Software Piracy: Is there any gray area in theft charges?

By Zatni Arbi

JAKARTA (JP): The reason I never touched on the problem of software piracy before was that it was a fairly controversial issue.

A reader of PC Magazine once put it aptly when he wrote: "Software piracy is a problem akin to a lot of other social problems that we have, such as teenage sex and smoking in public areas. It's easy to say why it is a bad thing, but it's not that easy to stop people from doing it."

How true it is! However, the article by Joanne Kelley of Reuter, which appeared on this page last Monday, has prompted me to say something on behalf of the end-users, many of whom belong to the pirate gangs.

Like a lot of other articles with the same stance, Kelley's article entitled Pirates steal billions in PC programs contains a logical flaw that has been pointed out time and time again by computer users and columnists alike on so many occasions.

The article says that pirates steal as much as US$7.4 billion from software makers by illegally copying and using illegal copies of their products. The question is, is that really stealing? Are pirates taking away anything that is already in the possession of the software publishers?

The truth is, not many computer users even in the U.S. can afford to pay hundreds of dollars for each software program they use--let alone here in Indonesia. With less than $600,00 per capita income, how could we expect computer users to buy original software that costs more than that?

The logic should be: If pirates don't copy the software, they're not going to buy it either. It means that there wouldn't be any significant increase in revenue for software makers even if their world were free from pirates. The reason for this is simply the fact that computer software is expensive. It is expen sive in the affluent United States of America, the home of 90 percent of top software makers in the world. It is even excruciatingly more expensive here in Indonesia, where software distributors and dealers tend to be obsessed by big and immediate profits and the government indiscriminately levies all sorts of taxes.

Literacy rate

So, if there were no pirates, there wouldn't be so many computer users around. Now, what would happen if only a limited number of users got to use each new software program on the market? Would computer literacy rate be as high as it is now? Perhaps not. Now, if we can agree that sans software piracy there wouldn't be a high computer literacy rate around, would there then be a high demand for legal, original copies of the software? I don't think so.

The reverse may just be true. People get the original software only after they are sure it's a worthwhile investment. And they can judge the worth of a software package by using the pirated copy for a fairly extended period of time.

Take my own case as an illustration. In the good old days I was able to buy software based solely on the recommendations made by computer magazines. Now that my resources are scarcer, I have to buy a software package only after I've mastered it and I know for sure it will be useful for my job. As a case in point, I recently got myself an original copy of PageMaker 5.0. Through my articles, you know how much I knew about this program before I got the original. And I'm sure I'm not unique among computer users all over the world.

Being costly is not the only problem with original software programs. Their shorter life-cycle is another. New versions come up before you have the chance to even master the old ones. As I mentioned before, a new version of CorelDRAW! has appeared every year. Upgrade cost is around $199 in the U.S. New versions of leading disk utilities from Symantec and Central Point Software are released almost yearly, too. Can you include the upgrade cost of software programs in your annual computer expense budget? If you're an employee, your boss will sack you. If you operate your own business, you'll go bankrupt in no time.

Free support

Kelley's article claims that pirates cheat the industry. What about the reverse? What about computer users being ripped off by software makers? According to the article, the latter's revenues were $8 billion last year. That's a pretty handsome sum. Yet, most of them have dropped what used to be the best of the industry standards: Free technical support. In addition, new versions tend to be plagued with bugs than the old ones used to be.

If you were to drop by my home office, you'd be able to see boxes of original software programs that I no longer use. Yes, I have spent thousands of dollars on software programs, and all of them have ended up gathering dust on my shelves. Why? Because they're no longer compatible with current versions of software programs that I use.

Making new versions incompatible with older ones is one of the ways software makers are ripping off end users. Unfortunately, the mass media seldom talk about it.

Take the case of IBM's OS/2 for Windows as an example. OS/2 for Windows was one of the most inexpensive but technically superb operating systems around. Here in Jakarta it costs $55, and in the States $39 (through mail-order channels). That's very reasonable pricing. Unfortunately, installing this technically superb operating system requires that you already have Windows 3.1 on your system. Now, in what some people at IBM call a deliberate action from Microsoft to kill OS/2 for Windows, the latter has been phasing out Windows 3.1 and phasing in Windows 3.11 and Windows for Workgroup 3.11. The new versions are, as you can guess, incompatible with OS/2 for Windows. If you happen to have bought OS/2 for Windows, you cannot take advantage of Windows 3.11 or Windows for Workgroup 3.11.

In the U.S., where PCs are sold with Windows pre-installed, this is causing a big problem since more and more of them come with Windows for Workgroup 3.11 instead of Windows 3.1. It means that people in the U.S. are in bad luck if they want to take advantage of OS/2 for Windows on their new PCs. Only after a lot of finger pointing and customer frustration did Microsoft offer patches to enable OS/2 for Windows to install on systems with the newer Windows. It's the users who suffer the most from the ongoing war between the two giants.

Windows Chicago

And now, wait until you try Windows Chicago, which will appear in a few months. I won't be surprised if it turns out that you have to upgrade every single one of your existing programs in order to be able to work in this new, 32-bit environment. That was exactly what happened in 1990, when Windows 3.0 first came out. All existing programs at that time could be run only in Windows 3.0's Standard mode. If you wished to run them in 386- Enhanced mode, you would have to upgrade to their new version.

Having mentioned all this, just calculate how much an honest computer user will have to invest every year. No wonder the software industry has been named the fastest growing industry in the last decade. In no other sector have there been so many entrepreneurs who have gotten so rich so quickly as those in the software industry.

Folks, the point I've been trying to make is this: Can we still say that software publishers are the victims? Isn't it true that computer users are also the victims?

There's another point that can be made here. In Indonesia, very few people realize that buying computer hardware is only half of the story and perhaps one 10th of their total investment. In this country, people even cut down on RAM chips to save money. Could you then really expect them not to resort to software piracy? Let me now hear your comments.