View Single Post
Old 30th May 2009
  #83
Lives for gear
 
colinmiller's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed View Post
This is in one sense false and in one sense true but not filled out sufficiently.

It's false in that no one has said that software doesn't deserve protection. But it absolutely can't be protected as though it were physical, because it isn't. Don't forget that the "rights" surrounding the property have to be considered from both the producer and the consumer perspectives. It's not enough to say "I want all of the rights of physical property for my software creation" and then hem and haw when it comes to granting users the same rights as physical property. No one would be willing to do that because it doesn't make sense.

It is true, then, that people think that it can't have identical rights, but only insofar as being non-physical, with totally different possibilities and constraints for sale, distribution, use and transfer compared to physical property, it would not make sense to afford identical protections.

The first step in coming up with sensible and more generally acceptable laws regarding intellectual property is to abandon analogy altogether. It's not like a car, it's not like a keyboard, it's not like a guitar, it's software and that's a peculiar thing.

I would add that I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to extrapolate things I am not saying from my posts; twice before you've assumed that I'm advocating or attacking something that I'm not. Surely there's enough to respond to directly in my post without having to reach for some extra-post content (especially when it causes you to consider only briefly or not really at all what I've actually said). I don't mean this in any sense to be rude, I am just requesting that you consider my words alone rather than seeing something there that I'm not posting. The last thing I want to do is make it easier for people to get software without paying for it when the rest of us have to, but I think that insufficient thought has been given in the industry to the consideration of what separates a pirate from a customer.

Consider the needs of your customers and you will profit further; treat them like pirates, and while hopefully very few will become pirates, many more will incline themselves against you. I've seen people seek out rather elaborate alternatives to iLok protected software just to avoid having to use it. I was one of those people myself until, for my magazine reviews, it became clear that I was going to have to review iLok protected software, too, whether I like it or not. It's a Bad Thing when ANY of your potential customers e use your licensing system only because it's absolutely necessary; surely the services can be improved so that there are good reasons for everyone to invest. That, much more so than making the user experience ever-more convoluted and prone to trouble for legitimate customers (while pirates get a more streamlined, less difficult user experience thanks to bypassing the so-called copy protection entirely) will improve the market standing of iLok and software companies that use it.
I am sorry, but I can't agree with you at all. It's a form of goods that is in a different format. It requires as much resources to make as anything physical and it's worth should get just as much protection as anything physical. You say that it should not. Explain what right intellectual property should NOT have and why. Tell us what needs to be taken away.

And no the analogy should not be removed. That's just an attempt to try and make it easier for you. As far as value of a commodity goes, there is absolutely no difference between a physical object and intellectual. You instead want all the benefits of both and in the process removal of all protections to those who make it. Which in turn will hurt the economy. Now of course you'll say that you think it should be protected, but you won't offer how that can be done. And the reason is that it's an impossible scenario you're asking for.

You claim that in order for the producer to have rights it means the consumer loses rights. I disagree. If you lose your physical property it's gone. If you lose your proof of purchase for intellectual property it's gone. You want a product that can never be lost no matter what. No such thing exists. You can't have a physical item that can never be lost because someone can steal it or you can lose it. You don't hold the producer responsible because you're so used to them not being responsible. With intellectual property you want to be able to lose the proof of licensing and have to bear no responsibility for keeping it. Instead you eel the producer should be responsible for you.

But please, tell us about these more sensible laws. I would like to hear them. Because making claims that using copy protection is treating customers like pirates is simply not true. And as a customer of many plugins, I insist that companies use copy protection to protect my interests and they are doing me a service. That's not treating people like pirates. That's protecting me and respecting my interests as a customer.

And this notion of the user experience being over burdened is really being overblown. I have installed countless software programs with copy protection and it simply is not that big a deal. I as a customer have never felt inconvenienced, and especially not with things like the iLok which takes maybe 5 mins tops to get going with a piece of software. I am sorry, but I really can't take these kinds of complaints very seriously.

If you had a software company, would you not use any kind of protection what so ever, put it out there and just cross your ingers and hope maybe some people will pay for it? Because any protection you add what so ever will warrant someone complaining about it. So what would you do if it was your livelyhood and your money on the line?