Isn't this one of the big reasons for the rise of SaaS apps, though? Developers, unlike musicians, have found a way to combat piracy in a way that both consumers seem to prefer (lower upfront costs and usage based pricing) and developers benefit from (more revenue over time in exchange for delivering real value).

Besides, being forced to provide 3 months of free usage without any say in the matter is hardly defensible due to piracy. It's even less defensible when the party enforcing the free usage is the party that stands to benefit most from it.

For two examples:

I've actually been pretty pleased with Lightroom/Photoshop as SaaS because these apps still often have new innovations that actually make my life easier as a hobbyist photographer. Thus I don't mind paying per month because I'd probably already be upgrading to the new version every year anyway and this is just spreading a similar cost out over time.

OTOH, Office's switch to SaaS is what finally pushed me over the edge to using free ("as in beer") alternatives... they can keep rejiggering the UI this way and that way but I can't imagine what they would add to Word or Excel that would make them seriously more useful to me, it was never a must-upgrade for me (YMMV if you work in an enterprise office setting or whatever) and thus the SaaS move is not good for my usage.

Compared with Office 365, you don't get the free 1TB of cloud storage, the 50GB mailbox, the full online versions of Office, the ability to stream Office programs without installing them (so you can use them on, say, a cybercafe PC), the add-ons and extensions, the cross-platform tablet and smartphone apps, the free upgrade to the next version of Office, and so on.

Office 365 is a huge ecosystem play, whereas OO/LO have no ecosystems.

Otherwise, UI changes are annoying, but the basic Office UI hasn't really changed since 2007. It changes less often than, say, Gmail.

In my own profession, writing compilers, you simply can't sell them anymore. That hasn't deterred me from continuing to do so, I just adapt and find other ways to make a living from the business.

A little further back than that, but not much further. Frank Sinatra, maybe. With radio and recordings, for the first time a musician could get revenue from people far away.

"In my own profession, writing compilers, you simply can't sell them anymore."

Compilers, operating systems, browsers... Maybe software as an industry only had a limited lifespan. In the early IBM mainframe era, machines were expensive, vendor-provided software was usually included, and there was not much of a third-party software industry. Now, software is very cheap, and ancillary to advertising or services.

Internet downloading removed all the friction, and prices went to zero.

However, there's still plenty of opportunity doing service, maintenance, custom work, training, etc.

The "build it and they will come" is a stupid Hollywood fantasy. Even the Beatles went nowhere until they hooked up with promoter George Martin.

So incredibly true.

And even whenever I do try and talk about my software, people usually perceive it as an attack on competing software (you can't say why someone should use your product without implicitly stating why they shouldn't use someone else's); or as shameless self-promotion and advertising (even though it's all FOSS) =(

The number of ways to sustain yourself has significant increased in recent times, and some of those don't even use copyright as a mean for revenue. They are by nature immune to piracy.

Taken Patreon and kickstarter. You can not pirate art which has not been created. An artist can decide how much wages they demand rather than find an other job, which incidental is how the job market works. If they agree to a certain amount, they get paid and do the work agreed on. Everyone walks away happy, the artist got paid, and art is created.

What is getting harder to do is getting repeatable paid for work you done in the past. Most programmers do work for hire, and they survive quite well on not being paid for every copy of work they once made. So long there is a strong interest for new work to be created, old work will be what validate the artist current pay.

I know a web comic that update twice a month and the author current gets paid $5k a month to do so. No copyright is involved, no police and no SOPA. Just an artist and their fans, enabled to be sustained by the basic model of people wanting more art to be created and a way for that to happen. When we describe the future as "people doing things solely because they enjoy it" we limit the market available to artist to how it was done in the past, and it seems artist themselves are instead choosing to find new ways rather than to close up shops.

But so has the offer; anyone with a computer can create and publish music nowadays, which is both good and bad; good for the creative industry, bad for income for said creative industry because only a small percentage will ever see money. Same with the webcomics you noted; all you need is a computer with the worst drawing software to recreate something like XKCD. Everyone can do what they want / enjoy, but only a very, very small percentage of those will be able to sustain themselves off it - especially, or mostly, in the creative industry.

If any file hosting service can get shut down for piracy, Apple should be held accountable to the same laws.

Telling artists to work for free while they benefit sounds a lot like asking someone to work on spec, to which I respond: Fuck You, Pay Me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U)