Rockin' on without Microsoft

C/Net ^ | 8/20/2003 | David Becker

[Bush2000]

But, he was the first to claim that a criminal offense was committed.

You keep flogging this straw man over and over and over and over again...

For the millionth time, the BSA could have filed criminal charges in this case. The dollar amounts were sufficient to warrant criminal prosecution. In my personal opinion, I think it met the bar. But that's solely my opinion -- and it's irrelevant, in any case, since the BSA went the civil route.

[justlurking]

And I made it very clear on this thread that, while the dollar amounts would justify a criminal prosecution, the BSA did not choose that route.

Again, I'll refer you to my previous posting, where I showed how you repeatedly claimed it was a criminal offense, even after I mistakenly claimed it was only a contractual matter. And when I laid out the reasons that I believed the infringement was not willful, you apparently disagreed.

But, I'm willing to set aside your previous inconsistency, if we can agree that:

1. The business did not commit a crime (i.e. they were not stealing software)
2. The business was not willfully committing copyright infringement.
3. The business was obligated to have licenses for all copies of software installed, even those not in use.

Can we agree on these points?

If so, the only remaining issue is what would have been fair restitution? I don't believe that a $65,000 fine and $35,000 in legal fees is fair. I believe the business should have been given the opportunity to remove the infringing software, verified by a subsequent independent audit. Or at least, been given the opportunity to purchase the missing licenses (even those not being used).

However, you apparently disagree. Can you explain your rationale for the disproportionate amount of "restitution", other than petty vindication?

[Bush2000]

Can we agree on these points?

No, I'm not going to agree to that. But as I've repeated over and over and over and over and over again in my previous posts, the point is moot. And I'm not going to beat a dead straw man.

[justlurking]

Are you suggesting that US Marshals can search your place of business without a search warrant?

Who said anything about a search? Is "involuntary software audit" a codeword for "search"?

Of course not. You're relying on words straight from Sterling Ball's mouth. Why would he volunteer that the US Marshals were executing a legal search warrant? That might make him look guilty now, wouldn't it? Far better to leave the impression that jack-booted thugs just "showed up" with no probable cause.

OK, you are always complaining to me about not having any proof. So, I'm calling you for doing the same thing.

If you want to make such an accusation without any evidence, that's your choice. But, you forfeit the standing to challenge anyone else for doing the same.

[Bush2000]

The US Marhals simply showed up at the door for an "unannounced software audit".

I must have skipped school on the day that my history teacher discussed the "unannounced software audit" Constitutional privilege for government officials. Or are you ready to concede that they would have needed a warrant to perform a search -- and therefore have presented probable cause to a federal judge?

[justlurking]

No, I'm not going to agree to that.

Why not? You have made exactly those claims in your previous postings.

But as I've repeated over and over and over and over and over again in my previous posts, the point is moot. And I'm not going to beat a dead straw man.

In other words, the "restitution" imposed on this guy is indefensible. But, I already knew that.

[Bush2000]

Who said anything about a search? Is "involuntary software audit" a codeword for "search"?

Yes, it is. Please provide a single example in which federal officials are permitted to enter your home without a warrant or court order. Your suggestion that this is some kind of exception is ridiculous.

[supercat]

For the millionth time, the BSA could have filed criminal charges in this case. The dollar amounts were sufficient to warrant criminal prosecution. In my personal opinion, I think it met the bar. But that's solely my opinion -- and it's irrelevant, in any case, since the BSA went the civil route.

From what I understand, in many states, offering to refrain from prosecuting someone for committing a crime in exchange for payment substantially beyond bare restitution is called extortion, and is itself a criminal offense.

BSA is a protection racket.

[Bush2000]

In other words, the "restitution" imposed on this guy is indefensible.

Indefensible, perhaps, to people who are accustomed to getting software for free.

[Bush2000]

From what I understand, in many states, offering to refrain from prosecuting someone for committing a crime in exchange for payment substantially beyond bare restitution is called extortion, and is itself a criminal offense. BSA is a protection racket.

So why are you whining? Sue them.

[supercat]

So why are you whining? Sue them.

I have no standing to file a cause of action against them. And I don't know if the federal government has any extortion laws similar to those which would be applicable at the state level. But BSA's actions are essentially those of an extortionist.

[RinaseaofDs]

So, let me get this straight. This guys steals, gets caught, becomes embarrassed and proclaims, "We won't do business with people with steal from, who catch us, and humiliate us in public."

So he goes the rest of the way and takes free software and runs his business that way.

Okay.

If I go in and kipe a bunch of his guitar strings, get caught, get put on the news, and then go kill a bunch of cats to make my own string that makes me what?

A hero.

Feh. Losers.

[justlurking]

Or are you ready to concede that they would have needed a warrant to perform a search -- and therefore have presented probable cause to a federal judge?

If that is indeed the process, certainly. But, do you actually have information that establishes that is the process used by the BSA under these circumstances, or is this just your opinion?

And, is this a last-resort effort? Would the owner have had an opportunity to resolve the problem voluntarily?

I can be reasonable. Can you?

[justlurking]

Please provide a single example in which federal officials are permitted to enter your home without a warrant or court order.

That's easy. They ask my permission and I grant it.

[Bush2000]

I have no standing to file a cause of action against them.

Oh, c'mon... you've never loaded a piece of pirated software on your machine?!?

[Bush2000]

That's easy. They ask my permission and I grant it.

Great, so you've waived your right to require a search warrant. And you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Bush2000]

If that is indeed the process, certainly. But, do you actually have information that establishes that is the process used by the BSA under these circumstances, or is this just your opinion?

Marshals don't just show up at your door wanting to search your place unless they intend to execute a warrant.

And, is this a last-resort effort? Would the owner have had an opportunity to resolve the problem voluntarily?

Personally, I think that BSA wanted to make an example of this guy. Just my opinion. And maybe a high-profile example is what they were looking for.

[Coral Snake]

I have been studying all the tech threads that we have been involved with since I started posting here and have determined that there is more than flame wars going on against us. These Linux trolls have now gone NUCLEAR and are now using the moderators against us in an attempt to get us banned on Free Republic.

Their stratagy seems to be to use either FR posting policy
banned profanity or personal attacks against us and getting us to respond with our own garbage so they can sic the moderators on US.

I am proposing that we now go nuclear also. Rather than responding to any further profanity or personal attacks by these Linux blowhards WE should be the first one to the ReportAbuse button when they occur, in effect either shutting them up or getting THEM banned on FR instead.

This message is being sent to The Members of the Coral Snake Ping list ONLY and should not be repeated over regular FR channels. The Linux troll justlurking made
a BIG mistake when he threatened that we would be history
on FR. In war you DO NOT blab your stratagy to the planet.
Because he did I can now propose this identical preemtive
counter stratagy against THEM.

[justlurking]

Indefensible, perhaps, to people who are accustomed to getting software for free.

Since I have a mixture of both open-source software (some of which I actually paid for, to support the development effort) and traditional proprietary software (for which I do have the licenses -- I keep them in a safe place), I'm not one of those people.

But, let's do the math: a few dozen applications, we'll call it 36. Divide that into $100K, and you get approximately $3k per infringing application. There are a few software products that exceed that price, but the list of vendors in the list you provided don't appear to fit that criteria (unless it was enterprise software from Microsoft).

So I'll ask again. How is that fair restitution?

[Bush2000]

No, Coral. I'm not going to whine to the moderators. They can use whatever language they want. It doesn't bother me. I'm tired of this whole PC crap. I won't contribute to it.