Closer to home, there are new powers given to trading standards and the police in this regard and I'm told that they have been funded initially but told to be self funding very soon i.e. collect fines to pay for their keep and also given targets to meet in terms of raids and collecting fines.
I understand fully where this is all coming from, but this guy seems a bit too keen to see people locked up:
"It is my Holy Grail to see a director come out after a ten-year prison sentence to find that the Proceeds of Crime Act has been used to seize his home and car,' said Lovelock.
Fair enough if the director to which he refers was blatantly pirating software but if there was an oversight somewhere and the company was co-operative in the investigation and happy to pay fines and buy software, then it would seem to take software piracy beyond the punishments meted out for massive fraud convictions!
I'm not condoning it but I think there have been some "sharp practices" shall we say on the side of those who are seeking to defend copyright, in the BSAs case there was a lot of criticism over sending out letters implying that a response was statutory requirement - similar to a company's audit, when in fact they had no such statutory powers.
I also agree that software publishers do not make things easy for already pushed IT managers/directors.
How many people would have thought for example that buried within the Google Earth EULA it states clearly that it can't be installed on a copmany network? How many people have that on their work PC?