Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday February 19 2018, @08:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-stand-in-the-way-of-profits dept.

Electronics recycler Eric Lundgren was convicted of conspiracy and copyright infringement for his efforts regarding refurbishing old PCs. His sentence would have been 15 months in prison and a $50,000 fine except that he was granted an emergency stay of the sentence by a federal appeals court. Now his appeal is pending before the 11th Circuit though it has not yet been scheduled.

[...] McGloin also testified that Microsoft charges computer refurbishers about $25 for a new license and copy of the software but didn't differentiate that from what was done by Lundgren, who was not making a new copy of the software and intended his restore discs only for computers that were already licensed.

[...] Lundgren called his own expert witness, Glenn Weadock, an author of numerous software books who testified for the government in a major antitrust case against Microsoft that was resolved in 2001. Weadock was asked, "In your opinion, without a code, either product key or COA [Certificate of Authenticity], what is the value of these reinstallation discs?"

"Zero or near zero," Weadock said.

He should have listened to the experts like Ken Starks of Reglue. However, no mention was made by The Washington Post article about whether he or the court was aware that he could have improved the situation all the way around by simply upgrading the refurbished PCs to GNU/Linux instead of using a system that is always showing new ways to cause problems. The local LUG could well host an evening event with him as guest of honor to show how to improve the users' situation while staying out of jail.

Source : Eric Lundgren, 'e-waste' recycling innovator, faces prison for trying to extend life span of PCs


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:11PM (1 child)

    by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @06:11PM (#641288) Homepage Journal

    but you’re using it as a straw man against the ruling itself.

    I'm not arguing for or against the ruling. I'm talking about the question of whether or not data is property.

    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:04PM

    by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @11:04PM (#641487)

    I'm not arguing for or against the ruling. I'm talking about the question of whether or not data is property.

    ...and in that respect I kinda agree with you, but you're on a sticky wicket because the term "intellectual property" - like it or not - is widely used as a blanket term for copyrights, patents and trademarks. The English language is defined by usage (and abusage) so all someone needs is a few quotes from published works of "intellectual property" being used to refer to copyright and you've been sucked into an irresolvable debate over what people mean by words.

    The point is that calling data "property" doesn't change the fact that copying and distributing data is still regulated by copyright law... and as long as you're arguing about law, appeals to authority (the law), tradition (precedent) and consequences ('chilling effects' etc.) are all relevant.