51–60 of 125 posts
The other side of the case, which contains a lot of detail not mentioned here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...
Not much of a defense if you ask me
His punishment seems disproportionate and stupid (like, why are we spending money to lock him up instead of fining him more?); but he clearly intended to make disks that buyers would think were factory originals, and knew that he was breaking the law. From his email: > I can look in to the missing boxes - Usually in my history - Customs just ships them to you 3 weeks later. > If they call you - play stupid and just t…
And those arguments would fit with what he actually pleaded guilty to - copying the designs of the recovery disks and making them look legitimate. They aren't arguments (but IANAJ) that claim the software is e.g. legitimate windows installations. He was sentenced for software piracy or thereabouts, but he literally can't do that because windows is not a physical disk, but a license. He did not sell licenses. The disc…
He can violate the copyright of the recovery software present in the CD.
The other side of the case, which contains a lot of detail not mentioned here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...
The other side of the case, which contains a lot of detail not mentioned here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...
Ahh yes MS Defending themselves with "We love Recyclers along as they give us $25 for every computer they recycle... if not we will put you in prison" Not much of a defense if you ask me
"Furthermore: People weren’t buying software, let alone “counterfeit software.” The discs in question are at best “unauthorized” copies of software provided for free by Microsoft, not really a term that carries a lot of legal or even rhetorical weight."
I can even... just... What does that even mean? What does 'buying the software' mean vs 'buying the licence'? This author clearly has no idea about copyright law at all, and has constructed a complete alternative narrative in his head, which he is then using to attack a straw man.
A 'licence' is a contract between two parties, in which one party (usually) agrees to pay a certain amount of money (the 'licence fee') and where the other party then lets the one paying the fee make a copy of some work to use it. A copyright holder, and he/she alone, has the right to make copies or authorize others to make copies of a work. So 'unauthorized copies' are the very definition of copyright infringement. What does the author mean 'not really a term that carries a lot of legal weight'? This whole artificial 'Microsoft makes it available for free online and you're not really buying that, you're buying the licence' is complete jibber jabber - sure you can download it, but the terms put very clear restrictions on who can download it, why and what can be done with it after.
And yes there's all sorts of confounding factors - how much did the guy charge, and this is a criminal case and not a civil one, and there is the Dell branding thing, and there is intent, on and on. But my point is: this author shouldn't write about things he clearly has absolutely no clue about.
15 months sounds excessive, but the fact the software could be downloaded by customers for free is not a mitigating factor in a guy attempting to make a profit making it look as much as possible like a paid for product sold by Dell/Microsoft...
You don't understand. Without the (license) key (which he didn't sell), these disks are coasters. Windows installations without a valid license key (or a crack, which he again didn't provide) are crippled after 30 days. These disks are only useful to people who already own a Windows license .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to emails he wrote whilst not trying to defend a court case, it was very, very important to him the disks could not be distinguished from the real thing even though he knew these were far more risky to import than unprinted CDs, and very important to get as many sales as possible. Court submissions seem to indicate he had another line in Canon CDs which he was quite happy encouraging his partner to continue…
Do you have a link to the court documents? This whole thing seems like a mess regardless of who is right. Although I'm quite sure these recovery discs do not allow you to install windows without a license. They never did when I used such discs back in the days, and why would DELL be allowed to distribute software making such a thing possible? Of course you could argue that he has manipulated the program on the disc b…
They answer your question on the Dell disks, which basically boils down to the convenience of customers unable to reactivate properly for whatever reason, who merely get nag screens. May only have applied to some Dell customer groups and some Windows versions and I'm not about to dig out my old Dell XP reinstallation disk to find out! Presumably they trust that [certain groups of] Dell customers are not buying new computers with bundled Windows versions with the intention of reusing the software on unlicensed older machines, and make enough from selling the OEM licence not to care about the low level of piracy they anticipated as a result.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/FIN...