i never really used to care either way, but now i absolutely HATE people who use cracked software!!!!

i was talking to a couple guys who wanted to do an electronic sideproject with me, and they were talking about all the software they had and i said it must have costed them a fortune. they said, "nah i didn't spend a [ ****** ] penny on this [ ****** ]." and laughed about it. it made me hate them. they don't even TRY to buy what they can, they just take everything for free.

so then you have people like me, who work hard and probably spend more than they should on buying all this stuff, and some little puke bag just sits around collecting it all illegally. i never realized how much i hated this before!

last night my girlfriend came home and said that she had a present for me. she handed me a cracked copy of sampletank 2 XL for mac osx, which is a program i've been meaning to buy when i can afford it, and i threw it in the garbage. i hate parasites like these people.

--------------------
i use illogic 7

Meh, you have a point, but to be fair, its not like your avarage student can afford to spend £500 odd on software. My 'theory' on it is that I'll buy it when I'm making money from it, or when I can afford to buy it (ie, when I'm in a full time job earning lots of money)... at least people are getting used to these systems and when they can actually afford them they might go and buy them, because they've had good performance from their cracked version. At least we're playing on the same team a bit.

Quote all_on_black:

---

but to be fair, its not like your avarage student can afford to spend £500 odd on software. My 'theory' on it is that I'll buy it when I'm making money from it ...

---

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

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

that is [ ****** ] retarded!!!!

so people who actually work to pay for this stuff have to buy it, just to support the companies so that freeloading leaches can take whatever they want?!? and they DON'T pay for it. they just downlaod it and that is that. every time a new version comes out they just download again.

so if you are a student who can't afford it then use buy a cut down version until you can. these companies don't owe you anything! yeah, i'm just gonna walk into a restaurant, hold it up, and serve people and if it starts making me money, then i'll maybe buy one of my own. the restaurant owes that to me. it is my birth right.

people like you make me sick. if everyone was like you there would be NO software because the companies would have no meny to develop it. and, if it wasn't for so many little pukes like you cracking everything the software would run faster because there wouldn't be so much code involved in security. a steinberg guy told me that half of the code in SX is used solely for security. he said without it it would run a LOT faster and smoother. but hey, they owe it to you. why don't you go into a store and steal some rackmount gear and a mixing console to? they'll understand...just show them your student ID card.

--------------------
i use illogic 7

When i first started out, i downloaded a crack copy of Cubase VST, and yeah i decided i liked it and was right for me so i went out and bought (the much more expensive) SL3.

If i hadn't tried Cubase VST i wouldn't have even considered buying SL3, hasn't that just earnt them £250?

What i did may have been illegal, but i don't see how it did any harm to the company.

But yeah, i do agree when it comes to downloading masses of software and using them, sometimes commercially, that it is stealing.

Quote:

---

its not like your avarage student can afford to spend £500 odd on software

---

Two points :

a) no - but the college that they attend can and does
b) does the phrase 'educational discount' ring any bells?

There are so many 'cut down' versions and alternative freeware / shareware out there that the 'I can't afford it' argument doesn't hold up ( ignoring the obvious ethical and legal issues ).

unfortunatly cracked software is just one of the things that is an accepted vice in this industry,
the main reason i think is down to:

-the software must be fairly easy to crack (hey im no expert at this so i may be wrong)

-a few well known artists have made their name using cracked software (even publicising the fact). this gives it a slightly glamerous edge (remebering that the pistols were notorious for having stolen gear shows this isnt a new problem, nor is it limited to software)

- their is no deterent against this piracy, heck i can go onto ebay right now and buy a "best of music software" CD or even trawl the web and get most of it for free. i doubt it very much if i ended up with getting some handcuffs slapped on me.


now im a student doing a MT course and a year ago i shelled out nearly 2 grand on a DAW and small set up, now i could only afford Cubase SL at the time but this was fine for what i was doing at the time. mind u i could do with the upgrade to SX now and thats somthing iam quite prepared to pay for
at college however there are various cracked copies of most of the major sequencers, VST's and softsynths doing the rounds, and i would be a liar if i said i hadnt used some of them. but i try not to make use of them to much and if i like a certain piece of software i do have the intention of buying it (as i have done with a couple).

mind you i do find it strange the way this piracy seems to generate such bad feeling in the community, id bet that a good deal of "complainers" have copied CD's in their collection, or have a box full of copied tapes lying around somwhere, or a few bootlegs of their favorite bands. piracy is piracy and there is no difference. And untill the software houses can prevent it im afraid we all have to live with it.

>a) no - but the college that they attend can and does

Wanna bet?

>b) does the phrase 'educational discount' ring any bells?

Does not exist on all software. And on some that it might it aint much of a discount.

For example the college I am attending the majority of the soud software and ahrdware for our department is provided by two students, myself and one other.

Now that being said I stopped using cracked software in exchange for some OSS software. I own a copy of PT but I hardly use it anymore in favor of Ardour. I also own a variety of other things that I have paid for, so dont think I rip it all myself.

I personally dont complain about students using cracked software myself, when they cross into the world of doing commercial work that is where I think the line needs to be drawn. The reason for this is often students cant get experience using the software any other way. And at least in my line of work one needs to have a portfolio of work built up before I leave college, meaning I need to know software and be able to use it efficiently and quickly. I make a decent amount more than the average college student because of how much I work and the fact I am already working in sound, but most of those I go to school with cant afford the 500-1000 quid on decent software just to learn it. However on the flip side they also dont mind paying for good software and I dont think they will continue using ripped stuff when they can afford decent. A good example of this is two others in sound with me in our department started with cracked software but as they got jobs have upgraded to full software they used while cracked due to knowing it and knowing its capabilities.

Seablade

Quote Dave B:

---

Quote:

---

its not like your avarage student can afford to spend £500 odd on software

---

Two points :

a) no - but the college that they attend can and does
b) does the phrase 'educational discount' ring any bells?

There are so many 'cut down' versions and alternative freeware / shareware out there that the 'I can't afford it' argument doesn't hold up ( ignoring the obvious ethical and legal issues ).

---

Yeah, I wish I could get those discounts that are offered for students. Granted, I often get a military discount. But, it often doesn't even touch the discounts offered for students. Piracy is a crime just like any other. I actually have a feeling of pride when I work hard to get what I want. This generation today is *&^ing sorry. Oh, and just because I feel like it, they are pussies, too.

this guy i am talking about is a dj and has a small studio. he drives a benz. his parents bought him a house. he has every piece of software you can think of and he hasn't paid a cent. that is [ ****** ] and i don't care how you look at it.

--------------------
i use illogic 7

Yes, piracy is illegal and wrong, and yes, the fact that some fraction of software users did not pay for their software means that I paid a tiny bit more for mine. In a perfect world this wouldn't happen. That doesn't mean we'd all have better equipment in that perfect world, though, and it doesn't mean that software companies would be enormously profitable.

It's not a perfect world, of course, and theft is as old as the concept of ownership. It's not going away. Everyone is free to feel however they like about it, but it doesn't seem particularly productive to raise one's blood pressure over it.

Two additional points--I look forward to the demise of quasi-homophobic epithets like "pussy," and I second the notion that student discounts are often negligible or non-existant.

Quote:

---

I look forward to the demise of quasi-homophobic epithets like "pussy,"

---

ummm.....ok. if you use the 'find' feature in your browser you will see that you are the only one who used that word, or anything resembling it anywhere in this post. but thank you for that interjection.

--------------------
i use illogic 7

OK, it was "pussies," not "pussy" (...and therefore immune to searches using the latter term). Two posts above mine, by jaffi, toward the end. Sorry for the confusion, but my point remains.

ahhhh......a jackass i am. hehehehehe

--------------------
i use illogic 7

I love the way that you attached homophobic to that. I am very open to just about every way of life, but when people are too weak to work for their keep I think they are just that... weak. I used the word pussy because it is a very common word to get the point across. But, instead, I guess I have to write a full paragraph to do that. To tell you the truth, I hear that word come out of the mouths of my gay friends just as much as my straight friends. I guess they're "quasi-homophobic". In either case, I think todays generation has lost a lot of what makes people true and honorable. They have lost the concept of hard work. They all want everything, but aren't willing to sacrifice for what they want. Most of the successful people in this world (I am talking about trully successful), have had many failures and hard knocks throughout their lives. The thing that kept them going was their dreams. Todays generation has the same dreams, but they want it for free. I think I went more in depth than what was called for in this thread, but it still very much relates.

Edited by jaffi (04/12/05 07:20 AM)

i credit discount hookers for my success.

--------------------
i use illogic 7

It`s a shame that in the middle of all this searching nobody searched to see if this subject had been discussed before. It has.

Every few months someone gets on here and either whines about people cracking software or whines about software houses wanting too much money for a product "so you have to pirate it".

Face it, there will always be pirates/software thieves and nothing we say or do will change it. Equally, many of the software companies are total rip off merchants (are you listening Bill gates?)

This is supposed to me a music technology forum, so can we just discuss music please, guys? This is a total waste of bandwidth.


One small point before I go look at something more useful, I recently bought an Emu 1212m and the "lite" versions of all the software bundled with it really are more than adequate to try before you buy and in no real sense crippled to where they are unusable as used to be the case.

This alone shows that the manufacturers of software seem to be listening and taking a more enlightened approach to slowing down piracy, but it also makes the argument for stealing software in the first place look pretty flimsy.
One of the cheapest top quality sound cards available, bundled with very usable versions of most of the major players` software including plugins and soft synths.

I am currently learning Ableton AND Sonar & "sort of" enjoying the experience, but it does all rather get in the way of actually making music. Embarrassingly, I only bought the Emu so I could import audio into the pc for mastering and cd cutting purposes, which I can`t do on my hard disk recorder!

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

Here we go again.

If you use cracked software you really shouldn't have a problem with people stealing your music without paying for it.

--------------------
Nik
Godin, Axon, Tonelab, Repeater & the skin of my teeth!

Something not to forget, particularly on this forum. Is that music and music software that youve purchased legitimately, actually sounds better

Quote IvanSC:

---

Face it, there will always be pirates/software thieves and nothing we say or do will change it. Equally, many of the software companies are total rip off merchants (are you listening Bill gates?)

This is supposed to me a music technology forum, so can we just discuss music please, guys? This is a total waste of bandwidth.

---

Mr Bill gates can afford to charge whatever prices he likes due to the fact that he created the product, you know burt that midnight oil to enable us all to do what we do now on PC's! Of course you're now going to tell me that you have an OS in development that will not be a rip-off right?! ;-)

It is only in everyones interest that issues regarding fraud, no matter what shape or form they come in, are discussed in this public arena as theft is never too far behind in a public arena where products are offered for sale or purchase.

Beya

Quote Dr. Fister:

---

but now i absolutely HATE people who use cracked software!!!!

---

How can you hate people when you don't know them ?

ivan shut the [ ****** ] up. does it really matter if it gets discussed in a DISCUSSION board again? does it bother you that much? just scroll past it. it takes up maybe, what, a centimeter of your screen? dear god!!!!!!

i don't ever want to hear anyone talk about audio interfaces, or upgrades on here ever again. i can't tell you how sick i am of seeing the same conversations. this board used to be pretty cool, but these days it is getting lamer and lamer.

Quote:

---

How can you hate people when you don't know them ?

---

that doesn't even deserve a response.

Edited by Dr. Fister (04/12/05 09:15 AM)

Oh crap, here we go. Emotions are starting to come into play. That is my ticket to leave.

This is always a difficult topic to reconcile. What also needs to be considered is that many of these companies that we feel so sorry for are also participating in theft. I recently had a system which I have been working on for 5 years stolen by the market leader and copied to the level that even their presentation materials contain slides lifed straight from my presentations. Whilst I would never condone the use of pirate software with this being my livelihood, there is a huge hypocracy when software houses take the holier than thou position to make you feel sorry for them. Their objectives here are purely financial. Each one of these companies steal ideas and concepts from each other and uses them to line their own pockets. You could argue that downloading and using a pirate version is far better that a company who steal and then make money out of this theft. I would even admit myself that as an application designer, I keep a close eye on competitors products and have in some cases used their ideas and concepts to improve my product. Yes I have to recode and redesign, but in effect the theft is still there. Where do you draw the line?

One area of IP ownership I find quite interesting at present is the production of software and convolution models of real synths and outboard gear. Companies hide behind false names of these models to avoid legal issues but leave enough clues to indicate exactly what they have copied. Should Neve or Manley view anyone with a Liquid Channel as a thief?

fister, you may have good points, but as i've read twice this morning you just stand up and shout and rant. Your well intentioned and probably right on opinion is lost in your inanity.....

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

aha, a good point raised about these modeled softsynths, channels etc

i suppose we all forget that at the end of the day, a great deal of todays music industry relies on "theft" in one form of another, weather it be a modeled channel strip or guitar amp, a sample half inched from an old abba track (i know you subscribe madonna, put yer ass away!)or a few DJ's in their bedrooms with a cracked copy of Cubase and reason,

if it furthers the industy and the enjoyment of music, who are we to knock it?

Quick! Everyone eat an apple and maybe the doctor will go away!

A few points:
Cracking software is piracy,...and pirates have been on the water long before the web. As long as there're pirates on the water they'll be pirates on the web. (yahh!)

Someone said that 50%, hmm.., of the software is usually security. Have they not realised that whatever they put on, within a few months someone will have got round it. Why don't they save money on the developement to soften the loses from piracy? Mr. Bill Gates might be charging lots but he's got it into his head, have you noticed they still just use product keys and activation? So they save money and have a product that can perform better!!

If a company had total control over its products so that they couldn't be cracked. Do you think the prices would be where they are? ... Personally I doubt it.

And a final one on the people who have been comparing it to people using your music with out crediting you... People are not taking this software as their own and trying to say they created it, they are simply using it for pleasure. So for the comparison if I were making music for pleasure or atleast trying to get a deal then I'd be very happy for any of you to take my music and spread it around...get it as far as you can please! When I get the deal and the money then I'd buy the software and collect my money from the now paying listening public!.

Now I must leave you all as the 12:15 delevery lorry to turnkey is about to pass my door and I fancy getting a new mixing desk*

Daniel.


*This was a joke please don't cruifie me.

I want to add my 2p to this discussion.

I am an Audio Technology student and my course requires me to make use of, among other things, Cubase SX, now, the MIDI suite in uni is only open between 8am and 5pm weekdays, if i need to work outside of that im pretty much screwed unless i have a cracked copy of the software.

This still doesnt really help me by the way, as i need to be able to send SysEx to the SW1000 sound cards in the MIDI suite - which i dont have one of. But i can still write all the MIDI and add in the SysEx data to be tested and tweaked when i can get into the suite.

If i ever began to make money from cracked software i would immediatly buy it, in fact there is a clause in the agreement for student use of the uni's facilities that we cannot profit from use of their software etc.

My opinion, and has been for a long time, is that software should be free to students on an extended trial - which runs out on the day of graduation - this means students would be using the software legally, because lets face it about 5%, if that, of students can actually afford to spend £500 on bit of software plus anything else that's needed.

I am lucky in that i can get a £4,100 loan but out of that comes £350 in tuition fees and £2,100 in accommodation fees. I have to live on the rest of that for an entire year.

I'd much rather concentrate on buying kit (such as mics) if and when i can, rather then making sure the software i need to do coursework outside of uni hours is legal.

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)

--------------------
David Lewthwaite, www.lewty.org.uk, dave@lewty.org.uk

Yo Fister,

I agree with most of what you say but I wanted to make an observation if I may. Your posts have an air of confrontation in them. These discussions can be very interesting and productive but when we take on an attacking posture it forces an adversarial approach which often kills an otherwise useful topic.

*rant on*
But I digress. Back on topic, I feel the people who make money by using stolen software are the worst. It is the same as shoplifting and then selling the goods at another store. These professionals would not like to have an artist stiff them for 100's of hours of studio time yet many of them have no trouble stiffing the software companies for even more by ripping them off.
*rant off*

--------------------
www.gpsystems.ca

Firstly, contradicting my first point, but most Linux software is developed for free, purely because the people making it love what they do. So surely £500 PLUS is a bit expensive for something that is not *that* much more functional than Ardour on Linux, which comes for free. Now I realise mentioning that, I have "no excuse" for pirated software, but as others have said about themselves, I have NO intention of using it commercially. I use it so I can get used to it for when I might use it to make money from. I would never have bought Sonar if I didn't try it first (not that I have bought it - yet), but its an overlooked program, and if I had never used it, I would have probably gone down the Pro Tools/Cubase route, so therefore, out of my "piracy", Sonar will get extra business in the future.

Back to Linux. Recently I have been having a look around the Linux forum, to see if it is a viable alternative for audio, and, as it stands, for someone who has never had experience with Linux, it's quite simply not ready yet. I will be the first to jump when it IS ready, and I WILL be willing to pay for the software, because generally it doesnt cost too much. The problem with Linux is documentation. There are very few people who actually know how to go about using linux for audio, and this is what puts people like me off. Through Uni I will end up using Linux, so when I become more familiar with it, it will become viable. Linux will become the place to go for audio for people with less money, but its not there just yet.

Also, as others have said, student discounts don't make much difference to software prices, if at all. Usually the most you can expect is 10%, if any.

Yesterday I went to an open day for a University I'm applying to (Cardiff, Wales, if your interested), to do Computer Science, so, I'm not going to get much Pro Tools experience there am I. Another point that was brought up, is that students who come from the "more well off" households, who get the lowest Grants and Loans, by government recomendation actually end up MINUS £20 each month. I happen to be in this position (next year anyway). So, unless you can magic some money from -£20, I don't think my 10% discount is going to help.

That might have been a bit rambled, but I havnt been up long.

Gareth

A couple of points:

As far as the big software houses go, this is more a commercial than a moral arguement. Its a well known truth that all big software manufacturers would rather people were using cracked versions of thier software that legit versions of thier competitor's software. in other words, market share is valued higher than profits.

Why? i would guess that the people behind these companies are jostling for position with an eye on the future - because before too long, no-one will physically 'own' any software. Instead we'll lease it down a broadband connection whenever we need to use it, and pay on a subscriptions basis. This isnt possible right now but with broadband takeup increasing the way it is I bet it's only a couple of years away. (and before anyone pipes up, I know the software we buy now isnt owned by us, thats why i put the word in inverted commas).

I would welcome a subscription-based payment system for software - in fact, i practice a similar sort of thing at the moment. Software i use regularly I buy, but i do have some warez programs.. typically plug ins & VSTis that i very rarely use and that arent worth my while buying. I would imagine there are a lot of people are in this position. Apart from anything else, I dont put the time into learning something properly unless i pay for it.

To the people above taking a taliban-esque line against anyone using warez: I take your point with regard to serial nickers of software, but I'm convinced those people are exploiting a tempoary technological loophole that will close up once subscription-based software services become viable. And anyway, i feel more pity than hate for those kinds of people - they tend to have oodles of software that they dont have a clue how to use, rather like those soulseek ghosts who spend all thier time downloading music they will never get around to listening to.

As for the likes of me, i hope you apply the same harsh verdict to anyone who borrows expensive hardware from thier friends for one-off projects because the principle is exactly the same. I'm in a competitive business and i cant afford to pay a few hundred quid for a piece of software I'm only going to use a handful of times. When a subscription-based payment system becomes viable I'll embrace it, but until then I'll use warez.

And anyone who thinks eradicating piracy will result in big software manufacturers lowering their prices is living in a dreamworld. Commerce doesnt work that way. I'm sure the software companies do spend a reasonable amount combatting piracy (although not as much as they make out), but if that cost was to be eradicated, they would continue to charge you the price they do now and pocket the difference.

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

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)

---

A site licence does exist for some audio software, so you'd have to check out if your university dept owns one.

I think the problem with your opening hours is one that students come across regularly. I'm lucky because our dept is 24hrs, however students are not always accustomed to working 9-5! Also, that doesn't take into account that the student-computer ratio.

Quote dave-lew99:

---

I am an Audio Technology student and my course requires me to make use of, among other things, Cubase SX, now, the MIDI suite in uni is only open between 8am and 5pm weekdays, if i need to work outside of that im pretty much screwed unless i have a cracked copy of the software.

---

Tough. Although it is a long time since I was a student I work with saxophone students a lot who have to own a soprano,alto and tenor sax which costs more than several computers and legitimate software. When I was a student I wanted to learn one instrument I just could not afford. You have no God given right to software. You have a right to steal food if you are starving and that is the only way you can stay alive but software is different.

Quote all_on_black:

---

I use it so I can get used to it for when I might use it to make money from. I would never have bought Sonar if I didn't try it first (not that I have bought it - yet), but its an overlooked program, and if I had never used it, I would have probably gone down the Pro Tools/Cubase route, so therefore, out of my "piracy", Sonar will get extra business in the future.

---

This is wrong wrong wrong. If the company is offering a time based demo of the application, which most companies do now, then fare enough and that puts a close to having to used a 'cracked' versions of the software for 'testing' purposes. If the business model of a company is that you have to purchase their software before you can use it then you have 2 choices, you either buy it or you don't. But denying the company out of royalty for a product they created becaue you feel you have a God given right to 'quality test' the product before hand just doesn't cut the mustad.

Put yourself in their shoes, you are selling the product but no sales are being made because everyone and their cat is 'evaluating' your product. If you're not prepared to pay for the product don't use it, simple!!

Beya

Excuse me?

I believe it is a choice of someone if they want to learn an expensive instrument (ie. Sax)

If it was up to me i wouldnt be using Cubase i would use a free alternative unfortunatly i HAVE to use Cubase i have no choice in the matter, in the same way i HAD to use Photoshop for an assignment and VB.Net.

At least they're not forcing me to use logic [shudders]

--------------------
David Lewthwaite, www.lewty.org.uk, dave@lewty.org.uk

Quote dave-lew99:

---

Excuse me?

I believe it is a choice of someone if they want to learn an expensive instrument (ie. Sax)

If it was up to me i wouldnt be using Cubase i would use a free alternative unfortunatly i HAVE to use Cubase i have no choice in the matter, in the same way i HAD to use Photoshop for an assignment and VB.Net.

At least they're not forcing me to use logic [shudders]

---

I didn’t realise they pressganged people into becoming students

Tim ;o)

--------------------
Studio: www.kymatasound.com

no Dave-Lew... you do not HAVE to use Cubase SX....

A) the assignment can be quite easily done on SL, or maybe even SE.

B) have you even bothered to find out about educational discounts and the lower versions??


Colleges make no secret of what they use, and it is suggested that all those wishing to study equip themselves with the required software and hardware if they're going to work outside of college hours.

AND there's usually a means of doing so via the College.... at the best available educational prices... sometimes, slightly debatably , minus VAT as well.

if you've been down the pub more than 2-3 times this term, you could easily have paid for a copy of SE , perhaps even SL at educational prices.

oh, and guess what... there are significant (like 50% ) discounts on Apple software available form the apple store provided you access it from the college network.

this includes Logic.

Grow up and accept some responsibility for a change.,

YOU CHOSE TO DO A MUSIC TECH RELATED COURSE.

It is your responsibility, NO ONE ELSES, to ensure you have the equipment to do so... the same as a Sax player, or Double Bass player, or Guitarist.

I do hope the other College Lecturers who use the forum will remember to point this out to their students on a regular basis.

Max

--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

Quote dave-lew99:

---

Excuse me?

I believe it is a choice of someone if they want to learn an expensive instrument (ie. Sax)

---

And your point is?! If you want to learn to play the Sax you either:

1. Buy it
2. Rent it, or
3. Forget about it

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!!

Beya

I went to see a lovely house last week. It's on the market at £2million and I can't quite afford that. Do you think it would be okay for me to just move in anyway and pay for it when I have a bit more money?

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

If you couldn't afford to buy a sax to learn then you dont learn the sax, if you're forced to use a certain bit of software to do work with what do you do?

Fail the assignments? As you have 9-5 lectures practically every day and cannot get into the supposedly open access suite?

I have spent practically NOTHING on going out this semester - i cannot afford to do so, even SE is too expensive for my budget - i am struggling to pay for FOOD

My comment about logic relates to the fact that i really do not like using it not to any other reason

University is supposed to be open to all, NO-ONE should be unable to do a course simply because they cannot afford to recreate the universities facilities at home

--------------------
David Lewthwaite, www.lewty.org.uk, dave@lewty.org.uk

Edited by dave-lew99 (04/12/05 03:30 PM)

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

Quote ben m:

---

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.

---

Agreed.

But the 'piracy is theft' argument should be centered around the software developers, rather than the consumer, based on the fact that they receive less money as a result of people copying their produce. But this argument is hardly cut and dried. Here's why:

- You can't prove that people who copy and use pirated software would actually shell out the money to buy it. They may well go without. Hell, if they had money, they'd probably go out and buy something useful like hardware instead.

- The overheads for software are massively lower than for hardware. Companies like Kurzweil, Ensoniq, Yamaha etc., realised this in the 80's, and created their hardware from stock components (from other companies), and concentrated on designing software OS's for them instead.

- Sometimes you don't get paid fairly for what you do. Look at those kids in the sweatshops in China. Who makes the money? The same people who tell you it's criminal that China pirates so much recorded music... they're Communists duh.

- The fact that software is just data makes it inherently different from hardware. If you could copy that Brauner mic a dozen times and give one to all your friends would you?

Not that i'm playing devil's advocate or anything

And before any of you spend £1300 on a new copy of the esquisitely engineered Nuendo (sorry Karl, we wasted the entire R&D budget on track colours, so it would look as good as Logic), remember you spent around a 10th of that on a very ramshackle made OS, and for less than half of that you could have bought an MMT-8

I bought all my software, including Nuendo, BUT I use a cracked version. I installed the original then uninstalled it and put it away. WHY? because the dongle is a pain in the neck and sometimes crashes the program. I'm not interested in why it does that, or what fixes I should use. The cracked version works just fine.


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

ahahahahahaaaa - these threads are always hilarious!

--------------------
Like this and this

I blame the software Co's. The whole culture of the web is built around freedom and things for free.

Remember Paint Shop and their clever business model of giving away fully functional shareware to get their market coverage and brand stamped into the head of the webs human module.

I see downloading music as something akin to taping from the radio. Its not the same I know. But im sure the emotion is the same in a kid getting a freebie from some download site. And a fourteen year old 'me' taping tracks from the Nicky Horn [who???] show or from Fluff [eh???].

So many things are free. And as someone said above. How about libraries. I wonder how many people have a shelf full of cd's or a media player full of tracks ripped from libraries? And before that people taped vinyl from friends and libraries, quite often on an industrial scale.

If you want to stop piracy, you have to stop selling nothing. Which is what software and digital data is. Its not even neccesary to have the data or application stored on one shelf or box. The thing can be spread over a number of servers. But its just a box of jumble which is bugger all until aligned and arranged by a code in a manner recognisable by an OS. Now reduced to a stream of radio waves.

Great art has always come from poverty. The next new style, the next progression in music wont come from some beautiful commercial studio. It will be copied, smoothed and commercialised there. But it will come from the street and some dizzy kid working on no budget, a nicked computer and some cracked software. As pretty much always happens.

I dont condone piracy, ultimately its theft! But if you leave your car door unlocked with a pile of twenties in the glove box. You cant complain too much when someone nicks the money. Its terrible for sure. Its a sad reflection on society, oh yes. Its taking bread out of the mouths of creative people, no doubt about that. But it might help if the industries that create the product make it a bit harder to steal. Selling bits of data is a beautiful idea but ultimately a con thats backfired.

As usual I blame the robots. Versatran Series F!.

I don't agree the onus is on the manufacturers to stop theft - remember those insidious defence lawyers a few years ago who used to defend rapists by saying the girl was wearing a short skirt?
How about this for a solution : you get a credit card reader to plug-in to a USB port, before you can open the software you have to swipe your credit card and the access code is also your credit card number. Everytime you open the software you need to swipe your card. How many ersatz Robin Hoods would give everybody a copy of their credit card so that their friends or customers could use illegal software?

Quote nmkDom:

---

I installed the original then uninstalled it and put it away. WHY? because the dongle is a pain in the neck and sometimes crashes the program. I'm not interested in why it does that, or what fixes I should use. The cracked version works just fine.

---

What a load of rubbish. I too use Nuendo, version 3.2 to be precise, and ever since version 2...low and behold with the same dongle that has never caused the machine to crash!! And since when has purchasing a valid version of a program then given you the right to use an illegal copy??

Beya

Quote noiseconjecture:

---

I don't agree the onus is on the manufacturers to stop theft

---

Neither do I, but I dont live in a crime free state either. So I have to be a realist about the security of my property.

The credit card number is a good one. I once bought an audio to midi utility that used my card no as the password.

But this wont stop a cracker. Its just a code right. And we already have those. It would stop the 'friends sharing' thing probably. But thats a small part of the whole.

And as for young girls in short skirts 'asking for it'. Well those lawyers you speak of still use this defence. And in a recent survey in the UK. A rather large number of people seem to agree with them.

Quote beyarecords:

---

Quote nmkDom:

---

I installed the original then uninstalled it and put it away. WHY? because the dongle is a pain in the neck and sometimes crashes the program. I'm not interested in why it does that, or what fixes I should use. The cracked version works just fine.

---

What a load of rubbish. I too use Nuendo, version 3.2 to be precise, and ever since version 2...low and behold with the same dongle that has never caused the machine to crash!! And since when has purchasing a valid version of a program then given you the right to use an illegal copy??

Beya

---

You might find that its the dregs of an improperly removed cracked copy thats screwing the real one!

Crackers hide nasty sh!t in their work too. You can never really trust that theres not a bot hidden in there thats doing some devilment!

Quote ow:

---

You might find that its the dregs of an improperly removed cracked copy thats screwing the real one!

Crackers hide nasty sh!t in their work too. You can never really trust that theres not a bot hidden in there thats doing some devilment!

---

Exactly!!

Beya

By using cracked software, you may not be denying an individual from using a product in the short term. But if most of those who wanted to use software refused to pay for it, they would be denying everyone from using a continuously developed and supported item when it was no longer available.

We can't measure how many users of illegal software would have actually purchased it. But, equally, how many potential customers decide they don't need to pay? Surely, we could all claim that we never had any intention of actually paying for it?

This defense concerns me the most. It shows absolutely no value for something, but a wish to own it all the same.

Quote Ben:

---

It shows absolutely no value for something, but a wish to own it all the same.

---

Here lies the dichotomy. By using cracked software you are suggesting that the software is worthless, but by deciding that you need it you are giving it a value. Why people are not prepared to pay for something that will benefit them is beyond me.

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

I think the thing is deeper than that. There are many people using pirate software. Listening to copied cd's. Who would never dream of walking into woolies and palming one off the shelf. Fine upstanding people who read the Mail. Its the same mentality as the office worker whos sideboard is full of office stationary. He thinks its an okay victimless crime, a perk!

Then we have an iPod that can hold a squillion songs [or say 10 grands worth of music or so] and a bundled media player thats a piraters dream. Particularly when used in conjunction with that CD artwork site. Theres a lot of double standard going on. Mixed messages to the kids.

Quote ow:

---

Fine upstanding people who read the Mail.

---

Surely that's an oxymoron.

I do agree with you about the mixed messages being given to the kids. Most just don't even consider that music is supposed to be paid for. Yet a lot of them want to make a living as musicians!

No matter what way you look at it, no matter what shape or form it comes in, theft is theft.

Beya

Edited by beyarecords (05/12/05 11:20 AM)

Quote beyarecords:

---

No matter what way you look at it, no matter what shape or form it comes in, theft is theft.

Beya

---

Abso-motherf*ckin-lutely.

But I'm a great believer in karma, and those who steal will get their comeuppance.

Quote beyarecords:

---

No matter what way you look at it, no matter what shape or form it comes in, theft is theft.
Beya

---

Yes, but my general drift is that some people dont see this kind of thing as theft. And I'm trying to explore the subject a bit to find out why.

Otherwise its just "off with his head". Without ever finding out what was in his head first!

Quote all_on_black:

---

Meh, you have a point, but to be fair, its not like your avarage student can afford to spend £500 odd on software. My 'theory' on it is that I'll buy it when I'm making money from it, or when I can afford to buy it (ie, when I'm in a full time job earning lots of money)... at least people are getting used to these systems and when they can actually afford them they might go and buy them, because they've had good performance from their cracked version. At least we're playing on the same team a bit.

---

No offence, but this is nonsense. If you get a £500 bonus, I doubt you are you going to think "Right, now I've got the funds I'm going to pay for a legit copy of Cubase to replace the cracked version I've been using". I could be wrong, but I'd also be highly surprised.

The 'can't afford' argument is bullshit IMHO. I also aired my views on it in another thread.

Mike

--------------------
www.ehsound.co.uk - Live Sound Hire & Services

Quote raphus:

---

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.

---

... but the book can only be used in one place at one time - it's like a hardware dongle for a software package. It's the same as lending someone a guitar. If you photocopied the whole book or scanned it, that would be like using "cracked" software ...

Must be even harder to deicide to buy SX with a £500 bonus if they've got to buy all the cracked plugins they're using as well. As is often the case they've got too much software to use.

Quote beyarecordsMr Bill gates can afford to charge whatever prices he likes due to the fact that he created the product, you know burt that midnight oil to enable us all to do what we do now on PC's!
Beya

---

yeah,right! Go talk to Dec, Xerox, etc., who apparently were at one time Microsoft`s R&D department! Ol` Bill`s the biggest pirate of all, just that nowadays he`s too big to sue for the mo:

---

part.

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

Quote IvanSC:

---

yeah,right! Go talk to Dec, Xerox, etc., who apparently were at one time Microsoft`s R&D department! Ol` Bill`s the biggest pirate of all, just that nowadays he`s too big to sue for the mo"] part.

---

Well ain't that the opportunity for you to be the bigger man then. Because Ol' Bill may be a schumck doesn't mean you have to join him in being one as well does it, afterall two wrongs never make a right?!

Beya

I also responded to the "other thread" as Michael puts it, so I don't want to retype my diatribe here, but suffice it say, any arguments you create for using cracked software are excuses and cop outs. It is wrong, period. There is nothing more to say, and no way you can rationalize it.

As far as the "borrowing" comments go...

Borrowing is not copying. Borrowing is using someone else's property and then returning it, not duplicating it, using it, and then destroying your copy.

When I borrow my neighbor's rake, he does not have a rake to use, does he?

If I want to borrow my neighbor's Cubase SX then, I should borrow the entire PC with the software loaded, record my song, and then return the PC. During that time, my neighbor would not be able to use his copy of Cubase because I had it.

Now *that's* borrowing.

Sheesh! These threads really show how far we have fallen in our society. The End Times are a-comin' my friends.

--------------------
James
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" ~Napoleon Bonaparte~

Quote:

---

What a load of rubbish. I too use Nuendo, version 3.2 to be precise, and ever since version 2...low and behold with the same dongle that has never caused the machine to crash!! And since when has purchasing a valid version of a program then given you the right to use an illegal copy??

---

Am I wrong in believing you can make a single copy for backup purposes? It probably depends on the country/developer, but I'm sure i've read it somewhere.

Quote:

---

No offence, but this is nonsense. If you get a £500 bonus, I doubt you are you going to think "Right, now I've got the funds I'm going to pay for a legit copy of Cubase to replace the cracked version I've been using". I could be wrong, but I'd also be highly surprised.

---

Maybe someone wouldnt replace a cracked copy, but they may purchase the next version, if they did get the said bouns.
To be fair, I agree with you - I would much prefer to spend £500 on say some pre-amps or mic's, but I'm thinking if a "crack user" were to start a commercial business, then the said user may BUY that particular software over other products.

Quote:

---

Must be even harder to deicide to buy SX with a £500 bonus if they've got to buy all the cracked plugins they're using as well. As is often the case they've got too much software to use.

---

I'll admit to using cracked software, but I DO try to use as many free (legitimatley free!) plugin's and samples as possible, and try to keep the software I use to a minimum aswell. Its not all about having *everything* for free

Quote:

---

Well ain't that the opportunity for you to be the bigger man then. Because Ol' Bill may be a schumck doesn't mean you have to join him in being one as well does it, afterall two wrongs never make a right?!

---

Im fairly sure that in maths I was taught minus multiplied by minus equals plus... (sorry )

I'm not trying to justify pirated software, I just like the discussion.

Gareth

Quote D.Crowley:

---

And a final one on the people who have been comparing it to people using your music with out crediting you... People are not taking this software as their own and trying to say they created it, they are simply using it for pleasure. So for the comparison if I were making music for pleasure or atleast trying to get a deal then I'd be very happy for any of you to take my music and spread it around...get it as far as you can please!

---

You miss my point entirely.

Quote:

---

When I get the deal and the money then I'd buy the software and collect my money from the now paying listening public!.


Daniel.

---

..so here it is again. What if the listening public don't pay because they can download your music free?

--------------------
Nik
Godin, Axon, Tonelab, Repeater & the skin of my teeth!

Quote all_on_black:

---

I'll admit to using cracked software, but I DO try to use as many free (legitimatley free!) plugin's and samples as possible, and try to keep the software I use to a minimum aswell. Its not all about having *everything* for free

---

??

"I stole that software, but the other stuff's legal".

Can you really, honestly, justify your statements? Seriously?

Quote:

---

"I stole that software, but the other stuff's legal".

Can you really, honestly, justify your statements? Seriously?

---

Like I said, I wasn't trying to justify, just making a point that not everyone wants to have EVERYTHING. Like I said, I try to use free alternatives, rather than cracking something, but there are a few things which *I dont want to spend the money on* that I have cracked. Like I said, not justifying - just commenting.

*dont want to spend the money on because i've just priced up some gear I want to buy, to have a fairly basic multitracking system, and the cabling is going to cost me £75 alone. Then there's the rest. Its an expensive hobby, and some things have to get pushed to the back of the que.*

Edited by all_on_black (05/12/05 05:10 PM)

Quote Shingles:

---

Quote:

---

When I get the deal and the money then I'd buy the software and collect my money from the now paying listening public!.


Daniel.

---

..so here it is again. What if the listening public don't pay because they can download your music free?

---

Exactly - well put!

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

Like everyone else I have to chime in into this discussion :P

My main gripe with cracked software is it competes with legitimate, free software. If the user base of such software (audacity, ardour, rosegarden, etc...) would grow, we could expect the software to improve much faster

(More users = a slight chance of more developers, and more bug reports etc...)

Which is somewhat of an ironic vicious circle, when you think about it: by wanting free software but not using the legitimate ones (those "free as in freedom") they are actually pushing them back...

---

On another note, I think one of the problem (why there is such a huge amount of piracy) also resides in the way the products are marketed, and the magazines do not help either. There is usually a complete product line for each product, with a "lite" version usually 100% suitable for amateurs, and at a price they can afford. But companies and magazines always seem to focus on the high-end version of the product, creating the illusion that you actually *need* those features, where you could probably live without (if you're a pro, then you probably pay anyway, so this doesn't apply to you )

This does not justify piracy, and it's still the user's fault if he pirates Cubase SX instead of buying the SE version... just something to think about

Quote D.Crowley:

---

When I get the deal and the money then I'd buy the software and collect my money from the now paying listening public!

---

And when I pull wearing the aftershave I stole from Boots, I'll go back and give them the money.

Mathieu has a point there, a little like the points raised for Top Gear - its all very well having reviews of flagship and expensive products but where does that leave the people on a budget?

Perhaps SOS should have a permanant column for Freeware and perhaps Shareware with links to websites, guides and tutorials.

This isn't to say SOS is without mentioning free software - i have downloaded software from links in the magazine countless numbers of times - and useful it has been, but i think somthing more substantial and permanant is a good idea.

Another idea is when doing tutorials for say 'Cubase' have a box somewhere that says 'This applies to the following versions: then list Cubase SL 2.x+ Cubase SE etc' To make it clear, and then someone whose read the article wont then go "ah, i can't actually do that" when they sit down at their computer and hence save time (the SOS mag already takes me ages to get through!!)

--------------------
David Lewthwaite, www.lewty.org.uk, dave@lewty.org.uk

Quote Bill C:

---

Quote raphus:

---

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.

---

... but the book can only be used in one place at one time - it's like a hardware dongle for a software package. It's the same as lending someone a guitar. If you photocopied the whole book or scanned it, that would be like using "cracked" software ...

---

Quote Doublehelix:

---

Borrowing is not copying. Borrowing is using someone else's property and then returning it, not duplicating it, using it, and then destroying your copy.

When I borrow my neighbor's rake, he does not have a rake to use, does he?

If I want to borrow my neighbor's Cubase SX then, I should borrow the entire PC with the software loaded, record my song, and then return the PC. During that time, my neighbor would not be able to use his copy of Cubase because I had it.

Now *that's* borrowing.

---

Believe it or not, I really do understand that copying the book is different than reading it any time I like. Unfortunately the book analogy is not perfect, because one does not need to copy a book to fully enjoy the benefits of ownership.

My point remains that if book lending were not socially acceptable, authors would make more money. It's as simple as that. I think it's worth considering this contradiction--denying authors their income simply because I want to enjoy book-owning benefits for free is socially acceptable, but denying software developers their income because for the same reason is socially unacceptable. The motives and the end results are the same, but one is OK while the other is illegal and immoral. Am I the only one who thinks it might be informative to consider this?

Interesting stuff.

Firstly - let me say that I do not count myself as 'perfect' when it comes to the issue of software/cd piracy. However.... I am getting there.

My point is that it seems to be an educational problem. As others have pointed out, and I agree, there is simply no difference at all in copying a version of, say, Live, than going into DV and swiping a copy off the shelf. And yet so many people would be horrified at the thought of the latter, and not the former.

A few examples......

Whilst on a BA plane coming back from holiday last year, the prized "readers letter" was from a bloke saying how wonderful it was that you could buy a bunch of CDs from wollys, copy them onto your ipod, and then take the cds back for a refund, whilst leaving the music on said ipod. Not only did this get published, but the guy won a prize for his theivery!!!

Similarly, I was at dinner with a friend the other night, who, when i raised an eyebrow at the fact that she had ripped a bunch of her friends cds for her own useage, said "whats wrong with that, it's not illegal is it?"

My point is, it seems that for whatever reason people in general do not see theft of a physical product and theft of a 'virtual' product (for want of a better description) as the same thing. I cant help thinking that the advent of things like iTunes and iPod, as well as the ability to burn cds at all domestically (of which more later) have unintentioanlly made this the case.

I should also point out (coming back to my 'not perfect' statement earlier) that when I first got a CD writer back in about '96, the first thing I did was rip a whole load of cds and copy them. I was among those who saw no difference. I have spent the last few years buying all the cds that I had copied ( which I have to say is a VERY dull way to spend money, but good karma) so that my entire cd collection is now legit. I only mention this because it suddenly dawned on me a few years back that it seems like it's mainly people in the music industry who steal from the music industry, and then (like myself) complain about the state of said music industry!!!!! Now thats just plain stupid as far as I'm concerned.

There are all sorts of reasons why people justify using cracked or copied software, and probably 99.9% of them are just wrong. I strongly believe that we need to support software developers (as hard as that may be sometimes when they seem to not support us sometimes) given that more and more of us rely on them for our livelyhood

Thats all

Matt

Quote raphus:

---

Quote Bill C:

---

Quote raphus:

---

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.

---

... but the book can only be used in one place at one time - it's like a hardware dongle for a software package. It's the same as lending someone a guitar. If you photocopied the whole book or scanned it, that would be like using "cracked" software ...

---

Quote Doublehelix:

---

Borrowing is not copying. Borrowing is using someone else's property and then returning it, not duplicating it, using it, and then destroying your copy.

When I borrow my neighbor's rake, he does not have a rake to use, does he?

If I want to borrow my neighbor's Cubase SX then, I should borrow the entire PC with the software loaded, record my song, and then return the PC. During that time, my neighbor would not be able to use his copy of Cubase because I had it.

Now *that's* borrowing.

---

Believe it or not, I really do understand that copying the book is different than reading it any time I like. Unfortunately the book analogy is not perfect, because one does not need to copy a book to fully enjoy the benefits of ownership.

My point remains that if book lending were not socially acceptable, authors would make more money. It's as simple as that. I think it's worth considering this contradiction--denying authors their income simply because I want to enjoy book-owning benefits for free is socially acceptable, but denying software developers their income because for the same reason is socially unacceptable. The motives and the end results are the same, but one is OK while the other is illegal and immoral. Am I the only one who thinks it might be informative to consider this?

---

Hey Raphus...

I think you might be missing my point.

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.

I do understand that by borrowing your computer, I am denying the software creater more money, but not by making a new version of his creation on my own.

As you mention, this is instantly more socially acceptable.

It is really nothing different than borrowing your car, borrowing your lawn mower, or borrowing your garden rake. It denies the creater money because you are not buying one of your own

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.

--------------------
James
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" ~Napoleon Bonaparte~

I have a few thoughts on this subject I'd like to share.

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.

Secondly, I'd like to digress a little into the parallel topic of music piracy. A ridiculous argument I've heard on this subject is that people will stop making music if they aren't going to derive income from it. I'm sure everyone here would agree this simply isn't true - most if not all of us make music because we enjoy it. Yeah, it's great if other people enjoy it too, even better if they show their appreciation financially, but the bottom line is we do it for our own satisfaction.

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.

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 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?

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. My point is, there's a grey area here. 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.

I want to finish by pointing out (before I get flamed) that I honestly haven't made my own mind up on this subject yet. 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. Of course we don't live in an ideal world, but I'm still considering this kind of setup for my own (mostly) music website if/when I finally get around to putting it online. Will I make a living from this? Probably not. Will that stop me making music, writing stories, drawing pictures, making the odd bit of software? Definately not!