Talk:Volume license key

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding this quote from the main page "Although to some this may seem like an easy way to circumvent Microsoft's product activation feature, each VLK is uniquely linked to the company from which it was purchased." This is incorrect. Microsoft are not allowed to store personally identifiable data against a licence key. This is because in any communication with microsoft's servers, Windows is legally not allowed to communicate personally identifiable data. If a licence key is linked to a company, then this privacy option would be violated as the licence key communicated to microsoft can be used to identify the end-user if the PC was trying to update via windows update, or validate via genuine advantage etc... Therefore Corporate licence keys are not "linked" with anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.121.70 (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

I suggest to move this article to Volume License key (License with capital letter) and create a new page like Volume Licensing. Sorry for bad English... I'm Italian. 87.5.252.246 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full keys in "Unauthorised use" section

I would like to suggest adding the full keys to the text. Here's why:

  • This is information that is relevant to the Unauthorised use section. I mean, you don't hide the last name of a famous person either.
  • There is no legal reason not to anymore. The keys are obsolete, so they don't give anyone unauthorised access.
  • Even if it's still theoretically illegal just because it's a key, there is no real danger of lawsuits. Do you really think Microsoft will go through the trouble of sueing a respectable organisation just because they don't censor a key that doesn't even work anymore?

Basically, if it's not absolutely nessecary to censor the keys, then it shouldn't be censored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.85.24.97 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Based on the Wikimedia Foundation's response to the AACS keys, yes, there is the potential for legal action and they shouldn't be here. SchmuckyTheCat 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Go check those articles again. Wikimedia has said that it's fine to publish the AACS key. That said, I don't see the point of putting the full keys in this article. The "FCKGW" string is notable, but nobody remembers what the rest of it is.
If a key is not notable, then why is the 09F9-key mentioned in the AACS controversy article? As if anyone is going to remember a 128bit key. The point I'm trying to make is: the ability to memorize a piece of information doesn't define its notability. 83.85.0.184 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong focus

Considering that this is a redirect from volume licensing, why is the apparent focus of this article on piracy? Volume licensing comprises such a large part of Microsoft's revenue, and there is nothing that really discusses it on Wikipedia. davewho2 23:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, Microsoft is one of hundreds of companies that offer software in volume licensing, and have install keys too. This article portrays that all volume licensing, and install keys, is a function of Microsoft.davewho2 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)