Well, I’d let you be the judge of that. You’re the one conflating photocopying a book with what Lundgren did, and standing by what the US Feds did at MSFTs behest. So. Why is Lundgren to be jailed? Even if your goofy analogy were true, would you expect to do time if you were caught?
2 Likes
I see the Microsoft apologists and kool-aid drinkers are out in force today.
It doesn’t fucking matter whether or not Lundgren was an angel of free and open source recycling or a filthy rotten counterfeiter. What matters is that Microsoft used some very disingenuous lies on the stand to claim that Lundgren’s disks were counterfeit copies of something of significant value when in fact they were copies of something with essentially zero value.
Installation disks for Microsoft software have no value. The only thing of value, the thing through which Microsoft makes all its money, are the license activation keys. Lundgren’s copies of the disks had essentially zero value and did zero harm to Microsoft’s bottom line because they did not include any keys. The only reason Lundgren is going to jail for 15 months, instead of being let off with a fine, is because Microsoft deceived the judge by claiming the counterfeit disks were worth $25 each when in fact they were worth a few cents each.
Microsoft used lies and deceit to send someone to jail, basically in order to exercise their power and send a message that they’re willing to bully anyone and everyone who dares deviate in the slightest degree from their soul contract license agreements. That is the travesty of justice that Cory is addressing.
9 Likes
Quoting from the 11th Circuit panel:
“To the contrary, as the district court noted, it is difficult to square the defense’s valuation [of zero for the Windows Reinstallation Discs] with the fact that Lundgren and his co-defendant spent about $80,000 to fund a copyright-infringement scheme that they expected to profit from”.
Poor deceived lambs they must be.
1 Like
No, I’m the one conflating:
with what Lundgren did. And your basis for disputing my analogy is… um, I guess that discs are plastic while books are paper?
I’m not a fan of prison, so: no. My only point in all of this has been that - to use Glaurung’s formulation -
…he’s actually the second, and I get a little tired reading articles and posts defending him as if he were the first.
Which are the lambs that are deceived? The judges by MSFT & the so-called expert? What exactly was MSFT deprived of? Something that they themselves distribute for free? Lundgren and his business associate had a scheme to make the reimaging of large volumes of used computers easier to do. The process didn’t violate the EULA etc. Windows is licensed to the computer. This is MSFTs idea. A valid CoA allows the install of an original version of the OS. This is how MSFT wanted it. Lundgren made the process easier, or perhaps presented his method as a business advantage to end buyers. At best the legality of making “Dell” knock-offs is the limit of misdeeds. Just because MSFT didn’t like someone using a non-authorized but not illegal method of distributing software MSFT itself distributes for free doesn’t mean that Lundgren should go to the pokey.
2 Likes
I don’t have any desire to carry Microsoft’s water. To me the principle is clear: you don’t get to take my stuff and sell it as yours. It does not matter in the least whether I am, at the same time, giving it away for free; it is still mine, to distribute or withhold as I choose. If you don’t like that, then perhaps the rule of law is not for you?
2 Likes
How much profit can be made from $0.25 per disc? That looks like merely passing on the cost of production.
Smells of troll in here. Either that or demagogue, they’re very similar musks.
3 Likes
You really have no concept of how software IP is fundamentally different from book/movie/music IP, do you?
1 Like
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
1 Like
Intellectual property is theft.
2 Likes
I figured we’d get here eventually.
Why not cut to the chase? I have no interest in quarreling about small details while leaving the real issue unaddressed. All property is theft, but especially so is intellectual property. History’s moving and it’s going one of two ways.
2 Likes
Sigh. Math, do you speak it? $80,000 spent on 28,000 disks made = $2.85 per disk in costs. So selling them at $3 each he makes 15 cents per disk, selling them at $4 each nets him $1.15 per disk, for a grand total of $32,000 in profit - we’re talking crazy tycoon income levels here.
ETA: the $80k figure is from upthread where @MTHead quotes from the appeal court ruling that Lundgren spent 80k to fund the production of the disks.
1 Like
No, they just get their non-official download sites into the first page of Google results for “Teamviewer” and gather advertising revenue.
They’re providing an alternate source for a commercial product that is distributed freely and needs a license to unlock while gaining income from it. It’s the same. It’s very much the same, and it’s a legit business model.
OK so the conversation on this seems pretty ridiculous.
Near as I can tell Lungren was indicted and criminally charged after US Customs siezed some of his discs and opened an investigation.
More over he plead guilty to the following criminal charges.
So one way or the other he was going to get some sort of sentence. And for first offense those cap out at 5 years, $250k and 10 years $2m respectively. That money is fines. Not settlements. This isn’t a civil case and Microsoft does not appear to have been involved in instigating the case.
This guy got 15 months and a $50k fine. That. Is. Not. An. Extreme. Sentence. Given the charges he plead guilty too.
It seems that this particular appeal was in regards to sentencing is in regards to the courts rejection of Lungrens claims that the discs were valueless. A claim he made in an attempt to minimize his sentence.
That’s pretty ridiculous. Since he paid for the discs. And was seeking to sell them. They clearly had some value.
The prosecutors and original indictment placed the value at full retail licenses/discs. $299. And Microsoft’s involvement appears to have been limited to some boiler plate infringement is damaging stuff and placing a value on $25 bucks on the damn things.
A number the court worked off of in the absence of a plausible argument from lungren, And the prosecution’s original claim being excessive.
This was an appeal of the original courts decision to accept that $25 valuation. Not of Lungrens guilt. He plead guilty long ago. Nor was it plausibly going to result in no penalty at all. Lungren’s partner in the deal flipped on him, plead guilty and got 5 months house arrest.
Multiple judges. The original judge. And now a tribunal. Have accepted the $25 valuation while noting that it might be inaccurate. But Lungren’s zero value agreement didn’t give them anything else to work with.
And he still got off fairly light. Less than 2 years and $50k in fines is a damn light sentence given the charges he admited to.
Lungren’s own claims about the case seem to keep changing and much of the reporting is of the op-ed doom saying sort. Accepting his spin on it uncritically. But the Washington Post article, even if it’s quite Lungren friendly, is pretty detailed. And near as I can tell lines up pretty well with other straight news, just the facts reporting on the case.
This very much does not seem to be the situation that Lungren is claiming it is. And it’s very much not the sort of case the “Fuck microsoft” position seems to think it is.
3 Likes
Largely because of a peculiar attitude on the part of some of the commenters that since Lundgren is guilty of the charge, therefore it is not permissible to interrogate the severity of the sentence, or to criticize any skulduggery Microsoft engaged in with their disingenous claims that the counterfeit disks were worth $25 each, or with their behind the scenes urging of the prosecutors to not plead this case down.
4 Likes
It’s often even simpler than that. The key code to license Windows is printed on a sticker ON THE USED COMPUTER.
3 Likes
What do you think he was doing it to be charitable? Come on man people can’t be this crazy. Read HIS EMAIL detailing how they lost a deal when the purchaser discovered that the discs were counterfeit. This is actual evidence.
Why go through the trouble of trying to fool the people you are selling to, other e-recycling companies, that they are buying legitimate software? Why would he lie to them and try to sell legitimate companies counterfeit software? Why go to China to setup the counterfeiting operation if there was no money in it? Lol.
2 Likes
Go read his emails detailing his counterfeiting operation. How he was getting caught when trying to sell hundreds of these fraudulent discs to businesses who notices they were fakes. Then come back and tell everyone how his operation is exactly like Cnet. A company who enters into mutual agreements with developers to distribute software and makes money on ad revenue. If you think this email contains business practices that are “totally legit”, then you’re mentally challenged.
1 Like
