Piracy in general

[qo]

...

EDIT: deleted inappropriate comments related to economy...

(sorry James)

[studiodog]

Well I got the latest Sound On Sound mag. today and they have a review of the VI that I posted about finding in a newsgroup. It's the Rob Papen Blue synth. Why would anyone buy something and then just let everyone (potentially) have it for free. Or did the guy that posted it steal it in the first place? And if so, why share it...?

The group I stumbled across it in shouldn't have had software in it at all and it's way too much VI for me so I've decided to chunk it. I've got enough moral dilemmas just sneaking Auto Tune on to someone's vocal and not telling them that they can't hold a pitch.

Seeing it in the SOS with a list price of $200 reminded me that if I need it, I can afford to buy it and the support that I guess would come with it.

I'll consider it a good demo though...

[qo]

Did you guys see the latest from Waves?

Z-Noise retails for $800. All Diamond, Broadcast & Production, and Restoration Bundle owners with current Waves Update Plan coverage can upgrade to Z-Noise for $600.

For a limited time only, owners of these bundles with current Waves Update Plan coverage can purchase Z-Noise for $400. Offer good until January 31, 2006.

Woohoo!

(EDIT: that woohoo was tongue-in-cheek in case it came across as being in the least bit supportive of waves/wup ).

(EDIT2: 'cause, like, IMHO, the plugin is worth maybe $200, if that. But, if you slap a retail price of $800, and somehow manage to offer it to a select few for $400, they're, like, gonna jump on it because they pity the poor souls that are gonna have to pay twice that. Well, uh, not. Waves? Knock, knock, anyone home?)

(EDIT3: I guess I'll just try to track with no noise )

[studiodog]

And that's why I'll squeeze every drop out of the Version of Waves I currently have.

I'll take the money I DID NOT spend on the WUP and blow it in a casino...
or some other crapshoot...

[KarlSutton]

yeah I remember trying to decide what songs I wanted to record since I could only afford 15 minutes at a time! (2 inch) I even contemplated running at 30IPS for the sake of more tunes!

The price drop in every aspect floors me, truly does.

[Newsles]

Well I got the latest Sound On Sound mag. today and they have a review of the VI that I posted about finding in a newsgroup. It's the Rob Papen Blue synth. Why would anyone buy something and then just let everyone (potentially) have it for free. Or did the guy that posted it steal it in the first place? And if so, why share it...?

Seeing it in the SOS with a list price of $200 reminded me that if I need it, I can afford to buy it and the support that I guess would come with it.

I'll consider it a good demo though...

Not entirely related, but many of you will know that Propellerheads Rebirth is now avaiable as a free download from rebirthmuseum.com (as a disc image file), but have we noticed that many music retailers are still selling it at almost it's original retail price (In the UK around £149)?

I expect they want to get a return on it, but they must have sold thousands of copies since it's release as it was so popular.

I never upgraded mine from Version 1.5 as I was without a Mac (and internet access too) for a good long while, so Im considering just getting the download (the vull version 2 with the 909 as well), but I still think retailers should be knocking a fair whack off any remaining copies they have on their shelves. OK, you get the thing fully boxed etc but a the end of the day, the software is the software and that's what people are buying it for.

Les

[James Steele]

Whoops, wrong forum

Wrong board. Please keep "politics" off the board and monetary policy is uncomfortably close. Thanks.

[sKnob]

1/ Selling (hard) counterfeit copies of CD's or software is piracy.

2/ Uploading something for others to copy is piracy (in the vast majority of places).

3/ Downloading something and trying it out and keeping it (without buying a legit copy) is sometimes piracy (depending on the laws of where you live).

4/ Downloading something and trying it out and buying a legit copy is...?

5/ Downloading something and trying it out and then deleting it is...?

My answer to #4: A new and effective from of viral marketing (that doesn't cost the corporations anything)

#5 above is the one that probably pisses off record labels and publishers the most, because it deprives them of sales to people who buy the product "by mistake" (weather they were misled or baited by corporate marketing or not).

And what about people who download stuff they could never afford to buy? Are those lost sales? Don't they contribute positively by fueling the viral marketing awareness of the downloaded stuff?

Saying that 1 downloaded copy = 1 lost sale is bullsh••. Item 4 above increases awareness and leads to sales. Item 3 above is a bummer. Most studies show it is in fact a wash, with variations depending on the notoriety of the artist/product.

But even so, among the people you know, how many of them are active pirates? Probably only a proportion the computer-nerds who spend their life on-line. Most "normal" people go out and buy music CDs and packaged software (if they can afford it).

I've worked in the software industry and am painfully aware of how complicated and expensive software is to make. I'm also painfully aware of how difficult and expensive it is to make software that works, or that is usable, or once in a while, both. If you don't believe me, just read the software licence agreements ("no garantee, explicit or implicit, that the software works, no liability in case of direct or indirect loss...") for the software you own (scratch that, even if you bought it, you don't own it, but I digress).

So things aren't all black and white and cut and dried.

And even if it gets me banned, I'll readily admit that my first copy of DP (a 2.x) was a "try before you buy" copy (which I did and did). I probably wouldn't have switched otherwise.

[qo]

Just wanted to say "Hi Vincent" and welcome to Unicornation. Used to love your posts/music over on the other board so am glad to see you've signed up here!

[sKnob]

Just wanted to say "Hi Vincent" and welcome to Unicornation. Used to love your posts/music over on the other board so am glad to see you've signed up here!

Hi Qo. So that's where you were hiding

Nice to hear your distinctive voice again!

Actually, I was signed up here before it went down for a few months, so this place isn't exactly new to me

A bientôt,

-v

[qo]

Just wanted to say "Hi Vincent" and welcome to Unicornation. Used to love your posts/music over on the other board so am glad to see you've signed up here!

Hi Qo. So that's where you were hiding

Nice to hear your distinctive voice again!

Actually, I was signed up here before it went down for a few months, so this place isn't exactly new to me

A bientôt,

-v

Opps! Mon erreur. I see now by your signup date that you should be the one welcoming me At any rate, hope to see you more often around here!

[Jim]

[Resonant Alien]

Tricky topic, but it can be boiled down to a simple analogy:

Q: If I went into a music store, stuck a CD down my pants and walked out without paying, would I be guilty of stealing? Should I be prosecuted and possibly go to jail?
A: Absolutely! Who could argue that this is a crime?

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!

The gray area comes with copying friends' music. Now, when I was a kid, I borrowed my friends' LPs and made cassette tapes of them all the time. Sometimes I went and bought the LP myself afterwards and sometimes I didn't. Legally, I had a right to do that - the law allows you to make a copy if you are using it for your own purpose, and you are not reselling it or broadcasting it. Did I take money away from those artists? Sure. By making a tape of my friends' LP, I did not spend $8 or whatever it was to support that artist. So, was it morally wrong for me to make tapes?

Enter the digital age - things change. When you make a cassette copy, conventional wisdom was that is OK - part of the argument is that the sound quality of a tape is bad compared to an LP, so if someone really likes the tape, they may go buy the LP anyway to get better sound quality (which is often what I did). Some say this argument no longer holds true because you can now make a bit-for-bit digital copy of a CD which is identical to the original, sound quality and all. For copying CDs, this is true. But for MP3s, this is not true. MP3 quality compared to CD quality is nearly like cassette quality compared to LP quality. So, does that argument still hold? From the lawsuits launced, obviously the record industry does not think so. Maybe because the average person can't hear the difference in sound quality between a CD and an MP3 like us musicians can. Is it because even when we made tapes, we still paid for something (the blank tapes), and the record companies got a cut of all blank tape sales, but with MP3s, they don't get anything?

Don't get me wrong - as I stated at the beginning, I think someone downloading an illegal MP3 without paying is guilty of stealing. BUT, when you think about the history of making copies of albums on tapes, it puts a different spin on it and makes it very tricky.

I totally understand why software is non-returnable. It simply cannot be. With a piece of hardware, if you don't like it, you take it back. The company gets their stuff back and you don't have anything anymore. With software, once it's installed on your machine, there is no way the company can make you delete it, so how could they possibly offer a return. But there is an easy solution......demo versions.

One thing companies should definitely do is offer demo versions for everything. Most plugins (at least native ones that don't require PCI or external hardware) offer demo versions that expire after a time. So, why can't MOTU and Apple offer demo versions of DP and Logic that expire after a certain time. MOTU could even offer free versions of AudioDesk and call that a DP "demo" which it essentially is. This would reduce some people's temptation to get hold of a pirate copy - they can actually try out what they're getting before parting with $500 or $1000 and being stuck if they don't like it.

[Spikey Horse]

Tricky topic, but it can be boiled down to a simple analogy:

Q: If I went into a music store, stuck a CD down my pants and walked out without paying, would I be guilty of stealing? Should I be prosecuted and possibly go to jail?
A: Absolutely! Who could argue that this is a crime?

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!

It's not the same thing at all. In the CD-down-the-pants example the (physical copy of a) CD has been made which cost money (not much) but its value *as a product* has already been factored into whatever deal the record company have with the shop. IOW the shop has agreed to either buy it or pay a percentage of the sale price back (minus its cut) once it's been sold. But now it can't be sold or returned as it's been nicked. Presumabley the shop will have to still cough up for it as if it had been sold. So that's real money which *will be missed* somewhere along the line.

(However, by having a store laid out with rows of actual CD's just lying around for the public to flick though, pick up and covet the same shop might have sold 100 more albums that day than if unstealable catalogues were used, or cards with pictures of the CD's on them and so on.

When a store decides it's display policy/ security policy you can bet it will factor in 'ease-of-nickability' with 'put-it-in-their-hands-(make them feel like they own it already)-ability'.)

In the other example, an illegal download, no one could possibly even know it has happened - let alone have to cough up for the wholesale price of a missing CD.

True in both cases a *potential sale* has been lost but think of the effort and risk involved in niocking a physical CD. If it's being stolen for the musical content (rather than just to sell to a second hand store half an hour later for some cash) then I bet the thief really wants it. But someone sitting at home being given to option to download an MP3 track of some band they once heard someone say was quite good while they go off and put the kettle on, is that really a potential sale lost? It could be yes but is much more likely to be a casual thing.

I'm not supporting any kind of theft or illegal activity but I do believe there are many sides to everything. And far more than I've tried to describe here.

EDIT - to 'nick' means to steal in the UK not sure how common that term is!

[Resonant Alien]

It's not the same thing at all. In the CD-down-the-pants example the (physical copy of a) CD has been made which cost money (not much) but its value *as a product* has already been factored into whatever deal the record company have with the shop. IOW the shop has agreed to either buy it or pay a percentage of the sale price back (minus its cut) once it's been sold. But now it can't be sold or returned as it's been nicked. Presumabley the shop will have to still cough up for it as if it had been sold. So that's real money which *will be missed* somewhere along the line.

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?

Producing an MP3 also costs "real" money. Either the record company or the artist has to cough up money to go to the studio, record the song, pay for promotion, get featured on iTunes, etc. To use your logic, the cost of producing the MP3 has already been "factored in" to whatever deal the record company made with the artist, just like the cost of the CD is factored into whatever deal the record company made with the retail shop. i.e. the record company gave the artist a truckload of cash to go into a studio and record an album. The artist is obligated to repay that money - the artist repays that money to the record company through the sale of CDs, MP3s, and concert tickets. If someone steals an MP3, they are taking money away from the artist. The artist is still liable to pay their money back to the record company, regardless of whether they actually make any money on selling the MP3 or CD, just like the retail store is liable for paying the record company back for any CDs they have.

So, basically anyone who steals MP3s is hurting the very artists that they claim they like - artists who are trying to make a living with their music.

You imply that the only time it is really stealing is if you take a physical, tangible product - i.e. a physical copy of a CD, but it is not stealing if you take something that cannot be physically touched, like an MP3. That may work as a personal justification for stealing music, but it is not a legally or morally correct argument. It's kind of like trying to make an argument to your wife that you really didn't cheat on her because you only had oral sex with another woman, you didn't have "real" sex.