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. "
which sells software. Yawn.
How we know is more important than what we know.
PC Advisor reports that Microsoft is going to start getting tough with certain small business customers.
They're starting with the small ones, because we all know what would happen if they started with the big ones.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
... we prosecuted extortion under organized crime statutes.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Cringely mentioned a while ago that people will disrupt Genuine Advantage as a first offense against Microsoft, so if they get tough with people who have legitimate copies, this will get really interesting, really fast.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
It plainly says in the first sentence of the article that they're going after medium sized companies, and later on that "Microsoft is targeting companies with around 250 PCs", which is a bit more than a small company would have.
If they are truly "small", then their "lock in" may well be light enough to consider using Linux instead. For those things which don't have an equivalent, I'd check to see if it ran under CrossOver Linux (was CrossOver Office). Convert all MS Office documents to Open Office documents. Not difficult, unless there are a lot of VBA macros. Convert MS SQL server to MySQL or PostgreSQL. Start converting VB.NET stuff to something else (I'd say Java, but I don't want the flames [grin]).
I wonder how universal MSDN subscribers will affected by this?
-- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
You know its bad when they send the Boy Scouts of America after you.
I know a few small businesses that abuse the MS license to make PROFIT and I think it's about time that MS does a crackdown on those businesses.
They should put more effort into cracking down those real business abusers who are making profit on the back of MS than the stupid broken WGA which annoys lots of innocent home users.
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!
Seems a rather odd tactic, can they really persue legal action because they 'think' you 'might' not be following their licensing? Do companies really have any obligation to allow MS to examine their hardware.
The BSA is not a government entity, nor is it part of any law enforcement. If Microsoft wants to audit you, and you tell them no, can they actually force it on you? Or is this something where you have a contractual agreement with them (for your legitimate copies of Windows) that allows them to audit you whenever they feel like it? If so, wouldn't this simply encourage people who pirate a few copies of Windows to simply pirate all of them? You can't be in violation of a contract you don't have.
The tighter you squeeze, the more star systems that will slip from your grasp."
Thalasar
At my former job Microsoft did this to us already. We were one company with two divisions that had individual accounts with Microsoft. Stupid, but that was the way that the owner wanted it. Anyway Microsoft was reviewing the size of the company (from what source I don't know) and only one of the division's software purchase from them and demanded an audit claiming that we did not purchase enough software to run a busniess the size we were. They implyed that we must be 'pirateing' some software. It was a major PITA combining audit data from both divisions.
zenray
[1] http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sam/lic_cal.ms
How cool. So Microsoft is going to use their "genuine (dis)advantage" tools to get serious about collecting their license fees.
So what does this do to the "total cost of ownership" of windows versus open source solutions?
How much of those calculations especially at the PHB level - are done assuming either that all their installations are paid for (and nobody installed any extras or forged their identification) or that they can get away with extras - and in either case didn't factor in being audited? (That's a BIG cost even (especially) if it turns out you're squeaky-clean.)
Perhaps this will create additional incentives to switch.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
..to be MS-free 2-3 years down the road for any given company. Certainly for a start-up. Linux and OS X can easily take care of much of the market. MS should consider swaying customers to continue to be customers through positive reinforcement.
I literally haven't been in a tech/management meeting where there wasn't ouright begrudgement at the mention of MS and MS-technologies.
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?
http://www.osv.org.au/index.cgi?tid=91
One of the hoariest linux switch stories is about Ernie Ball, a company that makes guitar strings. The BSA treated them miserably and tried to make an example of them with a court case and huge publicity. Ball retaliated by switching to Linux and launched their own publicity campaign aimed right back at Microsoft.
Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place on this one. They could end up with a bunch more high profile switching-to-linux stories to contend with.
Why didn't they do this 6 months or a year back? Nope, they're waiting for Vista. Thus is an extra encouragement for people to "Get Legal" and thus get Vista and push up Vista sales numbers.
After a few months people (shareholders, analysts etc) will be looking at Vista sales and they better be selling it like crazy to support all the hype.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Imagine being able to tell the Microsoft auditor to fuck himself/herself, and when the big heavies show up, all they see are peace lovin' penguins fluttering around the office with no short and curlies to grip on to.
Oh the horror!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Hrm... I think the editor made a mistake.
It should be "Microsoft to Get Tough on Paying Customers"
Seriously, with all the Windows Verification in force we are lucky to be able to swap a network card without having to call Microsoft to get re-authorized.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
. . . they sent three big Eagle Scouts over to beat me into submission. Now I have to walk with a cane. Pay your license fees, people. It's not worth it!!
"If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Perhaps you aren't aware of the history behind the use of the RICO law, going back at least to Rudolph Giuliani's use of the law against Michael Milken. For your further amusement, see e.g. The continuing expansion of RICO in business litigation.
"Have your cake and eat it, too" is an idiom meaning "To have it both ways." It was originally "Eat your cake and have it, too" but became confused in popular usage, to the point where the corrupted form is understood (by most people) and accepted, while the more sensible original form is not.
Hope this clears that up for you.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Since when did the Boy Scouts end up on MS' payroll? Oh, wait...maybe if you change enough Wikipedia entries, you get a new merit badge.
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.
Why, its almost as if people who license Windows find themselves with an undisclosed balance sheet liability - the cost of an audit, and the risk that even legally purchased copies of Microsoft software will need to be re-purchased because of a lack of documentation.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Your participation with their audit is voluntary unless they have sufficient probably cause to justify a warrant, in which case they will be accompanied by a law enforcement agent.
Wrong. Participation is voluntary, unless they get a court order, filed as part of a lawsuit. it's not a warrant. Warrants are used in criminal cases, not (private party) civil suits.
Remember that, at least in the US, the evidence must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet again, please get your facts straight. Copyright violation is a civil, not criminal, matter. In civil court, the standards of evidence are much, much lower- which is why you can get a parking ticket, have it blown off your windshield, and have the fine double (and if you refuse to pay, your license revoked.)
That said- YES, you should ALWAYS tell the BSA to get off your property and not to come back without a court order. Unless they're fairly certain that you have enough license violations to justify the labor, they won't be back.
Please help metamoderate.
A few times at Free Geek, people have asked me why we don't use Windows. After all, these computers coming in have Windows on them, right? So we can just pass it on to another person, right? And none of these people have bothered to read the EULA, which states: (Point 13 of the Windows XP Home EULA)
People who talk about how "easy" Windows is are not looking at the fact that Windows is more than just the software you use..."Windows" is also the legal terms of ownership. And those often, especially when you are working in a business, get very far from easy. If Microsoft was really auditing the usage of their software, it would get next to impossible. But often people don't know, or just don't care about this. If they were, they would have to factor it into their calculations of "ease".
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
You are completely missing the point. The BSA is looking to make money by getting a "settlement." If you refuse to do this they will sue and it will cost you a small furtune to even GET to a jury. It could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, not to mention lost productivity. This is what they hold over your head! Either give us $30,000 or we sue you and even if you win you lose far more than that.
As they collect these settlements they use that to force other companies into settling.
No. If you want to try out software from Microsoft, almost every product will allow you to in a perfectly legal manner. What do you want to try out? How about Microsoft Office 2007 Pro? Visio? What about Visual Studio Pro? Money? Or maybe you'd like to try out some entertainment software like Age of Empires III, Halo, or Zoo Tycoon?
Don't see something you want in that list? Call Microsoft. They're actually really good at working with businesses (and we are talking about businesses here) at getting them trials and evals of whatever they want.
Yes, it is. No stupid rationalizations, no bandwagons, no mitigating factors, no ifs, ands, or buts; it's wrong, plain and simple.
That's bullshit. How exactly are they encouraging piracy? Seems to me that with all of this WGA shit that's coming down, they're bending over backwards to the point of screwing up honest customers' computers in trying to keep piracy under control. What an idiotic thing to say. What exactly do they have to do to convince you that they don't want you to pirate their software? Send men in sunglasses and black hats to your house to break down your door, check your computer, and break your legs if you've installed their software illegally?
Are you basically saying that having only rudimentary CD-Key verification, or even no verification at all, in previous versions of Windows is somehow encouraging piracy? That's basically saying that right or wrong, it doesn't matter if someone rapes a girl if she was dressed like she wanted it, and like I said, that's bullshit.
Or maybe you're saying that because Microsoft offers sweet deals to OEMs, schools, governments, and big customers that they're encouraging piracy. Guess what... That's bullshit too. Every software company of any decent size does that. It's called trying to sell your software, not asking people to illegally use your stuff. If I make widgets and I offer a volume discount on them, am I asking for people to steal them? No. Do widget pirates have a right to fight back if I try to keep them from stealing widgets? No.
And god knows that I am not a fan of Microsoft or the BSA, but when I read comments like yours, it's hard to not cheer for them. That arrogant smugness, unapologetically doing what you know is wrong, is exactly what makes them look reasonable and justified and what keeps companies and organizations like them in business.
It's people like you who completely undermine everything that people who contribute to FOSS projects stand for. If more people were like you, there'd be no need for things like Linux, OpenOffice.org, Firefox, The Gimp, or any other FOSS. If someone wants an office application, there's no need to look for a FOSS alternative; just pirate a copy of Microsoft Office. Don't use Linux, just pirate a copy of Windows.
God, what a moron.
I reported my previous boss to the BSA for his heavy piracy (which lead to my quitting) and guess what -- he's still in business and hasn't been contacted. It's been two months. He had several 2003 Enterprise Servers and at least 100 XP and Office XP that were pirated. Not to mention the VMWare ESX Servers that were pirated, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (seriously, why? WHY!?), and the many copies of Photoshop.
He's still somehow in business when he couldn't afford the licenses for that stuff anyway. I've never been contacted back by the BSA. Needless to say, I'm rather upset, and wish I could just do some vigilante justice and nuke his systems, but I have morals.
I think (recalling the last time I bothered to read the Windows EULA) that you are correct about point A, a big part of the agreement is an indemnification of them for basically everything and anything, but I'm not so sure about point B. I don't recall anything in the EULA about audits. It's possible there are audit rights in the corporate site licenses, though.
But as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the BSA doesn't really even use the EULA, and they for the most part don't even use the legal system except as a bludgeon. They merely threaten to sue (which would presumably allow them to perform a license audit as part of discovery, and generally trash your business and distract your employees for a few weeks), and most companies roll over. The companies that have pockets deep enough to really fight with the BSA, like IBM, mostly don't get tousled with anyway.
It's a straightforward extortion scheme; they don't need anything in the EULA to enable them. They just threaten to create an obnoxious and expensive lawsuit, until you agree to let them in to do their audit, during which will inevitably find license issues, following which they will make up some figure to charge you as a "settlement" to avoid court.
There's not much complexity to it: first, they come to you, and say "let us perform an audit, or we'll sue you, get a court order, and come back and do it anyway." So, you try to get your licenses in order, and let them in to do their audit. They refuse to honor whatever evidence you thought was going to assuage them, and tell you that you're non-compliant. They then threaten to sue you again, and this time they have "evidence" (which you conveniently handed them, when you let them do their audit). At this point, you're stuck, and they know it, so they toss you an 'out' in the form of some settlement, which you would have laughed at initially, but now happily pay.
They don't need anything in the EULA to accomplish that con; it's just a straightforward intimidation game. They're bigger than you, and have more lawyers, therefore you lose.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."