>
>I don't think any one is arguing that MS shouldn't combat pirating.
>
>It is how they are doing it that is the problem. They almost encouraged (at the least they were VERY laxed in enforcement) WinXX pirating 10 years ago as a way of increasing market share for their other products. It's only as the MS desktop market is now reaching saturation at around 85% that MS is concerned and they have introduced a wicked registration wizard and employed surrogate bounty hunters (like BSA) to bully the general public and specific individuals/corporations. That they can't sustain their income model because folks are beginning to balk at their continual upgrade treadmill is, in my opinion, the real reason for the 'piracy' smokescreen. Besides, most of the piracy appears to be occuring outside the USA, where MS EULA's and the DMCA aren't/can't be enforced. In fact, the BSA in just another revenue mill grinder that MS is pumping, using it's big gorillia image. Mom and Pop don't have the time or money to fight the liza.. lawyers sent on fishing expeditions after
>them. It's cheaper to pay MS (entitled or not) than pay for legal defense. MS knows this. That's why they are grinding that monkey. It's a shame, and it is not winning MS any friends.
>
I totally agree with what you have said.
I have maintained for a long time that because MS were suffering from lack of sales, and Bill G. was no longer the richest man a few months back, they have decided to crack the whip, and try and squeeze more cash out of all existing paying registered customers (hoping like anything that we have installed MS software on more than one computer, and that we feel guilty enough to send more cash to MS because of this).
I have already had a "government" style questionnaire from MS wanting to know how many computers I have, what software I use, all of the registration numbers for any MS software, etc, etc. And they wanted me to sign it and return it to them before a certain date (almost like a government tax return). Did I do it? Like hell I did. I threw it away in disgust.
A week or two later a guy from MS phoned to ask whether I had received the form and whether I was going to return it. I told him I was not and suggested that I did not like the government style Big Brother attitude that MS suddenly has.

I am one of those guys that learnt a long time ago that registering a software product has almost never brought me any of the promised benefits, and that is why I usually never do it. The one exception is for Foxpro, because most releases have some bugs and the updates are desirable. But what do I get for my efforts here? A threatening letter from MS.

I think this new Gestapo policy of theirs, together with their new “hassle to install & register” policy, is going to cause major damage to them. I have already been put off.

I am a tiny fish (one man show), but If I add up all the cash that I have spent with MS over the years, it amounts to thousands of dollars. I , together with millions of others out their, have made MS what it is today. Have I purchased all my software legitimately?. Yes. Have I ever installed any of my legitimate copies more than once (maybe on my second or new computer)? Perhaps. Does that make me a criminal & pirate if I have? Perhaps it does in MS eyes now that there sales are down. But the fact remains I am the customer, and the customer is king. MS is starting to skate on thin ice buy sending loyal paying customers threatening letters in the hope of more cash. A bad move by MS.

Perhaps Book publishers should have licence agreements for the use of books. Books can only be read by the purchasing individual, and may not be resold, or re-read by other individuals. Or one could add, the book may only be read in ones home. An additional book needs to be purchased if reading is to take place away from ones home.

Recipe cook books could come with a licence agreement that each recipe may only be use once. Thereafter each additional use of a recipe will attract an additional charge. People who do not comply will be branded as “pirates”. Bounty hunters can sent out, especially to restaurants.

Home video rentals could also come with a licence agreement that the video can only be watched once, and that any additional viewing will attract an additional rental charge. Bounty hunters could then be sent out to try to catch “pirate viewers” who play the home video more than once during a single rental. Extra income can then be got by the video outlets.
Video companies could then claim that millions of dollars & thousands of jobs are lost each year because of members of families who illegally watch rental video’s more than once during a single rental.

Just some thoughts & feelings.

Regards