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.'"
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?
Gentoo Sucks
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
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?
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".
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
I know someone that was audited by the BSA and decided to fight it. Basically they countered by stating they wanted full disclosure of who reported them so as to determine the validity of the claim prior to wasting internal resources and dollars. They also argued that the reporting tools are a violation of privacy. Yes, they expected them to place some software on their network which scans their entire network not to mention each machine's registry. Third, they also argued that even if they were in violation of license, the license is between them and the vendor (after all, the license does not allow for the BSA as having legal proxy interests) and unless the vendor in questions decides that they'd like to personally persue the issue, the BSA does not have legal authority or the legal grounds to persue the action. Furthermore, they argued that even if something odd was discovered and they lost, only the government has the right to impose fines on legal matters as such and they would be within their legal rights to simply purchase any outstanding licenses or settle directly with the vendor in question and completely dismiss the BSA altogether thereby eliminating the need to pay any fines or added fees.
Last I heard, even though two ex-employees had turned them in, the BSA simply walked from the issue as, from what I gathered, they really don't have a legal leg to stand on.
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 ?
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.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
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.