NoelC Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 I don't think there's anything illegal about it. Right now what happened is, more or less, that Microsoft gave you a choice between being robbed of $100 or spending hours, at least, on getting back to where you were. That's the thing about the legal system - it doesn't matter what you think. What's written is what matters. You seem to be confusing a sense of what's "just" with what's "legal". While what Microsoft pulled is unjust and could also be considered aggressive and misleading, unless they do something nefarious with my credit card number it's not illegal. I agreed to pay the money before they took it. On the other hand, using software in a "cracked" or "hacked" fashion is illegal, plain and simple. Microsoft's actions could lead them to ill will and loss of customers, while the actions of someone running cracked software can land them in jail. You should work on clarifying your distinction of these two things. -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 (edited) You didn' t receive the e-mail from MS reminding you that it was either "activation before January 31, 2013 or nothing"? The one reproduced here:http://www.edbott.com/weblog/2013/01/deadlines-loom-for-cheap-windows-8-upgrades-and-media-center-pack-keys/ jaclaz Edited August 10, 2014 by jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 Apparently not. As I mentioned above, I went looking for it. But beyond that, why did the OS accept an expired key to begin a path from which it is impossible to return, yet fail at the end? THAT's at the crux of the issue. Could the product code not have been validated fully up front? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this feels like a trap to me. -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Actually the "real" issue (besides your misadventure, which is IMHO proof of a rather serious bug) is the procedure that seemingly changes your original Windows 8/8.1 key to add a "feature" (which essentially is nothing but an "add-on" or a "same-party program) that is "crazy". Imagine that if you want to repace as an option steel wheels with alloy ones to your car the procedure is removing engine and transmission and remounting them, after having re-flashed both the ignition computer and the navigator. It simply makes no sense. (though to be fair I seem to remember that on some cars changing a burned xenon lamp needs to have the car computer register the change ) jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osRe Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 But beyond that, why did the OS accept an expired key to begin a path from which it is impossible to return, yet fail at the end? THAT's at the crux of the issue. Could the product code not have been validated fully up front? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this feels like a trap to me. Oh, it's just another one of those Win8 "features" or new "design language" ideas, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted August 10, 2014 Author Share Posted August 10, 2014 I agree with that, jaclaz. But perhaps they were concerned that people would just discover the tweak to get the system to play DVDs using software on the system without buying the license, and that would leave them open to legal issues (because they'd not be paying the royalties). I wonder what else was changed by this "upgrade"... Something clearly was changed more than just the few files involved in playing DVDs; last night's System Image backup, via wbadmin, ended up being a complete copy of the entire terabyte of data on my C: volume, as though I had just installed a whole new system. It's been perfectly stable, and I don't see anything more running that wasn't running before. -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dencorso Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 P.S. Josh offers support and feedback of any questions or concerns @ http://joshcellsoftwares.com/contact/ In any case, you really should contact Josh and help him develop his great software even more, because it's precious in avoiding many headaches MS doesn't mind causing their customers, and it does so in a perfectly legal way, so it should be encouraged and helped in all possible ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) I agree with that, jaclaz.Which is good, though jaclaz needs to disagree with you on this:But perhaps they were concerned that people would just discover the tweak to get the system to play DVDs using software on the system without buying the license, and that would leave them open to legal issues (because they'd not be paying the royalties).MS could in theory be sued for this, but it would be necessary to prove that MS intentionally put a too weak protection or however did not exercise the normal, expected, diligence in protecting access to the software, and that this behaviour caused a loss in royalties. Suing for damages instead of the one(s) that cracked a protection, the ones that put the protection on the product because it is inadequate would be an interesting legal exercise , similar to the case where someone leaves a car parked with doors open and keys in the ignition and the car is used by a minor (or however someone not authorized or not licensed to drive the car) and it is involved in an accident.But what if the car was started without the keys?Could you sue (say) Mr. Ford or Mr. BMW because the ignition can be operated by cleverly using a bent hairpin? jaclaz Edited August 11, 2014 by jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 There might be a case if millions of cars were downloaded, er, stolen with a hairpin. Plus I'm not saying there's merit to the potential for suit, just that Microsoft has clearly had to make legal agreements and business decisions we don't know about - or we'd have gotten Windows 7.1 with full media capabilities just like its predecessor. Who knows how they were written? I'm sure the system had no love for Microsoft's profits when it spit those agreements out. My point is simply that there may be more than meets the eye, as with so many things. -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryTri Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I wonder what else was changed by this "upgrade"... Something clearly was changed more than just the few files involved in playing DVDs; last night's System Image backup, via wbadmin, ended up being a complete copy of the entire terabyte of data on my C: volume, as though I had just installed a whole new system. Probably it's just that Windows is "perceiving" itself as newly installed after the change of the product key, hence the "initial" full backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Probably it's just that Windows is "perceiving" itself as newly installed after the change of the product key, hence the "initial" full backup. Very likely. The backup last night took only 35 minutes, so it's back to being incremental again. I've been watching a few DVDs on it just to take the edge off it costing more than I thought it should. As a bonus, because I was checking carefully what's running with the updated system, I found several more processes I don't need running (not new ones, but ones from before), and so my system is now running leaner than ever, and it's still perfectly stable. It's all good. -Noel Edited August 11, 2014 by NoelC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaclaz Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 My point is simply that there may be more than meets the eye, as with so many things.And I agree with you on this . But it is well possible that the "more" was that they needed to find a way to spare a few dollars of royalties without getting US$ 10 of additional income, or - even better - manage to get a whole additional US$100. IF this was the plan, they succeeded at it (at least with you ), but still, making your otherwise perfectly legal and payed for license not activated and providing no way back likens the matter to asking for a ransom. jaclaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 I guess I'll just chalk it up to yet another modern variant of "if you want to play you have to pay". -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DosProbie Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 @ Noel "I found several more processes I don't need running.." If you don't mind me asking what services or processes did you disable? ~DP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelC Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 Unfortunately the answer may not help you much, DosProbie, as the changes were pretty specific to my needs... 1. I had the Windows Fax service running, which I no longer need as we have switched telephone services and I now handle faxing a different way. 2. I also had a collaboration tool called RAdmin Server starting and running at bootup, and I don't need it running all the time - I'll start it when I'm preparing to work with someone and have them connect to my desktop. It had been starting more processes than I realized, a generic one (WmPrvSE.exe) which appears to have gone away. Net savings: 5 processes no longer sitting in RAM. -Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now