# How is this even legal?



## keyop

Just a general observation around the web gets many of these pirate type of sites. How on earth is it even legal for them to get away with this?
These people that own the pirate sites just take all developers work and post it and make money from advertising and the crazy thing is they are just allowed to do this.


----------



## GNP

I have to admit (bravely or not), if it wasn't for pirates and thieves, I wouldn't be as experienced with DAWs and libraries. I used pirated Cubase SX3 when I wasn't getting any jobs at all. But once the jobs came in, I was prepped enough. I then bought Cubase 4. I was still using illegal libraries, which I have bought 10 years later to make up for.

Say what you want, but the world is alot more complicated than we make it out to be.

So I'd say, get off your high horse, you Intel-Op operator, and either be as passionate as poor people, or fuck off.


----------



## Salorom

GNP said:


> I have to admit (bravely or not), if it wasn't for pirates and thieves, I wouldn't be as experienced with DAWs and libraries. I used pirated Cubase SX3 when I wasn't getting any jobs at all. But once the jobs came in, I was prepped enough. I then bought Cubase 4. I was still using illegal libraries, which I have bought 10 years later to make up for.
> 
> Say what you want, but the world is alot more complicated than we make it out to be.
> 
> So I'd say, get off your high horse, you Intel-Op operator, and either be as passionate as poor people, or fuck off.


Amen.


----------



## Polkasound

May I suggest removing the link? This topic is important to discuss, but it can be done just as effectively without the advertisement.


----------



## d.healey

"Piracy" or copyright infringement is usually a civil matter, this means that generally it's up to individual copyright holders to tackle infringements. This highlights one of many reasons why the archaic copyright system we are using today is totally unsuitable in a digital age.

To take a copyright infringer to court is not a simple or cheap task, especially if they are located in a different country to the copyright holder, and it becomes more difficult when those countries have different copyright laws.

I think it was Cinesamples who took a high volume infringer to court and won. And as I recall they didn't get a penny from him and it cost them a lot of time and money. There's an article or forum post about this somewhere.


----------



## Jaap

I find it always fascinating that on some of those sites you actually need to pay to make use of those links to download them (unless you want to wait for days with the slow downloads and limitations). Or even better, they upload a release and then it's posted as an "exclusive" release to that site and people have to "respect the uploaders wishes to not distribute it"....

A lot of my products are out there and in the beginning I was angry to see it, but nowadays it just feels like a waste of energy to be angry about it.
I don't know if it hurted my sales or not, but happily my company is healthy growing and products keep selling even if they are out there.
I do believe that the majority wouldn't have bought anything in the first place and I believe also that there are a few genuine folks out there who take advantage to test some things and buy it after all. I think it's just a small percentage, but as said, the majority on those sites probably don't intended to buy anything.

And if you are just starting out, don't have much money and still want to work with some things, just contact a developer. Explain your situation and see if you can find some middleground. Maybe you get a yes, maybe you get a no, but it is always worth trying if you are honest about it. 
I did this once for someone who reached out, explained his situation and how he wanted to use one of my products for an idea he was working on and after a few mailings I got the feeling that he is genuine and not trying to screw me. I gave it some thoughts and then offered him a deal in small payments and some discount and he sticked with the deal. Both parties happy


----------



## Henu

GNP said:


> So I'd say, get off your high horse, you Intel-Op operator, and either be as passionate as poor people, or fuck off.



Butthurt much? The guy had a point. Look, we've all more or less "tried copies of music software we got from a friend" when we started, and pretty sure most of us have repaid that a hundred times during the years. But it was illegal back then, it's illegal now, and there's really no excuse to defend it- and there's especially not a reason to tell "the rich" people to fuck off if they say it's a shitty thing. Because it is.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

GNP said:


> fuck off



Oh, I'm stealing because I'm so passionate!


----------



## KarlHeinz

I think Jaap mentioned all whats really important with this but what sadly is missed so often.

Concern, responsibility, respect, care....On all sites.

I changed from using the stuff I just could not pay for to reporting pirated versions to the devellopers cause I just cant understand that the people pirating this stuff just wont realize (or dont care about it) that they are going to ruin people who investigate all their heartblood to make these things. Some even post this in the pirate forums and just get ignored and even mocked up.

Why I still looked (till some years ago, just no time for it anymore) on those sites ? Cause I have LEARNED so much there, this is whats so crazy about it: so much knowledge there but sadly so often along with this total ignorance and care about the people they are damaging.

Jaap is right that it is a waste of energy to be angry about it but it still makes me sad.


----------



## keyop

GNP said:


> I have to admit (bravely or not), if it wasn't for pirates and thieves, I wouldn't be as experienced with DAWs and libraries. I used pirated Cubase SX3 when I wasn't getting any jobs at all. But once the jobs came in, I was prepped enough. I then bought Cubase 4. I was still using illegal libraries, which I have bought 10 years later to make up for.
> 
> Say what you want, but the world is alot more complicated than we make it out to be.
> 
> So I'd say, get off your high horse, you Intel-Op operator, and either be as passionate as poor people, or fuck off.


'Living the dream' on stolen goods with a IOU to the developer.... a solid promise that if you do somehow manage to become Hans Zimmer, you will buy their products, but it may be in ten years. Wow, just....wow. Imagine having that kind of over inflated sense of entitlement...the mind boggles.

Dear Ferrari, I plan on becoming a high performance car racer, so I'm going to steal a Ferrari from you. Ok? Hey, but don't worry, no because when I get good enough to race and make some money I will come back and buy a car from you and that is a solid promise. It might take 10 years, but you have my word. And if you do not agree with my warped way of thinking and 'values' then that means you are not passionate like poor little me. That is what your post read like, to me.


----------



## Technostica

I noticed someone selling Spitfire libraries on eBay recently including an Albion Collection of 5 libraries some of which are no longer even sold by SA.
The only good thing I can say about that is $30 is a cheap way to demo 5 libraries and possibly save some money as you may buy less after demoing them.
Just don't demo the one(s) that are no longer available to purchase in case you fall in love and are tempted to keep using it.


----------



## wst3

stealing is stealing, and it is against the law, and societies basic tenets - well, that last part may be history.

You can justify it all you want, that won't make it legal.

I don't understand why people think they are entitled to something just because they want it.


----------



## d.healey

wst3 said:


> stealing is stealing, and it is against the law, and societies basic tenets


In terms of law copyright infringement is not stealing, and literally making a copy is not stealing. Ethically/morally it may be stealing, depending on your POV.


----------



## Andrew Aversa

GNP said:


> I have to admit (bravely or not), if it wasn't for pirates and thieves, I wouldn't be as experienced with DAWs and libraries. I used pirated Cubase SX3 when I wasn't getting any jobs at all. But once the jobs came in, I was prepped enough. I then bought Cubase 4. I was still using illegal libraries, which I have bought 10 years later to make up for.
> 
> Say what you want, but the world is alot more complicated than we make it out to be.
> 
> So I'd say, get off your high horse, you Intel-Op operator, and either be as passionate as poor people, or fuck off.



There's an ethical and legal difference between pirated software shared for free, and pirated software *sold for money *(or otherwise monetized).

How can you possibly defend someone not only infringing copyright, but actually making money by distributing it? Not to mention the kind of monetization schemes on these sites are often full of crapware, malware, and scams, if not outright brazenly selling the software that they don't own the copyright to.

If your justification is that you're poor, so you have to pirate things, that might be a defense for *you *but it sure as hell is not a defense for the sites making money from distributing stuff that isn't theirs to distribute. Come on.


----------



## gsilbers

Can’t believe anyone on this forum would be anywhere close to being for anyway remotely condoning piracy.

I can just simply grab all of your tracks on SoundCloud, download them and sell them in royalty free sites and non exclusive libraries under my name. 
And hey... if it wasn’t because of this I wouldn’t learn much about music or music business so I eventually make my own music, maybe, but not all the time. 
since it was uploaded somewhere it means I can take them down and it’s shareable...
geez


----------



## gsilbers

Technostica said:


> I noticed someone selling Spitfire libraries on eBay recently including an Albion Collection of 5 libraries some of which are no longer even sold by SA.
> The only good thing I can say about that is $30 is a cheap way to demo 5 libraries and possibly save some money as you may buy less after demoing them.
> Just don't demo the one(s) that are no longer available to purchase in case you fall in love and are tempted to keep using it.



Some dude was selling one we gave away for free... the nerve.

I called eBay they said I need to fill out a copyright ip that says I’m the owner and do this kinda pita process to confirm it’s mine. And do it for every product.
so I have to Police their site.
and google also has a similar thing... so also have to police their site.


----------



## Christopher Rocky

I think they get away with it because it costs devs too much money to take the sites down, especially when its hosted on some random server that has many DNS/VPN layers, but i'm no dev so i have no idea, i just assume involving lawyers means empty pockets. 

This has made me think about an interesting question, 
Do you think that because its so easy to find pirated versions of libraries:

it has created more competition because of a larger audience? 

And also devs have to be creative in ways for people to choose to use their products as opposed to pirating? (apart from how morally and legally wrong it is!) 

I only ask these questions in light of the fact pirating exists, not justifying it at all

I'm absolutely anti piracy, but i do wish devs would allow you to free trial products before spending huge amounts of money on a non refundable/license transfer product,
OR is it that because there is so much piracy, that is why you cant do license transfers? (eg. devs need to make as much money as possible) these are things that would help piraters buy (possibly?)


----------



## keyop

Salorom said:


> Amen.





d.healey said:


> In terms of law copyright infringement is not stealing, and literally making a copy is not stealing. Ethically/morally it may be stealing, depending on your POV.


Yeah, pirates use word play all the time to skate around the is it stealing argument etc and use all kinds of excuses to justify their behaviours. The fact that they do dream up all kinds of excuses tells me that somewhere deep inside some of them know they are wrong.

Personally, I think it is the people that own the pirate sites that are the real POS. They propagate the idea that they are the righteous ones, the Robin Hoods taking from the 'big bad greedy developer', 'sticking it to the corps mannnn' and attacking 'corporate greed' and giving to the needy, poor little entitled spoiled urchins who can somehow afford all the hardware to run it all on.
Oh, and the 'Robin Hoods' do all this whilst shouting down capitalism and attacking any developer who tries to protect their work and all whilst lining their own pockets with advertising revenue created by being a modern day fence for stolen goods. It is only through the miracle of consumer capitalism that some of those 'poor little urchins' are not laying in their own sh#t and dead in a ditch at 43 with rotten teeth.


----------



## LamaRose

So who was the pissed A-lister who intentionally downloaded a cracked version of EWQL - maybe VSL? - because he couldn't get the ilok - or whatever it was called back in 2005 - to work properly? I remember first joining the forums back then and others discussing it.


----------



## Sears Poncho

gsilbers said:


> Can’t believe anyone on this forum would be anywhere close to being for anyway remotely condoning piracy.


Thank you.

What's particularly amazing (in a bad way): One can get a seriously badass setup... for free! Legally!

Kontakt Player- free, comes with some bread and butter sounds that are very usable.
Cakewalk Sonar- free. I still use the "paid" version. Bandlab is the company I think.
Project Sam, Orchestral Tools- free, very high quality stuff is currently available.
Spitfire Labs are amazing. And free.
Amplesounds- free guitars and basses.
Wavepad/Audacity- free editing stuff.
On and on.

And the wackiest part? This shiat is excellent. Some people are conditioned that "free is for suckers, I'm an artiste". It's a load of BS.


----------



## MauroPantin

I find it weird that we get arguments for leniency towards piracy in a forum for composers, whose very livelihood depends on intellectual property rights


----------



## marius_dm

Not sure it is such a bad thing for sales though. If it wasn't for "warez", a lot of people on this forum wouldn't even be into this hobby/profession (!). Usually people start with cracked software and as soon as they have the money/position they will buy all of the software they use. Cracked software is a gateway drug. And I believe most software developers are aware of this fact. 

Paradoxically it could lead to even more sales than without it. The European Comission did a study where they found out video game piracy actually increases legitimate sales.









Piracy increases videogame sales, according to a report for the European Commission


Update, September 25: As it turns out, that European Commission report found that piracy actually increased the number of legitimate sales of videogames.A European Commission report on the effect of piracy on the legitimate sales of films, TV, books, music, and games has found that, eventually,




www.pcgamesn.com


----------



## Sears Poncho

marius_dm said:


> The European Comission


PROTIP: When trying to make a questionable point on the interwebz, using_ "Julia Reda MEP, a representative from Pirate Party UK _" as the authority is like saying _"Serial killing has its merits, according to Jeffrey Dahmer of Milwaukee". _


----------



## marius_dm

LOL, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Look, I pay for every piece of software that I use. I paid tens of thousands of dollars on this hobby in the last few years. I'm really not trying to justify theft, I'm just arguing the effect on sales. The hobbyist market is where the money's at IMO. And when those young hobbyists get jobs they buy software they grew up with.


----------



## Sears Poncho

marius_dm said:


> I'm just arguing the effect on sales.


I understand... but "The European Commission" is...fake for starters. Sounds good though! It's like saying "I did a gig with the National Philharmonic". Doesn't say what nation. Or anything. But it sounds good. 

I would guess it's a crock of shiat, which is why there is no link, no study, etc. Sure, it's easy to say "without cracked software blah blah" but I highly doubt there is an actual study that proves that.


----------



## Morning Coffee

I'm not sure what to think about this, probably side more with the OP.

Generally speaking, people cry fowl of piracy while at the same time asking for free stuff, or where they can find a free version of this or that, all in the same breath. I am guilty of this and a hypocrite. I tend to reject free stuff now if there are too many conditions attached to it.

Also, piracy could be looked at as being a radio station in a sense, well, at least from a listener's point of view. The music gets played on the radio, promoting of the artist or song can lead to way more sales and popularity etc. When I was was younger, I used to record songs off the radio onto cassette tape. It was technically, illegal, but everyone did it I'm sure. Many times, I did go on to buy the artist's work.


----------



## marius_dm

Well the study was mentioned in Engadget as well, with links to the actual study: https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-piracy-no-sales-impact.html

But regardless, it's just one study. I'm done being the devil's advocate for today lol.


----------



## Matt Damon

I don't condone piracy, all the stuff I own is legit, and I still think that — at least in some cases — the "muh piracy" becomes something of an excuse for software developers.

It's like when you hear composers bitch about how some rando working on a crap indie-film for $50 and a tuna sandwich is "undercutting" the profession, even though Hans Zimmer and the like are still multi-millionaires. Then, these same composers only buy Kontakt libraries on one of the weekly 75% off sales, and the next year, Spitfire and Co. come out with 4-digit value, brand-new libraries.

So, I have my doubts that piracy is actually hurting much of the profit margins of these companies.

But secondly, with all kinds of software, a lot of times pirates are the option people go to not simply because "free stuff" but because they are legit providing a service where the legit dev isn't, even though they could be — and that kinda shit is just SAD.

Video games are especially notorious for this. I said years ago, that when ROMs became a thing, video game developers should've just got on that and started porting their back-catalog to emulators; they could have made custom emulators and stores and charged even a few bucks a game and they'd have done well.

But no, let's not EVER re-release this first-party title, where the legit copy is 10+ years out of print and fetches 800+ on Ebay. OR, if we do re-release it, it will be on our brand-new, $400 system where we charge like, $20 for a friggin' NES game. Sometimes, they'll re-release the games, and they're broken or missing features. Like, when Konami re-released Castlevania, nearly 40-year-old NES games, THE SOUND DIDN'T WORK! That's just pathetic.

Then, complain that everyone is pirating our 30-year-old games and waste all kinds of resources and legal teams sending out DMCAs instead of just offering the software at a reasonable %$&#ing price!







I do wonder how much people pirate stuff by East West anymore given that they came out with composer cloud.

The ubiquity of Kontakt is also a huge problem. Oh, look! That's a really great Ilya Efimov Tin Whistle for $15! Too bad I have to buy Kontakt, for like 500, to use it! I could buy a real tin whistle and a microphone for a whole lot less!

So it's like — yeah, stealing bad and all, but it's too easy to just blame piracy for everything.

At a certain point, you've got to start asking yourself WHY so many people are stealing your shit, because simple greed can't explain it all.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Matt Damon said:


> It's like when you hear composers bitch about how some rando working on a crap indie-film for $50 and a tuna sandwich is "undercutting" the profession, even though Hans Zimmer and the like are still multi-millionaires. Then, these same composers only buy Kontakt libraries on one of the weekly 75% off sales, and the next year, Spitfire and Co. come out with 4-digit value, brand-new libraries.



This sounds pretty naive. The people who have an issue with undercutting and lowballing most certainly aren't "multi-millionaires", and you won't hear Hans Zimmer complain about that. Your argument is the same one that people like to make when stealing music: oh look at Mr. Rockstar complaining, where does it hurt them, they're already rich? While they're stealing stuff from a dude who has 4 different gigs going on, the band being one of them, to earn the kind of money that other people collect every month by farting in their chairs in an office. You have this idea that "pros" all live in the Land of Milk and Honey. Most "pro" media audio people aren't A-listers and are making ends meet, not wiping their asses with that sweet Hollywood money, and same goes for most touring musicians.



Matt Damon said:


> But secondly, with all kinds of software, a lot of times pirates are the option people go to not simply because "free stuff" but because they are legit providing a service where the legit dev isn't, even though they could be — and that kinda shit is just SAD.
> 
> Video games are especially notorious for this. I said years ago, that when ROMs became a thing, video game developers should've just got on that and started porting their back-catalog to emulators; they could have made custom emulators and stores and charged even a few bucks a game and they'd have done well.



Cheap excuse and kind of a diversion. I don't see where the argument holds any water in regards to pirating _brand new games_, which happens all the time. I'm sure that when companies talk about damages from piracy, ROMs of 30 year old games are way low on the list.

Besides, how is this even relevant to the sample library market at all?



> The ubiquity of Kontakt is also a huge problem. Oh, look! That's a really great Ilya Efimov Tin Whistle for $15! Too bad I have to buy Kontakt, for like 500, to use it! I could buy a real tin whistle and a microphone for a whole lot less!
> 
> So it's like — yeah, stealing bad and all, but it's too easy to just blame piracy for everything.
> 
> At a certain point, you've got to start asking yourself WHY so many people are stealing your shit, because simple greed can't explain it all.



It's like saying that Electronic Arts made you steal that Playstation because they made this stupid FIFA game that required you to own a friggin' 300 bucks console from Sony just to play it.

Ironically this last point just kinda proved that pretty much, yaeah, greed explains most of it


----------



## Polkasound

Matt Damon said:


> At a certain point, you've got to start asking yourself WHY so many people are stealing your shit, because simple greed can't explain it all.



Many young people do it because their sense of integrity and value hasn't yet developed. They don't own their own home, they didn't pay for their education, and most likely their car was bought by mom & dad. Until they work hard to acquire valuable assets of their own and gain some life experience, they're not going to feel much contempt for stealing other people's assets.

Earlier this year, a music fan admitted recording my EP off YouTube instead of paying $3.50 to download it. When I kindly reminded him what he did was both disrespectful and a violation of copyright law, he spun the blame back around on me with, "You shouldn't make your music so easy to steal." I was floored by his response, because according to his logic, it's OK to shoplift in stores that don't have security cameras.

People have all kinds of excuses for using pirated digital goods — it's too easy to steal, I can't afford the legitimate product, no one will ever know, everyone does it, etc. — but none of these is valid. The one and only acceptable answer one can give for engaging in the use or distribution of pirated goods is "because I'm a schmuck."


----------



## Christopher Rocky

@Matt Damon I really dont understand how you can say piracy fills a need, drug dealers fill a need because there are heroin addicts, it doesn't make it legally right, let alone morally.

I see how you could make the comparison say between the prohibition and illegal bootlegging of alcohol, BUT the _NEED _to pirate music software isn't even at all in the same category, and that goes for pirating music too.

An honest product of hard work to serve as a tool for someone who is willing to pay for it, pirating this tool/product is not the same as a 'need' just because you cant afford it.

It purely exists for some of the reasons mentioned in here, advertising for the site, sense of entitlement of a generation and the devaluation of music in general, And MOSTLY the reason things are pirated and accessible is because there simply is NO consequence if you did it, unless you get found out.

Just like if this was the consequence if everyone was caught sharing said pirated software:








Nintendo Wins $1.5m Aussie Piracy Settlement


Piracy is bad. But chasing ‘file sharers’ is bad PR. Today Nintendo showed other industries how to get it right,...




www.kotaku.com.au


----------



## MartinH.

Sears Poncho said:


> PROTIP: When trying to make a questionable point on the interwebz, using_ "Julia Reda MEP, a representative from Pirate Party UK _" as the authority is like saying _"Serial killing has its merits, according to Jeffrey Dahmer of Milwaukee". _



Her name isn't even in the 307 page pdf of the study. This is the full quote and context where here name came up:



> According to the report, games were the only medium to fully buck the trend of piracy having a negative impact on sales. In fact, there were “significant positive effects” of piracy, and that “games have succeeded in turning illegal online transactions to their advantage by hooking up gamers and offering more levels / bonuses that are available only after paying.”
> 
> 
> It was also revealed that despite costing taxpayers nearly €400,000, the publishing of the report, which was completed in May 2015, was delayed for more than two years.
> 
> 
> *The delay was highlighted by Julia Reda MEP, a representative from Pirate Party UK*, a political party that focuses on a desire to ensure the preservation of knowledge-sharing, something it sees as the foundation of global society.



Doesn't say anything about her being involved in the study, she just said "they've paid 400k € for this, why isn't it being released now that it's done?" (not an actual quote, I'm paraphrasing)
I guess someone didn't like the results of the study and tried to block it from getting published...


----------



## Matt Damon

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> This sounds pretty naive. The people who have an issue with undercutting and lowballing most certainly aren't "multi-millionaires", and you won't hear Hans Zimmer complain about that. Your argument is the same one that people like to make when stealing music



Danny Elfman does a score for like a dollar every year provided he keeps the rights. His peers and the indie scene are still afloat. The idea that this is somehow ruining everyone's careers is not supported by anything other than composers saying it does.

What's actually killing them, and why they're so easily undercut, is because they're all writing basically the same assembly-line music that sounds like it could've been written by the same person. As such, a lower price is the only thing they can really offer.

But people will pay John Williams basically whatever he wants.



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Cheap excuse and kind of a diversion. I don't see where the argument holds any water in regards to pirating _brand new games_, which happens all the time.



Brand new games, much like many brand-new sample libraries, are also pirated all the time.

Despite that, they will sellout on pre-orders and are profitable enough to churn out endless call of duty and Assassins Creed sequels. Spitfire with endless string libs.



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> It's like saying that Electronic Arts made you steal that Playstation because they made this stupid FIFA game that required you to own a friggin' 300 bucks console from Sony just to play it.



Not really. It's saying that wanting 20 dollars for the original mario bros, but only distributing it on your newest console or a 200 dollar NES classic when computers have been able to run <1MB ROM files of it since the DOS days, with custom filters that make the graphics look way better, save states, etc. means that the pirated version is not only free, but a superior version of the game that Nintendo refuses to offer



ChristopherRock said:


> I really dont understand how you can say piracy fills a need



Old software is sometimes superior to later versions and is discontinued.

Guitar Pro 7 has been out for a while. But both it and 6 were garbage. 5 is still the favorite, the standard among tablature sites and is widely pirated as such.

If Arobas still offered it, a lower price than the newer version, than logically — piracy would go down. Thus, the pirates are filling the market demand where the devs aren't, but could be if they wanted to.

Native Instruments was going to make it so you couldn't even re-install outdated software until the backlash hit. Guaranteed those angered would have just pirated the old software instead.

It's the same with video game software: If you want to play Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, it will fetch $800 to get an original, used gamecube copy and it is not available on any of their platforms digital stores since. Yet, Nintendo inexplicably wastes their legal dept.'s time by sending out copyright notices and getting ROMs of it taken down from the internet...it's like, I dunno about you, but to me — the solution is obvious.

The market demand is there, but they won't port their own, first-party title to newer hardware and meet it. So people pirate it.

Not saying it's right, but it's like...it's not rocket science on how to curb some of the crime here.

*TL;DR*: I think at this point some amount of piracy needs to be seen as "acceptable losses" and if those loses are becoming unacceptable, then most likely, it's because something about your service sucks.


----------



## Morning Coffee

At one stage, I wanted to buy an older version of mastering software. I actually contacted the company and begged them to sell it to me. They wouldn't. I was willing to pay, they were not willing to sell and said I should buy the newer version. It's not like software is a car and be can't physically manufactured anymore. I could have easily downloaded the older version through piracy, but I tried to do the right thing and the developer rejected.

Right now, I want to buy a vocal library. I contacted the developer months ago to enquire about it, but still no reply. Other people have complained that the developer is not responding to their messages as well, even support emails for customers who have already purchased software are not being answered, but the developer still keeps on posting on social media to buy stuff. Should I trust this person with my money? I could easily download that library as well, but I don't want to give money to pirating websites, nor would I trust them with my personal details.

I owned a perpetual copy of Avid Pro Tools, renewed it for years, then when their subscription service came in, I somehow lost it upon license renewal. When I tried to get it back, they refused to give it back and said I had to purchase the license again. So I had to pay for a 'perpetual', supposedly never expiring license, twice.

Pirating is wrong, but developers can screw people too.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Matt Damon said:


> Danny Elfman does a score for like a dollar every year provided he keeps the rights. His peers and the indie scene are still afloat. The idea that this is somehow ruining everyone's careers is not supported by anything other than composers saying it does.
> 
> What's actually killing them, and why they're so easily undercut, is because they're all writing basically the same assembly-line music that sounds like it could've been written by the same person. As such, a lower price is the only thing they can really offer.
> 
> But people will pay John Williams basically whatever he wants.



Again, that's nonsense. It doesn't make it any more right just because you switched from Hans Zimmer to Danny Elfman. Those guys exist in a totally different sphere. You act as if most folks on this website are at that level of business.

And of course, there's the same weak-assed argument I already heard from music and games pirates a million times: passing the blame onto the creator and the supposed lack of quality in their work. So pirating is a form of moral punishment, is that what it is? If it sucks so much, why even steal it?




> Brand new games, much like many brand-new sample libraries, are also pirated all the time.
> 
> Despite that, they will sellout on pre-orders and are profitable enough to churn out endless call of duty and Assassins Creed sequels. Spitfire with endless string libs.



Again the same played out stuff. So the argument is basically nothing other than "well you're still making some money off of other people, you shouldn't mind me stealing". That's what I'm gonna say to my local barber next time. Or wait, maybe my employer could say: well we still paid you for the other three weeks you worked for us, why are you making such a fuss over the fourth? You still made some money.

Needless to say, the assholes who pirate new games aren't the same people who pre-order stuff or buy all and any sequels. Again, if you don't like all those Call of Duties, why pirate them?



> *TL;DR*: I think at this point some amount of piracy needs to be seen as "acceptable losses"



Yeah, I bet you'd like that  Nothing you said was anything other than looking for flimsy and incredibly disingenuous justifications for wanting shit without having to pay for it. Give me a break.


----------



## Christopher Rocky

Ever since staypuft, i'm wondering if we are getting trolled with this sort of reasoning...
so you cant get some obscure retro game? or some ancient or shady software?
Therefor pirating sample libraries/games are justified?

To narrow down what we are defending, what we care about is these companies we depend on for fresh sounds and products to use, maybe some innovation thrown in there, so that potentially (hopefully for us composers) get paid work, these products get pirated, how is that filling a need? that is more the OP question about how can these warez sites get a way with it?

I hated that protools went to subscription, so i stopped using them, and kept my very old cd's that came with the mbox


----------



## keyop

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Again, that's nonsense. It doesn't make it any more right just because you switched from Hans Zimmer to Danny Elfman. Those guys exist in a totally different sphere. You act as if most folks on this website are at that level of business.
> 
> And of course, there's the same weak-assed argument I already heard from music and games pirates a million times: passing the blame onto the creator and the supposed lack of quality in their work. So pirating is a form of moral punishment, is that what it is? If it sucks so much, why even steal it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the same played out stuff. So the argument is basically nothing other than "well you're still making some money off of other people, you shouldn't mind me stealing". That's what I'm gonna say to my local barber next time. Or wait, maybe my employer could say: well we still paid you for the other three weeks you worked for us, why are you making such a fuss over the fourth? You still made some money.
> 
> Needless to say, the assholes who pirate new games aren't the same people who pre-order stuff or buy all and any sequels. Again, if you don't like all those Call of Duties, why pirate them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I bet you'd like that  Nothing you said was anything other than looking for flimsy and incredibly disingenuous justifications for wanting shit without having to pay for it. Give me a break.


Spot on. Once again we get people commenting and somehow trying to shift the blame onto the people who develop all of the software. The same weak straw man BS that somehow the products are not good enough, or should be sold really really cheap, yeah right! Like that would make them buy anyway (They even upload the free stuff to try and turn a buck).

When you read the comments on the sites from the pirates, they are all slapping each other on the back and comments like 'wow love this', 'this is great' etc etc, but then start spouting the same worn out BS that if dev's made better products blah blah blah.

Most of the pirates are full of sh#t and find any excuse to justify their pathetic and sad actions. I always laugh when I read some thread about some pirate 'wanting to MAKE IT BIG in the music biz' and I think to myself you really expect to make something of yourself and create something as beautiful as music with stolen goods??? I honestly think in the grande scheme of things no-one really gets away with anything, I think somewhere along the line that whatever is controlling this simulation we are all in acts accordingly and dishes out what is deserved....Some peeps call it Karma, I say we are all being observed....cause people pain and it will come back on you one way or another. Pirates and people like Mat D seem to conveniently forget that behind these products are actual people, not robots devoid of feeling, usually a one man band software dev who is working hard to make good products and has bills to pay just like anyone else and the BS of 'hey they are rich anyway' is a dishonest and a fraud view and they know it, but still spew that nonsense. Imagine if Matt D went to work all months and then at the end of the month his pay master said to him, 'yeah we are only paying you 2 weeks today and not the month because someone duplicated your work' he would soon change his outlook on it all..


----------



## keyop

Polkasound said:


> Earlier this year, a music fan admitted recording my EP off YouTube instead of paying $3.50 to download it. When I kindly reminded him what he did was both disrespectful and a violation of copyright law, he spun the blame back around on me with, "You shouldn't make your music so easy to steal." I was floored by his response, because according to his logic, it's OK to shoplift in stores that don't have security cameras.



Exactly this ^^^ These are the sort of bottom feeders people have to deal with. He would not even give you a lousy $3.50 for an album that he liked enough to go to the trouble of recording it all from Youtube. And yet, we still have people spewing out the same worn out BS of 'hey make things cheaper and they will buy it', Absolute BS and usually spouted by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## Franklin

Morning Coffee said:


> At one stage, I wanted to buy an older version of mastering software. I actually contacted the company and begged them to sell it to me. They wouldn't. I was willing to pay, they were not willing to sell and said I should buy the newer version. It's not like software is a car and be can't physically manufactured anymore. I could have easily downloaded the older version through piracy, but I tried to do the right thing and the developer rejected.
> 
> Right now, I want to buy a vocal library. I contacted the developer months ago to enquire about it, but still no reply. Other people have complained that the developer is not responding to their messages as well, even support emails for customers who have already purchased software are not being answered, but the developer still keeps on posting on social media to buy stuff. Should I trust this person with my money? I could easily download that library as well, but I don't want to give money to pirating websites, nor would I trust them with my personal details.
> 
> I owned a perpetual copy of Avid Pro Tools, renewed it for years, then when their subscription service came in, I somehow lost it upon license renewal. When I tried to get it back, they refused to give it back and said I had to purchase the license again. So I had to pay for a 'perpetual', supposedly never expiring license, twice.
> 
> Pirating is wrong, but developers can screw people too.



I agree. Some software companies treat customers like dirt. There are regular complaints from customers on this forum buying legal stuff and are left in the dark when asking for some support for the software they just bought. Those who crack software, mostly do it for the fun of it. How many here reject buying software with iLok, USB dongle or similar protection. These kinds of software protection just encourage crackers to proof that the protection is bogus! And we as customers pay the price for the idea that we use software that is protected and cannot be cracked. It's a lost battle. If devs start to ask normal prices for their software so that more people can afford it, sales will be even higher. One engineer develops a genius soft protection and another cracks it. 

The piracy business is so fast these days that a cracked version is available before the vendor has announced it on its website. So the software industry has a lot of thinking to do to change their strategy because every new form of protection is bound to fail.


----------



## keyop

Franklin said:


> I agree. Some software companies treat customers like dirt. There are regular complaints from customers on this forum buying legal stuff and are left in the dark when asking for some support for the software they just bought.


Well, I have been buying software for over 15 years and have bought alot of software (trust me on that) and I am yet to be treated like dirt by any of the companies I have bought from. Another load of BS spewed by pirates to justify their actions.



Franklin said:


> The piracy business is so fast these days that a cracked version is available before the vendor has announced it on its website. So the software industry has a lot of thinking to do to change their strategy because every new form of protection is bound to fail.


The piracy *business*. There you go, *business. *You say that like it is a legit business model. No! It is a gang of criminals setting up websites to distribute stolen goods so they can make a quick buck (or several hundred thousand bucks a year). They are no better than some scam call centre in some sh#thole somewhere scamming old people out of their savings by pretending to be from the bank or something.
And people like you defend them and blame ILOK and the dev....yeah let's blame the dev, AGAIN. LMFAO.


----------



## doctoremmet

Give me a break; piracy is needed because iLok... yeah/no. Of all the ridiculous crap I’ve seen posted here, that one is the lamest yet.

“The alarm system of the car sucks. And this one time a car salesman looked at me with a really mean look in his eyes. I am now allowed to steal all cars of this brand. I would definitely buy them if I had the money, but let’s face it; their cars are expensive and if you dare say something different, get off your high horse, you elitist rich person!”


----------



## Franklin

keyop said:


> Well, I have been buying software for over 15 years and have bought alot of software (trust me on that) and I am yet to be treated like dirt by any of the companies I have bought from. Another load of BS spewed by pirates to justify their actions.
> 
> So do I. But if, like many here have experienced, emails are not answered, that is a fact!
> Don't get me wrong, I do not encourage piracy, just stating facts I look at from both sides.
> 
> 
> The piracy *business*. There you go, *business. *You say that like it is a legit business model. No! It is a gang of criminals setting up websites to distribute stolen goods so they can make a quick buck (or several hundred thousand bucks a year). They are no better than some scam call centre in some sh#thole somewhere scamming old people out of their savings by pretending to be from the bank or something.
> And people like you defend them and blame ILOK and the dev....yeah let's blame the dev, AGAIN. LMFAO.



I should have quoted the "business" part to avoid misunderstandings.. If you want the WHOLE truth about something, be prepared to accept the opposite! There is definately something wrong and you and I know, despite moral or legal issues, that piracy will thrive as long as it's fed to do so by the industry. 
It just happens, like everything in this galaxy.


----------



## Franklin

doctoremmet said:


> Give me a break; piracy is needed because iLok... yeah/no. Of all the ridiculous crap I’ve seen posted here, that one is the lamest yet.
> 
> 
> “The alarm system of the car sucks. And this one time a car salesman looked at me with a really mean look in his eyes. I am now allowed to steal all cars of this brand. I would definitely buy them if I had the money, but let’s face it; their cars are expensive and if you dare say something different, get off your high horse, you elitist rich person!”



If you quote me, do it proper!. I did not say piracy is needed. I said it exists because crackers are tempted to proof that the protection is bogus. Who do you think Steinberg hired to improve their software protection?

I'm not impressed with the BS comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## doctoremmet

Franklin said:


> I said it exists because crackers are tempted to proof that the protection is bogus.


There, a literal quote. I call BS. It exists because crackers refuse to pay for stuff they want and/or want to make a buck by stealing other people’s IP. It’s not nearly as noble as you would like it to be unfortunately. It’s complete and utter nonsense. “We’re all white hat hackers with just good intentions”. Just no.


----------



## Franklin

doctoremmet said:


> There, a literal quote. I call BS. It exists because crackers refuse to pay for stuff they want and/or want to make a buck by stealing other people’s IP. It’s not nearly as noble as you would like it to be unfortunately. It’s complete and utter nonsense. “We’re all white hat hackers with just good intentions”. Just no.



It isn't mine though. 
Time to create some good music. See ya.


----------



## doctoremmet

Franklin said:


> It isn't mine though.
> Time to create some good music. See ya.


😘


----------



## gsilbers

LamaRose said:


> So who was the pissed A-lister who intentionally downloaded a cracked version of EWQL - maybe VSL? - because he couldn't get the ilok - or whatever it was called back in 2005 - to work properly? I remember first joining the forums back then and others discussing it.




hmmm, there are plenty that don’t seem to care. I think there was a video w avici w a sylenth crack. And some hiphop producer also w somecracks.

for ilok I only remember that one dudegot pissed at waves customer service for ilok stuff so he wrote a program that would bypass any ilok protected plugin in a template sort of way, drag and drop.
Thus a reason waves went their own way.

and the cinesample one was some dude in Chile that us law didn’t apply or something.

and native instruments point of view is “meh “ it’s going to happen anyways. And there seems to be also some sort of template cuz any new library is cracked like the very next day it’s release.
Which is why I’m guessing spitfire, orchestra tools, output and soon 8dio decided to do their own samplers. Not only it’s expensive paying NI for a library but also it gets cracked in minutes and NI lack of will for piracy.

im curious on the A Lister. I think it’s cool to have these stuff written down so peoplewill remember and havesome history. And maybe do something about it.

I tried posting who was the person who shared our library but a lot of people pushed back sayingstuff like GDPR laws on privacy etc.easy to figure out that the dude who shared one of our releases did it within the first 5 purchases. so other developers felt wierd about this sort of stuff.
Oh well.


----------



## Sears Poncho

MartinH. said:


> Her name isn't even in the 307 page pdf of the study.


I never said it was.


MartinH. said:


> Doesn't say anything about her being involved in the study, she just said "they've paid 400k € for this, why isn't it being released now that it's done?" (not an actual quote, I'm paraphrasing)
> I guess someone didn't like the results of the study and tried to block it from getting published...


This forum is full of indie developers. It's like telling them "Hey, fark you, we're gonna steal your product because reasons. Somehow, I'm eventually gonna buy Ableton if I steal your samples so it's all good". It's trash.

It's like saying "I stole some money online from a bank, but I eventually became an investor so it all worked out". Or, "yeah, I stole a shirt from the mall but I became a fashion designer". It's absurd.

These threads are always the same, and they sucker me in so I'll make this my exit. They are full of people justifying, saying "software companies were meanies so let's steal", some incomprehensible bullshit about "you don't like stealing yet free stuff" (????), on and on. Hey kids, steal if you want to. There's no need to make up a bunch of nonsense, we ain't your parents or 'The Man'.


----------



## gsilbers

Sears Poncho said:


> I never said it was.
> 
> This forum is full of indie developers. It's like telling them "Hey, fark you, we're gonna steal your product because reasons. Somehow, I'm eventually gonna buy Ableton if I steal your samples so it's all good". It's trash.
> 
> It's like saying "I stole some money online from a bank, but I eventually became an investor so it all worked out". Or, "yeah, I stole a shirt from the mall but I became a fashion designer". It's absurd.
> 
> These threads are always the same, and they sucker me in so I'll make this my exit. They are full of people justifying, saying "software companies were meanies so let's steal", some incomprehensible bullshit about "you don't like stealing yet free stuff" (????), on and on. Hey kids, steal if you want to. There's no need to make up a bunch of nonsense, we ain't your parents or 'The Man'.



I’m guessing it’s a generational thing.
sharable culture made it seem like anything digital or on the web doesn’t have any rights and is somehow free or people will en duo getting money from it. Other circles they call it exposure.

to me the main culprit is Facebook and google. And more importantly, congress in both the USA and Europe who never thought people sharing copyrighted stuff was bad. And it’s been so long that whenEurope passed that meme law it went down like a pile of joke where no one even remotely understood the whole concept.

so now there is all this kids just razionalizing these stuff to get away wit ethically, cuz legally there is no recourse.


----------



## doctoremmet

On a positive note; a lot of people on this forum pay for their instruments. So there is at least still some contingent with the common decency to just pay for their loaf of bread . I’ll leave it at that. Piracy is theft, nothing more to say really - so I won’t haha.


----------



## robgb

I don't condone piracy, but I'm annoyed when XYZ developer tells us that they must have some sort of draconian protection scheme to prevent piracy and those protection schemes are either proven to be useless (people still pirate their products) OR go haywire and require the composer to buy "failure insurance" or even pay half price to get their legally purchased software back, sometimes at tremendous cost above and beyond the downtime.


----------



## tomosane

I'm not expecting anything very fruitful from this thread since this discussion is at the very least as old as the C-cassette, and by 2020 it's clear to me that for a lot of people the framing of this whole question will never evolve past "stealing is bad". If that's you, the answer to the OP is fairly simple: these sites exist because some people have no problems with stealing if the chances of getting caught are nonexistent.

But I gotta say, it amazes me how a lot of people on this particular forum effortlessly compare torrenting stuff to stealing a physical item, say a car. Because in other sample library specific contexts, such as reselling libraries, it seems to be more or less generally agreed that you do _not_ own the library, that it's by no means comparable to a car. You simply have a license to use it.


----------



## robgb

doctoremmet said:


> It exists because crackers refuse to pay for stuff they want and/or want to make a buck by stealing other people’s IP. It’s not nearly as noble as you would like it to be unfortunately.


I'm not sure how crackers actually make money off stolen software unless they're selling it on eBay. Most crackers, it seems, give away the stuff for free and seem to take pride in the cracking, not much of anything else. It is a culture we will never understand, but nevertheless exists and is not BS. I don't think it matters to them WHAT they crack as long as they've lived up to the challenge. I could, of course, be wrong.


----------



## keyop

Sears Poncho said:


> Hey kids, steal if you want to. There's no need to make up a bunch of nonsense, we ain't your parents or 'The Man'.


Yup. I have a tad more 'respect' (respect is too strong a word) for the low lives who quite openly state that yeah I'm a thief, I take whatever I want, you will not get a dime from me, I have no morals and could not care less, I'm a bottom feeder parasite and have found my level and I'm proud of it. At least they are not trying to justify it. It's the ones that make up all kinds of BS to justify their actions that are deluding themselves.


----------



## Sears Poncho

tomosane said:


> But I gotta say, it amazes me how a lot of people on this particular forum effortlessly compare torrenting stuff to stealing a physical item, say a car.


So, stealing cash= bad. Physical item.
Stealing virtual cash= completely and utterly totally like different and stuff!

For the whippers:

We once had this thing called "records". Big heavy mothas, there were even double albums and we used the album covers to clean our weed with. They were recordings of skilled professionals making something called "music". Now they are invisible thingies on the world wide web, the information superhighway!

And we had this stuff called "software". It was physical. You went to the store and bought a Simpsons screensaver for 20 bucks and some kind of software cookbook. Ya see, it was, and still is, an actual "product". I don't touch "cash" much these days, I use invisible money and a plastic card. To me, and my bank, and my employers, we all kinda act like this is real money. So kids, don't steal my invisible money and then give some bullshit about it not being real. And pull up your pants. And for God's sake, STAY OFF MY LAWN.


----------



## keyop

robgb said:


> I'm not sure how crackers actually make money off stolen software unless they're selling it on eBay. Most crackers, it seems, give away the stuff for free and seem to take pride in the cracking, not much of anything else. It is a culture we will never understand, but nevertheless exists and is not BS. I don't think it matters to them WHAT they crack as long as they've lived up to the challenge. I could, of course, be wrong.


The criminal scum who run the pirate sites are not the crackers. They are the people that set up sites to fence stolen goods and make money via add revenue (Google etc) and money from the cyberlocker sites that host the products. The uploader gets money whenever someone signs up and downloads the products they have uploaded. This is why you see messages on those pirate sites of, and it is laughable 'Respect the uploader by not posting duplicate links/mirrors' because they want to make all the add revenue and money from the cyber locker. And the kicker is some people would rather pay some criminal their $$$, rather than ensure the developer got paid. It is a sh#t state of affairs defended by the classless and self absorbed.


----------



## doctoremmet

robgb said:


> I'm not sure how crackers actually make money off stolen software unless they're selling it on eBay. Most crackers, it seems, give away the stuff for free and seem to take pride in the cracking, not much of anything else. It is a culture we will never understand, but nevertheless exists and is not BS. I don't think it matters to them WHAT they crack as long as they've lived up to the challenge. I could, of course, be wrong.


Agreed. They also like cracking stuff.


----------



## doctoremmet

Sears Poncho said:


> So kids, don't steal my invisible money and then give some bullshit about it not being real. And pull up your pants. And for God's sake, STAY OFF MY LAWN.


Hahaha. Yes! Thank you.


----------



## tomosane

Sears Poncho said:


> Stealing virtual cash= completely and utterly totally like different and stuff!



I mean I imagine most people here would agree that your "virtual" cash is a real thing that you own. Unlike your sample libraries.


----------



## doctoremmet

tomosane said:


> I mean I imagine most people here would agree that the "virtual" cash you own is a real thing that you own. Unlike your sample libraries.


No man. Totally different things. Totally different. 😂


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Piraters have small dongles.


----------



## d.healey

Sears Poncho said:


> Stealing virtual cash= completely and utterly totally like different and stuff!


Stealing and copying are two different things. Stealing is almost always bad, copying not as bad and sometimes not bad at all.

Generally sharing something is positive for society. When there is no cost to the sharer and no cost to the sharee it's hard to justify that sharing is bad. But obviously when one has created the initial copy at great expense of time, money, and effort common decency would suggest that there should be some associated value with the copies that are created.

But how do you put a price on something that has no economy of scale. If something is in infinite supply can it have a monetary value in a supply/demand based economy. These are tricky issues which will be tackled over future decades as the world becomes increasingly more virtual. But the norm for the time being is making a copy without the author's permission = bad.


----------



## ism

I recently had to explain to my young nephew that no, it is in fact not legal for him to rip music from youtube onto his iPad. But he was convinced it was legal "for personal use". At his age I had already started buying albums. But I wonder how many of his generation, which such an ingrained "music is free" attitude, will ever pay for music, beyond the fractions of pennies tossed at artistes from Spotify and youtube advertising.

I used to love going into a record store and buying CDs. And partly because it felt good to be supporting artists - and when I lived in Europe I knew a number of them who I was supporting. Once I even met the manager of artist who's recording I was buying who happened to be browsing in the same shop. 

But just before the demise of record store, I remember talking to people maybe only 5 or 6 years younger than myself who also loved music, but I guess it was the age of Napster or something, and all of the psuedo-libertarian rubbish that went into rationalizing piracy. But they wouldn't buy music, almost on the principle of it.

"I don't pay for music" one you women told me, almost proudly it seemed, during a conversation over how much we both loved Ani Difranco. Who is kind of an anti-establishment artist I suppose, but who should still be able to make a living. 

So +1 to the sentiment expressed here that it is deeply and bitterly, bitterly ironic that a composers forum would even need to debate whether the intellectual property rights of artistic endeavours should be respected.


----------



## ism

Not that I don't utterly, utterly loath VSL's "loose it and you're screwed" dongle policy - I would even argue that it is such a bad metaphor for IP that it contributes to the problem, as perhaps we're seeing on this thread.

But it doesn't mean that I don't respect the work of the artists and engineers that create the libraries.


----------



## Sears Poncho

d.healey said:


> Stealing and copying are two different things. Stealing is almost always bad, copying not as bad and sometimes not bad at all.


AAhh thanks, I totally didn't know that. BTW I'm really enjoying the Libre Wave software I "copied" from you. Thanks man!


----------



## keyop

The reality is, though, nothing will change because the developers are too complacent. They don't fight back, they allow it all to just proceed without any real effort to make life difficult for the pirate sites. There is DMCA, contacting members of your gov to see if anything can be done, reporting the sites to various piracy agencies etc. It is annoying when one spends a fortune on software etc and then a few days later there they all are 'for free' and low lives enjoying the same products that I've just paid $$$ for, or whatever.


----------



## robgb

keyop said:


> The criminal scum who run the pirate sites are not the crackers. They are the people that set up sites to fence stolen goods and make money via add revenue (Google etc) and money from the cyberlocker sites that host the products.


Absolutely correct. But the crackers themselves aren't making money, and that was the point of my post. They do it for sport.


----------



## d.healey

Sears Poncho said:


> AAhh thanks, I totally didn't know that. BTW I'm really enjoying the Libre Wave software I "copied" from you. Thanks man!


Assuming you're being sarcastic here. You know that all my LibreWave software is free (as in freedom), right? You can make all the copies you want, who am I to restrict your use of copy/paste!


----------



## marius_dm

I realize this discussion is almost as pointless as talking about politics or religion. There’s nothing you can say that will change the other person’s view of things, it only achieves quite the opposite. Just an observation. I’m quite surprised the discussion didn’t shift more towards the “no refunds, no trials, no resales, no ownership” policies going on in the sampled vi industry. (Sorry, just adding wood to the fire at this point lol)


----------



## Sears Poncho

d.healey said:


> Assuming you're being sarcastic here


You are assuming correctly.


----------



## keyop

d.healey said:


> Stealing and copying are two different things. Stealing is almost always bad, copying not as bad and sometimes not bad at all.
> 
> Generally sharing something is positive for society. When there is no cost to the sharer and no cost to the sharee it's hard to justify that sharing is bad. But obviously when one has created the initial copy at great expense of time and effort there should be some associated value with the copies that are created.
> 
> But how do you put a price on something that has no economy of scale. If something is in infinite supply can it have a monetary value in a supply/demand based economy. These are tricky issues which will be tackled over future decades as the world becomes increasingly more virtual. But the norm for the time being is making a copy without the author's permission = bad.


Cool, I'll remember that the next time I go to buy one of your products. So, it is ok for me to wait until it is copied? Right, good to know. Cheers for that. I'm kidding.


----------



## robgb

keyop said:


> The reality is, though, nothing will change because the developers are too complacent. They don't fight back, they allow it all to just proceed without any real effort to make life difficult for the pirate sites. There is DMCA, contacting members of your gov to see if anything can be done, reporting the sites to various piracy agencies etc. It is annoying when one spends a fortune on software etc and then a few days later there they all are 'for free' and low lives enjoying the same products that I've just paid $$$ for, or whatever.


It's a full time job to fight back. I write books for a living and my books are pirated all the time. I'd have to hire people to work in shifts, 24/7, to find the pirated books and file all the DMCA complaints necessary to get them taken down. It just isn't worth the effort, and I still make a comfortable living. I suspect it's much the same for many developers.


----------



## d.healey

keyop said:


> So, it is ok for me to wait until it is copied? Right, good to know. Cheers for that.


It's interesting that you're mocking the idea of me respecting your rights more than I'm profiting by restricting you. If you have a friend who has a copy of one of my libraries go and ask them for a copy. Or download it from github, the code's all there.

I understand that the philosophy I'm following is a contradiction with the norm but it doesn't make it less valid.

This is how it works. I respect you and if you think my products are worthwhile you'll respect me. If you don't then what can I do? I could make you agree to a worthless license, I could push draconian DRM solutions on you, I could sue you! With all of these measures people would still make copies anyway.


----------



## keyop

d.healey said:


> It's interesting that you're mocking the idea of me respecting your rights more than I'm profiting by restricting you. If you have a friend who has a copy of one of my libraries go and ask them for a copy. Or download it from github, the code's all there.


Did you actually read my post?



> This is how it works. I respect you and if you think my products are worthwhile you'll respect me. If you don't then what can I do? I could make you agree to a worthless license, I could push draconian DRM solutions on you, I could sue you! With all of these measures people would still make copies anyway.


It all sounds a bit mealy-mouthed to me. But anyway, these posts always end up the same - Same old same old comments and nothing gets done. Time to wrap the thread up.


----------



## TomislavEP

As a pro musician and composer, as well as a lawyer by formal education, I strongly oppose piracy, especially when it comes to music software. I would feel very uncomfortable, to say the least, if I were to use pirated software in my own creative work, especially since I'm always hoping to capitalize on it. I'm also well aware of the resources and efforts that most developers put into their work. On the other hand, as I make ends meet only with music, I can somewhat understand the frustration when you cannot always or immediately afford to buy everything you would like to have. But, of course, this is not a valid excuse for succumbing to piracy, especially nowadays when there are many free yet top-quality software, plugins and libraries available, more than ever before. Also, the limited budget can help you profile your needs, which is a good thing at the end.


----------



## MarcelM

what i really dont get is that ebay does nothing against it. dont developers look on ebay and tell ebay that pirated copies are beeing sold?

i mean its really so obvious and it seems ebay just doesnt care.


----------



## Michel Simons

keyop said:


> I say we are all being observed....



What?! Even this morning in the shower???


----------



## Polkasound

tomosane said:


> But I gotta say, it amazes me how a lot of people on this particular forum effortlessly compare torrenting stuff to stealing a physical item, say a car.



I compare the two, because morally, they are on the same level. Physical _property_ and intellectual _property_ share a common word that's pretty hard to misconstrue. The main thing is this: either the property is yours or it isn't. If it's not yours, then you don't have the right to distribute it to others. You have the right to sell your own car, but if you want to sell your neighbor's car, you need his consent.




ism said:


> I recently had to explain to my young nephew that no, it is in fact not legal for him to rip music from youtube onto his iPad. But he was convinced it was legal "for personal use".



That's called willful ignorance. The fan who stole my music off YouTube argued the same point as your nephew. Even after I showed him YouTube's rules which prohibit the recording of streaming audio, he claimed it was justified because the music was too easy to steal.




MarcelM said:


> what i really dont get is that ebay does nothing against it. dont developers look on ebay and tell ebay that pirated copies are beeing sold?
> i mean its really so obvious and it seems ebay just doesnt care.



eBay is the world's most accessible fence for cracked and pirated software. One day I started reporting some, and that's when I realized how massive the problem was. My reporting didn't even scratch the surface. There's so much of it on there that developers would have to hire full-time employees just to keep up with it. eBay does act on it, but in an apparently minimalist way. eBay obviously makes boatloads of money on pirated software sales, so it's no surprise they're not quick to prevent it. Like most big companies that profit from unethical practices, they probably won't change their ways until the government intervenes.


----------



## d.healey

Polkasound said:


> I compare the two, because morally, they are on the same level. Physical _property_ and intellectual _property_ share a common word that's pretty hard to misconstrue.


I like the simplicity of your definition and you are right that they both have the word "property" in there. Although I think the simplicity obscures the complex nature of "intellectual property"; which is a vague term that describes several different, often very loosely related, things.

The problem with threads like this one is they always come to the same point. (almost) All of us agree that copyright infringement is bad and that it's very difficult to do anything about it.

Any discussion beyond this is fairly pointless as most of us are not in a position to be able to change the situation.

To the OP's original question - How is this even legal? It isn't, and there is little you can do about it other than support developers and don't support infringers.


----------



## Polkasound

d.healey said:


> Although I think the simplicity obscures the complex nature of "intellectual property"; which is a vague term that describes several different, often very loosely related, things.



I agree, and I intentionally kept it simple by appealing to one's conscience. The voice in the back of one's mind telling them they shouldn't be torrenting software or recording music off YouTube is the voice of reason. The voice of reason is not necessarily guided by the letter of the law, but by the spirit of the law.


----------



## ism

Polkasound said:


> That's called willful ignorance. The fan who stole my music off YouTube argued the same point as your nephew. Even after I showed him YouTube's rules which prohibit the recording of streaming audio, he claimed it was justified because the music was too easy to steal.



He was young enough that I entirely believed he was sincere in his belief that what he was doing was perfect legal and normal (until I informed him). 

Of course that the idea can circulate that simply stealing music is the legal and normal way to engage with music involve a larger culture of willful ignorance and a self interest bias in evaluation of information. Which is all too familiar on the internet in general.

But it's also the case that I can't buy him CDs anymore for his birthday. For once thing, he would't thank me for them. And for another, it's not technically way to efficiently get the songs into the ecosystem in which he actually listens to musics. 

No being able to give music as a gift anymore is something that really bothers me about how we, as a society, have allowed silicon valley to redesign the how we listen to music in their own interests.


----------



## d.healey

Polkasound said:


> The voice in the back of one's mind telling them they shouldn't be torrenting software or recording music off YouTube is the voice of reason.


As this thread is essentially a discussion of moral philosophy let me play the other side.

Watching a video or listening to music via the internet requires that it is downloaded to your system. Streaming is downloading, it's just usually you don't end up with a complete file at the end because of the protocol's design.

We know why it's bad to steal a CD, because you are depriving someone else of their CD, but that isn't true for copying a computer file. So why should we feel bad, or why is it bad, to download music from YouTube? This is a serious moral question which I don't expect will be answered anytime soon.

Is it worse, better, or the same to add the YouTube link to a VLC playlist so you can play the track whenever you like without going to YouTube as if you had downloaded the track?

Does somebody owe an artist money because they listened to their music? and if the artist is dead are they still owed money?

Making a copy costs essentially nothing. Barring the unfalsifiable lost sales argument, how do you put a value on a copy? Or if you put a value only on the initial copy does it depreciate over time?

* I'm just playing with ideas here, this does not represent my opinion *


----------



## Polkasound

ism said:


> He was young enough that I entirely believed he was sincere in his belief that what he was doing was perfect legal and normal (until I informed him).



Gotcha. It could be that he heard from a friend that it was OK, and simply believed it. At that age, we believe a lot of what we hear (which is exactly one should never jokingly tell a teenager that the stop signs with white trim are optional.)



d.healey said:


> So why should we feel bad, or why is it bad, to download music from YouTube?



Because when you transfer the source of the music from the streaming site to your computer, you're denying the artist their streaming royalty.


----------



## d.healey

Polkasound said:


> Because when you transfer the source of the music from the streaming site to your computer, you're denying the artist their streaming royalty.


If you don't stream a file then there is no streaming royalty to be denied. You're assuming that the user would keep going back to YouTube to listen to your music if they didn't download it.

Are streaming royalties included if it's streamed through another player like VLC, or is it based on YouTube views? I sometimes stream YouTube through my VLC playlists so I'm interested to know.


----------



## Polkasound

d.healey said:


> If you don't stream a file then there is no streaming royalty to be denied. You're assuming that the user would keep going back to YouTube to listen to your music if they didn't download it.



Exactly. Consumers generally have two authorized choices: Continue streaming or purchase a download. Both generate income, whereas unauthorized copying/downloading does not.



d.healey said:


> Are streaming royalties included if it's streamed through another player like VLC, or is it based on YouTube views? I sometimes stream YouTube through my VLC playlists so I'm interested to know.



I honestly have no idea what VLC is, so I had to look it up. If it works like other similar players, then I imagine it accesses and plays both streaming and local content. That's just a guess though. Someone familiar with VLC will need to chime in here.

I do know there are various software programs out there that are designed to facilitate ripping music from YouTube, but the use of such software does violate YouTube's terms of service.


----------



## Franklin

keyop said:


> Yup. I have a tad more 'respect' (respect is too strong a word) for the low lives who quite openly state that yeah I'm a thief, I take whatever I want, you will not get a dime from me, I have no morals and could not care less, I'm a bottom feeder parasite and have found my level and I'm proud of it. At least they are not trying to justify it. It's the ones that make up all kinds of BS to justify their actions that are deluding themselves.



I think that the common mindseet here is to pay the devs for their hard work and buy legal software. Apart from the fact that cracked software does not work a 100% most of the time, it is wiser to investigate the reason why software is cracked instead of beating a dead horse with the finger pointing to morality, theft, legal issues, etc. Getting upset is NOT going to change the situation as it is. You and I cannot make piracy vanish. What can be done, is for companies to look at other ways to stop the rat-race in protecting their software which as it stands today are cracked the same day they release it or the day after. No damn ILOK or dongle will ever be safe enough!


----------



## Franklin

MarcelM said:


> what i really dont get is that ebay does nothing against it. dont developers look on ebay and tell ebay that pirated copies are beeing sold?
> 
> i mean its really so obvious and it seems ebay just doesnt care.



They take one account down and the seller has 5 other accounts ready to keep on selling.


----------



## Polkasound

Franklin said:


> No damn ILOK or dongle will ever be safe enough!



Dongles are not designed to prevent torrenting. They're designed to deter the abuse of software programs among the general computing population by facilitating their authorized-only use. The average computer user does not risk downloading cracked libraries and plugins. He plays it safe and proper by purchasing and downloading legitimate copies. The dongle deters average person from, for example, reselling their licenses and keeping unauthorized copies, or making copies for their buddies.


----------



## tomosane

I want to expand on my previous post by noting that I do *not* think that there is absolutely no situation in which a piece of software could be reasonably compared to a car.

Developers have the means to make their program non-duplicable, transferable, comparable-to-a-car, by tying it to a physical dongle on a deep enough level if they so wish. VSL does this, and as far as I understand, they are one of the very few developers whose products you can’t torrent. I’m personally very glad most other devs have decided against this approach, but that’s just me.


----------



## MartinH.

ism said:


> And for another, it's not technically way to efficiently get the songs into the ecosystem in which he actually listens to musics.
> 
> No being able to give music as a gift anymore is something that really bothers me about how we, as a society, have allowed silicon valley to redesign the how we listen to music in their own interests.



Why does something like this not work? 








Bandcamp Gift Cards


Gift cards can be used to purchase millions of digital releases and select physical items on Bandcamp.




bandcamp.com


----------



## d.healey

tomosane said:


> Developers have the means to make their program non-duplicable, transferable, comparable-to-a-car, by tying it to a physical dongle on a deep enough level if they so wish. VSL does this, and as far as I understand, they are one of the very few developers whose products you can’t torrent.


I said this in another thread, similar to this one. A dongle that connects to a server is only comparable to a car key if the manufacturer is holding onto the key and you're asking his permission to open and start the car every time you want to use it.

Whenever I want I can sell my car, along with its key, without having to ask the manufacturer for permission. Imagine if the manufacturer tried to stop me selling my car  But with software it's okay because you don't own it, it owns you.


----------



## ism

MartinH. said:


> Why does something like this not work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bandcamp Gift Cards
> 
> 
> Gift cards can be used to purchase millions of digital releases and select physical items on Bandcamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bandcamp.com



The larger point I wanted to make was cultural. And specifically, I don't see a band camp gift card being appreciated because music at that age, and in that non-apple cultural ecosystem, is simply something that you, and all of your friends listen to for free of youtube or spotify.

But it's also that giving someone music when you already have it free is, well, it risks being kind of preachy. 


I would very much appreciate a band camp gift card, but I very much doubt my nephew would, for a number of reason.


----------



## MGdepp

wst3 said:


> stealing is stealing, and it is against the law, and societies basic tenets - well, that last part may be history.
> 
> You can justify it all you want, that won't make it legal.
> 
> I don't understand why people think they are entitled to something just because they want it.


Maybe that is the Disney-way to see things. There is only black and white. But the real world is much more complicated! 

For example: In all morally advanced societies there is almost no punishment (mostly just a warning), if you steal food. In ancient times, you might have lost a hand for doing so, but today, most countries luckily don't consider it civil to punish victims of our capitalistic system. They rather see them for what they really are - victims.

Also, in pretty much every society there is a saying that goes like -- "the biggest criminals are those wearing a nice suit, always look clean and never get punished for their deeds". Call that populist! But there is a lot of truth to that looking at how most of the wealth on this planet is created in an unbiased, thorough way.

I don't say all that, because I use pirated stuff or am fond of it. I don't! I just say it, because it is important to see that a thieve is never the source of problems in our societies, he is just the result of much deeper and more complex problems. The more ruthless people rule a society, the more thieves will that society produce.

Now, samples are not bread, I admit. But our society is mostly brain-washing people into believing they need more and more stuff every day! Advertisement makes having this or that tool feel essential up to a point where people believe their life depends on owning it. It is also creating desire where there is no need left. That desire can become as big as a hunger for food.


----------



## FinGael

ism said:


> He was young enough that I entirely believed he was sincere in his belief that what he was doing was perfect legal and normal (until I informed him).
> 
> Of course that the idea can circulate that simply stealing music is the legal and normal way to engage with music involve a larger culture of willful ignorance and a self interest bias in evaluation of information. Which is all too familiar on the internet in general.
> 
> But it's also the case that I can't buy him CDs anymore for his birthday. For once thing, he would't thank me for them. And for another, it's not technically way to efficiently get the songs into the ecosystem in which he actually listens to musics.
> 
> No being able to give music as a gift anymore is something that really bothers me about how we, as a society, have allowed silicon valley to redesign the how we listen to music in their own interests.



Liked your post, because of what you wrote - not because of the situation. 

I feel somewhat sad about the place where our love for music and records -rocket has landed. I still buy CDs, and my movies on Blu-Ray (sometimes on DVD), but most of my friends (40+) do not even have a CD/DVD player anymore.

I appreciate the creation of a music album very much, but still I have moments when a digital-only release does not even feel like an album. Yup, maybe a fossil and conservative when it comes to these, but cannot say that I haven't tried to change my views and attitude about it. (I also love physical books, but that's another story...).


----------



## Paul Grymaud

Me, a pirate ? Hey hey, don't tell anyone.


----------



## robgb

When I think about it, I'm not sure what the difference is between listening to a youtube stream or downloading the stream to listen to it later, if you're doing it for your own personal use. There are specific apps and websites that make this possible. Google isn't a struggling company, so I would assume they would either a) make it impossible to do this; or b) go after the companies that make these apps. What is the moral failing in listening to a song on your computer verus listening to it on YouTube? Either way, you're listening to it for free.

Someone please explain the difference.


----------



## Polkasound

robgb said:


> When I think about it, I'm not sure what the difference is between listening to a youtube stream or downloading the stream to listen to it later, if you're doing it for your own personal use. There are specific apps and websites that make this possible. Google isn't a struggling company, so I would assume they would either a) make it impossible to do this; or b) go after the companies that make these apps. What is the moral failing in listening to a song on your computer verus listening to it on YouTube? Either way, you're listening to it for free.



Streaming a song generates royalty income. Playing a downloaded song does not. That's why you pay for downloads.


----------



## VladK

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> It's like saying that Electronic Arts made you steal that Playstation because they made this stupid FIFA game that required you to own a friggin' 300 bucks console from Sony just to play it.


Incorrect comparison. FIFA already includes the (software) game engine for free. And this is true for all games or 3D software. You only need to own a hardware platform.
But for VI you buy the hardware platform (computer), the software engine (KONTAKT), and the library itself. And as far as I know, KONTAKT is the only provider that offers both free (but limited)) and commercial engine/player. All other platforms (UVI, ARIA, EW Play, VSL, etc.) provide free players, but are not used by third party deveopers for various reasons with the exception of UVI.


----------



## robgb

Polkasound said:


> Streaming a song generates royalty income. Playing a downloaded song does not. That's why you pay for downloads.


Streaming a song on YouTube generates royalty income? I can see that on Spotify, etc., or even YouTube Music, but I'm not sure that's true on YouTube proper.


----------



## RonOrchComp

marius_dm said:


> Not sure it is such a bad thing though. If it wasn't for "warez", a lot of people on this forum wouldn't even be into this hobby/profession (!).



Right - and that means there would be less composers out there, ie less competition for us honest folk.

You have no idea how much it pisses me off that after paying for EVERYTHING that sit on my HDs (some via good sales, yes), I am forced to compete with people who 1) use cracked sw and libraries - or 2) people who used to use cracked sw and libraries and then went legal. NEITHER group of people were raised with any morals.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

VladK said:


> Incorrect comparison. FIFA already includes the (software) game engine for free. And this is true for all games or 3D software. You only need to own a hardware platform.
> But for VI you buy the hardware platform (computer), the software engine (KONTAKT), and the library itself. And as far as I know, KONTAKT is the only provider that offers both free (but limited)) and commercial engine/player. All other platforms (UVI, ARIA, EW Play, VSL, etc.) provide free players, but are not used by third party deveopers for various reasons with the exception of UVI.



So stealing from Spitfire is OK because NI wants to sell you a host engine.


----------



## marius_dm

RonOrchComp said:


> Right - and that means there would be less composers out there, ie less competition for us honest folk.



So then it’s not about developers getting paid for their hard work but about you not getting “competition” from 15 year olds using cracked software? Mkay then. I could say the same, I paid a lot of money for all the software I use. Does it bother me that people risk their computer getting infected with malware because they use cracked software? Not really, to each their own. If it bothers you that much, why don’t you go ahead and do something about it that actually matters (like have something to offer that a kid with cracked software can’t)?
Just sayin’


----------



## Michael Antrum

I think the problem is that many people see software piracy as a victimless crime. 

It isn't.

Imagine if there were no software piracy. If everyone paid for what they used, developers would be able to charge lower prices and still make the same profits, and we would not have to put up with invasive and inconvenient software protection schemes.

So there is a cost to software piracy, and in the end the legitimate customers pay for it. 

Much like insurance fraud puts up the cost of insurance premiums.


----------



## MarcelM

Michael Antrum said:


> I think the problem is that many people see software piracy as a victimless crime.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> Imagine if there were no software piracy. If everyone paid for what they used, developers would be able to charge lower prices and still make the same profits, and we would not have to put up with invasive and inconvenient software protection schemes.
> 
> So there is a cost to software piracy, and in the end the legitimate customers pay for it.
> 
> Much like insurance fraud puts up the cost of insurance premiums.



i doubt devs would lower prices, but thats just me. in the end they want to make profit and nothing else.

also i think alot of pirates wouldnt buy too much libraries anyway. maybe they just dont want, or maybe they just dont have the money. not sure.


----------



## tomosane

RonOrchComp said:


> Right - and that means there would be less composers out there, ie less competition for us honest folk.
> 
> You have no idea how much it pisses me off that after paying for EVERYTHING that sit on my HDs (some via good sales, yes), I am forced to compete with people who 1) use cracked sw and libraries - or 2) people who used to use cracked sw and libraries and then went legal. NEITHER group of people were raised with any morals.



Would it piss you off if I told you that at least a couple established sample developers started out on torrent sites 15-ish years ago?


----------



## RonOrchComp

tomosane said:


> *Would it piss you off *if I told you that at least a couple established sample developers started out on torrent sites 15-ish years ago?



Yes.

And if true, you need to name names.


----------



## RonOrchComp

marius_dm said:


> So then it’s not about developers getting paid for their hard work



Of course I want to see developers getting paid for their hard work - that is the MAIN reason I am so opposed to warez.

It ain't all about me; I was just making one of the many available points.


----------



## ism

MarcelM said:


> i doubt devs would lower prices, but thats just me. in the end they want to make profit and nothing else.



It's not that with less piracy it becomes more profitable and devs altruistically lower prices.

It's that less piracy (and higher profitability) opens space for more innovation, less risk, more competition, and - purely responding to market forces and not remotely out of altruism - prices are lowered, and/or more libraries are developed.

Is the theory anyway.


----------



## Michael Antrum

MarcelM said:


> i doubt devs would lower prices, but thats just me. in the end they want to make profit and nothing else.
> 
> also i think alot of pirates wouldnt buy too much libraries anyway. maybe they just dont want, or maybe they just dont have the money. not sure.



My business, amongst other things, distributes a vertical market software application that is dongle protected and costs four figures. Pricing is set with a strong eye on the projected volume of sales by territory, which is informed by past sales history. Higher volumes would often lead lower prices as development costs would remain flat. Though of course I can only speak regarding my own direct experiences....

The dongle has been cracked, even though the dongle has been changed four times over the years and it's a really specialist piece of kit. In nearly all cases, it makes no financial sense whatsoever to pursue those selling and distributing cracked versions.


----------



## MarcelM

Michael Antrum said:


> My business, amongst other things, distributes a vertical market software application that is dongle protected and costs four figures. Pricing is set with a strong eye on the projected volume of sales by territory, which is informed by past sales history. Higher volumes would often lead lower prices as development costs would remain flat. Though of course I can only speak regarding my own direct experiences....
> 
> The dongle has been cracked, even though the dongle has been changed four times over the years and it's a really specialist piece of kit. In nearly all cases, it makes no financial sense whatsoever to pursue those selling and distributing cracked versions.



hmm, yeah but thats a different business. i doubt the average warez music pirate would buy (for example) the complete spitfire orchestra if he couldnt download it. alot of those guys are doing music as a hobby probably and wouldnt invest that much into librarys. maybe they even cant, because its quite expensive.


not sure but sales might go up a little if a pirated library wouldnt exist, but not that much i guess.

i actually think spitfire did a great job by offering something like discovery for 50 bucks, but will it stop piracy? no, nothing will... software piracy has always been and will be there forever.

the way to get access to pirated stuff is too easy though. i mean ebay and public websites? there must be something which can be done.


----------



## gsilbers

MarcelM said:


> i doubt devs would lower prices, but thats just me. in the end they want to make profit and nothing else.
> 
> also i think alot of pirates wouldnt buy too much libraries anyway. maybe they just dont want, or maybe they just dont have the money. not sure.



Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurreeeee........

and i woudln make much music anyways if it wherent for downlaoding random music like yours and selling it on RF sites and exlusive libraries.


----------



## gsilbers

tomosane said:


> Would it piss you off if I told you that at least a couple established sample developers started out on torrent sites 15-ish years ago?



no they didnt. they started once they got paid


----------



## gsilbers

MarcelM said:


> hmm, yeah but thats a different business. i doubt the average warez music pirate would buy (for example) the complete spitfire orchestra if he couldnt download it. alot of those guys are doing music as a hobby probably and wouldnt invest that much into librarys. maybe they even cant, because its quite expensive.
> 
> 
> not sure but sales might go up a little if a pirated library wouldnt exist, but not that much i guess.
> 
> i actually think spitfire did a great job by offering something like discovery for 50 bucks, but will it stop piracy? no, nothing will... software piracy has always been and will be there forever.
> 
> the way to get access to pirated stuff is too easy though. i mean ebay and public websites? there must be something which can be done.




there has always been ways to get affordable stuff. almost every big and small develoers offer free stuff or at least affordable that the average pirate can afford it. 
that they want a $800 library for their hobby is another thing. just i would like to grab the images of every game and sell it in RF sites, and grab hans zimmer music and sell it on audio jungle and grab the photoshop code and sell it under my name.


----------



## Michael Antrum

MarcelM said:


> .....there must be something which can be done.



Nah, not really. You know what it is in the great scheme of things, at least in a practical sense ?

It's the cost of doing business.







That's what it is.

But it doesn't mean its OK, or that we should make it easy for people to do this.


----------



## MarcelM

gsilbers said:


> there has always been ways to get affordable stuff. almost every big and small develoers offer free stuff or at least affordable that the average pirate can afford it.
> that they want a $800 library for their hobby is another thing. just i would like to grab the images of every game and sell it in RF sites, and grab hans zimmer music and sell it on audio jungle and grab the photoshop code and sell it under my name.



yeah, i agree but alot might think they need the best tools to make good music. its not like that.

also ive read here that some are worried to compete vs guys who are using warez? not sure, but if you are good in what youre doing you dont have to worry. its not the tools writing something good - its you!


----------



## Polkasound

robgb said:


> Streaming a song on YouTube generates royalty income? I can see that on Spotify, etc., or even YouTube Music, but I'm not sure that's true on YouTube proper.



Yes. My music is submitted to YouTube via CD Baby. The music and artwork end up on both YouTube Music and YouTube proper (as "art videos".) According to CD Baby, those art videos _do_ generate a royalty when they are played. I don't know how it works, but since my royalties from YouTube only say "YouTube Music" I'm guessing the art videos on YouTube proper generate the same royalties as the free version of YouTube Music.


----------



## gsilbers

d.healey said:


> As this thread is essentially a discussion of moral philosophy let me play the other side.
> 
> Watching a video or listening to music via the internet requires that it is downloaded to your system. Streaming is downloading, it's just usually you don't end up with a complete file at the end because of the protocol's design.
> 
> We know why it's bad to steal a CD, because you are depriving someone else of their CD, but that isn't true for copying a computer file. So why should we feel bad, or why is it bad, to download music from YouTube? This is a serious moral question which I don't expect will be answered anytime soon.
> 
> Is it worse, better, or the same to add the YouTube link to a VLC playlist so you can play the track whenever you like without going to YouTube as if you had downloaded the track?
> 
> Does somebody owe an artist money because they listened to their music? and if the artist is dead are they still owed money?
> 
> Making a copy costs essentially nothing. Barring the unfalsifiable lost sales argument, how do you put a value on a copy? Or if you put a value only on the initial copy does it depreciate over time?
> 
> * I'm just playing with ideas here, this does not represent my opinion *




its a good valid point like 20 years ago... when it mattered. it was always bad. copying etc. but congress and lawmakers in US and EU just didnt take it seriously and it was a new tech. 
google or facebook sharing was always bad. it still is.... but these all became wierd legal arguments drone out in philosophical questinos of what is real. 
and people like lawyers and congressmen just didnt understand it. 
back then you coudnt measure how many plays you could have and everything was chuged down the "home entertainment" model which is a huge keyword in hollywood for how business is handled. 
and that meant anythign on cd and dvd was just bought once and played how many times you wanted. 
so when streaming and file sharing came along it also went under this model... and even today when its measurable its still left to what the tech companies want to pay. too huge now to do anything else.


----------



## NekujaK

I'm not sure what the big debate is here. Piracy is technically illegal. Period.

Piracy has always existed in one form or another, and will continue to exist. It's human nature. There will always be a segment of the population who don't have a problem skirting around laws, rules, and conventional practices. More stringent law enforcement may put a temporary damper on it, but the pirates will simply devise new methods of distribution. Did taking down Napster put an end to music sharing? Not in the least.

Like it or not, pirated warez are here to stay and readily available, so it's simply up to each individual to decide for themselves if they should take a bite of the fruit. And if they do, no matter what their well-intentioned justifications are, it is still technically illegal and may likely impact a developer's revenue stream. If you can live with that, then I guess piracy is for you.


----------



## Macrawn

d.healey said:


> In terms of law copyright infringement is not stealing, and literally making a copy is not stealing. Ethically/morally it may be stealing, depending on your POV.


Making a copy and distributing it, is absolutely against the law though. Anyone buying this stuff knows it is against the law too. I don't know why some people feel they are somehow owed these high quality libraries if they can't afford them. If you can't afford one, there is some legit free stuff out there and some good stuff for like around 100 bucks like the Nucleus light thing. People shouldn't be trying to buy it off ebay or some other sketchy place. 

I was a young aspiring artist too once, but I lugged pipe and busted my arse to get the things I wanted back then. We loved working 60 hour weeks because that was all overtime pay.


----------



## Matt Damon

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Again, that's nonsense. It doesn't make it any more right just because you switched from Hans Zimmer to Danny Elfman. Those guys exist in a totally different sphere. You act as if most folks on this website are at that level of business.



People doing crap indie projects for nothing, or professionals lowering their prices is not imploding the business.

You have presented no evidence that it is.



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Again the same played out stuff. So the argument is basically nothing other than "well you're still making some money off of other people, you shouldn't mind me stealing".



No, it's just acknowledging that in the real world, this stuff happens and products are still profitable despite it.

So yes, some amount of piracy happening should be seen as acceptable losses. In a perfect world, your software would never be cracked and you wouldn't have to worry about it, but at a certain point you've got to realize that chasing down all the pirates just isn't worth it. Especially not if you're already making a shitload of money.



Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Yeah, I bet you'd like that  Nothing you said was anything other than looking for flimsy and incredibly disingenuous justifications for wanting shit without having to pay for it. Give me a break.



I already told you that all my stuff is legit.

The fact is that the policies and such of the producer DO influence how much a product is pirated.

Whether you are willing to accept that or not isn't my problem. I get the sense you're of an older generation? They tend to have this idea of "Crime just comes from purely bad people and the actions of others no way influence criminal behavior." but it's just not like that IRL.


----------



## doctoremmet

You must be of a younger generation? They are all stupid entitled bastards.

^ there, another great generalisation for ya


----------



## doctoremmet

OK boomer


----------



## dcoscina

Henu said:


> Butthurt much? The guy had a point. Look, we've all more or less "tried copies of music software we got from a friend" when we started, and pretty sure most of us have repaid that a hundred times during the years. But it was illegal back then, it's illegal now, and there's really no excuse to defend it- and there's especially not a reason to tell "the rich" people to fuck off if they say it's a shitty thing. Because it is.


Exactly. I’m not rich but I’ve always bought my software. Or else gotten NfR copies for reviews since I write for magazines, but that’s getting product right from the developers themselves. I’ve gone into more debt over buying libraries than I wish to admit. So I can stand on my high horse and say, no it’s not cool to steal. It’s like walking in a music store and lifting a keyboard or guitar or whatever. Theft is theft.


----------



## Matt Damon

doctoremmet said:


> You must be of a younger generation? They are all stupid entitled bastards.



No, that's boomers. This actually is a boomer and gen-x thing.

"Since stealing is bad, my actions being a catalyst for crime are therefore irrelevant."

It's just childish naivete.

It's like people who leave valuables on their passenger seat and when they return to see that someone smashed the window and stole it, are absolutely flabbergasted, enraged and demand that everyone feel sorry for them because a piece of paper the government drafted says people aren't allowed to do that, thieves are bad, and pointing out that the victim could've been smarter about this and perhaps thereby prevented people from stealing from him by taking some fairly-obvious measures, makes you the problem and just as bad as the thieves. Never mind that many companies are just as greedy as any thief.

You may not agree with the reasons people steal from you, and be right about it — but that doesn't mean they aren't reasons they will steal from you anyway. Your only course of preventative action, is measures which will dissuade thieves based on why they're stealing from you in the first place.

Unfortunately for a lot of software companies, being "consumer-friendly" doesn't seem to be a measure they want to take.


----------



## doctoremmet

Matt Damon said:


> Unfortunately for a lot of software companies, being "consumer-friendly" doesn't seem to be a measure they want to take.


That would be a valid reason to not purchase the software but it is utter rubbish to even try and argue a company not being consumer friendly is a trigger for theft. Because it isn’t. Show me evidence that consumer friendly developers don’t suffer from theft, and I’ll have a listen.


----------



## doctoremmet

Sorry mate. Even stealing from utter assholes doesn’t make it more understandable, or slightly less immoral, or less theft.


----------



## Matt Damon

doctoremmet said:


> Sorry mate. Even stealing from utter assholes doesn’t make it more understandable, or slightly less immoral, or less theft.



"I am incapable of putting myself in any perspective other than mine and my own motivations' and extremely black and white moral thinking".

A grocery store near me recently priced a pack of beef at 71 dollars and this is in a time where the food supply is being disrupted and they're manufacturing a shortage as farmers just dump stuff and crops go unpicked, highest unemployment ever.

So if someone stole that pack of beef, we should just prosecute that criminal and not ask any questions about the store's pricing and the conditions that made the person steal it, right?

I mean, after all, the fact that the store are assholes doesn't make the theft any more understandable, right?


----------



## Matt Damon

Oh shit, you double posted.



doctoremmet said:


> That would be a valid reason to not purchase the software but it is utter rubbish to even try and argue a company not being consumer friendly is a trigger for theft. Because it isn’t. Show me evidence that consumer friendly developers don’t suffer from theft, and I’ll have a listen.



Strawman. They undoubtedly get stolen from less. I never said they don't suffer from theft.

Everyone suffers from theft. It's a part of business. Everyone who has ever worked retail knows there will also be SOME amount of "shrink".

CDProjektRed is well-known to be one of the most consumer-friendly software developers out there, and while I have no doubt the Witcher 3 is pirated, they've made so much bank on the game that it STILL is basically keeping the entire company profitable.









The Witcher 3 Sales Top 28 Million Units Worldwide


The Witcher 3 sales have topped 28 million copies worldwide, according to new data. CD Projekt RED's financials show 2019 was the title's best year in sales since launch.




www.playstationlifestyle.net





How much do you think EA's, god of microtransactions, stuff is pirated? A LOT. In fact, their games are the most-pirated.









Top 10 Most Pirated Games of all Time - Infogram


"This Chart is Great"




infogram.com





The same is true of sample devs and stuff. I guarantee you that software requiring a dongle is pirated, or at least attempted to, more than that which doesn't. I guarantee you libraries requiring full version of Kontakt, which is priced at a fairly insane 399 USD, are pirated more than libraries which work in the player. I guarantee you software that requires constant internet connectivity is pirated more than that which works offline all the time.

It's just simple logic, really. The more of a pain in the ass it is to deal with getting it legally, the more likely people are to just steal it from you instead.

None of this is rocket science.


----------



## doctoremmet

Matt Damon said:


> I guarantee you libraries requiring full version of Kontakt, which is priced at a fairly insane 399 USD, are pirated more than libraries which work in the player.


Lots of guarantees. Thanks mate. Software priced at 399 USD is priced “insanely”. But my argument is a strawman. Right. Carry on telling yourself that stuff that is expensive deserves to be stolen 😂. Especially in the software domain. Because reasons. Sure dude 😂😂😂


----------



## doctoremmet

Matt Damon said:


> It's just simple logic, really.


Yes 😂


----------



## doctoremmet

Matt Damon said:


> None of this is rocket science.


Sorry. I must be stupid then. Oh and of course I'm also rich 😂. Well, I’ll be off stealing some steak that’s way overpriced. Cheers!


----------



## Matt Damon

doctoremmet said:


> Lots of guarantees. Thanks mate. Software priced at 399 USD is priced “insanely”. But my argument is a strawman. Right. Carry on telling yourself that stuff that is expensive deserves to be stolen 😂. Especially in the software domain. Because reasons. Sure dude 😂😂😂



Strawman again, but ok boomer.

Keep complaining about pirates and spending every resource to fight them while never looking inward.

It seems to have worked out fantastic so far.


----------



## doctoremmet

Matt Damon said:


> Strawman again, but ok boomer.
> 
> Keep complaining about pirates and spending every resource to fight them while never looking inward.
> 
> It seems to have worked out fantastic so far.


Whatever. I never complained. Theft is theft. Cool that you know the word “strawman”, maybe say it two more times 😂🥰


----------



## Jaap

@Matt Damon

You made your point but instead of shifting it towards the developers we should talk about the moral compass of the ones taking these from and putting it up on the warez sites.
Whenever something is somebodies property, no matter whether it is intellectual property or physical property and it is taken without a mutual consent, then it is just plainly wrong. We can discuss the reasons all day long, but WIHTOUT the consent it still is wrong.
No matter how exposed a product is or for whatever reason and pricing it is put up on the market, it doesn't justify taking it without consent and redistribute it for free.

These products are not life essentials, there is no moral justification for putting it out for free without the consent. It is not a freaking overpriced bread that is preventing the commen man for having it's food and which is only available for the rich. No, these are not things we NEED in our daily lives and are distributed unequally.
These are products we CAN use for our craft, but also even for our craft they aren't essentials as there are more then enough free alternatives (with consent of the developer) to start with. If for some reason people still want them without paying it, it has more to do with greed then with the behaviour of the developer. Even if the developer is a greedy bastard overpricing his products, it still doesn't justify it as it makes the one stealing it as much greedy.

Pricing and the behaviour of a developer has nothing to do with it. On these sites you find the products from all the developers, no matter the pricing or behaviour. Heck, even my freebies got distributed on those sites. I see products from very nice developers and who price very fairly and who are very popular out there and there is a large crowd cheering over them. There is no talk about there like "hey folks, this guy is actually nice and has a good price, we should not do this, lets go after mr Evil X with his overpriced stuff".

If I now go to your house, steal your computer, all your music gear etc we won't have a conversation about how YOU where wrong, but it should be about how I am wrong in doing it. Even if you have left the door open, it still doesn't make you wrong in such situations, but it is the action of the actual perpetrator that should be discussed. Talking about preventing is a good thing, but not with the moral direction you have pointed out.


----------



## Polkasound

Matt Damon said:


> So if someone stole that pack of beef, we should just prosecute that criminal and not ask any questions about the store's pricing and the conditions that made the person steal it, right?



Those are two separate things. The store should be condemned for price gouging, and the thief should be prosecuted for stealing. Although the high price no doubt influenced the thief's decision to steal, it didn't _make_ him steal. That decision was still 100% within his control.




Matt Damon said:


> I mean, after all, the fact that the store are assholes doesn't make the theft any more understandable, right?



Understandable, yes, because it's not difficult to understand what influences thieves. But calling some piracy "acceptable losses" doesn't fly. There is nothing that justifies theft and makes it acceptable. I don't recall God's 7th Commandment having an asterisk.


----------



## Michael Antrum

Matt Damon said:


> like people who leave valuables on their passenger seat and when they return to see that someone smashed the window and stole it, are absolutely flabbergasted, enraged and demand that everyone feel sorry for them because a piece of paper the government drafted says people aren't allowed to do that, thieves are bad, and pointing out that the victim could've been smarter about this and perhaps thereby prevented people from stealing from him by taking some fairly-obvious measures, makes you the problem and just as bad as the thieves. Never mind that many companies are just as greedy as any thief.



@Matt Damon

Sorry Matt, don't agree at all.

Following your logic - Is the pretty girl who goes out in a short skirt and has a few drinks 'asking for it ?'.

Sure it's not he same level of seriousness, but its the same principle. Not my fault - I was tempted to do it and the fact I have no self control is someone else's fault.

Because that's the logical extension of what you are saying. That piece of paper from the government is a set of standards of behaviour you adhere to if you want to be part of this society and take the benefits of being part of it.

But I think deep down, you probably know it's wrong, but for some reason seem to want to try and justify that it's all someone else's fault.

The lack of personal responsibility and accountability that seems to be tolerated by our institutions and our society in general is the cause of many of the ills of the modern world.


----------



## Matt Damon

Polkasound said:


> Those are two separate things. The store should be condemned for price gouging, and the thief should be prosecuted for stealing. Although the high price no doubt influenced the thief's decision to steal, it didn't _make_ him steal. That decision was still 100% within his control.



So, at what amount of corporate abuse do you think would justify stealing from them?

Like, I'm aware we're sort of on a tangent here now, but people were talking about "morals" a few pages up (and in this post).

Basically, and this is why I hate libertarians, you can basically justify any sort of atrocity with this line of thinking. If we hit 50% unemployment and Weimar inflation, will you people then still be saying "oh well you made the choice to steal, so who cares if you and your family are starving? Stealing is bad!"? Or, if Grocery stores decided they wouldn't sell food to "racists", would you guys then be like "Oh, well you just shouldn't think that way, then! Go hunt birds in the park if you can't farm from your apartment which is all you can afford!"

? I think you would.



Polkasound said:


> Understandable, yes, because it's not difficult to understand what influences thieves. But calling some piracy "acceptable losses" doesn't fly. There is nothing that justifies theft and makes it acceptable. I don't recall God's 7th Commandment having an asterisk.



I don't care what a bunch of ancient Hebrews claim their God said.

Like, I'm aware all of this is much extreme examples than pirating things that don't really matter like sample libraries, but it shows where the line of thinking is and where its ultimate conclusions lie.

"No matter what we do, the thieves are automatically worse."

I'm sorry but, at a certain point, I'm not convinced that's true; there are things that justify theft.

When it comes to non-essential items like software, companies do often fail to patch holes in their services that make piracy an attractive option and justify it to the pirates. We can piss and moan about how bad those pirates are all we want, but you've got to play by the rules of the real world and not how you think the world should be.

And that means that they do exist, and it is up to YOU to mitigate the damage they do. Don't come out with a software that requires a dongle, internet connection, and requires 399+ third-party software, with no trial period or anything, and pretend you're shocked that piracy is rampant.


----------



## Matt Damon

Michael Antrum said:


> Following your logic - Is the pretty girl who goes out in a short skirt and has a few drinks 'asking for it ?'.



Well, if I were to honestly answer this question, I'd bring up the fact that there is usually no commonality between the woman's looks and attire in rapes, although there IS a commonality among the men who make up the majority of these rapes — but that's too spicy for this forum.


----------



## doctoremmet

Matt Damon said:


> pretend you're shocked that piracy is rampant.


I am absolutely not shocked it is rampant. Just like you I mainly made one point, without dragging all kinds of moral or philosophical dilemmas into play. I said: theft is theft. And there’s a legal perspective (your “piece of government paper”) and a moral one, and I’m not coming from any religious high horse either. My point is: if a piece of software has a pricepoint you deem too high, don’t buy it. Also: don’t pirate it. I don’t buy into the anti libertarian point of view. Which does not automatically mean I condone political correctness and liberal profiling where racists are denied their daily bread. Because those things may exist, but they hardly have any significance in justifying cracking a virtual instrument, now do they? I totally understand that cracking is a thing. It exists because it is kind of easy to do and people don’t care about the adverse effects. I also fail to see the relevance of your earlier flawed argument “the software company that makes The Witcher game makes a decent enough profit - even though their games are pirated, albeit less so than EA’s, who are rightfully pirated because they have loot boxes and questionable marketing antics”. So because some organization turns a profit, it is more or less okay to pirate? Show me the logic in that argumentation. The fact that something HAPPENS, and that I can totally understand human nature and how these things work in the real world, does not mean I have to be okay with it. The fact that I say: “it still is theft” also does not mean that you have to agree with me 😎.


----------



## Matt Damon

doctoremmet said:


> I am absolutely not shocked it is rampant. Just like you I mainly made one point, without dragging all kinds of moral or philosophical dilemmas into play. I said: theft is theft. And there’s a legal perspective (your “piece of government paper”) and a moral one, and I’m not coming from any religious high horse either. My point is: if a piece of software has a pricepoint you deem to high, don’t buy it. Also: don’t pirate it. I don’t buy into the anti libertarian point of view. Which does not automatically mean I condone political correctness and liberal profiling where racists are denied their daily bread. Because those things may exist, but they hardly have any significance in justifying cracking a virtual instrument, now do they? I totally understand that cracking is a thing. It exists because it is kind of easy to do and people don’t care about the adverse effects. I also fail to see the relevance of your earlier flawed argument “the software company that makes The Witcher game makes a decent enough profit - even though their games are pirated, albeit less so than EA’s, who are rightfully pirated because they have loot boxes and questionable marketing antics”. So because some organization turns a profit, it is more or less okay to pirate? Show me the logic in that argumentation. The fact that something HAPPENS, and that I can totally understand human nature and how these things work in the real world, does not mean I have to be okay with it. The fact that I say: “it still is theft” also does not mean that you have to agree with me 😎.



Again, I didn't say that I agreed with people pirating these products.

The point you keep missing is that there are factors that whether you like it or not are the fault of the producer that influences the consumer to pirate the product instead of buying it, and if you want to mitigate that piracy, then it's up to you to find out what it is about your company that makes piracy the more attractive option. is it price? Service? legacy products. Tack-on products.

not sure Y this is so hard


----------



## doctoremmet

Matt Damon said:


> Again, I didn't say that I agreed with people pirating these products.
> 
> The point you keep missing is that there are factors that whether you like it or not are the fault of the producer that influences the consumer to pirate the product instead of buying it, and if you want to mitigate that piracy, then it's up to you to find out what it is about your company that makes piracy the more attractive option. is it price? Service? legacy products. Tack-on products.
> 
> not sure Y this is so hard


You keep pointing that out, and I highly doubt whether your statement is true. Because there are also cracked versions floating around of software that’s marketed by totally legit customer-friendly organizations. I don’t observe any of the “logic” you try to point out in the real world. And companies that DO use DRM stuff, use dongles etc. are also criticized because users hate it for some reason. Shouldn’t they be praised, at least according to your own arguing? I really do not see any evidence that good, honest, trustworthy, highly customer centric companies are targeted less by people that just don’t want to pay for software.

Anyway, looks like we won’t reach an agreement here. Let my final question to you be this: don’t you think the largest percentage of people that steal software do it “just because it is readily available”, without thinking for even a second about the consequences of their act, let alone a consideration of whether the owner of that software “deserves it” (poor service / lack of updates) and/or “is asking for it” (poor protection, no DRM)? One thing I’m pretty sure of. These same people will whine and scream for days, when someone takes something from them. Nuff said. On to more important things


----------



## purple

Why is it wrong for someone to download a free/cracked version of software they couldn't afford/would never have purchased? Who is hurt in this transaction? The developer is unaffected (they get nothing anyways whether or not the cracked version exists or is distributed) The user gets a product they wouldn't have been able to afford. The cracker gets to enjoy creating and distributing a successful cracked version. 

If anything, they might gain a future loyal customer or attract people who weren't previously interested in their stuff.

I can guarantee if I had access to a free trial on every single library I'd have made a lot more smart purchases quickly and been along for the ride with many developers way before I was.


----------



## doctoremmet

purple said:


> Why is it wrong for someone to download a free/cracked version of software they couldn't afford/would never have purchased? Who is hurt in this transaction?


So, who is going to check the validity of that transaction then? The free illegal one? In your argument that seems necessary, because there will definitely also be people that can totally afford the purchase but choose to steal the product. Which is a lost sale, which means damage for the developer. If you feel that the first category of illegal transactions should be condoned, who is going to check the validity of the theft? If that’s not done we’re just going ahead and believe in the sincerity of the thiefs?

Also: the fact that in some instances there may not be an immediate monetary damage, makes theft morally okay for you?


----------



## doctoremmet

Matt Damon said:


> unlimited supply of product


Once people steal your product, you lose control of that supply. It is staggering, the number of false arguments you’re throwing around hahaha. I give up.

Theft is just okay. Go ahead y’all! 😘


----------



## purple

doctoremmet said:


> So, who is going to check the validity of that transaction then? The free illegal one? In your argument that seems necessary, because there will definitely also be people that can totally afford the purchase but choose to steal the product. Which is a lost sale, which means damage for the developer. If you feel that the first category of illegal transactions should be condoned, who is going to check the validity of the theft? If that’s not done we’re just going ahead and believe in the sincerity of the thiefs?
> 
> Also: the fact that in some instances there may not be an immediate monetary damage, makes theft morally okay for you?


Theft? How? Who was stolen from? It was essentially a copy given out for free and created by someone who cracked software they presumably purchased. Why is it the user's concern whether there are others who _could _afford it taking the cracked version for free? How does that change whether the user has made an ethical choice or not?


----------



## doctoremmet

purple said:


> Theft? How? Who was stolen from? It was essentially a copy given out for free and created by someone who cracked software they presumably purchased. Why is it the user's concern whether there are others who _could _afford it taking the cracked version for free? How does that change whether the user has made an ethical choice or not?


You’re right. It is not theft at all. Just decide whether you pay for stuff or not. If you can’t just take stuff. I couldn’t care less. 🆒😘


----------



## Matt Damon

doctoremmet said:


> You’re right. It is not theft at all. Just decide whether you pay for stuff or not. If you can’t just take stuff. I couldn’t care less. 🆒😘



Stores carry finite amounts of product that it costs themselves to sell in the first place. So if someone walks in and takes it off teh shelf, then you have actually lost money.

Online stores have an unlimited amount of product that is replenished at no cost (because it is infinite). So you aren't really losing money, you have untapped customer base.

Consider that Game of Thrones was the most-pirated show in history for years. It was also basically impossible to watch outside of the USA (where most of the pirates came from) for a long time because many places didn't get HBO, and the online episodes were region-locked to America, at least for a period of time.

So, were all the non-Americans who pirated the episodes really thieves? The show wasn't even available to them and they couldn't pay for it even if they wanted to.

But it's becoming clear this thread is more about moral grandstanding and not reason.


----------



## asherpope

Matt Damon said:


> So, were all the non-Americans who pirated the episodes really thieves? The show wasn't even available to them and they couldn't pay for it even if they wanted to.


Um, yes? Plenty of thing aren't available to lots of people, and if they decide to steal those things yes they are still thieves. We're not exactly talking about drinkable water here


----------



## Marko Zirkovich

Matt Damon said:


> Stores carry finite amounts of product that it costs themselves to sell in the first place. So if someone walks in and takes it off teh shelf, then you have actually lost money.



Those stupid store owners. Those suckers should stop paying rent (it's evil landlords anyways), utilities (free energy, right?) and all those other pesky costs like paying for the products to sell in the first place. Then there would not be any money lost if somebody takes something off the shelf without paying.


----------



## Buz

purple said:


> I can guarantee if I had access to a free trial on every single library I'd have made a lot more smart purchases quickly and been along for the ride with many developers way before I was.


A lot of people agree with this, including many developers as far as practical situations allow.
But it's entirely their prerogative to make their own business decisions, whether they're good decisions or not.  There is no moral authority to act contrary to someone else's wishes and then tell them you are right because they just don't understand what they want.


----------



## Matt Damon

asherpope said:


> Um, yes? Plenty of thing aren't available to lots of people, and if they decide to steal those things yes they are still thieves. We're not exactly talking about drinkable water here



Correct, we're talking about things that don't exist in a physical form and are available in limitless abundance and cost nothing to "replace"; a pirated copy can't really be counted as a "lost" unit.

So when all those people pirated game of thrones, they were getting something they couldn't buy anyway, because HBO wasn't even selling it to them.

Why combat "piracy" in a market you're not even in? Isn't the logical solution to be to just offer the digital product in those areas? Again, this is really easy.



Marko Zirkovich said:


> Those stupid store owners. Those suckers should stop paying rent (it's evil landlords anyways), utilities (free energy, right?) and all those other pesky costs like paying for the products to sell in the first place. Then there would not be any money lost if somebody takes something off the shelf without paying.



Not even a vaguely similar comparison.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich

Matt Damon said:


> Not even a vaguely similar comparison.


That response doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Christopher Rocky

@Matt Damon Just because something doesn't physically exist, doesn't mean it is not theft. That's what IP is and trademarks, and in our industry, if you cover someones music and sell it, its illegal, because you don't own the rights/publishing to that song, there's plenty of examples of non physical copyright, it doesn't make it any less wrong, illegal or different legally than stealing a physical object.

I feel the line is getting blurred in this conversation because of an absolute concept of 'morals' speaking generally,
maybe we can be more specific to this one situation of pirating sample libraries, its not a loaf of bread to feed a starving family member, nor is it a car, or a woman being raped (how the hell did that get thrown in there?!) its not an old video game.

Developers of sample libraries are selling a license to use their product, no license, you cant use it. its in the license that you buy, its the agreement that comes with sample libraries that state their terms of use.

In court, if you use a pirated sample library and don't have a license, you make music for a tv show, get found out. your screwed and there's big consequences.

Is this filling a need? its filling an illegal need only because there are no subsequent consequences of that action.

When i was in china in 2015 for work I saw how people are so scared of their government, at the time, there was a big crackdown on prostitution in old canton (Guangzhou) which is a huge business city renowned for its sex workers. If you got arrested there was big consequences and everyone in the city was scared. But up until this time, they were advertising and promoting prostitution, it was fine, because it was not enforced.

Same with smoking, everywhere I went people were smoking, inside, in elevators, everywhere! even when in the elevator there is a big 'NO SMOKING' sign, but they don't care because its not enforced.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, as it sounds like most of you's who agree that pirating sample libraries is totally morally fine, sure its illegal, but its morally fine.
Maybe its kinda like the 'sweatshop' mentallity? not facing the child slave labour or the depressed factory man who tries to jump off a building only to be caught by nets surrounding the apple factory, but give me ma' Iphone, ma' sneakers etc.. maybe if you saw poor timmy, who is a disabled 11 year old, starving on christmas because his dad who works at the san fransisco shite filled streets cant afford to buy the overpriced $20 bottle of water and can of tuna, all because he should have gone into dating apps and not sample libraries.


----------



## Salorom

I think in the end it's all about trying to stay open-minded about things, all the more so when the subject is sensitive like this one. I've spent thousands on software and libraries, here's my quick take on it:

Is it ok to condone piracy, not in my opinion.
Is it ok that some websites make a living distributing pirated software, not in my opinion.
Is it ok to look down on anyone that will use said pirated software without taking one second to consider the why or how, shy-virgin-on-her-high-horse style, not in my opinion.

This 'stealing is wrong, any other stance is untenable' rhetoric is both acceptable and stale in my view.
I'll personally tend to stay away from those who always most definitely know how things should be.


----------



## yiph2

Matt Damon said:


> So when all those people pirated game of thrones, they were getting something they couldn't buy anyway, because HBO wasn't even selling it to them.
> 
> Why combat "piracy" in a market you're not even in? Isn't the logical solution to be to just offer the digital product in those areas? Again, this is really easy.


So let's say something is banned in your country. You can't buy the product because it's obviously banned, so you're saying that getting that product is justified because it's banned? It's banned for a reason, just like why Game of Thrones was not sold in other countries


----------



## d.healey

Repeat after me, "copying is not stealing, copying is not stealing, copying is not stealing". If anyone thinks otherwise they need to read a dictionary and then speak to a lawyer.

Now have a proper discussion about if copying is good or bad (no need to argue over the legality of copyright infringement since that's already been decided for us).

Is copying bad?
Is making money from copying worse than not making money from it?

When is it okay to download a copy from an unauthorized source:

I recently purchased a video game from a company that promotes themselves as caring about the user's rights, and only selling DRM free content. This particular game was originally released about 20 years ago and it didn't have DRM back then.

Well was I pissed to find out that this old game has been downgraded and now contains DRM and won't run on my OS! So I went back online and downloaded an unauthorized non-DRM'd version. I didn't request a refund so no-one lost out on my particular download. Was that morally wrong, good, or neutral... from my point of view or the publishers... And yes I complained to the company, fell on deaf ears!


----------



## Christopher Rocky

@d.healey cant the semantics be somewhat relative though? if i 'stole' a melody from anther song and use it in my own, i have breached IP copyright, but we still use the language 'stole'.
just because it isn't exactly technically what it is called, aren't we still allowed to say 'you stole something'? it seems beside the point and detracts from the ideas. with or without the use of the word 'stolen', the idea is still implied, you have done something wrong by taking (whether IP or physically) something that is not yours.


----------



## tomosane

ChristopherRock said:


> if you use a pirated sample library and don't have a license, you make music for a tv show, get found out. your screwed and there's big consequences.



Any examples of this? Genuinely curious.


----------



## Christopher Rocky

@tomosane 

I'm not sure exactly, there was a conversation i think it was on one of Dan james 'tadays' when people called in, and it was about piracy, its well worth the listen... they talked about how a composer was using libraries for a job, and somehow the dev found out and kindly suggested they buy the libraries (before they legally did anything), which the composer went and payed for after.... if you look at all the court cases against piracy they are mainly against people who uploaded the cracked software, not the use of them in a product. But legally if you went to court you would be screwed (which was meant to be my point, that if in court...) would any one want to work with you again? you would be sued by the dev and the company who hired you too as its a breach in both those written/verbal contracts, that you have the right to use those libraries.


----------



## tomosane

ChristopherRock said:


> if you look at all the court cases against piracy they are mainly against people who uploaded the cracked software



This is more or less my understanding as well. Here in Europe at least, software EULAs mean basically jack shit legally speaking. But of course, things may be different in (parts of?) the US, and going by the discussion in this thread, I'm sure you have hundreds if not thousands of court cases where someone has been convicted of merely using (not sharing) pirated software, some of which may be publicized. Any examples?


----------



## d.healey

ChristopherRock said:


> cant the semantics be somewhat relative though?



Let's ignore copyright for a moment and look at the basic idea.

Is sharing, giving somebody something they want, good or bad for society? I can't think of any justification to call it bad so therefore it must be good. You of course may disagree.

Is theft, taking something from someone without their consent a good or bad thing for society? It's almost always bad. I mean taking a weapon from someone who is attacking people is good, but that's an exception.

So sharing = good, theft = bad. Morally, how can they be the same?

In the digital age making a copy and giving it to someone takes almost no resources and no effort. So when people can do something easily (copying) and do something that's good (sharing) they will. 

Back to copyright:

Now let's say that making a copy directly leads to somebody losing a sale, then yes it's close to the equivalent of theft but it's not theft. Not every unauthorized copy leads to a lost sale. So a blanket statement like copying = theft, is wrong. Sometimes copyright infringement leads to more sales so does that mean copying = free ads? No, of course not.

The issue of theft is different to the issue of copyright infringement and they shouldn't be mixed. It's like mixing trademarks and copyright, sure they sound related but not really.

Copyright is meant to promote progress of science and art for the good of society (it's in the US constitution), and in it's initial implementation back in the days of the printing press it kind of worked for that purpose. Now it is widely used as a restriction on society to limit progress and make a profit for corporations. This is why companies continually lobby around the world to extend copyright. How can it promote progress 75 years after the author has died!?

In the future I believe it will be possible to copy physical objects as easily as we can copy virtual ones. Hopefully by the time this happens copyright law will be modernized (or more ideally replaced) with something that is suitable for the digital age. 
Imagine if you could copy a sandwich and feed all the hungry people but a EULA told you that doing so was wrong. We're already seeing similar issues with 3D printed designs.


----------



## Christopher Rocky

@tomosane there's a popular video on youtube of a producer guy who used FL studio and got caught (youll have to google it, its not hard to find) in the top left of fl studio it shows your registered username, and in the video he forgot to crop it out, it showed the name of a cracker group instead. 

The funny thing is he made FL studio tutorials! since he got caught he came clean, and crawled his way back to being an honest guy, he's made a bunch of videos about it. Anyways, he wasn't sued either, Image line reached out to him before they took him to court. 

I think thats the problem though isnt it? there's no consequences for using it, thats why its there, if it was enforced and you went to prison, no one would be using cracked software, and the crackers wouldn't 'share' a cracked version.


----------



## d.healey

ChristopherRock said:


> if it was enforced and you went to prison, no one would be using cracked software, and the crackers wouldn't 'share' a cracked version.


You don't really believe that do you? So only unenforced crimes are committed?


----------



## Christopher Rocky

@d.healey but thats my point exactly, The semantics are for the specific scenarios like you mentioned, And sure there's differences between the IP, but they have something in common, they are all intangaible intellectual proporties. whatever laws surrounding them are specific for the situation. I brought them up initally because of matt damon, saying its not stealing because you can make infinate copies of something without a loss. but my point is that you can still 'steal' something thats not tangible.

but specifically talking about sample libraries, technically you own the license to use it, so using a sample library illegally would fall into, breach of contract? I think the conversation starts getting of track when we start talking about the larger societal implications and morals. like if somethings wrong or not generally in one situation but not in another, what about just this license to use a sample library?


----------



## Christopher Rocky

d.healey said:


> You don't really believe that do you? So only unenforced crimes are committed?


absolutely believe that in the general sense. its not a blanket statement, its contextual. depends on the crime. like speeding, if you got a huge fine speeding everytime because your car is connected to a cloud, would you speed? but its not, so thats why ppl speed even though its against the law. but it is contextual, in the context of pirated sample libraries, don't you think that would be the case too?


----------



## yiph2

ChristopherRock said:


> absolutely believe that in the general sense. its not a blanket statement, its contextual. depends on the crime. like speeding, if you got a huge fine speeding everytime because your car is connected to a cloud, would you speed? but its not, so its ok to speed even though its against the law. but it is contextual, in the context of pirated sample libraries, don't you think that would be the case too?


What? You think it's ok to break the law as long as you're not caught?


----------



## Christopher Rocky

yiph2 said:


> What? You think it's ok to break the law as long as you're not caught?


NO, i'm saying thats the reason why it happens, i'm not agreeing or condoning it at all!!!.....are you trolling for real?!


----------



## d.healey

ChristopherRock said:


> @d.healey but specifically talking about sample libraries, technically you own the license to use it, so using a sample library illegally would fall into, breach of contract?


The person who made the initial purchase has technically agreed to an almost universally unenforceable EULA. So for them, yes there is a breach of contract issue.

For everyone-else who downloads or re-upoloads it unofficially there is no contract between them and the dev so the only claim against them is copyright infringement.

I don't think putting people in prison for sharing is enforceable. If it happened I'm sure it would deter causal sharing (the kind of sharing that has little impact on developers) but it wouldn't prevent the leeches who make a lot of money from it. Just like drug dealers go to jail all the time, doesn't seem to stop drug dealing. 

There is one sure way to prevent people illegally sharing files, and it is the same technique that is now being used to prevent people illegally selling drugs, you legalize it.

Sharing (non commercial distribution of digital files) should be legalized, it is the only way to prevent illegal sharing. Yes I know it's not what you wanted to hear but a lot of clever people have been trying for a long time to find another solution and they haven't succeeded yet.

This of course doesn't solve the issue of unauthorized commercial redistribution, but it limits it since why pay if you can get it legally for free? 

How do devs survive in such a situation? The same way they already do, there are many developers who make commercial freedom respecting software, some distribute the software for nothing, others charge. One of the most successful with this business model is Wordpress.

Some profit through donations, which is when you voluntarily give money to a dev because you care about them and what they do - by the way this is exactly what you are doing when you buy software from a dev instead of downloading it illegally. You are choosing to support them.

Most have a combination strategy of different revenue streams. 

If a dev respects your freedom by not restricting what you can do with the 1's and 0's in your computer, aren't they worth more to you than the devs who restrict you? Or do you prefer to reward people who restrict you but give you cool new toys?


----------



## yiph2

ChristopherRock said:


> NO, i'm saying thats the reason why it happens, i'm not agreeing or condoning it at all!!!.....are you trolling for real?!


Well it seems like you are trying to justify piracy...


----------



## Christopher Rocky

yiph2 said:


> Well it seems like you are trying to justify piracy...


no i'm not, i am absolutely against it! i was just giving an objective view of why it happens, which is the whole point of OP of this thread 'how can they get away with this'


----------



## yiph2

Oops, sorry for my misunderstanding 
Well whoever thinks like that...


----------



## Christopher Rocky

@yiph2 @d.healey I can see how you thought that i was condoning it, i misspelled something in a few posts back saying 'its ok to speed' i did not mean this, i meant to say, this is the reason why ppl speed! If you want to get mad just read the posts from a few pages back of some people saying it aint all that bad.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

For the pirates (bottom feeders)....

Have fun reformatting your drives mid-project due to deep seeded crypto viruses and Trojans.


----------



## Polkasound

Matt Damon said:


> So, at what amount of corporate abuse do you think would justify stealing from them?



None. No amount of corporate abuse justifies stealing, ever. It influences the likelihood of stealing, but it does not cause it.


----------



## RonOrchComp

Wolfie2112 said:


> For the pirates (bottom feeders)....
> 
> Have fun reformatting your drives mid-project due to deep seeded crypto viruses and Trojans.



I feel that this is really more myth than fact.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

RonOrchComp said:


> I feel that this is really more myth than fact.



lol! Trust me, it’s 100% true, these low life distributors have alterior motives.....as do all criminals. I know a couple of losers that recently experienced this first hand. One guy downloaded Fab Filter Total Bundle from a well known pirate site. Got what he deserved.


----------



## RonOrchComp

Wolfie2112 said:


> Trust me, it’s 100% true,



No way. I am not saying it never happens, but if it were as rampant as you suggest, hardly anybody would be downloading any warez out of virus fears. But we all know it's the downloading of warez that is rampant.


----------



## Matt Damon

yiph2 said:


> So let's say something is banned in your country. You can't buy the product because it's obviously banned, so you're saying that getting that product is justified because it's banned? It's banned for a reason, just like why Game of Thrones was not sold in other countries



The thing that people on your side are not seeing, as per what Purple brought up, is that you actually cannot make a 1:1 comparison between these things because the nature of their existence and the consequence of someone "stealing" it is not the same.

If someone pirates Cubase because they can't afford Cubase, Steinberg does not technically "lose money" because that person does not have the potential to even be a customer. Steinberg does not lose any product because the stolen item can be "replenished" at no cost.

The same outcome happens when someone uses Reaper, which will remain fully-functional and can do everything (of importance anyway) that Cubase can on an evaluation copy! Why do many people initially turn to Reaper? Because they can't afford Cubase or ProTools or something.

What difference actually exists between someone who can't afford Cubase using a cracked version of Cubase versus Reaper? What about Photoshop vs GIMP? The latter offers ostensibly the same product, for free.

Yet, as far as I can tell, Adobe Photoshop and Cubase are still profitable. So the idea the piracy of their products among those who do so simply because they can't afford them is hurting them financially is a highly questionable claim. There's also the issue that in most cases, if people want something, and they can afford it, they'll just buy it. I probably could've pirated most of the sample libraries I own, but I could afford them, so I didn't. Spitfire's 1000 dollar libraries are still purchased by hobbyists and professionals alike. And they'd rather pay John Williams millions to score Star Wars than take me up on my offer to do it for free.

How can you be "stealing" from Nintendo, by downloading a game they don't even sell anymore?

How are you hurting HBO's sales in Zimbabwe, if they aren't even selling GoT IN ZIMBABWE?

It is a bit of a paradox to argue that you are being robbed when you don't even have stock to begin with.


----------



## VladK

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> So stealing from Spitfire is OK because NI wants to sell you a host engine.



You make too far reaching conclusion from my explanation how incorrect your comparison was. It has nothing in common with piracy issues.


----------



## Polkasound

Matt Damon said:


> If someone pirates Cubase because they can't afford Cubase, Steinberg does not technically "lose money" because that person does not have the potential to even be a customer. Steinberg does not lose any product because the stolen item can be "replenished" at no cost.



I don't think it's quite that black & white. Digital goods can be infinitely replenished, but customers cannot. If someone wants Cubase but can't afford it, they should save up for it. If they get a cracked version for free and therefore never develop any incentive to pay for an authorized copy, then Steinberg will never make that sale.

This phenomenon does not affect supply, but it can affect demand, and reduced demand means reduced sales. If a developer takes a pirate to court and can quantify the number unauthorized software distributions for which the pirate is responsible, the developer will win damages based on that number. Each instance of copyright infringement will be regarded as a lost sale, *as it should be.*

Let's say you recorded an original song and released it online for 99 cents. A publishing company copied your song, sold it for 49 cents, and made a million dollars from it. If you sued the publishing company, would you prefer a judge who verifies your copyright and awards you two million dollars, or a judge who insists you prove you would have made those sales yourself?




Matt Damon said:


> How can you be "stealing" from Nintendo, by downloading a game they don't even sell anymore?



How do you know the download of the discontinued game didn't preclude the sale of a newer game? You can't. So why assume piracy on any level is harmless?


----------



## Matt Damon

Polkasound said:


> I don't think it's quite that black & white. Digital goods can be infinitely replenished, but customers cannot. If someone wants Cubase but can't afford it, they should save up for it. If they get a cracked version for free and therefore never develop any incentive to pay for an authorized copy, then Steinberg will never make that sale.
> 
> This phenomenon does not affect supply, but it can affect demand, and reduced demand means reduced sales. If a developer takes a pirate to court and can quantify the number unauthorized software distributions for which the pirate is responsible, the developer will win damages based on that number. Each instance of copyright infringement will be regarded as a lost sale, *as it should be.*
> 
> Let's say you recorded an original song and released it online for 99 cents. A publishing company copied your song, sold it for 49 cents, and made a million dollars from it. If you sued the publishing company, would you prefer a judge who verifies your copyright and awards you two million dollars, or a judge who insists you prove you would have made those sales yourself?



This does not answer the question.

Steinberg will (probably) never make that sale if someone goes with Reaper instead, either.

Are you then saying that someone _shouldn't_ get Reaper because if what they actually wanted was Cubase, but couldn't afford it so they just got Reaper (either on indefinite evaluation or $60 license) instead, that they equivalent to a thief? After all, they have "lost" that demand to Cockos now.

Because the logical conclusion of this idea is that anything less than a monopoly is thievery.


----------



## Polkasound

Matt Damon said:


> Are you then saying that someone _shouldn't_ get Reaper because if what they actually wanted was Cubase, but couldn't afford it so they just got Reaper (either on indefinite evaluation or $60 license) instead, that they equivalent to a thief? After all, they have "lost" that demand to Cockos now.



No. If they want Cubase but can't afford it, they're welcome to use Reaper until they can afford Cubase. If they like Reaper so much they decide not to buy Cubase, that's fine. It's called changing one's mind.

If they like their cracked version of Cubase so much they decide not to buy a legitimate copy of Cubase, that's _not_ fine, because they've decided what they want IS Cubase. If they don't pay for it, they are essentially stealing money from Steinberg.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

VladK said:


> You make too far reaching conclusion from my explanation how incorrect your comparison was. It has nothing in common with piracy issues.



Your explanation was pointless nitpicking that doesn't hold any water and doesn't add to the general point in any way, so my comparison was pretty much in line with those standards.


----------



## dcoscina

GNP said:


> I have to admit (bravely or not), if it wasn't for pirates and thieves, I wouldn't be as experienced with DAWs and libraries. I used pirated Cubase SX3 when I wasn't getting any jobs at all. But once the jobs came in, I was prepped enough. I then bought Cubase 4. I was still using illegal libraries, which I have bought 10 years later to make up for.
> 
> Say what you want, but the world is alot more complicated than we make it out to be.
> 
> So I'd say, get off your high horse, you Intel-Op operator, and either be as passionate as poor people, or fuck off.


When I interviewed David William Hearn recently, he related a story about when Cinematic Strings first debuted. He worked on that library with Alex W. and said that there were like 15,000 illegal downloads of the product, within the first month of its release. This experience led him to develop Staffpad with an integrated proprietary library to prevent piracy. Cause and effect. 

Now, if memory serves, that library retailed for $399, so David and Alex were out $6,000,000. If you think that these pirate sites are ok, or that endorsing this "sharing" concept out of some kind of sociopathic rational or messed-up millennial sense of entitlement is fine, then "you can go f**k off".


----------



## el-bo

dcoscina said:


> Now, if memory serves, that library retailed for $399, so *David and Alex were out $6,000,000*.



No they weren't. That's not how it works ;


----------



## dcoscina

el-bo said:


> No they weren't. That's not how it works ;


Fine keep pushing your rationale. David told me that it was incredibly deflating to see how much the library he worked on was being downloaded for free. Or are you also going to invalidate this as well?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Matt Damon said:


> If someone pirates Cubase because they can't afford Cubase, Steinberg does not technically "lose money" because that person does not have the potential to even be a customer. Steinberg does not lose any product because the stolen item can be "replenished" at no cost.



Your defence for piracy is weak (and pathetic). Of course Steinberg would lose a sale! Plus, they would have obtained an illegal copy, which in itself is criminal. Spin it however you like.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

el-bo said:


> No they weren't. That's not how it works ;



please enlighten us how this works.


----------



## Paul SAS

As a smaller developer with really moderate prices I always thought people would rather buy than steal it. My thinking was that giving the community something back by choosing generous prices so everybody could afford it would be worshipped and would help me build something up but in fact this was not the case. Only a few weeks after release I already found most of my products on various sites for download. I even encountered the case where someone sold MY product, which I worked hard for...

I can somehow(partly) understand why you'd want to pirate a library in a higher price range and to say you will buy it once you can or for demoing, but for smaller devs like me this is making it a pain and really bringing us down or forcing us to raise the prices to compensate the loss. I mean it is the burden of the whole community then and that's really the point I hate the most about it. But I won't complain too much.

I just want to thank anyone who supports me and any developer out there by buying our products from us, you're awesome!

❤


----------



## Marko Zirkovich

Wolfie2112 said:


> please enlighten us how this works.


Let me guess, he'll probably write something like those people never would have bought it in the first place, so it doesn't count as a lost sale. It's just digital, so it's easy to make a copy and copying doesn't cost anything. Developers are capitalistic pigs who just want to screw people.

Anybody else want to complete the piracy bullshit bingo?


----------



## el-bo

dcoscina said:


> Fine keep pushing your rationale. David told me that it was incredibly deflating to see how much the library he worked on was being downloaded for free. Or are you also going to invalidate this as well?



It's my first post in this thread, and all I did was try to hint that it's not possible to make a direct correlation between potential (and it is only potential) loss of sales, and copies illegally downloaded. You want to accuse me of having a rationale, with zero evidence, have at it.

And I can understand a developer feeling deflated, in the face of such statistics. But that feeling is predicated on a false understanding i.e that the majority of those 15,000 were never going to buy his library, anyway.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich

Paul SAS said:


> As a smaller developer with really moderate prices I always thought people would rather buy than steal it. My thinking was that giving the community something back by choosing generous prices so everybody could afford it would be worshipped and would help me build something up but in fact this was not the case. Only a few weeks after release I already found most of my products on various sites for download. I even encountered the case where someone sold MY product, which I worked hard for...
> 
> I can somehow(partly) understand why you'd want to pirate a library in a higher price range and to say you will buy it once you can or for demoing, but for smaller devs like me this is making it a pain and really bringing us down or forcing us to raise the prices to compensate the loss. I mean it is the burden of the whole community then and that's really the point I hate the most about it. But I won't complain too much.
> 
> I just want to thank anyone who supports me and any developer out there by buying our products from us, you're awesome!
> 
> ❤


I just recently discovered your libraries and want to thank you for your very generous gesture of making Fragments a pay-what-you-want library. I did donate and am looking forward to digging into the extremely atmospheric sounds this upcoming weekend. I have a project coming up where I think the sounds will be a perfect fit. So thanks again for the awesome library.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich

el-bo said:


> And I can understand a developer feeling deflated, in the face of such statistics. But that feeling is predicated on a false understanding i.e that the majority of those 15,000 were never going to buy his library, anyway.


But they are using the products the developers worked their asses off without paying for them.


----------



## el-bo

Wolfie2112 said:


> please enlighten us how this works.



Ok!

Do you buy the software you use?


----------



## el-bo

Marko Zirkovich said:


> But they are using the products the developers worked their asses off without paying for them.



Of course, that's true. But it's not what I was initially responding to.


----------



## dcoscina

el-bo said:


> Ok!
> 
> Do you buy the software you use?


Every single product. 

Except in cases where I've gotten an NFR copy FROM the developer themselves to review for a magazine I write for. But had I not received them that way, I would have purchased as I have with every library and every piece of software I've ever used.


----------



## dcoscina

el-bo said:


> And I can understand a developer feeling deflated, in the face of such statistics. But that feeling is predicated on a false understanding i.e that the majority of those 15,000 were never going to buy his library, anyway.



That is the most inane and logically absurd rationalization I've ever read.... 

If they aren't going to buy it, then they shouldn't have access to it. Plain and simple..


----------



## tomosane

I'm too lazy to look up when Cinematic Strings was originally released, but if it was any time after 2003 or so, the developers must have been *insanely* naive if they genuinely expected it wouldn't go up on torrent sites, or didn't somehow apply the expectation of piracy in the library's pricing scheme



Wolfie2112 said:


> obtained an illegal copy, which in itself is criminal



Any court cases about this? Specifically in the context of computer software, that is.


----------



## el-bo

Paul SAS said:


> As a smaller developer with really moderate prices I always thought people would rather buy than steal it. My thinking was that giving the community something back by choosing generous prices so everybody could afford it would be worshipped and would help me build something up but in fact this was not the case. Only a few weeks after release I already found most of my products on various sites for download. I even encountered the case where someone sold MY product, which I worked hard for...
> 
> I can somehow(partly) understand why you'd want to pirate a library in a higher price range and to say you will buy it once you can or for demoing, but for smaller devs like me this is making it a pain and really bringing us down or forcing us to raise the prices to compensate the loss. I mean it is the burden of the whole community then and that's really the point I hate the most about it. But I won't complain too much.
> 
> I just want to thank anyone who supports me and any developer out there by buying our products from us, you're awesome!
> 
> ❤



Pricing products at affordable levels is a great start. But it still depends on a potential customer's available purchasing power, as to whether they're going to be able to bite. 

Your approach with your current library, to my mind, is ideal.

Here's a great example of a software-development team (Ex-Izotope) who seem to have an incredibly astute awareness of how piracy does (and doesn't) work:






FREAKSHOW INDUSTRIES | Steal this plugin


Steal Freakshow plugins directly from the source. Not even cracked. Totally legit.




freakshowindustries.com










FREAKSHOW INDUSTRIES | Audio effects for the end times


Creators of subversive and ridiculous audio production effects for sound designers and experimental music producers.




freakshowindustries.com


----------



## el-bo

dcoscina said:


> That is the most inane and logically absurd rationalization I've ever read....
> 
> If they aren't going to buy it, then they shouldn't have access to it. Plain and simple..



It is the truth i.e that most of the people who illegally downloaded the software would not have bought it, otherwise. 

Not rationalising anything; nor am I arguing the shoulds and should-nots, of it all. I'm just explaining that your original contention that the developer was $6,000,000, out of potential sales, was incorrect


----------



## Polkasound

el-bo said:


> No they weren't. That's not how it works ;



A developer designs, develops, copyrights, and markets a product for which they set the price at $399. If someone knowingly downloads an unauthorized copy and uses it, or redistributes an unauthorized copy, do they in any way owe the developer $399?

If no, please explain why.

If yes, please explain why the people using the unauthorized copies are not essentially thieves if they refuse to pay the $399.




el-bo said:


> It is the truth i.e that most of the people who illegally downloaded the software would not have bought it, otherwise.



There's no way to know the actual amount of money a developer loses due to pirating, because it's all speculative. So from my perspective, the calculated loss should be based on what they are owed as copyright holders. Every instance of thievery denies the developer of what they are owed, and the money they are owed is what they would use to grow their business by expanding their product line or hiring more employees to improve customer service. Whether the amount is $6,000,000 or $60, piracy hurts.


----------



## d.healey

Polkasound said:


> There's no way to know the actual amount of money a developer loses due to pirating,


Or the amount they gain...


----------



## el-bo

dcoscina said:


> Every single product.
> 
> Except in cases where I've gotten an NFR copy FROM the developer themselves to review for a magazine I write for. But had I not received them that way, I would have purchased as I have with every library and every piece of software I've ever used.



Exactly! So, in spite of the availability of a free version of the product, you still paid. 

That's what the majority of us do. Those who download are either anarchists, collector-but-not-users, or those that cant afford to buy the software. Any developer would be wise to not see those as part of their potential market, and adjust their sales predictions (and conclusions), accordingly.

Of course, there is the argument to be made that many freeloaders eventually become loyal paying customers. Software forums are full of people who at one point used pirated software, and then went 'legit'. There's a lot to be said for allowing people to have, erm...'extended demos' of your software, that one day, when their full of cash (and your pirated software is in all their templates), it's you they will be investing with 

Another question: Have you ever had a tape that was recorded from somebody else's original copy? Ever watched a pirated DVD? Ever taped music off of the radio (Age-dependent question, there). Did you ever try to woo a potential partner with a compilation tape/cd?


----------



## d.healey

el-bo said:


> Any developer would be wise to not see those as part of their potential market, and adjust their sales predictions (and conclusions), accordingly.


That's always been my approach. Someone who acquires an unauthorized copy is not my customer. I'm only interested in selling to my customers so I don't worry about people who have no interest in buying from me.

All of you here buy software that you could easily aquire gratis. Why do you do it? Because you feel it's the right thing to do and you want to support developers. You're my kind of customer! If you don't feel that way then I'm not interested in selling to you.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

el-bo said:


> Ok!
> 
> Do you buy the software you use?



Of course I do, and developers deserve every dollar I’ve given them in my 20+ years as a composer.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

el-bo said:


> Another question: Have you ever had a tape that was recorded from somebody else's original copy? Ever watched a pirated DVD? Ever taped music off of the radio (Age-dependent question, there). Did you ever try to woo a potential partner with a compilation tape/cd?



If I recall correctly, it was all legal if there was no intent for resale or commercial use.


----------



## el-bo

Polkasound said:


> A developer designs, develops, copyrights, and markets a product for which they set the price at $399. If someone knowingly downloads an unauthorized copy and uses it, or redistributes an unauthorized copy, do they in any way owe the developer $399?
> 
> If no, please explain why.
> 
> If yes, please explain why the people using the unauthorized copies are not essentially thieves if they refuse to pay the $399.



You're really framing this in a very narrow context.

"Refuse to pay"?

There are a small, vocal minority of folk who do believe that all art, media etc. should be freely available, but that's not really what 'we' are referring to.

I personally think that everyone has a right to be compensated for their work. What I am discussing is how we cannot quantify as losses, copies of software being used by people who aren't able to be able to pay.



Polkasound said:


> There's no way to know the actual amount of money a developer loses due to pirating, because it's all speculative. So from my perspective, the calculated loss should be based on what they are owed as copyright holders. Every instance of thievery denies the developer of what they are owed, and the money they are owed is what they would use to grow their business by expanding their product line or hiring more employees to improve customer service. Whether the amount is $6,000,000 or $60, piracy hurts.



It still comes back to the same thing. If, as a developer, you are counting illegal downloads as lost/stolen/thieved money, you've missed the point. The spotty 14-year-old son of unemployed parents, running a warez'd 'Albion One' on a 6-year-old, hand-me-down laptop, is not somebody you should ever be counting as the bloodline from which you should expect to grow your business.

It's not lost money; rather, it's money that never really existed.


----------



## el-bo

Wolfie2112 said:


> Of course I do, and developers deserve every dollar I’ve given them in my 20+ years as a composer.



Exactly! And you aren't unique!

The existence of free copies doesn't dissuade those of us who pay, from doing so. This is why it's wrong for a developer to claim that piracy cost them $6,000,000 in potential sales.


----------



## el-bo

Wolfie2112 said:


> If I recall correctly, it was all legal if there was no intent for resale or commercial use.



Are you sure?  It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal to rip mp3's onto your own computer, for your own use, from cd's you'd bought.


----------



## el-bo

d.healey said:


> That's always been my approach. Someone who acquires an unauthorized copy is not my customer. I'm only interested in selling to my customers so I don't worry about people who have no interest in buying from me.
> 
> All of you here buy software that you could easily aquire gratis. Why do you do it? Because you feel it's the right thing to do and you want to support developers. You're my kind of customer! If you don't feel that way then I'm not interested in selling to you.



This is pretty much it. Although, I think you're missing a trick. You probably have a large untapped potential market in those that are using your work, illegally.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

el-bo said:


> Are you sure?  It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal to rip mp3's onto your own computer, for your own use, from cd's you'd bought.



for personal use it’s legal, as long as it’s from copies you already owned.









About Piracy - RIAA


Music theft—or piracy—is constantly evolving as technology changes. Many different actions qualify as piracy, from downloading unauthorized versions of copyrighted... Read More »




www.riaa.com


----------



## Polkasound

d.healey said:


> Or the amount they gain...



I didn't know pirates offered kickbacks. 

But seriously, since there's no way to determine how many legitimate sales piracy may have influenced, I still valuate each instance of piracy at the retail price. It obviously isn't the actual financial loss incurred since that's indeterminable, but it I feel it's a fair and lawful one.

If someone freely distributes a million copies of one of your songs without your permission, and the retail price you've set for the song is one dollar, are you going to sue for less than a million dollars? This is how I feel about sample libraries: since the actual financial loss is indeterminable and speculative, I base it on what is owed.




el-bo said:


> Have you ever had a tape that was recorded from somebody else's original copy? Ever watched a pirated DVD? Ever taped music off of the radio (Age-dependent question, there). Did you ever try to woo a potential partner with a compilation tape/cd?



It's fair to say we've all done things like this, especially when we were young. I certainly did. Was it wrong? Yes. Did it cut into a business's profits? At times, yes. The use of pirated materials can preclude legitimate sales.

In 2014, I released a polka album that went viral among music business professionals. It absolutely exploded, because there was nothing else quite like it before. Everyone from local polka musicians to Grammy winning Disney producers were calling me and lauding the album. It had a major influence on the industry.

It was also one of my worst-selling albums. Why? Piracy. Everybody and their grandmother ended up with a copy of that album, but I barely broke even. Everyone is begging me to do a follow-up, but I vowed it will never happen. A copy here and a copy there is anything but harmless, because when they add up, the copyright holder can really feel the sting.




el-bo said:


> It's not lost money; rather, it's money that never really existed.



Owed money is not non-existent money. If someone renting from you owes you $1,000 but they just lost their job and can't pay it, does that mean you are owed nothing because the money doesn't exist? It's the renter's obligation to come up with the money, just like it's that spotty 14-year old's obligation to come up with the money for using the product.




el-bo said:


> The existence of free copies doesn't dissuade those of us who pay, from doing so. This is why it's wrong for a developer to claim that piracy cost them $6,000,000 in potential sales.



I absolutely disagree. If the pirated versions were not available, there are plenty of people out there who would instantly albeit begrudgingly pony up for the legitimate versions. I personally know people in my line of work who fit this description. This is why I err on the side of the $6,000,000 valuation. It's not accurate, but it is fair.


----------



## el-bo

Marko Zirkovich said:


> Let me guess, he'll probably write something like those people never would have bought it in the first place, so it doesn't count as a lost sale.



Perhaps make the case for the opposite. 



Marko Zirkovich said:


> It's just digital, so it's easy to make a copy and copying doesn't cost anything.



Well, it is easy. And, like it or not, the developer also doesn't incur any further production cost for each warez copy that gets downloaded




Marko Zirkovich said:


> Developers are capitalistic pigs who just want to screw people.



If you need to start straw-manning people, and putting words in their mouths, perhaps it's time to concede you really don't have much in the way of a decent argument


----------



## Jaap

For me what it comes down to is the following

A person sees something and wants it and decides to take action to get it and it doesn't matter what it is, a physical product, software, a thing, person. It can be anything.

There are 2 ways of actions:

1: The person gets it with consent, he/she pays for it, asks for it and get consent for being able to take it
2: The person gets it without consent, he steals it, downloads it illegally, takes it without consent of the other.

The fact that a person sees something, wants it and undertakes action to get it defines it all. Not what the producer of the product does, not the site where it is offered on, not the situation a product is lying unprotected in a store or where ever etc.
The person deciding to undertake the action is the one making the judgement call whether he/she is going to get it with consent or without consent.

All these products, software, goods, things with some sort of "price tag" and which should be taken by consent don't fall into somebodies possession by accident. One has to undertake action to get it and the action to get defines it.

And you can spam all the bullshit in the whole world justifying what you do or what another does. If you decide to undertake the action to get it without consent (whether you agree with it or not) is what makes it right or wrong, legal or illegal.


----------



## Polkasound

Jaap said:


> If you decide to undertake the action to get it without consent (whether you agree with it or not) is what makes it right or wrong, legal or illegal.



I think most people feel this way. Even Matt Damon wasn't condoning piracy. The question isn't about it being right or wrong, but whether the effect it has on the developer is bad, good, or harmless.


----------



## d.healey

The lost sales per illegal copy argument is pointless. You can't prove it universally or even very significantly and the opposite of the argument is equally as unprovable. The most we can say with certainty is that illegal copies do lead to some sales not being made and illegal copies do lead to additional sales.

It's as bad as saying using a sample library is a lost sale to an orchestra/musician. It's not true, in many cases we work with orchestras/musicians because we've first worked with sample libraries. Sure if there were no sample libraries we wouldn't have a choice so many of us would never get to hear our music played. But we do have choice, as do people who download illegally, it doesn't mean they'd take the legitimate route if it was the only one.


----------



## Jaap

Polkasound said:


> I think most people feel this way. Even Matt Damon wasn't condoning piracy. The question isn't about it being right or wrong, but whether the effect it has on the developer is bad, good, or harmless.



That is also what I was trying to say. If somebody tries to get it because for whatever reason that person wants it and takes action to get it and the person chooses the way without consent, it is a loss for the developer.

The logic of he would not have paid for it in the first place does not hold up. It's about the fact that the person makes a decision that he wants it. And in the right world the only 2 actions should be:
1: he pays for it
2: he decides he doesn't want it (because it's not good, too expensive etc etc)
In these 2 scenarios there is both consent between the both parties involved

All the other actions (sharing, stealing etc) are not in consent with both parties.

Ps: @d.healey - David, really good to discuss about this btw and though I don't always agree with what you say, it's very good what you point out and very important that we also discuss this in a very broad perspective. The problem here is maybe too narrowed down, but in general I think for a better future (in my opinion of course) it would be great if we could really overhaul the whole economic and distribution setup as we have now and that fair sharing, a broader perspective on copyright, intellectual property is setup. I am also stuck in a narrow mindset a lot of times, but for me it is important to discuss (as anyone probably noticed by now) the fact about consent between 2 parties that should in my opinion, no matter what, always be the case.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich

el-bo said:


> If you need to start straw-manning people, and putting words in their mouths, perhaps it's time to concede you really don't have much in the way of a decent argument.



My apologies. It was not my intention to put words into your mouth.


----------



## el-bo

Polkasound said:


> It's fair to say we've all done things like this, especially when we were young. I certainly did.



I think t'd be fair to say we all have done it, which certainly puts a fresh spin on the virtue-signalling that's underpinning this thread :(

"Let he who never saw E.T on a grimy VHS copy, cas the first stone" ~ (Me! I said it)



Polkasound said:


> Was it wrong? Yes



Well, it was illegal.



Polkasound said:


> Did it cut into a business's profits? At times, yes.



I'm guessing that, like me and everybody else, you still bought media. You still bought albums, and ZX Speccy games. You just couldn't afford to buy them all. The one's you couldn't afford, you copied. There was no loss to the companies, because you didn't earn enough on your paper-round to buy it all



Polkasound said:


> The use of pirated materials can preclude legitimate sales.



EXACTLY! You might have pirated all your mates' Bauhaus albums, in exchange for your Joy Division collection. But when CD's became a thing, perhaps you ended up buying a couple of those Bauhaus albums, that you could not do without.

My first encounter with piracy was also one of my earliest and most profound musical memories. My thievin' effin' parents had a pirated copy of Tubular Bells on cassette, which i had on loop for weeks. In the over-40 years, since then, I've bought three copies, and am probably in line for buying it in another format, soon.



Polkasound said:


> In 2014, I released a polka album that went viral among music business professionals. It absolutely exploded, because there was nothing else quite like it before. Everyone from local polka musicians to Grammy winning Disney producers were calling me and lauding the album. It had a major influence on the industry.



Polkasound by name, and by nature  I like it. Sounds like you created quite a stir. Great job!



Polkasound said:


> It was also one of my worst-selling albums. Why? Piracy. Everybody and their grandmother ended up with a copy of that album, but I barely broke even. Everyone is begging me to do a follow-up, but I vowed it will never happen. A copy here and a copy there is anything but harmless, because when they add up, the copyright holder can really feel the sting.



I feel for you, definitely. It's a shame that you're unable to share more music, even for just the sake of sharing the music. maybe one day



Polkasound said:


> Owed money is not non-existent money.



I knew I should've addressed this in the earlier post. It's you who has termed this as 'Owing'. Nobody is owed anything, unless an agreement or contract has been made or signed.



Polkasound said:


> If someone renting from you owes you $1,000 but they just lost their job and can't pay it, does that mean you are owed nothing because the money doesn't exist? It's the renter's obligation to come up with the money, just like it's that spotty 14-year old's obligation to come up with the money for using the product.



This is not the same thing. Rentals are covered by contracts, which are covered by law.

So, yes, the renter is obliged to come up with the money. The teen is not.



Polkasound said:


> If the pirated versions were not available, there are plenty of people out there who would instantly albeit begrudgingly pony up for the legitimate versions. I personally know people in my line of work who fit this description. This is why I err on the side of the $6,000,000 valuation. It's not accurate, but it is fair.



This is definitely a different part of the reality, I guess. however, I'd be more inclined to write these people off as non-customers, were i looking to ascertain what my real potential sales were for any particular product.


----------



## Polkasound

d.healey said:


> The most we can say with certainty is that illegal copies do lead to some sales not being made and illegal copies do lead to additional sales.



I agree with that 100%.



d.healey said:


> It's as bad as saying using a sample library is a lost sale to an orchestra/musician.



No. A purchase of a competing product is not a lost sale. An unauthorized, unpaid acquisition of a product is. If you choose to work with Pro Tools, Steinberg hasn't lost as sale to you. But if you choose to work with Cubase and use a cracked, free version, then Steinberg has lost a sale, because you're not paying them the $580 you owe.



d.healey said:


> But we do have choice, as do people who download illegally, it doesn't mean they'd take the legitimate route if it was the only one.



I know plenty of people who download pirated software just because they can. If it weren't available, they would pay for the product. But of course there's no way to quantify this number.


----------



## el-bo

Marko Zirkovich said:


> My apologies. It was not my intention to put words into your mouth.



Thank-you. It's appreciated.

These are important issues, that should to be discussed. But when people get fired up, things start burning down, and nobody benefits.


----------



## el-bo

Jaap said:


> For me what it comes down to is the following
> 
> A person sees something and wants it and decides to take action to get it and it doesn't matter what it is, a physical product, software, a thing, person. It can be anything.



Of course it matters what it is i.e there are qualitative differences between the examples you've given.


----------



## Matt Damon

d.healey said:


> The lost sales per illegal copy argument is pointless. You can't prove it universally or even very significantly and the opposite of the argument is equally as unprovable. The most we can say with certainty is that illegal copies do lead to some sales not being made and illegal copies do lead to additional sales.
> 
> It's as bad as saying using a sample library is a lost sale to an orchestra/musician. It's not true, in many cases we work with orchestras/musicians because we've first worked with sample libraries. Sure if there were no sample libraries we wouldn't have a choice so many of us would never get to hear our music played. But we do have choice, as do people who download illegally, it doesn't mean they'd take the legitimate route if it was the only one.



Well, for me personally, the other aspect of this is that if it were me, I couldn't really care about a lot of pirates, internationally.

It's like, going back to the GoT thing and its once-limited availability. If I had a sample library, or TV show or something, that in the USA and Europe proved to make enough sales that I can feed my family and my business keeps going, the fact that a sizable amount of people in South Korea are pirating my thing, and perhaps I'm missing out on money there, wouldn't really bother me because I don't even care about South Korea.


----------



## Polkasound

el-bo said:


> EXACTLY! You might have pirated all your mates' Bauhaus albums, in exchange for your Joy Division collection. But when CD's became a thing, perhaps you ended up buying a couple of those Bauhaus albums, that you could not do without.



Preclude means to prevent. Had I not seen and purchased that pirated Wilson Phillips cassette in 1990 at an outdoor market, I would have bought another copy somewhere else, and odds are it would have been a legitimate copy.




el-bo said:


> There was no loss to the companies, because you didn't earn enough on your paper-round to buy it all



The record company Wilson Phillips was signed with did lose my sale of that cassette to the pirate. In that case and in others, I did not know it was pirated. I didn't even know music could be pirated. But at that age, I unfortunately wouldn't have cared either way.




el-bo said:


> It's you who has termed this as 'Owing'. Nobody is owed anything, unless an agreement or contract has been made or signed.
> This is not the same thing. Rentals are covered by contracts, which are covered by law.
> So, yes, the renter is obliged to come up with the money. The teen is not.



I was hoping the principle of my statement would be the point that came across. Contracts and legalities aside, if you receive goods stolen from a retailer, you owe the retailer the retail cost of those goods. If you don't pay it, they have lost the sale of those goods to you.

And it makes no difference if they can replenish the goods at no cost like software developers can. By not paying for what you took, you are stealing the monetary equivalent of the retail cost of those goods from that retailer.

It doesn't matter if the person using pirated software is a broke 14-year-old kid or a corporate executive. The value of the product remains the same.


----------



## el-bo

Polkasound said:


> *Preclude means to prevent*. Had I not seen and purchased that pirated Wilson Phillips cassette in 1990 at an outdoor market, I would have bought another copy somewhere else, and odds are it would have been a legitimate copy.



Yeah! I knew that  Haha! My argument was still applicable, and true.

So, are you suggesting that the only pirated goods you had were accidentally bought



Polkasound said:


> The record company Wilson Phillips was signed with did lose my sale of that cassette to the pirate. In that case and in others, I did not know it was pirated. I didn't even know music could be pirated. But at that age, I unfortunately wouldn't have cared either way.



So, apart from one album, everything else you listened to, you'd bought?



Polkasound said:


> It doesn't matter if the person using pirated software is a broke 14-year-old kid or a corporate executive. The value of the product remains the same.



You're right. It doesn't matter which of them is not paying for your product, it still has the same value


----------



## Polkasound

el-bo said:


> So, are you suggesting that the only pirated goods you had were accidentally bought
> So, apart from one album, everything else you listened to, you'd bought?



Well, I have to admit, I'm not exactly sure where our conversation is headed, LOL. I've freely admitted to doing wrong stuff when I was young. I did what a lot of other young people do (i.e. made copies of copyrighted commercial music, used some warez given to me by a friend, etc) and didn't think anything of it. Half the car stereos I had as a teenager were stolen. My first tennis racquet was stolen. I can say with certainly that I could have purchased those products but didn't. I used them because they were free and easy, not because I couldn't have saved up to buy them. But here's the thing: I cannot think of a single instance where one of the products I illegally possessed directly influenced a later, legit sale of it. I wasn't broke. I was just a cheap schmuck who had a lot of growing up to do.

It wasn't until I started writing music and producing albums that I began to feel how important it is to respect the intellectual property of others, because now I had intellectual property of my own to protect. Over the years since, I've discovered that living a lawful, respectful, righteous life is the most freeing, uninhibited, and rewarding way to live. I'm not perfect by any means, but I pay my licenses, taxes, etc. Whereas I used to look for ways to get stuff free, I now look for ways to give back.

--

As a general note, I want to say that I appreciate all the differing opinions on this subject. Since there's no way to quantify the effect of piracy for every copyright holder, some people look at legalities, others look at specific numbers, some people see positives, others negatives, etc. I understand the arguments for why some people may think piracy is mostly harmless or even beneficial. But, as someone who has both engaged in copyright infringement and later been directly affected it, I valuate the loss of piracy at the fullest practicable extent allowed by law.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

el-bo said:


> My thievin' effin' parents had a pirated copy of Tubular Bells on cassette, which i had on loop for weeks. In the over-40 years, since then, I've bought three copies, and am probably in line for buying it in another format, soon.



Believe it or not, I bought it recently! I had it on cassette from when I was a kid, loved it for some reason.


----------



## El Buhdai

I think piracy only has a place under very specific circumstances. Now before you get mad, hear me out.

1. Sample library developers provide absolutely no way to try their product before purchase, and no demos/trials. That is almost entirely unique to sample libraries. PC software? Free trials. PC games? Most stores offer a refund period. Homes? You can tour them and see if something's wrong or if the interior has an ugly flower wallpaper. Cars? Drive them a while and then return them to the lot. You get the point. Not the case for sample libraries.

2. Sample library developers also do not provide "rent-to-own" pathways for people who don't make much money, and EastWest (who I'll always be grateful for) are basically the only ones lowering the barrier to entry with a subscription service. The best we get from most developers is a student discount, and that's if we're lucky. I'll always be grateful to developers who offer that. I'm aware that there are limitations in Kontakt's library system that prevent #1 and #2 from being implemented, as well as the fact that there's no way to know if someone uses your samples for commercial gain during a "demo" period. With that said, this is still the reality.

3. I'm fairly certain almost everyone in this industry with the "no piracy ever" view is middle class or upper class, or has at least been in it long enough to not realize just how high the barrier to entry is for this. How do I know this? Because when ComposerCloud and BBC Discovery came out, people were _complaining about it_, not realizing how great those products are for people who are brand new or don't make enough money to spend hundreds of dollars on software. If it weren't for ComposerCloud, I would have quit a long time ago.

"Ah, you just admitted there are pathways for new composers who don't have much money! No excuses!", you exclaim. Well, basically all of EW's libraries are incredibly hardware intensive and when a 17-year old me paid $1300 for his first VI-Composing machine, it was still only barely able to keep up even though it had a 7700K and 16 GB of RAM. That's mid-tier for this, maybe even low-end. And BBCSO Discovery is great for what it is, but how far can it really take a serious composer? You'll eventually outgrow the library and be staring down the barrel of a $400 Kontakt purchase, plus $200 - $500+ for each section of your orchestra if you hope to compete with professionals. And that's only the software side of things. That doesn't take speakers/monitors, headphones, microphones, audio interfaces, keyboards, and MIDI controllers into account. I still don't have some of these things because I haven't finished buying a full orchestra.

So what does this have to do with anything? Well, I'll never tell anyone that piracy is right, but we should all realize that for VI-Composing to remain accessible, it's a _necessary reality._ I've downloaded libraries before, but only to try them to see if they were for me. I loved the sound of some of the more expensive libraries out there, but I'm a college student and can't afford to spend over half a grand on something I'm not 1000% sure I'll love. What did I do when I tested those libraries? I either loved them and vowed to purchase them when I got the money (just bought Genesis a month or so ago cause I tried it and loved it!), or I didn't like them and I deleted them. _I've never released music that uses pirated software, nor have I made a penny from any of the libraries I didn't pay for._ I'm sure 99% of people who pirate libraries don't have a personal rule like this, but I do.

While I'm not completely new anymore, I've slowly been trying to purchase my own orchestra as I get the money. It's likely going to take me two years to fully escape my ComposerCloud subscription. If you can't understand why someone would subscribe to a service like that in the first place, you probably don't understand why some people need to "try before they buy", and I'm actually happy for you.

P.S.: No respect for people who have the money and are just cheap, and no respect for people who eventually get the money but dishonestly profit from stolen tools. I just wanted to inject some nuance into the "piracy bad always" idea. Life is too complicated for absolutes.


----------



## Polkasound

El Buhdai said:


> Well, I'll never tell anyone that piracy is right, but we should all realize that for VI-Composing to remain accessible, it's a _necessary reality._



I respect your opinion, but this is what I'm hearing. "I really want a Lamborghini, but since all I can afford is a used Toyota, I'll have to steal the Lamborghini."

When I started in the recording business around 1989-1990, I really wanted things like a Tascam 16-track reel-to-reel and a 24-channel board, but they were simply out of my price range. So I saved up for a 4-track reel-to-reel and an 8-channel board. A year later I used my earnings to upgrade to an 8-channel reel-to-reel. A few years later I upgraded to a 24-channel board. And so on and so forth. I spent the next 30 years upgrading, and I'm still doing it. So anyone who uses "I can't afford the stuff I want" as an excuse for piracy gets no sympathy from me.

VI Composing requires equipment and software, but it doesn't require the best or most expensive of either. There are good, free and low-cost libraries and programs out there. The desire to live beyond one's means is no more an excuse for piracy as it is for thievery.


----------



## ThomasNL

I haven't read the whole thread but I'm seeing some people saying that when someone pirates software the company doesn't get stolen, and they don't loose the money that the library costed.

But if i recall correctly I remember a tweet by Daniel James showing that as soon as Project Chaos got pirated their sales dropped immensely. This means there are DEFINITELY people out there that would/can buy stuff but only if there is no pirated version and that sample library devs always loose in this scenario. 

Literally the only reason i would think i would find reasonable is when it is a discontinued product.


----------



## el-bo

Polkasound said:


> Well, I have to admit, I'm not exactly sure where our conversation is headed, LOL. I've freely admitted to doing wrong stuff when I was young. I did what a lot of other young people do (i.e. made copies of copyrighted commercial music, used some warez given to me by a friend, etc) and didn't think anything of it. Half the car stereos I had as a teenager were stolen. My first tennis racquet was stolen. I can say with certainly that I could have purchased those products but didn't. I used them because they were free and easy, not because I couldn't have saved up to buy them. But here's the thing: I cannot think of a single instance where one of the products I illegally possessed directly influenced a later, legit sale of it. I wasn't broke. I was just a cheap schmuck who had a lot of growing up to do.



Oh, to be young!

Perhaps your stronger stance against piracy is informed by how far you'd previously deviated from the straight 'n' narrow.

You only thing I want to address, again, is this idea that piracy can lead to future sales. It wasn't your experience, but it is the experience for so many of us.




Polkasound said:


> It wasn't until I started writing music and producing albums that I began to feel how important it is to respect the intellectual property of others, because now I had intellectual property of my own to protect. Over the years since, I've discovered that living a lawful, respectful, righteous life is the most freeing, uninhibited, and rewarding way to live. I'm not perfect by any means, but I pay my licenses, taxes, etc. Whereas I used to look for ways to get stuff free, I now look for ways to give back.



This is also quite a well-trodden path.

What i would say is that I think it's important for us, as creators (Be it musician, software developer etc.), in a post-Napster/LimeWire age, to look to embrace the current situation, as opposed to trying to fight it.



--



Polkasound said:


> As a general note, I want to say that I appreciate all the differing opinions on this subject. Since there's no way to quantify the effect of piracy for every copyright holder, some people look at legalities, others look at specific numbers, some people see positives, others negatives, etc. *I understand the arguments for why some people may think piracy is mostly harmless or even beneficial*. But, as someone who has both engaged in copyright infringement and later been directly affected it, I valuate the loss of piracy at the fullest practicable extent allowed by law.



Harmless, harmful or even beneficial?

It just *IS*

We need to work out strategies to deal with it, in a way that allows us to maintain some kind of autonomy, and that incentivise honest dealing.


----------



## el-bo

ThomasNL said:


> But if i recall correctly I remember a tweet by Daniel James showing that as soon as Project Chaos got pirated their sales dropped immensely. This means there are DEFINITELY people out there that would/can buy stuff but only if there is no pirated version and that sample library devs always loose in this scenario.



It might seem that way, but how would he be able to tell?


----------



## tomosane

ThomasNL said:


> But if i recall correctly I remember a tweet by Daniel James showing that as soon as Project Chaos got pirated their sales dropped immensely. This means there are DEFINITELY people out there that would/can buy stuff but only if there is no pirated version and that sample library devs always loose in this scenario.



There definitely are some people like this, but I imagine part of this is also that most people who are going to pay for a library, especially a fairly "minor" one, will buy it very soon after release. This is a very niche market and most libraries probably don't really sell outside of launch and sales. This is also why Spitfire is pumping out new libraries on a monthly basis


----------



## MartinH.

el-bo said:


> It might seem that way, but how would he be able to tell?



Depending on the timeline and sales graph it could be quite obvious or it could be a correlation with natural patterns on sales graphs. I googled and found his tweet but didn't see any graphs. Not sure if he posted them later in a tweet that I didn't see. 

I do think the positive effects of piracy on sales are very delayed, so he'd not be seeing them any time soon. Might be different if he'd use a DRM mechanic like u-he, but I don't think that's possible with Kontakt libraries. U-he seems to have managed to find the holy grail of DRM where he manages to actively convert pirates into paying customers in a way that noticably shows up on his sales graph. He did post pictures in a thread on another forum. Can't remember where it was.


----------



## el-bo

Wolfie2112 said:


> Believe it or not, I bought it recently! I had it on cassette from when I was a kid, loved it for some reason.



It's a bit rough 'round the edges. But there's a lot of different progressions and moods, a ton of really strong melodic content, and a nice mix of time-signatures, without it ever getting a too 'Look at me!'-prog.

What's not to love?


----------



## el-bo

MartinH. said:


> Depending on the timeline and sales graph it could be quite obvious or it could be a correlation with natural patterns on sales graphs. I googled and found his tweet but didn't see any graphs. Not sure if he posted them later in a tweet that I didn't see.



But how would he be able to tell that a drop off in sales wasn't 'on-the-cards', anyway, and it not just being coincidental? Moreover, how would we tell how many of those who downloaded it were just doing so for demo purposes (Because they'd lost out to shiny-new-library gas, too many times before), and who then went on to buy, when they decided they liked it.

So many factors make it hard to tell. And that's why I suggested to d.healey that instead of just writing off those who illegally download, he actively try to engage the would-be freeloaders, as a means of maintaining control, and having access to these otherwise-elusive market figures.

The Freakshow Industries' 'steal it, but let us know' model is (imo) the perfect pre-emptive response to an inevitable situation. Giving/gifting (They also allow the would-be customer to pay less money). allows them to maintain control, as opposed to being stolen from, where there is just anonymity and a feeling of loss and negativity. If thousands are going to steal 'your' products, anyway, better to have them on an email list, so that when they do have a spare but of cash, they'll perhaps be more inclined to spend it with 'you'.



MartinH. said:


> I do think the positive effects of piracy on sales are very delayed, so he'd not be seeing them any time soon. Might be different if he'd use a DRM mechanic like u-he, but I don't think that's possible with Kontakt libraries. U-he seems to have managed to find the holy grail of DRM where he manages to actively convert pirates into paying customers in a way that noticeably shows up on his sales graph. He did post pictures in a thread on another forum. Can't remember where it was.



Urs is definitely among a few very forward-thinking developers. And his whole time-bombed system is a clever little bit of tug-o-war, that does seemingly end up working in his favour. That he is so open to helping other developers use the same system, is another positive.


----------



## Polkasound

el-bo said:


> Moreover, how would we tell how many of those who downloaded it were just doing so for demo purposes (Because they'd lost out to shiny-new-library gas, too many times before), and who then went on to buy, when they decided they liked it.



I personally believe this is the case maybe .01% of the time. Warez flourishes simply because people want stuff for free. If cars could be cracked, duplicated, freely distributed, and driven with virtually 0% chance of getting caught, you'd find Lamborghinis or Rolls Royces in just about every garage in the world.

"But your honor, I was just test-driving the Rolls! I was planning on buying it later after I saved up some money from my dish washing job!"




el-bo said:


> What i would say is that I think it's important for us, as creators (Be it musician, software developer etc.), in a post-Napster/LimeWire age, to look to embrace the current situation, as opposed to trying to fight it.



I can respect that. Nothing short of making digital goods free will ever slow/stop piracy, just like nothing short of making physical products free will ever slow/stop theft. I commend any developer that finds a way to increase their profits while making their products free to download and distribute. I don't, however, feel any developer has an obligation to lower their profits for the sake of conceding to piracy.

But let's say Company ABC came along and produced a program as good as Cubase and somehow made it free. The competition would likely force Steinberg to change, and perhaps adopt Company ABC's model. And then other competing companies would follow suit. And then over time, a new reality regarding the value and propagation of digital goods would take hold, and piracy would be ablated. But until that happens, I will continue to stand against piracy and reinforce that it is not acceptable under _any_ circumstances.

And on that note, I feel I'm overextending my participation in this thread since my opinions aren't really adding any new dialogue, so I will be backing out. I'll remain open to PMs though.

This has been a good and much needed discussion!


----------



## Jaap

Polkasound said:


> This has been a good and much needed discussion!



I fully agree! Though I disagree with most what is said  , it's very good and important that we all express our views in this and so far it is nice that is done with respect and though it can get heated a bit, there is nothing wrong with that and I hope we will continue like this


----------



## d.healey

Polkasound said:


> If cars could be cracked, duplicated, freely distributed... you'd find Lamborghinis or Rolls Royces in just about every garage in the world.


If it was possible to duplicate and distribute cars at no cost then I would riot if I wasn't given a Rolls, and hopefully a cloned chauffeur.


----------



## Mike Greene

The car in my avatar is a '58 Corvette that I spent 14 years restoring. It was a very expensive and difficult project, but I'm really proud of it. (Pix here.) If friends want to drive it, I'll usually say yes, but that decision is mine. The car is my baby and I can't imagine anyone ever questioning that I, and only I, should decide who drives it.

If strangers sneak into my garage at night and drive it while I'm sleeping, then return it without damaging it, then I guess some might argue that I haven't been harmed.

People who aren't actually in my shoes (as car owner or developer) love making arguments like that. _"They were sales you probably wouldn't have gotten anyway, so what's the big deal?"_ But that doesn't make it right. In fact, it would piss me off. A lot.

Developing sample libraries is a lot like that. I work really hard on the stuff we create. Really, really hard. So it kills me to think there are people using my work who shouldn't be. It's not so much a money thing to me as it's a personal violation thing.

Not just a violation against me, by the way, but people have Cheryl's and Julie's and Patty's voices on their computers, with no royalty or respect paid to them. I feel an obligation to keep their voices special and not something that anyone can get for free.

There's also the matter of my customers. They paid me and played by the rules. For that, they deserve to have what other people don't. And they deserve to not feel like chumps. (_"Dude, you paid for it??? You could have gotten it free! What a dummy!")_ I want my customers to be special and be one of the _few_ people who participate in using my work.

Most sample developers think this same way. I can tell you _for sure_ that for most of us, this is less about the money and more of a personal thing. The debates often center around money, because that's easier to quantify, but we're not game developers or profit-first businesses. We're people who have a passion for what we do and generally develop based on that passion. Every library I've made is like my baby.

So (and this is the point of this post) I'm not going to embrace strategies that talk about _"using piracy to my advantage."_ Sorry. Start your own company and then you can tell me all about how it worked out for you. Until then, I'm not interested. Especially since those brilliant strategies are invariably coupled with arguments that piracy isn't such a bad thing.

I'll add that I pay to belong to a couple paid "Private Membership" sites (under an alias, of course, so I can monitor things), both of which tout the _"Try before you buy"_ justification for their existence. Someone once posed the question, _"Do you ever buy the libraries after you 'try' them?"_ There were dozens of responses. All no.


----------



## El Buhdai

Polkasound said:


> I respect your opinion, but this is what I'm hearing. "I really want a Lamborghini, but since all I can afford is a used Toyota, I'll have to steal the Lamborghini."
> 
> When I started in the recording business around 1989-1990, I really wanted things like a Tascam 16-track reel-to-reel and a 24-channel board, but they were simply out of my price range. So I saved up for a 4-track reel-to-reel and an 8-channel board. A year later I used my earnings to upgrade to an 8-channel reel-to-reel. A few years later I upgraded to a 24-channel board. And so on and so forth. I spent the next 30 years upgrading, and I'm still doing it. So anyone who uses "I can't afford the stuff I want" as an excuse for piracy gets no sympathy from me.
> 
> VI Composing requires equipment and software, but it doesn't require the best or most expensive of either. There are good, free and low-cost libraries and programs out there. The desire to live beyond one's means is no more an excuse for piracy as it is for thievery.



It's actually more like "I want this Lamborghini, but it's expensive, so I'll go to the lot and ask to drive one and save for it to buy it if I think it's worth it". I don't get the benefit of owning the Lamborghini, just driving it for a few minutes. Because again, I only test the libraries. I don't use them in my music at all unless I've purchased them. My rule at first was not to _release_ music with those libraries and to purchase them before a song that uses them goes out, but I realized quickly that it would probably be a slippery slope.

So I vowed not to even place those libraries in any of my projects unless I bought them. Just download, explore the sound and user interface, make a decision, and if I like it I buy it when I get the money, and if I don't, I just delete it.

Your examples actually further my point. Many car lots (granted, maybe not Lamborghini lots haha) let you drive cars to see if they're for you, and that hardware you were talking about? You can walk into a Guitar Center right now and test out so many of their products to see if you like them. Not to mention, Guitar Center offers a 45-day refund period for hardware if the customer is unsatisfied.

Not the case with sample libraries. Again, there are good reasons why, but as a college student, I have just enough money to spare for only some of the libraries I want. And that's maybe once every few months. I'm one of the lucky few college students privileged enough to be able to afford this stuff at all, as most (read: all) of my friends are swimming in debt. Even still, I don't have the luxury of buying libraries only to dislike them like many of you do.

I think piracy wouldn't be as bad if people only demoed libraries since most developers can't offer that option, but sadly people download them, get paid from the music made with them, and distribute them for free, or even charge money for them on Ebay which is outrageous! We're at least on the same page about those actions being inexcusable. While what I do is legally piracy, the intent is completely different, as I buy the libraries I like. My collection is frankly pitiful compared to basically everyone here, but _it's slowly becoming a collection_. Genesis, Infinite Brass, Infinite Woodwinds, Cinematic Studio Strings, various smaller libraries from Performance Samples, and so on. I've been keeping an active list of the libraries I enjoy and plan on buying as I get the money. I'm more than happy to support developers (especially smaller ones because I'm going into development myself), but I can't afford to do so blindly.

With that said, thanks for a civil discussion.


----------



## purple

d.healey said:


> If it was possible to duplicate and distribute cars at no cost then I would riot if I wasn't given a Rolls, and hopefully a cloned chauffeur.


----------



## el-bo

Mike Greene said:


> The car in my avatar is a '58 Corvette that I spent 14 years restoring. It was a very expensive and difficult project, but I'm really proud of it. (Pix here.) If friends want to drive it, I'll usually say yes, but that decision is mine. The car is my baby and I can't imagine anyone ever questioning that I, and only I, should decide who drives it.




Nice! Cars don't really do it for me, but I get that they do for others, and I can understand the dedication that might need to go into restoring them. And yes, it is up to you who drives it.




Mike Greene said:


> If strangers sneak into my garage at night and drive it while I'm sleeping, then return it without damaging it, then I guess some might argue that I haven't been harmed.



It might be returned without any physical signs of damaged, but there will always be wear and tear involved when in use, and even just via the passage of time.

I wouldn't claim that software in general is totally different in that regard, as every so often it needs a tune-up to ensure compatibility with 'current' OS' (And that involves further cost/investment). However, there is still an important distinction to be made between one-off, or even production line, physical goods, and multiple copies of data. How we all believe that distinction manifests itself in the context of sale, piracy etc. is evidently different from person-to-person, but the distinction is real.



Mike Greene said:


> People who aren't actually in my shoes (as car owner or developer) love making arguments like that. _"They were sales you probably wouldn't have gotten anyway, so what's the big deal?"_ But that doesn't make it right. In fact, it would piss me off. A lot.



Absolutely not making the claim that the situation is right, or that you shouldn't be pissed off. I'm just pointing out the reality that the situation _IS_ like that.


As for needing to be in your shoes? I'll come to that.



Mike Greene said:


> Developing sample libraries is a lot like that. I work really hard on the stuff we create. Really, really hard. So it kills me to think there are people using my work who shouldn't be. It's not so much a money thing to me as it's a personal violation thing.




Again! This is totally understandable. But this is not unique to sample-library development




Mike Greene said:


> Not just a violation against me, by the way, but people have Cheryl's and Julie's and Patty's voices on their computers, with no royalty or respect paid to them. I feel an obligation to keep their voices special and not something that anyone can get for free.




Of course!



Mike Greene said:


> There's also the matter of my customers. They paid me and played by the rules. For that, they deserve to have what other people don't. And they deserve to not feel like chumps. (_"Dude, you paid for it??? You could have gotten it free! What a dummy!")_ I want my customers to be special and be one of the _few_ people who participate in using my work.




Agreed!




Mike Greene said:


> Most sample developers think this same way. I can tell you _for sure_ that for most of us, this is less about the money and more of a personal thing. The debates often center around money, because that's easier to quantify, but we're not game developers or profit-first businesses. We're people who have a passion for what we do and generally develop based on that passion. Every library I've made is like my baby.




It's true that these debates centre around money. But I would guess it's due to it being more tangible, and measurable. That's not to deny there is a personal 'pride-in-our-work' element, but that's harder to quantify.

I do, however, think it's a mistake to distance yourself from game-developers, however. There's no reason to suggest that those who are involved in that industry are any less passionate about their work. Of course, the large front-end of some of the larger gaming companies are likely all about the bottom-line, but the actual development teams, coders, graphic artists, composers, musicians etc. that are involved in making the games are likely very passionate about their art. It's normally quite easy to tell from the results, when they might not be. And certainly, when it comes to small, independent game developers, I'd say the distinction between them and yourself becomes even smaller.

Continued, below...


----------



## el-bo

...Continued....




Mike Greene said:


> So (and this is the point of this post) I'm not going to embrace strategies that talk about _"using piracy to my advantage."_ Sorry. Start your own company and then you can tell me all about how it worked out for you. Until then, I'm not interested. Especially since those brilliant strategies are invariably coupled with arguments that piracy isn't such a bad thing.




Your use of the word "embrace" suggests you might be specifically addressing me. I might be wrong, but I'll answer as though you were:

It is true that I am talking about embracing strategies that try to use the situation to your advantage. But I want to clarify that i don't think piracy, in and of itself, is advantageous (At least, not for developers). I am not making a positive case for piracy. What I am suggesting is that 'we' (Us...As in all artistic 'creatives'), try to take an unfortunate, but inevitable, part of the industry and try to get at least something from it.

...And I don't need to start my own company to gain a different perspective. Check out Polkasounds' post that recounts how file-sharing caused him enough loss and distress, that he vowed not to release any further music. Us musicians also put our heart & souls into our work, and so the effects of having that work stolen are really no different.

As a hobbyist musician, I don't feel my music is of a quality where I'd think to sell it. But one day, I might decide it's worth pursuing. My own past use of pirated art, and many communications with others (pro and against) mean that I've already tempered my expectations. Add to that the fact that most folks' disposable income has to be stretched over many areas, and I'm not expecting much from it. In fact, I've set my expectation at zero. From there, anything gained is a win, for me.

Managing my expectations, and pre-empting the reality of the situation, is my way of protecting myself from the kind of anger, anxiety and stress that I hear from you when you write about this (Had enough of that to last a few life-times). Again! I need to make it absolutely clear that your reaction is totally understandable, and is your right.

My plan for my own music is pretty close to Freakshow Industries'. I will set a very low price, as a minimum, but allow people to pay more, if they are so inclined. For those that don't want to pay, I would ask them to email me to request a copy, which I'll send to them, sans judgment. All that I'll ask is that they consider spreading the word about my music, if they like it, and that they allow me to notify them, by email, of new releases. 

That's it!

If people are likely to enjoy my music, then I want it to be heard, whether people pay for it, or not. 


*"Especially since those brilliant strategies are invariably coupled with arguments that piracy isn't such a bad thing"*


Again, not making the claim that piracy isn't such a bad thing. But those who are approaching this with novel strategies, aren't either.


I've posted this, elsewhere, but I think it perfectly demonstrates what I'm suggesting, and what I'm not.

Freakshow Industries are a small company made up of an ex-Izotope development team. They have an inimitable style when it comes to their output, but have really interesting ways of dealing with the realities of piracy.


This is the page you reach if you decide to "Steal" their plugin:

https://freakshowindustries.com/crime-hole-backmask


And here's an interview where they talk about their approach:









Interview with Freakshow Industries | Audio Plugin Guy


Audio Plugin Guy chats with the new freaks on the block, Freakshow Industries. These guys just released the scariest plugin we've seen. What's next?!




www.audiopluginguy.com






It's important to note that they are not condoning piracy; nor are they even suggesting it's acceptable. They are also making clear that they are not gifting their plugins; rather, that they believe they are entitled to financial compensation for their hard work, and that the would-be thief is stealing that from them. They even make efforts to make it easier for users to afford, by offering a 'pay what you likes' scale, before the ultimate, last-click.

Why I think this approach has a chance of working is that it is risk-free for the customer to steal (certainly less risk than trying their luck downloading from the darker areas of the web), but it is still confrontational enough to give them pause, even for a moment. And perhaps that moment is long enough for someone's pride to kick-in, and for them to not be 'that' guy. And for the really needy, they accommodate with the discounts.

As they explained, they still get something from those who steal directly from them, as opposed to elsewhere. They get data i.e they don't need to speculate about losses, or the size of their potential market. They also get emails, which helps for their future marketing. Moreover (and I'm guessing here), they get future sales from those who perhaps once stole, but who then, appreciating the company's methodology, become fully paid up customers.

As a side-point: There have been quite a few in this thread who have suggested that something being freely available means that people will just take it. Clearly, while this does happen, the fact that most of us buy everything we use would suggest that to not be some kind of universal law. When I first discovered 'Backmask' (An excellent plugin, by the way), it didn't cross my mind for a second that i would steal it, despite it being made extremely easy for me to do so. That's not me 'tooting my own horn'. I don't think I'm unique, in this regard. On the contrary, I'm inclined to believe that they are selling at least the amount they'd have sold had they not come with this approach. More than that, I'm pretty sure they've made sale where they'd otherwise have lot, to piracy...

...I could be wrong...

I'd be interested to hear how S.A.S does with his current tiered-payment scheme, for 'Fragments'. The suggestion in this thread might suggest he'll actually "sell" none:






Releasing Fragments - Fragile Organic Synths (Free/Pay a little if you want)


Hey there, I am happy to announce Fragments, a free virtual instrument for Kontakt with various Organic Synth sounds, that have been created using various Synthesizers. Most of the sounds have movement within themselves so most of the time tune/pan/volume drift to achieve that fragile tone...




vi-control.net










Mike Greene said:


> I'll add that I pay to belong to a couple paid "Private Membership" sites (under an alias, of course, so I can monitor things), both of which tout the _"Try before you buy"_ justification for their existence. Someone once posed the question, _"Do you ever buy the libraries after you 'try' them?"_ There were dozens of responses. All no.




Dozens of responses? That's a pretty small sample size, in any sense. But when put against the quoted 15,000 illegal downloads claimed by one particular developer, it really tells us nothing.

When I went 'Legit!', about fourteen years ago, I ended up buying a few software items I'd been using, previously...illegally. In fact, I'm still paying money off the back of that cd (I think it fell off the back of a lorry), all those years ago.

My personal experience, therefore, is to the contrary, which i think counts as 'Reasonable doubt). but I've seen this type of thread played out in many forums over the years, and it's clear that I'm not alone in eventually paying for that which I'd previously used, for free.

And, just to clarify: i also don't buy the "try before you buy" justification. It can definitely work, for some, in that regard. But the justification for piracy, in most cases is the piracy itself. Crackers crack...That's what they do. They'd do it even if nobody wanted to download it. The harder 'we' try to make it for them to do, the harder they will try to achieve it. They (At least the non-anarchist part of their 'culture') are not making an ethical stance, a la 'All art should be free!,' and so we cannot stop them by appealing to ethics.

It's a regrettable situation, that has got to the stage where (And legal streaming has it's part to play in this regard), younger generations find the idea of paying for art, media etc. to be absurd. Even when Spotify allows free streaming ('on pain' of adverts), people are sharing an app that gives them free Pro access.

There are certainly arguments (even convincing ones) as to how piracy might indeed have had a positive effect, in certain aspects of the industry. However, with no hard data to support it, and with it being too inflammatory for most to discuss in a balanced manner, it's best left undiscussed.

However, piracy is here to stay. Those of us who buy - We are the 'old guard'. Whether we manage to survive, I believe, will be dictated by how we act, react and embrace (I hope it's clear what I mean by that, now) the reality of the situation, as it is, rather than as it was...or how it would ideally still be.

I hope you can take this reply in the spirit intended.

----------------------------------------------------------------


This verbose mess of a post is the last I'll write on this. I think I've made it clear what I think, and don't think, about piracy. Either way, i wanted to thank everyone for the discussion. As others have said, it's refreshing to be able to express opposing opinion on such inflammatory topics, without it going to sh*t.


I also want to thank you, Mike, for allowing such discussion to happen, especially given your own perspective on this situation. It's generally a divisive, inflammatory topic, that I've seen shut-down on so many forums, over the years. It's refreshing to see. So, thanks again



EDITED: Missed a valid point...or two


----------



## keyop

Mike Greene said:


> So (and this is the point of this post) I'm not going to embrace strategies that talk about _"using piracy to my advantage."_ Sorry. Start your own company and then you can tell me all about how it worked out for you. Until then, I'm not interested. Especially since those brilliant strategies are invariably coupled with arguments that piracy isn't such a bad thing.
> 
> I'll add that I pay to belong to a couple paid "Private Membership" sites (under an alias, of course, so I can monitor things), both of which tout the _"Try before you buy"_ justification for their existence. Someone once posed the question, _"Do you ever buy the libraries after you 'try' them?"_ There were dozens of responses. All no.



Exactly this^^^^Spot on. And yet we still get 'forward thinking' pirate appeasers who go along the path of 'hey I respect you, oooh don't pirate my stuff or if you do pirate my products then please respect me and buy my products, pretty please, you should not respect the dev's who do try and restrict you by protecting their work'. Pass me the sick bucket. It is like saying 'hey Mr burglar I've left my front door open out of respect for you because I don't want to try and control you, so please respect me and don't enter my property, no, try next door because they lock doors and have alarms fitted, they are trying to control you'.

The amount of times I have seen replies from devs who have all stated time and time again that as soon as a product is pirated the sales fall off a cliff. That tells me many people will look around first to see if they can get it for free.

Just take a look on that criminal site Audioz and look at one of the forum posts entitled 'Kontakt wallpaper requests' there are over 580 pages of low-lives sneaking around asking for stuff, asking for wall papers, sharing files etc etc etc. Do you honestly think you can appeal to these POS that sneak around those type of sites? 

The people that run Audioz must be making hundreds of thousands of $$$ each year off the sweat and hard work of others and yet most devs here are too complacent and are of the mind set of 'oooh it is too difficult to control, it is impossible blah blah blah', yes it is, but at least offer some resistance. Fill in DMCA etc or contact piracy organisations such as Brein https://stichtingbrein.nl/contact/?reason=Inbreuk+melden if enough dev's actually get off their ass and report the pirate sites then eventually, something will get done about them.


----------



## jononotbono

Get a job and then you have money to buy stuff?
Can it be anymore simple.


----------



## ThomasNL

el-bo said:


> It might seem that way, but how would he be able to tell?



here is the tweet btw:


----------



## el-bo

ThomasNL said:


> here is the tweet btw:




Thanks!


----------

