Slashdot Mirror
Free Software Inflates BSA's Piracy Claims
crazney writes: "According to this article in The Age, the BSA do not count the effect of free software when calculating piracy rates. The article suggests that free software has made piracy statistics look worse and hence encourages governments to create harsher laws ... Could someone pass The BSA a cluebat?"
How much of a drain does the application software (as opposed to high-end and/or custom software, which if anything could be HELPED by free software...SOMEONE is getting paid to adapt that software to an organization's needs) industry put on the economy, compared to the benefits it offers?
How many jobs will be created in businesses that rely upon commercial application software as a result of costs cut through cheaper software?
Shouldn't free software, apart from it's impacts on the application software industry, be seen just like tax cuts are?
Well, unless tax cuts aren't all they're cracked up to be.
It's a hacked version of item 5.1 on this page. They're referring to piracy, not open source.
That's debatable. What isn't debatable is that the vast majority of their income is derived from the huge fines etc that they levy even if their victim then buys a site licence.
The motivation is all wrong: the BSA (and in Oz, the BSAA) stand to make more from hurting people than from helping software companies.
Here in Oz at least, when they send an audit demand, the correct answer is `ummm...' followed by some hurried quick checking. If the checking ain't too disastrous, you proceed to `OK, send your guys around when you're ready' - you see, the EULA gives them the right to audit, not the right to force you to audit.
If they do bother to come around, you make everything as difficult as possible, e.g. by only allowing them to audit a machine when the user is present (privacy regulations, you see), then arranging for a skeleton staff when they do arrive so that the minimum number of computers are available for checking, and make finding out who `owns' a computer as difficult as possible. Meanwhile, all the time, so sorry, wish we could hurry things along a little but can't break these rules.
Depending on your situation, you should be able to cut them down to six computers a day or less. Over 3 working man-weeks to audit a hundred-screen shop. Make them earn their fines. And keep harping on about your reliable Linux servers, your bulletproof OpenBSD network machines, and how you're testing Linux Terminal Server technology for your desktops and wondering whether it's worthwhile cutting over to it...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I can personally testify to this. My company, a fabric manufacturer with sites worldwide, was recently approached by Microsoft with an offer for a 'maintainence plan'. Since we have a full IT team, we didn't need it. A week later an e-mail appears in our CIO's mailbox saying that we're being audited by Microsoft. Now every morning, he walks into work and says "Alright, what can we do today to get rid of more windows boxes".
As a "rampant free market ideologue" (Libertarian), I will be the first to point out that you have confused the meaning of free-market economics (i.e. capitalism), which implies the absence of government interference (coercion) in the market, with a hypothetical regulation, imposed through coercion, which happens to favor one particular group over another. Capitalism does not necessarily imply profit but only the absence of coercion in the market. Free market economics is grounded in voluntary cooperation, not coercion (which is the definining prerequisite of any government). Hence, open source software falls squarely into the category of free-market enterprise, and in fact, to a greater degree than any software vendor which relies on patent law to sustain a business model. (Patent law, you may be surprised to know, is contrary to the true principles of free market economics, because it is derived from coercion.)
See free-market.net if you are interested...
Businesses should darn well acquire their software legally. If the software they want is commercial, it should be paid for. However, the BSA assumes that every user is convicted thief who must be monitored. The cost of an audit can devastate a school district or city.
If can go to Best Buy and purchase a DVD player, a PS2 game, a big screen televison, some music CDs, some magazines, a car stereo, some speakers, a phone card, a strategy guide book, and some computer software. How I pay for each of things looks identical. Only the computer software attempts to change the sale into a license after I get it home and try to use it. With the exception of the computer software, I'm free to modify or copy any of these things (Assuming I'm capable of copying them) for my personal use. And only the computer software exposes me to the possibility of having to pay to have an audit prove that I didn't steal it.
The BSA is leading this charge, "You're a thief unless you can prove otherwise." They damn well deserve all the flak they get.