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

81–90 of 125 posts

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

#81

Post by emodendroket »

simion314 wrote: post #61
emodendroket wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To reuse the OP's example, I don't think someone running an enterprise devoted to selling counterfeit handbags would be subject only to civil liability.

From what I understand by reading and listening an interview with this guy, the issue is the damages were inflated so he can then be put in prison. IMO this case feels similar with cases where music/movie industry hyper-inflates the damages caused by someone that shared a file, because the companies have infinite budgets they can get away wit it.

That might be so, but it seems many here (and other places online) don't think he did anything wrong. The idea that this enterprise was purely an altruistic drive to reduce electronic waste sits poorly with e-mails showing him going out of his way to produce more convincing counterfeit labels.

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

#82

Post by jmull »

Someone1234 wrote: post #73
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).

I don’t think software licenses are necessarily restricted to common notions of ownership, as you suggest.

Whether that’s right and good is another question entirely. Personally, I’d like to see strong consumer protection laws so that software license couldn’t violate common notions of ownership in cases where negotiation of terms isn’t possible, but that’s an idea for a better future, not really relevant to this case.

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

#83

Post by wbl »

cornholio wrote: post #72
icebraining wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He profited. Microsoft's losses are irrelevant.

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

#84

Post by code_sloth »

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…

> Referring to Microsoft Windows as "free software" is just wrong. Microsoft Windows is not Free Software.

Free has many meanings. Look up the dictionary [1]. In the context of the situation / article, it is free. As in $0. As in costs nothing. Context matters, and the FSF / open source context does not apply here.

This ridiculous insistence on the "one true pure" meaning and rigid interpretation of words is a like cancer of stupid infecting humanity.

[1]: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free

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

#85

Post by simion314 »

emodendroket wrote: post #81
simion314 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand by reading and listening an interview with this guy, the issue is the damages were inflated so he can then be put in prison. IMO this case feels similar with cases where music/movie industry hyper-inflates the damages caused by someone that shared a file, because the companies have infinite budgets they can get away wit it.

That might be so, but it seems many here (and other places online) don't think he did anything wrong. The idea that this enterprise was purely an altruistic drive to reduce electronic waste sits poorly with e-mails showing him going out of his way to produce more convincing counterfeit labels.

I think the first article that appeared here did miss the detail about the labeling of the disks, I missed that detail first time too.

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

#86

Post by lolc »

BeetleB wrote: post #75
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.

You go use the word "free" however you want. And if you refer to software that is for free as "free software", expect to be misundertood.

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

#87

Post by lolc »

hennsen wrote: post #70
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…

Wouldn’t the appropriate comparison be collecting the free cheese test pieces in a bag and selling them outside at a cheese booth?

Not even that. The appropriate comparison would be copying the marketing pamphlet verbatim and bringing your own cheese to the booth.

Microsoft is arguing that the cheese could have been poisoned. And that people were buying less cheese because of his efforts.

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

#88

Post by Someone1234 »

jmull wrote: post #82
Someone1234 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don’t think software licenses are necessarily restricted to common notions of ownership, as you suggest. Whether that’s right and good is another question entirely. Personally, I’d like to see strong consumer protection laws so that software license couldn’t violate common notions of ownership in cases where negotiation of terms isn’t possible, but that’s an idea for a better future, not really relevant to this cas…

> I don’t think software licenses are necessarily restricted to common notions of ownership, as you suggest.

They are in the EU. The US takes a much more pro-business stance.

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

#89

Post by lolc »

code_sloth wrote: post #84
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…

> Referring to Microsoft Windows as "free software" is just wrong. Microsoft Windows is not Free Software. Free has many meanings. Look up the dictionary [1]. In the context of the situation / article, it is free. As in $0. As in costs nothing. Context matters, and the FSF / open source context does not apply here. This ridiculous insistence on the "one true pure" meaning and rigid interpretation of words is a like c…

"Free software" has an established meaning within our field. Notice how I was complaining about the title, where naturally the context is very broad.

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

#90

Post by belltaco »

cornholio wrote: post #72
icebraining wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you read some of his emails in the case it is very clear that it was done in an organized, for profit fashion.

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...

Post reply on HN