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.'"
If you do s/need/choose/ I'd tell you I couldn't have said it better myself. Stealing is wrong. So is wasting the investors' money on the Bill Gates and Larry Ellison Retirement Fund. Therefore, you should choose not to use proprietary software. Of course, if you do choose to use it, you should pay for it and follow all terms of the license.
Seriously, the FSF should join the BSA in licensing crackdowns. It's called "product differentiation."
How hard would it be for a disgruntled employee to knowingly install software without proper licenses, then call BSA? No where is it mentioned that individuals will suffer, only the company. Of course the company can then take action against the employee if they can find them.
Even if your comapny does pay for all its software, being forced to audit yourself costs money. Unless people making false reports are held liable, this system can and probably will be abused.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
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?
Listen, buddy. As Richard Stallman points out, software is an entire different entity. It's very easily copied. It's easy to take those copies and transfer them. Therefore, the amount of damage that can be done by pirating software is massive and much larger than other more tangible products.
And please don't give me the "well software should be free" argument. There are some custom applications that would never have been started (or completed) in the open source / free software world that are necessary for many folks. Using that as an excuse for pirating software is like saying an attractive woman deserves to get raped.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Trying to draw on group expertise here - can someone tell me what provisions of which law(s) lay the burden of proof on the the businessman, and not on the accusor?
This sounds like a provision that got slipped through when no one was looking, and the BSA has managed to keep it off the agenda ever since. I imagine the US Chamber of Commerce would get some support from their members to make this law a little more balanced. It's not that I support IP abuse, but the sheer arrogance of a guilty until proven innocent presumption in any piece of legislation is too galling to let pass .
If someone can get me the information (preferably original bill and USC reference) I will happily see it to a place where it can do some good.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
except when some yahoo employ installs something he has at home.
But tnats not really the point is it? Its about someone being ably to put you and your company ion a position of having to proe your innocents, as opposed to defend it. The worse part is The BSA will audit anybody, even based n anonymous tips, without substantiation. so could call up, and the next thing you know, your being audited. Then I let your share holders no, now your business could take a dip, and not recover.
\Not to mention, the BSA billboards give me that "If your good, you'd tell on your parents" kind of creepiness.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh, don't get me wrong. I wholeheartedly believe that it should be possible and encouraged for companies to charge for their software. You have spent too much time with Stallman wanabees that you are confusing that with my general distaste for strong-arm tactics.
My point is, there are three categories that we can break companies down into. There are the companies who are anal and legal, where they make sure that every software license is recorded and accounted for. There are the companies who figure that it's their god-given right to pirate software. And then there are the companies who are, in fact, legal, but don't have the necessary documentation to convince the BSA, nor the money to fight them in court.
The problem is that the BSA has done a knockout job of convincing corporations, especially large ones, to stay legal. Which leaves them the small companies, individuals, and strong-arm tactics to milk money from companies who don't necessarily keep good records.
I mean, the biggest problem that most companies face with respect to software licenses right now is not any malicious effort on the part of the management, but instead the employee who installs Photoshop off of the network drive just because it hasn't been locked up properly and he/she doesn't quite understand that the company doesn't have a site license for everything.
Gentoo Sucks
Actually, your argument implies precisely the opposite: since the act of unauthorized copying does not remove the initial item being copied, such an act clearly does less damage in any conventional sense of the term than theft (i.e., the illegal removal of tangible goods). Indeed, unauthorized copying (in the context being discussed) can do only hypothetical damage to anyone, since the "damage" claim rests entirely on the hypothetical counterfactual that the copier would have purchased a copy if he/she had not instead resorted to unauthorized means.
In any event, this is a non-sequiteur: the amount of "damage" which could, in principle, be done by unauthorized copying does not legitimately motivate the pre-emptive search of businesses or individuals for which there is not already reasonable grounds to suspect unauthorized copying. One does not have the authority to arbitrarily search others on the grounds that they may have committed some infraction against you; that firms have allowed the BSA to get away with such behavior is IMHO quite scandalous.
-Carter
By no means just in the US. The BSA has garnered the support of dozens of governments, often in questionable circumstances. In Latin America, there's cases of collusion between government officials and the BSA, in which the government brings the fury of the BSA on companies which are politically unpopular or threatening, or even onto non-governmental and non-profit organizations that are doing work the governments don't like.
If you want to find out if I own the software, fine. YOU find out. Am I really obligated to show you evidence that I purchased software?
I know a police raiding looking for stolen equipment runs checks on the serial numbers. If the serial numbers come back clean, I'm not obligated to prove to them that I legally purchased it. They have to prove that it was stolen property to begin with or they have no case. Granted, having a box of receipts for everything gets them out the door faster as well as making your life a whole lot easier in the case of a mistake.
But for the BSA, who by the way is not a law enforcement agency, to require evidence of ownership does not extend to being provided with purchasing records. The certificate of ownership should be sufficient. Of course, I could stockpile those in case I fear they're coming, but I could just as easily format the harddrives.
In fact, that might not be a bad idea. Force all data, and I mean ALL data to be stored on network servers running free software, and only use proprietary boxes as workstations. Ghost those machines and nuke them every night. Receiving a command from the network completely wipes all machines on the network (except the fileservers).
I don't condone piracy, but I also don't endorse nazi style tactics. There is NO reason that a company that acts in good faith in purchasing software licenses who makes an honest mistake should be raked over the coals because some errant employee installed an extra copy of office in the wrong place.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Last time I checked, everything you "buy" when it comes to software says "This software is licensed, not sold".
Doesn't this mean, if you have paid for at least one copy of the software, then it's not piracy, but instead a contract disagreement?
I'm very displeased with the BSA's tactics.. I've known several business owners who were threatened by them.. One completely freaked out. He asked me to come to his business and look everything over. Everything that was installed on his computers were OEM installs by the manufacturer (Dell, Compaq, and HP), and licensed Point Of Sale software.
Why did the BSA send him a threatening letter? Because he's a business owner.
This has been discussed on here before, where some private individuals have received the same letters at their homes.
<Rant>
I know companies with OEM installed everything. They don't have the "proof of purchase" for Windows, that came as an OEM install in 1998.. 5 years after the purchase don't even know where the stack of sales papers are for my car. I just keep track of my title and registration, just like Windows users usually have that stupid book with the hologram on it... My $35k car is worth a lot more than a Win98 install. The DMV will reprint my lost title for $15 . Why does the BSA think they are entitled to collect $150,000 for a missing "proof of purchase"!?
I hope the BSA comes after my home based business. I'll refuse them entry to my property. When the Federal Marshals come, I'll refuse them too. When they bust down my door and arrest me, they'll be very upset to find that I have a Win98 book w/ hologram, but it's not installed (I lost the CD years ago), and my machines have Linux on them.
</Rant>
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
(posting anon for obvious reasons)
Well, that's exactly what happened to us. I was asked to to a software inventory by my employer. I sent out an email warning employees to remove any personal applications or software that didn't belong to the company. When I went around and did the inventory I determined we were compliant with our licensing.
Next thing I know my boss tells me the BSA is demanding either a $25,000 payment. They totally discounted our software inventory that we did because of a tip from an ex-employee. So even though we were totally compliant, they refused to let our company off. Either pay the $25,000 now, or go to court and risk paying all legal fees plus $150,000 for each piece of software the BSA manages to "prove" we stole.
My boss didn't want to go through all that. He succumbed to the intimidation, and cut the BSA a $25,000 check. FOR NOTHING.
This is a true story. I wish I was making this up, but sadly, its reality.
At least if your familiar with OSHA. That's the american quasi-governmental group responsible for making sure employers provide a safe working environment. Thinks like making sure there are no open pits to fall in without signage or railings, certified persons for work in hazardous places, down to the office chairs we cube farmers work in have some baseline in terms of back support and stability.
The paralell is that up until OSHA was spun off from the governments payroll the fines doled out would be a few thousand bucks or so for some major mishaps / industrial accidents. Businesses in some cases considered the fines a cost of doing business.
Now that the organization is self funded. All of a sudden we saw companies getting fined $100,000+ for cronic problems and $1,000,000+ if someone dies on the job. All of a sudden it's painful and they fix stuff rather than continue to pay X $$ per day something isn't fixed or work has stopped.
The BSA has similar, but more underhanded reasons for doing that they do. They use the threat of fines and bad publicity to get money to validate they're own existance rather than seeking real change in licensing agreements to something that allows licensing after the fact and such.
Good argument for open source / free software - though as pointed out elsewhere for a great deal of niche markets the software just doesn't exist.
The depressing thing is, that here in the UK they do similar things (to the BSA) with television licenses. Since I grew up and left home, I have never posessed a TV, yet they still insist on sending threatening letters every few months and someone to "inspect" my premises for an illegal television, or TV receiving equipment.
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
(1) Companies should be warned of an audit ahead of time.
(2) Should a "raid" be conducted on a company, the BSA should not be present. The BSA is not the government and has no business on official law business.
(3) The closeness of the BSA to federal law agencies is troubling. It seems like they say "Check them out" and the Feds check them out. A money-gribing organization shouldn't have that much influence on federal law enforcement.
(4) Companies shouldn't have to prove anything. They shouldn't have to prove they have legit software. The BSA should have to prove -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that the companies don't have legit software. The principle of beyond a reasonable doubt shouldn't be disconsidered just because its a civil suit and not a criminal case. The reason we assume innocence until proven otherwise in a crminal case is because the state has vastly more resources than the individual, and its difficult to "prove" your innocent. The same should be true in lawsuits (where the filing party has vastly more resources, at least).
(5) Companies found to have pirated software should only have to pay the cost of the software, OR should have the option of forfeiting the software (that is, removing it from their system). Lets face it, in hard money, no software company loses ANYTHING when a someone pirates their software if they weren't going to buy it otherwise.
(6) I'm not a fan of intellectual property anyways. I think all current types of IP should be scaled back to five years, and their scope should be drastically reduced; but that's another story.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Clicking acceptance of an EULA is not an explicit agreement to a contract. That EULAs say differently is irrelevant. There are many points in the law that demonstrate the EULA's are not contracts. Here's just one:
Consideration. You get the software and the company doesn't get anything, so there's no consideration. Remember, you purchased the software *before* you clicked the "I Agree" button. No exchange has taken place. These companies CANNOT tell you that you can't use the software after you have legally acquired it. If they need some damn contract to keep their lawyers happy, then they damn well had better be there at Fry's with with a contract for me to sign at the time of my purchase.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Let me get this straight....a pissed-off ex-employee reports his former employer to the BSA and then the BSA requests an audit???? What kind of crap is this? Guilty until proven innocent? What charter is the BSA operating under that gives them the right to become a law enforcement agency....none that I know of. Also, who pays for the man-power to do a software audit? This could be very expensive for a large corporation.
In order to raid a business, the BSA must obtain a warrant since the constitution (Amendment IV) of the united states protects its citizens against unreasonable search and seizures. In order to obtain this warrant; the BSA must convince a court that there is compelling evidence of piracy...just the word of disgruntled employees is not compelling evidence. After all, ex-employees are tainted witnesses.
There are checks and balances in our government that try to prevent abuses of our justice system. These abuses could force a legitimate company out of business.
My question is this: Could a legitimate company sue for the costs of a BSA investigation that produced no evidence of piracy? That would be justice.
I'm not a piracy advocate, but I hate people that use our justice system to do their dirty work.
-ted
You gentlemen are confusing criminal law with civil law. A criminal in US court enjoys the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. In civil court, a simple proponderence of evidence is neccessary. If the plaintiff can make it look like the defendent did them wrong, then they win. They don't have to prove it by dusting for prints or anything.
There is also the matter that in a civil case the "defendant" can counter sue the "plaintiff".
In another case, A large school was basically threatened, and told that if you buy such-and-such hugely priced licence, we won't audit you, and things will be fine. The administation agreed, and paid for the contract. Here is the problem the licence they were conned into is horrible. It is an upgrade licence, that requires an original copy of a windows licence, and it invalidates the individual licences if the contract isn't renewed. Can you say extortion? It doesn't prevent having to do an audit at any time, and if you ever get out of it, you have to remove all of the software you otherwise have licences to.