Yesterday, Phil reported on his expedition to buy pirate software. Today, Jake van der Kamp’s column in the SCMP argues that the goverrnment should ignore requests from foreign companies to enforce anti-piracy laws. This has prompted both Conrad and Simon to have had a bit of fun at the SCMP’s expense by reprinting the article, in breach of the newspaper’s copyright. In the unlikely event that anyone missed the hilarious irony of this, Conrad rammed the point home in a comment on Simon’s site.
Phil’s account of his trip to buy pirate software in Wan Chai is interesting because it highlights the point that life has been made more difficult for these operators, but yet they are still in business. Phil is very careful to stress that all the software on his PC is legitimate and paid-for, and that he has no intention of installing the software he bought in Wan Chai. However, he has still paid money to the pirates, regardless of what he does with the CD!
Phil’s conclusion is the same as Simon’s (and Conrad’s, I think), namely that this is a bad thing and ought to be stopped:
The bottom line is it is still far too easy to get this stuff in Hong Kong. And for people who want Office 2003 getting a fully working set of disks for HK$100 instead of HK$3000 is far to difficult to resist.
The point is that people do resist the temptation, and Microsoft and others are still very much in business. I have purchased my copies of Windows, Office, etc. legitimately and even pay for upgrades. Most medium-size and large businesses pay for licences for the software they use. If a few (mainly smaller) companies and some individual users install pirated software or illegal copies ‘borrowed’ from legitimate users, how much does Microsoft suffer? Ironically, they may actually benefit from it – if people who won’t pay for Microsoft software ‘steal’ it instead, that leaves very little room for competitors who might otherwise be able to sell to that market.
As for the companies who sell luxury goods, about whom Jake van der Kamp was complaining, I believe that a similar argument applies. How many people decide against buying an expensive brand-name watch or handbag because a cheap copy is available? Not many, I submit. If you can afford the real thing you will still want to have it (though you may buy fakes as well, just for fun). If you can’t afford the real thing, then who has lost out?
For luxury goods, surely the ultimate insult is to be ignored by the people who make fakes. The existence of fakes is an indicator that your product is desirable.
Of course it should be illegal to sell fake products, but the question that has to be asked is how the police and customs should deploy their limited resources. Many illegal things happen every day, and the police cannot stop all of them. When making these choices, the guiding principle ought to be the amount of harm that is done, and on that basis I have to agree with Jake van der Kamp that the Hong Kong government should ignore the pressure from foreign companies.
Ordinary Gweilo 