the software I suggest looking into the GPL (though even then you're restricted)

No thanks. I'll just continue to use single copies of software I purchased how I wish, apart from copying them.

[badass]

With MS's team of lawyers that's very unlikely to be the case. But either way the correct proceedure is to challenge that in the courts rather than take the law into your own hands and break it. The most recent case I can remember is when Blizzard's WoW EULA was challenged in court and it was found in Blizzard's favour that the EULA was legally binding.

IMO the correct way is to not put such stupid possible unenforcable restrictions on it in the frist place.

Of course it is - if you buy a license to use a product in a particular way (rather than buying the product outright) then you are bound by the license you bought and agreed to. If you want to buy the rights for Windows XP outright then I'm sure MS will sell them, for about a trillion dollars perhaps, but that's quite a lot of money really for an OS.

If you license a van for 7 days and 1000 miles then you can't turn around and say, well now it's my van so I'm going to use it for 100 days and 20000 miles. But at the same time you'd expect buying that restricted license to be cheaper than buying either a license that allows more use, or the van outright, which is the case here too.

XP isn't rented. It's bought outright. When I buy anything physical, provided I don;t make identical copies of it or parts of it and give them away or sell them on, the manufacturer cannot place any restrictions on how I use it. Why should software be any different?

[Splash]

IMO the correct way is to not put such stupid possible unenforcable restrictions on it in the frist place.

So bring a test case to court and prove it?

XP isn't rented. It's bought outright.

No, it's *licensed* - hence you need to agree to the EULA prior to use.

[Saracen]

...

XP isn't rented. It's bought outright. When I buy anything physical, provided I don;t make identical copies of it or parts of it and give them away or sell them on, the manufacturer cannot place any restrictions on how I use it. Why should software be any different?

For what it's worth, I've had this discussion with a number of lawyers over quite a long period, including with an IP specialist and, admittedly a good few years ago and the law may have changed since, with a Law Lord.

My (non-lawyer) opinion, based on what they've said, is that it's an area with a fair bit of ground for contention but that, by and large, EULAs in general are enforceable. There's a fair bit of precedent to support that view, though not necessarily in relation to software.

It is certainly not the case that any old ridiculous conditions could simply be imposed, if for no other reasons than that there are statutes limited unfair contract terms, but even if such terms were included, and half-competent contract is likely to limit the effect of such conditions being unenforceable to those specific conditions without voiding the whole contract.

But their opinion was most certainly that, as a general principle, limiting the actions of the licencee via a EULA is enforceable in general and most likely, in software products too. But they also said that the only way to be really sure would be either when statute nailed it down for a certainty, or more likely when a body of precedent built up in relation to software EULAs and, as far as I'm aware, that has yet to happen.

However, personally, I certainly don't intend to be the one footing the legal bills for challenging MS's lawyers over the issue.