Nothing was said about a warrant. In the article you found, it says:
After conducting an "unannounced software audit," the nonprofit trade group representing major software vendors, found that about 8 percent of the software used on Ernie Ball computers was illegally installed.
In order to get a court order, they would have to show probable cause to a federal judge. That isn't easy. In your fantasy world, the Marshals skipped the search warrant and went directly over to Ball's office. Still want to pursue that line of reasoning?
Yours or mine? I never said anything about a warrant. Neither did either article. I don't know why US Marshals showed up to conduct the "unannounced software audit".
Tell that to the federal judge who approved the warrant.
What warrant?
That's a nice fantasy. Cinderella's castle is on your right.
From the article I posted:
Call me first if you think we have a compliance issue. Let's do a voluntary audit and see what's there.
If the BSA simply notified someone of accused infringement, most companies would waste no time in verifying compliance, taking whatever action is necessary. Then, the BSA could be invited to verify compliance.
This guy was out of compliance by eight percent, which indicates that the problem was not widespread. If he was intentionally making illegitimate copies of licensed software, it would be closer to 50% or even 75%. If a company is doing this, they would probably ignore the BSA's notice, and would rightfully be shutdown by an "involuntary" audit.
I realize that you would rather make an example of him and others, out of spite or whatever. But, while those tactics might be effective for the short-term, it is going to alienate current and potential customers that are concerned they could never maintain 100% compilance, despite their best efforts.
Again, I'll ask: do you think your company would survive a BSA audit without a single instance of non-compliance? Why do you keep dodging the question?