software piracy: stopping it before it stops you  in today's academic environment, as computing resources become more and more prevalent, computer software becomes easier and easier to access, and as such, easier and easier to copy. this is one of contributing factors to the reputation academic institutions have gained in the software industry for their blatant software piracy---the unethical and illegal copying of copyrighted software.  academics everywhere clamor about protecting the rights to their works, but many view computer software in a different light; they often do not see or fully comprehend the negative implications of illegally copying software which they bring upon themselves and their institutions.  yet what can one do to curb this blatant, yet sometimes elusive, practice? can one protect themselves and their institution from the repercussions of piracy? why should one even try? after all, if everyone else is doing it, it must be okay …  "respect for intellectual labor and creativity is vital to academic discourse and enterprise. this principle applies to work of all authors and publishers in all media. it encompasses respect for the right of acknowledgement, right to privacy, and right to determine the form, manner, and terms of publication and distribution.  because electronic information is volatile and easily reproduced, respect for the work and personal expression of others is especially critical in computer environments. violations of authorial integrity, including plagiarism, invasion of privacy, unauthorized access, and trade secret and copyright violations, may be grounds for sanctions against members of the academic community." \---educom software initiative statement of principle concerning software and intellectual rights. this statement from the educom software initiative is only that---a statement, but it does serve as a solid first step in better understanding the problem of software piracy in today's university environment.  hypocrisy runs deep in the halls of many educational institutions. from primary schools through the most advanced graduate institutions, people profess to teach students the difference between right and wrong, or to at least guide them in making their own decisions. students are taught moral, ethical, and legal points of view, and they are then expected to go out into the world and live their lives according to these teachings.  from the earliest days of preschool, children learn that stealing is wrong; they learn that different things belong to different people and that taking something which belongs to someone else is a serious and punishable act. later, in secondary school, students are taught that copying someone else's test or assignment is also wrong, and that doing so could result in a failing grade. finally, in institutions of higher education, young adults study and refine the origins and developments of their own moral, ethical, and legal points of view. they learn about the importance of intellectual property, and they find the seriousness with which breaches in the area of plagiarism are handled.  in theory, students learn to respect intellectual labor and creativity, and they learn that this respect is a necessary base for the free flow of information in an academic environment. they also learn that respect for and protection of private property are cornerstones upon which our society is founded. in practice, however, students often learn the hypocrisy with which these lessons are taught; they learn how to bypass the educational system and how to use this intellectual property for their own benefit.  much as physical property was to the industrial age, intellectual property--- software and the data it manages---is to the information age, and without the same, if not greater respect for intellectual property, today's society will not survive the transition.  software and manuals, as novels and other literary works, are protected under united states copyright law. in simple terms, this law guarantees the copyright owner, the author in most cases, the exclusive rights to the reproduction and distribution of his intellectual property. thus, copyright law guarantees the owner of the intellectual property the same types of rights that patent law guarantees the owner of an invention or other piece of seemingly more tangible physical property.  computer software and data are intellectual property, and as such are covered by united states copyright law---this realization is critical. the problems start when people cannot, or will not, make the mental transition from physical to intellectual property. whereas most people would not steal books from a bookstore or a software package from a dealer's showroom, even if they knew they would not be caught, many of the same people would not hesitate copying a computer program from a dealer's demonstration model or from their friends and colleagues. the truth, however, is that there is no difference beyond the chosen method of theft.  where many people either do not know the laws governing intellectual property or do not consider computer software as intellectual property, many others choose to disregard the laws altogether. many people---and educators are often guilty of this---rationalize their actions using such arguments as the "fair use doctrine" or that an educational purpose is above the law.  most of the arguments used for arriving at this rationale are poor at best. "i only pirate software i wouldn't otherwise buy. developers make a killing with the prices they charge, so copying a program here or there only balances it out for the little guy. i don't want to spend that kind of money without trying it first, so i'll copy it to try it before buying it. i only pirate the esoteric stuff, not the things i use everyday." many rational and ethical people use these arguments to deal with intellectual property without any shame or guilt. use the same arguments, however, in a situation involving physical property and see how attitudes change. "i only steal textbooks i wouldn't otherwise buy. publishers make a killing with the prices they charge, so stealing a book here or there only balances it out for the little guy. i don't want to spend that kind of money before reading it first, so i'll steal it and read it before buying it. i only steal the esoteric stuff, not the books i use everyday." as for the "fair use doctrine," it, in principle, grants the right to reproduce a small portion of a copyrighted work for educational purposes. this is meant to apply to such things as quotations and as such does not encompass the reproduction of software programs any more than it covers the complete reproduction of novels or other literary works.  putting aside the moral and ethical issues of software piracy, one would expect a university to adhere to even stricter guidelines concerning software since it is intellectual property \---something in which these institutions specialize. unfortunately, the everyday evidence seems to demonstrate that the reputation of educational institutions as the worst offenders of copyright laws---when dealing with computer software---is well deserved.  in almost any industry magazine or journal or on almost any public information service where the topic of software piracy is broached, one can find fervent academics on both sides of the argument. these discussions usually find themselves out of control with both sides deadlocked at the point where piracy is compared to common theft or shoplifting. those who defend software piracy claim the two have nothing in common; those who defend copyright laws claim the results are the same and the act is just as wrong. if there is any real difference between physical and intellectual property, it could be that the latter has a much greater societal value. this seems to be borne out studying the history of civilization and its use, or misuse, of information.  many of the problems concerning software piracy arise out of innocent ignorance of the laws governing copyrights and license agreements. in these cases, simple education about what can and cannot be done within these guidelines can suffice. clearly point out that unless software has been placed in the public domain, it is protected by copyright law and one must abide by the license agreements which usually come with a program. in general, the user owns only a right to use the software and not the software itself. this type of usage license places restrictions upon reproducing and distributing the software itself. this type of usage license places restrictions upon reproducing and distributing the software, and this can include such things as loaning the software to a friend or colleague and making duplicates for classroom or network use. some licenses even go so far as to restrict use to a specific computer.  more and more of today's software is easily copied as it is no longer common practice in the industry to use "copy protection" schemes. this lack of copy protection is a trust the developer is demonstrating in the integrity of the user, and not a permit to duplicate the software beyond what is allowed in the license agreement. in most cases, however, the user does have the right to make a backup copy of the software for archival purposes, and in an increasing number of cases dealing with university-produced software, copyrighted packages even encourage a free duplication and distribution system.  in theory, any use of a software package which falls outside of the limits of the license agreement renders the user, and quite often the user's company or institution, liable to prosecution, so the simple rule is: read and understand the license agreement before using a new software package.  where simply educating the users is not enough to slow software theft, proceed to more formal steps such as producing a clear written policy concerning software use. go so far as to have users sign a one-time agreement to abide by the policy and severely reprimand those who do not. rules concerning software piracy often exist in universities, but more often then not enforcement is lacking. do these rules hold the same weight as those concerning plagiarism? do the same rules cover faculty and staff as well as the students, or are there double standards? in most educational communities a member is disciplined---sometimes to the point of expulsion---for plagiarism as well as property theft. this similarity between the two types of theft demonstrates the obvious link between physical and intellectual property. is the university, therefore, willing to consider and enforce the same discipline for proven software piracy? if it is not, then it is not going far enough towards reducing the institutional liability for copyright infringement.  with the recent advances in integrated computer networks, software is much more accessible. but many of these networks now also include "execute-only" features which prevent the average user from copying the software for personal use. if these features are not included, they can often be added by the university staff with a minimal programming effort. the idea behind education, formal policies, and simple local hardware or software protection schemes such as these is to stop the novice or casual user from copying application software.  software piracy impacts both the university's future acquisitions and, if it exists, campus software development. anyone involved with computer use or the formation of university policy must encourage the legitimate use of software both on and off campus. follow university licensing agreements religiously--- not just in spirit. if the licenses are not flexible enough, expend the effort needed to negotiate with the developer for a special agreement which will work. if the developer does not offer a deal which suits the institution's needs, embrace another who does, and let the reasoning behind the choice be known. if the institution is not large enough or the demand for software is not great, work with other educational institutions within the region or state to gain a louder voice. let the software budget do what money does best--- talk. developers will listen, but an institution must also give them reason to trust.  university microcomputer software budgets are too often underestimated. but considering the ethical and legal ramifications of software piracy within an educational institution, administrators must realize, or be made to understand, that the expense is a necessary one. when viewed next to mainframe software expenditures or even student textbook costs, microcomputer software expenses suddenly appear quite reasonable. when the time spent with a software package is compared to its price, one should find that the cost for using such a valuable tool is mere pennies per hour. so when budgeting for software acquisitions or thinking about what software to provide to faculty, staff, and students, remember: saving money is one thing, stealing is another.  university administrators and staff must take the steps necessary to reduce the university's potential liability for copyright infringement. they must champion the fact that unauthorized reproduction or use of computer software is both a violation of federal law and an unethical, unacceptable act in an institution of higher education.  the practical implications of software piracy are simple: the users pay the price in the end.  the relationship between software customer and developer is based upon a mutual trust. the customer trusts the developer to produce high quality software and to provide updates and support, all at a reasonable cost. the developer trusts the customer to purchase the software and use it within the limits of the license agreement. if the customer keeps its part of the deal, it is worth the research and development time of the developer to invest in new improvements and products as well as to provide excellent documentation and customer support for current products. if the developer has done its homework, the customer will continue to support and use the product and possibly recommend it to friends and colleagues. in addition, the customer is likely to purchase future updates and even new products from the developer. if both the developer and the customer can develop and maintain this rapport, then both will benefit; if one or the other does not, then everyone involved stands to lose.  software piracy by individuals or departments on a university campus can bring about repercussions for the entire institution. if the illegal duplication and use of software is not condemned by the university administration at the highest levels---as is plagiarism, the illegal duplication and use of other intellectual property---the institution may find it impossible to negotiate reasonable site or network licenses and other agreements with developers which could be advantageous to the whole university community.  most of the software sold today, whether for mainframes or microcomputers, requires many man-years of development time at a cost often exceeding several hundred thousands of dollars. because of this, the real cost of software piracy for both the user---legitimate or not---and the developer is far greater than that of the immediate dollar losses associated with most types of theft. the cost is the long-term ability of the developer to bring new and better packages to the market. only when it is no longer profitable to invest the money necessary to produce high quality products, and only when these products stop arriving on dealers' shelves will the true cost of today's rampant software piracy be felt. but by that time, it will be too late to stop. both users and developers must act now, and act together, to stem the spread of software piracy if the software industry is to survive and grow and if the users are to ever see the more powerful, more "intelligent" software which the future promises just beyond the horizon.  in its simplest expression, software piracy is theft of intellectual property, and just as there is no world in which theft of any type can be completely stopped, there is no way to completely stop piracy. but educational institutions have a greater responsibility than the world at large, and they must take every avenue available to them to lead the way in protecting the constitutionally conceived notion of copyrights for intellectual works, and in doing so, set an example for other public and private institutions. for without this guarantee, without the right to create and disseminate original works of authorship, the free flow of ideas in an academic institution, which is critical to learning of any kind, would soon disappear, taking with it a fundamental basis of today's society.  mark b. johnson