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.
"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.
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."
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
Another possible reason the BSA is not vilified is that they do not sue 12 year olds.
Proverbs 21:19
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
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
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.
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!
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!