Since the other day was talk like a pirate day, I thought I would write about a different kind of pirate – one that uses and trades unlicensed software. When I was in college I always vowed that I would pay for the software that I used once I had a job and the means to afford it, and I have kept with that promise. I understand that there are many people without the means to purchase software, and that piracy can help them get a leg up in their education to be able to afford to purchase that software in the future. I personally don’t want to ever have to go there again. Everything on my computer is either Freeware/GPL or paid for commercial software.
I’m not sure there is a good solution for piracy though, because some people will perpetually steal software with no sense of moral grounding. I was speaking with an individual who is a recent graduate from College who was in my same boat – couldn’t afford the software, but wanted to have it so he could learn how to use it an make himself marketable. He was also of the same mindset, and while he probably isn’t making a super huge salary, he is starting to purchase the software that he previously downloaded and removing the software that he no longer has need of.
On the other hand, I know of a few individuals who make many times my salary yet feel that they shouldn’t have to pay for the software on their computers. I know this because I have cleaned up their computers from some of the garbage that they downloaded that had backdoors and spyware associated with it. I have been asked many times to reload unlicensed versions of Windows, which I refuse to do, and one time I was told by someone I work for to do it for his boss on company time. I don’t want to get started about how many levels deep that ethical issue went.
The system is broken.
Software Copyright holders attempt to use activation procedures to protect their content, however this is like putting a lock on a screened-in porch door. It only keeps the good people out. Media copyright holders such as the RIAA and MPAA are attempting to go after those who share their content, however this misses the people with hard drives full of movies and music who are collectors. They seem to target the small players too – individuals who have an album or two on a share because they installed some software and didn’t read enough to realize that they were going to be sharing the music on their computers with the world. Broken enforcement.
Software and media needs to be priced at a reasonable level for its utility. The average home user probably rarely uses their office package, so charging $600 is unreasonable. The average web developer who is handed some psd files is probably going to use photoshop all of ten minutes to modify those files and convert them into something he can use. Is that worth $700? I can’t justify spending $700 for photoshop, so I use the GIMP, which is more than adequate to fill my needs. On the other hand, a graphics artist who uses Photoshop for 7 hours a day to make his livlihood should be paying that much for the software. As a computer geek I would prefer to use Photoshop so that I could help those graphics designers when they run into problems, but again that’s not worth $700 to me so that I can hand out free advice to people. Broken cost.
The solution is not easy.
The solution is multi-faceted and must be targeted specifically at the broken issues in the system currently. First of all, activation either doesn’t go far enough or goes too far. When transferring software from one computer to another becomes illegal, or requires repurchasing, that takes activation too far. Activation procedures are also too easy to break. Within hours of a commercial software package’s launch, someone will have figured out how to crack or bypass the activation and those who look for the means to get around it will be able to find it. Again, the good guy suffers here.
For software licensing, I propose a system similar to FlexLM where a user has to check out a key and remain in constant contact with the license server or the software will cease to function. For offline use a key could be checked out for a duration of time just like in FlexLM. Now why should we submit to such a model? Pay per usage. If an application such as Microsoft Office cost $0.50/day to use it, just for example, then I would have it installed on my Wife’s computer instead of Open Office. She uses the software once or twice a week, and ~$52/year is easier to swallow than paying retail prices. Continually updated software is another reason. In such a licensing model, users could always download the latest version of the software and not be stuck in an older version. It breaks down the barrier to entry for most people for a software package like Office. For $0.10/hour I would also have the more powerful Photoshop installed on my computer instead of GIMP. Pricing could then easily be tiered based on commercial or non-commercial use, and upon support levels.
The second part of the solution is enforcement. Instead of targeting the small time sharers such as the MPAA does, they need to target the big-time criminals who are actively cracking and making this software and media available for general use. An end user shouldn’t have to fear that their copy of software might not be genuine and that their list of MP3s downloaded and paid for from Amazon might become a target of the RIAA if they get some kind of malware on their computer that decides to start sharing those to the world.
The third part of the solutin is reporting. I know some of the software alliances have reporting tools on their websites, and I have actually visited them in the past in an attempt to report a violation. The last time I did so, the form was so complex and required so much information that I was not willing to put my own self on the line to report someone else’s infraction. For example, how do I report my boss’s boss, etc. Where are the anonymous tip lines. They didn’t exist backt hen, but today I did find one site that has this, but I don’t know how effective reporting will be.
That’s my solution in a nutshell. Not really much to it – mainly an enforcable and practical subscription model, reasonable prices to remove impetus for theft, and appropriate enforcement. There are a few holes I haven’t covered, but feel free to point them out.
Entries (RSS)