If you steal Microsoft product keys, you will get arrested like Mr. Prabhu

Despite the fact that Microsoft is now in the hardware business, the company still makes the majority of its revenue through software sales and licensing. So, if you are stealing Microsoft's product keys and start re-selling them, don't be surprised if Microsoft sends the authorities after you.

That's what happened in India where Mr. Prabhu was doing exactly that, stealing Microsoft IP. Microsoft found that he was stealing product keys and trying to re-sell them which, as you can imagine, they were not pleased about. So, what did Microsoft do? They contacted the local authority, in this case, the Central Bureau of Investigation and alerted them to this activity.

According to the CBI:

A case has been registered on the allegations that Microsoft Volume License Service Centre (VLSC) agreements in respect of different overseas and Indian customers of the Microsoft were unauthorisedly being accessed (hacked) for the purpose of stealing product keys of different Microsoft products.

It goes without saying that, even though product keys are not physical goods, the software keys are highly valuable and by stealing them, it affects Microsoft's bottom line. This is not the first time that we have seen Microsoft go after those who are trying to undermine its sale of software with the prosecution of Alex Kibkalo back in March, being one of the latest examples.

Prabhu is currently awaiting trial in India and no word on what his possible sentence may be for the theft of the keys.

Source: FirstPost.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Rumored Motorola Moto X+1 makes its appearance

Next Story

Windows Phone 8.1 GDR 1 makes another appearance, one step closer to release

121 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Probably because he stole the keys, plus he was reselling them. Then that makes the customer angry when the key stops working that they paid for.

Interesting in India how a woman can be violently raped in public by multiple men and the police don't care, but someone's stealing from Microsoft??? Call in the army!

Why is this news again? I mean If I stole Intuit's QuickBooks Pro keys and resold them, wouldn't Intuit send the police after me also? If I sell them electronically or via slow mail, there is an exchange of goods taken place, therefore the term "theft" is the proper word to use, if the transaction was not approved by the owner of the keys. Microsoft is in its full right to go after the thief

People (who want to use an operating system illegally) with UEFI and GPT formatted drives (with which fake keys don't work), who don't want to or can't switch to outdated and problematic legacy formatting and booting methods.

MS owns the rights to license, the copyrights and the patents involved with their products.

However, MS will need a lot of luck to prove that they "own" serial codes. For example the code "09 F9.."

Does anyone actually pirate Windows anymore? It's 40 bucks at the store for 8.1 Pro Full (not upgrade). 30 on ebay if you find the right seller. (never buy it for over 60, especially those sellers trying to pull in 125 lol) It's like buying 8 burgers.

Store Windows 8.1 $119.19
Boxed (in my country) : $200

Btw, in most countries, what turns you into a legit user is not the license (that is usually a piece of paper without a legal base) but the invoice.

I've been curious about this. I read on reddit software selling. People are selling windows 8.1 and 8.1 pro keys for $10-$15. They're MSDN KEYS Stated "never expire".

I thought about this until I found the trick here by war wagon. Install using generic key then changing the key to my actual key. Since I have an 8.0 and want to install 8.1.

What about those people that buy them? Will they randomly just pop up and say "sorry, not genuine"?

I know people exchanging Windows 7 and 8 set-ups on USB drives. They just install it, the "Your copy of Windows is not genuine" pops up after a few weeks, and then they just closer that box (or the equivalent option for that) and continue working. Microsoft seriously needs to try harder to stop mass piracy of Windows. Same is the case with MOST computer repair shops in India, they just load pirated copies of Enterprise or Pro/Ultimate versions of Office and Windows in the computers that have software problems. How I wish someone took them to court and people actually realized that software also has years of work behind it and should be paid for.

I have access to thousands of product keys and I have never been tempted to give any of it away or sell it. Its just wrong and people should invest in a license. Geez, when you think about the fact that you can buy a copy of Windows and run it for 10 years without upgrading to a new release in between, its the least you can do.

If I want to run Windows 7 in a VM on my Windows 7 PC (for personal/hobbyist reasons), am I (legally) required to purchase a second Windows 7 license? So far I've just been setting up a Windows 7 VM as required and using it without activation (usually for only a few days, for testing things [that could be harmful to the host OS]).

I paid over $300 for Vista and ended up going back to XP; how about a trade-in deal Microsoft? :(

I actually got a refund for Windows 7 when I bought it at Best Buy. Tried it, never realized the $300 price tag was only good for ONE computer, filed a formal complaint, put Ubuntu on both my computers and got a refund of the entire price including taxes from Microsoft. Just write their customer satisfaction thing within 30 days of purchase.

68k said,
If I want to run Windows 7 in a VM on my Windows 7 PC (for personal/hobbyist reasons), am I (legally) required to purchase a second Windows 7 license? So far I've just been setting up a Windows 7 VM as required and using it without activation (usually for only a few days, for testing things [that could be harmful to the host OS]).

I paid over $300 for Vista and ended up going back to XP; how about a trade-in deal Microsoft? :(

Yes. A license is good for *ONE* PC.

Gerowen said,
I actually got a refund for Windows 7 when I bought it at Best Buy. Tried it, never realized the $300 price tag was only good for ONE computer, filed a formal complaint, put Ubuntu on both my computers and got a refund of the entire price including taxes from Microsoft. Just write their customer satisfaction thing within 30 days of purchase.

Should have bought the family pack.

68k said,
If I want to run Windows 7 in a VM on my Windows 7 PC ... for only a few days, for testing things ...

Go to https://modern.ie/ and download a Windows image from Microsoft. Their license allows you to use it for up to 90 days for testing purposes (non-commercial, non-production) and you can't activate it. They have images for Hyper-V, Virtual PC, VirtualBox and VMware.

Dot Matrix said,

Should have bought the family pack.

True, but I figure for $300 I should be able to do whatever in the world I want with it. You don't buy a car and then let the manufacturer tell you where you can and cannot drive it or charge you extra money to be allowed to put people in the back seat.

Gerowen said,

True, but I figure for $300 I should be able to do whatever in the world I want with it. You don't buy a car and then let the manufacturer tell you where you can and cannot drive it or charge you extra money to be allowed to put people in the back seat.

But when you buy a license, you're not buying the OS. Microsoft is licensing the OS for you to use. In effect, you are leasing the OS, and just like a leased car, Microsoft can set the terms and conditions.

Microsoft are making their money off the product key, not the bits for the software. They'll happily send you the ISOs.

It's news because someone got sent to jail for major copyright infringement related to the most "pirated" software product in the world. That hardly ever happens.

Brad Sams
Despite the fact that Microsoft is now in the hardware business

Microsoft's been in hardware business since 1982. Maybe you meant to say mobile phone business.

eddman said,

Microsoft's been in hardware business since 1982. Maybe you meant to say mobile phone business.

And MS has been in the mobile phone business for a long while, even older than Apple

Unlike Windows 95, which most likely can't run your software anymore, Office 97 can still be used to make many kinds of common documents, easily, unless you "got with the times" and started using all the over-stylized nonsense that's too common nowadays.

LibreOffice sucks even more than Office 97 at combining multiple languages, and if you care about backwards compatibility and compatibility with Office, documents made with Office 97 are parsed perfectly by the current Office version which is over a decade and a half newer.

It's definitely not my "concern", it's just a plain fact which is totally relevant because your customers are far from representative of the total percentage of users of such software.

It's not relevant to the topic, which is A) how easy it is to get a key for old MS products, and B) that people can easily create common documents using free software, not stolen software.

The total percentage of said users is higher than you might think once you look at it on a global scale - not referring just to my customers.

The Joe average user would be satisfied without having to cough up for the full MS Office package. Concede here you can get MS Office for free in certain ways (legally), which I would still put with the "free alternatives" category.

Your first reply was about the fact that LibreOffice ("free software") can also be used to create most types of documents easily, so that's your topic. I replied that there is a major difference between LibreOffice and Office as far as backwards compatibility goes (MUCH worse with LibreOffice, even within the same "platform") as well as compatibility with Office, which is mandatory (not "useful" or "essential") for users in businesses as well as schools (from primary to academia), where you simply can't tolerate the many discrepancies that are very likely with documents not created by Office. The percentage of users who don't require proper compatibility with Office is simply negligible compared to the rest, and that's a fact.

No, the topic was about the Windows 95 (and subsequently office) key being easy to obtain/guess.

There are some differences in regards to compatibility with Office suites, it varies depending on which version you are going between (but this isn't the topic for that).

As for the percentage of users who don't require proper compatibility, well... I'd like to see some evidence of the claim. My experience has been the opposite of what you've mentioned - again, that's not really intended for this discussion, so feel free to send me a message if you want to follow up on it.

Raa said,
No, the topic was about the Windows 95 (and subsequently office) key being easy to obtain/guess.

I understand why you might get confused with all the topics, but no, that wasn't the topic at all :), reread the thread's first posts.

jiulius said,
Office 97 was so simple 1-111111

Here it is, quoted for you. I can see why you might get confused though. :)

Good. They should arrest those idiots that keep calling about malware while they're at it, too. India is another one of those countries that I have yet to understand why we do business with them.

Dot Matrix said,
India is another one of those countries that I have yet to understand why we do business with them.

Possibly the most retarded comment I've ever read on Neowin. India has a LOT to offer. Pick up a book and read...

So in your world, if someone has an opinion that differs from yours, their opinion is retarded? There are, in fact, ways to have an adult conversation without throwing insults around, sir/madam. And believe it or not, other people's viewpoints can be as valid as yours.

Dot Matrix said,
Good. They should arrest those idiots that keep calling about malware while they're at it, too. India is another one of those countries that I have yet to understand why we do business with them.

India is a proud supporter of Metro and of Windows Phone. You shouldn't be so hateful.

Zlain said,

Possibly the most retarded comment I've ever read on Neowin. India has a LOT to offer. Pick up a book and read...

India has a lot to offer, yes, but so do Russia and China. Doesn't mean our economies are compatible with each other.

COKid said,
So in your world, if someone has an opinion that differs from yours, their opinion is retarded? There are, in fact, ways to have an adult conversation without throwing insults around, sir/madam. And believe it or not, other people's viewpoints can be as valid as yours.

Except in this case it's not valid, and kinda racist.

Dot Matrix said,
India is another one of those countries that I have yet to understand why we do business with them.

There's approximately 1,270,000,000 reasons to do business with India.

Doesn't mean our economies are compatible with each other.

Compatible in what way? India exports things to other countries and imports things from other countries. Seems functionally and broadly compatible to me.

zhangm said,

Compatible in what way? India exports things to other countries and imports things from other countries. Seems functionally and broadly compatible to me.

While there is legitimate Indian businesses, I've discovered some others to be less than trustworthy and shady. Parts of the country are still very much third world.

Dot Matrix said,
India is another one of those countries that I have yet to understand why we do business with them.

That is an extremely ignorant thing to say and you should probably die. I'm not even joking.

Dot Matrix said,
Good. They should arrest those idiots that keep calling about malware while they're at it, too. India is another one of those countries that I have yet to understand why we do business with them.
you mean your company?

Haters gonna hate, I guess, but it's my viewpoint. India's got a lot of things going for it, but it also has a lot of business practices to clean up.

Dot Matrix said,

While there is legitimate Indian businesses, I've discovered some others to be less than trustworthy and shady. Parts of the country are still very much third world.


So just like the good ol' US of A? (or virtually every other country)

Dot Matrix said,
Good. They should arrest those idiots that keep calling about malware while they're at it, too. India is another one of those countries that I have yet to understand why we do business with them.

India is a huge and fast growing economy. To leave it out as a viable business partner is to threaten ones own economy.
Yes, it can get annoying when you get that millionth phone call that's a scam but then every country in the world has its scammers and we can;t stop trading with all of them on the grounds that they may have a criminal element within their borders. That's just ridiculous.

Dot Matrix said,

While there is legitimate Indian businesses, I've discovered some others to be less than trustworthy and shady. Parts of the country are still very much third world.


As if everyone in US/UK/etc are trustworthy and not shady. Well played.

Zlain said,

Possibly the most retarded comment I've ever read on Neowin. India has a LOT to offer. Pick up a book and read...

Don't feed the troll buddy!

Lord Method Man said,
India is nice since we can exploit them for cheap labor.

At the expense of customer frustration due to the language barrier.

This copy of Windows is not genuine...
Validate your copy of Windows
-Windows Genuine Advantage

Or
you may be a victim of software counterfeiting

Remember those days?

ians18 said,
This copy of Windows is not genuine...
Validate your copy of Windows
-Windows Genuine Advantage

Or
you may be a victim of software counterfeiting

Remember those days?

You mean you didn't know about the genuine advantage validation packs?

Studio384 said,
Since the product key won't be able to activate another installation, this is more theft than piracy.

volume keys can potential used for hundreds if not thousands of computers

watsxn said,

volume keys can potential used for hundreds if not thousands of computers

Well I guess its all good then.

Enron said,
It "removes" the original product key. It is theft.

Nope, it's copyright infringement. The owner still has proof of purchase with which to confirm the validity of their license and seek a solution (i.e. another key) from Microsoft. The product key is not the license itself (which is what was purchased), but rather just a string of characters.

For it to be theft a physical product would have to be unlawfully taken from it's owner.

Athernar said,

Nope, it's copyright infringement. The owner still has proof of purchase with which to confirm the validity of their license and seek a solution (i.e. another key) from Microsoft. The product key is not the license itself (which is what was purchased), but rather just a string of characters.

For it to be theft a physical product would have to be unlawfully taken from it's owner.


Even ideas can be stolen, its theft

Athernar said,

No, it's copyright infringement.

The use of "theft" in this case is nothing more than a pejorative and groups like the MPAA have been told by court judges they are not allowed to use such terminology: https://www.techdirt.com/artic...-during-hotfile-trial.shtml

Now, moving on.

That source isn't really relevant.
Let's say you download a movie legally from Disney website and then distribute it. The movie file you're distributing is the same for everyone who downloads from Disney. Disney would have no idea who actually bought the video, so you can't really compare it to a physical product(like a bike). Sharing this file would be copyright infringement.

A product key, even though it's not the actually the license, but just a "string of characters" that's used to reference it, it still is unique to ONE customer. You can identify which company the product key belongs too, which makes it similar to a physical item(like a bike that an owner will be able to identify). Selling this key is distribution of stolen goods = theft.

Well, actually. The act of copying and distributing the keys is copy right infringement.

Keys getting locked out after being used is a artificial mechanism that is used to create artificial scarcity in the software world.

Although on the face of it, it may look like theft, it is artificial theft. This is because it is an artificial mechanism that is giving it the appearance of theft.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Actually, it's copyright infringement.

Making illegal copies of license keys is not copyright infringement. The license is a legal contract which allows you to use a product that is covered by copyright. The key is part of the mechanism to authenticate yourself as the owner of such a license. So by copying the key you have not actually infringed upon any copyright. It's closer to fraud.

Lamp Post said,

So by copying the key you have not actually infringed upon any copyright. It's closer to fraud.

I think fraud would apply more to someone using a keygen. kind of like forging a signature. But if there are digital keys that all ready existed, and they were copied off a server and distributed. then the keys would be Microsoft IP, and distributing them without Microsofts permission would be copyright infringement.

Ad Man Gamer said,

I think fraud would apply more to someone using a keygen. kind of like forging a signature. But if there are digital keys that all ready existed, and they were copied off a server and distributed. then the keys would be Microsoft IP, and distributing them without Microsofts permission would be copyright infringement.


Except that the key or license itself is not an IP.

Ah but it is. You see this will fall into the category of an illegal number, things like AACS encryption keys for DVD's and what not. The idea is that only certain individuals have the right to know this string in order to gain access to the underline content, and this is protected under copyright law.

Communicating this string is considered copyright circumvention, and falls into being a copyright infringement topic. You also have to remember that software licensing is how copyright is handled in the software industry.

Ad Man Gamer said,
Ah but it is. You see this will fall into the category of an illegal number, things like AACS encryption keys for DVD's and what not. The idea is that only certain individuals have the right to know this string in order to gain access to the underline content, and this is protected under copyright law.

Communicating this string is considered copyright circumvention, and falls into being a copyright infringement topic. You also have to remember that software licensing is how copyright is handled in the software industry.


It is true that by communicating the key, you are liable to charges for circumvention of copyright protection systems. Which I guess falls under copyright infringement.

Well played, sir. :)

Gotenks98 said,
So what would one of those KMS activator thingies be called then if your using it illegally? Would that be either of those?

It all falls into the category of copy protection circumvention.

Graimer said,

That source isn't really relevant.
Let's say you download a movie legally from Disney website and then distribute it. The movie file you're distributing is the same for everyone who downloads from Disney. Disney would have no idea who actually bought the video, so you can't really compare it to a physical product(like a bike). Sharing this file would be copyright infringement.

A product key, even though it's not the actually the license, but just a "string of characters" that's used to reference it, it still is unique to ONE customer. You can identify which company the product key belongs too, which makes it similar to a physical item(like a bike that an owner will be able to identify). Selling this key is distribution of stolen goods = theft.

You killed your attempted argument when you acknowledged the key was not the license itself. If the licenseholder's key becomes faulty, they can get a new one.

You have no argument, the law is quite clear on this issue.

MikeChipshop said,

It's theft, now move on.

This comment is a fine example how vapid the "it's theft!11" side are. Don't bring an argument to the table, just stamp your foot like a child and hope for the best.

Athernar said,

You killed your attempted argument when you acknowledged the key was not the license itself. If the licenseholder's key becomes faulty, they can get a new one.

You have no argument, the law is quite clear on this issue.

This comment is a fine example how vapid the "it's theft!11" side are. Don't bring an argument to the table, just stamp your foot like a child and hope for the best.


Are you saying its not theft? Whatever you label it, it is theft.

Stealing keys is...wait for it...wait for it...stealing.

Is the key copyrighted or is the material it unlocks copyrighted?

You are splitting hairs by defining what kind of theft it is.

Athernar said,
You killed your attempted argument when you acknowledged the key was not the license itself. If the licenseholder's key becomes faulty, they can get a new one.

You have no argument, the law is quite clear on this issue.

Exactly. It isn't theft because the original owner isn't deprived of anything.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Exactly. It isn't theft because the original owner isn't deprived of anything.

Again with the hair splitting.

Taking something which does not rightfully belong to you is theft. Copyright Infringement is a form of theft.

adrynalyne said,

Are you saying its not theft? Whatever you label it, it is theft.

Stealing keys is...wait for it...wait for it...stealing.

Is the key copyrighted or is the material it unlocks copyrighted?

You are splitting hairs by defining what kind of theft it is.

Both are copyrighted, or at least Microsoft would claim that the key is also copyrighted as otherwise they'd have no legal grounds to prevent redistribution of keys and key generators.

It's not hair splitting at all really. If anything it's rather moronic to keep calling it stealing in the same way that trying to redefine an assault as a murder even when the victim is still alive - would be moronic.

But please, let's not let reason and facts get in the way of having a nice toddler-esque stomp around the comments, scrunching our faces up and screaming that it's theft over and over again.

Athernar said,

Both are copyrighted, or at least Microsoft would claim that the key is also copyrighted as otherwise they'd have no legal grounds to prevent redistribution of keys and key generators.

It's not hair splitting at all really. If anything it's rather moronic to keep calling it stealing in the same way that trying to redefine an assault as a murder even when the victim is still alive - would be moronic.

But please, let's not let reason and facts get in the way of having a nice toddler-esque stomp around the comments, scrunching our faces up and screaming that it's theft over and over again.

Unless there are voices in your head are screaming it, I don't see any screaming or foot stomping.


There is no reason or fact here anyway. It is opinion. Even the FBI sees it as theft.

adrynalyne said,

You are splitting hairs by defining what kind of theft it is.

Copyright infringement and theft is not the same. Different laws applies for charges for copyright infringement and charges for theft. So splitting hairs is necessary on this matter.

Lamp Post said,

Copyright infringement and theft is not the same. Different laws applies for charges for copyright infringement and charges for theft. So splitting hairs is necessary on this matter.

Different types of theft have different consequences. Got it.

adrynalyne said,

Unless there are voices in your head are screaming it, I don't see any screaming or foot stomping.


There is no reason or fact here anyway. It is opinion. Even the FBI sees it as theft.

Oh really?

adrynalyne said,

No it isnt.

Seems almost exactly like the sort of response a child would give.

But alas, unfortunately for you it's a rather well-established fact that the crime here is copyright infringement. You're just too obstinate to admit you're wrong.

Please feel free to provide a legal precedent that proves me wrong, but I think we both know you can't do that. ;)

Athernar said,

Oh really?


Seems almost exactly like the sort of response a child would give.

But alas, unfortunately for you it's a rather well-established fact that the crime here is copyright infringement. You're just too obstinate to admit you're wrong.

Please feel free to provide a legal precedent that proves me wrong, but I think we both know you can't do that. ;)

That was childish? LOL.


Only on neowin...

I'm not going to waste my time looking for precedents, but I can show you where the FBI calls it theft. So it obviously isn't as clearcut as you want it to be.

adrynalyne said,
Again with the hair splitting.
It's not "hair splitting" - it's the legal definition of theft. You are completely and utterly wrong.

Theft: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

theyarecomingforyou said,
It's not "hair splitting" - it's the legal definition of theft. You are completely and utterly wrong.

Theft: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

Even the FBI doesn't separate Copyright Infringement from theft. You are absolutely splitting hairs. If you take something that is not yours, it is theft, period.

adrynalyne said,
Even the FBI doesn't separate Copyright Infringement from theft. You are absolutely splitting hairs. If you take something that is not yours, it is theft, period.
I gave you the legal definition of theft. If you choose to reject it then you're clearly being unreasonable.

adrynalyne said,

I'm not going to waste my time looking for precedents, but I can show you where the FBI calls it theft. So it obviously isn't as clearcut as you want it to be.

Not going to waste your time because you know you're wrong, am I right? :)

So until such time as the FBI become the judicial branch, they can call it whatever they want - they'd still be as wrong as you are.

theyarecomingforyou said,
I gave you the legal definition of theft. If you choose to reject it then you're clearly being unreasonable.

Interesting. Called unreasonable and childish on the same day (and topic) for civilly disagreeing.

Good ol' neowin....

Was something taken that wasn't theirs to take? So something was stolen then. Theft of intellectual property = copyright infringement.

Athernar said,

Not going to waste your time because you know you're wrong, am I right? :)

So until such time as the FBI become the judicial branch, they can call it whatever they want - they'd still be as wrong as you are.

And you talk of me making childish comments. How hypocritical of you.

adrynalyne said,

And you talk of me making childish comments. How hypocritical of you.

My comment would have to be childish to be hypocritical, which it is not.

Your comments however which often bring no argument to the table, or dodge the point when you have no response (like you did with this post) however are indeed, very childish.

The mature course of action would be to either concede that you're wrong, or bow out of the discussion until such time as you have a cohesive counter-argument. But again, we both know you're not going to do that.

Athernar said,

My comment would have to be childish to be hypocritical, which it is not.

Your comments however which often bring no argument to the table, or dodge the point when you have no response (like you did with this post) however are indeed, very childish.

The mature course of action would be to either concede that you're wrong, or bow out of the discussion until such time as you have a cohesive counter-argument. But again, we both know you're not going to do that.

I will bow out, but only because you have now shown your own childish nature while accusing others who disagree with you as being childish. Well done, sir.

adrynalyne said,
Interesting. Called unreasonable and childish on the same day (and topic) for civilly disagreeing.
I called you unreasonable because you ignored the legal and dictionary definitions of the term 'theft', while offering nothing to substantiate your claim. You are unwilling to see reason, hence you are unreasonable.

Studio384 said,
Since the product key won't be able to activate another installation, this is more theft than piracy.

That is why i use CRACKs. I stole nothing . Happy?

adrynalyne said,

Even the FBI doesn't separate Copyright Infringement from theft. You are absolutely splitting hairs. If you take something that is not yours, it is theft, period.


It doesn't matter what the FBI might mean. They do not define the law. If they do not separate between copyright infringement and theft, that just means they are ignoring the law (which should raise concern among US citizens).

adrynalyne said,

Even the FBI doesn't separate Copyright Infringement from theft. You are absolutely splitting hairs. If you take something that is not yours, it is theft, period.

That's odd. last time I read an FBI warning on a movie, it read like this word for word

FBI said,

FBI WARNING

Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, or video discs. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

Nope. I see no words that account to theft in that statement.

Athernar said,

This comment is a fine example how vapid the "it's theft!11" side are. Don't bring an argument to the table, just stamp your foot like a child and hope for the best.

And you sir, are a perfect example of those that want to be right so desperately that they'll take to the internet to defend their honour whilst at the same time being so.damn.wrong.always.

The "Theft" of a key, removes it from use by other parties. Even volume licence keys have a limit and illegal use removes this use, making it theft, plain and simple.

MikeChipshop said,
The "Theft" of a key, removes it from use by other parties. Even volume licence keys have a limit and illegal use removes this use, making it theft, plain and simple.
Gaining access to a key is not theft, as the owner still has access to it; neither is using the key theft, as the legitimate owner is not denied the ability to use the software they paid for. You are wrong and we have demonstrated that to you.

MikeChipshop said,

And you sir, are a perfect example of those that want to be right so desperately that they'll take to the internet to defend their honour whilst at the same time being so.damn.wrong.always.

The "Theft" of a key, removes it from use by other parties. Even volume licence keys have a limit and illegal use removes this use, making it theft, plain and simple.

Pahahaha, I have never see such an amazing case of projection before in my life.

I don't want or need to be right, because I am right and the definition of the law supports that position. You're just too stubborn and too ignorant to accept it.

Now please, move along before you humiliate yourself further.

MikeChipshop said,

And you sir, are a perfect example of those that want to be right so desperately that they'll take to the internet to defend their honour whilst at the same time being so.damn.wrong.always.

The "Theft" of a key, removes it from use by other parties. Even volume licence keys have a limit and illegal use removes this use, making it theft, plain and simple.


The customer who buys a volume license doesn't own the key. Also, the key is not the license. The key is just a means to claim the activations he is entitled to in the license agreement.

If that key is copied and used by a third party, it just means that the third party has illegally activated copies of the software. Which makes this third party liable to charges of copyright infringement (and possibly other criminal offenses depending on how they obtained the key).

However, illegally using that key does not count towards the license, because the third party is not a part of the license agreement. Which means that the customer is still entitled to the same amount of activations as before.

All this means the customer has not been deprived of anything, and hence it cannot fall under the lawful definition of theft.