Corporate XP and SP2

Herb;
Yes there is.
Many people are using unauthorized Product Keys on their computers.
Whether they know it or not, they are using a stolen license.

Are you suggesting just because it is possessed it, it is not stolen,
nothing more to it?
Does it matter how something is acquired?
What do you call it?
Does this also apply to other products you may have?

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Herb Fritatta" wrote in message
...
There is no such thing as a "stolen" license. You either have a
license or you don't.

Lindsay wrote:
I've seen on some web forums, people asking if the SP2 works with
the Corporate edition (Volume License) of XP. If you are lucky
enough to have a copy, yes it will. But you will have trouble with
your dodgy Product Key. And I'm not going to help you there. Some
others may have a hacked copy of XP. It may work, but I suggest you
get a legal copy of XP instead. You might get a whole heap of
trouble because your copy is not as MS intended!

Just thought I'd say. That's all!

Plato wrote:
No such animal. Please state why you visit pirate sites?

Lindsay wrote:
The Volume License DOES exist! It is very little known for very good
reasons. Large corporate companys with VERY large amounts of
computers are offered it by MS. It's not something you can ask for,
because they will deny it. It has nothing to do with piracy.

NobodyMan wrote:
Actually Volume licensing is very well known and not "hidden" as you
imply. You can easily ask MS for it, and IF you are willing to pay
for it, they will gladly send you the Volume License software, the
key(s) you will need to install it, and an invoice telling you how
much you are paying for each of those installations. It is not a
cheap prospect.

Lindsay wrote:
Then how come almost all MS qualified guys I speak to (not
necessarily on this NG) don't seem to know about it?


Shenan Stanley wrote:
Lindsay,

Here is the situation. You posted originally (as can be seen in the
thread above) that if people had this "corporate" version (the
correct term is "Volume License Agreement") - then SP2 would work,
but not with their "dodgy Product Key". You inferred, right there,
that all "Volume Licensed" copies of Windows XP were pirated. Those
are the only "dodgy product keys" out there, the ones that have been
pirated and deemed unusable by Microsoft. Although I see that you
were trying to be helpful, those that actually have a pirated copy
(and KNOW they have a pirated copy - so they would understand what
you are saying) - likely already have their work-around or have gone
out and purchased XP finally (I'm doubting the latter.)

Plato may have jumped to a conclusion by their response - but it was
a small hop actually - as I stated, you mentioned "dodgy keys" and
"corporate" along with the proper terminology. Maybe you just heard
it put that way - but in any case - you threw it out there.

Then you come back with the "Volume License" does exist. Yes - you
are correct. Confirmed. Heck - here's a link to a few web pages:

Microsoft Volume Licensing FAQ
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/resources/faq.mspx

Volume License and Online Services Product Keys
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/r...l/default.mspx


Then you add some madness about "Large corporate companys with VERY
large amounts of computers" - which is not entirely true, as you can
get a volume license agreement with as few as five (5) computers.
Check it out he

Microsoft Open License Value
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...openvalue.mspx

And then look at the different levels of Volume Licensing Agreements
compared he

Microsoft Volume Licensing Programs Comparison
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...eacompare.mspx


Additional madness then follows with your statement "It's not
something you can ask for, because they will deny it. It has nothing
to do with piracy." Uhm, yeah - okay. See, you asked, here it is.
You can do a Google search or a search with Microsoft's own search
engine on their web site and find everything I just sent you. It's
out there, it's not denied at all. There's not even denial about the
fact that there are "dodgy product keys" out there. These very
articles prove the lack of denial:

You receive a "The product key used to install Windows is invalid"
error message
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=326904

How to change the Volume Licensing product key on a Windows XP
SP1-based computer
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=328874


Now, I come to your last inquiry, specifically, "Then how come
almost all MS qualified guys I speak to (not necessarily on this NG)
don't seem to know about it?"

The short answer, they are mis-informed or not as "MS qualified" as
you might think. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "MS
qualified", to be honest - but these guys obviously have no CLUE as
to what they are talking about OR they may be just telling you this
so they don't tempt another user into pirating software (or they
pirate themselves and just don't want to admit it.)

I hope this clears up the volume licensing (not "corporate", that is
a term originally used only by those pirating the "warez" copy of
Windows XP) confusion you may have. If not - ask more questions.

Lindsay wrote:
I was not inferring all Volume Licensed users were using pirated
editions! I said that because if they are asking on this NG, it must
be a pirated copy. If it were not pirated, they must be working for a
large enough company to already know the answer.

I wish that were true, but just because they work for a large company does
not mena "they know" about volume licensin or pirated copies. I have seen
many "large companies" where the previous IT person installed pirated
software or the IT person is nto actually a true system admin and knows just
enough to be dangerous, etc.

I have seen people ask in the newsgroups merely out of curiosity, because
they had taken over a position at a company and just discovered their
problem or sometimes (very few) they get a message about having an invalid
code key and they truly do not have one.

--
- Shenan -
--
The information is provided "as is", with no guarantees of
completeness, accuracy or timeliness, and without warranties of any
kind, express or implied. In other words, read up before you take any
advice - you are the one ultimately responsible for your actions.

There is no such thing as "Corporate edition"
Although the pirates have used that term describing their stolen
licenses.


There is no such thing as a "stolen" license. You either have a license
or you don't.


If you don't purchase a license, but are using somebody else's then by
definition you have "stolen" it. Stealing is taking something that
belongs to somebody else.


Stealing requires that something be removed from one possessor
illegally and against his will, and given over to the use of
another possessor. When someone uses a corporate license, the
company that has purchased that license hasn't lost it, or the
ability to use it. Nothing has been taken from them. Hence, no
theft has occurred.

Al;
In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft.
The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are
not adequately controlling the licenses.
So in fact the company stands to lose as well.
The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft
determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately.
In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the
ability to use it."

Again, it is a Volume License since there is no such thing as a
"corporate license".

You are treading very close to the excuses made by the thieves (AKA
pirates) to justify their own stealing.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Al Smith" wrote in message
news:FhNTc.95509$Np3.4594289@ursa-
Stealing requires that something be removed from one possessor
illegally and against his will, and given over to the use of another
possessor. When someone uses a corporate license, the company that
has purchased that license hasn't lost it, or the ability to use it.
Nothing has been taken from them. Hence, no theft has occurred.

In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft.
The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are
not adequately controlling the licenses.
So in fact the company stands to lose as well.
The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft
determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately.
In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the
ability to use it."

The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost
anything. Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular
reason to suppose that a person using a pirated version of the OS
would have gone out and bought the OS, had the pirate edition not
been available. This might be the case, but it also might *not* be
the case. And there is no way to demonstrate that it is the case.
Besides, theft is taking something real that already exists, not
potentially depriving someone of possible, speculative, additional
future earnings.

When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing
happens to the original edition. It does not cease to be.
Microsoft does not lose the money it made by selling the original
edition. Copying is not theft. It may involve an infringement of
the Microsoft license agreement, but that is not theft.

As I said before "You are treading very close to the excuses made by
the thieves (AKA pirates) to justify their own stealing."

Call it what you want, it is wrong and dishonest people do it.
Nothing can change the fact they are dishonest whether you believe it
or not.

Whether there is loss or not is not relevant.
You are not authorized to use the license if acquired this way.
Microsoft may lose or may not.
Microsoft made the product and Microsoft determines the license terms.
It is NOT for you or me to decide if there is loss to Microsoft or
anyone else.


The fact there is a violation of the license is a loss even if you do
not see the loss.

If you can not see the potential loss for either party in this
instance you are to far gone and what you need is far outside the
scope of this newsgroup.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Al Smith" wrote in message
...
In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft.
The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they
are not adequately controlling the licenses.
So in fact the company stands to lose as well.
The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft
determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately.
In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the
ability to use it."

The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost
anything. Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular
reason to suppose that a person using a pirated version of the OS
would have gone out and bought the OS, had the pirate edition not
been available. This might be the case, but it also might *not* be
the case. And there is no way to demonstrate that it is the case.
Besides, theft is taking something real that already exists, not
potentially depriving someone of possible, speculative, additional
future earnings.

When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing
happens to the original edition. It does not cease to be. Microsoft
does not lose the money it made by selling the original edition.
Copying is not theft. It may involve an infringement of the
Microsoft license agreement, but that is not theft.

That is the greatest piece of rationalization I have ever read! I guess it
makes you sleep better at night believing you are not a thief.

Testy

"Al Smith" wrote in message
...
In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft.
The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are not
adequately controlling the licenses.
So in fact the company stands to lose as well.
The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft
determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately.
In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the ability
to use it."

The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost anything.
Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular reason to suppose
that a person using a pirated version of the OS would have gone out and
bought the OS, had the pirate edition not been available. This might be
the case, but it also might *not* be the case. And there is no way to
demonstrate that it is the case. Besides, theft is taking something real
that already exists, not potentially depriving someone of possible,
speculative, additional future earnings.

When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing happens
to the original edition. It does not cease to be. Microsoft does not lose
the money it made by selling the original edition. Copying is not theft.
It may involve an infringement of the Microsoft license agreement, but
that is not theft.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004

Al Smith wrote:

There is no such thing as "Corporate edition"

Although the pirates have used that term describing their stolen
licenses.


There is no such thing as a "stolen" license. You either have a
license or you don't.



If you don't purchase a license, but are using somebody else's then by
definition you have "stolen" it. Stealing is taking something that
belongs to somebody else.


Stealing requires that something be removed from one possessor illegally
and against his will, and given over to the use of another possessor.
When someone uses a corporate license, the company that has purchased
that license hasn't lost it, or the ability to use it. Nothing has been
taken from them. Hence, no theft has occurred.

Theft consists of many things, not just what you mention --- Theft by
fraud, deception or false pretenses, theft of intellectual property,
ideas, etc, etc. It doesn't hinge on whether one party looses the
ability to use something. That is an element of certain types of theft,
but not all.

I see no reason for moralizing about corporate copies. The
installation is crippled anyway, almost unusable.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message
...
As I said before "You are treading very close to the excuses made by
the thieves (AKA pirates) to justify their own stealing."

Call it what you want, it is wrong and dishonest people do it.
Nothing can change the fact they are dishonest whether you believe
it or not.

Whether there is loss or not is not relevant.
You are not authorized to use the license if acquired this way.
Microsoft may lose or may not.
Microsoft made the product and Microsoft determines the license
terms.
It is NOT for you or me to decide if there is loss to Microsoft or
anyone else.


The fact there is a violation of the license is a loss even if you
do not see the loss.

If you can not see the potential loss for either party in this
instance you are to far gone and what you need is far outside the
scope of this newsgroup.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Al Smith" wrote in message
...

The Volume License (corporate) is not "crippled" at all.
Volume License is identical to Windows XP Pro that is available
through retail channels without activation.
Whatever your source, it is incorrect.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Frank" wrote in message
...
I see no reason for moralizing about corporate copies. The
installation is crippled anyway, almost unusable.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message
...
As I said before "You are treading very close to the excuses made
by the thieves (AKA pirates) to justify their own stealing."

Call it what you want, it is wrong and dishonest people do it.
Nothing can change the fact they are dishonest whether you believe
it or not.

Whether there is loss or not is not relevant.
You are not authorized to use the license if acquired this way.
Microsoft may lose or may not.
Microsoft made the product and Microsoft determines the license
terms.
It is NOT for you or me to decide if there is loss to Microsoft or
anyone else.


The fact there is a violation of the license is a loss even if you
do not see the loss.

If you can not see the potential loss for either party in this
instance you are to far gone and what you need is far outside the
scope of this newsgroup.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Al Smith" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:07:49 GMT, Al Smith
wrote:

In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft.
The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are
not adequately controlling the licenses.
So in fact the company stands to lose as well.
The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft
determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately.
In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the
ability to use it."

The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost
anything. Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular
reason to suppose that a person using a pirated version of the OS
would have gone out and bought the OS, had the pirate edition not
been available. This might be the case, but it also might *not* be
the case. And there is no way to demonstrate that it is the case.
Besides, theft is taking something real that already exists, not
potentially depriving someone of possible, speculative, additional
future earnings.


MS does lose something when you steal a volume license key - they lose
the revenue that is do them when that installation of that Volume
License is not paid for.

When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing
happens to the original edition. It does not cease to be.
Microsoft does not lose the money it made by selling the original
edition. Copying is not theft. It may involve an infringement of
the Microsoft license agreement, but that is not theft.

Copying can be deemed a theft of intellectual property. So yes, it is
theft no matter how you slice it or rationalize otherwise. Just
accept that and move on!

Frank wrote
I see no reason for moralizing about corporate copies. The
installation is crippled anyway, almost unusable.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
The Volume License (corporate) is not "crippled" at all.
Volume License is identical to Windows XP Pro that is available
through retail channels without activation.
Whatever your source, it is incorrect.

I have to believe you misunderstood Frank, Jupiter.

What I think Frank meant was that people who have installed the volume
license with a key that has been "blocked" are now "crippled", in that they
cannot get SP2.

I could be incorrect, but that would be (and is) how I would have
interpretted what was written by Frank. Although the truth of the matter
would be that even that will not stop people who have questionable keys.

--
- Shenan -
--
The information is provided "as is", with no guarantees of
completeness, accuracy or timeliness, and without warranties of any
kind, express or implied. In other words, read up before you take any
advice - you are the one ultimately responsible for your actions.

You need to analyse this stuff unemotionally. Rationally.


Shane


"Testy" wrote in message
...
That is the greatest piece of rationalization I have ever read! I guess it
makes you sleep better at night believing you are not a thief.

Testy

"Al Smith" wrote in message
...
In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft.
The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are
not
adequately controlling the licenses.
So in fact the company stands to lose as well.
The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft
determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately.
In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the ability
to use it."

The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost anything.
Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular reason to
suppose
that a person using a pirated version of the OS would have gone out and
bought the OS, had the pirate edition not been available. This might be
the case, but it also might *not* be the case. And there is no way to
demonstrate that it is the case. Besides, theft is taking something real
that already exists, not potentially depriving someone of possible,
speculative, additional future earnings.

When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing happens
to the original edition. It does not cease to be. Microsoft does not
lose
the money it made by selling the original edition. Copying is not theft.
It may involve an infringement of the Microsoft license agreement, but
that is not theft.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004

"NobodyMan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:07:49 GMT, Al Smith
wrote:

In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft.
The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are
not adequately controlling the licenses.
So in fact the company stands to lose as well.
The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft
determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately.
In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the
ability to use it."

The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost
anything. Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular
reason to suppose that a person using a pirated version of the OS
would have gone out and bought the OS, had the pirate edition not
been available. This might be the case, but it also might *not* be
the case. And there is no way to demonstrate that it is the case.
Besides, theft is taking something real that already exists, not
potentially depriving someone of possible, speculative, additional
future earnings.


MS does lose something when you steal a volume license key - they lose
the revenue that is do them when that installation of that Volume
License is not paid for.

When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing
happens to the original edition. It does not cease to be.
Microsoft does not lose the money it made by selling the original
edition. Copying is not theft. It may involve an infringement of
the Microsoft license agreement, but that is not theft.

Copying can be deemed a theft of intellectual property. So yes, it is
theft no matter how you slice it or rationalize otherwise. Just
accept that and move on!


You can equally prove that *all property is theft*. The trick is recognising
the essentially meaningless/partisan definitions.


Shane

"Rock" wrote in message
...
Al Smith wrote:

There is no such thing as "Corporate edition"

Although the pirates have used that term describing their stolen
licenses.


There is no such thing as a "stolen" license. You either have a
license or you don't.



If you don't purchase a license, but are using somebody else's then by
definition you have "stolen" it. Stealing is taking something that
belongs to somebody else.


Stealing requires that something be removed from one possessor illegally
and against his will, and given over to the use of another possessor.
When someone uses a corporate license, the company that has purchased
that license hasn't lost it, or the ability to use it. Nothing has been
taken from them. Hence, no theft has occurred.

Theft consists of many things, not just what you mention --- Theft by
fraud, deception or false pretenses, theft of intellectual property,
ideas, etc, etc. It doesn't hinge on whether one party looses the
ability to use something. That is an element of certain types of theft,
but not all.


There should be more awareness of the dividing line between theft/crime as
defined by an agreed system of ethics and that as defined by corporate and
political lobbyists. The two rarely converge but a depressingly large no. of
people let professional liars define it for them.


Shane