>>>Ernie Ball is a hypocryte. He said, "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."
>>>
>>>His biggest complaint is that Microsoft didn't treat him fairly. Well, he didn't treat Microsoft fairly by pirating software.
>>>
>>>>Hi all
>>>>
>>>>Time to save money, eh. A nice read.
>>>>
>>>>http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
>>
>>Did you actually read past the first 3 paragraphs? Do you really think the BSA conducting a "Nail Your Boss" raid with armed marshals is fair and reasonable treatment?
>
>Not that I think this was handled the way it should of been....but how do you think this SHOULD of been handled? What would you consider 'reasonable treatment' in a case like this? Obviously he was breaking the law......

I think a (stern) warning letter would have been appropriate, giving the company a chance to do a self-audit with one of BSA's free tools and do whatever was necessary to reach compliance voluntarily and specifying a date for a BSA site visit within (say) 5 business days to follow up.

This approach would not work for FBN companies that are in the business of cranking out x,000 counterfeit copies of Windows XP or MS Office. But it should have been clear to the BSA that Ernie Ball is a long-established company that makes guitar strings. They admit to being negligent in managing licenses (and they paid a $100K penalty for that) but I don't think that warranted the company being subjected to a hard "take-down" and made a public "whipping boy". That's what Sterling Ball objected to.

On the other hand, maybe you like the idea of marshals busting down your door on the say-so of a disgruntled ex-employee. Oh and by the way, you automatically get to pay the BSA's legal fees while you try to sort out the mess.

Not to mention that whether you agree with any of this or not has no bearing on Sterling Ball's right to have his own opinions and respond to what happened to him any way he sees fit.