So... advertising CD Key sites

[qubit]

This thread has been a wonderful case study on societal values, mentality, etc.

As for grey market keys, I can't stand Microsoft but I prefer developers get paid appropriately for their work. Even if said developer ultimately is the corporation. That said, I am still living off my days with MSDN-AA and have multiple keys for every single piece of software MS allowed in the program.

BTW, you can still register and activate Windows 10 with Win 7 and 8 keys.

Now you just knew that some pedant would come along after this post!

If I remember correctly, MSDN keys can only be used during the subscription period. In other words, the Windows install must be wiped after the subscription ends. Something tells me that no one's doing this and hence... OMG PIRACY!!!!

Similarly, waaaay back in 2009, shortly before MS killed off TechNet, I bought a TechNet sub and legitimately got 10 licence keys for things like W7 etc, as well as links to download the ISO files.

Those products can be used after the subscription has ended, but they can only be used for "testing and evaluation" at any time. Yeah, been doing that for a decade now...

Other sites may not be legit but keep in mind, in today's age they could literally just file a DMCA and boom sites gone. Simple easy copyright law etc basically is shoot first ask questions later. So with that in mind with a simple DMCA request being all it would take to knock such a site down... why has that not happened? The answer is simple Microsoft etc does not care. It really is that simple. If these cd key sites were truly cutting into there profits and or causing problems then they would take action. However thats not the case. Microsofts ACTIONS speak louder than the copy paste boiler plate notice.

Yes, I agree. I think MS will do almost anything to grow and maintain marketshare, because they know that they'll make more money in the long run - and just look at how rich and profitable they are on the back of this strategy. Hence, these dodgy little sites probably get their tacit approval.

 

[lexluthermiester]

On top of this, comments are disabled against these promotional posts, making them look even more dodgy, so it's hardly surprising that this is so controversial.

The comments are disabled because of discussions like this and certain individuals that will invariably challenge the issue that is 1, none of their business and 2, something they can't possibly know all of the particulars about.

Other sites may not be legit but keep in mind, in today's age they could literally just file a DMCA and boom sites gone. Simple easy copyright law etc basically is shoot first ask questions later. So with that in mind with a simple DMCA request being all it would take to knock such a site down... why has that not happened?

Exactly, if it were going to happen, it would have by now. Microsoft and other publishers act swiftly when blatant piracy is taking place because they are lawfully required too(if you don't protect your rights, you loose them). But they haven't done a thing. I find that interestingly telling.

 

[qubit]

The comments are disabled because of discussions like this and certain individuals that will invariably challenge the issue that is 1, none of their business and 2, something they can't possibly know all of the particulars about.

Of course it is, but that's a piss poor excuse. It just means that those people have a point and TPU can't take the heat, scared that it will cut into their profits, bless.

EDIT: I see a mod censored most of my ON TOPIC post, including the link to wccftech making a similar kind of promotion. Yeah, says it all, really.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Those products can be used after the subscription has ended, but they can only be used for "testing and evaluation" at any time. Yeah, been doing that for a decade now...

Wait right there! MS Enforcers will be at your door in about 40 years.

 

[moproblems99]

Yes, I agree. I think MS will do almost anything to grow and maintain marketshare, because they know that they'll make more money in the long run - and just look at how rich and profitable they are on the back of this strategy. Hence, these dodgy little sites probably get their tacit approval.

Microsoft will allow this until it causes harm or until they move to a full subscription model. I believe the latter is coming sooner than we like to think which is why they aren't too concerned anymore. They just want to lock people in now.

 

[notb]

As for grey market keys, I can't stand Microsoft but I prefer developers get paid appropriately for their work. Even if said developer ultimately is the corporation.

Well exactly. It's funny how some people like to be called "computer enthusiasts", but they choose not to pay for products from companies in the business. Or maybe it's just for software?
I'd love to see how the same people react to a hardware situation, for example: a noname asian knock-offs of Corsair AIO for 1/3rd of the price.

That said, I am still living off my days with MSDN-AA and have multiple keys for every single piece of software MS allowed in the program.

You are allowed to use them perpetually (excluding commercial purposes), so it's 100% legal.
As for MS being paid for their work: the whole point of the MSDNAA is to promote products among future clients. It's an investment. And it's certainly profitable. You don't have to feel bad.

 

[moproblems99]

You are allowed to use them perpetually (excluding commercial purposes), so it's 100% legal.
As for MS being paid for their work: the whole point of the MSDNAA is to promote products among future clients. It's an investment. And it's certainly profitable. You don't have to feel bad.

I don't feel bad. They gave me the keys and I'll use them until I can't. I will honor their wishes and not use them commercially. They can also revoke them tomorrow and I'll count my blessings while I have them.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yes, I agree. I think MS will do almost anything to grow and maintain marketshare, because they know that they'll make more money in the long run. Hence, these dodgy little sites probably get their tacit approval.

Sorry, that isn't the way it works. Microsoft can not turn a blind eye. If they do not protect their copyright they loose it. It's a known tenet of civil law. They have to protect every aspect of their copyright or they loose the right to protect it at all. Not a risk they can or will take. With that in mind, the only possible situation here is that, barring some unforeseeable situation, Microsoft has entered into agreements for these types of sites to sell digital licenses for a cut of the profits.

Of course it is, but that's a piss poor excuse.

You're right, it's a poor excuse. But it's an excellent reason.

It just means that those people have a point and TPU can't take the heat, scared that it will cut into their profits, bless.

People need to chill then. Either take advantage of the excellent offers or choose not to. It's that simple.

 

[sneekypeet]

Thread edited of stuff that has no bearing on this thread.
Let's try to stick to the topic at hand shall we?

 

[GlacierNine]

Edit to remove a now removed post I quoted. I think the following is a nice recap of the current threads of this discussion however so I'm keeping it:


1 - Very few users are concerned that TPU is promoting piracy. Several users have voiced outright support for piracy. More have stated they understand why piracy occurs. More beyond that have stated they're happy to use grey-market sites like this as long as the sites themselves are trustworthy.

2 - The major issue being brought up at this point is whether the grey market sites TPU is choosing to accept sponsorships from are trustworthy. The sponsorships we've seen so far have been from relative nobodies with extremely suspicious background that was easily googled.

3 - The minor issue being questioned is whether the grey market is, itself, legal.

4 - The social justice angle comes from points such as when I made the point earlier in the thread that I think the TPU staff are often out of tune with consumer demands, and I explained that in today's market, consumers expect this sort of ethical concern and pro-consumer attitude to be a focus. The growing areas of tech journalism put ethics and consumer-interests at the front of everything they do. There is a question mark over whether TPU (or individual members of TPU staff) are placing similar importance on that. That is causing some people to rethink their decisions about supporting the site, and there are examples of people cancelling Patreon subscriptions or making clear that they will NOT subscribe to TPU patreon, if that doesn't seem to be TPU's priority to them.

 

[juiseman]

I personally don't think Microsoft cares about any of this.
They make a lot of money off of big corporate and big brother contracts.
What is there market share? over 70% of all computers in the world are running Windows or some form of Office?

 

[GlacierNine]

I personally don't think Microsoft cares about any of this.
They make a lot of money off of big corporate and big brother contracts.
What is there market share? over 70% of all computers in the world are running Windows or some form of Office?

Microsoft have always damn near supported piracy of their products by regular consumers, because suing consumers is bad press, those consumers don't have enough money to make it worth winning the case anyway, and also Bill Gates himself famously said that he doesn't worry about piracy because "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though, and as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

That's the reason for Microsoft's hands off approach to piracy. They do sometimes go after businesses that think they can get away with it, to prove that making money from piracy is a step too far, but beyond that they leave people alone and reap the karma and marketshare instead.

 

[qubit]

Thread edited of stuff that has no bearing on this thread.
Let's try to stick to the topic at hand shall we?

Ok, I'm gonna assume it was you that censored my post. It was actually completely ON TOPIC and highly relevant, but not so favourable to TPU, so funny how it got censored, innit?

EDIT: we're good, see below.

You're right, it's a poor excuse. But it's an excellent reason.

It's a terrible reason.

 

[dorsetknob]

Back in the XP days when getting rid of old systems used to mark them with the Software as " For Evaluation purpose only"

That's the reason for Microsoft's hands off approach to piracy. They do sometimes go after businesses that think they can get away with it,

 

[BiggieShady]

Well hi there TPU, long time no see ... great to read new dramas after being away for some time
I believe sponsor should at least have a legit company, unless you already took their money and they payed in cash ... small unmarked bills

 

[GlacierNine]

It's a known tenet of civil law. They have to protect every aspect of their copyright or they loose the right to protect it at all. Not a risk they can or will take.

You're confusing copyright law with trademark law. Copyright is granted automatically from the moment a piece of intellectual property exists until 70 years after the author's death and can be defended at any time for any reason.

Copyright can be ignored if abandoned, hence why sites like Abandonware.org can operate, but if there is any doubt about that status then this can still land someone in court. That's why No-One Lives Forever isn't on Abandonware.org (or GoG, where it has been the most requested good old game for many years now) it has been practically abandoned (none of the possible rights holders are presently willing to make a new game in the franchise because none of them are sure which legally holds the final say on the IP), but because at least one still-existing legal entity definitely DOES hold those rights, it isn't technically abandonware and so downloading it is still technically piracy. (there is a website happily redistributing the game that hasn't been hit by anyone yet and likely never will be, but they would be unable to win any sort of legal defense if sued)

Trademarks are different. They must be applied for and will lapse if not defended. A great example of this is Fender guitars. The headstock shape of a Fender Strat is trademarked, but because Fender didn't take action to stop Stratocasters being copied by other makers in the 70's, they are unable to claim a trademark on the body shape - anyone can make a Strat copy, as long as they don't call it a Stratocaster or use the fender style headstock. Calling it an "S-type" body is very common.

In comparison, Gibson have much stronger claim to their Les Paul shape and "open book" headstock design, which is why they felt able to take Paul Reed Smith to court over their "Singlecut" model (They later lost the case as it was decided the similarity was not direct enough to constitute a trademark violation, but Gibson continues to legally defend the body shape and they tend to win whenever they don't overextended themselves).

TL;DR - Lex should brush up on the difference between copyright and trademark in future.

 

[sneekypeet]

Ok, I'm gonna assume it was you that censored my post. It was actually completely ON TOPIC and highly relevant, but not so favourable to TPU, so funny how it got censored, innit?

I removed part of what you quoted, that is all! I never touched what you posted. Whatever fits your agenda though Your link was never touched, and is still on the previous page, but whatever

 

[Space Lynx]

@sneekypeet Can confirm I got the key not long ago, a couple hours. They apologized to me and said they thought the key was sent immediately after I ordered. (yes I checked spam folder every time) good news is, 0 issues with card, key worked great, and all said and done it looks like it it is a live person that actually emails you a key, because they said it should have been sent within a few hours after my order. I must have slipped through the cracks or my order hit them right before break time or something lol

 

[qubit]

I removed part of what you quoted, that is all! I never touched what you posted. Whatever fits your agenda though Your link was never touched, and is still on the previous page, but whatever

Ok, fair enough, I accept that (you've always been honest with me, even during our strongest disagreements ). It tends to be hard to remember exactly what I posted. If it was possible to review in private what that part of the conversation was about would be useful to understand the full context, but it's ok, no biggie, we're good. Thanks for getting back to me. I won't drag this any more off topic.

 

[sneekypeet]

Ok, fair enough, I accept that (you've always been honest with me, even during the worst of times ). It tends to be hard to remember exactly what I posted. If it was possible to review in private what that part of the conversation was about would be useful to understand, but it's ok, no biggie, we're good. Thanks for getting back to me. I won't drag this any more off topic.

Wow, just wow. I'm glad you are good with slamming moderation because you never looked.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You're confusing copyright law with trademark law.

No I'm not.

TL;DR - Lex should brush up on the difference between copyright and trademark in future.

Thanks for the tip. Take your own advice. I have in a previous career argued copyright law in front of a judge in binding mediation(I won). You're wrong.

If piracy was going on through the product key etailers in question here, Microsoft would be required by law to defend their rights as soon as they are made aware of the violation. That is both legal statute and case law.

 

[moproblems99]

No I'm not.

Thanks for the tip. Take your own advice. I have in a previous career argued copyright law in front of a judge in binding mediation(I won). You're wrong.

If piracy was going on through the product key etailers in question here, Microsoft would be required by law to defend their rights as soon as they are made aware of the violation. That is both legal statute and case law.

Here's that spot where you could provide some useful material to help people find where they went wrong instead of just saying you're rubber and they're glue.

 

[GlacierNine]

No I'm not.

Thanks for the tip. Take your own advice. I have in a previous career argued copyright law in front of a judge in binding mediation(I won). You're wrong.

If piracy was going on through the product key etailers in question here, Microsoft would be required by law to defend their rights as soon as they are made aware of the violation. That is both legal statute and case law.

Yet another post where all it amounts to is you asserting your own correctness without a single word expended to detail why.

If you're so confident in statute and case law then why haven't you simply quoted either of those pages ago when such strong evidence would have swiftly ended a debate you've now spent multiple pages dragging out?

I would bet good money it is simply because you can't. We saw how capable of reading complete sentences you are, earlier in the thread when you tried to misquote Vayra and didn't even manage to do so well enough that your contextomy of his statement would have required quoting the surrounding material to disprove. I have absolutely no reason to believe you're any more capable of quoting a statute to back yourself up.

 

[juiseman]

This is getting a little personal...

 

[GlacierNine]

This is getting a little personal...

I'd gladly discuss statutes and case law if the person relying on them would provide the evidence that backs up his position.