Dr. Dobb's Journal September 2003
Make no bones about it—software piracy is a bad thing. Software piracy hurts everyone, from vendors who lose sales and programmers who lose jobs because of those lost sales, to the "I don't give diddly about computers" taxpaying public, which gets short-changed on much-needed tax revenues. If we're to believe the Business Software Alliance (http://www.bsa.org/), global losses due to software piracy in 2002 weighed in at $13.08 billion, up from $11 billion in 2001. In the U.S. alone in 2001, this accounted for $1.8 billion in lost revenues, 111,000 in lost jobs, $5.6 billion in lost wages, and $1.5 billion in lost tax revenues.
Moreover, says the Motion Picture Association of America (a hole-in-the-wall gang I'm even less inclined to believe than the BSA), piracy costs the entertainment industry $2.5 billion a year in the lost sale of tickets, videotapes, DVDs, and the like. Meanwhile, Nintendo estimates video game piracy costs it and its partners about $650 million in sales in 2002, while the overall industry lost more than $3 billion.
According to a recent nationwide survey conducted by the New Jersey Institute of Technology (http://www.njit.edu/), most Americans agree that copying media is stealing, and see little difference between making illegal copies of music files, photocopying books, or sharing copyrighted computer software. For instance, in response to the question "Do you agree or disagree: Downloading, copying, and sharing computer software is stealing. It takes money away from software designers and should be restricted," 37 percent of the individuals interviewed strongly agreed and 24 percent somewhat agreed, while 20 percent somewhat disagreed and 11 percent strongly disagreed. It's worth noting that the older the person being interviewed was, the more likely he or she agreed. Furthermore, men were more likely to agree than women that downloading, copying, and sharing music files and computer software is stealing.
On the other hand, those same people believe that computer users should not be prosecuted for downloading copyrighted material. In response to the question: "Users should be held responsible if they download any material that is copyrighted, meaning they should be made to pay financial damages and even face criminal charges. Is this an excellent, good, only fair, or a poor idea?", 34 percent said it was a poor idea, 23 percent a fair idea, 21 percent good, and 15 percent excellent. Among peer-to-peer users, 54 percent think it is a poor idea to punish users, 22 percent a fair idea, 12 percent good, and 12 percent an excellent idea.
But not everyone is as forgiving as those participating in the NJIT study. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), for instance, supports technology capable of remotely destroying computers of people who have pirated copies of music and (presumably) other software. According to the Associated Press, Hatch wants to warn users about their alleged piracy, "then destroy their computer"—ignoring that doing so itself violates federal antihacking laws. Hatch went on to say that Congress would also need to provide copyright holders exemption from liability when they do destroy someone else's property. But in the spirit of "the pot calling the kettle beige," it turns out that Hatch is as guilty as those he chastises. Until he hastily changed it, Hatch was using an unlicensed, pirated copy of Milonic Solutions' (http://www.milonic.co.uk/menu/) copyrighted software on his official web site.
Of course, skeptics might not be that surprised at Hatch's suggestions, considering that since 1997 the entertainment and computer industries have packed more than $300,000 into his backpocket. Taking Hatch's scheme to its logical conclusion, we could begin disabling all sorts of consumer products when they're used to break the law. When you stop and think about it, it wouldn't be that difficult to remotely destroy computers that accountants use when they file bogus tax returns. Nor would it be that hard to destroy automobile engines whenever cars break the speed limit. But then, automotive manufacturers won't get much attention from Hatch—they have only given him $74,550 since 1997. Jeez, you'd think by now the auto industry would have realized that while our elected officials may be easy, they're certainly not cheap.
When it's all said and done, we are making progress in the awareness that software piracy is, in fact, wrong. The problem we face, it seems, is what to do about it. Hatch's Stalin-like approach aside, a majority of people, as reflected by the NJIT survey, don't want to see file-sharing networks shut down or alleged violators thrown into the hoosegow. What they do want to see is reasoned, creative ideas from our elected officials, not industry parroting by bought-and-paid-for shills.
In the meantime, feel free to pirate this page. Copy it, paste it, do with it what you want. Unlike influence, information wants to be free.
Jonathan Erickson
editor-in-chief
jerickson@ddj.com