Date: 29 Jan 93 23:49:21 CST From: Jim Thomas 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