Positive vs. Negative Reward

[xfile]

What is the purpose for Vista upgrade installation to check if the installed
XP copy is genuine?

If a personal is using a pirated copy now but wishes to use genuine copy
from now on, he/she has to buy the full version and cannot buy the upgrade
version - meaning would spend more money.

I'd consider this is a "negative reward". What will be considered as a
positive reward is to let the person can also purchase a genuine upgrade
version for starting using a legitimate copy from now on.

Let's stop the "moral" discussion for why would one use a pirated copy
and/or if one is a "thief".

The issue on hand is - how to motivate a person who is using a pirated copy
start using a genuine copy. If this is the focus, the current upgrade
installation check is nothing but a negative reward.

Note: This thought came to my mind when I read a post on another newsgroup
posted by a person who is using a pirated XP now but wishes to buy a genuine
upgrade version (obviously, price is a consideration), but as always, had
been voiced down by self-righteous crusaders. I suggested the OP might
check if it's possible to buy a copy of Win 2000 for that purpose. But in
any case, this thought came to my mind after reading that post - it's a
negative reward (a.k.a. stupid move) for a company is fighting against
piracy.

 

[Richard Urban]

Reward piracy by giving the pirate a break?

How about rewarding a person who has purchased every version of Windows from
3.1 onward.

I would gladly send in the original valid hard copies of the 3.1 floppies,
3.11 WFWG floppies, Windows 98 CD, Windows 98se CD, Windows ME CD, Windows
NT media, Windows 3.51 media, Windows 2000 CD, Windows XP CD for a free copy
of Vista Ultimate Full install.

The pirates can go to where it is hot and nasty.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Richard Urban]

Oh! I forgot DOS 6.0, DOS 6.2 and DOS 6.22

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[BJ]

How about for a limited time everyone gets an upgrade price regardless if
you have any copy of Windows. Then after that window closes it's back to the
current policy. That will certainly boost sales and create market
saturation, plus it would give every pirate a chance to go legal.

As a legit user, I would have no problem with that as long as I got my copy
discounted.

Bj

 

[Mhzjunkie]

Richard Urban spewed out this bit, and i'll scatter a few bits myself:

The pirates can go to where it is hot and nasty.

A Brothel ?

--
Mhzjunkie

1 PRINT "Windows XP ERROR"
GOTO 1
END

 

[Rock]

What is the purpose for Vista upgrade installation to check if the
installed XP copy is genuine?

If a personal is using a pirated copy now but wishes to use genuine copy
from now on, he/she has to buy the full version and cannot buy the upgrade
version - meaning would spend more money.

I'd consider this is a "negative reward". What will be considered as a
positive reward is to let the person can also purchase a genuine upgrade
version for starting using a legitimate copy from now on.

Let's stop the "moral" discussion for why would one use a pirated copy
and/or if one is a "thief".

The issue on hand is - how to motivate a person who is using a pirated
copy start using a genuine copy. If this is the focus, the current
upgrade installation check is nothing but a negative reward.

Note: This thought came to my mind when I read a post on another newsgroup
posted by a person who is using a pirated XP now but wishes to buy a
genuine upgrade version (obviously, price is a consideration), but as
always, had been voiced down by self-righteous crusaders. I suggested the
OP might check if it's possible to buy a copy of Win 2000 for that
purpose. But in any case, this thought came to my mind after reading that
post - it's a negative reward (a.k.a. stupid move) for a company is
fighting against piracy.

I don't understand why you would offer them a financial benefit for using
pirated software. No, the person should take responsibility for what they
did.

 

[William]

Why not, thats what our Federal Government does for illegal aliens and
tax cheaters.

 

[Ray]

I suppose looking at it from Microsoft's view, it's a case of getting
another user at upgrade price as opposed to no user at all, they'll just
keep on using pirated copies.

Ray

 

[xfile]

For the record, I apologize for using the word - stupid, which is a too
strong word.

For the purpose of clarifications:

(1) Positive reward: Provide incentives to a person for trying to do the
right things.

(2) Negative reward: Punish a person for trying to do the right things
(hence, reduce the motivation for doing so).

Personal perspectives:

(1) Using a pirated copy is wrong, but how do we motivate a person to use a
genuine copy?

PS: There are many reasons for using a pirated copy, and some of which are
known and some are unknown (at least to me), so if possible, let's skip the
subjective moral judgment, and focus on this scenario - is it a positive
reward for helping a person switch to using genuine copy or is it rather a
punishment and the person may continue to use pirated copies.

 

[xfile]

Reward piracy by giving the pirate a break?

Yes, and in the process, we (from the company's point of view) still make
some money and help the person to use a genuine one and stop at least one
demand for pirated copy, and the more converted, the less demand will be
there, and supply will eventually be out.

How about rewarding a person who has purchased every version of Windows
from 3.1 onward.

That will be a separate issue and shouldn't be "mutual exclusive" for this
issue, and of course, can be provided for royalty.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Microsoft does that for users who are victimized (whatever that may mean) by
pirates, but not the pirates.

 

[xfile]

Well taken and that's one perspective

I am trying to look at it from another perspective, shall the company give
the person a second chance provided it won't loss anything at all.

 

[xfile]

Thanks and yes, I know what you meant.

I assumed Richard Urban used the word for "persons using pirated copies"
instead of persons produced the pirated copies.

So for the purpose of clarification, we are discussing persons who are
currently using pirated copies - whether they are victimized or not.

But I don't see how the company is helping them for using a genuine one in
this case.

 

[Richard Urban]

No I don't. I think the person who violated the law should set it right. In
this case he should buy the operating system as everyone else has, at the
price they have paid. That would be making atonement.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[xfile]

Ok, thanks for clarifications.

So that means paying the "full" price (not the upgrade) will be the only way
for making up the previous wrongdoing?

 

[Mike]

What is the purpose for Vista upgrade installation to check if the
installed XP copy is genuine?

If a personal is using a pirated copy now but wishes to use genuine copy
from now on, he/she has to buy the full version and cannot buy the upgrade
version - meaning would spend more money.

If the running XP is not valid, then there is no valid XP license to upgrade
is there?

Mike

 

[Paul-B]

If the running XP is not valid, then there is no valid XP license to
upgrade is there?

Mike

It's all a bit academic, isn't it, since someone who has happily run a
pirated copy of XP Pro is hardly likely to actually *buy* a full or
upgrade copy of Vista, is he/she?

 

[Jeff]

pretty much,
pirated copies are pirated copies period,
msft was bein nice to people to have amnesty, and also cya themselves over
people that got taken by unscrupulous people, but ahh, that's their own
fault,buyer beware.pirated copies are illegal, so what part of a cost
break(upgrade?) should they be allowed?
NONE
buy a legit copy

 

[xfile]

OK.

But for those economically disadvantaged, they probably will continue to use
pirated copies and we will continue to be victims in the cross fire.

 

[Jeff]

I'll definitely agree that people,no matter what their economic status
is,will continue to use pirated copies,
which is wrong, economic status or not.
and it's definitely wrong of msft to make consumers bear the brunt of piracy
issues too,
everyone is well aware of my stance on spp/wga n/msft's ridiculous
assumptions and "anti-pirating initiatives
heck, with all of the stuff about kms servers and hacks going on,, one
wonders what the heck?
makes ya think that msft says; oh well we'll write off the biggest
population on the planet, and stick it to everyone else.


Jeff