Ars Technica's Ken Fisher suggested in his article, WGA failure highlights major flaw in Microsoft's anti-piracy strategy, that Microsoft needs a new "anti-piracy" strategy. I not only agree that they need a new strategy, I'll even go so far as to help them craft it.

Even as early as Windows XP, people have been coming to see Microsoft's "anti-piracy" efforts as both intrusive and obstructive. The failures involving Windows Genuine Advantage go beyond merely obstructing user's efforts to accomplish various tasks - we now have a system in place that literally makes false accusations. I remember being falsely accused, in two instances, of having failed to perform my job properly because someone took the word of a machine over my word. It's very painful, to say the least. Machines are not so perfect as some of us would like to believe.

So how can Microsoft - and other companies - reshape their approach to so-called "piracy", or what many consider to be sharing? How can Microsoft trust the very systems they should very well know are imperfect? How can Microsoft hope to devise any kind of un-flawed anti-sharing mechanism? The simple answer is, they cannot. There is no such hope. It is an impossible task.

I do not believe that Microsoft needs to develop more innovative ways to prevent people from sharing copies of software. I do not believe they need to play any role in preventing people from sharing music and videos. Their current strategy is akin to prohibition and the War (more like Farce) on Drugs, or radar detectors, where those are legal. If it isn't already, it simply becomes a game. When Prohibition ended, so did much of the associated crime. Tellingly we still face crime on numerous fronts, perhaps because we continue to practice prohibition in precisely those areas.

What's worse, most current "anti-piracy" policies entail accusing people who simply want to help a neighbor of being pirates. Most of these benevolent people go unnoticed. Still, this is not always because a company wants to, but because it cannot practically pursue every individual offender. This is very different from someone who distributes fake copies of a program (which are frequently broken and/or contain viruses). While practical issues prevent serious enforcement at the individual level, many companies secretly hope the "pirates", in Bill Gates' own words, "get sort of addicted".

None of this touches on the hypocrisy perpetrated by one of the most aggressive proponents of preventing piracy. Never mind the patent infringement lawsuits Microsoft has faced down through the years, the link above points out a 2001 copyright infringement suit in France that Microsoft lost. I'll bet there weren't any swat-styled raids on the software giant's headquarters in that case, as had been done to Ernie Ball.

No, Microsoft and other software vendors need to turn their whole "anti-piracy" paradigm on its ear. By licensing software under libre terms to begin with, the biggest part of the problem goes away. By licensing software under a copyleft license, a company can ensure its investment is well protected; anyone modifying it will have to provide the source, assuming they are distributing the modified version. This eliminates (hundreds of?) thousands of potential violators immediately - most of your end-user base. Look Ma! No cuffs!

Without outlawing non-libre software, companies will still have to enforce even a copyleft against those who might use such software in a non-libre program. Even so, the number of potential violators - and the potential loss of income is dramatically reduced. Additionally, fewer resources will be needed to enforce copyleft licenses, and even then, much can be resolved without taxing our overburdened law enforcement and court system further. I wonder what the SCO Group's lawsuit cost American taxpayers?

I recently wrote an article suggesting Freedom and Trust go hand in hand. A copyleft license extends far more trust than establishing a para-law enforcement agency like the Business Software Alliance to enforce a license which is largely unenforceable anyway. It is not the law that weakens enforceability, but the lack of resources. Meanwhile, the copyleft prevents your competition from gaining an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

The bottom line is that, if you cease treating people like outlaws, you will discover that most of them really are not. Many people are simply trying to help a friend or a loved one - that should never be against the law. That's right. The best "anti-piracy" policy is to stop treating people who want to help their neighbors like criminals. In fact, I highly recommend encouraging people to be more helpful - not less.