Dongle Crack for SX 2

[vestast]

This thread needs to die !

Check your logic first before attacking people - if your argument is fatally flawed you don't have an argument.

Well then there are flaws in your argument...For example

Software piracy is the same brand of crime as taping a film off the TV (that you 'paid for the film' when you paid your cable bill or bought the casette is a myth - at least in the UK), giving a friend copy of a CD you own, making a photocopy of a book etc.

What your talking about is making copies of something for personal use. As far as I know that is not against the law. That's how programs like DVD copy can get away with what they are doing because they claim to be backup software for copying DVD's that you already own.

It's not their fault that industry standard software is out of their reach price-wise. It's also not their fault that the cheap alternatives are not used in a professional context and are thus not as beneficial products for study.

So what ? I mean really, the "pro" standard might also be using Neve consoles and $4000 mics....I don't have either of those things. If I was a Pro, I might. I would also have the Pro standard in software, which is not Cubase. So in the meantime I use what I can afford. If all I could afford was Guitar Tracks for $99, then that is what I would use.

You obviously are a smart guy, so lets not turn this into another flame war. But I just cannot, and will not agree with this.

 

[Codmate]

This thread needs to die !



Well then there are flaws in your argument...For example



What your talking about is making copies of something for personal use. As far as I know that is not against the law. That's how programs like DVD copy can get away with what they are doing because they claim to be backup software for copying DVD's that you already own.

For DVDs this is correct. When a TV station broadcasts a film however you have not bought the movie. The TV station has paid a fee to the studio to broadcast the film. Taping movies off the TV (even if you only watch it once) is an intellectual copyright breach.
This is what goes for UK law anyway. People turn a blind eye to it for many reasons, among which are the fact that doesn't have a sizable impact on movie industry revenue and it would also be near-impossible to police.

So what ? I mean really, the "pro" standard might also be using Neve consoles and $4000 mics....I don't have either of those things. If I was a Pro, I might. I would also have the Pro standard in software, which is not Cubase. So in the meantime I use what I can afford. If all I could afford was Guitar Tracks for $99, then that is what I would use.

You obviously are a smart guy, so lets not turn this into another flame war. But I just cannot, and will not agree with this.

What I'm saying that is contraversial, is that personally I see no harm in music-tech students learning on a cracked copy of a piece of software. It's all very well to say they should have access to it in college - but I've been to college and I know how hard it can be to get access to a machine running the software you need to learn (Adobe Premiere in my case), especially when resources are limited. In my college there was *one* machine with Premiere running on it, and that was often block-booked for months by the tutor's favorite students.

If I was to use a false analogy I would say that you may as well have asked music-tech students forty years ago (if there was such a thing forty years ago) to buy expensive mixing desks and tape machines to learn on rather than to 'borrow' a studio's equipment.

Of course this doesn't hold up to scrutiny - but it's at least as good as the 'stealing a Ferrari' example

As I said before, the companies involved could solve this 'problem' by giving away additional licences to educational institutions. They wouldn't lose anything (the students can't afford the software anyway) and they would retain a huge user base for the future.

Of course I realise that piracy is wrong and that in an ideal world everybody would play by the rules.
However, in an ideal world students would have access to the software they need.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Your whole premise is flawed because you beleive all cracks are being bought by "students" who may have a vested interest in learning the s/w for their future.

That may be true in 1% of the cases, the rest want something for nothing... a feeling of unwarranted entitlement seems to be the de rigeur value system these days.

YOU can give the thieves your blessing if you like, but there are many like myself who will not bother with them when they come to forums such asthis one asking for advice -- so much for their education...............

 

[mike722]

Its simple, if no one buys the software then all this kind of software will stop being produced. Simple as that.

MFD

 

[Codmate]

Your whole premise is flawed because you beleive all cracks are being bought by "students" who may have a vested interest in learning the s/w for their future.

That may be true in 1% of the cases, the rest want something for nothing... a feeling of unwarranted entitlement seems to be the de rigeur value system these days.

YOU can give the thieves your blessing if you like, but there are many like myself who will not bother with them when they come to forums such asthis one asking for advice -- so much for their education...............

Please point out where I said "all cracks are being used by students" or similar.

All I'm saying is that I think using a crack is justifiable in this scenario, not that I believe it is the only scenario.

 

[Codmate]

Its simple, if no one buys the software then all this kind of software will stop being produced. Simple as that.

MFD

Wrong:
http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/Audacity_linux/

OK - Audacity isn't as good or as stable (yet) as 'professionally' made products, but it is being made and nobody pays for it (it is under the GNU public license). This is what people who are not students of music-tech and cannot afford software should be using IMO.

Do you seriously think that Steinberg et al will eventually be driven out of business by pirates? If so, why haven't they already been bankrupted by the vast amount of piracy out there already - or maybe they are hanging on by the tips of their fingers?

I honestly don't know the answer so if you could provide a balance sheet summarising how much potential revenue a company like Steinberg 'loses' a year to pirating I would be very interested to see it.
Remember that potential revenue only comes from those who are using the software for free but could afford to buy it.

 

[NYMorningstar]

This thread is very bizzarre indeed. Some of the arguments make no sense to me...

Who does software piracy *hurt*?
Firstly the pirates are mostly (see cavet a few paragraphs down) correct when they say their actions do not directly or indirectly hurt the company who creates the software they are using, as long as they had no intention of buying the software regardless of whether it was available to download a crack or not.
To argue otherwise is a logical fallacy. If the money was never going to be available to the company in question then it is not even *potential* revenue.

And yet another flawed argument. If the pirates use the fact that they never intended on buying the software as the reason it doesn't 'hurt' anyone then why do they make the hacked software available to others? Do you think they ask peeps downloading off their sites if they intended to buy it?

One more point that you seem to miss is that stealing is theft, it is a crime period. It doesn't matter if it's physical property or intellectual property. What matters is the value that you are stealing be it physical or intellectual.

The reason Steinberg hasn't been forced out of business with all the theft is because they simply reflect the loss through raising the costs to people like ourselves that actually pay for it. All everyone here is saying basically is that we're sick of paying for the piracy.

 

[Chriss]

Chriss, I like your test drive analogy, I might have missed it on my first read through this and I think it makes my point. Let's say you are going to test drive a killer new sportscar...what is the company going to say when you say that to get a complete test you need to:
1) Drive it over 120 mph to see what she will really do?
2) Take it for a week trip up to the mountain to see how it handles in the snow?
3) Take it for another week to the desert to see how it handles in the heat?
4) Try to do power braking exercises and 90 degree turns at high speed
5) Keep it overnight to see if it fits in your garage.
6) (.....I could go on and on all day)

The simple fact is this, you will get to get in the car, you can drive it around the block once or twice maybe, you get out of the car and then you are free to buy it, wait, get more info it, look at literature on it, not buy it, or if you think you really want it, maybe take it for one more trip around the block. You get to try out the product only in the LIMIITED WAY that the auto dealership is allowing you to test it out. Plain and simple. So Steinberg let's people try out their software in a limited way of their choosing, as is there right...the same right the auto dealership exercises when not letting you have free reign over a car you don't own. The difference is that there is an employee from the dealership watching you to make sure you are honest. Steinberg has to rely on people's honesty, and since that doesn't work very well we have our dongle which totally blows.

What is the difference between downloading the crack erasing it if you don't like it and buying it if you do, and downloading the demo which doesn't give you long enough to figure out if you like it? Well, simple answer would be because it is wrong. It is not the way in which Steinberg wants their product tested and it is stealing. I have read so many threads from crack users that claim that Cubase sucks and it's a horrible program, and it turns out they are using cracks that aren't stable and are exhibiting classic "crack" tendancies. How is that showing the true power of Cubase and supposed to win over people to buy it? They provide their demo's and I'm sorry if they only let you drive it around the block a few times, so to speak. You seem to have actually bought the program after using a crack so my hat is off to you for being honest enough to jump aboard and buy the program once you saw how great it is. Unfortunatley there are many out there, who when faced with spending $700 for a program they basically already have, and spending that cash on other gear and shorting Steinberg, well alot of them have a hard time paying for what they already have.

The thing is, Steinberg is not some faceless company that doesn't feel it when they are ripped off. There are many faces in that company, it's just it doesn't feel as good to steal from them when you realize that there are people's jobs at stake, so people make up lies to make themselves feel better about their dishonesty.

Anyhow, congrats on upgrading to SE, when I moved from vst to SX it was a great move. I'm thinking about jumping up to SX2 to get some of those midi features I've been eyeballing....

well... as said... the difference is, it is a piece of software...
if i could try out the car to the max for say, 2 weeks, without the risk of the car being damaged in anyway, of course they would let me... that is, if they have any confidence in their car being the best shit out there.
with software this is possible, i can see what all the strengths and weaknesses are, without damaging anything... that's a nice feature, and i wish there were some other way for the companys to let people "test drive", while making sure they couldn't use it more than those 30-60 days... but unfortunately cause of hackers, this aint possible, and as a result more and more limited and annoying demos are being made...

don't think it can be stopped untill the web is powerfull enough to support web-based licensing... or maybe a program could be made that only works when being online with the registry key you bought it with... you could apply for 30-60 day free (or very cheap) licenses and you'd be set...
ain't gonna happen the next few days though so untill then, i'm inclined to say that i will take advantage of the cracks out there in order to get a feel for the program...

... btw, i bought the halion 1->2 upgrade too... that and SE is an awesome combo compared to vst 5 and halion 1... the thing was constantly out of sync... when i added a demanding effect, one vst would be more out of sync than before and shit... man that gets annoying...
money well spent imo...

 

[mrx]

Surprised that outside of a few close calls, no one pointed out the irony of this dude "paying tutition" to get into a field where piracy has made it difficult, if not impossible, to make a living. While he's doing 'homework' on Cubase, some kid with a ProTools rig that 'fell off a truck' will be taking his internship.

The Ferrari analogy reminds me of my days at a CAD vendor. AutoDesk used to turn a blind eye to 'student theft' by using basically no copy protection while all their competitors used a dongle. Great strategy, as soon the market was flooded with experienced, low cost users. The brilliant aspect was sticking with a dealer network - 'ma & pa' shops might get away with pirated copies, but our sales guys called on everyone in a 150 mile radius using a dozen seats. Amazing how quickly word spread (disgruntled employees, idle chatter at a trade show bar, etc.) about who was illegal. I'll never forget the first time one of our guys lost a hardware deal to another vendor and dropped a dime to AutoDesk about the pirated CAD seats at the customer - AutoDesk had a program in place where the dealer that narc'd out a company using pirated copies got paid for 'making them legal.' A letter from AutoDesk Legal and we'd get a check for 'selling' them brand new copies of software!

...and referring to these music companies as huge conglomerates is a joke. The guy who created Cool Edit in his garage was luckier than most, but his 'company' consisted of a few low dollar kids answering phones and shipping boxes. (I almost got a job there until my wife refused to cut our income in half...)

One last comment regarding piracy of music software is that vendors need to be more aware of what's going on - I did a search for specs on Fruity Loops and literally was hit with an illegal auth code in my search results before anything about the product... Maybe I'm nuts, but having a kid on staff spending a few hours a day scouring the net for cracks, and making sure they didn't work with the downloadable version of the software would seem to be a wise investment.

 

[playit]

Who does software piracy *hurt*?
Firstly the pirates are mostly (see cavet a few paragraphs down) correct when they say their actions do not directly or indirectly hurt the company who creates the software they are using, as long as they had no intention of buying the software regardless of whether it was available to download a crack or not.
To argue otherwise is a logical fallacy. If the money was never going to be available to the company in question then it is not even *potential* revenue.

It's very handy to trot out an argument like this, but give me one example from any industry where a person can make potentially unlimited use of intellectual property without buying it under the pretense that he/she wouldn't have bought it any way.

"I wouldn't have bought the Britney Spears CD anyway" - yet they listen to it

"I wouldn't have bought Lord of the Rings anyway" - yet they watch it

The point is that use of intellectual property is not free. Even with a library (I know you were reaching for this argument) or bookstore, the use of the books is paid for in some way (not to mention that potentially unlimited use is not included). Any use of software without compensation to the company is theft. It does no one any good to talk of "potential revenue" because that's not pertinent to the argument here. What is pertinent to the argument is the definition of piracy, i.e. theft of intellectual property. And in the eyes of the law, either US or UK law, theft of intellectual property is already well-defined and includes no test for "potential revenue."

 

[ahuimanu]

I think it's pretty churlish for people who have a regular disposable income to take a pop at music-tech students who are using cracked versions of software in order to learn it. Learning is a wonderful thing - would you rather they were smoking crack and robbing your house? Give them a few years to get their skills together and soon they will be contributing to society like the rest of us - and what damage will they have done exactly?

Give me a break brother!

First, to imply that these are the only two choices out there is incredibly short-sighted. Second, learning IS beautiful, but EVERYTHING HAS A COST - especially in academia. Where better to learn about the value of your tools as a professional than as a student? I see this crap all the time with the students I teach (programming) who BEGRUDGE their tools (books, software, etc.). There are student discounts and learning the value of your tools and making hard choices to obtain them are PART OF THE GAME.

The world owes the up-coming student NOTHING but a fair chance. Skirting the cost of software is not a fair chance. It is a competitive world out there and rationalizing cracks and cheats on the way up will lead to their continued rationalization later on. I am EXTREMELY HARD on cheaters as a result of this.

 

[Bass Master "K"]

Let me state the obvious once again; intellectual copyright breach is not equal to theft. It is breach of contract.

It sounds like you might be in the UK, and I don't know if that is the way your law handles it, but here in the US, as I understand it, a breach of contract can only occur if you buy a product and do not abide by the limited use contract provided with most software. If you don't buy the product there is no way you can be in breach of a contract since there is no contract. That is why companies consider it theft.

Who does software piracy *hurt*?
Firstly the pirates are mostly (see cavet a few paragraphs down) correct when they say their actions do not directly or indirectly hurt the company who creates the software they are using, as long as they had no intention of buying the software regardless of whether it was available to download a crack or not.
To argue otherwise is a logical fallacy. If the money was never going to be available to the company in question then it is not even *potential* revenue.

Do you really believe this yourself? I mean, how rediculous. Then all I have to do is say "Well I'm certainly NOT going to buy this product, regardless of how cool it is!" and then copy all of my software and music illegally and according to you I havn't hurt anyone. It's a joke. What happens when every person who owns Cubase decides to think this way. I mean after all, I definately have other uses for my money than to pay the maker of a product I use, I just happen to have been brought up to be honest.

However, if somebody would otherwise buy the software, but uses a crack instead, that takes potential revenue away from the company in question.

Again, I don't see how you can differentiate between the two. Illegal use is illegal use.

"pirates are mostly correct when they say their actions do not directly or indirectly hurt the company who creates the software they are using...".

That's really funny. Have you ever heard of a company called Sonic Foundry? They make a few products, ohhhh, like Soundforge, CD Architect, Acid among others..... their stock plummeted from over $20 a share to under $1 a share and they had to sell out to Sony for pennies on the dollar. You think they would have the same view as you?

It doesn't take a genius to work out that, if their program was uncrackable, their user-base for the expensive programms would not increase by a large percentage as people would use cheaper software (including their own low-end products). Cubase, Nuendo et al will remain very expensive (and overpriced IMO - but that's a different debate).

So by this logic they should just offer their product for free so they would have the largest user base....I'm starting to get it now.

Check your logic first before attacking people - if your argument is fatally flawed you don't have an argument.
Most of the people being attacked are students who want to learn to use the software as it is 'industry standard' now. IMO that's morally fine.

I believe this would be the part that Bear was talking about. You want us to check logic first, you should check facts. You have no idea about the demographic of people that are using this software illegally.

I'm sure they would rather people be using the 'educational' versions of their products - but they don't seem to realise that the products are quite different and thus the 'educational' version is not as useful simply becuase it is *not* a full version.

You want to scream about car analogies....well this one really makes me want to scream. THE ACADEMIC VERSION OF THEIR SOFTWARE IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THEIR REGULARLY PRICED SOFTWARE. Do some freaking fact checking before making such ignorant statements as this. They offer it up at a HUGE discount so that these same poor students can have access to the software way less money. Also, last time I checked, audio students have access to the software at labs at their schools where they can learn it.

I think it's pretty churlish for people who have a regular disposable income to take a pop at music-tech students who are using cracked versions of software in order to learn it.

Again, you insult Blue Bear, but yet you hang your hat on the same hook he called you on.

It's not their fault that industry standard software is out of their reach price-wise. It's also not their fault that the cheap alternatives are not used in a professional context and are thus not as beneficial products for study.

See above academicly priced software that you were incorrect about.

IMO big software houses should solve this issue by giving colleges home-licences for their students. It would benefit both sides hugely.

Well, that is your opinion and if they felt the same way they would do it.

IMHO:
If you are making money off the software you should buy it.
If you can afford the software you should buy it.
If you can't afford the software, but want to make music on your computer you should buy cheaper software (or use GNU/Linux and other GNU stuff).
If you are learning the software for a future career, can't afford it anyway and are following a recognised college course, good luck to you!

Well, I guess three out of four isn't too bad. But it still comes down to it is wrong, it is illeagle, and if everyone did it, we wouldn't have recording software to record with. It's the same as saying, well, if you can't afford all the CD's you want to own, then copying them illegally is okay. If someone wants something for their use, they should save up and do the right thing.

For cripes sakes, my buddy busted his ass in his off time, recording projects for friends, and a few garage bands so that he could upgrade from Cubasis to SX. According to your logic he should have just thrown his hands in the air and said "Oh well I can't afford it, I guess I should just use a crack". That certainly would have been easier for him, as he had to scrimp and save and put in long hours after work so he could make it happen, but he did because he is an honest person.

There is no such thing as someone who can't afford the program. There are only those who aren't willing to WORK hard and save so that they can afford the program. It's that simple.

 

[Codmate]

It sounds like you might be in the UK, and I don't know if that is the way your law handles it, but here in the US, as I understand it, a breach of contract can only occur if you buy a product and do not abide by the limited use contract provided with most software. If you don't buy the product there is no way you can be in breach of a contract since there is no contract. That is why companies consider it theft.

But it's not theft of a physical product. It's an entirely different matter. I don't have time as to educate you as to the differences, and I don't believe I have to as they are glaringly obvious.

Do you really believe this yourself? I mean, how rediculous. Then all I have to do is say "Well I'm certainly NOT going to buy this product, regardless of how cool it is!" and then copy all of my software and music illegally and according to you I havn't hurt anyone. It's a joke. What happens when every person who owns Cubase decides to think this way. I mean after all, I definately have other uses for my money than to pay the maker of a product I use, I just happen to have been brought up to be honest.

Very nice of you to build a straw man for yourself to attack - but that's not what I was saying at all. Willful misinterpretation of my argument isn't going to work either. Please explain to me how a company can lose money that they never would have got. You are attacking a case I never posited. I very clearly stated the following:
as long as they had no intention of buying the software regardless of whether it was available to download a crack or not.
Which part of that do you not understand? I love the way you totally ignore thae fact that i qualified the above with:
However, if somebody would otherwise buy the software, but uses a crack instead, that takes potential revenue away from the company in question.
People can read the whole thread and entire posts you know. Making a straw man out of the bits you feel you can easily attack is very quick and cheap, but doesn't do you justice, or harm my argument - as it is your straw man that you are wasting your energy beating away at, not my argument.

Again, I don't see how you can differentiate between the two. Illegal use is illegal use.

That's incredibly closed-minded. I could say 'a crime is a crime and all criminals should go to the chair - that way we will rid society of all wrong-doers'. There are degrees of crime. Laws also change - you used to be hung for stealing strawberries. If you're so conditioned by adherance to a law and percieved authority you must live in a strained and uncomfortable world. Can you not see that in some circumstances it is even neseccary to break the law for the common good?

That's not quite the case here, but to my mind stealing software for educational purposes is an incredibly minor crime.
That's my opinion right now. If you can prove that 'educational piracy' does a sufficient amount of damage I might change it.

That's really funny. Have you ever heard of a company called Sonic Foundry? They make a few products, ohhhh, like Soundforge, CD Architect, Acid among others..... their stock plummeted from over $20 a share to under $1 a share and they had to sell out to Sony for pennies on the dollar. You think they would have the same view as you?

Give me incontravertable proof that this was directly caused by software piracy and it will become relevant. Unless you can do this it's just another company going to the wall.

So by this logic they should just offer their product for free so they would have the largest user base....I'm starting to get it now.

You've done this:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

Extending my argument into the territory of the ridiculous won't wash. Why not stick to arguing with what I'm actually saying rather than building straw men for yourself to knock down?

Do you or do you not agree with the statement "if all expensive music software was uncrackable its user base would not increase significantly (significantly being defined as 'more than five percent')"? If you don't agree provide proofs as to why.

I believe this would be the part that Bear was talking about. You want us to check logic first, you should check facts. You have no idea about the demographic of people that are using this software illegally.

You want to scream about car analogies....well this one really makes me want to scream. THE ACADEMIC VERSION OF THEIR SOFTWARE IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THEIR REGULARLY PRICED SOFTWARE. Do some freaking fact checking before making such ignorant statements as this. They offer it up at a HUGE discount so that these same poor students can have access to the software way less money. Also, last time I checked, audio students have access to the software at labs at their schools where they can learn it.

I can assure you that the educational versions are not the same in all cases. Some are limited (such as CubaseSE). The versions that *are* the same are still very expensive relative the the amount of money in a student's pocket. Here you can get Cubase SX for a 'special price for educational use' of around £250 (about $450). Still way too expensive for the majority of students and educational institutions.
Again, if you disagree provide concrete examples rather than saying 'do some freaking fact checking', which may make me laugh, but does not convince me one iota.

Saying it is available in college is contaversial - when was the last time you went to a college here in the UK where they are so under-funded half the PC's are donated and the other half are 400MHz or less. If music tech students are lucky there will be 5 copies of whatever software they need between thirty of them.

When I was at college there was *1* machine running Adobe Premier and *300* students who needed to use it!

Again, you insult Blue Bear, but yet you hang your hat on the same hook he called you on.

I didn't insult anybody. In-fact I said he seemed like an otherwise intelligent individual. he simply seems to suffer from a knee-jerk reaction to this particular issue.

See above academicly priced software that you were incorrect about.

What software? You need to provide examples of 'educational versions' of expensive music software that are identical in every respect to their more expensive counterparts.

Well, that is your opinion and if they felt the same way they would do it.

So becuase the companies don't agree with me they are right.
Becuase a company isn't doing something doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

Well, I guess three out of four isn't too bad. But it still comes down to it is wrong, it is illeagle, and if everyone did it, we wouldn't have recording software to record with. It's the same as saying, well, if you can't afford all the CD's you want to own, then copying them illegally is okay. If someone wants something for their use, they should save up and do the right thing.

"It's wrong" "it's illegal". Do you agree with every law in every circumstance? Why do courts use judges and a jury at all - if things in the world are so black and white we should have computers judging crime and passing sentances, not courts.

Note also that you are again ignoring that I am only arguing for 'educational piracy'. I would be fine with somebody making copies of my compositions or software (yes I write software - all of it open source) if they were going to learn from it and not make any money out of it.
In-fact I have given away several old PCs and other electrical goods to educational institutions. Why can't software companies do the same. Steinberg could *give away* CubaseVST to schools and colleges now for instance. I bet they can afford it. If you disagree prove that they can't.

When you say "and if everyone did it, we wouldn't have recording software to record with" you're also factually incorrect. See:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

This is free multi-track recording software. It's open source. If you want features added to it or bugs fixed then post on the Audacity newsgroup where you can contact the developers directly. In many ways open-source development is superior to the commercial model; although *much* slower in most cases.

Audacity is just one of several similar open-source projects that I encourage people to use and become involved with the devlopment of.

For cripes sakes, my buddy busted his ass in his off time, recording projects for friends, and a few garage bands so that he could upgrade from Cubasis to SX. According to your logic he should have just thrown his hands in the air and said "Oh well I can't afford it, I guess I should just use a crack". That certainly would have been easier for him, as he had to scrimp and save and put in long hours after work so he could make it happen, but he did because he is an honest person.

Did you miss the bit where I said:
If you can afford the software you should buy it.
If you can't afford the software, but want to make music on your computer you should buy cheaper software (or use GNU/Linux and other GNU stuff).
I don't care how many straw men you want to knock down - you haven't touched my argument yet!
BTW - I "bust my ass" recording friends in my spare time. I don't even charge them for it. And I buy all my own stuff. Am I crazy or something?! No - I just enjoy doing it!
A very vey talented local engineer (who has worked with Richard D James) recorded my band's album over nearly a year, charging us only £30 a day. He also bought all his own stuff. Is he crazy? No, he likes us, thought the record was worth making and was willing to go out of his way for us.

There is no such thing as someone who can't afford the program. There are only those who aren't willing to WORK hard and save so that they can afford the program. It's that simple.

It's not that simple at all. Of course there are people who can't afford the software! I have a good job and it's still an awfully big outlay to justify for me! I can only imagine what it would be like to be unemployed and trying to get a job in the sound recording industry yet not have access to the most relevant software.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Of course there are people who can't afford the software! I have a good job and it's still an awfully big outlay to justify for me! I can only imagine what it would be like to be unemployed and trying to get a job in the sound recording industry yet not have access to the most relevant software.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, since you seem incredibly bent on making a statement, then denying the nature of the statement when called on it. So much for reasoning....

But the last paragraph is telling......... what makes you think the people stealing are interested in working in the recording industry???? There's that underlying presumption that I called-you on earlier.......... I think the majority of it are kids who are dabbling in it for fun. And they should be paying just like all of us, whether it's a hobby for amusement, or a tool used in an occupation. And the basic fact of the matter is, if you can't afford it - YOU DO WITHOUT........ it isn't difficult. If you can't afford to go to the movies on a Saturday night, then you don't go. You don't rationalize it by saying "well I wouldn't have paid for it anyways, since I don't like the actor in it, so it's ok for me to sneak into the theatre..."

You seem to subscribe heavily to the current trend of "entitlement".... it doesn't work that way, especially for "luxury" items such as s/w (and s/w IS a luxury item -- anything you don't need to survive is a luxury!) You earn money to buy the things you want, if you can't afford it, then you don't buy it. Not being able to afford something doesn't mean you are entitled to simply take it. Period.

You might be well-spoken, Codmate, but your values needs serious adjustment if you actually believe the tripe you just spewed.............

 

[NYMorningstar]

That's incredibly closed-minded. I could say 'a crime is a crime and all criminals should go to the chair - that way we will rid society of all wrong-doers'. There are degrees of crime. Laws also change - you used to be hung for stealing strawberries. If you're so conditioned by adherance to a law and percieved authority you must live in a strained and uncomfortable world. Can you not see that in some circumstances it is even neseccary to break the law for the common good?

You think like a criminal. A criminal mind can justify any crime by just saying the law is stooopid. It's rather obvious that you know little about the law and less about morals. To break a law for the common good is rediculous considering the laws are made for the common good.

Extending my argument into the territory of the ridiculous won't wash.

That's all you are doing!

Do you or do you not agree with the statement "if all expensive music software was uncrackable its user base would not increase significantly (significantly being defined as 'more than five percent')"? If you don't agree provide proofs as to why.
Again, if you disagree provide concrete examples rather than saying 'do some freaking fact checking', which may make me laugh, but does not convince me one iota.

Again, extending your argument into the territory of the ridiculous. Now you're showing your ignorance in the marketing and economics field.

"It's wrong" "it's illegal". Do you agree with every law in every circumstance? Why do courts use judges and a jury at all - if things in the world are so black and white we should have computers judging crime and passing sentances, not courts.

Again, the criminal mind at work. Whether you agree with a law or not you should follow it until such time you can get it changed.

Note also that you are again ignoring that I am only arguing for 'educational piracy'.
I would be fine with somebody making copies of my compositions or software (yes I write software - all of it open source) if they were going to learn from it and not make any money out of it.
In-fact I have given away several old PCs and other electrical goods to educational institutions. Why can't software companies do the same.

Only arguing this for educational piracy? Well waffle waffle why don't you. You sure you're not majoring in politics? Not only don't you think like a criminal but now I'm believing that you're a liar too. I seem to recall that you were arguing for piracy alone in one of your earlier posts.

You know, if you completed college(which I don't believe) then you should go back because there is still alot left for you to learn. There is always the option for you though to just go rob a bank because those laws are real stupid too.

 

[vestast]

I agree with Blue Bear..

You've posted links to free recording software. So if a student, unemployed person, whatever cannot afford to buy cubase, then go with what you can afford.

Cubase, Cakewalk, DP, whatever - they are all luxury items that not everyone should be "entitled" to just because they are musicians.

Enough already ok ? The law IS black and white in this case. It IS stealing.

 

[protein]

* note to self - never mention dodgy software.

 

[protein]

Actually, on a related note, a studio near me is upgrading to protools and I'm buying a few bits of gear from them. If I buy a second hand copy of Cubase would that be illegal? If I made a back up copy would that be illegal? If my dongle broke and I used a crack to sort it out would that be illegal?

On a scale of evil from one through to ten where does copying a software CD lie? Worse than smoking pot? Worse than stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family? Worse than adultary?

 

[Codmate]

Actually, on a related note, a studio near me is upgrading to protools and I'm buying a few bits of gear from them. If I buy a second hand copy of Cubase would that be illegal? If I made a back up copy would that be illegal? If my dongle broke and I used a crack to sort it out would that be illegal?

On a scale of evil from one through to ten where does copying a software CD lie? Worse than smoking pot? Worse than stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family? Worse than adultary?

Yes - re-selling the software is illegal under the license agreement.

If your dongle broke and you used a crack that would also be illegal.

A back-up copy is not illegal in my country - I'm not sure about the USA.
You are not allowed to use the back-up on a second machine however.

If you want to use a piece of software such as Cubase on a laptop for instance you must buy a second copy. Of course, if you uninstall it from your main machine first it's legal.

Consider this scenario - I want to do some field recording and therefore need Cubase on my laptop. I must first uninstall it from my main machine, then install it on my laptop, do my recording, come home, uninstall it from the laptop, re-install it on my main machine.
Legal, but extremly silly IMO

What do Steinberg lose if I leave it installed on my main machine while I'm out recording?

 

[Codmate]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post,

since you don't have any good counter-arguments?

since you seem incredibly bent on making a statement, then denying the nature of the statement when called on it. So much for reasoning....

But the last paragraph is telling......... what makes you think the people stealing are interested in working in the recording industry????

Nothing - I didn't make this statement or harbour such a belief, please quote the piece of text that makes you think I believe this.

There's that underlying presumption that I called-you on earlier.......... I think the majority of it are kids who are dabbling in it for fun. And they should be paying just like all of us, whether it's a hobby for amusement, or a tool used in an occupation.

Do you read posts before you respond to them? How many times do I have to quote myself?! Please read the following - I'm not going to quote it again:
IMHO:
If you are making money off the software you should buy it.
If you can afford the software you should buy it.
If you can't afford the software, but want to make music on your computer you should buy cheaper software (or use GNU/Linux and other GNU stuff).
If you are learning the software for a future career, can't afford it anyway and are following a recognised college course, good luck to you!

And the basic fact of the matter is, if you can't afford it - YOU DO WITHOUT........ it isn't difficult. If you can't afford to go to the movies on a Saturday night, then you don't go. You don't rationalize it by saying "well I wouldn't have paid for it anyways, since I don't like the actor in it, so it's ok for me to sneak into the theatre..."

You seem to subscribe heavily to the current trend of "entitlement".... it doesn't work that way, especially for "luxury" items such as s/w (and s/w IS a luxury item -- anything you don't need to survive is a luxury!) You earn money to buy the things you want, if you can't afford it, then you don't buy it. Not being able to afford something doesn't mean you are entitled to simply take it. Period.

You might be well-spoken, Codmate, but your values needs serious adjustment if you actually believe the tripe you just spewed.............

If would stop beating that straw man for a second you might actually say something worth hearing, or indeed relevant to the points I am making.