By Ron Coates, 18 May 2004 15:25
NEWS Fast (Federation Against Software Theft) is putting the squeeze on company directors by bringing criminal charges for copyright violation of software licences within companies.
John Lovelock, Fast's legal affairs manager, said: "We found that some directors were getting blasé. They were saying 'When was the last time there was a prosecution? When was the last time anyone was jailed?' We have two cases in progress and anticipate that there will be around three to four per annum."
Fast has turned to using section 109 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which allows a search warrant to be issued by a magistrate if a police officer has reason to believe that an organisation is infringing copyright in the pursuit of its business.
The organisation was behind two police raids in December and January. Lovelock said he couldn't give any details as the matter was sub judice. Before this year, Fast had pursued offending companies through the civil courts, allowing them a chance to settle out of court.
Now directors face up to 10 years' imprisonment and the collapse of their business if they use unlicensed software.
Lovelock said: "It's in the directors' and companies' own interests to know what software they have. A colleague on an audit for a company found that it had £3m worth of software that wasn't on its asset register that could make a real difference in any takeover.
"And it's in all our interests that piracy be stopped. We're no longer a manufacturing nation: we are a creative nation. If we can't stop this [copyright violation] nobody's going to go in for it. We'll all lose."
Lovelock quoted an IDC report that estimates that if piracy was reduced from its current level of 25 per cent to 15 per cent, the overall value of the UK IT industry would be boosted from £37.5bn to £54.4bn and 40,000 jobs would be created.
A recent survey by Fast found that 47 per cent of corporate Britain believes that software piracy within companies is on the rise.
Lovelock said: "We need to rattle their cages. This is a message to directors that they need to be aware."
Comments
There are 8 comments. Join the discussion
1. Carl Maycock
I wonder if this will prompt more companies to side step expensive licensed software for cheaper open source alternatives ? I imagine that the increase in unlicensed software must be a reflection on the sheer cost.
2. anonymous
It's a pity that FAST, BSA, etc don't put as much pressure on the software vendors to come up with common licencing T&Cs, and some common methods of dealing with licences.
We have some where a different code is required per machine, and others where single code is valid across a number. Some where the licence is for concurrent users, other per machine it's installed on. Some where the licence is a one-off purchase, others where it expires.
And then there is the 'proof of ownership' issues. Some give you a certificate that clearly shows what you have, yet others don't (or it's part of a bulky manual). And of course, some supply it as a sticker on the side of a machine - so how do you transfer that ?
And just don't get me started on to bull***t you get from suppliers when you try to find out how a piece of software is licenced !
3. Ian Vaudrey
"...some supply it as a sticker on the side of a machine - so how do you transfer that ?"
That sounds like a Microsoft OEM license. You wouldn't transfer that at all - it's valid only for the machine it was supplied with and is not transferable.
4. Nic
Funnily enough - I've just had a visit from FAST coporate services. They now offer much more than just a software audit, the process is now geared to IT compliance across all areas. It does cost, but nothing compared to a lawsuit going against you!
5. anonymous
Nice to know that FAST has a sense of proportion and values in life !
Stealing a piece of software 10 years chokey kill someone with your car 18 months if you are unlucky and a dent in your licence. ergo one software package equals several lives in value or am I missing something here.
6. Joe
Interesting that the company that does the audits is also prosecuting...
I thought that was a conflict of interest? Sounds like someone wants you to use them, or else they send cops to your place.
And yes, apparently many think that human lives are just money bags.
Don't know about FAST, just know that some do. I wonder if they'll respond to that fact you mentioned.
7. Kevan Chipppindall-Higgin
The idea of software beiung part of a firm's assets is an interesting one. I do not believe that it is an asset insofar as a lot of softwware cannot be re-sold. Therefore, the moment it is paid for, in strictly financial terms, it is worthless because it cannot be liquidated.
Perhaps it is this, added to the extrotionate price of much software, that results in so much unlicensed software around.
It is about time that this whole issue was re-examined in terms of what is fair and reasonable.
8. anonymous
FAST & BSA are private enterprises not government agencies!
As an IT professional I understand the importance of proper and legal licensing, but given every other legal/statutory obligation that we have both as companies and individuals, it upsets me that this type of organisation looks to make a fast (forgive the pun) buck out of enterprises, by forcefully stating their legal rights as a sales tool when in fact they have no more legal right that any other individual to enter your premises or private property.
My advice, get your software in order yes..... morally, you should do so, but tell these charlatans to "bugger off".