[smax013]

WinTard said:

I'm not barking at anyone. I am saying criticism levelled at Microsoft for counterfeit products is LAME!

Try criticism leveled at Microsoft for their part in someone getting hosed. While there were not the major "hoser", they did play a part in the hosing.

[coastie65]

I am of the opinion that this may be a Micro$oft issue. Micro$oft has long since become an integral part of the computing experience and it has led to a sense of arrogance on the part of Micro$oft. It is all about getting as much from the consumer as possible as they know that they have the consumer by the short hairs. That is where some form of regulation is called for to protect the consumer. With as much of a market share as they have in the computing world, they should not be allowed to run unchecked when it comes to customer service. There should be absolute standards set as to what can be charged and how much when it comes to customer service. If and OS needs "Fixing" after it has already been validated, then so be it, but not at the expense of the consumer. Unfortunately, customer service fees seem to be standard across the board, for something less than adequate service ( Shoddy). That having been said, it was not said where the software was purchased. coastie

[Me2BFD]

I don't see why this is MS's fault? He didn't call them to check; he let WGA check (probably with his fingers crossed). The fact that the WGA program wasn't initially sophisticated enough to detect the pirated copy, doesn't legitimize the pirated copy. It's still illegal software. I wouldn't doubt that the guy bought it at a price that should have made him suspicious. And, by the way, if you're cracking the WGA and "running free copies," as one commenter said he was doing, you're just a thief; admit it...

[coastie65]

If you want to stop piracy of software, make it affordable. I have read stuff on other forums where people openly admitted to running pirated copies of Windows as they could not afford to buy a legitimate copy. Most were from countries other than the US, where the income was considerably lower, but the price was the same when converted from the local currency to USD. coastie

[BadBob]

Get Lunix?? Yeah you can get DOS and OS Warp for almost nothing too. And most of my programs won't work then them either.

[quark]

In South Africa the law is clear and I must agree with you from the SA standpoint. Caveat emptor stands - always. The purchaser has a civil case against the seller of the XP CD - provided it can be proved that the seller was aware that what he was selling was fake..

That's is seldom easy in these cases of dishonesty.

It's just not worth going for justice: it will cost you a fortune in both cash and emotional distress. Forget it and put it down to having been taught to be more careful by the experience.

Microsoft is in no way to blame - legally. You are in the unfortunate position of not being able to prove MS declared the CD genuine, so you have no legal standing. Tough, but true. Next time buy from a reputable dealer you know is trustworthy.

[greatpix]

You nailed it on the head. Microsoft isn't to blame, the online store he bought it from is. As for his claim that WGA 'approved' his copy as legit at first just points to the fact that MS hadn't caught up to the crack yet.

[zacharycrm]

Dalai Lama (or however it is spelled) used a lot of words and specious arguments to make an implausible point. With specious augments they are supposed to sound at least plausible. The gist of his argument is that they victim was not victimized by Microsoft. Nonsense. I would not be a bit surprised to learn that the "victim's" copy was in fact legal, but this whole thing is just a Microsoft ploy to first; attack someone selling cheaper than Microsoft, and two, to sell the victim another copy for $149. It just sounds too set up to suit me.

I just bought Microsoft Office, 2007, for $49 and if Microsoft wants to say it is not legal, the burden is on them to prove it by a show of evidence of exactly what it is that reveals my copy to be illegal. It may well be that because Microsoft has made so many friends with this piracy thing they have decided to use it to sell copies, make a little dough and get a lot of publicity. Would they do that? Naw!

Zak

[RNR19952]

OK how hard is it to find a legit retail, OEM or Volume key for XP right now online? UGH! His version is probably good, how many times has WGA flagged a good serial? If he has a sticker it should be legit. Why would anyone call M$?

[WinTard]

I never recommended Linux did I ? Please go back and read that post again. I am actually countering the fact someone says Linux is free (from costs) and activations...

[WinTard]

zacharycrm said:

Dalai Lama (or however it is spelled) used a lot of words and specious arguments to make an implausible point. With specious augments they are supposed to sound at least plausible. The gist of his argument is that they victim was not victimized by Microsoft. Nonsense. I would not be a bit surprised to learn that the "victim's" copy was in fact legal, but this whole thing is just a Microsoft ploy to first; attack someone selling cheaper than Microsoft, and two, to sell the victim another copy for $149. It just sounds too set up to suit me.

I just bought Microsoft Office, 2007, for $49 and if Microsoft wants to say it is not legal, the burden is on them to prove it by a show of evidence of exactly what it is that reveals my copy to be illegal. It may well be that because Microsoft has made so many friends with this piracy thing they have decided to use it to sell copies, make a little dough and get a lot of publicity. Would they do that? Naw!

Zak

Please prove it! Also why don't YOU sue Microsoft, since you imply they are doing wrong?

~~~~~~~~~
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
~ Plato

Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.
~ Dale Carnegie
Message was edited by: WinTard
To make it 'nicer' and more congenial...

[coastie65]

Ok, Lets all take a deep breath and settle down. Note: this is not in red so I am not mad yet. Anyway, it is so far in bounds but starting to spiral outside of the standards. coastie

[WinTard]

Point well taken coastie65, I'm cool... Now... :) I shall go and remove the 'offensive' or provocative thoughts...

Thank you.

[backbuster]

This is a problem that people who use pirated software run into all the time. They use a cracked copy of windows and it will activate and pass WGA, then some time later MS catches the crack and invalidates their copy. Its not that his copy of windows was legal and then suddenly became illegal, it was a pirated copy all along. MS cannot be expected to allow every pirated copy of windows that passes WGA to suddenly become legal. The only option is to go back to retailer that sold him the pirated copy, you can't expect MS to give him a free copy of windows because someone else ripped him off.

[butlerwm]

WinTard said:

Point well taken coastie65, I'm cool... Now... :) I shall go and remove the 'offensive' or provocative thoughts...

Thank you.

Darn...! And I had a ball of mud in each hand, ready to sling one to the right and one to the left. Oh well. That's what I get for crawling into the thread so late.

My two cents: I've been buying software for the better part of three decades and not once have I felt the need to rush out and "check" a package to make sure it was legitimate. Why? Because when I buy software I do so from (like WinTard stated) reputable resellers. Now there have been those who cited that buying from a seller like BestBuy, Wal-Mart, or some other doesn't mean their return policy will cover you in a situation like this one. However, return policy aside, there remains the issue of distributing counterfit goods. A far greater issue for the reseller than one regarding a return policy. As such, a major retailer would be more likely to take steps to "make things right" than some online seller peddling pirated goods at discount prices.

That was cent number one.

Cent number two looks something like this: When I first started working for the Texas Attorney General's Office, back in 1990, they had just begun the process of transitioning from dumb terminals (cloud computing, anyone) to networked PCs. Late in the transition process, they purchased several thousand computers from a reputable supplier. The computers were acquired and installed all across the state but when they were "fired up" it turned out that all had counterfit versions of, not just MS-DOS, but Windows 3.1 as well. Needless to say the Attorney General was highly agitated (read that as pissed). Working with Microsoft, the agency went to ground and ultimately determined the source of the counterfit software. The vendor was held harmless in the matter, but lost considerable earnings because of the incident.

This senario is a good example of how, even honest end users and vendors can become the victim of counterfitters. However, because the agency used a reputable vendor, their losses were negated. The down side is that the vendor didn't fare so well. I guess the only real point I'm making is that "responsibility" is a relative term. The agency took responsibility for their actions, but taking responsibility wasn't what kept them from being hosed. That was covered by not buying from fly-by-night vendors. So, maybe the moral of the story is, doing everything right doesn't always mean you won't get suckered, it at least means you have somewhere to go when you do.

I'm still upset that I don't get to throw any mud, though...

Be well

[PoorBird]

Whew! We run the whole gamut of comments here. I generally look askance at stories like this one, but almost the same thing happened to me... on an OS installed on a new computer (some years old when the problem arose) ... when the "genuine" program began, no problem... then a problem...nastygram pop-ups all over the place... I checked in as to what to do...very cumbersome, especially as the shop that built the computer was by that time out of business (go figure!)...and I didn't even have receipts
by that time...anyway, there are fixes for the problem...mine eventually went away as I replaced equipment with valid
software. Good luck, but don't expect much help from MSoft... I have another story ...details wayyy to long for this forum... all I will say is that a retailler
got into a battle with MSoft... after they had their copies VERIFIED by MSoft...
they got out pretty lite, if you call a $50K settlement light... the company that sold the on-again, off-again software to the retailer was charged criminally, but the little guy still had to settle with Msoft. What a world!

[quackadilly]

Has anyone thought that maybe his copy WAS legal, until someone else in the world used the same serial key that he had and WGA deactivated BOTH copies? Did this guy loan out his serial? Did the website he bought from sell a copy with a duplicate serial?



Why is it always "The big guy is screwing us all !!!!" ?

[coastie65]

Het ButlerWm, Good post. Now you can save the mud for those more deserving............the politcians. :D coastie

[kitsune17717]

the more a company fights to stop software piracy, the more hackers out there will try to find workarounds and cracks. If the product key is valid, it would technically be legal to download the software off a torrent, for example, and use that product key to validate your copy of windows. At least I think it is.
Why is windows so expensive in the first place? They're totally ripping us off!!

[smax013]

butlerwm said:

Cent number two looks something like this: When I first started working for the Texas Attorney General's Office, back in 1990, they had just begun the process of transitioning from dumb terminals (cloud computing, anyone) to networked PCs. Late in the transition process, they purchased several thousand computers from a reputable supplier. The computers were acquired and installed all across the state but when they were "fired up" it turned out that all had counterfit versions of, not just MS-DOS, but Windows 3.1 as well. Needless to say the Attorney General was highly agitated (read that as pissed). Working with Microsoft, the agency went to ground and ultimately determined the source of the counterfit software. The vendor was held harmless in the matter, but lost considerable earnings because of the incident.

The differences was that they knew right away that it was counterfeit software and thus could take action with the vendor to get it taken care of. In otherwords, since it was know so quickly that there was an issue, they had a reasonable solution to get it resolved (i.e. have the vendor fix the problem at their own expense).

In the case cited in the article, the person tried to determine if it was a legitimate copy of Windows and MICROSOFT told him it was. As soon as they did that, his most reasonable method of recourse (i.e. disputing the charge on his credit card...unless he paid with a check or some such using PayPal) was gone as he did not learn it was counterfeit until WELL after he could have disputed the charge.

The point is that there is an "interceding" event...the Microsoft WGA check. If he can prove that he ran the check and it considered his Windows license to be valid, then it is entirely possible that he would have a case against Microsoft. Now, I will admit that the odds are that he does not have any such documentation and thus, likely has no recourse against Microsoft.

I will not disagree that his primary beef is with the person/company that sold him the Windows license. And I will also agree that one should only buy from large, reputiable software vendors/retailers. That is certainly what I do. But, I will also maintain that when Microsoft provides a service that appears to "validate" a Windows license, especially for someone who claims to have been suspicious (and yes, he could be lying about that too), which then causes a person to lose some of their viable recourses (i.e. disputing the charge with a credit card company) whether inadvertiantly or not, they then share some of the responsibility even if means that in reality they will never do anything to help to person or even if they could not be proven to be part liable.