4 ms·

Sounds like this guy made a really bad decision in putting the Windows and Dell logos on the disks, and then selling them (albeit for $0.25, which would seem to

Sounds like this guy made a really bad decision in putting the Windows and Dell logos on the disks, and then selling them (albeit for $0.25, which would seem to just barely cover the cost of production.) But that bad decision pales in comparison to the court's decision to value at $25 what Microsoft was giving away for free. If anything, he was saving them a significant amount of bandwidth.

treis 9y ago
Microsoft wasn't giving them away for free though. According to the article, they get $25 for each disk from computer manufacturers.
- monocasa 9y ago
  The .iso was available for free off of their website.
  - mbreese 9y ago
    Off of their website. It might be free, but Microsoft is still the only party who can legally distribute it (or OEMs that have been granted that right from Microsoft). Just because it’s free doesn’t mean the owner doesn’t have rights. (This is also the basis of the GPL.)
    - dahauns 9y ago
      I agree with you in principle, but the copyright infringement itself was not even up for debate in this case - he pleaded guilty on that. It's about the damages.
      - mbreese 9y ago
        I agree that the damages seem excessive. But that’s almost an impossible thing to figure out. On one hand, it’s free to download. On the other - there maybe some value to Microsoft to know who is using that recovery tool. There probably is some lost license revenue too. But how do you calculate that? I hope that aspect get appealed and a more reasonable punishment is found. From my reading though, it didn’t seem like he did plead guilty to the copyright infringement of the data, only the logos. I don’t know what all of the counts were, but he only plead to a subset of them. And going in, his press interviews seemed to suggest that he didn’t quite get what the problem was. But again, the punishment seems really harsh.
    - djrogers 9y ago
      No, but the value of the disks is directly linked to sentencing - since the value was determined to be $25/ea, the sentence was very stiff. If the value had been determined to be closer to $0, it could have been a small fine, probation, time served etc.
    - drtillberg 9y ago
      That is the way copyright works in general, except it isn't the way the Internet works. When I download from Microsoft, I actually am getting a secondhand copy from my ISP, who got it maybe from Microsoft, or maybe some other party in the chain between me and Microsoft. In addition, if we are talking about general content of the Microsoft website, search engines routinely index store and cache the contents, and offer to serve it to third parties, without any intervention from Microsoft. So no, if you post it on a website society recognizes that you are offering to allow a host of intermediaries copy and serve the content to intended end-users. Maybe this guy isn't all that sympathetic, maybe it's a little confusing because we are talking about CDs and binaries, but when you sit down and think about it this decision makes no sense. What a colossal waste of resources.
- jamroom 9y ago
  But that also includes the OS License if I am reading the article correctly. The value of a replacement for the OS is the cost to download it from MS.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- codetrotter 9y ago
  The $25 includes the cost of a Windows license. The restore disks Lundgren was intending to distribute required the user to be in possession of a license already. Lundgren should not have been sentenced to prison for this. At most he should have been punished for trademark infringement. It’s a god damn travesty that we have judges who don’t seem to understand the very important technical details of the court cases they are judging in.
  - treis 9y ago
    I did a little bit more research and my original post was factually inaccurate, but the point was correct. An article from 2011 says this: >The original Microsoft (COA) attached to the PC does not allow you to reload Microsoft Windows software when no original recovery media is present. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mssmallbiz/2011/10/05/looking-to-provide-refurbished-pcs-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-microsoft-refurbisher-program/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mssmallbiz/2011/10/05/looki... So that's the crucial point. Yes, the software was free to download, but you needed the original recovery disk to legitimately sell a refurbished computer. By creating counterfeit disks he would enable refurbishers to avoid the fee to Microsoft.
    - sevensor 9y ago
      > >The original Microsoft (COA) attached to the PC does not allow you to reload Microsoft Windows software when no original recovery media is present. Thank you for digging this up. This is an important point, and I think a lot of us, including myself and the hapless recycler, have naively assumed that sticker plus iso equals a legit install in Microsoft's eyes. Nevertheless, it's still a travesty that he was convicted for this.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > it's still a travesty that he was convicted for this Conviction seems fine. The fine is debatable but roughly okay. It’s the jail time that makes no sense.
      - 9y ago
- oldcynic 9y ago
  "But both the letter and the expert were pricing a disk that came with a Microsoft license" So the $25 is the cost, to Dell etc, of volume purchase of Windows OEM along with the sticker with licence number. Utterly unrelated to a restore disk for a machine that already has the sticker, and thus a valid licence. That he is found guilty is a travesty.
- RIMR 9y ago
  https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows7 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows7 Anyone with a license can download the ISO. Even then, you need the license to activate it once it's installed. This guy was just providing the ISO burned onto a disk, with instruction for the user on how to activate it with their existing license. Microsoft lost zero revenue - they just don't want people extending the life of their license, because they would rather people needlessly purchase additional licenses...

treis 9y ago

Microsoft wasn't giving them away for free though. According to the article, they get $25 for each disk from computer manufacturers.

monocasa 9y ago
The .iso was available for free off of their website.
- mbreese 9y ago
  Off of their website. It might be free, but Microsoft is still the only party who can legally distribute it (or OEMs that have been granted that right from Microsoft). Just because it’s free doesn’t mean the owner doesn’t have rights. (This is also the basis of the GPL.)
  - dahauns 9y ago
    I agree with you in principle, but the copyright infringement itself was not even up for debate in this case - he pleaded guilty on that. It's about the damages.
    - mbreese 9y ago
      I agree that the damages seem excessive. But that’s almost an impossible thing to figure out. On one hand, it’s free to download. On the other - there maybe some value to Microsoft to know who is using that recovery tool. There probably is some lost license revenue too. But how do you calculate that? I hope that aspect get appealed and a more reasonable punishment is found. From my reading though, it didn’t seem like he did plead guilty to the copyright infringement of the data, only the logos. I don’t know what all of the counts were, but he only plead to a subset of them. And going in, his press interviews seemed to suggest that he didn’t quite get what the problem was. But again, the punishment seems really harsh.
  - djrogers 9y ago
    No, but the value of the disks is directly linked to sentencing - since the value was determined to be $25/ea, the sentence was very stiff. If the value had been determined to be closer to $0, it could have been a small fine, probation, time served etc.
  - drtillberg 9y ago
    That is the way copyright works in general, except it isn't the way the Internet works. When I download from Microsoft, I actually am getting a secondhand copy from my ISP, who got it maybe from Microsoft, or maybe some other party in the chain between me and Microsoft. In addition, if we are talking about general content of the Microsoft website, search engines routinely index store and cache the contents, and offer to serve it to third parties, without any intervention from Microsoft. So no, if you post it on a website society recognizes that you are offering to allow a host of intermediaries copy and serve the content to intended end-users. Maybe this guy isn't all that sympathetic, maybe it's a little confusing because we are talking about CDs and binaries, but when you sit down and think about it this decision makes no sense. What a colossal waste of resources.
jamroom 9y ago
But that also includes the OS License if I am reading the article correctly. The value of a replacement for the OS is the cost to download it from MS.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
codetrotter 9y ago
The $25 includes the cost of a Windows license. The restore disks Lundgren was intending to distribute required the user to be in possession of a license already. Lundgren should not have been sentenced to prison for this. At most he should have been punished for trademark infringement. It’s a god damn travesty that we have judges who don’t seem to understand the very important technical details of the court cases they are judging in.
- treis 9y ago
  I did a little bit more research and my original post was factually inaccurate, but the point was correct. An article from 2011 says this: >The original Microsoft (COA) attached to the PC does not allow you to reload Microsoft Windows software when no original recovery media is present. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mssmallbiz/2011/10/05/looking-to-provide-refurbished-pcs-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-microsoft-refurbisher-program/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mssmallbiz/2011/10/05/looki... So that's the crucial point. Yes, the software was free to download, but you needed the original recovery disk to legitimately sell a refurbished computer. By creating counterfeit disks he would enable refurbishers to avoid the fee to Microsoft.
  - sevensor 9y ago
    > >The original Microsoft (COA) attached to the PC does not allow you to reload Microsoft Windows software when no original recovery media is present. Thank you for digging this up. This is an important point, and I think a lot of us, including myself and the hapless recycler, have naively assumed that sticker plus iso equals a legit install in Microsoft's eyes. Nevertheless, it's still a travesty that he was convicted for this.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > it's still a travesty that he was convicted for this Conviction seems fine. The fine is debatable but roughly okay. It’s the jail time that makes no sense.
    - 9y ago
oldcynic 9y ago
"But both the letter and the expert were pricing a disk that came with a Microsoft license" So the $25 is the cost, to Dell etc, of volume purchase of Windows OEM along with the sticker with licence number. Utterly unrelated to a restore disk for a machine that already has the sticker, and thus a valid licence. That he is found guilty is a travesty.
RIMR 9y ago
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows7 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows7 Anyone with a license can download the ISO. Even then, you need the license to activate it once it's installed. This guy was just providing the ISO burned onto a disk, with instruction for the user on how to activate it with their existing license. Microsoft lost zero revenue - they just don't want people extending the life of their license, because they would rather people needlessly purchase additional licenses...