01-06-2016, 01:37 AM
Happy new year, everyone.
Wow! what a thread. It's a really pertinent issue that has been on my mind as well like of many of you and I'm glad it is under discussion and review. Just went through the entire thread and here's my vote:
No Anti Piracy (AP) code for paying customers, please!
IML products are digital products and I believe they have a right to take reasonable measures to prevent any unauthorised use of their products. At the same time paying customers have a right to request for products free of any AP code or any other undesired programming.
My solution to this current issue of AP code is to prepare two copies of products. Distribute the one containing some sort of AP code, but allow customers who ask for a clean copy to be able to have access to a clean copy.
What sort of AP code should the dirty (as opposed to clean) copy contain? There are two options here based on how much beneficial the unauthorised use and distribution is to IML.
1. If IML isn't benefitting from unauthorised use of its products the AP code could nullify any benefits from the use of products.
[I'm no expert on scripting, but it could be something along the lines of:
"If I haven't paid IML US$X for this program I now cease to listen to this program and not gain any benefit from it."]
2. If, however, the unauthorised use and distribution is benefitting IML and is one of their main sources of advertising/marketing - the AP code could contain statements which cause the person to pay the cost of program to IML if they are comfortably able to do so. However, to be fair and just, this payment should be in the form of a financial transaction only (as opposed to any other form like energy etc.).
[Again, the sample script could be:
"If I haven't paid IML US$X for this program and if I am comfortably able to raise US$X to pay to IML for this program I now take steps to raise US$X and pay that to IML."]
2a. Optionally, if it is desired that people who are unable to pay for the program do not use it any longer, another piece of scripting could be added. Something along the lines of:
"If I haven't paid IML US$X for this program and if I am not in a position to comfortably raise US$X to pay to IML for this program I now stop listening to this program and not gain any benefit from it."
These should ensure that users don't go into hardship trying to pay for the products and that they don't take extreme measures to raise funds to pay for the products. In addition, if they're unable to pay they stop listening to the program and do not gain any benefit from it.
Educating people on copyright law is a very risky business. Copyright law varies in different countries and also it's open to interpretation. Plus the onus of educating the users shouldn't lay on IML.
In a world where burglars sue the home owners when they (burglars) break into a home and hurt themselves, I wouldn't add anything untoward to the AP code.
Now the above options do not take care of the bystander scenario or the cases where a person gifts the program to a friend/family. Taking care of these cases will add more complexity to the AP code for distinguishing between a listener who has been gifted the program vs a bystander vs someone whose copy hasn't been paid for. (I'm not even sure if it's possible to distinguish between these classes of users)
At which point it will be IML's call whether to make the AP code this complex or will they just want to get rid of the AP code altogether. It's their business and it's their call based on their market research, cost/benefit analysis and the feedback from existing and potential future customers.
Whichever way they (IML) choose to go (AP code or no AP code) the paying customers should have a way to obtain a clean copy devoid of any AP code and any undesired programming. The value exchange from the user should be limited to financial transaction equivalent to the cost of product.
Thanks for reading.
Wow! what a thread. It's a really pertinent issue that has been on my mind as well like of many of you and I'm glad it is under discussion and review. Just went through the entire thread and here's my vote:
No Anti Piracy (AP) code for paying customers, please!
IML products are digital products and I believe they have a right to take reasonable measures to prevent any unauthorised use of their products. At the same time paying customers have a right to request for products free of any AP code or any other undesired programming.
My solution to this current issue of AP code is to prepare two copies of products. Distribute the one containing some sort of AP code, but allow customers who ask for a clean copy to be able to have access to a clean copy.
What sort of AP code should the dirty (as opposed to clean) copy contain? There are two options here based on how much beneficial the unauthorised use and distribution is to IML.
1. If IML isn't benefitting from unauthorised use of its products the AP code could nullify any benefits from the use of products.
[I'm no expert on scripting, but it could be something along the lines of:
"If I haven't paid IML US$X for this program I now cease to listen to this program and not gain any benefit from it."]
2. If, however, the unauthorised use and distribution is benefitting IML and is one of their main sources of advertising/marketing - the AP code could contain statements which cause the person to pay the cost of program to IML if they are comfortably able to do so. However, to be fair and just, this payment should be in the form of a financial transaction only (as opposed to any other form like energy etc.).
[Again, the sample script could be:
"If I haven't paid IML US$X for this program and if I am comfortably able to raise US$X to pay to IML for this program I now take steps to raise US$X and pay that to IML."]
2a. Optionally, if it is desired that people who are unable to pay for the program do not use it any longer, another piece of scripting could be added. Something along the lines of:
"If I haven't paid IML US$X for this program and if I am not in a position to comfortably raise US$X to pay to IML for this program I now stop listening to this program and not gain any benefit from it."
These should ensure that users don't go into hardship trying to pay for the products and that they don't take extreme measures to raise funds to pay for the products. In addition, if they're unable to pay they stop listening to the program and do not gain any benefit from it.
Educating people on copyright law is a very risky business. Copyright law varies in different countries and also it's open to interpretation. Plus the onus of educating the users shouldn't lay on IML.
In a world where burglars sue the home owners when they (burglars) break into a home and hurt themselves, I wouldn't add anything untoward to the AP code.
Now the above options do not take care of the bystander scenario or the cases where a person gifts the program to a friend/family. Taking care of these cases will add more complexity to the AP code for distinguishing between a listener who has been gifted the program vs a bystander vs someone whose copy hasn't been paid for. (I'm not even sure if it's possible to distinguish between these classes of users)
At which point it will be IML's call whether to make the AP code this complex or will they just want to get rid of the AP code altogether. It's their business and it's their call based on their market research, cost/benefit analysis and the feedback from existing and potential future customers.
Whichever way they (IML) choose to go (AP code or no AP code) the paying customers should have a way to obtain a clean copy devoid of any AP code and any undesired programming. The value exchange from the user should be limited to financial transaction equivalent to the cost of product.
Thanks for reading.
