Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:20:51 EST
From: tsa@CELLAR.ORG
Subject: File 2--Re SPA/Piracy (CuD #5.14)

First, it looks like the SPA has identified a significant problem,
that of software piracy.  I agree fully that piracy is wrong, and that
it should be stopped.  But I totally disapprove of their methods.  The
simple statement that many of those who settle out of court with the
SPA are actually innocent was the first thing that shocked me.  The
American justice system is supposed to be the main way of determining
right and wrong, not something used as a bludgeon to force others to
do what you want.  It seems that right and wrong have become
decreasingly less important, and what matters is whether you can pay
the lawyers.  And many small companies simply can't afford a lawsuit.
So the SPA waltz's in, threatens to sue the company, and walks away
with $$$.  Perhaps the SPA could consider "The end doesn't justify the
means" for a little while.  They are using heavy-handed, cruel
tactics.  It may be for a good cause, but that doesn't excuse it.

	Their tactics have been surprisingly effective.  Every single case,
settled out of court.  It is not clear whether that indicates that the
companies don't want to pay for a lawsuit, know that they are going to
lose the lawsuit, or both.  If the company knows that they would lose
a lawsuit, then the SPA should force some settlement, since the
company is guilty.  But if the company is innocent, and can't afford a
lawsuit to prove it, then the SPA can-and does-just threaten, bluff,
and force a settlement.  Then they walk away with money in their
pockets, and no one can do a thing.  It makes me want to puke.

	The double penalty system which the SPA imposes even upon the
companies who agree to be inspected is preposterous.  The company is
forced to pay twice for each copy of the software, once to the SPA,
and once to buy the software.  Why should the company have to purchase
legitimate copies of the software, just because one of their employees
decided to pirate it?  I agree that the offending software should be
removed, but why should the company be forced to buy new copies?
Also, I don't see why the company should have to pay the full price
for the illegal software, and why that money should go to the SPA.
The company did not obtain the full value of the software, it was
probably used without manuals, which limits the use of a piece of
software, and they didn't get the cool box with all the neato screen
shots, pretty pastel colors, and designer logos on it.  They did not
get as much from the pirated program as they would have if they had
bought it, so why should they pay the same amount?  In many cases, the
program may have been used only a small amount, by one employee, which
doesn't justify charging the company the full price.  And why should
the money go to the SPA?  That is the most ludicrous aspect of the
entire fiasco.  If the software has been stolen from the company that
released it, then the company that released it should get the money.
If that compan{chooses to donate part of it to the SPA, then fine, but
there is little reason why the SPA should get it.  Sure, they can say
that they prevent piracy, that they educate people against it, so they
should get it, but the software wasn't stolen from them, so they
should not be recompensated for what they didn't lose.

	I have always wondered how piracy figures are estimated.  It always
seemed to be one of those statistics akin to "35% of Americans don't
answer surveys honestly.", or "21.5% of all shoplifters are never
caught."  From the CuD's description of the estimate, there are a lot
of obvious sources of error.  First, they use the number of Intel and
Macintosh computers sold.  While the Mac figures may be accurate,
since all Macs have to go through Apple sometime, how can they know
the number of IBM computers sold?  There are so many different clone
manufacturers, and all of them would have to know exactly how many
computers they sold, and report that number to the Dataquest mareting
form, for an accurate estimation to be had.  I very much doubt that
all of the minor clone makers did this, so right from the start we
have an inaccurate fact #1.

	The second fact looked fine at first, until I noticed the sentence
"The business applications sales are taken from the report and used to
estimate the the total u7it sales..."  Business applications?
Business applications?  What omniscient genius works for the SPA who
can determine the total unit sales of all software in the U. S. from
the number of business applications sold?  How can you determine the
number of games, 3-D rendering programs, anti-viral utilities, and any
of the other myriad kinds of programs from the number of Business
applications sold?  Say bye-bye to fact number 2!

	I like the pro-Mac direction which the data in the third fact, shows,
but I simply cannot believe that 5 is the average number of
applications owned by Macintosh users.  <Quick check of hard drive>  I
have 24 applications that I have bought, and I don't buy software very
often.  I may not be a typical Mac user (I program, run a BBS, don't
play many games), but I am not as prolific a program purchaser as many
people I know, and even if I am the exception, there would have to be
only 1 person with 24 applications for every 9.5 or so with 3
applications for the average to work.  I simply can't believe that my
24 applications is that far of the norm for the Mac, certainly not far
enough to justify the 5 application/mac theory.  Then when you look at
Intel-based machines, the figures look even worse.  IBM has a much
wider range of most kinds of software available to its users, so one
would expect IBM users to have more software.  It is true that
Macintosh's ease-of-use may promote the buying of more software, but
one would expect the high software availability for the IBM to balance
the ease-of-use factor out.  I am not surprised that the figures are
so off, since part of the way in which those figures were obtained was
by counting returned registration cards.  How many of us actually
return those damn things?  I'm sure that there are a few conscientious
people out there thinking "Of course, I return all of them.  Doesn't
everyone?", but most people aren't like that.  I still have the ones
from Christmas sitting on my desk, waiting to be filled out and
mailed.  So the SPA is now 0 for 3 in their basic postulates.

	I would only argue slightly with the fourth fact, which calculates
average price of a piece of software.  People are probably going to be
more willing to pirate software that they can't afford, so the average
price of a piece of pirated software is probably higher than that of a
bought program.  But that's only an educated guess, and it's difficult
to be sure.  So the SPA actually does have one fact that hasn't been
twisted into nothingness.

	I don't even have to do much to debunk the final assumption.  It's
obvious that a large percentage of the programs that are bought are
bought for computers that were not purchased within the past year.  It
is true that with dropping computer prices, rapid expansion of the
home market, etc.,

many computers are new.  But there are enough that aren't to destroy
the credibility of this assumption.  	So now, using 3 skewed facts, an
inaccurate assumption, and one fact that isn't too far off, the SPA
thiNks that they can obtain an accurate answer.  Somehow I doubt it.
The entire process by which they obtain the answer is so far off, that
I have no credence whatsoever in the answer which they obtained.  I
wouldn't be surprised if it was off by an order of magnitude or more,
in either direction.  But we'll never know, simply because their is no
way to tell the total value of all pirated software.

	There are many other possible reasons for error, most of which the
author of the CuD article states.  It is clear that the SPA's
estimates are incredibly inaccurate, and shouldn't be trusted.  Yet,
although even David Tremblay, the SPA Research Directory, admits fully
that the figures are off, the SPA still uses them, as often as
possible.  They use them in their advertisements, literature, and
educational material, treating the piracy estimates as
incontrovertible fact, despite the fact that their own head of
research admits their inaccuracies.

	In conclusion, the most recent issue of CuD has not left me with a
good impression of the SPA.  I like their educational efforts, and the
fact that they are trying to curb the rampant piracy.  But I feel that
their methods of doing so are too harsh on small businesses, and the
fact that they profit from successfully scaring the target company
makes me doubt that they can maintain a truly objective demeanor.
Since they benefit from intimidating the company subject to
investigation, they have a strong economic incentive to prosecute as
many companies as they can, without regard for innocence, and no
incentive to only attack those that they feel are transgressors,
rather than anyone they can bully.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253