Talk:Federation Against Software Theft

[Untitled]

Sept 2015 - I removed a link that pointed to an expired domain. The link was as follows: http://www.computersoftware.com/newsletterstory.asp?storyId=226

It would be interesting to document some of their recent activity - they claim to have, amongst other things, pushed a scottish council into purchasing £70k worht of software licences to bring them into compliance... but I can't find anything other than their own site to reference this and there's nothing but a statement on their site.

Also, their current URL is http://www.fast.org.uk/ - I have added this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.107 (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20/9/08 I've updated the page considerably as FAST has changed a lot in the last couple of years. I've updated with their news and new website and tried to edit out irrelevant POV and include several links to external news sources. Please note that FAST Corporate Services are a separate legal entity- they license the name from FAST. Any discussion of them should really start in a new Wiki entry for FAST Corporate Services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techwikiwriter (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this article is slightly POV, but I really find it difficult to make the case for the other side, so I am leaving that task to someone else. I have tried to tone down what I say a bit.

Arguably perhaps some very specialized software needs to be paid for and protected.

Fujitsu UK, one of FAST's sponsors, has a picture of a manacled leg on its home page. Unwitting irony perhaps?

This article is highly POV. Look at the language being used : "FAST victims tend to be those who have not realised that there is plenty of high-quality free software available. FAST therefore picks on the ignorant and vulnerable." I don't know how anyone could think this was written from a neutral point of view. Amren ^(talk) 13:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. You haven't made the lamest effort to do so. If you think you can justify what this organization is up to, you can fill in relevant section. Oh, and do the same for final solution while you are at it. As you object to the use of the word 'victim' I have removed it. If I could find anything to mitigate what these people are up to, I would have put it in. I have now put in a short paragraph trying say the kind of thing these people might say to defend themselves, without quite resorting to using the language of emotive mis-metaphors muddled with legal threats. The reader is invited to reflect for a few moments as to whether the claims made are borne out by the facts.

This read like a discussion page, with people posting comments on it as if it were a message board (to me.) Thus, i edited it: not with vandalism, but with an experimental NPOV repair.

Special:Contributions/anon (User talk:anon) 12:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a former employee of the limited business (ie not the Federation) I believe that the definition (as on display 10-Sep-08) is pretty accurate and appears unbiased. I agree that have been challenges in helping the market understand that the Federation is seperate to the limited businesses. I also appreciate that some people profess to have been victims, but to be clear, the Federation (the body which combats illegal activity) has never worked with the private arm of the business (Fast Corporate Services / Fast Consultancy) to "hunt" for illegal software use.

The private Non-Federation arm consists of a membership scheme to which people can join to obtain education, training and guidance to achieve software license compliance across their IT estate. This is incresingly valuable to FAST customers as many are being approached by major vendors such as Microsoft, and being requested to participate in audits which can prove to uncover considerable licence exposure and hurt the organisation. FAST corporate services helps enable companies to take control of their software estate. The consultancy arm of the buisness typically assists the membership in delivering bodies to complete some of this work on behalf of the client, quite often they are approached by corporate service members when a software vendor is at the door and they require the reconciliation to be completed ASAP.

Many mis-understandings around the nature of what FAST do are a result of an irresponsible yet consitant campaign of opinionated and misleading reporting on the part of IT Week journalists and the like.

It is also worth noting that the Limited business is no Longer owned by the Computer Software Group (previously AIM listed i think) but is now owned by the the IRIS group.

Bad Article

This article is extremely bad, once you get past the fact its unwikified cites, both the tone and style is unencyclopedic, the article reading more like a company press release. Most of the sources are bad, for example the legal aid lawyers site and several points can't spell the word Lawyer correctly, similiarly the cite about investors in software, that "As a direct result of their work the ISO SAM ISO/IEC19770-1 " the cite says they were involved not that it was a direct result of their work. This article needs a complete overhaul, better sourcing, wikify and a NPOV tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.181.8 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view / Libel

I have again removed a long section about "Drink or Die".

Articles at Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. A Wikipedia article may not say "Company X earned $Y illegally". It may say "Person Z sais that company X earned $Y illegally" provided it cites a reliable source for the statement.
According to the rules on libel avoidance at Wikipedia, it is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. And following the latter link, "libel ... is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give ... a business ... a negative image".

-- John of Reading (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=FE3B86A3-4E78-45CA-AE73-B99C1EAEC62E
Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 00:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federation Against Software Theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220010211/http://www.lawyerslegalaid.co.uk/faqs.cfm to http://www.lawyerslegalaid.co.uk/faqs.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]