Members Anderton Posted August 11, 2011 Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 Seriously...if you were given dictatorial powers to tell the music industry how to handle copy protection, what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zooey Posted August 11, 2011 Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 Music? Or software? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 11, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 Well I was thinking software, but feel free to work music in there too. But hey, you're king, so you get to decide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted August 11, 2011 CMS Author Share Posted August 11, 2011 One thing that I think would discourage sharing is to make it expensive enough so that the purchaser would consider it something of real value. I could be wrong about this but I don't think the software vendors lose a lot of money from someone making a copy of a program for a band mate so they can collaborate on a project, Where they lose money is when someone puts a hacked copy on a peer-to-peer network and hundreds or thousands of copies don't get sold because there it is for free. Does that still occur? I don't know. I have no problem with a software or hardware key with a registration number obtained from the manufacturer but I have a soft spot in my heard for the guy with a "very important high profile client" whose computer goes up in smoke on Saturday. He stays up late building a new computer so he can continue the session but can't get in touch with the manufacturer to re-license it for the new computer. Perhaps allow the program to run without registration for a short period of time, say two days, then quit until it gets a valid registration key. But no copy protection is completely foolproof. Some fool will always find a way to hack it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BushmasterM4 Posted August 11, 2011 Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 As far as software, I would make all programs $19.95 !!! So cheap everyone could afford them and more units would be sold. Thus more revenue for the software companies !!! Wait there's more !!! As far as music I would outlaw CD's, and Tape and digital media. Owning and distributing such medium or Pirated software would be punishable by death !!! Vinyl (.79cent 45's and 7.99 LP's) and Radio would be the only available way to enjoy music. Wouldnt I make a great King !!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted August 11, 2011 Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 If I was king of the world, I wouldn't give a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LRon Butterfly Posted August 11, 2011 Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 Cloud dongles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members realtrance Posted August 11, 2011 Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 Seriously, I'd get rid of all of it. Achieves nothing. You shouldn't be paying for software/content at this point; you should be paying for the underlying services of delivery, updates and support that exist in the cloud of profitability surrounding any release of content. The whole model of producing content of any form, for profit, is just about dead; you'll be able to move forward more successfully, individually and as a business, if you embrace that fact rather than resisting it, and find alternative frameworks to make money out of the existence of that content in the digital universe. Service is profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gubu Posted August 11, 2011 Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 Keep prices low. Offer a functional free version on which material can be produced but with slower workflow due to strategic and clever little cripples, thus encouraging customers to pay the reasonable price for the uncrippled version. edit:- Anyone remember the principle of goodwill in business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted August 11, 2011 Members Share Posted August 11, 2011 Cloud dongles! Okay, I had to laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 Seriously, I'd get rid of all of it. Achieves nothing. You shouldn't be paying for software/content at this point; you should be paying for the underlying services of delivery, updates and support that exist in the cloud of profitability surrounding any release of content. The whole model of producing content of any form, for profit, is just about dead; you'll be able to move forward more successfully, individually and as a business, if you embrace that fact rather than resisting it, and find alternative frameworks to make money out of the existence of that content in the digital universe. Service is profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 Well, if there was ever a thread title inviting people to come and make themselves look ridiculous..... But hey I'm ok with ridiculous, so here goes: I have the scientists and engineers figure out how to build a giant wireless internet delivery system that operates like a public utility. It handles processing as well as communications. You can't get your internet or processing power or useage of programs of any sort without paying on a utility-usage basis. Total gate-keeping control. From there, it's just a matter of letting providers of content compete, and tracking what the usage numbers are, setting fees, and divvying it up among the content providers and of course, the taxing authorities. Content includes the use of processing power plus media, communications, everything. Programs that allow for copying, etc., are all removed from the entire shebang. Some people try to do the pirate thing, but they are reduced to a pesky minority that get a little press, but make no real dent in the centralized, controlled scheme. It is a benevolent dictatorship per the OP, so freedom of communications is under the thumb of this socialized giant utility. Programs that allow for copying, etc., are all removed from the entire shebang. The government doesn't have to monitor what you do, because they exercise root control over what can be done at all.... I am King of the World, so you'll just have to trust me, ok? I guarantee this plan will lead to a new Golden Age that will be in complete harmony with my personal tastes, ethical and moral notions, and general comfort and glory. nat whilk ii, KING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kotch Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 I wouldn't handle copy protection. I'd do something similar to what Apple is doing on their iOS devices. That is, you create uniform delivery format on a secure channel and set up a universal payment system that makes transactions easy. When it's easy to pony up the small change for a legit download and a pain the ass to find a ripped version and get it working on your device, then the piracy problem goes away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dingoist Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 Seriously, I'd get rid of all of it. Achieves nothing. You shouldn't be paying for software/content at this point; you should be paying for the underlying services of delivery, updates and support that exist in the cloud of profitability surrounding any release of content. The whole model of producing content of any form, for profit, is just about dead; you'll be able to move forward more successfully, individually and as a business, if you embrace that fact rather than resisting it, and find alternative frameworks to make money out of the existence of that content in the digital universe. Service is profit. Bullshit. Being in the software industry, though not directly in anything you'd got out and buy in a store. I'd say this nonsensical immature self entitlement is driving me nuts. F*ck, you young whippersnappers, who have to make a living off this content you put hours, days, weeks of sweat into just to have it considered free by a self serving mob? Then being told that you should change your model and make profit from the service around your content? A.F.K. Screw you. I'm going to copy protect it. The whiny babies who believe everything should be free, should really get off their ass and try to make something (okay, broad sweeping generalization but it pisses me off). Now, the copy protection model really surfaces about license, cost vs revenue, and the prospective revenue garnered when something pirated worthy will spin off legit purchases. ... and yes... you... get OFF MY LAWN.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members roomjello Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 I wonder if we are missing something important in human nature in trying to protect content from theft.I never tried too hard or leaned too heavily on making a living in the music business.It always seemed to me that there were much easier ways to make dough.Plus the times i was making a living solely from playing music, it lost it's charm and it felt very sad for me.I'm much happier making money elsewhere and still enjoying the charm of being a part time player and rec engineer/producer guy. And the point of mentioning that is that i think i instinctively always knew there was something flawed in making a living from art, based on human nature, not in the artist solely but in societies appreciation for and the way they value art. They are not going to be behind you for the long haul, art is peripheral, secondary to more mandatory services, your value as an artist is shallow to the public. I may be generalizing a bit much but i think i illustrate the point to some degree. So will we stop theft in this arena? No. Because of human nature.Will jail stop criminals? No. Because of human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members techristian Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 Each user should only need one legit copy. This could be copied to whatever medium necessary for the user to have portability. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted August 12, 2011 CMS Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'd do something similar to what Apple is doing on their iOS devices. That is, you create uniform delivery format on a secure channel and set up a universal payment system that makes transactions easy. This is getting dangerously close to the very touchy subject of proprietary hardware. If you have an iPhone, the only way to get software for it (as far as I know - I don't have one) is to download it directly from the mothership to the phone. You can't download it to your phone from someone else's phone, from a PC, or from another web site. But it means applications must be written specifically for a particular device and devices must be designed so that they can reject software that doesn't come from a specific source. This directly conflicts with the primary reason why people who care buy computers rather than dedicated hardware. I think this would go over like a lead balloon. Even Avid, when they took over Pro Tools, allowed the software to run without the "key" of a piece of approved hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 I`m all for paying for every copy I own so if I were King, I would enforce that. All work shall be payed for. You want three hamburgers, you pay for 3. You want three downloads, you pay for three. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Philter Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members realtrance Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 Bullshit. Being in the software industry, though not directly in anything you'd got out and buy in a store. I'd say this nonsensical immature self entitlement is driving me nuts. F*ck, you young whippersnappers, who have to make a living off this content you put hours, days, weeks of sweat into just to have it considered free by a self serving mob? Then being told that you should change your model and make profit from the service around your content? A.F.K. Screw you. I'm going to copy protect it. The whiny babies who believe everything should be free, should really get off their ass and try to make something (okay, broad sweeping generalization but it pisses me off). Now, the copy protection model really surfaces about license, cost vs revenue, and the prospective revenue garnered when something pirated worthy will spin off legit purchases. ... and yes... you... get OFF MY LAWN.... Dingoist, I understand your feelings, and thank you for making me feel young again for 28 seconds this morning. You are better than Starbucks! I was launched around the same time as Sputnik (I won), just for perspective though..... You raise the question, implicitly, of how content creators will get paid in my universe. How do people who make movies get paid these days? Are their ultimate customers the people who buy DVDs? No. The ones who buy tickets at movie theatres? Partly, but more and more used-to-be -- how many families can afford $100 an outing for a movie these days? They get paid by Netflix, really, or other equivalent "service providers" for the content. It's interesting to think of Netflix vs. Apple as service providers, since they are and will increasingly be competitors. Now, just talking from a customer perspective, I'll be thinking monthly about whether I want to pay Netflix $8/month for whatever they have on offer, except oops I can't watch Inside Job on them; or I'll debate with myself about how many movies I really watch a month, and if it's less than 8 -- and it usually is -- I'll actively consider just paying "per-view" on Apple, IF the price is, say, 99 cents a flick. If Apple's going to charge me movie ticket entrance prices, though, or even close -- $3 or more, say -- heck with it, I'll just watch what's on Netflix, and maybe go with my family out to the movies maybe once a year, to catch that mediocre blockbuster with special 3D effects that make you hurl in a theatre in ways you'd never be able to do at home. Beginning to see the picture? As a content creator, you have to start thinking about who your real customer is in a service environment; it's not the end-user, at least in terms of who's going to make the investments in your content development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny-Boy Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 "How do people who make movies get paid these days? Are their ultimate customers the people who buy DVDs? No. The ones who buy tickets at movie theatres? Partly, but more and more used-to-be -- how many families can afford $100 an outing for a movie these days?" - realtrance Just for reference... if you want to make any money with your music in movies from the USA PRO's, they better be made-for-TV movies. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC doesn't pay royalties for any movie (or dvd) outside of TV usage. Composers get paid upfront, mechanicals, and/or licensing fees for such usage (if their contract doesn't give them a double screwing). Odd that we're the only Country that PRO's won't pay royalties for such usage. John:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dingoist Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 Dingoist, I understand your feelings, and thank you for making me feel young again for 28 seconds this morning. You are better than Starbucks! I was launched around the same time as Sputnik (I won), just for perspective though..... You raise the question, implicitly, of how content creators will get paid in my universe. How do people who make movies get paid these days? Are their ultimate customers the people who buy DVDs? No. The ones who buy tickets at movie theatres? Partly, but more and more used-to-be -- how many families can afford $100 an outing for a movie these days? They get paid by Netflix, really, or other equivalent "service providers" for the content. It's interesting to think of Netflix vs. Apple as service providers, since they are and will increasingly be competitors. Now, just talking from a customer perspective, I'll be thinking monthly about whether I want to pay Netflix $8/month for whatever they have on offer, except oops I can't watch Inside Job on them; or I'll debate with myself about how many movies I really watch a month, and if it's less than 8 -- and it usually is -- I'll actively consider just paying "per-view" on Apple, IF the price is, say, 99 cents a flick. If Apple's going to charge me movie ticket entrance prices, though, or even close -- $3 or more, say -- heck with it, I'll just watch what's on Netflix, and maybe go with my family out to the movies maybe once a year, to catch that mediocre blockbuster with special 3D effects that make you hurl in a theatre in ways you'd never be able to do at home. Beginning to see the picture? As a content creator, you have to start thinking about who your real customer is in a service environment; it's not the end-user, at least in terms of who's going to make the investments in your content development. I'm talking about stealing content. You are talking about the changing roles of content creation, royalties and revenue. I agree the business model is changing, along with the slow adoption of micro economics (along with very micro-payments ) But, bear with me. It's the producer of the content, by market means or other such measures that should decide the state of delivery. If no one buys, then the delivery model must change (or the product). Stealing is stealing. Justification by saying the business model is broken and needs to change, and then stealing more content, is still thievery. It's a notch higher with the eloquence of the discussion than justification of a smash'n'grab, but it's part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 12, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 It's the producer of the content, by market means or other such measures that should decide the state of delivery. That is also the basis of copyright law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted August 12, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 I don't think the goal is to legitimize stealing, but to figure out an alternate means of compensation that is fair to the creator of the content and the end users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny-Boy Posted August 12, 2011 Members Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm afraid this will end up as a surtax on Internet users through their Internet providers. Then the difficult part comes up when deciding what method to use in divvying-up the new found revenue. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.