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.
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
I'm not pissed off that the BSA can sue a company for using unlicensed software. That's fine. Go after them on your own time, with all the legal resources you can afford.
What pisses me off is that they can get the assistance of the US government (in the form of US Marshals) to "raid" companies suspected of using that software.
Why doesn't it work the other way? Why don't we have the US Marshals raid Microsoft when they produce security-hole-ridden software that causes a small business to lose millions? Why should our government always be on the side of the big business?
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".
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
Ever notice how both "organizations" hide behind that term usually reserved for not-for-profit aid groups, or otherwise innoxious group?
Ever notice how both groups generally exist for the seemingly sole purpose of badgering people with an army of lawyers behind a veil of "good"?
Ever notice the striking similarity between L Ron and Bill Gates?
Coincidence? I think not.
The previous post was meant as humor, and in no way meant liabel towards the BSA, The Church of Scientology, the ghost of L Ron, or Bill Gates' stupid grin (tm). All of my software is legitimate Microsoft(tm) software!
This has got to be the biggest puff piece I've seen in quite some time.
Oh, of course they don't. Only absolutely non-frivolous investigations costing perfectly innocent companies time and lost profits.
So how do we know it isn't frivolous?
In other words... they only want to target companies with a good credit rating. Remember the first rule of lawsuits: only sue people with money!
We received a BSA audit notice. We replied, yeah good luck, and told them they could go climb a tree. We received a note saying that the BSA was authorized by our software suppliers to perform this audit and refusal was a violation of our software license. We called several software suppliers and informed them that we were changing companies due to BSA interference, M$ was one of the companies contacted. Within 48 hours the BSA went away and we've not heard back. Their tactics are low and barely legal, you have all kinds of recourse in regards to this kind of issue.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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...
>
> Then weep as they reformat your boxes, install Windows, and run their network software finders.
"Yes, Your Honor. When we came in, all 20 FOOCORP employees were running Linux on their workstations. Our agents had to reformat their hard drives and install Windows on them to run our Windows-based network software finders. The software-finders discovered 20 copies of Windows in the office. FOOCORP admit to having no Windows licenses. Please find FOOCORP guilty of 20 counts of infringment."
Pan to coffee shop.
Geek1: Hey we are having a BSA party this weekend wana come?
Geek2: Huh, what's a BSA party?
Geek3: Just remember to act scared at first, it makes it more fun
Geek1: I'll make the call this time
Geek1 picks up cell phone and starts dialing.
Flash to new scene, big server room all three geeks sitting behind Internet terminals. Zoom to door view. A loud bang insues. Voice behind door: "US Martials open up, we have a warrant."
Geek 1: comming
Geek 1 walks to door and opens it cops and serious looking guys in black suits run inside and start connecting laptops to hubs and switches.
BSA Agent: We've got you now scumbag, BSA!
BSA Agent2: We recieved anonymous tip, we understand you haven't bought a single software licence for any of these computers!
BSA Agent3: We have you now, there must be hundreds of servers here.
Geek2:(looking scared) Busted...
Geek 3:We will cooperate fully.
clock hands spin around
zoom back to scene... everyone is standing around a large screen . Geek 1 is playing with some cool themed desktop
BSA Agent2: I've never seen anthing like it...
Cop 1:It's so cool
flash to next scene, all the cops and agents are playing first person shooters and yelling at each other. A big LAN party.
Flash to next scene, big nurf war some cops are drinking beer in the corner with their shirts open. The drinking cops and geek 3 are singing together...
Flash to next scene. Things are quiet, Police and men are slowly walking towards the door, heads down.
BSA Agent2: (looks up)That was great. I'm really sorry, you are such nice guys. I quit!
BSA Agent 1:(looking very sincere he puts his hand on geek 1's shoulder) Sorry. We were wrong.
Everybody walks out. Door closes behind him geek 3 turns to geek 2.
Geek 3: They lose more guys that way.
pause blinking servers are visible in background
Geek 2: (confused) OK... How did you do that? play catchy song, fade out...
write across black screen "Linux"
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
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.
There is no substitute when dealing with bullies like the BSA: make sure you are well-advised. They misrepresent the extent of their powers and advantages in these threatened litigations, wildly mistate their rights under the law and appropriate burdens of proof; but they do have significant advantages that you should never underestimate.
While BSA likes to compare themselves to other licensing enforcement operations, such as ASCAP/BMI, there are fundamental differences, and at the end of the day, these can make substantial differences in the result if you are willing to duke it out.
A truly compliant entity, even poorly documented, can turn the tables powerfully on such a bully. Indeed, even a party who is slightly out-of-compliance can do so, by using a number of devices available at law, such as Offers of Judgment, to turn the tables or test the will of a BSA threat. (Indeed, it may be wise -- again YMMV -- to consider filing a preemptive declaratory judgment action against them for several reasons.)
ASCAP/BMI, when asked, will produce actual opinions of actual cases where they have collected actual damages at trial in comparable enforcement scenarios. Ask a similar question of the BSA -- they will cite to the cases of the Performing Rights Societies and not to those of the BSA.
Ex parte seizures or searches can backfire seriously as well. A 6th Circuit case not too long ago found that a defendant who can show a seizure to have been improper can proceed past a motion to dismiss on a civil rights and trespass claim not only against the overreaching plaintiff, but also against their attorneys. It is a good idea to put them on notice of this fact early in the correspondence.
And from this article, I learned something quite interesting -- their constituents only get the license fees, they retain the multiples they extract. Not so with Performing Rights Societies, who, as understood, are non-profit entities that return their proceeds after costs to the composers and rights owners they represent.
It is therefore essential to get solid representation from someone who knows what they are doing. A stone wall could expose you to substantial liability. On the other hand,
Please do not consider any of the above to be legal advisc beyond the following: get a lawyer who is highly competent in this area to advise you. Specific legal advise is highly fact-dependent, and subtle differences in facts can often necessitate dramatically different strategies. Accordingly, no "cookbook" or single posting can provide you with a clear, definitive solution -- get competent advice and act on it.