You Are Now King of the World! How Would You Handle Copy Protection?

[MikeRivers]

 

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.

 

 

They tried that with the tax on blank tape and other recording media. I actually know a couple of independent artists who filled out the application and actually got a share of the payout. A trivial share by any measure, but enough to buy gas to get to a couple of gigs back when gas was under $2 a gallon. The big name artists got most of the money.

[Dingoist]

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.

 

And I agree, old models are falling by the wayside and new ones are emerging.

 

But, as the question resides if I was king of the world, I would have no problem with copy protection (and not being king of the world either, too many peons prostrating themselves just to kiss the royal ring.. that would be a little disturbing )

 

I have an iLok, and have no problems with it. I register my serial numbers of most of software and it's all legal. I buy my CDs. I have yet to download music for pay, but I will pay for streamed content. When I did download music was during the napster/morpheus P2P era and that was pretty much constrained to songs that I have on cassette that I was too lazy to bring over to the computer myself, or hard to find songs that you couldn't even buy any more even though I wanted to. See, I'm not pure myself.

 

Heck, being king of the world, I would have perfect unbreakable copy protection, and increased social taboos for those that would pilfer the pockets of others even digitally. Self entitlement is no excuse.

 

And a harem.... no scratch that, that would upset the wife which is something I'd rather not do (nor my poor psyche might not handle being a disappointment to more than one woman at the same time).

[realtrance]

I absolutely agree that profiting off of someone else's labor without compensating them appropriately for it should be illegal. Unfortunately, that's the founding principle of every business in a profit-oriented economy; we are all stolen from, every hour of every day we labor for someone else's profit.

 

That aside though, I'm not arguing in this theoretical situation in favor of stealing digital content. I never went near Napster, and don't have a single copy of any digital content I haven't paid for (with the exception of absolute freeware; even with shareware, if I'm going to use it more than once or twice... I'm paying for it), well except for my own music, where I don't even use sampled phrases... and I'm not even selling it, just making it for my own pleasure (I take no pleasure in profit, because profit is theft; I therefore refuse to mix pleasure and profit).

 

But I do think we've moved increasingly toward an environment, as others are also saying, where the means of compensation for original creation are changing radically, and you, as content creators, if you do make content for a living, will have to find profoundly new ways of getting paid for it.

 

In many senses, the older idea of, say, the recorded performance as marketing for the live concert, is coming back around. Particularly as musicians, it may increasingly become more useful to think of your digital content not as a direct means of profit, but as an indirect means, as a form of marketing.

 

In my currently sad biz, increasingly we're all moving (video games) to a free-to-play model, where the content's primary function is retention of the customer's attention, and any money is made off of a fraction of the content created specifically for sale (micro-transactable items). At Zynga, for instance, the most advanced case of the current business model in this field, only 5% of the players are actually paying customers; the "games," like Farmville, are designed entirely with an eye to attracting the maximum eyeballs in a web environment so that that tiny fraction proves profitable (and costs for actual content are dramatically minimized by essentially a sweatshop model of production).

 

I see that model as doomed to its own self-destruction, but it does provide useful evidence for the concept of content as serving primarily a service provider's CRM and advertising needs.

[Coaster]

i think everyone has missed a certain important point in all this; perceived value.

 

example: i spend $3800 on a used pickup. i OWN the pickup, i can take the pickup apart, drive it where i want, how i want (within applicable laws of course) etc etc. if it breaks, i can fix it or modify it, or sell it, whatever i want. this truck has VALUE and i have rights associated with it. when i am done with the truck i can recoup some of my costs if i choose.

 

other example: i spend $3800 (this is not a made up number, i spent this) on a mac and "pro" tools setup. i have no rights, i do not own the program, i cannot modify it or sell it. if it doesnt do what i want, i am screwed. in exactly 6 months it is obsolete and i am again expected to buy a new one. if my authorizations go tits up i have no recourse.

 

example 2 has NO VALUE. i never again bought pro tools since version 5.x and basically threw all of it (software, hardware, pci cars etc) in the trash where it belongs.

 

i dont find that software in its current state has any value at all. i WILL NOT pay $900 for any program that i cannot use indefinitely, without restrictions, without cripples, and will be left with nothing in roughly 12 months. this is why i am still using software an os's from 2004, i will not pay to upgrade until i HAVE TO because in the end its just pissing my money away on something i have no rights to, i do not own, and i cannot utilize in any manner i see fit and half the time i spend fighting with some stupid broken dongle or call/response BS. i still use a cracked copy of T-RACKS after purchasing it for $400 and losing the emailed key to a system problem in 1998 and this was after a lengthy and heated conversation to IK multimedia. i BOUGHT it and could not USE it. i will not buy anything from them again, ever.

 

no value. the system of delivery and CP is not broken, the system of VALUE is broken. no value, no buy.

 

give me some value and i will gladly buy software. much of what i use is freeware or simple apps under $40 that surprisingly have no CP and work very well.

[BushmasterM4]

Reaper has a pretty nice business model and fairly priced. I dont use it (yet), but it looks better to me as time goes on.

[gubu]

 

Reaper has a pretty nice business model and fairly priced. I dont use it (yet), but it looks better to me as time goes on.

 

 

See post #9. Companies with this sort of business model are going to succeed mightily over the coming years IMO.

[MikeRivers]

 

i spend $3800 (this is not a made up number, i spent this) on a mac and "pro" tools setup. i have no rights, i do not own the program, i cannot modify it or sell it. if it doesnt do what i want, i am screwed. in exactly 6 months it is obsolete and i am again expected to buy a new one. if my authorizations go tits up i have no recourse.

 

 

The difference between this and a truck is that the truck is the complete system. All it needs is gas and it'll go. Things wear out and, at least for a while you can replace them. But there will come a time when it needs a part that is no longer available through normal channels and you don't have the tools, skill, or documentation to make a replacement. And some day they're going to stop selling gasoline.

 

In the case of software, there's nothing to wear out. The computer that you can't use it without, however, will eventually die and you will not likely be able to replace it with an identical one or a reasonable substitute. Making a 20 year old computer is only a little more practical than making your own gasoline. The main thing that makes software obsolete, however, is within your control, but the temptation to upgrade that computer or operating system is hard to resist after a few years, and I see no obligation on the part of the software manufacturer to rework your 10 year old program to run on a platform that didn't exist when the software was designed. Or you'll decide that you need a capability that didn't exist or you couldn't afford when you originally bought the software. That's not planned (or any other kind of) obsolescence, it's that you wanted to use your computer for something other than you did when you bought it and the software and you made the choice to change it.

 

A solution, of course, is simply not to use software, at least not as your primary working tool, unless you're willing to accept the cost of updating as a cost of doing business.

 

 

give me some value and i will gladly buy software. much of what i use is freeware or simple apps under $40 that surprisingly have no CP and work very well.

 

 

You have the value, and usually a lot of it, during the time that the software works for you. Same as your truck. And like your truck, you can keep it working for a long time if you don't change your requirements.

 

It may be true that it doesn't have much if any resale value, and that's something that the manufacturer built in. But look at it from his standpoint. Part of what you paid for the software goes toward getting you up to speed with it whether you needed that support or not. Sell it to a new user who probably want to use it on a newer computer with a newer OS than what you were nursing along. Who's going to cover what he costs the manufacturer?

 

At one time, software could be re-licensed for a fee, and I wouldn't be surprised if some software still works that way. Essentially, whoever us using it pays for support during the time he's using it. But people who buy audio software are cheapskates and balked at that arrangement, so the manufacturers chose not to support it after a certain period of time.

 

But what're you going to do? Maybe like me, use as much hardware as you can, get as much documentation as you can when you can get it (which often isn't very much), keep some parts on hand, keep up your repair skills, and use it for as long as you can get value from it.

[realtrance]

I think there's a profound philosophical issue here as well, which has a lot to do with self-sufficiency and Independence.

 

Look, if there's anything left of America, it's the concept of being able to be self-sufficient. Thoreau's Walden. Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography.

 

You can talk about where that is in the political spectrum, but there's always been a strong premium, since the beginning of the American experiment, on being able to go your own way, do your own thing, without anyone telling you what you should or shouldn't do, can or can't do.

 

Coaster's reference to the funky car is all about that ideal; it's one that the hippie movement resurrected in the late 60's.

 

Software is all about the experience of being utterly dependent on the corporation for your survival. It's the essence of totalitarianism! Without that copy protection.... you're lost! Screwed! The stuff is inaccessible and useless until you're "re-authorized."

 

Sure, there's the whole separate issue of copyright protection, the question of how intellectual labor is remunerated, how the abstract products of that labor are given a framework that establishes their value in a measurable and discrete way in society. But the problem is, we've reached the point where the principles of property production, valuation and ownership are trumping the principles of self-sufficiency and independence.

 

That's wrong, says this old hippie.

[blue2blue]

If I was King of the World, I'd buy everyone a subscription to MOG, so everyone could listen to what they want, when they want, and the musicians would get paid.

 

 

OK... I'll stop now.

[roomjello]

Realtrance, i agree with what you are saying.

I see so many people who are so appalled at the idea of software theft on forums. They go on and on so righteously.

And that is fine but they seem a little naive to me.

We clearly are not living in a society where morals and ethics have much influence over actions. And there are reasons for that.

Not because we don't feel the pangs of guilt, but because we are bombarded with encouragement away from morals and ethics, the easy rd.

Easy rd lifestyle is shoved down the public's throat as the way to follow.

That is the main issue.

You don't get something for nothing. But you sure can sell the idea of it.

 

I think the equation is more along the lines of what you touched on realtrance

We do know on some level that we do not want to be under the control of the powers that create our tools.

We are rejecting the wave that is slowly rising by starving it of it's fuel.

Sure we can use the stuff, but we DON"T NEED IT.

So part of us says, "{censored} it, just steal it". Cause the times we pay for it we often feel ripped off anyway.

How many times do you buy a wrench and it's only 80% functional? What do you do then? Take it back.

With software, the weaker more ignorant part of society is already at the point where they are just fine with paying full price for an 80% functional product with no option to return.

How the {censored} did that happen?

Software is not a solid item to market on some level, i can't define it but it's not quite tangible enough to respect to the point the guys who work so hard making it want it to be. And that is not and individual thing, it is a globally human perception thing.

And that is why those who feel so strongly and indignant towards those who don't give a {censored} will remain frustrated, because they are not stepping back and looking at the nature of the product they are involved in making in relation to society and it's perception of the products usefulness.

Same with music.

[Dingoist]

I see so many people who are so appalled at the idea of software theft on forums. They go on and on so righteously.

 

 

And why not? I for one, would not want to encourage an environment where it deems it acceptable. As consumers you should speak with your wallet. That is what drives whether a product, be it a hammer or be it software is successful. If a hammer breaks or doesn't pounds nails it won't sell. Same with software. Just as consumers, rightly or wrongly, we have the expectation that software won't work as advertised. What we need here, is more options so we can speak with our $$$ to get better software out there.

 

As for software content producers changing... look at the free or low cost software out there. It's going up in quality every day, and is readily available. Shareware and freeware have been around since the dawn of personal computing. Some of it now can challenge the bigger producers in quality and sophistication.

 

There is a "hippie" movement for software, it is called the Free Software Foundation. Open source. I use OpenOffice and GIMP regularly, audacity less often. Much of what I've used over the years has been free. GNU tools for programming, on Linux machines. I even experimented with coLinux on windows for security (running the browser and web stuff via the coLinux side). Just like people who put up there songs for free on youtube, or for $0.99 on iTunes, there is a software movement of people collaborating and putting software out there for free or cheap.

 

Honestly, writing software isn't hard, the programming side is mostly learning syntax and want functions the OS provides that you can call -- the complexity is breaking down the problem into manageable pieces. As we move forward, more and more people will be writing software and much of that will be free or low cost, and that will give the big power houses a run for their money.

[techristian]

 

other example: i spend $3800 (this is not a made up number, i spent this) on a mac and "pro" tools setup. i have no rights, i do not own the program, i cannot modify it or sell it. if it doesnt do what i want, i am screwed. in exactly 6 months it is obsolete and i am again expected to buy a new one. if my authorizations go tits up i have no recourse. example 2 has NO VALUE. i never again bought pro tools since version 5.x and basically threw all of it (software, hardware, pci cars etc) in the trash where it belongs.

 

 

I feel for you. I had a similar situation with another OLD Digidesign product....SOFTSYNTH. I paid $200 for it way back 20 years ago or so. I only used it casually. When I wanted to move it to a faster Mac, the key disk screwed up and I couldn't recover it. I spent time on the phone with the "nice" Digidesign people to no avail. Too bad I didn't meet up with you before you invested so heavily in Pro Tools. I also will have nothing more to do with DigiDesign.

 

I have Cubase SX still from 10 years ago , running on XP and so far my dongle still works !

 

I see that Avid has taken over Pro Tools now so I'll have nothing to do with them either.

 

Dan

[roomjello]

I know a guy who paid 20 grand for session 8, anyone remember that one? I went to the demo session, very impressive at the time, not 20 grand impressive but pretty cool, plus the demo guy sang jazz lines really cool.

[Coaster]

i used to run session8 on an 80mhz 7600. it crashed a lot.

[Jon Gnash]

Reaper has a pretty nice business model and fairly priced.

But are Cockos actually making any money? Or are they just spinning off of Justin Frankel

[Jon Gnash]

I had a similar situation with another OLD Digidesign product....SOFTSYNTH. I paid $200 for it way back 20 years ago or so. I only used it casually. When I wanted to move it to a faster Mac, the key disk screwed up and I couldn't recover it. I spent time on the phone with the "nice" Digidesign people to no avail.

Been there. Done that.

 

Looks like Peter Gotcher spent our money at McDonald's.

[Jon Gnash]

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.

But how much $$ does Apple keep?

 

It's like 50 percent - isn't it?

[Jon Gnash]

 

You shouldn't be paying for software/content at this point.

 

See what I mean?

 

Who

[Hard Truth]

Being a wise and benevolent despot I would do extensive studies and research before foisting my ideas on the world. But the idea I would want considered most seriously is a a Content & Software Tool Tax that would fund the salaries and/or payments for creators and the administrators of the distribution methods. The content and tools would then be made available free to all. Think of all the money that could be saved that is currently used for merchandising, marketing and rights protection. Under my scheme that money would be redirected to fund more creation and refinement of content and tools.