Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#71

Post by notahacker »

Karlozkiller wrote: post #42
icebraining wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the emails, he writes "This will ensure a steady income for the next year to come!"

He disputes the emails claiming they are made up and tampered with insinuating his partner in selling these CDs has implicated him to get a lesser sentence. Obviously someone in this whole mess is lying or grossly misinformed, the problem is figuring out who. He said he had IT-experts testify in court that the emails had been tampered with, I assume one could look into that in some kind of public record over the case…

There are court documents linked to by Microsoft, but perhaps unsurprisingly after reading them, generally not by the pro Lundgren blogs.

To be honest, whilst I wouldn't necessarily trust his partner trying to save his own skin, I'm even less convinced by someone that mentions a sale price of $3 for a Windows 7 and $4 for XP (odd pricing, but maybe reflects how convincing the counterfeit disks were or even how usable the software is without a license key...) in their defence in court, then tells the media he intended to give them away at $0.25 cost price.

Sometimes you have to look past the fact one party is a recycling entrepreneur and the other party is Microsoft...

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#72

Post by cornholio »

icebraining wrote: post #52
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 was sentenced for software piracy or thereabouts, but he literally can't do that because windows He can violate the copyright of the recovery software present in the CD.

Copyright violation is not a criminal action unless done in an organised, for profit fashion as piracy. The fundamental piece of evidence the prosecution needed for that was the trumped up and bogus damages value Microsoft supplied.

Hence, the title and article are correct.

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#73

Post by Someone1234 »

jmull wrote: post #68

This article is quite disingenuous. The lie is in the first sentence: "...15 months in prison for selling discs that let people reinstall Windows on licensed machines . (emphasis mine) The prosecution successfully argued the machines these discs were meant to be sold with did not have valid Windows licenses (and that these discs were part of an effort to avoid purchasing them). You will want to find another article o…

They only don't because Microsoft wanted to double-dip. They want one license fee when the computer is originally sold, and then a second ($25) every time it is resold.

The problem with that is that Microsoft cannot have it both ways, either the license is tied to the physical hardware (in which case recyclers don't need to pay $25) or it isn't (in which case people should be able to resell them on eBay).

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#74

Post by Someone1234 »

lolc wrote: post #69
tialaramex wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only for personal use. Microsoft literally sells the exact product this was pretending to be for $25 ($20 for the crappy Home version, which they told the court was the appropriate comparison, the court disagreed and picked $25). My local supermarket sometimes has little pieces of cheese on cocktail sticks to sample. Those are free too. If you eat six, and then run out of the supermarket, you're a dick, but th…

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the $25 copies of Windows sold by Microsoft included a licence? Also equating unlicenced copies to theft of physical goods rarely helps to understand the case.

The $25 includes a new license. Microsoft claims that the original OEM license is invalidated by recycling and that they should be paid twice (and claim their $25 discount licenses are a benevolent gift).

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#75

Post by BeetleB »

lolc wrote: post #16

The title on the original is "How Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away for free". Even that title is misleading, but the shortened title here is wrong because "Free Software" has a specific meaning. Referring to Microsoft Windows as "free software" is just wrong. Microsoft Windows is not Free Software. Even if you leave out the caps intending to refer to price only, the title is…

>Microsoft Windows is not Free Software.

Sorry, but allowing the Free Software movement to insist they are the sole proprietors of the definition of "free" is wrong. About as wrong as the people who are trying to co-opt the word "racism".

If something can be had for $0, it is free. Even with a capital F. That there exists other definition of free does not prevent people from legitimately using this definition.

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#76

Post by pasbesoin »

mchannon wrote: post #7

So many in this case are missing the point. If Microsoft caught him violating their copyright, and it bothered Microsoft, Microsoft should have sued in civil court. That is the purpose of civil court- to penalize wrongdoing by companies. Happens all the time. But Microsoft was never going to recover anything in civil court. So Microsoft lied to the US government about the value of what was being "stolen", and got the…

There is a broader push to criminalize IP enforcement.

Part of a very troubling trend.

And who's it done for? Large corporations. Not the "little guy".

Rent seekers, consolidating their monopolies.

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#77

Post by cornholio »

roel_v wrote: post #55

Look, I'm not saying that this is right or not, but this article does a horrible job of arguing its point, and it's completely lacking any understanding of the law. "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…

>A copyright holder, and he/she alone, has the right to make copies or authorize others to make copies of a work.

In this case, Microsoft provided that authorisation to its license holders by making available a web tool where they could create their own installation media for the software they were licensed to use.

So the software was indeed "free" for licensed users - the very same people who were receiving the disks - in the sense they were not required to pay for it. It might be a license violation to download and burn the disks on their behalf, but that's a civil matter.

The crucial element for proving criminal copyright infringement was a personal gain figure that was manufactured by the Microsoft expert witness.

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#78

Post by tialaramex »

kelnos wrote: post #10
skate22 wrote: post #3

Title is missleading: "His actual crime, which he pleaded guilty to, was counterfeiting the packaging to make the discs pass for Dell-branded ones." He misled his customers in order to make money. This isnt really different than selling knock off gucci handbags. Sure they probably work & look the same, but it does damage to the legitimate brand.

Counterfeit handbags damage the brand either by being made of poor quality materials, or by just being sold cheaply, which undercuts the brand's ability to charge a premium. (Not making a value judgment of these practices; just it is what it is.) Neither of those things is the case here. The discs are near-identical in quality to the discs Dell would have furnished, and (as far as I can tell), Dell essentially gives…

Jail for organised offences like this actually has relatively good evidence.

For most crimes we know the penalties don't really act as a deterrent, because people committing them aren't taking any sort of calculated risk - the smackhead burgling a house isn't going "Man, given the sentencing guidelines in this state I should prefer to go for fewer, high end houses" or "Really car theft has a better risk-reward ratio", so sentences for these crimes basically just take criminals off the streets, they're a form of revenge for the victim, and maybe there's a small chance the criminal is reformed if the prison institution is set up to encourage that.

But for crimes like industrial-scale counterfeiting (at one point Lundgren promises his Chinese counterfeiting team will do a better job of copying the next batch of CDs, this isn't one guy with a photocopier and a CD burner, he's hired a factory to make the copies) the actors are really weighing it up so there actually is a deterrent factor. Longer sentences for these crimes actually deter crime.

The court says (and the appeal affirms) if you counterfeit a $1000 handbag, that's $1000 in terms of the guidelines. It doesn't matter that your counterfeit was only sold to end consumers for $500, or that the raw materials cost $80, or that your profits at the back end were only $18 per bag, the sentencing is focused on the price of the thing you knocked off. Official CDs for refurbing XP Pro PCs are... drum roll... $25. The court said "$25 per infringement" and now this counterfeiter has to go to jail for a few months. Works for me.

Don't worry, I'm sure Lundgren will use his fame to launch a "legitimate" electronic waste recycling outfit when he's out, he can do some great interviews about how he's really changed now, and then the tech press can report with "astonishment" in 2-3 years when the waste he's getting paid to have "professionally recycled to the highest standards" is found dumped in a toxic creek in Alabama or whatever.

Re: Microsoft helped imprison a man for ‘counterfeiting’ software it gives away free

#80

Post by tripletao »

Someone1234 wrote: post #74
lolc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the $25 copies of Windows sold by Microsoft included a licence? Also equating unlicenced copies to theft of physical goods rarely helps to understand the case.

The $25 includes a new license. Microsoft claims that the original OEM license is invalidated by recycling and that they should be paid twice (and claim their $25 discount licenses are a benevolent gift).

Do you have a reference for this? Best I could find is:

https://www.msregrefurb.com/RRPSite/Information/LicensingGui...

I think it says the OEM license remains valid after recycling as long as the recovery media accompany the computer (or are obtained from the OEM), but doesn't otherwise? So by that argument, he really does need the new license? I'd read the contract if I knew which one applied (since that's what actually matters, and not Microsoft's possibly self-serving summary...).

If that's accurate, then it's a pretty weird policy. I guess the license survives if you don't lose the media because they're afraid that anything else would seem completely unreasonable, but they're hoping most people will lose the media? And using the recovery media that they themselves provide (as a download) is supposed to be noncompliant?

Post reply on HN