Slashdot Mirror
Australia's Largest Police Force Accused of Widespread Piracy
beaverdownunder writes "UK software giant Micro Focus is demanding at least $10 million in damages from the New South Wales police for widespread use of unlicensed copies of its ViewNow software it is alleged were used by members to access the COPS criminal intelligence database. Although other government organisations also alleged to have mis-used the software have settled with Micro Focus, the NSW police refuse to do so, instead seeking to fight out a battle in Federal court."
We acknowledge that the crime didn't happen in the U.S., and the company involved is British. But we feel we have jurisdiction.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Those cops put their lives on the line everyday! Who else would protect us from murderers, robbers and people who don't ....pay for....things they use...
nevermind
it seems whenever a major multinational corporation or government entity is charged with piracy, they arent. theyre simply "out of compliance" or "underlicensed" or some other equally innocuous amorphity they can escape through hiring a compliance officer, cutting a comparatively insignificant check, and saying theyre sorry. when a private citizen is charged with piracy its almost always widespread, intractable, correlated to violent terrorism, and prosecuted at the fervor of a rape case. its exactly the opposite of what it should be.
if as numerous industries do you are trying to make the case for intellectual property, it seems to do irreparable harm to the thesis to have a double standard for something so dire. if indeed using BusyBox and not adhering to the GPL or downloading the latest Nine Inch Nails album and not paying for it is just the same as stealing a car, then the logical conclusion is this police department should be disbanded. but if in practice we see a double standard then we're led to consider legitimately that piracy probably isnt as demonic as copyright clearing houses would hope you will believe.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Copyright infringement? I would sentence them all to life in a remote penal colony...oh, wait.
Ezekiel 23:20
Also note that when Micro Focus started investigating the cops illegal software copying, the cops began deleting the software from a number of systems.
That is willful destruction of evidence of a crime.
Sure, right, because that could have been in no way a move to cease breaking the law by keeping it.
Kind of the same way a drug dealer flushes his goods down the toilet when the police arrive to serve a warrant - he's not destroying evidence, he's just trying to cease breaking the law.
Police department wants to fight it out in federal court to try and establish their right to steal software? Hmm...
It's possible that the contract is not as clear as Micro Focus makes out it to be and the police department thought they had a site license. Since the police department is willing to fight rather than pay up, it's quite possible that the contract is unclear enough that they could win - if it was really a clear 6500 seat license contract, it's not likely that the police department would pay millions in legal costs to delay an inevitable $10M penalty.
corporation licensing is not the same as music downloads and being in compliance is not easy
Bullshit.
Under the law, they are the same. Copyright law does not distinguish between software, multimedia, or books.
--
BMO
Simply comes down to the contract, which we can't see.
The software in question is called ViewNow. It is a mainframe computer program NSW Police began using in 1998 to access the COPS database, which holds the highly confidential details of just about every citizen in the state.
Mr Craig ... says police were allowed to use up to 6,500 ViewNow licences and if they wanted any more, they would have to pay for them.
They made software with no copy protection, and were suprised that noone could be bothered to write down every computer they installed it one - especially at 6500+ copies?
Micro Focus say when they asked police just how many ... licenses they were using, a police employee allegedly told them: "Oh f--k. We've rolled out 16,000 devices".
Maybe they made up some new terms after the fact and no-one can remember nor has a paper trail to prove otherwise.
Mr Craig said."The minute we advised police there was an issue they began de-installing our software. They de-installed it without keeping records."
If you realize you are in breach of the licencing terms, isn't the requirement to stop using the software and uninstalling it the correct procedure?
In essence, the NSW Police defence is that it has all been a terrible misunderstanding.
NSW Police say on their reading of their contract... gave them the right to reproduce as many licenses as they wanted.
Simply comes down to the contract, which we can't see.
This is very true, on the whole.... There are exceptions out there, of course. (I do some computer service work for a law firm I've worked with for years, and while they're always a little slow to pay their bills, they always do pay - and with a certain consistency in the delay. Not only that, but they even send me gifts every Christmas season.)
Law firms are high-risk clients though, in the sense that if *anything* goes wrong (even something they perceive as wrong but is simply a misunderstanding on their part) -- you can bet they'll want to resolve it via the channel they're most comfortable with. Most small businesses want to AVOID the courtroom at all costs, since they don't really have A) good enough documentation/record keeping to successfully fight a court battle, B) enough spare time to devote to one, or C) enough money to cover the legal expenses.
Plus, one thing I've learned over the years is that most lawyers in a given area seem to know each other. (EG. I had hired an attorney one time, who I wasn't very pleased with. I did some computer work for someone else who I found out was also a lawyer, though not in the same specialty of law. During our conversation, I mentioned a few of my concerns, in passing. Next thing I know? My attorney is calling me on my cellphone on a Sunday morning, demanding to know why I'm dissatisfied with his work and trying to defend his actions! Turns out the two of them occasionally saw each other at the restaurants they frequent for lunch during the week and my concerns were "gossiped" from one to the other!)
IMO, there's a really good chance that if you hire a lawyer against another lawyer you're having issues with -- the two of them will "have a talk:" off the record, and agree to some sort of resolution in advance that benefits BOTH of them more than you!
Regular Slashdotter but posting AC. Back in the late 90's we used Windows Micro Focus COBOL a lot but we needed the Y2K version for our server that we complied the code on. Had a nice chat with the sales guy who asked what we did with it, and then a letter arrived saying we were in violation of our license and we needed a RTL for every PC we had it installed, which would have cost $60000 or they'd see us in court. Thank goodness we had a copy of our original license which allowed us unlimited clients as part of the original server install. Our legal team then wrote back telling them to piss off (in legal speak obviously). After that we migrated off their platform ASAP, wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.