Microsoft To Court: Make Comcast Give Us Windows-Pirating Subscriber's Info (networkworld.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft is using the IP address 'voluntarily' collected during its software activation process to sue a Comcast subscriber for pirating thousands of copies of Windows and Office. The Redmond giant wants the court to issue a subpoena which will force Comcast to hand over the pirating subscriber's info. If the infringing IP address belongs to another ISP which obtained it via Comcast, then Microsoft wants that ISP's info and the right to subpoena it as well. "Defendants activated and attempted to activate at least several thousand copies of Microsoft software, much of which was pirated and unlicensed," Microsoft's legal team wrote. The product keys "known to have been stolen" from Microsoft's supply chain were used to activate Windows 8, Windows 7, Office 2010, Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2008. The product keys, Microsoft said, were used "more times than is authorized by the applicable software license," used by "someone other than the authorized licensee," or were "activated outside the region for which they were intended." Whether or not the IP traces back to a Comcast subscriber or was assigned by Comcast to a different ISP, as the The Register pointed out, "It would be a significant gaffe on behalf of the alleged pirates if the IP address data pointed to their real identifies."

Comments

Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Microsoft is protecting its intellectual property by using information that everyone knows is transmitted when Windows is activated? Why is this news?

Re:Uggggh

[jellomizer]

Well for post Gates/Balmer Microsoft has been trying hard to clean up its hard 80's style business tactics and move towards a friendlier company.

This type of stuff shows its real DNA.

Re:Uggggh

[maxrate]

I see what you're saying, but we're talking about mass theft here. Not some little guy with a few illegitimate installations. Microsoft is a software business, you can't expect to pirate their wares and expect them to be okay with it.

Re:Uggggh

[vux984]

This type of stuff shows its real DNA.

That it still will aggressively pursue an entity stealing multiple thousands of copies? Its not like they're after some little grandmother here.

Re:Uggggh

[arbiter1]

It is news since normally MS doesn't sue people, but this is a case of many thousands of activation's from 1 IP so.

Re:Uggggh

[FatdogHaiku]

Oh, so now it's not OK for a grandmother to be a software pirate kingpin? (queenpin?)
Or would that be a {king/queen}pin software pirate?
Now I'm confused, but it's starting to look like it's got Broadway potential...
Granny Queenpin, Software Pirate!

Re:Uggggh

[bloodhawk]

Well for post Gates/Balmer Microsoft has been trying hard to clean up its hard 80's style business tactics and move towards a friendlier company.

This type of stuff shows its real DNA.

Yep it shows they are a business that acts reasonably! I gather that is what your trying to say? or are you suggesting it is unreasonable for them to chase someone stealing or counterfeiting millions of dollars worth of licenses?

Re:Uggggh

[Etherwalk]

It is news since normally MS doesn't sue people, but this is a case of many thousands of activation's from 1 IP so.

Agreed. It is quite reasonable to track down a source from which thousands of copies were made. If it's a big IT shop that is doing unlicensed installs as part of a repair process without thinking it's a big deal maybe you let them settle for lawyer's fees, a big slap on the wrist, and a promise not to do it again--but if it's someone who made thousands of bootleg copies and sold them, more serious action is warranted.

Re:Uggggh

[NatasRevol]

or are you suggesting it is unreasonable for them to chase someone stealing or counterfeiting millions of dollars worth of licenses?

Most reasonable companies turn theft over to officials and have them pursue it.

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Punishment shall be winows 10 on all offenders pc's. Gratis of course.

Re:Uggggh

[webnut77]

Granny Queenpin, Software Pirate!

Perhaps she's doing it to fund her cancel treatments and her compulsion to provide the very best pirated software versions.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

In copyright and licensing most reasonable companies use the court processes to pursue offenders which may or may not result in criminal action down the road.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it wasn't theft unless something physical was stolen. Did you mean to say copyright infringement?

Captcha: wrongly

Re:Uggggh

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I see what you're saying, but we're talking about mass theft here. Not some little guy with a few illegitimate installations. Microsoft is a software business, you can't expect to pirate their wares and expect them to be okay with it.

I agree...a little low-level piracy is one thing but something on this scale is hard to turn a blind eye towards. If this doesn't warrant some sort of response then I don't know what would.

I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft to say the least, but I don't see this as some egregious or unreasonable behavior by them.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Granny Heisenberg strikes again. -PCP

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why Microsoft let it activate thousands of times. I mean, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that the activation is supposed to prevent? If the keys were activated too often and/or used outside their issued area, shouldn't the activation have failed? If so, why bother prosecuting since it won't be usable and no harm has been done? If the activation didn't fail, and the keys really were stolen, how do they know and if they know, why didn't they just blacklist them?

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

They stole and activated someone else's volume licenses out of the supply chain. That's a bit more serious.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, Microsoft has become more cutthroat than it has ever been. Microsoft used to never care about software piracy. They never tried to force people into using software that was unwanted. They never forced updates. They never forced reboots. They never forced spyware. They never forced ads.

All of that has changed as Microsoft has grown ever more hostile toward their own users and that started right when Nadella took over. Steve Ballmer screwed up a couple of times, but he did bring us Windows 7 as well. Nadella is actively trying to fuck everyone over.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we? Of all the activations, only "much of which" is pirated or unlicensed. Does that mean they're lumping legitimate activations in with the pirates?

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft is a software business, you can't expect to pirate their wares and expect them to be okay with it."

No one should respect these businesses considering how bad they've corrupted copyright law. We are basically owed shit at this point given all the shit they've stolen out of the public domain.

Copyright extension act

Re: Uggggh

[rossdee]

I thought cruel and unusual punishment was banned in the Constitution

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if they went after China to renew their license (singular) the same way I would agree

Re:Uggggh

[FatdogHaiku]

Granny Queenpin, Software Pirate!

Perhaps she's doing it to fund her cancel treatments and her compulsion to provide the very best pirated software versions.

The finest copies of Lotus 1-2-3!

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

So you agree then.

Re:Uggggh

[sdinfoserv]

The obvious solution is to invalidate the authentication keys so no longer work. It's simple, can be performed digitally, and all those stolen keys are instantly useless. The rightful owner can prove themselves and new keys issued. Why wait for hundreds of thousands of bogus authorizations with the same keys then cry about it - unless you have an agenda.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, forced reboots have been the normal way of Microsoft since the beginning of MS-DOS. The number of times a computer was unnecessarily power cycled due to the system bombing is immense.

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

It was bulk activation keys stolen from their supply chain - sounds like (although hard to be sure) that it was a "block" of activation keys. As to "why now" this is thousands of activations over a period of weeks or months. How many thousands of activations does MS process a day?

All in all it seems like someone was doing post-hoc analytics on the activation server logs and spotted an outlier - a single IP address with thousands of activations across 5-6 products that wasn't tied to a know vendor.

That's an obvious outlier - but depending upon the rate of activations, it might have taken months for that one IP address to accumulate enough activations to be noticed in the other data.

Re:Uggggh

[SuricouRaven]

If this were theft they may well, but it isn't. It's a contract violation, or copyright infringement at worst. That's firmly in civil law territory. They might be able to find a criminal act later - fraud perhaps, or criminal copyright infringement under the NET act - but not until they've identified the pirate.

With that many distinct activations, it's probably someone trying to pass off counterfeit software as legitimate. Even the pirate community hates scum like that.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot I don't agree about copyright.
But this operation wasn't ripping off MSDOS and MultiPlan.
Even under original copyright these works would be covered.

Now if it was the Mouse going after some rogue Steamboat Willy distributor you'd have more of a case.

Re:Uggggh

[Plus1Entropy]

Most reasonable companies turn theft over to officials and have them pursue it.

Intellectual Property disputes are self-enforced. The IP holder is responsible for pursuing infringements against them. Not doing so is one of the fastest ways to lose the protection that IP law grants you.

Re:Uggggh

[jandersen]

I see what you're saying, but we're talking about mass theft here.

Good point, but on the other hand, isn't is using Windows punishment enough? We shouldn't go overboard.

Re: Uggggh

[drinkypoo]

How many thousands of activations does MS process a day?

Who cares? The activation servers' whole job is to prevent unauthorized activation. Clearly they don't.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that every one who 'steels' the software should be held responsible. Microsoft and other still important software products became market leaders because they were easily pirated. It was one of the marketing tactics to make their product known with as many people as possible.

But of course there is no law against making software that is too easy to pirate, while there is a law against pirating even when it is made too easy.

That's something I always hated when I was still in school. The software packages we used where all expensive if you had to buy them, but 'just use this key, and it will work' was what we learned in school. And so we had to learn to pirate expensive software. There was no excuse for not having Microsoft Windows/Office/Visual Studio, Borland, Oracle, or the Adobe Suite. The school even expected us to have Autodesk for only a small part of a course. An accounting package that costed an average months wage a month for at least 2 years was another package we had to pirate for that same course (introduction to commercial packages). When I added the retails prices of the pirated software I had to use during the 4 years in college, it would cost me about 8 million BEF (which was close to 200,000 EURO). Later came the student licenses, but that was after I left school. I hated it, not because I got it for free, but because products that were affordable didn't make a chance against better products for free. It took away any intensive to make cheaper software that could do the job.

There were alternatives to the expensive software licenses, and that included open source, but also affordable closed source. But when pirating is the norm, who are you going to copy? Of course the best which is most probable the most expensive.

I think it's hypocrite of the large software makers to kind of encourage pirating by making it too easy to pirate and than go after a big fish. For every man that pirates 1,000 copies, there are 10,000 people who pirate a handful of packages. There would have been a larger market with more choice and greater interchangeability if the software makers didn't turn a blind eye towards low-level piracy. The big software houses preferred a user with a pirated copy over a user with a competing product.

To give you a car analogy. It's ok for a person to steal one car for personal use, but it's not okay for a person to steal many cars to sell them for lower prices.

Re:Uggggh

[hairyfeet]

I bet my last buck its a scumbag PC shop, which all of us that are legit hope DIAF. BTW these type of scumbag shops? Often not only steal from big customers like MSFT they also steal from their customers not only by selling them fake software but even going so far as to steal expensive hardware from their PCs.

You have no idea how many times I opened up a PC that had previously been worked on by a local scumbag shop only to find the specs on the system did not match what was in there because they ripped off the customer. I've seen them steal graphics cards, RAM sticks, one scumbag even went so far as to take the customers (then) very expensive 500Gb HDD and replace it with an 80GB, they are absolute POS scumbags and I see no issue with MSFT (or any company) putting these low rent scumbag shops out of business.

The day my boss sent me to the scumbag shop to buy some RAM sticks only to find the feds there and the scumbag had skipped town? Was a VERY happy day, as I'm sure it'll be a happy day for the shops in that area when "Bob's PC World" is shut down.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

But piracy is evil that's why Microsoft stock is above $50 even though they keep firing people, give away one of their main products and keep making other products that nobody seems to want (Windows phone, anyone?). Piracy is really harming this company - if it wasn't for pirates surely the stock price would be at $90 by now!

Re:Uggggh

[silentcoder]

That's a pretty good point. It would also be an argument against going after people who pirate Bieber songs but they already have a pretty much guaranteed get-out-of-jail-free card. Innocent by reason of insanity.

What judge in his right mind would NOT think you have to be crazy to want to download a Bieber song ?

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

If a bank gets robbed, your money is safe thanks to FDIC, so why punish the bank robber once his money is full of dye?

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they want to find out who stole the keys from their supply chain? I don't really see why this is so nefarious.

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair point. However, TFA says Windows 7...not Windows 10 so no, they probably have not been punished enough. Perhaps after the forced downgrade to Windows 10 we can consider having Microsoft apologise to them with compensation in the form of the FreeBSD boxed set.

Re:Uggggh

[fbobraga]

low-level piracy

Stealing ships at low-level sea (nearby costs or something like it)? Explain that term to me please :-)

Re:Uggggh

[fbobraga]

spreading FUD is on the MS agenda, "possibly maybe"...

Re:Uggggh

[fbobraga]

That's something I always hated when I was still in school. The software packages we used where all expensive if you had to buy them, but 'just use this key, and it will work' was what we learned in school. And so we had to learn to pirate expensive software. There was no excuse for not having Microsoft Windows/Office/Visual Studio, Borland, Oracle, or the Adobe Suite. The school even expected us to have Autodesk for only a small part of a course. An accounting package that costed an average months wage a month for at least 2 years was another package we had to pirate for that same course (introduction to commercial packages). When I added the retails prices of the pirated software I had to use during the 4 years in college, it would cost me about 8 million BEF (which was close to 200,000 EURO). Later came the student licenses, but that was after I left school. I hated it, not because I got it for free, but because products that were affordable didn't make a chance against better products for free. It took away any intensive to make cheaper software that could do the job.

I always considered very strange the "Donating Software Program" for schools/universities that Microsoft carries (up to now) by it meas a stimulus to software "piracy" ("copyright infringement"), which they, MS, explicit argued that combat...

Re:Uggggh

[ausekilis]

There must be some business operation happening. They don't say over what time period this has been happening, but given the number I'd say it's been happening for quite a while.

My guess is it's some computer repair shop doing reinstalls of broken/virus riddled machines using a single (non-OEM) key. I doubt a single guy would reach thousands of machines, even over 5 years... Maybe a mom and pop shop. I think it would be hilarious if it tied back to a Best Buy or Microsoft Store.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your argument of course being, blaming Mircosoft for this is wrong. What you're complaining about most is either the copyright act of 1976 (Microsoft didn't exist yet) or the Sonny Bono act (Sonny Bono never worked for Microsoft), which is also known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (Again, Microsoft isn't Disney).

If you don't like these, blaming Microsoft for them is pointless, at least blame the right groups (MPAA, RIAA and members).

Re:Uggggh

[Khyber]

"The obvious solution is to invalidate the authentication keys so no longer work."

You must know jack shit about cracking Windows. Here, let me help you.

DAZ LOADER.

Re:Uggggh

[Grishnakh]

I disagree. These companies have abused copyright too much and for too long, and because of that, I don't think they should have any copyright protection at all.

Re:Uggggh

[Billly Gates]

I bet my last buck its a scumbag PC shop, which all of us that are legit hope DIAF. BTW these type of scumbag shops? Often not only steal from big customers like MSFT they also steal from their customers not only by selling them fake software but even going so far as to steal expensive hardware from their PCs.

You have no idea how many times I opened up a PC that had previously been worked on by a local scumbag shop only to find the specs on the system did not match what was in there because they ripped off the customer. I've seen them steal graphics cards, RAM sticks, one scumbag even went so far as to take the customers (then) very expensive 500Gb HDD and replace it with an 80GB, they are absolute POS scumbags and I see no issue with MSFT (or any company) putting these low rent scumbag shops out of business.

The day my boss sent me to the scumbag shop to buy some RAM sticks only to find the feds there and the scumbag had skipped town? Was a VERY happy day, as I'm sure it'll be a happy day for the shops in that area when "Bob's PC World" is shut down.

I always build my own stuff unless I buy a tablet or portable. Can't trust anyone. Of course I am A+ IT guy who has experience, but man I had to learn the old fashioned way in m youth to do it yourself.

Eventually what is going to happen is as the price of pcs fall people will just buy a new one and stop doing business with you. Now is a great time to invest in business services and certifications and being cloud and ERP providers and partners if I owned a shop. When PC's were $3000 and went obsolete so fast you could make 6 figures back in the 1990s owning a shop just focusing on hardware and nothing else.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

So low level piracy is ok because it's what you do but large scale is a crime and needs to be stopped? So a little murder is ok but mass killings are an issue? What if MS could prove they're having a massively disproportionate number of illegal 1 license users than bulk license users? Would that make it ok for them to go after the "low level" pirates?

Re: Uggggh

[The-Ixian]

Who cares? The activation servers' whole job is to prevent unauthorized activation. Clearly they don't.

Actually, no, the job of the activation servers is to activate software.

MS has always erred on the liberal side. As in, if in doubt, just activate it.

Anyone who has installed as much MS software as I have knows this is true. If the web activation fails, you simply call and 9 times out of 10 the product will activate. 1 in 10 times you will get routed to a customer service person and then they will activate it.

I think one of the reasons that piracy of MS software is so prevalent is precisely because of their liberal activation policies.

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly correct. I do not register ANYTHING! I don't mind paying for it, but my information is MY information and I will control it, that way no telemarketers, scam artist, no M$ making money off MY intellectual property.

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot and should leave your basement. We'll welcome you to the real world.

Re: Uggggh

[The-Ixian]

I also have never gone through the registration process. But registration doesn't have anything to do with activation except that it comes after the activation process in the work flow.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not piracy unless he was SELLING them.

I know M$ throws the words "piracy" around a lot, but the fact is, there is no law requiring you to have a license to watch a movie, listen to music, or use software. A EULA is a contract only, and it's highly subjective since the price is listed and paid for at the store, and a person may not agree to the EULA, and if they don't then they are not obligated to any part of it. I have actually taken stuff back to the store because I did not agree with the EULA, and I have also been told they would not give a refund, even though the EULA said they would, so my obligations have been met.

In addition, one should not give up control over your own personal information. I always put conditions on it, or use made up information. Never use real name, address, phone, or anything similar.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Their web page is clear and they have a facebook page. It makes no sense they would openly be laughing at Microsoft because microsoft can track and identify them and would have them in court. That plus the tricking wording in the description indicates to me that these guys are doing some back door handshake with Microsoft.

I will test this extensively.

Re:Uggggh

[Coren22]

The product keys "known to have been stolen" from Microsoft's supply chain were used to activate Windows 8, Windows 7, Office 2010, Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2008.

The physical stickers were stolen from the distribution chain. This is actual honest to goodness theft. There was actually something stolen here, though it was a fancy piece of paper.

Re:Uggggh

[Coren22]

Not doing so is one of the fastest ways to lose the protection that IP law grants you.

Citation Needed.

Trademark law works that way, but I have never heard of a company losing a copyright due to lack of enforcement.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

AC because I modded elsewhere

It takes a while to realize the activations are fraudulent. When a customer buys volume licensing, they are permitted a number of activations than their total license pool. This is to accommodate system rebuilds and cold standby systems (which are permitted under some volume licenses).

Either the buyer would have to complain about requesting more activations too often, or Microsoft would have to identify the pattern as abnormal.

With many volume customers having regional or international footprints, a huge variety of IP addresses is kind of expected. If they weren't on the same network or ISP as most of ABC Company, that is not exactly a surprise.

I don't know what tipped them off, but I can guess. Perhaps the same IP was activating products from a variety of customers---typically all MS products are under a single umbrella agreement. If they see activations linked to ABC Company, XYZ LLC, and 123 Products Inc all from the same place, then that wouldn't be normal.

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been the past 15 years?

Re:Uggggh

[bloodhawk]

Microsoft have ALWAYS chased people that pirate or counterfeit on commercial scales.

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

A local shop in my town got busted doing this.

http://journalstar.com/business/local/microsoft-sues-lincoln-company-quickteq-computers/article_34265f5e-7e42-11df-8512-001cc4c002e0.html

Re:Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo billy, A+ means bupkis.

Knowing which way to turn a screwdriver and work the goolge machine and your halfway to being a system builder. A+ is the silly cert you get coming out of your first quarter at community college.

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

since they have been actively in discussions with Chinese government and enforcing agreements there for the last few years for exactly this then I gather you agree?

Re:Uggggh

[houghi]

Because they want to prevent it happening in the future. Now they use one IP. That gets banned. People might not even know they buy something illegal. So bad for the custoler as well.

What would happen is that first they just use a different IP adress. MS notices and does a block per IP after e.g. 10 activations.

So now they start using virusses, so activation is done over several million IP adresses at random.

Where if they are going to court, the person responsible will not do it and others might realize they will get caught and not start.

So I assume their agenda is not to have thngs stolen from them, because this is theft, not copyright infringement.

Re:Uggggh

[vuffi_raa]

this actually is theft - the keys are intended for purchase. If this was a crack it would be infringement

Re:Uggggh

[Plus1Entropy]

I was oversimplifying. Yes, technically only trademarks can be "lost" outright in this manner. However, you can hurt your case and limit the recoverable damages if you don't pursue infringement in a timely manner. IANAL, but the legal terms that apply here are "laches" and "equitable estoppel".

Citation

Citation

Re:Uggggh

[hairyfeet]

Bah, fuck that cert bullshit, I'm making plenty of bank in the HTPC/home theater space. I've dealt with enough corps to know I'd rather shovel shit than work corporate IT again, its nothing but MBAs fucking IT and leaving broken messes for you as the consultant to fix only for the NEXT MBA jerkoff to come along and piss all over what you built....fuck that waste of time!

At least in HTPC/HT I'm building and wiring up lovely systems that will last the customer for years...and the best part? They LISTEN TO ME and actually follow my advice, unlike corp horseshit where it takes a dozen damned meetings to get approved just to do something half assed because the MBAs won't spend the money to do it right...I'd rather work at fricking Mickey D's than deal with that shit again, no way in hell!

Re: Uggggh

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about piracy This is about I NEED TO KNOW WHO DIT IT, PLEASE!

It might turn out to have been the american government... Or Microsoft itself somehow... Or maybe apple or something.

Whoever it was, I bet it will be funny. We NEED to know!

Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are asking the Court to grant access to the information about a user where there is clear evidence of pirating. Why is this news? Sounds like a completely appropriate request.

Re:Why is this news?

[malditaenvidia]

As proven before, IP addresses are a really poor way to identify someone. Considering the circumstances, it could very well be a zombie PC in a larger botnet being identified.

Re:Why is this news?

[jellomizer]

Being most PC come with a Windows license and with a stupid restore ability, and it's defaults are full of junk. A lot of people may just want a clean OEM install. Not the Lenovo or Dell install.

Re:Why is this news?

[Rockoon]

Considering the circumstances, it could very well be a zombie PC in a larger botnet being identified.

..and you wont know until its identified. Thats how evidence collection works.

Re:Why is this news?

[bloodhawk]

As proven before, IP addresses are a really poor way to identify someone. Considering the circumstances, it could very well be a zombie PC in a larger botnet being identified.

could well be, given the clear illegal activiities the best way to find that out is through the court with subpeana's so they can check it which seems to be what they are doing. When such a massive clear violation has occurred they have to at least follow the process and check, would not be the first time a criminal has been a moron and shit in their own nest.

Re:Why is this news?

[hawguy]

Considering the circumstances, it could very well be a zombie PC in a larger botnet being identified.

..and you wont know until its identified. Thats how evidence collection works.

If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.

IP addresses are about as good as a car's paint color in identifying a malicious user.

Re:Why is this news?

[Gadget_Guy]

If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.

The bank can't do that, but the police said who investigate robberies can get the list for of blue Fords and compare the owner's names to known criminals. And to be a proper car analogy, they would be after a blue Ford with the license plate ABC123. If it turned out that the car was stolen for the bank job then that would be the same as a botnet that was using that IP address.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

But in this case they know which garage the blue ford parked in.

Re:Why is this news?

[KGIII]

That may be true but I'm not sure that I'm seeing what point it is that you're trying to make?

Are you saying that all these people didn't want OEM installs so took it to this one place, used this one particular IP address, and then activated Home, Professional, Server, Office, Enterprise, etc versions on this one particular IP address? I didn't know there was an OEM Server edition or OEM Office and they all had the same activation code.

Someone, probably, was activating licenses from Technet or MSDN and, from the looks of things, was probably selling boxes with them pre-installed. They might be VL and gone over that number - probably stolen, and probably sold boxes with 'legit' on 'em. Alternatively, they patched it to pipe a cracked version through one particular IP address and sold them as legit.

I mean, c'mon now... What kind of excuses are ya gonna make for this? "Oh, someone just didn't know how to find the decrapify application via Google and wanted to get a clean install instead of the OEM stuff." Sheesh...

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the botnet points to China. Oops, dead end.

Hopefully Microsoft will reimburse the taxpayers for the expense of a wild goose chase. If they want to protect their weak business model then they should bear the cost burden of trying to do so.

Re:Why is this news?

[hawguy]

If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.

The bank can't do that, but the police said who investigate robberies can get the list for of blue Fords and compare the owner's names to known criminals. And to be a proper car analogy, they would be after a blue Ford with the license plate ABC123. If it turned out that the car was stolen for the bank job then that would be the same as a botnet that was using that IP address.

But it's not the police that's trying to get the name of Comcast subscribers, it's Microsoft.

Re:Why is this news?

[Phoenix Rising]

If someone stole a manuscript from Disney and got away in a blue Ford with a license plate of XXX-123 and then pirated the manuscript, it certainly would be within the court's power to allow Disney to subpoena the owner of that particular Ford to ask who was in control of the car at the moment of the theft. It might have been the owner's son, or neighbor, or it might have been stolen. But it's a legitimate request to ask the question.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be even funnier if the botnet points back to an IP address of Microsoft or the NSA.

Re:Why is this news?

[Gadget_Guy]

But it's not the police that's trying to get the name of Comcast subscribers, it's Microsoft

That's because copyright infringement is not really a police matter, so it is quIte right for Microsoft to pursue this matter in court. The difference with the police doing it is that they can lookup the registration records without having to get a court order. Microsoft do not have that ability to simply examine the IP records for themselves so they have to go to court to compell Comcast to divulge the information (although the police would have to do that too since they don't have access to Comcast's private information).

Comcast were right in requiring Microsoft to get a court order to get the Customer details, and Microsoft were quite right for asking for them. If they aren't entitled to the details the the court will say no, but that won't be for the bogus reasons that have been stated here on Slashdot. Rather, it would be refused if they failed to show cause as required by the law.

Re: Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

What cost? They've filed a subpoena with a judge.

That's what judges are for, you fucking idiot. Literally, the service that society pays them to provide.

Re:Why is this news?

[Gadget_Guy]

And the botnet points to China. Oops, dead end.

It's likely not to be a botnet at that address, as they would be able to use a larger number of addresses to spread the activations. There have been instances in the past of small computer stores installing pirated copies of Windows and Office on computers which were also discovered by the activity at one IP address. That's what I predict will be the result of this too.

Re:Why is this news?

[freeze128]

Since Microsoft controls all the activation servers, they didn't have to actually *ALLOW* the activation. At any time, they could have denied the activation because of the IP address it was coming from, or because the product key was a dupe, or because it was out of region.

Wasn't that the reason for inventing product activation in the first place?

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

As proven before, IP addresses are a really poor way to identify someone. Considering the circumstances, it could very well be a zombie PC in a larger botnet being identified.

That's probably the most likely thing, especially as this appears to be a residential account. Just consider how long it takes to install and activate MS Windows on a PC. It's rather ironic the bot is extremely likely to be running MS Windows, thanks to Microsoft's terrible security record.

Re:Why is this news?

[Peil]

What's the chances someone opened up a KMS server and said help yourselves?

Re:Why is this news?

[Dunbal]

Surely we can "Trust Microsoft(tm)"...

Re:Why is this news?

[Dunbal]

That's because copyright infringement is not really a police matter

Tell that to the guys who busted into Kim Dotcom's mansion in New Zealand with helicopters and automatic weapons. Or to the cops who arrested a founder of TPB in Cambodia. Apparently it's only a police matter sometimes. Other times it's not.

Re:Why is this news?

[Khyber]

"Are you saying that all these people didn't want OEM installs so took it to this one place, used this one particular IP address, and then activated Home, Professional, Server, Office, Enterprise, etc versions on this one particular IP address?"

That's quite often how it works, yes. If you actually had any idea about real life, you'd know this and not needed to have asked this question.

Re:Why is this news?

[The-Ixian]

They didn't have to but they did. I actually wouldn't have it any other way. Better to go after abusers after the fact than to risk not activating 1 user of legitimately purchased software.

I personally believe that this has always been MS's calculus. They would rather err on the side of caution and just activate.

Re:Why is this news?

[avandesande]

How was this marked in informative? By definition botnets depend on being installed unwittingly on peoples machines- so what does activation keys have to do with a botnet? Are you suggesting it re installs windows?

Re:Why is this news?

[KGIII]

Yeah, that OEM version of Server 2008 and 2012 comes with Dell stuff on and thousands of them get activated on a single IP address. Boy, that OEM version of Office has to be really... Wait, no, that OEM version of Office is the same as as any other version of Office. Hint: Anyone buying Server 2012 isn't sending it out to to have OEM stuff removed, same for 2008.

Have you ever been right? Seriously, ever? What is this *real* world of yours? Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is sending out an OEM Server 2012 box (all using the same keys or a few limited keys) to get DELL stuff removed from it. Nobody. Not even YOU are that inept.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can reinstall using your own Windows key several times without any problems. One time for a clean install is definitely not what this article is about.

People who want a clean install on an OEM machine have nothing to do with this case at all. Stop talking out of your ass.

Re:Why is this news?

[desdinova 216]

no we can't, and don't call me Shirley

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're a bit confused and need to read the article.

Fat chance

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds that this was running on a headless VM on someone's pwned machine: very likely.

Re:Fat chance

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost guaranteed. Just a few days ago someone hacked into my home router and tried to VNC into my Samsung smart TV. I wouldn't have even noticed but our TV popped up "Connected to Screen sharing from IP Address:" from there I checked my logs and someone was all up in my shit...

ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with M$ about this. Use Ubuntu and Libreoffice if you don't have the dough.

Re:ok

[fluffernutter]

.. or if you want a decent OS.

Re:ok

[zlives]

or windows 10 :)

Re:ok

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU/Linux is not a decent alternative to Windows. Try OSX.

Re:ok

[fluffernutter]

I do 90% of my development on GNU/Linux, and development on OSX when Apple forces me to.

DMCA = Digital Windows-Millenium Copyright Act

[Anonymous Coward]

You're stealing bits man - you're a criminal!!

192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[zenlessyank]

Saved by the NAT!!!

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey that's MY IP address!!! %&.#... NO CARRIER

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn you, slow IPv6 adoption! DAMN YOU!

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[techno-vampire]

I'm a moderator on a support forum for the Linux distro I use. (It doesn't matter which one.) All posts by new users are moderated until a moderator changes their status from New User to Registered User. On the moderation page, all poster's IP addresses are listed, and they're all the machine's personal IP, not their connection's public IP. Unless Microsoft is storing the public IP, what they have is useless. I can't help but wondering if they really expect to get anything from this they can use, or it's just a scare tactic intended to discourage misuse of the activation codes.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[Anonymous Coward]

..Unless Microsoft is storing the public IP, what they have is useless. I can't help but wondering if they really expect to get anything from this they can use,

What they have is; 173.11.224.197, and they got this from the activation data. As others have pointed out, this leads to

Comcast Business Communications, LLC HOUSTON-CBC-5 (NET-173-11-128-0-1) 173.11.128.0 - 173.11.255.255
173-11-224-197-houston.txt.hfc.comcastbusiness.net

So, assuming that the 'business' part means that this is a DSL connection is to a company, maybe not so useless (though it would be funny if some.naughty.pyrate.type.person.or.organisation.or.country.out.there had funnelled all their activation requests through a botnet to the poor sap at this IP number.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[Phoenix Rising]

You really think the MS security techs (or their registry system) is that lame? MS would almost certainly store the public IP which originated the registration request. It's not magic - it's part of the network connection.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[LiENUS]

On the moderation page, all poster's IP addresses are listed, and they're all the machine's personal IP, not their connection's public IP.

Uh, how does the server even get their internal nat ip? the whole point of network address translation is at the border their router translates it to the public ip. Their web browser never sends their internal ip your server just sees the public ip.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[techno-vampire]

Uh, how does the server even get their internal nat ip?

I have no idea. I do know that every post in the moderation queue lists an IP address and that every one I've seen has been non-routable.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[bruce_the_loon]

Are they all the same IP by any chance. There might be a web accelerator cache like Varnish or NGINX in front of the forum web server. Then the web server sees the cache server IP, not the remote connection IP, and puts that into the forum.

The cache server will have the original, routable IP in its logs, so that can still be traced.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[techno-vampire]

Are they all the same IP by any chance. There might be a web accelerator cache like Varnish or NGINX in front of the forum web server. Then the web server sees the cache server IP, not the remote connection IP, and puts that into the forum.

No, some of them are various IPs from the 192.168.X.Y range and a few of them are from 10.X.Y.Z. I'm not sure how the server gets them, or where from, but they're not all the same.

Re: 192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess would be a bit of JavaScript running on the client, local IP is available from there easily enough.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Your forum is running locally on the web browser so it sees the local address, your server however does see their public address, your forum software just chooses to not save/show that information. Try going to ipchicken.com and it will show you your public address, it isn't anything that is hidden unless you go through some effort, the IP is part of the network packet.

With this many addresses its either incompetence or malicious, either way hard to blame MS for going after it.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[The-Ixian]

Your forum is probably operating behind some kind of reverse proxy.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[The-Ixian]

Try going to ipchicken.com and it will show you your public address

Or just type "my ip" into the Bing search box. Google may have this feature too.

Re:192.168.0.2 Is The Offending IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Residential customers can buy business internet. It gives you access to a few nice things like static IPs, symmetrical speeds, and priority repairs or SLAs---depending on the class of service and the location.

TOR node probably

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of any scenario where this makes sense other than a TOR node or other proxy.

Re:TOR node probably

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible someone is selling server hardware with Windows server already installed and activating it first, however very unlikely as they would just use other means...

Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[ZorinLynx]

...well, unless they are a complete idiot.

I wouldn't do something like this from my own IP address. That would be quite daft. I would instead find an open Wifi, or use a VPN or some other network where it can't be traced to me.

This is just going to get the owner of the IP snared up in the court system for no good reason. Microsoft should just invalidate the keys that were stolen and move on.

Re:Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[arbiter1]

Well activate 1000's of copies of MS software from 1 IP, they gonna notice.

Re:Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[Anonymous Coward]

a Comcast subscriber for pirating thousands of copies of Windows and Office.

Sounds like some Chinese company or similar use a trojan to active without a trace back to themselves. Most or all Comcast subscribers wouldn't be able to activate that amount of time even with ill intentions. A thousand installs would be 3 installs each day for an entire year and they mention thousands.

Re:Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, sounds like Microsoft has a problem with its business model. That's no one else's problem except Microsoft.

Shrug.

captcha: beached

Re:Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[barc0001]

You'd be surprised, there are some fantastically stupid criminals out there. $5 says this person was doing installs at their residence and activating Windows and Office on these machines then selling or installing the machines at customer sites, charging for the OS and Office without paying Microsoft their share. Invalidating the licenses would probably be the best way to get back at this person as it would make their customers come back to them en masse.

Re: Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[Anonymous Coward]

You say "3 installs a day" like that's hard to achieve.
Even doing them all individually from start to finish before doing the next it would be about 2 hours to finish 3.

Re:Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[Anonymous Coward]

yes it is probably the subscriber.. probably a moron craiglist or ebay seller that preloads tons of "free" software before selling piece of shit desktops and laptops.

Re: Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[Anonymous Coward]

You say "3 installs a day" like that's hard to achieve.
Even doing them all individually from start to finish before doing the next it would be about 2 hours to finish 3.

Say again?
I suppose if we're talking just the base installs..not the 'please now go on holiday whilst we now take the better part of 14 hours to install the first round of updates to your system' crap (That is, once you've figured out that you manually have to update IE and the Windows Update software itself beforehand, rather that just think 'I'll leave this to do the updates overnight' only to find it stuck doing nothing the next morning.)

Re: Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[Anonymous Coward]

Fourteen hours?! Time to retire that Pentium 2, sport. Couple of hours max using wsus, and anyone doing that many installs has a strong incentive to do so.

Re: Probably not the owner of the IP who did it

[Anonymous Coward]

You say "3 installs a day" like that's hard to achieve.

I don't think the time spend on each computer is the big issue here. It's more like who needs 3 new computers each day unless it's commercial? Also 3 each day would be a thousand and they said thousands. We could be talking 10 new computers each day, if not more.

It's a guerilla marketing campaign from Microsoft

[JoeyRox]

Everybody knows Windows isn't even worth free.

Install count limit?

[Anonymous Coward]

The product keys, Microsoft said, were used "more times than is authorized by the applicable software license,"

Just how do they determine too many? I mean if the license says one computer and the HD dies, does that mean they count it as two computers when you install on a new HD? After all you just installed a one computer licensed copy on two different HDs?

Sure installing a one computer licensed copy on 3000 computers is clear, but I can think of many reasons why one might install a one computer licensed copy more than once in good faith (like the failed HD). This news (if we can call it that) makes me wonder if the good faith died when MS is informed of every move on the computer.

Re:Install count limit?

[arbiter1]

They have seen thousands of attempted activation's come from the IP in question. They didn't give an exact number but said. This was a story on torrentfreak, "“Microsoft’s cyberforensics have identified several thousand product key activations originating from IP address" Its 1 think if they were after person for 2-3 copies but talking thousands from what is a Comcast business account since they did post the IP in question as well.

Re: Install count limit?

[hackwrench]

It's been awhile but I remember being told somewhere that Microsoft used information like the MAC address of a built-in NIC, so if only one changed Microsoft would use the other points to determine if the computer was the same one and at the time someone mentioned that replacing a motherboard might take away several points at once.

Re:Install count limit?

[Phoenix Rising]

Technically, it's a combination of hardware IDs on your computer. ID of the install HD, ID of the CPU, ID of the motherboard chips, ID of the video card, ID of the NIC... The strictness of the check depends on the type of license, but replacing things one at a time is generally safe. If you have an OEM license, you generally have to replace things with very similar parts; e.g. if your MB dies, you need to replace it with the same style MB.

Re: Install count limit?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the net the MAC address is not visible beyond the router.

Re: Install count limit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but since product activation is a process running locally on the box in question Ms have access to more info than is exposed to the network. Jesus, did IQs drop sharply round here or something?

Re: Install count limit?

[drinkypoo]

Jesus, did IQs drop sharply round here or something?

God is dead, and you must be new here. There have always been idiots clicking submit.

i think one shouldn't be able to have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick one:

(A) Don't go down the DRM road, no ability to remotely switch off people's ability to run your code, etc. Then, OK, I will defend your moral and legal right to avoid having people make unauthorized copies of your stuff.

(B) Take extreme measures, DRM it to death, online activation, continual need for remote permission to run. In this case, I think you lost the moral right to bitch when someone breaks your scheme and uses it without paying for it.

Pick one or the other, but you can't have both. If you pick (B), then man the fuck up and deal with it if and when your scheme fails. If you pick (A), then the people pirating your stuff are assholes and I don't mind reasonable financial penalties.

Comcast business ip

[sims 2]

Was already reported on TF https://torrentfreak.com/micro... last month.

Re:Comcast business ip

[Anonymous Coward]

Read section *10* in the complaint: https://torrentfreak.com/images/micropirate.pdf The one so aptly named after their most recent and much foisted product.

"Software developers, like Microsoft, are not the only victims of software piracy. Consumers are also victims......These customers may unwittingly expose themselves to security risks......malicious software, or “malware,” which can be used to record keystrokes and thus capture sensitive information such as user names, passwords, and Social Security numbers"

bahahaha

Re:i think one shouldn't be able to have it both w

[HornWumpus]

By extension. If you have a lock on your door, that I can break, you are fine with me taking all your shit?

Say what?

[duke_cheetah2003]

Microsoft suddenly cares about piracy of it's OS? That's new.

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

only because the activation is for win7 probably the last good worth money ms os

Re:Say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS have always chased down large scale priacy and counterfeit operations, they only ignore the home user pirates.

Remember when...

[Anonymous Coward]

...open source software was some kind of hippie pipe dream and proprietary software was the "only way" companies could make money?

Yeah, about that: you know who has never sued anyone for illegally copying software? Ubuntu. Red Hat. Etc.

I had to move a copy of Windows to another machine recently. Took 45 minutes on the phone with Microsoft AND I had to let them hijack the machine to verify the new hardware footprint. Luckily it's just an entertainment box.

That whole exchange and infrastructure must have cost them more than I paid for my copy of Windows.

Re: Remember when...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, Microsoft has sold millions of copies of Windows.

Besides, there have been legal issues with open source from releases to short contracts.

And that isn't even mentioning systemd.

Re:Remember when...

[KGIII]

While that's true I do think I recall RedHat turning around and counter-suing SCO way back when and I think Canonical has filed at least one trademark suit? Of course, they both kind of had to. But let's be realistic here...

Regardless of our moral views on copyright, regardless of how you and I might think, you've got to be pretty damned stupid (if legit) to activate a ton of unpaid for copies of Windows -- even Enterprise? (What are they, crazy?), Office, and whatever else form the same IP address and not expect to get your teeth kicked in by the MS law-squad. That's right retarded. Funny, but retarded. They should have put up a VM in China and pushed the data through there via a hardware firewall w/VPN capacity. MS wouldn't have done a damned thing.

Re:Remember when...

[drinkypoo]

They should have put up a VM in China and pushed the data through there via a hardware firewall w/VPN capacity. MS wouldn't have done a damned thing.

Maybe these are installs in China and the activation is being proxied through a zombie PC? :)

Re:It's a guerilla marketing campaign from Microso

[Anonymous Coward]

get off my lawn!

No

[sexconker]

While MS should go after piracy on this scale, they should be denied their request, because:

product keys "known to have been stolen" from Microsoft's supply chain were used to activate Windows 8, Windows 7, Office 2010, Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2008.

If they were known to be stolen, then MS has a duty to limit losses. They can blacklist the keys and prevent further activation. If they were "known to have been stolen" then MS should have limited their losses as soon as they found out.

The product keys, Microsoft said, were used "more times than is authorized by the applicable software license,"

Again, MS has the ability to enforce this. Activation is their job, and if they allow a key to be activated thousands of times that's their fault. I commend them for being lenient - I've certainly relied on being able to activate a single key several times when building / upgrading PCs. But allowing thousands of fraudulent activations is a joke. More than a few a year should trigger alarm bells at Redmond.

used by "someone other than the authorized licensee," or were "activated outside the region for which they were intended."

MS can't prove either of these. Even if they know the authorized licensee, they don't know who is using the keys thousands of times. They can't know who it isn't without knowing who it is. If they knew who it is, they wouldn't need to subpoena for info. The same thing goes for the region.

It's also not the court's job to enforce the minutia of the license terms such as region, number of activations, transference, etc., especially when MS is so lackadaisical as to allow the keys to be stolen and for unauthorized activations to go on for so long.

Re:No

[MonkeyBob]

product keys "known to have been stolen" from Microsoft's supply chain

Even if they know the authorized licensee, they don't know who is using the keys thousands of times

There is no authorized licensee - they were stolen. Because they don't know who stole them, they are asking for the subpoena.

Re:No

[MobyDisk]

Suppose you work for the IT department of a Fortune 500 company, or a computer repair shop, or a university. You may activate thousands of Windows licenses per year. They could even be the same license key: Windows Embedded, for example, uses the same license key for each device. So Microsoft's automated system might not know if the activations are fraudulent. But if the IP address points to some individual's home, then there is a good chance they are fraudulent. Microsoft can't be sure without that information. It sounds like their system says "yes" until a human looks for a pattern of fraud. That sounds like the right way to do it.

Now, after looking at the records, Microsoft has evidence of a crime. They want Comcast to do something that is trivial for their billing department to do. Note that this is very different from BMG music asking Comcast for 5000 people's information just because a bittorrent packet went to their address. There is real evidence of fraud here. They aren't fishing or anything like that.

Re:No

[DRJlaw]

If they were known to be stolen, then MS has a duty to limit losses. They can blacklist the keys and prevent further activation. If they were "known to have been stolen" then MS should have limited their losses as soon as they found out.

It's copyright infringement whether the copy was activated or not - the copyright act prohibits unauthorized reproduction, not unauthorized activation. The copyright is also registered. That means that they are entitled to statutory damages whether they could have acted to further limit their losses or not.

But allowing thousands of fraudulent activations is a joke. More than a few a year should trigger alarm bells at Redmond.

They have three years to file a claim.

MS can't prove either of these. Even if they know the authorized licensee, they don't know who is using the keys thousands of times. They can't know who it isn't without knowing who it is. If they knew who it is, they wouldn't need to subpoena for info. The same thing goes for the region.

They don't have to prove either of those at this time -- they simply have to show that what they are requesting is relevant to those facts. The identify of the subscriber is certainly relevant to determing whether that person is an authorized licensee and is licensed to use those keys within that region.

It's also not the court's job to enforce the minutia of the license terms such as region, number of activations, transference, etc., especially when MS is so lackadaisical as to allow the keys to be stolen and for unauthorized activations to go on for so long.

It's precisely the court's job to enforce the minutia of the license terms, because the license terms are a condition of the license (e.g., "we grant you the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer), for use by one person at a time, but only if you comply with all the terms of this agreement." Without the license it's copyright infringement. The rules don't change simply because it's Microsoft enforcing a windows license and not an open source advocate enforcing the GPL.

Have fun with your theories of how this should work, but no Federal district court (or appellate court) is going to buy them because their job is to interpret and enforce the statute, not ad hoc theories of mitigation, laches, and evidence that you learned from poorly scripted TV dramas.

Re: No

[DigiShaman]

A Fortune 500 will have an internal IT department that's already setup a KMS server by which to activate machines internally. What you're talking about would be the use of MAK activation, and it wouldn't be appropriate in your scenario.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also not the court's job to enforce the minutia of the license terms [...]

What do you think the court's job is?

Re:No

[radarskiy]

"It's also not the court's job to enforce the minutia of the license terms"

Having the court enforce terms is the *entire point* of contract law.

Re: No

[guruevi]

Not all of them but at least they would know which entity holds a particular key and they could (and do) limit it to a particular IP range.

If they know this key has been stolen, they could just prevent it from activating anything, problem solved, no more activations for you, no expensive lawsuit clogging up the courts.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the parent modded up? Everything in that post is wrong.

Re:No

[Gadget_Guy]

You sound so adamant about this, but the law simply does not work that way. Just because their security isn't foolproof does not mean that it becomes legal to engage in mass piracy. You are wrong to say that it is not the court's job to enforce the license terms. It is exactly their job. Who else is going to do it?

And I for one am grateful that they are more lenient on activations as it means that it is less likely to have a false positive prevent an installation. It does mean that they will let the casual pirate get through, but then can go after the institutional ones (like this one).

Re: No

[DigiShaman]

Oh, I'm not defending MS by any means. This is a shake-down to put the onus of Intellectual Property enforcement on the ISPs rather than MS having to pay for the resources to do this themselves.

Re:No

[drinkypoo]

Windows Embedded, for example, uses the same license key for each device. So Microsoft's automated system might not know if the activations are fraudulent

That's only true if Microsoft is so grossly incompetent that they don't know what the activation codes are for, even though they generated them. No court will be impressed by gross incompetence.

Now, after looking at the records, Microsoft has evidence of a crime.

I'm not sure they do. If they're so incompetent that they can't check for thousands of duplicate activations in realtime, which is what the service is supposed to do, then I don't trust them to actually be getting any of the information correct.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were known to be stolen, then MS has a duty to limit losses. They can blacklist the keys and prevent further activation. If they were "known to have been stolen" then MS should have limited their losses as soon as they found out.

I can't really agree there. If they were trying to sue the company who the key belonged to for not properly managing their key and letting it leak out, then yes they would have had a duty to limit their loss. But attempting to identify who is doing the illegal activations...I don't think that same duty exists.

Re:No

[sribe]

If they were known to be stolen, then MS has a duty to limit losses. They can blacklist the keys and prevent further activation. If they were "known to have been stolen" then MS should have limited their losses as soon as they found out.

There is nothing in the article to indicate that they knew the keys were stolen before the keys were abused. It could well be that this knowledge came after, as a result of noticing the pattern of fraudulent activations, and investigating.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree the post you address is a mess, but does the court not also consider many different standards when hearing one case? This is not Microsoft accusing Comcast. This is Microsoft asking the court to compel Comcast to provide information. Surely Comcast can point out apparent slovenly behavior on the part of anyone wishing to force Comcast to do their bidding? Surely Comcast can argue that the infringing behavior is so trivial for Microsoft to remedy that attempting to force Comcast to take some action would appear abusive.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, not best practice but not impossible. You can't smack MS's hands for a customer being a gimp.

I will also agree the MS needs a way to handle this a bit better but they shouldn't be held liable for the actions of others.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. Nice burn. :D

Re:No

[Zalbik]

You missed an important or in the OP.

The product keys, Microsoft said, were used "more times than is authorized by the applicable software license,"
OR
used by "someone other than the authorized licensee,"
OR
were "activated outside the region for which they were intended."

These were likely bulk keys that allow multiple activations, but are being activated by the wrong person.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

Could Comcast fight the subpoena? They could. If it were in Comcast's interests to do so.

They don't, and the court would ask Comcast how much trouble it would be to look up this customer data and it would be so trivial that the compliance would be ordered.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Even if they know the authorized licensee, they don't know who is using the keys thousands of times. They can't know who it isn't without knowing who it is.

Every volume license agreement involves registration and a point of contact within the buyer's organization. If they contact that person and are told "no, we didn't activate 1000 systems from IP address 1.2.3.4" then they know those activations were not authorized.

It's also not the court's job to enforce the minutia of the license terms such as region, number of activations, transference, etc., especially when MS is so lackadaisical as to allow the keys to be stolen and for unauthorized activations to go on for so long.

It is the court's job to provide a legal mechanism through which an aggrieved party can seek relief. If there is a copyright violation, it is the court's duty to issue subpoenas so that the complainant and the court can determine whether a violation of law occurred and, if so, what relief is available.

Re:No

[david_thornley]

Again, MS has the ability to enforce [not using the product keys more often than is authorized]

How are they going to enforce that? Say there's a key good for 20 installations that is used for 40. Microsoft doesn't have many choices here. If MS blocks activation after the first 20, then there's an excellent chance that they're blocking some legitimate installs. They appear to have chosen to allow activations and pursue those doing lots of fraudulent ones, which seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Since they have a possible path to find the culprit, it seems reasonable to me to follow it. It's not necessary to convict someone before collecting evidence, after all. If Comcast fingers one subscriber, that doesn't mean the subscriber is guilty, but it's certainly something to look into.

Re: No

[guruevi]

I just don't see where it makes sense, even for Microsoft; disabling an activation key because they found it on Google should be trivial for them. Even if they somehow got all the ISP's in the world to do their job, it still is more work to notify ISP's and wait for their cooperation than simply clicking a check box in a database.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's precisely the court's job to enforce the minutia of the license terms [wikia.com], because the license terms are a condition of the license (e.g., "we grant you the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer), for use by one person at a time, but only if you comply with all the terms of this agreement."

Subject, of course, to the highest law in the land, which contrary to the belief of some is not contract law. It's the Bill of Rights, an open-ended document retaining unspecified rights to the people (9th Amendment), and reserving unspecified rights to the people (10th Amendment. As a result, contract law is limited by such fundamental rights as the right to ethical practice of law.

Some provisions routinely found in shrink-wrap licenses violate such rights (such as the prohibition against reverse-engineering, which infringes the right to freedom of thought, and reasonable curiosity). It would certainly be reasonable for a court to invalidate the entire license in a particular case to encourage other companies not to include such illegal contract elements.

Even the presence of 'minutia' can be taken as a violation of such rights, for allowing such to be present in contracts - and enforceable - makes the contracts more complex then necessary and thus creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals.

The concept of shrink-wrap licenses is in itself problematic from a legal ethics perspective, and not court to my knowledge has competently addresses this issue. Few if any people get selected for high court offices that are willing to rock the legal ethics boat, and the status quo is to ignore most ethics issues.

Have fun with your theories of how this should work,

In other words, you deny the right of the people to assert the rights retained by or reserved to them. I hope you're not a lawyer or in any law enforcement position, because such is certainly a violation of your oath to uphold the law.

Re: No

[MobyDisk]

Disabling the key does prevent further fraud. But why is it not appropriate for Microsoft to sue the person who defrauded them?

Re:No

[MobyDisk]

Perhaps. But is competence relevant? Suppose I did not lock my door, and I was robbed. I was incompetent. Does that mean I do not have the right to sue the thief and get my belongings back? Reading the article, I don't think anyone is making the claim that Microsoft does not have the right to pursue the thief because they are incompetent.

Think I saw this before

[ArchieBunker]

Wasn't this because of a handful of addresses being responsible for the majority of the activations? As in pirating on a business scale and not the average guy who installed pirated windows a few times.

Nuke the IP from orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the only way to be sure.

Re:Nuke the IP from orbit

[epyT-R]

Death on flaxen wings..

Re:i think one shouldn't be able to have it both w

[jedidiah]

If I had a backup copy of my entire house, I really wouldn't care so much about the "theft" aspect of a burglary. Of course you make the common mistake of confusing scarce things with non scarce ones.

"Ship, make me another copy of all my shit"

If the music and movie industry can...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then so should others, like Microsoft, be able to protect their properties.

TOR exit node anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could just be some poor slobs TOR exit node that got caught in the mix...

Re:TOR exit node anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely. There are thousands of Tor exit nodes, and the activations would have been spread around widely instead of all coming from a single Comcast IP.

If you're running a Tor exit node, Microsoft looking for you will be much less of a worry than clueless jackoffs from a bullshit federal law enforcement agencies looking for you, thinking they just had a slam dunk kiddy porn case fall into their laps.

Why is Microsoft going to court?

[CanadianMacFan]

They found the IP address of someone who is using the activation keys that are known to have been stolen. Why didn't they turn this information over to the police and let them go after the person? That is supposed to be their job, not Microsofts. At the very least the person would be someone of interest in the theft of the activation keys and I'm sure the police would like to look at the possible large scale piracy of software going on.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, unlike the poster above, you're confused about who enforces what.

You're talking criminal law. This is civil law.

For civil law, you hire your own lawyer to do the work. The police are only involved in rare incident.

Now if some criminal activity shows up later, that's another matter.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[jader3rd]

How competent are police forces in dealing with computer issues? None at all, the answer is none at all.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, unlike the poster above, you're confused about who enforces what.

You're talking criminal law. This is civil law.

...

From their court filing

36. On information and belief, Defendants have activated and attempted to active
copies of Windows 8, Windows 7, Office 2010, Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server
2008 with product keys that have the following characteristics:
                a. Product keys known to have been stolen from Microsoft’s supply chain;
                b. Product keys used more times than is authorized by the applicable software license;
                c. Product keys used by someone other than the authorized licensee; or
                d. Product keys activated outside of the region for which they were intended.

Ummm, see 36.a, the bit about 'stolen from Microsoft’s supply chain'.?
Someone allegedly 'stole' a bunch of Product Keys, either printed COAs or some electronic list, either way, the things were illegally obtained by persons unknown, real theft, the purview of criminal law.
Owning/purchasing one of these COAs?, depending on how anal you want to be, maybe Possession of stolen goods comes into force (again, purview of criminal law)
using one of these COAs to activate a product? hello civil law...
using one/many of these COAs to activate multiple products as a business? hello civil law with attitude..and hungry Microsoft attack lawyers..

(I can't believe I'm implicitly defending Microsoft's actions here..WTF has gone wrong with the universe this morning?)

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the value of the loss would have to be over $1000.00 in order for the police to care, and obviously, they aren't.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[Plus1Entropy]

Why didn't they turn this information over to the police and let them go after the person?

This comment has come up far too often in this thread. Intellectual Property disputes are self-enforced. If someone is infringing on your copyright, trademark, or patent, it is YOUR responsibility to pursue them in court. In fact, if you don't pursue people who infringe, you can actually lose the exclusive rights to your IP.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[wvmarle]

The alleged theft falls under criminal law.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't they turn this information over to the police and let them go after the person?

This comment has come up far too often in this thread. Intellectual Property disputes are self-enforced. If someone is infringing on your copyright, trademark, or patent, it is YOUR responsibility to pursue them in court. In fact, if you don't pursue people who infringe, you can actually lose the exclusive rights to your IP.

That's only trademarks that can be abandoned if not defended in court. Copyright is a totally different animal. Patents too.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone allegedly 'stole' a bunch of Product Keys

With all the comments about "copyright violation is not theft", you'd think people on Slashdot would get this right.

Theft is a crime, and it is investigated and pursued by the police.

Without a physical object, there is no theft. (Some gaps are covered by theft-of-service laws, but that applies only to actual labor and not to software products.)

Thus, this is all copyright and therefore all civil. Unless something else is going on here, there are no grounds for police involvement.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[CanadianMacFan]

No, this is not copyright theft. If I steal a license key and use it then I deprive you of the income from the legitimate sale of the key. It isn't pirating the software. People think they are getting a valid license where the money was paid to the manufacturer. If the person was pirating Windows and installing it then it would be a straight copyright issue. If this was a box of CDs with license keys that was stolen would still say that it's just a copyright issue?

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[CanadianMacFan]

Activating stolen keys isn't copyright infringement. They found a lead on a person who had stolen property which is a criminal offence. It wasn't a person who was pirating their software. Well, they may have done that too.

My point was that it could have been a lot easier for them to go to the police saying that they found a lead on the stolen software and let the police find the person. Then get their lawyers involved to find out what the results of the investigation were.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[david_thornley]

Almost. It isn't theft. It may well be criminal copyright violation, which is a thing in the US. It applies to people infringing copyrights commercially (which seems reasonable to me) and people torrenting copyrighted materials without permission (which doesn't).

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[david_thornley]

If you don't pursue trademark infringement promptly (as defined by the appropriate laws), you can lose your trademark. This doesn't apply to copyrights or patents, although by not pursuing infringement promptly you may be limited in the amount of damages you can recover.

BTW, I develop software for a living. You want real legal advice, find a lawyer.

Re:Why is Microsoft going to court?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which department in a standard police department would handle this? What tools do you think they have onhand to inventory software? Though it will eventually end up having a computer crime division, right now they can't handle it. They will wait quietly in the wings until it is done for them.

Zoning

[Master Moose]

"activated outside the region for which they were intended."

Most of the complaint sounds reasonably reasonable but this one really irks me.

Re:Zoning

[GuB-42]

When a company is located in some area and most activations come from all over the place, you know there is something fishy.
Google can block your account if it is accessed from unusual places, credit card companies do this too. If your request is legitimate it is just a matter of making a phone call or answering a few questions to unlock the situation. So why can't Microsoft do it too?

Re:Zoning

[Master Moose]

My dislike is the keys (when used legitimately) were intended for use within a specific zone.

I agree that seeing activations come from "all over the place" is a red flag in terms of misuse.

However, the act of selling something for use in a specified region is ruffling my feathers. Its like selling me a painting so long as I only hang it in the living room, where as I think it would look better in the hallway

M$ is going to be disappointed..

[FirstOne]

When they find out that Comcast static IP address(Houston, Tx) is a VPN node setup by some hacker, and the owner had no idea.

Or, it could be worse, and find out it's a Comcast public wifi IP addr that's been activating all those licenses.

.

Azure

[minijedimaster]

I'll laugh if they trace the IP back to their own Azure cloud system.

Re:i think one shouldn't be able to have it both w

[Anonymous Coward]

Another copy of all your shit?!? Man that would be one steaming, stinking pile of brown.

a publicity strategy

[swell]

Companies on the way up embrace the PR related to minor theft- it shows how popular the product is. Game of Thrones, the TV series, was not at all concerned with the massive pirating of their series; it was good publicity (PR) and they made more money than they could count.

Companies on the way down have a different perspective. It is theft, after all, and it can hurt. The PR that works for them is a very public warning that theft will not be tolerated. Spread the word and some users will go straight, others will reconsider or at least take better precautions when pirating.

Microsoft has been very lenient for a very long time. Their day may be winding down and it is wise to protect any remaining property of value while they look for a breakthrough miracle product.

Re:a publicity strategy

[thegarbz]

Not at all. Microsoft has always chased down commercial level piracy. I find it incredible that people are upset about this. This is business as usual for them.

Re:a publicity strategy

[Plus1Entropy]

Their day may be winding down...

As of Q4 2015, Microsoft is the third most valuable publicly traded company in the world. And since the beginning of last year, their worth has increased by over $100 billion.

Re:a publicity strategy

[AmiMoJo]

I think they realize that a lot of people who want to watch GoT either can't get it in their location or can't afford it. For someone in the UK who wanted to see it on first broadcast they would have to pay £250 (basic Sky package £20/month, minimum 12 months, setup fees), which is about $350 or "insane".

They have an on-demand service, they know Netflix exists and would happily do distribution for them... They just did the maths and decided that it was better to accept massive piracy than to sell the show to those people.

Re:a publicity strategy

[squiggleslash]

On the other hand, remember this is the same Microsoft that's been moving towards distributing Windows for free. Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 can be obtained, by manufacturers, for free if distributed with hardware that falls below a certain specification, and the Windows 10 free update seems to be geared towards a future model where Microsoft will make money from the Windows ecosystem, rather than from sales of Windows itself.

They haven't yet made it free for everyone, but it would terrify investors and screw with their finances if they suddenly cut off a working revenue stream. Instead, I think they're working on phasing it out.

Re:a publicity strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

FOSS people at their finest. They forget some companies actually sell software and have a right to defend that business model (in this case via legal means).

What about OS reinstalls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every now and then you have to reinstall MS Windows BECAUSE IT SUCKS. It gets bloated, infected, bugs out, whatever, and then you need a fresh damn re-install. Are you going to go after those people too?

Re:What about OS reinstalls?

[Trax3001BBS]

Every now and then you have to reinstall MS Windows BECAUSE IT SUCKS. It gets bloated, infected, bugs out, whatever, and then you need a fresh damn re-install. Are you going to go after those people too?

After losing a laptop to UEFI, I dug deeply into the Windows 7 TOS, not an easy task as there are so many different ones.

I purchased a Windows 7 Pro CD for my custom built system, I can re/install it on the same computer as many times as I want, the trick is not to upgrade it too much or it's considered a different system; see my post below "Bet few knew this..."

DBC vs iiNet

[Anonymous Coward]

They should look at the Dallas Buyers Club vs iiNet case in Australia to see what they'll be in for.

Bet few knew this...

[Trax3001BBS]

Something many aren't aware of is if you change or upgrade your system you are subtracting numbers from a total allowed before your OS is no longer activated or legal and must be reactivated or re-purchased.

I use to know them for NT but it's been awhile. A CPU change I know counts as 2 points, a trick was to claim you had a NIC card as it added 2 points to the total.

“Significant” hardware changes can also trigger the Windows activation process again. For example, if you swap out multiple components on your PC at the same time, you may have to go through the activation process. Microsoft hasn’t explained exactly which hardware changes will trigger this.
http://www.howtogeek.com/18284...

Re:Bet few knew this...

[thegarbz]

We all knew this but no one cared. Despite the fact that everyone thought the world was going to end when MS introduced the policy it ended up as a minor inconvenience at worst with MS support happy to activate licences on major hardware changes.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[freeze128]

I call bullshit. Windows NT doesn't have product activation. That was added in Windows XP, released in 2001.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit. Windows NT doesn't have product activation. That was added in Windows XP, released in 2001.

Otherwise known as Windows NT 5.1

Re:Bet few knew this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about a two decade old OS. It was released in 1993 - a period when the vast majority of people didn't have Internet access, and those that did were either through work or dial-up modems.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[Trax3001BBS]

I call bullshit. Windows NT doesn't have product activation. That was added in Windows XP, released in 2001.

Actually in a way there were two, NT or 5.1 was a demo that would only last 120 days.
There was hack for it that kept it from expiring, and one changing it to a workstation as well.

From the file:

This is the crack that allows the NT 4.0 Server / IIS 120 day demo CDs available
from www.microsoft.com/iis/ to be installed as Workstation rather than Server.
It also defeats the 120 day time-bomb.

This is the crack to disable the 120 day time-bomb in the NT 4.0 Server / IIS
120 day demo CD set being given away for free. You can order the CD set from
www.microsoft.com/iis/

Stray Cat released both of them.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[Trax3001BBS]

I call bullshit. Windows NT doesn't have product activation. That was added in Windows XP, released in 2001.

As knowing the points for NT your right I couldn't of, it's been awhile must of been W2k, I even spent time looking for those points as a NT note.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[Trax3001BBS]

You're talking about a two decade old OS. It was released in 1993 - a period when the vast majority of people didn't have Internet access, and those that did were either through work or dial-up modems.

I was in college and looking at putting up a mail server, Microsoft Exchange Server was worth looking at, it was 80mb and I was on a dial up, so I told them to send it to me as they offered, then downloaded it anyway.

2 weeks later I get a UPS hot rush it was a 4 CD set from Microsoft, it contained NT4 server, NT4 service pack 2, Outlook, and Microsoft Exchange Server.
I still have that 4 disk set.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit. Windows NT doesn't have product activation. That was added in Windows XP, released in 2001.

You call bullshit. I call you an asshole.

Bullshit implies that he's intentionally trying to deceive you. Has it crossed your puny mind that perhaps he just got mixed up on his versions? As you point out, the scheme he described was actually used, but it was 15 years ago. Does it not occur to you that, in an industry where a couple years is a pretty long time, someone easily might not remember the exact timing of something from 15 years ago?

Re:Bet few knew this...

[operagost]

Windows NT didn't require activation. In fact, I think XP was the first version that required it, and 2008 the first server version.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[dagoalieman]

FWIW- I worked with a small business server (I didn't choose the OS, I inherited.) around 2008. It got deactivated due to hardware change (HD failure, we upgraded RAM while at it before reinstalling new drive and restoring backup). SBS wouldn't activate. I called MS per phone number listed clearly on screen, they asked a few basic pieces of info to ascertain the original license and I assume find the reason for decline in their records. I told them the situation and basic, not precise, details of HW changes that occurred, they provided an activation over the code, no purchase necessary. Total time was 10 minutes on phone. They really weren't unreasonable at all about it, pretty solid customer experience with individual on phone not treating me like idiot or pirate or etc. I'm no fan of them, but I do give them props for how smoothly that process went.

If it's substantially the same hardware, even if their system flagged it, they're actually not out to gouge on this side of things. (I make no claims about gouging in any other part of the process here.) If someone were reactivating constantly due to reinstall/hardware/etc, they would have needed to call MS at some point I'm pretty sure, and would have explained what's going on. I'm sure that MS keeps records of that, and looked for such before pursuing in court.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[The-Ixian]

This is exactly the experience I have had since the XP days when they introduced the activation component.

I have never run into a case where I wasn't able to activate a copy of windows that I had a key for. Even if that key had already been used 20 or more times.

After the very first time or maybe second, you will no longer be able to activate over the web. You have to use the telephone.. but the process is very straight forward. They used to transfer you to a real person but these days the telephone process is completely automated and will only dump you onto a real person in some rare cases like TS user CAL re-activations.

Re:Bet few knew this...

[freeze128]

*NOBODY* calls it that.

Remote activation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bitch please. Somebody should have directed this motherfucker to the Daz loader. There is not need for a Microsoft server to ever enter into a Windows activation.

I have seen how Microsoft troubleshoots a problem.

[Blinkin1200]

This was probably just one guy, with one set of product keys, that had to keep reloading the software to try to fix a problem.

Outside the region?

[Anonymous Coward]

"... or activated outside the region for which they were intended."

So what you're telling me if I go on a trip and have to re-install when I'm there, I'm essentially committing a crime.

You know, I used to only dislike Microsoft only a little, but the new people running the show are serious douche-bags
that deserve to have their stock shares shorted.

Re:Outside the region?

[Anonymous Coward]

"... or activated outside the region for which they were intended."

So what you're telling me if I go on a trip and have to re-install when I'm there, I'm essentially committing a crime.

You know, I used to only dislike Microsoft only a little, but the new people running the show are serious douche-bags
that deserve to have their stock shares shorted.

I think this has more to do with the fact that they flood other markets with cheaper copies of their software, rather than 'let's piss off travellers' (though, this is Microsoft we're talking about here.....)

They can't have 'grey imports' undermining the 'cash cow' markets..(global economy, eh?...got to love it)

Object Permanence

[Etherwalk]

I thought it wasn't theft unless something physical was stolen. Did you mean to say copyright infringement?

Captcha: wrongly

It's always impressive when the trolls master object permanence.

https://www.google.com/search?...

what a great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now pirates will think again to get windows system. On the other hand, Linux costs nothing?! Welcome to liberation army people!

ARE we talking about mass theft?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was copies that others had made, so nothing was stolen. Did he break in to MS and steal copies, then stupidly send them out with his own activation code on the flimsies that now pretend to be manuals?

Indeed, how do we know that mass INFRINGEMENT went on? Does not your unique key get generated and sent OVER THE INTERNET to servers that make the right request for it, therefore anyone able to intercept can take the key.

And aren't there keygen programs out there that will randomly take guesses at a key, which can easily just guess one that exists on a user's actual purchase?

There's a fuckton of assumption going on here, all without a shred of evidence other than "outrage" that someone isn't making a mint off selling microsoft licenses...

Re:ARE we talking about mass theft?

[fbobraga]

I second this * "copyright infringement" != "theft" FYI

Re:ARE we talking about mass theft?

[Coren22]

In this case, yes, the license keys physically printed on the OEM stickers were stolen, so yes, something was physically stolen.

The product keys "known to have been stolen" from Microsoft's supply chain were used to activate Windows 8, Windows 7, Office 2010, Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2008.

There was actual real theft involved here.

Then it's a difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't go claiming it's like the police investigating criminal cases when you want MS to have police powers, then when it;s pointed out that it has to be the POLICE doing that, not a company or individual, go "But it's not a criminal case!".

If it's not a criminal case, they can't go fucking fishing.

Pass it on to the police to see if it's criminal and let THEM get the IP address from Comcast.

Or don't demand it of comcast because you're not the police and it's not a criminal offence.

PS they will claim it is criminal to get John Doe suits started and get the names, then drop the criminal charge once they have identified the Does because criminal copyright cases require more stringent proof, then go with the names got through criminal casework to do the civil case that doesn't require anywhere near the evidence, or that much of a hit if you lose.

So for TWO reasons they should fuck off with this pretend criminal investigation shit on Comcast.

1) It's not criminal
2) They have already in the past done the swap, claiming criminal to get evidence compelled then dropping it to do civil because that's easier

Re:Then it's a difference.

[Gadget_Guy]

You can't go claiming it's like the police investigating criminal cases when you want MS to have police powers, then when it;s pointed out that it has to be the POLICE doing that, not a company or individual, go "But it's not a criminal case!".

The police line was about the bank robbery analogy. The claim was that you wouldn't have a bank being able to get the records for all blue Fords if one was used in a robbery, when that is actually incorrect (although it is the police that would do that). Microsoft do not have police powers. You don't need police powers to instigate a civil court case, which is what this is.

If it's not a criminal case, they can't go fucking fishing.

You are right, they can't go fishing. If that is what Microsoft is doing then the court would reject the request. However, it is not fishing they have evidence that someone at a specific IP address was engaging in copyright infringement.

You keep claiming that Microsoft can't do what they are doing, and yet they are perfectly entitled to do so under the law. The courts are not stupid, and they would not allow a case to continue if Microsoft had no standing in this case. So bleat on about it as much as you like, but you are wrong.

Is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if the system activates knowing that it's a "stolen key" and does so anyway, long after it could have been configured not to do so, then the activation is valid.

Hell, allowing activation at all would be grant of license. Activation by the copyright owner is granting license to use the activated software.

If it were installed and only noticed in a raid that they were dupe or illicit keys, then this would be "copyright infringement". But if it's been activated, then Microsoft has said literally "This is fine, you are allowed to use this copy" when they activated it. End of discussion. You can't be infringing on copyrights by using something that the copyright owner allowed and granted use for.

Because its valid. Whislt your response isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not criminal, then they haven't the right to demand the IP address. If they're not the police, they haven't the right to demand the IP address. If copyright is self enforced (and why the fuck does it proclaim criminal proceedings at the beginning of the DVDs then?) then they have no more right to demand the IP Address of someone than I do.

The plain fact is this complaint comes up because it's valid. Your response isn't being accepted because it;s bollocks. At the very least, piracy is able to be a criminal case, and part of the whining about how MS are right here is that this is "clearly" a massive piracy event. If anything is criminal in copyright, that would be.

So pass it on to the police.

They ARE tasked after copyright infringements, as well as trademark infringements and several other types of "IP" breeches.

The reason why MS won't pass it on is because it then can't be tried under the laxer burden of proof of civil law, it would have to be done under criminal law. And MS want the ease of criminal law with the police power of criminal law.

Fuck that shit.

And that is why this comes up and your response isn't going to change that.

Re:Because its valid. Whislt your response isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not criminal, then they haven't the right to demand the IP address.If copyright is self enforced (and why the fuck does it proclaim criminal proceedings at the beginning of the DVDs then?) then they have no more right to demand the IP Address of someone than I do.

Wrong, they have the IP address. It's the information FROM the IP address that Comcast has that they want. Why do they want it? So they can take action against the perpetrator of a wrong against them.

That's something the court will grant to a civil party. You're confusing "self-enforced" as in hire your own lawyer to deal with the court, with "self-enforced" as in some weird situation where you can't go to court.

The plain fact is this complaint comes up because it's valid. Your response isn't being accepted because it;s bollocks. At the very least, piracy is able to be a criminal case, and part of the whining about how MS are right here is that this is "clearly" a massive piracy event. If anything is criminal in copyright, that would be.

That's nice. But the FBI or whoever doesn't want to be involved apparently, and Microsoft isn't required to rely solely on them in this instance, as they do have legal processes to which they have a right.

The reason why MS won't pass it on is because it then can't be tried under the laxer burden of proof of civil law, it would have to be done under criminal law. And MS want the ease of criminal law with the police power of criminal law.

Microsoft is more than capable of filing a civil judgment in addition to a criminal process, and it can be done in addition, see for example, Ron and Nicole's family's lawsuit (successful) against OJ Simpson.

But yes, Microsoft wants to use the court. That's their right. You can bitch all you want about it, but courts exist for a reason.

Re:Because its valid. Whislt your response isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not criminal, then they haven't the right to demand the IP address. If they're not the police, they haven't the right to demand the IP address. If copyright is self enforced (and why the fuck does it proclaim criminal proceedings at the beginning of the DVDs then?) then they have no more right to demand the IP Address of someone than I do.

Wrong. That's exactly what a subpoena is for. They are telling the court someone is violating their copyright and asking for the authority to find out who it is.

At the very least, piracy is able to be a criminal case, and part of the whining about how MS are right here is that this is "clearly" a massive piracy event. If anything is criminal in copyright, that would be.

Not entirely wrong.

Copyright violation---which is all they can allege right now---is a civil matter. If they find evidence that the copyrighted works were distributed for a profit, then it becomes a criminal matter.

The crime of piracy has a profit requirement that the informal use of the term lacks. Right now, they have evidence of copyright infringement and are pursuing the case through civil channels.

If criminal evidence comes to light as a result of this case, that evidence can be turned over to the police to open a criminal case.

Slashdotter Bot

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what the story is about, but since it has M$ in it, they must be wrong!

They have a valid license.

[Anonymous Coward]

And merely not using the "original media" to reinstall.

Either they purchased a license to use that version of Windows, or they purchased a single copy that they have all rights of ownership of that copy to.

YOU are trying to let them have it both ways.

A license when it comes to first sale doctrine and purchase rights, a purchase when it comes to installing and licensing.

Mind you, since the license isn't being sold, only the copy, the value of what this person is selling is zero. Even though it isn't known if it's actually this person doing it at all. But just presume that this is some evil moustache twirling villain stealing MS property. The property is valueless. Given away with every purchase of another product. Worth zip.

Even with statutory damages, yu can't go claiming damage because you can't sell something you give away free.

Re:They have a valid license.

[The-Ixian]

Mind you, since the license isn't being sold, only the copy, the value of what this person is selling is zero

Not true. There is the labor involved in developing the entire system, the cost of the CDN, the cost of the media the bits are resting on and the entire maintenance (update) apparatus, to name a few real world costs associated with software.

Are someone stealing ships...

[fbobraga]

yet today? * piracy is stealing ships, right?

Re:Are someone stealing ships...

[iggymanz]

correct, and is defined in the law as such. any lawyer who uses the term for software copyright violation is a hack and should not be taken seriously.

To those who would claim there is another definition in law, yes there is also "air piracy" which is taking over an aircraft.

Re:Are someone stealing ships...

[david_thornley]

"Piracy" has been used to mean large-scale copyright infringement for a long time. As a language traditionalist, I have to accept it on those grounds.

Re:Are someone stealing ships...

[iggymanz]

No, it is to be rejected on the grounds of entertainment cartel using marketing spin to make "copyright infringement" sound worse than it is. Examples include "theft" (no physical thing stolen) and "piracy" (no ships or aircraft raided or hijacked).

Don't pander to the power and money grubbing scum that use armed thugs of national police to kick in the doors of houses with kids torrenting Minions.

Re:Are someone stealing ships...

[david_thornley]

"Theft" is close enough to be confusing, is not traditionally used to refer to copyright infringement, and in short should not be used to describe it. "Piracy" is not close enough to be confusing in its primary meaning, has been used to refer to copyright infringement of some sort for over a century, and so "copyright infringement" is a reasonable secondary definition. (Moreover, "piracy" sounds romantic, as opposed to "the practice of murdering and robbing people on the high seas".) Since one of the main sites promoting copyright infringement calls itself "Pirate Bay", I'm fine with "piracy".

Re:Are someone stealing ships...

[iggymanz]

nonsense, legally inaccurate. Copyright infringement is not piracy, no matter what the entertainment cartel thugs say.

Re:Are someone stealing ships...

[david_thornley]

We're not talking legal language here. If we stuck strictly to the legal words, we'd find that nobody rapes anyone in Minnesota (although people do perform criminal sexual conduct).

I'm serious about 'piracy" having been used for copyright infringement for over a century. That sense of the word has been fairly rare until just recently, but it was used. I'm not a prescriptivist linguist, and that's good enough for me, regardless of what the entertainment cartel thugs say or do not say.

Re:Are someone stealing ships...

[iggymanz]

we are talking false "legal language" when the cartel thugs put the big letters FBI on the screen and then use legal language of things not remotely related to actual offenses that would be used in court

Show your citation for "piracy" being a century oldl excluding cartel thugs running their mouth

Re:I have seen how Microsoft troubleshoots a probl

[wvmarle]

Thousands of times?

Conflict of interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft should petition the court to order an investigation, but Microsoft itself should have no direct involvement in that action because malicious intent is clearly a potential issue. Once the information is obtained, Microsoft could manipulate their records in any way they wish in order to convince a court. It's clearly a conflict of interest.

Re:Conflict of interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the US civil court system simply does not work that way.

The cost and effort of investigation is on the complainant.

The court can order other parties to provide information or evidence if the judge believes they have it---this is what a subpoena does.

If the defendants believe Microsoft tampered with the evidence, they can subpoena their own copy from Comcast. Or they could ask the judge to summon a representative from Comcast who can testify that the records were altered.

Goddamn it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been trying to active my copy of windows for about 1000-2000 times.

Google: Make no evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft: Make more evil.

older versions

[sixsixtysix]

If they really cared, the previous version would be 50+% off and the version(s) before that would be free. The same goes for Adobe and their ilk. You don't HAVE to offer any support, but if you sold older versions cheaper and/or free, you would have much less piracy. You know they're not going to buy the new version, so why not take what you can get for the older stuff? I was gonna buy a legit copy of 7 for my next build, but it's the same price it's been since launch, and that is 2.1 versions ago. Fuck that.

Or Maybe Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Read that again...

used by "someone other than the authorized licensee," or were "activated outside the region for which they were intended.

If the issue at hand is actually legitimate Windows licenses being used outside of the region for which they were intended, then we have a first sale doctrine issue. This issue was already resolved in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and the publisher did not win.