Rockin' on without Microsoft

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

[Bush2000]

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

Nobody said the penalty would be fair.

[justlurking]

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

I asked for information about the process used by the BSA, not your opinion. I said I would concede the point, if you provided it. I'm still waiting.

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.

Interestingly, that's exactly what the owner said:

They went right for the gut...I think it was because it was a new (geographical) area for them, and we're the No. 1 manufacturer in the county, so why not go after us?

If so, that's not "restitution", fair or otherwise. Maybe now you can see why some of us are uncomfortable with these tactics?

[justlurking]

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

You didn't ask if I would do it. You asked for circumstances in which federal officials were permitted to enter my home without a warrant.

Admittedly, people make this mistake all the time. The owner implies in the article I posted that he actually did grant permission (against the advice of his attorney), but without further details that's just speculation.

[Coral Snake]

DUMB MISTAKE !!! This was intended for private mailing!!!
Maybe its for the best. At least certain Linux people will
know we are on to their game.

[Bush2000]

I asked for information about the process used by the BSA, not your opinion. I said I would concede the point, if you provided it. I'm still waiting.

This isn't my opinion. Use your brain. Can anyone enter your business or residence without your authorization? Hint: Read the U.S. Constitution.

If so, that's not "restitution", fair or otherwise. Maybe now you can see why some of us are uncomfortable with these tactics?

No. I have every software license for every machine that I use. If you value the tools you use, you need to take responsibility.

[justlurking]

Nobody said the penalty would be fair.

OK, so now you want more than restitution?

[Bush2000]

Admittedly, people make this mistake all the time. The owner implies in the article I posted that he actually did grant permission (against the advice of his attorney), but without further details that's just speculation.

He's complaining about a lack of notice -- and yet, when confronted by the audit, he willingly and knowingly lets them in against the adivce of his attorney?!? Anybody else see any inconsistency here?!?

[Coral Snake]

I wasn't suggesting this for PC purposes I was suggesting it for DEFENSE purposes. So we could in effect ban THEM before they ban US!

[Bush2000]

OK, so now you want more than restitution?

Since when does this have to do with me? I could have lived with a lower penalty. Got a complaint? Call the BSA.

[Bush2000]

Honestly, Coral, if FR descends into being the kind of place where everyone's trying to get one another banned, I'd rather not be here. That is the epitome of censorship and limp-wristed PC crap. I don't want any part of it.

[justlurking]

This isn't my opinion. Use your brain. Can anyone enter your business or residence without your authorization? Hint: Read the U.S. Constitution.

OK, you added the "with your authorization" qualifier. But, the answer is still "yes, under some circumstances". Even without a warrant. I don't pretend to know all the possibilities, but one is pursuing a fleeing felon.

I don't know if this situation qualifies or not. That's why I'm asking about the process that the BSA uses before they show up at someone's door with the US Marshals to conduct an "unannounced software audit". You claim there is one, but so far all you have done is offer your opinion.

No. I have every software license for every machine that I use. If you value the tools you use, you need to take responsibility.

You are absolutely sure? I keep asking if you believe your company would survive a BSA audit, and you haven't yet answered.

[justlurking]

Since when does this have to do with me? I could have lived with a lower penalty.

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

You disagreed when I said I thought the restitution was unfair. So, now you are saying that you would be satisfied with a lower amount?

How much lower? Something closer to the actual value of the software? Or, do you think a penalty is required? In all cases, or only under certain circumstances?

Personally, I believe that restitution should be sufficient if a good faith effort is made to remedy the infringement on a timely basis. However, if someone drags their feet and are subjected to an "involuntary audit" that turns up infringement, then I think penalties are appropriate.

[Centurion2000]

bump ..... sounds like more need to do the same (happily learning the unix language on Nokia and Netra appliances)

[InfraRed]

It wasn't Microsoft that showed up on Ball's doorstep. It was the BSA -- and he immediately leaps to the conclusion that it's Microsoft.

By purchasing computers with a Microsoft OS on them, Mr. Ball helped fund the BSA. The BSA, acting upon an anonymous tip, raided his company (on behalf of Microsoft & others), costing his company $65,000 in fines plus $35,000 in legal expenses.

Had Mr. Ball's company been running Linux and OSS software all along, they could have avoided the $100,000 in fines and legal expenses, plus they could have avoided the expense of licensing the 92% of their software which had been properly licensed.

It would even be cheaper to pay SCO's extortion money ($700 x 72 computers = $50,400), and not have to worry about employee incompetence or pirated application software.

Mr. Ball learned a lesson alright -- his company will never again purchase Microsoft software. More Microsoft customers need to be taught this lesson. Keep it up.

[Coral Snake]

Actually I tend to agree with you and its to bad that justlurking can't. He seems to be the main moderator oriented troublemaker here. (However he hasn't been able to get rid of my handy little gifs and jpegs equating the "free software" leaders with Karl Marx yet even though he complains about them. Maybe he is not as dangerous a censor as he thinks.) ;-).
Just ignore the moderator idea it was just another "trial
balloon" destined to pop like one of Bill Clinton's. We certainly do not need censorship here. After all FReepers are SUPPOSED to stand for the First Amendment aren't they. By the way if I ever get this Arron's Rod Network thing off the ground it will include a conservative patriotic board like this and you will be welcome there if you get banned here. ;-)

[justlurking]

He's complaining about a lack of notice -- and yet, when confronted by the audit, he willingly and knowingly lets them in against the adivce of his attorney?!? Anybody else see any inconsistency here?!?

Only if you think he believed he had a problem. Quoting from the article:

And one day I got a call that there were armed marshals at my door talking about software license compliance...I thought I was OK; I buy computers with licensed software. But my lawyer told me it could be pretty bad.

As I said, it was speculation. "Permission to enter" and "Involuntary software audit" are contradictory, so it's probably not an issue. But, he also said:

Call me first if you think we have a compliance issue. Let's do a voluntary audit and see what's there.

It appears he he would have cooperated with a voluntary audit, if he had been given the opportunity. But, I don't know if the BSA's process would have done so. Do you?

[justlurking]

However he hasn't been able to get rid of my handy little gifs and jpegs equating the "free software" leaders with Karl Marx yet even though he complains about them.

You posted to me: I think it is really time to cool it.

I suggested that if you were really committed to doing so, you would cease those postings. In a subsequent reply, I explained why: that they achieved little except to encourage the sniping (which then escalate into personal attacks).

Personally, I think they are just lame. Maybe some people find them funny, or something. If you are sincere about reducing the political vitriol, you'll stop posting them. But, it appears it was an empty gesture.

Maybe he is not as dangerous a censor as he thinks.

I don't tolerate certain behavior. A couple of people in this thread have lowered themselves to that behavior. I can't censor them, but I can point out violations of the posting guidelines. I didn't make the guidelines, but I try to abide by them and expect others to do the same. Ultimately, it's up to someone else to enforce them.

[Bush2000]

I don't pretend to know all the possibilities, but one is pursuing a fleeing felon.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dude, I just ejected coffee out of my nose! You owe me a new shirt.

I don't know if this situation qualifies or not.

Somehow, I doubt it.

I keep asking if you believe your company would survive a BSA audit, and you haven't yet answered.

Yes, I believe we would. I know and trust our compliance guy.

[Bush2000]

You disagreed when I said I thought the restitution was unfair.

Ball obviously made restitution -- and then some. You're really concerned about the penalty, which is above and beyond the restitution.

So, now you are saying that you would be satisfied with a lower amount?

Sure, I'd go along with that.

[Bush2000]

I'd rather not point fingers here.