Gaming PC for a friend

[Eastman51]

20 hours ago, jerubedo said:

We should not endorse piracy on these forums.

If Microsoft truly intended to require every user to pay outlandish prices for product keys, they would completely lock you out of the OS. I have a Windows XP laptop sitting in my closet that cannot be used because the product key refused to activate (I have plenty of valid keys, SP2 doesn't digitally activate anymore). On Windows 10, it does nothing like this. How can it be piracy if Microsoft themselves allow an almost full version of the OS to be installed and used without a product key? 

 

The only way I could see this being defined as "piracy" in a legal scenario would be in a business that does not pay for product keys. In this scenario the business is using these unactivated computers to make a profit.

 

3 hours ago, lee32uk said:

The definition of software piracy:

 

Software piracy is the stealing of legally protected software. Under copyright law, software piracy occurs when copyright protected software is copied, distributed, modified or sold. Software piracy is considered direct copyright infringement when it denies copyright holders due compensation for use of their creative works.

Exactly. Windows 10 clearly isn't protected from free use by consumers, so I totally don't see this as piracy.

[Carnage15]

Thanks to those that provided PC related replies... and to those debating over Windows 10 licensing and validity... GLHF I guess?

[jerubedo]

5 hours ago, lee32uk said:

The definition of software piracy:

 

Software piracy is the stealing of legally protected software. Under copyright law, software piracy occurs when copyright protected software is copied, distributed, modified or sold. Software piracy is considered direct copyright infringement when it denies copyright holders due compensation for use of their creative works.

 

Software piracy penalties apply to users that illegally reproduce copyrighted works and/or users who are knowingly in possession of illegally reproduced works. Unknowingly accepting pirated software is another scenario, provided it can be proven. End users may notice red flags, which indicate pirated software, especially if the acquired digital media is encased in inconspicuous or generic containers, such as CD sleeves or unnamed disk packaging.

 

 

 

So downloading Windows 10 from Microsoft website isn't piracy. Installing it without a product key isn't piracy. If you then use it without activating it then that could be seen as breaking the terms of the agreement. Trust Me if Microsoft wanted to sue you they would. Companies like Nintendo do it so why not them ?

I'm not sure what third party site you got that definition from but it is incomplete and dated. I, too, can find any old source on the internet to backup my point. However, even from your very own definition:

 

"Software piracy is considered direct copyright infringement when it denies copyright holders due compensation for use of their creative works." That's EXACTLY what's happening here. You're using pay-only software (as defined by the EULA) without a license and without compensating Microsoft for their creative works.

 

The real definition as defined by both the Oxford and Webster dictionaries is: "The unauthorized use or reproduction of another's copyrighted work." That's a much broader definition that encompasses all true cases of piracy.

 

From Wikipedia (although this is also a third party site and not a source to always be taken at face value): "Copyright infringement (colloquially referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission."

 

You also seem to be hung up on the fact that this is coming from Microsoft directly. Well, if I walk into the Microsoft store and just take a copy of Windows 10 and walk out, that's theft. And before you say that's completely different, it's not. When you walk into a store you are silently agreeing to the rules of society (just like when you go to install you are agreeing to the EULA). You are agreeing to not take something that has a price tag on it without paying. If you do steal, you might get away with it, or someone might stop you and call the police. In the case of the download, yes Microsoft is saying, "here, you can have this download for free, it's all yours." So far so good. But then when you go to install, which is when you are agreeing to the EULA: it says that you need a license to use the software, that's the same thing as seeing the product on the physical shelf with the price tag under it. When you then knowingly proceed to use Windows without the intention of ever paying for it, you are doing the same thing as taking the product off the shelf and stealing it.

 

And again, I happen to be an expert in this particular field. I have years of experience and knowledge behind me. I understand that I've shattered your perception of piracy, but just because you want something to be free, doesn't mean that it is.

 

As for Nintendo, no they have not sued an individual for pirating something for his or her self. They sued an individual who was modding a large number of consoles and profiting off of it, and they sued a California couple who owns one of the biggest ROM sites in the world (meaning they were distributing to the masses). None of those are a case of Nintendo going after you for modding your own console and pirating games. It's generally more expensive than it's worth for a company to go after an individual and even if they do, it's often like trying to get water from a stone, because these individuals simply don't have much to begin with. There have historically been cases of companies going after individuals to "make an example" but they never really worked out well because of public opinion and the fact that the sued individuals were sometimes children. 

[jerubedo]

27 minutes ago, Carnage15 said:

Thanks to those that provided PC related replies... and to those debating over Windows 10 licensing and validity... GLHF I guess?

Yeah I am really sorry about this. Everything got derailed over quite a bit of stupidity.

[jerubedo]

2 hours ago, Eastman51 said:

If Microsoft truly intended to require every user to pay outlandish prices for product keys, they would completely lock you out of the OS. I have a Windows XP laptop sitting in my closet that cannot be used because the product key refused to activate (I have plenty of valid keys, SP2 doesn't digitally activate anymore). On Windows 10, it does nothing like this. How can it be piracy if Microsoft themselves allow an almost full version of the OS to be installed and used without a product key? 

 

The only way I could see this being defined as "piracy" in a legal scenario would be in a business that does not pay for product keys. In this scenario the business is using these unactivated computers to make a profit.

 

Exactly. Windows 10 clearly isn't protected from free use by consumers, so I totally don't see this as piracy.

Whether there's profit to be made or not has nothing to do with piracy. It is indeed WORSE if a profit is made, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is piracy in the first place. As for WHY Microsoft is allowing full system use, they are taking the same approach as WinRAR, it is a mitigation technique. It gains them a positive reputation. The community no longer views them as, "Corporate greedy assholes" but instead as "nice." This spreads via word of mouth, market share of Windows 10 increases (they are doing everything they can right now gain users using Windows 7, 8, and even Xp so that they can say they have a 90%+ market share of OSes so that they can then launch targeted paid features at a very large audience). Spreading via word of mouth allows the software to be exposed to more people that actually pay for it. It's a strategy that works. Piracy will still happen, but it is mitigated.

 

Also, look at my last response to lee32UK, that definition was incomplete and incorrect. I've attached the real definition:

Copyright infringement (colloquially referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission

[Eastman51]

54 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Also, look at my last response to lee32UK, that definition was incomplete and incorrect. I've attached the real definition:

Copyright infringement (colloquially referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission

Software piracy and copyright infringement are two different things.

 

Downloading and using Windows 10 for free off Microsoft's servers isn't software piracy, you're not downloading an ISO off a shady third-party site nor are you downloading a cracked key. 

 

Software piracy is defined as the unauthorized distribution and/or copying of software. By downloading it from Microsoft themselves, you are not copying or distributing the software at all. @lee32uk's definition is actually completely correct, Windows 10 is not protected from free use, so an individual installing and not activating it for personal use is not really piracy.

 

Microsoft, as the developers of Windows have full control over whether or not users are required to pay for a key. They can lock out computers that have ran years without activation if they wanted, they could also require you to buy and present a key before downloading the ISO, and they could straight up prevent Windows from installing without a product key (like Windows 95). Considering they haven't done any of this, and my understanding of software piracy,I cannot see using Windows 10 without a product key as piracy. 

 

EULAs are hit and miss, they can be so vague that you can dodge around them or be so ridiculous that a court won't rule for them. There's not really a law (that I can find) that supports EULA's universally, which just reinforces this in my mind. 

 

You can keep arguing with us, but there's not been any ruling or statement (that I can find) that defines this use as piracy, so uhh, yea. Until a court rules that this is piracy, it isn't.

[jerubedo]

19 minutes ago, Eastman51 said:

Software piracy and copyright infringement are two different things.

100% incorrect. They are interchangeable terms:

 

Again from Wikipedia:

 

"Software piracy (officially called copyright infringement of software) refers to..."

 

From Cornell.edu:

 

"Software Piracy is an act of copyright infringement, and is subject to civil and criminal penalties"

 

From Rain Minns Lawfirm:

 

"The government has recently dramatically increased its efforts to prosecute what it labels as software piracy, which is considered a type of criminal copyright infringement.  The most common primary charge for this is 17 U.S.C. § 506."

 

19 minutes ago, Eastman51 said:

Software piracy is defined as the unauthorized distribution and/or copying of software. By downloading it from Microsoft themselves, you are not copying or distributing the software at all. @lee32uk's definition is actually completely correct, Windows 10 is not protected from free use, so an individual installing and not activating it for personal use is not really piracy.

Incorrect. Copyright infringement is NOT just the copying of software, it is also the USE of copyright software without permission. The OFFICIAL definition in both standardized dictionaries, and in SEVERAL legal books is:

 

"The unauthorized use or reproduction of another's copyrighted work."

 

Look it up on Oxford's website.

 

Furthermore, again from Rain Minns Lawfirm:

 

Criminal Copyright Infringement (Software Piracy)

Criminal copyright infringement is outlined in 17 U.S.C. § 506.  It states: “Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18.”    Depending upon which provision the government elects for its prosecution (or persecution!), below are  generally the initial factors that the government must prove for all copyright infringement convictions:

• There is a valid copyright.
• There was an infringement of that copyright.
• The infringement was willful.
• The infringing items were not “first sales.”  (Note: Some courts do not require this fourth item.)

[jerubedo]

29 minutes ago, Eastman51 said:

Microsoft, as the developers of Windows have full control over whether or not users are required to pay for a key. They can lock out computers that have ran years without activation if they wanted, they could also require you to buy and present a key before downloading the ISO, and they could straight up prevent Windows from installing without a product key (like Windows 95). Considering they haven't done any of this, and my understanding of software piracy,I cannot see using Windows 10 without a product key as piracy.  

 

 

Again, see my previous response as to WHY they are allowing full usage. It's a mitigation technique. 

 

30 minutes ago, Eastman51 said:

 

Microsoft, as the developers of Windows have full control over whether or not users are required to pay for a key.

Correct, and the EULA explicitly states that no use is legal without a valid product key. That is the developers (Microsoft) saying "you can not use it without a valid key."

 

[TunaHead]

@lee32uk @Eastman51 You guys realize @jerubedo is right, right? We actually just studied this very case in the criminal justice section of our social studies class: the use of Windows 10 without activation. We defined it as piracy and it was our goal to debate the ethicality of it. It wasn't even a question weather it was piracy or not. The teacher just said that it was.

 

Plus he referenced an actual law firm and standardised dictionaries/books, and sections of legal code. Based on those oficial definitions and the sections and the EULA I'd say its without a doubt piracy.

[TunaHead]

Also @lee32uk @Eastman51 we are on Linus forums. That makes Linus this forums god. The forum god himself called this piracy as well. See his video

 

Read the video description as well. Linus references that it is pirating and asks if Microsoft could sue them.

[jerubedo]

8 minutes ago, TunaHead said:

Also @lee32uk @Eastman51 we are on Linus forums. That makes Linus this forums god. The forum god himself called this piracy as well. See his video

 

Read the video description as well. Linus references that it is pirating and asks if Microsoft could sue them.

 

Yep, this is a good point as well (albeit one that I made earlier in this debate). Linus is an expert in the tech field as well (some of you may argue that) and his words have weight.

[Eastman51]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Yep, this is a good point as well (albeit one that I made earlier in this debate). Linus is an expert in the tech field as well (some of you may argue that) and his words have weight.

Alright, it be piracy then. So what. 

 

I guess the point that I actually intended to make in first place is that you don't have to pay for Windows. It doesn't matter if its piracy or not, what have they been doing to average Joe who just plays games on his PC all day? Nothing. So is it really the end of the world if I have a few un-activated PCs? I'm not hosting a web store, or installing Windows without keys on customer PCs, or *insert other example here* on these computers. The fact that Microsoft has made piracy of their OS so easy just kind of makes not seem like piracy at all. Linus said in his video that he's technically going against their terms, yet he does it anyway. So, I for one don't think its a huge deal. If you want to preach about it, go ahead, I'll just do what I do until I have a reason to otherwise.

[jerubedo]

5 minutes ago, Eastman51 said:

The fact that Microsoft has made piracy of their OS so easy just kind of makes not seem like piracy at all.

 

That's like saying that because a store doesn't pay for a security guard at the exit, it's ok to steal something from it.

 

As for the rest of what you said, I largely agree. It's not a huge deal. No one is going to jail over it. Is it the end of the world? no. What I WAS saying was please don't ENDORSE it here. You do what you want to do, but don't endorse on public forums the use of piracy to someone who might have otherwise done the correct thing on their own. That's all.

 

Oh and Linus' case is a bit different since he does indeed own product keys. He's in a much more gray area.