Date: 29 Jan 93 23:49:21 CST
From: Jim Thomas <
[email protected]>
Subject: File 1--Introduction to a Chat with the SPA
Over the past few months, CuD talked with severeal SPA staff about
their organization, goals, tactics, and membership. In CuD # 4.63, we
reposted several SPA position papers and summarized their broad goals.
Here, we attempt to present in more detail the SPA's view of its
organization, mission, and activities from their perspective.
We began our inquiry into the SPA knowing little about them other than
what we had read in the press. Press accounts seemed taken primarily
from SPA literature, which leave a number of questions unasked. We
also were initially influenced by the rumors and other sources of
information that portrayed the SPA as an evil entity inclined to
invoke the law for its own narrow interests. Between these two
extremes--an altruistic group devoted to high ideals and an
opportunistic frontier sheriff, we found considerable middle ground
and support for both views.
The SPA is divided into two fairly distinct, but somewhat overlapping,
groups. The first, represented by the SPA's General Fund, provides
the same services for members that any solid professional organization
does. It provides support, conferences, information, and other
assistance for members. The bulk of the SPA's activities are devoted
to these services, and from all accounts they do it well and take
justifiable pride in their accomplishments. The second, represented
by the SPA's Copyright Protection Fund (CPF) garners the publicity and
raises the questions that prompted our initial inquiries. Although
linguisticially awkward, the SPA calls each segment a "fund," rather
than a group or a division. Some have called the CPF cyber-tech
bounty hunters for its aggressive style in pursuing its targets and
using the threat of law to obtain out-of-court settlements that have
been has high as a half-million dollars. Those whom the SPA represent
justifies this style as a necessary method to protect software authors
from potential predators whose actions, if unchecked, reduce the
compensation for intellectual property.
We have said it before, and we'll repeat it: Both CuD editors are
unequivocally opposed to all forms of predatory behavior, whether by
the lawless or by those who ostensibly defend law. We strongly
believe that if one obtains software, whether conventional copyright
or shareware, and uses it regularly, it should be purchased. Period.
This is the official position of CuD, and it is the strong personal
view of both editors.
However, we also judge the "zero-tolerance" approach to copying and
distributing unpurchased software both unreasonable as a legal and
ethical stance, and ultimately unhealthy for the software industry and
for end-users. The recent passage of PL 102-561, the federal
anti-piracy bill (formerly S893) is an example of a bad law that
over-criminalizes "piracy," creates a broad category of offenses that
lump both minor lapses in judgement with serious predations, provides
an easy means for prosecutorial abuse, and gives a coercive weapon to
groups inclined to seek out-of-court settlements.
We are of two minds about the SPA. On one hand, their commitment to
members interests, their willingness to engage in educational
activities to raise the consciousness of end-users' obligations to
software publishers, and their devotion to their cause are laudable.
On the other hand, some of their tactics raise ethical questions, and
their hard-line stance on "zero-tolerance" are not.
Our intent in this and subsequent discussion of the SPA (and the
Business Software Alliance) is not simply to criticize them.
Instead, we hope to raise some of the issues underlying their methods
and philosophy for the purpose of striking a balance between the
rights of *both* publishers and users.
In our discussions, we found the SPA staff without exception to be
friendly and cooperative. They patiently answered repetitious
questions and promptly provided information that we requested.
Although we doubt that anything we say in CuD will influence them one
way or the other, we hope they interpret our critiques in subsequent
issues in the collegial spirit intended, and we invite them to engage
in dialogue with the past and future comments that we and other
readers provide.
One might ask why the SPA should bother engaging in dialogue in
Cu-Digest. Let me suggest a few reasons:
1) CuD's readers are primarily professional (computer types,
attorneys, law enforcement, media) and discussion would reach at least
40,000 people, probably closer to 60,000. Readers are obviously
computer-literate, and most are affected in some way by intellectual
property issues.
2) Engaging in dialogue is healthy. Conflicting views, when publicly
aired, can lead to sharpening of and changes in public thinking.
3) The SPA may have an image problem. Whatever they think they do,
their actions are clearly misunderstood by many people. Public
dialogue would give them the opportunity to reflect on the image and
to assess if it's the one most-appropriate to their goals.
4) The SPA's goal of educational outreach would be served by
contributing to the dialogue in CuD. Outreach is invaluable in
challenging people's thinking, raising issues, and imparting
information. For the SPA, the value is not whether people accept or
reject their methods, but rather that the simple act of discussing
them publicly serves to raise awareness about the problems and
stimulate people to think in new ways about proprietary information
for them. It's a no-lose situation for them.
5) The SPA staff came across as dedicated, well-meaning, and
honorable, which suggests that they would welcome a public dialogue.
We look forward to hearing from them.
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
