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."
Too many inappropriate Boy Scout jokes come to mind from the title of this post.
"... his clients often suspect that it was the IT guy who just left -- and was responsible for the maintaining the licenses -- who ratted them out for a big BSA reward ..."
People responsible for licenses in some manner are not eligible for the reward. IT guys doing this are disgruntled and just trying to "get even".
Keep in mind that small business was not chosen merely because they have fewer resourced available to defend themselves, but they were also the worst offenders. Betting that their size would keep them under the radar of Microsoft, Word Perfect, Lotus, Borland, etc back in the day. I'm not defending the BSA's actions, but their targeting is not entirely devoid of reason.
Wouldn't it be cool if some disgruntled worker gets fired from the BSA and then turns around and rats the BSA out to the BSA? He'd have to get a reward, and the BSA would have to charge itself a hefty fine.
I know someone that was audited by the BSA and decided to fight it. Basically they countered by stating they wanted full disclosure of who reported them so as to determine the validity of the claim prior to wasting internal resources and dollars.
They also argued that the reporting tools are a violation of privacy. Yes, they expected them to place some software on their network which scans their entire network not to mention each machine's registry.
Third, they also argued that even if they were in violation of license, the license is between them and the vendor (after all, the license does not allow for the BSA as having legal proxy interests) and unless the vendor in questions decides that they'd like to personally pursue the issue, the BSA does not have legal authority or the legal grounds to pursue the action.
Furthermore, they argued that even if something odd was discovered and they lost, only the government has the right to impose fines on legal matters as such and they would be within their legal rights to simply purchase any outstanding licenses or settle directly with the vendor in question and completely dismiss the BSA altogether thereby eliminating the need to pay any fines or added fees.
So how is it piracy to buy a computer with Windows included from a major vendor like Dell or HP and not have a receipt with Windows broken out as a seperate line-item? How is it piracy to cut a check so the IT guy can run down and buy an emergency replacement PC in a hurry and have the receipt have his name on the top and not the company's? Both of those are piracy by the BSA's definition (the company can't produce a receipt in their name showing payment for Windows).
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.