I'm largely sympathetic, but it's not an entirely black-and-white issue. Some DRM systems help content creators and users. For example, Steam and hardware DRM on game consoles combat the piracy that is otherwise endemic to games and helped drive traditional PC game developers away from single-player games.
HDCP is an example of the opposite extreme. It punishes paying customers, while providing no benefit to content owners unless all other, easier forms of piracy were eradicated. It's pointless to worry about someone cracking hdmi when every available Bluray has already been cracked.
The key is that good DRM systems should invisible to paying users. Circumventing them should be just difficult enough that users are motivated to pay.
It's so tragically true. I made a rule during my iOS development adventures: I'll only write code that benefits my paying customers. No piracy detection, no DRM validation horseshit. I could sink a lot of time into those activities and you know who it would benefit?
No one. Not my customers, not me.
Piracy, in the end, is a marketing expense. The percentage of my potential users who are technically capable enough to pirate my stuff may as well be a rounding error. And even if it were north of 10%, having more people using my code and showing their friends cool things my apps can do more than makes up for any loss.
I build things because it's fun to get the high from seeing something start to work. I build them because I like to see people use my stuff to make their lives just a bit easier.
When you invest any amount of time on making your stuff harder to steal instead of more worthwhile to buy, you're a shortsighted dickass who needs to get out of the business of making things.
edit: Though, on the other hand, I'm not down with piracy enablers making money instead of me, so the piracy sites like RapidShare always get DMCA notices when I catch them. RS, at least, is great about honoring these.
I am trying to launch my web application while remaining open source. It's a bit crazy, and my gut feeling say it is absolutely crazy.
Nonetheless, I am interested in seeing how can I work with my site being open source and how to make money.
I put my hypothesis is that people don't care much or don't want to set up a web application when they can sign up for a web service that is of low enough barrier. So I am planning to charge 5 bucks a month just to see what happen.
I do not see DRM and anti-piracy technologies as a solution to my problem. If people respect copyright, they would all be running to free products like GIMP instead of purchasing photoshop.
I also have no ethical issue with piracy and pirating. However, let it be clear that contractual copyright is something I absolutely support. However, if there are no expressed agreement between two parties, than it is absolutely ethical to "pirate". If third parties get their hand on copyrighted material that the initial party agree not to distribute, than the third party has not done anything wrong because he didn't agree to anything.
But contractual copyright, like current copyright are not alway or maybe never solutions. If you're going to use copyright, make sure you don't fall into "It ain't fair for people to pirated from me" mindset. That's a dangerous trap and path to your doom on the free market.
I consider copyright truth to be important to the survival of business. An accurate model of the benefit and cost of copyright will make or break an entire industries, corporations, and individuals. Don't assume anything.
This model seems to have worked well for RT and Best Practical Solutions. RT is GPL, but they sell support for it and seem to make enough money to have employees and buy e-book readers :)
Slashdot is similar. Open source code, but people still click the ads and pay for subscriptions.
Given the choice to use a closed web service versus one with all the code available, I'd pay more every time to use the open one.
Given the choice to use a closed web service versus one with all the code available, I'd pay more every time to use the open one.
With some good luck and hard pushing, I should have a terrible web application for hacker news people to critique and ripped to shred. It would also be a chance for you to try my service and see if you're going to pay for it.
I think it's brilliant. You get the benefits of having many more eyes on your code than you might be able to afford early on, which is huge.
Besides, there are examples of SaaS working for OSS apps not even invented by the vendor. Hosted SVN and Trac, for example, Github for git, and so on. There's also Magento, an OSS e-commerce product where the model is to give away the software and bill for the consulting to customize it.
So it's not crazy to give away your source and find the revenue elsewhere. If you make something good enough for another business to steal, you've got validation and who knows, perhaps a consulting client.
Just mentioning some options. My big thrust is that code secrecy and success needn't be mutually exclusive. Consulting is one obvious piece. Hosted version control is the obvious validation of your hope that it's easier to pay a guy $5 to host a web app instead of hosting yourself.
It also gives you a better experience - I can go and buy a DVD in which case I have to find some place to put it, I have to switch the disc when I want to watch another (and I have to actually find it) and I can't easily bring a bunch with me.
HDCP is an example of the opposite extreme. It punishes paying customers, while providing no benefit to content owners unless all other, easier forms of piracy were eradicated. It's pointless to worry about someone cracking hdmi when every available Bluray has already been cracked.
The key is that good DRM systems should invisible to paying users. Circumventing them should be just difficult enough that users are motivated to pay.