Slashdot Mirror
Would You Install Pirated Software at Work?
An anonymous reader asks: "I am an IT professional, and due to budget constraints, I have been told to install multiple copies of MS Office, despite offering to install OpenOffice, and other OpenSource Office products. Even though most of the uses are for people using Excel like a database, or formatting of text in cells, other programs are not tolerated. I have been over ruled by our controller, to my disagreement. I would never turn them in, but I am in tough place by knowing doing something illegal. I want to keep my job, but disagree with some of the decision making on this issue. Other than drafting a letter to the owners of the company on how I disagree with the policy, what else can I do?"
1. Threaten to quit if they don't comply.
2. Quit.
3. Mention that penalties for pirating software are more expensive than buying it in the first place.
4. Install Open Office instead, see if people notice.
5. Threaten to inform Microsoft/BSA.
6. Draft your letter to the company owners, but instead talk about how 'Open Office saves money' without mentioning your PHB's stupid plan to pirate Windows.
7. Go over your bosses's head and tell the owners what he's up to.
I'm sure other people will give you options as well. You obviously have principles, don't let your work overrule them.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
You mean like the ACM Code of Ethics?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
IT professionals have a very reasonable code of ethics, thank you very much.
http://lopsa.org/CodeOfEthics
Are you aware that 7-Zip has a file manager mode that does the same kind of crap as winzip and winrar?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I would not install unlicensed software at work. If my boss insisted on it I would ask him to put it on paper with the specifics of the software name, the date, and that he knew we did not have a license. If he signs it taking full responsibility I'd go right ahead.
:)
Part of my job as I.T. Manager has been to make my boss aware of the liability of using pirated software, and of allowing employees to use pirating software like Limewire, etc. If they insist on doing things that expose them to liability it won't be because they didn't know it was a bad idea.
Office is licensed on a per device basis. In this scenario, you need an Office license for each machine which is accessing the Citrix server. There are no cost savings.
This is a nice idea but completely illegal. The office license is per each concurrent user on Citrix, since you have to install a terminal services version. Plus with citrix it costs more than a user license on office to buy the TSCAL, Citrix CAL, and windows CAL (last I checked it was $300 or so for citrix, $100 for windows, and $20 or so for the TSCAL).
Technically, if you kind-of sort-of think of having one version that is illegal somewhere, you are doomed, even if not installed.
;) ;) Nah, seriously, see first part: they are personal, and don't involve me ... was just kidding here.
My stand on this topic:
- I do not condone installing pirated software. When I find one, I remove it. If they are "personal licenses", I do not look, nor want to have anything to do about them, but I tolerate them. The user is responsible for their own computers, and if they want to install "their" Office, that's their problem. If I am told, even candidly, it's a pirated software, I remove it. After all, for example, I have my own personal version of Nero on my computer, and since I don't even have a PC anymore at home, it's valid license. How can I tell if it's really a personal version or not.
- If a software is purchased but not received yet, I do understand why you would use a pirated version while Adobe sends their CS3 licenses to my company (current example). But this is a temporary measure and because the provider is not being fast enough. In case we are asked, I have the invoice to prove it. Then, make sure it's not the ultra full pro version when in fact you are buying the cheap basic one. Make sure to be consequent
- If a software uses a hardware key that is making the computer crash (for example Aura that was using the Sentinel key), I have absolutely no problem in using the more stable cracked version than the legal version. That said, I still have the boxes handy, and if asked, I can tell that reason.
- If it's Office and it's overpriced (really is), I don't care
The idea here is to be VERY precise and clear. Don't tell it's pirated, or else, I will remove. Otherwise, do as you please with your computer. And please don't involve me in this. If asked, they are your personal licenses. If I have one doubt, it will be deleted, don't make me doubt.
I did say "even if" it means quitting on the spot. That may well be the outcome, when Mr Executive says "Well, either you follow our instructions or we let you go."
US employment law is completely different to that in the UK. In particular, IIRC most US states are still "at will" states, where either party may terminate an employment contract without notice, and for any reason not explicitly prohibited (e.g., by anti-discrimination legislation).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I've been in a similar position where I was asked me to testify against my employer. My employer made it clear that if I did "my Career" path would be very limited. So I testified my company was found at fault and within 3 months I was asked to resign, at which point I refused. A few months later I was RIF'd from my position with no separation package. In the exit interview I simply stated "wonder how the lawyers" will feel about this. True to form I had an offer to leave and not come back but I would receive a paycheck for the next 18 months along with all my benefits. If you do the right thing you wont have any regrets. In your position I'm guessing you probably have a manager that is trying to look good by saving money. when the chips fall he's not going to stand in the way of some one else taking the blame. Remember you work for .gov and your expected to fall on your sword
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
not explicitly prohibited
In most states, it is explicitly prohibited to terminate an employee who refuses to perform an illegal action on part of the company.
The threshold for criminal infringement is pretty low -- just $1,000 worth of stuff within 180 days. If he's being asked to install Office Professional 2007, he'd hit that (well... $999.90) with two installations.
But to your point -- I believe the common threshold for actual prosecution is much higher... in the five figure range. Bigger fish, and all that.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
The more I think about it, the more the honest choice sounds right. You can't make dishonest people act right. When your boss is not honest, it's time to leave.
If they are going to fire him for refusing, they will lose the email and lie about that too if anything bad happens. They can also lie about the licenses. The boss will lie to HR and then paper his file as a trouble maker.
They've asked him to do something they think is wrong. There's no winning in a situation like that.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You seem to be confusing the broader concept of illegal (violating the law) with the distinction made between criminal and civil law. Something can be "against the law" but not criminal.
Also, copyright violation can, in some circumstances, be criminal. If the infringement is "willful" and the total value of the software exceeds $1000, the guy could be charged criminally.
Even in states with "at will" employment, you might still have some legal recourse with a "wrongful termination" suit in a situation like this. You won't get your job back, but you might get some other court-imposed judgment out of them (i.e. cash).
As in so many Ask Slashdots, the answer to this one includes the instruction, "Consult an attorney". The OP needs to find out what his legal rights are in his jurisdiction. In the meantime, document this situation clearly: Put your objections into a memo, addressed to everyone up the chain of command, and request the instructions to install unlicensed software in writing. Following Orders With Objection puts you in a better position than Just Following Orders.
In case you haven't already pursued this, try to find someone in executive management who is willing to listen to you. Talk to the Legal department or the company's counsel. The senior execs will probably never listen to you (mine never have), but they might listen to someone else in management. This is the approach I took in my first job out of college, where the entire corporate office was being run on a single retail copy of Lotus 123 and WordPerfect, and POs for new computers would come back from Purchasing with the software line-items crossed out "because we already have this". Once Executive Management understood the possible consequences of this approach, I was finally allowed to buy software with all new PCs, and eventually the pirated installs found their way into landfills and the company was legal.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Now, let's look at the law regarding copyright infringement:
U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 506:
US Code, Title 18, section 2319:
No, no. He's close to correct.
Recent versions of Office explicitly address the Terminal Services environment and say that you have to "have" a separate MS Office license for every possible desktop that's used to access Office even occassionally. If someone logged in from home one day and fired up office remotely, MS says you need to buy another Office license. There's no way to actually install these licenses anywhere, but you're expected to have them.
You also need a separate per-device TS-CAL and CAL for each connecting client.
Where things can get confusing (and what we originally had set up) is where you have only one UNIX server that accesses the Terminal Server, where everyone runs their citrix clients and uses VNC or X redirection to view those somewhere else. Depending on what version of Office you have installed you might in this situation only have one "device", and you are allowed to have multiple users per device. Read your license agreements carefully, and bring aspirin.
You should look for better legal advice - under BC Human Rights legistlation, you cannot fired/discriminated against due to family status. Look into filing a Huamn Rights Complaint (you can even do so without a lawyer).
i on13 ... section that applies
... contact info
www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/H/96210_01.htm#sect
www.bchrt.bc.ca - BC Human Rights Tribunal
Saying my boss tole me to will not protect you.
In the United States there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement:
Title 17-
The punishment is up to 3 or 5 years and $2500.
I would suggest adding 'free' around the 'open source' part. It would give them a good reason to choose a legal alternative.
Re-read the grandparent post that made the claim that OpenOffice is a superior product to Microsoft Office. The parent poster was replying to that nonsensical claim.
Being "ordered to" stands no ground in the military (I'm currently enlisted) if it is an illegal directive. I'm sure the civilian world holds quite true. My contract and enlistment oath says I swore to "obey all LAWFUL orders", and they're quite quick to fry anybody woh does something illegal with the cop-out "but I was ordered to...."
It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
Remember when they wanted to force an additional license for when one copied something from his disc to memory? Glad nothing came from that.
I don't entirely disagree.
However when you say If you boss wants you to install ten thousand copys of BozoWord on the corporate network, just do it.,
that's not exactly discrete.
Document, document document - as in keep track of all communications and don't do any of it verbally. If you have verbal communications, email the parties involved with a conversation summary saying, "This is the summary of ourcoversation as I recall it. Please append comments or corrections if you believe them necessary".
One approach is to ask them to sign an affidavit stating you are doing this because told to, and that all parties recognize the illegality of it. If they fire you as a result of your "attitude", you probably have a case for taking them to court for illegal termination.
What ever you end up doing though, I'd get out of there ASAP.
Funny you should mention that. And the answer is yes, it would fall under corporate immunity.
However, they would argue a gross lapse of common sense, and probably still find a way to charge you.
Google for "murder & corporate immunity" to hear about fun cases where that exact same thing has happened.
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
For anyone working for the Federal Government and find themselves in a similar situation, report it to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Disclosure Unit. This office "...serves as a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees and applicants for federal employment."
Ignore all the advice to quit. That may be a viable option for run-of-the-mill civilian jobs, but in federal service there is only one employer. Move to another position, yes, but don't give up a federal career over something so insignificant as this. And no, you are not expected to fall on your sword. You are expected to disclose fraud, waste, and abuse.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Actually, after reviewing http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 again, I suppose it's possible they could try to make a criminal case out of this, which certainly complicates things more than I, as an employee of this company, would probably be comfortable with. The only sane thing to do in this situation is refuse and document.
Ollie was under the assumption that it was a legal act. They were under the presumption they had found a loophole in the law. Debate that as much as you want, but that's the context.
http://jobsearchtech.about.com/cs/labor_laws/a/whi stle_blower.htm
You would be held liable if you performed the illegal act(even if it's an order), but you are protected by law if you tell on the company for it's illegal activity.
Beer! It's what's for breakfast!
Captain John Sheridan: May I have your attention please. In the last few hours, we have learned that warships are coming this way from Earth. Their orders are to seize command of Babylon 5 by force. As commanding officer and military governor of Babylon 5, I cannot allow this to happen. President Clark has violated the Earth Alliance Constitution: by dissolving the Senate, declaring martial law, and *personally* ordering the bombing of civilian targets on the Mars colony. He is *personally* responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. Following these attacks, Orion 7 and Proxima 3 have broken away from the Earth Alliance, and declared independence. Babylon 5 now joins with them. As of this moment, Babylon 5 is seceding from the Earth Alliance. We will remain an independent state till President Clark is removed from office. At the end of this current crisis, anyone who wishes to leave for Earth is free to do so. Meanwhile for your own safety, I urge everyone to stay in your quarters until this is over. That is all.
I worked as an IT manager in a Government Agency... My section manager insisted in using unlicensed software. I refused, and lost my job. At least I have a better job now, but it was a bitter experience. Mind you, I would do it all again instead of just giving in.
AVG isn't free. AVG Free Edition is. I use it at home, and love it dearly. It's not free for business. I've installed AVG at four separate businesses, having proudly purchased each one. No one deserves it more. What a perfect product. It's general silence and (optional) non-disruptive activity/update/operation is what makes me smile most.
I could understand if somebody had no prospects and absolutely needed the job. Then again, there are lots of people in the IT industry who are not in this situation, yet will compromise themselves because they do not want to take any risk. This kind of thinking by people everywhere leads to a downward spiral in the system as a whole.
I once worked for a financial company where they decided they needed to institute a random drug-testing policy. Nobody was happy about it, yet nobody complained to management. I told the company it was unacceptable and that I would resign when the policy went into place. Lots of people said they respected what I was doing, and you could tell they felt some shame, because they made a point of telling me their excuses about "family to think about", etc. Complete bullshit, they just didn't want to be inconvienced and take any risk.
Funny thing is the company never followed through on the policy. Just having one employee make a stand made them rethink their position.
We scripted the uninstall of Office off 200+ machines, and after that finished requests went through the roof. We have since denied all requests until Finance cuts a check for the remaining 80 we need.
It's a mess to say the least...
It comes from Babylon 5. Sheridan was ordered to fire on civilain ships by a corrupt government, and he disobeyed the order - and encouraged others to do so - feeling that it was his duty to do what he felt was right, not what he was told.
No reason to jeopardize your own job over a licensing issue for Microsoft. "Teacher teacher, Billy was talking when you were out of the room!" Dont go out of your way to rat out your coworkers or your own company that pays you. I wouldnt install the software though, because you certainly dont want to be liable if they get caught. Like the other posts, I would either make someone else do it or get something in writing from a superior telling you the copies are legal to cover your own a$$. No reason to go telling though.
There's no such thing as "corporate immunity."
Corporations have liability shields which protect the stock holders and officers from being personally sued for actions of the corporations. That is, while you can sue the company, you can't sue the CEO. But "immunity"? No.
We created corporations decades ago to enable large, dangerous projects such as, oh, say the Golden Gate Bridge. Which everybody knew would mean disabling accidents and even death to some percentage of the workers no matter what was done in terms of safety. The project is inherently risky. Before the creation of the corporation, investors were personally liable. They would have been risking everything right down to their house by getting involved in a project such as the Golden Gate. So states began creating fictional "beings" to be liable but shielding the investors and officers from personal liability. Otherwise, nobody would touch the project. Too risky.
We overuse the concept these days and shield everybody from everything which is creating some real monsters out there. Even Abraham Lincoln, a good century and a half ago, warned that if we weren't careful, we'd create unaccountable organizations that would overpower our government (for details, see Washington DC circa 2007). But the basic idea makes sense if kept under control.
As in we wouldn't get the big, risky projects like bridges and tunnels and experimental drugs and such if investors were putting their personal wealth and property on the line every time. I ain't buying stock in a company doing something risky like experimental medical treatments if somebody could sue and take my house. Would you?
But immunity? No. Or haven't you noticed that corporate officers and employees actually do go to jail? Many of the Enron bunch are serving or facing jail time. Ken Lay was sentenced (but then curiously keeled over of "natural causes" before actually being locked up). Even Martha Stuart was in jail. Or did you miss that?
"My boss made me" is not a legal defense. "I was just following orders" doesn't do anybody any good in a court. Yes you are legally liable if you commit an illegal act at the order of your boss. Under our system, your response is supposed to be, "That's illegal, I won't do it."
Or do you think we live in a system where the CEO of a company can order you to assassinate the CEO of the competition and you'll get off because, "The CEO made me do it"?
Well, I got news for ya...