![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Pirate Software
Sunday, June 29th, 2003 02:08 amI've just found from Beelzebub the Business Software Alliance that in 2001, 64% of software sold here in Turkey was pirated. It may have gone down since then (in 1999 it was 75%) and I see more VCDs and fewer computer games on the streets (literally - the seller sits on the ground in front of a spread of CDs). Even so, this is still an amazing amount. What I'm still uncertain about is whether this is a good or a bad thing.
In one way, software piracy is good, and the epithet "pirate software" (coined by Microsoft, of course) is a ludicrous exagerration. Pirates were people who boarded ships, killed all who resisted (and often those who did not resist), raped any women on board and looted the cargo. It was a thoroughly nasty business, even when it was legal (the British commissioned "privateers", who had a licence to plunder ships from other countries). Somebody buying a software CD then copying at giving it to their friends, or selling it on the street, hardly comes into the same league. The pirate software industry in Third World countries provides gainful employment and allows a lot of people who couldn't afford the inflated prices charged by software companies to use software, thus contributing to the development of their countries. I remember back in the 1980s when record companies were scared of the new technology of audio-cassettes printing "Copying is killing music" on LP and cassette labels (with a skull and crossbones, no less!). When we released our first cassette, our bass player suggest that we printed on it "Copying is allowing a lot of people to listen to music".
From another angle, pirate software is bad. There is the moral issue that if you "sign" a EULA that makes you promise not to copy the software, then copying the software means that you are lying, and lying is generally a Bad Thing. On the other hand there is the counterargument that only contracts made between equals have moral validity - given the disparity of power between Microsoft and myself, any contract I make with Microsoft carries no moral weight. More practically, though, pirate software may well be the only thing that is keeping the Microsoft monopoly alive. Let us imagine that the Turkish government had both the will and the ability to stamp out all pirate software. Approximately two-thirds of business and home users would be faced with the choice of forking out for a Windows licence or switching to Open Source software. Just for a single user, this means around $90 for Windows, and God knows what for MS Office. For businesses, the licence fees could be astronomical, and then there are all the clauses MS has built in about upgrades, and the right to inspect and change any software on the user's computer. I see a big market share for Linux, which is why Microsoft, while they bluster about software piracy, would probably like to see it continue.
In one way, software piracy is good, and the epithet "pirate software" (coined by Microsoft, of course) is a ludicrous exagerration. Pirates were people who boarded ships, killed all who resisted (and often those who did not resist), raped any women on board and looted the cargo. It was a thoroughly nasty business, even when it was legal (the British commissioned "privateers", who had a licence to plunder ships from other countries). Somebody buying a software CD then copying at giving it to their friends, or selling it on the street, hardly comes into the same league. The pirate software industry in Third World countries provides gainful employment and allows a lot of people who couldn't afford the inflated prices charged by software companies to use software, thus contributing to the development of their countries. I remember back in the 1980s when record companies were scared of the new technology of audio-cassettes printing "Copying is killing music" on LP and cassette labels (with a skull and crossbones, no less!). When we released our first cassette, our bass player suggest that we printed on it "Copying is allowing a lot of people to listen to music".
From another angle, pirate software is bad. There is the moral issue that if you "sign" a EULA that makes you promise not to copy the software, then copying the software means that you are lying, and lying is generally a Bad Thing. On the other hand there is the counterargument that only contracts made between equals have moral validity - given the disparity of power between Microsoft and myself, any contract I make with Microsoft carries no moral weight. More practically, though, pirate software may well be the only thing that is keeping the Microsoft monopoly alive. Let us imagine that the Turkish government had both the will and the ability to stamp out all pirate software. Approximately two-thirds of business and home users would be faced with the choice of forking out for a Windows licence or switching to Open Source software. Just for a single user, this means around $90 for Windows, and God knows what for MS Office. For businesses, the licence fees could be astronomical, and then there are all the clauses MS has built in about upgrades, and the right to inspect and change any software on the user's computer. I see a big market share for Linux, which is why Microsoft, while they bluster about software piracy, would probably like to see it continue.
