Electronics-Recycling Innovator Going to Prison for Extending Computers’ Lives
returntonow.net
returntonow.net
example of such an email:
https://1gew6o3qn6vx9kp3s42ge0y1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-... (linked from below article)
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...
> “No normal company or buyer will notice such issues.” “Make me proud so that our business can grow and we can keep winning.”
> “There are tricks for bypassing customs with container’s & LTL but currently this is how I get these products without invoices past customs.”
> “If they call you just play stupid and tell them you ordered from an asset management broker overseas.”
> Lundgren made 28,000 of the discs and shipped them to a broker, who planned to sell them to computer refurbishing shops for about 25 cents each, so they could provide them to used-computer buyers.
> Microsoft’s lawyers valued the discs at $25 each and said they represent $700,000 in potential sales.
Firstly I think it's a harsh sentence (because copying isn't theft[0]), but secondly can anyone tell me why on earth he didn't just burn some Debian discs? (Perhaps with LXDE if it's really old computers.)
Because Windows is what the typical American PC user expects and is familiar with.
Without the "American".
So I wonder why Lundgren has been going out of his way to face potential criminal prosecution, fines and jail time in order to provide what most people arguably might more familiar with? I don't get his cost/benefit analysis.
At our print studios we have one printer that works with Windows and not GNU/Linux and one where it's the other way around.
He wasn't always selling them for 25cents. There are documents from him where he's selling them for $20.
Ok, I think that may justify using the word "counterfeit" then.
> There are documents from him where he's selling them for $20.
The thing is, it would have been perfectly legal for him to sell Debian CDs for $20. That would still have made the old computers usable again. It's good to make use of old computers, but I think the implied argument of having to copy Windows recovery CDs to save old computers is nonsense.
The story just puzzles me. Maybe he didn't realise that you can sell free software[1]?
All of his protestation - "I was only selling them for cost" (a lie), and "I was trying to extend the life of computers" (linux would have done that, and the free downloads of Windows would have done that) - is the defence he tried to mount against the criminal charge.
That defence was rejected by the court.
>> Microsoft’s lawyers valued the discs at $25 each and said they represent $700,000 in potential sales.
Something doesn't match: on the Microsoft's page I get:
"one transaction alone generated $28,000 in revenue for Mr. Lundgren and his co-defendant from the sale of 8,000 discs."
Which means his revenue was $3.5 pro disc in that case.
Interestingly, in both cases the number 28,000 is specified.
What about the devices that Apple and Google are selling? (No endorsement implied)
he said the guy should be sued in civil court and be made to pay damages, rather than sent to prison by a criminal court
https://1gew6o3qn6vx9kp3s42ge0y1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
In fact, the article appears to just be the LA times article (linked in the story) chopped up. Some verbatim, some paraphrased.
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-microso...
Also [1]: > However, in essence, what Lundgren eventually pleaded guilty to was making these Dell refurbishers’ customers believe that they were obtaining a genuine Dell-branded "Reinstallation Disc" with Dell’s blessing, when in actuality, they weren’t.
P.S. I love how the downvotes pour in with no actual dissenting opinion :). Nowhere even in the guy's own emails can anyone find anything but mentions of profit, a ripe market, and basically doing his best to deceive customers by making the product look like a genuine Dell one (arranging for fake Microsoft and Dell labels to be applied to the discs). Nobody goes to such lengths to deceive their customers out of honesty and good intentions.
What he did is like recycling paper into freshly printed counterfeit banknotes. Real Robin Hood.
> “You would have to be an expert with a magnifying glass to know and/or see such differences.” [2]
> “If the software will be 98% accurate I believe I can get away with that.” [2]
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/27/17293650/microsoft-recycl...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/why-the-man-who-...
[2] https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...
You might as well argue that downloading the disk image through a third-party ISP is a counterfeit because the ISP is sending you bits labeled as coming from Microsoft on their own medium, and they are even profiting from it!
Also the guy himself expected the software on that "plastic" to be 98% accurate. Of course, none of the customers ever got to know that. Do you think the end users paid just 25c for them also? ;)
Since you have no problem with getting fakes without knowing in advance, how would you feel if the next time your parents give you allowance money they were "98% accurate" fakes?
No, a dollar bill that was not blessed by the FED does not fulfill the one and only function of a currency of being an accounting tool for people's economic contributions to society. A copy of a windows disc is functionally identical to a "genuine" windows disc.
> The least he could have done was tell the customers they are "replicas" or whatever.
Well, sure he could. But why should he, legal reasons aside? Should ISPs label all websites as "replicas" because you receive a copy made by the ISP?
> But he'd make less money.
So? Is it ethically wrong to do something that earns you more money?
> Also the guy himself expected the software on that "plastic" to be 98% accurate.
Source? In particular, what kind of inaccuracies are we talking about?
> Since you have no problem with getting fakes without knowing in advance, how would you feel if the next time your parents give you allowance money they were "98% accurate" fakes?
I have a problem with getting fakes without knowing in advance. I just don't subscribe to the idea that an identical copy of digital data is a fake.
B.S.
> a dollar bill
Actually that is not the purpose of money (maybe one of them). But we just agreed that if it's identical (or you know, at least 98% accurate) I can put someone else's "seal of approval" and be totally legit. You can't have it both ways.
The seller should be honest about what he's selling. You asking "why?" says a lot. The issue that was described pretty clearly for most people around here isn't the theft of software but the fact that the guy put MS and Dell labels on the physical object (the CD) without any legal right. Oh, if we "just" put the legal reasons aside sure, this is totally legit. Just like every other crime out there ;).
> Source? In particular, what kind of inaccuracies are we talking about?
Source? Try the links in my comment. It was in the guy's email, presented as evidence in court. Reading before replying helps make your comment a little more relevant. The first things that come to mind is that he used a very outdated image and subpar CD blanks to cut costs.
> I just don't subscribe to the idea that an identical copy of digital data is a fake.
There are people who don't subscribe to the idea that a woman should be allowed to change her mind during intercourse. There was already an agreement in place. Does this make them right? Back to out topic, the physical CD with fake labels is a fake, as was made very clear in the many official quotes I put in the comment. What if I put a Nike label on my fake a*s home-made shoes and sell them to you for $200? I'm innocent right? The shoes are my own creation and apparently I'm free to use someone else's name as I see fit. Legit. Law aside...
The "I reject your reality and substitute my own" argument doesn't make for a good defense argument in court or a good comment.
The "deceit" here is on the level of "rinse and repeat" instructions on shampoo bottles. The disks contained exactly what customers expected and the "deception" was only in the labeling of the disks. Just because the business seems a bit sleazy does not mean he deserves jail time.
Would a person selling you a fake dollar deserve jail time? Do you need more time to think about what you're saying?
The second major argument that you miss because nobody was next to you to read it aloud to you so you can catch it is that he went to prison for putting fake labels on a physical CD and claiming that object is an original. Most likely because of using an outdated copy of the software and low quality CD blanks (and manufacturing process) to cut costs.
Whether you feel safe or not is not the point. At least one person bought that CD at a price (NOT 25c) assuming it was original, "guaranteed" by Dell, and would not have paid the price knowing it's just a fake from a guy in his basement so to speak.
And if he wanted to "extend the life of electronics" he would have just given people direct links to the free downloads. But he didn't, he wanted to make money by breaking the law. I'm disturbed that this is so hard to understand for some people.
I can only assume none of you have ever achieved something worth using or stealing which is why it's hard to comprehend why someone stealing your name to put on their stolen copy is not cool.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...
Microsoft didn't bring up the case, and it's obvious from the guys own emails he was producing counterfeit discs to pass off as genuine for his own profit. If he were blatantly doing it, and not trying to deceive buyers, I would not feel as strongly as I do that he is trying to spin it differently now that he has been caught. If it weren't for profit, he could have spent his efforts publicizing the availability of genuine discs on his blog and elsewhere to get people to keep their old Windows machines. XP didn't officially end until April 2014, and he was doing this in 2012.
In the end, I think 15 years sentence is very harsh considering rapists get an average of 9.8 years, and only serve about 5.4 years.
I still think 15 months is too much for what this is even if the guy did it for personal gain. He should have received a fine at most.
I had a similar feeling of the sentence being a bit much in the case of Mark Abene aka Phiber Optik [1] back in my NYC Echo Days (where is Stacy Horn nowadays?). Phiber Optik (Mark Abene)was sent to prison for the AT&T hack to be made an "example" of the "Hacker threat". He served 12 months.