As the head of Microsoft's anti-piracy programme, Michala Alexander has one of the more unenviable posts in the software giant's UK operations.
Despite successfully shutting down a prolific trader in unlicensed software last week, Alexander admits that the odds are stacked against her. Microsoft estimates it loses around £250m annually due to counterfeit and unlicensed software.
But it's not only the sheer amount of fake and unlicensed products that makes Alexander's job a tough one; Microsoft's anti-piracy team together with its enforcers at the BSA are seen by many as the sharp end of the software giant's draconian -- and some say outdated -- approach to licensing.
Following the successful settlement with illegal software trader William Ling, ZDNet UK sat down with Alexander to discuss some of the challenges in a role she has filled for nine months, and to hear what Microsoft's anti-piracy team can do to improve relations with customers.
Q: How much of Microsoft's counterfeit and licensing problem is of its own making? Some argue that if you had fairer and clearer licensing practices, less people would get it wrong or choose to subvert them.
A: There will always be people who don't think they should pay Microsoft. Even if we dropped prices people would still counterfeit the software. Kiwi shoe polish is still counterfeited and isn't exactly expensive -- it is all down to the size of the brand. So I wouldn't say it's the licensing, I think it's just because people want what they can get for the cheapest price.
Gavin Becket, Bristol city council's IT strategy manager, said at an OASIS conference last year that there is a genuine fear that companies who announce they are moving to open source will face a software audit from MS. Any truth in that?
Absolutely not. Software asset management is another part of the business. My job is all about pre-purchase and where to buy and how to buy -- it is about educating channel partners.
What is meant specifically when you talk about "piracy" -- which is strictly speaking a term that applies to hijacking on the high seas -- of Microsoft products? What is the most counterfeited software?
Well at the moment it would probably be Windows XP, then Windows 2003, but we are also seeing some Windows 2000 and even some of the 64-bit versions. There are also applications such as Visio and Project that get targeted. The pirates follow a strategy on the whole -- they maximise their sales of the previous OS to be released, so at the moment we are seeing an increase in XP and Office 2003 as we move towards Vista.
You launched the Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) scheme in April that gives users access to more tools if they sign up to the service and register their copy of Windows, but blocks some downloads to customers who don't. Hackers managed to bypass the scheme soon after its launch. Have you closed the loophole now?
There are always new hacks coming along but the WGA is a voluntary service. You can turn off the pop-ups and people can opt out of it. They still get all the core downloads but what they don't get is stuff such as Windows Defender. They still get all the security patches -- we don't penalise customers for not joining.
Do you think that some of the issue is that your licensing model is just a bit outdated? Google has got people used to the idea that they can get stuff free in turn for reading advertising -- is that a model that Microsoft is considering?
We are definitely looking at it. We are always trying to stay three or four years ahead of the market. It is certainly something that is discussed.
ZDNet UK recently highlighted the issue of how difficult it is to buy a naked PC -- a machine without an OS installed -- and how Microsoft, and you in particular, were trying to persuade resellers that such machines encouraged piracy and should not be sold. Do you still stand by that view?
I think a lot of people would struggle to want to buy a PC without an OS. Naked PCs are not anything I am really interested in, in the first instance anyway.
You have been in this job for about nine months now. What would you like to achieve in terms of changing people's attitudes to counterfeiting and unlicensed software?
I think it's about making it personal. We want to make people realise what the impact of buying and selling counterfeit software is. Obviously it is a difficult area to work in but people like to pick on us no matter what we do. Everyone is always going to pick on the market leader.
Talkback
Michala, speaking as a consumer, I don't "struggle to want to buy a PC without an OS" at all! Wanting to do precisely that is the easy part. The struggle starts when you actually try to buy such a thing without being asked to buy an unwanted and unneeded Windows license at the same time.
Anyone with "build your own PC" replies should wonder how best to build a laptop.
I agree with Chris, naked PC's are what I want, but I usually end up building my own if I have time, or buying something with a copy of XP (usually Home), which either gets replaced with XP Pro or more commonly Linux. If we have to buy Windows, at least give us a choice, most manufacturers will only provide Home on most of their machines, so for the Pro user who also wants a decent games machine, he usually has to buy two Windows licenses, one of which lays redundant in a cupboard, or build a machine up from components...
If all PC's were sold naked with an option to bundle the OS of choice, or stay naked, I would be happy...
As the the WGA programme, on some of the forums I've visited, people have been moaning that their genuine copies of Windows have started popping up messages - often because the PC has been returned to the manufacturer or warranty partner under warranty and the machine was re-installed using a different license number.
Microsoft should get their channel partners working correctly before they start penalising their end users!
Thankfully my machine was home built and the license purchased through a reputable supplier and the WGA plug-in validated it, but I know some people who aren't so happy/lucky...
Microsoft should stop the double speak.
Either legalize home use or make more then a best effort to stop illegal home use.
The fact however is that Microsoft likes it two ways. On the one hand they want to cry foul and waive with research that speaks of absurd losses so they can demand stricter laws and more (freedom of) powers.
On the other hand, more then anything, they rather see people using Microsoft software illegally then seeing people using Microsoft alternatives legally.
And, on top of that all, they get paid for every PC sold and offload the support costs and issues to the resellers.
Now if it was the case that the true market demand was that, yes, we want our consumer rights restricted, yes, we want fewer civilian rights, yes, we like to pay whatever extra tax we can on hardware purchased, yes, we want second rate support, yes, we want to pay premium inflated prices for our software and, yes, no matter how absurd things get we will follow to the last letter every crazy rule layed upon us then we're ahead of schedule for sure.
But reality is that the actual market demand is freedom of choice and to pay reasonable prices for THEIR situation in WAYS they like which, by definition, excludes absurd restrictions and inflated prices.
So I would like to call votes for either: legalize home use, or, hunt down illegalize home use with all technical and legal means possible which is a lot more then is currently happening. Fact is that I wouldn't be surprised if more then 90% of illegal home users know full well that they are illegal home users.
But Microsoft won't do that because they know that the instant the illegal home users have no other option then to pay the asked price they'll drop Microsoft in a second. Most certainly if that asking price was increased with penalties. So Microsoft should stop wining about their 'revenue loses'. Heck, these guys want to sell us Microsoft DRM solutions yet they even can't separate between legal and illegal use. How's that going to protect your vital company data?
Ofcourse the alternative solution would be if Microsoft would start delivering accoording to realistic customer demand. But no politician or law maker out there forcing Microsoft to do exactly that. I wonder why?