I heard this on WCBU this morning, but unfortunately, they don’t post all their news stories on their website, so I can’t link to it. Here’s the story from Huliq.com (emphasis added):
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) recently settled with manufacturing businesses totaling $1.43 million in settlements. The companies settled claims that they had unlicensed copies of Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, SolidWorks and Symantec software on their computers. The settling companies included: American Spring Wire Corporation; AZ Automotive Corporation; Enpro Systems, Ltd; Interactive Health, Inc.; Morton Metalcraft, Co.; PDI; and Sure-Feed Engineering, Inc.
According to the story on WCBU, a current or former employee most likely tipped off BSA. I know someone who works at Morton Metalcraft. You don’t think…? Nah, it probably wasn’t him.
Mugged by the BSA and Software companies. What a racket.
Open Source all the way.
It’s funny that the list of software vendors whose copyrights Morton Metalcraft violated reads like the Who’s Who of Software-Industry Scum: Microsoft, Symantec, AutoDesk, Adobe. Of course, ‘software-industry scum’ describes the entire BSA pretty accurately, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
C.J.
I get myself into enough trouble at work, I don’t need your help. 🙂
I don’t know why anyone would put a Symantec program on their computer if
they were paid to do it myself.
“Symantec”
The corporate version is alright. The desktop stuff are veritable train wrecks.
Feh
Why all the vitriol toward software companies? Do they not have a right to get paid for their products? If available open source software is better, why not use it instead of stealing software from companies like Adobe?
C.J.,
Software is kind of in the same league as music. What is a fair price for music? How much would you pay for a CD? $50? $25? $5? A lot of the software, businesses use is waaaaaaay over priced. At some point your excessively high price point encourages ‘theft’.
Sadly they can get away with because so much of it is absolutely necessary for businesses to operate. Now you might say, gosh maybe some competitors could cash in with a better product at a lower price. Yes and no… the barriers to entry in the software field are great and growing. Throw in a broken patent system and it becomes prohibitively difficult.
I don’t know the details of the cases that were settled. It could be nothing more than a poorly run license management. ie Where the company paid for it but lost the paperwork to prove it. I challenge any of the readers here to pull out their licenses (yes printed) for the software they installed. I bet a lot of you tossed them along with the box it came in.
C.J., nobody has a right to get paid for anything, but that’s not the point. The point is that companies like Adobe, AutoDesk, and Microsoft only survive (in their current form) because they screw their customers with lock-in, typically via proprietary file formats. Symantec is different in that they are usually despised for their poor-quality products, rather than shady business practices.
Nobody (who knows what they’re talking about) claims that every proprietary piece of software has a superior, free-as-in-libre alternative. What we claim is that they are abusing patents and copyrights in a way that benefits nobody but themselves.
Also, pretty much nobody steals software. I mean, I’m sure there are some morons who rob trucks full of Adobe Photoshop CDs, but that’s exceedingly rare. Usually, the BSA is going after people who _infringe copyright_. Yes, it’s illegal, but it is certainly not stealing and it is only questionably immoral. The current copyright regime in the US is so fscked-up that I find it hard to direct any ill will to those who ignore it.
“Yes, it’s illegal, but it is certainly not stealing and it is only questionably immoral. The current copyright regime in the US is so fscked-up that I find it hard to direct any ill will to those who ignore it.”
ummm if you didn’t buy it IS stealing. Questionably immoral, moral is black and white, either it is or it isn’t. and to comment on why the US is so screwed up….you couldn’t have demonstrated any better than with your thought process. Same rationale is used to justify murder, rape, child abuse and a variety of criminal pathological thinking errors.
These companies were making money by having employees sit in front of a computer using nothing but this unlicensed software all day long. More often than not in these situations companies will add an employee and put in a computer and then install a copy of the software for that employee to use to produce the work product, when they do not purchase an additional license for that copy they are violating the law, they have no problem billing out the hours spent using the pirated software. This is not listening to mp3’s here, these folks made money using something they were supposed to pay for.
If a business or company cannot afford required software, etc, they should not be in business. However, software companies are indeed crooks. Students, at home PC users and the like pay through the nose. If you don’t like paying high prices for software, don’t buy it! If you don’t like paying high prices for gas, ride a horse! AH! I wish I could take my own advice. We are slaves.
“I challenge any of the readers here to pull out their licenses (yes printed) for the software they installed. I bet a lot of you tossed them along with the box it came in.”
Left by Mahkno on June 13th, 2007
Ours is all on file. We have documentation of each time each license is up and when we paid it. If you want to know when we paid for 3 seats of Pro-E back in ’98, we can produce it. This isn’t unusual. Why put your business at risk?
most small businesses are run by people who are not computer literate and don’t have time to ride herd over the IT consultants they hire. These over-priced consultants come and go, and the business people assume (or hope) they know what they are doing. It’s nice if you have good IT records, but, I suspect, highly unusual. That will change as younger, more tech-savy people become business managers, but the software companies have no problem taking financial advantage of the tech-ignorant in the meantime. Is that as immoral as “stealing” software?
Clayton,
Your point is valid but I was aiming more toward what you all have installed at home.
What irritates me is that software companies, music companies, film co, etc, complain to the world about people stealing/pirating their wares. OK. They have my deepest sympathies. They also have a near infinate amount of monetary and legal resources to come after me with. The Feds will spend a fortne going after Gates and his ‘monopoly,’ but what about the big picture? The entire software, film, music business is a monopoly. Don’t forget oil. Competing software companies? Competing oil companies? They all work together to keep prices high.
I love their use of the word ‘theft’. How such n such company is losing millions to software pirates. How can you lose something you never had? It is an amazing leap of logic.
@ Paul Wilkinson, who said “ummm if you didn’t buy it IS stealing.”
Paul, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. If I take your Britney Spears CD (God forbid!) and don’t give it back, that’s stealing. If I make a copy of that same CD, you still have your CD and now I have one, too! Note that I have not stolen anything, but I have violated several of SonyBMG’s copyrights.
The Internet is the greatest distribution network ever created. It enables the transmission and copying of information at ludicrously low cost. Instead of leveraging this amazing technology to reduce costs and deliver more value to their customers, the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA member companies refuse to accept the current reality and sue the pants off the people who do. Does that really make you want to spend your hard-earned money on their products?!
Please note that I am not advocating copyright infringement (especially of BSA, RIAA, and MPAA ‘content’). I would much prefer that people invest their money and time in organizations and individuals who have embraced the new world and are taking advantage of it to make my life easier and more enjoyable. You might want to listen to Brad Sucks or MC Frontalot sometime, or maybe try Pidgin IM software or the Abiword word processor. All are excellent, all are gratis, and all are libre.
(I have purposely left out all discussion about the merits of copyright in the first place, as well as the current state of the US’s copyright regime. I don’t want to open the scope of the discussion any more, since blog comments are rather unwieldy for arguing across broad topics.)
yes it still is stealing. just cleaned up and called pirating. prostitutes are renamed call girls or escorts once the price goes up, but still the same game. When you copied my CD, as per your example, you took music you did not purchase, regardless if I get the CD back or not. The artist, and companies should be paid for their product. Even if I were to “give” you my CD to copy, it’s still wrong. Although I own the CD, the music itself is not really mine to give to you, other than making a gift of the entire CD.
The fact that the distribution or sale of said products are not done in the way you feel is more viable, does not change a thing. If you wish to change the way music is distributed, start a legit company, make the necessary deals with the owners of the tunes and make some honest bucks.
and dude, Britany Spears…..that’s truly a crime…..
Paul Wilkinson- “Questionably immoral, moral is black and white, either it is or it isn’t. and to comment on why the US is so screwed up….you couldn’t have demonstrated any better than with your thought process. Same rationale is used to justify murder, rape, child abuse and a variety of criminal pathological thinking errors.
Comparing software piracy to rape and murder is a bit irresponsible, don’t you think? And almost all moral questions fall into a gray area. Is it right to force a woman who was raped to have the child? The entire abortion debate lies in a HUGE gray area, and it is a debate deeply seeded in moral as well as scientific questions.
Cory,
exact same rationalizations involved, just a matter of degree, but the process is the same. most criminals don’t start off with murder, they build up using the same logic, same thinking errors, same thought structures.
Paul, let’s pretend that I can create Snickers bars out of thin air. They appear in a *poof* of magic, but are in every other way identical to the bars coming out of Mars factories. Do you think it should be illegal for me to eat those Snickers bars? Give them to my friends? Give them to strangers? Sell them for profit?
Would your answer to the last question change if I was hired by Mars to do my candy-conjuring magic?
I’m interested to see if you have a logical argument as to how outlawing any of those behaviors is a net benefit to society (i.e. not just to Mars shareholders).
okay Ben,
you want a logical response to a situation which is outside of the realm of reality in order to justify your argument.
I would guess that they would in fact be counterfit snicker’s bars if you did it on your own.
If the company authorized it as a promotional then no.
The question then raised is why stop at Snicker’s bars, why not bars of gold, diamonds, or some other substance. crossing some of these lines with the aforementioned rationalizations can lead to larger problems.
This started because and I quote “Yes, it’s illegal” meaning that you were aware there was a law. Whether or not you disagree with the law or not is irrevelant when you chose to deliberately disobey it. That is the logic that is being ignored. All other arguments, digressions, or acts of magic etc. are smoke and mirrors. If you disagree with the process, help to implement a change.
Paul, you didn’t answer any of the five questions.
You’re right that downloading Metallica’s black album from Kazaa is illegal. I’m not arguing that. I doubt anybody is. My point is that the laws making it illegal are _unconstitutional_ and so there is no moral obligation to follow them.
I download music for free all the time – but it is music that is in the public domain or is distributed under a copyleft license. I respect Metallica’s copyright (well, TimeWarner’s copyright) because I don’t want to support artists who don’t support our culture, not because I have any desire to obey American copyright law.
P.S. I apologize for opening up another can of worms with constitutionality issue, but I couldn’t help it. It follows directly from the fact that current US copyright law is nothing more than a means to prop up the outdated and dying business model of the American ‘content’ cartels. It is completely illogical and provides no benefit to the people of the United States. Many people don’t see it simply because they accept the status quo as the right way and the only way.
Ben: The laws make it illegal … is it morally acceptable to steal something that does not belong to you whether or not it is illegal?
I am reminded of the time after my husband’s Christmas lights, wreaths and garland were stolen off our fence one Thanksgiving’s weekend many years ago. My husband prosecuted and much to the accused ‘non-guilty’ plea prior to her realizing that my husband was present — with the cut tree light wire (a prefect match for the stolen wire end) — she was found guilty and given community service hours. Fast forward to the following spring while I was sweeping the sidewalk and said hello to two middle school girls who did not live near me. Our conversation (punctuation omitted):
Girls: Aren’t you the lady that had her Christmas lights stolen?
K: Yes.
Girls: That was pretty mean of you to have that serve community service hours for stealing your lights.
K: (Ah hah — teaching moment appears!) — Do you have a bike?
Girls: Yes.
K: What if you left your bike in your yard while you went into your house to get a drink — and when you came back it was gone because someone had taken it, stolen it.
Girls: Well, that wouldn’t be right.
K: Your bike being taken without your permission and my husband’s Christmas items being taken without his permission are the same principle.
Girls: Each girl said: Oh, I had never thought of it that way.
If you don’t like the law, then change it. If you choose to break the law knowingly or break the law unknowingly and you are prosecuted there may be a consequence. And there is a consequence in my belief system at the end of your life.
Ben,
young grasshopper, I did answer all “five questions” however, really they are only two. reread the answer.
ben, ben, ben. Unconstituional?? Not so. You may need to reread that document. However, if you feel copyright laws are unfair because of the reasons you stated, you might be able to make a case and get the Constitution changed.
Paul:
You have /not/ answered my questions. I asked five, and I’d like a yes or no for each – fifteen characters max, is that so hard?
Karrie:
As I already explained to Paul, copyright violation is not stealing. Your example of stealing /is/ stealing. You had lights, some jerk stole them, then you had no lights. You were deprived of a scarce good. Same with the bicycle example. Using an unlicensed copy of Adobe Photoshop, however, is /not/ stealing. Here’s yet another analogy… I have a candle, brand new out of the wrapper. You also have a candle, but you’ve already lit yours. I put my candle’s wick into your flame and *poof*, now we both have light! You still have your light, and now I also have light. Nobody has lost anything. Clearly, that’s not stealing. Quite the opposite, in fact – it has /added/ light at basically zero cost to both parties. Do you agree?
Also, Karrie, it seems from your last paragraph that you have not read my previous comments on this post. 1) I don’t violate copyrights. I take my market-share and mind-share elsewhere, to those who publish under copyleft licenses or the public domain. 2) I understand that copyright violation is illegal and that there may be consequences to breaking it. I just don’t care very much, since those laws are neither just nor useful (in the utilitarian sense). Are you telling me that you should get all serious about the legal consequences (and also the moral consequences of breaking the law!) every time you speed by 5 mph on a straight road with no traffic in broad daylight in a well-maintained car?
Brad:
My claim was not that all copyrights and patents are unconstitutional. My point is that the current copyright and patent regimes do not “promote the progress of science and the useful arts” in a manner that outweighs the costs (both monetarily and socially) of the monopolies we are granting. Heck, I’ll make the claim that it even /hinders/ progress. Do you really think that Adobe would not create Photoshop without 75-year copyright protection? Heck, even when it finally goes into the public domain at the end of the 21st century, what use will it be to the Americans who lived under its monopoly rule? Do you really think we’re promoting innovation by giving Amazon.com a patent for “1-click shopping”, good for twenty years?! Patents and copyrights, in their current incarnation, do not improve the lives of the people of the United States, or the people of the world for that matter.
I’m not going to pretend that I have a magic bullet for the problem, but it’s not hard to see in which direction we should move! Copyrights should exist by default for all creative endeavors for five years after creation, with an additional ten years available to those who register for it (at a price). Binary data should not be copyrightable, but computer source code should. All “system and method” patents (e.g. software, business methods, plot devices) should be abolished. Patents should drop to 15 years of enforcement, but with a much higher bar set for useful documentation of the invention and for the novelty of the invention. Additionally, patents should be subject to the same ‘defend it or lose it’ rule as trademarks – this should go a long ways towards negating the harm of submarine patents and the trolls that try to profit from them. Last, but certainly not least, not-for-profit copyright and patent violations should be strictly a civil matter!
ben, it IS stealing. The company produces a product (software or music cd) and allows you to buy it. By copying it, you prevent them from making another sale. It doesn’t matter how you use your stolen copy, it’s that you avoided paying for the copy in the first place.
Ben,
acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum resolves nothing. So I will put it into simpler terms. If the candy bars are counterfeit then it hardly matters who you give them to or if you eat them yourself now does it? It was wrong to make by what ever means outside of the company’s methods. Clearly you are not getting the fact that it is wrong. To continue a discussion is pointless. You wish justification for your rationalizations and they aren’t not available. I answered your questions, you just don’t like my answers.
Ben: Photoshop has a monopoly? Bwahahahahahahaha
Here’s what I use, rather than load up Adobe Photoshop Elements (Photoshop’s comsumer level product): http://www.pixer.us/
mdd: Is your position that anything depriving a company of profits is stealing? I’m sure that can’t be what you mean, but I cannot understand any other logical way to interpret your last comment.
paul: I am sorry if you think that my asking for my counterpart in a debate to answer my questions is being petulant. If your answer is all ‘yes’, then what is so hard about saying “Ben, my answer to all five is yes,” or even just saying “yes, yes, yes, yes, yes”?
billy: Obviously, Adobe does not have a monopoly on photo-editing software. I am embarrassed that you think I’m so ignorant as to make that claim. What they /do/ have is a monopoly on the distribution and sale of the ones and zeros that form Photoshop software. That 75-year (or whatever monstrously large number it is up to now, thanks to Disney et al.) monopoly does not benefit the American people and should therefore not be granted.
all: I’d like to steal [OMG he’s stealing!!1] shamelessly from Eben Moglen here, using an argument of his that I mentioned on Brad Carter’s blog. If I invented a machine that could endlessly replicate food, would you deny people that ‘copied’ sustenance? I sure hope you say ‘no’ to that… Now, please realize that the whole copyright/patent business is not materially different! In both cases, we’re just copying things at amazingly low cost.
Of course, we don’t have the food-copying technology yet, but that’s the only thing that sets it apart from that which we have already digitized. As the cost of something approaches free [i.e. gratis], it becomes increasingly ridiculous to keep its ownership from being free [i.e. libre]. You’re rejecting a world of plenty in order to do nothing other than support a particularly insane business model – selling a non-scarce good as if it were scarce.