Has Windows become freeware?

Let's say your neighbors have a pie on their windowsill. You sneak over and take it when no-one is looking, then enjoy free pie at home. Obviously, this is a case of theft. Now, what about this scenario: you go over, in plain sight; your neighbors are in the kitchen, and you see each other. As they watch, you take the pie. They make no attempt to stop you. You go back to your house and enjoy your free pie. Days pass, and the neighbors make no complaint. Is this theft?

Microsoft can stop piracy any time they want, for Internet-enabled computers: they are currently rolling out code that detects pirated installations of Windows and displays messages if this is so. They also disable non-critical updates to those computers - but they don't lock them down. Furthermore, they do allow critical updates. In the analogy: your neighbors watch you take their pie, and later let you come back and add fudge whenever your want - just not chocolate sprinkles.

Of course, copying a Windows CD isn't theft, it's copyright infringement (if anything). But I use the analogy above, which compares piracy and theft, because companies like Microsoft make that mistake when they complain about piracy. I am, for a minute, trying to look at things from their side. But by their own logic, my analogy seems to paint a strange picture: what they call theft doesn't quite seem like theft anymore. Can Microsoft claim that using a pirated version of Windows is illegal, given that they let you do so? I am not a lawyer, but it seems iffy to me: to ignore piracy that you can do nothing about is one thing; to know which copies are pirated, and be able to deactivate them, but not to do so - that is another. It seems to me that, effectively, Microsoft is treating Windows as if it were freeware. Whether it is legally freeware is of course another issue. I would hope that there is some connection between the two, though.

Obviously, Microsoft made a choice here. There are disadvantages to locking down non-legal versions of Windows: one is potential nuisance to users of legal versions (when an error mistakenly marks them as non-legal users). This seems like a plausible-enough excuse for them to use. I say 'excuse', because I don't buy it. No, I think Microsoft are happy with things as they are - just like Adobe give you their Reader for free, and make money off the other versions, so Microsoft are effectively making their operating system free of cost; there is still more than enough profit from those that do pay. Just like Acrobat Reader, freeware Windows is a way to get and maintain market share (and even a monopoly, in the case of Windows).

But there is one difference between Microsoft and Adobe: if I am right, then Microsoft are dishonest about this practice. In the name of fairness, Microsoft should either officially make Windows freeware, or prevent use of non-legal copies of it. As things currently stand, they can complain about piracy (and sue infringers) while flooding the market with free software, thus maintaining their monopoly. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.