MOTUNATION (formerly UnicorNation) is an independent community for discussing Digital Performer and other MOTU audio software and hardware. It is not affiliated with MOTU.
Forum rules
The forum for petitions, theoretical discussion, gripes, or other matters outside deemed outside the scope of helping users make optimal use of MOTU hardware and software. Posts in other forums may be moved here at the moderators discretion. No politics or religion!!
Resonant Alien wrote:
Your argument does not make sense. By your argument, it IS stealing if I take money away from the retail shop, but it is NOT stealing if I only take money away from the artist who made the CD/MP3 and the record company who produced it? So it's OK to steal from an artist and a record company, but it's not OK to steal from a retail shop?
I never said that. I was just responding to your previous comment that the two scenarios are 'the same thing' .
To say they are they same thing just because they are both morally and lawfully wrong (obviously) is in my opinion a too simplistic view. However, I was not condoning either case (or any other illegal activity) and specifically made a point of saying so.
Resonant Alien wrote:
Your argument does not make sense. By your argument, it IS stealing if I take money away from the retail shop, but it is NOT stealing if I only take money away from the artist who made the CD/MP3 and the record company who produced it? So it's OK to steal from an artist and a record company, but it's not OK to steal from a retail shop?
I never said that. I was just responding to your previous comment that the two scenarios are 'the same thing' .
To say they are they same thing just because they are both morally and lawfully wrong (obviously) is in my opinion a too simplistic view. However, I was not condoning either case (or any other illegal activity) and specifically made a point of saying so.
Thanks for clarifying. I agree - the circumstances around the two scenarios are different - a good point. I guess that's why so many people, mostly non-musicians, think it is OK to download songs they haven't paid for.
So, if I go to a music site and illegally download an MP3 without paying for it, or go to a software site and download an illegal copy of software without paying, why does anyone think this is any different? It's the SAME THING!
Taking this example to software will illustrate my biggest gripe with many places. A LOT of software does not have return policies. When I bought my Nord Rack 3 for $1800 long ago, if it didn't work like I wanted, I could bring it back for a full refund. Now, with Korg Legacy Digital collection, it clearly states on the receipt that there are absolutely NO refunds for software. And this is software with a USB key!
Not all things are created equal. DP is a tool. If you go to the store and buy a screwdriver, and you take it home to use it and can't screw in screws with it, you're not screwed (couldn't resist) because you can take it back, get a replacement, get something different that does work if it was a design flaw, or even get your money back.
With software, for the most part, this is not the case. Outside of the legal implications, I think it's a very poor model to expect sometime to pay $500 for a piece of software to try it out AND not have any guarantees that the advertised functionality works. Until something is put in place to help in these software situation, people are going to continue to either (1) get some chance in trying it first or (2) get really pissed off after they buy it and flame the world.
But, in context of the law, you cannot draw fuzzy lines, you have to draw straight ones, and that's what has been done. I've heard the debates all the time trying to compare one type of theft to another, but it's not always that simple. There are different effects in different types of goods/services. For me, when it comes to software tools, it's a very simple question. Am I going to use this in my studio? If yes, then I buy it. Even for programs that are shareware. For instance, I just bought fuzzMeasure for doing acoutsical measurements of my studio. I could have done everything I needed using the demo, but, I felt only right buying a copy of it to use and supporting someone who writes code I like.
I even speak of this from a code writing perspective. I wrote three applications for Win32 for doing eBay auctions. I provided 14 day demos so people could try it out because the LAST thing I wanted was someone buying something they didn't like. Some companies just refuse to see viewpoint, and that's just sad.
Now, from MOTU's perspective, I'm a bit of a mixed bag of feelings on their methods. BUT, I love their tools, so I deal with it.
Taking this example to software will illustrate my biggest gripe with many places. A LOT of software does not have return policies. When I bought my Nord Rack 3 for $1800 long ago, if it didn't work like I wanted, I could bring it back for a full refund. Now, with Korg Legacy Digital collection, it clearly states on the receipt that there are absolutely NO refunds for software. And this is software with a USB key
I couldn't agree more......However - this does not create an excuse for stealing. I fully understand why companies cannot offer software refunds - you can't take something back that has been installed on a computer. BUT, companies SHOULD offer demo versions of software. Most all plugins offer this - except hardware accelerated ones - this is a problem. Even Apple offers a Logic Express 29 day trial. Why can't other companies do the same?
As for the music example - all download sites let you preview a song before you have to buy it - there is no excuse for not paying.
