Do you really buy that expensive recording software?

[xkapin_reelity]

Originally Posted by Trebek

You don't even need a moral reason to be opposed to piracy.

Imagine how much more money software companies would spend on development if piracy didn't exist. In this way, piracy has a harmful effect on innovation.

Piracy of Logic on the PC side may have driven Emagic to sell out to Apple. In this case Piracy may have killed Logic Windows outright, and in doing so fucked over 70,000 registered users and inconvienced many more freeloaders.

Piracy necessitates higher prices for folks that do pay. I guess this is a moral reason.

Plus by buying software, you get updates, bug fixes, customer service, etc..

As a software developer I can tell you the cost for production of these applications is minimal compared to the price they sale for. I am not sanction the pirating of software, but I do understand why it is done and i do believe the inflated price of the these applications are ridiculus, for their functionality. I mean if your looking at the product from a coding functionality aspect, you can buy the whole operating system that runs your computer and enables the use of these recording applications for $150.00, but then $600 for the applications, seems a little high to me. I mean even if they come down in price, there will always be people trying to get something for nothing, but at least possibly a fraction of them might consider a legal copy for a more reasonable price.

But to answer the original poster's question, there are also shareware recording apps that have a decent quality out there and are free, some you can even purchase some plugg-ins with, but the core program is fully downloadable and free.


thats just my 2 cents

[antomicblitz]

Originally Posted by veiledsaber

It used to be that all this software was a novelty idea being propagated by those crazy Mac people. So the rest of us, while talking about how much we'd like to be able to use our computers to record projects, could only pay studios or buy our own tape machines, etc for recording at home. SO I gotta wonder: If software weren't available to pirate, what would the pirates do?

It's sort of the same question that music fans who substitute mp3 files or rips of friend's cds might consider: would you buy the cd if you couldn't get the tracks by pirating the stuff? I remember when I had time to sit around deciding which songs I liked and what albums were cool, though at the time "mp3s" didn't exist. I know people with that kind of time now, who sit around with nothing better to do than dowload files, rip cds, and burn new ones. I also know people who have more important things to do, like go to work, or find friends.

SO the answer I suggest is this: the people who are serious about recording can't afford to risk instability in their system that a cracked program might offer, since they may well be charging some broke musicians $40/hr (or whatever) to track theur stuff. They need stability, tech support, and updates, all in as reliable a fashion as possible. The rest of the clowns who pirate the stuff, as talented as they might be, are low-end hobbyists in a pro's world. When it comes right down to it, not many of the people who are willing to mess with cracks and warez are going to have the money to buy the stuff anyway, so very few sales are lost to them. If they really want to get serious about operating a project studio on their computer, and expect to bill by the hour, they're going to need to face business realities soon enough. I can't tell you how many lousy home studios I've seen (or done tracking in) where there was a list of excuses ready at every turn of the broken knobs. Statements like "I just downloded this cool crack of Cubase" always leave me questioning the integrity of the person willing to violate copyright in the same moment that they want to record potentially profitable tracks that could pay the bills by HAVING ENFORCEABLE COPYRIGHTS. They're mostly gone now. The people who have survived in the long run started out (for example) by purchasing rehab decks and boards, putting in honest long hours, and making the stuff last until they could prove they knew how to use the equipment.

Even Kevin Mitnick agreed that "there aren't any 38-year-old hackers." Kids using cracked programs and warez will come and go, and the serious players in music biz will continue to do as they have always done - succeed by being talented and hardworking, and maintaining their integrity. People who pirate software and steal equipment (the analogous "hardware pirate") won't end up on the cover of trade rags as "master engineers" anytime soon.

The guy who said he didn't have the money to buy software because he's a student has a point - not to mention he probably has the time to mess with the stuff. He pirates at his peril. In the end, he'll get serious and buy what he likes or move on to some other hobby.

Here's a real-life story to help make my point: I spent 6 days helping a group transfer tracks to ADAT from Logic Audio. I had a lot of problems, and was ultimately forced to buy an expensive piece of equipment from MOTU to make the thing work. If I had not had Emagic tech and MOTU tech support available, the project would still be wasting my time, or not happening at all. Any of you out there ever wasted a week on a tech problem? Whose money/time were you wasting? If it was someone else's, you know what I mean about stability and support - you now have a "former customer."

Although you make very good points in your statement, I disagree with your argument. To the contrary, I believe people who can actually utilize cracks and keygens are the most resilient. It is wonderful that these programs like logic and cubase have been cracked because this allows more musicians to use them. Having the software pirated may seem bad, but in the long term, it is beneficial. Statistically, most people who download cracks and warez are teenagers and college students. By giving them access to these otherwise unattainable programs, the software gains more popularity, and ultimately, if any of those young musicians make it big, they will almost certainly have to buy the full version because of defects in the cracked versions. Also, most musicians and artists don't have thousands of dollars to waste on software, especially if they are high school or college students, and I really don't believe that one can compare software piracy to credit theft or robbery, unless a profit is made from the person pirating the software. I think the best comparison is that of the music industry. They bitch and complain about people pirating their music and look where it's got them... Their lawsuits are all in vain and rarely do they ever win. In fact, they usually end up paying the person they sue. What some artists have done instead is to be as resilient as the people who pirate their songs. They made them available without DRM or, in some instances like what radiohead or Pennywise did, they released their album for free and put a donation button for people to give money if they REALLY liked the music. This also gives artists the incentive to make GOOD music.
so the point is that instead of wasting countless hours of creating antipiracy code, software companies should embrace the sharing of their program and use this to their advantage. The publicity from sharing can dramatically increase sales of genuine software because people who will actually use the program in the long run will buy it and become dedicated consumers. I sincerely believe that if the software is good and reasonably priced, people will enjoy it and pay for it if they want to use it.

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by antomicblitz

I sincerely believe that if the software is good and reasonably priced, people will enjoy it and pay for it if they want to use it.

Most people that downloaded Radiohead's album paid nothing. Therefore, either Radiohead sucks or your thesis has a problem.

[pint07]

Originally Posted by mshilarious

Most people that downloaded Radiohead's album paid nothing. Therefore, either Radiohead sucks or your thesis has a problem.

Or people have realized that Radiohead only gets 8% of the record sales anyway, so what's the point in giving the RIAA 92% of the cost of the record?



source: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/05/015231

[gecko zzed]

Originally Posted by antomicblitz

Although you make very good points in your statement, I disagree with your argument. To the contrary, I believe people who can actually utilize cracks and keygens are the most resilient. It is wonderful that these programs like logic and cubase have been cracked because this allows more musicians to use them. Having the software pirated may seem bad, but in the long term, it is beneficial. Statistically, most people who download cracks and warez are teenagers and college students. By giving them access to these otherwise unattainable programs, the software gains more popularity, and ultimately, if any of those young musicians make it big, they will almost certainly have to buy the full version because of defects in the cracked versions. Also, most musicians and artists don't have thousands of dollars to waste on software, especially if they are high school or college students, and I really don't believe that one can compare software piracy to credit theft or robbery, unless a profit is made from the person pirating the software. I think the best comparison is that of the music industry. They bitch and complain about people pirating their music and look where it's got them... Their lawsuits are all in vain and rarely do they ever win. In fact, they usually end up paying the person they sue. What some artists have done instead is to be as resilient as the people who pirate their songs. They made them available without DRM or, in some instances like what radiohead or Pennywise did, they released their album for free and put a donation button for people to give money if they REALLY liked the music. This also gives artists the incentive to make GOOD music.
so the point is that instead of wasting countless hours of creating antipiracy code, software companies should embrace the sharing of their program and use this to their advantage. The publicity from sharing can dramatically increase sales of genuine software because people who will actually use the program in the long run will buy it and become dedicated consumers. I sincerely believe that if the software is good and reasonably priced, people will enjoy it and pay for it if they want to use it.

There are some interesting points here.

The law rightly protects intellectual property. The purpose is to ensure that the creators of original work (novels, songs, software) are not deprived of earnings they are entitled to, through someone else making unauthorised use of their material.

Does a pirated copy of, say, Logic, result in a loss of revenue to Logic? One of the arguments is that someone who uses a pirated copy of a program would not buy the program if the pirated version were not available. In other words, there is no loss of revenue, because the pirated copy doesn't represent a lost sale; it would never have been bought. Another argument is that the piracy actually increases sales. What happens is that the more pirated copies there are out there, the more exposure and use the product gets, and this in itself creates a significant number of new buyers.

Both those arguments may be correct. It is possible that software creators have not realised the potential benefit of a marketing strategy that makes use of people's willingness to make copies and distribute applications. Some obviously know about this willingness and are vigorous in their attempts to stop the behaviour (dongles, etc.). Perhaps they are wedded to an outdated view of the software world. Alternatively, perhaps they have done their research, and despite the arguments posed above, have figured out that they are in fact losing revenue through piracy.

Now we can have a look at Reaper. This application is freely downloadable for an unrestricted trial. If you like the product, you can pay for one of two types of licences. Perhaps Reaper has done its research, and has decided that it's not going to win the battle against piracy. Instead, it's going to cover potential lost earnings by making itself as widely available as possible so that a profitable number of people do actually pay for a licence.

But now we get to the crux of the matter. We, as consumers, cannot morally justify an illegal action (piracy), even if that action does not harm, and perhaps even helps, the company. This is an 'end justifies the means' rationality, and is highly dangerous. It's like someone taking a shortcut through your property, and justifying it by saying that it does you no harm and you suffer no loss. They may be right, but it's not for them to make this call. You are entitled to say "I don't care that you don't damage my property by taking a shortcut. I just don't want you there."


So while I have sympathy for the position expressed above, I can't condone it.

[legionserial]

Originally Posted by antomicblitz

if any of those young musicians make it big, they will almost certainly have to buy the full version because of defects in the cracked versions.

That is a fallacy.

It's more than likely that musicians who make it big won't need any software of their own because they'll be paying professionals in studios to do the recording/mixing/mastering for them.

And how did they make it big? Perhaps from a demo they recorded using cracked software. So their theft of the software contributed to them making a buttload of the money. Where's the developers' cut of that? Are they going to then retroactively send the developers the cost of purchasing their product on the basis they made it big? I don't think they are somehow.

That logic is almost the same as me asking Fender to give me a free guitar and Peavey to give me a free amp, that I will pay for on the condition that I make it big. They'd tell me to fuck off. And rightly so, because I'd be retarded to expect it.

Originally Posted by antomicblitz

Also, most musicians and artists don't have thousands of dollars to waste on software

A few issues with this point.

Firstly, I don't have thousands to spend on software, but I still managed to get the money together to but a copy of Cubase.

Secondly, there is perfectly serviceable and cheap software like reaper available. Reaper costs $40. These people don't need the expensive stuff when they can just get reaper. Yet for some reason they would prefer to used cracked versions of Cubase/Logic/Protools etc.

Thirdly, judging from posts made by people on this forum who get caught out using cracked software, there's a lot of people who use cracked software, but have thousands of dollars worth of hardware they bought but barely know how to use.

Originally Posted by antomicblitz

The publicity from sharing can dramatically increase sales of genuine software because people who will actually use the program in the long run will buy it and become dedicated consumers. I sincerely believe that if the software is good and reasonably priced, people will enjoy it and pay for it if they want to use it.

You can't run a business on trust. If you tried submitting this point as part of a business model to your company, they'd laugh you out of the boardroom.

They have limited free trails available for a lot of software. So the 'try before you buy' excuse for piracy doesn't hold much water either.

The notion that "people who will actually use the program in the long run will buy it and become dedicated consumers" is a prediction you cannot make. It holds less water than saying "people who cracked their software will continue to use cracked software because it's worked out pretty well for them so far and...well...it's cheaper".

Personally I'd consider the latter to be a more likely event. And I base this on the fact that I know many people who use cracked software, and have no intention, and never will have any intention, of buying it. And why's that? Well... because "it's worked out pretty well for them so far and...well...it's cheaper".

[jgharding]

It seems to me that piracy can be part of good marketing. We all know that your college student, whilst learning will not want to use their pittence to buy a light version when they can get the full one for free.

The company hasn't lost revenue, because they never would buy it at that time anyway. What they've gained is word of mouth, and a dedicated user who will buy at a later date. Revenue is only lost if it was going to spent in the first place.

The lost revenue comes from people who are on the verge of buying but choose not to because of warez. Thats a small section as someone on an average wage would never buy full price sequencers.

I learned most of what i know now on warez, i have them to thank for a huge proportion of my education. Now i use mostly hardware, a few bits of liscenced software, and freeware. Why? Because hardware is really fun, most plugins are wildly overrated (lots of amateurs blow up the CPU with a million plugs to cover a shit take) and there's so much free stuff out there that sounds pretty close without having to worry about breaking the law.

The best alternative: Reaper. Incredible software, epic price! Use it as long as you like for free, but it's so good and cheap that you feel bad until you buy it! It creates an atmosphere of mutual respect rather than a holier than thou 'you can't afford it so you don't deserve it'.

Good use of cheap gear will always beat bad use of expensive gear, there is no one knob fix for a useless engineer in software or hardware. Knowledge and experience are still your most important weapons.

I'm ranting on a lunch break! But this thread is good and provocative!

[Reilley]

People rip stuff off because they can, and because a lot of people are fundamentally cheap and dishonest. Somebody goes to work and produces something, a non-productive leech takes it. It's been that way forever. However, it is not without risk; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8177285.stm

[88fingers]

Originally Posted by legionserial

Secondly, there is perfectly serviceable and cheap software like reaper available. Reaper costs $40. These people don't need the expensive stuff when they can just get reaper. Yet for some reason they would prefer to used cracked versions of Cubase/Logic/Protools etc.

Exactly! I feel like one could have argued 5-10 years ago that "oh, the good stuff costs too much, and the free stuff doesn't do what I want, so I have to be a douche and steal someone else's property," but today, there is no excuse for it. There's free and cheap shit literally everywhere in the music software world right now, and quite a bit of it is as good as or better than the commercial grade software. It's simply irrational and spiteful anymore to even consider using pirated software, when every single possible thing you need to do is being handled either by very inexpensive or absolutely free open source software nowadays!

Originally Posted by Reilley

Somebody goes to work and produces something, a non-productive leech takes it.

Come now, no sense in bringing the government and their unethical taxes into the conversation! We're having a rational debate on software piracy!

[kcearl]

Originally Posted by Reilley

People rip stuff off because they can, and because a lot of people are fundamentally cheap and dishonest. Somebody goes to work and produces something, a non-productive leech takes it. It's been that way forever. However, it is not without risk; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8177285.stm

"a woman in Minneapolis was ordered to pay $1.92m for sharing 24 songs."


lol that seems like an appropriate response

[acidrock]

Originally Posted by kcearl

"a woman in Minneapolis was ordered to pay $1.92m for sharing 24 songs."


lol that seems like an appropriate response

I think the number is based on downloads,not number of songs.

If a Waves bundle is pirated a million times,what is the potential loss of profit?

OR I could phrase it this way...



"a woman in Minneapolis was ordered to pay $1.92m for sharing 1 software program."

[kcearl]

Originally Posted by acidrock

I think the number is based on downloads,not number of songs.

If a Waves bundle is pirated a million times,what is the potential loss of profit?

OR I could phrase it this way...



"a woman in Minneapolis was ordered to pay $1.92m for sharing 1 software program."

its just overkill...its stupid and it doesn't effect piracy..they declare bankruptcy and no one gets paid


there was another thread on this where I had stated some opinions on this so this is a bit of a duplication

piracy wont go with laws or punishment..I mean have laws and punishment stopped drunk driving, murders, corporate fraud?

no

what's stops people generally committing these crimes is moral conduct

they are already looking at a monthly fee that covers you for all downloads of music with the artists getting percentages of each download according to popularity..its a good idea..music has been cheapened because its become so throwaway, piracy has contributed to that..for the first time in years vinyl sales are going steadily up..music lovers want that value back


software developers have to look at this too and adapt to it..archaic laws wont stop it..and waves is the worst example to make...home usage hasn't cost them a cent I bet..really $3k on some plugins? its studios that pay for that calibre of plugin, its the guys like NI and IK that will be getting hit more by piracy I bet

its not about stopping pirates but getting people who are curious, or just hobbyists with zero cash to go a legal yet affordable route imho

[acidrock]

The problem is that it's so easy to steal,so the only real alternative is to prosecute.The problem will probably always exist in some shape or form,but the idea is to minimise it.


For some companies it's a software dongle,but that also cost the company because people like me won't buy that software.

its not about stopping pirates but getting people who are curious, or just hobbyists with zero cash to go a legal yet affordable route imho

Reaper.

[kcearl]

Originally Posted by acidrock

The problem is that it's so easy to steal,so the only real alternative is to prosecute.The problem will probably always exist in some shape or form,but the idea is to minimise it.


For some companies it's a software dongle,but that also cost the company because people like me won't buy that software.


Reaper.

yes reapers a great example....there's also companies out there with just as good business models..I subscribe to puremagnetik and get two "packs" every month or so for ableton and/or kontakt..$5 per month subscription, smart move and excellent value

but these kind of companies are few and far between

punish all they want it wont change a thing imo...you wont even be prosecuted in Canada its that unworkable (and they did try the massive fine route like the US until a few years ago)

eventually something has to change

[Jim Lad]

Back in the days, you walked into the corner shop and waited your turn while the shopkeeper served you, one customer at a time.
He/She stood behind a counter and the goods were all stacked neatly on shelves.
Most folks who were there for more than just one or two items generally jotted them down beforehand and handed the list to the clerk.
Some time in the sixties, at least where I'm from, the Supermarkets started to take hold. The Co-op buildings were four times the size and people paraded up and down the aisles with their shopping carts.
The pressure was on the customer to buy more than they could afford. Green Shield and S&H Pink stamps were dolled out by the sheet in an effort to encourage more spending.
Life size cardboard cut outs adorned the aisles and household cleaning chemicals made ridiculous claims and invented words to back up those claims while Coke & Pepsi staged their own version of WW III.
So now the customer, faced with this constant barrage of advertising began to discover that getting out without paying wasn't such a difficult task.
The shopkeeper had let his guard down.
Supermarkets have been battling shoplifters ever since.
Dome mirrors, two way mirrors, store detectives, video cameras and alarms attached to every item on the shelf. Packaging can be as much as ten times the size of the product.

I always thought those supermarkets were unfair.
I thought they made thieves out of decent folk.
I will forever remember my mother asking me to grip her hand as we passed the unattended meat counter.
We were broke and she was afraid that she might just slip a pound of sausages into her shopping bag.

Compare that to what goes on with Internet purchases today.
Not only has the store owner let down his guard.
He has gone home for the night, left the doors unlocked and even gone as far as to leave his wares on the street with a sign saying "Try it out for thirty days and bring it back if you don't like it."

I see no moral dilemma however.
There is no software for sale that I just have to get.
No stupid song on no stupid CD is a "Must Have". (Although I do consider that to be an entirely different argument and not one where I have much sympathy for the vendor)
I could walk down a thousand unattended aisles in a hundred stores and never feel the need to take what isn't mine.
Being a student is not an excuse.
Being poor is a ridiculous argument.
Borrowing to try it out?
Absolutely. Try them all. They are out there and there's nothing wrong with a test drive but don't try to make money from it.
It simply is not yours until you pay for it.

[Randy Johnson]

If someone is a professional musician or owns their own business I am not sure why they would even entertain this question. Taking the download is total BS.