Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vista licensing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    You can thank piracy, and some peoples ongoing belief the price and such of that product promotes piracy. People still want to use the product but not pay the price for it because for whatever reason they can't justify that price or just don't want to pay for it. What these people also don't realize is piracy also eventually pushes up the price of said product.

    Some people are willing to take that risk, even if it means getting caught and paying a hefty fine. Which is sad because odds are, the cost of the fine would have been more than the cost of the product. At that point you could just as well of paid for the item.

    As well, some of the pirated software could have viruses or backdoor trojans injected in them, thus compromising the security of you and your computer or even website.

    Some people take those risks then whine about them if something happens. Pathetic.

    Consider how much money is being lost through piracy. Some people don't realize businesses have went under because of it because of loss of profit. And some people have this backwards way of thinking it doesnt matter because there will always be other software available thats comparable, which is simply not true. Some great features and such could potentially be lost forever, as well as a great company.

    How would people feel if Vbulletin went under because the level of piracy was so high, and loss of profit was large because of it? Was the piracy justifiable then? Some people just do not understand simple economics.

    A simple act like piracy drives up cost (so they can help turn a profit) and increases security measures so piracy is at least a bit less likely. That and the MPAA and RIAA doing alot of *****ing.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Freesteyelz View Post
      Unless I'm misinterpreting your last paragraph, cirisme, your choice of using the word "apologist" needs clarification.
      a·pol·o·gist (ə-pŏl'ə-jĭst) n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
      TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by whitetigergrowl View Post
        You can thank piracy, and some peoples ongoing belief the price and such of that product promotes piracy. People still want to use the product but not pay the price for it because for whatever reason they can't justify that price or just don't want to pay for it. What these people also don't realize is piracy also eventually pushes up the price of said product.

        Some people are willing to take that risk, even if it means getting caught and paying a hefty fine. Which is sad because odds are, the cost of the fine would have been more than the cost of the product. At that point you could just as well of paid for the item.

        As well, some of the pirated software could have viruses or backdoor trojans injected in them, thus compromising the security of you and your computer or even website.

        Some people take those risks then whine about them if something happens. Pathetic.

        Consider how much money is being lost through piracy. Some people don't realize businesses have went under because of it because of loss of profit. And some people have this backwards way of thinking it doesnt matter because there will always be other software available thats comparable, which is simply not true. Some great features and such could potentially be lost forever, as well as a great company.

        How would people feel if Vbulletin went under because the level of piracy was so high, and loss of profit was large because of it? Was the piracy justifiable then? Some people just do not understand simple economics.

        A simple act like piracy drives up cost (so they can help turn a profit) and increases security measures so piracy is at least a bit less likely. That and the MPAA and RIAA doing alot of *****ing.
        While I agree with you that piracy is wrong (and I never endorse using pirated software) I disagree with the implicit position you take that Microsoft should be able to do anything they want to stomp it out and we should just accept that as the world we live in. Microsoft and their customers (even those “hard core enthusiasts” that supposedly only make up 5% of the base) need to work together. People have forgotten that all business is are people getting together and exchanging things in a way everyone benefits. The supplier gets a fair amount of money for what they produce and the buyer gets a fair product for the money they paid. You think that the supplier should be able to treat all their customers like criminals and the customers should just put up with it. Unfortunately for both you and Microsoft, the customers are not stupid and many of them do not see these piracy measures as being a beneficial part of their purchase.

        Finally, I would like to address what you said here: “Consider how much money is being lost through piracy.” When it comes to moving licenses from one computer to another, according to Microsoft, this is not a significant problem. The link that Joe posted earlier has a rep saying this:

        Since you can't transfer a copy of Windows that comes with a new PC anyway, less than 10 percent of all Windows licenses are transferable at all. And of those, only a tiny percentage of users have ever tried to even transfer a Windows license once.
        So of the 10% of licenses that even qualify for transfer, only a "tiny percentage" of folks have even tried it once. Given the scale of Windows piracy, it should be clear this doesn't come anywhere close to being a significant source of piracy, so I am baffled why Microsoft's arrogance seems to think they have a compelling need to alienate some of their most technical users, many of whom I suspect work in IT and who could cause a ripple effect.

        So in summary, does Microsoft have a right to do this? Sure. Is it smart? No. Will it cut down on piracy? Nope. Is there any good reason for Microsoft to be doing this? No.

        I'm just glad I won't have to bother with any of this crap personally.
        TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by cirisme View Post
          a·pol·o·gist (ə-pŏl'ə-jĭst) n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
          Err. I wanted a clarification; not a definition of the word.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by cirisme View Post
            Given the scale of Windows piracy, it should be clear this doesn't come anywhere close to being a significant source of piracy, so I am baffled why Microsoft's arrogance seems to think they have a compelling need to alienate some of their most technical users, many of whom I suspect work in IT and who could cause a ripple effect.
            Given the percentage of Windows users around the world, I think a "tiny percentage" of 10% is significant. To make sense of it all, focus on the 90% of Windows users - people who obtained a copy of the OS with a purchase of a new PC (OEM) - rather than the customers who've purchased the Windows Retail/FPP. The fact is that many OEM users transfer the OS onto a new PC, or customers purchase the OEM (stand-alone) and then use it as a Retail/FPP copy. Both actions are illegal according to the OEM's EULA. To keep things short (for now) the piracy issue extends beyond the 10% of affected customers.

            Another thing, let's read the EULA a bit more carefully. Joe was correct in his response in post 21. Take quote one (from Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows:

            The problem, of course, was that some people felt they could install a single copy of Windows as many times as they wanted. "It's always been per copy, per device," Boettcher said.
            Now let's evaluate that with Paul's statement (regarding Vista's EULA) below:

            It now explicitly states that a user may "reassign the [Windows Vista] license to another device one time." This, the pundits say, is a huge restriction that wasn't present in Windows XP. Many people incorrectly believe this to be the case.
            Does anyone see what the EULA actually entails? Paul's assertion is on the money, "not much has changed". Go PC enthusiasts I say.

            I invite anyone who's interested to read the Vista (Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate) EULA. You can do so here (in PDF format).
            Last edited by Freesteyelz; Sat 21 Oct '06, 12:08pm.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Freesteyelz View Post
              Err. I wanted a clarification; not a definition of the word.
              Oh, in that context I just meant anyone who was defending Microsoft's license changes. It's not the least bit derogatory. (nor was it intended to be)
              TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Freesteyelz View Post
                Given the percentage of Windows users around the world, I think a "tiny percentage" of 10% is significant.
                Perhaps. However, pirating Windows is widespread and even the most inflated figures (600 million windows licenses, 4% is the "tiny percentage" mentioned) would put the number to less than 2.5 million people who have tried to move a copy of Windows. Assuming 3/4 of those are pirates (unlikely, IMHO) that would only account for 1.8 million pirated licenses.

                Given the size of Windows' market and the large size of the pirating that goes around the world, moving licenses from computer to computer is clearly an insignificant cause of piracy compared to the loss of volume product keys.

                So, again, my point remains. While there undoubtedly is some piracy going on, those that will be most sigificantly impact (by Microsoft's own, albeit unintentional, admission) is not pirates but legitimate users. The users most likely to work in IT and influence buying decisions of their friends and offices. Why Microsoft would want to alienate this core base in order to deter a very small source of piracy remains, to me, a complete mystery.

                To keep things short (for now) the piracy issue extends beyond the 10% of affected customers.
                DUH! I was just saying that the "tiny percentage of 10%" is only a very small part of Microsoft's piracy problems. The most significant piracy area is with volume licenses, not with people transferring a license from computer to computer.

                Paul's assertion is on the money, "not much has changed". Go PC enthusiasts I say.
                That's not the same thing as “Nothing has changed.” As I said before:

                And, no, the argument that this simply clarifies the XP EULA so you shouldn't care is nonsense. Whether they intended to or not, this "clarification" of the EULA does, in fact, change the way the EULA operates in practice. They may have wanted the XP EULA to say this, but it didn't, and this change, by Microsoft's own admission, will have a practical change in the way things operate.
                And...

                So basically what it comes down to is what questions are we asking here? Floris and those who are upset with these changes are asking, “How will this affect me?” and “What practical, actual, changes will result?” whereas you want to ask “How will this affect xx% of XP users?” and “Does the new EULA match the "intentions" of the XP EULA?” which, IMHO, is completely irrelevant in answering the problems Floris/et al have with the new changes.
                And, FWIW, I thought the XP activation was terrible from the start. Microsoft did scale it back from what it was going to be initially, but I didn't bite, and my predictions were vindicated both by the Vista changes and the recent bruhaha over "Genuine Advantage".

                So, if you want to convince me the Vista changes are okay because they aren't much different than XP's, you need to find a better argument.

                While I understand the predicament Microsoft is in, XP (and Vista) offers me nothing over their competitors that I consider it worth living under their microscope. Maybe Windows is so freaking awesome to you it's totally worth it for your usage to be monitored, that's your right and I won't belittle you for that stupid* decision. (*just kidding ) I would hope you'd show me and those who do not come to the same conclusion as you the same courtesy.
                TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

                Comment


                • #53
                  1. I think you've read too much into my statement as from "Another thing" (referring to post #50) was addressed to everyone and not just to you. Since you did take the time to scrutinize my post(s), however, I'll say this: I'm not trying to convince you that Vista's EULA is "ok"; that is really up to you (and any other individual) to decide. Though, I think you're seriously missing the point (which is touched upon in #2).

                  *Just because you've added "just kidding" in your last paragraph doesn't excuse you from what you really think.

                  2.
                  Originally posted by cirisme
                  The most significant piracy area is with volume licenses, not with people transferring a license from computer to computer.
                  Are you stating this as fact or suspicion? I'd like to get to the core of your statement before moving onward.
                  Last edited by Freesteyelz; Sat 21 Oct '06, 2:19pm.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    So if Vbulletin (or any company really) was losing more profit than what it already is because of piracy, and to help protect its current and future customers, decided to start taking stronger measures in protecting its well being, then doing so is very well in their being.

                    I take it you wouldn't mind if you started a website selling a 'widget' for $50, that I get ahold of that widget, nulled it, then throw it up on every file sharing website and software I can would you? I mean, you MIGHT only be losing about 4% of your sales. Then again there is no real way of coming up with legit statistics to prove its not more or less than that.

                    You simply cannot come up with a valid argument for piracy or why it should be done within the realm of common sense, without it being turned against you if you were in the same situation.

                    So lets say there are 1,000 nulled Vbulletin forums being used. Lets do some simple math shall we?

                    $160 x 1,000= $160,000 lost. Thats assuming they would all eventually turn perpetual.

                    $85 x 1000= $85,000 lost assuming they all went yearly

                    $160 x 500= $80,000 lost assuming half went lifetime.

                    $85 x 500= $42,500 lost assuming half went yearly

                    Now there are obviously more variables. But there is no doubting that they would be losing close to $90,000-$100,000 on average. This does not include profit lost from even doing yearly support or renewal from doing the yearly license. Just imagine where that money could go on improving Vbulletin. Lets say that those 1,000 only make up for 10% of Vbulletins profit. Thats still alot of money lost. It really is no different than shoplifting.

                    Obviously 90% of the world thinks Windows is good enough for their wants and needs. That other 10% can whine and complain about Microsoft all they want. But if they were in Microsofts position its almost guaranteed they would likely be walking down a similar path.

                    Its a give and take world. A company has every right to protect its intellectual property. If piracy was happening less, then its also likely less restrictions and such would need to be taking place.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      You simply cannot come up with a valid argument for piracy or why it should be done within the realm of common sense, without it being turned against you if you were in the same situation.
                      Who are you talking to? If to me, I do not have a 'valid argument' for piracy. All of the commercial software I have loaded on my computer has been legally purchased. If I do not agree with a software license, I do not buy it. Which is precisely, as I explained in post #43, why I do not own or run XP at home. (I do at work, but that's totally out of my hands)

                      So if you're talking to me, I really do not know what your point is.
                      TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        You know everybody, if you don't want to be subject to the Vista licensing terms, either buy or download something else, like Mac OS X, SuSE Linux, FreeBSD, etc. Arguing over license terms when you can be exempt from them from the start is pointless.
                        --filburt1, vBulletin.org/vBulletinTemplates.com moderator
                        Web Design Forums.net: vB Board of the Month
                        vBulletin Mail System (vBMS): webmail for your forum users

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Freesteyelz View Post
                          *Just because you've added "just kidding" in your last paragraph doesn't excuse you from what you really think.
                          I only called it stupid for the irony because I was just saying how I thought we could share common courtesy. Which is why "Just kidding" had the asterisk.

                          Are you stating this as fact or suspicion? I'd like to get to the core of your statement before moving onward.
                          Well, to the extent that piracy can be measured, of course it's a fact. At the moment I can't find any good statistics to point you to, but it would be silly to say, "Oh, volume licenses account for less than the inflated 1.8 million figure in post #52". It's just really unrealistic to think that Volume Licenses, which until WGA, have had NO real piracy defense would be less pirated than the more heavily restricted versions of Windows. Go do a quick search online and I'd be willing to bet you'll easily find a volume license key that works and you'll have a very hard time of finding a standard license that does. The primary reason is because, until WGA, there was no defense against volume licenses. Sure, every now and again there'd be rumblings that an upgrade would disable well known volume license keys, but since there was no activation of volume copies, pirating it is pretty easy. Sure a few people here and there may be more likely to use their boxed version of XP a few more times than they ought to, but the number of lost sales there is absolutely dwarfed by the Asian markets selling these things like candy for a buck.

                          (PS: Volume licenses are getting their change too. Looks like volume license customers with Vista will have to run a license server.)
                          TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by cirisme
                            I only called it stupid for the irony because I was just saying how I thought we could share common courtesy. Which is why "Just kidding" had the asterisk.
                            Our common courtesy is keeping the discussion on a civil manner, which I'll say, we have so far.

                            Originally posted by cirisme
                            Well, to the extent that piracy can be measured, of course it's a fact...
                            *Note that I'm addressing the entire section.

                            Peer to peer is one method of pirated distrubution; what's not often talked about are the companies who've installed the software on more systems than their volume license allows. Volume licenses are sold at a discounted price and are obtainable to only a selected (registered) group. These companies which are bound by legal measures every day cheat the system as well, if they can.

                            Another concern that raises a bigger threat is the selling or reselling the OEM illegally; the OEM's are easier to obtain to the common folk. Several methods involved: 1) Many distributers sell them as Retail/FPP (with the booklets, CD and documents intact). 2) There are distributers who make copies of the OEM's and sell them individually, unknowing to their customers (also with the booklets, CD and documents intact). Because there's a tolerance of how many installs of a software can do before the activation kicks in + most users install the OEM only to one system this method of software distribution is very common and a cheap way to make a sizable profit. *We've found this prevalent not only in the U.S. but as far away as Singapore (a country that also have strict piracy laws).

                            Volume licenses are to follow the same guidelines as the Retail/FPP and OEM in the sense that they all must be installed on a licensed device. Just over the years people misinterpreted the EULA and now MS has again revised the wording of the EULA. Will it work? Based on the confusion I see (on the net) already I'm not quite confident (yet).

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by whitetigergrowl View Post
                              You can thank piracy, and some peoples ongoing belief the price and such of that product promotes piracy. People still want to use the product but not pay the price for it because for whatever reason they can't justify that price or just don't want to pay for it. What these people also don't realize is piracy also eventually pushes up the price of said product.
                              For every single pirated copy of XP, there's many who
                              a) don't know there's a pirated version
                              b) can't be anused with the WGA hassle
                              c) has some moral beliefs or whatnot

                              Saying that piracy boosts the price is like saying that vBulletin will cost more because someone is using it illegally, which I don't believe for a second. Until Jelsoft raises the price and can statistically prove that piracy is the reason, I see no reason to believe that piracy raises the price.

                              Originally posted by whitetigergrowl View Post
                              Some people are willing to take that risk, even if it means getting caught and paying a hefty fine. Which is sad because odds are, the cost of the fine would have been more than the cost of the product. At that point you could just as well of paid for the item.
                              Unless they seed the download for ages, how exactly will they get caught?
                              WGA doesn't transfer back any identifiable information (or so their Piracy Statement says, anyways) due to the fact that it's quite possible the person is a victim of software counterfeiting and not an actual (Captain) Jack Sparrow, therefore immediately sending the feds on their door would be wrong.

                              Originally posted by whitetigergrowl View Post
                              As well, some of the pirated software could have viruses or backdoor trojans injected in them, thus compromising the security of you and your computer or even website.
                              Yes well anyone who knows anything about the Internet knows to use an AV, as well as read the comments from other users before downloading a new copy of Windows.

                              Originally posted by whitetigergrowl View Post
                              Some people take those risks then whine about them if something happens. Pathetic.
                              Of course, I've yet to hear about anything actually happening, so...

                              Originally posted by whitetigergrowl View Post
                              Consider how much money is being lost through piracy. Some people don't realize businesses have went under because of it because of loss of profit. And some people have this backwards way of thinking it doesnt matter because there will always be other software available thats comparable, which is simply not true. Some great features and such could potentially be lost forever, as well as a great company.

                              How would people feel if Vbulletin went under because the level of piracy was so high, and loss of profit was large because of it? Was the piracy justifiable then? Some people just do not understand simple economics.

                              A simple act like piracy drives up cost (so they can help turn a profit) and increases security measures so piracy is at least a bit less likely. That and the MPAA and RIAA doing alot of *****ing.
                              This is assuming that everyone would pay for the legal version, which is simply not true.
                              Buying Windows isn't because they don't know if the version is right for them, they are being pigeon-holed into upgrading. Everything (pretty much anyways) is Windows. Not to talk about games, the only company that makes a Mac version of the game is Blizzard with WoW, and thats simply because WoW is so excellently programmed.

                              The same with songs (since you mention RIAA). Not everyone has access to a music store that can give them a demo of an album. Why should someone pay $20 then find out the only song s/he likes is the one they heard on the commercial?

                              Originally posted by whitetigergrowl View Post
                              So if Vbulletin (or any company really) was losing more profit than what it already is because of piracy, and to help protect its current and future customers, decided to start taking stronger measures in protecting its well being, then doing so is very well in their being.

                              I take it you wouldn't mind if you started a website selling a 'widget' for $50, that I get ahold of that widget, nulled it, then throw it up on every file sharing website and software I can would you? I mean, you MIGHT only be losing about 4% of your sales. Then again there is no real way of coming up with legit statistics to prove its not more or less than that.

                              You simply cannot come up with a valid argument for piracy or why it should be done within the realm of common sense, without it being turned against you if you were in the same situation.

                              So lets say there are 1,000 nulled Vbulletin forums being used. Lets do some simple math shall we?

                              $160 x 1,000= $160,000 lost. Thats assuming they would all eventually turn perpetual.

                              $85 x 1000= $85,000 lost assuming they all went yearly

                              $160 x 500= $80,000 lost assuming half went lifetime.

                              $85 x 500= $42,500 lost assuming half went yearly

                              Now there are obviously more variables. But there is no doubting that they would be losing close to $90,000-$100,000 on average. This does not include profit lost from even doing yearly support or renewal from doing the yearly license. Just imagine where that money could go on improving Vbulletin. Lets say that those 1,000 only make up for 10% of Vbulletins profit. Thats still alot of money lost. It really is no different than shoplifting.
                              Your figures are so full of assumptions and "what if" and pure speculation that I find them nothing but laughable.
                              Some see it as unfair that they should be forced to using an inferior product just because they aren't as fortunate financially than others, when they CAN get the good product for free.

                              As for your reference to shoplifting. There is one fundamental difference: software (yes, even vBulletin) is nothing but 0 and 1. Even if you burn a cd of vBulletin, claiming it is physical, it is still nothing but 0 and 1.
                              You can't walk into a store, grab some 0 and 1, walk out and eat it as a chocolate afterwards.

                              Yeah, it is stealing, Im not trying to debate that. But it is stealing 0 and 1, not anything physical. The free flow of 0 and 1 cannot be stopped.
                              They can make bike locks that are close to impossible to open, but they cannot hinder the change of 0 and 1 to circumvent whatever they put in there. Even if Windows, down to a kernel level, limit what you can or cannot do with a file, it is as simple as making a software on another OS that changes the appropriate 0 and 1.



                              Disclaimer:
                              The above post contains nothing but opinions. Any conclusions you wish to draw about my activities are entirely down to interpretation.
                              My licence of vBulletin is active until autumn 2007, running solely on the board shown in the licence page.
                              Microsoft.com validates my copy of Windows as Genuine when I download and install software like IE7.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                And

                                Originally posted by Zachery View Post
                                Basicly if you build a computer for whatever reason, install Vista on it, its now tied to that computer, you can transfer it once to another new machine. If the new machine were to go bad, you'd be buying a new copy of vista.
                                And no wonder Microsoft is so filthy rich.

                                I understand that the piracy concerns are different than they were with Windows 3.1, for example, but there is definately a way to ensure that piracy doesn't occur, while allowing for normal things such as loss of a computer, or data loss.

                                No other company on the planet is as Hitler-esque as GatesSoft.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X