6 ms·

> 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 enoug

by zeusk 9y ago

> 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. 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.

devindotcom 9y ago
The sentence is based on the value of the infringed goods, right? A recovery disc doesn't have the same value as a Windows license - Microsoft gives one away and charges for the other. The discs only have value to someone who already has a product key or buys one alongside it. As far as I can tell no damage was demonstrated at all. Microsoft doesn't sell or make these discs, and Dell (once) provided them for free alongside existing licensed installs. 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.
- zeusk 9y ago
  > 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. 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.
syshum 9y ago
>>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"
- zeusk 9y ago
  I'm interpreting law as I was taught. And if you're going to question my ethics and morality over my interpretation of the law and sentence, I don't take the work of others and distribute copies of it while claiming them to be genuinely produced and spend great effort to hide that fact to defraud the buyers while also trying to downplay law enforcement and coach people on withholding information from federal agents to enrich myself. 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.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>I'm interpreting law as I was taught. And if you're going to question my ethics and morality over my interpretation of the law and sentence 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

by zeusk 9y ago

devindotcom 9y ago

The sentence is based on the value of the infringed goods, right? A recovery disc doesn't have the same value as a Windows license - Microsoft gives one away and charges for the other. The discs only have value to someone who already has a product key or buys one alongside it. As far as I can tell no damage was demonstrated at all. Microsoft doesn't sell or make these discs, and Dell (once) provided them for free alongside existing licensed installs. 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.

zeusk 9y ago
> 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. 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.

syshum 9y ago

>>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"

zeusk 9y ago
I'm interpreting law as I was taught. And if you're going to question my ethics and morality over my interpretation of the law and sentence, I don't take the work of others and distribute copies of it while claiming them to be genuinely produced and spend great effort to hide that fact to defraud the buyers while also trying to downplay law enforcement and coach people on withholding information from federal agents to enrich myself. 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.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>I'm interpreting law as I was taught. And if you're going to question my ethics and morality over my interpretation of the law and sentence 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