Would you like to see an article on a specific topic that falls within ÆSIR's area of expertise? Write to us with your comments, and we'll do our best to accommodate your requests.

Software Piracy - Comparing Engineers and Architects

By Eric P. Leitner, CSP, CSM, CIM, C.Tech., OAAAS, AMIEEE

Some of you may have already read the other article in this month's issue of The Ontario Technologist which discusses issues of software piracy as they relate to the OACETT Code of Ethics. If you haven't, it may be a good idea to do so before reading on. In this article, we will be examining the differences in piracy rates and views on piracy as they compare between engineers and architects — and some of the findings may astound you.

A survey of 1500 professionals was recently conducted by Ipsos (IDC) regarding risks related to software piracy issues. The results were tabulated by profession, five in all, and we will examine two of these groups more closely — the Architects and the Engineers. The initial findings are quite similar at first glance:

• 78% of engineers and 77% of architects state that they would not want to work for a firm that uses pirated software
• In firms with anti-piracy policies in place, 82% of engineers and 86% of architects answered that they would prefer that their employer used licensed software
• In firms without policies, these numbers were 58% and 61%.
• 91% of engineers and 81% of architects agreed that software piracy is "a risk no business can afford to take."
• 75% of engineers and 64% of architects answered that specific anti-piracy policies were in place at their place of employment.

Already, the numbers are starting to diverge just a little, but the results are generally the same.

However, this is where the numbers take 90° turns in opposite directions. Four out of five (80%) engineers know that it is illegal to share software with co-workers without proper licensing. Among architects, only half (51%) understand that it is wrong to distribute unlicensed software. Even more striking is that three of four engineers asked (78%) said that cost is not a justification for using unlicensed software, while 57% of architects said that cost did make it justifiable. Read that last sentence again, and make sure to note the subtleties of their answers.

These beliefs are reflected in the next findings which are that only 13% of engineers questioned answered that some of the software in their company was unlicensed. Among architects, the number was nearly four times as many at 48% answering that some of the software they used was pirated. Even more alarmingly, 30% of the architectural respondents said that all or nearly all of their software was pirated.

The attitudes towards their professions at large also differed significantly. 40% of engineers said that they believed that some of the software in their profession is pirated. Thankfully, we have already read that the survey found this number to be only 13%. (Those mathematical engineering types among you might already have amusingly calculated this as an error of over 300% among the engineers.)

The architects when asked about their profession in general were much closer to the real mark — although it makes their responses no less shocking! 60% of architects believe that some of the software in their profession is pirated, while an astounding 38% believe that all or nearly all of the software used by architects is pirated.

Clearly, there is a disconnect between these two professions. These numbers aren't even in the same ballpark as the engineers' results.

Among engineers, 70% of those in firms with polices in place stated that they would report licensing violations, while that number was 55% in companies without such policies. These numbers correspond well to the 16% and 41% (in companies with and without policies, respectively) that believed that it was o.k. to distribute software to coworkers. Well done to the engineering group in filling out survey responses that add up. Extra kudos for getting the message out about piracy as engineering companies with policies in place are 2.6 times less likely to think that there is nothing wrong with unlicensed software use.

As a closing note on engineers, as a group they believe that even suggesting the use of pirated software would lead to disciplinary action, with 41% believing that they would be formally reprimanded and 18% thinking that they would be outright fired for making the statement. Recall by comparison that 57% of architects stated that they believed that cost was a justifiable reason to pirate software.

Let's leave the engineers alone now, and focus our attention on a few truly remarkable findings among the architects. 46% of architects in firms without piracy policies in place still believe it is o.k. to distribute licenses to other workers. This number is not all that far off the engineers at 42%, and coincides with the 51% of architects that agree that piracy is wrong. However, in firms with policies exactly one half (50%) of them say that distributing software is o.k. Yes the number is actually slightly higher in firms with explicit piracy policies in place!

Furthermore, 82% of architects polled in companies with policies stated that they would report commercial software licence violation in the workplace if they knew there was a place to report it. Among those in companies without policies the number was still 70%, nearly 1½ times the number of engineers that said they would report a violation. However, these numbers simply don't add up in the architectural group. These are the same respondents for whom the majority (57%) answered that they believed cost was a justifiable reason to pirate.

Perhaps most shocking of all among the answers collected among the architects was that, of those working for firms with anti-piracy policies in place, their opinion is virtually unanimous that explicit policies are at least somewhat effective in curbing software piracy.

What can we conclude from all of these numbers? Most immediately, that piracy is four times more prevalent among architects than engineers, and that architects have a far more pessimistic view of their own industry, and with very good reason. However, the bigger issue here, at least among the architects, is a question of education.

The disconnect between what architects believe to be right and wrong, or at least justifiable, and the actual laws regarding copyright protection and licensing issues is extreme. More distressing is the fact that companies with policies in place actually scored worse than those with no explicit rules. Something has to be done to get the message out, to the architectural industry — and to get it out clearly.

Sandy Boulton, director of the Piracy Prevention Program at Autodesk is quoted as saying "Architects and engineers, who have a right to protect their original ideas, should respect our right to protect our intellectual property, which is our software."

The question might remain as to whose job it is to send this message. Is it up to the software manufacturers such as Autodesk or the anti-piracy bodies such as BSA and CAAST (The Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft)? Or should the bodies regulating the architectural field such as the OAA, OACETT and OAAAS take measures such as these Ontario Technologist articles to inform and educate its membership? That question, my fellow members, is well outside the scope of this little article.

About the author: Eric P. Leitner is a C.Tech. with OACETT in the three disciplines of Building/Building Design, Computer/IT and Electrical, as well as an Associate Member of OAAAS. He also holds C.S.P., C.S.M., C.I.M. and AMIEEE professional designations. Eric owns and operates ÆSIR International Ltd., an Ottawa based 3D modeling and CADD consulting firm.

© 2005 ÆSIR International Ltd., Eric P. Leitner.