WIRED:Governments may be tempted to use the war against software piracy to restrict free speech and human rights, writes DANNY O'BRIEN

IF YOUR job is selling software, the developing world is a tough place to do business. There are the costs of localisation: every word in every menu has to be translated to the local language, not to mention document templates and even the order in which alphabetical entries are sorted. There is also the need to provide support in a new region, far from the centre of your operations.

And finally, there is the simple fact that you’re selling software that can be copied easily, in a place where most cannot afford even your most cut-price rates.

The Business Software Alliance (BSA) claims that piracy rates in much of central Asia are about 88 per cent, which means only one in 10 software packages are legitimately licensed. Sergey Pavlovsky, president of the Association of Rights Holders of Intellectual Property Protection of Kyrgyzstan, says the rate is more than 90 per cent.

It is not surprising, then, that companies such as Microsoft push for strong enforcement against those using unlicensed software, and that the BSA lobbies for greater police powers to stop piracy in these countries.

But Kyrgyzstan is not just a failing market for western software companies. For the past few weeks, it has been in a state of great political upheaval, prompted by the decreasing popularity of Kyrgyzstan’s president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, and his government. Bakiyev fled the country last week after protests against his regime turned violent.

One of the flashpoints for the rebellion was Bakiyev’s clampdown on opposition and independent media in the country.

And one of the techniques his administration used to silence the press was anti-piracy raids, ostensibly in the name of Microsoft.

TV station and website Stan Media had been showing footage of opposition protests critical of Bakiyev’s administration. On April 1st, its premises were raided by anti-piracy officials, including Pavlovsky.

Witnesses claim Pavlovsky informed police that the Microsoft software on Stan Media’s machines was illegitimate and, using the laws provided against piracy in Kyrgyzstan, all of the journalists’ desktop computers and personal laptops were seized. The police also shut down the office.

Microsoft, in a statement, denied all knowledge of the raid. It said: “The raid against Stan Media was initiated by the Kyrgyz police without any involvement from any Microsoft employees or anyone working on Microsoft’s behalf . . . No claims were filed on Microsoft’s behalf and any suggestion that Microsoft approved or supported this police action is inaccurate.”

But while Microsoft may not have been the force behind the raid, its name and reputation were used to legitimise closing down Stan as a news outlet.

Pavlovsky, in the small world of Kyrgyz lawyers, has worked as a representative of Microsoft in the country before. His organisation continues to lobby for stronger action and harsher anti-piracy laws in the region.

In the past few weeks in Britain and Ireland, we’ve seen laws passed, judgments made and regulations considered behind closed doors to fight copyright infringement.

In the UK, the Digital Economy Act now provides for sites to be blocked if they are suspected of being used for infringing purposes.

In Ireland, the courts have stated that individuals can be thrown offline if accused of piracy, and secret consultations revealed by Digital Rights Ireland have suggested a similar site-blocking regime was being seriously considered by the current administration.

Cutting someone off from the internet, blocking their site from being viewed, having their computer seized – these are all extreme penalties. But right now, across the world, we’re considering introducing them for suspected infringement.

In the UK and Ireland, judges and politicians assure us that these powers will only be used in moderation, and issues of free speech, human rights and proportionality will be taken into account. But as Chekhov says, a gun in the first act needs to be fired later on in the play.

If we create these powers, and then export them to the furthest reaches, as the drafters of international agreements such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement intend, we can expect them to be used in places where there is rather less moderation.

A 90 per cent piracy rate is the perfect excuse to selectively raid anyone the police wants to harass. In such circumstances, almost anything could be found to confirm an act of wanton piracy.

The war against infringement is beginning to take on shades of the war on drugs.

Increasing penalties to criminalise an increasingly large proportion of the public does us no good. Its extension to and encouragement of dramatic intervention in already unstable regions is dangerous too.

Bakiyev’s crackdown on local media did him no good. After his escape from Kyrgyzstan, a new provisional government sprang up to replace him. Shortly after that, Stan Media found all its computers returned to it, with little explanation.

But the new government has just the same powers to seize and harass. Who knows when they might use those tempting powers. And who knows when our own governments might see fit to widen the war against piracy on the domestic front.