3 ms·

> The relation between the guy and Microsoft is clearly a parasitic one. You could say the same about anyone trying to repair or extend the life of products...

by tomxor 9y ago

> The relation between the guy and Microsoft is clearly a parasitic one. 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.

ThoAppelsin 9y ago
> And before anyone brings up the straw man of "he profited"... on 25c per disc? 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.
- tomxor 9y ago
  Fair enough I only saw the 25c price not the "$3.25", however I cannot find the $92,000 figure, where did they pull that from? i'm wondering if they are mincing "business revenue" with "counterfeit revenue", they seemed happy enough to mix physical goods fraud terms to IP and not the reverse so I wouldn't put it past them. 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).

by tomxor 9y ago

ThoAppelsin 9y ago

> And before anyone brings up the straw man of "he profited"... on 25c per disc? 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.

tomxor 9y ago
Fair enough I only saw the 25c price not the "$3.25", however I cannot find the $92,000 figure, where did they pull that from? i'm wondering if they are mincing "business revenue" with "counterfeit revenue", they seemed happy enough to mix physical goods fraud terms to IP and not the reverse so I wouldn't put it past them. 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).