The Business Software Alliance has called on the government to increase fines to combat piracy and stop firms infringing their software licences, but it played down calls from IT Week readers to make software licensing simpler.
In an exclusive interview with IT Week, Siobhan Carroll, the BSA's regional manager for Northern Europe, said the organisation wants the government "to help increase the risk awareness and deterrent" for companies by imposing greater penalties.
Specifically, the BSA is lobbying to increase the damages firms must pay for licensing infringements according to the European IPR Enforcement Directive – at present UK courts tend to award damages equivalent to unpaid licence fees.
BSA spokesman Mike Newton said that the government should take the lead against piracy because "UK PLC is missing out as a consequence of a thriving black-market trade in software". He said the knock-on effects could be more funding for organised crime and fewer jobs in the UK IT industry.
Carroll argued that unscrupulous firms ignore licensing infringments because they think they won't be caught and that "copying a bit of software is really unimportant". "We're looking for a fine which will help as a deterrent, because it's another risk factor companies will be aware of," she said.
But David Roberts, chief executive of user body The Corporate IT Forum, reacted angrily to the BSA’s suggestion, which he said was "tarring businesses with the same brush as software pirates".
"Calling for additional fines 'as a deterrent' is an insult to the professionalism of managers working in large businesses," Roberts argued. "No large corporate is going to deliberately go out and buy under-the-counter software to break their licence agreements."
Several IT Week readers suggested that self-appointed bodies such as the BSA and the Federation Against Software Theft (Fast), which work on behalf of software companies, should not be policing the industry due to an inherent bias.
"We do not have private police and customs services in this country and I see this as the same thing," said one reader. "A government body which was regulated and accountable would not be faced with such requirements and could therefore ensure that the laws were upheld in a fair and consistent manner."
The BSA's Carroll welcomed government help but argued that "the reality is that it leaves the industry to look after its own interests".
IT Week readers also called on the BSA and Fast to persuade their software industry members to create simpler licensing terms so firms are less likely to make innocent mistakes or be unfairly criminalised.
"Software vendors do themselves no favours in the first place; licences are written in unintelligible jargon and 99.99 percent of people just click 'Accept'," said IT manager Nick Field.
However, BSA spokesman Mike Newton said IT managers should do more to ensure their software is correctly licensed - for example by using software asset management tools, and discussing licences in more detail with suppliers. " Licences are complicated but it's not rocket science; there are a number of levels of controls simply not being applied in business – we are only saying [you should] audit your software once a year."
But Martin Mutch of Oracle software consultancy Rocela said that some products are difficult to manage, such as certain distributed Oracle tools whose licensing terms often change. "Application server products are almost impossible to detect with software asset management tools," Mutch added. "Software vendors need to make things simpler, but the revenue opportunities from more sophisticated licensing are greater."
Roberts of the Corporate IT Forum added, "The call for an 'annual audit' demonstrates how out of touch the BSA really is. Our corporate subscribers view software asset management as an ongoing process, not a yearly stock check."
