Microsoft attempts to spin its role in counterfeiting case
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
If anything I would say that the techcrunch post is overly misleading. Although they may be right that Microsoft overstated the value of the discs in court which lead to a harsher sentence.
The issue I and others have been trying to highlight is that as you say that Microsoft overstated the value, not a little, but a lot, and also contrary to the basic facts of the matter. Essentially he committed one crime and was sentenced for another.
He was selling recovery discs with no licenses, which are free for anyone to create on their own or for refurbishers to burn as many as they'd like of. They pay Microsoft for bulk licenses then print as many discs as they need.
Lundgren never sold or attempted to sell licenses, which of course create the value of the product. The discs were worth the convenience cost of however much a shop would pay to not have to print them themselves. No Microsoft sales were harmed, if a license was needed Microsoft is the only place to get it, these discs are for re-installation purposes.
Microsoft in this case convinced a judge that a "copy" of Windows is worth the same whether it is licensed or not. That's not true, and as if it weren't enough that this misrepresentation of the facts took the day in court, a guy is going to prison for 15 months because of it — the sentence was directly affected by the value determined by Microsoft's $25-per-disc assertion. If the discs were valued accurately he might have had a fine and probation, or a month in jail.
I wrote another post talking about this earlier:
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/25/how-microsoft-helped-impri...
and for what it's worth regarding the $80K and $28K payments, Lundgren's account of it is the first was for all kinds of stuff his Source Captain company manufactured over there for refurbishing purposes (old hard drive cases, CD caddies, weird screws) and the second never took place because the goods were never sent — all confiscated in the raid on Wolff's place.
And how exactly did you arrive at this judgement? Restitution is solely to make whole on the financial damage.
His jail term is completely appropriate for counterfeiting and piracy with intent to distribute and profit under federal jurisdiction.
WOW you have a completely screwed set of ethics and morality if you believe putting a person in a cage for 15 mos for duplicating restore disc is "completely appropriate"
Would his sentence have been more lenient had the value of discs estimated to be $100,000 instead of $700,000? Nope.
Would his sentence have been more lenient had he not spent effort to infringe on copyright and attempt to make fakes that are harder to discern? Maybe.
Would his sentence have been more lenient had he not actively tried to deceive and defraud those buying the discs from him believing them to be genuinely produced by Microsoft/Dell? Surely.
Would he be scot free in this situation had he just shipped a free OS? Definitely, but recycling or reducing waste wasn't his intent as you can see for yourself from his email and bank records.
He didn't even spend the minimal effort to inquire with Microsoft if they would help him in pushing more recycled computers with Windows but instead decided all by himself to fly to china to create 20,000+ copies of genuinely sold recovery disks and to sell them as genuine when he clearly knew they weren't while coaching his codefendants to play dumb, suggesting them on evading scrutiny from customs and pressing them to sell more product so he can realize returns on his investment. If that doesn't show criminal intent, I don't know what does.
The fact that you seem to get your ethics and morality from the law says a lot. I don't, I personally find large segments of the law to be highly immoral and unethical.
>Would his sentence have been more lenient had the value of discs estimated to be $100,000 instead of $700,000? Nope. Would his sentence have been more lenient had he not spent effort to infringe on copyright and attempt to make fakes that are harder to discern? Maybe.
Ok that may be a factual statement, that has nothing to do with the fact it should not have been a criminal matter in the first place, but a civil matter where only monetary damages would be punishment
I believe prison should be reserved for people that are a physical danger to other, not as punishment for harming a corporations profits
>He didn't even spend the minimal effort to inquire with Microsoft if they would help him in pushing more recycled computers with Windows
They would for $25 per computer, That is MS double dipping method for recyclers to force them to purchase a new license for a computer that was already licensed by the OEM at the time of manufacturer
>If that doesn't show criminal intent, I don't know what does.
Again you are talking about the law, I am talking about ethics, surely you to not believe all thing that are illegal are unethical and that all thing that are legal are ethical? If you do believe that I return to my original statement in that you have a completely screwed set of ethics and morality
> The fact that you seem to get your ethics and morality from the law says a lot. I don't, I personally find large segments of the law to be highly immoral and unethical.
As much as you'd like, the judicial system doesn't work on ethics as judged by you. I hope you understand the functionality of the judicial system before making such broad statements about it.
> The fact that you seem to get your ethics and morality from the law says a lot.
I don't, but I also don't let my own feelings affect my interpretation of law.
> Ok that may be a factual statement, that has nothing to do with the fact it should not have been a criminal matter in the first place, but a civil matter where only monetary damages would be punishment
Do you know what the difference is between civil and criminal law? It doesn't appear so.
> I believe prison should be reserved for people that are a physical danger to other, not as punishment for harming a corporations profits
So do I to a certain degree, but you must first understand that the corporations comprise of people like you and me and not some evil mind CEO who eats all the profits.
> They would for $25 per computer, That is MS double dipping method for recyclers to force them to purchase a new license for a computer that was already licensed by the OEM at the time of manufacturer
You're making presumptuous statements here (and I know because A - your statement is false, $25 is only necessary if the device does not have a recovery disk already; B - your statement is in no way related to my quoted response of approaching Microsoft if they'd be interested in partnering in a recycling program). I'm not going to engage with your prejudice against a corporation of your dislike.
> Again you are talking about the law, I am talking about ethics, surely you to not believe all thing that are illegal are unethical and that all thing that are legal are ethical? If you do believe that I return to my original statement in that you have a completely screwed set of ethics and morality
When all else fails, paint the other person in black?
You believe software should be free to distribute and copy because it is a never ending source and can be created out of thin air once someone has developed it?
How about you try counterfeiting US Dollars which are also created out of thin air?
Software is the currency of the tech companies that develop it and they like to protect is just like our Govt. likes to protect their own economic interest. If you don't like a company you have the choice of not using their products but don't go around saying they're a bunch of evil morons for protecting their interest.
While it is true the corporations are "made up of people" the very nature of a corporation separates liability from those people, thus when you remove said liability people generally tend to behave worse than they would when they are personally liable.
Then there are the group dynamics where many many people working together can justify, rationalize, and excuse all manner of actions that when done as a individual, they would individually find abhorrent but when done as a group they do not.
This is why at best a corporation can only be described as amoral (at best)
The fact that corporations are "made of people" has no relevance to my comments
>As much as you'd like, the judicial system doesn't work on ethics as judged by you. I hope you understand the functionality of the judicial system before making such broad statements about it.
The legal system of a society should be judged by the ethics of the members making up that society, people like you that believe the law is the law and we just have to accept that are part of the problem in society today
I see this law as being unethical as such I am advocating against this law.
You believe the law is the law and should remain unchanged as if it was the word of a god.
>You're making presumptuous statements here (and I know because A - your statement is false, $25 is only necessary if the device does not have a recovery disk already; B - your statement is in no way related to my quoted response of approaching Microsoft if they'd be interested in partnering in a recycling program).
Yes it is as that is their "partnership program" for Recyclers,
I do not believe MS should be allowed to charge $25 simply because the owner of the device did not keep or make a recovery disc upon purchase. I believe (and the law supports) that the physical disk is irreverent, it is the LICENSE that they sell not the Physical media.
Of course MS, and most other tech companies, want to have it both ways, picking a choosing which sections of law they want to apply based on the circumstances. Sometimes treating it has a Sold Good where the physical product matters, but then other times saying it is a licensed product and the physical media has no value
>How about you try counterfeiting US Dollars which are also created out of thin air?
I dont think you want to know my thoughts on Fiat Currency. (hint I am not a fan)
>Software is the currency of the tech companies that develop it and they like to protect is just like our Govt
I have already stated I find our government (aka the law) to be largely unethical and immoral. So you defense is to point out how the Tech Companies are acting like our government... i.e Unethically and Immorally
>If you don't like a company you have the choice of not using their products but don't go around saying they're a bunch of evil morons for protecting their interest.
I do not define virtue as " protecting their interest." it is possible to be a Evil Moron and be " protecting their interest." at the same time.
I'm not sure what the appropriate sentence should have been, but I strongly disagree that it's this. Those discs were not worth $700,000. Were they worth $200,000? 6 month term. $20,000? Fine and probation. They were worth something, all right, but not $700,000. That's just not accurate.
Is your sentence estimation accurate?
> The sentence is based on the value of the infringed goods, right?
For financial restitution part of the judgement, yes. But for any deterrence in terms of jail time or restrictions on further operations it isn't as nuanced as you put it out to be, it does not matter whether you intended to counterfeit and distribute $100,000 worth of goods or $1,000,000 worth of goods.
> Were they worth ... $20,000?
His own bank/paypal transaction records and emails show they were worth much more than that.
For example, software company distributes free CDs that contain copy of software, however software cannot be run without a non-transferable activation code. Unauthorised copying of printed label or contents of CD could be copyright infringement. Assuming it is, what are the damages? What is value of CD without activation code? (e.g. cost of the optical media) What is value of CD with activation code? (e.g. cost of the software license) Which measure is appropriate?
Microsoft argued that the value was that of fully licensed software, ultimately $25 per disc, which is what refurbishers pay for new Windows licenses to install on computers, should they require them.
> Lundgren, by the way, is not some scammer looking to fleece a few people and make a quick buck. He has been a major figure on the e-waste scene, working to minimize the toxic wages of planned obsolescence and running a company of 100 to responsibly refurbish or recycle old computers and other devices.
From Microsoft:
> Part of Mr. Lundgren’s defense also involved claims that he was trying to provide the community with something that was freely available anyway. This claim was rejected by the district court and the Court of Appeals. This is because Microsoft itself sells genuine versions of these CDs to refurbishers (hence the market for selling counterfeit copies). In addition, Mr. Lundgren took great pains to disguise the counterfeit software he imported, including arranging for fake Microsoft and Dell labels to be applied to the discs.
> In an email sent in December of 2011, Mr. Lundgren said to his co-defendant,
> “You would have to be an expert with a magnifying glass to know and/or see such differences.” “You must have been trying to supply these units to Amazon directly or someone who is expert.”
> He went on to say,
> “C’mon Bob, you should be able to sell these units to anyone whom is not trying to sell them back to Bill Gates.”
> And,
> “Please sell some of these units. You MUST have some other buyers for this product – and if you do not, then find some. It has been months and I have not seen the return I was expecting to use for my India project buddy.”
> He concluded,
> “No normal company or buyer will notice such issues.” “Make me proud so that our business can grow and we can keep winning.”
> Mr. Lundgren also tried to evade U.S. Customs and coached his codefendant how to handle questions from federal agents. In 2011 he wrote:
> “There are tricks for bypassing customs with container’s & LTL but currently this is how I get these products without invoices past customs.”
> And, referring to customs officers:
> “If they call you just play stupid and tell them you ordered from an asset management broker overseas.”
> Mr. Lundgren and co-defendant Bob Wolff explicitly discussed deceiving people with the counterfeit software. In one email to Mr. Lundgren about the software he’s arranging to manufacture, Mr. Wolff writes:
> “If the software will be 98% accurate I believe I can get away with that.”
He was urging people to sell these discs as genuine and coaching them on how to lie if they got caught.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/Ema...
I have no idea how anyone, after reading this e-mail, can conclude that he was not trying to scam buyers into believing they were buying something other than counterfeit material, unawares, and then sell it to customers who were equally unaware they were buying counterfeits.
"Work hard and get these moved to any other buyer. No nomral company or buyer will notice such isuses and every month you spend sitting on this product is another month XP get's older and my assets become worth less." "I have not seen the return that I was expecting to use for my India project buddy." Those are Lundgren's _own words._ And nobody who read the article you wrote and linked to would have that context. They would, in fact, have your words to the opposite.
You don't understand Criminal Law if you believe that statement is true. Above a certain threshold, the sentence is more of a precedent and deterrence.
https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/2015-...
The value of the goods matters a great deal. The sentencing documents go into detail on it. The 11th court judge writes that the previous sentencing range, which he affirmed, was "largely based on a calculation that valued the infringed goods at $700,000." That put it in the range of 37-46 months, and prosecutors had threatened more early on when valuing the discs at $299 each. The plea deal took it down to 15.
Emails: https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...
A) They didn't bring the case, US Customs did.
B) As the victim (financially) of the Crime they were approached to state the financial damage to decide on the restitution amount and they chose to pick the lowest price on market and further reduce that amount to depict their actual profitability for selling obsolete software.
C) Eric's intentions were clearly not to recycle and reduce waste but to profit from this racket of duping buyers into buying "genuine" recovery discs with Microsoft and Dell logos and tampered activation keys (read the court docket for more details).
That is where you're wrong. Read the docket, better yet here is a screenshot from the demonstration that the discs had keys replicated from original Dell recovery discs:
Moreover, "so they were worth a few cents apiece." - The value of financial damage (especially in this case) matters only towards deciding the restitution amount. They also have a cut-off, above which the crime is considered to be under federal jurisdiction which wouldn't have mattered in this case since the amount was obviously above the cut-off and the crime was of inter-state nature.
If the disk had no activation info, setup would have prompted for a key (trial keys for 30 day are available online).
Big OEMs including Dell and Lenovo use an activation baked into the BIOS and a SLIC (system licence internal code) that's also in the BIOS. No activation required after restore from legitimate or otherwise CD or restore partition. It won't match the code on the machine's sticker, even if it's 100% legit just bought new from maker.
Search will turn up plenty on how SLIC works.
However, in this case you wouldn't see "Contact Dell for Support" on a lenovo laptop as demonstrated during the trial (see screenshot above).
Maybe we should see more CEOs in jail in a similar manner, when their decisions to commit fraud intentionally causes the loss of savings and homes for so many average working class people?
In any case, we're seeing his small shop and his attempt to spin the case. I often feel like I'd never own my own business, because in a lot of cases, you have to make these types of risks and compromises to make it. Just look at the FedEx guy who gambled all his companies money to keep them solvent. Had he failed, he probably would have been prosecuted and jailed, but he made it, so he's praised for taking an insane risk at the cost of everyone he employed.
That’s unfortunately not the angle WaPo and Tech Crunch ran with. They don’t question the over criminalization, but rather focus on the factual issue of whether he was conspiring to counterfeit or not.
If you haven’t, I recommend watching “I, Tonya.” Did Tonya Harding conspire to attack Nancy Kerrigan? You can definitely present a version of the story where she had no idea, as well as versions of the story where she participated directly. The movie does a great job of weaving in and highlighting the disputed facts in a way that conveys the ambiguity of the story.
Journalists often fall into the trap of taking one of those stories at face value. And I think that’s what happened here.
(Incidentally, this is quite typical in outrage porn stories intended to direct ire to the justice system. There’s almost always more to the story than the articles let on.)
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2018/02/i_was_t...
http://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2018/01/i_nauseated_the_o...
http://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2018/01/thanks_to_i_tonya...
Now honestly, maybe I'm being manipulated by these people in Oregon who were the ones dealing directly with the issue, but I find it incredibly hard to believe Tonya Harding considering the way she has acted back in the 90s and how she has acted now with this movie coming out. I'm sure her childhood was bad, that sucks. But she conspired to put a hit out on her competition in order to gain an advantage she felt she deserved because of her hardship.
That doesn’t mean she did it didn’t do it. As the movie points shows, she has a version of what happened, which she would’ve presented at trial. And that version might have been plausible enough to establish reasonable doubt. Journalists often get confused and report the defendant’s version of the story as what actually happened, causing folks like HN readers to wonder how the justice system can be so messed up.
I couldn't disagree more. This sounds like the basis for the creation (or I guess further entrenchment and worsening of) a two-tiered justice system.
So you don't think someone like Madoff deserves to be in prison?
The software on those discs cost a whole lot to make, you know? Try buying your pharma drugs for the $.20 it takes in raw material.
Even so, companies don't bother you with such trivial things as re-uploading an ISO that you downloaded off their website since its usually a waste of their time/money. I'm not sure why MS is even bothering with this case TBH.
Windows 7: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows7
Windows 10: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10I...
The "genuine" discs he sold had "pre-activated" installations which were clearly tampered with.
Just because the discs are unusable without a license (Which they weren't, as demonstrated during the trial and documented in the docket), it doesn't give him the right to use Microsoft and Dell Logo to cheat the buyers.
Please take your prejudice elsewhere.
Well, they didn't seem to actually activate Windows. They only managed to active it using the laptop's original key, not furnished by the CDs guy.
That's exactly the point. After using the recovery disk on a lenovo laptop, the installation was loaded with activation info from Dell's original recovery disks.
The Dell stuff on the disc that made it onto the install was just a folder with like support links and stuff.
The install process is on page 31 here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...
They used the key later to show that the activation never appeared on Microsoft's servers even when using a genuine key which clearly shows the disks were tampered.
At most this should be a civil issue between 2 private parties where monetary damages are awarded, not a criminal case where a person faces prison times.
Can we have this kind of law for privacy infringement too, please?
I personally find it abhorrent when people use the justification of "well it is well established law" as if the law is written in stone, unchangeable, the word of a god and we just have to accept it.
No the law is wrong, the law should be changed, and this is an example if why it should be changed.
Copyright law need to be massively reformed and curbed. Intellectual Privilege is no longer with in its constitutional remit, i.e to Promote useful Arts and Sciences, and instead used to destroy those very things
---Edit: thanks for the downvotes I love how every day HN becomes more and more of a echo Chamber where anyone that disagrees with the popular (generally Pro Large Tech Company) narrative gets downvotes and has their voice suppressed since once a post get negative votes the "You are posting to fast" throttle kicks in and prevents the person from responding
In response, yes laws change. It was once well established that separate but equal was equal; and blacks could have their own bathrooms and drinking fountains. It was once legal to employee 13 year old boys as factory workers.
Disney's big items are well past their trademark expiration dates. Mickey Mouse should be public domain soon, but Disney is large enough they keep lobbying for laws that extend their IP well beyond what it should be.
We do need copyright reform, especially in cases like this where the physical disks aren't even made anymore.
This includes making commercial copyright violation a criminal, rather than civil, offence. It also includes things like making circumvention of technical protection measure illegal.
It's wide ranging, it removes freedoms, it causes economic harm.
> It's wide ranging, it removes freedoms, it causes economic harm.
And how exactly is that? The government didn't go after him because he was distributing pirated media or software to his friends but he set up a manufacturing unit, deceived customs to profit off the operations. Not to "recycle and reduce waste", not to help you or me.
You want to back-up DVD or bluray discs? Might be illegal where you are.
You want to format shift CD to MP3? Might be illegal where you are.
You bought thousands of CDs, and want to pay a service to format shift them to MP3? Probably illegal.
etc etc etc.
You never see someone getting locked up or fined for copying discs for personal use. All of the cases that I'm aware of involved distribution and profiting.
The measures were intended to deter those profiting off the work of others like in this case. Although, I agree that the legal approach sets a bad precedent and unfortunate collateral damage to people who genuinely buy something and face the same deterrence when they really don't have any malicious intent.
Because in most places there's a distinction between copyright infringement done as part of trade and copyright infringement for personal use - which is what I said in parent post.
Counterfeiting is an act that is similar to theft, apparent from the fact that this guy has succeeded in making money from what Microsoft gave birth to, and therefore owned [1]. The relation between the guy and Microsoft is clearly a parasitic one.
Microsoft would be compensated justly if they were simply just awarding the monetary damage back by the damaging parties, here Eric Lundgren and his co-defendants. However, it would not be just against the community* (which includes Microsoft, but also everyone else) to let the damaging parties go away without deterring them from doing such actions further. Otherwise, the damaging parties may continue living off their lives through damaging, simply because it is almost certain that there will be cases where they will make profit without being detected and required to award the damages back.
Another way to explain the situation is this: If they are not made to pay more than the damage they have caused, their worst-case (for them, not us/community) profit is 0, and for all the other cases they will be making profit. Should this really be the justice cast upon the individuals causing monetary damage?
[1]: Declaring creators as the (copyright) owners benefits the community, hence we do. The relevant example Windows is a product of Microsoft that benefits the community, evident from the fact that it has a userbase. Microsoft would not create and offer Windows to the public, if the law allowed everyone to freely redistribute their products, and compete with Microsoft using their creation, as it would render their novel efforts meaningless against the much simpler effort of copying products created by the others.
[*]: Edited from "robbery".
Counterfeiting never was and never will be similar to robbery. Robbery results in someone being deprived of their property. No one has been deprived of their property. In fact, as information, the victim in this case couldn't deprive Microsoft and OEMs of their property unless he deleted every single copy of the software.
Furthermore, the "counterfeit" software is an exact replica of what is provided by OEMs. There was no harm done to society.
I agree with others here: Any prison time is too long, let alone 15 months. Our society needs to take a long hard look at our laws because frankly, we're well on our way within the realm of the absurd.
On the contrary, money is a means to property, and Microsoft loses $3.5 (minus the production cost) for each copy Eric sells to his buyers, since otherwise Microsoft would be the one earning that money. The crime of theft, however, predates even this buying & selling.
Software is a non-depleting product. It is like the fruits that immediately regrow when plucked off of its tree. Now, just because Microsoft doesn't lose any fruits when somebody plucks a fruit from their tree without permission, shouldn't make this person not guilty of their theft. Eric, I would say, has committed this crime of theft at the point of copying the software. Microsoft may not have been deprived of their property, but that is merely due to the fact that their miraculous tree was capable of immediate replenishment, not because a fruit from it was not stolen.
Eric later benefited from his crime by selling it, which damaged Microsoft by saturating the demand for their product as a side-effect.
In the end, it really is hard not to think counterfeiting as a form of stealing, when any form of counterfeiting most definitely devaluates the properties owned by the genuine owners. I am not an expert on law, economics, or business, but I would say counterfeiting in any form would most likely indirectly equal to stealing, and doesn't look like it at the first sight because the translation is too convoluted.
Considering that Microsoft wasn't selling those disks before he came around, and isn't selling them now, how can they be losing money on the disks?
If I managed to find someone to pay to get a copy of your post, would that mean you'd lose money?
Indeed, I would be losing a non-negative amount (call it X) of money that I could have earned, if you were to commit that crime. You should rather ask me for my permission. I will then have my options to lend you my copyright either for free (X = 0), for $y (X = $y), or not allow you to do so at all. If you do it anyway, then my losses would be at least the amount you sell it for; I might have been planning to sell it for more when the demand rises.
I am not sure if I am immediately granted such a copyright for my comments here, though.
PS: You are granted copyright over your comments, as per the Berne convention.
You could say the same about anyone trying to repair or extend the life of products... Does that mean that it should be punishable? Should the law really be protecting Microsoft's bottom line at all cost?
It is clear to anyone not distracted by pedantic legal interpretations and who can actually comprehend the difference between information and material goods, that the accusation of "counterfeiting" is a tenuous and misleading one.
Take a moment to go beyond the premise of "counterfeit == damages" and find out what that really means in this context, it doesn't take much effort: these are recovery discs, any real monetary "damage" done to Microsoft's bottom line would be the same as if every one of Microsoft's customers were ensured their right to restore the software to their computer when it failed, disregarding misplacing or never receiving or it being relegated to a long since corrupted partition (yes people can download it but most people are not technically competent and it's not in Microsoft's interest to spell it out to them)... this was already paid for by the license, they have every right to that disc and the disc alone does not give anyone the ability to install without a license.
These are the only substantial monetary damages, and this flimsy verdict is damning because it could potentially be interpreted as a precedent to attack anyone helping people to repair computers... but ya know... how dare you hurt M$ bottom line.
And before anyone brings up the straw man of "he profited"... on 25c per disc? really? after flying to china and back and putting all the work in to get them mass produced? I doubt he would have ever broke even, at best he might have made a meagre living, it's not exactly counterfeiting Rolex. I don't claim to know the intent of this guy but it can only be one of two: He was trying to help extend the life of countless computers needlessly thrown away every year, OR he was an idiot with delusions of grandeur, because there is no money in this (but don't confuse that with the ability to harm M$ bottom line, a cardinal sin). Don't get me wrong, I think what he did was pretty stupid, but what Microsoft is doing right here is sending a message of "If you hurt our bottom line, we will hurt you personally", regardless of their legal or moral right to do so.
Sorry, I could not find any resource where it says that he was profiting 25c per disc. I have found some others stating that he would be covering his expenses if he were to sell them for 25c each, and then the blog post from Microsoft states that he was selling them for $3.5 each. It really makes more sense that each disc costs 25c when mass-duplicated in China, than $3.25.
You already have already shunned this argument with your "straw man" talk. Would be a shame to step back just because you've laid that trap-threat to whoever replies. Here it goes: From what I've found, I'd say he profits $3.25 per disc and not 25c. The blog post from Microsoft also states that he made a revenue of $92,000 from this counterfeiting business. Here comes your straw man: $92,000 * ($3.25 / $3.50), approximately $85.500 is what he profited.
I don't know how much an average HN user is gaining, but that is a lot of money for me.
The argument on him being a selfless recycler is impossible to believe in, as the evidence shows that he labelled those discs to look like original Dell recovery discs. This leaves us either nothing but him being an "idiot with delusions of grandeur" as you've said, or he really was simply just making money out of this.
In the article the only reference to making more than 25c per disc is:
> Records, however, show that Lundgren had sold several thousand to one buyer for $3-4 each
But "several thousand" * ~$3 doesn't sound much like 92k.
> I don't know how much an average HN user is gaining, but that is a lot of money for me.
Me too, but note that the term revenue is often used ambiguously and does not necessarily refer to net income, often people abuse this to inflate or deflate the number to help their narrative. _If_ that is the case here then 90k gross for a sole proprietor could be quite a low income depending on the margin... then again if this figure is really all about the discs, then ~90k - (flights + manufacturing run + shipping) could be quite profitable.
I can't find the real figures, happy if someone can enlighten us.
To be honest I don't have much empathy with this guy i'm just playing devils advocate now... My main argument was against your implication that hurting a business's revenue is automatically illegal, which is very close to saying capitalism is law. Perhaps you didn't realize you were implying that. The fact that this guy may or may not have profited from this is separate from the legality of the impact of restoring bought and paid for software against microsoft's profits, it's an important distinction.
Again just to be clear: Microsoft's loss should have no bearing on this case (because they are legal), the case is about someone potentially making money off something they shouldn't, much like selling GNU software (I know that comparison seems rediculous but I'm trying to highlight the separation of illegal profit from legal losses).
So you believe Microsoft does not create any software that is allowed to be Freely redistributed and Open Source software does not exist at all, anywhere in the world.
>>Counterfeiting is an act that is similar to robbery
No it is not an act or even remotely similar to robbery. Further creating a Restore CD is not an act of Counterfeiting.
>apparent from the fact that this guy has succeeded in making money from what Microsoft gave birth to, and therefore owned
That is not the definition of counterfeiting, thus the fact the guy "succeeded in making money from what Microsoft gave birth to" does not establish counterfeiting. Hell if that was the definition every person that ever made money supporting, installing, etc the windows operating system would be "counterfeiting" it given they "succeeded in making money from what Microsoft gave birth to"
>Microsoft would be compensated justly if they were simply just awarding the monetary damage back by the damaging parties, here Eric Lundgren and his co-defendants.
Microsoft was justly compensated when they sold the orginal licence for the orgianal computer on which the Restore CD's where designed to Restore.
Microsoft now however wants to Double Dip and charge refurbishers for a 2nd license on for the same hardware, that is not just compensation that IMO should be considered fraud, and be illegal.
When Dell, HP, Lenovo ect sell a windows computer, they buy and resell a license to use that version of windows for the lifetime of the product/computer. A person restoring that system back to its OEM state should not have to rebuy that license from MS to preform that restoration. MS wants these recyclers to pay them $25 for a license the OEM already paid MS for.
This part i missed... is this true? do Microsoft actually charge refurbisher? Aren't licensed supposed to be for machines not people. They seem intent on stamping the damn thing on the side of all machines.
[1]https://www.techspot.com/news/74324-e-waste-recycler-eric-lu...
[2]https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/why-the-man-who-...
"Lundgren objected to the PSR infringement amount. He argued that the Sentencing Guidelines required the court to use an infringement amount of about $4 per disk, which was the price for which Lundgren and Wolff were selling their copies."
had microsoft not forced everyone who buys a computer pay for windows and a license sticker without proper restore medias, he wouldn't have a market to sell conveniently packaged restore discs.
as far as the law and my tax should be concerned, courts should have been solving the ecosystem creation problem, not some small fish that is a consequence of it.
The actual moral crime here is that Microsoft profits off the fact that users don't know they still own the original license they purchased, and/or there is a huge hassle in getting a new OEM disk. If Microsoft wasn't doing this then there would be no "black market" for it.
It's useful to read the emails from the defendant.
He's not just burning re-installation DVDs. He's going out of his way to burn re-installation DVDs that are identical to MS / Dell supplied discs, even down to holograms in the disc.
Customers were rejecting the discs because they were "counterfeit". He was saying things like "tell him the product is guaranteed to be real". "Customs can't tell the difference and therefore is not legally allowed to hold them hehe"
https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...
But that document also shows people test installing the OSs onto different computers, and it shows them using the licence sticker on the machine to activate one of the OSs. I'm not sure that was made clear to the judge: the machines are licenced, and if the machines aren't licenced the supplied discs won't activate. So, I wonder how the discs were being sold. "These discs are licenced, and you won't have problems with activation" would be bad.
EDIT: in general, when you're ending emails to people describing how you're going to evade customs you're probably doing something wrong, and know that you're doing something wrong.
He attempted to sell some of them for more than that.
“This case involves our program to partner with businesses that refurbish PCs. These businesses typically purchase used PCs, wipe them clean of all software, install a fresh version of Windows and sell the refurbished PCs with new software to new customers. When a refurbisher installs a fresh version of Windows on a refurbished PC, we charge a discounted rate of $25 for the software and a new license – it is not free. Thousands of refurbishers participate in this program legally without confusion, and the program works.”
The wording here is a bit tricky. What is a “fresh” version of Windows, what makes the software “new” and is a new license actually required or not?
Restoring the original version of Windows would not require a new license. A so-called “fresh” version however would. These are meaningless terms when it comes to the bits and bytes of WinXP SP3.
I think - totally guessing - this is the difference between a system restore which would include any original bloatware and perhaps no SP updates - vs a clean install with no bloatware and maybe bundling the SP3 with it...
I could see how a “fresh” install which didn’t use the original recovery disk, being sold to a 3rd party as part of a certified refurb program, might require some additional license which Microsoft sells for $25.
I know that the original purchaser can absolutely wipe and reinstall a fresh copy of Windows without recovery media because it’s the first thing I always do when getting a new machine to eliminate any possible bloatwaes.
Is the original license supposed to carry over to a fresh install being made by a refurbisher while preparing the unit for resale?
http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/5/5/F5549310-DBCE-4...
If either one of those is missing, the computer needs to be relicensed for $25, which is the special price that Microsoft makes available for refurbishers and which Microsoft used to value the damages for Lundgren, as he was selling the discs for refurbishers.
No sympathy here. Also, clickbait headline.
If its a major OEM machine like dell/lenovo/hp, there are OEM specific keys in the BIOS. This is why they use manufacturer cd's and not retail ones (fairly certain you can't use microsoft downloaded iso for an oem, but correct me if wrong) You need a certificate component, the bios slic strings, and a OEM key off the coa: http://www.squidworks.net/2015/03/how-to-windows-7-oem-activ...
Point being, if the OEM stopped providing the discs and he only charged to cover costs of the medium without profiting I fail to see Microsoft's logic here.
EDIT: I stand corrected, they weren't selling these discs for a quarter as articles reported.
> he only charged to cover costs of the medium without profiting
This was a profit making venture. You can see his invoices here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...
In the articles I read nobody seemed to know you need an OEM cert to activate an OEM key and nobody bothered to read the exhibit where they talk about ebay'ing discs for $30-$40 and getting a steady cash stream.
ISOs downloaded through Microsoft's Windows Media Creation Tool [1] will read the product key from the BIOS of OEM PCs that were sold with Windows 10 and will auto-activate when connected to the Internet.
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/software-download/windows10
Vista had slic keys as well. XP had SLP oem keys which I'm a bit less familiar with. This site is like a black hole of messy information on the topic: http://dellwindowsreinstallationguide.com/
Somewhere deep in the bowels of it is a section on how to tell which version of windows (xp/vista/7) your oem system is licensed up to. It involves using rw-everything and looking at sliic table version. I have upgraded a dell vista system to a valid 7 license in the past by doing official bios update (updates the slic version) and doing a clean install.
There's a much easier method that automates all of that for you: the Multi-OEM/Retail Project (MRP) [1]. This queries the SLIC or MSDM tables for you during the installation of Windows and enables you to create a single DVD or USB drive that works with OEM PCs from 131 different manufacturers.
All you have to do is copy the included '$oem$' folder to the 'sources' folder of your Windows 10, 8.x, 7 or Windows Vista ISO/USB and it takes care of the rest.
The MRP is designed to determine what motherboard manufacturer is fitted and find the DMI, (board information), to then check against a database to pick the right theme, logo's etc. Along side this, if the computer has either a MSDM key or SLIC within the bios, to check that against the database and attempt to allow LEGAL activation as the Computer's OEM suppliers would do. For those with a Windows 10 Digital Licence (HWID), or MSDM key your computer should auto-activate when you go online, providing you have installed the correct Edition for the HWID/MSDM key.
[1] https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/multi-oem-retail-pr...
That's all to say that, when you are contributing to robbing someone of their freedom, you'd better have a darn good reason for doing so. In this instance, I think many would arrive at the conclusion that Microsoft did not.
* Some people don't know how to download ISO files from the internet. Or even how to use them
* Some have poor internet / limited bandwidth
* Their laptops isn't booting and don't want their files wiped by recovery mode
If a technician is to provide repair discs to people in this scenario - no Windows Keys - should the technician customers this disc for free?
That being said, it is indicative of how complex OS licensing is that there are so many questions in this thread about how licenses are granted and transferred. At some point, MS will need to be making enough money from the cloud that they can drop this licensing model. It wont be soon, though. Windows revenue bwas up in the last earnings report.
That being said, it's business to business stuff...so, while they have leverage, they can't use it all because that would end in litigation. In most cases they want ongoing revenue so some things are just granted.
It's a strange way of doing things, that's for sure, but so are most things in big business.
If he had shipped it with say, a supported Ubuntu, there would be no issue and the users would be protected.
This guy was intentionally creating "fake" Windows recovery discs with Microsoft and Dell logos and searching for unscrupulous buyers that would not notice the small defects and pay him market rate of $25 of a genuine product for something he copied (presumably for less than $2) in China.
Over that all, he had the guts to ignore US Customs seizure notice about his illegal activities and to moreover email is codefendant that "they're non-technical people and have no proof against us".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921634
As said there, it seems like the Courts treated the case as being counterfeit goods, not really copyright or software:
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1847-c...
Hypothetically, if Microsoft had conceded that the value of the CDs was only the value of the optical media[1], then what if Lundgren had only imported $2,500 worth of CDs? How many blank CDs can one purchase for $2,500?
If the prosecutor lacks evidence that the value of the goods exceeds $2,500 then will she still pursue the case? Would it be dismissed? What if she loses? Will that affect her career? Who can she use as an expert to provide evidence that the goods exceed $2,500 in value? Does she have to ask Microsoft for evidence? Why or why not?
1. For example, one argument might be that there was no value to the software stored on the media because it would not run without purchasing a license, e.g. by buying a computer with Windows pre-instealled by an OEM
The original license holder cannot transfer the OS license (unless a company is being bought by other company) so using the serial on the sticker of a refurbished PC by the new owner is generally illegal.
Probably the damages for MS come from refurbishers "assisting" their customers to install OS from repair CDs using serials from stickers left from previous PC owners -- clearly not legal.
But of course it's possible they limited that at some point, and nobody would accuse Microsoft licensing of being transparent.
EDIT: it's just microsoft support forums, but one reference in support of "the license is tied to the motherboard": https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_10...
Is this true? By this logic every PC bought on craigslist would need a new Windows license. I think the license follows the computer not the user, thus you can't transfer a license between machines but it is valid for the original machine it was purchased for. Maybe not relicensing Windows after purchasing a used machine is illegal-- I don't know, but virtually no one does this and likely only pay Microsoft if they need to upgrade from a previous version not covered by the original license.
But before they did that, you could peel off your case serial number, install Win XP on another machine and sell your old one blank. Is this violating your license? I'm honestly not sure, but we did it all the time.
Also if we didn't have an XP key, we'd often go to Staples and write them down off the store units.
the OEM Licensees is tied to the Mainboard of the System, it is forever linked to that Mainboard, you can transfer that mainboard to other owners with out issue and it is still a licensed copy of windows.
Please stop spreading this lie
Wow. That's godawful if true.
This seems to be yet another case of non-natural legal persons having more rights than natural persons.
Whenever in 'doubt', rule in favor of the more generous tithe collector...
Once Windows etc comes with a free license, MS will indeed not be called assholes.
There is no catch in their licenses (unlike Facebook had with React). Please don't judge products such as TypeScript by this.