TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- People Steal From Artists, Artists Steal From Programmers
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by derail All the software (and hardware, obviously) in my studio is legit. I don't use anything I haven't paid for. Cronodevir, some of your rationalisations are deplorable - that software is "simply 1s and 0s", that the value isn't diminished by someone downloading a pirate copy rather than paying for it. What do you do for a living? Do you like getting paid for it? Why do you think the programmers, who spend years of their lives learning how to program, developing excellent music software, and keep improving it so we have better and better tools to use - why do you think these programmers don't deserve to get paid? A lot of software companies are not large faceless corporations who make billions by overcharging for products. Some of them are small teams of people who'd like to spend their time giving us fantastic tools. Your view is extremely short-sighted. The more people buy products, the more companies will realise there's money to be made - improvements will come faster, more companies will develop products, our lives as artists will get better! I think using cracked software for preview purposes is fine - it's good to get a sense of what the product is offering overall before making a purchase decision. I'll usually buy something very soon after trying it out. My basic rule is, all the tools used in my songs that anyone else gets to hear are legit, are paid for. No-one but me hears my "software trial" songs.

Good Post...I agree 100%

@Subtle

You could always look to open source. Because for the artist, those "pros and cons" you mentioned, neither are relevant. Same with a lot of open projects. Right now you have open source software equivalent to Cubase 2 or FLStudio 6...and most of that progress was made in less time it actually took for FL or Cubase to get to version 6 or 2.

I mean if you want to talk about long run, and what is most beneficial to the user, neither plan you mentioned Subtle will be relevant to the user. They aren't relevant now. Most people when they use a program they don't care if the company that made it is doing good in sales or exposure.

Subtle you are looking at piracy from the stand point of the developer. But the users don't care about the developer.

@deral

Moral of software development story? Don't put so much effort into something if you care that people will "undermine" it.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Proof?

It is just human nature, if we can get something for free and get away with it, you can bet your ass that the majority of people will do exactly that!

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle It is just human nature, if we can get something for free and get away with it, you can bet your ass that the majority of people will do exactly that!

Except you can't equate that to stealing.

Because if you put a large chunk of merchandise on a shelf and leave it there unwatched, most people won't steal it, because they know stealing is wrong. And according to most, and what the reality really is, is that downloading software isn't stealing, so people do download. And its like you said, you cannot change human nature.

because the risk outweighs the benifit

that is pretty much the determining factor.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle It is just human nature, if we can get something for free and get away with it, you can bet your ass that the majority of people will do exactly that!

Would you steal 5k from your parents?

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir @Subtle You could always look to open source. Because for the artist, those "pros and cons" you mentioned, neither are relevant. Same with a lot of open projects. Right now you have open source software equivalent to Cubase 2 or FLStudio 6...and most of that progress was made in less time it actually took for FL or Cubase to get to version 6 or 2. I mean if you want to talk about long run, and what is most beneficial to the user, neither plan you mentioned Subtle will be relevant to the user. They aren't relevant now. Most people when they use a program they don't care if the company that made it is doing good in sales or exposure. Subtle you are looking at piracy from the stand point of the developer. But the users don't care about the developer.

I know that, what the users want is everything as good as possible, for as little as possible.
That is true in any case.

There are tons of open source programs and free music software etc etc... that works so well than you essentially dont need anything else.

But the truth is that the companies that needs to earn money, and does earn money on software are the ones coming up with the best features, support and functionality.. and we humans want to use the best tools we possibly can!

And not to mention inventing new technology, and that costs money.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Would you steal 5k from your parents?

No, i would not.
And i hardly think i could get away with it if i did, besides it is not the same thing.

If you could copy your neighbors Ferrari without him knowing would you do it ?

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle I know that, what the users want is everything as good as possible, for as little as possible. That is true in any case. There are tons of open source programs and free music software etc etc... that works so well than you essentially dont need anything else. But the truth is that the companies that needs to earn money, and does earn money on software are the ones coming up with the best features, support and functionality.. and we humans want to use the best tools we possibly can! And not to mention inventing new technology, and that costs money.

Sure, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that its hard to make money on software. And what about if it gets to the point where open source is the leader in technology and such?

As for copy protection, it is the best way for a proprietary company to make money, but the amount of protection directly correlates to to the average users willingness to use said program. I mean Spore had a very "lite" version of what big industry has planned for us in the future in terms of software protection. And people couldn't stand that, so do you think down the line when [and they likely will] protection gets more draconian that it will continue to benefit? ...and compete with each other? ...and compete with open source?

All proprietary software really has going for itself is its reputation, the propaganda for itself and against open source, and compatibility. What else is there..really?

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle No, i would not. And i hardly think i could get away with it if i did, besides it is not the same thing. If you could copy your neighbors Ferrari without him knowing would you do it ?

If you seen your neighbor building a fence, would you copy his design?

Because that is what "intellectual property" is...its a diagram on how to do something. A piece of information that tells your hardware to do a set of tasks. It isn't an object. Code is no more an object than a thought you had. If someone copies your code, you lost nothing of tangibility. You didn't loose a potential sale, because as you said it, people download because they can for free. If they couldn't have downloaded it for free, they most likely wouldn't have looked into the product anyways and moved to another product that does the same thing.

I'm still waiting for someone to justify copyright in the first place to be honest, much less "copyright infringement"

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Sure, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that its hard to make money on software. And what about if it gets to the point where open source is the leader in technology and such?

If that would happen yes. But software that costs money, cost money exactly because they are the leaders in technology.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir @derail Moral of software development story? Don't put so much effort into something if you care that people will "undermine" it.

You actually want companies to put less effort into giving us great products? You'd be fine if a lot of companies simply disappeared, if the next major improvements in software come in 10, 20 years?

If you truly believe that programmers shouldn't get paid, and that open source software is fine, then use only software that you can legally use for free. If you really believe your own story, then follow it. Don't say "open source software is excellent, it's coming along a lot faster than commercial products, you essentially don't need anything else", then continue to use the cracked versions of commercial products. Otherwise you don't believe your own argument.

Also, your claim that open source/free software is progressing faster - of course it's progressing faster! They're putting in features that the commercial companies took the time and money to develop - once a technology/ feature has been developed and introduced, it's a lot easier to copy it, than to push the technology to the next level. If the free software at some point overtakes the best commercial products then yes, we'll be in a different situation to the one we have currently. And then we can talk in your terms. But currently the situation isn't like that.

Well, there are plenty of proprietary programs that cost money but don't lead.

Insert 1 out of a million software vsts at KVR, and you have an example of something people charge for, but doesn't lead.

Also, many companies that lead, do so because they have a tangible product or they use a special system to distribute software.

@derail

I still use commercial software because I have to, you find a way to port a couple hundred .flp files, and I will be glad to use Open Source. Other than FLStudio, There really is nothing else I need that Open Source can't cover.

I never said a developer shouldn't get paid, I said they shouldn't try to get paid in a system that is obviously going to be against them every step of the way.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Well, there are plenty of proprietary programs that cost money but don't lead. Insert 1 out of a million software vsts at KVR, and you have an example of something people charge for, but doesn't lead.

Yeah, but the prices for these products would not be the same as the leading products. (most often) Or they specialize on certain things.
And also, some developers might be a bit more generous that others as well.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Also, many companies that lead, do so because they have a tangible product or they use a special system to distribute software.

Steam is a good example of this.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir I'm still waiting for someone to justify copyright in the first place to be honest, much less "copyright infringement"

It gives people incentive to spend years and years of their lives working on new, better ways of doing things. They may fail in their effort, they may not get a cent for those years of their lives. But if they do succeed and find a better way, then copyright ensures that they get paid for their sacrifice, that their neighbour who has been lazing around unemployed for all those years can't simply steal their idea and sell it for the same price and make the same amount of money.

Yes, some people are altruistic and offer up their lives for free, for the "greater good". Cronodevir, it sounds like you are one of these people - you make sure your boss only gives you just enough money to survive, and you spend all your time helping your community. It's good that the world has people like you, who believe that hard-working people, such as programmers, should be like you and work for free.

However, most people are not martyrs. They don't offer up their time for free. If you remove copyright, you remove a massive chunk of incentive for people to invest their time in improving things, in creating better ways. There has to be some incentive for people - Cronodevir - what incentive is there for people, if copyright didn't exist?

quote:

[i][b] I never said a developer shouldn't get paid, I said they shouldn't try to get paid in a system that is obviously going to be against them every step of the way.

that is the same logic as telling a girl to expect to get raped if she wears a dress.

come on man.

Steam is a good example, steam is also cracked and has private servers, interesting. but the real thing with steam is most of the games have some sort of multilayer. And multilayer on non official steam servers is just poo.

But with music software, there is no such thing really as "multiplayer" [well you have collab and stuff, but lets be real]. So even if a system like steam was brought in, because there is no benefit ulterior to actually having the program with the service, the service will become a product of the issues we have discussed anyways.

The best way a DAW could for instance could thrive with virtually 0% piracy, is if it was hardware only. imagine Cubase in the form of a hardware box.

@richiev

If a woman wears skimpy outfit, of course she better pay attention.

This is the same logic as "don't walk around in a mine field". Don't do things that you know will fail and or cause trouble to yourself. Duh.

@derail

Open Source is full of people who's incentive is to make good software. Its not about being a martyr. Most people there don't believe someone should profit off a product that isn't tangible, so they aren't sacrificing or "loosing" anything. And for others, doing code simply isn't work at all. I don't consider music work. I don't consider it a sacrifice to make music for no gain.

But its just like any market, if you sell a real product, say a car, and the guy next to you is giving cars away for free,how on earth do you expect to be able to survive as a car salesman where you are?

Or how about when you have a 4 way intersection, with a gas station on each corner. Every one of them is trying to undermine the other guy by lowering his price just by a cent.

Just correlate that to the software world where the guy in the gas station next to you not only doesn't have a limit to the amount of his product, but also doesn't care about getting paid? Its like trying to open a gas station up next to a guy who gives it away for free.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir I'm still waiting for someone to justify copyright in the first place to be honest, much less "copyright infringement"

you seemed to be keen on the idea. I mean these are your words. Do you not remember them ? IT was maybe 2 days ago.

You copyright to stop other people from claiming it as their own then suing you. Even if you have proof the thing is yours, because you didn't take the time out to copyright it, it still becomes valid for the one who did to have ownership of it. You copyright music to save yourself. You copyright anything for this reason


you ever feel like that guy in memento?

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV you seemed to be keen on the idea. I mean these are your words. Do you not remember them ? IT was maybe 2 days ago. You copyright to stop other people from claiming it as their own then suing you. Even if you have proof the thing is yours, because you didn't take the time out to copyright it, it still becomes valid for the one who did to have ownership of it. You copyright music to save yourself. You copyright anything for this reason you ever feel like that guy in memento?

If copyright didn't exist, no one would be able to claim my work and sue me for it, thus I would have no need to copyright it to protect myself.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Steam is a good example, steam is also cracked and has private servers, interesting. but the real thing with steam is most of the games have some sort of multilayer. And multilayer on non official steam servers is just poo. But with music software, there is no such thing really as "multiplayer" [well you have collab and stuff, but lets be real]. So even if a system like steam was brought in, because there is no benefit ulterior to actually having the program with the service, the service will become a product of the issues we have discussed anyways. The best way a DAW could for instance could thrive with virtually 0% piracy, is if it was hardware only. imagine Cubase in the form of a hardware box.

Yes Steam would not have helped in this case.

It is worth mentioning that Steam lowered the price on one of their games Left 4 Dead by 50% which then led to an astounding sales increase of 3000%

This is something for software developers to think about too.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir If copyright didn't exist, no one would be able to claim my work and sue me for it, thus I would have no need to copyright it to protect myself.

no , they would just take your idea you spent 20 years developping say it was theirs and make money from it. And of course you wouldn't be able to sue them either.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle No, i would not. And i hardly think i could get away with it if i did, besides it is not the same thing. If you could copy your neighbors Ferrari without him knowing would you do it ?

If it is not the same thing, then I don't understand you're original point.

I don't see how the metaphor with a ferrari, a physical object, relates to the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV no , they would just take your idea you spent 20 years developping say it was theirs and make money from it. And of course you wouldn't be able to sue them either.

So? Someone else making money off work I already gave to people for free doesn't concern me.

When I gave it out, its implied that one can do what ever he wants with it. He doesn't even have to credit me. But at the same time he shouldn't be allowed to prevent me from doing what I am doing.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir So? Someone else making money off work I already gave to people for free doesn't concern me. When I gave it out, its implied that one can do what ever he wants with it. He doesn't even have to credit me. But at the same time he shouldn't be allowed to prevent me from doing what I am doing.

But it doesn't work that way , because unlike you , he will take your idea and create a law called copyright law because he isn't a moron. But there are so many silly aspects to this story

i mean A : you come out with an idea ?
B : an idea someone would actually be interested in ?

And why won't you send me a link of your music even tho you mentioned you would to anyone that asked. I promise i won't be mean or send it to anyone. I just need to know.

"take your idea and great a law called copyright law because he isn't a moron"

I have no clue what you just said.

Also you never asked my my stuff. [edit: just found your PM]

create. I am usually doing some type of work and as a result my spelling is never good.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.