Good for them. When did a profit-minded business become a bad thing?

Poverty does not justify wrongdoing. Period. Using the software without paying for it is theft. Period. There is no such thing as indirect theft. You are, without a doubt, stealing from the company. The moral implications of that are between you and your conscience, but don't try to use euphemisms and fool yourself about what you're actually doing. Yes, the software is expensive - but its vendor has the right to price however it pleases. Its placement out of your price range does not justify you in attempting to take it illegally.

@walk2k:
You are quite mistaken. You state in your message that theft is the removal of property. Please check the entry for "property" from your same source, Merriam-Webster. Definition 2b reads "the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing." 2c states "something to which a person or business has a legal title." Also, read the definition for "intellectual property." Merriam-Webster clearly defines intellectual property to be a form of property (and why this should confuse anyone is beyond me), thereby implying that the taking of intellectual property without permission would be considered theft just as stealing a physical object would be.

Again, if you have no problems with your own conscience, good for you. But don't try to fool yourselves into thinking it's not theft.

In my opinion, this is a classic example of people resenting someone who has more than they do. The leader of the pack in any situation is a natural target for criticism and "jokes". I respect Bill Gates for what he has accomplished. And, while some may try to detract from his contributions to society, the fact remains that he DOES contribute.

It has been suggested that Steve Jobs may contribute just as much, merely without seeking the praise of the masses. I very strongly doubt that. Anyone who knows anything about Steve Jobs knows how much he is stuck on himself. If he were a major charity donor, he would make sure the world knew it.

There is no perfect person. Gates, Jobs, and every man alive all have flaws. I just don't consider one of them to be "having more than I do." More power to them. To those who want to trash their accomplishments: let's see you do better. When you do, I will be the first to support you.

Just my $.02.

I don't understand why the government sees itself as being responsible for making sure everyone in the nation can afford television. It's not a right, it's a privilege. I assure you, if television is important enough to an individual, he/she will find a way to afford it. In any case, there are myriad other more pressing causes to which the government should be devoting its efforts. How disappointing.

"...we're certain that there are a whole lot of legitimate Vista owners out there that would prefer to go through this admittedly complex process rather than attempt the normal activation procedure."

Yeah, I see your point, since activating my copy of Vista through the "normal activation procedure" took me all of 3 minutes. As for the Redmond swipe, I shan't even acknowledge such bias with a response.

@Daniel and others,

You don't get it. When someone cracks Windows (or any other program) and doesn't purchase the retail product, then that product's manufacturer DOES lose something. Maybe not in the traditional sense of having something physically stolen, but they're losing money that they were entitled to BY RIGHT for use of their services. It's no different than if your employer refused to give you your next paycheck. You didn't LOSE anything... they didn't take anything that you had before, but I'm sure you would consider it to be morally reprehensible and *gasp* possibly theft.

The problem is that people consider themselves ENTITLED to the new programs. If the company doesn't price it within a range the pirates consider acceptable (typically $0), then that supposedly justifies their theft. It doesn't. If you don't want to pay the money for the software, don't use it.