P2V from Lenovo Laptop to Recover PST
-
@IRJ said:
- Even if they did somehow care, it would cost them more to pursue it and it's HIGHLY doubtful that they would be backed in court. See reason 1
You can sit here and say it's illegal and all this and that, but Microsoft didn't make this law for this scenario in mind. However they cant flex on scenarios or people would be finding loopholes.
I don't agree there. They do lose money in this case, many hundreds of dollars of licensing per occurrence. Do this at home, meh. Do this at Staples, and you are talking about a multi-million dollar suit potentially. MS could go after this as institutional license violations.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't agree there. They do lose money in this case, many hundreds of dollars of licensing per occurrence. Do this at home, meh. Do this at Staples, and you are talking about a multi-million dollar suit potentially. MS could go after this as institutional license violations.
It is the small IT shop that's really the gray area. Not in legality but whether it's a "meh" or not. I'd almost bet the majority of shops look the other way.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't agree there. They do lose money in this case, many hundreds of dollars of licensing per occurrence. Do this at home, meh. Do this at Staples, and you are talking about a multi-million dollar suit potentially. MS could go after this as institutional license violations.
It is the small IT shop that's really the gray area. Not in legality but whether it's a "meh" or not. I'd almost bet the majority of shops look the other way.
Yes, small shops quite broadly make their money by stealing software. I've definitely lost business because small shops were openly stealing software for their customers. But would MS care if they found out... oh hell yeah. That monetary loss doesn't just impact MS, it impacts every IT Pro that isn't willing to steal to justify their cost.
-
This thread went on for 3.5 more pages?! Dang! I just called the user and told them it wasn't recoverable. It wasn't worth the amount of time it was going to take me to do it. I have too much other $4!+ to do...
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Nothing wrong with him trying to recover the data, as long as that is allowed (sounds like it is not.) He has means by which he can legally do that. It's only company policy stating that he cannot.
Recovering data is allowed. But the network is locked down in some very weird ways...
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
And of course follow licensing and steer people around the potential pitfalls of OEM licensing.
The problem is, how do you anticipate that someone will only be willing to use Staples - a shop that forbids data recovery. You can't. At some point people just need to pay for being idiots. This has nothing to do with OEM licensing problems. It's all about end users making bad decisions. If he went to any kid and asked him to get the files back they could do it for him. It's wanting Staples to do something that they don't offer as a service that is the issue.
I don't know where you got the idea we forbid data recovery. We don't...
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
This thread went on for 3.5 more pages?! Dang! I just called the user and told them it wasn't recoverable. It wasn't worth the amount of time it was going to take me to do it. I have too much other $4!+ to do...
Good choice
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nothing wrong with him trying to recover the data, as long as that is allowed (sounds like it is not.) He has means by which he can legally do that. It's only company policy stating that he cannot.
Recovering data is allowed. But the network is locked down in some very weird ways...
That's why I said "technically" at some point meaning that the recovery itself might not have had a policy but they specifically put controls in to block it being done.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
And of course follow licensing and steer people around the potential pitfalls of OEM licensing.
The problem is, how do you anticipate that someone will only be willing to use Staples - a shop that forbids data recovery. You can't. At some point people just need to pay for being idiots. This has nothing to do with OEM licensing problems. It's all about end users making bad decisions. If he went to any kid and asked him to get the files back they could do it for him. It's wanting Staples to do something that they don't offer as a service that is the issue.
I don't know where you got the idea we forbid data recovery. We don't...
Just block the process of it. It amounts to the same thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nothing wrong with him trying to recover the data, as long as that is allowed (sounds like it is not.) He has means by which he can legally do that. It's only company policy stating that he cannot.
Recovering data is allowed. But the network is locked down in some very weird ways...
That's why I said "technically" at some point meaning that the recovery itself might not have had a policy but they specifically put controls in to block it being done.
No, they didn't. It has nothing to do with recovery. I can't even ping machines on the same subnet. But I can do other things. They have instituted some really idiotic controls.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
And of course follow licensing and steer people around the potential pitfalls of OEM licensing.
The problem is, how do you anticipate that someone will only be willing to use Staples - a shop that forbids data recovery. You can't. At some point people just need to pay for being idiots. This has nothing to do with OEM licensing problems. It's all about end users making bad decisions. If he went to any kid and asked him to get the files back they could do it for him. It's wanting Staples to do something that they don't offer as a service that is the issue.
I don't know where you got the idea we forbid data recovery. We don't...
Just block the process of it. It amounts to the same thing.
No, we don't. The network is just really weird...our IP scheme starts with 6.x.x.x...
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nothing wrong with him trying to recover the data, as long as that is allowed (sounds like it is not.) He has means by which he can legally do that. It's only company policy stating that he cannot.
Recovering data is allowed. But the network is locked down in some very weird ways...
That's why I said "technically" at some point meaning that the recovery itself might not have had a policy but they specifically put controls in to block it being done.
No, they didn't. It has nothing to do with recovery. I can't even ping machines on the same subnet. But I can do other things. They have instituted some really idiotic controls.
If they don't block the process, what was the issue here?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
And of course follow licensing and steer people around the potential pitfalls of OEM licensing.
The problem is, how do you anticipate that someone will only be willing to use Staples - a shop that forbids data recovery. You can't. At some point people just need to pay for being idiots. This has nothing to do with OEM licensing problems. It's all about end users making bad decisions. If he went to any kid and asked him to get the files back they could do it for him. It's wanting Staples to do something that they don't offer as a service that is the issue.
I don't know where you got the idea we forbid data recovery. We don't...
Just block the process of it. It amounts to the same thing.
No, we don't. The network is just really weird...our IP scheme starts with 6.x.x.x...
But... why would that be a factor limiting you from attaching a drive to do a file recovery?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nothing wrong with him trying to recover the data, as long as that is allowed (sounds like it is not.) He has means by which he can legally do that. It's only company policy stating that he cannot.
Recovering data is allowed. But the network is locked down in some very weird ways...
That's why I said "technically" at some point meaning that the recovery itself might not have had a policy but they specifically put controls in to block it being done.
No, they didn't. It has nothing to do with recovery. I can't even ping machines on the same subnet. But I can do other things. They have instituted some really idiotic controls.
If they don't block the process, what was the issue here?
Someone talked about pulling it over the network or something and something on the network blocks that ability, whether it's the port that's blocked or whatever. My point is that I can't even ping between the machines on the same subnet, but Staples does some really weird stuff with their networks...
-
Example: the security settings for the public wifi are less than the security for our hidden network. Ex: I can get on Facebook from the public hotspot, but not if I use the hidden network...
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nothing wrong with him trying to recover the data, as long as that is allowed (sounds like it is not.) He has means by which he can legally do that. It's only company policy stating that he cannot.
Recovering data is allowed. But the network is locked down in some very weird ways...
That's why I said "technically" at some point meaning that the recovery itself might not have had a policy but they specifically put controls in to block it being done.
No, they didn't. It has nothing to do with recovery. I can't even ping machines on the same subnet. But I can do other things. They have instituted some really idiotic controls.
If they don't block the process, what was the issue here?
Someone talked about pulling it over the network or something and something on the network blocks that ability, whether it's the port that's blocked or whatever. My point is that I can't even ping between the machines on the same subnet, but Staples does some really weird stuff with their networks...
But the machine would not boot, right? So pulling it over the network would never have been a factor. It was always about pulling the drive out and attaching it to a recovery device.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nothing wrong with him trying to recover the data, as long as that is allowed (sounds like it is not.) He has means by which he can legally do that. It's only company policy stating that he cannot.
Recovering data is allowed. But the network is locked down in some very weird ways...
That's why I said "technically" at some point meaning that the recovery itself might not have had a policy but they specifically put controls in to block it being done.
No, they didn't. It has nothing to do with recovery. I can't even ping machines on the same subnet. But I can do other things. They have instituted some really idiotic controls.
If they don't block the process, what was the issue here?
Someone talked about pulling it over the network or something and something on the network blocks that ability, whether it's the port that's blocked or whatever. My point is that I can't even ping between the machines on the same subnet, but Staples does some really weird stuff with their networks...
But the machine would not boot, right? So pulling it over the network would never have been a factor. It was always about pulling the drive out and attaching it to a recovery device.
Which I did...
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
Example: the security settings for the public wifi are less than the security for our hidden network. Ex: I can get on Facebook from the public hotspot, but not if I use the hidden network...
Yes, I get that the network is a little odd. I'm unclear how the one recovery method that would have been applicable to an Windows Home OEM machine, slaving a drive, was blocked. If it wasn't blocked, why was anything else considered? If it was blocked, what does the network have to do with it?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Nothing wrong with him trying to recover the data, as long as that is allowed (sounds like it is not.) He has means by which he can legally do that. It's only company policy stating that he cannot.
Recovering data is allowed. But the network is locked down in some very weird ways...
That's why I said "technically" at some point meaning that the recovery itself might not have had a policy but they specifically put controls in to block it being done.
No, they didn't. It has nothing to do with recovery. I can't even ping machines on the same subnet. But I can do other things. They have instituted some really idiotic controls.
If they don't block the process, what was the issue here?
Someone talked about pulling it over the network or something and something on the network blocks that ability, whether it's the port that's blocked or whatever. My point is that I can't even ping between the machines on the same subnet, but Staples does some really weird stuff with their networks...
But the machine would not boot, right? So pulling it over the network would never have been a factor. It was always about pulling the drive out and attaching it to a recovery device.
Which I did...
So you were able to recover the files? What was the issue then? No means of copying them to a USB drive or whatever?
-
Once you had the files, what prevented you from giving them to the guy?
