I'd just like to big up the 'free' software that comes bundled with audio gear these days. Cubase LE (which I got with my Zoom H4) is much easier to use than a cracked version of Cubase SX (what, you think I'd pay £400 for a piece of software I've never tried, and I might not like, even if it wasn't all buggy?).

If I buy a NI audio interface, I'll get NI Keyboards, Guitar Combos, and Traktor LE thrown in: that's probably all I really need... but I only know how good the NI stuff is because I've used cracked versions of the B4, Guitar Rig, and the Prophet V, plus a demo of Tracktor: so I'd have to agree with Mr Propellerhead. I'm not proud of it, and I am going legit, but really, do I need the full versions of all that stuff? Like do I need more than two virtual instument tracks in Cubase, or a 'track freeze' function, when I can easily bounce the MIDI track to audio? Do I need the flexibility of Guitar Rig 2, when I can route the amp output of Guitar Combos through the built-in (free) effects in Cubase? In the old days, a choice of three classic amps and a bunch of digital effects would have seemed heavenly... so why would I need more than that now?

I confess it, I'm not a pro. I'm not even semi-pro. I'm barely even amateur when it comes down to it, being busy with a family and so on... and I don't need much to make music, in fact the less I have, the more music I seem to make. So I don't really see the need for cracking, *or* for buying top-dollar expensive software, when there's a ton of perfectly good budget/free stuff out there.

I bet I'm not the only one, either.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Some of the posts in this topic displayed such ignorance it made me sick!

Zukan, you've sorted me out many times before, but this:

Quote:

---

I wonder how you would feel if it was YOUR property being abused

---

. Get real. Since you have brought up the hypothetical question. In his hypothetical land, obviously, he would have no property to be abused! it's offensive that you managed to equate an (and his) entire social philosophy and the would-be politics involved, from that one statement.

Oldhippy, how about we ban you for wanting to ban someone for stating his opinion?

Steve:

Quote:

---

I think you're living in the wrong part of China if you still think there's anyone on the planet who believes that sort of proto-Marxist gibberish

---

Don't bring a race into this personal matter. Infact, the entire sentence reeks of slander. I don't even need to explain it. (by the way, how bastardised your reply to his original post and the forum topic is, is amazing.)

What I've highlighted was nothing short of bullying. Regardless of the subject matter. I'm simply embarrassed to see how this forum has completely sunk* on this particular occasion and with most of the push from the moderators themselves!


*Especially as I think the forum is otherwise fantastic and I still would like to remain a part of that.

Quote James Perrett:

---

The moderators are mainly long established forum members with wide experience of music and recording technology - just like many others on the forum. It just so happens that, as far as I know, not many of them are Cubase users so they have very little to add to the debate.

---

Thanks for your comment James.

I, of course, did not mean to pick on the excellent SOS moderators but wanted to make a general point that whereas software piracy is universally condemned in the industry (a recent Resolution mag editorial comes to my mind for example), the not so correct practices of certain software manufacturers (and sometimes hardware too) are hardly ever commented on.

Sometimes I wonder if the audio industry journalism is really oriented towards the consumers (buyers) or does it lean to the side of the manufacturers (advertising revenue)?

I know that is quite an extreme comment to make but I would, for example, love to read a critical article about this very problem.

Any chances of that happening?

Siddho

Zukan, you've sorted me out many times before, but this:

Quote:

---

I wonder how you would feel if it was YOUR property being abused

---

. Get real. Since you have brought up the hypothetical question. In his hypothetical land, obviously, he would have no property to be abused! it's offensive that you managed to equate an (and his) entire social philosophy and the would-be politics involved, from that one statement.

---

Ed, no disrespect m8, but you are reading this far too deep.

My question was both pertinent and in context.

To imply anything more is something you have read into the post, and certainly not something I have implied.

My question was extremely simple and implied nothing.

It did ask a very simple question, and one that I feel is crucial when addressing this subject.

It is a simple "if the shoe were on the other foot, how would you feel?" type of question.

That type of question implies no social premise.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote Siddho:

---

the not so correct practices of certain software manufacturers (and sometimes hardware too) are hardly ever commented on.

---

Trouble is, nobody wants to pay for software done right, and in fact for non trivial programs, nobody really understands how to do it!

What I mean is, that even moderately high reliability systems (say safety integrity level 3) tend to be proven by exhaustive testing rather then by a correctness proof, and this testing can (For something running to a few hundred K of code and 128K RAM) take days to run. That is for a situation where we have exact control over every aspect of the hardware, have no other programs running and have a fairly limited state space (by design).

Now extrapolate that to a DAW, multi megabyte code, running on unknown hardware, with unknown OS versions (supplied by a third party, with buggy documentation), and with unknown third party plugins running in its address space, It is a wonder that the things work at all, for anybody!

Sure, the exhaustively tested version is theoretically possible, wait 5 years for it, only run plugins that have been thru the same validation process, on the specific version of the (now 5 years out of date) OS that we validated against....

Meanwhile the competition is 5 years ahead, and has eaten your market.

Sorry, but the only way to improve software reliability is to stop buying buggy [ ****** ] (And tell the manufacturers why you are not buying their products)!
Ohh yea, accepting that the new version does not have ANY new features and is purely a bugfix release would help.

BTW: That little embedded PPC box I described the development of, took 3 years, with a team of 15 or so working on it (Including a few of the smartest people I have ever met), assume £50,000 each employers cost, thats £2.25M just for the development... Now add marketing and Publicity and if that had been a DAW, we would be looking at £5M or so, sales channel markup is say 50%, so we need £10M in sales, at even £1,000 a copy, that is 10,000 copies, and that is a product far simpler then any DAW.

As it happens, the production run was a few million units, so dev cost was not very significant, but what DAW at that level of simplicity would sell that well?

You begin to see why software reliability in small market products is a very hard problem?

Quote:

---

Sometimes I wonder if the audio industry journalism is really oriented towards the consumers (buyers) or does it lean to the side of the manufacturers (advertising revenue)?

---

A charge that some of the Hifi rags seem guilty of (And I have seen a few reviews in SOS that have raised eyebrows, Alesis 3630 beating an RNC, closely followed by a full page advert for said 3630...., chance, possibly), but short of running a mag that costs £10 and is rather thin, advertising is always going to be a driver to a greater or lesser extent.
The trick is to use the ears, and to learn to interpret reviewer speak ("This mic has a crisp top end" = "This mic screeches like my 8 year old cousin on a coke and chocolate diet")..

No easy answers I am afraid.

Regards,Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Quote Siddho:

---

And why is it that moderators largely stay silent on these topics?

---

Time is finite.

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

Thanks a lot for your very informed reply Dan.

The difficulties of software development and production are well known and documented and your first hand experience explains that very well.

The nature of the market of course dictates the way things are produced, but that in my mind still does not excuse certain aspects of things as they are.

If I buy a product that promises to do something that it doesn't do (one of many examples for anyone interested: the unreliable clip-history option in Nuendo, which was a major reason I bought that product in the first place) and , even after a couple years of complaining about it, nothing is done to improve the situation then I think I have the right to feel hard done buy (we were originally talking about theft).

A reviewer has not the time or the means to put such products to test over long periods of time and that I understand. But the point is some of these companies have been in business for a number of years developing their product and like in any other area of manufacturing they have to be held to account for their product if faulty and at least provide an alternative or repair.

If it is the nature of the market that I get (or feel) ripped of, then I am afraid the market has to and will eventually change. It would be good though if audio journals highlighted this issue (with the same fervour with which they deride pirates) and maybe gently open a path to a change for the better. I think in the long run a reliable product satisfies a customer more than a faulty gimmicky new one every one or two years. I may be naive.

Siddho

Quote Tim Rainey:

---

Quote Siddho:

---

And why is it that moderators largely stay silent on these topics?

---

Time is finite.

---

The mods cute secretary is on holiday.

I think quite a lot comes down to the proportion of the cost to produce is a one time cost.

What I mean is, that in the software case, for small and medium markets, the cost to produce is probably dominated by the one time costs of design, program, QA (Yes, some does happen), market.... In this case the development cost is a HUGE proportion of the selling price (This is of course what makes piracy interesting, people do not tend to pirate high per unit cost to produce items).

Now consider something like a Fiat Punto (For example), here the majority of the cost is in per unit manufacturing.

Consider now the effect on unit selling price that increasing development cost by say 20% has, in the software case, your street price goes up by maybe 30-40% (Cost to produce goes up, so sales at the new price go down, pushing the price I have to sell for up further).
In the case of the car, I can buy quite a large improvement in quality for a fairly small change in the selling price (Because most of it is unchanged).

Thus, improving software is very much more expensive on a per issue basis, then improving hardware at the design stage. Going from a Punto to say a Focus is cheaper for the quality difference then the equivalent move in software would be.

You can of course buy seriously reliable and (almost) bug free music software, but it will be expensive, feature light, will probably come built into some hardware, and will probably rather out of date.

As I say, if enough people wanted to pay for a strictly bug fix only release of some product, it would happen, and if there was sufficient market for £20,000 DAW software of stellar reliability, that would happen.

In the meantime, I am going back to trying to reproduce a crash in Ardour 2, so that I can fix it.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Excellent reply Dan. Thanks a lot.

But a pirate or a crack-software user might say in his own defence that he cant afford the product. This (poverty) is no excuse and no one accepts it as such.
However a software company can say that it is in the nature of the market that they are disingenuous, unreliable, etc. (and also arguably thieves)!!!

Siddho

The failing to fess up to bugs or unimplemented features (that engineering is often well aware of), does annoy me.

One of the nice things about the Unix world, is that there is often a section on the manual called quite simply BUGS: that describes all the known bugs at the time the man page was written. Marketings attempts to change this to LIMITATIONS: or ISSUES: have been met with almost universal scorn.

If you find a package to be unusable, just return it, the click thru cannot trump the sale of goods act.
A case under the sale of goods act (or possibly the distance selling regs if a mail order purchase) in the small claims court would be interesting.....

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Phew, so this one (in it's various forms that i've seen over several years of using this forum) still rages.

If I may add my OWN thoughts?:

Cracked software IS illegal, it's effectively using someone else's "technology" without "rewarding" them for creating it in the first place,but:

I've always wondered at the difference between obtaining a cracked piece of vintage software (and years and years ago, albeit unwittingly, I DID - tho of course it wasnt vintage then - when buying a 2nd-hand Mac at the time - since defunct, and the software was, in fact removed when i realised - previous owner sadly disappering into the ether), and vintage HARDWARE. OK, if, at the end of the day someone makes a piece of software available to all-and-sundry without EVER having paid the creator/manufacturer for it at any point, that is despicable (as is piracy in general in case anyone wonders!) but there is another issue which someone mentioned, and that is support.

Now I run a legit DP 3.11 on a G4 Mac, which is actually an old beige G3 with a G4 upgrade. As such I am NEVER, with this mac, going to even bother upgradng the OS to X (still at 9.2 incidentally!) as it just wouldnt hack it - many, many Mac experts have warned against this. So here I am, with a now well superceded version of DP, but, at the end of the day, it does exactly what I want a piece of such software to do - communicate with my MIDI gear, allow me to multitrack record, edit and mangle audio, etc etc, and yet, with the exception of a few archive help pages on www.motu.com (which as a registered user of even such outdated software I can still access, the last time I looked, and even upgrade through should the day ever arise), there are very few places I can go for help now if I have a problem -aside from wracking the brains of previous users who havent even thought about OS9 software for years. There used to be a lot of software that was compatible with it (I also use a legit Bias Peak of the time for instance), which you simply cannot get now - expect perhaps, if yo9ure lucky, and as was mentioned earlier - on ebay or similar, but not from the original manufacturer.

What Im trying to says is - if manufacturers want to protect the sanctity of their existing and recent software, then why not, as someone else mentioned re Propperllerheads Rebirth, make earlier (and perhaps un-pgradeable/incompatible with current existing computer techology) available as a free download or for a very nominal fee? This would negate the need for anyone to illegally obtain such software. While I can understand that registered users who've stuck with a particular piece of software through it's various stages of development might say "hang on a minute, I paid several hundred squids for that in 1876!", at the end of the day, it's very much yesterdays technology. I mean, dyou think if a sought-after vintage synth in good working order - I dont know - a Moog Modular system for the sake of an example - was being sold at a car boot sale for three buttons and a pickled egg, does that mean those who bought such a system for thousands when it first came onto the market should feel aggrieved, inform the company, get the item reposessed and the buyer sued?

I guess Im wondering why there is such a disparity between hardware and software in this respect, especially if the technology is effectively defunct.

That said, I DO agree that every safeguard should be employed to protect recent, current and "evolving" software (and hardware?) for all the reasons others on here have already stated, far more succinctly and eruditely that I can in my post Burns night haze! ( I blame Talisker, Lagavulin and Bruicladdich Islay malts for all the ills of the world and not least this drivel!).

I think (as someone who still owns a 1200), the Amiga issue is very interesting, and im just glad my Octamed and Octalyzer were both properly acquired at the time - had no idea the technology was stil being developed nad still subject to the same copyright Laws. Must look for links!

--------------------
"If I had all the money i'd spent on drink, i'd spend it on drink". Vivian Stanshall

I'm going to carefully respond.

Some people asked what I would do if my property was used without my permission. As I said, I don't believe I have any. I know it sounds silly, but it's a philosophical position that's been advanced before, by Proudhon (although he accepted the concept of 'possession') and the English "Diggers / True Levellers." It seems to me that a lot of the copyright and intellectual property laws in the world were created when only analog media existed, and those same concepts are now out of date in a world where digital is dominant.

I also believe that if the world had gone the route of never protecting intellectual copyright, there would still be people who coded software as "art," knowing that it would be impossible for them to collect any royalties from it. And yes, I think that some of that software would still be pretty good. When I examine human history, people have always made art, whether they were getting paid for it or not, and the amount they were paid for it (if anything) was never a guarantee that what they'd produce would be any good.

I have a Myspace page. Anyone who wants to can download some music from there. Thanks to the way digital technology works, they can do what they like with that music. Sell it, duplicate it, delete it, whatever. Whether I (or Myspace) puts up a disclaimer saying "please don't use this for anything except your personal use," the people downloading it, in fact, can do what they like with it. It's too hard to track every stolen piece of information out there. Since I knowingly uploaded it there, I know what could happen to it. If I didn't want that to happen, I could have recorded it and never uploaded it to the net. It's the reality of the digital age.

My post was criticized as naive, which I assume was at least partially because I have a low post count. But I think it's naive to believe that disclaimers like the example above are any use. If you put one on your music or software, and later, you manage to apprehend an illegal duplicator of your product and drag them to court, you'll need to prove you had that disclaimer. But the odds of that are pretty low. I think that's the reason that Gates and Nathorst-Boos are quoted saying what they're saying. Whether you disagree with them or not, they knew what they were getting into when they started coding software. It's the nature of the beast. They hope that legal purchases will outweigh illegal downloads. They both seem to have bet on the right horse.

The quote of Ernst Nathorst-Boos was particularly illuminating. His company also turned an illegal hack of ReBirth RB-338 into it's most rewarding feature --- mods. "The street finds its own use for technology," Gibson reminds us.





My sincere thanks to the moderators for allowing me to express my opinion. That's precisely the reason I frequent this site.

Quote Tachikoma...[taipei]:

---

My sincere thanks to the moderators for allowing me to express my opinion. That's precisely the reason I frequent this site.

---

You're welcome. It's a laugh a minute

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Tachikoma...[taipei]:

---

My sincere thanks to the moderators for allowing me to express my opinion. That's precisely the reason I frequent this site.

---

You're welcome. It's a laugh a minute

hugh

---

What makes me laugh is smugness.

.

Quote Tachikoma...[taipei]:

---

And yes, I think that some of that software would still be pretty good.

---

Google for the "BSD license", or for a slightly different take the "GPL License", any yes, some of that software is indeed pretty good (as in giving Microsoft a serious run for its money in the server market), this is being written on a laptop running all software of this nature (Including the OS).

But licensing in this way is the choice of the author of the program, not the consumer.

Incidentally, the existence of this codebase removes one of the occasional 'justifications' you hear for software piracy, "The programs are too expensive", well, there are perfectly usable tools available for free.

Ardour (Quite a respectable PT work alike)
Rosegarden (A Midi/Audio sequencer)
Audacity for a quick edit.
Jackd for routing audio and timing between apps.
I am sure the windows side has similar available.

Quote:

---

I have a Myspace page. Anyone who wants to can download some music from there. Thanks to the way digital technology works, they can do what they like with that music. Sell it, duplicate it, delete it, whatever. Whether I (or Myspace) puts up a disclaimer saying "please don't use this for anything except your personal use," the people downloading it, in fact, can do what they like with it.

---

Actually, unless you specifically give permission, they are not allowed to do anything with it.... Sure, technically they can, but legally they cannot.

Quote:

---

It's too hard to track every stolen piece of information out there. Since I knowingly uploaded it there, I know what could happen to it. If I didn't want that to happen, I could have recorded it and never uploaded it to the net. It's the reality of the digital age.

---

Or you could sue half a dozen or so of the people infringing your IP rights, word would get around and the distribution of that file would be discouraged.

Quote:

---

you manage to apprehend an illegal duplicator of your product and drag them to court, you'll need to prove you had that disclaimer. But the odds of that are pretty low.

---

Err, no, under the Bourne convention, you have an automatic copyrite on anything you create, there is no need to include any text. Now if you upload a file onto a public server, the balance of probability is probably that you meant to make that file available for download, but may not be that you meant to allow further distribution of that file , or the creation of derivative works(This probably depends on the site), of course if you include a message placing that file into the public domain, you then loose all rights to control what happens to that file (as in someone else can take it, package it and sell the package under a really nasty license).
For any sort of in between route, you get into copyrite licensing. The creative commons folks have some licenses for various levels of 'do what you like', but they turn out to be remarkably difficult to write in a way that works internationally.

Quote:

---

Whether you disagree with them or not, they knew what they were getting into when they started coding software.

---

Actually, I don't think Gates did, back in the quickbasic days there was no consumer software market, google on his famous "letter to the hobbyists".

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

This is complicated. On the subject of property and theft, I'm reminded of a fave film of mine, The Jokers, a British caper movie, whose plot hinges on a dubious legal nicety, which is that for something to be considered to be theft, one's intention must be to 'permanently deprive' the victim of the thing stolen. If you don't 'permanently deprive' him of anything, it isn't theft.

Lets say I wrote a piece of software called 'CubAble SonaLogic 7'. If you download a cracked copy, you have not deprived me of it, unless you also erase it from my hard drive. Therefore it is not theft.

I've no idea whether this plot device is actually British law or not, but in this context (where nothing is actually taken, only reproduced) it seems reasonable. It is actually quite hard to see what harm has been done to me, *over and above you just not buying my software* (which if it cost £500 and was known to be full of bugs, you might well not have done anyway, right?). If you intended to buy it, before you illegally downloaded it, and now you don't need to buy it, then I have been deprived of earnings, and a 'theft' of sorts has taken place: but which user of cracked or pirated software actually sets out to buy some software and ends up downloading it illegally instead (maybe a few, if it's hard to come by a legally paid-for version, which in this day and age would be pretty scandalous)?

It is true that without the existence of pirated software, people would be forced to pay, and rightly so: but that is not where were are at: pirated software exists, and as things stand, nobody can be forced to pay. You could perhaps spend a lot of time and effort seeking out people who use cracked software, and punish them. Maybe an apt punishment would be to make them pay for all the software they've illegally downloaded. Maybe that would help stamp out piracy. As long as it was relatively cheap to find and prosecute offenders, it could work both as a deterrent and as a source of income for software houses. Personally I think it would be a bit draconian, but that's only because I've used pirated software in the past.

Whichever way you look at it, using an illegally downloaded Hammond B4 emulation is almost completely unlike stealing somebody's actual Hammond B4 (for one thing, it's a lot easier on your back!), and to say that one is the same as the other is just as disingenous as saying that 'all property is theft'.

Whatever the legalities, I think Sound on Sound is right to take a principled stand against the use of pirated music software. Morally speaking, software developers *deserve* to be financially rewarded for their work, and it is patently unjust that honest people who *buy* the software, should be expected to pay through the nose for something that a user of pirated software gets for free. It is natural justice too, that something which a) you find useful and b) took someone time and effort to create, is something you should pay for. It's hard moral rocket science, and no amount of self-serving pseudo-anarchistic sophistry will get you out of it! After all, if you were in a collective, and you constantly enjoyed the fruits of someone else's labours, while doing bugger-all for them in return, you would rightly be called a freeloading git, and turfed out.

Which is why, thanks mainly to the stand taken by SOS, I am replacing the cracked 'full' versions of the three or four products I have used illegally and 'can't live without', with paid-for 'lite' versions. In effect, I am paying hard-earned cash, to have more limited software than I can get for free. One day I might upgrade to the full versions, if my wallet can stretch and my 'needs' can justify it.

The 'all property is theft' people might well think what I am doing is unnecessary or even immoral (why not give the money to the Red Cross, for instance, surely they need it more than Native Instruments?). The whiter-than-white anti-piracy people may well proclaim that I am only doing what I should have done much earlier, so why do I need to make a big song and dance about it? (because I don't see anyone else posting from a similar perspective, and I'm sure there must be other people out there in a similar position, that's why!)

Sorry about the long post. Anyway, back to The Jokers. Does anyone know whether it is illegal for me to repeatedly watch it on a VHS tape, which was recorded from a TV broadcast in about 1983? I've looked for the DVD, but I can't find it.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Quote Tachikoma...[taipei]:

---

Some people asked what I would do if my property was used without my permission. As I said, I don't believe I have any. I know it sounds silly, but it's a philosophical position that's been advanced before, by Proudhon (although he accepted the concept of 'possession') and the English "Diggers / True Levellers." It seems to me that a lot of the copyright and intellectual property laws in the world were created when only analog media existed, and those same concepts are now out of date in a world where digital is dominant.

---

It's a bit of a leap to make parallels between the aims of The Diggers and simple 'theft of intellectual property'. As I understand, the Diggers opposed private ownership and gain from land - and wanted to farm common land to feed people who could not afford to eat. I don't see how this equates to you helping yourself to something which someone else has created. (However I can see the distinction between property and intellectual property - and how the ease of making perfect copies of digital 'property' forces us to rethink the notion of ownership).

But I'm with dmills here - there is a very healthy movement broadly known as free and open source software (FOSS). This is surely the answer to your needs - it represents an almost ideal anarchic alternative to proprietary software production and ownership. And there are many examples of well-designed, well-implemented applications already in existence.

But to state this is my philosophical position, whether naive or informed, you still have to consider that much of the rest of the world probably does not support or respect the position - there are vested interests of the owners, and there are existing IP laws to protect them.

--------------------
TAKEN.BALL.GONE.HOME

i used some cracked hardware once... bit of superglue and it was fine

Says it all really.

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

Quote JimiQ:

---

But I'm with dmills here - there is a very healthy movement broadly known as free and open source software (FOSS). This is surely the answer to your needs - it represents an almost ideal anarchic alternative to proprietary software production and ownership. And there are many examples of well-designed, well-implemented applications already in existence.

---

Hear, hear! In many cases, the open source software works better than the commercially available ones!

These days, I also really like the idea of supporting smaller software developers who are doing good work, and who don't have a top-heavy corporate structure to feed at the expense of development.

Look at what's happening with REAPER these days. That is developing fast and furious, and it's getting very good, especially on the audio side of things. This, in STARK contrast to the latest (in a string of) ridiculous developments at Steinberg.

I say let the big corporate monster eat itself alive, instead of gobbling up every last crumb and making it difficult for smaller companies to thrive. Especially if the big corporate monster is going to be making people pay top dollar for beta releases.

Many people do not realise that the guy who is developing REAPER is Justin Frankel, who developed WinAmp. He's also a musician himself, and he is getting a lot of input from serious, knowledgeable audio engineers. The in-built compressor in REAPER is actually quite an interesting piece of DSP development. (Check the "Using ReaComp" tutorial video here.) His story is rather interesting, and well worth the read if you are at all interested in and/or following the development of REAPER. Justin is apparently a VERY good software coder. Wouldn't it be great if there was a very high quality audio/midi sequencer that is broadly compatible and cheap enough (and not so incredibly proprietary as the big corporate packages are) to become as ubiquitous amongst musicians and pro studios (even as a secondary application) as is WinAmp, to allow for greater flexibility in collaboration? I think this is a large part of his goal.

The developers are actually listening to the users on this one . . . and responding!!!

These days, with the amount of good, open source software available, not to mention really excellent plugins, etc. developed by companies like PSP, Voxengo and others (Zukan's Samplecraze company is another good example in the sampling part of the market) that don't charge insane prices for their software, I can't see any reason for people to use cracked software. Better to support open source developers and the lower priced competitors of these companies who are charging ridiculous prices for beta releases.

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Not that there isn't good reason for pro studios to use high end, commercial/proprietary software -- it's just a reality that they must at this point. But I think it is wise for us all to consider how to force the industry to respond to our concerns, rather than being hyper-focused on the near-term bottom line.

I also look at word processing/document production programs like M$ Office. It used to be that all of the law firms here in NYC (and pretty much everywhere else) used WordPerfect for their documents. Then they all switched over to M$ Word, because that's what all the smaller companies (their clients) used. But M$Word is an absolutely BOLLOX program for legal, financial or any other similarly complex documents. Among other things, large legal documents have very complex formats, with multiple levels of subordinate headings and paragraphs. M$Word, even the "professional" "Legal' package, does not handle this well AT ALL! So all of the law firms had to then go out and invest in third party packages to force M$Word to handle the complex formats without the documents exploding (quite literally) into a big lump of gibberish. It's also crap at handling complex footnote setups that occur in law review articles and other similar publications.

WordPerfect has always handled all of this beautifully, and it is also much cheaper the M$Word. The operators all absolutely HATE M$Word in comparison to WordPerfect. Add to this the fact that each successive "new and improved" version tries to do things automatically for you that are often exactly the thing you do NOT want it to do.

All of these law firms spent millions and millions of dollars some years back, converting ALL of their documents (even the old ones) into M$Word format.

But imagine if all of these law firms used Open Office, and supported that project financially. I find Open Office does a beautiful job of exporting and importing documents to and from from all sorts of different formats. I'm sure it would be even better if there was more money supporting the project, with input from the power users like legal and financial firms. These firms spend millions of dollars every year having to fight with overly proprietary software that doesn't play nice with the other children, or that isn't developed with the concerns of the user as the first priority. But of course an open source project isn't going to be spending the marketing dollars that a company like M$ are, so those companies' wares are more ubiquitous by default, so we are all forced more and more into using (and paying ridiculous sums for) something that may not really be the best option for us as users, because we don't want to be caught out using software that isn't in the most common mainstream use, in order to avoid potential incompatibility or lack of easily obtainable support.

The use of cracks not only hurts the big company developers, it also hurts small companies that could actually introduce serious competition to the big guys in quality and price, and which could thereby bring quality up and prices down in the market. And, in so doing, we make it harder and harder for even exceptionally good people to make a living in this industry, which also has the knock-on effect of adding to the difficulties for we musicians to be able to support the development of our art, and to earn income from our art.



--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Edited by Scottdru (26/01/07 05:54 PM)

Quote Conz:

---

Thanks for the response guys.

I used to have Steinberg LM-4 mkII at my previuos company and would like to use it again, primarily to load up older projects. It's no longer available and Steinberg don't supply anything similar.

I did see a used copy, however, selling for £99. I might consider this, but if I let it slip and never see another copy, I'd be stuffed really.

Cheers,
Peter

---

I've an original version of LM4 mk1 would sell it for next to nothing.

k

As this SOS Forum thread highlights

Theres so much superb free stuff out there that do an excellent job for a variety of purposes.

Also enough audio midi cards nowadays come with excellent free bundled software.
E-Mu is one manuf that go crazy with the amount of free stuff they supply
: lite versions of Cakewalk, Sonar, Ableton, Wavelab, Amplitube, Melodyne, BIAS Peak, SFX Machine, Proteus sound bank.

IMO its not too smart to put cracked software on your machine. You never know where its been so to speak.

Quote Scottdru:

---

Quote JimiQ:

---

But I'm with dmills here - there is a very healthy movement broadly known as free and open source software (FOSS). This is surely the answer to your needs - it represents an almost ideal anarchic alternative to proprietary software production and ownership. And there are many examples of well-designed, well-implemented applications already in existence.

---

Hear, hear! In many cases, the open source software works better than the commercially available ones!

These days, I also really like the idea of supporting smaller software developers who are doing good work, and who don't have a top-heavy corporate structure to feed at the expense of development.

Look at what's happening with REAPER these days. That is developing fast and furious, and it's getting very good, especially on the audio side of things. This, in STARK contrast to the latest (in a string of) ridiculous developments at Steinberg.

---

Steinberg invented a lot of the technology, you have to give them some credit.

Quote Scottdru:

---

I say let the big corporate monster eat itself alive, instead of gobbling up every last crumb and making it difficult for smaller companies to thrive. Especially if the big corporate monster is going to be making people pay top dollar for beta releases.

Many people do not realise that the guy who is developing REAPER is Justin Frankel, who developed WinAmp.

---

Winamp is owned by the corporate monster Time Warner / AOL

Quote Scottdru:

---

He's also a musician himself, and he is getting a lot of input from serious, knowledgeable audio engineers. The in-built compressor in REAPER is actually quite an interesting piece of DSP development. (Check the "Using ReaComp" tutorial video here.) His story is rather interesting, and well worth the read if you are at all interested in and/or following the development of REAPER. Justin is apparently a VERY good software coder. Wouldn't it be great if there was a very high quality audio/midi sequencer that is broadly compatible and cheap enough (and not so incredibly proprietary as the big corporate packages are) to become as ubiquitous amongst musicians and pro studios (even as a secondary application) as is WinAmp, to allow for greater flexibility in collaboration? I think this is a large part of his goal.

---

It would be awful if everybody used the same software. Its not even a good idea to use the same software yourself day after day, you get stuck in a rut.

Quote Scottdru:

---

The developers are actually listening to the users on this one . . . and responding!!!

These days, with the amount of good, open source software available, not to mention really excellent plugins, etc. developed by companies like PSP, Voxengo and others (Zukan's Samplecraze company is another good example in the sampling part of the market) that don't charge insane prices for their software, I can't see any reason for people to use cracked software. Better to support open source developers and the lower priced competitors of these companies who are charging ridiculous prices for beta releases.

---

People use cracked software because its extremely easy to get hold of and use and most people really don't care about piracy.

Quote Scottdru:

---

If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Not that there isn't good reason for pro studios to use high end, commercial/proprietary software -- it's just a reality that they must at this point. But I think it is wise for us all to consider how to force the industry to respond to our concerns, rather than being hyper-focused on the near-term bottom line.

I also look at word processing/document production programs like M$ Office. It used to be that all of the law firms here in NYC (and pretty much everywhere else) used WordPerfect for their documents. Then they all switched over to M$ Word, because that's what all the smaller companies (their clients) used. But M$Word is an absolutely BOLLOX program for legal, financial or any other similarly complex documents. Among other things, large legal documents have very complex formats, with multiple levels of subordinate headings and paragraphs. M$Word, even the "professional" "Legal' package, does not handle this well AT ALL! So all of the law firms had to then go out and invest in third party packages to force M$Word to handle the complex formats without the documents exploding (quite literally) into a big lump of gibberish. It's also crap at handling complex footnote setups that occur in law review articles and other similar publications.

WordPerfect has always handled all of this beautifully, and it is also much cheaper the M$Word. The operators all absolutely HATE M$Word in comparison to WordPerfect. Add to this the fact that each successive "new and improved" version tries to do things automatically for you that are often exactly the thing you do NOT want it to do.

All of these law firms spent millions and millions of dollars some years back, converting ALL of their documents (even the old ones) into M$Word format.

But imagine if all of these law firms used Open Office, and supported that project financially. I find Open Office does a beautiful job of exporting and importing documents to and from from all sorts of different formats. I'm sure it would be even better if there was more money supporting the project, with input from the power users like legal and financial firms. These firms spend millions of dollars every year having to fight with overly proprietary software that doesn't play nice with the other children, or that isn't developed with the concerns of the user as the first priority. But of course an open source project isn't going to be spending the marketing dollars that a company like M$ are, so those companies' wares are more ubiquitous by default, so we are all forced more and more into using (and paying ridiculous sums for) something that may not really be the best option for us as users, because we don't want to be caught out using software that isn't in the most common mainstream use, in order to avoid potential incompatibility or lack of easily obtainable support.

---

OpenOffice is a load of [ ****** ]. Talk about bloated. It takes ages to even open, uses loads more processing power and memory than microsoft office. Its totally overhyped. It may be open source but its owned by Sun and only their own programmers make any significant contribution to it.

Quote Scottdru:

---

The use of cracks not only hurts the big company developers, it also hurts small companies that could actually introduce serious competition to the big guys in quality and price, and which could thereby bring quality up and prices down in the market. And, in so doing, we make it harder and harder for even exceptionally good people to make a living in this industry, which also has the knock-on effect of adding to the difficulties for we musicians to be able to support the development of our art, and to earn income from our art.

---

I don't think you can expect people to become overly moral about not using cracked software anymore than swimming against the tide of mp3s. Its a waste of time.

The technology moves on, but music would be made regardless. A desk, hardware effects, sampler setup of the mid 90s is perfectly capable of making great music. Advances in computer software aren't reflected in any advance in the quality of music. If computers just went back to midi only and hardware synths took off again, especially cheap analogue synths, things would be far more exciting.

Quote johnny h:

---

Advances in computer software aren't reflected in any advance in the quality of music.

---

Why should they be? Computers do not make people into especially talented musicians any more than 8 hours violin lessons a day for 15 years does.

Computers enable an awful lot of crap to see the light of day which, once, record companies filtered out of the mainstream listening environment. So we have 3 million competing "original" (ahem....) acts on Myspace.

I genuinely welcome the democratisation of music in this way - it's enabled at least a small handful of artists to reach an audience which would hitherto have been impossible. Hooray.

But don't let's kid ourselves that the next big IT development is all we need to get ourselves a number one hit. That would be just silly.

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

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Advances in computer software aren't reflected in any advance in the quality of music.

---

Why should they be? Computers do not make people into especially talented musicians any more than 8 hours violin lessons a day for 15 years does.

Computers enable an awful lot of crap to see the light of day which, once, record companies filtered out of the mainstream listening environment. So we have 3 million competing "original" (ahem....) acts on Myspace.

I genuinely welcome the democratisation of music in this way - it's enabled at least a small handful of artists to reach an audience which would hitherto have been impossible. Hooray.

But don't let's kid ourselves that the next big IT development is all we need to get ourselves a number one hit. That would be just silly.

---

Yes that is the point I was making. Scotdru was saying that small audio software developers need encouraging and support, open source DAWs for all etc. But I don't see what huge benefit it brings in terms of end product. Just allows a lot more people to make very bad music.

The fact is somebody who knows what they're doing will make good music on any working setup - analogue, digital, cubase 2,3,4 software / hardware it doesn't matter. Too many people are sitting around waiting for the next big plugin, next big synth or even the next version of cubase which will finally give them that professional edge. They've got a long, long wait.

Quote johnny h:

---

Steinberg invented a lot of the technology, you have to give them some credit.

---

On the PC side of things there were existing alternatives for their technology. Cakewalk and Voyetra were building decent music apps for years before Steinberg came along. For some reason Steinberg decided to invent their own standards which, in some ways, are still more limited than what came before them.

Cheers

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Hi all
just my 2c
it is well known that legit software companies were using hackers and crackers to promote their products(Radium Warez example.) as well as finding out ways to control piracy.go figure if someone makes a hit with a cracked version of your software you give him support and have advertizing. A lot of the peeps out there using cracked warez will turn their backs on music in a couple of years and buy cars ,settledown ....no prob.like they say all news is good news and its the gates theory ..one day we will get em. Gates has been giving the stuff away for years.make them independant and then turn off the tap:all this boo hoo we aint makin a dime bull is a little tireing cos if the software companies folded ...id go back to 2"

--------------------
I could´nt sleep till I put it down

hugh: glad i'm entertaining you.

baron_de: i agree: smugness is even more laughable

dmills: 'technically they can, but legally they cannot" is my whole point. technically, residents of the united kingdom can smoke joints. legally they cannot. yet they continue to do so... along with other members of various countries in similar positions. my point is that coding a program is like rolling a barrow full of oranges out onto the street, attaching a sign that sez "don't eat these" and walking away. you can argue all you want about what the sign sez, but eventually the oranges will be gone.... and new oranges will grow.

Richard Graham: home taping is killing music. naw, jus' kidding

JimiQ: my point with the diggers is not a direct parallel; obviously they could not have understood the apparently important implicaitons of DRM. my point is that various people in history have expressed various views on the validity of the inherited laws of property, both intellectual and physical; and in the world we live in, the legal system is evolving in the same analog, linear way it always has, whereas the digital, exponential evolution of 'software' on the internet is outpacing it --- thoroughly.

TTN: you got it. I just bought a Dx7 a month ago.... should I feel bad for using the software it came with? it has some physical crax too....

scottdru; the big/small company delusion is only temporary; eventually Cool Edit Pro become Adobe Audition. My argument is not aimed at 'cheating the big while robbing the small' --- it's that the whole concept of 'software' is a new one that's been created by the huge, the multinationals, the nations.... espcially the good old US of A. Maybe we should reward Bob Moog with the 'software concept' behind the analog synthesis model, do you agree?

Steve hill: go on defending those big major labels, lord knows they can't defend themselves.... you're not part of a viral marketing campaign are ya?

J Perrett: Steinberg invented their own standard cuz they thought it would make them money..... unlike Dave Smith and Midi, amirite?

Artbreak: you're so right. Ditto 100%!! No sarcasm!! Radium was like a 90's version of the same 'led light mooninite terrorism paranoia" that the US is going thru right now....

--------------------
Nobukazu Takemura = God.

Spite aside, I'll spell it out as clearly as I can.

McLuhan teaches us that media have an effect on morality. It's not determinist: media don't force you to do anything. But because they offer you the option to do something, and because out of all the humans in the world, there always seems to be one human who'll take that option, it means that:

If humans had never invented an atomic bomb, the issue of dropping it on others would have been a moot point.

But the fact is they did; and eventually, a human was found who, in a given political situation, did it.

Ditto (although it sounds extreme) for software duplication. If you give all the humans in the world the physical ability to do something, eventually, one of them will do it --- and the others will find themselves tossing back and forth the moral consequences of that one guy's actions. It doesnt matter what justifications they offer for or against it; all this is just rationalism. Eventually, another human, pressed hard enough, will follow in his footsteps.

Didn't UB40 use stolen drum machines to break out of the ghetto?

Didn't hiphop explode after a massive power outage in NYC in the late 80's resulted in turntables and samplers being stolen from music stores?

The street finds its own use for technology. And it always will.

Edited by Tachikoma...[taipei] (02/02/07 03:44 PM)

If you are at least happy for your music to be distributed without any royalties to you, and for people (companies) to do what they like with it (including selling copies, again with no royalties coming to you), then I suppose your argument about software is at least consistent.
Otherwise the argument breaks down in that recorded music and software are pretty much indistinguishable (Both are just sequences of bits in most common implementations).

Now, I for one like a copyright system that allows me to determine under what conditions I wish to allow my work to be duplicated (These tend to be fairly liberal, GPL in most cases). Note that independently creating something that looks the same and works in broadly the same way, is not protected by copyright, but by patent, which does not apply to software in the EU (At present).

Software actually has a far simpler copyright regime then most recorded music, in that you tend to avoid the worst of the writing/mechanical/performance divide because the equivalent all tend to belong to the same person or people and the rights transferred (in addition to those granted under copyright law) tend to be a license to use the code in ways otherwise prohibited by copyright. In particular, note that any computer must make a copy of the program in RAM in order to execute it.

There is nothing in copyright law to stop anyone from independently producing a workalike, but proving it was independent is hard unless the originating language of the original has been kept trade secret. This is generally the case in software, and may increasingly be the case in music (But music has all sorts of special case law going back to piano roll days...).

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Quote Tachikoma...[taipei]:

---

Didn't UB40 use stolen drum machines to break out of the ghetto?

---

They may not have been above a bit of petty thieving, but the Campbell brothers are the sons of Ian Campbell, a respected mainstream folk musician who has been recording for some decades and whilst he probably does not enjoy the lifestyle of a bloated plutocrat, he has always done well enough to keep his family in reasonable comfort.

The "ghetto" aspects of UB40's origins possibly owe a lot to a public relations executive's daydreams.

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

I think this..........

The vast majority of people who use cracked software cannot afford to buy it anyway.
So in theory, the software company has not lost any money.
On the other hand the more users of a piece of software (cracked or not) the better.
Better because it becomes known. The more people know about it the more people use it. So the software company sells more and it's product dominants.

I believe this to be true because of the amount of growth in the software industry and taking into account how easy it is now to acquire cracked software.

It doesn't make it right but this is the industry model and you have to accept that if you choose to enter that industry.

One thing I have a problem with though is the cost of plug ins and their limited shelf life. If I buy a reverb, I want to be able to use it for more than just a few years. I bought my Alesis midi verb in 1995 and I still use it in my studio. If I purchased a plug in, no way will it be in use in 12 years time.

Quote WiredUp:

---

I think this..........

The vast majority of people who use cracked software cannot afford to buy it anyway.
So in theory, the software company has not lost any money.
On the other hand the more users of a piece of software (cracked or not) the better.

---

Trouble is, this actually helps the biggest player in the market far more then it does the smaller competition, after all, if there is no price differential between PT and a low end DAW (Which is the effective case for pirated PT), that affordable low end DAW is not going to get the sales, and will vanish in short order.

Digidesign are not suffering from the piracy of PT, it is all the other companies trying to play in that market at a lower price point.....

As I say, I have few issues with professional musicians pirating my software, as long as they are collectively OK with people copying CDs and giving them away or selling their own compilations of their work (Without royalties)!

If you cannot afford the good stuff there is plenty of cheaper (or free) options that will get the job done, and these guys could really use your support. 15 years ago, I would have killed for what audacity (a free download) can do today.

Quote:

---

One thing I have a problem with though is the cost of plug ins and their limited shelf life. If I buy a reverb, I want to be able to use it for more than just a few years. I bought my Alesis midi verb in 1995 and I still use it in my studio. If I purchased a plug in, no way will it be in use in 12 years time.

---

I don't see why not, my Atari ST (About the same age) still booted up last time I tried. Sure the interfaces required to use that 12 year old plug with modern hardware might be an issue, but it should work fine with whatever platform it was designed for.

What really annoys is the short shelf life of the software APIs used, backward compatibility (By means of a shim if need be) is not that hard a problem.

BTW: Why in hell are you still using a MidiVerb (shudder).

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Edited by dmills (02/02/07 08:16 PM)

Quote dmills:

---

Now, I for one like a copyright system that allows me to determine under what conditions I wish to allow my work to be duplicated (These tend to be fairly liberal, GPL in most cases). Note that independently creating something that looks the same and works in broadly the same way, is not protected by copyright, but by patent, which does not apply to software in the EU (At present).

---

But wouldn't you rather that everyone made music for free and that pay would exist solely in donation from other more fortunate people who paid what they thought you deserved? (a lot) Less people crowd around music to cash in on it's commercial potential - marketing people stay out of it and a more honest, meaningful industry is created?

I'd certainly prefer that.

Quote E D:

---

But wouldn't you rather that everyone made music for free and that pay would exist solely in donation from other more fortunate people who paid what they thought you deserved? (a lot) Less people crowd around music to cash in on it's commercial potential - marketing people stay out of it and a more honest, meaningful industry is created?

I'd certainly prefer that.

---

And at a stroke there are no professional musicians any more, and producing the next bohemian rapsody or whatever is not even remotely affordable unless you made your pile elsewhere.

Almost everyone has to have a day job outside music as there is now no profit in recording anything and unless you are gigging as your main source of income (true for how many bands?), you need an external source of funds.

Thing is all those hangers on do add value to a recorded work, you need the producer, engineer, mastering guy, cover art, session keys (Who cannot afford to do it for love)...

For a concert you have a slightly different set, now its production crew, riggers, stewards, catering, security.....

Much as it pains me to say it, while the marketing department are, almost without exception, pond scum, having them on the job does seem to increase numbers of units shipped sufficiently to offset the cost of using them.

Now loosing the focus groups and having the execs grow some balls and a spine would be a good thing, but taking all the profit (for anyone) out of the picture is IMHO a step backwards.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Quote Scope:

---

Why use cracks ?
Old software has such little value, you can often buy it for pennies !

Cracks are not only illeagal but plain daft as they mess up your computer making it very unstable.
Better to search the ads for old titles and buy the real thing.

---

That's not necessarily true. Not all cracks destroy a machine. Typically all a crack is is removal of the security code (sometimes the anti-piracy code can take up more space than the actual software program). Sometimes the programmers will write a malicious code that is activated once an attempt is made to alter the program code.

To the chagrin of my net worth, I buy my software for ethical and legal reasons. However, I never would have gotten into Reason had I not gotten a great crack of 2.5.

You simply can't demo a program effectively and thoroughly when many of its features are disabled. And what if I come up with something I want to keep while using that limited demo? Damn, I can't save what I'm doing?

Other software manufacturers, like Adobe for example (using THIS century progressive strategy), have demos that are fully functional for 30 days, then you either have to purchase a serial number or the program stops working and cannot be reactivated. Gee, what a novel approach!

But because of some last century brain-lock strategy (which is working really well for the record companies), they refuse to change how they let their customers demo their products. So, screw them! But I love Reason so after I played around with the cracked version, I went and bought it (it was also about to upgrade to 3.0 for $100, too).

I got hold of a crack of FL Studio 6 because their online demo for customers to download expired before you loaded it. As soon as you downloaded the demo and installed it, it gave you an error message when you opened it saying the demo expired (I had never used or loaded any software package from that company before, so there was no registry issue). That is reprehensible customer service.

So I loaded the crack and found I didn't care for FL Studio and promptly removed it and deleted the file.

So, with all due respect to those who look down their noses at those who use cracked software, please answer why Steinberg, or Propellerhead, et al, don't adapt Adobe's demo methodology? I've never obtained a crack for an Adobe product because it's not necessary. I know I speak for many people who want a fully functional demo when they try out a program for the first time, and some in the software industry don't have a problem with supplying the end users with a demo that will provide a satisfactory user experience.

The cracks I got for FL Studio and Reason both came with start-up screens which said "If you like using this software, please purchase a legal copy." And I went and purchased Reason.

Now, I know not everyone would do that, thus the piracy industry, but if I'm going to shell out £600-£1200 for a software package, I'm not buying it based on a demo with limited functionality. Who invests a substantial sum of money on a product based on a version specifically designed not to work right?

It's time to rethink this debate, really. The customer--or end user--is always right? Remember when that meant something?

--------------------
Come down and beware of the apefist.

Quote dmills:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

I think this..........

The vast majority of people who use cracked software cannot afford to buy it anyway.
So in theory, the software company has not lost any money.
On the other hand the more users of a piece of software (cracked or not) the better.

---

Trouble is, this actually helps the biggest player in the market far more then it does the smaller competition, after all, if there is no price differential between PT and a low end DAW (Which is the effective case for pirated PT), that affordable low end DAW is not going to get the sales, and will vanish in short order.

Digidesign are not suffering from the piracy of PT, it is all the other companies trying to play in that market at a lower price point.....

As I say, I have few issues with professional musicians pirating my software, as long as they are collectively OK with people copying CDs and giving them away or selling their own compilations of their work (Without royalties)!

If you cannot afford the good stuff there is plenty of cheaper (or free) options that will get the job done, and these guys could really use your support. 15 years ago, I would have killed for what audacity (a free download) can do today.

Quote:

---

One thing I have a problem with though is the cost of plug ins and their limited shelf life. If I buy a reverb, I want to be able to use it for more than just a few years. I bought my Alesis midi verb in 1995 and I still use it in my studio. If I purchased a plug in, no way will it be in use in 12 years time.

---

I don't see why not, my Atari ST (About the same age) still booted up last time I tried. Sure the interfaces required to use that 12 year old plug with modern hardware might be an issue, but it should work fine with whatever platform it was designed for.

What really annoys is the short shelf life of the software APIs used, backward compatibility (By means of a shim if need be) is not that hard a problem.

BTW: Why in hell are you still using a MidiVerb (shudder).

Regards, Dan.

---

The reason Digidesign don't have any problems with pirates is Pro Tools wont run unless digi hardware is present.
Sydec/SSL's Soundscape DAW has a very good anti-pirate system in place that works.

Your right about old plugins but who wants to fill their studio up with a PC running win 98, a PC running XP, a PC running Vista just incase you might need that plugin?

Plug-ins retail at hardware prices. But once the development is done and the software released there are no further costs. No manufacturing and distribution costs nothing with the internet.
I'm leaning toward dedicated plugin hardware such as the Liquid channel or Duende. I can see a much longer shelf life for these and such devices get round the piracy issue too.

As for my Midiverb. I use it for my foldback/headphone mix. If client want a bit of verb while tracking I press the power on button and off she goes. No crashing, no glitches, it just works.

Nowt too wrong with an old midiverb! Unless it's cracked!
Has it's uses, and no not as a doorstop!

Guffaw!

But i have to add that i also see no reason why you couldn't use a plug in in in in in years to come.