By Will Sturgeon, 22 October 2003 17:05
NEWS The Federation Against Software Theft has hit out at many UK businesses claiming they are little more than common criminals deliberately committing acts of software theft and piracy.
The organisation claims to have debunked the idea that a lot of software theft and piracy is committed unintentionally - stating that almost half the respondents to its annual survey claimed breach of software licences is likely to be deliberate.
The report also showed that 47 per cent of respondents also believe software piracy is still on the increase.
While some users may claim they merely fail to read or understand the small print of their increasingly complex licences, or bought pirate software 'in good faith' thinking it to be genuine, these excuses are starting to wear thin, according to FAST.
The survey also revealed there has been a significant increase in the importance placed on software piracy at board level within companies - with three-quarters of boards taking the issue seriously, as opposed to little more than half in last year's survey.
Geoff Webster, FAST CEO, said in a statement: "It is good to see that board level executives are increasingly taking software piracy seriously."
However, he said large corporates still don't have a strong enough grasp on their software licensing policies.
"Surprisingly, large corporates are still not getting the message that it is a legal requirement to provide proof of ownership licences."
Webster also noted that disciplinary procedures have lightened in recent times, with sackings down by almost 50 per cent over last year. While board directors realise piracy is a problem, and ultimately must shoulder any blame, they would appear to be being increasingly lenient with staff who break the terms of their software licences.
Webster added that companies must learn to regard software as they would any other asset.
"A company would not drive a fleet of unlicensed vehicles and the same can be said for illegal software in an organisation," he said.
The Business Software Alliance last month said it is still willing to give companies and organisations the benefit of the doubt.
Mark Floisand, the UK chair of the BSA and marketing director of Adobe, claims the BSA will be lenient with anybody who admits to accidental breaches of licence or who buys pirated software in good faith.
Floisand said: "If a company puts its hands up to the BSA and admits there are problems with their licences or with their software then they are effectively protecting themselves from blame and they are protecting themselves from us going after them at a later date."

Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
"a legal requirement to provide proof of ownership licences"?!
Guilty until proven innocent?!
2. anonymous
FAST are not independent & financed by Microsoft etc.
All have software vendors like Microsoft have £1 shares in FAST so much for being indipendent.
They only there to generate Microsofts and the others coffers.
3. anonymous
When softeware starts costing reasonable amount of money then I am sure people will start paying for it. Microsoft take the P***. We have a 12 person company and software licence bill of £25k, Whats all that about?
4. anonymous
FAST are just another company trying to make money to pay their staff.
They have to keep finding pirates or they will all be unemployed.
5. Terry Pardy
Does anyone read the mumbo jumbo of the software licence text - I doubt it. Why don't they just say 'DON'T COPY THIS SOFTWARE - THE COPYRIGHT BELONGS TO US!' in big black letters.
6. anonymous
Just had a meeting with FAST rep. I think he used to sell second hard cars! Talk about hard sell!! If they are only here to help companies then why does their rep from what claims to be an 'educational arm' come over like a salesman? Using shock tactics too - it seems we could be put out of business or jailed for not being 100% compliant!!!
7. anonymous
i have been conned into agreeing to a meeting with these guys - i really didnt like the hard sell but they came on to me like there was no alternative and being very demanding? What legal rights do I have? I do not want to release documenation to them or reveal commercial information about my company - really resent their ignorant aggressive stance.