Testing the waters on piracy protection....

    Quote from heldal

    I history commercialisation of intellectual property is a recent invention. Prior to the invention of recording and distribution media living musicians would have to perform to make an income. Not too much earlier there wasn't even an opportunity to make a buck from sheet music. With digital distribution one may just as well see it as a return to basics through sharing, as theft. Societies are still struggling to make up their opinion on which definition to support. The recording industry has a lot of influence through their wealth, but it is far from clear that the industry's bare existence is to the best of society.


    In those times that you're talking about without a recording industry, people would support artists through different means. They would be patronised by kings, audiences would come to their concerts, they'd be invited to perform on a grand scale and the pay would be enough for them to sustain their living.


    The benefit of the recording industry has been to proliferate music throughout the world, not just in concert halls in Vienna and Prague. And for a long time, the recording industry actually cared about artists, look at the stories about Led Zep and their chartered Boeing to fly from big city hotels to concert venues and back all in the same night. The Beatles. Dire Straits. The Rolling Stones. Black Sabbath. Metallica.


    The real power of the recording industry is not their ability to record music. It is in their distribution networks and their ability to get songs and artists airplay and exposure. We don't hear about the good stuff because the good stuff has been buried under what the record industry *THINKS* you want to hear, based on CD sales. But CD sales cease to be a relevant indicator if the an artists' work is pirated in thousands of copies, enough to have made their record gold or platinum.


    And for the record, it would be great to be part of a community that appreciates and supports music. But if the artist is not a willing part of the community, it just becomes a different form of communism sweeping through capitalist nations. Because the one thing capitalists believe in more than enterprise is free goods. And that's by hook or by crook. And so we have the marriage of capitalism and communism in the modern world. Taking from the smaller number because they do not have the strength to fight back.

    Quote from nightlight

    It's fully functional even if you don't pay for it. They don't cripple the software if you use it beyond 60 days, but just give you reminders to buy a license, which is a very interesting business model. What's more, the licence is quite cheap compared to most DAWs.



    Yes, you CAN continue use of the software beyond the evaluation period. But if you use it beyond that time, do the community a favour and purchase the license. It's only $60.



    I think there is some confusion about what you are allowed to, so I quote from Reapers website (http://reaper.fm/purchase.php):

    Quote


    Lightweight Installation
    The REAPER installer simply copies REAPER and its support files to disk. It does not install anything except itself.
    If after 60 days you decide that REAPER is not for you, simply delete it.


    If you decide that REAPER is for you, you must purchase a license.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    Yes, you CAN continue use of the software beyond the evaluation period. But if you use it beyond that time, do the community a favour and purchase the license. It's only $60.



    I think there is some confusion about what you are allowed to, so I quote from Reapers website (http://reaper.fm/purchase.php):


    I am aware of the licence terms and conditions. But the point is, there is no restriction on using the software without it, it will just keep reminding you to buy a licence. My point was that this is the kind of a model of community that one should aspire too with the Kemper rig exchange.


    Rather than holding a gun to someone's head and saying pay or die, it is entirely a voluntary method, that has worked for Reaper. Reaper says you must pay, but Reaper doesn't enforce it like many companies might for a trial, such as Magix Samplitude or Cakewalk Sonar, which you can get a free trial of, but it becomes redundant after the period is over.


    This could encourage people to voluntarily create excellent profiles. With a "donate" or "pay for" option without conditions, the right kind of people would see no problem with donating in case of something worthy.


    It could also open up the profile market in a different way from the current model, where some stuff is exclusively paid for unless someone pirates it, and some equally good stuff is absolutely free.

    Quote from nightlight

    And for a long time, the recording industry actually cared about artists


    That's very rare. Most ppl in recording/production/distribution never cared about artists at all. They've been concerned about their income. The fact that someone found a way to commoditise music at some point doesn't give them a right to keep that business forever. They have to face and accept disruptive technologies live everyone else. Most of the industry (production, printing, storage, transport, shops etc) has been made obsolete by technology already. Many of those left are bloodsuckers who don't make any positive contribution to the end product. As a part-time artist I'm making 3-4 times more a year today compared to 20 years ago just because modern technology has made it possible to bypass the parasites.


    I agree, this is a VERY different business model. It is appealing and obviously works for Cockos/Reaper.
    Why not also for KPA users?

    Quote from heldal

    Most of the industry (production, printing, storage, transport, shops etc) has been made obsolete by technology already. Many of those left are bloodsuckers who don't make any positive contribution to the end product. As a part-time artist I'm making 3-4 times more a year today compared to 20 years ago just because modern technology has made it possible to bypass the parasites.


    Quote from heldal


    That's very rare. Most ppl in recording/production/distribution never cared about artists at all. They've been concerned about their income. The fact that someone found a way to commoditise music at some point doesn't give them a right to keep that business forever. They have to face and accept disruptive technologies live everyone else. Most of the industry (production, printing, storage, transport, shops etc) has been made obsolete by technology already. Many of those left are bloodsuckers who don't make any positive contribution to the end product. As a part-time artist I'm making 3-4 times more a year today compared to 20 years ago just because modern technology has made it possible to bypass the parasites.


    Sure - record companies have always been concerned about income, because it is a business. I think in the old days, like any business before consolidation became the new norm, there was a lot more room for diverse products. I may be romantisizing the past, but it seems to me that there is a lot less NEW stuff coming up these days with a major label "label" on them. Whether "most" people in the business did not care about the artist, I can't say.


    There is, in my opinion, a difference between disruptive technologies and violation of intellectual property. The disruptive technology could have enabled new businesses to spring forth based on the new distribution system. Instead, piracy became the new thing. I think if piracy HADN'T been so widespread right at the beginning of the technology, we would have seen a LOT of new indie labels spring up based on a new distribution system while the major labels sat back and held onto "the old way". Maybe that would have led the way for a broader popular music scene today, as the major labels could have had some sound competition from a "legal" business with a different focus.

    Quote from Feck

    With all due respect to ANYONE who takes the time to make a profile and share it (whether for free or for profit), the entire model of the KPA was designed specifically to encourage a community. It was born with a completely different intent than for-profit software development and sales. Trying to backtrack the KPA model into that of a capitalist, developer-to-consumer model just isn't realistic. Anyone who makes a set of profiles and attempts to sell them for a profit MUST know that there will be a certain amount of sharing/theft involved. And, without getting to deep on the subject, I think this is not entirely wrong to some degree. Again, when I bought a KPA (and I bought one on day 1) I knew CK was forming the rig sharing community and that the idea behind the unit was to SHARE. Not sell for profit. Now, if some people want to (and it's their right to) use the KPA platform as a way to make some extra cash, then so be it. But they have no RIGHT to absolute security - it was never, at least to my knowledge, advertised that the KPA would be a legitimate, secure way to make profits for any individual other than CK and team.

    This!


    All kind of piracy protection are ephemeres anyways and are, at the end, just a lot of troubles for honest users. As long as it is a marginal problem please keep it as it is.

    Uhm, let' see if I can summarize my thoughts on this interesting topic...


    I'll try to establish a few (hopefully) undisputable points:


    1) KPA is an open platform. It was designed for profile sharing and the rig exchange section on their website is a great way to increase hardware selling, the core business of Kemper.
    Without profile sharing the diffusion and success of KPA (but also other products, POD, Guitar rig, etc...) would have been slower, maybe too slow to grant business sustainability... but that's not the point at the moment.


    2) What you buy with a commercial profile? A sound? Not entirely.
    You buy the effort involved in profiling high quality profiles that "normal" users couldn't profile by themselves...
    That involves the costs for having the rare amp models available (bought, rented, collected, whatever...), and/or high quality equipment for recording (mics, mixers, recording studio, etc...), and/or the time and knowledge, or skill, necessary to obtain the final product.


    3) When you buy a commercial profile, you explicitly sign an agreement to use it for personal use, as a KPA owner.
    Doesn't matter if you're a performer, a recording musician, or a simple amateur...


    With that in mind I'd say that sharing a commercial profile is neither ethical nor legal, but in the real world:


    1) Kemper doesn't necessarily have to take charge of protect the profiles.
    It could, in the future, e.g. if it wanted to sell their proprietary profiles, but we are in the present now...


    2a) Trying to protect the commecial profiles (taht are more than a simple "sound") is up to the sellers, that have to find a way to protect their products.
    With the current open hardware platform I think it's almost impossible, but it's not a problem I have to solve. commercial profile producers have to.


    2b) Another problem is: how can you reasonably detect the shared profiles? There's no tool in the KPA firmware that can compare the profile files, so do you think to go and ask to any KPA owner to binary check the memory content of their KPA (if they agree to)?


    in conclusion I think that, at the moment, in theory sharing a commercial profile is a violation, but in practice without the right tools, it's impossible to avoid or persecute it, so in the end the "commercial profile" business is possible only taking sharing in account, and hoping that the loyal user base grants a sufficient income.
    If this doesn't happen, it's the end of a unsustainable business that in these conditions probably wouldn't have started at all.


    I personally bought some commercial profiles, and they're the best I found until now.
    I'm not sharing them with anyone, but I wouldnt think to start selling my own profiles as a base to make a living... ;)

    This is a very interesting topic. And light has been shed from a lot of directions here.


    Myself, I don't like copy protection. It goes so far, that I have more unprotected self-payed-for software than cheaper protected software.
    If it wouldn't bother the user, it was a whole different story. Most of the time it is a hustle.


    And a little off topic: What if I noticed that I bought, let's say the MW mega super duper pack for a lot of money, and noticed that I don't need it. I don't want to sound arrogant, so I blame it on taste. I like my profiles and a lot of Andys and Armins stuff way more.
    It is impossible without a protection or registration mechanism to return it. What about reselling? I mean once and then delete.
    Is that different from selling e.g. Logic Pro?


    The seller needs to trust me with his profiles for the leck of copy protection. So buying a rig pack, the seller assumes I won't share it with anybody. Isn't that the same trust that would come to play when I resell profiles I don't need? To sell it once and delete...


    Share your thoughts on that. I would like to hear your thoughts.


    Cheers,
    Markus

    You can resell your commercial profiles, of course: they are yours. In fact, many Profilers were sold along with their collection of commercial profiles.


    The most intriguing copyright-related aspect of profiling is IMO that if you profile a Profiler which is playing a commercial profile you get a... free profile :D

    Quote from viabcroce

    I do not mean keeping a copy... I mean resell as you'd do with an amp :)


    Is this a language barrier by my part? Is "reselling" related to stores only?


    No language barrier, but the terms of use that burningyen cited are not clear about this.
    Read again: You are paying for the rights of using these profiles for yourself only, you are strictly forbidden from sharing them or making them available online for free or for resale.


    This does not imply that reselling is allowed even if no copy is kept.

    I do mean this as well, but fail to see how selling profiles I've paid for w/o the Profiler should be not allowed, while it would be "legal" f I sell the unit along with them.
    It is a matter of trust anyway, I could keep copies of the rigs and buy another unit years later...


    AFAIK, no-one in the civil world can decide about my properties! LOL
    The prohibition of selling (as the unique existing copy) something I bought is a nonsense for me. Any bought good can be sold.
    If I can sell a CD (or my copy of Windows or Autocad), the same is true for a profile.
    This is my opinion of course, but it's also my moral guideline :)

    Well, in a corner of my mind there's still the notion that "to resell" is referable to not only sell something you bought, but to sell it "several times" or "on a regular base".
    Might be completely off-base tho :D

    I still don't understand this - you all bought a device which can do a copy of an amp sound.
    Someone of you want to sell an amp sound but the amp is registered trademark. So you first copying someones work and you try to resell this behind a mic and other stuff setup? Double morality i think:D Or even triple if you think that you buy a kemper becouse you dont have to pay to this all amp producers for their hard work.
    I have an amp - i've buy it and i dont want to sell something that not belongs to me. I want a share with you how is my amp sounds:)