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 not forget the Ernie Ball story.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
Isn't it also possible that a significant volume of the online debate over the years against the RIAA/MPAA has been by technologically savvy folks, say perhaps people in IT? And why would these people want to bite the hand that feeds them, their own software alliance?
I am not so sure the BSA's actions to date are 100% responsible for the muted reaction to their approach to software piracy. I postulate that folks that want to sell software are more likely to support them, and the folks that want to sell CDs and Movies simply aren't in a position to influence the debate the way IT folks are.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
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.
Software has an intrinsic value. To a business, the return on investment from a piece of software is something that can be measured. Spreadsheet software, for example, makes accounting many times easier and cheaper than trying to keep the books in books.
But music (and to a lesser degree video) has no intrinsic value. It is something enjoyed passing time. Like a frisbee at the park or a cup holder in a car. It's something that is nice to have but ultimately unnecessary.
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. I attribute this to the ephemeral nature of music, something which can be enjoyed but in the end has no real value.
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
I think the BSA are largely less hated because it is less well known than the RIAA. The fact that it rarely targets individuals is probably part of this. If you don't run a small-to-medium sized business, the BSA are unlikely to really be on your radar. But small business owners who've interacted with the BSA hate them at least as much as your average Slashdot reader hates the RIAA.
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
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.
We can also purchase a competing product that does the same job. The market itself works to adjust the pricing based on market volume. With the RIAA there is only one entity selling the latest (pick your favourite band)'s album. There is no other avenue to buy a 'one of a kind' production. No compitition, no markent influences. You just pay what they demand or you do without, and they know it.
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.
Part of the problem, I think, is the fact that the RIAA are abusing the copyright bargain, while the BSA are not. In most places copyright (quite properly) is not a "moral right". It is a voluntary concession on the side of the general public in order to encourage authors to publish, for the public's benefit. The public clearly wishes to be able to privately share music, create new mixes and share these too. Would this discourage the production of music? since nearly all musicians make their money from live performances with the recordings basically serving as advertizing, the answer is no. Thus changing the terms of the bargain (allowing for free private non-commercial dealing in at least some kinds of works) is the right things to do. Moreover, the public seems to treat commercial and non-commercial use of copyrighted works differently; copyright law basically assumes that infringement will only happen on a large commercial scale (hence you can get statutory damages of $150K per work infringed without proving actual damages [this requires proving "wilful infringement" which seems easy in practice). The BSA thus follows the model the public likes. In fact, they like some level of private copying: they recognize that not every illegal copy equals a lost sale, and would rather entrench their products (especially Microsoft with their OS monopoly) with customers who would otherwise not pay for them. Just like college students with "illegal" copies of professional software suites on their home computers will in the future buy this expensive software once they have a job (that's the software they are used to, after all), I'm sure that many college students will buy music CDs once they have the income to do so. Until then giving them "free samples" is the way to go.
Tenenbaum committed his acts before Amazon's DRM-free MP3 store went online. He got caught in the vortex of the learning curve that the RIAA is currently going through that the BSA has already finished.
If the RIAA/MPAA is so reviled - why is it that "the jury of his peers" hammers the file sharer into the ground when these cases go to trial?
The geek is quick to assume that he is representative of the larger community of which he is a part.
That everyone believes in his right to his free media fix.
But when things go wrong - these assumptions are never seriously questioned.
It is easier to take refuge in loose talk about the incompetence of the lawyers, the jury and the bribery of the judge.
If I've gone through all the trouble to make sure all my workstations have licensed versions of -say- AutoCad (5000$) and my competitor has simply cracked it then I want him stabbed in the ass. Its that easy. Some companies will do anything to take out a competitor and if they have cracked software might as well report them. Not going to do that with some jerk down the street downloading limp bizkut.
Every member company of BSA has been found to have 'unauthorized software' [citation needed] but of course those aren't reported to the media like the rest.
I did asset and software management for 15 years before finally being able to dump the whole mess on someone else. Every license was tied to a purchase order and every purchase order was tied to a machine. Whenever we got a new Microsoft rep (since they were the majority of our products) I would show them the huge lateral filing cabinets with every license in order. Yeah, they're going to try to pull an audit on us.
I did get a call from the Microsoft 'legal' department once trying to tell us that we didn't have enough Exchange licenses for a company our size. When I asked which company, since we had 15 affiliates, they couldn't tell me. And when I told them that only 2 affiliates used Exchange and the rest were Lotus Notes they got truly confused. At which point I essentially told them to fuck off until they could get their facts straight. Surprisingly I never heard back.
Yes, the BSA uses disgruntled employees as their main source of information and they pay for it. They're evil and while I have no pity for companies that buy one license and install on fifty machines the BSA tactics and fine structure completely suck.
Maybe if the RIAA would sue for reasonable amounts, say $3 / song or something like that they'd be taken a bit more seriously.
I mention $3 only because this would be the equivalent to the BSA system, which fines the guilty party 3x the retail value of the product they pirated. Not 100 or 1000x like the RIAA seems to enjoy charging.
BSA says: Pirate a piece of software worth $200, pay $600 fine.
RIAA says: Pirate 1 song worth $1.25, pay $15,000 fine.
Something's a bit off with those numbers if you ask me.
The BSA sues corporations. The RIAA sues ordinary people. There's your reason.
The RIAA doesn't care if you make a copy of an audio CD for different machines in your own house.
Are you not paying attention, or what?
One of the most fascinating admissions during the legislative hearings a few years ago was when the RIAA rep said yes, indeed, if you copy a CD so you can keep one in your car and not risk damage to the original, you ARE infringing copyright and you SHOULD buy another. Thus spake RIAA, Amen.
As I recall, Orin Hatch made a big deal out of his having his own CD and how he was violating copyright by having a copy in his hand at the desk.
This was back around the time Napster was being raped, and Lars/Metallica were making complete asses of themselves insulting their fans.
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
they are one of the most convincing arguments for swtiching to open source. Some people most be tied, and punished, and tortured, till they recognize the good points of switching, and the BSA does exactly that. Why people think they are evil?
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"
Another possible reason the BSA is not vilified is that they do not sue 12 year olds.
Proverbs 21:19
The BSA came down really hard on Ernie Ball. They were going to make an example of him and it backfired. They were smart enough not to try the same stunt again.
When I saw TFA, my first thought was Ernie Ball. The first post is about Ernie Ball. It is to BSA's credit that they only made that mistake once. The RIAA, on the other hand, seems to get it wrong time after time.
I have a friend who is an attorney. He has a small office that has at most 5 people working in it at any given time. He and I have been friends for years and he comes to me for computer related problems or advice. He lives in absolute terror of the BSA. He has never been visited by them, yet he still fears them. He is paranoid beyond belief that maybe, somehow, he might have one piece of software installed on an office PC that wasn't paid for and a disgruntled employee with a grudge will try to get the BSA to visit him and he will get hit with a fine for tens of thousands of dollars. He buys every piece of software he's got. If you can believe this, to save a few dollars he bought Adobe Acrobat (lawyers use PDF files for legal submissions) from some guy on Ebay. He bought 2 copies. Both were OEM. He tried to get them activated by Adobe and got some grief over them being OEM. You would not believe how much he worried about it and he said that in the future he would pay Adobe's full price just to not have to worry about it. The vendor provided a new license key for each copy that Adobe accepted and activated, but my friends is still absolutely paranoid that he is going to get screwed over this.
He refuses to run free software because of his BSA paranoia. He is paranoid that if he doesn't buy it, he'll get screwed by the BSA. The reality is that as a small business owner, he pays rock bottom wages to the people (almost always women) who work as a paralegals for him and he offers no benefits that I know of. Consequently, he doesn't keep people very long. It's really easy for them to find better paying jobs elsewhere. And his office is in a small town so it would be fair to say that he doesn't get the best and brightest to work for him and sometimes employees leave under bad circumstances. They get angry about something and quit. So the BSA has effectively made this small businessman so paranoid that he never considers free software as he is afraid that somehow he might violate some law by using it and he pays full price for everything he buys just for peace of mind and he still fears the BSA knocking on his door and somehow finding one program without a license on a PC at his office. Their tactics may be different from the RIAA but I don't know anybody who fears the RIAA the way my friend and presumably others fear the BSA.
The BSA has one purpose ensuring enough licenses have been bought and even better they stick to going after people using software to make a buck thats all pretty much fair.
The rest of the media industries go way beyond making sure IP is paid for.DRM Schemes are causing more and more irritations.
Why should pre-schoolers be forced to watch anti piracy crap and advertising?
why should we, we paid (those that didn't don't have to)!
Really the difference is the bsa wants customers to pay , the Entertainment industries want everyone to be their bitch.
I wouldn't care if they stuck to the stuff they have some right to control but they don't.
Simple example digital camcorder
tape has a family event on. plug the firewire cable between the dvd recorder and the camcorder hit play and record and after 5 seconds the recorder says the tape is protected wtf?
Granny cant be sent a dvd of the happy event because of the DRM imposed on the users own content.
Then there is the racket of collecting payments for music that has been created and given away freely and then the payments are withheld from the very people who created the music in the first place.
Then you get insane prosecution and Judgements beyond all reason for content which can even be downloaded legally for a dollar or less or even free (via google china for example).
Oh I forgot to mention the insane copyright extensions which get longer and longer so the legacy of performers long dead cannot be appreciated by anyone unless its one of the rare exceptions that have commercial value like mickey mouse.
To top it all off we are getting our privacy and our communications spied on and inspected just in case we might do something that possibly could have made the media industries a few cents.
not popular? they trash our rights our culture and threaten us when we create things without their input.
If 1 in 12 download something illegally there are 11 in 12 being treated as criminals with no justification at all.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
BSA's members have always offered their products for sale to the public
A couple years ago I needed a specific version of Windows, in English, while being in a foreign country. It was not available for sale in said country, so I thought, I'll just go purchase it online. After a bit of googling, I was really surprised that I couldn't find it for sale as a downloadable ISO (I needed it on that very day). Finally on eBay I find an auction to "a link to a downloadable version of Windows with license". I instant pay and within one minute of each other I get 2 messages, one from the seller that gives me a link to a fake site with just written "download Windows with license" (and nothing else); and another one from eBay that states that the sale was pulled for breaking terms of service on software (what, after I pay ?!?), without even offering a refund.
Now call me naive, but on that day I learned 2 things: (1) Windows lost not only a sale but many customers since it was the very day that I started installing Linux on my customer's PCs because of their reluctance to sell online; (2) eBay actively encourages criminals and just do some handwaving to cover their ass.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Why? Because Photoshop CS3 is JUST FINE and CS4 is a waste of money. They all want you in the upgrade path. "Just good enough" computing hasn't come to the software market. Yet.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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!