[Cthulhu_]

And those arguments would fit with what he actually pleaded guilty to - copying the designs of the recovery disks and making them look legitimate. They aren't arguments (but IANAJ) that claim the software is e.g. legitimate windows installations.

He was sentenced for software piracy or thereabouts, but he literally can't do that because windows is not a physical disk, but a license. He did not sell licenses. The discs, as was stated as such by expert witnesses, were worthless. The contents were freely downloaded from Microsoft itself.

Of course, there might be a clause on the website that you can't burn those images and sell them. But those can't be tied to a monetary value because the images were distributed for free.

[icebraining]

He was sentenced for software piracy or thereabouts, but he literally can't do that because windows

He can violate the copyright of the recovery software present in the CD.

[cornholio]

Copyright violation is not a criminal action unless done in an organised, for profit fashion as piracy. The fundamental piece of evidence the prosecution needed for that was the trumped up and bogus damages value Microsoft supplied.

Hence, the title and article are correct.

[belltaco]

If you read some of his emails in the case it is very clear that it was done in an organized, for profit fashion.

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-fac...

[wbl]

He profited. Microsoft's losses are irrelevant.

[tripletao]

The sentence is based on the (purported) losses to Microsoft. Exhibit 17:

https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/2LU...