Microsoft to Get Tough on License Dodgers 564
An anonymous reader writes "PC Advisor reports that Microsoft is going to start getting tough with certain small business customers. They are going to examine their small customer license database — any discrepancies and it will call you for an audit. If you refuse it will send in the BSA and the legal heavies. "
Summary is incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)
Here we go again (Score:5, Informative)
One of the hoariest linux switch stories is about Ernie Ball, a company that makes guitar strings. The BSA treated them miserably and tried to make an example of them with a court case and huge publicity. Ball retaliated by switching to Linux and launched their own publicity campaign aimed right back at Microsoft.
Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place on this one. They could end up with a bunch more high profile switching-to-linux stories to contend with.
Re:But, can the BSA actually do anything? (Score:5, Informative)
These things are pretty much handed out like candy.
Re:But, can the BSA actually do anything? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a clause in the EULA where you give Microsoft or it's agents the right to come in and audit you at any time, at your expense. Refuse to let them audit and you're automatically in breach of every Windows license you have in addition to any other violations. And they'll hold that you agreed to the EULA for any pirated versions as well, since you had (in their opinion) to click OK to the EULA to be able to install the pirated copy and that constitutes agreement to the EULA's terms.
The only way out is to not be running any of their software and be able to prove it in court. Do that and make sure to have provided them that proof when you refused the audit and, while you can't stop them from suing you and getting a court order allowing them to do the audit, you can probably counter-sue them for every penny of costs.
Re:It's so easy.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Here we go again (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So true (Score:5, Informative)
For what it is worth... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So true (Score:5, Informative)
According to some reports, the BSA reportedly requires original invoices dated before notice of the audit and showing the company name exactly. Supposedly, if you change the name of the company, you have to buy a whole new set of licenses and have the original invoices to prove it.
That is one of the best reasons of all to ditch Microsoft for good.
Eat your cake (Score:4, Informative)
Hope this clears that up for you.
Re:So true (Score:3, Informative)
You can't eat your cake and still have it.
DugUK
Re:But, can the BSA actually do anything? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Go Microsoft!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Power dontcha know...
Re:So true (Score:3, Informative)
Small companies are much easier to organize license wise (due to smaller number of computers (normally)) however as not many small companies have a dedicated license person (or if they do a lot of the time this person is the "tech guy" and does not know all that much about licensing (but thinks they do, which is dangerous)).
Larger companies are a nightmare, you need remote scanning software to audit the computers and work from that log. This is fine in theory however I have never seen a perfect scan. Machines fail, users install software in different places so the scanner does not detect it, etc.
None of these are long term excuses however they are legitimate, every company will be break a license somewhere, the important factor is if they did so knowingly or not. This is the hardest part to work out.
As for proof of purchase, keep your accounts in order. A CD, piece of paper or nice pretty hologram doesn't mean jack. They want receipts or invoices. That is all that matters. An invoice from Adobe, Software Spectrum or Ebuyer (for example) is what licenses you, not the product key on the side of the jewel case. That product key is the enabler not the license.
Also there are a lot of web based systems available for license tracking which are easy to use and not too expensive. Failing that just use an Excel spreadsheet, one sheet with what you are licensed for (and ways to prove it, such as invoice details) and another which has who is using what (and why!). Link the two sheets together and you have a working license management system.
I am not a big fan of Microsoft and I detest some of their ways of dealing with software piracy however I do understand and support their point of view (even if we have different ideas on how to resolve them).
Re:So true (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Go Microsoft!!! (Score:3, Informative)
If Microsoft upsets these people into turning to OSS, then there's no lost revenue.
That's not entirely true, since it will mean 250 people are now getting familiar with Linux who otherwise would not be. When they discover that 95% or more of them can do everything they need under Linux with an out-of-the-box configuration, they're more likely to consider Linux when they move to other jobs. As a software vendor, my position is that if the customer is going to install unlicensed software anyway I want them installing mine because that may lead to revenue down the track. I don't want them being used to the competitor's stuff when either they grow to the point that they want to legitimise everything or they move to another employer and get to choose a software package.
As a side note, KDE 3.5 with udev (and all the bits in between) handles ad-hoc device connection so well now that in some respects it's now better at it than Windows. There's still room for improvement, but the complaint that "it's hard to set up devices under Linux" is diminishing.
Re:So true (Score:3, Informative)
How about when the BSA enters your property with armed marshals [msversus.org] and shuts down your business while you're doing everything you can to be compliant with licenses? At least it converts some to open source [com.com].
Re:So true (Score:3, Informative)
civil vs. criminal... (Score:4, Informative)
Your participation with their audit is voluntary unless they have sufficient probably cause to justify a warrant, in which case they will be accompanied by a law enforcement agent.
Wrong. Participation is voluntary, unless they get a court order, filed as part of a lawsuit. it's not a warrant. Warrants are used in criminal cases, not (private party) civil suits.
Remember that, at least in the US, the evidence must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet again, please get your facts straight. Copyright violation is a civil, not criminal, matter. In civil court, the standards of evidence are much, much lower- which is why you can get a parking ticket, have it blown off your windshield, and have the fine double (and if you refuse to pay, your license revoked.)
That said- YES, you should ALWAYS tell the BSA to get off your property and not to come back without a court order. Unless they're fairly certain that you have enough license violations to justify the labor, they won't be back.
Re:So true (Score:5, Informative)
While they do license per developer, you can change the licensed developer.
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/lic
Re:So true (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, and "She was asking for it," right? (Score:4, Informative)
No. If you want to try out software from Microsoft, almost every product will allow you to in a perfectly legal manner. What do you want to try out? How about Microsoft Office 2007 Pro [trymicrosoftoffice.com]? Visio [trymicrosoftoffice.com]? What about Visual Studio Pro [microsoft.com]? Money [microsoft.com]? Or maybe you'd like to try out some entertainment software like Age of Empires III [microsoft.com], Halo [microsoft.com], or Zoo Tycoon [microsoft.com]?
Don't see something you want in that list? Call Microsoft. They're actually really good at working with businesses (and we are talking about businesses here) at getting them trials and evals of whatever they want.
Yes, it is. No stupid rationalizations, no bandwagons, no mitigating factors, no ifs, ands, or buts; it's wrong, plain and simple.
That's bullshit. How exactly are they encouraging piracy? Seems to me that with all of this WGA shit that's coming down, they're bending over backwards to the point of screwing up honest customers' computers in trying to keep piracy under control. What an idiotic thing to say. What exactly do they have to do to convince you that they don't want you to pirate their software? Send men in sunglasses and black hats to your house to break down your door, check your computer, and break your legs if you've installed their software illegally?
Are you basically saying that having only rudimentary CD-Key verification, or even no verification at all, in previous versions of Windows is somehow encouraging piracy? That's basically saying that right or wrong, it doesn't matter if someone rapes a girl if she was dressed like she wanted it, and like I said, that's bullshit.
Or maybe you're saying that because Microsoft offers sweet deals to OEMs, schools, governments, and big customers that they're encouraging piracy. Guess what... That's bullshit too. Every software company of any decent size does that. It's called trying to sell your software, not asking people to illegally use your stuff. If I make widgets and I offer a volume discount on them, am I asking for people to steal them? No. Do widget pirates have a right to fight back if I try to keep them from stealing widgets? No.
And god knows that I am not a fan of Microsoft or the BSA, but when I read comments like yours, it's hard to not cheer for them. That arrogant smugness, unapologetically doing what you know is wrong, is exactly what makes them look reasonable and justified and what keeps companies and organizations like them in business.
It's people like you who completely undermine everything that people who contribute to FOSS projects stand for. If more people were like you, there'd be no need for things like Linux, OpenOffice.org, Firefox, The Gimp, or any other FOSS. If someone wants an office application, there's no need to look for a FOSS alternative; just pirate a copy of Microsoft Office. Don't use Linux, just pirate a copy of Windows.
God, what a moron.
Re:So true (Score:5, Informative)
The question isn't what a jury is going to find. It is what the BSA considers acceptable to keep them from taking you to court for software piracy. They know that the enormous litigation costs means that few, if any, cases will ever see a jury.
From Proof of License in BSA Audits [bsadefense.com]:
Re:So true (Score:4, Informative)
Not that they can do anything about it. You have the source code!
Don't think it's in there, but it doesn't matter. (Score:3, Informative)
But as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the BSA doesn't really even use the EULA, and they for the most part don't even use the legal system except as a bludgeon. They merely threaten to sue (which would presumably allow them to perform a license audit as part of discovery, and generally trash your business and distract your employees for a few weeks), and most companies roll over. The companies that have pockets deep enough to really fight with the BSA, like IBM, mostly don't get tousled with anyway.
It's a straightforward extortion scheme; they don't need anything in the EULA to enable them. They just threaten to create an obnoxious and expensive lawsuit, until you agree to let them in to do their audit, during which will inevitably find license issues, following which they will make up some figure to charge you as a "settlement" to avoid court.
There's not much complexity to it: first, they come to you, and say "let us perform an audit, or we'll sue you, get a court order, and come back and do it anyway." So, you try to get your licenses in order, and let them in to do their audit. They refuse to honor whatever evidence you thought was going to assuage them, and tell you that you're non-compliant. They then threaten to sue you again, and this time they have "evidence" (which you conveniently handed them, when you let them do their audit). At this point, you're stuck, and they know it, so they toss you an 'out' in the form of some settlement, which you would have laughed at initially, but now happily pay.
They don't need anything in the EULA to accomplish that con; it's just a straightforward intimidation game. They're bigger than you, and have more lawyers, therefore you lose.