Hacker 2/HACKER2.mdf/cud/cud463a.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 5KB | 89 lines

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 92 11:43:38 CST
>From:  Jim Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--Taking a Look at the SPA

Software piracy--the unauthorized reproduction of copyright
software--raises *complex* ethical and legal questions.  Piracy ranges
from mass reproduction and distribution of unauthorized programs or
disks intended for re-sale--some call this "bootlegging" rather than
piracy--to simply copying a game one has legitimately obtained so that
it may be played on a computer in both the den and bedroom.

The Software Publishers' Association (SPA) is an organization as
dedicated to eradicating "piracy" as the most hawkish cold warrior was
to erasing the "Evil Empire." The SPA argues that any reproduction of
a copyright program is theft and those who engage in such copying are
criminals. Their strict interpretation of "one program per machine"
would make a criminal of the father who purchases a game for his child
and installs it on two home computers. Their advertisements in trade
journals and elsewhere raises the threat of severe criminal penalties
for copying. For example, a full-page color ad in PC Magazine depicts
three burly and mean looking prisoners surrounding a small, meek,
middle-aged nerd with the caption:  "The S.P.A. wants you to pay for
your network software one way or the other." In another trade journal,
a full-page black-and-white ad shows a pair of handcuffs under the
caption:  "Copy software illegally and you could get this hardware
absolutely free." The June 17, 1991, cover of Information Week depicts
a 1940s' style super-hero style drawing of an SPA agent bursting
through the office doors, saying: "Nobody move! Keep your hands away
from those keyboards!" A male officer worker says: "Oh my gosh! It's
the SPA!!" His female companion responds: "QUICK! Stash the disks!!"

The messages clearly convey the impression that the SPA has attempted
to establish itself as a para-legal police force with powers to
apprehend and prosecute.  Some critics view this as techno-vigilante
justice and feel that the SPA oversteps ethical boundaries by
encouraging informants and by indiscriminately criminalizing *all*
forms of "unauthorized" copying. SPA supporters argue that such
tactics are necessary to protect program authors from rip-off.

The SPA has aggressively taken its position to the public through
press releases and news stories. Two recent articles typify how the
organization has staked out the terrain of the debate and shaped the
issues. A recent New York Times story ("As Piracy Grows, the Software
Industry Counterattacks," NYT, Nov. 8, 1992. P. F-12, by Peter F.
Lewis) contends that software "thievery" will cost the industry the
software industry $10 to $12 billion in 1992. The validity of the
calculation of the costs goes unchallenged, the distinction between
the casual copier and professional bootleggers is ignored, and the
emphasis of the story focuses on the home copier.  The story relies on
SPA information and spokespersons, particularly Ken Wasch, executive
director of the SPA.  The terms "theft" and "stealing" are liberally
used, and there is no attempt to present alternative views of the
serious issues that software piracy raises.

A small town paper (DeKalb (Ill.) Daily Chronical: "Software Police
can come Knocking Quickly," Nov. 15, 1992: p. 25) presents a grimmer
picture of piracy. It focuses on the extreme cases of gross abuse of
software copying that the SPA investigated and settled, and then
shifts to the small user.  It cites SPA figures indicating that since
its founding in 1984, the SPA has conducted 75 raids and filed 300
lawsuits.

Both articles, and others like them, frame the piracy problem as one
of theft and emphasize the "police power" of the SPA.  The message is
simple: If you copy software, you risk criminal penalties.

If a software program, whether conventional copyright or shareware, is
used regularly, then the user is ethically obligated to pay for it.
But, the SPA's narrow interpretation of shrink-wrap licenses, "one
machine, one program," and "theft" raise many questions.  CuD's
position is that there are clear boundaries between acceptable and
unacceptable copying, and much gray area in between.  For us, there is
considerable room for debate over that gray area and where the lines
should be drawn. There are a number of solid reasons why reproduction
or sharing of others' copyright software should be allowed, just as
reproduction of videos, zeroxing articles, taping audio cassette
music, and other forms of reproduction are considered acceptable.

In this issue, CuD reproduces the SPA's statement of purpose (File 2)
and excerpts from its anti-piracy "rap" video (File 3).  In coming
issues, we will examine the issues and philosophy underlying the SPA's
tactics in protecting copyright.  Our goal is to encourage debate and
we welcome readers' thoughts on the subject.

------------------------------


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