Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Get Tough on License Dodgers
An anonymous reader writes "PC Advisor reports that Microsoft is going to start getting tough with certain small business customers. They are going to examine their small customer license database — any discrepancies and it will call you for an audit. If you refuse it will send in the BSA and the legal heavies. "
Initial notice, followed by three written notices prior to any intrusive action? I'm sorry but this does not seem unreasonable nor tough to me. Anyone in the small business league at present SHOULD be adhering to any and all licensing necessary for the software they are using TO PRODUCE A PROFIT. If they aren't, well they best not try to expand beyond the term small business at any time in the future...
Flames as follows:
Ice Cream has no bones.
You know, not to be a troll, but I really don't see what the big deal is. Regardless of whatever ethical problems one may have with Microsoft, if a business is using illegal copies of software, that company should be sued. Buying the appropriate licenses for software is one of the costs of doing business. If I wrote a piece of software the businesses wanted and I found out that it was being rampantly pirated, I'd be wanting to stick the BSA on them, too. I don't see why Microsoft should be held to a different standard.
If you're a business using Windows, budget for it and pay, for crying out loud. If you don't want to spend the money on Microsoft products, then use open source products instead, which have become very economically attractive and corporately viable replacements. But trying to have your cake and eat it too is just stupid.
Oh, and as a side note, not that this won't start happening in the US by any stretch of the imagination, but from TFA:
This is great news.
The more Microsoft squeezes their own customers and makes it difficult and expensive to do business using Microsoft products the more these same businesses will finally open up to the idea of using open source solutions instead of consuming the spoon fed FUD from Microsoft's marketing machine.
This will result in more competition in the market where some of us can jump in and compete with the heavies in providing added value to businesses in the form of IT related services.
Go Microsoft!
I work at a company that primarily uses Linux for all development.
But all boxes even those that have only Linux installed still have Windows license stickers on them.
Will the BSA give a refund? Perhaps the refund can go to a charity, like EFF?
"BTW, why is it that software is the only product where supply and demand and mass production rules don't apply? Everything else that is mass produced comes down in price, software stays the same or gets more expensive."
Lots of people don't understand the "...and demand" part. Sure, lots of us would like Adobe or Microsoft to sell software for five bucks, and perhaps many of us would only pay five bucks for the latest wares from Adobe or Microsoft. But if there is sufficient demand at a higher price, that's the price at which they will sell it.
Many folks (at least here on Slashdot) think that the ideal point on the supply/demand curve is the point where the product has the most customers. The reality is that it's at the point where the company makes the most profit. Finding this point on the curve that works for your business means understanding the market size, knowing who you want as your customer, and who you don't want as your customer.
More to the point: PhotoShop is $650. Enough people want to buy it at that price to allow Adobe to have a really nice building -- you should see their lobby! Sure, The Gimp is free. But even at free, it's not good enough for a critical mass of users. Lots of Slashdot armchair economics experts don't get this; they parrot the "supply is infinite thus value should be driven to zero" nonsense. Meanwhile, Adobe continues to do quite well selling a few bucks' worth of CDs at $650 a set, while you will have to look far and wide to find any serious designer who's foregone PhotoShop in favor of The Gimp.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I feel like a fool, because as I mention here, I don't see that clause in here.
But let's assume that I didn't read it carefully, and the EULA really is how Microsoft obtains that right from their customer. If an audit requirement is in the EULA, then that's a strong argument against EULAs being enforcible. I'll explain...
One of the problems with EULAs, is that there's never any proof (or even evidence) of the contract. Microsoft doesn't have your signature on file. EULA proponents say that the agreement is implied by the presence of the software. Ok, but even if we accept that, where's the externally-visible evidence?
Two users buy a bunch of computer components and put together their computers. User 1 then buys a copy of MS Windows and installs it, thereby agreeing to the contract (according to EULA proponents). User 2 installs Linux; he never bought a copy of Windows, never had one, and never even implicitly agreed to any EULA.
From the outside, these users appear identical. Supposedly, Microsoft has a contract with one of them and not the other, but they don't even know. You can't even determine who agreed to the EULA and who didn't without an audit! But the Linux user, even according to the most rabid Microsoft apologist, never agreed to a Microsoft EULA or a BSA audit.
How can you invoke one of the terms of a license, before it is known whether or not there ever was a license?
Using licenses to support BSA audits, begs the question as to whether or not the user consented to an audit.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.