IP Law Software

Abandoned Software That most people do not "have the facts" about copyrights should surprise nobody. Let's be real here -- copyright law is complex, often vague or nuanced, and there are multiple different copyright regimes. No reasonable person would believe in this 24-hour rule, but there should be zero expectation that anybody other than copyright lawyers would have a firm grasp of copyright law.

That people do not know about copyright law by no means is the driving factor for unauthorized copyright usage -- let's dispense with the childish, loaded word "piracy." We're talking about people who are using software, not hijacking, raping and murdering it. The Moores and Esichaikul (2010) highlights a couple of things that are worth considering in this discussion. First, they note that people like to share software, and that this sharing is a far more common occurrence than, say, people who would violate most other aspects of law.

People tend not to use physical goods without paying, and are far more likely to use non-physical goods like software without paying. Most people have only a rough familiarity with criminal law, yet tend to err on the side of caution with respect to committing acts that might be deemed illegal. The same cannot be said about software. Ignorance of the finer nuances of copyright law may exist, but they do not contribute to people's propensity for unauthorized software usage, or for software sharing.

There are, however, explanations for the phenomenon. The Moores article inadvertently highlights one reason -- nobody trusts either the software companies nor the law on this issue. Consider the absurd statement "counterfeiting and piracy…cost the U.S.

economy $200-250 billion a year, with the subsequent loss of some 750,000 jobs." The dollar figure is tough to pin down, but anybody with even the slightest proclivity to critical thought will know that there are no incremental job gains to purchasing MS Office (this paper was written on a purchased version, thank you very much). The product has been made, MSFT records massive profits with their 80% gross margin, and if they make a few billion more or a few billion less, there is no correlation with job creation.

There is a credibility gap with such statements, or claims of poverty from the world's richest software, media and clothing companies. Or facile misstatements of Econ 101 dogma as we see at the beginning of Asongu (2014) -- competition does not derive from IPRs, profits do. "Anti-piracy" discussions are too often riddled with this sort of chin-drooling fare; it's no wonder consumers lend it no credence. Stropkova falls into this trap as well.

Economic value is not lost due to piracy -- it is transferred to the company/person who paid less for their software, and the claim of health and safety risks are spurious. Moores (2010) tries to understand the ethical perspectives of people who do use software without authorization. It's not piracy to lend a neighbor a hammer. Ernest and Julio don't send in the Feds when you pour a glass of wine for your lover, and Kraft doesn't sue people who host potlucks.

Software and media companies, because their products are a lot easier to share, pretend that their products operate on a different set of principles from all other products, and have the laws to back them up. What software companies see as cognitive dissonance on the part of consumers willing to share software instead of paying for it, consumers see as an extension of the same behaviors they have with any other product.

It should not be forgotten that consumers care about right and wrong a lot more than they care about the law, as anybody who's ever driven over the speed limit will tell you. So knowing copyright rules is not related to following them. Consumers do not see software as any different from any other product -- something that once purchased can be shared as freely as a six pack among friends or coworkers. The law makes this distinction, but ethically, morally, consumers do not.

The law, as written by elected officials dependent on corporate donations, does not exactly have a credible track record of caring about right and wrong. Moores touches on this in that collectivist.