The Business Software Alliance (BSA.org ) recently published the latest in their series of sponsored studies of the impact of software piracy on global economies. Interestingly enough, in the last few years, these IDC (IDC.com ) studies have quietly changed their stripes from how horribly software piracy was impacting the copyright holders to the (what many consider as a highly dubious) documentation of the "global economic impact" of software piracy.
I have always had difficulties with these enforcement industry sponsored studies--most especially when there are so few solid details available regarding how the numbers were genuinely acquired. Read on for my commentary on this latest release as posted on the cNet News web site.
My comments in response to the article:
I think maybe the press (and the rest of the free world) needs to reconsider their tendency to (apparently) quote studies such as this as factual.
How about: "Latest software industry-funded study suggests that software piracy costs the industry as much as $48 Billion."
While I completely agree that the
software industry (ALL copyright protected products industries) have
a right to protect their products, I have always had difficulties
with this series of studies. When you closely review the methodology,
there is entirely too much fog around how the statistics were
genuinely acquired. Is software piracy an issue? Absolutely. Is it as
horrible as it is being portrayed? Hardly.
Here is where I personally believe we should ALL be VERY
concerned:
1. The copyright enforcement industry
players are not regulated by ANY governmental agencies--anywhere.
They pretty much do as they please.
My recommendation: Instead of passing yet more new legislation to stiffen copyright regulation and establish an intellectual property czar, maybe the U.S. government would be better advised to establish a regulatory group to keep an eye on the onerous licensing and enforcement practices of the small but powerful minority of copyright holders.
2. These same enforcement players (and
their friends/members) are investing tens of millions of dollars in
establishing legislation that favors their perspective--at the
expense of the business technology consumer.
My recommendation: Since I'm an American businessman, I would seriously like to see the government investigate the real causes and impacts of software piracy within the U.S. Let's face it: People will never fully trust a study initiated and conducted by not for profit copyrighted products industry-sponsored organizations that invest an enormous amount of money and effort legally confronting American small- to medium-sized businesses for alleged copyright violations.
3. Once again, these same groups are
pushing their "research" as bottom line proof and our own
legislators are acting on these (questionable?) industry sponsored
(paid for?) research studies as the absolute, proof positive, basis for
passing national and global punitive legislation.
My recommendation: Our elected legislators (just in Washington D.C.?) need to realize that they are only hearing a small percentage of the core software piracy environmental issues--the one carefully edited & conveyed by lobbying groups. Lobbying groups being well-paid by the copyright holders. Maybe before you pass yet another copyright-related law, you should find out what is really happening out here in the real world beyond the beltway.
4. The countries that have been
“proven” to have the lowest piracy rates are also the ones where
small- to medium-sized businesses are being hunted with the most
ruthlessness. That's right, America, even though we have one of the
LOWEST piracy rates, our business owners are the only ones in the
world targeted by (up to) $1,000,000 whistle-blower rewards.
My recommendation: $1,000,000 whistle-blower rewards? Maybe "somebody" needs to take their reward programs to the countries where the vast majority of the counterfeit products are actually being produced and distributed.
5. The countries with the highest
piracy rates somehow wind up with highly lucrative international
contracts with the same industries that are suing SMEs in the
so-called developed nations for consuming products that—in many
cases—they don't even know are pirated.
My recommendation: If your country is within the top "x" percentage of high piracy countries, the copyright holders need to confront you--directly. We should no lower the price of newly released movie DVDs in high piracy countries at the expense of viewers in low piracy countries. We do the opposite.
6. It is well beyond time that global
small- to medium-sized businesses began voting with their feet.
Unless, and until the collective enforcement industry players begin
treating your businesses as valued customers, it is your
responsibility to simply quit buying their products.
My recommendation: We are all currently sitting by and doing nothing while a major software publisher literally forces us to purchase a major software product that has been considered by some of the leading technology pundits as distinctly below dependable in its quality. IT's time to step away from products that do not provide the value for which you paid. Step away from products that are specifically designed to force you to lock yourself in to their environment by eliminating potential alternatives.
As I am constantly reminded: “It is
your fiduciary responsibility to act in such a manner as to protect
your company.” We could easily take that to mean you should NEVER
enter into an onerous software license with a software publisher that has a clear
record of threatened—or factual—litigation against its own
customers.
An effective CEO or CFO is responsible for not only major technology spending but also unnecessary technology risk. When you enter into a license or contract with a copyright holder that is known globally for its willingness to enforce licensing via confrontational methods you are literally setting your company up for future difficulties.
This can all be avoided, very easily, and with very little expense. It is beyond time to begin seriously managing your technology environment--as a business process--not a collection of shiney mystical toys.
I have done my best to explain a very complex issue in as simple a way as possible. Naturally, I expect a great deal of push back. That's fine. At least, maybe, people reading this post will do nothing more than take a more close look at these issues. Possibly someone will come up with a mutually beneficial solution to these problems--one that satisfies all concerned without punishing consumers. Maybe a solution based on mutually beneficial dialogue instead of legalized tantrums.
Let me know what you think.
|
