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 Beatflux 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.

It relates to that if you could copy a Ferrari, you would copy a Ferrari. But you cannot copy it, its impossible, so therefore you must buy it.

With software you can copy it, and therefore most people will copy it, and they are copying stuff all the time, simply because they CAN, and with a clear conscience, i mean all they did was copy something.. no one is loosing anything on that.

And this is how the average person thinks, luckily we have people who thinks differently and hence products are still supported.

If you remove the possibility of copying something in the software world, people will have to buy it. And those percentage that then buys it is bigger than the small percentage that has the option to buy it if they want.

It is how most people think, and that is why piracy is a problem.

Edit: Crono, Richie.. why dont the two of you get a room or something ?

Well if copyright were banned, the person wouldn't be able to create laws out of thin air :P.

@richiev

Cronodevir - fine, I understand your viewpoint. But make sure you're giving far more than you're getting. If you're using pirated software which you believe should be free, spend the next few years of your life working on things will be just as beneficial to as many people - either software which thousands of users use every day and love, or music which many thousands of people (or millions of people) listen to again and again, for many years, or sonething else of great benefit to the world - and then don't accept any money for these years of hard work.

If you want to live in a world like the one you describe, at least make sure you're giving more than you're getting, that you're actually working towards making that world a reality.

p.s. in terms of music I'm talking about music that many people would actually pay for - the only way to know this in reality is to achieve high sales of one of your songs/albums, then provide all the songs and albums thereafter to the world for free. Otherwise you're just one of millions of artists (like myself, for most of my songs) putting out their songs for free.

There really needs to be a website that allows artists to sell their songs directly to people, but with a system of quality control which really works - people shouldn't have to trawl through heaps of stuff trying to find something which is decent, but the "good songs" also shouldn't be selected by an elite few, or simply based on mass popularity/ whoever has the most friends. Ideally it'd be a mix of professional reviews and popularity... If there's already a site like this, I'm happy for someone to let me know! I pretty much just buy the trancemaster CD each quarter currently...sometimes other compilations...

I get what you are saying, but the issue is there are too many artists.

Derail ever heard of bitorrent? You have to upload more than you have downloaded in order to get the complete file. In this way the whole community benefits

Anyways, derail, the issue with a website like you mentioned is the people. They want to throw music up somewhere without having to do the marketing or advertising, and see it sell. But it doesn't work that way.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Well if copyright were banned, the person wouldn't be able to create laws out of thin air :P. @richiev

i would amend the definition of patent
How would you support yourself to make this idea ?
Coyright was first introduced so people could actually make a living doing things that weren't so tangible. You probably wouldn't have most of the great music aroudn now.

Alot of the great music that exists was invented in a time when there was no copyright. Music has existed for waaaay longer than 200 or so years.

but they were published in a time when there was copright, and that is how you know of it now.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir No they didn't. 4 is cracked. You just don't know where to find it Given time 5 will eventually be broken too.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is just the end.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV but they were published in a time when there was copright, and that is how you know of it now.

So you are saying humanity only knows about works made before copyright, because someone copyrighted them when copyright came into existence. ...

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Programmers actually benefit from people "stealing", because those people actually end up marketing to people who buy the software. So if 10 People steal, they are getting 2 or 3 people to actually buy the software because the people who steal are recommending the software to others. Its called viral marketing. Also, the people who are stealing now because they have no money, when they do have money and a career, there is a good chance they will actually buy the software, even though in the past they had "borrowed" it. Another benefit is, because this software really does not have much advertising space, so this viral marketing is very beneficial to the programmers in the long run. So at the end of the day, programmers who are actually making great software are getting enough people to buy the software because of the "stealing" to offset much of the stealing. It is actually impossible to build a successful VST product without a cracked version out there. So when you have money and have a legit music making career, there is a good chance you will follow a more ethical route like buying all your software, that is what I would do without a doubt.

^this guy nailed it.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir So you are saying humanity only knows about works made before copyright, because someone copyrighted them when copyright came into existence. ...

no

guess what year recordings were possible? Now guess how people kept music from the past from disapeering. Now guess who paid for music to be published ? And do you think it was because they were swell people ? Maybe there was money to be made. And maybe that was possible because copyright did exist back then.

was there a specific composer you were concerned about ?

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 ^this guy nailed it.

you might want to get that checked out.

Alot of classical was passed down because people knew how to play them sure there are recordings for today, but that isn't how the music is passed down.

To sum it up, here's a short list of what I'm still using. It's all legit, box or download, I paid for it:

Logic Studio 479 Euros
Ableton Live 1 upgraded successively to 8 with optional instruments: 2000 Euros.
Propellerhead Reason 3 upgraded to 4: 450 Euros
Spectrasonics Omnisphere: 379 Euros
Celemony Melodyne Studio up-to-date: 500 Euros
NI Reaktor 400 Euros
NI Massive 300 Euros
CA 5000 upgraded to alchemy 300 Euros
DB Quantum FX updated 300 Euros
Fxpansion BFD: 250 Euros
Korg Legacy Digital: 150 Euros
Sugar Bytes Effectrix: 100 Euros
Izotope iDrum: 60 Euros

What I'm using NOW already cost me more than 5k. I'm not complaining here, I'm not frustrated. I'm just try to guess why people use so much illegal software. Well, you've got a part of the answer.

What I don't understand is that we let some, if not many, of those people release records. Everyone is complaining that there's too much music being released, and too much "crap". Why don't labels and developers sit on a table and start a guild?? This is a good way for record companies to filter the crap people out. Meanwhile it's probably the best solution for software developers to get a proper and accurate list of what artists effectively use, as long as those want to accept new rules. They'd even attract more people and have more legit users by offering rebates through that guild.

Another thing: let's come back to those 5k in software. If they changed their rules a little, they'd easily be able to offer license renting with monthly payments. IF they were a little smarter, they'd add some advertising banner in the monthly software updates to make prices lighter. Imagine yourself renting a license of Ableton Live or Logic for a month or two, just when you want to try it out or when you need it, for less than a parking ticket?? I do.

Those small things don't cost much time or money, yet they'd make a big part of TWO separate industries happy.

I sent those ideas to developers, only 2 of them replied: Propellerhead, and Image Line. The others didn't even bother.

Our industries are similar in the way that a lot of crap is polluting them, that's my conclusion. :-D

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo To sum it up, here's a short list of what I'm still using. It's all legit, box or download, I paid for it: Logic Studio 479 Euros Ableton Live 1 upgraded successively to 8 with optional instruments: 2000 Euros. Propellerhead Reason 3 upgraded to 4: 450 Euros Spectrasonics Omnisphere: 379 Euros Celemony Melodyne Studio up-to-date: 500 Euros NI Reaktor 400 Euros NI Massive 300 Euros CA 5000 upgraded to alchemy 300 Euros DB Quantum FX updated 300 Euros Fxpansion BFD: 250 Euros Korg Legacy Digital: 150 Euros Sugar Bytes Effectrix: 100 Euros Izotope iDrum: 60 Euros What I'm using NOW already cost me more than 5k. I'm not complaining here, I'm not frustrated. I'm just try to guess why people use so much illegal software. Well, you've got a part of the answer. What I don't understand is that we let some, if not many, of those people release records. Everyone is complaining that there's too much music being released, and too much "crap". Why don't labels and developers sit on a table and start a guild?? This is a good way for record companies to filter the crap people out. Meanwhile it's probably the best solution for software developers to get a proper and accurate list of what artists effectively use, as long as those want to accept new rules. They'd even attract more people and have more legit users by offering rebates through that guild. Another thing: let's come back to those 5k in software. If they changed their rules a little, they'd easily be able to offer license renting with monthly payments. IF they were a little smarter, they'd add some advertising banner in the monthly software updates to make prices lighter. Imagine yourself renting a license of Ableton Live or Logic for a month or two, just when you want to try it out or when you need it, for less than a parking ticket?? I do. Those small things don't cost much time or money, yet they'd make a big part of TWO separate industries happy. I sent those ideas to developers, only 2 of them replied: Propellerhead, and Image Line. The others didn't even bother. Our industries are similar in the way that a lot of crap is polluting them, that's my conclusion. :-D

I kinda like your idea. Both the guild and the licensing of software.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Alot of classical was passed down because people knew how to play them sure there are recordings for today, but that isn't how the music is passed down.

And magically, scores in the composers handwriting just showed up.

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo Imagine yourself renting a license of Ableton Live or Logic for a month or two, just when you want to try it out or when you need it, for less than a parking ticket?? I do.

I'd like to see that. I'm hoping there's a trend away from personal ownership in general - I'd love to get rid of my personal collection of CDs, movies, books and so on, and just pay a monthly fee to an organisation which provides access to everything, which then pays the creators based on usage.

Then, as long as you pay your monthly fees, you have access to everything you want, whether from your PC or mobile phone or whatever. That'd be the ultimate convenience to me as a user, and something I'd happily pay a decent monthly fee for.

Of course, there are probably a million reasons why this won't work, or why it might take a long, long time to change from the present way of charging people, and requiring every person to have their own personal copy.

derail, you would end up with 50 different services completely incompatible with each other.

Also, Terminal Access is nothing but trouble. Too much control in the hands of one entity.

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo Another thing: let's come back to those 5k in software. If they changed their rules a little, they'd easily be able to offer license renting with monthly payments. IF they were a little smarter, they'd add some advertising banner in the monthly software updates to make prices lighter. Imagine yourself renting a license of Ableton Live or Logic for a month or two, just when you want to try it out or when you need it, for less than a parking ticket?? I do. Those small things don't cost much time or money, yet they'd make a big part of TWO separate industries happy.

Renting licenses might make it easier for studios to ease into a legal practice, instead of having to drop one big wad of cash at a single time.

I could imagine Fruity Loops having ads:

"Uplifting Trance Midi $29.99!!!"

I wish there was a proper mod in here. I'd put out a couple of bans. Well, actually a single ban and half of the shit would have been taken care of.

RichieV wouldn't like that ban though...

My Idea of a hardware DAW would make it so you wouldn't need a computer in the first place. It could require specific chipsets for the software in the box to work.

That is a lot less work than trying to protect software on a pc and failing every single time.

Which brings us back to the point, the companies that produce the protection, aren't trying to protect anything, they are trying to control what is there. Imagine a company develops a "protection software/rootkit" and this thing is spread because of the latest great application that needs protecting, said company that developed the rootkit could for instance cause some software to not work and others to work, and for the user this will be reflected in the format of "this software is good, this software is bad", so anyone with this rootkit could for instance, have any opensource software they try to run,fail, because a root kit is causing it to fail. And thus the person would get a bad idea about OS software.

BUT WAIT THIS ALREADY HAPPENS IN ANTIVIRUS TECHNOLOGY :O ....most popular antivirus technology will recognize many opensource programs and mark them as malware, the same with any type of 'legal' software that circumvents any DRM technology. If you have a program on your pc that breaks the starforce protection system, mcafee and others will tell you its malware and promptly delete it. But it won't detect the starfroce malware in the first place. Starforce, a rootkit. Not detected.... What The Fuck?

9 pages on one day???? geeze i thought i summed this up good enough on the first page.

You did. But there is one particular person that has a say on just about anything.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir hardware DAW, protection software/rootkit, opensource software, ANTIVIRUS TECHNOLOGY :O malware circumvents, DRM technology breaks the starforce protection system. Starforce, a rootkit. Not detected.... What The Fuck?

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