I don’t know about you but I sincerely try not to become too paranoid about the collective antics of the software piracy or music piracy enforcement industry players. Unfortunately for the business technology consumer, these big money “not for profits” are oozing their way into our lives like an on-screen killer blob.

In what ways are the activities of these unregulated auditing groups important to you? The activities I discuss in this brief entry could easily cost you more and more technology money while absolutely ensuring the continued tech industry strangle-hold on you and your company. Here are a few reasons why your company is in for some serious trouble.

Real World – On June 4^th, 2007, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) announced that it had formed an alliance with the American Small Business Administration to “Educate Small Businesses on Proper Software Management.”

Does this alliance represent a problem in anyone’s mind? Is anyone concerned that direct representatives of the major software industry players have been tagged by a governmental agency to provide software management knowledge? While I have great respect for the BSA, isn’t it a bit unnerving that an organization that is highly experienced in the very narrow scope of piracy enforcement, on behalf of the software industry, has somehow become qualified to help consumers “manage” software assets?

I could be wrong, but doesn’t software asset management also include the ability to reduce software costs, negotiate more consumer friendly license agreements, displace “difficult” products, and minimize support and maintenance costs? Now, I’m not sure how BSA intends to deliver this information but somehow, deep down inside, I have to believe that when effective software managers start pushing back against sharp licensing & copyright enforcement practices the BSA copyright holder membership is going to begin asking some seriously embarrassing questions.

For example, the professional development programs we deliver instruct software asset managers to "not purchase shrinkwrap or licensed downloadable products.” Will representatives of software industry players , in full knowledge that these are the most profitable licenses--as well as most easily violated--deliver the same message and others like it? If so, how will their member software publishers react to the loss of some very serious profits? Could there be a conceptual conflict of interest appearing here?

Real World – On June 11^th, 2007, the Business software Alliance announced that it had concluded piracy settlements with seven American manufacturers who were charged $1.43 million in fines. According to figures we have acquired from companies that have endured the copyright enforcement industry’s punitive education process, the carefully undisclosed costs of those same audits was 3 to 6 times the fines. In the case of these seven companies, that totals out to over $4.29 million in actual punitive audit impact. That’s a lot of unbudgeted "petty" cash to drop on ineffective software asset management.

And now the American Small Business Administration is somehow honestly expecting American business professionals to take lessons in software asset management from the same enforcement industry players who sue our companies--extracting tens of millions of enforcement settlement dollars--when we make licensing mistakes. Am I missing something important, here?

Real World – On June 18^th, 2007, articles appeared on ContentAgenda  and on washingtonpost.com  indicating that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has now aligned itself with the MPAA to “…press Congress and the White House to bolster enforcement of anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting laws.”

Real World - On July 2nd, 2007, the Business Software Alliance (BSA.org ) issued a press release announcing that they have "Raised the Stakes in the Fight Against Piracy" by increasing their advertised whistle-blower reward to $1,000,000!  Interestingly enough, this reward appears to only be valid in the United States. You know us--we're the country with one of the lowest piracy rates on the planet. I guess it only makes sense because, if you monitor the settlements, it sure appears as if American businesses are pretty much paying the bills in this so-called global fight.

I may still be lost somewhere in rural Minnesota but does it disturb anyone that governmental agencies that are supposed to serve the American population are aligning themselves with groups and organizations that represent the distinct vested interests of private industry instead of vendor-neutral providers of the same—and very frequently more comprehensive—services?

Do the American Small Business Administration and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce represent and serve the broad interests of the diverse community of American businesses? Do they represent the thousands of defenseless college students who have been targeted for punitive enforcement audits? Or do they represent and serve the narrow but financially powerful interests of the producers of copyright protected products?

Here is my challenge to you and your company: Go ahead and try the software management programs designed by, and delivered on behalf of, the software industry players. Then work through the vendor-neutral professional software asset management and copyright compliance assurance programs delivered by The Business Technology Consumer Network. Judge for yourself which consumer knowledge programs are more effective and more comprehensive in terms of your front line requirements.

You be the ones to decide: Are the people who represent the interests of the copyright holders--who have drained tens of millions in punitive audit dollars--from companies just like yours worthy of your trust? Will these same people genuinely help you cut technology spending and risks, or will their programs be based on the perspective of the industry players for whom they work?

Let us know what you think. We'll follow up.