Slashdot Mirror
A Look Inside the BSA
die_jack_die writes: "SFGate is running this article about the Business Software Alliance. I'm sure the BSA loves when they get scary stories of their tactics into the press, but this piece does quote the EFF's Fred Von Lohman making the point that companies who don't want to deal with the BSA can always use Open Source software. Most telling quote: 'every cent of those massive settlements stays within the BSA -- member software organizations receive only the licensing fees.'"
...making the point that companies who don't want to deal with the BSA [suing them for pirating software] can always use Open Source software
Well, sure, you can use open source or free software whenever you'd like.
You could also simply pay for the proprietary software that you need to use rather than stealing it. If I had my own company, I would make certain that we ran things properly, which would involve, among other things, not pirating software.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
From the article:
The BSA estimates that pirated software was responsible for about $3 billion in lost revenues to software publishers in the U.S. in 2000 -- although, to be strictly fair, that number assumes that every copy of stolen software would have been bought if it weren't stolen, which inflates the number somewhat.
It's good to see someone in the press finally taking those numbers with a grain of salt. Somehow I don't think evry kid who downloads Photoshop and Illustrator would have purchased a copy.
SONY. Because caucasians are just too damn tall.
Which is a reason enough for most companies to switch vendors. Once this starts happening on a widespread basis, open source software will be a much easier sell to business.
Trust me, if the BSA contacted my company on behalf of a software vendor, that vendor would lose his account with my company. Though I do as much as I can to ensure license compliance, I will not do business with a company that has an adversarial attitude toward me. If a vendor believes that I am running unlicensed or underlicensed copies of software, it would be better for them to ask if they can perform an audit at their own expense rather than sending the BSA after me.
On a lighter note, it is the mere existence of the BSA which encourages me to use and recommend open source software as much as possible. I believe the BSA is hurting vendors more than helping them.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I don't think there's any other group in the world that can promote free software as well as the BSA can. I mean, the more BSA extortional "warning letters" that are sent or jack-booted thugs that come raiding into offices, the more that IT organizations are going to look for alternatives.
It's been argued on Slashdot before that more people would take free software seriously if they had to pay for all the stuff they use already. I agree. I say, good, make them pay up (plus penalties!), then they'll get a clue and stop using M$.
I don't think there should be anyone on Slashdot that's one bit against the BSA. Go BSA, go!
-Russ
Me
According to Blank and Kruger, the burden of proof is on the targeted company.
When did I stop living in America?
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
Most companies come back with a different settlement number, and we negotiate," says Jenny Blank, the BSA's director of enforcement. "I'm not going to say they're cheerful about it, but they recognize that this is probably easier and less expensive than taking the case to court."
This is just amazing that they can organize a settlement without even investigating the actual accounting of the licenses. If I have a license and no receipt, does that mean I stole the software? I would think just the opposite. It means I legally purchased the software and did not keep the receipt.
My question has to be, if they are judging the settlement on how long the software has been in use, who's to say it was loaded and EVER used? I have a ton of software that I NEVER use, but it is still loaded on the system. Mostly because I am waiting on an update, or patch, or Service Pack for it before I devote any type of time to running it.
BSA = Extortion, plain & simple.
You keep going until you die..."Me".
What needs to happen is some company that has their licenses in order should tell the BSA to screw off. When BSA comes storming in with a court order the company should obviously comply. The BSA will find nothing. They should then sue the BSA for wrongful prosecution, sue for damages (lost productivity due to having to deal with them), treble damages, and hopefully get the process itself checked on constitutionality.
The BSA has the right to sue. But the courts shouldn't be dishing out court orders for these kind of raids unless there's evidence of violation. A tip is heresey unless the tip comes with evidence--copies of email sent within the companying that acknowledge the presence of pirated copies, etc.
Consider their acknowledged source of tips: disgruntled employees. Sure, they may have knowledge of violations. Or they might just be getting back at their ex-employer. They might not have any pirated copies, but the disgruntled employee will at least cause his ex-employer some headaches.
Is a disgruntled employee really a reliable source for determining whether there is justification to violate somebody's (or some company) right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?
This needs to be tested constitutionally, but I think it'll require 1) A company with their licenses in order. 2) The company snubbing their noses at the BSA. 3) The company subsequently being raided. 4) The company sueing the BSA.
Lots of "ifs" considering most companies are in business to make money, not test constitutionality issues. We can dream, though.