People Don't Understand Software Licensing

[jim]

When I think about piracy, I tend to think about internet nerds who spend all day torrenting/usenetting/rapidsharing their way through corporate software, operating systems, games, music and films.

I'm starting to realise though that that the vast majority of people would happily "pirate", without even knowing it - because nobody understands software licensing. The idea seems to be that once you buy a disc, the software is yours and you can do whatever you want with it, such as installing it on 200 machines.

Today for instance, somebody has come to me at work, handed me two consumer software packages on disc - presumably off Amazon - and asked me to install it on 20 machines for simultaneous usage, ideally an additional 30 for convenience.

It's clearly for home users, even says on the disk itself that it's for one user at a time, but nobody seems to understand how these things work. Yet again, I haven't been consulted... people just spend money, hand me products, and expect it all to work. So if I install it, I'm breaking the law (and I have no intention of doing that); if I don't install it, I'm the nasty guy in IT who wastes everybody's budgets and refuses to do his job over some "legal niggle".

So two questions really:

Firstly, what on earth am I meant to say to the person who has given me this software to install? It's a bit of a rock and a hard place situation, but there you go. In an ideal world, I'd be some head of department who could say "You should've consulted us first, you're stuffed I'm afraid." Naturally, I'm not though, and this person is pretty high up so I can't risk causing any problems.

And secondly, does your average person have any idea how software licensing works? I'm starting to think that nobody does, so I'd be interested to know what you reckon.

[Salazaar]

Firstly, what on earth am I meant to say to the person who has given me this software to install? It's a bit of a rock and a hard place situation, but there you go. In an ideal world, I'd be some head of department who could say "You should've consulted us first, you're stuffed I'm afraid." Naturally, I'm not though, and this person is pretty high up so I can't risk causing any problems.

My first thought would be to politely refuse, explain the situation and then direct the person in question to your line manager, and immediately inform your line manager that that's what you've done and why.

[aidanjt]

1. Tell them the truth, that most software vendors hate their customers and want to whack their bank accounts open like a pinata.

2. No, because the notions are unnatural, backwards, and barely with a force of law. It's merely a defacto abuse of copyright law because it's how USians do things. And if it wasn't allowed, the copytards would merely pay off a bunch of politicians to make it so.

[jim]

My first thought would be to politely refuse, explain the situation and then direct the person in question to your line manager, and immediately inform your line manager that that's what you've done and why.

I did think about that, but my line manager doesn't know very much about IT (albeit more than most) so I think it could result in more problems than it fixes.

I'm certainly going to send it on up if there's any grief though, it's my automatic response when there's a threat of me becoming involved in stupid politics.

I might speak to them actually, see if they can introduce a system whereby we have to sign off IT-related purchases... should stop this kind of nonsense from happening again (this isn't the first time).

[kalniel]

Firstly, what on earth am I meant to say to the person who has given me this software to install? It's a bit of a rock and a hard place situation, but there you go. In an ideal world, I'd be some head of department who could say "You should've consulted us first, you're stuffed I'm afraid." Naturally, I'm not though, and this person is pretty high up so I can't risk causing any problems.

And secondly, does your average person have any idea how software licensing works? I'm starting to think that nobody does, so I'd be interested to know what you reckon.

I would explain that to install the software as they wish they will need to purchase the appropriate license and once you have that you'll be happy to install it for them - if they don't agree with you from an ethical/professional point of view, then point out that licensed software may contain a check on how it is used.

Hard to say what an average person is these days. I think the vast majority fully understand the concept just as long as they have some kind of exposure to it - certainly it's only taken a brief explanation to any friends/family regardless of computer literacy and they've all understood the idea and nearly all were fully accustomed to it from other business exposure. The only group I've met that don't seem to have an idea are younger people who haven't yet had much exposure to business or the concept of earning a fair wage - and they can be quite decent very moral kids, they just don't understand why can doesn't equal should w.r.t. software.

But to get the exposure these things need to be clear at point of sale, not hidden away in T&Cs.

[Mblaster]

So two questions really:

Firstly, what on earth am I meant to say to the person who has given me this software to install? It's a bit of a rock and a hard place situation, but there you go. In an ideal world, I'd be some head of department who could say "You should've consulted us first, you're stuffed I'm afraid." Naturally, I'm not though, and this person is pretty high up so I can't risk causing any problems.

And secondly, does your average person have any idea how software licensing works? I'm starting to think that nobody does, so I'd be interested to know what you reckon.

Write up a document for them to sign, personally assuming all responsability for ensuring the correct licencing requirements have been met, and present them with that when they ask you to install something. That, along with a short explaination of the licencing should be enough to keep them at bay.

[jim]

Write up a document for them to sign, personally assuming all responsability for ensuring the correct licencing requirements have been met, and present them with that when they ask you to install something. That, along with a short explaination of the licencing should be enough to keep them at bay.

I would like to go with an option like that, but I think the risk of pissing off all involved is probably a little too high.

[mycarsavw]

Install it on one machine and then when you "try" to install it on another and it <cough> doesn't work you can explain the concept of licensing.

[scaryjim]

Most people have no idea about anything technical. And yes, I am a massive cynic, but that's based largely on my experience of dealing with non-technical users both in employment and as a consultant. For instance, a colleague once asked me if I could connect her laptop to our domain. I explained that because it had XP Home I couldn't, and she'd need a laptop with a Professional / Business edition operating system. She stuck her head round my door a couple of days later and said "I've got my new laptop, can you connect it to the network now?". The new one had Windows Vista.... Home. She then tried to get the charity we were working for to pay for a Vista Business upgrade on the basis that she'd bought the laptop specifically for her work with them. I believe we eventually turned her down, but not after I had to spend a long time fighting my corner...

I think in your situation I'd have a lengthy chat with my line manager about the issues, the fact that you cannot legally install the software, and the fact that if you're going to be treated as the technical expert in the company and asked to install / maintain / support the IT infrastructure then you need input into all IT purchasing and you need the authority to refuse requests like this if you haven't been consulted first.

If the conversation goes well, it may then be time to start talking about whether you need a new job title and a salary that goes with it, but that might be pushing your luck

[Raz316]

This has happened to me before. I explained the whole licensing thing in a polite manner (even though, like you, I wasn't consulted at all when purchasing the software) but even then they were not interested, they just wanted it done ASAP.

In the end, with heart in mouth, I refused stating that I would not knowingly break the law for them and said they could take the risk of installing it if they wanted. As soon as they realised they would be taking the responsibility for any consequences they decided that the software wasn't that important at all.

The frustrating part was the guy was basically my direct boss. If it had been anyone else I would've felt a certain degree of protection because I could fall back to my boss and say what's going on.

I didn't work there much longer (my own choice) but I am glad I said no.

[Terbinator]

Tell them to do so would be illegal, the last thing they want is a legal case on there hands right? Admittedly i don't know your working conditions etc but maybe pointing something like this out may earn you some workplace cookies ?

[kalniel]

Most people have no idea about anything technical. And yes, I am a massive cynic, but that's based largely on my experience of dealing with non-technical users both in employment and as a consultant.

It'd agree with that, but the concept of software licensing isn't a technical issue, it's a procurement issue. Maybe people are ignorant of technical consequences to software licenses, but IMHO that is the job of specialists, not your average person.

If someone can understand Sky Sports packages they can understand software licensing.

[GheeTsar]

Refuse, but see if you can find an alternative to offer up. Are there any open source equivalents out there? See if you can find out what the cost of licencing 20 machines would be, are there any cheaper alternatives etc. etc.

If you go back with some positive steps towards a resolution (even if it costs more) you could actually gain from this.

[Saracen]

1. Tell them the truth, that most software vendors hate their customers and want to whack their bank accounts open like a pinata.

2. No, because the notions are unnatural, backwards, and barely with a force of law. It's merely a defacto abuse of copyright law because it's how USians do things. And if it wasn't allowed, the copytards would merely pay off a bunch of politicians to make it so.

I assume that's somewhat tongue in cheek, but taking it at face value, it's just a touch loaded.

First, it wasn't USians that came up with copyright ... or at least, copyright law, though the principles arguably go back about 1000 years before that. It was the good ol' Brits. The Statue of Anne (1709) is generally regarded as the origin of copyright in law, and it was overtly a measure to protect the printing industry by restraint of trade, though there were heavy political undertones too. Modern copyright law comes from the 1886 Berne Convention, and that still underpins most national implementations of copyright and is where modern copyright principles are legally enshrined.

As for piñatas, unless companies are allowed to charge properly for their products, there will be no products, or not of the complexity we know them anyway. If a firm can pay for one and install 20 times, then why not 200, or 2000 or 20,000? Would MS Office exist if an organisation could pay £400 and install thousands of copies right across, say, the NHS, or General Motors?

What people seem to have trouble with is understanding the differences between physical property and intellectual property. They understand that you can't buy one loaf of bread, and assume that means you can empty the entire shop of their stock, but miss that each loaf of bread sold contributes to all the fixed costs of running the shop, just as they do with each sale of a software licence.

Suppose we had a Star Trek type replicator, and we could buy a car, stick it in the replicator and produce dozens of millions of identical copies? There would be no more new developments in cars, because nobody would be able to afford to produce them at that volume of sales. The same with software ... without copyright, there would be little or no new software, because the costs of the manpower required to develop it would not be viable.

As for snooty's original question, I'd suggest pointing out that complying with a request to breach licence conditions opens the company up to a civil lawsuit which could prove very expensive, but it also opens up the company, corporate officers and individual employees (this potentially means YOU, snooty) to criminal charges which can result in unlimited fines and/or up to 10 years in jail. Admittedly, such penalty levels are highly unlikely unless you're acting deliberately and on a huge scale, but liability does exist, and the scale of it is useful for bringing home the point to idiots.

So I advise telling the muppet that suggested this, though politely and diplomatically, to go bleep himself.

[jim]

I think in your situation I'd have a lengthy chat with my line manager about the issues, the fact that you cannot legally install the software, and the fact that if you're going to be treated as the technical expert in the company and asked to install / maintain / support the IT infrastructure then you need input into all IT purchasing and you need the authority to refuse requests like this if you haven't been consulted first.

If the conversation goes well, it may then be time to start talking about whether you need a new job title and a salary that goes with it, but that might be pushing your luck

Yeah I think I'm going to have to do something like that, because it's just getting silly at the moment. People have some fairly insane expectations when it comes to IT - without realising it I suspect - and seeing as the purchase is always made before I'm aware of what they want, they get angry when it transpires that I can't/won't do it, since the money has already been spent and they can't be refunded.

It's a mixed bag really. Some people hold their hands up and say "I know nothing", and ask me to find the best solution, whether it's an updated version of Office for their machine, new speakers or 30-odd headsets. Okay, so it's a bit of a pain doing the legwork, but at least I know it's going to work. And if I ensure that the package I buy comes with an .msi, or that the hardware is USB (not frigging firewire) compatible, it saves me time and effort later on anyway. Others just go for it themselves, and do whatever seems to right to them at the time... then expect me to make something tangible and useful out of the mess they've obtained. So we get situations like these.

I certainly agree with you on the job title front... I can say with absolute confidence that I'm the only employee that knows what a domain, a PCIe slot, or even a switch is, so everything IT based falls on my shoulders. I swear only one other person understands fully what an Operating System is (I had three people thank me for giving them the "new Windows" when I put Office 2007 on their machines). I think you're right about pushing my luck though, and my contract only has a few more months to run anyway so I'll leave it

I didn't work there much longer (my own choice) but I am glad I said no.

Yeah I think you're right... it's better in the long run to actually stand up for something rather than giving in all the time, and it's much easier to do that if you've got the weight of the law behind you.

Thinking about it, I'm just glad that this person isn't my direct boss (although they are a good way above me), so unlike you I have someone who will almost certainly back me up if necessary. It's the same situation though - I desperately don't want to antagonise the person in question, so I'm treading carefully. I've already antagonised several people with IT problems, even if they've all been out of my control, so I don't want to cause more issues if at all possible.

[jim]

If someone can understand Sky Sports packages they can understand software licensing.

I don't know about that - a Sky Sports Package is a subscription, a monthly fee, which people are fairly used to.

I think the bit that people have a problem with is the fact that you can physically hold a disc, and yet they can only use it according to the restrictions written in small print somewhere.