Microsoft has filed lawsuit this week against a Verizon IP address that allegedly activated hundreds of pirated Microsoft products like Windows.
The Verizon IP address, 74.111.202.30, is said to have activated mainly copies of Windows 7 using "stolen" product keys, or keys that have been used more times than their license allows.
"As part of its cyberforensic methods, Microsoft analyzes ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
Originally posted by hearme0: This person is in for a shitstorm of problems now.
They really have this person's "number" HA HA HA.
But seriously...this indiv is in for an uphill climb and will pay for this.
Ya. If they were activating a ton of Win7 systems with a DAZ loader or actual pirated keys for a business then they should have been smart enough to use a proxy.
Originally posted by ajsmsg78: It's things like this that make me more and more happy I use Linux along side Windows. Suing a John Doe should be unconstitutional.
The Constitution (of my country) says I can sell any property I own. When companies like Steam have buttons with the word Buy on them, or in the text of the Store page they say "Own this game," and then turn around and tell me that I can't then sell it later, they're absolutely breaking the Constitution.
Buy a License for this Game, or Own a License for this Game should be clearly visible on every item on Steam, but they don't want the truth to interfere with their sales.
Makes me laugh when I see Collector's Editions or Collector's Bundles. If I'm collecting licenses, sure! They ought to provide a printed license that I can hang on my wall just so I can actually have something to show for the item I actually paid for.
I see 2 problems with this, number 1 is that the ip probably belongs to some brick and mortar computer shop and it's one of their employees doing it. number 2 microsoft is going to roll out windows 10 soon and has already said they will GIVE free copies to Chinese users whether they are using a legal copy of windows 7 or not. So wtf microsoft? how come you are being so two faced about it?
Originally posted by Chrobe: I see 2 problems with this, number 1 is that the ip probably belongs to some brick and mortar computer shop and it's one of their employees doing it. number 2 microsoft is going to roll out windows 10 soon and has already said they will GIVE free copies to Chinese users whether they are using a legal copy of windows 7 or not. So wtf microsoft? how come you are being so two faced about it?
Very good points!
I think they want to entice China with Windows 10 so the CIA/NSA will have an open door into the country
Originally posted by Chrobe: I see 2 problems with this, number 1 is that the ip probably belongs to some brick and mortar computer shop and it's one of their employees doing it. number 2 microsoft is going to roll out windows 10 soon and has already said they will GIVE free copies to Chinese users whether they are using a legal copy of windows 7 or not. So wtf microsoft? how come you are being so two faced about it?
Very good points!
I think they want to entice China with Windows 10 so the CIA/NSA will have an open door into the country
thank you for exposing the dam corrupted goverment we have.
Originally posted by ajsmsg78: It's things like this that make me more and more happy I use Linux along side Windows. Suing a John Doe should be unconstitutional.
The Constitution (of my country) says I can sell any property I own. When companies like Steam have buttons with the word Buy on them, or in the text of the Store page they say "Own this game," and then turn around and tell me that I can't then sell it later, they're absolutely breaking the Constitution.
Buy a License for this Game, or Own a License for this Game should be clearly visible on every item on Steam, but they don't want the truth to interfere with their sales.
Makes me laugh when I see Collector's Editions or Collector's Bundles. If I'm collecting licenses, sure! They ought to provide a printed license that I can hang on my wall just so I can actually have something to show for the item I actually paid for.
I agree with you totally and you could even go further with that point as there are plenty of other examples, but this just doesn't make sense at all though from ajsmsg78 "Suing a John Doe should be unconstitutional.". So theft should be constitutionally correct? Really.
