Slashdot Mirror
E-Waste Innovator Will Go To Jail For Making Windows Restore Disks That Only Worked With Valid Licenses (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: California man Eric Lundgren, an electronic waste entrepreneur who produced tens of thousands of Windows restore disks intended to extend the lifespan of aging computers, lost a federal appeals court case in Miami after it ruled "he had infringed Microsoft's products to the tune of $700,000," the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. Per the Post, the appeals court ruled Lundgren's original sentence of 15 months in prison and a $50,000 fine would stay, despite the software being freely available online and only compatible with valid Windows licenses: "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." All told, the court valued 28,000 restore disks he produced at $700,000, despite testimony from software expert Glenn Weadock that they were worth essentially zero.
Well, repairing computers is obviously stealing from manufacturers of new ones and re-using valid Windows licenses is obviously stealing from MS! This person got what he deserved for his unpatriotic, almost treasonous actions. True Americans throw things away when they get old or break! This person was trying to sabotage capitalism and the rich getting richer. We cannot have that. So I am 100% behind this ruling, except that the sentence is wayyyy to lenient. Maybe we can find some terrorism charge in there as well? Maybe something like "inciting people to not buy new computers" or the like? After all, this _is_ threatening the stabiliy of society, just like terrorism.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
.... but if you can download the ISO for free (if you have a valid license or sticker, like a Dell for instance) how is that depriving Microsoft of any modicum of revenue?
That's what I can't wrap my head around.
It may be that the value is in the license, but that doesn't change the way the actual laws work. The idea is in the word: "copyright" is a right to make copies. It doesn't matter whether money changed hands: Microsoft has a copyright on those bits, and he copied them without their permission, so legally, he violated their copyright.
Is it a jerk move on Microsoft's part, to prosecute this guy for helping people keep software working which they've already paid for? Sure, and they deserve to be publicly shamed for it.
But there's nothing wrong with this ruling from a legal perspective. Everyone benefits when the law is clear and applied consistently, and in this case it was. Remember that those same laws which allow Microsoft to prosecute a guy for copying "free" bits also allow people who write GPL software to prosecute companies for copying "free" bits without giving back their changes.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Strange isn't it, that we allow governors and presidents power to usurp law by use of pardon. But when we the people want to do the same through jury nullification we are shunned by authority. It is your right and duty in cases of gross unjust punishment to use jury nullification.
Because no one is actually looking at this with all the facts, we all just jump on a bandwagon when we read between the lines.
From the original news story about the original court case (not the appeal) "He thought that producing and selling restore discs to computer refurbishers — saving them the hassle of downloading the software and burning new discs — would encourage more secondhand sales. In his view, the new owners were entitled to the software, and this just made it easier."
You can freely download and burn the restore disk without any legal ramifications, you CAN NOT sell the restore disk unless you have authorization to do so.
Judges don't have the authority to "usurps the executive powers of the President regarding immigration" but only the legality of how that power is used (hence balance of powers). Without that check the President would become a defacto dictator.
If you are a judge and you have both sides of the political debate upset with you over different rulings you are probably doing your job properly.
Yeah, it's almost as if they view an important part of the judicial branch as being a check on the power of the other branches of government. Of course, that would also mean realizing that the judge didn't "usurp" power, but instead "checked" it. Usurping the power would be if the judges themselves were deporting immigrants.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
> Jury nullification is, by necessity, a complete undermining of the legal and judicial process.
Uh, that's it purpose, McFly. It is supposed to be used to nullify BAD laws.
It is basically the equivalent of civil disobedience but in the legal framework.
It wasn;'t illegal. Remember, they claim that they're not selling the disk, else they would have to replace damages and loss, but the license to use, hence you "need" an agreement (EULA). Making the disk itself worthless. And, no, if you have a license, you do not need to use the original disks,you just use the license key. Not even the disk s were illegally copied. So complete fail there, moron.
It's almost as though copyright law is broken. Can I be paid for my labour of building a PC, installing Windows and then selling the PC? I don't have the "right" to distribute Windows.
I never doubted that this verdict was within the confines of the law. The question was should it be? I would say no.
I, for one, can't trust that someone promoting nullification can actually respect the law or its application.
That's because you're completely backwards. The exact opposite is true. It's the judges you can't trust. They lie to juries right at the beginning of trials. They say "if the facts are such and such, you must find the defendant guilty". But that's a lie. They have the right to return any verdict they want, and cannot be punished for it. When the judge begins the proceedings with a lie to the people who are supposed to decide guilt, you know that the whole system is corrupt.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"