JUST over a week ago we criticised Matt Asay for part of his post about the latest propaganda from BSA and IDC. It turns out that this pair -- the BSA and IDC -- is calling bloggers to try to control their coverage. It's that pair which loves to flood the media with hundreds of articles about "pirates" (not those ones from Somalia, just children and adults who share files) and TechDirt responds to it by highlighting Asay's claim that people at the BSA are hypocrites because not only are they using GNU/Linux (which they constantly lobby against) but they also don't pay for it. From Masnick's excellent post:

We recently did our latest debunking of the BSA's latest laughable report on "piracy" of software and its impact on the economy and jobs. We have to do this every few months, as the BSA continues to trot out the same laughable and debunked analysis, including the flat-out ridiculous idea that every unauthorized copy is a $1 for $1 lost sale. A few years ago, when a BSA VP and IDC VP called me up to defend the report, they insisted that "their research" showed the $1 to $1 ratio was pretty accurate, insisting that companies who need software really want proprietary software, and that open source or other alternatives generally aren't what they're looking for.

Of course, most people know better than this, but a recent Matt Asay column highlights how more and more of the world moves to open source and cloud-based solutions could seriously change that equation. In it, there's a lovely tidbit about how much the BSA itself doesn't seem to believe its own claims about open source software -- or, even that good software is worth paying a license for:

Ironically, the BSA has discovered one of the few ways to "pirate" open-source software, and is apparently an advocate. The BSA's website apparently runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux clone CentOS. Surely a license-respecting organization like the BSA would want to pay full freight for a RHEL license rather than undermine Red Hat by choosing CentOS? Evidently not.