[LINK] Neil Young: piracy is the new radio

TKoltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Fri Feb 3 23:03:58 AEDT 2012

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Andy Farkas
> Sent: Friday, 3 February 2012 8:43 PM
> To: Rachel Polanskis
> Cc: Link list
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Neil Young: piracy is the new radio
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Rachel Polanskis 
> <grove at zeta.org.au> wrote:
> > I believe the pervasiveness of Windows is directly due to piracy.   
> > DOS  was so easy to pirate and the fact you needed it to 
> boot your PC 
> > meant it has been cemented in right from the start.
> I disagree. It has been proven that M$ forced OEMs to pay M$ 
> for every computer they sold. Yes, DOS was easy to pirate 
> (copy a: b:) but even back then you couldn't buy a computer 
> without DOS (because M$ was making the OEMs license it for 
> every computer they sold).

Sorry Andy, I had several computer stores. I used to buy hundreds of
PC's without DOS. Some even came without a BIOS.
In fact, I did a blog a couple of years ago where I researched the total
number of Windows/Dos licences sold by Microsoft and the total was
around 2 billion, with the total number of PC's sold up to 2001 being
around 4 billion.

So I regret that in this, Rachel is correct.

Dos and MS-Word became ubiquitous BECAUSE of copying and sharing. In
fact, Windows V.1 originally came out as a free "Trial" software package
in an attempt to damage the Apple GUI market.

In http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2010-May/087886.html I
quoted my article:

"MS Dos and Windows were the most pirated software in the world. However
I also did
the numbers of actual global computer shipments minus total windows and
Dos licences and wound up about 2.4 billion short. So then I asked the
question, how is it that the most pirated software in world has as it's
owner/author/publisher the largest corporation in the world and surely
the act of piracy was what drove the pc industry in the early "getting
up to speed days".

>From Sharing and Caring to Piracy in less than thirty years 
url= http://kovtr.com/wordpress/?p=548

Curiously, 12 hours later I was hacked by the friendly "reputation
management people in the UK".

So I guess my article struck a nerve.

Help yourself, all the numbers data is in there as well as an anecdotal
personal perspective example.

> Even more so with Windows 95. That's when it became obvious M$ 
> was using predatory monopolistic practices to make sure 
> Windows was successful. Hence the DOJ case(s) against them.

Actually the DOJ case had a lot more to do with negotiations between the
Regents of Berkeley (BSDI) and MS than anti-competitive behaviour.
(Although their forced licensing tactics couldn't actually work with
Win95 - because someone let the cat out of the bad with the licensing
library work-around, demanding equal workstations to be sold in at least
in the Oakland district - and therefore had accelerated BSA
[www.bsa.org/] activity to make smoke around the issue.) Apparently,
some Berkeley Alumni at the DOJ didn’t take kindly to MS using BSDI
source without acknowledging or paying for it's use.
Remarkable, the DOJ case and the Berkeley PD incorrect attrib lawsuit
were settled on the same day.

> -andyf
> ps. I have never personally bought any M$ product, never 
> will. Probably because I've never bought a new computer (I 
> build my own). I am contemplating buying a laptop where an 
> OEM cannot be avoided. I'm wondering how the fight will go 
> when I refuse the M$ EULA and ask for my money back (it says 
> you can do it in the EULA!).

We await your report on link with interest.
But if you meet a wall, the TPA (ACCC) will step up to bat on youre
(We wish.)


More information about the Link mailing list