US Navy denies it pirated 550K copies of software, says contractor consented
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Bitmanagement were happy to accommodate their request on the expectation that this would be a contract for hundreds of thousands of licenses, but it seems the Navy then proceeded to go live despite never purchasing any licenses beyond the original 38 they purchased to trial the software.
Most small ISVs would deeply discount or otherwise sweeten that deal with the expectation of negotiating a large scale site license once testing is successful. 500k seat would probably be discounted drastically to something like 10m $ / year (BS Contact seems to sell for 300 euros / license.)
Of course, if we got as far as asking you to remove copy protection, then we're probably way past PoC stage and into serious contract negotiations.
I can't help feeling like both parties probably allowed this to happen because they felt it would improve their bargaining position. The Navy possibly felt that by dragging out the negotiation until way after the live deployment is complete, they can keep BS waiting until they go bust or accept a lower price. BS know that once the software is out there with no further negotiations about price, they're in a solid position to charge the full amount, which they can legally enforce if necessary.
Then invoice time comes around, the two parties are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of pricing, and here we are.
Nobody wants to have people shooting at them and the screen saying "connection to license server lost, please try again".
One thing is _allowing_ installation by removing DRM/copy protection of the software and a different one is licensing such software.
Looks like the navy first tried the software on their lab / pilot deployment. That will explain they bought 38 licences first.
Then, they wanted to use the software on live systems; but they weren't able to do it. Why? Probably the product activation needed internet access and that's not feasible for a military setting (in the worst case scenario it could be used as an attack vector to gain control of the installation). I am just guessing.
I bet the Navy installed by mistake the 558K copies of the software because someone without the right information copied the files into an image server and...
...well, the rest is in the news now.
I'm a big fan of trying to imagine reasonable possibilities and giving both sides of any story I hear the benefit of the doubt.
But, in this case it's hard for me to think this is a mistake when the Navy's own argument is that it was intentional because they feel they had the right. A mistake like that may actually be defensible in court, and there would likely even be logs on the Navy-public server, not to mention logs of the communication that spread some kind of internal viral download -- half a million installs don't just happen without people talking.
According to this short article, the contract they were hoping for was truly enormous. There's certainly incentive for the contractor to let the Navy install as many copies at it wants to use, because the more the Navy wants the software, the higher likelihood of big money. Whether the Navy pays for it first, or gets itself in a bind and ends up on the hook for fees, either way the contractor gets a lot of money.
If it was really agreed that the software would be installed on so many computers, I'd simply expect them to issue 100.000 licenses.
Why 38, not 1?
"Company X never informed me personally that pirating their software/movie was not ok, so they clearly allowed it. The Navy did it, too."
From a legal perspective, how is this ambiguous situation different from more sketchy operations like bit torrent?
Now what would be really interesting is a web torrent site that looks professional and broadly claims to be a legit service funded by ads. Right now, that would be a legal loophole. Not that it prevents right holders from sending cease and desist letters, but they'd be legally void.
Watch any movie as many times as you want. All you need to get started with Popcorn Time is a proper internet connection. http://popcorn-time.to/
That certainly sounds like a claim to be legit. Does Netflix have a stronger claim?
Having worked with and sold stuff to the US military, there are shady contractors who will intentionally try to fuck with and take advantage of how purchasing works and how projects are managed to milk it for profit. Sometimes with contract "gotchas" like these.
I have seen it too many times. And now they want 150k / infringement for $550k copies? That's what $82B? I smell bullshit based on my previous experience there.
They knew the company expected them to get a licence per machine (they got 38 of them already!) but they failed to obtain them before installing them on a number of machines.
In which scenario would a visualization tool need to be installed on 500K machines? Even if it's Navy.
I had a case a long time ago where the sales organization for a company agreed, in writing, that they would meter usage based on sign-ins on the server, not installs. Long story short, the sales teams get laid off and the attorneys move in and want to be paid for each install. They lost and lost a bunch of recurring and future revenue as well, as we scoured our substantial install base and read a statement prepared by counsel to the 5 reference calls that resellers sent our way. :)
In the Army we used similar technologies for planning, and the technologies were kept on SECRET computers that could only connect to the SIPRNET (an intranet for secret material). Because of the nature of the work we used to wipe and reimage the HDD's frequently (in training environments it was wiped and reimaged after each training session). I image each of those wipes/reimages might count against the 558k count of infringements.
If there were merely 558k non-simultaneous installs, this would be much easier to resolve.
Still, 558k installs/2k installs p.a./38 licenses are still over 7 years. Something doesn't quit add up here.
Virtualization technologies are most often used in classified environments for planning purposes. Computers used in classified environments are designed to be connected to the SIPRNET[1] and never see the NIPRNET[2]. The phone-home mechanism would never have been able to function and might have caused issues with the functionality of the system.
[1]http://www.dhra.mil/perserec/osg/s1class/siprnet.htm
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet (please note the NIPRNET does connect to external sites such as google)
I know it will probably get settled. Mostly just have the 'tax dollars well spent' feeling.
Between $88.7 billion and 550K installs * ( unit price - discount ) + ( 550K * yearly maintancence fees * average months_since_first_install ) ?
The Navy paid out a reasonable amount over the years; clearly a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
I'm not absolving the Navy, just putting forward the point of view that these types of software problems don't need to happen.
The Navy also has quite a bit of clout; they got this vendor to remove DRM. If the government insisted on F/OSS, there would be vendors waiting to write and support it.
Incidentally, it looks like development was funded in part by the German government, but I can't find anything to indicate how much. http://www.bitmanagement.com/en/press/2013/bsstudio
So, hire someone? This is basically what RedHat does. F/OSS doesn't mean you can't pay people to support it.
While this happens to be true in this specific case, as a general statement, it's misleading. It is true for copyright infringement because that is a strict liability tort, which means it doesn't require any particular state of mind ('mens rea'[0]).
Not all torts, and not all crimes, are strict liability. In your examples, if a necklace accidentally falls into your purse, that is not theft (in English law, anyway), as theft requires intent to deprive the owner of the thing[1]. Though once you notice it, if you decide not to return it, at that point it will become theft. Speeding, on the other hand, is strict liability (again: in English law, I don't know about US), as are most minor regulatory-type offences where it'd be difficult and impractical to prove intent.
(Also note: tort != crime. Copyright infringement can in some circumstances be a crime, but this is a lawsuit: the company is suing the Navy; the Navy isn't being prosecuted).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60
NB: IANAL (did law, but ended up going into software dev instead)