Microsoft piracy case thoughts
Apparently people are mad that Microsoft won a piracy case against a person distributing recovery media.
As usual, when I read a headline talking about a legal case in the software industry, I walk into hoping to walk out with the opposite reaction. In this case, I assumed Microsoft was right, so, in reading the article I WANTED to be proven wrong.
Based on the headlines and what I had heard in passing about this case beforehand, I had assumed that maybe this guy was just re-distributing existing recovery media or giving it away for free. In which case, based on the nature of things I can think of ways it might be legal, or at the least bad for Microsoft to have prosecuted.
Unfortunately, that isn't what I walked away with.
I don't know all of the details of the case. But the basics of the article I read stated that the individual in question was manufacturing recovery media in China (which Microsoft gives away for free) and re-selling it elsewhere.
A lot of people focus on the fact that Microsoft gives away recovery media for free as a reason that this isn't piracy. But, this misses the fundamental point of copyright and other IP protections.
It is true that GENERALLY such protections are used to make money. But, the essence is actually to allow the holder of the rights to control distribution of protected materials. And THAT is why arguments in favor of the defendant (based on what I read) fall flat.
Microsoft OWNS THE RIGHTS TO THE RECOVERY MEDIA. Period. End of story.
This means that they can choose to give it away for free digitally. It also means that they can decide that only they are allowed to do so.
What this means is, Microsoft could have won a case EVEN IF the defendant had been giving the recovery media away for free.
But, here is where things get SUPER bad. He wasn't giving the media away for free. He was charging for it. NOW we're in the realm of SUPER illegal. Now, I don't know if he made profit off it or not. Supposedly he only charged $0.25 per copy. But, it isn't relevant. He was not authorized to distribute the recovery media in the first place. He was definitely not authorized to charge for it. And he was SUPER DUPER not authorized to profit from it.
Even if the defendant hadn't been charging for it, I still think Microsoft would have persecuted. Why? Because when a 3rd party redistributes software, it is possible that it bundles malware. It could also be poorly packaged or any of a number of things which might harm Microsoft's brand in some way. The only way to ensure the quality of the experience and the potential effects on the company and the brand is to be in control of it.
People might have a bad experience with Microsoft products as a result of these unauthorized recovery discs which could have an impact on Microsoft's future business with those buyers.
Simply put, the man in question SHOULD have sought an agreement with Microsoft to become an authorized supplier of these discs. If Microsoft declined to enter into such an arrangement, he should have walked away.
Undoubtedly, what happened was that the man saw a weakness in Microsoft's strategy and felt he could profit by filling that void. Whether he knew it was illegal or not is not the question. Whether you feel it is right or not is not the question. Microsoft has the rights to protect how recovery media is distributed.
I want to point out a few more things. Modern Windows "Recovery media" contain a full Windows installation, just without a new license key. The defendant is in the industry. It is highly unlikely that he didn't know this. He definitely should have known that the recovery media contained material which warranted intellectual property protections and that the software included was not released under a permissive license.
This might all sound like jargon to non-software and non-IT people who are thinking that no one could be expected to know this stuff. But I assure you, software licensing, at least at this level is well understood by most in software and IT. Most people violate licenses assuming they are too small to litigate against. And, this individual may have started out that way. But, when you're farming production out to China chance are you're not too small to be concerned about any more.
As usual, when I read a headline talking about a legal case in the software industry, I walk into hoping to walk out with the opposite reaction. In this case, I assumed Microsoft was right, so, in reading the article I WANTED to be proven wrong.
Based on the headlines and what I had heard in passing about this case beforehand, I had assumed that maybe this guy was just re-distributing existing recovery media or giving it away for free. In which case, based on the nature of things I can think of ways it might be legal, or at the least bad for Microsoft to have prosecuted.
Unfortunately, that isn't what I walked away with.
I don't know all of the details of the case. But the basics of the article I read stated that the individual in question was manufacturing recovery media in China (which Microsoft gives away for free) and re-selling it elsewhere.
A lot of people focus on the fact that Microsoft gives away recovery media for free as a reason that this isn't piracy. But, this misses the fundamental point of copyright and other IP protections.
It is true that GENERALLY such protections are used to make money. But, the essence is actually to allow the holder of the rights to control distribution of protected materials. And THAT is why arguments in favor of the defendant (based on what I read) fall flat.
Microsoft OWNS THE RIGHTS TO THE RECOVERY MEDIA. Period. End of story.
This means that they can choose to give it away for free digitally. It also means that they can decide that only they are allowed to do so.
What this means is, Microsoft could have won a case EVEN IF the defendant had been giving the recovery media away for free.
But, here is where things get SUPER bad. He wasn't giving the media away for free. He was charging for it. NOW we're in the realm of SUPER illegal. Now, I don't know if he made profit off it or not. Supposedly he only charged $0.25 per copy. But, it isn't relevant. He was not authorized to distribute the recovery media in the first place. He was definitely not authorized to charge for it. And he was SUPER DUPER not authorized to profit from it.
Even if the defendant hadn't been charging for it, I still think Microsoft would have persecuted. Why? Because when a 3rd party redistributes software, it is possible that it bundles malware. It could also be poorly packaged or any of a number of things which might harm Microsoft's brand in some way. The only way to ensure the quality of the experience and the potential effects on the company and the brand is to be in control of it.
People might have a bad experience with Microsoft products as a result of these unauthorized recovery discs which could have an impact on Microsoft's future business with those buyers.
Simply put, the man in question SHOULD have sought an agreement with Microsoft to become an authorized supplier of these discs. If Microsoft declined to enter into such an arrangement, he should have walked away.
Undoubtedly, what happened was that the man saw a weakness in Microsoft's strategy and felt he could profit by filling that void. Whether he knew it was illegal or not is not the question. Whether you feel it is right or not is not the question. Microsoft has the rights to protect how recovery media is distributed.
I want to point out a few more things. Modern Windows "Recovery media" contain a full Windows installation, just without a new license key. The defendant is in the industry. It is highly unlikely that he didn't know this. He definitely should have known that the recovery media contained material which warranted intellectual property protections and that the software included was not released under a permissive license.
This might all sound like jargon to non-software and non-IT people who are thinking that no one could be expected to know this stuff. But I assure you, software licensing, at least at this level is well understood by most in software and IT. Most people violate licenses assuming they are too small to litigate against. And, this individual may have started out that way. But, when you're farming production out to China chance are you're not too small to be concerned about any more.
Comments
Post a Comment