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

[musiker01]

I have no problem paying for software like Live that clearly is the product of some intelligent people putting a lot of work into the product AND having an open ear for their customers wishes.

But I think Make Music should pay me for having to use their piece of crap software Finale. Year after year they put out new versions with yet more features no one could possibly want yet keeping all that ugly pre WW2 (or was it WW1?) code that makes this mess a nightmare to use. And they say it's "industry standard". What a fucked up industry this must be. Why I use it? Because my boss bought me a licence saying "it's industry standard." And Sibelius is too very expensive.

Another great example is Guitar Pro. The current version has some blatant unnerving bugs on OS X. Some of them, like menu items that point to the wrong menus, would take about 30 seconds to fix. Yet, they haven't brought out an update since I bought the software about a year ago. And they just don't answer my emails asking them for one. If I wasn't so unsure if this wasn't against the forum rules I would say: go ahead, pirate them!

End of rant. Thanks for reading.

Axel

[leedsquietman]

Interesting that the 'napster' generation (the 21-30 yr olds) majority think it's OK to pirate software, whereas the kids (u20s) so far are against it.
And that the pre 'napster' generation of 31 years plus are more against than for pirate software.

[steve-o]

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?

The difference is that if Ford decides to manufacture more 65 Mustangs, they have to use materials such as metal, plastic, rubber, glass, etc. These materials are scarce, i.e. there is a finite quantity of these resources available. Thus, if Ford decides to manufacture new Mustangs, then the consumer does not get a say so in the pricing because Ford still has to take raw materials and transform them into a finished product.

Not so with software. Once the code is developed and written - the manufacturing process - it is simply copied. Code exists in the world of zeros and ones - the imagination, the world of the abstract mind, the ether - and there is no "scarcity" of code, like there is of the raw materials that make up a car. Thus, how can property laws - which were developed to protect interests in "scarce" property - be equally applicable to to "non-scarce" property? It's an area of conceptual confusion where there are no easy answers.

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

You are absolutely right. The problem is how is it possible for the intellectual property manufacturer to retain the incentive to innovate? An idealist answer would be to be less greedy; however this isn't a real option in the real world without requiring a paradigmatic shift in global human conciousness. One approach might be to qualify the rights protected in intellectual property against other interests and rights, such as, for example, the human right to health care (I'm shooting from the hip here). In such a scenario, health care would have to be dependent on access to or ownership of software. And such a scenario is really not too far fetched: robotics, germline genetic engineering, and nanotechnology are all right around the corner, with the high probability of changing life as we know it, and all of it will be dependent on software or other intellectual property. So, the considerations are there.

Now, with a piece of software like Live, which does not threaten any other, perhaps "higher" rights, such considerations are distant and removed from the current situation. Indeed, Live falls far from applications that can have such a huge impact on human affairs. However, Live is still a piece of software, protected by the conceptually confusing intellectual property law scheme. To enforce protection of Ableton's intellectual property to the same degree that one would enforce physical property is therefore logically inconsistent. Even within the sphere of physical property, penalties are scaled: from misdemeanor theft, theft, grand theft, etc. The problem here is that it is much easier to steal Ableton's IP, and much harder to quantify the actual loss caused by the theft. In deed, many people who initially steal the software end up purchasing it. How many check it out and then never use it again? Again, there is no easy answer to these questions; however, to say that "theft is theft" is not really an accurate statement.

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.

First of all, I don't believe it is about giving a round of applause to those who violate Ableton's IP. As I said, it is a conceptually confusing situation, even more so in a globalized economy. And, again, I agree with you to a degree: there is not anything wrong with selling something for pure profit per se. However, as this thread is kind of testament to, some people have some sort of misgivings regarding Abelton's pricing. I for one will have spent thousands of dollars on Live since v1.5 (but I have no problem with that). And I think that part of the cause of these kind of misgivings is the conceptually confusing nature of intellectual property.

Regarding the rest of your concerns, they are extremely valid and need to be kept into consideration when paying for software. It's security in an investment, at least for me.

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

Just for the record, I am not condoning cracked software; just trying to put the issue in it's proper context.

[rjbourc]

Interesting that the 'napster' generation (the 21-30 yr olds) majority think it's OK to pirate software, whereas the kids (u20s) so far are against it.
And that the pre 'napster' generation of 31 years plus are more against than for pirate software.

Tiny, non-random data set, to be sure, but it is an interesting outcome. Maybe we've turned the corner...

[Sphinx]

Interesting that the 'napster' generation (the 21-30 yr olds) majority think it's OK to pirate software, whereas the kids (u20s) so far are against it.
And that the pre 'napster' generation of 31 years plus are more against than for pirate software.

Fascinating statistic! I'm 53; would never pirate software - but have long since given up arguing about this issue on forums. I do, however, find people boasting about using cracked 'ware on a company-owned site to be in extremely poor form...

[ChiDJ]

Those who lack character steal.

Right or wrong is mute. You are weak if you steal.

Locked.

[Tone Deft]

Those who lack character steal.

Right or wrong is mute. You are weak if you steal.

Locked.

so it's true...

you've never actually bought any software, ever.





I joke.

[ChiDJ]

Those who lack character steal.

Right or wrong is mute. You are weak if you steal.

Locked.

so it's true...

you've never actually bought any software, ever.





I joke.

You speak the truth my furry little hippy homeboy!

[Tone Deft]

I'm not a hippy!! think Michael Bolton from Office Space, and yes Lumberg is making me work this weekend, because I'm a pussy (and he fucked up.)