Question about Cracked Versions

[yur2die4]

The truth is, we're all just electrical buzzings trapped in bodies cracking away at being 'productive' and the mysteries and rewards of life.

No one owns a thing. Not even their self. We've just agreed to make it that way.

...but that's all off topic mumbo jumbo

[Broomptish]

really like reaktor but I just don't want to pay for it I don't think it's worth it

So it's worth using as long as it's free? Digging your logic, my man

I'm starting to enjoy getting older, I'll be dead before the world sinks into total shit thanks to the growing legions of brainless humans.

Glad I annoyed you and your logic is a fallacy, so I win fucko

His logic is fine. I like 500 dollar single malts, but I'd never shell out that kind of dough for one. I guess the older you get, the more brainless you become. Perhaps you should try cutting down on the single malts

Cheers galt good analogy just seems kinda obvious to me

[esaelectronics]

why don't everyone chill out,
sit back and smoke a fat one,
its not worth all the bickering.

one day we will all be dust,
and our idea's and talk will
just be echo's in the wind.

everything we do is at the expense
of another :-

i.e my push controller ..
made with oil, probably extracted from what used to be
someone's ancestral land in the rain forest,
animals have died, people get cancer from
the pollution,rivers poisoned or maybe not as bad, maybe from
Iraq,where our armed forces have blown hundreds of thousands of people
to bits just to protect the supply!.

or for example the cheap radio that cost 5$,
the pollution in one third world country pumped out during manufacture,
casing cancers or birth defects, the shipping from maybe one side of the earth
to the other of the raw materials.its only cheap because the damage
is caused somewhere else.

everyday we walk past the homeless man and give him nothing'
its your own fault you druggie' we think to justify ourselves.

our energy, everything we do,what we eat, is at the expense of another
being of the planet earth,
so lets get things into context, who and what is moral,
what are our ethics?.

what harm do we ourselves create in this great world?

[102455]

I like 500 dollar single malts, but I'd never shell out that kind of dough for one.

So you steal 500 dollar malts instead?

[Galt]

It's not stealing. Stealing, by definition, is the act of taking someone's property without their permission (see Taxes), however, were Tom to crack Live (and bear in mind that this is a hypothetical), Ableton wouldn't be light any property whatsoever. Indeed, they would have exactly no more and no less than before Tom performed his evil sorcery.

Or did you think we were actually discussing whisky?

[Angstrom]

When I read people talk about software theft I feel like I'm talking to cavemen argue about whether a car is or isn't a rock.

organisations working to sell products or services for recompense require certain condition in order to operate viably. They don't exist in isolation, but in relation to markets, people, society. In the same way a person running a race needs boundaries in order to run the race an agreed "start" and "finish" in order to judge the result. Removal of the boundaries does not prevent them running, but does make the race nonsensical. Boundary conditions determine the existence of a thing.

Scarcity
Imagine a product X, an amazing thing we discover which is unknown elsewhere. We show our item X to the world and soon people at large find it to be desirable and worth buying. Now we have a business. We have a market, we have scarcity of supply, control of that scarcity, and a distribution network with which to capitalise upon demand. We can set the price how we desire because we are the only source of X. We control how X is percived too, we can brand it and style it.

But one day, somebody discovers how to make X Using simple household ingredients. They make X themselves.

Now have they stolen my X?
Nope, I still have my supply, but now I no longer control the scarcity, or the market. I have X, you have X, everybody has some. It's like dirt. Worthless through abundance.
Everybody can now have X, it is no longer a viable product.

It's not a moral issue though. Home X is a market like any other, so now a viable business might cater to Home X makers rather than "people who want to buy X". Or to translate into the world of software piracy : software companies become skewed to cater to the warez market, they need to offer additional value to those users above their home-cooked variety. And this is why you see so much software become weirdly distorted from its purpose, and start to do odd things such as "content packs". It's added value for consumers of on-brand X.

So no, it's not theft. It's erosion of scarcity.

[102455]

Ableton wouldn't be light any property whatsoever.

Really? So you're saying that Ableton don't own Live? That the Live code wasn't written by them?

Even when you legally purchase Live, it doesn't belong to you. You only bought the right to use their product.

Surely you understand that? You must be playing devils advocate here. Tell me you're not that stupid.

[panten]

So no, it's not theft. It's erosion of scarcity.

Regardless of the semantics used, it's still illegal right?

[H20nly]

Now have they stolen my X?
Nope, I still have my supply, but now I no longer control the scarcity, or the market. I have X, you have X, everybody has some. It's like dirt. Worthless through abundance.
Everybody can now have X, it is no longer a viable product.

that shit rots your brain and rapes your soul... lay off the X Angstrom.

[beats me]

When I read people talk about software theft I feel like I'm talking to cavemen argue about whether a car is or isn't a rock.

organisations working to sell products or services for recompense require certain condition in order to operate viably. They don't exist in isolation, but in relation to markets, people, society. In the same way a person running a race needs boundaries in order to run the race an agreed "start" and "finish" in order to judge the result. Removal of the boundaries does not prevent them running, but does make the race nonsensical. Boundary conditions determine the existence of a thing.

Scarcity
Imagine a product X, an amazing thing we discover which is unknown elsewhere. We show our item X to the world and soon people at large find it to be desirable and worth buying. Now we have a business. We have a market, we have scarcity of supply, control of that scarcity, and a distribution network with which to capitalise upon demand. We can set the price how we desire because we are the only source of X. We control how X is percived too, we can brand it and style it.

But one day, somebody discovers how to make X Using simple household ingredients. They make X themselves.

Now have they stolen my X?
Nope, I still have my supply, but now I no longer control the scarcity, or the market. I have X, you have X, everybody has some. It's like dirt. Worthless through abundance.
Everybody can now have X, it is no longer a viable product.

It's not a moral issue though. Home X is a market like any other, so now a viable business might cater to Home X makers rather than "people who want to buy X". Or to translate into the world of software piracy : software companies become skewed to cater to the warez market, they need to offer additional value to those users above their home-cooked variety. And this is why you see so much software become weirdly distorted from its purpose, and start to do odd things such as "content packs". It's added value for consumers of on-brand X.

So no, it's not theft. It's erosion of scarcity.

Yeah, Ableton should realize nobody is going to pay them for X anymore. They need to go out and do live performances of them typing in code for X.

[Angstrom]

So no, it's not theft. It's erosion of scarcity.

Regardless of the semantics used, it's still illegal right?

Of course, but my point was that when people talk about "theft" its not the correct definition of where the issue lies, it is more akin to a rights issue. The government has the sole right to print money, if money could be printed by everyone it would become devalued and worthless. The official notes would still exist, they have not been "stolen", but the crime is not one of theft and should not be judged on those terms. Attempting to do so will produce no sensible judgement.

If a man creeps into your house and fucks you up the pooper, has he stolen your anus, or is it still there? It is not taken, but that doesn't mean there's no harm. It's a rights issue.

When people duplicate copies of software each and every copy is devalued by this process, like a currency, so the rightful issuer and owner all have their capital reduced.

[H20nly]

^ i think that counterfeit bill analogy is absolutely spot on. it's not the real thing... the way it was officially intended to be used. so any other use of the product, or manipulation that circumvents its security measures, renders it unsanctioned and illegitimate.

[Galt]

Ableton wouldn't be light any property whatsoever.

Really? So you're saying that Ableton don't own Live? That the Live code wasn't written by them?

Even when you legally purchase Live, it doesn't belong to you. You only bought the right to use their product.

Surely you understand that? You must be playing devils advocate here. Tell me you're not that stupid.

No, I'm saying that Ableton wouldn't be light any property whatsoever, as per the portion of my comments which you chose to quote. As for the question of my intelligence, you'll have to forgive me for not feeling the need to explain myself to an illiterate.

[Galt]

The government has the sole right to print money, if money could be printed by everyone it would become devalued and worthless. The official notes would still exist, they have not been "stolen", but the crime is not one of theft and should not be judged on those terms. Attempting to do so will produce no sensible judgement.

If a man creeps into your house and fucks you up the pooper, has he stolen your anus, or is it still there? It is not taken, but that doesn't mean there's no harm. It's a rights issue.

When people duplicate copies of software each and every copy is devalued by this process, like a currency, so the rightful issuer and owner all have their capital reduced.

1. The US government's "right" to print money is unconstitutional and thus just as illegal as cracking software. If we are to follow this example through to conclusion, we must must conclude that Ableton itself should not have the right to reproduce its software.

2. The US government has been intentionally devaluing the dollar since 1913 to the point where, today, the dollar is largely worthless compared to the 1913 dollar.

3. If we are to believe the logic of idiots like Krugman and Bernanke, we must conclude that private individuals printing their own dough should actually help to stimulate the economy (see "quantitative easing").

4. If TomViolenz cracks Ableton Live, my legit copy doesn't lose any value whatsoever. It can still do exactly what it could before—no more, and no less. In contrast to this, inflating a currency reduces the purchasing power of each individual unit of that currency—an effect felt by all as rapidly as it takes for shops to adjust their prices.

Hence, your comparison doesn't hold up from either the legal or the economic perspective.

And that's how it's done.

[102455]

The definition of property is "a thing that belongs to someone".

Live belongs to Ableton, therefore it's their property. It doesn't have to be physical to be property.

So, let's look at your definition of stealing again. You say it's "the act of taking someone's property without their permission".

OK so if you take Ableton's property (Live) without their permission (a license) then you're stealing it.

It's really not that hard for sentient life forms to comprehend.