View Single Post
Old 30th May 2009 | Show parent
Lives for gear
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.

Let's look at some fake numbers for example.

You have a keyboard company and a software company. They both make a product that costs them $1000 in development (just a low number for simplicity). The cost of each is $100

A studio has 2 rooms and needs to build 10 rooms. The keyboard company then gets $1000 and the software company gets $100 and the studio just copies the same software in each room. Both have one through the same effort. But they keyboard company gets to pay off it's development and manufacturing costs, and the software company is still $900 in the hole. Is this fair?
1. I thought it would be obvious that there is something like fixed (constant) costs and variable costs. if this is the right words in business english
virtual goods have almost zero variable cost. once invested, can be sold a billion times and the variable cost is server traffic that is being redistributed anyway, depending on the business model with the provider, e.g. you do it with torrents and have zero cost.

2. there is kind of a light bulb scheme, in all software production. it has to wear out so the customer comes back to you again. this is a highly questionable situation at all, and not yet discussed here in depth.
simply said, if I create dance or hip-hop there must be the gadget sound of the week. if I record local jazz, one plug-in may serve for my life time. piano sounds piano anyway, and is all about the particular instrument and the mic and the room.

3. the software is not a person and does not have rights at all. it is a huge problem in our legal systems that the greater good is not addressed enough in the realm of IP rights. it stinks that a product that works superduper and has zero variable cost, stops to be available when the company dies and does not care. someone might buy the remainder and shelve the most valuable thing forever, to prevent it to be his own competition.

the physical value to the society, of free availability of immaterial goods, is not seen, when there is no one left to make a living on it plus pays taxes.
apple did shelve the notator. this should never be legal. it's the wrong paradigm.
it has all to be about USE from the sight of society. the company is just a tool.
the creative mind is just a tool to society. it could not even survive without that established environment.
therefore it is a privilege to create immaterial goods and be accepted and credited for that, IF it is something good and usable. otherwise the individual would have to work physically like every baker and farmer. this of course does not replace the right of the individual to be compensated with fine fees + respect, when the product makes use, and as often the product make use. but it can't be linear. that would be the deeper ground of a "bubble" - creating something out of nothing = there was zero variable cost. linear charging would deny the dissipation of IP into society which is the inherent principle of societal development.

to be more on the creative side,

I also see no mentioning on the pradigm shift towards virtualized computing and workplace, and the disappearing of software and data into the "cloud".
at first glance it is a no-no to a major producer, but given a good legal responsibility of cloud subsystems (like data transport with VPN already has), and the tracks being still on some physical device only the particular producer or his team leader have access to, it becomes possible to make disappear the current situation with the software bound to the physical computer or key device.

I am talking about the change in user authentification. there are global user management services emerging. they might also be bound to a key device that is connected to the person, like RFID chips under the skin, retina or fingerprint detecting, all the dreadful things I personally abhor. but something is going to come, and simple global password auth systems are already state of the art.

the consequence is, that any use of software can be technically bound to the person, and it can be detected and accounted in volume.
the producer has to announce his engineer as to use his paid software, and the licensing management will allow him in. just the computer must have this auth functionality, and the password must be strong. but when someone else uses the stolen identity, the responsible person of the studio is being alarmed immediately, because time, place, and login count (e.g. greater than one) are out of limits.
if he fires the engineer, he revokes his software access rights.
if payment per use, he needs to check what everyone did (to not be cheated by workers), if timed license for e.g. 5 concurrent uses - 24/7, he can employ anyone around the globe to make use of that bundle under his command, for some project.

the fact of login under a certain name entitles to use the plugin. just so simple. the workstation and what copy is sitting there is not relevant at all because the human is doing the actual work.

Last edited by NeoVXR; 30th May 2009 at 08:25 PM.. Reason: typo+grammar