Slashdot Log In
Companies Coming Around To Piracy's Upside?
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Jul 20, 2008 02:36 PM
from the why-people-hate-to-call-it-piracy dept.
from the why-people-hate-to-call-it-piracy dept.
traycerb writes "The Economist has an article detailing how numerous companies are finding piracy's silver lining: 'Statistics about the traffic on file-sharing networks can be useful. They can reveal, for example, the countries where a new singer is most popular, even before his album has been released there. Having initially been reluctant to be seen exploiting this information, record companies are now making use of it. This month BigChampagne, the main music-data analyser, is extending its monitoring service to pirated video, too.' The kicker is Microsoft's tacit endorsement of Windows piracy in developing markets, namely China. The big man himself, Bill Gates, says it best in an interview with Fortune last year: 'It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I'd be happy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Piracy will however cause lost profit compared to if piracy was impossible. However, just as you said not at a 1:1 ratio, and most likely far far far from it, as any extra money would mean less money spent on other goods. Also this doesn't imply that having strict copyright just to increase profits is a good thing.
In fact, copyright reminds me somewhat about russian plan economy. Just like we could point and laugh at the inefficencies of plan economy, Non-capitalists can point and laugh at the inefficencies
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I, most emphatically, disagree. Let's take the classic example: Photoshop.
I'd wager that nearly everyone who's above the age of 25 and has a computer has had a pirated copy of some version. Mainly, because they thought:
"COOL! I want photoshop."
They then launched it once, couldn't figure out what to use it for, and then forgot about it.
In my opinion, there is no legitimate argument that can be made for the case that the a
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone avoids downloading software if he won't pay for it anyway, then the productivity he could gain from that software is lost.
If he does download it without paying for it, he gains productivity, while the author of the software loses nothing.
Why is it that you prefer that he loses the productivity, all other considerations being equal?
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because software isn't food or clothing. You're not entitled to it. If you can't afford it, use a free alternative, or nothing at all. You'll still be alive tomorrow even if you don't get to use the latest and greatest software.
So let me reverse the question with the above: Why is it that you feel people are entitled to luxury?
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Funny)
Why is it that you feel people are entitled to luxury?
GREATEST! COUNTRY! ON! EARTH!
EVAR !!!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
The consumer looks at a product and says "hey, i like that, but i can't afford to spend $20 on it. so i will not buy it." but now all of a sudden there is a way for that person to get it for free so they obtain it that way.
Why, then, should anyone pay for the software? There are an almost unlimited number of things to spend money on. I am guessing that most "pirated" copies are not a matter of either I eat or I pay for the software -- it's a matter of either I go-to-the-movies or buy-a-new-TV or I pay for the software. At what point does "I can't afford it" justify the piracy in your mind?
The software clearly has some value to the "pirate". It has filled some useful purpose, and the creator's efforts are going unrewarded (that is, the creator didn't intend to give it away -- he or she wanted to be paid for it). Is the creator who wants to be paid for his or her software simply inherently wrong?
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not wrong, but maybe unrealistic. Technology has brought us to the point where bits can be duplicated to any new format or context for basically no cost. The old business model of selling "copies" of information, depended entirely on the fact that that was hard to do.
So the question is: Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular collection of bits once and then sell it as many times as you like, or are we going to outlaw the general-purpose computer?
I don't think those are our only two choices. Firearms are legal despite the fact that they can be (and are) used to kill other people. Cars kill an unbelievable amount of people every year, yet we don't think of outlawing them. The copy machine has been around for decades, and somehow the printing industry hasn't gone out of business. There is a middle ground, admittedly difficult to enforce, where copying has legal restrictions while general computers are free. I think that there can be behavior that's
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, but I think that compatiblist responses like this only serve to procrastinate the answer to this question.
Right now, the sanctity of bits is protected by lots of social mores and traditions. Copyright law is one of them. Another is the practice of including album art and liner notes in albums. The way we trade information in the commercial world still seems to ascribe value to owning the authentic recorded media, rather than just having access to the bits contained therein. This is the way we have learned to think, growing up buying albums and games and so on.
The 4-year-olds growing up with YouTube are not going to think about data the same way. They are going to feel a deep, bellyfeel inconsistency between the notions that data has value, and that copies of data have value. Cars and books and guns all have a physical component which, consistent with the laws of matter, must carry an element of scarcity. but they're going to balk at the notion that scarcity in the world of bits should be created where it doesn't occur naturally.
The bits-for-money industries will never die completely, as people want to watch/listen to/play stuff and will pay for it. But I assert that the produce-once-sell-indefinitely model is doomed, just because it's inconsistent with what information is.
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The 4-year-olds growing up with YouTube are not going to think about data the same way. They are going to feel a deep, bellyfeel inconsistency between the notions that data has value, and that copies of data have value."
And you actually think that when the 4-year-olds are old enough that youtube will still be around in its current form? Youtube sill has yet to turn a profit and the only reason it's still around is because google can take the loss. This won't last forever.
Why is is such a stretch that something that has value costs money? Even if it is a copy, each individual person will get value from it.
"Cars and books and guns all have a physical component which, consistent with the laws of matter, must carry an element of scarcity. but they're going to balk at the notion that scarcity in the world of bits should be created where it doesn't occur naturally."
The bits aren't the scarcity with software, movies, or anything digital. The scarcity is the talent that it takes to put the bits in that order (the developers, artists, and producers create this order), which can't be replicated easily.
"The bits-for-money industries will never die completely, as people want to watch/listen to/play stuff and will pay for it. But I assert that the produce-once-sell-indefinitely model is doomed, just because it's inconsistent with what information is."
The bits-for-money industries are the sole reason why they are available for you to download and enjoy. Without any kind of commercial industry, all of the content will be gone.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The bits-for-money industries will never die completely, as people want to watch/listen to/play stuff and will pay for it. But I assert that the produce-once-sell-indefinitely model is doomed, just because it's inconsistent with what information is.
First, do you really think the average consumer takes an ontological approach toward information and then decides not buy things based on that? Second, do you even listen to what you're saying? You're arguing that because something can be reproduced flawlessly, that the creator of that information should be fine with not being compensated when it is shared with everyone. What if they want to be compensated for each person that decides to partake of their digital good?
What we have now is people rationalizing
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
I said nothing of the sort. All I claim is that today's kids are going to understand data differently from us. I'm sure the businesses catering to them will change names and owners and business models many times along the way.
Poppycock. Music and art existed before they could be monetized for mass-production, and they will continue to exist after they can't be monetized in this way anymore.
You're right that the big-money industry might collapse. Maybe it will be impossible to recoup an $80M film budget in the future, and so $80M films won't get made anymore. Maybe A-list celebrities will cease to exist.
I can't wait.
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Barring asteroid mining and recycling unlike anything we've ever seen, we're going to eventually run out of things. Guns, cars, and books need metal, more metal, and trees to be constantly created, used, dumped, and replenished.
Bits cost naught but the pittance of electricity required to turn them on or off and to read 'em. They won't run out until we run out of electricity (at which point we'll have other problems).
That's why the 4yos and Youtube and so-called piracy will "win" and an archaic business model will be forced to change - you can't do business the same way with material and immaterial.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I'd rather buy media produced on small scales, by people who produce for the love of it. They do a better job for less money, and there's more of them to choose from.
Tom Cruise, for instance, is worth something close a quarter billion dollars. Would you say he has produced more cultural value than 500 actors would, if in their careers they made half a mill each?
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is is such a stretch that something that has value costs money?
This nasty sumbitch called the supply-demand curve. Value is subjective.
The last decade has made it brutally obvious that volume is king. Among industries that whine about piracy hurting theoretical profits, how many have tried *gasp* lowering prices? Should a song really cost more than a hamburger?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If Tom Cruise is worth that much, how much is a full size actor worth?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Not wrong, but maybe unrealistic. Technology has brought us to the point where bits can be duplicated to any new format or context for basically no cost. The old business model of selling "copies" of information, depended entirely on the fact that that was hard to do."
Currency, such as the US dollar can also be copied pretty easily due to technology (and technology will only get better). Should we allow this too?
"So the question is: Are we going to give up on the idea that you can produce a particular coll
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Irrelevant. If it is absolutely true that the person would not have bought a product he pirated (e.g., a college student pirating Photoshop CS3--I don't know a single college student who can afford that program), then from a utilitarian perspective, it is illogical and detrimental to society for him to NOT pirate it (assuming he will actually use it). Of course, if he will use it once he gets a job and can afford it, then the logic breaks down. In this
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
I learned 3D animation on a pirated copy of 3d Studio Max. On my own, I could never justify the purchase of this piece of software, as at the time it was just a hobby.
Down the road, when I got a job at a university doing environment design, my boss had a quite understandable interest in not having pirated software installed on school computers. A copy was subsequently bought for me, and discreet inc. has warez to thank for that sale.
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit.
#1) Photoshop CS3 as an educational license is much cheaper, and many, many colleges have deals with Adobe where students can get licenses even cheaper, or even free.
#2) As long as people pirate Photoshop, a cheaper alternative will never be created. Gimp anyone? Do you think that thing would suck balls so much after so many years if it was impossible to get Photoshop for free? Oh no, it probably would be a full fledged alternative by now.
Our economy works from a supply and demand perspective... the "infinite" supply logic only works in term of quantity of a single product... but there's a potential demand for a larger amount of -distinct- product. That demand is killed by piracy. The barrier for entry for a photoshop clone is exponentially higher: No only you need to make a clone for free to compete with pirated photoshop, it needs to be as good, and if you manage to get people to pay for it, you're competing with a product made free even though it wouldn't be otherwise, so potential jobs cannot be created, additional companies cannot survive, and the Gimp sucks ass.
Oh yes, society wins so much!
(Note: I know its not as clear cut... but there IS another side to the coin.)
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Interesting)
it is illogical and detrimental to society for him to NOT pirate it (assuming he will actually use it)
Actually the developers of GIMP would benefit if he followed the law and used that instead. The more people who use software the more traction it gains. This is why piracy is bad to society.
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right that software isn't food or clothing. It isn't tangible. Thus, whoever created the software must have known that their efforts were going toward creation of a product that can not be bought or sold in the same manner that bread and milk are. With tangible goods, either one has or one does not have the item. With intangible products like software, music, or movies, the question of whether or not one has the item is ambiguous. I think the real problem here is that the global economy is based on the construct that all products bought and sold are tangible. The industrial revolution brought us the ability to make the same thing many times, with a lower unit cost due to volume discount. The concept of mass production is meaningless when the cost of replicating a product is zero. The internet eliminates the distribution cost and allows every consumer to become a reseller in a zero-cost market.
As a software engineer myself, I have come to realize one simple fact about the 21st century global market. I do not and can not sell the product of my efforts. I sell my effort itself. I provide a service for a fee. Eventually, most of the software people need will have already been created, and with any luck the software will be organized and self-governed by open source communities. The people in these communities will not be paid by the users of the software through some sort of licensing system. They will be paid by the companies who produce tangible goods that can be sold in the marketplace, companies who derive benefit from integrating the software into their business model. The software itself will be free. The value provided to these companies by the software engineers will be the integration and application of the software to improve revenue generation of some tangible product.
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is many an ambiguity here. Because it doesn't answer the giants paradox: If I've seen farther than others, it was by standing on the shoulders of giants. No creation of any Work of Art was possible without the million Works of Art that were already out there as part of us being humans in a human society. Every Work of Art is leeching (or stealing) from the richness of the culture it was growing one. 95% of each Work of Art is not original, but copied from someone else.
So why are 100% of the Work protected?
If I buy a real estate, I can build a fence around it without infringing on anyones real estate. But where is the fence that separates the original part of a Work of Art from the part, that is just a partial copy of our all culture?
If I mention "42" on Slashdot, most people immediately recognize my reference to Douglas Adams. In a certain way 42 no longer belongs to the society as a whole. But which part of 42 contains the pure number, and which part of 42 is original to the Hitchhikers Guide?
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but copying something is quite different from stealing something.
Stealing something involves infringing the natural right of an individual not to be deprived of their posessions - copying something in violation of copyright law involves infringing an artificial right created by law.
If you don't understand the difference between a natural right and an artificial right, you have no business using clever words like 'vacuous' and 'insipid', you corprophagous troll :o)
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion if Person B is using the software commercially to make a profit then they damn well should pay for it.
If person B is using it at home just to mess around with it for personal non commercial projects then there is no harm done, Person B was never going to buy the software in the first place, they arent profiting from it and no harm is done to anyone.
Id say that software should have specific Home Editions which should be alot cheaper, but then Small to Medium business could potentially exploit this system.
Piracy seems to be becoming the new Home Use Only Licence, but only because one isnt provided or is still far too expensive.
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree. The problem starts with non-corporate software. Devil May Cry 4 just came out for PC a few weeks ago. I don't foresee many corporations buying it... so what exactly do you do? The answer to this so far has either been: A) put some fucking annoying and useless DRM on it, or B) make games that require a corporate server that isn't being distributed to run (WoW).
So now what do you do? Not very many people will lend their time to make something like that...coding a PC game sucks. The drivers are buggy as hell, there's tons of them, you have to support the lowest common denominator, then there's customer support, etc... so while free software isn't completly out, it will be rare in that field. So exactly what is the solution? These things cost millions to develop, and as technology to push games further comes along, it will take more and more artists to make the graphics and sounds in the game, the voice actors, etc.
I also know a LOT of people who pirate photoshop and do a heck of a lot more than just "messing around", and will openly say that its a critical piece of software for them (its a hobby for them...but hey, sports are hobbys too, and the gears are expensive -too-). So what do you do about those?
The home edition is a good idea and it does work (I've witnessed a lot of people buying Office Home and Student... 150$ for 3 licenses, thats not bad at all), but when people start feeling entitled to the top edition, or we're talking about single player games... I don't see an easy solution.
Parent
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer to this so far has either been: A) put some fucking annoying and useless DRM on it, or B) make games that require a corporate server that isn't being distributed to run (WoW).
A somewhat rarer solution is C) Use either light enough DRM that people don't care, or no DRM at all.
See, if you use no DRM at all, there are still going to be a fair number of people buying the game -- people who are honest, people who don't yet know about BitTorrent, etc.
If, however, you use DRM so aggressive it can make their computer unusable -- or which limits the number of times you can install the game -- or requires you to be online 100% of the time -- or requires a CD to always be present -- in short, if you use DRM which actually interferes with ways a legitimate customer might want to use your game...
Then they will go looking for cracks.
And they will discover how easy it is to find a decent crack. Or a pre-cracked torrent.
I don't remember the original comment which illustrated it this way, but here you go:
1) Buy game
2) Try to install game
3) Get pissed off
4) Download cracked version
If that's your typical process, it won't be too long till you eliminate steps 2 and 3, and at that point, step 1 becomes "Buy game, to put on shelf." How long before you eliminate step 1?
Too much DRM causes more piracy than it prevents. If you believe that too little DRM lets piracy run rampant, you still have to try to strike a balance -- one most games, in particular, don't get. Or you could err on the side of caution and use no DRM.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you trying to imply that software publishers are stealing from society, by charging for their software?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I did lose something - my time.
This is different then if I write something on my own time and then expect people to retro-actively pay for my time. And this is exactly the difference between selling copies of software and selling my time to do work on some software. And this is exactly the model where open-source developers get paid.
Re:I'd be happy if pirates* would acknowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it plainly: go take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut*.
I, personally, pay for all the software I use, music I listen to, and movies I watch; despite the fact that I have the technical chops to crack whatever I'd want.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I make my money in software; and, by extension, "IP". Ergo, I want to be paid for my work and I think others should be too.
However.
And, that's a big "HOWEVER", I do not accept the rhetoric, propaganda, and evil litigiousness of the software lobby. The idea that everyone who illegally uses a copy of some software product is either: a danger to society, an irretrievable thief, a tax cheat, or a supporter of terrorism is obscene.
The most disgusting part of this, to get back to the point of my original point, is that all the aspersions cast upon those who engage in such piracy notwithstanding, they still wouldn't have paid for "it" anyway.
So, in the end, draconian laws and mindsets are being fostered for no morally, or fiscally, sound reason.
*Thanks to Kurt Vonnegut for that vignette.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason is a politically sound one. These copyright laws provide massive, "old man friendly" SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) suit hooks.
It was done with napster, closing that forum, it's done with websites far and wide right now with the dmca (false notices), it's being done with youtube despite the fact that 90% of what I see on or from youtube has nothing to do with copyrighted material.
The centralized media is systematically stamping out any avenues for public participation t
This part is old old news. (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep telling people that when they pirate Windows or Office they're not taking a poke at Microsoft, they're taking a poke at potential competitors for Microsoft. This isn't news, this is not something Bill Gates just realized, Microsoft USED this when Office was getting established, in all kinds of ways, even allowing business users to use the same licensed software at home, rather than using something else because they couldn't get a second license through their office.
Mod parent up. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just MS Office.
Back when it was WinNT vs NetWare, Microsoft was happy to allow "piracy" because Novell servers automatically checked licensing and would shut down if you tried to use the same license twice.
Parent
Re:This part is old old news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. They didn't start offering low cost MS Office editions (Home and Student, 3 licenses for 150$ as long as you're not using it commercially) until people started looking at alternatives (Linux, Mac OSX, etc), -not- when people started pirating (since years and years before that).
Parent
Re:This part is old old news. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Linux users: don't support proprietary software! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is happy to let the Chinese pirate everything, because it locks them in and increases their user base. Without it, alternatives like Red Flag Linux might actually have a few users.
Software Is NOT A Religion... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and I'll help people with whatever they have and want to run. Linux, Windows, whatever, so long as they are willing to pay the service rate.
The one thing I will NOT do is install or provide any assistance or other service with pirated software or any illegal activities. Non-negotiable, it ain't happening.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Linux users: don't support proprietary software (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the reason that Slashdotters who support Linux shouldn't be fixing every Windows PC around and giving others pirated software. So many people think they're sticking it to the man by using pirated proprietary software, but it only increases the user base of it. Microsoft is happy to let the Chinese pirate everything, because it locks them in and increases their user base. Without it, alternatives like Red Flag Linux might actually have a few users.
The majority of people donâ(TM)t care whether a program is proprietary or open source because the majority of people will never modify their operating system. A free launch is a free launch regardless of packaging and I have no doubt that most of the people who have Linux computers use it because it is free, just as most of the people who use Windows use it because it came with their system. The only difference between the two people is that one person knew how to install an operating system and/or build a computer and the other guy didnâ(TM)t.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't install Windows products and especially not pirated software because of how much of a pain it is to support, not because I want to push a certain agenda.
For pirated software you would have to make sure any update mechanism is shut off, and that causes security headaches if the updates patch holes. The user will also want to install a new version if they come across it and notice they have an older version, which will probably not work with the crack used to cause the program to activate/val
Old news for most (Score:5, Funny)
That article reads like a young adult suddenly realizing how the world really works, but still stuck in the idea that everything they learned before must still be true.
Re:Old news for most (Score:5, Interesting)
That article reads like a young adult suddenly realizing how the world really works, but still stuck in the idea that everything they learned before must still be true.
[disclaimer: i'm the submitter]
definitely true, and to be expected from The Economist; like the WSJ and FT, it's just always going to have a rah-rah business attitude.
still, i think this is good insight into the big businesses' mindsets, and these are encouraging first signs of cracks in the old thinking, and maybe even a sneak preview of how things may change.
Parent
The PC Software Industry has known this for years (Score:4, Interesting)
For example MS, note that it was only with XP that they even tried to introduce some anti-piracy, and it is decidedly half-assed and low priority.
Good software companies have managed to have it both ways since the 80's and benefit from piracy and cracks spreading their best efforts, while making lots of noises about how bad it is so that those with money will be inclined to purchase it rather than take the risk. To my knowledge they only prosecute big black market dealers who are probably interfering with their attempts to set up profitable distribution channels.
I am sure they have numerical models in Redmond telling them exactly how much piracy vs. prosecution will maximize their profit in the various markets.
Only idiots like the RIAA are stupid enough to actually sue and thus alienate their basis directly and for all time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example MS, note that it was only with XP that they even tried to introduce some anti-piracy, and it is decidedly half-assed and low priority.
I don't know about 3.1, but 98 at least did include anti-piracy. It was called a Product Key.
In fact, the new anti-piracy features in XP caused a bit of a shitstorm (read: storm in a teacup), wherein many people refused to upgrade. Things like having to call Microsoft just because you bought a new hard drive -- that's ludicrous, when you really think about it. It's just that copy protection has gotten so bad that we accept these things as a matter of course, now.
MS only really cares about large scale piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
When it comes to individuals pirating their software (their OS, Office, Visual Studio), Microsoft actually would prefer those people pirate their software instead of using alternatives. This is also the same reason they offer Windows, Office and Visual Studio at student discounts for well, students.
Microsoft would rather have young programmers pirate their Visual Studio and get used to developing in that environment rather than let's say Ubuntu + gvim + gcc. Also there is a chance that the average Joe who's on a pirated WxP copy will go out to BestBuy and buy Vista before calling in the slashdot cousin to upgrade his OS - which the average Joe wouldn't do if he was running Fedora. (This paragraph is directly from a Manager at Microsoft's Active Directory Services team - everything except for the /. cousin).
As someone else here has noted, MS only cares about piracy when businesses do it or large scale piracy happens (someone's making money from it). I get my genuine copies of Microsoft Software from their employee store (buddies of mine work at MS) at really cheap prices (35$ for XP Pro, Windows games at 10-20$, Xbox 360 games at 15-25$) but I know it costs next to nothing for MS to print out those copies - even 25$ == profit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're quite correct about Visual Studio. Many aren't aware of that, but technically speaking, Microsoft -wants- to give all editions of Visual Studio away. They're not really profit makers to begin with, but only an indirect feature of Windows. But if they don't charge for VS, then all of the third party tools will die out (there already aren't that many for Windows development, compared to Java or Linux development), and that would hurt em in the end.
The worse bit of piracy is when people print a shiny wi
NIN did this recently... (Score:5, Interesting)