Slashdot Mirror
How the BSA Squeezes the Little Guys
netbuzz writes "Actually, 90% of the Business Software Alliance's revenue is squeezed from small businesses accused of using unlicensed software. A lawyer who represents some of them says his clients often suspect that it was the IT guy who just left — and was responsible for maintaining the licenses — who ratted them out for a big BSA reward."
I thought that this has always been the BSA's standard business model.
When when you skimp on salaries, make a hostile workplace, and generally make life hell, don't be surprised when your employees (or ex-employees) are not looking out for your best interest.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I just jumped ship from a mortgage servicing company to a MS-owned company.
:)
The Mortgage company had a site-license for Windows XP, but didn't buy licenses for pretty much anything else. They were using burned CDs for office, someone's son had found a cracked version of Domino and Notes and that was deployed. I think there was 1 license of Adobe Acrobat 8.0 that was used on 60+ machines. I brought it up with the IT director and he said there wasn't anything he could do, as the CEO/check writers wouldn't outlay for software ever, and they were lucky to be running XP at all.
Now I work at MS, and we don't really have to worry about licenses
well, at least for MS products.
The problem though is that the BSA's standards can catch even companies that are completely above-board, but haven't kept their receipts. The BSA's claim is that "If you don't have your receipt for this software, then it's pirated."
Now, whether that would stand up in court is a separate question. It seems to me that if you have a retail box for every piece of software, that should be good enough to convince a jury. Of course, the cynic says that the BSA is going after small companies because they're much less likely to fight, so what a jury would think isn't really an issue.
Personally I think it's fairly idiotic for businesses to not be completely above-board when it comes to software licensing.
True. You might also question the wisdom of businesses that insist on software that comes with hard to track licenses and owners that offer cash rewards to employees that report mistakes. This is just one of the many ways non free software betrays it's users. You would think people would know better by now.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
While I'm sure there's quite a few speculating in that, small businesses also rarely have that much license management in place. If you're the kind that bought one odd PC here and one there because a new guy was hired then they rarely go into the huge asset and license management that bigger companys have. Your assets are what's in the office, and your licenses are whatever's on them. Once you start moving past that level and have PCs bought in bulk by a purchasing department (or even just one guy responsible), a lot more of the paperwork tends to get done and the reciepts properly filed. From what experience I have had, I think almost all small businesses would be burned by a BSA audit, whether they were actually legit or not.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The person reporting the violation is eligible for the reward, it's not tied to position. The reason these small businesses are LYING is to cover their own butts. The IT guy said "you need X licenses" and the owner said "just install the same copy on every machine." The reason this happens ALL THE TIME is because the same owner who bullies his computer guy into pirating Photoshop on all their machines is a jerk about a LOT of things, which gets him reported in retaliation after he alienates his staff into quitting. I have seen it numerous times, and they were always reported by a disgruntled ex-employee. Instead of whining about it, they should BUY their software like the rest of us. I have seen this happen on numerous occasions, and I should note that I have never seen a business get fined or sued. They get sent a nastygram, requiring X number of days to prove compliance. The business hurriedly buys the required licenses, proves they are in compliance, and nothing more happens. Ultimately, they just want people to pay for their software.
Wouldn't they need to have some kind of proof of wrongdoing for the police to get involved? Especially since software licensing is a civil matter.
I was trying to google a story/example of a company who fought against an audit, and what happened, but come up empty.
How is prosecuting people for stealing your software 'extortion'?
This is taking the slashdot pro-piracy meme too far. I run a (one man) company, I use legit software. It can cost a lot, but you weigh up the pros and cons and you buy it. Poser cost me $600 plus maybe another $300 of add ons. Its the cost of doing business. It's no different to paying for the desk, my PC, the heater in my home office or the phone bill.
I have zero sympathy for small businesses that would try and undercut me by stealing software. Fuck em. let them be prosecuted. It's not like people really do not realise that photoshop or visual studio isn't freeware.
I'm all for slashdot readers posting about how companies should use open source free software so they don't have to deal with this, but how can you defend people who KNOW there are free alternatives, but decide to steal a copy of an office suite anyway...
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Absolutely correct!!
I've always told my guys if ever asked to perform and audit, of IF someone ever shows up at the door, NEVER allow it. NEVER allow the guy into the building without a court order. I think that's still legit in the US (GWB may have stopped this, I'm not sure, because it's classified).
While not technically BSA-related, my company gets calls regularly (twice a year) from big software companies asking us to do an audit. I politely decline. Then I tell them we are covered under our parent company's volume agreement, and the phone practically goes dead on the other end. These are sales-initiated calls. Once they realize they won't get any money, they move on, just like a telemarketer.
Try finding the receipt for the energy-efficient windows you put in your house 10 years ago or the receipt for the air conditioner you put in 15 years ago so that the IRS won't bitch-slap you for claiming an adjusted basis so you can pay lower taxes when you sell your house ... most people don't have any problem managing those receipts, do they?
... you just have to care about it before some whistle-blower turns you in.
No, the only real problem is that most businesses don't really expect to ever have to go through an impartial software license audit so they play fast and loose with licenses under the theory that if software companies really cared about license compliance then the software wouldn't let them do anything wrong. That's the same theory Enron's accounting auditors had.
It's not hard to come out of an impartial software license audit smelling like roses
While you're generally correct, the third item is not correct. The BSA is a duly designated representative of the copyright holders with power of attorney to prosecute infringement claims. So, that part is perfectly legitimate (under US law, anyway). It's no different than hiring a private law firm to do the same thing.
Also, the BSA doesn't impose fines. The propose settlements (as they are empowered to do by their member companies). Again, this is as legitimate in the USA. In the USA, if there was a copyright infringement, the law permits the copyright holder to seek statutory damages up to $150,000 per incident. They are not obligated to license the software to you, and purchasing a license wouldn't absolve or indemnify the infringer with regard to the prior infringement.
The argument that you could ignore the BSA on the grounds that it isn't the copyright holder is baseless, because the BSA is a valid agent of the copyright holder.
The argument that you could simply come into compliance and that would eliminate any liability for prior infringement is also incorrect. The liability remains until it's legally settled -- either by out-of-court settlement or as the result of going to court (which could incur much higher costs and damages).
Also, I'd point out that users of software from BSA-affiliated companies generally agree as part of the license to submit to audits on demand as a condition of the license.
Using proprietary commercial software is a huge legal and fiscal liability for a company. If the company cannot devote sufficient resources to dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's to be 100% certain it's compliant, it probably shouldn't touch the stuff. Clearly, certain software will be necessary for certain businesses, but it behooves those companies to familiarize themselves with the issue and absorb the costs as part of the cost of doing business.
Exactly. When are the Boy Scouts of America going to sue the Business Software Alliance for trademark infringement over the use of "BSA"? The Boy Scouts of America have been around since 1910. The Business Software Alliance has been around since what, the mid-1990's? Talk about a hypocritical and clear-cut case of trademark infringement.
Police need evidence of wrongdoing to begin an investiation; however, it is the purpose of the investigation to determine if there is sufficient evidence to constitute proof.
I think the point you were trying to make is that if the BSA files a complaint and it turns out there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim, the BSA should be held in contempt.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
The last few places I have worked, people have been fired by having their "position removed." This is what happened to him. Then less than a year later there is a restructuring and the position comes back under a different name. Now you know. Those laws might help if you have money or time, or you still might lose. However, you are trying to make it look like there is a power balance between employer and employee, and there is not. There is redress, but it is extremely hard to make it stick, and even harder to not come out looking like a pariah to other employers.