Talk:Software Alliance

message: Has anyone audited or checked for the source of this IP address list?  Doing an IANA lookup on a randomly selected address from the list, 195.243.162.0, yields AL.systems GmbH.  A relationship to the BSA from here is non-obvious.  Can anyone clarify?  --ChrisRuvolo 00:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: IP Addresses?

message: Holy crap, if I didn't just see this, I wouldn't believe it.  According to the history  the IP address list was just removed by the host 209.70.21.174.  This IP has had no other contributions  .  Doing a reverse lookup on this address fails, but doing a whois on the IP address gives a Verio netblock with this message:
Comment:    Reassignment information for this block is
Comment:    available at rwhois.verio.net port 4321
When doing a lookup at this verio rwhois server, it gives:
> whois -h rwhois.verio.net 209.70.21.174
Business Software Alliance (NETBLK-BSA-----209-70-21--0E) BSA-----209-70-21--0E
                                                   209.70.21.0 - 209.70.21.255
Verio, Inc. - Mid-Atlantic (NETBLK-VRIO-209-070) VRIO-209-070
                                                   209.70.0.0 - 209.70.255.255
And a lookup of that block address gives:
> whois -h rwhois.verio.net NETBLK-BSA-----209-70-21--0E
Business Software Alliance (NETBLK-BSA-----209-70-21--0E)
   1150 18th Street NW
   Washington, DC 20036
   Netname: BSA-----209-70-21--0E
   Netblock: 209.70.21.0 - 209.70.21.255  
   Maintainer: A009
   Coordinator:
      Lorraine Cox  (LC2857-VRIO)  bsa@clark.net
      (202) 872-5500
So the conclusion is that the BSA itself removed the IP address list!!  At least some of those addresses must be correct!  This is pretty blantant manipulation.  --ChrisRuvolo 21:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not object to removing them for the above reasons, especially if we could provide a link to the equivalent content.  However, having the BSA remove them without comment is unacceptable IMO.  --ChrisRuvolo 23:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree, having the BSA delete it seems like abuse, particular if they do it without discussing it here first.  Anyway, I probably wouldn't object to a link to a website with the IP addresses in, as then we could say 'this is a group who oppose the BSA who encourage IP blocking and provide links to the BSA's IP addresses'.  Then the POV would be that of the website, and they would be responsible for the accuracy (or otherwise) or the information. Silverfish 00:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSA REMOVES IP ADDRESS LIST!!! 

message: It seems that BSA tries to negate meaning of freedom in their leaflets, insisting that FOSS is about development model only, and that all software development models should have equal rights as far as governments are concerned. This could show that RMS constant teaching about freedom does have some importance. --matusz 21:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSA vs. FOSS 

message: What is the list of members based on? This list seems quite different. --Tgr 18:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members 

message: From the Overview:
 BSA then sends the companies a note ...
then
 If the BSA finds cases of software piracy,
What happens between these two events?  Can the BSA force a company to cooporate with an audit?  I would think so, since companies would normally not want to give an outside party that kind of access to their inner workings.  But what are the legal grounds for this?  Does the BSA actually get a warrant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.159.178 (talk • contribs) 
:BSA itself can not get a warrant as they are not a part of the justice system, they can however send C&D's and other legal document and request that they stop using pirated software etc. and threat with legal actions, like MPAA and RIAA for example. Thor erik (talk|contrib) 07:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the legal grounds for conducting an audit? 

message: I have tagged this article as POV as it currently contains a significant amount of unsourced and POV statements. Also, the general tone of the article is 'this organisation is scum' which even if it is true, it shouldn't be the tone of any article on this site. Finally, the overall amount of negative criticism of the company is not really countered in any way so a complete argument is not presented. -Localzuk(talk) 09:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I was wondering which sections/paragraphs you had in mind in particular. I ask because I wrote most of 2.1, and I took quite a bit of time to look for reasonable sources, which were all criticism (even though I looked hard for general sources on the topic). Section 2 in general could do with an overall (especially in the sources). The mention of the Free software foundation in the overview seems indeed NPOV to me, but more generally, it is going to be a tough one: almost all the sources I have seen, apart from press releases from software publishers, have been critical... Schutz 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The EULA is now in the lead, while the criticism section is large (relatively speaking) it is up to advocates and others to make the article more comprehensive. As it stands, the criticism is well referenced and specific. Please use  for sections or  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The intro read "BSA has no legal authority. Nobody can legally enter your property without a search warrant from a court." Shouldn't this be elaborated on and put in the critique section? 142.232.8.8 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird arrangement 

message: As much as I Hate the BSA and any advocate for respecting software licenses etc, etc...
This article REEKS of haters lashing out against the BSA through Wikipedia.
I didn't get to the rest of the article before feeling guilty(Not because I enjoy USING PIRATED SOFTWARE) but because of the Campaigns section is a big serving of "Let it out on Wikipedia Johnny, Microsoft can't sue us now"
Come on: "The supposed purpose of this campaign is to educate children....." Really? If this were any other Wikipedia article the editors would be at war to fix it's neutrality...What the hell is stopping Free Software advocates to calm down and write a neutral article? (Educate the world about your opponent, let the world decide)
It is obvious other editors tried to fix this problem before, I've checked the talk page but hopefully more can be done. 93.182.137.114 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Neutral Point of View 

message: This outfit now seems to call itself "BSA | The Software Alliance", though I can't find any explanation or news items on this. These people really are quite mad: because I live in Japan they are determined I should not be able to read the English version of their website (I had to use a proxy) so all pages at bsa.org redirect to the Japanese site. (Oh, and www.bsa.or.jp/GlobalSoftwarePiracyStudy.html shows an alternative version...) Imaginatorium (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the same on the change of name to "BSA | The Software Alliance" with the pipe, but I could not find any press releases or news items on it either. Andyjkelly (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: The members list is massively out of date and needs to be updated. The current link to the members list is also dead and needs to be replaced with http://www.bsa.org/about-bsa/bsa-members  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.42.35 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on BSA (The Software Alliance). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101022053723/http://www.copyrightfoundation.org:80/library/14/play_it_cybersafe to http://www.copyrightfoundation.org/library/14/play_it_cybersafe
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Bilby placed a 'COI' tag on the page, suggesting that there is a "major contributor" with a COI. I can't detect any "major contributors" in the history, so I suggest removing this tag. But first, please can anyone explain the problem? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can go either way, but the article saw largish recent edits by a paid editor through a job placed on Upwork. So either we can remove the paid edits (the person hired was block evading) or tag it until the edits can be properly considered. This also suggests that it is not the first time an editor has been hired to work on this article, so this might be a larger problem and needs consideration. - Bilby (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag 

message: List of BSA members in Wikidata: https://w.wiki/9gWi -- M2545 (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Members in Wikidata