HOLY SH*T!! My XP key is on the internet!!!

[blakeatwork]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: xxAgentCowxx

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: xxAgentCowxx

Originally posted by: fivespeed5
"screwing around" eh? THIEF!

I was looking for an activation crack and D/Led a zip with a bunch of tools.

I dont consider modifying the stuff i paid for as stealing.

You paid for the right to use it. Not the actual software. Thus, modifying it is not legal. You might as well just pirate the software if you're going to bypass the activation and such.

But, but, he doesn't likex0r t3h @ct1v4ti0n! iTz n07 L33t 3nUph Ph0r h1m n M$ iZ t3h $pY0rZx0Rz!

- M4H

if i wanted to be L33t I wouldnt be running winXP home in the first place now would I?

411 73h 1337 h4x0rs u53 73h X9 h0m3!

leet makes my eyes bleed.... and Baby Jesus cry....

<---eyetwitch commencing...

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: xxAgentCowxx

Originally posted by: fivespeed5
"screwing around" eh? THIEF!

I was looking for an activation crack and D/Led a zip with a bunch of tools.

I dont consider modifying the stuff i paid for as stealing.

You paid for the right to use it. Not the actual software. Thus, modifying it is not legal. You might as well just pirate the software if you're going to bypass the activation and such.

How do you put "paying for something, then modifying it to suit you" on the same plane as stealing it? In one instance, someone puts out a product, you compensate them for your using it, and then you modify it to your tastes. In the second case, you use it without compensating them for it. I think there is a big difference between the two.

Thats like saying using a No-CD crack on a game you bought is as bad as stealing it. Ditto with making a copy (for most games) and using that, while keeping the original tucked in a CD case so it doesnt get scratched.

Rationalize it however you want. Either way you are breaking the licence agreement.

 

[Frosty3799]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: xxAgentCowxx

Originally posted by: fivespeed5
"screwing around" eh? THIEF!

I was looking for an activation crack and D/Led a zip with a bunch of tools.

I dont consider modifying the stuff i paid for as stealing.

You paid for the right to use it. Not the actual software. Thus, modifying it is not legal. You might as well just pirate the software if you're going to bypass the activation and such.

How do you put "paying for something, then modifying it to suit you" on the same plane as stealing it? In one instance, someone puts out a product, you compensate them for your using it, and then you modify it to your tastes. In the second case, you use it without compensating them for it. I think there is a big difference between the two.

Thats like saying using a No-CD crack on a game you bought is as bad as stealing it. Ditto with making a copy (for most games) and using that, while keeping the original tucked in a CD case so it doesnt get scratched.

Rationalize it however you want. Either way you are breaking the licence agreement.

So you are one of those people who think an individual shouldn't even make a copy of their own music CD to keep in their car and get beat up while their original stays nice and pretty... So lets say you did keep an original CD in your car, and it accidentally got damaged/scratched to the point it skips or doesn't play at all. Do you believe that someone should be required to pay for this CD again?

 

[bandana163]

Corporate XP keys are the ones a lot of pirated copies use. That might be why you are seeing your work computer's key on the net. Your key doesn't begin with FCKGW, does it?
When you install SP1, it will disable any further windows update attempts or so in case a non-legit copy is detected. This was a biig story not so long ago.
There is, as always a backdoor (not really, it involves roughly 80 IQ on one side an a Microsoft tool on the other), though.
Shouldn't you be working instead of playing with keygens?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MookowHow do you put "paying for something, then modifying it to suit you" on the same plane as stealing it? In one instance, someone puts out a product, you compensate them for your using it, and then you modify it to your tastes. In the second case, you use it without compensating them for it. I think there is a big difference between the two.

Thats like saying using a No-CD crack on a game you bought is as bad as stealing it. Ditto with making a copy (for most games) and using that, while keeping the original tucked in a CD case so it doesnt get scratched.

Rationalize it however you want. Either way you are breaking the licence agreement.

Good job defending your argument that making a back-up copy is equivalent to theft.

In any event, I have no moral/ethical problems with breaking the EULA in this manner. I'm buying the ability to use the software, not just the disc. So if I decide to make a copy so that I can continue to use the software, no matter what my roommates/little brother/pets do to the CD to damage it... I still dont see how anyone is being hurt in any manner.

 

[Amorphus]

M4H seems to have lost his funniness....

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MookowHow do you put "paying for something, then modifying it to suit you" on the same plane as stealing it? In one instance, someone puts out a product, you compensate them for your using it, and then you modify it to your tastes. In the second case, you use it without compensating them for it. I think there is a big difference between the two.

Thats like saying using a No-CD crack on a game you bought is as bad as stealing it. Ditto with making a copy (for most games) and using that, while keeping the original tucked in a CD case so it doesnt get scratched.

Rationalize it however you want. Either way you are breaking the licence agreement.

Good job defending your argument that making a back-up copy is equivalent to theft.

In any event, I have no moral/ethical problems with breaking the EULA in this manner. I'm buying the ability to use the software, not just the disc. So if I decide to make a copy so that I can continue to use the software, no matter what my roommates/little brother/pets do to the CD to damage it... I still dont see how anyone is being hurt in any manner.

How can you interpret what I said to include making a copy of software you already own? This guy is not talking about that. He is talking about modifying software he owned to circumvent activation. This is a violation of the license agreement. Now, if you don't think this is true, let me know. Don't start talking about copying disks and stuff and then think that my statements cover that as well. Quit twisting my words and look at the context that I said it.

 

[DrPizza]

1. I don't find it that far-fetched that you'd recognize your license if it was in front of you (I think I'd recognize my license, but I've had a long time to remember it - 98SE, with many many reinstalls since the beginning. - I've never seen a reason to upgrade the computer with it to XP. But, I'll bet if it was really close to mine, I might think it was mine if I didn't have the two together to compare)

2. How on earth did your license get out? Did your computer get hacked? Or did someone from Gateway copy it and distribute it to friends?

 

[bsmithy]

maybe he used a real keygen then stuck 3 of those keys into his proggy

 

[Zugzwang152]

last time i checked, cycling through a keygen crack isn't illegal, as long as you don't use it to modify the software. someone PM me if I'm wrong, I'm not sifting through this garbage again.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MookowHow do you put "paying for something, then modifying it to suit you" on the same plane as stealing it? In one instance, someone puts out a product, you compensate them for your using it, and then you modify it to your tastes. In the second case, you use it without compensating them for it. I think there is a big difference between the two.

Thats like saying using a No-CD crack on a game you bought is as bad as stealing it. Ditto with making a copy (for most games) and using that, while keeping the original tucked in a CD case so it doesnt get scratched.

Rationalize it however you want. Either way you are breaking the licence agreement.

Good job defending your argument that making a back-up copy is equivalent to theft.

In any event, I have no moral/ethical problems with breaking the EULA in this manner. I'm buying the ability to use the software, not just the disc. So if I decide to make a copy so that I can continue to use the software, no matter what my roommates/little brother/pets do to the CD to damage it... I still dont see how anyone is being hurt in any manner.

How can you interpret what I said to include making a copy of software you already own? This guy is not talking about that. He is talking about modifying software he owned to circumvent activation. This is a violation of the license agreement. Now, if you don't think this is true, let me know. Don't start talking about copying disks and stuff and then think that my statements cover that as well. Quit twisting my words and look at the context that I said it.

No-CD crack isnt modifying software?

Besides, while I may be wrong, I thought most EULA agreements prohibit copying of the disks. And if it isnt, a lot of CDs have copy protection, and circumventing that goes against the DMCA. Which is roughly equivalent to going against the EULA.

Again, how does modifying your software in violation fo the liscense (but not in order to use more liscenses than you have) become equivalent to stealing the software?

 

[xxAgentCowxx]

Originally posted by: rh71
I don't think keygens work with a local database of any kind... they have keys based on an algorithm. That's as far as I understood it.

"cracker" groups put out fake keygens that only cycle thru a few keys.


im guessing that someone used the blue line gen and came up with that, because theres no way someone else got it from me.

 

[DigDug]

wait I found MY key too! On google!

It's FCKGW-RHQQ2...

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MookowHow do you put "paying for something, then modifying it to suit you" on the same plane as stealing it? In one instance, someone puts out a product, you compensate them for your using it, and then you modify it to your tastes. In the second case, you use it without compensating them for it. I think there is a big difference between the two.

Thats like saying using a No-CD crack on a game you bought is as bad as stealing it. Ditto with making a copy (for most games) and using that, while keeping the original tucked in a CD case so it doesnt get scratched.

Rationalize it however you want. Either way you are breaking the licence agreement.

Good job defending your argument that making a back-up copy is equivalent to theft.

In any event, I have no moral/ethical problems with breaking the EULA in this manner. I'm buying the ability to use the software, not just the disc. So if I decide to make a copy so that I can continue to use the software, no matter what my roommates/little brother/pets do to the CD to damage it... I still dont see how anyone is being hurt in any manner.

How can you interpret what I said to include making a copy of software you already own? This guy is not talking about that. He is talking about modifying software he owned to circumvent activation. This is a violation of the license agreement. Now, if you don't think this is true, let me know. Don't start talking about copying disks and stuff and then think that my statements cover that as well. Quit twisting my words and look at the context that I said it.

No-CD crack isnt modifying software?

Besides, while I may be wrong, I thought most EULA agreements prohibit copying of the disks. And if it isnt, a lot of CDs have copy protection, and circumventing that goes against the DMCA. Which is roughly equivalent to going against the EULA.

Again, how does modifying your software in violation fo the liscense (but not in order to use more liscenses than you have) become equivalent to stealing the software?

Ok after reading my original statement again, I THINK I know how you came to this stealing = modifying conclusion (even though it's a stretch).
I am NOT saying that they are equal. I am saying that both are breaking the EULA. Why would you spend money on a product, only to break the EULA anyway? You are breaking the EULA by pirating the software and you are breaking it by bypassing the activation. What was the point of buying the software if you are just going to break the EULA anyway? Do you think that if you are audited that the gov't (or MS) is going to be more lenient with you just because you actually paid them? Probably not. You will still end up settling for like $10,000 or something.

So, if you are going to respond, you must answer my big question...
What was the point of buying the software if you are just going to break the EULA anyway?

 

[EyeMWing]

Heh. Well, consider tihs - Windows XP has a limited set of keys that actually work. Therefore, every key generated by a true keygen (Which also checks to make sure the keys pass the authentication procedure that Setup runs) is actually one that's in the pool for active circulation.

Microsoft can't tell what key you use, and even if they could, you have the sticker and can prove it.

In the unlikely case that your key is sh!tlisted from the next patch, just call them up and whine until they give you a new one.

Oh, and the only way to bypass the activation is to use a copy of Windows released under the volume licensing program (The warez world calls this "Windows XP Corporate" and Microsoft calls it somthing like "Windows XP Professional, volume licensing edition") - which you do NOT own the rights to.

So stop trying, and bend over.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: BlipBlop
wait I found MY key too! On google!

It's FCKGW-RHQQ2...

Woah! How did mine get up there?

 

[GroundZero]

Originally posted by: PanzerIV

Originally posted by: Hubris
I'm ashamed that I understood all the leet speak thrown around in here.

Ashamed? You should be proud. It's stupid.

you should both be proud to be stupid!

 

[DrPizza]

I find it discomforting that I can read it so quickly. But somehow, I'm always hoping there's someone reading over my shoulder thinking, "wow, he can read that stuff that the hackers wrote."

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: MookowHow do you put "paying for something, then modifying it to suit you" on the same plane as stealing it? In one instance, someone puts out a product, you compensate them for your using it, and then you modify it to your tastes. In the second case, you use it without compensating them for it. I think there is a big difference between the two.

Thats like saying using a No-CD crack on a game you bought is as bad as stealing it. Ditto with making a copy (for most games) and using that, while keeping the original tucked in a CD case so it doesnt get scratched.

Rationalize it however you want. Either way you are breaking the licence agreement.

Good job defending your argument that making a back-up copy is equivalent to theft.

In any event, I have no moral/ethical problems with breaking the EULA in this manner. I'm buying the ability to use the software, not just the disc. So if I decide to make a copy so that I can continue to use the software, no matter what my roommates/little brother/pets do to the CD to damage it... I still dont see how anyone is being hurt in any manner.

How can you interpret what I said to include making a copy of software you already own? This guy is not talking about that. He is talking about modifying software he owned to circumvent activation. This is a violation of the license agreement. Now, if you don't think this is true, let me know. Don't start talking about copying disks and stuff and then think that my statements cover that as well. Quit twisting my words and look at the context that I said it.

No-CD crack isnt modifying software?

Besides, while I may be wrong, I thought most EULA agreements prohibit copying of the disks. And if it isnt, a lot of CDs have copy protection, and circumventing that goes against the DMCA. Which is roughly equivalent to going against the EULA.

Again, how does modifying your software in violation fo the liscense (but not in order to use more liscenses than you have) become equivalent to stealing the software?

Ok after reading my original statement again, I THINK I know how you came to this stealing = modifying conclusion (even though it's a stretch).
I am NOT saying that they are equal. I am saying that both are breaking the EULA. Why would you spend money on a product, only to break the EULA anyway? You are breaking the EULA by pirating the software and you are breaking it by bypassing the activation. What was the point of buying the software if you are just going to break the EULA anyway? Do you think that if you are audited that the gov't (or MS) is going to be more lenient with you just because you actually paid them? Probably not. You will still end up settling for like $10,000 or something.

So, if you are going to respond, you must answer my big question...
What was the point of buying the software if you are just going to break the EULA anyway?

When is the last time a home user got audited for deciding they want to bypassing? If that was all they were doing (ie, someone running a warez server doesnt count)? Very very rare, if MS has bothered doing it at all. Now, if you were a business, maybe you'd get audited. But I'm not a business. I dont believe in stealing software. I dont believe I should be penalized for getting myself a legal copy, though. So cracking it doesnt raise any ethical hurdles for me. If I were to ever buy XP (which I doubt I will, it gives me no compelling reason to upgrade to it from Win2K), I'd crack it. Just like almost any game I purchase, immediately after install and the first run through I look for a no-CD crack, and failing that I burn a copy. It is illegal under the DMCA, but I have no ethical problem with it, and while it may be breaking the EULA, I do not see it as stealing.

The short answer to your "big question": I dont feel like being inconvenienced by some POS anti-piracy measure, and I dont want to steal it.

PS: yes, I have installed XP before (as part of one job or another), I know that the activation isnt all that long, but the principle alone pisses me the f*** off.

 

[cerebusPu]

post your XP key so i can check with the official gateway database.

 

[Kenny]

Originally posted by: SinnerWolf
I call B.S. Or at least your memory is failing/fooling you.
It's a Gateway key, which means it's an OEM license. The key won't work on retail, corporate, msdn, or PE versions of XP. Neither Key lists or generators include OEM keys because they're only good for restore images from OEM vendors.

I'm wondering why no one else mentioned this.

Also calling shenanigans.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: xxAgentCowxx

Originally posted by: fivespeed5
"screwing around" eh? THIEF!

I was looking for an activation crack and D/Led a zip with a bunch of tools.

I dont consider modifying the stuff i paid for as stealing.

You paid for the right to use it. Not the actual software. Thus, modifying it is not legal. You might as well just pirate the software if you're going to bypass the activation and such.

But, but, he doesn't likex0r t3h @ct1v4ti0n! iTz n07 L33t 3nUph Ph0r h1m n M$ iZ t3h $pY0rZx0Rz!

- M4H

"411 j00r 8453 4r3 8310n9 70 u5!" - M$

 

[Atlantean]

Just outta curiousity whats with all the names where its xx<name>xx? I have seen a number of people on my ffxi server with names like that xxtaexx etc. Where did that come from?

 

[xxAgentCowxx]

Originally posted by: Kenny

Originally posted by: SinnerWolf
I call B.S. Or at least your memory is failing/fooling you.
It's a Gateway key, which means it's an OEM license. The key won't work on retail, corporate, msdn, or PE versions of XP. Neither Key lists or generators include OEM keys because they're only good for restore images from OEM vendors.

I'm wondering why no one else mentioned this.

Also calling shenanigans.

Originally posted by: xxAgentCowxx

Originally posted by: SinnerWolf
I call B.S. Or at least your memory is failing/fooling you.
It's a Gateway key, which means it's an OEM license. The key won't work on retail, corporate, msdn, or PE versions of XP. Neither Key lists or generators include OEM keys because they're only good for restore images from OEM vendors.

my bad, its been a while and i forgot to mention this... i bought my comp a month or so before XP came out, so it came loaded with ME, with a mailer to get a free XP home upgrade when it came out. it came with all the booklets and the key sticker i slapped on the case side.

good call though, i wouldnt have caught that

 

[xxAgentCowxx]

Originally posted by: Atlantean
Just outta curiousity whats with all the names where its xx<name>xx? I have seen a number of people on my ffxi server with names like that xxtaexx etc. Where did that come from?

x(whatever)x is commonly used by straightedge people... so i figured if i used 2 they would cancel eachother out

and for the most part, people do that because the original name is taken.