Quote an englishman in paris:

---

well in fact its the other way round; unlike what i understood happened in the states, we had no initial contact with an offer to go "legit"; the first we knew was the bailiff, then the court order, with the 100000 euros plus costs demanded;

---

Sounds well dodgy to me - they can't get a court order against you without you being given a chance to defend yourself.

If you had no prior warning - ie: letters sent in advance, I would be tempted to reply that this is an illegal scam to extort money with menaces.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

well we do have a chance to defend ourselves; maybe my translation of legal procedures here is not good; we have been summoned to go to court where we can defend ourselves; and even if we are found "guilty" there is obviously a reasonable chance that any "damages" will be much less than that demanded by the plaintiff; but to do this we need a lawyer; and we could counterattack because as i said from the beginning the court order was based on a false declaration; but we are a tiny company; and in the end it would cost less if we went "legit" and try to negotiate; even though it is not the "courageous" thing to do

Clearly the lesson to be learned from this is that it is extremely BAD KARMA to use Waves Products either bought or not.

BOYCOTT WAVES!

Even the free EQ supplied with Cubase is better than the Waves crap.

--------------------
Ouch!

This thread is not about the quality of their products, it is about their business practices.

Englishman, your experience is counter to everything official they have said regarding the BanPiracy organisation, so any credibility they might have had has gone out the window in my book. It indeed looks to me like simply an attempt to forcibly extract as much money as they can...

Yep... BOYCOTT WAVES!

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

Quote desmond:

---

This thread is not about the quality of their products, it is about their business practices.

I agree 100%

Quote desmond:

---

It indeed looks to me like simply an attempt to forcibly extract as much money as they can...

---

Confirming the suspicions I voiced when this first hit the fan about 6 weeks ago.

I can't believe no-one from Waves is reading this thread.

Why are they so scared to respond publicly and on the record?

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

Easy maths:

Income from "questionable" tactics: $800,000

Expenses (lawyers, costs, etc): -$300,000

Gross profit: $500,000

Loss of income due to bad PR and karma: -$500,000

Net profit: NIL



*moderator edited. to make a point*

--------------------
Ouch!

Edited by Max! (17/11/07 12:33 AM)

sorry dennis; I am contributing to this forum to try and get some sense out of the situation; I welcome all support and solidarity; but I disassociate myself with your comments here; I don't think that it helps anyone to start insulting people and using racist remarks

Quote an englishman in paris:

---

sorry dennis; I am contributing to this forum to try and get some sense out of the situation; I welcome all support and solidarity; but I disassociate myself with your comments here; I don't think that it helps anyone to start insulting people and using racist remarks

---

Er, I think this thread was started before your contribution so please don't feel the need to disassociate yourself!

...I'm not insulting anyone or being "racist", merely stating the facts:

1. Waves is an Israeli compmany.
2. Their present tactics are heavy-handed and illegal - therefore "neo-Nazi" is an appropriate adjective that I think adds some colourful irony, just as one may refer to American foreign policy as "fascist".

Anyway, I don't do "PC" in any way, shape or form.


--------------------
Ouch!

ok dennis; we can still be friends;

Quote an englishman in paris:

---

ok dennis; we can still be friends;

---

--------------------
Ouch!

Quote Dennis Spank:

---

Easy maths:

Income from "Questionable" tactics: $800,000

---

Given the events of WWII and before, that's beyond crass, bordering on what ought to be actionable.




** Mod edited to maintain coherence in quotation***

--------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/hol

Edited by Max! (17/11/07 12:37 AM)

Quote Hol:

---

Quote Dennis Spank:

---

Easy maths:

Income from "Questionable" tactics: $800,000

---

Given the events of WWII and before, that's beyond crass, bordering on what ought to be actionable.

---

Tough. I say what I like. "Action" me darling.





" Mod Edited to maintain coherence"




--------------------
Ouch!

Edited by Max! (17/11/07 12:36 AM)

Quote Dennis Spank:

---

Tough. I say what I like. "Action" me darling.

---

Personally, I do not care for your comments or your attitude either. You can say what you like, but I do not have to like what you say.

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

Dennis. you are politely requested to cease and desist upsetting those who may find your choice of phrase somewhat offensive.

While Waves may be accused of taking the extreme view... it's not entirely undeserved in many cases, and frankly it's about time some of the software industry stood up for it's right to earn a living, and indeed to make a profit for their investors... they're after all, in business, like everyone else.... to make money, in return for their investment of capital and time.


although some of their representatives would certainly appear to have been somewhat underhanded, this does NOT make them Neo-Nazi's .

given the history , and sociopolitical origin, it's an epithet you ought to apologise for.,

BE advised, you signed up to abide by the rules, terms and conditions of this forum , or you would be unable to post, it would appear this has slipped your mind.

Perhaps you should read them/.



regards
Max
SOS forum moderator.

(I'm not unknown for being blunt either.... but there ARE limits, and the ideal of complete free speech is, in practice, an urban myth. )

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

would like to get back to the problem in hand; if there is anyone out there who is in the same position as us, would welcome any advice, comments on how you have gone about or are thinking about going about resolving the problem; comments from french studios or users particularly welcome; in french if you like

Given that the summons was apparently issued on a fallacious basis, I'd fight tooth and nail.....

While I'm in favour of developers sticking up for their rights, in this instance, I'm not keen on their methods , and where people HAVE a defensible case to argue, i think they should do so... after all, one supposes that if you win, you may be able to persuade the court to award you costs against the plaintiff , and perhaps punitive damages for wasting court time and your time... ??


it's worth at least looking in to with a serious intent.

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

but i'd concede that it's a bit of a scary "If" ....

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

Quote Steve Hill:

---

......To be clear: that's the civil law position. I also robustly and firmly believe that in the UK at least copyright theft is - er - theft, and a criminal offence.

The fact that the Crown Prosectuion Service seems reluctant or incapable of doing anything about it is a different debate. But the risk of a criminal conviction at least keeps this particular studio honest.

---

Good points. It is a criminal offence, and to be honest does it really matter which offence it is. As a matter of interest, generally people processed for this sort of thing, (usually dealt with by Trading Standards, FACT etc working with the Police) are charged with offences against the Copright, Design and Patents Act rather than the Theft Act. There are issues with whether it fits the description of 'Property' under the Theft Act.

The Crown Prosecution Service have a reasonably good record in prosecuting these types of offences, although compared to other offences they are relatively few. (And no I don't work for them) They don't do more because it's not a core Police responsibility, it's quite labour intensive, (FACT are not hugely staffed) it's also seen as not particularly victim heavy compared to other crimes. Most of all I would suggest, that there are an awful lot of other crime problems that are higher up on the priority list.

Oh FFS, Seriously Max, cease and desist notices on net forums. i guess it reflects to what extent we have had our cheeks parted and been well and truly rogered in lala land.

As for Waves strategies, i for one have had my mind made up by their tactics to take my business elsewhere. I would much prefer to see them spend their money on developing a more practical copy protection system (you know, like putting it together with some dedicated hardware, its not that revolutionary an idea ) At the price they charge, they could easily throw in a top notch control surface to unlock their plugins that would give serious tactile enjoyment. I just find the "we've caught you so buy it" attitude to reek of a Dingo's butthole. I think it would leave such a foul taste in your mouth that you would be loathed to use them....

But good to see that the music industry is still so supportive of big business' rights to make their living by screwing the plods over.

This is a moderated privately owned forum. open to the public.. subject to the terms and conditions.

read them.


other than that, i agree.... waves could have better ideas and policies.... I no longer use them myself... haven;t done for quite some time.... for all sorts of reasons... none of them political....

But i would point out that even Waves, do NOT qualify as "Big business"

it's just that kind of utter lack of reality interface that people like to hide behind when trying piteously to self justify theft of intellectual property.

The VAST majority of Developers are small businesses, and on the global "corporate" scale, TINY....

even comparative heavy weights in our , actually rather small industry, are bought and sold for what amounts to pocket change in corporate terms these days....

Emagic sold to apple? for about £16.5 million pounds.... (I recall the figure of 33 million dollars being mentioned)
Steinberg to Yamaha? was even less. so I hear... .

For a company with their track record and position in the industry, that figure ought perhaps to give some idea of how little a "big businmess" in our audio world is worth compared to the 10's or even 100's of BILLIONS that global corporations in other fields are valued at....

Like Apple with Emagic, AVID swallowed up M-audio without noticing...(fiscally at any rate)


There are developers out there going bankrupt on a weekly basis....

just who is getting bent over and shafted then?


As I've said before, I deplore the tactic, and would urge anyone unfairly clobbered with it to fight back... BUT the principle??

all in favour here.... I'd like to see the guys I know in the Music software , and sample/instrument development industry, actually be able to pay their mortgages from their software based income streams...

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

I agree with you Max.

And it is precisely and comprehensively because we are talking about cottage industry with a very limited potential consumer base that I believe Waves' strategy here is so demonstrably, pathetically, terminally wrong.

Nobody with any sort of musical soul beating in his heart could in all conscience buy any of their products, surely?

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

More depressing than anything is the thought that the £7500 asking price is more than the total cost of my setup. (Very humble home studio, based around a couple of Yammy digi portastudios)!!

Probably won't be buying it, more for cost reasons tho!!

Quote Max!:

---

But i would point out that even Waves, do NOT qualify as "Big business"

---

Actually I wasn't referring to Waves, I was actually making a point about "privately owned and moderated (censored) forums" and before I get the cottage cheese again, prior to the internet bubble shite, SOS would easily qualify as big business on the net.

But please, don't let anything I have to say worry you. I understand that the world's first true socio-anarchic state (the net) has well and truly been invaded and conquered by the captains of capitalism.

Anyone else remember Winston Smith listening to the Proletarian woman singing a song written by robots and thinking that it sounded more beautiful than anything a machine could make? How prophetic.

And on that note my friends I bid you all adieu, my heart is no longer in this. Today I lay down my last guitar and I shall sing no more, for the world is no longer mine to sing to. It is time to pull on a cardigan and go plant some tomatoes.

BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Quote jacqueslacouth:

---

Quote Max!:

---

But i would point out that even Waves, do NOT qualify as "Big business"

---

Actually I wasn't referring to Waves, I was actually making a point about "privately owned and moderated (censored) forums" and before I get the cottage cheese again, prior to the internet bubble shite, SOS would easily qualify as big business on the net.

But please, don't let anything I have to say worry you. I understand that the world's first true socio-anarchic state (the net) has well and truly been invaded and conquered by the captains of capitalism.

Anyone else remember Winston Smith listening to the Proletarian woman singing a song written by robots and thinking that it sounded more beautiful than anything a machine could make? How prophetic.

And on that note my friends I bid you all adieu, my heart is no longer in this. Today I lay down my last guitar and I shall sing no more, for the world is no longer mine to sing to. It is time to pull on a cardigan and go plant some tomatoes.

BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

---

Jacques gets my vote for "most grand forum exit" 2007!

I hope people read it and actually learn something though. He speaks good sense.

Waves have lost sight of their market. They don't seem to realize that todays music recording market is very different to that which they originally entered.
No longer dominated by large studios, the industry has changed alot, giving homestudio owners the ability to run anything a large studio can.

Some software companies have realized this, others have not. Some will survive, others should not...

The R&D cost is a one off cost for each version, just like for hardware. Manufacturing cost is negligable. This is unlike hardware units and should be reflected in the price of the products. Consumers know that and get annoyed if they feel they are being ripped off.

The key to getting people to pay for your product is having a quality product, good customer service and a decent upgrade policy. This is why Ableton and the Propellerheads seem to be doing ok. Their offers are always fair, and their copy protection mechanisms are lax enough that pirating their software is not very hard. A side effect is that after computer problems and re-installing (whether you have a legit version or not) all your stuff will work again. I had copied versions of their software. I now have legal versions. It's simple. They don't try to rip me off. I don't wan't to rip them off.

Enter Digidesign. Had it legal. Had to reinstall. Took a week to get everything running... I actually ended up using a cracked version because i had such problems with my legitimate version that I just said f*** that. How messed up is that? Having a proper serial nr. on my box and not using it because it was a hassle...
Then they made version 7. I hoped they would give decent ugrade deals, but no, not really. I wound up in bed with Ableton, turned out to be the prettiest girl at THAT dance. Oh, and digi hardware/software only works on some computer setups. Read through the compatibility lists to get a better idea. You have to know exactly which motherboard/CPU/chipset combo you have...
That's probably why they are the "industry leader"

Waves have to realize they are working a new market, with new market laws. If they price themselves ridiculously they will end up with an unsellable product. Their products are good, but not $7000 good.
And piracy is not equal to lost sales, neither in software nor music in general. Just ask Metallica who made their fame by distributing tapes of themselves. Or ask Radiohead. Or Propellerhead software. A download may lead to sales later. It all equals publicity.

Piracy is not equal to theft, either. Not according to law and not according to logic. Unless a correlation can be proven that a downloaded copy equals a lost sale AND that the artist (or copyright holder inc. more likely) is financially damaged by the download, then it is not theft. Sure, I'm just an amateur and only feel flattered if people download my stuff but we all have to realise that the market has changed, and we need to embrace it or abandon it. Fighting the change is not likely to work.
No musician wants their software so laced with copy protection mechanisms that it is unusable. Or have have calllouses on their sphincter from said softwares upgrade and/or pricing plans.
And no music lover wants their music crippled by horrible DRM that makes it work in someplaces on some devices sometimes.

And I am not saying piracy is right, but it is ubiquitous and here to stay. Business models need to adapt to reality, in pricing, distribution and service.

Quote jacqueslacouth:

---

...But please, don't let anything I have to say worry you. I understand that the world's first true socio-anarchic state (the net) has well and truly been invaded and conquered by the captains of capitalism....

---

Looks to me like you throw a tantrum whenever you don't get your way, but you try and dress it up with some trite "political" mutterings (and a fair amount of passive-agressive for good measure). Not to worry--the historical inevitability of the people's revolution will soon re-educate the running-dog capitalist elements like SOS magazine.

Edited by Mark Knutson (19/11/07 03:56 AM)

Quote Ari:

---

Piracy is not equal to theft, either. Not according to law and not according to logic. Unless a correlation can be proven that a downloaded copy equals a lost sale AND that the artist (or copyright holder inc. more likely) is financially damaged by the download, then it is not theft.

---

Ok. If I decide to buy a legitimate copy of the whole Waves bundle at £7500 and my friend decides to download the same bundle, cracked, for free - how does that not equal a lost sale? Forget about R&D costs, or whatever, at the very simplest level it constitutes theft. It is the electronic equivalent of walking into a shop, grabbing the software (in a box) shoving it in your coat and walking out. Just because the mechanics are different it doesn't alter the end result. You have acquired the software for free. If you dislike the price go buy something else. As has been said there is plenty of choice out there for alot loss money and of equal quality.

Edited by thenaturallevel (19/11/07 08:47 AM)

No, it isn't.

It's more akin to walking into a shop with your star trek replicator in your pocket, and saying "replicate that".
Why?
The company MAY(or may not) have lost a sale.
They did not, however lose an expensive package. Not the manufacturer and not the retailer.
Remember, if your product is good and priced according to quality then people who get it are in your likely customer pool. If it's not priced to sell, then that person was not a likely customer.
No property has been removed from them. That is how theft works.
Get annoyed over semantics all you want, but there is a reason for the language haveing words like copyright infringement, plagiarism and theft. They all mean something different.
The definition of "theft" is : the action of stealing.
The definition of "stealing" is (actually long but I'll take nr.1): 1[trans] take (abother person's property) without permission or legal rights and without intending to return it.

The legal system has more detailed definitions.

Remember, the media companies would call it stealing if they thought they could get away with it. Instead they refer to copyright infringement and "piracy" (I thought that would contain more raping, killing and pilfering...) which they made up to make it seem like a really serious crime.
Don't get me wrong, though. Ripping someones life work without him/her getting anything for it is not cool. There has to be easy access to fairly priced legal versions. If you're good, people will like it and buy it. People in general are pretty honest (even surprisingly so).
Remember a large study done recently by the culture ministry of Canada? It showed that the biggest music downloaders were also the biggest music purchasers. You're looking at the group that loves the stuff. DVD sales have risen every year, how come? More software companies sell more products than ever before.
As for video downloads, the only casualty I've seen is video rentals, which would have crashed anyway due to legal digital distribution models, just a few years later than they did. And anyway, the illegal distribution has pushed the legal distribution forward, forcing companies to see that they need t provide easy access to quality material, for a reasonable price.

Which is why I buy my software online. Companies such as Ableton and Propellerheads (and no, I don't work there, I just like their business practices) sell their products for a resonable price and give me easy access. If I go down to the local music store I see a price that is almost double what I pay online. Not because they're crazy, but because my country has a bunch of fun import duties, taxes and VAT on top of that. Then the retailer adds their fair share and, voila, there you have a lost sale. Ableton hasn't, though.

Anyways, remember you can be like Prince and be the laughing stock of the internet (and the world) or you can be like Radiohead and be the cool guys on the block (don't even particularly like them, but boy are they cool and have big veggie cojones)

Quote Ari:

---

The definition of "theft" is : the action of stealing.
The definition of "stealing" is (actually long but I'll take nr.1): 1[trans] take (abother person's property) without permission or legal rights and without intending to return it.

---

You're taking Waves property without their permission i.e. their Intellectual Property. Therefore, you are stealing it , ergo by your definition
theft. You're justification that it costs more than I believe I should pay for it, therefore, I will use it for free doesn't wash. Just don't use it - use something else.

Quote Ari:

---

Remember, the media companies would call it stealing if they thought they could get away with it. Instead they refer to copyright infringement and "piracy" (I thought that would contain more raping, killing and pilfering...) which they made up to make it seem like a really serious crime.

---

I don't think it's appropriate make to comparisions with rape or murder. This has nothing to do with violent crime.

Quote Ari:

---

Don't get me wrong, though. Ripping someones life work without him/her getting anything for it is not cool. There has to be easy access to fairly priced legal versions. If you're good, people will like it and buy it. People in general are pretty honest (even surprisingly so).
Remember a large study done recently by the culture ministry of Canada? It showed that the biggest music downloaders were also the biggest music purchasers. You're looking at the group that loves the stuff. DVD sales have risen every year, how come? More software companies sell more products than ever before.

---

What you're saying is because Waves choose to price their product out of your reach that gives you the right to use a cracked version?
The simple choice is don't use their product. As I said before there are plenty of alternatives, just as good, costing much less.

Quote Ari:

---

Which is why I buy my software online. Companies such as Ableton and Propellerheads (and no, I don't work there, I just like their business practices) sell their products for a resonable price and give me easy access. If I go down to the local music store I see a price that is almost double what I pay online. Not because they're crazy, but because my country has a bunch of fun import duties, taxes and VAT on top of that. Then the retailer adds their fair share and, voila, there you have a lost sale. Ableton hasn't, though.

---

Therefore, you have answered my argument. Purchase software that is reasonabled priced and that you can afford.
Don't use software illegally because you can't afford it or disagree with the price.

I know some people disagree with me, but have you actually read the posts in this thread?

It is theft.

I spent 30 years dealing with white collar crimes for a living, the last 6 of them at a boutique London law firm.

You're the one playing with "semantics", not the rest of the world.

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

Oh yes it is, oh no it isn't...
It's behind you!

Quote Ari:

---

No, it isn't.

It's more akin to walking into a shop with your star trek replicator in your pocket, and saying "replicate that".
Why?
The company MAY(or may not) have lost a sale.
They did not, however lose an expensive package. Not the manufacturer and not the retailer.

---

As i said before, it can only be considered theft by someone who actually understands the concept of intellectual property. You only seem to understand that of physical property.

The argument of not losing a sale so it makes it ok is completely retarded. Try stealing anything from a shop and try to tell the police that you never intended to buy it anyway so therefore the shop would never make any money out of it. And don't tell me that in that case the shop actually lost an item and the software developer didn't. The shop lost the cost of the item and their profit, like the seller of the software loses their profit also.

Nuno-
I believe Ari in your quote of him is entirely accurate. I think you have not fully grasped him.
I think, though, it's important to point out that I don't think anybody in this thread, including Ari, has said that illegal copying is OK.

I do understand IP (reasonable well, thank you very much) and do not think copyright infringements are right. I do think that they are inevitable because of market and distribution network changes.

OTOH, you are completely missing the point of market share and market penetration. And sales resulting of experience with the product or exposure to the product.

Think for a moment why companies like Adobe or Microsoft have not taken a hardline stance against piracy.
Everyone and their grandmother has Photoshop. Not all legal, for sure. Yet Adobe continues to make decent money from their products.

Passing something off as your own creation is Intellectual property theft (stealing even defines that).
Illegal copying or distribution is a different crime altogether, works differently, has different penalties and different consequences.

Notice that NOWHERE have I said anything like "victimless crime" and all that bull****. All I'm saying is that companies have to look to the market and play to the market. If your old business model starts breaking down then change it!
And never, ever try to force your customers into anything. If you are going to sue groups of potential customers, be damn sure that you do EVERYTHING right. As a company catering to a specialized market your every move will come under scrutiny. It's not enough to have the legal highground, you also have to have the moral highground EVERY STEP OF THE WAY!
If your company has been behaving like a small crime syndicate, you lose favor. If you lose favor you lose customers. It isn't rocket science.

Now let's look at the company in question.
They spent a lot of work on making a good product. Fairly probably similar amounts of work to most of the other companies in the same business. They priced their product as high as they could, as is expected. The market changed, not only with online copying but also in that the pool of customers got MUCH bigger but each has less money to spend.
They keep spending some money on maintaining a good product.
Now they face a choice. Continue selling to hundreds, even thousands of customers and maintain profits by jacking up the price, while trying to cut off easy access to their product by any means neccessary. Or LOWER the price and try to sell to hundreds of thousands of customers.
They seem to have made their choice.
Even Digidesign has made the other choice, although a bit belatedly, probably after seeing startups take a significant part of their market (well, actually, a NEW market)

Again, illegal copying is illegal. For a reason. People try to make a living making that stuff.
Buy stuff, don't pirate it.
And if you pirate it and continue using it, BUY the product.
Companies, please give us demos of your product that actually work, and are not so hamstrung by demo limitations that we cannot learn the program. Many download to see if the product is good. Some use the illegal version indefinitely. Others buy the proper version.

That's how you stamp out piracy. Not by locking your stuff up so badly that it becomes unusable and then suing anyone who violates that.

This is about the law, morals, business models and progress.
Technological progress has been fast (global networks, next day freight, telephone in my pocket etc.)
Public morals evolve pretty fast (with technological changes).
Business models have to adapt to the above.
The law will follow eventually.

That's how it was, and how it will be.
Artists decried the invention of the gramophone record, now ANYONE could just take the music all around and they themselves would become redundant. Many took advantage of the situation.
Then a new business model was invented.

VHS was thought (by the MPAA, Jack Valenti) to be the bane of the movie industry.
Then they made a new business model, selling prerecorded tapes. Profits soared. They still whined about the potential for copying.
Cassette tapes were thought to be another bane of music, easily copied and considered high quality reproductions.

..
..
..
Do you see where this is going?



As for the raping and pilfering, I was merely pointing out that this is a psychological trick using a word known for its connotations with violence, and making up a new meaning for it.
Piracy (as pertaining to copyright infringement) is a word coined by the american MPAA for use in their campaigns. Therefore I feel quite ok with using that example. That's the mental link they (not some unknown "they" but just corporate entities such as MPAA, RIAA and BPI) are trying to insinuate. It's called word association and is quite popular in advertising.
And for they record, I have no waves products at all. Partly because they are expensive, partly because they are too expensive for what they are but mostly because I try to give my money to companies that operate in a respectable manner and have some idea about who their customers are.

Ari, I salute you.

And to clarify further. The definition game is VERY important as that is the basis of all our western laws and our written moral codes.

Re-attributing words like "piracy" only goes to show how big corporations are desperate to protect their set ways. It's hard to change the thinking of a multi billion dollar corp. and turning round takes time.
The law is also not working correctly in this matter. It's not protecting the large companies well, and it's most definitely not helping smaller companies or individuals holding IP.

The law question ultimately boils down to: is the law supposed to be for the good of the community or is it supposed to protect an outdated business model?
Of course it always turns into the need for balance, but it is neccessary for the law to change with the times, and be balanced. Not all out pro-consumer and not all out pro-corp. And it needs to have a way for the little guys (us) to make a living as well. Currently, if my songs get played on the radio, I don't get a penny. Why, you ask.
Because my countries royalty collection thingy is run by a group of old timers who don't include playlists from the rock/alternative stations. They have been offered the lists, but no, it's too complicated.
I would love to get royalty checks once in a while but I don't. And can't do anything about it (we've tried) except founding a competing royalty collection company. Which would turn out just as rotten pretty fast. That's where I stand. I know a bit about both sides f the table, yet I position myself firmly in the "the fixes need to run deeper than that" camp.

Nobody here is saying piracy is the right way to go, but I think most of us see the problems at hand. And that the solution is complicated and must start from the companies selling their products and services, including music and software.

Now, back to the Waves issue.
No matter whether their product is worth the price or not, their stance on the matter is counter-productive for them, and will be even worse in the long term. From what I hear, their stuff is pretty decent, but there are quite a few pretty decent products out there.
I'm definitely not saying that you should go out and steal all copies of their products from the shelves or that you should copy them illegally. I'm saying that they may have missed the boat, and are now trying to get back on board by drilling through the hull. Under the waterline.

Quote Steve Hill:

---

I know some people disagree with me, but have you actually read the posts in this thread?

It is theft.

I spent 30 years dealing with white collar crimes for a living, the last 6 of them at a boutique London law firm.

You're the one playing with "semantics", not the rest of the world.

---

There is no doubt that it meets statutory requirements for various crimes, but my own observation is that the vast majority of people I have encountered do not consider it morally on the same plane as taking something material from somebody. And judging by the admittedly dodgey statistics from the software industry, these are widely held views indeed.

People who pride themeselves on moral rectitude in matters of honesty, and would drive 10 miles to return a dollar they were accidentally overpaid by a cashier, pirate software without a second thought.

I think our cultural morality is simply not geared toward statutorily created intellectual property, and if one thinks about it, that's an interesting sociological phenomenen. Call it semantics if you like, but its a reality that cannot be changed with a few cleverly chosen words or a few new laws.

I think most people consider theft to be when something that a person had is missing, and that something has to be more material and concrete than the speculative notion of potential lost profits.

Edited by Mark Knutson (19/11/07 02:22 PM)