My problem with Mr. Ball's experience is not whether he followed the rules. I don't think there is any question that he didn't. What concerns me is how he was treated for what appears to have been an inadvertant error. He should have been given the opportunity to remedy the problem, even if it meant buying licenses for software he wasn't using.
The tactics used against him should have been reserved for people that committed massive and/or willful infringement. The facts don't indicate that he met that criteria.
Your position is completely hypocritical, whether you regard this post as some sort of personal attack or not.
I've resigned myself to the realization that you will twist anything I write (or anything written by someone you don't like) and stretch it to the point that it is barely recognizable, so that you can make some lame accusation.
Aside from the disrupters that quickly get ZOT'ed, people that violate the posting guidelines are given the opportunity to clean up their act. The only ones that are banned are the ones that persist, even after being warned. I agree with this approach, and add another buffer on top of that: I don't report abuse unless the offender ignores my prior warning.
I think that Mr. Ball deserved similar consideration: he should have been warned that he was reported to be non-compliant and given the opportunity to remedy the problem on his own. If he refuses, then a more harsh measure is appropriate.