Ableton Forum

i dont like scones

solacerodgers wrote:

infix sans wrote:uh... so....if you're using demonoid... whats the difference between downloading and watching a copyright protected kung fu or western film and downloading and using a cracked copy of Live 8?

because they are not in print anymore. not here to argue the rights and wrongs of downloading but all the people who drive the price up are making me crazy about this crap.

$10 says you can find someplace in the world to find a purchaseable copy of each western you download. Actually tell you what -- name off some of the westerns and kung fu flicks you've downloaded recently and I'll personally search out a copy that you can make a fair transaction on, instead of cherry-picking and making exceptions to laws that you feel are sometimes wrong to break.

leedsquietman wrote:Brian, you might not agree with my opinion, but my opinion is not exactly exclusive, although I have broad enough shoulders to take your opinion and laugh it off, because IMHO, it is quite laughable. If you look back through these pages, you will see many people who also disagree with your opinion, but I guess if you add in all of their names your post would be unreadable because people would tune out after after the first dozen names ...

Now do something constructive with your time and show yourself to be a useful resource on this site. And pass the scones.

ok we will have to agree to disagree my friend, sorry for the apparent hostility it wasnt the intention. Scones you say

Peace

Brian

i'm another guy that wouldnt have ever bought ableton if he didnt pirate it first for a few months. you can fuck off.

that the best you got ? I think you mean 'before I bought Ableton LIVE, because I don't recall the Berlin based company, Ableton AG *Ltd* being taken over by any DJs'

you better hope your mom didn't read this, she'd ground you for a month, give you extra chores and take away your allowance

If Brian and I can call a truce after what we said, I don't think anyone else needs to start shit disturbing, we had that covered


This topic is seriously expired now. We got to read all the pros and cons, nothing new is coming to the table here ...

Let's all make some music and eat scones instead....

semi on-topic, someone on MPC-forums sent me the following PM:

**** wrote:i noticed in the comparison forums you use abelton live. i currently have 7.0.3 and am in need of the serial number. can you help?

DJdune wrote:you can fuck off.

aqua_tek wrote:semi on-topic, someone on MPC-forums sent me the following PM:

**** wrote:i noticed in the comparison forums you use abelton live. i currently have 7.0.3 and am in need of the serial number. can you help?

That's nothing. Over on an amp modeling forum, some guy not only asked me to post a GR update in a post on the forum; he also sent me a couple PMs, first:
1) Asking me to send it to him instead, and
2) Saying I was mean spirited in not doing so. And, he knows I'm a NI forum mod...



ew

People who say, that downloading cracked software isn't stealing, because there isn't something missing afterwards, miss a very important point: The work that goes into making this software.

I really don't like this whole analogy talk all the time, when it comes to this topic, but I guess, it's the best way to prove my point here:

You don't walk into a store and tell the shop owner, you only want to pay 10$ for this guitar, because it's just a little bit of wood, plastic and steel. 10$ should more than cover the pure material costs. That's not how it works. It's the work, that went into designing and building the different parts of the guitar, that you are paying for, just as it's the work of the developers designing the software you are paying for, when buying live.

If you really want to think of something, that's missing after you pirated software, think about the missing food on the tables of the people's families, who depend on your honesty, because they decided to provide a product, which a lot of people have difficulties to see the value in, because they can't "hold it in their hands".

georgeblunt wrote:People who say, that downloading cracked software isn't stealing, because there isn't something missing afterwards, miss a very important point: The work that goes into making this software.

I really don't like this whole analogy talk all the time, when it comes to this topic, but I guess, it's the best way to prove my point here:

You don't walk into a store and tell the shop owner, you only want to pay 10$ for this guitar, because it's just a little bit of wood, plastic and steel. 10$ should more than cover the pure material costs. That's not how it works. It's the work, that went into designing and building the different parts of the guitar, that you are paying for, just as it's the work of the developers designing the software you are paying for, when buying live.

If you really want to think of something, that's missing after you pirated software, think about the missing food on the tables of the people's families, who depend on your honesty, because they decided to provide a product, which a lot of people have difficulties to see the value in, because they can't "hold it in their hands".

thats just it mr blunt, i dont belive that it IS depriving the software makers of food on their table of an evening.
reason being us lot. abes are still selling an awful lot of software, and they way they've created a whole new market from add-on packages is almost shameful (if they weren't so good). what its (piracy) is really doing is depriving ableton of a small amount of extra profits. a business model doesnt cut pay because they've sold less; there maybe less bonus but hey its a recession right? people who get cracked stuff either wouldn't buy it if it weren't available as a crack (ie hobbyists, amatuers, kids, download addicts), or would use something else that was cracked, or if really pressed get some open source/donation ware. those that get deeper into it, eventually buy. this is my experience, from working with crackheads. its also my opinion. you believe diferently. cool. but i still think your analogy is way off

dredd i knight wrote:i dont belive that it IS depriving the software makers of food on their table of an evening.

"Believe" being the operative word...can you back up your "belief" with any concrete evidence that runs contrary to the numerous economic studies that prove otherwise? The "anecdotal economics" used to justify software piracy cracks me up - as a finance/accounting professional of over thirty years, half of that in high-tech...it never fails to make me laugh when I read the litany of excuses in this regard - and "believe" me, I've seen 'em all!

Sphinx wrote:

dredd i knight wrote:i dont belive that it IS depriving the software makers of food on their table of an evening.

"Believe" being the operative word...can you back up your "belief" with any concrete evidence that runs contrary to the numerous economic studies that prove otherwise? The "anecdotal economics" used to justify software piracy cracks me up - as a finance/accounting professional of over thirty years, half of that in high-tech...it never fails to make me laugh when I read the litany of excuses in this regard - and "believe" me, I've seen 'em all!

Got an example for you.

Adobe. Every single piece of adobe software released has been designed to be
very simple to make a keygen and pirate. This created whole generations of
graphic artists who were familiar with adobe products. These kids got jobs,
these kids got their boss to buy adobe products, Adobe became the industry
leader. Same for 3Dsmax and others. Generally it's a fantastic way of getting
a large following of young power-users that then go out and evangelise to
industry purchasers.

With Live they went with the "fade" style copy protection for this very reasion,
it gives users a chance to get addicted. 30 trials just aren't a good marketing
device, the user doesn't invest much time and they don't get addicted to the
workflow. So fade copy protection allows users to evaluate the software long
enough that it becomes integrated into their work environment.

For some companies piracy is their primary recruiting ground.

To say there is no benefit to companies that use piracy to grow their market
shows a lack of understanding of how this marketing works, accountant or not.

I was stupid enough to purchase Live 4 instead of pirating it first.

-Ben

MrYellow wrote:

Sphinx wrote:

dredd i knight wrote:i dont belive that it IS depriving the software makers of food on their table of an evening.

"Believe" being the operative word...can you back up your "belief" with any concrete evidence that runs contrary to the numerous economic studies that prove otherwise? The "anecdotal economics" used to justify software piracy cracks me up - as a finance/accounting professional of over thirty years, half of that in high-tech...it never fails to make me laugh when I read the litany of excuses in this regard - and "believe" me, I've seen 'em all!

Got an example for you.

Adobe. Every single piece of adobe software released has been designed to be
very simple to make a keygen and pirate. This created whole generations of
graphic artists who were familiar with adobe products. These kids got jobs,
these kids got their boss to buy adobe products, Adobe became the industry
leader. Same for 3Dsmax and others. Generally it's a fantastic way of getting
a large following of young power-users that then go out and evangelise to
industry purchasers.

With Live they went with the "fade" style copy protection for this very reasion,
it gives users a chance to get addicted. 30 trials just aren't a good marketing
device, the user doesn't invest much time and they don't get addicted to the
workflow. So fade copy protection allows users to evaluate the software long
enough that it becomes integrated into their work environment.

For some companies piracy is their primary recruiting ground.

To say there is no benefit to companies that use piracy to grow their market
shows a lack of understanding of how this marketing works, accountant or not.

I was stupid enough to purchase Live 4 instead of pirating it first.

-Ben

Ben - as I said: please show me non-anecdotal evidence that software developers benefit from piracy. Surely you can back your hypothesis up with some sort of valid study - thanks!

MrYellow wrote:
Got an example for you.

Adobe. Every single piece of adobe software released has been designed to be
very simple to make a keygen and pirate. This created whole generations of
graphic artists who were familiar with adobe products. These kids got jobs,
these kids got their boss to buy adobe products, Adobe became the industry
leader. Same for 3Dsmax and others. Generally it's a fantastic way of getting
a large following of young power-users that then go out and evangelise to
industry purchasers.

With Live they went with the "fade" style copy protection for this very reasion,
it gives users a chance to get addicted. 30 trials just aren't a good marketing
device, the user doesn't invest much time and they don't get addicted to the
workflow. So fade copy protection allows users to evaluate the software long
enough that it becomes integrated into their work environment.

For some companies piracy is their primary recruiting ground.

To say there is no benefit to companies that use piracy to grow their market
shows a lack of understanding of how this marketing works, accountant or not.

I was stupid enough to purchase Live 4 instead of pirating it first.

-Ben

ive heard this theory many times. do you really think that the company can go to the shareholders and say 'well we will make it easy to pirate, and hopefully in 15 years time it will be an industry standard, and we will make enormous amounts of money'

This just happened to Adobe, they never planned this, they were one graphics app against many (in fact they were the underdog to Corel for a long time) , and no one has ever produced any evidence to support this theory.

Copy protection has always been useless, but companies invest a lot of money in these useless technologies. they wouldnt bother at all if their aim was to create demand in the generation that got the software for free.

dredd i knight wrote: thats just it mr blunt, i dont belive that it IS depriving the software makers of food on their table of an evening.
reason being us lot. abes are still selling an awful lot of software, and they way they've created a whole new market from add-on packages is almost shameful (if they weren't so good). what its (piracy) is really doing is depriving ableton of a small amount of extra profits. a business model doesnt cut pay because they've sold less; there maybe less bonus but hey its a recession right? people who get cracked stuff either wouldn't buy it if it weren't available as a crack (ie hobbyists, amatuers, kids, download addicts), or would use something else that was cracked, or if really pressed get some open source/donation ware. those that get deeper into it, eventually buy. this is my experience, from working with crackheads. its also my opinion. you believe diferently. cool. but i still think your analogy is way off

I was talking about people telling me, that piracy isn't stealing.
If you tell me, that stealing in this case supports the economy, go right ahead.
You might have a point there, but I'm afraid I don't agree.
This might work for some companies (like adobe or microsoft), but a company will never ever plan such a thing as a business model (or they would be insanely stupid).

For me it's important, that people realize, that it IS stealing, what they do.
It is literally like walking into a car store and taking the latest BMW with you without paying.
Would you argue, that this could work out for BMW, because, if everyone, who hasn't enough money to buy this car, would steal it, eventually everyone will drive a BMW, and they'll make a fortune on spare parts?

I know, this whole analogy talk is a little off, and as I said, I try to avoid it.
But it seems to be the only possible way to show people, that software has a real life value, even if it is easy to copy and no real life "material" is being stolen.

The problem with the 13 years old kid downloading cracked software it obviously coudn't afford anyways isn't the loss for the company in that particular case - because, as you said, the kid wouldn't pay anyways and in the long run might even contribute to a cerain amount of income for the company.

The problem is the way of thinking, this kid develops, when doing so.
It learns, that it is a different thing to go to a store and steal a magazine and to download cracked software.
In the first case it knows, that it might be caught and face serious consequences.
In the latter case, it gets the impression, that it's ok, because everybody is doing it, and it's "just software".

The last thing, that I want this kid to read on the internet is, that it is OK to crack commercial software, because it isn't "real" stealing and it is ok, if you can't afford to buy it anyways - or even that the company might benifit from it in the long run. That's just an assumption and no basis to act upon.