Ernie Ball Strings hates Microsoft (Go Team!)

Discussion in 'rec.music.guitar' started by 'nuther Bob, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    OK, everybody buy Ernie Ball strings from now on. Read this article:

    By David Becker
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT

    Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie
    Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by
    generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the
    dudes from Metallica.

    But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie
    Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its
    proprietary software -- and still lived to tell the tale.

    http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
  2. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:53:20 -0600, "ryanm"
    <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:

    > He's also either lying or he misunderstood the lawsuit, he wasn't busted
    >for "handing computers down" like he said, he was busted for owning a single
    >license and having a dozen copies of the software installed.


    That would be a matter to be argued out in court, I would think. He
    says, she says. Did he admit to your supposition in the settlement ?

    I don't think napster and the others are legal. However, I do run a
    business and have received the threatening letters from the BSA.
    These people parade around like Stalin in a purge and have "rights"
    akin to those given the FBI in the Patriot Act.

    I also have to give my support to a company that moved away from
    MS. If a few more midsize companies start to do it, we'll see some
    applications coming out, and maybe, someday, MS's plan to take
    over the world will be thwarted.

    Bob
  3. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    news:b11dkv4js41toe3cgainkcgun6prcvo4gj@4ax.com...
    > OK, everybody buy Ernie Ball strings from now on. Read this article:
    >

    So what, he got caught, had to pay the fine, and now he's pissed at MS
    because he broke the law? What gets me is that the same people who cry about
    napster and file sharing turn around and call Ball the good guy. The fact
    is, he *stole* software, and got caught. So he played the crybaby and
    started using all open source software. I'm sure his employees are happy
    about that.

    He's also either lying or he misunderstood the lawsuit, he wasn't busted
    for "handing computers down" like he said, he was busted for owning a single
    license and having a dozen copies of the software installed. That's as
    obvious a violation as me making a dozen copies of someone's newest CD. You
    don't have to be aware that people in your company are pirating software to
    be liable for their actions, it's your responsibility to police your own
    ranks.

    ryanm
  4. Re: Re: Ernie Ball Strings hates Microsoft (Go Team!)

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:53:20 -0600, "ryanm"
    <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:

    >"'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    >news:b11dkv4js41toe3cgainkcgun6prcvo4gj@4ax.com...
    >> OK, everybody buy Ernie Ball strings from now on. Read this article:
    >>

    > So what, he got caught, had to pay the fine, and now he's pissed at MS
    >because he broke the law?


    Sounds like he must have been, based on the settlement. It's hard in
    an office to convince someone they can't just "loan" their CD to
    someone "just for a few minutes".

    If he's close to being factual about having to pay the prosecutors'
    fees, though, that sounds pretty shady. Anyone know the facts about
    that?
  5. feklar

    feklar Guest

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:53:20 -0600, "ryanm"
    <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:


    > He's also either lying or he misunderstood the lawsuit, he wasn't busted
    >for "handing computers down" like he said, he was busted for owning a single
    >license and having a dozen copies of the software installed. That's as
    >obvious a violation as me making a dozen copies of someone's newest CD. You
    >don't have to be aware that people in your company are pirating software to
    >be liable for their actions, it's your responsibility to police your own
    >ranks.


    He's a CEO. As if he is actually suposed to know that shit. That is
    the IT department's job to deal with, not his. His IT guys fucked up,
    and he had to pay out the nose for their fucking up. If it was me,
    I'd be just as pissed off. Nowhere in the article does it say he
    fired his IT guy, but 10 to 1 says he did.

    I suppose you think that he should be the one responsible for keeping
    count of the number of rolls of toilet paper in the storage closet so
    it can be re-ordered when it starts to run out too... The guy has
    more important things to do with his time. He really should have sued
    his IT guy or guys, as well as firing them and telling Micro$oft to
    fuck off permanently.

    now you are really screwed
    http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

    http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
  6. Mondoslug1

    Mondoslug1 Guest

  7. "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    news:b11dkv4js41toe3cgainkcgun6prcvo4gj@4ax.com...
    > OK, everybody buy Ernie Ball strings from now on. Read this article:
    >
    > By David Becker
    > Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    > August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
    >
    > Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie
    > Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by
    > generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the
    > dudes from Metallica.
    >
    > But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie
    > Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its
    > proprietary software -- and still lived to tell the tale.
    >
    > http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
    >

    Sorry, I'm a D'Addario man. So, you're indicating here that if someone was
    stealing (i.e. not licensing the rights to use) your intellectual property,
    that you're OK with that? The problem with the law is, it can't just be
    applied to the companies / individuals you approve of, and ignored for the
    ones you don't.
  8. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    Robert Barker wrote:
    >
    > "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    > news:b11dkv4js41toe3cgainkcgun6prcvo4gj@4ax.com...
    > > OK, everybody buy Ernie Ball strings from now on. Read this article:
    > >
    > > By David Becker
    > > Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    > > August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
    > >
    > > Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie
    > > Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by
    > > generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the
    > > dudes from Metallica.
    > >
    > > But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie
    > > Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its
    > > proprietary software -- and still lived to tell the tale.
    > >
    > > http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
    > >

    > Sorry, I'm a D'Addario man. So, you're indicating here that if someone was
    > stealing (i.e. not licensing the rights to use) your intellectual property,
    > that you're OK with that? The problem with the law is, it can't just be
    > applied to the companies / individuals you approve of, and ignored for the
    > ones you don't.


    Did you read the text of the article? The "hand me down" machines had files
    which may or may not have been properly cleaned when they were handed down.
    It was a sin of omission.

    A disgruntled ex-employee ratted the guy out to the BSA. The BSA executed
    warrants. Financial penalties were in play. Mr. Ball was offended by the
    process, and switched gears. He appears happier with the result.

    If I read this right, he perceived this as an unnecessary liability, Now
    he gets some geek chic column inches, better control of what's installed
    where and reuse of old machines.

    For some people, the Microsoft treadmill makes sense. For some it doesn't.

    --
    Les Cargill
  9. Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:3F47782C.4785A113@worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > For some people, the Microsoft treadmill makes sense. For some it doesn't.
    >


    And for those who have to straddle the line between both, it's a
    goddamn headache.

    JMK (a Lintel user who prays to the Gods of Traversing Electrons every time
    an MS laptop has to make an NFS handshake with his Red Hat box).
  10. salvarsan

    salvarsan Guest

    ryanm wrote:
    > "'nuther Bob" wrote .


    >>OK, everybody buy Ernie Ball strings from now on. Read this article:
    >>

    >
    > So what, he got caught, had to pay the fine, and now he's pissed at MS
    > because he broke the law? What gets me is that the same people who cry about
    > napster and file sharing turn around and call Ball the good guy. The fact
    > is, he *stole* software, and got caught. So he played the crybaby and
    > started using all open source software. I'm sure his employees are happy
    > about that.



    Get real. A law that allows for a 50:1 payout for
    presumed damages is nothing more than a legalized protection
    or shakedown racket. By comparison, most tort law asks for
    triple damages. Open Source and FSF vendors simply
    want compliance.

    Microsoft wasn't interested in compliance or money -- they just
    wanted to screw someone over.

    If you will remember, the Texas state government paid out $250,000
    in Microsoft licenses this year and is actively looking for Open
    Source alternatives.


    > He's also either lying or he misunderstood the lawsuit, he wasn't busted
    > for "handing computers down" like he said, he was busted for owning a single
    > license and having a dozen copies of the software installed.


    Obtain reading comprehension.

    His "noncompliance" was about 8% of 72 workstations.
    Do the arithmetic: 6 copies of WindowsNT + Office costs
    under $2k. A reasonable vendor would have asked for compliance
    or sued for treble damages.

    It's not that Open Source software is so good but that the
    proprietary software racket is so bad.



    -drh
    --
  11. salvarsan

    salvarsan Guest

    James Kaihatu wrote:
    > Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message



    >>For some people, the Microsoft treadmill makes sense. For some it doesn't.


    The Ohio power grid was penetrated by a Microsoftian worm in January
    and again last week. Heh.


    > And for those who have to straddle the line between both, it's a
    > goddamn headache.
    >
    > JMK (a Lintel user who prays to the Gods of Traversing Electrons every time
    > an MS laptop has to make an NFS handshake with his Red Hat box).



    Ditto. My Penguin does the Samba.


    -drh
    --
  12. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:47:35 GMT, Mike McKernan
    <mikemck333@optonline.net> wrote:

    >If he's close to being factual about having to pay the prosecutors'
    >fees, though, that sounds pretty shady. Anyone know the facts about
    >that?



    You mean in terms of the BSA regulations ? I believe that the law
    says "the BSA can do anything Stalin or the Gestapo was allowed to
    do, and is required to do it as adversarialy as possible".

    These slimeballs *start* by sending you a threatening letter. This
    letter goes out to nationwide mailing lists of companies regardless of
    whether the BSA has ever been contacted in any way concerning your
    company. In other words, they blast out threats to every company in
    the country because "they can".


    Here's just a couple of excerpts:

    "Under the law, a company can be held liable for its employees’
    actions<snip>This is true even if the company’s management was unaware
    of the employee’s actions."

    "The copyright owner may then choose between actual damages, which
    includes the amount it has lost because of your infringement as well
    as any profits attributable to the infringement, and statutory
    damages, which can be as much as $150,000 for each program copied. In
    addition, the government can criminally prosecute you for copyright
    infringement. If convicted, you can be fined up to $250,000, or
    sentenced to jail for up to five years, or both."


    Bob
  13. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "feklar" <feklar@rock.com> wrote in message
    news:3f46b1aa.79978420@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...
    >
    > He's a CEO. As if he is actually suposed to know that shit.
    >

    Well, considering that he (and the board of directors) are financially
    liable for the actions of their IT department, I'd say yes, he is most
    certainly supposed to know about that shit.

    > I suppose you think that he should be the one responsible for keeping
    > count of the number of rolls of toilet paper in the storage closet so
    > it can be re-ordered when it starts to run out too...
    >

    If he was financially liable for some kind of damages if the TP ran out,
    then yes, I would suggest he stay on top of the roll count.

    ryanm
  14. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    news:q76dkvgsu04r9i859bdcnbnf3n01eej97a@4ax.com...
    >
    > That would be a matter to be argued out in court, I would think. He
    > says, she says. Did he admit to your supposition in the settlement ?
    >

    No, it's a matter of fact. He was in violation of copyright law, and as
    such should be subjected to all the same processes that Napster was (even
    though Napster never violated copyright law).

    Let me para-quote some people from this very group "If YOU wrote a song
    and somebody just decided to they could make copies of it, wouldn't YOU want
    to get paid for it???!!??"

    This is even more blatant theft than copying music, because EB generated
    revenue as a result of his theft. All revenue generated since his first
    violation of copyright law should have been siezed (along with all assets
    purchased since his first violation), and his company required to halt
    operations until the matter was resolved.

    This is another example of people wanting to selectively enforce the
    laws.When it's big, bad Napster (who wasn't even breaking any laws) everyone
    wants to go for the throat because they were "stealing from poor, starving
    artists", while Ernie Ball is a hero because they are only stealing from MS.

    > I don't think napster and the others are legal. However, I do run a
    > business and have received the threatening letters from the BSA.
    > These people parade around like Stalin in a purge and have "rights"
    > akin to those given the FBI in the Patriot Act.
    >

    Hey, keep up with your licenses and you don't have to worry about it.
    Kind of like "don't download music and you don't have to worry about getting
    sued", right?

    ryanm
  15. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    Re: Re: Ernie Ball Strings hates Microsoft (Go Team!)

    "Mike McKernan" <mikemck333@optonline.net> wrote in message
    news:88adkv49j1rcvf1o4gmop98e27m6pnac4r@4ax.com...
    >
    > If he's close to being factual about having to pay the prosecutors'
    > fees, though, that sounds pretty shady. Anyone know the facts about
    > that?
    >

    It's SOP in civil cases, they wouldn't have had to spend the money on
    legal fees if EB wasn't violating copyright laws, and money spent protecting
    your copyright (by the copyright owner) is not only a recoverable expense,
    it's also tax deductible.

    If I steal a bunch of machines for manufacturing a product and start
    making money from them, should the owner of the machines have to spend
    several hundred-thousand dollars to get back the machines I stole, or should
    he be able to add his legal fees to the damages I have to pay?

    ryanm
  16. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Les Cargill" <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:3F47782C.4785A113@worldnet.att.net...
    >
    > Did you read the text of the article? The "hand me down" machines had

    files
    > which may or may not have been properly cleaned when they were handed

    down.
    > It was a sin of omission.
    >

    It's actually simpler than that. If you own one license for PhotoShop
    and you hand your artists machine down to someone else, you cannot install
    PhotoShop on another machine until you've removed the old one. Analog: If I
    make my perfectly legal backup copy of a purchased CD to my computer, and
    then hand down the computer to someone else, am I not violating the
    copyright of the CD publisher by making another copy on my new computer? If
    it's that simple, then I should be able to make copies on every computer I
    have (portable mp3 player, etc) and just say "Oops, I didn't know" when they
    try to sue me.

    > A disgruntled ex-employee ratted the guy out to the BSA. The BSA executed
    > warrants. Financial penalties were in play. Mr. Ball was offended by the
    > process, and switched gears. He appears happier with the result.
    >

    Translation: He got caught and had to pay for it, it pissed him off, so
    he switched to free software so that licensing was no longer an issue.

    > If I read this right, he perceived this as an unnecessary liability, Now
    > he gets some geek chic column inches, better control of what's installed
    > where and reuse of old machines.
    >

    There was no restriction on his reuse of old machines, only his illegal
    use of licensed software. His control over what's installed where was the
    point in question, and nothing in that article says that he has better
    control now, only that he doesn't have to worry about not being able to
    control it because he's using free software.

    ryanm
  17. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:59:09 -0600, "ryanm"
    <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:

    > To me, that is less offensive than our current drug legislation.



    We're not talking about drug legislation, which may or may not assess
    proper penalties in many areas. That's another discussion. We're
    talking about the BSA, which is a Microsoft sponsored effort to force
    unreasonable and unprecedented penalties for copyright violations. The
    BSA would not exist if it were not for Microsoft's efforts. The laws
    providing for these outrageous intimidations and invasions of
    companies would not exist without Microsoft's power having been
    wielded to force these laws through. These numbers have no basis
    in reality and the powers afforded to the BSA are unreasonable. It's
    about as close to the Patriot Act's excesses as you can get.

    Bob
  18. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "salvarsan" <salvarsan@radix.net> wrote in message
    news:sOP1b.2172$Jq1.468@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
    >
    > Get real. A law that allows for a 50:1 payout for
    > presumed damages is nothing more than a legalized protection
    > or shakedown racket. By comparison, most tort law asks for
    > triple damages. Open Source and FSF vendors simply
    > want compliance.
    >

    I am real. And how much money is Sony asking for in the lawsuits they're
    bringing against users of file-sharing software? How much did it cost
    Napster, who never actually violated copyright law?

    > Microsoft wasn't interested in compliance or money -- they just
    > wanted to screw someone over.
    >

    MS was interested in neither, they had nothing to do with it. The BSA
    went after them for non-compliance because that's their job.

    > Obtain reading comprehension.
    >
    > His "noncompliance" was about 8% of 72 workstations.
    > Do the arithmetic: 6 copies of WindowsNT + Office costs
    > under $2k. A reasonable vendor would have asked for compliance
    > or sued for treble damages.
    >

    You obtain reading comprehension. He broke the law and was forced to pay
    the fine. I don't see you railing against manditory minimums for
    drug-related charges. These send people to prison and turn them into
    hardened criminals for buying small amounts of weed, but that is just and
    charging $10,000 per copyright violation is unjust? Likewise, the ridiculous
    wailing of bands about "injustice" of file sharing is justified, but EB is a
    hero for stealing software?

    > It's not that Open Source software is so good but that the
    > proprietary software racket is so bad.
    >

    If that's the worst thing you have to complain about, I'd say life is
    pretty good.

    ryanm
  19. salvarsan

    salvarsan Guest

    ryanm wrote:
    > "salvarsan" wrote:


    > > Get real. A law that allows for a 50:1 payout for
    > > presumed damages is nothing more than a legalized protection
    > > or shakedown racket. By comparison, most tort law asks for
    > > triple damages. Open Source and FSF vendors simply
    > > want compliance.

    >
    > I am real. And how much money is Sony asking for in the lawsuits they're
    > bringing against users of file-sharing software?


    ....and you're evading the issue at hand.

    A fella could waste a lot of time reading
    your unsubtle evasions and ad hominems.


    -drh
    ps: you'd play better guitar if you didn't
    drag your knuckles on the ground.
    --
  20. "Les Cargill" <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:3F47782C.4785A113@worldnet.att.net...
    > Robert Barker wrote:
    > >
    > > "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    > > news:b11dkv4js41toe3cgainkcgun6prcvo4gj@4ax.com...
    > > > OK, everybody buy Ernie Ball strings from now on. Read this article:
    > > >
    > > > By David Becker
    > > > Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    > > > August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
    > > >
    > > > Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie
    > > > Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by
    > > > generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the
    > > > dudes from Metallica.
    > > >
    > > > But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie
    > > > Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its
    > > > proprietary software -- and still lived to tell the tale.
    > > >
    > > > http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
    > > >

    > > Sorry, I'm a D'Addario man. So, you're indicating here that if someone

    was
    > > stealing (i.e. not licensing the rights to use) your intellectual

    property,
    > > that you're OK with that? The problem with the law is, it can't just be
    > > applied to the companies / individuals you approve of, and ignored for

    the
    > > ones you don't.

    >
    > Did you read the text of the article? The "hand me down" machines had

    files
    > which may or may not have been properly cleaned when they were handed

    down.
    > It was a sin of omission.


    Or so they say. You have to admit, he'd be a pretty damn big fool to say,
    'Oh, yeah, I knew the stuff was there illegally. As long as I wasn't having
    to pay for it, I really didn't give a damn.' Fact is, he probably DIDN'T
    know... But, there are *plenty* of people, and companies, that DO
    know...that's why the BSA are such assholes about it.

    >
    > A disgruntled ex-employee ratted the guy out to the BSA. The BSA executed
    > warrants. Financial penalties were in play. Mr. Ball was offended by the
    > process, and switched gears. He appears happier with the result.
    >

    Good for him.

    > If I read this right, he perceived this as an unnecessary liability, Now
    > he gets some geek chic column inches, better control of what's installed
    > where and reuse of old machines.


    I perceive a speeding ticket as an unnecessary liability, as long as no
    one's injured. Doesn't mean I don't have to pay, though. At any rate, I'm
    not assigning blame. Fact is, laws were broken. The liabilities incurred are
    there to punish piracy. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to tell the
    difference between the intentional act and the unintentional one, after the
    fact.

    >
    > For some people, the Microsoft treadmill makes sense. For some it doesn't.


    I agree completely.
    >
    > --
    > Les Cargill

Share This Page