3 ms·
No, Microsoft shouldn't make systems actively damage themselves if they notice they are pirated. Technology should serve the user first, and the author second,
by selfhoster11 5y ago
No, Microsoft shouldn't make systems actively damage themselves if they notice they are pirated. Technology should serve the user first, and the author second, even if pirated.
It's fine to refuse to function if the system detects it's pirated on the first boot. It's not fine to do the same after an auto-update. It's definitely not fine to do any substantial damage like erasing data or server configuration.
Even Linux gets pirated. It's incredibly easy to comply with GPL, and yet companies like Ubiquiti still don't do it. Should your UniFi network cease to function out of a sudden because Linux kernel devs decided to bring it all down?
- zelon88 5y agoShould a storefront be able to open its doors and serve customers even if it doesn't pay its rent? If you predicate a business model on robbing Peter to pay Paul, how can you be angry when Peter cuts you off?
- selfhoster11 5y agoEven evictees are evicted subject to a due process, and not cut off on a whim of the landlord. Even if this were so, software is not a service, despite the current trend to make it so. Nor is software scarce. Rental of scarce retail space is a service, and a totally different scenario. This analogy simply doesn't relate to the issue at all.