Hacker News Comments on
Microsoft case results in prison time for restore CD copier.
Louis Rossmann
·
Youtube
·
36
HN points
·
2
HN comments
- This course is unranked · view top recommended courses
Hacker News Stories and Comments
All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this video.> Please stop parroting that non-sense.Please stop the Microsoft apologism.
It is not nonsense. Microsoft testified against the man in court. They wanted him to go to prison.
And yes, what they did is lie to the court in order to achieve that goal. The sentencing is based on Microsoft testimony.
Louis Rossmann has some choice words for Microsoft:
⬐ tw04>It is not nonsense. Microsoft testified against the man in court. They wanted him to go to prison.He was selling counterfeit disks as genuine. Was warned to stop, and didn't. You either haven't bothered to read the link provided, any of the court rulings (it was upheld on appeal), or you're just such an MS hater you're going to deny reality.
Either way, when there are literally email threads of him trying to sell disks to computer refurbishers as "genuine" and being called out for them being counterfeit, you're not going to convince me he was the innocent victim he's claiming to be.
I'm just going to assume I'm correct in you not reading any of the links provided, and I'll leave this here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/Ema...
And if you want to "prove" that MS is in the wrong, I'd suggest you link to a lawyer disputing the results of the case. Not a guy who fixes laptops for a living.
⬐ cyphar> He was selling counterfeit disks as genuine.While this is technically an accurate statement, it sounds like he was selling counterfeit Windows CDs (that Microsoft sold). In fact, he sold bit-for-bit copies of Windows restore CDs that you can get from Microsoft or Dell for free online -- Microsoft claim in the blog you posted that they sold it for $25 but that is not true (they sold CDs with Windows licenses for that much, and you needed a Windows license to use the restore CD -- so you can arithmetically conclude they are worth $0). The court and court of appeal disagree with that point for two reasons:
1. Microsoft's expert witness claimed that you could use most of Windows with the restore CD image. This ignores the fact that you can download a trial image of Windows for free, or install Windows on many machines without a licence key and have it mostly work in the same way. It also ignores that such a system mostly working is entirely the fault of Microsoft, by their own admission, because they wrote earlier versions of Windows to only nag you for a licence -- and the 30-day free trial was actually perpetual (like WinZip, funnily enough).
2. It is difficult to believe that the defendants would spend tens of thousands of dollars to manufacture disks that are worthless -- though this is said as an aside. This ignores the fact they sold them because they knew there was a need for them, and so the value of the disks was the market value and not any intrinsic value that Microsoft claims they had. I don't buy his "just wanted to help people find the discs" comments, but I don't agree that he made them because he believed they had an objective worth of at least $25. Because he downloaded the images for free.
Obviously I disagree with their views, but more importantly the court claims their worth entirely on Microsoft's expert testimony. It's quite clear they wanted to
Microsoft claims that the software is counterfeit in their blog post you linked, which is not physically possible since it's a bit-for-bit copy. Not to mention that the court decision says that they distributed unauthorized copies of copyrighted software, which is not the same as what Microsoft said (the court effectively found that the disks were identical copies).
The key issue IMHO was that the CDs he sold had the Microsoft logo screen-printed on it in an attempt to make his customers' customers not think that the CDs were counterfeit (even though the software was not counterfeit -- it was an unauthorized copy). Obviously this was a stupid (and as the court case proved, illegal) thing to do, because it is obvious proof of him trying to to deceive people. That was obviously illegal and unethical, not to mention selling unauthorized copies of copyrighted software.
> Not a guy who fixes laptops for a living.
Bit of an odd stance from someone who is just posting links to Microsoft's view on the case, which is obviously going to be in favour of the decision (and as above possibly incorrect).
Louis has his biases, sure, but in his interview with the guy it was quite clear (to me at least) that he had an issue with the key point of the case -- that he actually sold discs with a Microsoft logo on them that were not made by Microsoft, and claimed they were genuine. He also admitted his initial video about the topic was not accurate because he wasn't aware of all the facts, and instead focused entirely on the valuation argument in the case.
⬐ tw04⬐ chithanh>Bit of an odd stance from someone who is just posting links to Microsoft's view on the case, which is obviously going to be in favour of the decision (and as above possibly incorrect).How so? I posted a link to Microsoft's legal counsel stating their case. I've yet to see any third party lawyer make a claim otherwise. If you want to dispute a lawyer and the justice department and their take on the law, the very least you (op) can do is provide a reference to an opinion from another lawyer.
⬐ chithanh> I've yet to see any third party lawyer make a claim otherwise.You still don't get it. There is no disagreement in matters of law. Eric Lundgren even pleaded guilty to counterfeiting Dell restore discs. The only question that Microsoft was involved was how hard the punishment should be, because that is based on the value of the pirated goods.
Given that the restore disc images can be freely downloaded from the Internet and burned to disc by anyone, their value is negligible. Microsoft however lied to the court by saying that the value of the software on the restore discs is the same $25 as the value of the software and the refurbisher license. Nevermind that you need a valid license key to successfully install and activate Windows which didn't come with the restore disc.
And the court believed Microsoft's lies, and calculated the damages and prison term based on them. And this is why I stand by my original statement that Microsoft was "Having a man sent to prison for making Windows Restore DVDs from ISO images that you could download freely from the Internet"
And if you even in the face of the facts still claim that it is non-sense, then I am sorry to say: It is you who denies reality and parrots Microsoft apologism.
⬐ cypharJust as an aside, it isn't their case (you said so yourself). But I'll move on.> If you want to dispute a lawyer and the justice department and their take on the law,
I'm not disputing the law, I'm disputing the facts presented and the conclusions drawn based on said facts. Given that you and I are technically inclined enough to understand what a Windows restore CD is and what restrictions it places, this means that we are in a position to be able to discuss the facts of the case and whether they pass muster.
In the previous comment, I explain in some detail what aspect of the facts I disagree with as well as referencing parts of both the decision and the appeal (from the link you posted). The conclusions made by the judges are clearly based on the facts presented by Microsoft, and so discussing whether those facts are actually true is a completely valid thing to do.
And finally, I don't disagree with the court that he broke the law nor do I disagree that he should be punished. I just disagree with several of the statements Microsoft made (in my opinion, in bad faith) related to the case -- and the valuation statement is particularly shady because it is simply and provably untrue. The reason why the judges explicitly decided that Microsoft's expert witness was more credible than the defendant's expert witness is not something I know -- but it doesn't mean that they were correct to do so.
I have followed this case. I know Microsoft's position and have read their public statements.I know that Microsoft told egregious untruths to the courts about the value of the recovery CDs. They claimed with a straight face that the value of such a recovery CD (burned from an ISO image that could be downloaded freely from the Internet) was identical to the value of a Windows OEM license. And the courts have believed their statements.
You haven't bothered to check any of the facts besides what Microsoft purports. Your distorted view of reality seems to be entirely shaped by Microsoft PR.
> I'd suggest you link to a lawyer disputing the results of the case. Not a guy who fixes laptops for a living.
The facts speak for themselves. There is even an hour+ long interview with Eric Lundgren where he clearly describes his actions and motives and what he expected to accomplish.
The "guy who fixes laptops for a living" has probably more insight into the reality of repair/refurbishing/reuse of computers and electronics than you will ever have.
> you're just such an MS hater you're going to deny reality.
Where do I deny reality? All the seven points that I listed are verified by independent observers and media.
No matter if you believe whether Eric Lundgren deserved punishment or not, it was Microsoft's testimony that was critical in convincing the court and sending him to prison for 15 months.
In what way is what Apple did to Henrik Huseby worse than than what Microsoft did to Eric Lundgren?I mean, Apple sued a business and wanted property confiscated. But Microsoft actually had someone sent to prison.
Louis Rossmann who became famous with his Apple repair videos, and is otherwise very critical of Apple repair policies, had some choice words for Microsoft in this case.
⬐ baldfatEric Lundgren should have had people install Linux on the computers or some other Open OS. The issue was Microsoft made $25 a disc for selling to refurbisher shops.100% agree its stupid but once Eric was caught he was in the hands of federal prosecutors and MS Lawyers that needed to "defend" the value of their property. This is why we encourage people to stray away from closed OS.
⬐ nkassisCan't watch videos at the moment but found this article about this case:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/24...
⬐ krmmalikIn around 2002, my father and I owned a computer assembly and repair business in a small town about 200 miles away from London, UK.We were doing just under $1.5m in revenue a year. I was just 22 years old. We had a few large clients that were contributing to the bulk of our revenue. Life was good.
I can't get into the details of exactly how it happened because I dont want to open a new legal case or anything, but Microsoft used similar intimidation tactics to drive my father and I out of business, despite the fact that legally we hadnt done anything wrong. We got really scared. We were a small company and I was very young and we had no financial muscle comparative to Microsoft and as a result of the bad publicity etc, we lost our major clients anyhow.
Microsoft drove us into the ground.
A year before that, we had a major University in the UK as a client that defaulted on a payment for a large volume of inventory and left us to pick up the tab. Thankfully it didn't kill the business, but it certainly brought it to the teetering edge.
This is how many larger institutions destroy the small player and why so many are afraid of going into Entrepreneurship. He has the most financial clout often tends to win.
I have many other stories from other associates I could share too, but we really need people to step forward that have legal experience that can help the small player that doesnt have the financial clout for taking on the big boys, not to mention regulation needs to change but im not so hopeful for that.
Just thought I'd share. I've not mentioned this anywhere public in over 15 years.
⬐ WalterGR⬐ ashelmireIn around 2002, my father and I owned a computer assembly and repair business in a small town about 200 miles away from London, UK.Why would Microsoft run a computer assembly and repair company into the ground, especially in 2002?
That’s pretty hard to believe without there being more to the story.
⬐ teiloThis is almost certainly about OEM Windows licenses.It is outrageous that private corporate disputes over copyright result in jail time, rather than just financial or corporate sanctions.Edit: After reading Microsoft's blog post https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac... and the e-mails Mr. Lundgren sent, however, it does seem pretty clear that he was trying to profit from these repair cds and sell them as, basically, genuine cds. US government brought the case through customs and it seems there was willful intent to defraud the government.
⬐ kartanI agree with the point that having technology illiterate judges allows for abuse from technology companies.The fight of tech corporations against reuse of hardware it is ecologically sustainable.
And finally, tech companies are negating the ownership of our own hardware. The software is licensed, hardware only works with certain software, so you don't own anymore what you buy. And laws are obsolete when it comes to this fact.
⬐ antoineMoPa⬐ at-fates-handsYou mean unsustainable?⬐ kartanYes. Thank you for the correction.FYI Microsoft didn't bring the case, ICE did.The main fact which a lot of people seem to be is he made these copies so he could sell them. The same ones you can get for free from Dell.
Clifford Lundgren pled guilty to conspiring to traffic in counterfeit goods, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a)(1), and criminal copyright infringement, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(a) and (b)(1). Lundgren’s plea related to his role in a scheme in which he created and intended to sell about 28,000 copies of Dell reinstallation discs for Microsoft Windows, without permission from Microsoft.
He was making copies en masse in China then was shipping them back in an effort to resell them. I've read in various places the cost was in the neighborhood of 80K to make the copies. I'm not a business expert, but I don't know many people who put down 80K of their own money to create a product they're going to give away for free.
Customs intercepted the discs when they were shipped and started investigated what was going on.
⬐ giancarlostoro⬐ tux1968Ouch. This makes more sense to me than Microsoft going after the man. I would hope they (Microsoft) wouldn't hunt down people doing this sort of thing.⬐ DanBCHe wasn't just making and selling the discs (that people could get for free from the OEM), he was also giving instructions about how to make the discs more accurate copies of the original media, and how to evade customs.https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/FIN...
https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...
⬐ giancarlostoroYeah... that guy totally asked for jail time. It sucks because everytime I've read the whole case I missunderstood that it wasn't Microsoft specifically hunting him down and sadly others will make the same mistake as me. I'm someone who respects Microsoft, I cannot imagine people who already distrust Microsoft misunderstanding this completely for years to come.What's depressing is that this man was "selling" the copies for 25 cents in order to recover the cost of the physical CD he was burning -- not to enrich himself.This is a good guy being screwed over by Microsoft and the legal system.
⬐ DanBC⬐ JadeNBNo, he wasn't. He was selling some of the discs for $4, some for $10, and others for $30 to $40. He went out of his way to create discs that would fool customers into thinking they had a genuine microsoft product, and he went out of his way to evade customs. He knew that his product risked being siezed by customs, and he gave advice to his associates about evading customs inspections.He spent $80,000 creating the discs.
In case you don't want to watch the video, here are the citations from the description:https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/17279190/microsoft-restor...
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-microsoft-r...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/24...
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/recycling-innovato...
⬐ RaleyFieldPeople's take on this is depressingly cringeworthy. Prison time was for trying to pass CDs as genuine Microsoft media.Imagine this: You go to one of these shops looking to buy a new computer, you ask to get genuine copy of Windows. The shop can't guarantee genuine copy because they haven't compared hashes of these bootleg CDs with the ones published on Microsoft's website. If they did they would burn them themselves.
Customers were unnecessarily put at risk because data on those disk wasn't assured to be genuine. That's why damages aren't based on manufacturing price but price customers paid for the genuine product.
If you asked me I wouldn't fault them if they added damages for compromising combined purchases because people don't normally buy just software license but packages of hardware with genuine software.
And the sad cringe is in the fact that when EVEN you people don't see why chain of custody is incredibly important then you can't expect all these shop owners to be any better.
⬐ agumonkeyApparently there are more facts to this story https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/8f9lsc/microsoft_se...⬐ jesseryoungMicrosoft higher ups should've stepped in earlier on this one. This is clearly a case of a guy trying to do right and help out customers and not understanding how the law treats software and how that's different than hardware. They could've easily cut him a deal where he could hand out genuine Windows licenses with the sale of these devices.It is legal (mostly) for you to pick up a piece of hardware that somebody threw away and do anything you want with it. You can legally use it yourself, sell it or just give it away.
In the eyes of the law, software doesn't work that way. Could you pick up a software license key that somebody threw away and re-use it? Depending on the license the original person purchased, likely not. It sucks, I don't agree with it but it's how it is.
⬐ DanBC⬐ btownHave you read the emails that this man was sending? He was deliberately trying to fool his customers (who were asking for genuine MS discs, not some copy he'd made) and he was deliberately trying to evade customs.https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...
https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/FIN...
⬐ jesseryoungNo I had not...Yeah, this guy was totally attempting to make a profit off of piracy.
The WaPo has a great writeup on this case, relevant quotes below: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/24..."""
The appeals court upheld a federal district judge’s ruling that the disks made by Eric Lundgren to restore Microsoft operating systems had a value of $25 apiece, even though they could be downloaded free and could be used only on computers with a valid Microsoft license. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit initially granted Lundgren an emergency stay of his prison sentence, shortly before he was to surrender, but then affirmed his original 15-month sentence and $50,000 fine without hearing oral argument in a ruling issued April 11....
Glenn Weadock, a former expert witness for the government in its antitrust case against Microsoft, was asked, “In your opinion, without a code, either product key or COA [Certificate of Authenticity], what is the value of these reinstallation disks?”
“Zero or near zero,” Weadock said. Why would anybody pay for one? Lundgren’s lawyer asked. “There is a convenience factor associated with them,” Weadock said.
Still, [U.S. District Judge] Hurley decided Lundgren’s 28,000 restore disks had a value of $700,000, and that dollar amount qualified Lundgren for a 15-month term and a $50,000 fine. The judge said he disregarded Weadock’s testimony. “I don’t think anybody in that courtroom understood what a restore disk was,” Lundgren said.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit deferred to Hurley in his judgment that Weadock was not credible and that “while experts on both sides may have identified differences in functionality in the discs, [Hurley] did not clearly err in finding them substantially equivalent.” The ruling was written by Judges William H. Pryor Jr., Beverly B. Martin and R. Lanier Anderson.
"""
⬐ DanBC⬐ agumonkeyOne of the reasons they put that value on the discs is because Lundgren was trying to sell the discs for that much.He spent $80,000 creating 16,000 discs. That's not "no value".
---begin---
COURT: What is your view why somebody is going to China to have 16,000 counterfeit discs produced? What do you think they are doing? Is this a charitable thing? I don’t mean to be—what is your take on this? You say it has no value, it might be convenient for the customer. What do you think is going on? They spent $80,000, if I understand one of the exhibits, to produce this. What do you think was happening?
WEADOCK: I can’t speak for the Defendant, Your Honor.
COURT: But you need to speak. You came in and told me, in your expert opinion, these have no value at all, which I understand that.
WEADOCK: Right.
COURT: Here is clearly a criminal enterprise, these gentlemen have pled guilty to crimes, and we know from the exhibits—again, I don’t have it right in front of me, but looking at the monies from Chase and so on, it is about $80,000. What is your sense as to what was being done?
WEADOCK: My sense is that the discs have value as a convenience to the end user who will be able to install Windows on those computers.
---end
Note that the customers didn't need these discs. They could have ordered replacements from the OEM.
That's insane⬐ ddtaylorWhy is this thread marked as [Flagged] ?⬐ DanBC⬐ manovBecause the linked video is massively incorrect.⬐ palebluedotThat means that users have flagged the story (I'm not sure how many user flags it takes for it to be marked "[flagged]", however).[Video]??⬐ RickJWagnerPlease support Open Source Software. It benefits us all.⬐ mynameisvladThis happened back in April: