|
People Steal From Artists, Artists Steal From Programmers (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Storyteller |
| There are only half working cracks out there. Unstable on the majority of systems. However H20 proved that syncrosoft can be cracked. It's a hell of a job though. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Storyteller
There are only half working cracks out there. Unstable on the majority of systems. However H20 proved that syncrosoft can be cracked. It's a hell of a job though. |
Yep, and if they do.. they are going to improve the code even more.
So it proves that piracy CAN be prevented. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Yep, and if they do.. they are going to improve the code even more.
So it proves that piracy CAN be prevented. |
At what cost? If you're a paying customer, wouldn't it bother you that the money you pay isn't going towards improvements?
Apparently the cracked version of Cubase 3X runs better than the legit version. Wouldn't you want to run the faster version of Cubase?
I'm on my last of 5 keys for Ableton, and if I want to install it again I have to contact Ableton. I'd rather not have to bother with it. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| Well, in general I didn't hear good things about Cubase 4. So maby that is a sign that spending more money on copy protection makes the quality of the program worse. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
At what cost? If you're a paying customer, wouldn't it bother you that the money you pay isn't going towards improvements?
Apparently the cracked version of Cubase 3X runs better than the legit version. Wouldn't you want to run the faster version of Cubase? |
I dont think that is the case.
If its uncrackable they make more money on sales of the program to improve it further, if it were cracked they would sell less and therefore have less money to spend on development anyways. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Well, in general I didn't hear good things about Cubase 4. So maby that is a sign that spending more money on copy protection makes the quality of the program worse. |
Yeah, but since C4 didnt get cracked they could put a whole lot more money into the development of Cubase 5 instead of improved protection, and it shows. |
|
|
| Alekos |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
If you're making music with cracked software, how could you complain that someone pirates your music?
|
rolf - are you for real? damn nerds trying to stop us from making music.
Music belongs to the artist, while software belongs to a company - |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
I dont think that is the case.
If its uncrackable they make more money on sales of the program to improve it further, if it were cracked they would sell less and therefore have less money to spend on development anyways. |
Or as a result people move onto software that is cracked and nearly as capable. Such as FLStudio 8, Ableton, Logic, Reason etc etc... |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Yes, It is. Do you know what the scene is? In order to get you have to give. Syncroft stuff is pretty hard to dismantle. So its less |
I doubt Pirate Bay is really considered a scene. And i'm almost certain syncrosoft is still uncracked. I think the audio industry really needed piracy to stop for a little bit. Things were getting a little insane. I think half the developpers at KVR wanted to kill themselves. Which is unfortunate because it is usually the small guys that make great stuff that end up quitting. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
At what cost? If you're a paying customer, wouldn't it bother you that the money you pay isn't going towards improvements?
|
I don't think it works that way. When I bought Cubase (and upgraded to Nexus2, RP Blue 1.8, etc.), I had to buy the SyncroSoft dongle separately. The cost of improving/maintaining the security of the software is reflected in the cost of the dongle/SyncroSoft software, not in the cost of the application that it is protecting, as I understand it (of course, I could be wrong). |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alekos
rolf - are you for real? damn nerds trying to stop us from making music.
Music belongs to the artist, while software belongs to a company - |
so let me get this straight
You steal an oven , and then a guy steals a cupcake you made in the oven (i'm assuming that is what you would make) but somehow the guy stealing the cupcake is the worse of the two ? |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
I dont think that is the case.
If its uncrackable they make more money on sales of the program to improve it further, if it were cracked they would sell less and therefore have less money to spend on development anyways. |
You're making assumptions you can't prove, and that nobody against pirating has really proven. Anybody can quote sales numbers and download statistics, but nobody is really studying how crack software/pirated music is affecting sales. People download pirated software to use as trials, and some people download software because they are 15 years old and have no money. How could you count that particular download as a "loss" if the boy wasn't going to purchase it in the first place? Just because someone downloads something, it does not mean it was worthy of a purchase. That's one concept most people don't understand.
From a consumer standpoint, copy protection is a hassle and it's not benefiting me as a consumer. The code dedicated to copy protection is wasted harddrive space on my computer. In the grand scheme of things, it's not really a big deal, but I'd still rather not have to deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
