All these sentimental 'starving children in Africa' arguments are nonsense. I have yet to meet anyone who uses cracked software using it to help the starving poor. My income is from music and when a choreoegrapher asked me if they could use my music for a dance performance by disabled and poor children in Kwa Zululand, both the musician and myself gave a free Cd which could be copied onto Revox as many times as they wanted. Probably every composer on this forum would do the same. The software this was recorded and edited on was bought and legal as it should have been, piracy is wrong.
Why should creative people be deprived of their income. You can not buy a cracked version of a solicitor, dentist, builder, electrician etc.
As for the argument that music would still be made despite income - yes, but to what standard if you can only produce it when you get back from you day job? There are electronica records I buy produced by non-professionals but they are not up to the standard of the real professionals like Richie Hawtins, Monolake etc. These arguments are rationalisation of you criminal activites. I bet you don't wear homemade clothes, get an amateur to cut you hair, go to someone who does dentistry as a hobby.

Piracy, dont make me laugh. Heres a credential for you. I was once asked by the creative director of a company I was doing some work for to copy a country CD for some visiting American clents who were having their arses painted with corporate lipstick. I refused stating that I wouldnt violate the artists copyright. Guess how much more work i got from him... answers on a postcard...

For starters, I bet just about everyone on this thread has at one time or another, copied a CD or taped an album from a friend or library. I bet many people here have also ripped a CD for use on an mp3 player or computer jukebox.

I bet theres also a number of people who have sat with a track playing across their monitors and then created a pastiche of that exact track for commercial gain. Thus depriving the original artist of income that they would have earned if this practice *wasnt* acceptable.

I bet theres also a number of hobbyist musicians here who [seem to always] work in IT. Who have taken some IT consumables, low cost parts or stationary for their personal use.

I liked the discussion above regarding that great little machine that can create free pies. My alter ego Spock would have surely commented on the fictional 'Replicator' as fitted to new star ships. In the virtual world anything digital can be replicated!

I wonder about the proliferation of Digital radio receivers and the quality of copies available across the airwaves. I also wonder about the DVD/Hard disk recorders now available for under two hundred quid. These nifty devices are able to make high quality copies and burn them straight to DVD.

The whole thing seems to be at odds with itself. With for instance one half of Sony Corp bleating about piracy while the other half is selling piracy tools. And not stealthily either. They are advertised on prime time and prime space.

Its a bit like Yale selling lock picking tools isnt it.

So the old consumer is asked to "do the right thing". And those who do are increasingly mis-understood in our "grab a bargain" society.

The question is how do we stop it. How do we return to the days of a quarter million single sales for a number one? Has anyone got any good ideas about how to stop the piracy of digital data? It would be more interesting than just another post that says "all pirates and thieves are bastards". Even though they are!

I guess the worst part of music piracy is that we have to have another bottle of bloody pop star perfume shoved up our nose!

Quote noiseconjecture:

---

You can not buy a cracked version of a solicitor......

---

debateable! ;-)

Quote beyarecords:

---

More rubbish!! Have you ever read the license/terms of usage agreement associated with software?? When you do, for the first time obviously, it will stipulate that under no circumstances is the software allowed to be copied, manipulated in shape or form. So when you crack/copy the software this then breaks the license agreement and becomes theft! Why?, well because the want every copy used to have been purchased beforehand.

Beya

---

Interesting thought: Is there any other market where the product is licensed on a non-transferrable basis, or is/are intellectual properties unique in this respect?
I am asking, as it seems like the originators of software invented this method of distribution rather than it being something that grew naturally in the course of commerce, as did most of the other agreed practices currently in use.
It really is a one-sided relationship, where the "buyer" is actually expected to pay in full up front for the product but then only alloweeed to actually dispose of it as though it were a rented or leased service.
Plus of course we are expected to pay top dollar "because there is a limited market" when the sellers are by and large creating the limits by their opressive marketing ploys.

Now do not misunderstand me - I am not condoning "software theft" in any way, but I do feel like we are being taken for a ride by many of the software companies that have a captive market for their product (listening, Bill?)and agree that a lot of the time the pricing structure IS geared to people making money off the product, forgetting that the vast majority of users probably don`t stand to make back the cost of the software ever in their lifetime.

Perhaps what is really needed is a more modest investment requirement at the outset and then a per-unit shipped/profit accrued fee based on sales of finished product on which the software was used?

This is probably impractical, but having just played with a couple of plugins on the free versions shipped with my soundcard, I went and had a look at the upgrade prices and nearly sh*t myself.

I could buy a hardware unit that does the same sort of thing for the price that these greedy baskets want for their plugins.

Now bearing in mind that most if not all hardware effects units these days are DSP based and therefore contain sof(or firm)ware code that actually does the work, why do we still seem to be paying similar prices for software only products as we do for hardware?
The R&D cannot be that different, certainly the development costs SHOULD be less, plus you generally get a PRINTED manual with hardware.
Shipping costs? Don`t get me started.

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Quote IvanSC:

---

Perhaps what is really needed is a more modest investment requirement at the outset and then a per-unit shipped/profit accrued fee based on sales of finished product on which the software was used?

---

I think this is the best approach - I mentioned something similar earlier in the thread. Like a royalty system. It would require the user to declare all uses of the software, so is open to abuse, but it would be a fairer pricing scheme.

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

Quote ow:

---

The question is how do we stop it. How do we return to the days of a quarter million single sales for a number one? Has anyone got any good ideas about how to stop the piracy of digital data?

---

I suggested above a system that software can only open when you have swiped you credit card through a card reader attached to a USB port. My reasoning being that very few people would risk giving away copies of a credit card and illegal copies would be dealt with harshly by the current legal system. Are there any real problems with this system?

And when we finally get around to any idea I have had for years then we can all get along like a house on fire
Get rid of PCs, get dumb-ish terminals, Use a specialised Music Software Host, rent software via the old mainframe pricing concept of timesharew on line, store data on line
Piracy issues disappear, software licenses intact, your data is backed up, you can choose to use different software versions or products
Same idea as we do for business users with products like Citrix
We can also start to think alonf the lines of 3 tier architectures to spread the distribution load
The software can then be written in different OS's using the best OS and language for the job and not dependant on Windows and the overhead caused by that
And then we can get back to making music and not trying to be second rate PC technicians

Edited by Simon (aka UK03878) (06/12/05 10:38 AM)

Quote IvanSC:

---

Is there any other market where the product is licensed on a non-transferrable basis.

---

How about a musician playing a gig? - he won't be pleased if a member of the audience records the gig and sells the resulting recording to others without paying the muso.

Quote IvanSC:

---

It really is a one-sided relationship, where the "buyer" is actually expected to pay in full up front for the product

---

... say a musician's going rate is £200 for a gig - he won't be pleased if the promoter says I'll pay you on a sliding scale starting at £30 depending on what we take on the bar.

Quote IvanSC:

---

I could buy a hardware unit that does the same sort of thing for the price that these greedy baskets want for their plugins.

---

... true, but in some situations software is preferable - recall of settings, space saved etc


Abou the thread in general ...

I think the problem here is that "professional" versions of software are not expensive for genuine *money-making* professional use. It is pricey if you aren't making money from its use, but frankly if you aren't earning your living via the software you almost certainly don't need it - a cut down "lite" version will almost certainly suffice, albeit with less cachet ...

The idea that professional tools will help one to become professional is nonsense, people with real talent shine through regardless of the tools they are using. Unfortunately, this old "unleash your creativity" chestnut is a potent marketing tool ...

Quote beyarecords:

---

Quote Chillum:

---

Firstly, software 'piracy' (arrrrrrrrr!) is not the same as theft. When you steal something, you deprive the owner of it. This obviously doesn't apply when you copy software. It can be argued (with some justification) that you deprive the copyright owner of some potential earnings, but this still isn't the same thing.

---

More rubbish!! Have you ever read the license/terms of usage agreement associated with software?? When you do, for the first time obviously, it will stipulate that under no circumstances is the software allowed to be copied, manipulated in shape or form. So when you crack/copy the software this then breaks the license agreement and becomes theft! Why?, well because the want every copy used to have been purchased beforehand.

Beya

---

Lets just get this perfectly clear. In terms of the law (UK law at least) cracking/copying software IS NOT THEFT. Theft has to involve the intent to permanently deprive (of the thing taken). Copying software in no way deprives the copyright holder of the original software. It is, of course, illegal though.
Whether you think that copying software is in moral terms theft, is another matter.

Quote Neil C:

---

Lets just get this perfectly clear. In terms of the law (UK law at least) copying software IS NOT THEFT. Theft has to involve the intent to permanently deprive. Copying software in no way deprives the copyright holder of the original software.

---

Let me get this right, each time someone receives an illegal copy/crack of a piece of software/music and it is not paid for, you'rre trying to tell me that this not depriving the originator of the material?

So individuals, and peer-to-peer companies which give access to downloading copied/cracked software are being taken to court and sued just for the fun of it right, and because copying software IS NOT THEFT?

You need to stop talking nonsense my friend.

Beya

It may not be the legal definition of theft but it is this
In the case of computer programs and other electronic information the relevant law is contained in regulations made pursuant to an EC Directive (91/250/EEC) - the Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992. These came into effect on 1 January 1993. The overall impact of the regulations is to render computer programs akin to literary works for copyright purposes. The Regulations were not the first protection afforded to software copyright - they were preceded by the Copyright(Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985(the '85 Act)

The overall effect of the current law is to make it illegal to duplicate programs except where permitted - for example in the case of back-up copies.

The penalties for copyright breaches can be severe - in the Magistrates court the offences carry up to 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5000 and in the Crown Court (the higher tier of criminal courts) up to two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

The courts also have the power to order the forfeiture of equipment used in association with the criminal offence - which, arguably, could include associated hardware. The '88 Act also permits the seizure of property at the commencement of an investigation.

The owner of the copyright may additionally sue for breach of copyright in the civil courts with a view to obtaining damages.

Quote Chillum:

---

In an ideal world I'd like to see *all* software, music, literature etc. available for free, but with the user having the option to donate money according to the value s/he feels s/he has derived from it.

---

What do you do for a living...? Would you like your weekly income decided on a shareware basis?

Some musicians/software engineers etc want to be paid for their efforts. That is the offer they are making to potential users. If you disagree that doesn't entitle you to take their stuff! If you don't like the offer, shop elsewhere!

The idea that all "art" should be free devalues the creative arts imo - by all means give away hobbyist efforts, but the genuinely good stuff deserves to be paid for, if nothing else so that the artist can continue to focus on their creative work - for the good of us all ...

Quote noiseconjecture:

---

Quote ow:

---

The question is how do we stop it. How do we return to the days of a quarter million single sales for a number one? Has anyone got any good ideas about how to stop the piracy of digital data?

---

I suggested above a system that software can only open when you have swiped you credit card through a card reader attached to a USB port. My reasoning being that very few people would risk giving away copies of a credit card and illegal copies would be dealt with harshly by the current legal system. Are there any real problems with this system?

---

I just think that the crackers, who are already sophisticated enough to beat usb dongle protection would be able to beat this system. It would stop you from making a copy for your friend. But it wouldnt stop the industrial scale piracy.

I'm certainly not talking nonsense.

I am stating a plain, absolute fact.

If you want to do the research you can verify it.

As to the point of derpivation - example. Person 1 has a piece of software that they wish to market. Person 1 sells it to customer 2. Customer 2 illegally passes it on, the software goes through numerous hands, maybe gets changed and recoded, whatever. If person 1 has kept their copy of the software, no matter what happens to it after they have sold a copy, person 1's orginal version remains with him, unaltered. This is basic physiscs.

As Simon has shown, the offence that has taken place is a copyright infringement, NOT THEFT.
Its a perfectly legitimate point of view to morally consider it as theft, but in terms of the law it is not.

Quote Neil C:

---

I'm certainly not talking nonsense.

I am stating a plain, absolute fact.

If you want to do the research you can verify it.

---

I'm going to ask you a very simple question, are companies/indiviuals being taken to court for downloading/distributing cracked/copied software, Yes or No?? And are they being being sued because it's illegal to download/copy cracked/copied software or because they've got a bit of free time on their hands to mess around with??

Take you time!!

Beya

Quote:

---

Obviously making software is a slightly different kettle of fish, however I truly cannot believe that software would cease to be made if there was no money involved. If there's enough demand for a piece of software, then somebody somewhere will make it. Perhaps they too will do this primarily for their own use, but that certainly doesn't stop anyone else from using it. You only have to look to the open source movement and the number of free VST stuff out there to see the truth of this.

---

The open source movement would & could not exist without the current software industry. How do open source software developers earn a living? - mostly as PAID software developers. Without the current industry they'd have had no training in programming as colleges wouldn't have trained them if there'd been no industry to train them for in the 1st place. With no money coming into the industry it will stagnate - who'd choose to work in an industry that expects you to work for nothing? With no new people coming in, there'll be less innovation. This is the way all industries works - attract new blood and get fresh ideas.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, I'd like to stray into the realms of fantasy, Captain Mainwaring. Imagine I had a machine capable of copying real, physical things for free. Let's say I then baked a really nice cheese and onion pie. I could end world hunger at a stroke, yet I refused to do so unless each starving child in Africa paid me royalties for the use of copies of my pie. Wouldn't this make me some kind of monster?

Now instead of shoes, imagine I made a really great t-shirt. Or a pair of sunglasses. Or an mp3 player, or a car, or a -ok, we could play this game all night ....

Now instead of a pie, imagine I designed a really great pair of shoes. I could give all those poor clichéd African children shoes! Would I be a monster if I refused to do this for free?

---

Nice utopian fantasy you live in ...

By making the stuff for free, you immediately would put pie makers and shoemakers etc. out of business, that's basic economics. This would throw millions of people out of work, and while they'd not be short of shoes or cheese and onion pies they wouldn't have any way of buying a roof over their heads etc.

Quote:

---

When does it become morally *right* for me to deprive people of something they could have for free? Because this is the behaviour that anti-piracy laws exist to enforce, and I'm really not sure what the moral justification for this is.

---

The justification is that people should be rewarded for their work, altruism is all very well but people do need to live. Why is it that software developers and musicians and other creatives are expected to work for free?

Quote:

---

Everything would still have a value, it would just be a value decided by the buyer rather than the seller.

---

That's what happens now - it's called the law of supply and demand . If a product is priced too highly it doesn't sell.

It has broken down to extent in certain industries - software being one of them. Why? Due to a lack of competition. If you want a high-end photo editor, you have 1 choice - Photoshop. It's virtually impossible for anyone else to enter that market now, this at least in part due to piracy. If I create a competitor and sell it for (say) £100, what's a poor student to do? Spend £100 on the new (possibly better) software or get a 'free' copy of the 'industry standard'. Most people seem to regard the latter as their best option.

Quote:

---

Quote Commander:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's going to pay £500 when they can pay 50p?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone who feels a moral obligation to pay what they consider a fair price for the (for want of a better phrase) amount of usefulness they've got out of it. Probably, in fact, the same kind of person who currently feels a moral obligation to buy legitimate copies of software rather than using 'pirated' versions.

---

Based on what I see here and elsewhere I reckon that'd reduce their income by about 90% ...

Quote beyarecords:

---

Quote Neil C:

---

I'm certainly not talking nonsense.

I am stating a plain, absolute fact.

If you want to do the research you can verify it.

---

I'm going to ask you a very simple question, are companies/indiviuals being taken to court for downloading/distributing cracked/copied software, Yes or No?? And are they being being sued because it's illegal to download/copy cracked/copied software or because they've got a bit of free time on their hands to mess around with??

Take you time!!

Beya

---

NeilC isnt saying its not illegal. Hes saying its not theft by the legal def. And he is right.

There's a lot of noramlly sensible people coming out with some absolute waffle in this thread.

Quote beyarecords:

---

Let me get this right, each time someone receives an illegal copy/crack of a piece of software/music and it is not paid for, you'rre trying to tell me that this not depriving the originator of the material?

---

How can you deprive the originator of the material if they created the material in the first place? Or do you, by 'originator', mean someone other than the party with whom the copyrighted work in question originated? If so, please be more specific.

Quote beyarecords:

---

So individuals, and peer-to-peer companies which give access to downloading copied/cracked software are being taken to court and sued just for the fun of it right, and because copying software IS NOT THEFT?

---

Yes thats right, they are getting sued because it's not theft, its a copyright violation: and copyright violation is dealt with under civil law, whereas theft is a criminal offence and as such is dealt with under criminal law. People get prosecuted for theft, and sued for copyright violation. Your foam mouthed sarcasm has inadvertently led you up the right path, well done.

Quote beyarecords:

---

You need to stop talking nonsense my friend.

---

You need to think about what you are posting before you post it, my friend.

Quote Doublehelix:

---

I find nothing wrong with borrowing a book, because it is a physical entity that was bought and paid for at some point, and when you borrow it, you are not copying a physical entity.

With software however, you can make an exact copy, and use that *copy*, so rather than *borrowing* a physical entity, you are making your own version, which in my book is stealing.

As I pointed out however, if you owned a version of Cubase that you installed on a computer, and I borrowed the computer *and* the software for a week while I make a song, I would say I was borrowing a physical entity, and that would be OK. You are unable to use the software while I am making my record....

So again, my bottom line here:

If you want to "borrow" software, you do not make a copy of that software, but rather you must use the *same* version of that software.

---

DH, please, take some time to reread this post and consider the logic behind it. I accept that in legal terms, borrowing a copyrighted work is not the same as making a copy of it - but this argument is framed in moral terms, and from a moral point of view what possible difference can it make to the originator of the work whether you deprive the legitimate license holder of the right to enjoy the work during your period of use? The bottom line, to my eyes, is that they are still being deprived of income. i'm sure the commander and his mortgage adviser would agree. This kind of micro hairsplitting might salve your conscience but it's not doing anything for this debate, apart from muddying the waters still further.

Can I also take this opprtunity to to knock the 'stealing a ferrari, or other desirable car/luxury item' argument on the head. This is not a discussion about ownership. We've already established that no one owns their software, however they acquired it - instead, the copyright holder grants a license to use the software on payment of a flat fee, regardless of how many times the software is used.

This is not analogous to buying a car - instead, it's like trying to rent a car and being told that the cost is a flat fee of £16K regardless of whether you need it for 5 years or for a weekend. As everyone will appreciate, that would be a crazy way to run a car rental business.

As i said in my post on page 1 of this thread, I dont think it's any different for software. If all I'm buying is the right to use a piece of software then the charge levied should be proportional to how much i use it, just as it is for practically every other service on earth. Every business in every sector, if they want to succeed, has to come up with a pricing structure that is acceptable to their customer base. Music software manufacturers havent yet been able to do this and they are suffering as a result. I accept that some of that is due to technological problems beyond their control.

But then again... how interested are software manufacturers in really protecting themselves against software piracy? They make a lot of noise about it, but how much actual innovation do we see in the market?

For example, cubase SX and wavelab are premium products, aimed ostensibly at professional users. Steinberg is a big company with a great deal of clout in the market. You cant use their software without some form of hardware, typically a soundcard.

So, if i were the CEO of Steinberg and my top priority was to stop piracy of my products, i would cut a deal with a respected mid-sized soundcard developer - say Echo or RME - to embed my software in their hardware and sell it as a package. That would cut piracy at a stroke, and result in much faster and less buggy software. The package would be more expensive than the software alone but not drastically so, once economies of scale and increased sales to people who would previosly have used pirated software were taken into account - say in the order of 30-50% more. That kind of cost increase wouldnt be enough to deter professional users, and as has been noted above, there are lots of great cheap or free software around with more than enough functionality for non-pro users.

So why doesnt it happen? BECAUSE IT WOULD HAMMER STEINBERG'S MARKET SHARE!!!!! I really cant stress this point enough. If the big software developers had a means of stopping piracy without damaging thier market share of course they would take it - but if doing so means all those millions of students, hobbyists and casual users switched to someone else's software, then they are not interested. This is not about morality, stealing or starving children. This is about big business, market penetration and corperate positioning.

This is a very complex issue and people really arent doing it any justice by carrying on the way they are in this thread. If musicians are going to be able to lobby successfully to get better tools and better support for the jobs they do, they need to start looking at the software market in a much more realistic light.


Raphus, IvanSC, simon (aka UK03818) - Thank you. Some at least are talking sense.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/benjunctionbox

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

So, if i were the CEO of Steinberg and my top priority was to stop piracy of my products, i would cut a deal with a respected mid-sized soundcard developer - say Echo or RME - to embed my software in their hardware and sell it as a package. That would cut piracy at a stroke, and result in much faster and less buggy software.

---

True
Not many pirated versions of Pro Tools HD out there are there?
Still think that copyright thing is a criminal offence though (you get sent to prison!)

Uncomfortable as I am in siding with the late Dr Fister my thoughts on this epic thread are rather simple.

If I choose to use pirated software I am robbing, not the software companies, but my fellow musicians and engineers!

If 50% of music software being used is pirated then surely, for those who are paying, the price is (approximately) double what it needs to be.

Users of pirated software are effectively being sponsored by people who pay for the software, not by the companies who sell it. If no one bought it, the software would not exist!

Bob

Edited by Bob Bickerton (06/12/05 01:11 PM)

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

How can you deprive the originator of the material if they created the material in the first place? Or do you, by 'originator', mean someone other than the party with whom the copyrighted work in question originated? If so, please be more specific.

---

What is it you can't grasp here? Software manufacturer A develops product B for sale. Person C purchases product B, makes a copy/crack of prouct B and distributes it on the net. 1,000 downloads of cracked/copied product B are made every week. Manufacturer A has sold 1 copy of their software but have been denied a potential 1,000 sales. Copyright law determines who the rightfull owner of a product is, and if it is stipulated in their licensing agreement with third parties, you and me, that their software is only for sale and is not to be distributed/copied to other parties and is, then this is THEFT!

Simple!!

Beya

Alright here's a suggestion. The people who are most against cracked software seem to be professional musicians, studio people, software/sample developers. Maybe we should ask people before we work with them that they have to swear an oath saying no cracked software was used in the production of their music. Also if they are using computers live the same thing. Those that own record companies could do the same thing. I have never worked out why people who break the law are admired. They are not couragious opposition polititans in a violent police state, they are petty criminals who believe they have a right to what they want for nothing, knowing usually there are enough people paying to carry these parasitic freeloaders.

Quote Bill C:

---

The idea that professional tools will help one to become professional is nonsense, people with real talent shine through regardless of the tools they are using. Unfortunately, this old "unleash your creativity" chestnut is a potent marketing tool ...

---

So very true.
With regards to Photoshop example a cut version Photoshop Elements is not so cut down infunctionality except in price. Logic Express and Final Cut Express aren't too shabby either.

Quote Bill C:

---

The idea that all "art" should be free devalues the creative arts imo - by all means give away hobbyist efforts, but the genuinely good stuff deserves to be paid for, if nothing else so that the artist can continue to focus on their creative work - for the good of us all ...

---

This is the single most sensible post in this thread. Well said sir!

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

Quote Simon (aka UK03878):

---

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

So, if i were the CEO of Steinberg and my top priority was to stop piracy of my products, i would cut a deal with a respected mid-sized soundcard developer - say Echo or RME - to embed my software in their hardware and sell it as a package. That would cut piracy at a stroke, and result in much faster and less buggy software.

---

True
Not many pirated versions of Pro Tools HD out there are there?
Still think that copyright thing is a criminal offence though (you get sent to prison!)

---

This is actually a topical point. Had i written my last post 6 weeks ago, I would have been entirely correct. However, on October 31st this year parliament implemented the EU Copyright Directive in UK law, and this does, in theory, make it a criminal offence to violate copyright.

However it needs to be pointed out that no-one has been prosecuted under this legislation yet, and it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone would get jailed under it for domestic copying - the DTI stated explicitly that the legeslation was aimed at commercial pirates and individual users wouldnt be targeted.

Sidney Austin and Dino Simm were jailed this time last year for running a DVD piracy ring, but obviously that was before this legeslation came into force. Details on what they were actually convicted of are a bit obscure, but it seems to have been for possessing fake DVDs as opposed to the act of copying them - i think this is trading standards legislation but i dont know. In any case, one of them had a quantity of cocaine on him and you can definately get banged up for that!

In any case my original point stands because this new law hasnt been used, and to the best of my knowledge all copyright cases that have to date been brought against individuals (and the vast majority brought against commercial entities, eg napster, this years grokster ruling) have been brought under civil law. In any case beya's post refered to individuals getting sued which can only happen under civil law.

And with reference to the original point: if copyright violation was legally the same as theft, why would we need new legislation to make it a criminal offence?

Thanks for prompting me to clarify though.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/benjunctionbox

You, I, anyone has the right to produce a product for which they wish to be paid for. If you wish to use this product, then buy it. Otherwise you always have the option of spending your own time and effort developing a piece of software that you won't have to pay anyone else for!

Beya

Quote beyarecords:

---

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

How can you deprive the originator of the material if they created the material in the first place? Or do you, by 'originator', mean someone other than the party with whom the copyrighted work in question originated? If so, please be more specific.

---

What is it you can't grasp here? Software manufacturer A develops product B for sale. Person C purchases product B, makes a copy/crack of prouct B and distributes it on the net. 1,000 downloads of cracked/copied product B are made every week. Manufacturer A has sold 1 copy of their software but have been denied a potential 1,000 sales. Copyright law determines who the rightfull owner of a product is, and if it is stipulated in their licensing agreement with third parties, you and me, that their software is only for sale and is not to be distributed/copied to other parties and is, then this is THEFT!

Simple!!

Beya

---

We've established beyond all doubt that copyright violation is not legally the same thing as theft. If your personal opinion is that it is morally the same thing as theft, then thats a seperate issue.

In the meantime, try answering the question.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/benjunctionbox

Quote Commander:

---

Quote Bill C:

---

The idea that all "art" should be free devalues the creative arts imo - by all means give away hobbyist efforts, but the genuinely good stuff deserves to be paid for, if nothing else so that the artist can continue to focus on their creative work - for the good of us all ...

---

This is the single most sensible post in this thread. Well said sir!

---

Loth as i am to disagree with a colossus of naval warfare, I'm very uneasy with this. If you follow that logic of that statement through, you are saying that artists can be judged on how good they are purely by how rich they are, and we all know thats bollox.

So many artists have been screwed over down the years because they thought that they would automatically get paid because they were good at what they did. Artists generally need to focus a little less on thier creative work and a little more on their businesses.

In any case, I dont see how this is relevent to the debate about software, although i appreciate the original quote is out of context.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/benjunctionbox

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

We've established beyond all doubt that copyright violation is not legally the same thing as theft. If your personal opinion is that it is morally the same thing as theft, then thats a seperate issue.

In the meantime, try answering the question.

---

THE PRODUCT IS NOT YOURS TO USE UNLESS YOU HAVE PAID FOR THE PRIVILEDGE TO USE IT.

Beya

Quote beyarecords:

---

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

We've established beyond all doubt that copyright violation is not legally the same thing as theft. If your personal opinion is that it is morally the same thing as theft, then thats a seperate issue.

In the meantime, try answering the question.

---

THE PRODUCT IS NOT YOURS TO USE UNLESS YOU HAVE PAID FOR THE PRIVILEDGE TO USE IT.

Beya

---

Well no, actually I can use pretty much any software i like without paying a bean for it, should i choose to. Surely thats what this thread is all about?

--------------------
www.myspace.com/benjunctionbox

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

Well no, actually I can use pretty much any software i like without paying a bean for it, should i choose to. Surely thats what this thread is all about?

---

Wrong again! The thread was about piracy of software, and in that vain and as I said before:

THE PRODUCT IS NOT YOURS TO USE UNLESS YOU HAVE PAID FOR THE PRIVILEDGE TO USE IT.

Beya

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

Quote Commander:

---

Quote Bill C:

---

The idea that all "art" should be free devalues the creative arts imo - by all means give away hobbyist efforts, but the genuinely good stuff deserves to be paid for, if nothing else so that the artist can continue to focus on their creative work - for the good of us all ...

---

This is the single most sensible post in this thread. Well said sir!

---

Loth as i am to disagree with a colossus of naval warfare, I'm very uneasy with this.

---

Substitute the word 'art' for software, food, clothes, anything you can think of in fact, and you will see what I mean.

I love the word 'loth' by the way ...

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

Quote beyarecords:

---

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

Well no, actually I can use pretty much any software i like without paying a bean for it, should i choose to. Surely thats what this thread is all about?

---

Wrong again! The thread was about piracy of software

---

Allow me to join the dots for you. What is pirated software? it's software used by people who havent paid for the priviledge to use it. Although it's a contractual right under law, not a priviledge - yet more sloppy language.

Quote beyarecords:

---

and in that vain and as I said before:

THE PRODUCT IS NOT YOURS TO USE UNLESS YOU HAVE PAID FOR THE PRIVILEDGE TO USE IT.

Beya

---

Do you really think that re-stating your argument again makes it any more comprehendable or correct? I'll say it again (using the by now traditional caps key):

THAT STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. iF IT WASNT, THERE WOULDNT BE ANY PIRACY, AND WE WOULDNT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/benjunctionbox

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

THAT STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. iF IT WASNT, THERE WOULDNT BE ANY PIRACY, AND WE WOULDNT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

---

Wrong again!! The fact that the software is 'not your priviledge to use unless you paid for it' does not mean that there are not those amongst us, professioanl joy-riders that they are, who will not use it regardless.

Beya

Quote Martin: the return...:

---

This is not analogous to buying a car - instead, it's like trying to rent a car and being told that the cost is a flat fee of £16K regardless of whether you need it for 5 years or for a weekend. As everyone will appreciate, that would be a crazy way to run a car rental business.

As i said in my post on page 1 of this thread, I dont think it's any different for software. If all I'm buying is the right to use a piece of software then the charge levied should be proportional to how much i use it, just as it is for practically every other service on earth. Every business in every sector, if they want to succeed, has to come up with a pricing structure that is acceptable to their customer base. Music software manufacturers havent yet been able to do this and they are suffering as a result. I accept that some of that is due to technological problems beyond their control.

But then again... how interested are software manufacturers in really protecting themselves against software piracy? They make a lot of noise about it, but how much actual innovation do we see in the market?

For example, cubase SX and wavelab are premium products, aimed ostensibly at professional users. Steinberg is a big company with a great deal of clout in the market. You cant use their software without some form of hardware, typically a soundcard.

So, if i were the CEO of Steinberg and my top priority was to stop piracy of my products, i would cut a deal with a respected mid-sized soundcard developer - say Echo or RME - to embed my software in their hardware and sell it as a package. That would cut piracy at a stroke, and result in much faster and less buggy software. The package would be more expensive than the software alone but not drastically so, once economies of scale and increased sales to people who would previosly have used pirated software were taken into account - say in the order of 30-50% more. That kind of cost increase wouldnt be enough to deter professional users, and as has been noted above, there are lots of great cheap or free software around with more than enough functionality for non-pro users.

So why doesnt it happen? BECAUSE IT WOULD HAMMER STEINBERG'S MARKET SHARE!!!!! I really cant stress this point enough. If the big software developers had a means of stopping piracy without damaging thier market share of course they would take it - but if doing so means all those millions of students, hobbyists and casual users switched to someone else's software, then they are not interested. This is not about morality, stealing or starving children. This is about big business, market penetration and corperate positioning.

This is a very complex issue and people really arent doing it any justice by carrying on the way they are in this thread. If musicians are going to be able to lobby successfully to get better tools and better support for the jobs they do, they need to start looking at the software market in a much more realistic light.
/quote]


If your car rental provider want to charge you that much for renting a car, you would go elsewhere!


If you think £300 is too much to pay for cubase sx then try Music Studio from magix its only £50! (still no SOS review? Maybe reviewing this would give some more acceptability to this P.O.V to our descerning yet financially retiscent freinds...)


But of course we couldn't do this "'cos magix aint cubase innit...bizarrely what we covet most is the "rip off" products made by the "corporate whores" we so despise..."

Cusbase is only what £300 - this does not make it a premuim product... Sure its not dirt cheap but compare it to the price of say a Manley EQ or a RADAR system (or for that matter nuendo) Those products are expensive, not only because of the high quality engineering, but also because there is a limited market - If we take the line that only pro's would buy it then steinburg would never make any cash - How many "audio pros" are out there - Not as many as there used to be (because of the rise of home recording).

Observant readers will notice the words "when I go to university next year" etc contained in many of the posts that whinge about how software is overpriced... Recording music does not in fact have to be an expensive hobby, but if you have bought in to the marketing mans hype that you need certain equipment so that your girlfriend or whover thinks the song you wrote about her sounds "pro" then I suggest you stop wasting time on internet forums & get yourselves a paper round...

Cheers



Pat

Phew, lots of interesting replies here. Where to start..

Quote beyarecords:

---

Quote Chillum:

---

Then obviously you'd have to find another source of income. I suspect you'd still find the time to make some music, though.

---

Let me get this right, you're a musician who makes their living from making/selling music, and your livelyhood is being compromised by people like yourself who think there is no problem with stealing peoples means of looking after themselves, and the response that you are given to your financial plight is to go and find another career path?!

---

My response was simply meant as a practical answer - if you can't make a living one way, you need to find another way to make a living, or die.

Quote beyarecords:

---

What if music is the only thing you can/want to do what then, and who the f&*k are you to tell anyone that they have to change their career path because you think it's a good idea to steal from them.

---

Excuse me. Nowhere have said that I think it's a good idea to steal from anybody. Attack the arguments please, not the person that presented them.

Quote beyarecords:

---

Of course i'm wishing that the karma you believe in, rewards you back handsomely.

---

What makes you think you know what I believe in?

Quote Chillum:

---

What makes you think you know what I believe in?

---

I'm basing my replys on comments you made, or is it normal behaviour for you to defend opinions that you yourself don't believe in?!

Beya

Quote noiseconjecture:

---

All these sentimental 'starving children in Africa' arguments are nonsense. I have yet to meet anyone who uses cracked software using it to help the starving poor.

---

The intention of my 'starving African children' allegory was to try and make people see that, just perhaps, the moral issues here aren't quite as clear-cut as they may seem. I'd be a monster if I deprived them of food, probably not a monster if I deprived them of widescreen TVs, somewhere between the two there's a moral grey area, which intrigues me.

Quote noiseconjecture:

---

As for the argument that music would still be made despite income - yes, but to what standard if you can only produce it when you get back from you day job? There are electronica records I buy produced by non-professionals but they are not up to the standard of the real professionals like Richie Hawtins, Monolake etc.

---

I see a chicken-and-egg situation here. Are they better musicians because they're professionals, or are they professionals because they're better musicians?

Quote noisconjecture:

---

These arguments are rationalisation of you criminal activites. I bet you don't wear homemade clothes, get an amateur to cut you hair, go to someone who does dentistry as a hobby.

---

How dare you accuse me of criminal activities!

I'm not here to try and convince people that 'piracy' isn't wrong. I'm here because this is a subject which interests and concerns me, and I'd like to hear what people have to say about it. Hopefully this'll also help me clarify my own views on the issue.

fer fecks sake everyone, stop and take a step back. Surely you've all been involved in this same argument before? Don't you remember what always happens? You wake up one mornign and realise you're older and time has passed you by. I'm a little teapot. Blurp.

My right to use an illegal copy? Are you serious? I paid eleven hundred pounds for Nuendo. It crashes periodically with a dongle error BOTH ON MY PC AND MY MAC.

What a load of rubbish? Look pal if yours works then good luck to you, Mine does not work reliably, and in a studio situation that is INTOLERABLE.

Now get real.

--------------------
No More Kisses