It’s been a big month for the BSA. Since the beginning of March, the BSA has issued press releases documenting five U.S. settlements totaling close to $525,000 (see the list of losers below).  Over the years, I’ve attempted to ferret out patterns that would suggest certain types of organizations may be at higher risk of a BSA software audit; but as usual, the companies involved span a wide range of sizes, geographies, and industries.  The only common thread I can find among all five (aside from the predominance of Adobe and Microsoft software) is an identical string of text embedded within each press release: “BSA was alerted to the unlicensed software use by a confidential report made on its web site www.nopiracy.com.” (Read my recent blog post elaborating on this trend.)

Though it may seem self-serving for software license management vendors such as ourselves to continue harping on the importance of rigorous asset management practices, it’s clear that the message isn’t getting through to many end-user organizations.  In times fraught with layoffs, salary cuts, and a general sense of workplace malaise it’s not reasonable to assume businesses can successfully curb workers’ very human instinct to inflict reciprocal damage upon their impassive corporate leaders—especially when it can be done with the impunity of whistleblower status and the ability to claim the moral high ground. One thing companies can control, however, is the perpetuation of careless, if not downright reckless, software licensing practices. Business executives can add this to the ever-growing list of good reasons to insist upon the establishment of a thoughtful, comprehensive software asset management strategy. It may just be best way to break the BSA’s winning streak. 

(more…)

When the global economy first sank into recession, dozens of reports were published in which technology analysts speculated that software vendors would rely more heavily on software audits—and the resulting financial settlements—to compensate for lower revenues.  In tandem with this, organizations targeted by vendor audits were expected to have a higher rate of non-compliance because software asset management initiatives would be back-burnered—along with the true-ups that frequently come as a result—until budgets were once again secure.

So did these predictions bear themselves out?  From a philosophical standpoint, one could just as easily argue that software companies have a lot more to lose during uncertain economic times by terrorizing their customers.  But the answer would appear to be “yes,” at least in the United Kingdom, where a fair amount of research has been conducted on the topic. (I have yet to come across any specific research suggesting a US or overall global increase in vendor audits.)

(more…)

An article featured in a South Africa technology portal popped up in one of my feeds today, and I couldn’t help but take the bait. The column, entitled “Open Source Against Piracy,” contends that open source software developers should consider becoming members of the BSA.  As I best understand it, the reasons given are twofold:  

1. The BSA perpetuates a belief that anyone who copies or gives away software is a pirate; open source developers, as BSA members, could persuade the organization to change its definition of piracy and ensure the terms of FOSS agreements are being upheld.
2. Users pirate software not because they are “criminals” but because the software they wish to use is cost-prohibitive; if producers of open source software can convince the BSA to be more aggressive in their pursuit of software pirates, illegal users will flock to free open source alternatives.

Frankly, I find these arguments rather curious and a bit thin on logic.  First, the goal of persuading the BSA to conduct audits and enforce open source license agreements would be nothing short of futile, given the relative permissiveness of open source EULAs, the characteristic lack of paper trail, the absence of financial motivation, and the difficulty determining where, when, and by whom violations have occurred. How would the BSA even begin compiling its list of targets?  It’s not that the BSA doesn’t understand the fundamental difference between commercial and open source EULAs, as the author claims—it’s simply that the entity isn’t set up or, perhaps more importantly, intended to enforce the latter. 

(more…)

[Warning: Those who know me know that I’m somewhat prone to hyperbole; this post is no exception.]

I woke up this morning feeling something like Bill Murray in “Groundhog Day.” On NPR: yet more bad economic news from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Despite forecasts predicting a December turnaround in the employment market, the economy actually shed another 85,000 jobs. Seriously? Again?

You may recall in the economic downturn of 2001, George Bush famously pleaded for consumers to “go shopping” as a patriotic duty that would help lift the nation out of recession. Well, if, like me, you’re not inclined to go spend your recently decimated nest egg, given the tepid “jobless recovery” that seems to be underway.  But maybe you’re more inclined to spend a little of your company’s money as a patriotic act of economic stimulus known as “software license management.”

Still with me?  If so, hear me out:

(more…)

A follow-on to last Friday’s post about the BSA’s recent worldwide study linking software piracy rates with the proliferation of PC malware:

Jeff Williams, principle group program manager for Microsoft’s Malware Protection Center, announced that Microsoft has come out with a report revealing that malware infection rates are directly correlated with the reluctance of those running counterfeit copies of Windows to use Windows Update, the service that pushes OS patches out to PCs.  (Microsoft’s research on malware infection rates was also used to draw similar conclusions in the BSA’s own study.) 

But according to Gregg Keizer of Computer World, Microsoft’s numbers don’t add up.  Here are a couple of excerpts from a column he published on Monday. 

(more…)