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

E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 273 posts

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#81

Post by pc86 »

oldcynic wrote: post #40
aresant wrote: post #22

it is sad and amusing that at least three comments on this thread point out that the wapo article is substantially incomplete. From the original LaTimes article: "In 2013, federal authorities intercepted shipments of 28,000 restore discs that Lundgren had manufactured in China and sent to his sales partner in Florida. The discs had labels nearly identical to the discs provided by Dell for its computers and had the Wi…

> What if their intent was to charge the other recyclers $10 a pop vs the $25 msft charged for the same thing? Not what was happening at all. MS charge Dell et al $25 for a copy of Windows Home OEM, complete with certificate of authenticity sticker and new licence number. "a Microsoft letter to Hurley and a Microsoft expert witness had reduced the value of the disks to $25 apiece, stating that was what Microsoft char…

As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread before your comment, you're also not allowed (as a refurbisher) to install a fresh copy of Windows without this media. The refurbishers are legally required to buy this $25 CD from Microsoft. So even though the $25 contains a new license, if they can buy it from this guy for $0.25, he is taking that $25 away from Microsoft.

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#82

Post by larkeith »

sailfast wrote: post #43

It's really frustrating when reporters don't link to decisions so we can see the logic behind the rulings. Found what I believe is the opinion in case you're interested: https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2018/04/11/united_states_v... Here's the original request for appeal: https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/20/lundgrenappeal.pdf

Was about to go searching for this, thank you for the link!

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#83

Post by whatshisface »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #61
gambiting wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony. “I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was,” Lundgren said. There's the problem.

I think Lundgrens analysis is closer to the truth: “I got in the way of their agenda,” Lundgren said, “this profit model that’s way more profitable than I could ever be.” On average judges defend the nation, money must flow up. The nation's tax income on Microsofts exploitation are bigger (or so thinks the judge) than the tax income on Lundger's (preventive) recycling business. Your taxes represent your bullying/flee…

Judges do not actually think about maximizing federal tax revenues when making their decisions. There might be something else that is going on to result in that, but judges have absolutely no incentives in that direction.

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#84

Post by pbhjpbhj »

PeterisP wrote: post #63
pweissbrod wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont quite understand the basic legal details behind this. Say I buy a computer with windows pre-installed that means the OS license cost is bundled in to the price of the machine. Say I have a computer without windows, or maybe an older cheaper version of windows. Is it correct that these restore disks arent a utility to get a free new copy of windows? Just trying to understand

They are not a utility to get a free new copy of windows. However, that notwithstanding, copyright law grants Microsoft the exclusive right to arbitrarily restrict how these disks are created. It's just like you can offer some content on your website for free to anyone, but sue anyone who redistributes it for copyright infringement.

I don't recall agreeing to a license when downloading restore images?

Presumably customers not receiving a restore image can now reclaim $299 from Microsoft as that is judged the value of the disc that was not included with their license purchase. Or indeed send back the install disc for at least a 50% refund.

Just think how much money MS would make buying back install discs for $150. /s (yes, that's right, at least -$150 per disc).

Crazy. That judge needs firing, or the person who put them in charge of this case does.

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#85

Post by snuxoll »

gambiting wrote: post #56
pweissbrod wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont quite understand the basic legal details behind this. Say I buy a computer with windows pre-installed that means the OS license cost is bundled in to the price of the machine. Say I have a computer without windows, or maybe an older cheaper version of windows. Is it correct that these restore disks arent a utility to get a free new copy of windows? Just trying to understand

>>Say I have a computer without windows, or maybe an older cheaper version of windows. Is it correct that these restore disks arent a utility to get a free new copy of windows That is correct. You still need a licence key to install Windows using those disks. Without the key the disk is worthless. They aren't and never were a way for people to get "free" copies of windows.

Unfortunately this is an area where copyright law is not up to date with regards to installation media for software with built-in DRM regimes.

The value of Windows installation media is the cost of the disk it is burned to + the time it takes to burn unless there's an associated license (or a crack bundled that would let you bypass activation, which got laughably easy post-Windows 8 because of the new SLIC activation scheme).

Unfortunately, copyright law doesn't care - the copies were made, and the copies were distributed, unless the license explicitly allowed such copying Lundgren was in the wrong in the eyes of the law. Ironically, the same thing applies to the Windows 8/10 installation media you can download directly from the Microsoft website - though you can get it for absolutely free the license still prohibits distribution.

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#86

Post by JumpCrisscross »

reimertz wrote: post #30

As a CEO, you can have a business model that is ethically and morally wrong without getting into jail. As a CEO, you can ignore obvious security flaws leading to 100 million social security numbers getting leaked without getting into jail. As a CEO, you can sexually harass your employees without getting into jail. Try and save the world by repurpose old computers, causing one of the biggest companies in the world to…

> you can have a business model that is ethically and morally wrong without getting into jail

Rule of law. You go to jail for breaking the law, not for being unethical or immoral. Societies which forget this distinction fall fast. (Legislation, turning morals and ethics into laws, is the intermediating process your complaint more properly addresses.)

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#88

Post by DoctorOetker »

reimertz wrote: post #58
jiveturkey wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he didn’t actually cause anyone to lose revenue. microsoft isn’t pressing charges against him in this case. (to my best understanding)

They might argue that repurposing old computers and licenses attached to said computer might have an (minimal) effect on Microsofts revenue since that might lead to potential sells not happening. That is the only reason I can see why they would pursue a case like this. But I cannot phantom how they cannot see how this will backfire quite badly, making them look both greedy and environmentally disconnected.

whats next?

"Diet coach Daisy, sent to jail as McDonalds loses customers"

"CPU designer Claire, sent to jail as its optimized caching algorithm lowers demand for RAM sales"

"Louis Pasteur, unearthed from the grave, incarcerated as milk sales fall due to longer shelf-life"

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#89

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lucio wrote: post #78

Reading the court documents, the conclusion is that the guy is shady and the journalist and the newspaper are borderline lying. The correct headline is: "E-waste recycler loses appeal on 28,000 counterfeit windows installation disks, must serve prison term" >The sentencing judge determined that the appropriate infringement value was the value of the infringed discs to small registered refurbishers: $25. The court fou…

> there were 28,000 discs with Microsoft and Dell logos which can be used to to install functioning Microsoft software

I thought those discs could only “install functioning Microsoft software” if provided with a valid license key, a key Lundgren didn’t provide nor purport to provide. The “$25 infringement amount” seems like a bad comparison since those disks include a license key. Lundgren’s did not.

Re: E-waste recycler loses appeal on computer restore disks, must serve prison term

#90

Post by jaclaz »

sailfast wrote: post #43

It's really frustrating when reporters don't link to decisions so we can see the logic behind the rulings. Found what I believe is the opinion in case you're interested: https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2018/04/11/united_states_v... Here's the original request for appeal: https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/02/20/lundgrenappeal.pdf

Thanks for the link to the decision.

It seems to me like the key point is:

>In particular, the court noted that it did not find it reasonable to believe that Lundgren and his codefendant had spent at least around $80,000 to create discs that had no value.

Since the idea that they had "no value" was not accepted and since the CD's had actually the MS and Dell logo's the Law shifts the value (and thus the sentencing) from the value of the "infringing" good to the value of the "infringed" one.

All in all, it seems to me more like a case of "counterfeit Gucci bags" than a purely unauthorized software redistribution related one ...

EDIT: the last sentence above was meant as:

All in all, it seems to me that the Courts treated it more like a case of "counterfeit Gucci bags" than a purely unauthorized software redistribution related one ...

Post reply on HN