Technology: Software Piracy Watchdogs Offer Up to $1 million Bounty to Corporate Whistleblowers
Best practices for guarding against software copyright infringement and navigating non-compliance audits.
November 18, 2010 at 07:00 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In the past few years, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Software and Information Industry Alliance (SIIA) have had great success with their eye-catching offers to potential whistleblowers for tips on enterprises using unlicensed software. These trade groups represent the major software publishers and one of their prominent functions is targeting unauthorized software usage (as well as, in the case of SIIA, unauthorized content usage). They take action against software resellers and end-user organizations that make unauthorized copies and work with law enforcement agencies to coordinate enforcement of criminal copyright laws.
If your company has not been proactive in its software compliance efforts and you have been targeted by one of these organizations, you should expect to pay a substantial settlement.
The BSA and SIIA generally receive their tips from disgruntled or former employees (and just about everyone has at least a few individuals that fit this description). Independent contractors and vendor employees are also an important source of tips. The organizations will pay bounties of approximately 10 percent of the amounts recovered, which can be a significant motivating factor. I have worked with more than one targeted business where we concluded that the tipster, in an ironic and painful twist for the client, was none other than the IT manager responsible for the wholesale unauthorized copying. This fact was unfortunately of no help in avoiding or reducing the company's liability.
As a prophylactic measure, in-house attorneys at all organizations – including non-profits and governments – should ensure that IT departments are regularly undertaking self-audits utilizing automated programs that measure the number of copies of software programs installed and then compare those results to documented licenses purchased. Counsel may then fix any non-compliance (by deleting unauthorized programs and/or purchasing the appropriate licenses) before someone contacts the BSA or SIIA.
Once you have been targeted, the first step will generally be a letter to your CEO asserting that the group has evidence of substantial non-compliance and reciting the potentially enormous damages available to copyright owners in a successful lawsuit. It is critical to involve experienced counsel before responding in any way. The magnitude of the problem, and the size of the potential settlement, can depend significantly on counsel's knowledge of the organization's methods, tactics and expectations.
The letter will also demand a self-audit and the best approach is to be cooperative at this stage. Once you have the results of the audit, the fun begins. If the gap between the installations and the purchased licenses is significant, one must sometimes get creative with legal arguments, while still maintaining a cooperative tone. In most cases, you will also need to dig into the facts and search for documents supporting the licenses purchased. Resolving these factual issues in your favor (rather than making legal arguments denying infringement) is the easier path to lowering your exposure.
Ultimately, settling with the matter will require the payment of a multiple of the unpaid license fees plus legal fees. Failing to settle, however, could lead to a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act, which has provisions and remedies quite favorable to copyright owners. Statutory damages under Section 504(c) of the Act can be as high as $150,000 per program infringed if the infringement is deemed willful. Attorneys fees are also available to prevailing plaintiffs.
In the past few years, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Software and Information Industry Alliance (SIIA) have had great success with their eye-catching offers to potential whistleblowers for tips on enterprises using unlicensed software. These trade groups represent the major software publishers and one of their prominent functions is targeting unauthorized software usage (as well as, in the case of SIIA, unauthorized content usage). They take action against software resellers and end-user organizations that make unauthorized copies and work with law enforcement agencies to coordinate enforcement of criminal copyright laws.
If your company has not been proactive in its software compliance efforts and you have been targeted by one of these organizations, you should expect to pay a substantial settlement.
The BSA and SIIA generally receive their tips from disgruntled or former employees (and just about everyone has at least a few individuals that fit this description). Independent contractors and vendor employees are also an important source of tips. The organizations will pay bounties of approximately 10 percent of the amounts recovered, which can be a significant motivating factor. I have worked with more than one targeted business where we concluded that the tipster, in an ironic and painful twist for the client, was none other than the IT manager responsible for the wholesale unauthorized copying. This fact was unfortunately of no help in avoiding or reducing the company's liability.
As a prophylactic measure, in-house attorneys at all organizations – including non-profits and governments – should ensure that IT departments are regularly undertaking self-audits utilizing automated programs that measure the number of copies of software programs installed and then compare those results to documented licenses purchased. Counsel may then fix any non-compliance (by deleting unauthorized programs and/or purchasing the appropriate licenses) before someone contacts the BSA or SIIA.
Once you have been targeted, the first step will generally be a letter to your CEO asserting that the group has evidence of substantial non-compliance and reciting the potentially enormous damages available to copyright owners in a successful lawsuit. It is critical to involve experienced counsel before responding in any way. The magnitude of the problem, and the size of the potential settlement, can depend significantly on counsel's knowledge of the organization's methods, tactics and expectations.
The letter will also demand a self-audit and the best approach is to be cooperative at this stage. Once you have the results of the audit, the fun begins. If the gap between the installations and the purchased licenses is significant, one must sometimes get creative with legal arguments, while still maintaining a cooperative tone. In most cases, you will also need to dig into the facts and search for documents supporting the licenses purchased. Resolving these factual issues in your favor (rather than making legal arguments denying infringement) is the easier path to lowering your exposure.
Ultimately, settling with the matter will require the payment of a multiple of the unpaid license fees plus legal fees. Failing to settle, however, could lead to a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act, which has provisions and remedies quite favorable to copyright owners. Statutory damages under Section 504(c) of the Act can be as high as $150,000 per program infringed if the infringement is deemed willful. Attorneys fees are also available to prevailing plaintiffs.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250