Music software piracy

[~David Vesel]

I'd like to get your thoughts on this.

I unwittingly got sucked into the spotlight in the Letters to the Editor pages of Keyboard magazine these last few months, over the topic of music software piracy. My original letter was published in September, and after getting cut to shreds by other readers in the intervening months, I got a nearly full-page rebuttal letter published in this month's issue.

The crux of my comments was basically this: Why do musicians pirate software? Are they just cheapskates? Do they simply not believe in (or understand) intellectual property? (I find that difficult to believe considering the outcry over downloading music.) Are the people who download just plain folks who don't see what the big deal is? Do they figure (as I do) that if they download something they can never hope to afford, that it's not really a lost sale because they wouldn't have bought it legitimately anyway?

I'd like to get your take on this issue.

[~Brand New Idol]

Stealing is stealing, if you didn't have the money for a leather jacket does it give you the right to steal it because they would have never sold it to you because you were cashless, so essentially a lost sale anyhow? It's stupid to think that it's not stealing. Of course you run a very nominal risk of going to jail for stealing the jacket while you remain essentially anonymous on the internet for doing the same thing. Problem is they need to prosecute people because in most states a $1000 software package you just pilfered online and cracked illegally would be considered a felony had you walked into a computer store and stole it from the the retailers shelf and got caught.

Bottom line you're a thief and you don't put money back into the development of the software that you get to enjoy.

[~fractured]

That is like saying that stealing a Ferrari is ok because "I could never hope to afford one for purchase." Stealing is stealing.

-fractured

[~Quixote Chapter]

Originally posted by David Vesel
Do they figure (as I do) that if they download something they can never hope to afford, that it's not really a lost sale because they wouldn't have bought it legitimately anyway?

I'd like to get your take on this issue.

I can't afford a Ferrari. I would probably never buy one, but you don't see me stealing one do ya? I also PAY for the software I use, because I know that other people's livelihood may depend on it. I think people that steal music softwarejust don't care about the people that work hard to produce these awesome software tools that are now available.

-Kevin

[~arronc]

I think it is totally wrong to rip off software. There is no excuse, as there is so much brilliant freeware out there, you cant even say that there is any reason to do so.

If even the person in question had not bought it, and used some freeware, at least they would be support (if not financially) the independant software community.

There is no reason to use cubase over freeware, and its stupid to do so too.

The reason Cubase is expensive is it has to be comapatible with //everything// in the professional world like smtpe timecode, sysex, rewire, cross platform, OMS, LTB,something most most non professionalss dont need.

If they are a professional with something expensive to plug into the other end of all this functionality, then they could definately afford cubase SX.

If they are a home user, with none of the interfacing concerns, they could run any number of freeware programs in its place, with more speed, better perormance etc.

You see it in other circles too. Ive seen people download cracked versions of photoshop to draw a windows icon, and take days to do it, when a peice of freeware would have let them do the job in 20 minutes.

//rant on

I often see forums where people have got things like craked versions of logic or whatever and have been trying for days to to get a simple drum loop to run in time.

I hope all the little warez kiddies drown in a sea of overcomplexity and never produce any decent music. (so far it looks like I might get my wish).

You would think with things like proTools free, the bottom drop out of the pirate market, but people cant live with just 8 tracks of audio.

I can see why : no decent recording has ever been made with a track count under 256. (LOL)

// rant off

[~technosapien]

Originally posted by arronc
I often see forums where people have got things like craked versions of logic or whatever and have been trying for days to to get a simple drum loop to run in time.

on top of this situation, dont you also need a registered copy (legal copy) to receive tech support from the company?

there really is no reason not to purchase software if you are going to use it.

if the system of using demos to try out products isnt working for users, then they should work on fixing it.. but right now all that is happening is all people are just stealing it... most of them arent even musicians, they are just kids playing around.. if Cubase gets downloaded 1,000,000 times off of Kazaa, i would bet that less than half actually use it for any real purpose other than playing around.

[~epsilon minus]

Originally posted by arronc
There is no reason to use cubase over freeware, and its stupid to do so too.

Uh, right. Show me freeware that can replace Cubase plz. That's nonsense.

[~arronc]

It isn't nonsense. I managed to record music before I had Cubase. Many other people continue to do so.

Try pro tools free, for example , for windows/OS 9 and soon OSX

Check out the linux pakages available :

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1511 is a nice index

;)

[~David Vesel]

I see very common arguments in this thread, pretty much what played out in the pages of Keyboard.

As much as I would like to agree with the ideal position initially presented, there is a fundamental difference between real property and intellectual property. You can't download a leather jacket, or a Ferrari. You can duplicate digital information an infinite number of times with negligible additional resources.

In order to convince people not to pirate software, we're going to have to come up with other arguments.

Are people just cheapskates? After all, there are people copying $40 software, not just $400 software. I think a certain percentage of people downloading software are cheap. They figure, why should I pay for it when I can get it for free? If someone downloads software just so they don't have to pay for it, that is definitely stealing.

I don't use pirated software in any professional project. As Arron pointed out, there's lot of good freeware and shareware software out there that does a similar job. The open source movement has been a real boon in this regard.

Unfortunately, the open source movement has completely undermined people's beliefs on intellectual property. Most people simply don't realize the cost involved in developing and supporting software. It's no mistake that a whole cottage industry of pay support services have grown up around Linux, for example.

But when you have a product that is fungible, you inevitably must confront the argument that if a person genuinely cannot afford a package, if they download it and use a pirated copy, is it a lost sale or not? If it is, you have to assume that the person could have paid for it and simply didn't. But if they cannot afford to buy it, they would not have bought it anyway. This is a fundamental difference between tangible product and intellectual property.

Another problem is that the people doing the downloading are not the people doing the pirating. If I get on Bearshare Pro (the paid version, BTW), and scan the Gnutella network, I can find Cubase SX and Sonar 2 XL for download, bundled up with serial numbers and everything. Who put these out there? What were they thinking? It's not like counterfeit software, where they're trying to make a profit off of stolen goods. They just stick it out there for everyone. What is their motivation?

I myself have downloaded software from time to time. I usually do it for evaluation purposes, especially if a fully functional demo isn't available. I won't do crippled demos. And if you go to a music store, you don't have an infinite amount of time to play around with the software. With the complexity of a package like Cubase or Sonar, even 30 days may not be enough.

There's plenty of software that I bought after I played with a downloaded copy of it. And there's software that I promptly threw away after trying it. I personally don't want to be blamed for a "lost sale" of a package that I tried and hated. I can't take software back to the store if I don't like it. One particular example -- Antares AutoTune 3. It's a $300 plug in. I tried it. I hated it! I deleted it.

But clearly many people do not behave in practice that I do. They download, they use it, and the chain stops. That is wrong. You'll get no argument from me there.

So how do we address piracy? Or is simply a lost cause?

Originally posted by arronc
Try pro tools free, for example , for windows/OS 9 and soon OSX


ProTools Free does not run on Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Only up to Windows98/ME. Unless they've posted an updated version in the last couple of weeks that I haven't seen yet.

[~epsilon minus]

Originally posted by arronc
It isn't nonsense. I managed to record music before I had Cubase. Many other people continue to do so.

Ok, "managing to record music" isn't exactly the highest standard to set. I "managed" on a Tascam 4-Track, that doesn't make it stupid to step up to Cubase. Unless there's some freeware out there that can match or beat all functions of Cubase, I don't think it's right to say it's "stupid" to use it. No one would buy it if there was a free equal alternative .

[~arronc]

Epsilon Minus...

Ahhh :

Ok I see waht you mean now.

I didnt put it very well did I ?

I myself am fully paid up cubaseSX user... so I guess I am doubly stupid ;)

What I really meant to say was that for most people who I have observed using cracked Cubase, it is complete overkill for what they are trying to acheive, and they would be better off IMHO using a combination of task centric freeware applications.

I accept this is nothing like I originally typed and conceed the point !

[~epsilon minus]

Heh, well yeah, people wasting their software/gear would be a thread unto itself. One I would yakk in ad nauseum.

So, I agree with your revised point completely ;)

[~krhen]

> there is a fundamental difference between real property and intellectual property. You can't download a leather jacket, or a Ferrari. You can duplicate digital information an infinite number of times with negligible additional resources.

So you wouldn't have a problem with someone stealing your identity David? After all, that's nontangible property.

[~David Vesel]

So, Krhen, you are inferring that I don't have a problem with software piracy. That is not the case. Please read the entire article before you assume what I think?

I agree that they are similar concepts. What is the intention of identity theft? Almost always, it is fraud. Is software piracy fraud in the same sense? In some cases, yes, in other cases, no. I can't think of any legitimate purposes of identity fraud, but I can at least submit plausible circumstances where downloading software might be legitimate (note that I don't say "is", I say "might be").

(My first version of this response what much more hostile than this final version. :) Please don't accuse me of things or ask strawman questions, okay?)

[~krhen]

Actually I read it last night (the whole thing), thanks.

in any case, in your rebuttal, you switch from the 'its not a tangible thing' argument to the 'its the results or intention that make the difference' argument...

What difference does the 'result' or 'intention' make? The act of the THEFT of materials is what is at issue here. If I steal your identity in the form of private personal information, only to sell it to someone else/distribute it on the Internet - is that wrong? It isn't used by me for fraud (your claim), and yet, its still a crime right? Likewise, if I steal a car, who cares whether I intend to drive it around the corner, drive it to Cancun for a vacation or drive it off a cliff - the 'results' don't matter. Its the theft that matters - the ACT of taking what does not belong to me/you/someone.

The ultimate use does NOT make the act right or wrong ("the ends don't justify the means" ring a bell?). In fact, the issue is that I'm aquiring, without consent, something which does NOT belong to me, whether it is borrowing a neighbor's tool out of his garage without asking, or aquiring personal/private information, or aquiring another intangible which I've not been given license to use. Do you feel its OK to download music off the Internet without paying for it? One might answer with the old 'try before you buy' reason - but who is the person who should determine that? You, the person wanting to try, or the OWNER of said material, whatever it might be? To borrow a neighbor's tool from their garage, uninvited, is wrong, I think you'll agree - but what if you have a prior consent from that neighbor saying 'sure you're welcome to try any of my tools out if you need to' - THAT makes all the difference, but it MUST originate from the OWNER, not the TRYER.

In any case, back to your tangibility argument: I also fail to see how the 'physical' characteristic of a stolen item affects this. For example:

A tool: Someone (other than the thief) worked hard to aquire it, and paid an agreed-upon price for it.

An identity: Someone (other than the thief) worked hard to aquire it, and paid a lifetime's price for it.

A car: Someone (other than the thief) worked hard to aquire it, and paid an agreed-upon price for it.

Software: Someone (other than the thief) worked hard to write it, or paid an agreed-upon price for it.

A tool: stolen provides some benefit to the thief, otherwise they wouldn't steal it

An identity: stolen provides some benefit to the thief, otherwise they wouldn't steal it

A car: stolen provides some benefit to the thief, otherwise they wouldn't steal it

Software: stolen provides some benefit to the thief, otherwise they wouldn't steal it

A tool: owned by me or a company should not be used by you without my/the company's prior consent - to do so is theft

An identity: owned by me should not be used by you without my prior consent - to do so is theft

A car: owned by me or a company should not be used by you without my/the company's prior consent - to do so is theft

Software: owned by me or a company should not be used by you without my/the company's prior consent - to do so is theft

A tool: is an ASSET worth the protection of the law

An identity: is an ASSET worth the protection of the law (we'll ALL agree :-)

A car: is an ASSET worth the protection of the law

Software: is an ASSET worth the protection of the law

And for the record, I didn't ACCUSE you of anything (in that last post) - I merely asked you a question.

[~epsilon minus]

All those examples: TOTALLY inessential to making your point. Put the beef down. It killed Biggie and Pac. HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE?

Right or wrong, people steal stuff, all kinds of stuff, and forum hairpulling gives exactly no resolution to the issue.

[~krhen]

Well, it gives us a chance to exercise our logic muscles, so that's good enough for me :-)

Put it this way: If there was one - even one - newbie reading this who was considering downloading some warez because an article in Keyboard said it wasn't so bad, and changes his mind, so that the SPA doesn't show up on his door one day and make a mess of his life, then its not just hot air.

[~David Vesel]

Originally posted by krhen
Actually I read it last night (the whole thing), thanks.

in any case, in your rebuttal, you switch from the 'its not a tangible thing' argument to the 'its the results or intention that make the difference' argument...


I'm not arguing for software piracy. Period. I'm trying to come up with an explanation for why people that do it feel that it's okay.

And I'm not switching from one argument to another. I'm saying that both issues come into play here.


What difference does the 'result' or 'intention' make? The act of the THEFT of materials is what is at issue here.


So from your point of view, everybody who downloads software is a thief, and they know they're thieves. Unfortunately, my observations in talking to people do not bear this out. The difference is in how the person doing the downloading views their part in this.

If we can figure out why people copy and download software, we stand a chance of addressing the issue.


If I steal your identity in the form of private personal information, only to sell it to someone else/distribute it on the Internet - is that wrong? It isn't used by me for fraud (your claim), and yet, its still a crime right?


That is not the definition of identity theft. If it's not used for fraud, it's not identity theft. And as far as I can tell, posing as someone else for the purpose of soliciting spam is indeed not a crime. Terribly rude, and perhaps outrageous, but not a crime.


Likewise, if I steal a car, who cares whether I intend to drive it around the corner, drive it to Cancun for a vacation or drive it off a cliff - the 'results' don't matter. Its the theft that matters - the ACT of taking what does not belong to me/you/someone.


You can't ignore the real property/intellectual property dichotomy. Software is not a car.

Look, for what it's worth, I agree with you. But then, why do people keep downloading software?


The ultimate use does NOT make the act right or wrong ("the ends don't justify the means" ring a bell?). In fact, the issue is that I'm aquiring, without consent, something which does NOT belong to me, whether it is borrowing a neighbor's tool out of his garage without asking, or aquiring personal/private information, or aquiring another intangible which I've not been given license to use.


You're right, it doesn't. but it does matter to how you go about fixing the problem. Unless you're advocating charging every person who downloads software over $25 with larceny, which is a felony.


Do you feel its OK to download music off the Internet without paying for it? One might answer with the old 'try before you buy' reason - but who is the person who should determine that? You, the person wanting to try, or the OWNER of said material, whatever it might be? (remainder snipped)


No, I don't feel it's okay. But I understand why it happens. Understanding why is necessary to finding an equitable long-term solution. Ideally, yes the owner of the material should have that say. In reality, it's nearly uncontrollable. The long-term solution is to make the legitimate product appealing enough that people don't feel the need to copy.



In any case, back to your tangibility argument: I also fail to see how the 'physical' characteristic of a stolen item affects this. For example:


Hey, all good examples. Myself, I can scarcely argue with any of them.

So......why do people copy software when they'd never ever consider stealing a car, a tool, or someone's identity?


And for the record, I didn't ACCUSE you of anything (in that last post) - I merely asked you a question.

You have strongly inferred -- numerous times -- that I approve of or endorse software piracy. I'm telling you that I do not, but you keep addressing me as if I am.

Originally posted by krhen
Well, it gives us a chance to exercise our logic muscles, so that's good enough for me :-)

Yeah, me pretty much too.


Put it this way: If there was one - even one - newbie reading this who was considering downloading some warez because an article in Keyboard said it wasn't so bad, and changes his mind, so that the SPA doesn't show up on his door one day and make a mess of his life, then its not just hot air.

There you go again. At no point did I say that it "wasn't so bad". My original letter to the editor was in response to the "just say no" tone of the original article that was published. I think it's useless. It's clearly not working. The truth is that people copy software for a variety of reasons. Those reasons don't make it not theft. I never said at any point that it wasn't theft. I said that some of those reasons were understandable. Understanding does not mean endorsement.

By the way, the SPA would never bother pursuing an individual. They lose much more money to piracy in corporations and businesses.

But I do think that it means that treating every single person who copies software as a criminal is at best ineffective, and at worst terribly damaging to everyone involved. Like I said before, do you want everyone who downloads software worth more than $25 arrested and charged with larceny? That's the law in most states. It's a felony.

And that is an appropriate punishment for the people who crack the software. But for the vast majority of people who don't view themselves as thieves, it's massive overkill. Microsoft's aggressive stance recently on copying has only served to make things worse. We don't want to make copying software an act of rebellion.

I choose to view software copying by most people as a naive misunderstanding on the part of the person copying as to why their actions are harmful. People should be educated, corrected, and shown the reasons why what they're doing is theft. I don't think they should be bludgeoned over the head and called names.

So.......how do we stop people from copying software?

[~NukleoN]

If we assume for a moment that people aren't aware that software costs money, then we'd have to assume that they aren't very savvy about computers in general, let alone making music on a computer.

If someone has a computer and knows their way around the web enough to get warez, they definitely know they are stealing. It's just that it's easy to get away with, unforunately.

Assuming one realized that software is for sale in stores they frequent on a regular basis (music stores with software behind the register), they'd quickly find that the sequencing software costs between $300 and $500 depending on the options.

Somebody, however, would mention that the software can be had for 'free' if you know the right person or right website to check out. At this point the choice is presented to the end user whether to buy the software having never used it, try a demo (usually available online) or pirate the software.

Frankly, if something becomes a regular part of my arsenal, I buy it. If I try it and don't find it all that useful, I don't buy it.

Software development is not free, and I cannot take a program as seriously when I won't be able to get updates easily or support if necessary.

IE: I tried the demo of Reason and promptly bought it. Kontakt (a software sampler by Native Instruments) was so good I bought that and sold my hardware sampler (Akai Z8) and *saved* about $1000 in the process. Software has very real benefits. It has very real value.

Part of the reason software is so expensive is because of piracy, and I think people pirate software because it's easy and they can get away with it. When you go to steal a car, you risk getting beaten up, shot or possibly chased by cops and spending time in jail and adding a misdemeanor or felony to your record. The car you steal may have an alarm, Lo Jack and it may be traced back to where you are...and there are a number of ways to get caught.

Then you're faced with the problem of trying to sell it or part it out...in the end the risks far outweigh the benefits (I have had my car stolen before, it sucks).

Sitting in your bedroom downloading software with a hi-band pipe isn't nearly as risky.

It's good to support our fellow musicians by buying their CD's and one can apply that same principle to software. Just cause it's easy to steal doesn't mean it's ok to do so. That's like stealing a car because someone left the keys in it with the engine on and door open, and incidentally, cops often bait car thieves in exactly that manner. ;)

I know you're not saying it's good to steal software David, but I think in summary, people do it because they can get away with it, and they don't think of the big picture (but they do think of the $ they're not spending). Some people feel they will never be able to afford hardware or software, and yet their aspiration to make music is no less...and there's little reward for not stealing the software other than support, manuals, updates and the occasional extras for registered users.

[~NullDevice]

Originally posted by NukleoN
If we assume for a moment that people aren't aware that software costs money, then we'd have to assume that they aren't very savvy about computers in general, let alone making music on a computer.

If someone has a computer and knows their way around the web enough to get warez, they definitely know they are stealing. It's just that it's easy to get away with, unforunately.


I wouldn't necessarily take this as an assumption. I have met some very, very clueless people who don't know MIDI from wav, who wouldn't know Reaktor from Soundblaster, who haven't a clue on anything technical - and yet somehow they have full pirated versions of Cakewalk Sonar on their machine.

It's rare that this happens, but not as rare as it used to be.

Do they know it's wrong? Maybe. Do they know how wrong? Doubtful. Do they know the real value of the software they've got? Not a chance. This is a real educational hurdle. Piracy is only going to increase if people don't realize that "hey, this is real pro software, that someone devoted their life to writing, that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars."

Worse yet, I've heard it rationalized by halfwits that say "well, I support *open* software. It should all be free." Oh, thank you for co-opting a perfectly good software philosophy and making the real Open Source Movement look like a bunch of petty thieves. Grumble.

[~Jack-Dark]

IMHO:

Usually if I find that I use a program on a consistent basis and I truly think it is magical, I'll buy it. I've tested dozens upon dozens of programs, and only a handful have actually pried open my wallet. Those few were FM7, Absynth, Fruity Loops, and Reason. Now, I'm still happy with three of those four purchases; however one I regret. Reason.

At first I was enraptured by the glowing reviews and sheer hype surrounding the program. Unfortunately the demo only allowed you to use the program for 20 minutes a session, and that really wasn't enough time to give you an adequate understanding of it's full capabilities. Or at least for myself it wasn't. Still, Reason looked promising and thusly I bought it. Now, after finally having unlimited time to use the program without interruption, I have decided I hate it. But because it is a program that is registered to only myself, I can't sell it. If it was a "real" piece of gear, I could regain at least SOME of my money back. However, unlike hardware, if you don't like your virtual instrument/sequencer you can't just sell it back into the market. You're stuck with it. Therefore, I'm stuck with Reason. I'll never get my money back. If I had gone the piracy route, I could have made my decision for free. And if I liked it, I could of bought it.

Another aspect of musical program theft; just because a musician cannot afford an instrument, does that mean he shouldn't be allowed access? In the un-virtual world, if I really really wanted a Korg Delta solo on a track, I could rent one, or borrow one. But, if I wanted a Vaz Modular solo, I could not. I'd have to find someone who had the program and use their computer on their time, which is very encumbersome to say the least. So, if I just wanted to use Vaz Modular for that one diddy, should I really have to shell out the cash, even though I'll never use it again?

Both of the examples above in my opinion prove the dichotomy of software being understood as a tangible commodity. It is not. When someone steals software, they are actually cloning. Is that ethically less damaging than stealing a piece of hardware? Of course not, but it is... "different".

Software piracy is and always shall be a question of moral integrity, not one of financial detriment. It is not a question of whether someone is stealing money from the company that produced the software. The pirate did not actually steal the materials needed to package the software, nor did they steal a "potential sale", because the pirate never would of bought the program in the first place.

Do not misunderstand me, I am against software piracy, and I avoid it whenever possible. But you show me someone who has owned a computer for any significant amount of time and doesn't have a single pirated program, and I'll show you a liar.

[~David Vesel]

Dan, thanks for the thoughtful answer. The only thing that I give a little on this issue on is people downloading the software for evaluation purposes. But it takes a lot of self-control to not just keep it and not pay for it.

Eric, I nailed that topic in passing in my Keyboard letter. I have heard that exact same line from people and it annoys me as well. Not just open source, but the whole philosophy of freeware and shareware.

I think one of the things I've come to realize recently is that people need to be educated on this. At ITT Tech, the only course we teach with any of this stuff in it is Web Ethics and Security, and that's only taught to the web students. I have a networking student in my Friday afternoon database development class that literally has a CD portfolio he carries around with what must be 100 pirated discs, and any time I mention some interesting software I'm looking at buying, he says, "do you want a copy?" I always turn him down, but how on earth do you reach someone like that?

Jack Darks' views on this are similar to my own. I don't use any pirated or copied software in my studio on any project that will see the light of day. So in that regard, I wouldn't use copied software even for one track like in Jack's example. But, I nearly had his Reason experience with Antares Autotune 3. No demo available, $300, so I found a copy of it, tried it, and absolutely despised it, in spite of all the glowing reviews it received. I uninstalled it and deleted it immediately.

The admitted flaw in my views and Jack's is that if read wrong, it could be sending mixed signals to people trying to decide whether or not to do the right thing. The last thing I want is to provide a rationalization for someone to think that stealing software is okay.

[~VIOLENTVICKY]

I DONT FEEL COMFORTABLE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN FRONT OF THE FEDS

[~cliffwalk]

Originally posted by NullDevice


I wouldn't necessarily take this as an assumption. I have met some very, very clueless people who don't know MIDI from wav, who wouldn't know Reaktor from Soundblaster, who haven't a clue on anything technical - and yet somehow they have full pirated versions of Cakewalk Sonar on their machine.

It's rare that this happens, but not as rare as it used to be.

Do they know it's wrong? Maybe. Do they know how wrong? Doubtful. Do they know the real value of the software they've got? Not a chance. This is a real educational hurdle. Piracy is only going to increase if people don't realize that "hey, this is real pro software, that someone devoted their life to writing, that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars."

Worse yet, I've heard it rationalized by halfwits that say "well, I support *open* software. It should all be free." Oh, thank you for co-opting a perfectly good software philosophy and making the real Open Source Movement look like a bunch of petty thieves. Grumble.

That's my headache around this entire issue considering I make my living writing code. (Albeit I haven't landed that cool-as-hell job coding Music apps)

I LOVE the open-source community/freeware. Buzztracker, for example, is a DAMN fine piece of software and is totally free and supported by dozens of hobbyists.

Take that a step further and reintroduce capitalism.

If a software company's bottom line was controlled more by what is PRODUCED by their software and less by how many units they moved a better balance would exist that would promote consistent improvement of the tools.

For instance if Cakewalk's GAVE AWAY an entire software platform including Sonar and their new Soft Synth environment with the agreement that the artist publish their music through a middle man and share the profits with Cakewalk... to me, that's a better balance. Unrealistic as all get out but it rubs me better...

Unfortunately economics don't work that way :( It really is unfortunate too because the genius that figures out a business model that encourages this sort of End-User to Artist to Software Vendor verticality will have tapped into something that will elevate the quality of whats produced.

Dave

PS: I've been known to make very little sense to people sometimes so if this opinion makes no sense to you don't hate me :) I could be on an entirely different planet.

[~dehuman]

I own the largest pirated music software collection i have ever heard of. 1/4 of a million dollars worth. why? because i was a poor ass musicain who knew a guy who spent his days downlaoding the ¤¤¤¤ off of hacker sites (he is very poor and his wife has now left him). Here's the deal. Pirated software has done one really good thing for me. It has allowed me to select the programs i feel are right for me. After selecting them and puting up with the malfunctionality of the pirated versions, the new versions came out and, you got it, I had to buy them. I didn't want the prated ¤¤¤¤ anymore, I knew exsactly what programs I wanted so it didn't end out buying ones I wasn't pleased with (very discouraging). and i have spent way more than i ever would have otherwise. So there you have it. I feel it's a good thing. I feel it boosts the market. AND NO I"M NOT DISTRIBUTING ANY so forget it. Sorry if ya don't like what yer hearin but then when does the truth feel good? Peace.

[~Midihead]

Some interesting points here. I personally remember back to the days of Radium, who in my opinion were the kings of cracked audio software. Back then, it was a new thing for me to be able to download warez by the bundle and try them all. I became obsessed and started collecting every title I could get my hands on, whether I used it or not...like a trophy or something. Then one day I found this cracked copy of "X-Incarne". By far it was one of the most break-through pieces of sonic mangling software I'd come across. Produced and marketed by maybe 1 or 2 programmers at most. The software cost $60.00 and was worth every penny....but the most unfortunate thing happened....they had to stop development because of the piracy. Now, there's not a version that will run on 2000, XP, or NT environments...nor will there be.

So, basically some programmer's dream was stomped on by the piracy community. Sad, sad, sad. And to think that I was a part of it....makes me sick. How many "starving" artists (and there are lots here) don't have people purchasing their CD's because someone's friend made them a copy? It's impossible to know the numbers but I had a shocking revelation when I was looking for some music on Audiogalaxy way back when, only to find that my own music was all over the place. What a wakeup call.

I'll admit though, like many of you, getting the opportunity to really test drive the software allowed me to see what would stir my creativity and what would waste my time. The stuff that I REALLY had to have, I dropped the money for it. It's NOT ethical to attempt to make money with a tool that you don't have the RIGHT to utilize.

If you don't have money to drop on software, do what I did:

Talk to the manufacturers of the software that you DO use and feel you NEED. See if they will do some kind of trade that will benefit both parties. I was able to get all of Sonic Foundry's line in exchange for advertisement and the inclusion of their logo's in my CD's. Back when I owned Electrogarden, I got a lifetime subscription to Fruityloops Pro by running their banners. If you have a high traffic site, this is a good trade. I know of lots of other bands that use trade methods in exchange for software. It never hurts to try. But, if in the end you don't get the deal you want....please pay for the product if you intend to use it.

PS: Dave, yer comment makes perfect sence ;)

[~cliffwalk]

Originally posted by dehuman
I own the largest pirated music software collection i have ever heard of. 1/4 of a million dollars worth.

blah blah blah and you go on to talk about how downloading pirated software led you to purchase software that you found useful...

and i guess that's a novel concept? everyone has done it.. many companies have gotten pretty alborate with Demo versions that don't even make that very neccessary anymore but, hey... software's expensive.. I can understand needing to test drive it extensively. I usually get enough out of the demo versions to make a decision but to each his own on that...

however...

so you never said what you've done to compensate the musician's that you've raped of 1/4 million dollars. if it's not useful music to you then why have you not purchased it? let's do the math on $250,000... hmmm... the average entry level employee costs around $40,000 in salary and an additional $25,000 in benefits. $65,000.00.

so you've stolen (yes, stolen) one years salary of almost 4 people.... are you holding that money for ransom?

you're whining about being too poor to buy? well then, you're too poor to own.

dave

[~David Vesel]

I tried Sonar 2. I liked it a lot. I looked at the price. I couldn't afford it. So I went to eBay and looked until I found a copy of Cakewalk 9 Pro that was unregistered and bought it for $50. Now I have an upgrade path that at least keeps the total cost under $200.

There are always options. I have nothing against try before you buy, or try while you're saving up to buy. As long as you DO buy it eventually. Otherwise, it's theft, as much a theft as the hardline "do not copy under any circumstances unless you buy it retail" camp maintains it is.

These days, I buy the majority of my software through eBay or some other secondary outlet because I can't afford full retail. Sometimes they're retail-packed, other times they're OEM, but as long as the serial number is free and clear and legitimate, my conscience is clear. Sometimes it's used software, and I make sure that the license is valid and transferable. I was able to buy Sound Quest MIDI Quest 8.0 because Ken from Intuition offered me his license cuz he didn't use the package anymore.

And the freeware out there is getting better all the time.

I hate seeing people be so cavalier about software piracy. If you're going to copy software, at least have the decency to feel guilty about it.

[~cliffwalk]

Originally posted by David Vesel
I hate seeing people be so cavalier about software piracy. If you're going to copy software, at least have the decency to feel guilty about it.

I think I get more boiled about music than software.... not because I place the importance of one of the other... but in the case of larger software packages (like Reason, Sonar, etc) there's a value in the service of the vendor that stretches beyond the product that you lose out on. I think the best combat against software piracy of LARGE products is frequent updates and bonuses attached to the legal licensing of the software... That element alone seems to be the model that helps keep software companies afloat.

Now... "Joe-Small-Guy" with the tiny little app that does some amazing stuff that he's selling for $25.00 a shot. He gets screwed.

Plain and simple. If you write a single-utilitarian application that just plain does something better than anything else out there. DO NOT SELL IT TO END USERS YOU WELL END UP SCREWED!

Talk to a company who would benefit by bundling it with their software first and sell it to them.

You can't really prevent piracy and you most definately can't count on conscience.

Dave