View Single Post
Old 29th May 2009 | Show parent
Lives for gear
Agreed's Avatar
Originally Posted by colinmiller ➡️
Soul hit the nail on the head of the problem.

People think that because it's software and not physical that it doesn't deserve the same rights as something physical. And that even though the same amount of costs are involved to produce both products, the software product should not get the same revenue simply because it has no mass.

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.