Slashdot Mirror
BSA Accuses OpenOffice Mirrors
sqrt529 writes "A German university was accused by the BSA of pirating MS Office, because they mirrored OpenOffice.org. The scripts from the BSA only check for "Office" in the filename and then automatically send out notices to the ftp admins. Did any of you get similar notices from the BSA?"
"I've got an idea! Let's write scripts that will automatically log in on FTP servers, waste bandwidth, cost people money, and also do a shitty job looking for pirated software!"
Yeah, that's really bright. If I were operating any servers that had been raped by the BSA's scripts like this, I'd be extremely pissed off. They should realize that bandwidth isn't exactly free, especially not in countries != US.
And imagine what the BSA would have loved to do to these servers if they were allowed to hack the offending boxes.
FTP is a file-sharing protocol, isn't it?
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
Not too much of a stretch. Microsoft has been a major contributor to the BSA since its inception. It harasses companies based on rumors of software non-compliance co-opting US Marshalls to act as a the gestapo. It is also growing power and influence worldwide.
Read this interview with Gates himself for more insight on Microsoft and the BSA.
To sum it all up, the BSA *is* Microsoft.
They couldn't have.
If memory serves me correctly, and it has been known to fail me at times, one of the requirements under the DMCA is that an expedited "takedown" notice has to be stipulated "under penalty of perjury" to be valid.
Arguably, this was to prevent people from making stuff up to get other people's sites taken down. Otherwise I could send a letter to your ISP claiming that your site infringed on a copyright that I or someone who employed me held. The ISP would immediately take your site offline, doesn't want to loose its "safe harbor" immunity. By the time you contested it, your site would have been off line for a day or longer. This way, if you do send out a "take down" notice that you haven't checked and made sure that it did indeed contain infringing materials, you could be punished.
I think that the BSA should be taken to court. If they can have a program automatically generate notices to hundreds or thousands of sites automatically, whether or not they are actually infringing, it makes a mockery of swearing to something under "penalty of perjury".
Scripts shouldn't be allowed to threaten legal action. The DMCA is bad enough as it is. If someone doesn't put a stop to this soon, a large swath of the net could be censored by bogus "take down" letters. Saying "Opps, so sorry 'bout that" when some one calls you on your lie isn't good enough. What about all of the other sites that may have or will get taken down because of things like this that weren't caught?
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
From the BSA apology: (italics and emphasis mine)
Apparently our system detects the OpenOffice files as MS Office programs and alarms me, which in turn sends the notices. I failed my part by not reassuring clearly enough which property was infringed and now that I am aware of that fact we will try and fix the search terms of our system and of course be more aware of the possible mistake.
Apparently, they automatically assume that some one/organization is a crook by the "which property was infringed" statement. No human oversite of the 'bot, no extensive verification routines, etc. and the result is frivolous threats and accusations. This isn't the first time I've heard of this happening. To me, this sounds like routinely making false accusations against innocent people and businesses.
IANAL, however let's see if I can layout objectional behavior and possibly illegal behavior:
Frivolous accusation of wrong doing without due diligence to verify allegations made by threat. This cost the University money because employees had to deal with a claim without merit. At least 2 employees, and a potentially expensive number of man-hours. No doubt, the person who received the threat sent it to their boss, who either sent it to their boss or the legal department. At least one meeting would have ensued as well as researching the claim that the University stated that they did to check that in fact they were not distributing MS Office. That could be several thousand Euros or even more that ten thousand Euros based on time involved where these people could have and would have been engaged in productive work.
Despite the point of entry being anonymous FTP, the BSA engaged in what might possibly be theft of service (by consuming a finite resource for other than the purpose the allowed reason of access that the University pays for). This may also prevent others from using the system legitimately because of the expense of the system.
Trespassing possibly. SPAM has been cited as trespassing due to the use of others assets for transmittal and storage. Perhaps this can be construed like this as well.If in fact accusations like these directed against the University of Muenster have been occuring for some time against others for doing similar things, than the apology (from the organization since I can't speak for the individual) most likely is not sincere and means that this behavior will in all likelihood continue, the the University and others. I believe we can be reasonably sure that the BSA has not ceased this behavior because of this incident.
I feel that this situation is akin to this scenario: I give or sell a dozen cookies to people or organizations in Boston. Then, I walk into every office in New York City and exclaim that because there is some food on a desk, food waste in the trash, etc., that they obviously stole my cookies because cookies are food. Cookies are the metphor for software and an unlocked door at an office is the metaphor for anonymous FTP.
What this shows is that the BSA is engaging in activities in multiple countries. Because their membership is dominated by the major software companies, and here they threatend the distribution of a competing, if free, product, perhaps this can be construed as collusion by the software giants and anticompetive behavior. Can someone cite other similar instances?
"Do you prefer they eliminate the middle step and go straight to the FBI when you learn about your illegal copy of Office?"
Why not? They already eliminated the first step where they actually make sure you have an illegal copy of office.
But regardless, if you are doing nothing wrong there is no harm.
Bullshit... if they have some reason to believe I'm pirating software, even if I'm not using said software, it can be tough for me to prove I'm innocent. After all, their standard is "guilty until raided and proven innocent." So they can come in and raid me, and even though I'm innocent, they can disrupt my business and confiscate my computers. Who else has the power to do this? Nobody I can think of, definitely not legally.
Do you prefer they eliminate the middle step and go straight to the FBI when you learn about your illegal copy of Office?
Actually, yes. I think that's what everyone wishes would happen. If the BSA is accusing you of less than $5,000 worth of piracy, the FBI will tell the BSA to f'off. If they're accusing you of more than $5,000, then the FBI will conduct a proper investigation, unlike the BSA's slash and burn approach. The BSA is a vigilante group, and they should be stopped.
-- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
If the BSA sent a false complaint to your ISP / hosting provider saying you violated copyright laws, there would be no harm? Even if they take down your site or cut off your internet access?
If they went straight to the FBI with a false complaint like this, they'd probably end up in jail.