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.'"

5 of 368 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Or, vice-versa... by cmowire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's not the big problem here. The big problem is when the BSA goes after a company who is careful about their software licensing, but who didn't keep good enough records.

    Do you keep every single receipt? Remember what the article said, the box is not enough. The license often gets tossed out and only the manuals and maybe the box kept. And the receipt gets thrown out after some time.

    Does Fry's or Radio Shack visit my house on occasion to make sure that I can prove to them that every little piece of electronics in my house hasn't been stollen? Do the grocery stores inspect my fridge to make sure I didn't some sausages down my pants last time I shopped?

  2. What a wonderful organization by rbeattie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Guilty until proven innocent? by sid_vicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Sounds like extortion to me by da_Den_man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".
  5. Re:Or, vice-versa... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would build on your post, and add one more problem with BSA's methods. That is, the company I work for was threatened with an audit, and, although we had licenses and came out unscathed, management was freaked out enough that they had to move two employees off their current tasks and onto documenting & proving our innocence. Aside from the fact that we had to spend money to prove we were good, there is the fundamental constitutional issue. In a US court of law, the burden is on the accuser to prove our guilt. I hate that the BSA's strong-arm tactics have cowed not just companies, but the US citizens working at those companies, who apparently don't understand their own rights. The burden of proof should be on the accuser.