Is the BSA "Grace Period" a Scam? 879
An anonymous reader asks: "I work at a small non-profit that has 18 employees plus a 13 seat computer lab. We received a form letter from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) telling us to do a self audit and if we find any unlicensed software to report it during our 'Grace Period' because 'if you organization's software is not licensed, it could become to focus of a BSA investigation'. Now this is obviously a method to scare up some business for the BSA members. If we ignore this, how likely is it that we will be 'investigated'. I know that I cannot produce the original CD's and/or documentation for some of the software that we HAVE paid for."
How I *THINK* it works is... (Score:2, Insightful)
If this is the case I don't think there's a whole lot you can do... Get ready to negotiate! :-)
Non-profit does not mean unprofessional (Score:2, Insightful)
Let this be a lesson to you. Get a box that holds all your licenses. It's really that easy.
Google news... (Score:5, Insightful)
A Google new search [google.com] reveals all sorts of interesting articles, including some cases where people were [itnews.com.au] busted [dailytimes.com.pk].
And this little gem: [212.100.234.54]
Required to produce documentation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Supposing the BSA does perform an investigation, I'm wondering what the actual legal procedures are.
Are you required to maintain documentation of every last opened piece of software? I know at the CIT department I worked in for school, we had Windows 95 manuals stacked up in storerooms, even though there was a school wide license. I don't know if this is required though.
Furthermore, what happens if they find you're missing a couple documents, and decide to take you to court. Is any jury going to decide, based on either a "preponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that this software was obtained and/or used illegally?
Any legal experts out there?
Ignore it (Score:5, Insightful)
Since they are wanting you to perform a self audit and report any installs you can't find the correct documentation for, it's the same situation. Just an attempt for them to drum up some money for the BSA members.
We received that same letter about a year ago and I chose to ignore it, so far no one has followed up on it.
Now, if you get a certified letter from them, then I would take it more seriously, but just a bit more
They can't do much (Score:2, Insightful)
Rest assured that you aren't the only ones in this boat.
uhmmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it so you can rush out and buy licenses?
One particular experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know someone that was audited by the BSA and decided to fight it. Basically they countered by stating they wanted full disclosure of who reported them so as to determine the validity of the claim prior to wasting internal resources and dollars. They also argued that the reporting tools are a violation of privacy. Yes, they expected them to place some software on their network which scans their entire network not to mention each machine's registry. Third, they also argued that even if they were in violation of license, the license is between them and the vendor (after all, the license does not allow for the BSA as having legal proxy interests) and unless the vendor in questions decides that they'd like to personally persue the issue, the BSA does not have legal authority or the legal grounds to persue the action. Furthermore, they argued that even if something odd was discovered and they lost, only the government has the right to impose fines on legal matters as such and they would be within their legal rights to simply purchase any outstanding licenses or settle directly with the vendor in question and completely dismiss the BSA altogether thereby eliminating the need to pay any fines or added fees.
Last I heard, even though two ex-employees had turned them in, the BSA simply walked from the issue as, from what I gathered, they really don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Shakedown (Score:4, Insightful)
--Mike--
We're not lawyers; but, (Score:2, Insightful)
While the BSA does not directly say that you will be sued, you *could* be sued by the company whose software they are looking for. IANAL, but to say that the BSA is going to sue you is a threat that is illegal in the US if the entity does not have legal grounds on which to sue - in your company's sake, proof of no licenses. Entities, whether corporate or personal, can not go around saying they're going to sue and not sue, either; that's a method of blackmail, I would think.
I think that the BSA just tries to use FUD to make money. They scare some company into letting them in their doors and then its game-time! They've got you.
Keep them outdoors and tell them to pack sand - or toss the letter out.
In the mean time, I'd do some damage control and find those licenses, just in case.
The odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
The odds?
0.
Literally.
0.
If they had any intention of "auditing" people (which, btw, is illegal in and of itself! It violates property laws, search & seizure laws, as well as laws against extortion, to name a few) they would have just gone ahead and done so already. Instead, they've put millions into cranking out form letters to people as scare tactics, since they know they're effectively powerless.
If auditing companies produced any meaningful monetary award, they would already be doing so...which they aren't. And even if they did, they sure as hell wouldn't tell you or I about it in advance.
Logic prevails.
Re:Non-profit does not mean unprofessional (Score:2, Insightful)
My company received one of these letters last year from Microsoft. We ignored it and they ignored us. I imagine this works like OSHA, in that someone can make a complaint against you but if they won't sign off on the complaint and back it up with proof, the government won't waste their time.
Re:One particular experience... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious to know if the registry scanner has the capability to differentiate between actively installed software and previously installed software that failed to correctly uninstall itself? My guess is no.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:1, Insightful)
I take it that you didn't read all those EULAs barfed out at you during the installs.
Re:How I *THINK* it works is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever (Score:1, Insightful)
We have 2 person company that is fully licensed, but these crack monkeys are welcome to come by with a warrant if they want. Expect additional discussions with my lawyer though.
All of the new companies we are working on will be running OSS whenever possible. No Adobe, MS, Macromedia, whatever.
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure I did. Of course, whether they have any legal basis or not, and if so whether it confers rights on the BSA rather than the software vendor(s), are different questions. The BSA can find out in court, if they really want to know whether I've got any illegal software installed (I haven't) and they're prepared to risk a test case that could destroy their whole threat model (I doubt it).
Re:Non-profit does not mean unprofessional (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a sad, sad day when the most important thing a computer lab administrator can take care of is CYA maneuvers for legally purchased software.
Just because it is so hard to prove software piracy doesn't mean the burden of proof falls on the defendent. Software makers by now have shunned the thing that could actually make this trivial: online registration of single codes. If you have codes that are in use outside of your IP block, or you are registering more machines than you have licences for inside of a reasonable upgrade cycle, you're busted. If you can't press the little "audit" button upon request to re-send the legitimate codes, you're busted. This technique has worked for many years in shareware, and is only avoidable if you stealth the thing and don't send information back upon first registration. But if you are audited, your stealth-mode fails, and you are forced to comply. Or at least, you *should* comply, and I don't know of any court who would consider a 10 minute walk around the lab pushing a little Help->Send Audit button an unreasonable request. It could even be exported to disk, for those machines not on the wider network, because what you are checking for is simply the existance of legitimate, non-duplicate registration codes.
Until such a time that the business software companies get their act in line with the higher practices of, of all people, shareware and videogame companies, they do not deserve to command the balance of proof.
It's very legitimate to lose your registration papers. Labs with high turnover rates or multiple location transfers lose lots of things... And it only takes one person forgetting to tell their successor that the Mathlab box from 1987 (which has since been upgraded to Mathlab 89, 92, 96, 99, and 2003) is the official box with all of the important recipts, and you've lost your registrations. Put it in a file folder? With the thousands of pages of documentation a Lab generates? That will be lost even quicker, relegated to a storage room somewhere and forgotten for eternity.
No, it's better if the software keeps track of its own legality, in a way that can't be faked. This would increase slightly the overhead on software companies, but THEY are the ones with the burden of proof. If it increases the cost of the software by 5 dollars, that's a lot cheaper than the thousands for a full software audit.
IANAL, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
A word of advice, though. Regardless of being able to produce the original CDs, the FBI will almost certainly not persue anyone who's done less than $5000 USD worth of damage to a company in estimated loss sales (the FBI simply doesn't have the resources) - they DEFINATLY wont go after a small non-profit that lost a few CDs. Irregardless of that, unlike the BSA, the government actually has to produce enough evidence to convince a judge to grant a search warrent. So don't worry, you can safely ignore any messages from the BSA.
Consider an Apartment Lease (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, even if you rent rather than own, even your local police department needs a search warrant to enter your apartment. Also, if a person legally consents to a search, that consent can be withdrawn at any time. At that point, a search warrant is required. How is some kind of private "trade group" going to bypass that little requirement? Even if you clicked some EULA, I don't see how you can give up your Fourth Amendment rights with the click of a mouse. The police have much more power than some trade group, and if they need a warrant, how can some trade group skate by without one? Any lawyers want to comment?
I'd like to see these guys try it, quite honestly... just like that rental car company that was levying fines based on their GPS spy-unit speed measurements... they were denied. Private organizations/businesses don't have the power to levy a fine; that power belongs to the State.
If they were bold enough barge into your home unannounced, with no legal authority to do so, it would be at least Breaking and Entering, or even Burglary (if you were home at the time). If they threatened you in the process, it would be Aggravated Burglary, and you might even be justified in some self-defense. Somehow, I suspect a bunch of software-licence-hunting bean counters are not up for that kind of action.
Even if they do have some sort of "compliance inspection" in their EULA, it's just begging for a court challenge if they force the issue.
If you click a button saying "it's OK to shoot me," don't doubt for one minute that somebody would go to prison for a very long time if they actually pulled the trigger.
Re:Working in Canada but not Rest of World (Score:2, Insightful)
Lost jobs? Don't the companies that pirate software employ people too? Wouldn't they employ LESS people if they had to pay for all their software? So isn't it really a case of different jobs and not lost jobs?
Re:Working in Canada but not Rest of World (Score:3, Insightful)
THe goal of the organisation is to reduce software piracy. The fact that the people who work for them get paid has no bearing.
NOT just the IRS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hang on a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah but... (Score:5, Insightful)
one, it doesn't cost the software companies a thing. you steal a car, it takes steel, rubber, plastic from somewhere. you make a DIGITAL copy, it costs software co. nothing. and many of the "pirates" wouldn't have bought the software.
two, the people using the software are not using a cheaper alternative. why would you use OO.org, when ms office is "free". so, piracy destroys competition. i remember there used to be at least three major office suites. corel, lotus, and office. in fact, office 97 offered wordperfect and lotus 123 keystrokes, BECAUSE THEY HAD TO. but "piracy" reduced the market share of the other two to nil
three, "piracy" promtes sales. as one program and one format becomes the "standard", especially if it is closed, peopole eventually all have to get on board. and not everyone or every business can "pirate".
i am as big a free market economy guy as you can get. i am as low tax and low regulation as you can get. but this whole piracy thing is bullshit. and they know it.
Good. Now call your Congressman. (Score:2, Insightful)
You -pay taxes-.
It's his job to shoo away criminals. Get an appointment and explain how these clowns are keeping you from doing things that make money, and which law lets them get away with that trash.
I dunno if this is a good idea, but ask HIM if HE can tell you where all his software licenses are. Would HE like to be audited? Have his computers impounded?
Tell him you expect him to keep it from happening. Express disappointment in his votes for those laws. Praise his negative votes.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How it works (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, lets hit netcraft (love you guys):
The site bsa.org is running Apache/1.3.27 OpenSSL/0.9.6g (Unix) AuthMySQL/2.20 PHP/4.1.2 on FreeBSD. FAQ
Why do I love the fact that a group that reps uber-commercial software interests uses
- A free Unix
- A free webserver
- A free web scripting language
- A free encryption library
Hrm, maybe its to save themselves the embarassement of accidentally mailing/civil-suiting themselves?
Ah, the joys of irony.
BSA, MSFT, Clear channel (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever notice how everyone tries to be the enforcer? Corperations, media mogules, senators and even your local legislators? It seems these days people want to be in charge, or the authority trying for a power grab they can't achieve and throwing in some new speak to throw off the commoner who isn't educated enough to know the difference between REAL authority and a scam or fake.
The BSA is just another example to me.
Dunno, just my 0.02c. Mod away
Re:I'm not a lawyer, (Score:2, Insightful)
The stupid UCITA laws in maryland and virginia cloud this issue a bit.
Re:The people who were busted... (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the most common case where the BSA "busts" somebody is when they have legally purchased 400 licenses for [your software here, but it's seems to usually be MS Office, AutoCAD, or Photoshop] but their internal procedure has allowed that to be installed on 1200 machines.
You just need to decide at this point whether those 800 illegal installs are "illegally pirated software" or not (I genuinely don't know where you'd place this from your post).
The case of 100 copies of Photoshop but nobody purchased a single legit copy in the entire company is an easy one for the BSA or software publisher, but the big money for the publisher is getting the incremental licensing fees for all those second copies that an Alcoa or Bechtel installed on all the corporate laptops. They're looking for a company that's big enough to cough up the big, big bucks not some little guy.
In big companies, when you receive the initial letter, your corporate counsel will ask the execs whether they've done an internal audit, and make and attempt to get in line. So the BSA has had giant bang for almost no effort. Big companies really would prefer to be clean from a licensing standpoint if the publisher gives them any chance to do that (e.g. 20,000 copies of MS Office better not cost 20,000*$500, and in fact, it doesn't).
This response is much stronger if I could dig up the name of the company that this popped up on a couple of years ago. I believe it was a company that was operating maybe 4x the number of AutoCAD seats that they were paying for. This was an especially blatant case, as (unlike Windows or Office) I don't think it's trivial to do multiple installs of AutoCAD.
Re: BSA and Racketeering... (Score:1, Insightful)
They could claim all sorts of legalish mumbojumbo, but still torch my store if worse comes to worse (or drive customers away, deliver chemicals or supplies, or lower the priority of my clothes getting cleaned and pressed at the big cleaners.
In any other measure of the law, this is Racketeering.
Re:BSA learned from the master (Score:4, Insightful)
If, on the other hand, you have gone out and negotiated and signed a legal agreement with a BSA member, then what a BSA member can do to/around your premises is limited by the terms of the written agreement. A written agreement is far more binding than any click-through agreement might be.
Thank you BSA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stole from them? (Score:2, Insightful)
scripsit danheskett:
Charging $129 for OS X isn't extortion; sending someone a letter demanding money or you'll sue them is.
Corporate mob rule (Score:2, Insightful)
All I can say is keep your guns handy.
Re:Recieved the same thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you buy special site licenses. But, dance with the devil...
Re:BSA learned from the master (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Here's how I saw it happen... (Score:1, Insightful)
Pay for your software. (Score:3, Insightful)
* if you have paid for your software, just show them the proof of purcage.
* if you have paid but can't find the documentation, then you can hope that BSA will belive you. You will naturally increase your changes by showing doucmnetaion for all your other software, and telling them freely about your problem.
* if you have stolen the software: dont do the crime, if you can't take the time...
Whatever.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stole from them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, you're way missing the point here. Sure a lot of people feel strongly enough against non-Free Software that they won't buy it, but this case is different.
The BSA is essentially running a protection scheme. Here's the scenario: Let's say you run a business that's large enough that it's difficult to keep total track of everything on every machine.
You don't (purposely) violate any software licenses, and take pains to follow them correctly. However there is significant overhead to keeping track of what you can and can't do with the software you've bought, and violations are sure to occur. There's just too much to do not to make an error.
Some employee you've pissed off (and if you're an employer you will piss off an employee) goes to the BSA and tells on you. They don't need actual evidence. To audit you. They 'nicely' tell you to audit yourself and give them money for anything that might not be compliant.
Let's say that you can't find proof that you purchased some of the software you purchased. You then have to pay for that AGAIN. If you don't pay them for it, and they audit you, you then have to pay for it anyway, plus exorbidant fines because you couldn't proove that you weren't guilty of a crime.
They also use this as a scare tactic to scare people from going to Open Source, or even competitors. If you are looking at not renewing a licence you get a message that you might be audited. Even if you are in total compliance, it's rather expensive and labor intensive to go and make sure. Were my university to be audited, it would cost around $2,000,000 just to double check, and given the number of people using computers (about 10,000) it is virtually guaranteed that someone somewhere either wasn't careful with licensing proof, or just flat out pirated something.
What they are doing is no different than the Mafia vandalizing someone's business and then asking money to make sure such things don't happen again. It's protection money, nothing more nothing less. They just couch it in a slightly less ominous sounding name.
Many Open Source advocates have no problems with paying for software, music, movies or books. What causes problems is when someone tells me I can't do what I want with the media I've bought that I get a little upset.
If I want to make a mix for my car, the law says I have that right. They're trying to stop me. If I want to use software on a different machine, I have that right. Under strict copyright law (may be different under DMCA now), I can put software on any number of machines as long as they aren't being used concurrently. I can copy movies or cd's (as many times as I want) as long as I don't distribute them. As long as I dont' redistribute what I do, I can do whatever I want with what I've purchased.
Under the Constitution of the United States, it is not my responsibility to prove my innocence, it is your responsibility to prove my guilt. If you can't prove my guilt, I am to be considered innocent. The BSA has neatly ignored this, and gotten courts to go along with unconstitutional legislation. Fines are imposed without trial, and without proof of guilt, in direct opposition to the Constitution.
More than a Boycott needs to be done to the members of the BSA. There needs to be a trial that addresses flagrant violations of the constitutional rights of individuals all over the United States, and an appropiate punishment needs to be given.
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
I say all this because the shrink wrap license ("EULA") - through which the BSA claims to derive its authority - is thus on extremely thin legal ice. In fact, I am on a neverending quest to find reference to any (any) case where any of the more onerous terms of a shrinkwrap license have prevailed in court. (UCITA, of course, changes everything - but that's a subject for another post.)
Almost all users of computers never properly understand the "contract" they have supposedly "agreed to" by using their software. They are ignorant of the need to keep and maintain records (as if their word processor was a firearm or motor vehicle), and the idea of granting some organization permission to enter their premises and inspect, demand documentation, and otherwise claim supra-police-like powers just to "insure" that they're not violating their "agreement" must profoundly, breathtakingly, and absolutely fail the test of "reasonable expectation."
In the case of copyright violations, there are criminal and civil penalties. You can sue me for stealing your software. You can also call the police on me, who may choose to arrest me and try me for said same. But enter my place of business uninvited to "inspect" or "audit" on the basis of a shrink wrap license? I don't think it flies.
Let's sum up.
The BSA claims a variety of privileges (from the EULA) which it doesn't really have. It threatens you with actions which are almost certainly illegal. Software users are unaware of their "obligations" under their "licenses" even if you consider them binding (which is asinine), and even when they attempt to follow the rules, there are many cases where it will not be possible to provide documentation "to the satisfaction of the auditor" - whose standard is arbitrary, and purposefully engineered to make it unlikely you can meet it. You are frequently given a very short time in which to reply to the ultimatum - purposefully short, to insure you will not have time to properly inspect your facilities before making a decision. Then there is the oft-cited case of schools and charities which use donated equipment for which the paperwork is not, and probably can never be, in order.
The cost of self-defense is borne by the defender in civil court. Knowing one is on the receiving end of a legally specious and improper legal challenge is one thing. Being able to afford your defense against some of the world's richer companies is quite another.
Most victims who receive this have done everything right, but have not retained all their receipts, and/or cannot afford the considerable manpower and expertise it will take to insure "not one single unlicensed copy of anything" exists on any of the machines in their organization. Consider... will even one violation, even when made by an employee in violation of a company policy, result in punitive damages?
Generally the BSA gets what it wants: a "settlement" in which they are paid not to "report" to federal authorities and/or file a questionable lawsuit. The victim pays again (perhaps many times again) for what they already own.
We have come a long way from the simple world of Best Buy which you describe.
The fact that no one understood their options or the consequences of their choices is the very thing at issue here. Extortion, coercion, and foul play describe these practices perfectly.
Groups like the BSA are not a "price to pay for preventing theft." Their tactics are both immoral and unnecessary. They have no place in the enforcement of copyright. The police are the ones whose job it is to handle software thieves. But then there'd be no money in it for anyone, eh?
Re:Stole from them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any case law you can point out that supports this? Even if BSA audits you and you cannot show proof of purchase, they still must show that based on the preponderance of the evidence, you did not legally come by it.
Under the Constitution of the United States, it is not my responsibility to prove my innocence, it is your responsibility to prove my guilt. If you can't prove my guilt, I am to be considered innocent. The BSA has neatly ignored this, and gotten courts to go along with unconstitutional legislation. Fines are imposed without trial, and without proof of guilt, in direct opposition to the Constitution.
You are aware that the primary purpose of the Constitution is to outline and limit the powers of the government, right? This is a civil suit we're talking about. And which courts have gone along with this? I'm betting that the BSA usually settles out of court, they have a fairly difficult task in court. They'll make you a deal that will cost you less than defending yourself in court.
Re:Stole from them? (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL doesn't give you shit. It's not worth the paper it's written on. I'm just waiting for the day someone tries to pursue this legally by suing someone for GPL violation. Any lawyer would laugh at this instead of taking the case. I'm being 100% serious.
Eben Moglen seems to feel differently [gnu.org]. And so did the lawyers of the various companies that changed their minds after being told about their GPL violation.
Ahh, okay, now I understand the link to Debian. You must have some pseudo-religious belief that paying for software is inherently wrong. Can you for a moment accept the fact that the millions of dollars and hard work that goes into making a polished software product is worth some monetary value to someone? Just because you don't think so doesn't absolve you from paying for it, nor does it indicate that they are 'extorting' money from anyone else. They're just making a successful living.
Well the computer I'm using at the moment has a lot of Free software on it that I did pay for. I'm sure a lot of other /. readers could say the same. So I think it's safe to say that a belief in Free (Libre) software in no way implies a belief that software should be free (Gratis).
Economics for BSA Haters, 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
A brief note about economics is probably in order. The cost of making a physical CD is not what you are paying for when you buy a CD. You are paying for the cost of developing, testing, marketing, researching both that program and future programs.
That means that pirating software costs the developer the chance to recover the costs of making that software in the first place.
And before anyone mods this Flamebait, give a moment's thought to what this means for the (non-BSA member) Linux companies out there: companies with (as a rule) very good chances of going out of business each year. They spend time researching, fixing, improving the OSS software that you use regularly... but since most people download this without actually paying a penny for it, they have to find alternative routes to make money.
Now I think that there are lots of arguments for OSS, but it does make the economics much more complicated for all involved.
"it's a HUGE hassle" (Score:5, Insightful)
Just say no.
KFG
Re:Recieved the same thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I once was a fan of his comic and wrote a Comic->Avantgo->Palmpilot filter for Dilbert. I sent a message about it to the dilbert.com webmaster and told them that a) I am the only user and don't intend to make it public and b) if they wish, they can have this filter for their web site and use it there, for free.
No reply. I totally forgot about it, then months later I got a threatening letter from Scott Adams' lawyer, telling me that my script was a copyright violation, demanding that I send them a list of every person who ever used it and announcing me how much I'll have to pay in licenses for the expected number of users of my script.
And this for a script that I offered to dilbert.com for free, for their own use, without any malicious intent at all. For something that I told them as "hey, look at this, I use this personally, it's neat, you can have it, check it out."
I wrote a reply to the lawyer, telling them how disappointed I was that they send a lawyer first instead of just saying "sorry, no interest, and please take the script offline as we'd consider it a copyright violation if you made it public to other Avantgo users". Scott Adams replied, apologized, but his message was clear that he had no clue why I was so disgruntled about it.
Well, one reader less to worry about, Mr. Adams.
Re:Stole from them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, this person knowingly broke the law. While the company is responsible for that, he is responsible to the company. You should, in no uncertain terms, sue the weasel for all costs incurred in the audit, license purchases, legal fees and damages. Make a precedent out of him, he deserves it.
-Charlie
Re:I disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:America.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't approve of licensing like that, choose another product or manufacturer.
The BSA is just a trade body (Score:4, Insightful)
He got the letter from the BSA mentioning the grace period, thretening a surprise audit etc. He reponded by informing the BSA if they made any attempt to enter any of his premises he would treat the matter as aggravated tresspass and use whatever means necesary to te remove them. The was followed up with a "We are sorry you are taking this attitude, but we have a right blah, blah" letter, but after that he heard nothing.
The BSA may have a (questionable) contractual right to audit your software, what they don't have is the right to enter buildings and act like they have legal backing. I know someone who was at the sharp end of such and audit and aparently it is not very pleasant. The BSA folks do act as if they are policemen and they are very upfront.
The BSA is just a trade body, the software equivalent of the Taxidermists Association of Scotland or the Charterd Institute of Accountants. They exist only to represnt the interests of MS, Adobe etc. They have no legal powers whatsoever. Their powers of enforcement as an organisation are exactly the same as mine as an individual. If they hassle you, ignore them and tell them to sue you or go away, simple as that.
Whatever your moral stance, legally speaking software piracy is wrong. However there are existing mechanisms in place to deal with piracy. The BSA approach seems to be to squeeze the biggest amount of cash out of the existing customers of its members. What about the many SME's that have never, ever bought legit software? How does the BSA deal with these types, given that the BSA probably doesn't even know they exist? I know of several businesses who don't have one single piece of legit software, the BSA doesn't even know they exist. BTW I won't snitch on these businesses, I live in Northern Ireland and I like having knee caps.
The BSA duses extortion to make money for its members. Its picks on those who are largely 100% legit, but may have made mistakes, these are easy targets. It would seem to ignore those who are serial pirates, those who do not intend to now or ever buy software. This approach is easy for the BSA, they really should sort their priorities out.
Never Register Your Software (Score:3, Insightful)
Its retail white boxes all the way, or OSS packages.
They dont need to know who i am, what im using, or tell me that my software has expired..
Pursue the admin? Get real... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pursue the admin? Get real... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess it depends on what the primary objective of the BSA is. If their primary goal is to decrease corporate software piracy, then it makes just as much sense to pursue the admin in this particular case as to pursue the company.
If the BSA exists solely to shakedown companies, then yeah, worms like this admin are their allies.
Don't you just love marketing? (Score:2, Insightful)
This BSA business has been going on for awhile now, and is apparently proving very profitable to the BSA's member's. Here's a article [eweek.com] from eWeek [eweek.com] article that explains the tactics in a bit more detail.
Possibly the most misleading and offensive part of this whole mess is the active solicitation by the BSA of "disgruntled" employees willing to rat out their employers. What is hardly mentioned is that, should the BSA claim to have evidence provided by such a source, they must first prove the validity of that source before any legal warrant can be issued. No law enforcement agency will raid a business, big or small, on the uncorroborated word of a suspect source (although, with Ashcroft, you never know). As a few of the posts above have noted, there have already been instances where companies have ratted out rivals in an apparent attempt to gain an business edge from the disruption (Sometimes, you have just gotta love capitalism). If this is in fact happening, I imagine the risks of retaliatory lawsuits by the victimized is sky high, and I'll be willing to bet the dollar amounts awarded to folks unjustly accused will far outweigh any gains the BSA would have made on a few unlicensed copies of Win98.
Then, there's the extra expense of litigation. Whether necessary or not, businesses forced to litigate against the BSA will have no choice but to raise prices to cover the costs of both the case itself an the inevitable increase in insurance rates. Members of the BSA will also be faced with increases in legal spending, and this in turn will only serve to raise prices for their products. How can this be good for anyone?
The thing that really burns me is that, by operating on the assumption that the mere threat of an audit is often enough to make smaller companies roll over on command, the BSA membership demonstrates a callous disregard for their customer base, and an apparent gleeful willingness to offend just about anyone as long as they get the cash. If this is their idea of an acceptable new business model, we are in deep trouble in the days/years to come - UCITA or not.
Re:The Justice Dept. Might Disagree With You. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Recieved the same thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a GREAT reasone to dump Microsoftware! (Score:3, Insightful)
There seem to be two straw men going up here. On the one side, people saying the BSA and affiliated organizations are the devil that will cost you millions of dollars, while on the other side the BSA is saying it's not a big deal. I think the truth lies in between these two extremes. Yes, a BSA audit is a pain. Yes, they send extortionary notices to companies in order to garner more business for their clients.
If your organization is large enough to have hundreds of licenses of a particular thing (like Microsoft operating systems), it is not a big deal to negotiate licensing agreements with that BSA member so that your whole organization is covered and you have nice remedies if something does go amuck. If you are so small that you don't have power to negotiate directly with Microsoft/whoever for licensing terms (fewer than 100 users, really), then handling a short internal audit shouldn't be a problem.
If the BSA sends you a threatening letter about software audits, the best legal response is to not respond at all to their provocation. However, it's a good idea to try to get all your ducks in a row with licensing so that if they do come knocking on your door you can show them the pretty rows of Windows holograms sitting on a shelf. If you respond with the proverbial middle finger to the BSA, expect an audit.
Personally, if I were running my own mid-sized business, I'd consider it imperative to make sure licenses are well-accounted-for, and make that a big part of the charter of any hired IT person. Desktop configuration must be controlled. If you provide reasonable access controls, and can prove that any unlicensed software installed on your systems is directly contrary to both policy and practice, the BSA won't have a leg to stand on in prosecuting your business. In general, auditors just want to see a good job done and tend to be pretty nice guys. Don't give them a hard time, and they won't tend to give you a hard time. If you're an asshole towards them, though, you can be certain they will do their best to nail you to the wall.