Software pirates 'should be hung, drawn and quartered'

The issue of software piracy has thrown up a variety of outspoken comments from silicon.com readers this week - from one call by a software designer for the death sentence to more rational concerns about the punishments for this controversial crime.

The comments came flooding in after we reported on the sentencing of a software pirate, who received 15 months in prison and was ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

It was silicon.com reader Jeremy Hall who said "software pirates should be treated as we did the eighteenth century pirates - hung, drawn and quartered". But most readers were happy to debate the issue of whether custodial sentences were the way to go.

Gary Davis said: "I fully agree with the sentiment 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', but it's costing the country millions and millions to keep these white collar criminals in already overcrowded prisons, alongside real villains. No doubt software pirates make substantial amounts of illegal money, take it off them, along with their computer equipment, make them do a lengthy spell of community service, tag them and make them live to a curfew."

While the Business Software Alliance may baulk at the suggestion that these aren't "real villains", this was an issue which other readers raised, preferring to find alternatives to custodial sentences at the tax payers expense.

Graham West said: "Sending him to prison along with others who cost the taxpayers money does nothing for me."

And it's not just the cost of imprisonment which readers took issue with. Others suggested the effort of tracking down and prosecuting Khan was wasteful on the part of Lewisham Trading Standards, who brought the case to court.

silicon.com reader Tony Troy said: "Much as I commend Lewisham Trading Standards' efforts in achieving a successful prosecution, I do suspect that this work may be diverting their stretched resources away from dealing with other criminal trading practices that directly affect members of the public, and their borough's residents in particular."

Again this repeats the notion that software piracy is not "real" crime, and doesn't affect anybody other than copyright owners. Tony proposed a scheme which would at least see the bill picked up by billionaire software companies, rather than cash-strapped London boroughs.

"One wonders if such matters shouldn't be best dealt with in the civil courts - the likes of Microsoft and Adobe should be more than capable of looking after themselves," he wrote.

An inescapable issue, which we always come back to when talking about piracy of Microsoft software, is the question of whether people taking money from the pocket of Bill Gates is really such an issue. Many assume that Gates is the only real victim of piracy and most think he's got enough money already.

The high prices of software are also blamed as a contributory factor to the high levels of piracy.

Rodney McLeod said: "The vast majority of people cannot afford the ridiculously high prices charged for software and it is also a well known fact that the production costs are a small percentage of the total profits made."

But does that really make piracy a justifiable act on the part of the consumer? Stealing something because it is too expensive is rarely a defence which would stand up in court.

Offering a different angle on the anti-Microsoft issue was Rod Sheaff, who wrote: "If all software was open source, these problems could be avoided."

What's your opinion, email editorial@silicon.com and let us know what you think.