Piracy out of Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter In Tune Audio
  • Start date Start date
If it weren't for piracy I would have never gotten into music in the first place. Back in the day one of my friends gave me a burnt copy of acid (the first version) something that i would have never paid any sort of money for at the time. Now I try to buy all my software.. I'm in the process of saving up for my own home studio.. and I intend to purchase all software legaly. But as it stands, if it weren't for piracy those major software companies would have never had me as a customer. It all depends on what the outcome is I suppose as to wether you feel it is wrong or not. We all make due with what we are given.
 
Everything was supposed to go into the public domain...

That was the idea behind copyright, to apportion the proceeds for a period of a products useful life soley to the inventor, and then to make it free for all. Copyright existed to encourage and reward innovation, not to lock it up!!

If you want a true example of pure and rampant piracy look no further than the bastards behind RAMBUS. Taking part in a industry consortium to improve computer memory, the lice scurried off and filed patents behind their partner's backs to secure sole ownership and then sued their former partners for using the technology that they all developed cooperatively. People living in cockroach infested apartments get sued for downloading a Beatles track, but those bastards walked free, live in mansions, and get stock options.
 
Its funny how the EULA is on the disk. and you have to brack the seal to get to read it. and if you dont agree to it well you can return it because you opened it.
 
Halion said:
I'm not so shocked or dissapointed by that figure. Take this for example:

You're a home recording guy like most of us, and with a limited budget. I have either the chance to download something illegally, or not have the program at all. It's never a download-vs-buy thing with me, since there will be no buying what-so-ever, untill I am seriously in bussiness. And when that moment comes, I will have the money and the means to buy all the software I want/need.
If you look at it that way, there's really not that big a loss for the companies that make the software. The only real loss is from those people that would have bought the software if it was not available illegally, and I really don't know many people like that (all the studio's I know have 100% legal software).

Also: why did Steinberg release Cubase 3 a while ago if they were doing so badly? Why did Adobe buy Cool Edit? Why is native instruments still releasing new pluigns? Why is Waves still releasing new plugs? Just to name a few. If they were really doing that badly, they'd be forced to stop.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this is that smaller companies selling not-so-full-featured software suffer as if you couldn't download professional software you'd be buying their stuff.

I think if you're using cracked sttuff you should make some sort of contribution to the industry by supporting an outsider who's selling cheaper software, or even try something open-source and submit bug-reports to help with that stuff.
 
There is an even bigger travesty here where I am concerned:( This thread and so many of the "opinions" in it just absolutely sicken me. Yet I keep checking back and reading the new posts:D
 
xstatic said:
There is an even bigger travesty here where I am concerned:( This thread and so many of the "opinions" in it just absolutely sicken me. Yet I keep checking back and reading the new posts:D
Click to expand...
xstatic,

You appear to be a fine example of what a former 'boss' referred to as a 'worker bee'. No doubt you are a hard worker and honest employee and take pride in both your work ethic, and your honesty. But the world is ruled by robber barons who will break your body, steal your pension, leave you in a world of pain and destitution and never break a sweat or lose a moments sleep. This should not be construed as justification for breaking the law, even if the law is (in so many respects) unfair, unjust, and oppressive. But it IS exactly why I will always be poor... I cannot, and will not, act in the fashion necessary to attain great wealth.

Over and over and over I see our government act, not for the benefit of the electorate, but for the benefit of their contributors. Our politicians in general, and those in Washington in particular, know well where their bread is buttered. You can get your panties in a twist over software piracy, and yes, it is wrong. But your time would be far better spent railing against the DMCA in general, and being used in particular to silence critics, phone companies attempting to outlaw free WLAN access as 'bad for the community', and government attempts to stop free speech.

There is a whole shitload of injustice out there that needs to be addressed more than 'software piracy'.
 
Big Effing Deal......so What If Someone Can Afford It Buy It.then...some Cant...
 
You guys need to keep in mind a few things:
1. There is a big difference between LAW and MORALITY.
There are a lot of things that are legal, that are morally wrong, and a lot of things that are illegal, but are not morally wrong.

We can all agree making copies of software can be ILLEGAL. However the morale impact of that is different depending on the individual. I am willing to bet that there are a lot of people on this board who are quick to criticize this action who break the law all the time, and don't consider it immoral. Ever ran a red light? Paused at a stop sign, instead of stop? Maybe use illegal drugs? Drink (but not get drunk) and drive? Any of those things could get someone killed. Yet, somehow on your personal scale of "morality" those things, or any of a hundred other laws you break don't register. Does that make you a morally bad person? Depends on your own personal interpetation of morality.

How is making a copy of dozens of pages out of a reference book morally acceptable to most, yet copying a CD is a crime? The persons who wrote and published that reference book you copied back in college or high school lost out on revenue because you copied JUST the parts you needed, instead of going out and buying that book yourself. Didn't blink an eye when you "borrowed" that intellectual property did you? Record songs off the radio onto audio tape back in the day? Do you TIVO shows off of cable or satellite to watch whenever you want, instead of buying the DVD? Most of us hold true to our own moral standards, and that may vary a bit on either side of the letter of the law.

IMO, there is a huge moral difference between stealing something from someone, and making a copy for your own use of something created by someone else, whether it be pages from a reference book, music, or software. Here is the definition of theft from webster.com:
Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
Click to expand...

File sharing is never theft. It can be copyright infringement, but it is not theft. That is an important distinction. Is copyright infringment morally wrong? I guess that is for you to you decide for yourself.

I guess if it was to immoral to me, then I guess I wouldn't have just cut and pasted that definition from the webster.com...would I have?

lol
I guess I am just evil, that way.

Amra
 
fraserhutch said:
Making albums/CDs/software whatnot is an expensive proposition. That you cannot afford it, or consider it a rip-off does not give you the moral right to pirate. You do not have a *right* to these goods.
Click to expand...

No, the "right" to music and software is held by the artist -not-

Funny, I write software for a living. My company pays me -once- to write an application. They go on to charge everyone who uses it large $$$ for each copy. They paid for the development and reap the benefits of continued revenue after that with *no artistic input* at all.


People bought "Stairway to Heaven" at $5 a shot on vinyl in 1971. People payed $15 a shot in 1980s for the same pathetic shit. Who makes the $$$ on songs done by the original artist?

You would be surprised to know _not_ the artist. He gets pennies. Every greedy pisshead buisiness guy along the way sucks the artist dry on every single copy sold.

Now, I don't advocate pirating software or music if these are sold for a fair price. But, let's talk about Cakewalk Pro Audio 9. They stopped making it and stopped supporting it. In my eyes it is now an unlicensed product in the public domain. The original company that created it wants nothing to do with it anymore. So, where does CW 9 sit?

Same with Win 98. Done and gone. So, what harm is there in useing copies and giving copies away? By the company's own admission the product does not exist anymore. This is the area where I feel that it is open season on shared software.
 
No one wants to buy their software every year

Companies push out new versions almost every year and expect us to upgrade. When I bought Cubase I thought I was awesome then to find out there’s Cubase 3. Photoshop CS 2 is coming out soon if not already. What about PS 7 that I use at work. These new upgrades are coming out way too fast. I’m not going to by their new version if I just got mine. I want to use mine for at least 5 years or so. This is why their sales are dropping. No one wants to buy their software every year
 
your righ

altiris said:
Companies push out new versions almost every year and expect us to upgrade. When I bought Cubase I thought I was awesome then to find out there’s Cubase 3. Photoshop CS 2 is coming out soon if not already. What about PS 7 that I use at work. These new upgrades are coming out way too fast. I’m not going to by their new version if I just got mine. I want to use mine for at least 5 years or so. This is why their sales are dropping. No one wants to buy their software every year
Click to expand...
absolutly. who does it hurt. the big shots. what bout the lil people trying to enjoy something they cant afford all the time..
 
jINXBEATZ said:
absolutly. who does it hurt. the big shots. what bout the lil people trying to enjoy something they cant afford all the time..
Click to expand...

So the theme here is, if I can't afford it, it's OK to just take it. I'll remember that when you all have something on the market.

And where do you guys get the idea that these companies are that big? We're talking music applications here - the economies of scale just aren't there. These companies aren't MS, they aren't even Adobe or some such.
 
I guess I should stop buying stuff for my studio then. If I just go spend all my money on a new car, then I will be poor. That way I can qualify for stolen software and get a new car out of it at the same time.

Or else, I could just download it for my 5 year old. Then i can use it oo, but since he is only 5 it's OK to download it.
 
software

xstatic said:
I guess I should stop buying stuff for my studio then. If I just go spend all my money on a new car, then I will be poor. That way I can qualify for stolen software and get a new car out of it at the same time.

Or else, I could just download it for my 5 year old. Then i can use it oo, but since he is only 5 it's OK to download it.
Click to expand...
we talking bout software...we talking bout the never ending argument with the music downloads...we can argue forever. most software as well as music is distributed thru peer to peer. so this thread will never end. yall cant say yall never downloaded a damn song!!! same bowl different soup!! :D
 
I think piracy just makes up for Bush's income tax polocy. All you rich bitches quit whinning to us poor folks about us choosing to not contributing to your profits. besides piracy isn't really stealing because essentially it is just intercepting electromagnetic streams of data. If you use the real meaning of the word steal, then 'piracy' isn't stealing. If you use the legal def. then it is. Is it moral? What's the definition of moral? When you all use the word "moral", are you refurring to religous morality, and if so which religion. Are you talking about media morality. Is there standard for morality, and if so, who sets that standard.

Both sides rationalize equally.

You don't know me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top