That information came from an ex-employee that was responsible for license compliance. Gee, could the person willingly violating the license be the BSA's information source if he didn't know better? And why wasn't he the target of their anger? Perhaps because they couldn't extract $90,000 out of his hide. Rather than telling Ernie Ball, "Gee, your ex-employee says that you've got software that isn't properly licensed -- please pay for a license or delete it." they opted for an unannounced raid with US Marshalls and tens of thousands of dollars in fines while the guy who was responsible for keeping track of licenses and who obviously knew better had what happen to him?
It didn't come out of the blue sky. And frankly, as far as assumption of innocence or guilt goes ... unless somebody has recently established me as a court of law, I bear no such burden. I could care less whether you like my standard.
Yes, people with little regard for the Constitution or individual rights rarely have much use for due process.
The BSA is an industry organization that represents many different software companies. They gave it the authority to act on their behalf. Of course companies don't have to cooperate -- but they risk getting sued. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to poke a stick in the eyes of giants, you better be prepared for the response.
And you, of course, are on the side of "giants". How sweet. That some of the "little people" might accidentally get stepped on is of no concern to you, I presume?
Look at it this way: If they comply with the licensing terms, they have nothing to worry about; if they wanna get flaky, though, they're going to pay a price.
And look at if this way. If you use free software with no licensing conditions, you don't have to worry, either, and you don't have to pay money for priviledge of having to meticulously track licenses or else. As a TCO issue, this is a loser for Microsoft.