Quote:

---

No one is going to let you walk into their shop and take one off the rack without paying, just because you want to learn to play it!! Simple!!

---

But you *could* borrow one from a friend

And like davelew said, Uni students these days have a HARD time with money.

Quote all_on_black:

---

And like davelew said, Uni students these days have a HARD time with money.

---

And you think that it's only students that have a hard time with money?! Because you are a student gives you no right to think that you are above and beyaond the law. before you started your course you investigated it right, knew what the course expected of you, knew what equipment you needed and would have to use on the course, and still you decided to go ahead and enroll right? So what are you complaining about now?? No one forced you to take the course, you chose to! Like they say, 'nothing worth having ever comes easy' or was it 'there's no such thing as a free meal ticket'!!

Beya

Quote:

---

And you think that it's only students that have a hard time with money?! Because you are a student gives you no right to think that you are above and beyaond the law. before you started your course you investigated it right, knew what the course expected of you, knew what equipment you needed and would have to use on the course, and still you decided to go ahead and enroll right? So what are you complaining about now?? No one forced you to take the course, you chose to! Like they say, 'nothing worth having ever comes easy' or was it 'there's no such thing as a free meal ticket'!!

---

a) Im not in University yet. Thats next year.
b) Im not going to be doing a music tech course. If I was, the situation would be different.
c) No, not only students have a hard time with money, but to be fair, most of the software that "we" want is very expensive.
d) No, we don't have a "God given right", but then its not *really* for anyone on a forum to say what we can and can't do.

To be honest, I agree that piracy is wrong, BUT, I don't agree that I would have to spend literally NO money for a month just to buy some software that I use for the odd song/recording.

Quote all_on_black:

---

I agree that piracy is wrong, BUT, I don't agree that I would have to spend literally NO money for a month just to buy some software that I use for the odd song/recording.

---

That's a contradiction. Don't record the odd song then until you can afford it.

--------------------
Stand by for action - we are about to launch Stingray!
Cue irritating bongo music ...

Quote:

---

That's a contradiction. Don't record the odd song then until you can afford it.

---

I think you'r missing the point. Thats like saying don't eat until you can afford it. If you can't afford it, you're going to find a way to eat.

To be honest, it doesn't bother me that much, but it is *wrong*, but then life's a bitch, so what you gona do.

Hang on a minute ... surely at some point you had to be able to afford the computer yet you are unwilling to pay for the software to run on it. Where is the difference?

There are many similarities here with people who download music illegally too. They usually throw the "I can't afford to buy CDs" argument at you, yet they can apparently afford the broadband connection and the computer to download onto.

--------------------
Stand by for action - we are about to launch Stingray!
Cue irritating bongo music ...

hey what ever happened to working for what you want?

paying for what you use?

respecting others and treating other as you would like to be treated?

i think things have just gotten so bad... everyone just thinks its me me me and screw everyone else...

i think the new rock'n roll is gonna be based on honesty and decency... that would be funny...

it would be rebellious to actually not steal... it would be rebelious to treat others with dignity and respect...

Quote all_on_black:

---

Thats like saying don't eat until you can afford it. If you can't afford it, you're going to find a way to eat.

---

Not really the same thing. You are not likely to die if you don't record a song now are you.

--------------------
Stand by for action - we are about to launch Stingray!
Cue irritating bongo music ...

Quote:

---

Not really the same thing. You are not likely to die if you don't record a song now are you.

---

I didn't mean it quite so literally, but I know what you mean. What I'm trying to say is that at least it gets people active in the "pro audio" world. Even if it is illegal, it gets people started. Just like someone earlier mentioned that the Sex Pistols were famous for using stolen gear, at least it gave them an opportunity to perform and say what they wanted to say (and possibly what needed to be said).

And to the guy up there who mentioned Rock being friendly, one of my favorite bands, Howards Alias (who have now just split up. Very small uk band), promoted this. Their shows were always a great atmosphere and everyone was friendly. O/t but whatever

(Btw, I dont mean to be "arrogant", Im just trying to make a point that its not as simple as 'save up for it and dont do anything until you can afford it', especially if you have a real passion for what you do)

Gareth

I wish people did cracked copies of Midas desks then I wouldn't have to save up!

Quote all_on_black:

---

BUT, I don't agree that I would have to spend literally NO money for a month just to buy some software that I use for the odd song/recording.

---

You've got all the dots, your just having a hard time joining them up!

Beya

I'd just like to offer an opinion (not necessarily my own, so please don't flame me) having only briefly scanned the rest of the thread, so apologies if I repeat someone else by mistake.

Several times people have used an example of a tangible product that they could simply steal if they didn't have enough money to buy it, e.g. a fast car or a house, to illustrate the illegality of cracked software.

Perhaps it's really not the same as software however. Perhaps software in and of itself has no intrinsic value at all. A piece of software requires high quality, high cost labour to develop, but can be copied in an instant with no effort. It's just a lot of machine code after all. Unfortunately a Bentley Continental GT cannot be copied in an instant, but requires high value parts and high cost labour to build each and every one. It can be argued that stealing a piece of software, AS LONG AS IT THEN DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY GAIN FOR THE USER, hurts nobody. If it's not used it wouldn't have been bought anyway, because it's not providing any gain. This point has been made by a few people. Stealing a Bentley hurts lots of people because of its intrinsic value, regardless of whether the thief drives it or not.

Of course you then have to define 'gain'. Financial or professional gain is easy. If you're using software to provide financial or professional gain you should buy the software. Period.

What about if you're using the software for personal entertainment or education? Grey area. Would you have bought the software if you could afford it? That's the tricky bit.

Maybe we need a new way of paying for software. Here's a suggestion, a bit like the UK income tax system. Software is free to download and install. You get a personal usage allowance and you declare each time the software has been used in a finished product, e.g. a CD. After you reach your allowance threshold, a percentage of the monies from the sale of the CD goes to the software developer, like tax on your earnings from the product. What's that? You used the software on your demo but you're not selling it? No problem, you pay the 'use for professional gain' tariff. What's this though? You've used this software without declaring it? Fraud.

I'll leave it to everyone to pick holes in this system, and there are probably lots. But it's an idea.

Just don't singe my eyebrows ok?

--------------------
Yes, good, very good, but everything LOUDER!

I'm trying to put this as simply as I can, so i'll try a mathmatical formula:

1. (product + has an associated cost)/you wish to use = you must purchase

2. (product + has an associated cost)/you wish to use but don't pay for = theft

Maths has never been my strong point, so please feel free to enhance and improve the formula as you see fit ;-)

Beya

Quote:

---

You've got all the dots, your just having a hard time joining them up!

---

Heh dont quite get what you mean by that?

And what Spord just said was pretty much what i've been trying to point out. Its not like I (and probably many others) am making money from the software, just using it to gain experience and for personal enjoyment.

I was going to be done with this post, but it has raised a significant question about which I have wondered for years.

Without taking a stand either way on the piracy issue, let's just say that in theory, we all believe that piracy is essentially wrong. Ignore all the details and special circumstances raised in this post...stealing is wrong. It's generally wrong to own something without paying for it if that thing's creator normally charges money for it.

What about borrowing, then? When I don't have the right garden tool for that random, one-time job, it's fine for me to borrow one from my neighbor, right? It's tacky to read a newspaper over someone's shoulder on the bus, but if that person leaves it on the seat, should I resist picking it up and reading it? And what about books? They're the direct literary equivalent of musical compositions. People loan them to each other all the time. Authors, even--I have a friend writing her third novel, struggling to get it published, and she loans me books all the time so that I don't have to go buy them. True, there's only one "possessor" of the book at any given moment, and only one person paid for it, so the payment:ownership ratio is legitimate. But most people only read books once, and if I want to read it again next year I can borrow it again. That means that I'm getting all the benefits of owning the book without paying the author for her work. Why is this socially acceptable?

And what about libraries?

A positive haven of pirating scum.

I would imagine.

Raphus. not pointing my finger at you, only using your neat chat for others to read into.

Quote raphus:

---

True, there's only one "possessor" of the book at any given moment, and only one person paid for it, so the payment:ownership ratio is legitimate.

---

There you go! Library borrowing is legal, as is passing on books to friends. If you did the same with legal software that would be fine if you deleted it from your computer and handed on any license for registration/activation, if you manage to keep it on your machine and someone elses at the same time then clearly that is in breach of your purchase which is sold with the intention of only having one user.

Piracy is illeagal as stated by "The Law" I expect. Straightforward eh, dont do it!

I struggle to see why people want to justify piracy, they will do it anyway, what will making it "acceptable " in the community do for them (which wont happen, because of " The Law").

just because you can easily commit a crime, a somewhat anonymous crime in the big sea of crime and shhit that this world swims in, doesn't mean its right, or that it is your right to commit this crime...

just because there is a slim chance of being caught doesn't mean it is ok to commit a crime...

there is a right and there is a wrong.

there is a legal and an illegal.

and yes it really is that simple.

>There you go! Library borrowing is legal, as is passing on books to friends. If you did the same with legal software that would be fine if you deleted it from your computer and handed on any license for registration/activation, if you manage to keep it on your machine and someone elses at the same time then clearly that is in breach of your purchase which is sold with the intention of only having one user.

There was(Maybe still is) some software contracts where even giving the software to someone else was illegal. It was a non-transferrable license.

Seablade

** I agree that piracy is bad. Let me just get that out of the way first. **

However, you only addressed part of my point. I followed the statement you quoted with a further statement that contradicts it. Specifically, even though my friend and I never simultaneously possess the book, by borrowing it any time I want to I am enjoying all the benefits of ownership without having paid for it. If loaning books were not socially acceptable, I would have to go out and buy it, and the author would have made more money.

I agree that software piracy is bad, but I don't know how to reconcile that with this book lending issue.

Quote all_on_black:

---

Quote:

---

You've got all the dots, your just having a hard time joining them up!

---

Heh dont quite get what you mean by that?

And what Spord just said was pretty much what i've been trying to point out. Its not like I (and probably many others) am making money from the software, just using it to gain experience and for personal enjoyment.

---

Frauds and embezzlers have been saying, since the dawn of time, when they get nicked "I was only borrowing it... I was going to put it back".

Personal enjoyment is not a defence. My neighbour is away for the weekend and his rather tasty sports car is on the drive... I'm sure it will be OK if I borrow it for my personal enjoyment...

The basic problem is nobody ever gets nicked, including it seems some industrial-scale scammers on eBay. As long as the law turns a blind eye, people are going to get more and more complacent.

If you thought there was a real risk that you might get a criminal conviction, blighting e.g. your employment prospects for years to come, would you do it?

I have said before in this forum that you can get started (to the point of making pretty respectable records) with an entry level copy of Cubase VST from Amazon for under £20. There is certainly enough "learning" in such a package to get anyone through a half-decent college course.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote:

---

What about borrowing, then? When I don't have the right garden tool for that random, one-time job, it's fine for me to borrow one from my neighbor, right?

---

Raphus, you've raised an interesting point : interesting because it is wrong. There is no End User License agreement for a garden rake - you are making an absolute purchase of that particular item. With software, you are making a purchase of the license and the distribution media subject to the conditions of the End User License Agreement which prohibit transfer of the license. If you sell it on ( without upgrading ) then as a courtesy and in order to be seen to be providing good service many companies may transfer the license - but are under no legal obligation to do so.

It's worth pointing this out. There are license agreements everywhere - we should all keep 'em peeled and check our positions really......

Just one other minor point : yes, this topic does come up quite often. And it is worth it every time as we constantly keep having to repeat the same points over and over. There is a lot of misunderstandings about what this is all about out there and if it can't be discussed here, then where? There aren't classes that deal with software licensing - it has to be learned from those who have experience of it.

This is perhaps the longest student-based piracy thread for a while, and a couple of the comments ( from people who actually lecture in this subject!! ) should be interesting to students. Hopefully this thread has at least served to inform casual forumees....

Quote dave-lew99:

---

NO-ONE should be unable to do a course simply because they cannot afford to recreate the universities facilities at home

---

How absurd. One of the reasons you are paying thousands to study at a college is because they have special facilities. No college course requires a student to recreate facilties at home. Colleges will allow you sufficient time with these facilities to complete a given task. If they don't, the college isn't worth it's salt.

There really isn't any way around this, guys. Suggesting that your 'passion' is being stifled because someone wants to charge you for tools to express it is brainless. What are you passionate about? Music technology? Then show respect for it. If you are simply passionate about being creative, this is easily achieved for free.

If all software was hugely expensive and offered little variation or development, you might be justified in assuming this 'crusade of the common man'. But so much is available for so little, with a hugely supportive network of other users. If you're truly creative, you'll follow others in making the most of limited means.

Damned right - I did a Computer Science degree, and never owned my own computer until 8 years after I graduated. They have equipment at seats of learning, y'know.

Folk are so darned me-me-me these days it's makes me vomit.

Quote Dave B:

---

Quote:

---

What about borrowing, then? When I don't have the right garden tool for that random, one-time job, it's fine for me to borrow one from my neighbor, right?

---

Raphus, you've raised an interesting point : interesting because it is wrong. There is no End User License agreement for a garden rake - you are making an absolute purchase of that particular item. With software, you are making a purchase of the license and the distribution media subject to the conditions of the End User License Agreement which prohibit transfer of the license.

---

Excellent point. (...although I am not wrong in confirming that it's OK for me to borrow my neighbor's gardening tool.) So the End User License is the mechanism by which software companies combat software theft, and since book publishers have not utilized this mechanism, it's OK to mooch off of my friend's book library. This still doesn't explain why this is the case. The fact remains that if book lending were not socially acceptable, more people would buy books and authors would make more money.

I suspect that the reason is historical. Our culture was very different, much younger, and our population much lower, when books first came onto the scene. (Although it must be noted that companies were no less concerned with profits back then...) By the time software developers appeared, businesses had had more time to invent a profit-securing business strategy like the End User License. Software developers started their businesses using this strategy, so nobody had any other expectations. Some businesses, like book publishers, however, probably decided that it would be unwise for them to adopt the End User License strategy, because it would probably just alienate their customers who had come to expect the ability to borrow each other's books.

I am against software piracy. It seems silly to complain about having to spend $50 on a program that performs functions that would have cost $50,000 in 1985, and it also seems silly to expect that theft will magically stop simply because it is wrong. I just want to understand the nuances of the matter--some of which seem pretty contradictory, others less so. It will be interesting to see where this all goes in 20 years.

Quote Commander:

---

I can't afford a Bentley Continental GT. Think I'll just go and steal one until I can afford to buy one.

---

yeah and while your at it let me loan it for a while, well because I need it more than others becuase i'm a professional don't you know!!! ;-)

Beya

Without getting involved in an overdone debate whose points just hit each other in circles -

Reason 3.0; £300. Educational disocunt; £150. That's 50%! It's a bargain anyway. A bargain half price is just a big kiss!

Oh, there's nothing homophobic about the word "pussy" used derogatorily - you could make an argument for it being misogynistic, maybe...

Okay, I will get involved. You can't simply say your moral viewpoint on what is and isn't theft is only determined by law. Laws vary from country to country. As has been pointed out, you would never have gotten to know many artists and bands copying cassettes when you were a kid. Even if that was wrong, I bet you don't regret it. And you must agree you should be able to rip the CD you bought to MP3 for your portable player, even if this is illegal in some places and in Sony's eyes. Agreed so far? Good.

The piracy issue is more complicated than it might seem. It is true some companies have accepted cracks to gain a foothold in the market, for example.

But excusing yourself for using a cracked copy of Cubase because you can't afford it for your general work is invalid. You could buy a cheapo sequencer. By not doing so, you're also depriving the budget end of the market with income.

Everyone can afford to buy at least some of the software they use, even if it means living on beans for a while. It comes down to the strength of the individual's will, which is ultimately their decision.

Quote dave-lew99:

---

If not that then maybe the suite should be 24hours? Or the software should be available like the universities Antivirus and VB.Net programming suite - on a site license and any student can take a copy and legally use it (as long as not for profit)

---

Of course it should be open more. That's an issue with the university itself. As someone who went to an average university with a terrible library back in the pre-'Net days, I was very frustrated having such poor resources to learn from. I grew increasingly jealous of universities with 24-hour libraries. Have you complained to the university itself? If you could rally up enough support, actually get other people who feel likewise to complain, perhaps an alteration in the opening hours could be applied. I know that requires a bit of effort, something 50% of the students at my place didn't have, but try it, you might get some results. The university is there to serve you, if they aren't doing a good job then you have every right to bitch and complain.

Quote raphus:

---

...although I am not wrong in confirming that it's OK for me to borrow my neighbor's gardening tool

---

No, not with permission.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Quote raphus:

---

...although I am not wrong in confirming that it's OK for me to borrow my neighbor's gardening tool

---

No, not with permission.

---

Thank you for that critical addition to this discussion. Yes, I would need my neighbor's permission.

Thought I might just mention that licences apply to the music you buy too. When you buy a CD you are not buying the music at all, but rather purchasing a licence to listen to the music. The actual music itself remains the property of the artist and publisher. This is why copying a CD is technically illegal since you would need to obtain a further licence; ie buy another CD. Of course, having bought the initial CD nobody will frown on you for making copies for your own use, but software piracy is different since you didn't actually obtain (pay for) the initial licence to use it in the first place.

It's one thing copying a CD but quite another copying software, although ethically, technically and legally it is exactly the same thing.

--------------------
Stand by for action - we are about to launch Stingray!
Cue irritating bongo music ...

Yawn...
Why does everyone keep bleating about needing better software etc to realise their so-far-undiscovered potential?
So many great writers, musicians, engineers, producers achieved their greatness whilst being limited by their working environment, and yet relished it! Thinking (it's late, and in no order of merit) George Martin, Brian Eno, Beethoven , Mozart, Bowie, Propellerheads, the list goes on etc.
How many SOS 'classic track' type articles ever result in a quote like '...and it wasn't until Cubase SX3 that I felt truly released...' ?
If you're going to play the game, then grow up please guys. It's not the tools, it's the workman, to paraphrase an old proverb.

-edit- In fact I think MOST composers/writers have to work within limited constraints, that's part of the process - we'd all like a live orchestra in *here* , Jimi Hendrix to solo over *those* 8 bars, or Lennon to write a witty line *here*. Yeah, right.

Raphus, Yes you are right : the copyright restrictions on books are a lot older than on software, although they do get updated :

(From Terry Pratchett's Thud )
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

It is worth noting the typical EULA for music ( yes, we buy a license and media on that ) which was developed before commercial software got to it's current stage. That reads :

The rights of the producer and the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorised copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring or rental of this work prohibited. So sucks to you

Which is what I put on the last album I released and is the standard copyright clause that should be somewhere on any album that you buy. Under that, I can lend someone an album, but if they make a copy, the copyright has been violated. Tut tut.

I'd publish a typical EULA but it is now huge and complex and I can't really be bothered. But just as the music copyright restrictions were more complex than the original book ones, so modern software is more complex still. Simply putting 'Don't knick it in any way or else' doesn't cut it these days it seems....

PS: what Herewego said !!

I also completely agree with what herewego said. The music that can be made on a collection of buckets and cans by some kids on a street corner is usually more interesting that what is played on most radio stations. And those buckets and cans were cheap.

The fact that I'm not allowed to copy a book still does not address the fact that I can borrow it as often as I like, thereby enjoying all the benefits of ownership without giving any money to its author. I'll excuse myself from this post now, though, since I seem to be the only one interested in this phenomenon.

Apologies if this goes on..

As a research student, I'd like to contribute an opinion.

The problem I find is that increasingly undergraduate students expect the world from their university courses, when this is just not possible. Yes, they do pay fees (as I do, albeit through scholarship), but that does not mean that they will get a super-fast computer with the latest software on it. Their fees go on a multiplicity of items and expenditures, whether they like it or not - that's the way it works. Yes universities try and keep up with the latest technology, but you have to remember that whenever they want to upgrade they either have to tender or if they're lucky, they get a research grant. They also have to upgrade every computer in the suite to ensure that every student in that year is using the same equipment, otherwise its not fair. The capital involved when there are 30+ PCs is considerable. In a very tightly controlled arena, I think mustech depts have a very difficult task of keeping up with latest equipment and teaching new techniques/software. That said, there are still amazing things you can do on old computers, it'll just take a bit longer.

Secondly, some students still expect the degree of spoon-feeding that took place in college. This is wrong. Universities are a place of learning, whether under instruction or through individual learning. Students who don't investigate in their own time won't suceed. Which brings me on to the problem of equipment. It is the student's responsibility to use what they have as creatively as possible. I think Herewego said it quite succinctly. In my undergraduate days, I found an old AppleMac running some software which I learnt to program. I spent as much time as I could in the studio learning it until I was familiar and could work it with ease. I then based my dissertation on it. What I'm saying is that yes lectures may consume a day, but there is still some time available. If there isn't then its a student's responsibility to complain.

Students should be content with what they've got. They should realise that you don't need the latest update to get the best sound. They may expect it but its not practicable. You can still do some amazing stuff with old tools. Its up to students to find out. If lecturers dont tell them, then students should ask! They shouldn't be expected to be spoon-fed, or spoon-led

Sorry, rant over!

Edit - People can abuse books/libraries by photocopying too much..

--------------------
David

Edited by DavidW (05/12/05 12:27 AM)

well,

the thing is this - same with everything - its evolve or die.

People WOULD steal from your house if it wasnt locked. Similarly people use pirated software becasue they can. when teh manufacturers either fold up cuz they cant sustain an income any longer OR make pirating very hard or neaxt to impossible then they will. and that will be an end to it.

Its the same with music piracy - we can whine and moan all we like about piracy destroying the music industry, and some can whine the opposing story of the majors bringing it upon themselvs. The labels and majors even moan about this. Everyone is always looking for someone to blame. Do you know who survives and wins? Those who learn to survive given the current conditions. Those who evolve and find a new way to generate earnings. Piracy and theft is wrong. But whose gonna stop it? this is a losing debate with no answer. things seldom have the simple one term solution we all look for. Evolve.

--------------------
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

I always try to avoid these piracy threads whenever possible but thought I'd make a comment on this one.
Comparing piracy to theft is always a contentious issue and I personally feel that there is a difference between piracy and what we commonly acknowledge as theft. (and apologies to everyone who have read the myriad threads that inevitably end up mentioning stealing your neighbours ferrari - I will try not to mention said Italian car manufacturer)

If I/you want to download a cracked copy of whatever software (audio or not) I/you could do so in the knowledge that I have not deprived another individual the right to use that product - if I download a pirated copy of, for arguments sake, Ableton Live, then I have not broken into my mates house and taken his copy and deleted the program from his/her hard drive preventing him/her from using it. That to me is the textbook definition of theft, the unlawful taking of a tangible good.

I would not dream of breaking into my neighbours house and stealing CDs - I could however download my neighbours music collection from P2P software and feel content that I have not prevented my neighbour from listening to his music collection.

This is, again in my humble opinion, why people pirate software. If pirating software actually involved denying a legitimate user the ability to use the goods they have purchased (or purchased a license to use) then I think you would see piracy decline by a huger percentage almost overnight.

Everyone would steal if their life depended on it, but other than that you can broadly say that there are 2 types of people - those who would steal and those who would not steal. People from both of these groups will used cracked software as piracy is not stealing in the traditional sense - you are not denying another human being from what they have earnt.

Yes you can throw in arguments about software developers making less revenue, programmers having to implement security measures which degrade performance etc but the fact of the matter is that as long as piracy is seen as 'harmless' on the most base of levels (i.e. not depriving another individual) it will continue to thrive.

If it was a case of 'piracy is theft' then all the people out there pirating software would also be stealing from shops, friends, neighbours and committing credit card fraud.

This of course is the 'cancer' (or at least is until film studios/record labels/software devlopers change their model) of the digital age - with everything boiled down to 0 & 1s, I could sit down in front of my computer and copy the binary code from one prog/song/video to make my own identical copy/clone of the prog/song video. Yes it could take years but it wouldn't have hurt anyone...would it?

I feel that to approach the warez debate with the blinkered approach of 'piracy is theft' is missing the point - the makority of people who copy software/audio/video don't see it as stealing, they see it as getting 'something for nothing' - this is very different. the warez groups are offering a product - they are not stealing from another human being.

Maybe you could, to an extent, compare software piracy with benefit fraud - people committing this offence don't necessarily see themselves as thieves as they are not (directly) taking money from other people. Instead they are getting 'something for nothing'.

Maybe comparing piracy with fraud would be more apt? - Theft is in the eye of the beholder.

Edited by ben m (05/12/05 01:27 AM)

i don't what it is you people fail to understand. Eventually the onus of burden is laid at our, and I mean those interested in actually investing in the tools they need to do their job!, doorstep because it is the law abiding purchaser that has to foot the tab for the increase in software price due to extended development times required to enhance software sercurity. ok, I have invested in nuendo...which cost me £1300. What use would that investment be to me if software pirates were to drive Steinberg into abandoning develpment of this product due to the fact that in real terms it has become too expensive to plough anymore revenue into R&D for this product. So you see it's not just the software house you are depriving, you are ultimately also depriving me of my investment.

Beya