We're not talking small niche software makers making specialised enterprise applications for small specilalised markets here. FWIW, just about everyone who's thought about it for a bit understands the tendency that the more bespoke, the more expensive. You may in fact be pricing your software a tad too cheaply. Not because you're not making a profit (that too of course) but because "everybody knows" your software /is/ a niche product, and is comparably cheap for such a specialised product/.
Let me give you a real-world example: Someone I know makes clay cups and dishes and such by hand, and tried to sell them at faire. Priced at five euros a mug, they didn't sell. Priced at fifteen euros, they sold in large quantities. Apparently five was just too cheap.
Of course physical objects don't copy as easily as software, unless it can be done by the chinese in plastic, but that doesn't mean price elasticity doesn't translate. I could be horribly wrong in my analysis, but the point is that you may have to rethink your pricing. Clearly, it is not working for you right now.
The BSA, OTOH, has been "studying" large-scale piracy because that's where the money is for their backers. They're very much a shill for big software. Windows may be far too expensive at $200, and not merely (but also) because they make obscene profits selling millions of copies, but moreso because "everybody has to have a copy"* and thus doesn't really have a choice in buying. The market mechanisms are a tad different at that scale.
But even if that wasn't the case in the western world, there's still the problem that the BSA is conveniently overlooking and that's that while $200 for a copy in "the west" is about what we've come to expect from vendors now becomes horrible price gauging in less developed places. And even in the west, "everybody knows" that with the huge profits they're making (picture somewhere over 90% margin on each copy sold), micros~1 could drop the price to $20 and still make a profit.
In fact it would be better if they did for them too because it'd force them to bleed so much on the unprofitable parts of their company that they now can just keep and prop up with the old money makers, windows and that office suite.
So instead of trying to squeeze $200 out of people who don't make that a month, or to take failing to do that as an excuse to double up the legalistic squeezing of people here, as the BSA is advocating with this "report" again, they ought to think more about what the would-be buyers think it is reasonable to pay. That's quite a different take from the current marketeering efforts that entirely centre around figuring out what is they think is the maximum that same buyer can be made to pay. They're squandering the trust in their market position that way, and it's only because they're so big that they can get away with it.
The thing is that this is about big software makers, not small ones. The same thing, by the by, is true for big media. I recently heard about a small film maker in I think it was Kenya, where the market for one dollar black market DVD copies is far, far larger than the market for twenty dollar official big name DVDs that nobody can afford as the average buyer doesn't make that in a month, who made a film and distributed it himself for a dollar a piece, and made reasonable money out of that. Instead of trying to sell it for ten and still see no monies from the black market copies at all. The point is that you need a strategy to match the market. The BSA doesn't do that. They just demand more legislation and more enforcement and that is that.
Oh, and it is "itself", not "it is self", just as "it's" is short for "it is", and is not a possessive. No, I'm not a native speaker either. This is a hint, not critique.
* I don't use their software, but I digress.