Do you really buy that expensive recording software?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fantastic_Mad
  • Start date Start date

Do you buy that expensive recording software, or just download it?(Read authors post)

  • I buy it. I like to support the creator.

    Votes: 564 41.2%

  • I download it. To hell with the creator.

    Votes: 305 22.3%

  • I do both. I have mixed feelings on the subject.

    Votes: 501 36.6%
  • Total voters
    1,370
Status
Not open for further replies.
dgatwood said:
Instead of contributing to the disinformation by mistakenly calling copyright violation "theft", how about arguing a point that actually has some validity, e.g. that copyright violation is wrong. You won't get any disagreement on that point from me.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I thought your were saying that piracy wasn't wrong but just failing to do good. So for the record you are saying piracy is wrong now and should be encouraged?
 
NYMorningstar said:
I'm sorry. I thought your were saying that piracy wasn't wrong but just failing to do good. So for the record you are saying piracy is wrong now and should be encouraged?
Click to expand...

I think that copyright infringement is wrong, but not (quite) at the same level of wrong as stealing products from a store, and certainly not remotely at the same level as rape or murder. :)
 
mixsit said:
Six years running. Not bad.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to hack in as Fantastic_Mad and kill this thread.

dgatwood said:
I think that copyright infringement is wrong, but not (quite) at the same level of wrong as stealing products from a store, and certainly not remotely at the same level as rape or murder. :)
Click to expand...

Rationalization. Humanity's special gift.
 
i download (pirate)

who the fuck in their right mind would pay £300 when you can get i for nothin.

lifes hard enough...why make it harder
 
adamangler said:
who the fuck in their right mind would pay £300 when you can get i for nothin.
Click to expand...

633325462873135493.jpg


I have my opinions on music piracy and how the industry is making things worse for itself by trying to hold onto their old money-cow of a business model and make it work on the internet with stupid ideas (i.e. DRM = fail), when if they just embraced the new ideas like many independant labels are (like free downloads, make money from merch and limited edition CDs) then they would find that the problem goes away completely. With large labels, most of the money 'being stolen from artists by piracy' would never end up in the artist's pocket anyway.

But, with this kind of software it is different. You can potentially be making money by using it when you base your studio around it, making it an investment just like you would invest in hardware. Why spend money on a mic?

You might overlook a hammer in someone's garden shed which they accidentally took from their neighbour, but what would you think if you went to a car garage and all the machinery/tools they were using were stolen?

I admit that the first DAW software I used was a trial that I extended a month or two, but as soon as I realised I was going to be making good use out of it I invested in one of the lesser-versions of Cubase, and now the full version of Sonar. I used to think that they were all so expensive, but when you look at it from the viewpoint that the software is pretty much the heart of your studio it suddenly seems far more affordable in that scheme of things (especially when you consider at what you pay for hardware!).

If you don't want to pay on the other hand, Reaper is very good. So is Ardour if you get used to it (and if you're soundcard is supported by Jack). They're both essentially like the expensive software, just missing a few bells'n'whistles.
 
Last edited:
I finally got logic express! it is legal! yay! you see I have this conscience that will not be happy unless I do things right. I think it's because I've found my passion in recording; I really love it, so I want to do things right Now I feel that if i was to record a band i could charge them money ! yay haha... once I get good enough...
 
well yeah of you wanted to make money off it then youd want the full thing (incase of any bugs in a cracked version)

and as for your reasoning why buy a mic?
because its not as easy to obtain a mic as it is to a pirated daw without being caught...simple as imo

i mean if you just go online and download a mic i would
 
This thread seems kind of ridiculous to me, given that the best software I've found after buying some much more expensive apps, only cost $50. And it's available for free direct from the developer... doesn't expire and isn't crippled in any way. You pay if you decide to - strictly on the honor system.

http://reaper.fm/
 
dgatwood said:
According to the law, it is NOT stealing. You can play games with words all you want to, but ultimately it is the law that defines these terms, and the law does not consider copyright infringement to be a form of theft. It is a very different act as far as the law is concerned, and to use the same term only serves to confuse people who don't know any better.

Theft is a criminal matter. It is prosecuted by the state in criminal court. Copyright infringement is almost exclusively a civil matter. It is prosecuted by the aggrieved. It is therefore in the same class of offenses as breach of contract.

Stop calling a trowel a spade. Instead of contributing to the disinformation by mistakenly calling copyright violation "theft", how about arguing a point that actually has some validity, e.g. that copyright violation is wrong. You won't get any disagreement on that point from me.
Click to expand...

Speeding offences are likewise defined by law. There is nothing intrinsically "evil" about driving at a particular speed, so speeding is essentially a statutory evil.

However, being defined as an offence by law doesn't always mean that it would not be intrinsically 'offensive' were that law not to exist. So property theft is both an offence in law and intrinsically wrong.

Intellectual property within this thread has generally focussed on software production, but of course goes much wider than this: authorship of books, inventions, music composition and so on. People earn a livelihood from intellectual pursuits. Depriving people of this livelihood (by stealing their ideas (e.g. plagiarising), or preventing their rightful access to royalties) has the same intrinsic wrongness that hijacking the trucks that leave someone else's factory has.

Possibly it is just playing with words, but I feel that intellectual property is not given nearly enough weight that I think it deserves. No matter what the law might say, I believe that intellectual property theft is as intrinsically wrong as physical property theft.

As it happens, copyright laws are an enabling mechanism. You automatically generate copyright when you create something (a song, a novel, or a piece of software). The laws are the means by which this copyright is registered and consequently, enforced.
 
True, but this insidious behavior doesn't end wiith sequencer apps - it permeated the entire industry in VSTs, soft synths, sample libraries, audio editors, etc. All the result of the labor of individuals. This is what they create. Some peole paint. Some people do construiction. Some people make musicial instruments. They are all the fruit of real, actuial labour and as such desrerver to be renumerated.

And no single piece of software that I've ever come across charged enough to cover the expense of making it. It takes many, many, many copies to recoup that investment of time and effort.



XLR said:
This thread seems kind of ridiculous to me, given that the best software I've found after buying some much more expensive apps, only cost $50. And it's available for free direct from the developer... doesn't expire and isn't crippled in any way. You pay if you decide to - strictly on the honor system.

http://reaper.fm/
Click to expand...
 
I can't answer this poll, because I don't buy expensive software, but I don't pirate it, either. I just stick to cheap and free stuff. :)
 
well then we could go and talk about meta ethics and decide whether is possible to even make ethical decisions.

I don't believe that stuff; it's so annoying. I attached a note from my philosophy class.

on another note i legally own logic express :) yay

i also have no idea how to rotate the photo .... i did it on my mac but it won't upload that way

oh well.
 

Attachments

  • ethics0001.webp
    ethics0001.webp
    46.4 KB · Views: 57
ruined said:
Reaper has a fantastic MIDI editor :)
Click to expand...

I am no MIDI hero, but supposedly that is Reaper's weakest feature. Last time I asked, it didn't have a score view, which is a required feature for me . . . although with their update schedule, who knows?
 
mshilarious said:
I am no MIDI hero, but supposedly that is Reaper's weakest feature. Last time I asked, it didn't have a score view, which is a required feature for me . . . although with their update schedule, who knows?
Click to expand...

I agree. I use Reaper sometimes because I work in collaboration with someone who uses Reaper. But my choice is Logic.

Reaper does not do Midi very well, and trying to work with Midi drives me to distraction. It is one area of development that warrants serious attention.
 
tojo said:
well then we could go and talk about meta ethics and decide whether is possible to even make ethical decisions.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I can read upside down as easily as right side up.

If you subscribe to the school of ethical relativism, then, yes, it may be problematic making ethical decisions.

Ethical relativism, however, is a convenient way of abrogating a moral stance. It is possible to define an ethical framework that is based on the nature of humans, and which is, in fact, universal. The last sentence on your upturned page alludes to this, and maybe turning the page would have provided more clues.
 
I work for a software company

Here is the grayline when it comes to allowed usage of software.
Usually licenses are issued as single user license agreement.

Meaning the registered user is allowed to use a product.
A corporation may buy a license then assign the license to a manager or user.

Single user means the only person allowed to use the product is the registered user. Not the secretary the janitor or the best friend of someone who is the registered users.

If a company purchased the software and not the individual-Very important
The individual does not have the right to the software for personal use or after leaving the company. The company will need to provide tracking data if they wish to reassign the software to another user. There is no "We" in single user licenses.

If a person purchases software under the single user agreement and leaves a company the license goes with him. Just because you found software somewhere does not entitle you use of software.

There is such a thing as EULA
If you legally purchased software under the EULA you can transfer rights. You will have to sign a notarized affidavit stating that you hold no claims to ownership have uninstalled the program and will never use it again. claim processing can take weeks to months
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top