Why the BSA Is Less Reviled Than the RIAA 371
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.'"
Ernie Ball (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Informative)
Typically they won't even fine you, unless what you're doing is particularly egregious or blatant. Normally they're perfectly happy if you just purchase the licenses to cover the gap between what you have licensed and what you are using.
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:4, Informative)
Normally they're perfectly happy if you just purchase the licenses to cover the gap between what you have licensed and what you are using.
This thread is now over. You win the discussion, sir.
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Says you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree with the grandparent - the devil incarnate isn't as evil as the BSA.
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:4, Insightful)
The BSA goes after fewer targets and they are generally companies that are in a good position to defend themselves.
The BSA simply isn't nearly as crass.
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, that I would donate money to, to see the RIAA taken to court for copyright violation. There are great precedents now that might resul
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure you can have lots of RAM for quite cheap, but most people won't ever need that much RAM.
640k should be enough for anyone huh? Where've I heard that before.
You're forgetting a number of factors, not the least of which is application bloat. In 5 years there will be applications that don't load in under 2GB. It's sad. It's unnecessary. Hell they managed to program the orbital mechanics for the lunar lander to fit in a few kb. But it's the way the world works. Until software writing practices change - bot
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
RAM has just gotten to be SO cheap
And yet a lot of people in a lot of companies are using their computers to create and modify Office documents while using an enormous amount of RAM that is 768MB.
See, if your job does not require you to run big applications or read/modify big documents a smaller amount of RAM is sufficient, since you won't be able to use it anyway.
Oh, by the way, mycurrent PC has 4GB of RAM (Windows sees 3.25GB) because I like gaming, but currently with a lot of apps open, there is 1GB of free RAM and 1GB of "system cache"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Business and Ultimate editions of Windows 7 have a built in Windows XP virtualization for exactly that reason.
Why the hell do think Vista was replaced so quickly and XP's life extended so long? They wanted to stop selling it when Vista came out, but they couldn't. Why?
You don't really think the reason Vista tanked and XP was extended was because all of us geeks were badmouthing its issues with DRM and resource usage do you?
Of course it wasn't, it was because businesses - Microsoft's Golden Goose, their
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pray tell, will all of my DAQ drivers and real-time acquisition VIs work the same under virtualization as they do under native XP? Maybe, but I'm not counting on it.
Your comment about businesses refusing to upgrade is spot-on--that's exactly our position, albeit on a lower scale, monetarily. I have a feeling that business apps will be happier under virtualization than most scientific/engineer
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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).
Here's the really crazy part: Companies will "pirate" XP and then voluntarily turn themselves in to the BSA to pay the fine and have a nice legal license for the software Microsoft won't sell.
Extra humor: If Microsoft refuses to do the licensing and it goes to court, the judge will have a great laugh when the defendant says "We tried to pay, but Microsoft wouldn't accept payment."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No catch-22, you can still get Windows 2000 media via MSDN. In the scheme of things, it's not that expensive to purchase, $700 for just the operating systems and library, it scales up from there (up to $10,000 if you want VS2008, all server software, and an unlimited number of users). Both server and standard versions come with at least one license with the MSDN subscription (it's written on the inside cover of the CD case they give you), as well as physical media for just about everything MS sells. I've
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Open license customers can get any blasted media they want. We can download DOS if we want to.
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My copies of Windoes 95 still run if I want them to. If people want to keep running XP, they can. Why is Microsoft under any obligation to keep selling or supporting a ten year old discontinued product? Isn't that like me whining that the car I *really* want is a car like a 1957 Chevy Bel Air, but Chevy won't allow
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How long do you realistically expect a company, particularly a software company, to continue supporting a product? When is it acceptable
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that with your Chevy, people are allowed to make 3rd party parts & you are allowed to modify the car however you want - within state sanctioned parameters. With your software it's illegal for anyone to offer the type of support you're suggesting. If
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is nothing wrong with playing a CD on two devices. If you ripped it to both computers and different people used them, then yes, the RIAA would come after you.
The real difference DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
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 indu
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:4, Interesting)
It's even worse for books. I haven't read a dead-tree book in a while. Instead, I load the text into the Orca screen reader, and play it at high speed (about 460 words per minute). There are tons of texts out there that are only available in encrypted form, and many that aren't legally available on the Internet at all. Shame on those publishers and authors! How do blind people buy their products? What I've settled on for books that are not legally available in unencrypted form is buying the real thing or a license to the encrypted version, and then downloading the illegal version. There's one author I particularly like that I'm thinking of sending $100, with a letter asking him to be more open with his works. His poor judgement has turned his entire life's work into a very popular free download, while insulting the blind, and causing guys like me a lot of grief.
Anyway, I agree with the author that the BSA is not nearly as hated an organisation, partly because the software industry reacted less stupidly to the pirating. Book publishers are next on the list of casualties, and once again, it's much their own fault. They are busy giving Amazon a monopoly on e-books, just like the music industry did when they handed distribution to Apple. Good luck negotiating a fair deal with Amazon when they are the only game in town. Personally, I will gladly buy music from Amazon, since I can play it on my Linux box, or anywhere I like. I will never buy a Kindle book, or a song from Apple, so long as they are locked to the vendor's devices. The book industry needs to get a clue and learn a few lessons from the software and music industries.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Book publishers are next on the list of casualties, and once again, it's much their own fault. They are busy giving Amazon a monopoly on e-books,
Speaking as someone IN the book publishing industry, I can say you're wrong. It's not that publishers are doing it, it's that that is who 90% (okay, slight exaggeration, but the majority indeed) of eBook sales are coming from, so it's the customer's fault.
Further at issue is the fact that there's no standard format for the books. Four different services want four different formats. And it usually costs a fair bit to get a file converted if it wasn't designed with one format in mind during production. That m
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Interesting)
Nonsense. This is precisely the problem the article describes. Just publish in PDF. We all (customers, that is) want it in PDF. Every book reader out there can read it, and free translators exist for almost any format you want. Every other format out there for e-books is designed to keep the users from doing what we want, which is to copy it from one of my devices to another. Listen to what we customers want, and forget what you want to sell me. It's really pretty simple. I want to read it on my netbook, kindle, or smart-phone. I want my screen reader to speak it to me. Quit restricting me from using your books, and let me buy them!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quick aside: Most iTunes content is unencrypted 256 kbps AAC audio these days. I play it on all kinds of non-Apple devices.
The only remaining anti-piracy mechanism is the inclusion of your real name and email address in each song's metadata. This can be stripped, but there's no real point unless you do actually intend on breaking the law repeatedly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ernie Ball was pissed because he had not only to pay massive license fees for half a dozen PCs (according to TFA) that were non-compliant, but the BSA also humiliated him in the news.
So this is mostly a case of "I won't do business anymore with those assholes" and less of a desire for open (or even free) software.
Of course, once he discovered the savings in license fees he was happy about it. But if the BSA had been less aggressive, Ernie might still be a Microsoft customer.
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The BSA learned from Ernie Ball (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Ernie Ball (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people don't mind if there is some unknown business sticking it some other unknown businesses.
That's just it, the BSA doesn't "stick it" to anybody. All they ask is that you purchase licenses for any software you don't have licenses for, or stop using the software. It's exactly what you'd expect an organization like that to do.
With the BSA, it goes like so:
BSA: "We have proof you have not purchased 50 licenses, purchase the licenses or we'll sue."
BSA Customer: "Ok."
Now, if BSA Customer refuses to purchase the licenses, they'll get raped in court for up to $90k per license violation, but not many people are that stupid.
The RIAA, on the other hand, pulls this number:
RIAA: "We have proof you pirated 25 songs, pay us $10,000 or we'll sue."
RIAA Customer: "Can't I just pay the $25 the songs are worth to keep them?"
RIAA: "Pay up $10,000 now and admit all guilt or we'll take you to court for $10,000,000."
If RIAA Customer refuses at that point, you get RIAA v Thomas, where they too almost $2 million dollars for 25 songs.
THAT is why the RIAA is reviled, and the BSA is not. One cares about getting paid, the other cares about bludgeoning its customers to death.
Less sympathy for companies (Score:5, Insightful)
And, AFAIK, the BSA isn't busting kids downloading Grand Theft Auto.
Re:Less sympathy for companies (Score:4, Interesting)
The BSA is busting kids that share 5800 NDS roms. They are also going after the Big Warez sharers.
But they mostly focus on businesses because a company will roll over and play dead for them 99% of the time. It's like free money for them.
Re: (Score:2)
The BSA is busting kids that share 5800 NDS roms.
Got a reference for that? I couldn't find one after googling a bit. I'm pretty sure it's the ESA that cares about console piracy anyway.
Re:Less sympathy for companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Less sympathy for companies (Score:5, Interesting)
The BSA's tactic of requiring companies to be audited and then pay large amounts for any product that they can't prove that they own makes them pretty unpopular.
They seem to be a pretty popular way for disgruntled IT employees to screw over their employer though. Every BSA audit I've ever heard of or been involved in came about because of some employee or ex-employee with an axe to grind.
I've always wondered what happens if you refuse to let them onto your property. Presumably their only recourse would be to sue you and obtain access to your computer systems through the discovery process. Given the "speed" with which the court system moves I wonder if you could have the whole operation switched over an open source movement by the time it reached that point?
Alternatively what happens if you claim trade secrets or privacy restrictions (HIPAA?) on your computer system?
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered that, too. I suspect if they have "compelling" evidence, they can submit a sealed motion requesting discovery without the "offending" businesses involvement at all, essentially a private, no-knock search warrant probably backed up by a couple of Sheriff's deputies to handle any unwanted dissent.
How exactly it would work at a bank, defense contractor, nuclear power plant or other institution that claimed superseding legal privilege and had the $$$, manpower and physical security to stop
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Given the "speed" with which the court system moves I wonder if you could have the whole operation switched over an open source movement by the time it reached that point?
That would cause bigger legal problems, as the legal hold that comes with discovery prevents you from doing exactly that. Removing the traces of infringement by removing the closed source software and installing open source would be tampering and the courts don't take kindly to that.
Also, while the cases themselves take a while, discovery is usually pretty punctual, all things compared.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they followed the RIAA's tactics, they'd use the fact that you switched to open source in court to demonstrate that you're guilty. Why would you have switched if you didn't have something to hide?
Re:Less sympathy for companies (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is that if you refuse them access, they'll show up with a sheriff and a court order allowing them access.
We went through one of Microsoft's SAM not-an-audit-but-really-an-audit last spring. I had taken over the tech position, and everything had been in a bloody mess. Worse, most of the licenses had belonged to the organization which the organization I work for had bought. Naturally, there were many supposed licenses which the former tech guy had assured me existed which did not exist, and I ended up uninstalling about fifteen copies of Office 2003 Pro because I simply could not find any evidence that they had been purchased. Fortunately I had several copies of Office Basic and the like (mainly they need Outlook anyways), so I managed to keep within the licenses that I actually had physical evidence of.
Of course, the MS SAM guys are pricks. There was about two months of back-and-forth, and in the end my "rep" (or so this turkey insisted he was) claimed that five of my Server 2003 CALs weren't strictly valid because they were put on a volume license version of Server 2003, and they were retail CALs, and I was either going to have to change them to device CALs or buy five new ones through volume licensing.
At that point I got really pissed off and basically told the guy he was just trying to nitpick to try to get me to spend a couple of hundred bucks for licenses that we already owned, and for which Microsoft had already been paid. The guy did back off, though I think he was pretty pissed that he hadn't got a dime out of us. I in fact did need more licenses for a file server, but after my experience with Microsoft's license extortion department, I said "fuck it", installed a Samba member server, finally mastered Posix-to-Windows ACL mapping, and basically could give a shit. I'm down to one DC per location, enough to handle authentication and roaming profiles, I've installed OpenOffice wherever I can, and basically have no intention of buying any more MS products.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that if you refuse them access, they'll show up with a sheriff and a court order allowing them access.
Based on what? The word of a disgruntled ex-employee? If that's all the "evidence" they have (as is often the case) I should think that a sufficiently competent attorney would be able to fight any order allowing them access to your computer systems. Of course competent attorneys cost money and this may be one of the reasons why we rarely hear about them going after large enterprises with the resources to wage a legal battle......
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Less sympathy for companies (Score:5, Informative)
How is it that you can use a computer and yet be functionally illiterate?
I'm mad because I have a Server 2003 install with a 5 CAL pack that, according to the SAM rep, was invalid because I bought it retail as opposed to through volume licensing (because, apparently, the server software was bought through volume licensing).
Now go and shove pencils up your nose, or some other menial activity that's likely within the limited scope of your intellectual abilities.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know second hand from a colleage at another business what happens when a company tells the BSA guys to leave the property. They will leave, but several hours later, they show up with the constable and a formal motion of discovery.
When the BSA shows up, they want two things: A list of software that your boxes are running, and invoices. No, the pile of license cards that is shoved in the corner near the beer fridge will not do. They want to see invoices from CDW or another company of how many seats are
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've always wondered what happens if you refuse to let them onto your property. Presumably their only recourse would be to sue you and obtain access to your computer systems through the discovery process. Given the "speed" with which the court system moves I wonder if you could have the whole operation switched over an open source movement by the time it reached that point?
Please look up the following terms on google. felony software piracy conviction [google.com] and statutory damages [google.com]. Basically the first thing means that the person deciding has a choice between paying over the companies (shareholder's) money or personally going to prison. It becomes an easy decision.
Alternatively what happens if you claim trade secrets or privacy restrictions (HIPAA?) on your computer system?
You have a contract which says you have to let them audit you. If you fail to deliver, you are liable anyway. If you destroy evidence then you are in deep trouble and any court will likely treat it as if the evidence wa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, they get reported by disgruntled employees. Quite often, the employee that reported them is not the only disgruntled employee. I have only heard one time about a company that everyone loved getting reported. Every other time, it didn't shock anyone but was only "a matter of time".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't bite the hand that feeds you (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Don't bite the hand that feeds you (Score:5, Funny)
Why should I trust you? You're not even buffer safe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, I'm someone who wants to sell software, and I think their audit tactics are extremely slimy, and should be illegal. Generally speaking the difference is that software people know that even though people will pirate their stuff, they'll do okay anyway, because plenty of people will pay for it. The company I work for has fantastic customer support, and we fix problems on a dime. Our customers would, frankly, be crazy to pirate from us. And I doubt that a BSA audit would identify a pirated copy o
Who they sue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who they sue (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the BSA attacks businesses, not disabled single mothers, children, and the dead, fewer people even know about them.
Also, while their behaviour has not been perfect, as far as I know the BSA has never systematically and deliberately gone after parties who are probably innocent. While they have been known to try to pull audits and such under somewhat dubious circumstances, it's usually at least responding to a tip-off.
Big Music and Big Movies, on the other hand, have frequently and systematically attacked legitimate consumers, and run campaigns of intimidation based on at best dubious legal claims and misleading advertising.
Value of music vs value of software (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the value of something that can be copied with perfect fidelity, infinitely, at virtually no cost to copy or distribute... and that has a finite demand? Any finite demand met with an infinite supply creates a value/price as close to zero as makes no odds.
What is the value of the software that is the game of Tic-tac-toe? Microsoft Offices is only somewhat harder to duplicate and distribute, but not much. A seat at a concert or a hammer off the assembly line is much harder to duplicate.
The value of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If anti-copyright proponents would be unhypocritical, they would demand that software be downloadable for "sharing" among friends.
What makes you think our views regarding software differ at all from those regarding other media? Software simply isn't the main focus of the copyright debates at present, so you don't hear as much about it. Any of the proposed changes to copyright law would affect software as much as anything else.
P.S. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value"; that debate was lost a long time ago. All value is subjective. To illustrate with a counter-example: some software packages have no ROI whatsoever in a commercial
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I take your lettuce out of your fridge, you are no longer able to eat it.
If I take a copy of an mp3 off your ipod, you can still listen to it.
That's why it is different.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that very much entirely depends on what you consider "intrinsic value."
I think you have a faulty understanding of the word "intrinsic." Since enjoyment and satisfaction are immeasurable and differ from person to person, thus are imbued by the user, that's an "extrinsic" value. Intrinsic means that it has certain specific values at all times. That value may mean more or less to a specific person, just like a sandwich means more to a starving man than one who's just finished a large supper, but it still has the same specific value of nutrition and energy imparted.
Every attribute
This is the same BSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking. Patry should hang on out slashdot more often - there are blenty of anti-BSA horror stories posted here.
Then of course there's the irony of seeing BSA ads on Slashdot, encouraging disgruntled employees to report licensing problems of their employers.
(Ever since /. offered to disable advertising as a way of "thanking you for your positive contributions", I've turned off AdBlock here...)
BSA's different tactics give it a lower profile (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [networkworld.com] hate them at least as much as your average Slashdot reader hates the RIAA.
Are we forgetting the obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Joe-on-the-street even *aware* of the existence of the RIAA? I don't think so; otherwise they'd be out of business by now. We are aware of the RIAA, because we're geeks and we care about these issues. People who've been sued are aware also. But even a Joe-on-the-street who knows about the RIAA lawsuits assumes that the people being sued deserve what they get, or else the courts wouldn't have allowed it to happen. Because that's what the mainstream media is reporting, and they don't read slashdot
Fourth reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Fourth reason:
The BSA does not sue you for millions of dollars if you're infringing.
Re: (Score:2)
doubt it (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not that nice (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Missed one. (Score:3, Interesting)
Transferability and Compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Even still, the BSA is kinda douchy (Score:2)
Non-commercial use of copyrighted works (Score:4, Interesting)
Software industry learned piracy = marketing (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Ummm... really? (Score:2)
Multiple copies. (Score:2)
The RIAA doesn't care if you make a copy of an audio CD for different machines in your own house. The BSA does.
The BSA's target is the company that buys one copy and runs ten copies.
The Google ad for this page is:
Earn up to $1 Million for Reporting Software Piracy - All Confidential
www.BSA.org/reportpiracy [bsa.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
False assumptions? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:False assumptions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the courts do not exist to determine whether a law is just, rather if the law was broken. The one exception is judicial review, and that only applies to unconstitutional laws and is a power only the Supreme Court holds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after me: Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org].
This is one thing that every citizen old enough to be called into jury duty should know about. Cases with laws this unjust should never get past a jury.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or at least that's what gets hammered into the jury's heads.
I know the last time I was called for jury duty I got dismissed because I (truthfully and under oath) stated that I could NOT conscionably base a verdict strictly on the facts of the case ignoring my opinion of the law and without concern for the sentence that might be imposed based on a guilty verdict.
Screw the other guy (Score:2, Interesting)
Some things they don't tell you (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Never been audited, have ya? (Score:2)
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.
I would say that's a pretty tall conclusion. It only applies because the BSA audits businesses and not individuals, so most people outside of IT aren't even aware of who they are. And calling a BSA audit "treating people with respect" is sort of the same mentality that says a rap
Atleast the fines make sense with BSA (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Analyst is a BSA shill. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not evil, definately (Score:3, Funny)
Music is hard to buy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Another reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Another possible reason the BSA is not vilified is that they do not sue 12 year olds.
Honest people still fear the BSA (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Small comment (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
except for obsolete software (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Different business model... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.