OT: The death penalty for cracked software - too harsh?

[glitchrock-buddha]

i say no to everything with a hardware dongle

i agree. what rubs my turkey is how some of the best software is dongle protected (arturia being the main culprit here).

Just FYI, I received a response from Arturia support that they are going to be allowing their current dongled products to use the syncrosoft software elicenser instead of the dongle. The Minimoog V2 will now use the soft elicenser and they've also already converted Analog Factory to the soft elicenser (actually you can use either soft or dongle elicenser). So it's just the Prophet V and the Jupiter-8V which have to be updated.

[Fizmarble]

its a lot more of complex issue than thievery. When a thief steals something, they are directly taking away something of value from another person. With digital files, its merely copies of something. Digital piracy doe not directly take away something of value, it takes away the POTENTIAL for value. Because of its free, COPIED nature, it doesn't necessarily in turn mean that every pirated version is a direct loss in sales. Many of the people using pirated digital things would not have necessarily bought it otherwise. They simply would have chosen not to use it. Furthermore, many software tools in the industry are often copied by people (teenagers usually) who can't afford it retail. These people learn these tools and eventually become professional enough later in life to afford them. In these cases, it actually HELPS the content producer because that person learned and adopted their product, making them long term customers when they were able to afford it. If they dont, its unlikely they would have been able to or would have bought it in the first place, so its not a real loss. Of course there are lots of cases where the potential was real and something of value is being lost, but its not as simple as outright thievery.

You have spoken the truth. The rebuttals to your post are emotional and illogical. Your logic is good. If someone stole a car from an auto factory, they have stolen a physical object that took a calculable amount of man hours and money in materials. If someone were to replicate the car it's no longer stolen, because the original still exists. However, software is the object, and though not physical, it took man hours and money in materials to generate. But none of this means anything if the person who replicates the software would not have purchased it legally anyway. Some people have hundreds of bootleg movies. Does anyone really think that if they couldn't bootleg them, that they would run out and buy every single movie legally? 200 * $18. 3,600 dollars in dvds? What about games? 200 * 60. 12,000 dollars in video games????? People actually think that bootleggers would actually spend that money? It's totally illogical. That's why the money lost to pirates is a fallacy. It's based on the assumption that every bootleg would have been a legal sale.

[mkelly]

That's why the money lost to pirates is a fallacy. It's based on the assumption that every bootleg would have been a legal sale.

That's just crazy talk. It might be that only 5% of the pirated items would have actually been money lost, but it's still a quantity of money that the producer is being denied.

And just because you wouldn't have bought it anyway does not mean you're entitled to it. If that was an acceptable way to do things, you'd soon find that people don't pay for anything.

People can argue from here to eternity as to whether or not it is legally theft. Morally, it's wrong to take something that has a value, and not pay for it.

[glitchrock-buddha]

I think a better analogy would be using something public that was paid for with taxes, but not having paid any taxes. For example if you use streets or parks maintained with tax money but didn't contribute, it puts more of a burden on those who have paid for it. Or maybe condo fees would be a more appropriate analogy. Someone who doesn't pay their fees and gets away with it still benefits from what the fees go towards, therefor it's in effect potentially raising the fees for those that do pay, which is actually a form of stealing. It's equally likely that developers may have to charge a higher price to make a reasonable profit then they would if everyone paid for the product. So people using cracks are indeed freeloading off myself and others that pay for the software, and that sucks. I still don't feel bad for demoing software with cracks because I know that I am not freeloading off others anymore than if I was to download the demo. There just isn't an annoying noise or time limit. There are some products out there that have much less restrictive demos. For example the Olga synthesizer has an small countdown when you first open it, and then is fully featured, or some products have a nag screen at startup. These types of demos are totally acceptable to use when evaluating and remove any benefit of trying a crack. All demos should be that way.

[Fizmarble]

That's why the money lost to pirates is a fallacy. It's based on the assumption that every bootleg would have been a legal sale.

That's just crazy talk. It might be that only 5% of the pirated items would have actually been money lost, but it's still a quantity of money that the producer is being denied.

And just because you wouldn't have bought it anyway does not mean you're entitled to it. If that was an acceptable way to do things, you'd soon find that people don't pay for anything.

People can argue from here to eternity as to whether or not it is legally theft. Morally, it's wrong to take something that has a value, and not pay for it.

Again, it's not a fallacy because devs and pubs say they lose some money to piracy (for example 5%, in your hypothetical) it's a fallacy because they claim EVERY pirate copy was a sale they lost. I am not even talking about morality here, just logic. It's obvious that if someone pirates a copy instead of buying it that it's theft. Equally obvious is that if someone pirates a copy instead of NOT buying it, that no loss has been incurred. Such is the nature of digital copies. Just because you have the potential to sell infinite copies of your product, does not mean that you have lost infinite money because you didn't.

[friend_kami]

That's why the money lost to pirates is a fallacy. It's based on the assumption that every bootleg would have been a legal sale.

That's just crazy talk. It might be that only 5% of the pirated items would have actually been money lost, but it's still a quantity of money that the producer is being denied.

And just because you wouldn't have bought it anyway does not mean you're entitled to it. If that was an acceptable way to do things, you'd soon find that people don't pay for anything.

People can argue from here to eternity as to whether or not it is legally theft. Morally, it's wrong to take something that has a value, and not pay for it.

Again, it's not a fallacy because devs and pubs say they lose some money to piracy (for example 5%, in your hypothetical) it's a fallacy because they claim EVERY pirate copy was a sale they lost. I am not even talking about morality here, just logic. It's obvious that if someone pirates a copy instead of buying it that it's theft. Equally obvious is that if smoeone pirates a copy instead of NOT buying it, that no loss has been incurred. Such is the nature of digial copies. Just because you have the potential to sell infinite copies of your product, does not mean that you have lost infinite money because you didn't.

+1

[john gordon]

this thread is locked now fuck off!!!!!!!

[stringtapper]

It's just so easy to pirate and that's really the only reason people even try to argue on the side of it being ok. If you had to break into a house and risk having someone like me fire a 9mm hollow point into your torso just to get a free copy of Live then you can bet that pirates would not be so cavalier about their behavior.

[Fizmarble]

It's just so easy to pirate and that's really the only reason people even try to argue on the side of it being ok. If you had to break into a house and risk having someone like me fire a 9mm hollow point into your torso just to get a free copy of Live then you can bet that pirates would not be so cavalier about their behavior.

That was funny. You said the pirates were cavalier about their behaviour, immediately after casually mentioning firing a 9mm hollow point round into a trespassers torso. Good one.

[stringtapper]

It's just so easy to pirate and that's really the only reason people even try to argue on the side of it being ok. If you had to break into a house and risk having someone like me fire a 9mm hollow point into your torso just to get a free copy of Live then you can bet that pirates would not be so cavalier about their behavior.

That was funny. You said the pirates were cavalier about their behaviour, immediately after casually mentioning firing a 9mm hollow point round into a trespassers torso. Good one.

It's even better live.

[Fizmarble]

It's just so easy to pirate and that's really the only reason people even try to argue on the side of it being ok. If you had to break into a house and risk having someone like me fire a 9mm hollow point into your torso just to get a free copy of Live then you can bet that pirates would not be so cavalier about their behavior.

That was funny. You said the pirates were cavalier about their behaviour, immediately after casually mentioning firing a 9mm hollow point round into a trespassers torso. Good one.

It's even better live.

You really knock 'em dead.

[steve-o]

Intellectual property laws are based upon traditional property laws (Lockean) which developed around tangible physical property (personal or real, i.e. land). Property protected by intellectual property differs from property protected by traditional property laws in terms of scarcity. Traditional property is scarce - there is only a limited number resources, and rights in those resources must be protected. Property protected by intellectual property is not scarce like traditional property however because intellectual property is a product of the imagination, and theoretically, products of the imagination are infinite. Thus, patents and software, being products of the imagination, are not scarce like physical property. In fact intellectual property laws manufacture scarcity.

The problem thus is two fold: 1) the conceptual confusion that arises when an non-scarce product is treated as scarce; and 2) how to compensate manufactures of intellectual property for the products. The first problem is at the root of the piracy that runs rampant in Asian countries and cultures that have a more socialist of community approach to property in general, but especially to ideas and knowledge, like the Chinese. In these communities, ideas and knowledge should be shared freely for the benefit of all.

The second problem is at the core of many peoples frustration with the pricing structure of programs like Live. At a certain point, sales from most software have fully compensated the manufacturer for the resources and time spent in developing the product. After this point, the software continues to make pure profit, at which customers begin to complain, because they realize that manufacturers are selling non-scarce products at scarce prices.

[UncleAge]

It's just so easy to pirate and that's really the only reason people even try to argue on the side of it being ok. If you had to break into a house and risk having someone like me fire a 9mm hollow point into your torso just to get a free copy of Live then you can bet that pirates would not be so cavalier about their behavior.

+1

And they won't spend an ounce of energy on writing their own program.

[UncleAge]

The second problem is at the core of many peoples frustration with the pricing structure of programs like Live. At a certain point, sales from most software have fully compensated the manufacturer for the resources and time spent in developing the product. After this point, the software continues to make pure profit, at which customers begin to complain, because they realize that manufacturers are selling non-scarce products at scarce prices.

Not to argue with you but to better understand your point...

So, R&D for a 1965 Mustang surely has been recovered at this point. So should a consumer get a say-so in the pricing of said unit if Ford decides to start rolling them off the line this year?

Every business around the world has one thing in common. To be in business tomorrow.

The price of the software should (read: does) represent more than just the recoup of funds spent developing the product. And what is so bad about selling something for pure profit? (If there is such a thing) If anything I get upset at the small devs that don't have the business savvy & funds to keep their ship afloat. When they go under I am left with no support or upgrade path if I need to change my OS. At the very least, I am not mad at those that do find a way to make a profit. Because it's the group that stays in business, making tools for me that I appreciate the most. It's a balancing act for sure. And there is no way that I can give a round of applause to those that could potentially put that situation in jeopardy.

Better/more demo's? Yes, that's a good discussion. Developing less intrusive and more acceptable forms of copy protection? Sounds good. But a conversation about justifying cracked software? I can't get with that for one simple reason. There's nothing in it for me. If my favorite devs close up shop then that's bad for me. So I can't see the logic in the supposed argument because I don't believe one could have such an argument from an objective point of view. Every one has skin in this game one way or the other (or at least the ones posting to this thread).

Peace

[ewistrand]

Since you don't own the software you buy and thus the vendor is not selling it, how can you steal it? You can not steal that which can not be owned.

You also don't own a drivers license or a credit card. Does this mean I can steal your identity and ruin you?

ew