Slashdot Mirror
Why the BSA Is Less Reviled Than the RIAA
Hugh Pickens writes "The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is a trade group established in 1988 representing a number of the world's largest software makers whose principal activity is trying to stop copyright infringement of software produced by its members, performing roughly the same function for the software industry that the RIAA performs for the music industry. Yet, as Bill Patry, author of a 7-volume treatise on US copyright law and currently Senior Copyright Counsel at Google, notes on his blog the BSA is a 'far less unpopular organization' than the RIAA because there are three key differences between the BSA's campaigns and the RIAA's. First, BSA's members have always offered their products for sale to the public, through any channel that wants to sell them. Second, BSA's members are consumer-oriented; they try to develop products that respond to consumers' needs, and not, the reverse: focusing on what they want to sell to consumers. Third, because consumers can easily purchase BSA's members products, those who copy without paying are simply scofflaws. 'I think the fact that the public does not object to BSA's campaign proves my point [that]... people do not want things for free; they are willing to pay for them,' writes Patry. 'It should not be surprising that when consumers are not treated with respect, they react negatively. That's something the software industry learned long ago, and that's why people don't object to the BSA's enforcement campaign.'"
Let's be honest here. If the RIAA was sueing a company for using music in an unauthorized fashion at their place of business most people would shrug. When you're using a product to make money you normally get much less sympathy than if you were using it for private use. And even when a company follows the rules the public still doesn't normally feel too bad about them getting the screws.
And, AFAIK, the BSA isn't busting kids downloading Grand Theft Auto.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I think it's a lot simpler than that. Because the BSA attacks businesses, not disabled single mothers, children, and the dead, fewer people even know about them. They haven't gone as far across the line into cartoon super villainy.
Loose lips lose spit.
whose EULA's allow them to conduct raids and search+seizure, and hand out $100,000 fines for having one workstation that has XP installed, but they can't find the License that came in the box (The CD sleeve with the key is NOT proof of license, and you WILL get a fine if you only have that!) My OEM copy of Vista that came with my laptop doesn't seem to have the hologram encrusted license that my boxed copy of 2000 came with, so I imagine I'm automatically guilty if they ever send in the SWAT team for a surprise inspection.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
That the BSA goes after companies, and the RIAA goes after individuals? Do we really need to go hunting for reasons why joe-on-the-street dislikes an outfit that might send lawyers after him more than an outfit that gets involved in a bunch of boring disputes between corporations and their suppliers? Srsly?
Obviously, I'm sure corporate officers, shareholders, IT guys, (and, of course, Ernie Ball) don't like the BSA much; but their numbers are tiny compared to "the public" at large. Even if only potential victims disliked the RIAA(as opposed to potential victims and anybody who has heard the "and then they sued some poor lady who didn't even own a computer" stories) that is probably greater than 20% of the population.
It may also be that the BSA is nicer in some way, though I'm not wildly sold on the notion; but this isn't rocket surgery.
Fourth reason:
The BSA does not sue you for millions of dollars if you're infringing.
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
The reason people don't complain about the BSA as much is because the BSA doesn't attack normal people, they only attack companies, and usually only large ones. They don't attack grandmas or people without computers. Slashdot has its own versions of the 'think of the children' fallacy, it's 'think of the non-pirating file sharer!' or 'think of my rights!' or only somewhat less obviously, 'think about me!' The BSA doesn't bother me, so I don't worry about them as much.
Qxe4
What are you trying to say? You're proving TFA's point if you compare the numbers in the Ernie Ball article with the gargantuan awards the RIAA are getting for a handful of songs.
A BSA audit is a big invasion for the affected business, even if the licensing is all correct. The licensing requirements are often complicated and the effort that goes into maintaining license information is a tremendous burden.
There are two reasons why the BSA isn't as low in the public opinion is simply that the BSA doesn't go after individuals. The BSA targets businesses. The other reason is that most people make a clear distinction between copying for personal purposes and copying business applications.
"First, BSA's members have always offered their products for sale to the public, through any channel that wants to sell them"
Try to buy an obsoleted version of a program to run on an old platform. Got an old IBM-XT? Where are you going to purchase a legit copy of Lotus 1-2-3 not to mention DOS? But you *can* be sued for pirating them, at least technically.
"Second, BSA's members are consumer-oriented; they try to develop products that respond to consumers' needs, and not, the reverse: focusing on what they want to sell to consumers."
Did someone at Microsoft write this?
"Third, because consumers can easily purchase BSA's members products, those who copy without paying are simply scofflaws."
See the first reply, but "easily" is in the eye of the beholder. A typical recent college grad who wants to freelance graphics design work might say "easily"purchasing Adobe's Creative Suite is all but impossible for their finances. Yes, I know there are FOSS alternatives, but the truth is that the ad/graphics/printing world runs on Adobe. For example.
None of that makes stealing software or music content right, but the rationale for BSA being less unpopular is not the reasons cited above. It may be far more simple: BSA doesn't typically sue consumers, it seems that they typically go after businesses.
I think the major difference that the tatics in use by most business software vendors are accepted because they for the most part don't try to engage in device lock-in like DRM'd music does. Once you've gotten a copy of the software, you're free to install it on a computer of your chosing, and when you want to move it to a new PC it is generally not too difficult to do (except for Adobe stuff.) This is not enough to satisfy OSS zealots, but is enough to keep customers relatively happy.
The other issue is that customers don't feel that they ought to have to buy a CD of a cassette the had. They don't feel they ought to have to re-buy Blu-Ray movies they have on DVD or VHS unless there is a significant improvement. When consumers try to move their media to newer platforms and the company actively prohibits them from doing so, and has build a business model on it, it makes people mad.
People don't feel "ripped off" when they can't drop their Chevy Corsica '91 engine into a newer car (maybe you can... I'm not a mechanic) because they see it as a utility, something that eningeering improvements have made the parts truly depreciated. For media, consumers see newer platforms as marginally better ways for companies to make them rebuy something that is artifically depreciated. Computer software fits into that category where one can reasonably expect 20 year old software isn't going to work, and isn't going to (usually) be as compatible as new software on a brand-new computer.
I also think the OP's comments about tactics and focusing on institutional pervasive piracy over individuals has paid off in the publics perception of commercial software and probably been more lucrative when litigation is necessary.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
If the RIAA/MPAA is so reviled - why is it that "the jury of his peers" hammers the file sharer into the ground when these cases go to trial?
The geek is quick to assume that he is representative of the larger community of which he is a part.
That everyone believes in his right to his free media fix.
But when things go wrong - these assumptions are never seriously questioned.
It is easier to take refuge in loose talk about the incompetence of the lawyers, the jury and the bribery of the judge.
The BSA has its own repertoire of evil deeds, but it still doesn't invalidate the point of TFA. The fact is that most people and businesses buy the software that they use, unless it is prohibitively expensive. And even in the latter case, there are educational copies available to be had for a low price or for free.
Here's the thing though: when Windows XP goes off the market for good, I'll bet there'll be a lot more businesses pirating it, because Microsoft will be doing the opposite of the reasons listed in the TFA: forcing companies to buy their newest product (Windows 7) instead of allowing them to buy what they want (Windows XP).
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
The BSA sues corporations. The RIAA sues ordinary people. There's your reason.
If anti-copyright proponents would be unhypocritical, they would demand that software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends. That they only make this claim for music shows and video shows that there is a fundamental difference between software and music in their minds.
Really? I think if you actually went and asked people who make that claim for music and video, they'd say the same thing for software. Most of the "anti-copyright" arguments I've heard revolve around the nature of IP itself (being non-exclusive and non-rival) and don't have anything to do with "the ephemeral nature of music." Sounds like you've just set up a strawman.
Also, not that "anti-copyright proponent" is the right way to describe RMS, but he certainly does argue that free software should be shareable - it's one of the four freedoms.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Third, because consumers can easily purchase BSA's members products, those who copy without paying are simply scofflaws. 'I think the fact that the public does not object to BSA's campaign proves my point [that]... people do not want things for free; they are willing to pay for them,' writes Patry. 'It should not be surprising that when consumers are not treated with respect, they react negatively.
Who wrote this load of crap? It is difficult to purchase music and that is why people pirate it? Really, how hard is it to go to iTunes (or Amazon, or Lala, or eMusic, or whatever other online shop you want to go to) and purchase an MP3 of the hot new song? It is easier in most cases than going to one of the torrent sites (or whatever Napster replacement is popular currently) and finding the song and downloading it. Sure, there may be some older, out of print songs that you can't get anymore, but 99% of the time those are not the ones being downloaded and there is also old software which can't be bought anymore as well.
the idea that people are pirating music because it is too hard to purchase may have held water 10 years ago, but now it is actually easier to purchase it than download it.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
The quote seems to imply that unlike the RIAA, BSA members treat their customers with "respect". Then how come I'm forced to buy a Microsoft licence with a vast majority of computers, even if I already have a valid one or won't use Windows? And what about all that crippled (but not demo) software that comes with virtually every device, scanner, DSLR, TV card, you name them? Etc., etc.
Respect, indeed.
I use only Ernie Ball strings for my electrics. I wish they made acoustic strings too. :-)
I think the reason that the public doesn't mind the BSA is that the vast majority of people don't know who the BSA is. Also, BSA doesn't target individuals. Only companies. Most people don't mind if there is some unknown business sticking it some other unknown businesses.
My $.02
The problem with keeping XP alive, and this is coming from someone who uses XP32 and XP64 everyday and would take them over Vista every time, is this: We have finally reached the end of the 32 bit era. It really is that simple. RAM has just gotten to be SO cheap that I often find 4Gb even on low end machines (and for those that don't know even with PAE enabled in XP Pro you are maxed at 3.2Gb) and I just recently doubled the RAM in mine from 4 to 8Gb for a whopping $43 dollars.
So at the current speed of RAM size increase XP32 will simply be worthless by next year. I mean why would companies want to buy hardware the OS can't even use? And while I love my XP64 and intend to stick with it until at least Windows 7 SP1 even though I preordered Win7 HP, the simple fact is unless you plan your build around WinXP X64 drivers are a PITA. At least with Vista and Win7 sharing the same driver model X64 drivers are finally becoming more common and by the time that Windows 7 hits the market hard this holiday season X64 drivers for most gear should be common.
So while I still like XP and will probably keep an XP partition around for a few years yet, in this case it really is a dead end technology wise. You simply can't extend XP32 to support the huge amounts of RAM that are becoming more and more common, and even PAE can cause some problems with drivers. Technology has just passed it by, that's all. Remember when XP was released machines with 256Mb or even 128Mb were common. Now 2Gb is standard on the ultra cheapos and 4Gb is looking to quickly become the new standard. Hell I won't even sell new builds with less than 4Gb anymore, because the performance increases VS price just make selling anything less stupid. XP32 has just reached the end of the line, and I would argue the same applies to Vista/7 32bit as well. RAM has just gotten too cheap to bother with 32bit anymore.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Another possible reason the BSA is not vilified is that they do not sue 12 year olds.
Proverbs 21:19
Not that the RIAA are nice people, but as of yet, they aren't busting down your door to examine your mix CDs.
The BSA goes after fewer targets and they are generally companies that are in a good position to defend themselves.
The BSA simply isn't nearly as crass.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sure you can have lots of RAM for quite cheap, but most people won't ever need that much RAM. On my current work machine, I rarely go over 1.5 GB, even when I'm running a lot of stuff. At home, I don't even think I've ever reached 1 GB of memory usage. Maybe when using things like VMs, you need all this memory, but most home and office users have no need for anything close to 4 GB of RAM. Cheap machines are coming with 4 GB of RAM simply because Vista is such a hog, and 2 GB is the bare operational minimum. If you're running XP, which is a much leaner OS, there isn't much of a use for having more than 2 GB of Memory.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I think that's the real difference here. BSA targets more the business, whereas the RIAA targets ordinary consumers.
On another note, however, it would be interested to know the union of those who violate software copyright (not just businesses, but ordinary consumers) and those who do so with music.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
If anti-copyright proponents would be unhypocritical, they would demand that software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends.
What makes you think our views regarding software differ at all from those regarding other media? Software simply isn't the main focus of the copyright debates at present, so you don't hear as much about it. Any of the proposed changes to copyright law would affect software as much as anything else.
P.S. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value"; that debate was lost a long time ago. All value is subjective. To illustrate with a counter-example: some software packages have no ROI whatsoever in a commercial context, whereas a well-chosen bit of music or video can sometimes make or break a business (e.g. for marketing or advertising). The textbook case for subjective value is that diamonds normally command a very high price while few would pay much at all for water--but to someone dying of thirst in the desert their relative values are reversed. Intrinsic value cannot explain this, but subjective value can: the value of a good to an individual is a product of subjective circumstance, not a fixed property of the good itself.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Microsoft will be doing the opposite of the reasons listed in the TFA: forcing companies to buy their newest product (Windows 7) instead of allowing them to buy what they want (Windows XP).
My copies of Windoes 95 still run if I want them to. If people want to keep running XP, they can. Why is Microsoft under any obligation to keep selling or supporting a ten year old discontinued product? Isn't that like me whining that the car I *really* want is a car like a 1957 Chevy Bel Air, but Chevy won't allow me to buy what I want from them, instead making me buy a more modern car.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
You clearly have never worked IT in the business world.
I have "managers" who will easily keep 40+ Outlook e-mails open at once (aka WORD), along with 25+ excel sheets of varying sizes, oh and the 2-20GB PST files... gotta love those.
Don't forget the internal chat application(s), a few IE instances, all the stuff running in the system tray, etc.
I am NOT saying that there is no way to work around this or reduce the footprint, but it is very easy for some people to consume 4GB+ of RAM.
You can tell me I should do ABC to help them out, but most people forget that the barrier is NOT the IT department, but the people using the systems. Managers have this awesome ability to bitch and moan whenever they have to use a computer in a way they are not used to. To the point of wasting more of my time complaining.
Ernie Ball was pissed because he had not only to pay massive license fees for half a dozen PCs (according to TFA) that were non-compliant, but the BSA also humiliated him in the news.
So this is mostly a case of "I won't do business anymore with those assholes" and less of a desire for open (or even free) software.
Of course, once he discovered the savings in license fees he was happy about it. But if the BSA had been less aggressive, Ernie might still be a Microsoft customer.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The problem is that if I swap out a bad motherboard on my XP computer, it insists that I call Microsoft to re-validate the installation using their automated system. Once that automated system is gone (due to the product being discontinued), if I upgrade the motherboard or have too many other hardware changes, I have two options: buy a new OS, or break the law by circumventing the copyright on the software I personally own.
That is a problem.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Most people don't mind if there is some unknown business sticking it some other unknown businesses.
That's just it, the BSA doesn't "stick it" to anybody. All they ask is that you purchase licenses for any software you don't have licenses for, or stop using the software. It's exactly what you'd expect an organization like that to do.
With the BSA, it goes like so:
BSA: "We have proof you have not purchased 50 licenses, purchase the licenses or we'll sue."
BSA Customer: "Ok."
Now, if BSA Customer refuses to purchase the licenses, they'll get raped in court for up to $90k per license violation, but not many people are that stupid.
The RIAA, on the other hand, pulls this number:
RIAA: "We have proof you pirated 25 songs, pay us $10,000 or we'll sue."
RIAA Customer: "Can't I just pay the $25 the songs are worth to keep them?"
RIAA: "Pay up $10,000 now and admit all guilt or we'll take you to court for $10,000,000."
If RIAA Customer refuses at that point, you get RIAA v Thomas, where they too almost $2 million dollars for 25 songs.
THAT is why the RIAA is reviled, and the BSA is not. One cares about getting paid, the other cares about bludgeoning its customers to death.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
In spite of the pissing match about Ernie's original intentions, free vs OSS, etc... I see upside to retelling this story. Namely, he claims he is running an efficient (apps you NEED, not what comes bundled), high uptime (no MS virus du jour or upgrade parade), and economical (no brand new hardware) business without MS-Windows, MS-Office, MS-Exchange.
FFS. It runs linux successfully.
Pray tell, will all of my DAQ drivers and real-time acquisition VIs work the same under virtualization as they do under native XP? Maybe, but I'm not counting on it.
Your comment about businesses refusing to upgrade is spot-on--that's exactly our position, albeit on a lower scale, monetarily. I have a feeling that business apps will be happier under virtualization than most scientific/engineering apps, though.
When you go after a business and they are using software for something, it means they are making money off it. Even in the case that they get handed a fine or two, people don't see it as bad "hey, you stole something and are making money off it" where on the other hand, being handed a stiff fine for having a few songs really reads like "you stole something for the smallest of pleasures and it's not like you are using it for personal profit" which has a very different tone with the public.
If the RIAA chased after someone who is pirating and selling CD's by the carload, I am SURE that there wouldn't be a huge public backlash of anger. The guy is stealing and turning a profit, go get him boys. But Joe Schmo listening to a few songs on an ipod being sued into lifelong financial ruin? That's just not right.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Your point is taken, but where do you draw the line? Maybe I still love my old 57 Chevy, but at some point after Chevy stopped making them, parts were harder and harder to find, as were any specific tools to work on it, replacement equipment, and so on. I can't really fault Chevy for not "supporting" me just because I'm choosing to use an ancient and obsolete product.
How long do you realistically expect a company, particularly a software company, to continue supporting a product? When is it acceptable for them to say "The product is discontinued and trying to support it is a waste of our time and money"?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Sure you can have lots of RAM for quite cheap, but most people won't ever need that much RAM.
640k should be enough for anyone huh? Where've I heard that before.
You're forgetting a number of factors, not the least of which is application bloat. In 5 years there will be applications that don't load in under 2GB. It's sad. It's unnecessary. Hell they managed to program the orbital mechanics for the lunar lander to fit in a few kb. But it's the way the world works. Until software writing practices change - both OS AND application - 64 bit will be a consideration.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
They try to make you license all your pc's even those not running Windows so anything that Could run Windows has a license.
It is the Ernie Ball story that convinced me to get legal and move off Windows entirely. Some license terms define piracy and software theft in a strange way.
I get evaluation copies (engineering samples) of CPU's. Some software manufactures that are members of BSA consider transplanting an OS from one retired machine to a new box as theft.
Having one license for a copy of an office suite and having it installed on several boxes where I am the sole user is also considered theft.
Due to the license for this type of software and the BSA, I have ceased these practices and am using a competing product that doesn't frown on the way I use software. Due to the EULA, I still am running one box that is a PIII to run some Windows only software. Upgrading to a new motherboard, memory, hard drive, box, and the latest 6 core CPU is considered software theft.
Maybe someday the software manufactures will learn to listen to their consumers.
In the meantime, there are alternatives.
The truth shall set you free!
Says you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The difference is that with your Chevy, people are allowed to make 3rd party parts & you are allowed to modify the car however you want - within state sanctioned parameters. With your software it's illegal for anyone to offer the type of support you're suggesting. If the product is "The product is discontinued and trying to support it is a waste of our time and money" then the law needs to have some provision to allow other people to provide that support rather than allow the original supplier to say - "It's dead & if something happens - your fucked"
The BSA is not concerned with end users, they are concerned with large businesses who have large amounts of software... The RIAA on the other hand, targets end users who cannot defend themselves and cannot afford the ridiculous amounts of money they are asking for.
Also, entertainment is optional, people can easily do without it, so having last year's britney song won't force you to buy the latest one... BSA members on the other hand, typically bring customers back through various lock-in schemes, which rely on them and those they communicate with using their software. If a significant portion of those users started using something else then they would be forced to interoperate, thus losing their biggest method for keeping customers. Pirated copies ensure the widest possible distribution of their lockin strategy.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!