Software Management and Accountability
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/02635579210012232 |
| Published date | 01 April 1992 |
| Pages | 13-15 |
| Date | 01 April 1992 |
| Author | Len Williams |
| Subject Matter | Economics,Information & knowledge management,Management science & operations |
SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT
AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
13
Software
Management
and
Accountability
Len Williams
C
ombating illegal copying of software is
not easy. Some practical advice is given.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 92 No. 4, 1992, pp. 13-15,
© MCB University Press Limited, 0263-5577
Senior managers may feel that it is unnecessary to take
an interest in this article as it contains the "technical"
word software! It may come as a surprise to some
managers, but they are legally responsible for the proper
(or improper) use of software in their company.
Software is protected by copyright law which means that
the owner of a copyright holds exclusive rights to the
reproduction and distribution of his or her work. It is
therefore illegal to duplicate or distribute software and/or
its documentation.
Unauthorized duplication of software can incur penalties
that include unlimited fines and up to two years in prison.
You are of course permitted to make a back-up copy for
your own use in case the original is destroyed or fails to
work; this permission is recorded in the licence agreement
accompanying the software.
Whatever may happen at the operational level in your
business, it is the responsibility of the purchaser of the
software to ensure that the law is
obeyed
—
in most cases
this means that the company or the senior managers are
responsible.
A survey conducted by MORI for the Federation Against
Software Theft (FAST) in 1990 showed that:
● Of those senior managers using PCs at work, 55
per cent copy software illegally, either knowingly
or not.
● Of all senior managers, 41 per cent have recently
broken the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988,
designed to curb software theft.
● Amongst the general public, 43 per cent who
regularly use a PC either at home or at work admit
to having illegally used software.
● Of senior managers, 37 per cent admit to having
acquired a piece of software and loading it on to
more than one machine, in contravention of the
known licensing laws.
● Of these managers, 29 per cent have accepted
copies of software programs from colleague and
installed them on their own machines.
● Almost one in three (31 per cent) of senior
managers said that their companies had no control
over the illegal duplication of software.
● Of the remaining 69 per cent, less than half could
remember their companies even undertaking
software audit checks on illegal copies, underlining
the low priority currently given to internal software
auditing.
The MORI findings prove a clear correlation between
regular lawbreaking and companies' "relaxed" software
policies. Companies with a rigorously applied software
policy contain a far higher proportion of law-abiding senior
managers (81 per cent of the non-law breakers against
69 per cent of the law breakers).
The MORI survey was carried out during March and April
1990,
involving almost 300 senior British industry
managers from companies with an annual turnover
exceeding £50 million. Almost 2,000 members of the public
were contacted.
The implications for the software industry are clear:
● The majority of British industry managers are
unaware of the legal position regarding disk copying.
● Rigorously applied software policies within a
corporation greatly deter software theft.
● The employment of a software audit clearly deters
continued infringement.
Problems of Copying
It is quite understandable how copyright infringement can
occur: software is copied for the employee to work at
home, to put on a replacement machine while repairs take
With grateful thanks to FAST for permission to use some of
its information in this article.
To continue reading
Request your trial