Replies

"Stealing" implies a criminal offense. So, which is it? Are you going to make up your mind, or change it again when it is convenient

Federal copyright law isn't an either-or proposition. It carries both civil and criminal penalties. 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. This is a strawman, in any case.

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:

The business did not commit a crime (i.e. they were not stealing software)
The business was not willfully committing copyright infringement.
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?