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.'"
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
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.
That's not the point. The reason it doesn't get to court, it appears, is that even in court the defendant is forced to prove that every copy of its' software is properly licensed, no allowances for flighty employees, bad record-keeping, or loss of records in flood/fire/weasel mishap. The accuser should have to prove that a unlicensed piece of software was being used - particularly given the incredibly intrusive access they have to the defendants operations.
The only body generally allowed to hold you responsible for lost paperwork is the IRS, and we regularly knock them about the head to the point where they've become a bit timid about abusing this power. Delegating this kind of power to a NGO was never Congressional intent, that I can promise you.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
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".