Do you really buy that expensive recording software?

[oroboros]

The whole software vs. stealing a car doesn't exactly hold up as an argument. The reason is that you're confusing copyright infringement with theft.

Even if a Porshe is sitting there never touched or used it still has a lot physical value for the materials that make it up. A piece of software sitting there unused has no value except maybe a few cents for the plastic CD or DVD it is being stored on or nothing if it's totally digital.

If you steal a car (theft) that you would never have bought otherwise you still cause the owner a loss of the value of the material of the car which they can never get back or replace.

If you steal a program or song (copyright infrigment) that you would never have bought otherwise you're not taking any value away from the owner as they can just burn a new CD or reload the program or whatever. They wouldn't be losing anything unless you physically go down to the company steal all their computers, hard drives, backups, codes, discs, destroy every known copy of it, ect, so that they absolutely lose the program and can't replace it.

Not saying it's right or wrong or morally judging what anyone thinks or does either way, just pointing out the false logic in that argument.

 

[legionserial]

You're missing the point that most people that use pirated software would not have bought the program anyway, even if they couldn't pirate it. Thus, it doesn't effect sales either way.

I understand that point completely. It's just a weak point.

It goes back to my Porsche analogy. I'm never going to buy a Porsche, because I don't want one, does that make it ok for me to steal it from a Porsche dealer? It's not false logic because both software and the car have a monetary value to the manufacturers.

It may not affect the sales directly, but if absolutely everyone pirated the software, the developers would have no funding, and chances are the software wouldn't be there in the first place. So someone has to buy it. But who? I paid for my copy of Cubase. How is it fair that some other guy gets it for free. Just remember that honest people like me pay the money that keeps that software in existance. So because there are people like me paying for it, that makes it ok for other people get it for free. Effectively riding on my back, and the backs of everyone else that actually bought their software.

Well I would say we are providing a service to the pirates, in keeping the software in existance, then, aren't we? At a financial cost to ourselves I might add, while the pirates pay nothing. So I guess the only thing I can say to the pirates is "You fucking owe me money", if that's the way you want to look at it.

To sum it up, how do you define who should pay for it and who shouldn't? Because someone has to in order to keep it in existance.

 

[oroboros]

It goes back to my Porsche analogy. I'm never going to buy a Porsche, because I don't want one, does that make it ok for me to steal it from a Porsche dealer? It's not false logic because both software and the car have a monetary value to the manufacturers.

No, of course it doesn't make it OK no matter what it is. I'm not arguing if it's OK or fair or whatever, it doesn't matter. Who the fuck knows what's fair or morally alright that's totally subjective.

All I'm saying is that theft of a physical object is different than a copyright infringement. So it doesn't really prove anything to compare the two things.

The fact that eventually companies will stop making the software if they go bankrupt from piracy is true and I totally agree with you. Even though if the whole corporate software industry grinds to a halt from rampant piracy in the future, there will always be programmers and serious hobbyists creating these programs and putting them out there to use.

But the really good shit will disappear and society will have to take a good long look in the mirror and figure out that them spending money on things IS part of the system and keeps it all spinning. Then everyone all start buying it again and companies will start producing it again, then they'll start over charging and people will pirate it. Cycles on forever...

 

[pacman9000]

yeah, that's definately the truth. The US is owned by these coporate asswipes. Every US citizen's entire purpose in life is to make more money for their real government: The banks, big media, pharmaseutical, oil, and airline companies (among others, however those are some of the worst offenders). And believe me, they make sure every citizen does his or her part to fulfil this purpose. Look at most of those big companies and they are all members of the same secret societies, all working together to be in control of everything that we do and say, to ensure their vast fortunes, and complete immunity to any laws that are man made or god given. The only real solution is to destroy the human race, which will inevitably be done without intervention from anyone. I think it's kind of a self eating machine. Many of those companies after wiping out everyone else financially, or god forbid even physically, won't have anyone left to keep their lifestyles, and will start to go after each other.

That whole virginia tech massacre is just another example of how the pharmiseutical industry, as well as law inforcement in the US has failed everyone, in order to line their pockets, and ensure ultimate control over all those below them (almost everyone on earth). He was on Prozac. Doesn't that sound familiar? Yet another one of the drugs that are pushed on people that causes people to litterally lose their minds (it's one of the many drugs of that type that is proven to cause people to do very violent irrational things (as low as strange behaviour, going through to spousal and child abuse, then even killing their spouses, or in these extreme few cases, causing people to just... blow everyone away that they can). The law enforcement have their image as heros more in mind than actually being heros. In this case, as with more and more these days, they held off until the last minute so that the body count could make them seem as if they are even more heroic. As the guy shot all the 57 people the courageous police stopped him, vs...a guy who maybe gets one or two people and the police stop him. They just want the huge pat on the back. Look even how the big media is trying to spin the story into being a "terrorist attack". I mean. WTF! Yet another "terrorist attack" to destract everyone from how bad their ass is getting fucked.It's just propaghanda to make us think that they were right all along.

Ah well, as the entire world goes to hell, at least it provides me with never ending inspiration for music!!!

And yes... KILL THEM ALL!!!! bahahaha

co-sign.....

 

[Toker41]

I understand that point completely. It's just a weak point.

It goes back to my Porsche analogy. I'm never going to buy a Porsche, because I don't want one, does that make it ok for me to steal it from a Porsche dealer? It's not false logic because both software and the car have a monetary value to the manufacturers.

It may not affect the sales directly, but if absolutely everyone pirated the software, the developers would have no funding, and chances are the software wouldn't be there in the first place. So someone has to buy it. But who? I paid for my copy of Cubase. How is it fair that some other guy gets it for free. Just remember that honest people like me pay the money that keeps that software in existance. So because there are people like me paying for it, that makes it ok for other people get it for free. Effectively riding on my back, and the backs of everyone else that actually bought their software.

Well I would say we are providing a service to the pirates, in keeping the software in existance, then, aren't we? At a financial cost to ourselves I might add, while the pirates pay nothing. So I guess the only thing I can say to the pirates is "You fucking owe me money", if that's the way you want to look at it.

To sum it up, how do you define who should pay for it and who shouldn't? Because someone has to in order to keep it in existance.

I never said it wasn't wrong, and this isn't about what is "fair". I simply said that the way the piracy "problem" is exaggerated, and used by the industry to justify a higher price to "offset the loss" is also wrong. Morally, stealing is wrong, and I never argued that. However, "everybody" isn't doing it, and so far the ones that do aren't having any affect on sales, or profit, except as an excuse to inflate profit. I'm simply pointing out that there is evil on both sides, and if you are going to point fingers at one, then you should acknowledge the other as well.

BTW, Cubase, Protools, and other major software doesn't seem to "endangered" to me. I know a ton of people using them that paid for 'em.

 

[legionserial]

BTW, Cubase, Protools, and other major software doesn't seem to "endangered" to me. I know a ton of people using them that paid for 'em.

That's my point. These pirates know this too and technically rely on the fact that other people are paying for it. I call that getting a free ride on someone elses back.

What it results in is that the honest users like myself have to go through all this copy protection/dongle crap, which clearly isn't worth a shit as the cracks are still out there. What it does mean is that if my dongle breaks, or the myriad of other things that can happen with other software (ie hardware changes etc), you have to take a royal beauracratic assraping to get the bit of software you forked out a fortune for working again. I have heard some real horror stories about that crap, and am forever paranoid that something is going to happen to my dongle, because things like that happen to me all the time.

 

[TerraMortim]

If it's a stupid ass forum then why are you here?

I dunno, maybe I'm a stupid ass. hehehe. Honestly,. it's kind of like watching a car wreck happening in front of you, only it's sustained for hours which turn itno days...just one car slamnming into another, and people being catapulted into semi trucks' windshields headfirst from their cars, and more cars bursting into flames, and great shit like that. In other words, it's quite amusing watching people go crazy about this stuff.

 

[TerraMortim]

This has been said a million times already.

No, technically they aren't losing any money.

Yes, you are still stealing because you are not paying for something that costs money.

bottled water costs money, but it's not stealing to drink from my tap. It's silly to imply that making a copy of something for personal use is stealing. Modern copyright law is a joke.

 

[legionserial]

bottled water costs money, but it's not stealing to drink from my tap. It's silly to imply that making a copy of something for personal use is stealing. Modern copyright law is a joke.

Probably the most ridiculous arguiment yet. It's all very well if the supplier is consenting to giving it away for free. It's also therefore irrelevent to the subject at hand. Anyway, I don't know about where you are, but I pay a yearly bll for my tap water over here.

It's silly to imply that making a copy for personal use is stealing? Why? As I have said before, they didn't pay for that copy, I did when I paid for my legitimate copy.

So far I have heard no argument with the fact that some people have to pay for this stuff for it to be in existance. What I haven't heard so far is how you define who should pay and who shouldn't, and why. When someone can answer that question, maybe I'll look at things in a different way. But in the whole time this thread has existed, no one has ever answered that question.

 

[TerraMortim]

The question is how badly you need something. And I mean need, not want.

If you really need that piece of software then buy it. If you don't, and something else cheaper would suffice, then get the cheaper option.

But then the word need when put in conjunction with software, would indicate a professional interest. In which case if you are making money out of something, then you sure as hell should be paying for the tools you use to make said money.

The problem is that people insist they must have the most expensive top of the line piece of kit, but don't want to pay for it, and perhaps don't want to 'indignify' themselves by getting the perfectly adequate cheaper option. So they pirate the expensive thing.

The 'I'm not going to buy it so I might aswell pirate it' argument is one of the weakest yet. I don't have a Porsche, and I sure as hell ain't going to buy one, because I don't have the money. Does that mean I should go steal one if I want to? It always sounds so much more ridiculous when it's attributed to something more tangible than 0's and 1's doesn't it?

Seen how much Cubase 4 costs? A lot more than Cubase SX3 did. Dyou not see how if less people had pirated SX3, Stienberg may not have had to jack the retail price up so much to reach their financial targets? I'm sure that's not the sole factor in the increased price, but I'm also pretty sure it's contributory.

In the case of symphonic sample libraries, the cheaper options are not possible, as they sound fake, and lifeless. THe costs of some of those libraries are almost as much as hiring a real orchestra to play for a day in the studio. Unfortunately, I don't make nearly enough money at this point in my career to pay for some of these astrinomical prices. With some things, such as virtual instruments, and effects, it's true that affordable options are there and are just as wicked at the expensive ones... but really... there is no decent symphonic or choral library that is anything less than sky high prices.


It's not really a valid comparison, although people make that comparison often regarding this issue. If I went to steal that porche, they WOULD be out money, as they sunk money into that SPECIFIC piece of hardware. Software is a totally different industry to manufacturing. In manufacturing, you have to pay for the raw materials and labour for every single unit made. In software, the development process and materials are all done at one end, then it's simply a matter of making as many copies of it for people to buy. It doesn't cost them money per digital copy that exists, as in the manufacturing industry, where each unit does cost money to produce. You see? In other words, in a piece of software, they aren't specifically coding and compiling and recompiling every single unit sold. There is the big difference. Truely with software, if I can't afford it in the first place, they REALLY aren't out a single penny, but if I stole a porche, they would have put that investment in to manufacture that physical product, and so it would in fact cost them money.

Honestly, I didn't pirate my DAW software. Bought it out and out. Cost me almost a grand, but it was worth that money, and I had the money to spend. The only time I do "pirate" software is before I am able to purchase it. If I was making enough money to afford these orchestral libraries that go upwards sometimes of $5,000 - $7,000, then I wouldn't have to worry about dealing with the inconvenience (yes it's much more inconvenient) to pirate it.

 

[TerraMortim]

It does matter. You seem to be more interested in how things effect others more than how they effect you. That's a prime indication of co-dependancy and drug involvement of the people in your life that you care about and/or drugging yourself. Before you deny this please include alcohol in my definition of drugs seeing it's the worst available.
If you steal that is a sin, a violation to God and yourself. You don't think that is important? If not ,then all I can say is you don't care to much about you.

There is no such thing as sin. That is an invention by politicians and rich folk to control the way their "serfs" think.

 

[legionserial]

It's not really a valid comparison, although people make that comparison often regarding this issue. If I went to steal that porche, they WOULD be out money, as they sunk money into that SPECIFIC piece of hardware. Software is a totally different industry to manufacturing. In manufacturing, you have to pay for the raw materials and labour for every single unit made. In software, the development process and materials are all done at one end, then it's simply a matter of making as many copies of it for people to buy. It doesn't cost them money per digital copy that exists, as in the manufacturing industry, where each unit does cost money to produce. You see? In other words, in a piece of software, they aren't specifically coding and compiling and recompiling every single unit sold. There is the big difference

I completely see your point, but if you look at it from the other perspective. Like you say, with the software, the money is already spent by developers on production. In the development process in this case.

But that shiny Porsche sitting there that I am about to steal, the money is already spent too. On the manufacturing and parts costs.

Porsche need to be compenstated for the their parts and labour costs, the developers need to be reimbursed for development costs.

One Porsche costs to make, I'm sure, a lot more than the value of the cost of development divided by every copy of Cubase sold. But then 1 Porsche costs a lot more to buy aswell. Developers put a price tag on their product based on their financial targets, the need to make their money back and make a profit to stay afloat, and the size of the user base. Just like Porsche put a price tag on their cars based on pretty much the same criteria. The difference is that you can't copy something tanglible like a porsche like you can with software.

What if the software came on a printed circuit board as opposed to a CD? Would that make a difference? It's the same product in a more tangible medium. Does something have to be tangible before it can be truly stolen?

 

[TerraMortim]

But if people bought the software instead of pirating it, that would affect sales positively yes?

sure it would, however there is such a thing as pricing yourself out of the market. If I wanted to start a company that sold cans of cola for $600, my busines would struggle from my own stupiditiy. It's an annoying trend these days, any time a company is struggling, even beyond software companies, it's their customers fault.

 

[TerraMortim]

Probably the most ridiculous arguiment yet. It's all very well if the supplier is consenting to giving it away for free. It's also therefore irrelevent to the subject at hand. Anyway, I don't know about where you are, but I pay a yearly bll for my tap water over here.

It's silly to imply that making a copy for personal use is stealing? Why? As I have said before, they didn't pay for that copy, I did when I paid for my legitimate copy.

So far I have heard no argument with the fact that some people have to pay for this stuff for it to be in existance. What I haven't heard so far is how you define who should pay and who shouldn't, and why. When someone can answer that question, maybe I'll look at things in a different way. But in the whole time this thread has existed, no one has ever answered that question.

The answer is, everyone should do their best to. EVERYONE. Why? because you are absolutely right, if no one pays for it, they can't develop it. this software piracy is rampant mostly due to these insane prices on software that really isn't worth the price they charge. Some comapnies are very reasonable, and I will always go to support them before I support these other guys who think a piece of code is worth a small fortune. Now remember, not all people have any personal ethics about it, and think it's great to pirate everything just because they can, well there are all kinds of people in the world, and you should not demonize everyone because some people are just shitheads to don't care.

 

[legionserial]

sure it would, however there is such a thing as pricing yourself out of the market. If I wanted to start a company that sold cans of cola for $600, my busines would struggle from my own stupiditiy. It's an annoying trend these days, any time a company is struggling, even beyond software companies, it's their customers fault.

Yeah but your cans of cola don't provide a tool other people can use to make money. Remember that a £500 piece of professional audio software could go towards making you thousands if you know what you are doing. Publishers bear this in mind when pricing something.

It isn't their customers who they are blaming. It's the people who aren't customers and are using their product.

Anyways I'm going to get some sleep. I'm sure I'll pick this subject up again at some point. I keep coming back. It's like an addiction.....

 

[legionserial]

you should not demonize everyone because some people are just shitheads to don't care.

Not demonizing anyone here (except maybe Pacman , but that's more to do with his psychotic political views). Some of my friends pirate. I choose not to because I think it's wrong. Each to their own and all that. It's not a factor I would entirely judge someone by as person.

This doesn't make me want to air my views on it any less however, and that's what forums are for, healthy debate, which I hope you would consider this at present to be

Now I must get some sleep.

 

[TerraMortim]

I completely see your point, but if you look at it from the other perspective. Like you say, with the software, the money is already spent by developers on production. In the development process in this case.

But that shiny Porsche sitting there that I am about to steal, the money is already spent too. On the manufacturing and parts costs.

Porsche need to be compenstated for the their parts and labour costs, the developers need to be reimbursed for development costs.

One Porsche costs to make, I'm sure, a lot more than the value of the cost of development divided by every copy of Cubase sold. But then 1 Porsche costs a lot more to buy aswell. Developers put a price tag on their product based on their financial targets, the need to make their money back and make a profit to stay afloat, and the size of the user base. Just like Porsche put a price tag on their cars based on pretty much the same criteria. The difference is that you can't copy something tanglible like a porsche like you can with software.

What if the software came on a printed circuit board as opposed to a CD? Would that make a difference? It's the same product in a more tangible medium. Does something have to be tangible before it can be truly stolen?

pretty much my entire point is. There are companies out there that have very reasonable prices. Such as one plugin that I recently bought. Ohmicide by Ohm Force. You can't tell me that an effect such as say....the URS plugins took much more coding. There is SOOOO much in that particular plugin, it must have taken forever to put together. You're not realling paying for coding when you buy software for insane ammounts, your really just paying for slick marketing campaigns in trade magazines.

Yes, it does have to be tangible before it can be stolen. You can't steal information. I don't rip off something that comes on a cd OR a circut board for that matter. In those cases, the people who made it DID put money into that specific piece of hardware.

You could copy a porche, just learn how to fabricate those parts and copy it. but then again, it comes back to my point. It costs money to make something that's tangible. There is no per unit cost of information, unless it's actually on a cd in a box, which obviously software obtained via the internet is not.

And really what my point is. The software is developed, regardless of how many units are sold. Sometimes having a reasonable price will give you much more customers, and in turn cause you to turn more of a profit, than the guy over there overcharging. The costs of development are nothing compared to some of the prices of these pieces of software. I can buy a copy of Mac OS X for under $200, yet we have some software such as photoshop and others running in the multiple thousands. Surely, the entire operating system costs quite a bit more to code than a simple piece of software, or even a plug-in for software. It doesn't take any more moeny to develop that compressor plugin by a huge manufacturer, than it does to code an equaly amazing compressor plugin by a smaller company.

 

[danny.guitar]

bottled water costs money, but it's not stealing to drink from my tap. It's silly to imply that making a copy of something for personal use is stealing. Modern copyright law is a joke.

Ok...so you're just stupid? No offense but that is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

I think that nullifies any kind of argument you could make because people can just look at this post and know you're an idiot.

 

[TerraMortim]

Not demonizing anyone here (except maybe Pacman , but that's more to do with his psychotic political views). Some of my friends pirate. I choose not to because I think it's wrong. Each to their own and all that. It's not a factor I would entirely judge someone by as person.

This doesn't make me want to air my views on it any less however, and that's what forums are for, healthy debate, which I hope you would consider this at present to be

Now I must get some sleep.

certainly

 

[TerraMortim]

Ok...so you're just stupid? No offense but that is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.

I think that nullifies any kind of argument you could make because people can just look at this post and know you're an idiot.

That is an interesting viewpoint. Again someone doesn't understand humour, or sarcasm, unless it's spelled out before hand. I am simply pointing out the rediculousness of strictly black and white thought. What I said was completely black and white and didn't make logical sense, just the same as saying it is in all cases stealing to get something for free that is available for purchase.

Think before you speak Danny.