What exactly was the E-recycler's plan (the guy going to jail)?

I don't understand why anyone would buy free software.

What was the plan?

Here is the article I just read.
^^E-waste recycler must serve 15-month sentence for selling discs with free
Microsoft software
^^https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/1...ight-to-repair

How can free software be $25 and how can you go to jail for that?

On 26-Apr-18 10:30 AM, Bob J Jones wrote:
I don't understand why anyone would buy free software.

What was the plan?

Here is the article I just read.
^^E-waste recycler must serve 15-month sentence for selling discs with free
Microsoft software
^^https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/1...ight-to-repair

How can free software be $25 and how can you go to jail for that?

This might make things clearer for you:-

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...restore_discs/

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:36:54 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 26-Apr-18 10:30 AM, Bob J Jones wrote:
I don't understand why anyone would buy free software.

What was the plan?

Here is the article I just read.
^^E-waste recycler must serve 15-month sentence for selling discs with free
Microsoft software
^^https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/1...ight-to-repair

How can free software be $25 and how can you go to jail for that?

This might make things clearer for you:-

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...restore_discs/

Still doesn't make sense. Resellers are paying $25 for a restore disc
you can download for free legally? why?

Either there's a misplaced decimal point, or this is full version cost
to resellers. Or is this about using the word 'authorized' when he
should have used 'authentic?'

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:55:11 -0400, default wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:36:54 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 26-Apr-18 10:30 AM, Bob J Jones wrote:
I don't understand why anyone would buy free software.

What was the plan?

Here is the article I just read.
^^E-waste recycler must serve 15-month sentence for selling discs with free
Microsoft software
^^https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/1...ight-to-repair

How can free software be $25 and how can you go to jail for that?

This might make things clearer for you:-

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...restore_discs/

Still doesn't make sense. Resellers are paying $25 for a restore disc
you can download for free legally? why?

Either there's a misplaced decimal point, or this is full version cost
to resellers. Or is this about using the word 'authorized' when he
should have used 'authentic?'

The comments in El Reg make this all clear to those interested.

default wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:36:54 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 26-Apr-18 10:30 AM, Bob J Jones wrote:
I don't understand why anyone would buy free software.

What was the plan?

Here is the article I just read.
^^E-waste recycler must serve 15-month sentence for selling discs with free
Microsoft software
^^https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/1...ight-to-repair

How can free software be $25 and how can you go to jail for that?

This might make things clearer for you:-

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...restore_discs/

Still doesn't make sense. Resellers are paying $25 for a restore disc
you can download for free legally? why?

"Admin & shipping" fees? Aka profiteering.

mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:55:11 -0400, default wrote:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:36:54 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 26-Apr-18 10:30 AM, Bob J Jones wrote:
I don't understand why anyone would buy free software.

What was the plan?

Here is the article I just read.
^^E-waste recycler must serve 15-month sentence for selling discs with free
Microsoft software
^^https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/1...ight-to-repair

How can free software be $25 and how can you go to jail for that?
This might make things clearer for you:-

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...restore_discs/
Still doesn't make sense. Resellers are paying $25 for a restore disc
you can download for free legally? why?

Either there's a misplaced decimal point, or this is full version cost
to resellers. Or is this about using the word 'authorized' when he
should have used 'authentic?'

The comments in El Reg make this all clear to those interested.

Arstechica has an article now on this, and I don't
think we'll ever know what the guy did wrong, except
he's getting jail time.

The claim in that article, is that he was reproducing Dell discs.
The article makes a reference to him "selling the discs to Dell refurbishers".
What's a Dell refurbisher exactly ? That isn't explained.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-go-to-prison/

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-DTKH-1-0.html

"falsely told customers... that the Microsoft computer software
available for sale was the re-install retail version"

When apparently it was copies of some Dell discs. The legal document
doesn't even bother to properly identify the Windows XP version
of disc involved. The document has been hand edited to make some
sort of correction, but still seems wrong to me. I bet if the prosecutor
had phoned Dell, they could have provided a more accurate name string
for the thing.

Are courts really that sloppy ?

Item 27 of the documentcloud document says "purpose... to defraud".
So the charge is "(attempted) fraud" I guess. Not copyright infringement ?
Not a trademark violation ? And the articles so far, haven't
demonstrated how an actual customer received a mis-representation.
It appeared to be scheming between two businessmen. There's no
customer saying "this is not right, I was given a Dell PC with
a Dell disc and...". I would have expected Microsoft to take exception
to the resale of Dell OEM Royalty materials, but that's
not claimed either.

He's been generally naughty and must be spanked. "He's guilty of
something, I just know it" and off to jail he goes.

Paul

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 20:25:25 -0400, Paul wrote:

Arstechica has an article now on this, and I don't
think we'll ever know what the guy did wrong, except
he's getting jail time.

The claim in that article, is that he was reproducing Dell discs.
The article makes a reference to him "selling the discs to Dell refurbishers".
What's a Dell refurbisher exactly ? That isn't explained.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-go-to-prison/

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-DTKH-1-0.html

"falsely told customers... that the Microsoft computer software
available for sale was the re-install retail version"

When apparently it was copies of some Dell discs. The legal document
doesn't even bother to properly identify the Windows XP version
of disc involved. The document has been hand edited to make some
sort of correction, but still seems wrong to me. I bet if the prosecutor
had phoned Dell, they could have provided a more accurate name string
for the thing.

Are courts really that sloppy ?

I haven't read any of the links that have been provided, but I just
wanted to weigh in on the question directly above. In my admittedly
limited experience, yes, the courts really are that sloppy. That's not
to say that attorneys and clerks don't get it right eventually, but
sometimes court filings seem to be submitted to meet a filing deadline,
then they get amended one or more times afterwards until the content is
mostly accurate.

....winston probably has an interesting perspective on the topic. I
believe he said once that he works at, or is somehow involved with, a
court somewhere.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 20:25:25 -0400, Paul wrote:

Arstechica has an article now on this, and I don't
think we'll ever know what the guy did wrong, except
he's getting jail time.

The claim in that article, is that he was reproducing Dell discs.
The article makes a reference to him "selling the discs to Dell refurbishers".
What's a Dell refurbisher exactly ? That isn't explained.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-go-to-prison/

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-DTKH-1-0.html

"falsely told customers... that the Microsoft computer software
available for sale was the re-install retail version"

When apparently it was copies of some Dell discs. The legal document
doesn't even bother to properly identify the Windows XP version
of disc involved. The document has been hand edited to make some
sort of correction, but still seems wrong to me. I bet if the prosecutor
had phoned Dell, they could have provided a more accurate name string
for the thing.

Are courts really that sloppy ?

I haven't read any of the links that have been provided, but I just
wanted to weigh in on the question directly above. In my admittedly
limited experience, yes, the courts really are that sloppy. That's not
to say that attorneys and clerks don't get it right eventually, but
sometimes court filings seem to be submitted to meet a filing deadline,
then they get amended one or more times afterwards until the content is
mostly accurate.

...winston probably has an interesting perspective on the topic. I
believe he said once that he works at, or is somehow involved with, a
court somewhere.


After I posted that, it occurred to me that the outcome was
really under Dell/Microsoft control.

There were probably several legal instruments they could have
used. By going to a prosecutor, the prosecutor "converted" the
infraction into a criminal citation. Microsoft/Dell could
have attempted to collect money from the adventure (if
they thought the individual could be milked like a cow).
By approaching the prosecutor, the prosecutor had to
"cook up" an interpretation ("fraud") so a criminal
trial, and/or a plea could take place. And that's why this
individual is going to jail today - it's "cheaper" for
Microsoft to have the prosecutor dispose of the individual,
than to do it with their own posse of lawyers.

Paul

In news
He's been generally naughty and must be spanked. "He's guilty of
something, I just know it" and off to jail he goes.

Paul

Somewhere it says he was planning on selling the discs for 25 cents to
refurbishers, who presumably would give them to the customer of the
refurbished computer.

That never happened because he was stopped but that was the plan where the
obvious issue is that Microsoft didn't do this for copyright reasons where
that's what they say in the courts, but the real reason is that Microsoft
doesn't like machines being refurbished - but let's forget the obvious in
trying to figure out what the guy did wrong.

So the guy was selling for 25 cents what Microsoft gives away for free, but
where Microsoft convinced the courts that it was free but worth twenty five
dollars (where that's what the penalty was based on).

It seems the refurbishers could have legally just downloaded what Microsoft
gives away for free, but I'm not sure about that - but if that's the case,
then the 25 cents is just cheaper for the refurbisher than it would be for
them to download and build their own CDs (which may be where Microsoft got
the twentyfive dollar number from - as the cost to the refurbisher).

Also, the end consumer could have downloaded the CD for free also, and
again, maybe the twenty five dollar amount is what the consumer might have
paid Microsoft - but maybe not - because it's free to download (or so they
said in the articles).

One problem I have with all this is a Windows technical problem, which is
to ask WHERE do we download, say, Windows XP for free from Microsoft?

Bob J Jones wrote:
In news
He's been generally naughty and must be spanked. "He's guilty of
something, I just know it" and off to jail he goes.

Paul

Somewhere it says he was planning on selling the discs for 25 cents to
refurbishers, who presumably would give them to the customer of the
refurbished computer.

That never happened because he was stopped but that was the plan where the
obvious issue is that Microsoft didn't do this for copyright reasons where
that's what they say in the courts, but the real reason is that Microsoft
doesn't like machines being refurbished - but let's forget the obvious in
trying to figure out what the guy did wrong.

So the guy was selling for 25 cents what Microsoft gives away for free, but
where Microsoft convinced the courts that it was free but worth twenty five
dollars (where that's what the penalty was based on).

It seems the refurbishers could have legally just downloaded what Microsoft
gives away for free, but I'm not sure about that - but if that's the case,
then the 25 cents is just cheaper for the refurbisher than it would be for
them to download and build their own CDs (which may be where Microsoft got
the twentyfive dollar number from - as the cost to the refurbisher).

Also, the end consumer could have downloaded the CD for free also, and
again, maybe the twenty five dollar amount is what the consumer might have
paid Microsoft - but maybe not - because it's free to download (or so they
said in the articles).

One problem I have with all this is a Windows technical problem, which is
to ask WHERE do we download, say, Windows XP for free from Microsoft?

He wasn't actually planning on selling the discs for $0.25 each.

He paid the Chinese supplier $80,000 for 28,000 discs.
Or $2.86 a piece (which is too much, except if the discs
needed some sort of surface treatment). He may have decided to
"dump" the discs, or some number of discs, to his partner.
At that price, he could have had Holograms added, pictures
of the Queen, anything he wanted.

So much of the case doesn't make sense.

A Dell disc, might have a simple Dell logo, and no hologram.
Whereas Microsoft Retail Discs have various counterfeit protection
features (which I'm sure by now, the Chinese pressing plant
has figured out, as they make domestic discs for $5 a piece
on the street).

The court case claims the "fraud" was that there was a claim
the disc was a "retail reinstall" disc. But does the court
actually know what it's talking about ? We don't know.

What could have happened, is the Dell recovery image (SLIC activated)
was repackaged in Microsoft Holographic packaging on a CD for WinXP
and a DVD for Windows 7. And that's a possible concept of a kind of
fraud. However, the court documentation and the reporting, just
don't do a very good job of reporting what the actual
materials looked like, or consisted of.

So it looks like "xerox [something], go to jail", is about
all we can say. There's a certain degree of precision
missing in the court document I just saw.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-DTKH-1-0.html

"falsely told customers... that the Microsoft computer software
available for sale was the re-install retail version"

The story also says the saga started with him getting a Dell
disc from his buddy at the start of the episode. And yet
in that passage above, it's claimed they were "falsely claiming
their discs were re-install retail".

At $2.86 a piece, I could probably burn those on a
stack of Ritek blanks with no logos whatsoever, and
then there'd be no "perception" of fraud, as software
received on a blank like that is "obviously a copy".
Why go to the trouble of dressing them up, or using
a pressing plant ? There's less labor in a pressing
plant. The quality could well be higher.

You can buy some nice "dup" setups, with multiple
drives, for burning large quantities of "copies" if you
need them. Some of the CD forums have a couple people
who do stuff like that (full time). There are lots of
Chinese (or other country) sellers of various duplicating
machines. In fact, some companies that used to be in
other businesses, switched to making dup machines as
a new business opportunity. The people who make discs
as a side project, they don't bother with dup machines.
They just use a tower with a bunch of optical drives
on it. If they'd done it that way, their production
could all have been domestic, and a bit lower profile.

Paul

Bob J Jones wrote:
In news
He's been generally naughty and must be spanked. "He's guilty of
something, I just know it" and off to jail he goes.

Paul

Somewhere it says he was planning on selling the discs for 25 cents to
refurbishers, who presumably would give them to the customer of the
refurbished computer.

That never happened because he was stopped but that was the plan where the
obvious issue is that Microsoft didn't do this for copyright reasons where
that's what they say in the courts, but the real reason is that Microsoft
doesn't like machines being refurbished - but let's forget the obvious in
trying to figure out what the guy did wrong.

So the guy was selling for 25 cents what Microsoft gives away for free, but
where Microsoft convinced the courts that it was free but worth twenty five
dollars (where that's what the penalty was based on).

It seems the refurbishers could have legally just downloaded what Microsoft
gives away for free, but I'm not sure about that - but if that's the case,
then the 25 cents is just cheaper for the refurbisher than it would be for
them to download and build their own CDs (which may be where Microsoft got
the twentyfive dollar number from - as the cost to the refurbisher).

Also, the end consumer could have downloaded the CD for free also, and
again, maybe the twenty five dollar amount is what the consumer might have
paid Microsoft - but maybe not - because it's free to download (or so they
said in the articles).

One problem I have with all this is a Windows technical problem, which is
to ask WHERE do we download, say, Windows XP for free from Microsoft?

OK, here is a picture of the disc he made.

https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/up...4/delldisc.png

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/25/ho...away-for-free/

So it wasn't an attempt to pass off a Dell image as a Microsoft holographic disc.
It's an attempt to pass off a copy of a Dell disc as a Dell disc. Justice wasn't
particularly served. The court didn't even test the media properly
(compare the image against the original, for signs of adulteration).

The guy isn't a saint, but what he did should have been charged
properly, and potentially a smaller penalty would be the result.
The value of what he copied, is the value of the media (a dollar
or less), rather than the value of the license key ($25). As the
disc is a convenience item, a "backup" copy of the factory content.

If Microsoft wants to make a point about the T&C or the EULA,
that's probably a civil court matter. And wasn't argued in this case.

Paul

In news
He wasn't actually planning on selling the discs for $0.25 each.
OK, here is a picture of the disc he made.

OK. I defer to you Paul, since everything I said seems to be wrong.
I didn't read the court documents as you did.
I just read one or two articles.
So I'm confused if I read the articles.
But you cleared it up.
Thank you for the added clarifying detail!

BTW, I'm officially confused since nothing adds up, but that's not your
fault Paul. It's the case itself is confusing to me.

Maybe it's just me.

Bob J Jones wrote:
In news
He wasn't actually planning on selling the discs for $0.25 each.
OK, here is a picture of the disc he made.

OK. I defer to you Paul, since everything I said seems to be wrong.
I didn't read the court documents as you did.
I just read one or two articles.
So I'm confused if I read the articles.
But you cleared it up.
Thank you for the added clarifying detail!

BTW, I'm officially confused since nothing adds up, but that's not your
fault Paul. It's the case itself is confusing to me.

Maybe it's just me.

It's a mis-carriage of justice.

His attorney appears to have argued some of these points
in court, to no effect.

But some other things stand out.

He pleaded guilty to these wrongly-constructed charges.

The defense team "agreed" with the prosecutor that the
value of the item, was $25 a copy. Perhaps "agreed" means,
the defense wasn't able to construct a framework for
indicating the true value ? The Dell OS is SLIC activated,
so it's not exactly easy to steal, and again, no evidence
of any SLIC tampering. (The claims the media was for
"Dell Refurbishers"... who wouldn't need to tamper with
the SLIC. The SLIC is inside the BIOS chip.)

I can't tell from these press reports, whether he
got a robust defense, or, that the judge was listening
to anything the defense said at all. Maybe yet another
article will come out with more detail.

Paul

In article , Paul
wrote:

His attorney appears to have argued some of these points
in court, to no effect.

judges don't understand much about technology, plus the laws haven't
caught up either.