Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Crying Foul At the BSA's "Nauseating" Anti-Piracy Tactics

Posted by timothy on from the be-a-shame-if-anything-was-t'-happen dept.

Barence writes "The Business Software Alliance (BSA) has been accused of heavy-handed tactics that could drive small companies to incriminate themselves. The Microsoft-backed piracy watchdog generates a quarter of its cases by offering employees cash rewards for informing on their own employer. 'It is basically harvesting allegations from disgruntled employees and farming them out to expensive law firms,' one small business owner told PC Pro, who said he was 'nauseated' by the tactics. The BSA then sends out a letter demanding the business owner fill out a software audit, or potentially face court action — even though the BSA has no power to demand such an audit and hasn't pursued a court case in five years. 'It's designed to scare the recipient into thinking that they're obliged to provide certain information when, in fact, it's difficult to see that they are,' said a leading IT lawyer."

12 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Use Linux by bgman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of many, many reasons my small business uses linux.

    1. Re:Use Linux by GoblinKing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have been running a small business since 2001 and have only ever used open source software for just this reason. No restrictive licenses equals no legal fees for software piracy.

      I think, however, that Microsft and the BSA should be MORE aggressive in their pursuit of these heinous villains of industry. Maybe it will drive more businesses towards using F/OSS tools and ditch their shackles. Something very Marxian about it ....

    2. Re:Use Linux by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Using linux doesn't protect your business from a disgruntled employee claiming you have stolen software, and the MS-BSA sending you a scary software audit letter "or else we will drag you to a court of law".

      BTW these megacorps use government regulations in the same fashion -- to harass small business citizens.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Use Linux by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't really help, what with the whole false accusations from disgruntled employees angle. Replying "no thanks, I use Linux" to them isn't going to do you much good. Replying at all isn't going to do you much good. It shows them that you're listening.

      A better approach is to simply ignore the BSA on principle. Threatening letters are cheap, subpoenas are expensive, and they do their business in bulk (meaning they can't actually sic their lawyers on most of their targets).

      Also, try not to have disgruntled employees. A big company can't avoid a few bad apples, but smaller businesses can vet new hires better and treat existing employees less like disposable resources. If nothing else, the BSA isn't the only recourse for a pissed off ex employee to screw his former boss. I once worked at a restaurant that got hit with a surprise health inspection shortly after a round of layoffs - the people running the place treated employees and health code rules about equally well and almost got shut down as a result (I would have said good riddance if they had, but it would have meant looking for a new job myself).

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:Use Linux by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does, however, prevent you from funding them. I know it is only a drop in the bucket, but it is my drop damn it!

    5. Re:Use Linux by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No response to a letter is not dangerous. No response to a certified letter or subpoena is dangerous...

    6. Re:Use Linux by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I don't have a spot of their software on the premises, I don't give half a shit about how they word their agreements. You want into my company? Why? Oh, you accuse me of copyright infringement? Wait right here while my lawyer finishes that "false accusation" stuff he's writing about. And no, of course you can not come in while you're waiting.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Why call out "Microsoft-backed" and not others? by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Microsoft-backed piracy watchdog generates a quarter of its cases by offering employees cash rewards for informing on their own employer.

    I don't like the BSA, and I'm pretty neutral about Microsoft, but what is the point of saying the BSA is "Microsoft-backed"? They're also Adobe-, Apple-, and Dell- backed, among many others.

    1. Re:Why call out "Microsoft-backed" and not others? by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The answer is simple for many of them:

      * Apple doesn't really care (each copy of OSX/iOS runs on Apple-sold hardware, and Apple is mostly consumer-oriented these days anyway, so...)
      * What does Dell have software-wise that would get the BSA all hot and bothered? PERC raid card drivers? ...now Adobe, Oracle, and those boys? Oh yeah, they'd get hot and bothered about business copying, but how ubiquitous are these apps in the business world? Photoshop is mostly restricted to marketing and graphic arts departments. Oracle is mostly big enterprise-level stuff, where folks use RFP/RFQs to purchase the things. Nearly every other member of the BSA is similarly a niche player.

      On the other hand, Microsoft has their fingers in (nearly) the entire business world, and most cases (IIRC) are instigated over Microsoft software. So it stands to reason that the biggest beneficiary (and most likely the biggest backer) is, well, Microsoft.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  3. Why is anyone surprised? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The BSA then sends out a letter demanding the business owner fill out a software audit, or potentially face court action — even though the BSA has no power to demand such an audit and hasn't pursued a court case in five years. 'It's designed to scare the recipient into thinking that they're obliged to provide certain information when, in fact, it's difficult to see that they are,' said a leading IT lawyer."

    We've seen this tactic over and over. Any time someone is trying to make a revenue stream off of anything that can be digitally copied. MPAA, RIAA, BSA. Illegally gather information, pretend you're the police, then extort with the threat of a lawsuit.

    It's the system that's broken. That's the bigger problem. The parasites that get fat off the system are a symptom. Fix the system.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  4. Reply letter by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They were sending out this letter years ago. If I got a letter like that, I would send them the following reply:

    Dear Mr./Ms. xxxxxxxx:

    I am in receipt of your letter dated yyyymmdd. I have reviewed our software and it is all in compliance with the licensing. I would like to invite you to our office but we are too busy to accommodate visitors. Thank you for your concern.

    Sincerely,

    nbauman

    I'm not sure how they would respond. I expect they would either forget about it, send a threatening but bluffing letter, or send a real threatening letter. I wouldn't let them into my premises unless I thought they could back it up with a court order.

    The defense would be, "The only person who installed illegal software was the ratxxx disgruntled employee who rattedxxxxxx informed on us to you."

    Of course if I really did have a lot of expensive illegal software, I'd check with my lawyer to figure out the most prudent response.

    I wonder how they could legally force you to let them investigate.

    They might bring a civil suit and force disclosure. Lawyers are extremely reluctant to commit perjury for their clients in discovery.

  5. Ok, an honest answer by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since you say you're not trolling I'll take you at your word and give you my best answer.

    It's not the "what", it's the "how".

    The "what" is someone getting fairly paid for their work. Which they have every right to do. Microsoft, the artists represented by the RIAA, everyone. You produce something of value and ask a price for it, you deserve to be paid. Or not be paid if the price is too high. Let the market decide. But either way you deserve to be in that marketplace and not sidestepped illegally.

    The "how" is the problem.

    What these organizations are doing is criminal. Pretending to be the police is illegal. Threats are illegal. Extortion is illegal. Racketeering is illegal. And lobbying for our rights to be taken away because they diminish their ability to monitor what everyone - guilty and innocent alike - are up to is wrong. The cure is worse than the disease.

    To illustrate my point, I'm pretty sure we both would agree that unregistered guns are used in a lot of violent crime. So do you think it would be reasonable to have a local group of concerned citizens search your house looking for some? Hand you some forms demanding you list what weapons you do have, and tell you that if you have any guns that aren't properly registered, you'll be in trouble? Offer bribes to people you know and offer them cash if they can recall seeing you with a gun?

    You see, it's not what they are doing but how they are going about it that is the problem.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.