> [basically the whole comment] 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

> [basically the whole comment] 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 The first things that come to mind is that he used a very outdated image and subpar CD blanks to cut costs.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.