4 ms·

How is music piracy different than the following scenario: (1) I quit my day job and decide to launch a web-based startup. (2) I base my business plan on a mo

How is music piracy different than the following scenario: (1) I quit my day job and decide to launch a web-based startup. (2) I base my business plan on a monthly subscription model. (3) I achieve product/market fit and revenue starts coming in. (4) A technology emerges that magically makes it easy to copy my SaaS app and use it in its entirety without paying the monthly subscription. (5) My revenue plummets and I have to completely revamp my business model or go out of business. This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know what is the difference. Thanks!

nkassis 16y ago
In the case of the Saas app, I think there is usually more to it that can't easily be replicated. For example, while Google email service is very Simialar to what was previously out there, they offer things like large space, reliable (don't laugh) service, trusted branding etc. Other providers offer quick development of new feature which a copied service can't easily replicate. This is the key, replicability (that's not a word ;p ) or lack of is your protection. In the end, you can't sit and wait. Even if they don't copy your app, others will offer similar products ( I think this is fair and square) and you will die if you don't continue to provide more to the user. Ubuntu One is a open source version of dropbox. I don't think dropbox will die because of it. Dropbox hosts the service and offers good support and feature development. Ubuntu's offering might not be as good. Even if it is, Competition is everywhere.
abstractbill 16y ago
Assuming your technology #4 really could be created, I don't this is much different from musical piracy. And I'd be just as ok with this as I am with things like peer-to-peer networks existing. Such a technology would be awesome - as you said, it would appear to be magic. And it would be my problem to come up with a new business model, not to outlaw a piece of new technology.
- chwahoo 16y ago
  Copying things has existed for a while (although it was never as easy as it is now). We chose to develop copyright despite this because we wanted to promote creation of works like books and music. I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, but It's worth noting that copyright was created for exactly this purpose (limit distribution of something that would be easy for copiers to distribute, but hard for them to originate). I suspect copyright is one of the driving forces in the existence of lots of the information and entertainment I enjoy consuming on a day-to-day basis, so I'm skeptical of tossing it out completely.
  - pyre 16y ago
    Copyrights, trademarks, and patents also weren't as complex and over-bearing when they were first created as they are today. If anything, the content industries only have themselves to blame with their egregious extensions to copyright terms amongst other things. I don't think there would necessarily be the same 'tear it all down' mentality around (for example) copyright if it wasn't: 1) overly abused and 2) a ridiculous length of time. It also doesn't help that a lot of people feel entitled to copyright, when in reality it is a monopoly granted by the people, not some sort of 'God-given' right.
    - nailer 16y ago
      I feel entitled to copyright on what I make. Don't you? I make something, I determine the price and distribution. You have the right not to buy it.
      - pyre 16y ago
        Copyright is not a basic human right. You may like that you have copyright on what you make, but to claim ownership over ideas is like trying to grab a handful of water. Also, please don't try to frame this argument as, "If you are against copyright then you must be a pirate!" Please let McCarthy-ism stay dead. Since you've consistently posted in favour of copyright recently: * Do you feel the *need* to have copyright 90 years after you are dead? Is that your only incentive to create? * What about retroactive copyright extensions? Are you planning on 'un-creating' things that you created in the past because you weren't retroactively granted a copyright extension so you now have no incentive to create something that you already created? If copyright terms were 14 years long (IIRC like they were originally), I think people wouldn't have such an issue. The fact that black & white films like Steamboat Willie are sill under copyright long after anyone can make any significant amount of money off of them is a travesty. This is especially true because a lot of things that are under copyright have become part of our culture (the 'Happy Birthday song' anyone?).
alexkay 16y ago
Some companies manage to base their SaaS business on free software. Take for example Gitorious, their entire code base is released under AGPL. If something can be copied, it will be, that's the law of nature. Your business plan should take this into account.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  How is Gitorious making money? Everything I saw on google said they don't even have a business model. If so it's hardly a good example of what all people who would like to make money from what they're good at (writing software) should be doing.
  - alexkay 16y ago
    > How is Gitorious making money? By offering commercial support and custom instalations, see for example http://blog.gitorious.org/2009/05/11/welcome-qt/ http://blog.gitorious.org/2009/05/11/welcome-qt/
jamesbritt 16y ago
"A technology emerges that magically makes it easy to copy my SaaS app and use it in its entirety without paying the monthly subscription." Before such technology existed it would make sense to pursue such a business plan. But suppose such technology already exists, and you know it. It would be sort of foolish to plan a business that assumed such technology would not be used. Now suppose that this magic technology was not invented for the purpose of copying SaaS apps, but was an inevitable side-effect of other good, useful, desirable technologies. A side-effect of the technology that allowed you to build your SaaS app in the first place. Oh, and your app helped shut down other existing businesses that were not using this new technology. That it can copy your site is simply one of a million things it can do. Do you fight this technology? Freeze it? Criminalize it? One of my gripes with the IP industrial complex is that there are companies that lucked out on a transitory scarcity because of a particular stage of technological evolution. Tools existed for mass-producing physical copies and transmitting virtual copies across large distances (i.e tape and CD production, and radio/TV), but there were still sufficient financial and technical barriers to constrain its application. These businesses were based on the assumption that cheap reproduction and mass data transfer would never become so cheap or so easy that just about anyone could do it with the push of a button. Bad assumption. And now the cat's out of the bag.
marilyn 16y ago
The RIAA and MPAA do need to revamp their business model if they want to evolve into the future with the rest of us. I often wonder why the movie and music industries don't embrace torrent technology. I would definitely pay a reasonable monthly fee to access legitimate and legal trackers that they manage. It's really win-win as far as I can see. Watch what you want when you wants, and the distributions costs drop to next to nothing.
keefe 16y ago
They have money to fill great convoys of dumptrucks and you have nothing? This is not a joke, it's the reality. If you managed to scrape enough money together to have power in the world, you could start playing power games too. We need to address this with a decentralized system they can't crack down on.

nkassis 16y ago

In the case of the Saas app, I think there is usually more to it that can't easily be replicated. For example, while Google email service is very Simialar to what was previously out there, they offer things like large space, reliable (don't laugh) service, trusted branding etc. Other providers offer quick development of new feature which a copied service can't easily replicate. This is the key, replicability (that's not a word ;p ) or lack of is your protection. In the end, you can't sit and wait. Even if they don't copy your app, others will offer similar products ( I think this is fair and square) and you will die if you don't continue to provide more to the user. Ubuntu One is a open source version of dropbox. I don't think dropbox will die because of it. Dropbox hosts the service and offers good support and feature development. Ubuntu's offering might not be as good. Even if it is, Competition is everywhere.

abstractbill 16y ago

Assuming your technology #4 really could be created, I don't this is much different from musical piracy. And I'd be just as ok with this as I am with things like peer-to-peer networks existing. Such a technology would be awesome - as you said, it would appear to be magic. And it would be my problem to come up with a new business model, not to outlaw a piece of new technology.

chwahoo 16y ago
Copying things has existed for a while (although it was never as easy as it is now). We chose to develop copyright despite this because we wanted to promote creation of works like books and music. I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, but It's worth noting that copyright was created for exactly this purpose (limit distribution of something that would be easy for copiers to distribute, but hard for them to originate). I suspect copyright is one of the driving forces in the existence of lots of the information and entertainment I enjoy consuming on a day-to-day basis, so I'm skeptical of tossing it out completely.
- pyre 16y ago
  Copyrights, trademarks, and patents also weren't as complex and over-bearing when they were first created as they are today. If anything, the content industries only have themselves to blame with their egregious extensions to copyright terms amongst other things. I don't think there would necessarily be the same 'tear it all down' mentality around (for example) copyright if it wasn't: 1) overly abused and 2) a ridiculous length of time. It also doesn't help that a lot of people feel entitled to copyright, when in reality it is a monopoly granted by the people, not some sort of 'God-given' right.
  - nailer 16y ago
    I feel entitled to copyright on what I make. Don't you? I make something, I determine the price and distribution. You have the right not to buy it.
    - pyre 16y ago
      Copyright is not a basic human right. You may like that you have copyright on what you make, but to claim ownership over ideas is like trying to grab a handful of water. Also, please don't try to frame this argument as, "If you are against copyright then you must be a pirate!" Please let McCarthy-ism stay dead. Since you've consistently posted in favour of copyright recently: * Do you feel the *need* to have copyright 90 years after you are dead? Is that your only incentive to create? * What about retroactive copyright extensions? Are you planning on 'un-creating' things that you created in the past because you weren't retroactively granted a copyright extension so you now have no incentive to create something that you already created? If copyright terms were 14 years long (IIRC like they were originally), I think people wouldn't have such an issue. The fact that black & white films like Steamboat Willie are sill under copyright long after anyone can make any significant amount of money off of them is a travesty. This is especially true because a lot of things that are under copyright have become part of our culture (the 'Happy Birthday song' anyone?).

alexkay 16y ago

Some companies manage to base their SaaS business on free software. Take for example Gitorious, their entire code base is released under AGPL. If something can be copied, it will be, that's the law of nature. Your business plan should take this into account.

loewenskind 16y ago
How is Gitorious making money? Everything I saw on google said they don't even have a business model. If so it's hardly a good example of what all people who would like to make money from what they're good at (writing software) should be doing.
- alexkay 16y ago
  > How is Gitorious making money? By offering commercial support and custom instalations, see for example http://blog.gitorious.org/2009/05/11/welcome-qt/ http://blog.gitorious.org/2009/05/11/welcome-qt/

jamesbritt 16y ago

"A technology emerges that magically makes it easy to copy my SaaS app and use it in its entirety without paying the monthly subscription." Before such technology existed it would make sense to pursue such a business plan. But suppose such technology already exists, and you know it. It would be sort of foolish to plan a business that assumed such technology would not be used. Now suppose that this magic technology was not invented for the purpose of copying SaaS apps, but was an inevitable side-effect of other good, useful, desirable technologies. A side-effect of the technology that allowed you to build your SaaS app in the first place. Oh, and your app helped shut down other existing businesses that were not using this new technology. That it can copy your site is simply one of a million things it can do. Do you fight this technology? Freeze it? Criminalize it? One of my gripes with the IP industrial complex is that there are companies that lucked out on a transitory scarcity because of a particular stage of technological evolution. Tools existed for mass-producing physical copies and transmitting virtual copies across large distances (i.e tape and CD production, and radio/TV), but there were still sufficient financial and technical barriers to constrain its application. These businesses were based on the assumption that cheap reproduction and mass data transfer would never become so cheap or so easy that just about anyone could do it with the push of a button. Bad assumption. And now the cat's out of the bag.

marilyn 16y ago

The RIAA and MPAA do need to revamp their business model if they want to evolve into the future with the rest of us. I often wonder why the movie and music industries don't embrace torrent technology. I would definitely pay a reasonable monthly fee to access legitimate and legal trackers that they manage. It's really win-win as far as I can see. Watch what you want when you wants, and the distributions costs drop to next to nothing.

keefe 16y ago

They have money to fill great convoys of dumptrucks and you have nothing? This is not a joke, it's the reality. If you managed to scrape enough money together to have power in the world, you could start playing power games too. We need to address this with a decentralized system they can't crack down on.