[Fmpro] P2P Piracy

[Eric Goetz]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:58 PM, <chris at alpiar.com> wrote:

> OK but if Digital Performer and Cubase and Vienna Instruments and EastWest
> sample libraries and microsoft office and mac OS and etc etc into infinity
> get to have copy protection for *their* intellectual property why do we get
> nothing?


It's the reality of the market.  Consumers aren't willing to put up with
copy protection on music, because it's too much of a hassle.  But most users
of software are.  People make multiple music-listening decisions a day, but
usually install new software a couple times a month, so they're willing to
put up with more inconvenience with software.  Like it or not, music is a
commodity, at least compared to a really expensive specialized piece of
software that has a half dozen competitors.

Also, music is fundamentally different from software in that part of the
value of music comes from sharing it.  People like to share music with their
friends.  You could make the argument that the sharing of music is more
important to most people than the listening of it.  By putting restrictions
on their ability to share music, you decrease the value of the music.

By the way, I am for DRM-technologies, like digital watermarking, that don't
restrict distribution.

I also agree with you, Chris, that blanket licenses should not be
administered by a governmental body, nor any monopoly.  I think the most
logical choice would be the PRO's, since that infrastructure is already
largely in place.  It's not ideal, I agree.

Eric