Are consumers calling for action against counterfeit software?

According to a press release issued by Microsoft last week to announce its "Consumer Action Day" against counterfeit software, "consumers want action", and are relying on Microsoft to "give people a voice in the fight against software counterfeiting". Whilst we do agree that counterfeiting of any kind can endanger consumers when they believe they are purchasing original products, we have to question Microsoft's credentials to represent consumers' interests here. Do they really mean to "give people a voice", or is this just another "astroturfing" campaign, promoting Microsoft's self-interest in the guise of a grassroots movement?

For one thing, a common tactic of intellectual property holders is to blur the distinction between counterfeit and pirated goods (and even legal generic goods, in the case of the pharmaceutical industry). Microsoft's press release exemplifies this, talking about "counterfeit Microsoft software purchased at resellers" and the "black market for pirated software" as if the two were synonymous. In fact, most consumers who obtain pirated goods on the black market realise that they are not original. Whilst Consumers International discourages consumers from using pirated goods, in many countries they have little choice, because originals are either unavailable or are priced far beyond their means.

In fact, Microsoft itself has benefited from piracy of its software, particularly in the developing world, where users have become versed in the use of its software through the wide availability of pirated copies. Bill Gates, speaking of software piracy in China, has gone so far as to state, "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade".

Moreover, there is a strong argument that copyright protection of computer software is skewed against the interests of consumers. In most countries computer software is protected for between 50 to 70 years after publication - so for example Windows 95 will not become free to copy until at least 2045. Even after the copyright expires, it may be impossible to make a copy due to technological restrictions (which, in many countries, are illegal to bypass). Assuming that you can make a copy, you still won't have access to the original source code that was used to create the software - which means that it can't be used as a building block for new works in the same same way as public domain music or literature.

So if copyright on computer software is unbalanced against the interests of consumers, but if Consumers International does not advocate the use of pirated copies, how can consumers around the world have access to safe and high quality computer software? One option that many consumers around the world have found useful is the use of free and open source software. Widely used examples include the acclaimed Firefox Web browser, the OpenOffice.org office suite that substitutes for Microsoft Office, and even a complete operating system that can replace Microsoft Windows altogether. Free and open source software (unlike some other forms of "freeware" or "demoware") is always free to copy, free to modify, and free to distribute to others. Sounds like a great alternative to piracy, doesn't it?