# I've been pirated! And I know the name of the guy... Open question to my fellow sample developers



## paoling (Jun 27, 2013)

Hi to all!

Today I was looking to the stats of my site. And I had abnormal number of visits in just two days last week. Looking to the traffic stats, I've noticed that AudioTrap, my only one (and possibly the last one) VST for Windows has got pirated.

I've downloaded the VST from a warez site and there's a zip with 4 files. The manual, the two executables and a serial.txt

This text file contains the serial and the email of the pirate. He's a German guy who bought also My Vibes (and I'd like to stop him from releasing this library too, since we put really a lot of efforts in developing it).

So I've got the name. But.. I'm not a millionaire and I can't sue him for thousand dollars :roll: 

What should I do?

I don't care too much about the pirating of my stuff in general, it's something that I think it's part of our business. But I know who he is...!

:-P

Thank you so much,
Paolo


----------



## Chris Hein (Jun 27, 2013)

Hi Paolo,

sorry to hear that, but if he is german, we can get him.
Contact me if you like.

Chris Hein


----------



## ThomasL (Jun 27, 2013)

See if you can get his street-address or something, order a shitload of porn or other humiliating things in his name, we could start a kickstarted campaign for this.

Or you could just make a post on KVR and such and let people know him for the scumbag he is...


----------



## ThomasL (Jun 27, 2013)

Chris Hein @ 2013-06-27 said:


> Hi Paolo,
> 
> sorry to hear that, but if he is german, we can get him.
> Contact me if you like.
> ...


Excellent Chris!


----------



## gregjazz (Jun 27, 2013)

Good luck, I hope you catch the guy!

A lot of times pirates will buy your sample libraries and then file a complaint with PayPal to get a refund. Because it's a digital download, and no physical product was shipped, there's very little you can do as a seller. Sometimes pirates will also do a chargeback on the payment, so you not only have to refund the purchase, but pay a $40 chargeback fee. Just stuff to watch out for... :/


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 27, 2013)

Yeah, catch him!


----------



## Ron Snijders (Jun 27, 2013)

Let's just hope it wasn't bought with stolen credit card details, since that would make the pirate virtually untraceable. As much as I hate seeing every big-name plugin and library being pirated, I think it's even worse when it's the smaller companies being ripped off.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Jun 27, 2013)

Ron Snijders @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> Let's just hope it wasn't bought with stolen credit card details, since that would make the pirate virtually untraceable. As much as I hate seeing every big-name plugin and library being pirated, I think it's even worse when it's the smaller companies being ripped off.



It is entirely possible that the named individual didn't actually buy it, someone just used his identity. If that is the case then he is just as much a victim as you.

I recently had someone in Oklahoma, I live in California, try and use my credit card. Luckily the bank flagged it before the sale took place. Had to get a new card issued, it was actually my debit card, so I was without a way to pay for things for a few days.


----------



## midi_controller (Jun 27, 2013)

Darthmorphling @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> It is entirely possible that the named individual didn't actually buy it, someone just used his identity. If that is the case then he is just as much a victim as you.



This right here is why we don't run out and get the torches and pitchforks folks.


----------



## ThomasL (Jun 27, 2013)

midi_controller @ 2013-06-28 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Thu Jun 27 said:
> 
> 
> > It is entirely possible that the named individual didn't actually buy it, someone just used his identity. If that is the case then he is just as much a victim as you.
> ...


And the thief stealing would know that the guy also bought another lib? Not likely. How would the thief know to use what identity in the first place?


----------



## paoling (Jun 27, 2013)

Thank you guys!
I think will write to the guy soon, just to advise him that a copy of our program with HIS info is going on the internet.
I hope that's a real guy, since I don't fully know at what extent you can fool Paypal and Fastspring.
No, he didn't issued a refund (yet).

Anyway the software is not cracked, just the original with the key, it's the protection system that isn't so strict :oops:


----------



## Darthmorphling (Jun 27, 2013)

ThomasL @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> midi_controller @ 2013-06-28 said:
> 
> 
> > Darthmorphling @ Thu Jun 27 said:
> ...



It's possible that the thief bought both libraries.


----------



## paoling (Jun 27, 2013)

AudioTrap and My Vibes were bought together in a couple of minutes. One after another (we don't have a cart system yet).


----------



## audiothing (Jun 27, 2013)

With my ecommerce (e-junkie) I can blacklist email address and names. See if you can do something like that to prevent future problems with him.

I usually spend 1 hour per month compiling DMCAs, abuse reports and copyright notices. Most of the time I manage to get the links down and sometimes even causing troubles to who manage the link sharing site, but, to be honest, I don't really care anymore.
The real problem is that you'll never win. 

Last year I spent one entire week tracking down all the illegal copies of my products, pushing back the release and production of the upcoming libraries, finding only more and more fresh links on other sites. That was enough. It was becoming an obsession.

Luckily I had several emails with Mr Hollow Sun who kindly explained his misadventure with piracy and gave me some kind of peace: _"[..]rather than waste my time going after people who will never buy my stuff, I prefer to devote my time to developing stuff for people who WILL and DO buy my stuff."_
I'm not saying that you shouldn't go after this guy, but try to avoid loosing too much time.

Btw, I'm so happy to see other Italian developers. In bocca al lupo!


----------



## paulmatthew (Jun 27, 2013)

I hope you catch this guy. I'm a firm believer in buying software / libraries etc because if you just get cracked stuff , then there is no money or motivation for companies to produce better products. From Reason 1 and Ableton Live 1 till now , all my software is legit . I'm broke , but I'm legit LOL. Best of luck in this matter.


----------



## Pingu (Jun 27, 2013)

On the upside, I didn't know you existed till you posted this, and will now be becoming one of your honest customers - I guess Karma is real.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jun 28, 2013)

Darthmorphling @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> Ron Snijders @ Thu Jun 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just hope it wasn't bought with stolen credit card details, since that would make the pirate virtually untraceable. As much as I hate seeing every big-name plugin and library being pirated, I think it's even worse when it's the smaller companies being ripped off.
> ...



It probably wasn't Chase. I had people use my Chase card in Dec. 2011. I had go through may bouts with Chase over it. (that's why they are called Chase)
I did find the shipping addresses of those people and posted their addresses on FB. You really can't fake a shipping address on physical items.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Jun 28, 2013)

kitekrazy @ Fri Jun 28 said:


> [
> It probably wasn't Chase. I had people use my Chase card in Dec. 2011. I had go through may bouts with Chase over it. (that's why they are called Chase)
> I did find the shipping addresses of those people and posted their addresses on FB. You really can't fake a shipping address on physical items.



It wasn't Chase. I have no idea who the thief was, or if it was web based/local shopping. The bank stopped it at the transaction level apparently. Never even showed up on my statements.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 28, 2013)

Darthmorphling @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> Ron Snijders @ Thu Jun 27 said:
> 
> 
> > I recently had someone in Oklahoma, I live in California, try and use my credit card. Luckily the bank flagged it before the sale took place. Had to get a new card issued, it was actually my debit card, so I was without a way to pay for things for a few days.



FYI

crooks know this so what they will do is do one transaction and then a day or 2 later the SAME transaction again. 

so to you and the bank it will be just a "oh its just that charge the bank will take care of it." but then its still there because its not the same issue the bank/you noticed.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Jun 28, 2013)

gsilbers @ Fri Jun 28 said:


> Darthmorphling @ Thu Jun 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Ron Snijders @ Thu Jun 27 said:
> ...



I was very vigilant about checking my account and since they disabled my card, they weren't able to do any other charges.

Back OT. I hope you get this situation resolved.


----------



## AndrewS (Jun 28, 2013)

paoling @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> Thank you guys!
> I think will write to the guy soon, just to advise him that a copy of our program with HIS info is going on the internet.
> I hope that's a real guy, since I don't fully know at what extent you can fool Paypal and Fastspring.
> No, he didn't issued a refund (yet).
> ...



You might want to check with a lawyer before you contact this person.


----------



## Ed (Jun 28, 2013)

paoling @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> This text file contains the serial and the email of the pirate. He's a German guy who bought also My Vibes (and I'd like to stop him from releasing this library too, since we put really a lot of efforts in developing it).



lol what an idiot


----------



## paoling (Jun 28, 2013)

I've tried to contact him by mail, but obviously I didn't get any answer.

Chris has been very kind and tomorrow maybe we'll understand something more. That's becoming a kind of spy story...


----------



## Synesthesia (Jun 28, 2013)

This is pretty incredible.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/

Copyright removal requests received for Search in the past month:

17,141,596 


Combine this with the Pandora campaign by Ascap:

http://www.ascap.com/playback/2013/...station-in-a-bid-to-undercut-songwriters.aspx


Its truly depressing, one the one hand an entire criminal subculture and on the other hitech companies creaming millions, if not billions, stealing from creators of one type or another.

Ah brave new world!!


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Jun 28, 2013)

This is really sad stuff. Bad enough for us participating in the industry currently, but devastating for the next generations. Almost makes it pointless to try and make a living at it, I'm afraid.

Mr A


----------



## quantum7 (Jun 28, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Fri Jun 28 said:


> Combine this with the Pandora campaign by Ascap:
> 
> http://www.ascap.com/playback/2013/...station-in-a-bid-to-undercut-songwriters.aspx



I literally became nauseated after ready that. :evil:


----------



## Sasje (Jun 29, 2013)

Aw, not very nice... :( 

This is the reason why I can't be bothered to start my own sample business. I have thought about starting up but after some serious thoughts and questions to other developers, I figured it wasn't worth the effort for me personally. Still love sampling though, I have some great ideas and a room full of (vintage) instruments begging to be sampled, but yeah... reading such news as this makes me sad and unwilling to take the risk to make the investments. It's just sad that small developers get ripped off like this. Sampling is very hard work. And even if you ask $1, they will still pirate your instruments.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jun 29, 2013)

Nice, go get him!

Though it wouldn't hurt to contact him about it sans hostilities first. He might not be responsible for the share or release.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jun 29, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Fri Jun 28 said:


> Its truly depressing, one the one hand an entire criminal subculture and on the other hitech companies creaming millions, if not billions, stealing from creators of one type or another.
> 
> Ah brave new world!!


Criminal subculture? You talk about it like it's all run by crime lords and capos.

Think of it this way:

It's easy to make your work worth something to a big company. Offer them total rights to your creation and ask for minimal compensation. They'll take it, even if it's bad.

It's hard to make your work worth something to everyone else. Offer them great services and features, frequent updates, and make the product more valuable than what it says on the tin, even give them the source code... if it's bad, you won't see it shared much, if at all, even if it's free.

Maybe you should find a way to capitalize on people's use of a product, rather than just their ownership of it. They already believe they own it, even if a license tells them they don't in a hundred different ways, so stop trying to focus on "you don't own this!" and instead focus on "you're using this!"



Really, who are you trying to benefit by making software? Some intellectual property holdings company, or everyone who uses and wants to use the thing?


----------



## snowleopard (Jun 29, 2013)

Yes, pursue this. But I agree with the others, make sure you're looking for the right guy. I had my identity compromised a couple years ago and someone purchased thousands of dollars of stuff in my name. Took me weeks to get it straightened out.


----------



## Francis Belardino (Jun 29, 2013)

Dear Paolo,

I just wanted to swing by and offer a condolence about this situation. It is very disheartening to see your work uploaded and shared around the world. I wish you all the best and keep doing what you do.

Best,


----------



## Synesthesia (Jun 29, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sat Jun 29 said:


> Synesthesia @ Fri Jun 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Its truly depressing, one the one hand an entire criminal subculture and on the other hitech companies creaming millions, if not billions, stealing from creators of one type or another.
> ...




Definition of SUBCULTURE


: an ethnic, regional, economic, or social group exhibiting characteristic patterns of behavior sufficient to distinguish it from others within an embracing culture or society <a criminal subculture>




> Think of it this way:
> 
> It's easy to make your work worth something to a big company. Offer them total rights to your creation and ask for minimal compensation. They'll take it, even if it's bad.
> 
> ...




I don't understand your points above, not sure what you are trying to say.


If your last question is not rhetorical - then the answer is, our customers, by giving them great sounds to use at a great price, and our musicians and team who are on royalties from sales.

And a question back to you: do you then believe that the people behind the many forms of piracy are not criminal? Beyond the fact that what they are doing is theft, there are many many reports investigating the connections. Here is one.

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/music-piracy-organised-crime.pdf


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jun 29, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Sat Jun 29 said:


> I don't understand your points above, not sure what you are trying to say.
> 
> 
> If your last question is not rhetorical - then the answer is, our customers, by giving them great sounds to use at a great price, and our musicians and team who are on royalties from sales.
> ...


The people who distribute the software and profit by doing so are criminals, yes. That very definition fits them according to copyright law. They're the jerks making money off your work without even using it.

The people who distribute the software because they want to share it with their friends, or indeed, everyone for free and sans profit, are not career criminals. Though some bastardization of copyright law may support your view of them as such, they aren't in Canada or most US territories (_exceptions being Texas and a few others, where laws change based on the judge_).



My previous points were to illustrate what different groups look for in software and how it's used. 

First point: Businesses (_"the big guys"_) will buy up any kind of IP if the price is right, even if they may never use it. In the same way, people will likely try anything free at least once, but if it's useless, they will not use or share it - they simply don't want or care about it. In this, companies thrive by owning many things they may never actually use, as to have ammunition against other companies who make something similar and can be attacked under copyright or patent law (_e.g. the company is a 'patent troll'_), while people (_"the little guys"_) don't stockpile things they find functionally useless because there's no real incentive to keep it. They don't keep or share what they don't like.

Second point: As a software company, the way you're structured now, you operate by selling software licenses. You are not obligated to make sure the user can even use the product in order for you to make money. One ticket buys a ride, whether or not they're satisfied with it in the end. It is out of your own nebulous courtesy that they might be able to get a refund in case of a worst-case scenario or pitiful enough sob-story, and customers in that position are fully aware that they can be denied for any arbitrary reason as your official policy is to decline refund requests outright. Now, pirates, because they can ride for free, may sometimes like what they get and keep using it. You will never see anything from them, in spite of their continued use of your product, unless they have a miraculous change of heart (_which is as likely to change as your policy on refunds_). They share what you made, and if they share it a lot, that means they love it and a lot of people are using it. A shrewd company would see this behavior and think of new ways to capitalize on it, and in fact, some organizations led by pirates already do - they run websites with ads and host this material for others to get for free. They make money by other people distributing your software, so anyone can do it, and you can't stop them without making your customers' lives worse.

So what can you do uniquely from distributing software and selling licenses for it? For starters, you _make_ the software; you can maintain and modify it, too. Additionally, you can provide technical support and offer community services, such as offering tools for modding / a marketplace for mods + user content, letting users vote for features, and early build testing, among many other marketable micro-transaction- and subscription-oriented features and services that people are willing to pay for and have no incentive (_or ability_) to seek alternatives.

What I suggest is that you find ways to make your software profitable without the license being your core product. In this digital age, anyone can have any software they want without paying for it - but the problem is when you as a company are faced with that reality, and instead of asking, "what can I offer instead that will make them want to pay for using it" you ask, "how can I punish them for having it without paying me?"

It's possible you think this because you don't care if the customer can actually use it, as is my point here. You sell software licenses, not software usage enhancing services. This is a parallel to the record industry, which sells plastic discs, and not music, as its core product, and subscription-based radio stations are running them out of business as the ever-so-terrible, mob-boss-who-wants-to-see-businesses-destroyed pirates simply want to listen to music, share it with others, and find discs inconvenient for doing so.


The truth is that software licenses do nothing to add to the user experience (_people don't care to *own* software, they care to *use* it; your users are people, not greedy companies_), and you aren't creating or monetizing useful services that may encourage users to subscribe to or purchase them. Really, my point is that if you rely on the software licensing business model and complain about piracy, consider hiring a more competent business consultant or find something new to hate instead.


----------



## Arbee (Jun 29, 2013)

Interesting future we can look forward to:

Developers can't be bothered developing software any more becaure they can't make a living. Consumers then complain there is no decent product available.

Composers, movie makers, authors (except the ones already doing well) go and do something else for a living. Consumers then complain "why don't _they_ make any decent music, movies, books any more"?

Consumers complain (in Australia) that jobs are all disappearing off shore. Same consumer buys the cheapest possible product from the supermarket in preference to local product, simply because it's cheaper. Consumers then complain that jobs are all disappearing off shore.

Software, music, movies, books (and everything else) - all heading down the "why should I have to pay more if I can get it for less, or for nothing?"

Can no-one see cause and effect? In the end, people get what they deserve, and miss out on the contribution to their lives of a lot of talented and committed folk. Not sure how we turn around this Internet driven anarchy...

Forgive me - just a Sunday afternoon rant o=< 

.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jun 30, 2013)

Arbee @ Sat Jun 29 said:


> Consumers then complain there is no decent product available.


If there's a demand, there's bound to be a supply eventually. Only the logistics and mechanics will be different, since the last system failed.

Try to be a little more creative about your vision of a future market. 
For example: could people in the future operate and be happy in an economy without money? The short answer is "possibly", the long answer is up to your imagination, as it can happen in many ways.


But really, it's very rare that an industry collapses due to the failure of a business model that has many explored and proven alternatives. Like... really, really rare (_it's never happened_).


----------



## Arbee (Jun 30, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> Try to be a little more creative about your vision of a future market. For example: could people in the future operate and be happy in an economy without money?


Yes absolutely, it's just that the tax man gets very upset  

I'm not pessimistic about the longer term future at all, I just believe there will be a "race to the bottom" before we get to a better place. The buying public will eventually wake up that they are actually part of the problem. We will also probably need to run out of developing countries though before it happens. For some reason the consumer only sees themselves as human, everyone else is just "them".

.


----------



## kb123 (Jun 30, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sat Jun 29 said:


> What I suggest is that you find ways to make your software profitable without the license being your core product. In this digital age, anyone can have any software they want without paying for it - but the problem is when you as a company are faced with that reality, and instead of asking, "what can I offer instead that will make them want to pay for using it" you ask, "how can I punish them for having it without paying me?"
> 
> It's possible you think this because you don't care if the customer can actually use it, as is my point here. You sell software licenses, not software usage enhancing services. This is a parallel to the record industry, which sells plastic discs, and not music, as its core product, and subscription-based radio stations are running them out of business as the ever-so-terrible, mob-boss-who-wants-to-see-businesses-destroyed pirates simply want to listen to music, share it with others, and find discs inconvenient for doing so.
> 
> ...



Plasuma, you make some pretty insulting comments here toward a developer that has given more back to license owners than many others have. You also seem to be saying that if someones current business is subject to criminal activity then they should go do something else? That argument is flawed on so many levels, it is beyond belief.


----------



## Casiquire (Jun 30, 2013)

Sorry, Plasuma, but considering people out there are still pirating Kontakt 2, I don't think they'll _care_ about the support or user input they might get by buying the software. Also, you're correct, there are companies out there using a subscription-based model for their software. It also led to huge customer relations catastrophes.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2013/05/10 ... ive-cloud/
http://www.gotransverse.com/transverseblog/Adobe-subscription-disaster (http://www.gotransverse.com/transverseb ... n-disaster)

The only companies that have avoided just about any piracy are the ones who use USB dongles or entire consoles, as in the game industry. One of the big sample developers who use a dongle and avoid piracy is the complete opposite of the Utopian company you describe that listens to its customers' suggestions and offers great support, yet they're still doing extremely well. Another company using a dongle, Vienna, is probably one of the most successful library developers at the moment, so there's really no argument for the idea that brutally stomping out piracy, sometimes even at the expense of some user's convenience, will hurt business. Some of the companies with the absolute best customer service are hard-hit by piracy, so in practice, I really have to disagree with most of your major points.

I do think some of the points you make are important to discuss and I'd like to see some more variation in business models as well as greater innovation in the future, but I disagree that this will stop piracy. Peoples' perceptions of property and ownership need to adapt to the new digital age before piracy can be reduced.


----------



## hector (Jun 30, 2013)

Casiquire @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> The only companies that have avoided just about any piracy are the ones who use USB dongles or entire consoles, as in the game industry


Just to correction, but piracy on consoles is pretty writhe... most major games pirated even before their real release date, and there are plenty of dongle products have been cracked and released (major audio products, and non audio products...)



> Vienna, is probably one of the most successful library developers at the moment, so there's really no argument for the idea that brutally stomping out piracy, sometimes even at the expense of some user's convenience, will hurt business.


What do you measure this by? Without the knowing of the inside stats on sales/revenue you just pull this out your hat. Also, you cannot know how much more/less money vienna make if they remove dongle so again this is conjectures

I do agree with many points but I just wanted to point the above out.


----------



## Dietz (Jun 30, 2013)

hector @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> [...] you cannot know how much more/less money vienna make if they remove dongle so again this is conjectures. [...]



The very first generation products of VSL weren't copy-protected.

No comparison, sorry to say so.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jun 30, 2013)

kb123 @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> Plasuma, you make some pretty insulting comments here toward a developer that has given more back to license owners than many others have. You also seem to be saying that if someones current business is subject to criminal activity then they should go do something else? That argument is flawed on so many levels, it is beyond belief.


I'm not sorry if it's insulting, because facts are sometimes best presented as directly opposing ideas, particularly to entities that find it convenient to never change their outlook.

I'm against profitable acts of piracy just as much as the next software dev, because that actually is theft, but I don't irrationally hate all forms of software sharing and then go looking for ways to make customers' lives more restricted or sit around and try to justify my current not-so-profitable practices.

Any nebulous acts of kindness don't factor into what makes a company good, as what makes a company good is how well they monetize their situation. A development company that uses an outdated licensing model and complains about piracy is either missing a huge opportunity they don't know about, or they're too inflexible and unwilling to change. So if Spitfire didn't know about it, now they do (_and the tone of my message won't bother them_). If they did and they're inflexible, they can take a verbal hit and figure it out in their own time, if they even bother reading or acknowledging any of it.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jun 30, 2013)

Casiquire @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> Sorry, Plasuma, but considering people out there are still pirating Kontakt 2, I don't think they'll _care_ about the support or user input they might get by buying the software. Also, you're correct, there are companies out there using a subscription-based model for their software. It also led to huge customer relations catastrophes.
> 
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2013/05/10 ... ive-cloud/
> http://www.gotransverse.com/transverseblog/Adobe-subscription-disaster (http://www.gotransverse.com/transverseb ... n-disaster)


Adobe made the wrong move by just charging for licenses in a different way. Instead of creating new services that enhance the user experience, they've re-written license ownership as a different contractual deal. As I said before, the problem is treating people like companies instead of actual users. The users don't care about ownership because the supply is unlimited, they care about usage and functionality, hence the biggest argument against the mandatory cloud service: "what if I just want to keep using my software as-is forever?"

EDIT: in fact, one of those articles mentioned activity-based billing as one possible solution. Good on them.



Casiquire @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> I do think some of the points you make are important to discuss and I'd like to see some more variation in business models as well as greater innovation in the future, but I disagree that this will stop piracy. Peoples' perceptions of property and ownership need to adapt to the new digital age before piracy can be reduced.


It probably does, but people probably won't change how they perceive software until a company offers them a worthy solution that pushes the envelope. For now, current licensing and anti-piracy measures don't help that.


----------



## Sasje (Jun 30, 2013)

It's a bit disheartening or counter-productive to read such stories, and I've come across a lot of them in the last few years. Hollywood doesn't really suffer from piracy, in fact sales have increased. I'm more worried about startups and small companies. As it stand today, they won't get a chance to grow big and be successful as are the older companies who didn't had to suffer the amount of piracy that is going on today. If you were a recording artist 20 years ago, you didn't suffer from piracy as much as today. Release a CD today and you can be sure that you will not make any profit in any sense of the word without giving live shows.

So the prospect of starting my own sample business today is bleak. Especially if I wanted to make a decent living out of it. A few months ago I was writing my own business model on the company I wanted to launch, concerning selling sample libraries. I then figured it wasn't worth the effort.

Here's a small example of a project I wanted to start:

Project: releasing a deep-sampled library.
Hiring a musician proficient enough in their instrument: $500 a day. (after haggling!)
Studio time: $375 a day for the smallest room. $500+ for a bigger/better room.
Lending 6 special Microphones for a Decca Tree: $300 a day.
Recording time: 6 days minimum, re-recording calculated in it.
Hiring a designer: $50 ~$100 an hour.
Hiring a scripter: $50 ~$100 an hour.
Hiring a sample slicer: $50 ~ $100 an hour.
Setting up a website for project: ~$500.
Implementing the cart: $300 - $500.
Promotion: $100 - $300 a month.
Data traffic / bandwidth: ~$40 a month.
Payment gateway: ~$25 a month, without fees per download.
Various equipment, catering, uncalculated costs: $500.
Time of development: ~3 months.

The most basic things to lift a project from the ground, with some notable quality to even consider calling yourself a serious sample developer. Only for one project. And then I haven't calculated all business costs surrounding it. To get even I calculated I had to sell at least 20 copies a month consistently for 2 years without making any profit to invest into another project. Without knowing if anyone would ever buy the library. 

Of course, that's the basic risk of doing business. But seeing other developers struggling with DMCA complaints, loss of income and the time they invest to take their products down, it becomes somewhat of a hesitation and a high risk factor to even consider it for me personally. Am I willing to take the risk? For now I won't.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jun 30, 2013)

Sasje @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> So the prospect of starting my own sample business today is bleak. Especially if I wanted to make a decent living out of it. A few months ago I was writing my own business model on the company I wanted to launch, concerning selling sample libraries. I then figured it wasn't worth the effort.


Why not test the waters first? Start a Kickstarter / look for crowd-sourced funding and see what people think of your idea.

If that goes under, and you're sure it's what you want to do, it only means you need a bigger fanbase. For publicity, you can try making free or extremely inexpensive, smaller-but-still-high-quality libraries and engage in some viral marketing (_the cheapest kind of marketing_).

Once you have a following, try the crowdsourced funding projects again and see what you get. Starting from nothing but money in this day and age is impossible, so you need to have a fanbase first, and then build up your company with their support.


----------



## prognathus (Jun 30, 2013)

Arbee @ Sat Jun 29 said:


> Software, music, movies, books (and everything else) - all heading down the "why should I have to pay more if I can get it for less, or for nothing?"



And now you know how instrument makers feel when you provide a disincentive to purchase their instruments. Oh, and the musicians trained to perform on them who now got put out of a job because you've digitized sample banks.

Remind me again, what licenses do you pay instrument makers for creating sample banks off their engineering? Is it a one-off fee or a percentage of your sales?


----------



## Sasje (Jun 30, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> Why not test the waters first? Start a Kickstarter / look for crowd-sourced funding and see what people think of your idea.



That's a nice idea. I wonder how it would pan out... but then you have to give the product for free to contributors? and is there an audience waiting for it? unless they are composers...  

I also thought about launching a donate kind of website. Giving the products for free in return for donations, but I'm not very sure how that would work out... might work on small projects, not large ones.


----------



## bbunker (Jun 30, 2013)

I guess I'd been waiting to make a first post, but this thread strains the bounds of reason.

There are a number of points that have been made here that make absolutely no sense. First of all, suggesting that the 'licensing model is outdated' or anything to that effect, based solely on the information that licenses are pirated, makes no logical sense. X is licensed, X is pirated, therefore the system of licensing X is invalid??? I fail to see any connection between any of those terms.

All of this ignores the fact that all of the developers who have been involved in this discussion provide me with the tools that I require to do my job, and that their continued existence is in my best interests, since even if I had access to my own samples, I will always benefit by having the resources, financial, creative and otherwise, of people who are very good at doing this. I wouldn't urge Craftsman to invent a new way of 'licensing' tools to fix my sink because I don't actually want the 'tools,' just the 'use' of them...and yet this equally fallacious line of reasoning has also been presented in this thread.

I'm baffled by the conceit shown by Plasuma in urging potential developers to 'try crowd-sourced funding', and 'engage in some viral marketing.' Once I see a sample library that's the result of this 'vision' then I'll buy in to it. Until then, I'll happily enjoy the fruits of the models, both financial and artistic, that have provided me with the tools I use. I hear the soul and creative vision of literally hundreds of people every time I load up a library like Spitfire's Albion, and I am thankful that that vision could find a way onto my template.

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Casiquire (Jun 30, 2013)

hector @ Sun 30 Jun said:


> Just to correction, but piracy on consoles is pretty writhe... most major games pirated even before their real release date, and there are plenty of dongle products have been cracked and released (major audio products, and non audio products...)



I may have been unclear here--when I talk about a console stopping piracy, I mean by physical means, for example old games that run off of systems so different physically that they can't just be plugged into a computer and downloaded. Games being pirated before release sounds like an insider job, much like albums leaking before release, so it's not quite a fair comparison. Anyway I've never heard of a sample library requiring a dongle being cracked.



> What do you measure this by? Without the knowing of the inside stats on sales/revenue you just pull this out your hat. Also, you cannot know how much more/less money vienna make if they remove dongle so again this is conjectures
> 
> I do agree with many points but I just wanted to point the above out.



It's quite easy to get an idea of how they compare to other developers. For one thing, take a look at the size of their team. That's one great indicator of the health of a company. Another good indication is level of innovation. They make enough money from their sample libraries to pour more R&D into creating new software that's really more peripheral software, and even that software seems to be doing well enough to encourage them to keep developing new related releases and updates, for example four different MIR packs that seem to still be expanding. They make enough money off of their samples to comfortably release five different types of string sections alone.

Sure, sample developers don't tend to release sales figures, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to compare such indicating factors. To be fair, there is guesswork behind it and it may not be 100% accurate, but I'd be shocked if VSL isn't in the top 2 in terms of sales.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jun 30, 2013)

No apologies for the rant necessary, bbunker. Great first post. 8)


----------



## Arbee (Jun 30, 2013)

I must have a sick mind - I visit the crack software forums sometimes just to read in disbelief the hostile moans and groans from those who can't get everything they want for nothing   :lol: :lol: 

.


----------



## Ron Snijders (Jun 30, 2013)

Arbee @ Sun 30 Jun said:


> I must have a sick mind - I visit the crack software forums sometimes just to read in disbelief the hostile moans and groans from those who can't get everything they what for nothing   :lol: :lol:
> 
> .


Then thing that annoys me the most is the fact that they're all talking about how they're recording albums and hoping that the newest crack won't ruin their system. Mentioning how much they love a certain library (then BUY IT, for crying out loud!) and wondering when the next one will appear.
That sense of entitlement they have is truly beyond insane.


----------



## kb123 (Jun 30, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> kb123 @ Sun Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasuma, you make some pretty insulting comments here toward a developer that has given more back to license owners than many others have. You also seem to be saying that if someones current business is subject to criminal activity then they should go do something else? That argument is flawed on so many levels, it is beyond belief.
> ...



Just to be clear, you are stating here that piracy (unauthorized sharing) is ok as long as the pirates don't make any money from it? That's my interpretation of what you are saying. Whether a pirate makes money from his theft is irrelevant, it is still theft. It is this most simple of concepts that most people who download stolen software refuse to acknowledge.

Given you are so vocal, can you confirm or otherwise that you are not a file sharer yourself?


----------



## Arbee (Jun 30, 2013)

kb123 @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> Plasuma!!! @ Sun Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > kb123 @ Sun Jun 30 said:
> ...


Indeed, is it OK if I steal your car as long as I don't sell it :roll: :lol: 

.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 30, 2013)

Or as long as you don't use the car to be a taxi driver or chauffeur?!!


----------



## trumpoz (Jun 30, 2013)

I'm stunned that there is actually someone on this forum implying that the sharing of software among friends is in some way moral and legal. What is even more concerning is that the same person is also implying that the developer is somehow at fault when something is pirated.

What is simple is this:

If someone uses a piece of software without paying for it that wasn't a gift or a NFR/Demo copy supplied by the developer or with the developer's permission then the user of the (non-paid) software has committed theft. The person or organisation that supplied the software to the third party has breached copyright law by making an unauthorised copy of the software in question and distributing it without express permission of the copyright law. 

Plausma - if you would like to argue that this shouldn't be the case I suggest you find a lawyer and challenge the law in the highest court in your home country.


----------



## klawire (Jun 30, 2013)

I have to say that despite coming across as being a bit too much on pirates' side in this matter, Plasuma really isn't wrong. First, combating piracy with restrictions and dmr is a battle that can't be won. Eventually the software will be cracked, more often than not quite quickly, if someone is determined to do so. Hardware based dmr solutions seem to work better, and personally I have no problem with iLoks and the like. But they can be cracked, too. With rapid advances in computing power and a rising amount of people with really good programming skills, cracking dmr will probably happen faster in future.

Second, is it really wrong to download software you don't have the right to use? The obvious answer would of course be yes, it's wrong, it's stealing. But there's a difference between pirating software and stealing tangible products. Let's say someone bought an iPhone, studied it and started making their own, perfect copies of it, and marketed it as a perfect copy of an iPhone that you can use with any operator's sim card. Would it be morally wrong to do so? Probably yes. Would it be illegal? In some countries, yes. But would it be wrong to buy the said copy? You could say it is, you could say it isn't. Most people would agree with the latter. And it certainly wouldn't be illegal.

Third, developers can't just complain that piracy is wrong and then do nothing about it. So many people think that piracy, at least downloading, is ok, that you can't stop them from doing it if there's virtually no risk involved in it. That's why something has to change, and it's not pirates who'll do it. The devs have to be more innovative and come up with something new to earn enough revenue to stay in business. I don't know what it could be, but history has proven that businesses who do not evolve with changes in the business environment will eventually become non-profitable. So think what you can do to adjust to the situation. You can accept the losses, or do something about it. But not accepting the losses and still doing nothing would be plain stupid.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jun 30, 2013)

kb123 @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> Just to be clear, you are stating here that piracy (unauthorized sharing) is ok as long as the pirates don't make any money from it? That's my interpretation of what you are saying. Whether a pirate makes money from his theft is irrelevant, it is still theft. It is this most simple of concepts that most people who download stolen software refuse to acknowledge.


I never said that people who distribute the software are not breaking the law. I said they are not career criminals. The difference is that a court will find favor with someone who shares software for free than someone who shares it for profit or intent to deny a company profit. It's a grey area that many judges rule in favor the smaller party that has absolutely no means to pay the ridiculous $500K+ "losses" that a prosecuting company will ask for compensation.

Also, to be clear, people who download the software are not breaking any laws, no matter how much you want to label them criminals. It's the cracker and/or uploader who is breaking the law, although you're welcome to call that 'theft' if it suits your purposes.

Now those people who upload and distribute cracked software did break the law, but how far did they go and why? What punishment would be just, if any, and because it is so rampant and cannot be controlled without destroying rights and privacy, is it really something that can be reasonably enforced? It's not all black and white, as you may want it to be.

Just the same, numerous companies are breaking a somewhat new EU law by denying refunds and resale of licenses, but people can't exactly take them to court over it without some financial backing. That's less of a grey area, and the law is still being broken anyways with apparently no way for it to be enforced properly.



kb123 @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> Given you are so vocal, can you confirm or otherwise that you are not a file sharer yourself?


I'm vocal because nobody else raises these points. If you're happy regurgitating the same stuff everyone else does without thinking for yourself, you're completely free to do so, and I'm not going to call into question whether your argument is a stance to promote deliberate misinformation for a hidden agenda.

Unless you do have one, then I would ask a similar question of you: do you work for or have at one time worked with (_or even purchased products from_) one of the companies I've potentially offended?


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jul 1, 2013)

Sasje @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> Plasuma!!! @ Sun Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Why not test the waters first? Start a Kickstarter / look for crowd-sourced funding and see what people think of your idea.
> ...


Products in return for donations is a good method to build publicity, but it isn't really effective unless you have a big marketing budget to announce it. It might help build a fanbase in some way, but a more effective way to do that is to simply offer a high quality product and services at a reasonable cost and spread the word about it in forums, blogs, local musician-frequented watering holes, with friends, allies, pets. Generally, get people circulating word-of-mouth and checking out your stuff.

The crowd-sourced funding projects can have any kind of reward for investors. It's typical to give those investors a copy of the product for their support - though it's not smart to do that for the minimal donation, and many opt to give the product plus some kind of recognition or extra gift or service for a higher tier of investment that may actually be equivalent in price.

E.G.: the product will retail for $50 (_or however the pricing may work - if it's software that is free with subscription or micro-transactions, your investor rewards will likely look different_)...

TIER 1 $5 investment = personal email / thank-you letter
TIER 2 $10 = thank-you letter on papyrus sealed with wax and kisses + desktop wallpapers and digital promotional art
TIER 3 $20 = mouse pad + all of the above
TIER 4 $40 = full retail copy of the product + TIER 2 stuff
TIER 5 $50 = full retail copy of the product + TIER 3 stuff
TIER 6 $75 = TIER 5 + exclusive digital content
TIER 7 $120 = TIER 6 + we put you in the credits as a contributor
TIER 8 $150 = TIER 7 + some swag (T-shirt or a fancy keychain, your choice) 
etc., you get the idea.

Note that a crowdsourced project will only get attention if people know who you are already. Nobody invests in nobodies.


----------



## kb123 (Jul 1, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> kb123 @ Sun Jun 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, you are stating here that piracy (unauthorized sharing) is ok as long as the pirates don't make any money from it? That's my interpretation of what you are saying. Whether a pirate makes money from his theft is irrelevant, it is still theft. It is this most simple of concepts that most people who download stolen software refuse to acknowledge.
> ...



To clear up you last point, I am a Kontakt scripter, and do work for developers. I have never made a secret of that, no hidden agendas from me. I notice you didn't answer the question though.

With regard to the rest of your response, the use of software without a valid, purchased license is against the law, so, downloading and using a library is illegal. 

This forum is against all forms of piracy, you can try and legitimize piracy all you like, its still illegal and you are on dodgy ground suggesting anything else. Insulting developers isn't going to win you any arguments either.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jul 1, 2013)

kb123 @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> To clear up you last point, I am a Kontakt scripter, and do work for developers. I have never made a secret of that, no hidden agendas from me. I notice you didn't answer the question though.


Then I'll answer straight: no, I don't distribute cracked software.
I do, however, distribute free software and my own projects, and the corporate crusade against piracy is making it difficult for me to do so. E.G.: they believe all torrent traffic should be illegal and they put pressure on SourceForge, Mediafire, and other victims of illegal software sharing to require a closed-doors policy to public sharing of downloads.

I think they should be smarter about how they tackle piracy, and the least offensive way they can do that is by making it irrelevant.



kb123 @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> With regard to the rest of your response, the use of software without a valid, purchased license is against the law, so, downloading and using a library is illegal.
> 
> This forum is against all forms of piracy, you can try and legitimize piracy all you like, its still illegal and you are on dodgy ground suggesting anything else. Insulting developers isn't going to win you any arguments either.


Downloading and using software is not illegal in any place in the world. Show me where it is, and you can have that one. As it is, the users of cracked software only violate an EULA, which is not law.

Unfortunately, a lot of developers aren't very smart. 
They make inextensible software, consider it a packaged good, and then distribute it following the same logistics pipeline as a manufacturer of physical goods. Every time, they're shocked that somebody has pirated it and demand some kind of compensation despite their neglect of the nature of software: it is data, it is not scarce, it has no value except for what function it performs or what problem it solves for the user.

Some development companies don't want to capitalize on usage, just ownership (_for which software has no value_), and I personally think it's because they're either lazy or deliberately remain ignorant of their own market; two qualities I find disagreeable in a company.


----------



## Hanu_H (Jul 1, 2013)

Plasuma you couldn't be more wrong with your suggestions. Do you think that the business model of Spotify and such is good for music business? It may have millions of listeners but there's really not any money for the artist that make it all happen. Only if you are a really big artist like Madonna or something you get money from that business model, but once again all the smaller artist get nothing. That makes it impossible for the smaller artist to survive and that means that in the future music will be less artistic. Of course there's always underground like vinyls and stuff but it will kill a lot of great bands. And still the piracy is bigger than ever, so it really doesn't matter what you do.

Also whats really stupid is that you are suggesting some kind of business model for the devs where you should pay small fees all the time. I really don't want that on my sample libraries. I want to buy them and use them, not use my time on purchasing small parts of the library or paying monthly fees. Upgrades I see all the time and appreciate them. And it's already done in the Guitar plugins where you can purchase one amp or stomp box at a time. Not for me...

I really hope that in the future there will be a decent internet police that controls all of this. Everything is happening in the internet at the moment and it's a wild west in there. I hope that the invention of 3D printers will open the eyes of the bigger companies, that would take piracy on to a new level. Downloading an item from a internet and printing it for free is one scary image.

Everyone is complaining about the economy in the world, I hope they would understand that they are making it. By always buying the cheapest one, not the local one, you are shutting your neighbors business down. This generation of I have to get everything cheap or free is really bad for the economy and for the arts. 

-Hannes


----------



## Sasje (Jul 1, 2013)

Hanu_H @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> Everyone is complaining about the economy in the world, I hope they would understand that they are making it. By always buying the cheapest one, not the local one, you are shutting your neighbors business down. This generation of I have to get everything cheap or free is really bad for the economy and for the arts.
> -Hannes



Exactly. Everyone wants products from China because they are cheap, by doing this were ruining our local economies and local expertise. If everyone would support their local shops, things will definitely change in the economy.

The big companies are also ruining our economy as well. Apple, Google, they all evade millions in taxes by using constructs and by hiring cheap labor in India, China and who knows where. I wish they would also take responsibility as well. And this is something I don't understand: Why don't they hire a local workforce? if they did, they didn't need to pay as much taxes as if they would hire someone from India and have more profit. The more you invest, the less profit and the less taxes you pay... instead they choose profit and evade taxes, over investing in the country and giving someone a real job.


----------



## bbunker (Jul 1, 2013)

> They make inextensible software, consider it a packaged good, and then distribute it following the same logistics pipeline as a manufacturer of physical goods. Every time, they're shocked that somebody has pirated it and demand some kind of compensation despite their neglect of the nature of software: it is data, it is not scarce, it has no value except for what function it performs or what problem it solves for the user.
> 
> Some development companies don't want to capitalize on usage, just ownership (for which software has no value), and I personally think it's because they're either lazy or deliberately remain ignorant of their own market; two qualities I find disagreeable in a company.



Sorry, but this is just psycho-babble. 'Inextensible Software'? As opposed to, what? Extensible Software? 'Packaged Good'? As opposed to an 'Unpackaged Good'? 'Logistics Pipeline?' You may as well say that software developers moogleflap their popmiker software, then shooblewhop it through the didgeriweb. It would be equally meaningful.

Without the nonsense, you seem to feel yourself the figurehead for some movement that doesn't seem to exist. Are there armies of producers queue-ing up for the opportunity to throw money at a new free-to-distribute sample library and a free mouse pad? And then, of course, the musicians should play for free on these sample libraries, because they should realize that they shouldn't be paid for the ownership of these libraries, but for the usage. Are there scads of these musicians also lining up, and would I really want to have to listen to them?

So, I would wish you luck on your campaign to develop a library of extensible software sold as an unpackaged usage-based non-commodity that's distributed through the ether-pipe. But I doubt that this is anything more than trolling, so I won't.


----------



## williemyers (Jul 1, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> ...Try to be a little more creative about your vision of a future market.
> For example: could people in the future operate and be happy in an economy without money?


Plasuma, what an absolutely *brilliant* idea!! 
I'll PM you my postal address and you can mail me any/all of the cash money that you may have and - in return - I'll post you back about 10 zillion "airy-fairy credits" that you can share with friends and everyone all over the torrent sites! You will be their hero! 
And I'll be using your cash to *buy* quality music software. 
win-win, eh?


----------



## klawire (Jul 1, 2013)

bbunker @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> Sorry, but this is just psycho-babble. 'Inextensible Software'? As opposed to, what? Extensible Software? 'Packaged Good'? As opposed to an 'Unpackaged Good'? 'Logistics Pipeline?' You may as well say that software developers moogleflap their popmiker software, then shooblewhop it through the didgeriweb. It would be equally meaningful.


From what I gathered, his point is that software, including sample libraries, is not a tangible good. Consumers don't see it as a tangible good, and neither should developers.

It makes sense really. There's a virtually unlimited supply of intangible goods, and that's why they don't have any "physical" value. The data itself is worth zilch, so software, from a consumer's point of view, is a service. As a result, devs should treat the software more like a service, too. It's only worth what it does, there's no extra value beyond that.


----------



## paoling (Jul 1, 2013)

The idea of an alternative system for selling items is always welcome. 

To me, as a user, Spotify works. I pay 10 euros per month, and I listen to the music that's there. Music labels can decide if that's profitable for them and if it isn't they can remove all their albums. ECM for example is totally absent because that business model don't probably works for them.

But the difference here is that we can't choose. We could think: "Why not giving the lib for free and who wants can spend 100$ as a donation for our hard work?"

But if we don't find this business model very profitable, we can change it to a more suitable one. With piracy we can't really choose anything. The business model of your product suddenly becomes donationware. Who is honest enough will buy it, the others will steal.

I don't care less about what real dishonest people does with my product. They won't buy my product anyway.

But when was looking for a protection software for AudioTrap, I was looking for something that helps "honest people to stay honest". This is a common sentence when talking about software protection. 
I think the majority of software users belongs to this category. People who simply wants the software in the most easy way possibile. They will pay for it if it's too troublesome to have it cracked. (here the popularity of the Apple Store)
Although they ARE part-time thieves, that's a category we, as developers, can't take the luxury of ignore. I don't care less about morality as a developer. I care about it as a software user, but as a developer I consider that just a problem we need to face someway.

Unfortunately our weapons against it are not very much, we just can try rise or lower the prices, to compensate the loss or to invite people at buying instead of stealing.
And this ends to the detriment of the honest user and that's personally my biggest concern.

Anyway the good Chris phoned to the man and he is a German guy who nothing has to do with music. His identity was stolen, as long as, probably his debt card info. So I'll contact paypal today to get more info and eventually block that mail (the mail was false).
Thank you very much Chris!


----------



## hector (Jul 1, 2013)

Plasuma said:


> but a more effective way to do that is to simply offer a high quality product and services at a reasonable cost and spread the word about it in forum


There are many 'reasonable cost' product from developers on these forums on pirate sites, I see many that are less than €40-50 from developer with amazing support still pirated heavily. 



Plasuma said:


> Then I'll answer straight: no, I don't distribute cracked software.


I dont think kb123 asks this, he ask "can you confirm or otherwise that you are not a file sharer yourself?", so I ask:

_Have you ever shared a digital software you purchase with someone who has not purchased?_



Plasuma said:


> Downloading and using software is not illegal in any place in the world.


This is most of the time correct (in the US it _is_ a criminal offence even if you are not profiting in situations but I will let you find out about the NET Act for yourself also for EU copyright theft is punishable by unlimited fines and 10yr prison sentence) but this is not what happens with torrents. As you know torrent works by also upload and distribute by yourself while you download which *is* a much more severe criminal offence in many places it happens.



klawire @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> From what I gathered, his point is that software, including sample libraries, is not a tangible good. Consumers don't see it as a tangible good, and neither should developers.


All true, very true but to my knowledge, most developers _don't_ treat it like a tangible good either. Lot of developers I know of release many updates for free at their own cost, for example even just recently CineBrass recieved substantial free update with new instruments, new programming, new ui even though was released two years ago. Many other companies constantly add new contents and functionality for free. When you buy a tangible item like a fridge you suddenly do not get free new drawers and updated cooling system. I do not think it fair to make blanket statements that devs treat these as tangible.


----------



## lpuser (Jul 1, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of developers aren't very smart.



So, could you then please share with us how you earn your money and which extra services you offer for your customers? I am always eager to learn from somebody who knows how things work.

Thanks!


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jul 1, 2013)

Today class, can anyone spot the o=? in the room?


----------



## Casiquire (Jul 1, 2013)

"Downloading and using software is not illegal in any place in the world. Show me where it is..."

Any country that respects copyright laws.


----------



## klawire (Jul 1, 2013)

Casiquire @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> "Downloading and using software is not illegal in any place in the world. Show me where it is..."
> 
> Any country that respects copyright laws.


Not exactly true. Also, in some of the countries in which it is illegal, it is not punishable. Like riding a bicycle without a helmet on.


----------



## Yuri Margarine (Jul 1, 2013)

Hi,

For my first post, I want to give my opinion on the subject.

I think that Plasuma is not necessarily wrong. The current business model of selling music and softwares will not be viable very long. 
Do not dream, it will be increasingly hard to sell something that copy in one click in the near future.

Everyone uses the word thief. In this case, it is not theft, it is copyright infringement. He does not have stolen your software. The analogy with the car is stupid.
You seem thinking that "one download = one lost sale". This is false. Most people would not have bought it.

Tell you that people who have downloaded your software did not know it before. It is a nice publicity stunt. I'm sure if you release a nice update. People who have tried your soft illegally , and have loved it, will buy it. Eventually you will win more customers.

I do not have a miracle solution but I do not think piracy is necessarily harmful. It's just a loss of income.

Research about piracy commissioned by the European Commission Joint Research Centre :
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC79605.pdf


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jul 1, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> I do not have a miracle solution but I do not think piracy is necessarily harmful. It's just a loss of income.
> =]



I really hope you are kidding.... if you aren't... then you make about as good of a first impression as a suicide bomber.

Money buys food, pays the electric bill, pays rent/mortgage for home. Let's take that away from you and then please tell me that a loss of income is still not harmful.


----------



## Arbee (Jul 1, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Everyone uses the word thief. In this case, it is not theft, it is copyright infringement. He does not have stolen your software. The analogy with the car is stupid.


If you think the car analogy is stupid then aren't you just illustrating the mindset that leads to the problem?

.


----------



## Jago (Jul 1, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Mon 01 Jul said:


> I do not have a miracle solution but I do not think piracy is necessarily harmful. It's just a loss of income.


You've got to be kidding me! Just a loss of income?! You do realize that income plays a vital role in...oh...staying alive, right??


----------



## williemyers (Jul 1, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> People who have tried your soft illegally , and have loved it, will buy it. Eventually you will win more customers.


Yuri...try this; walk in to your local liquor store, pick up a case of beer and head for the door. As you (attempt to) exit, shout to the owner, "I"m taking this and, if I like it, I'll buy the next case!". 
Three things'll happen:
1. You'll go to jail, 
2. The store owner will get his property back, and
3. We'll all be better off!


----------



## Jago (Jul 1, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Mon 01 Jul said:


> Everyone uses the word thief. In this case, it is not theft, it is copyright infringement. He does not have stolen your software. The analogy with the car is stupid.
> You seem thinking that "one download = one lost sale". This is false. Most people would not have bought it.


Except that the whole idea of cracked software is to allow 100% functionality of commercial software for free. Anyone that uses said software as part of their workflow does contribute to a lost sale.



Yuri said:


> Tell you that people who have downloaded your software did not know it before. It is a nice publicity stunt. I'm sure if you release a nice update. People who have tried your soft illegally , and have loved it, will buy it. Eventually you will win more customers.


I'll be surprised if anyone has a business model that follows this, especially since it would openly support illegal usage.



Yuri said:


> I do not have a miracle solution but I do not think piracy is necessarily harmful. It's just a loss of income.


I'm quite certain you'd be making a different statement if you suddenly lost income. Losing income is never good, be it for the individual or the company. Piracy is harmful, and the crackers would have to be pretty naive to not realize it for various reasons already stated in this thread.


----------



## Arbee (Jul 1, 2013)

"Sharing isn't stealing" is the mindset that creates this, some sort of noble Robin Hood principle. By taking digital content I am not denying someone else the use of it, "just" denying the creator some income (and well these creators don't do real work and they are just greedy, wealthy capitalists anyway so they deserve it, right?) :roll: 

.


----------



## trumpoz (Jul 1, 2013)

I know in Australia the use of pirated software generally does not come under criminal jurisdiction. That is, court action would come under a civil suit ie being sued for breach of copyright. Plasma is correct that the use is not a criminal offense.... it is still illegal.

It is disgusting to think that people think it is ok to use software they haven't paid for. The age of entitlement indeed....


----------



## Ed (Jul 1, 2013)

Just to make one observation since this thread seems to be going this way again...

Its really only been a virtual eye blink ago in history that you could copy someone's work rather than physically take it away from them. Its a different kind of theft, but I dont think its the same as physical theft and dont think it helps by trying to say its exactly the same as it just isnt.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 1, 2013)

Ed @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> Just to make one observation since this thread seems to be going this way again...
> 
> Its really only been a virtual eye blink ago in history that you could copy someone's work rather than physically take it away from them. Its a different kind of theft, but I dont think its the same as physical theft and dont think it helps by trying to say its exactly the same as it just isnt.



U.S. law says it is. Even the Torah says it is.

Morally, it is.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 1, 2013)

The end result, is that you have something in your possession that other people have had to pay for, that you can use without having paid for it.

If you use it, then by definition the vendor has lost money, as there is someone using their creation without paying them for the right to use it.

Are the hours of hard work and the years of people's study (both instrumental and technical) to be able to create what you are using not worth anything?

It is morally wrong, and in most countries it is illegal.


----------



## Jago (Jul 1, 2013)

And to those who think it isn't physical theft, they're forgetting that the download had to be stored somewhere prior to public released. It was created and finished on a hard drive, it gets downloaded, then it's stored on a drive (HDD, SSD, flash, tape [ok, that would be ridiculous with today's products :lol: ]). Some might consider that a far stretch, but it's physical to me. You need a physical copy of the product somewhere before you can use it.


----------



## Casiquire (Jul 1, 2013)

klawire @ Mon 01 Jul said:


> Casiquire @ Mon Jul 01 said:
> 
> 
> > "Downloading and using software is not illegal in any place in the world. Show me where it is..."
> ...



Actually, it _is_ true. As audio recordings, samples fall under audio recording laws, just like an album. Software has its own copyright laws as well. 

Example:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebre ... 0625&SID=6

Now as for whether or not certain countries uphold the law, that's another matter for another thread and doesn't change the immorality of it.

Also the "stealing" debate is tricky--a change in the public's perception is necessary. Sure, you are not removing anything from the manufacturer's possession. However you're still using something they should be making money for. This is not a new problem. It's always been illegal to buy a greeting card then go to a copy shop and photocopy more at a lower price than just buying more. This is no different. There are just some laws out there that nobody feels like following and people will try to justify their dislike for the inconvenience of the law any way they can. Every copy you make of someone else's work without their permission is morally wrong. Doesn't matter how you fancy it up. Doesn't matter if their price is prohibitively high or if you just don't like them. Doesn't matter if it's a song, a book, a sample library, or a movie.

I personally believe "stealing" is the wrong word to use, and even though "pirating" is inaccurate in its own way the context of its use in the digital age seems appropriate.


----------



## Arbee (Jul 1, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> The end result, is that you have something in your possession that other people have had to pay for, that you can use without having paid for it.
> 
> If you use it, then by definition the vendor has lost money, as there is someone using their creation without paying them for the right to use it.
> 
> ...


Has anyone here ever lent a book to a friend to read? Does sharing = stealing at this level? Not trying to defend piracy at all, I detest it, just saying we need to be careful about where the line is perhaps.....

.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jul 1, 2013)

Books don't have a license that says you can't lend it. Software does. Just like you can't lend your drivers license to someone else.


----------



## Casiquire (Jul 1, 2013)

Arbee @ Mon 01 Jul said:


> Has anyone here ever lent a book to a friend to read? Does sharing = stealing at this level? Not trying to defend piracy at all, I detest it, just saying we need to be careful about where the line is perhaps.....
> 
> .



You do bring up a great point. There are some big differences though--only one person can have a book at a time. Software piracy is like if you were to make an infinite number of copies of said book and offer them to people free of charge. Though the point that I really like that your question raises is back in the physical manufacturing days, when you were done with a product, you could pass it along to a friend. In the digital age, you can't. I don't think that's right. But it's what I agree to when I buy a new library, so I'll stick to it.


----------



## klawire (Jul 1, 2013)

Casiquire @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> klawire @ Mon 01 Jul said:
> 
> 
> > Casiquire @ Mon Jul 01 said:
> ...


Well, that depends on the definition of copyright laws and what is considered respecting them. Most countries have copyright laws and they respect their own copyright laws, which might not be the same as US copyright laws. As such, in their copyright laws, merely downloading isn't necessarily a crime or even illegal.


> Also the "stealing" debate is tricky--a change in the public's perception is necessary. Sure, you are not removing anything from the manufacturer's possession. However you're still using something they should be making money for. This is not a new problem. It's always been illegal to buy a greeting card then go to a copy shop and photocopy more at a lower price than just buying more. This is no different. There are just some laws out there that nobody feels like following and people will try to justify their dislike for the inconvenience of the law any way they can. Every copy you make of someone else's work without their permission is morally wrong. Doesn't matter how you fancy it up. Doesn't matter if their price is prohibitively high or if you just don't like them. Doesn't matter if it's a song, a book, a sample library, or a movie.
> 
> I personally believe "stealing" is the wrong word to use, and even though "pirating" is inaccurate in its own way the context of its use in the digital age seems appropriate.


I agree that it isn't right to download software you don't have the right to use. But people aren't going to change their opinions about piracy any time soon. Many indeed sees it as a right, and taking away since rights from people is never easy. I believe it isn't realistic to expect people to change, at least not in near future.

Also, I think that the harm that piracy actually does is often exaggerated. However morally wrong piracy is, one "illegal" download does not equal one lost sale. Most pirates are probably kids or hobbyists with a really right budget, who wouldn't have bought the software anyway. And some may be trying out software before buying it to see if it's good enough. I doubt that even 10% of pirates can be considered as lost sales. Moreover, it's not like you're losing anything when people who would not buy your software pirate it. They don't take it away from you, and they don't use your data servers. What they do isn't right, but I doubt the effects on sales are as bad as developers seem to think.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jul 1, 2013)

Hanu_H @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> Plasuma you couldn't be more wrong with your suggestions. Do you think that the business model of Spotify and such is good for music business? It may have millions of listeners but there's really not any money for the artist that make it all happen. Only if you are a really big artist like Madonna or something you get money from that business model, but once again all the smaller artist get nothing. That makes it impossible for the smaller artist to survive and that means that in the future music will be less artistic. Of course there's always underground like vinyls and stuff but it will kill a lot of great bands. And still the piracy is bigger than ever, so it really doesn't matter what you do.


You could have said this in fewer words, as you're only saying you disagree with me. You haven't raised a single point why software developed around more flexible purchasing plans for users is impossible or even bad.



Hanu_H @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> Also whats really stupid is that you are suggesting some kind of business model for the devs where you should pay small fees all the time. I really don't want that on my sample libraries. I want to buy them and use them, not use my time on purchasing small parts of the library or paying monthly fees. Upgrades I see all the time and appreciate them. And it's already done in the Guitar plugins where you can purchase one amp or stomp box at a time. Not for me...
> [...]
> -Hannes


Way to miss the point. Subscribing to services and micro-transactions are not stop-and-go, and if you think they are, that's, as you say yourself, really stupid.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your fear-driven blathering. You're somehow afraid of what I suggest, and rather than try to think about the potential opportunities for one kind of new business model in this industry, you 'debunk' it with a lot of nothing and bash it just because it doesn't fit your comfortable, unchallenged ideals. I think it's sad that people can still be so happily inflexible and unimaginative.


----------



## gamalataki (Jul 1, 2013)

If you want to download my software without paying for it and you think that is ok, then do it in my presence.
Justice waiting.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jul 1, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> The end result, is that you have something in your possession that other people have had to pay for, that you can use without having paid for it.
> 
> If you use it, then by definition the vendor has lost money, as there is someone using their creation without paying them for the right to use it.
> 
> ...


I have solar panels on my home that give me free power 24/7, while others have to pay for electricity. Is it morally wrong that I get that for free? I could put other people on my grid and start charging them for it, but if they also get solar panels and energy storage, is it morally wrong that I can no longer profit off them?
This example has nothing to do with how copyright law works, but you imply that the above would be morally wrong and thus should be illegal (_after all, I put a lot of hard work into getting those solar panels before anyone else on my block!_).

If something is of infinite abundance, you are free to charge as much as you want for it, but there are people who might take the means of re-production into their own hands if they are able. This is where copyright law comes into play, and it worked when production was costly. But it turns out that software is very, very easy to mass-produce, contrary to the books of the past that required a massive and unique investment in a printing press. Copyright laws were written for those days, when the means of production could only be managed by few, and there were no protections for an author's works. Now, everyone has the means of production... so is this a world of potential criminals, or a world of poor businessmen?



Personally, I think it's morally wrong that you don't give people the source files to your software so they can fix all the errors you leave in there (_and share those solutions with others_). You will disagree and say it's your right not to do so, but that doesn't mean it's not morally wrong by my perspective and beliefs.

The law says you aren't forced to do it, and I accept that as the only reason why you don't. This is also why I make it a point to identify the functions of laws pertaining to copyright in most of western civilization, because your misunderstanding of them is the biggest reason why you feel justified in your beliefs. There's no moral high-ground here, just reality.


----------



## hector (Jul 2, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> I have solar panels on my home that give me free power 24/7, while others have to pay for electricity. Is it morally wrong that I get that for free?


This analogy is very wrong. What you said here is comparable to saying 'I record my own instruments for free using my skills, while other people have to pay musicians. Is it morally wrong that I give these instrument recordings away to people'. It is not morally wrong, and this is not what synthethsia said... 

Here is analogy. If you did this, spent hundreds of thousands to set up your solar power electricity grid, and decided to try to make back some of the cost by charging people to use your grid. Now you are charging people expect service and so you hire the electricians to keep the grid active and optimal and you hire support who takes calls and emails from customers, and you hire engineers to expand the grid so it can handle the amount of people you now connected and meet their expectations as paying customers, you build capacitors to store the energy, you pay fees to install cables to the town. This is no longer backyard hobby project and has substantial costs and people involved... 

Now if someone then sneaks into your property and connects themselves to your grid without paying (afterall, the sun gives you power for 'free') they are not harming you by taking some of it? Only they are harming you AND the people you hire. You have paid money from yourself to get this electricity and to deliver it, it incurs costs, anyone who sneaks in and takes it from you (even if the sun energy is abundant) is morally wrong and many would say stealing. If they want it without paying you for it, they should build a system themselves, or find a company that provides it for free.

Sure you could say 'well then this is no longer a viable business, you should seek another!' but I ask _why_? If the people were honest and pay their fair share (and I simply mean to cover the costs and time that is involved) then it _was_ a viable business, it only become unviable once people begin to steal and not pay their share.

This doesn't even start with the situation of music software which is very niche with a small audience and very high, high costs. You also talk about the service 'offer a service', many sample companies do. There are many updates that add and fix things (project sam just revamp their TS line, for example, for free for people who pay before), other companies like cinesamples and spitfire and 8dio and soundiron all release many many updates for free to those that buy, they offer free support to people who email, they offer downloading service to redownload at any time from their cloud even though it cost them bandwidth and storage.

I think you are very naive to the situation, but if you do have experience in the industry then please feel free to correct me.



Plasuma!!! @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> Personally, I think it's morally wrong that you don't give people the source files to your software so they can fix all the errors you leave in there (_and share those solutions with others_). You will disagree and say it's your right not to do so, but that doesn't mean it's not morally wrong by my perspective and beliefs.
> 
> The law says you aren't forced to do it, and I accept that as the only reason why you don't. This is also why I make it a point to identify the functions of laws pertaining to copyright in most of western civilization, because your misunderstanding of them is the biggest reason why you feel justified in your beliefs. There's no moral high-ground here, just reality.


Again wrong in many western civilization, it is a civil offence to download (duplicate) material you have not got the copyright to, and it is punishable by severe fines and in most countries severe jail time. But it is a *criminal* offence to distribute it as you are doing when you torrent... 

You never answered the questions from kb123 before:
_Have you ever shared a digital software you purchase with someone who has not purchased? _


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jul 2, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> I have solar panels on my home that give me free power 24/7, while others have to pay for electricity. Is it morally wrong that I get that for free? I could put other people on my grid and start charging them for it, but if they also get solar panels and energy storage, is it morally wrong that I can no longer profit off them?
> This example has nothing to do with how copyright law works, but you imply that the above would be morally wrong and thus should be illegal (_after all, I put a lot of hard work into getting those solar panels before anyone else on my block!_).



Wow. In all the many, many, many threads on piracy that have been on VI-C over the years, I've never read an argument quite that desperate.

Well, some light relief anyway. Depressingly, pretty much everything else on the thread has been said and re-said endlessly. At least that was brand new.

To Paolo, whose thread this used to be - all the best and I hope you have some luck in nailing this person.


----------



## Hanu_H (Jul 2, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> You could have said this in fewer words, as you're only saying you disagree with me. You haven't raised a single point why software developed around more flexible purchasing plans for users is impossible or even bad.



No point? You just don't understand it. As I said the business model of Spotify and such didn't save the music industry, even if it makes it like you suggest. You pay for a monthly fee and you get all the music you need. No buying of physical products, only streaming. But it doesn't help against piracy, even if you get all the music you need for 5,99€ many people still choose the free one. Also same thing in the movie industry with likes of Netflix and ViaPlay. I have been a professional musician for years and toured all around the world. When I started it was totally different game and a lot easier for the musicians. You have to understand also the fact that not everyone wants the same things as you. If company uses big money for developing a system you are suggesting, what happens if people that have always bought and used their products don't like the new approach. And the ones using pirated ones don't still pay for it...



Plasuma!!! @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Way to miss the point. Subscribing to services and micro-transactions are not stop-and-go, and if you think they are, that's, as you say yourself, really stupid.
> 
> I'm not going to comment on the rest of your fear-driven blathering. You're somehow afraid of what I suggest, and rather than try to think about the potential opportunities for one kind of new business model in this industry, you 'debunk' it with a lot of nothing and bash it just because it doesn't fit your comfortable, unchallenged ideals. I think it's sad that people can still be so happily inflexible and unimaginative.


I am really not afraid of it, I just know how the world works nowdays. Your thinking models is utopistic and needs masses and high numbers. That's not what the sample library community has. It's sometimes really specific tools for only a marginal of people. That's why it's even worst that it gets pirated. Also the fact that some composer pays big money for a software and other one steals it and gets the gig. Really disgusting idea.

Also your solar panel argument couldn't be more wrong. If you want to compare it to the piracy it would be like this:

-You start a company that wants to make money on solar energy.
-You use tens of thousands of dollars to a equipments.
-You use countless hours to aim them right and get them in the high ground.
-You pay a lot of money to a electricians, who makes it work. Also monthly fees to keep it running.
-You have an employee who cleans the panels every day. And other one who cuts the grass of your area.
-You pay a lot of taxes, health insurance...

Then someone comes and steals your power without paying for it. And not only one guy but 80% of your towns people, because it's free. You really can't own the sun, or can you?

-Hannes


----------



## bluejay (Jul 2, 2013)

As Spotify was brought up as an example of the new way to do things, let's examine it...

Firstly the artists get paid a pittance in royalties. So the actual content providers are getting screwed. 

Secondly, despite having an unbelievably massive signup (way more than any sample dev could hope for) they are still losing money. Why because their approach of giving away things for free and relying on advertising still doesn't generate enough money.

Thirdly, they have found it almost impossible to get any users to sign up to any form of paid service (no matter what services are offered). Why is this ... simply because people are used to getting it all for free. 

The bottom line is that despite utterly disrupting the market around it, Spotify is not a successful business model. Pandora is having a similar problem (and again reducing the pitiful royalty payments it gives out). 

All of this argument comes down to "I want it for free" and then sophistry. The sample devs work damned hard to produce these products. I'm not a composer by trade, I work in the software industry and specialise in West Coast startups and I've watched company after company burn away millions of venture capitalist dollars in these 'new economy' approaches which simply don't monetize. The fact of the matter is that all these alternative revenue approaches (advertising, etc) produce a tiny fraction of the money needed to make a company profitable.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 2, 2013)

bluejay @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Why because their approach of giving away things for free and relying on advertising still doesn't generate enough money.



That's exactly what radio and TV do.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jul 2, 2013)

mpalenik @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> bluejay @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Why because their approach of giving away things for free and relying on advertising still doesn't generate enough money.
> ...



Right - and Google, Facebook et al. But I think James makes the point that is hasn't yet been proven for music.


----------



## bluejay (Jul 2, 2013)

mpalenik @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> bluejay @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Why because their approach of giving away things for free and relying on advertising still doesn't generate enough money.
> ...



You make my point perfectly mpalenik! 

So many of these people who shout out for the 'new economy of the Internet' still have a business structure based on expecting advertising revenue similar to radio and tv. Unfortunately for them, the advertising revenue available for the Internet is WAAAAY lower. In fact Spotify also struggle to get enough people to advertise with them.


----------



## bluejay (Jul 2, 2013)

Also there is a subtle but important difference between Spotify/Pandora and 'what tv and radio do'. Conventional media outlets play a specific set list of material which means their royalty payments are capped and I assume fairly straightforward to predict in advance. 

With a system allowing anyone to play anything from their available tracks at any time then the royalty payments are going to be far harder to predict and control. This is presumably why Pandora are trying to reduce royalty payments.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jul 2, 2013)

I don't know the figures for Spotify to break even but I am a subscriber. It costs less than I would have spent per annum on CDs and it gives me access to music I would never have come across off the shelves in HMV. And!............obviously I can record any of these albums or tracks for off line consumption (by me only but I seldom bother). 
Generally speaking, recorded music has less monetary value than at any time in history. Yes there are exceptions but the vast majority will NOT be the exception.
Most kids have been given everything in the last couple or more decades without really knowing the value. They all want to push buttons without ever taking the cover off to see and understand how it works. We are all to blame. 
Nothing is free and the price is being paid already including being passed on to future generations. If you are a performer, then find a market for that otherwise GET A DAY JOB.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 2, 2013)

rayinstirling @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Generally speaking, recorded music has less monetary value than at any time in history.



On the other hand, it only has a history of what, 100 years or so?


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 2, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Right - and Google, Facebook et al. But I think James makes the point that is hasn't yet been proven for music.



Regardless of other points, aren't there a lot of radio stations that primarily play music? The trick seems to be convincing advertisers that paying for online ads is as valuable as paying for an ad on a radio station, not convincing them that music is a good investment.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jul 2, 2013)

mpalenik @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Right - and Google, Facebook et al. But I think James makes the point that is hasn't yet been proven for music.
> ...



To clairify - narrowcast / streaming music.


----------



## Ed (Jul 2, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jul 01 said:


> U.S. law says it is. Even the Torah says it is.
> 
> Morally, it is.



Factually it is not exactly the same Jay. If I produce a physical item and someone can copy it it in some kind of Star Trek style machine, I may have lost a potential sale, or maybe they would have never bought it in the first place, but at least I still have the goods to sell. If they literally steal the item then whether they were a potential customer is irrelevant since they have the goods and I can no longer sell it.

And also ...Lol ...the Torah says its theft even though they had no concept of technology that allows you to make a copy of something like this. They'd think it was magic.


----------



## procreative (Jul 2, 2013)

Been reading the debate with interest, just an aside:

I notice a few people pining for the 'good old days' when musicians got paid for their music, well as much as its true downloads have killed royalties, for every deal that made money there were many, many stories of artists never getting their dues.

In my many dealings with labels, one nameless UK indie label based in Camden built a famous reputation for specialising in compilations and never paying any royalties due to allegedly not recouping costs.

Compilations are a great way to fob off artists as each would get a small percentage if lucky. Despite many invoices and faxes never got a penny out of them.

Many labels relied on musicians naivety and desperation to tie them to absolutely stupid deals.

Now I happened to have the best of my small career in the early 90s, as a left-field act we struggled to attract any major labels. Frustrated we set up our own label and got UK and European distribution. Entry costs were high as pressing vinyl and CDs etc was expensive and involved a lot of masters, artwork etc.

However once we got the ball rolling, we attracted a US indie called Cleopatra then in the early days. Without even setting one foot in the US we were selling 5-6000 copies there. Because were licensed the recordings we got a much larger royalty and this helped finance our European stuff very nicely.

I still get royalties now but as most are downloads am lucky if I get $100 every 6 months!

So yes it was better back then, but only if you were savvy enough to negotiate your own deals. And no internet, so creating a fanbase meant lots of envelopes and stamps and lots of phone calls.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 2, 2013)

Ed @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jul 01 said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. law says it is. Even the Torah says it is.
> ...



FACTUALLY, US law makes not distinction between property theft and intellectual property theft.

At the end of the day, all the pretty philosophical justifications come down to people arguing we should cater to the contemporary morally flawed principle of, "I want it, therefore I should be able to have it, whether I can afford it or not, or choose to pay for it or not depending on my personal evaluation of what it is really worth."

There are people saying it does the developers no real harm and yet we have respected developers here saying it does. I know who I choose to believe.

Everyone here is saying that they personally do not pirate so assuming they are telling the truth, they need to preach what they practice.


----------



## Ed (Jul 2, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> FACTUALLY, US law makes not distinction between property theft and intellectual property theft.



The law doesnt define reality Jay.

Care to back up your claim about the Torah somehow understanding a technology that wouldn't exist for thousands of years after the writers were long dead and buried?



> There are people saying it does the developers no real harm and yet we have respected developers here saying it does. I know who I choose to believe.



If you read my posts you'd see I wasnt contesting that piracy does harm.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 2, 2013)

The Torah says that to take a seller's time knowing you do not intend to buy from him is morally the same as stealing. Not a big leap to my conclusion, is it?

Didn't say you were saying that, said some people here.


----------



## Ed (Jul 2, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> The Torah says that to take a seller's time knowing you do not intend to buy from him is morally the same as stealing. Not a big leap to my conclusion, is it?



Yes i think it is, especially in the context you used it. From my brief reading it seems to apply to things like an employee wasting his employers time. Now I'd ask you for a quote, but then I dont see why it really matters trying to apply this to today when the people who wrote those things would be long dead for thousands of years before anyone even saw this technology in action and had no conception whatsoever of what we're talking about.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jul 2, 2013)

Ed @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > The Torah says that to take a seller's time knowing you do not intend to buy from him is morally the same as stealing. Not a big leap to my conclusion, is it?
> ...



I'm confused. Are you saying that because 1,000 years have passed, and technology has advanced, that now morals are different? 

That's like saying murder is ok... because guns didn't exist back then. Or I could just kill someone by running over them with my car, because they didn't have motorized vehicles back then.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 2, 2013)

Ed @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > The Torah says that to take a seller's time knowing you do not intend to buy from him is morally the same as stealing. Not a big leap to my conclusion, is it?
> ...



Ed - plenty of developers have said in the past they have had tech support requests from people who pirated their products, and then have the cheek to actually email them for support, supposing they'll never notice.

I also know a few artists who have been presented with CDRs to sign after gigs.

I think that is a very reasonable modern interpretation of the Torah's stance!

:D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 2, 2013)

Indeed. A month ago I got an email in my capacity as EW's Online Coordinator saying,''Dear EastWestLurker, I got your name from a forum so I hope it is OK to contact you. I recently downloaded EWQLSO from a Bit torrent. How do I get it to authorize?"

It was not a joke, people ARE that clueless.


----------



## Ron Snijders (Jul 2, 2013)

guydoingmusic @ Tue 02 Jul said:


> I'm confused. Are you saying that because 1,000 years have passed, and technology has advanced, that now morals are different?
> 
> That's like saying murder is ok... because guns didn't exist back then. Or I could just kill someone by running over them with my car, because they didn't have motorized vehicles back then.


Without wanting to get mixed up in a religious discussion: I think it's fairly obvious that morals are quite different now, and keep changing. Interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, women's rights, crusades, child labor, the power of nobles, proportional punishment for crime, just to name a few, are all areas in which morality has greatly changed over the course of history. What's morally right today might be completely wrong tomorrow due to changes in science, religion, public opinion/awareness etc.

And no, that does not mean that I think software piracy is okay o-[][]-o


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 2, 2013)

Mores and morals are not the same thing, although very religious people blur the lines.

Sexual attitudes are the former, murder, abuse and theft are clearly the latter.

Slavery, child labor, women's suffrage ALWAYS were moral issues, not mores, but we were just not evolved enough yet as a species to declare it.


----------



## Yuri Margarine (Jul 2, 2013)

Jago @ 2nd July 2013 said:


> Yuri Margarine @ Mon 01 Jul said:
> 
> 
> > Yuri said:
> ...



This is the business model used by microsoft and adobe since 20 years...
They let people use their softwares illegally to win customers later...


----------



## Daryl (Jul 2, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Jago @ 2nd July 2013 said:
> 
> 
> > Yuri Margarine @ Mon 01 Jul said:
> ...


No, that's not true. If they "let" people use their software illegally, there would be no point in having to register it in the first place. There is copy protection involved with MS software as well as Adobe, so one still has to act illegally to get the software without paying. What you mean is that they haven't fought as hard as they could have to force third world countries to respect their intellectual property.

D


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 2, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Mores and morals are not the same thing, although very religious people blur the lines.
> 
> Sexual attitudes are the former, murder, abuse and theft are clearly the latter.
> 
> Slavery, child labor, women's suffrage ALWAYS were moral issues, not mores, but we were just not evolved enough yet as a species to declare it.



So, it sounds as if you're defining mores as aspects of people's morality that you find unimportant, whereas "real" morals are the particular aspects of morality you personally think are important. Is morality something that's true in the absolute sense, and if so, how do you determine that? How do you know that the things that you claim are mores are not right or wrong in the absolute sense, versus murder, slavery, women's suffrage, etc. which are?


----------



## Yuri Margarine (Jul 2, 2013)

Daryl @ 2nd July 2013 said:


> No, that's not true. If they "let" people use their software illegally, there would be no point in having to register it in the first place. There is copy protection involved with MS software as well as Adobe, so one still has to act illegally to get the software without paying. What you mean is that they haven't fought as hard as they could have to force third world countries to respect their intellectual property.
> 
> D



no, I'm not talking about the third world countries, I'm talking about people around you and me. Microsoft "allows" people to use their softwares illegally for personal use. They know that when people have learned to use the software at home, they will buy one day or another (for professional use for example). To evolve in the digital market, you must necessarily integrate piracy into your business model. You can not fight your future potential customers. This is a bet on the future.



Arbee @ 2nd July 2013 said:


> "Sharing isn't stealing" is the mindset that creates this, some sort of noble Robin Hood principle. By taking digital content I am not denying someone else the use of it, "just" denying the creator some income (and well these creators don't do real work and they are just greedy, wealthy capitalists anyway so they deserve it, right?) :roll:
> .



I do not say that their work is not real work and they deserve it.
I say that piracy on internet is inevitable. If you do not integrate it in your plans, your business will not grow.
If the music market is in such a bad state, is that the producers did not anticipate this parameter. The world is changing...


----------



## Daryl (Jul 2, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Daryl @ 2nd July 2013 said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's not true. If they "let" people use their software illegally, there would be no point in having to register it in the first place. There is copy protection involved with MS software as well as Adobe, so one still has to act illegally to get the software without paying. What you mean is that they haven't fought as hard as they could have to force third world countries to respect their intellectual property.
> ...


No MS does not allow anything of the sort. Just because you know people who steal software isn't proof that MS allows it at all. I would suggest that you point me to a MS document which bears out your statement.

BTW people around me don't steal. If they did, they wouldn't last very long as my friends or colleagues. I refute what you say about incorporating theft into a business model 100%.

D


----------



## Yuri Margarine (Jul 2, 2013)

Daryl @ 2nd July 2013 said:


> No MS does not allow anything of the sort. Just because you know people who steal software isn't proof that MS allows it at all. I would suggest that you point me to a MS document which bears out your statement.
> 
> BTW people around me don't steal. If they did, they wouldn't last very long as my friends or colleagues. I refute what you say about incorporating theft into a business model 100%.
> 
> D



So why it is so easy to get a cracked version of windows or photoshop since 20 years ?
They have left to do and understood the benefit they could do.
You're naive.

I'm sure they would not be leaders on their markets without this parameter.


----------



## Ron Snijders (Jul 2, 2013)

Bill Gates himself has actually made statements on this. He's obviously not saying that people should pirate their software, but they are looking at ways to leverage that 'user base'.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09 ... cropiracy9



> "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
> 
> That's exactly what has happened around the globe, according to the Business Software Alliance, a Microsoft-backed anti-piracy group. Even Vietnam, which at more than 90% has the highest piracy rate in the world, has improved from 100% in 1994. The No. 1 software firm in Vietnam: Microsoft.


----------



## paoling (Jul 2, 2013)

(a very quick THANK YOU for all the people in this thread who supported me and a big one to Chris Hein who contacted the man whose identity was stolen)


----------



## Ron Snijders (Jul 2, 2013)

paoling @ Tue 02 Jul said:


> (a very quick THANK YOU for all the people in this thread who supported me and a big one to Chris Hein who contacted the man whose identity was stolen)


Do you have any more plans for what to do next? Send a takedown notice to the website or something?


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 2, 2013)

Ron Snijders @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> paoling @ Tue 02 Jul said:
> 
> 
> > (a very quick THANK YOU for all the people in this thread who supported me and a big one to Chris Hein who contacted the man whose identity was stolen)
> ...


There are a couple websites that can do this for you. They scan the internet looking for torrents, then if they find any, they send the takedown notices for you. In my own case, I haven't been pirated yet (knock on wood,) but it's handy to have someone else doing the searching for me.
http://www.muso.com/
http://activedmca.com/


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 2, 2013)

mpalenik @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Mores and morals are not the same thing, although very religious people blur the lines.
> ...



Mores can be very important. But they do change over time. Morals don't change. All sane and good people agreed that murder was wrong 1000 years ago, they do today, and they will 1000 years from now. Ditto theft. Ditto assault and battery. Non-bigoted and/or non-evil people recognized that slavery was wrong 200 years ago, they do today, and they will 1000 years from now. 

Moral relativism declares that there are no absolute moral standards, I flat out reject it.


----------



## zacnelson (Jul 2, 2013)

It's weird though how people these days seem to think abortion is okay, when it is obviously murder


----------



## hector (Jul 2, 2013)

could religious beliefs personal opinions on moral issues be dropped and we return to the topic at hand?


----------



## Jago (Jul 2, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Tue 02 Jul said:


> So why it is so easy to get a cracked version of windows or photoshop since 20 years ?
> They have left to do and understood the benefit they could do.
> You're naive.
> 
> I'm sure they would not be leaders on their markets without this parameter.


Just because those were cracked doesn't mean MS, Adobe and other companies condone the practice. Cracked versions are easy to get simply because the internet makes it easy with various tools, and torrents are just the beginning. Companies don't become leaders because of crackers, which makes no financial sense. They were leaders due to their dominance in their markets. In MS's case it was specifically due to Windows and PC sales. If MS thought crackers contributed to their success, MS wouldn't be so hot with the activation that's required upon the initial install of Windows.

Despite what has been said, you seem very convinced to the contrary. I'd like to see documentation that supports your stance on this, as well as MS openly admitting that crackers contribute to increased sales.


----------



## Casiquire (Jul 2, 2013)

Great, this hasn't come off-topic enough yet, let's just bring the abortion debate into it...


----------



## kb123 (Jul 2, 2013)

Its not particularly useful to compare Microsoft and Adobe offerings with those of sample library developers as the target audience is completely different and in the case of sample library developers, much, much smaller. 

Fact:

*When a library is uploaded to a pirate site, the volume of sales for the legitimate library falls dramatically. Therefore the developer is suffering a loss of income. * 

Comments like .. oh .. it doesn't affect them that much, it isn't a real product that is being stolen completely miss this fact.

If a developer creates a library sampling something in their bedroom, their risks are low, but the minute musicians and studio time are involved, there are significant costs associated with production of the library that need to be recovered. If a library is uploaded to a pirate site within days of its release, the developer has next to no chance of recovering costs for an expensive production. That is the bottom line and no amount of fudging with imaginary entitlement will change that.


----------



## klawire (Jul 2, 2013)

Out of curiosity, does anyone have some statistics on how much piracy affects sample library sales? I find it hard to believe that the difference would be dramatical, but I don't mind being proven wrong.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 2, 2013)

klawire @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Out of curiosity, does anyone have some statistics on how much piracy affects sample library sales? I find it hard to believe that the difference would be dramatical, but I don't mind being proven wrong.


Earlier in this thread, Dietz (who is involved with VSL) wrote this:



Dietz @ Sun Jun 30 said:


> The very first generation products of VSL weren't copy-protected.
> 
> No comparison, sorry to say so.


In previous threads, Eric Persing has also written about the huge increase in sales when they added copy protection to Spectrasonics products.


----------



## klawire (Jul 2, 2013)

Mike Greene @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> klawire @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Out of curiosity, does anyone have some statistics on how much piracy affects sample library sales? I find it hard to believe that the difference would be dramatical, but I don't mind being proven wrong.
> ...


That indeed seems to indicate so. The question is, how much of the increase is the result of the added copy protection. It could also be increased public awareness, better products, better marketing etc. But I'm sure the developers have more knowledge on this than I do.


----------



## Yuri Margarine (Jul 2, 2013)

Jago said:


> Despite what has been said, you seem very convinced to the contrary. I'd like to see documentation that supports your stance on this, as well as MS openly admitting that crackers contribute to increased sales.





Ron Snijders @ 2nd July 2013 said:


> Bill Gates himself has actually made statements on this. He's obviously not saying that people should pirate their software, but they are looking at ways to leverage that 'user base'.
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09 ... cropiracy9
> 
> ...



please read the thread..



> Its not particularly useful to compare Microsoft and Adobe offerings with those of sample library developers as the target audience is completely different and in the case of sample library developers, much, much smaller.



What about the case Native instruments ? Every software is cracked the day after the release... they are leader on the market... please stop sayin' piracy is harmful.


----------



## kb123 (Jul 2, 2013)

Yuri Margarine @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> > Despite what has been said, you seem very convinced to the contrary. I'd like to see documentation that supports your stance on this, as well as MS openly admitting that crackers contribute to increased sales.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Are you really trying to be serious? Piracy isn't harmful? What the hell has happened to VI control? is its membership full of pirates? 

As I explained above .. Kontakt for example, is a piece of software with a HUGE use base. Small sample library developers have no where near the market share that NI have. Hence, every sale lost to then affects their ability to continue and survive. If you think I am being alarmist ask any dev that has invested time and money in their lib and seen it hit the torrent sites.


----------



## Yuri Margarine (Jul 3, 2013)

> Are you really trying to be serious? Piracy isn't harmful? What the hell has happened to VI control? is its membership full of pirates?
> 
> As I explained above .. Kontakt for example, is a piece of software with a HUGE use base. Small sample library developers have no where near the market share that NI have. Hence, every sale lost to then affects their ability to continue and survive. If you think I am being alarmist ask any dev that has invested time and money in their lib and seen it hit the torrent sites.



Not really, this is a troll.... but yes i think you are being alarmist... have you a document ? a real one, not a lobby document.


----------



## kb123 (Jul 3, 2013)

why would anyone share confidential info on a public forum which seems to be filled with a bunch of pirates.

The information is out there, countless devs have pointed it out. Are they all lying? Why would they even bother mentioning it if it wasn't affecting their bottom line. Get real and stop trolling


----------



## klawire (Jul 3, 2013)

It's possible that the effects of piracy on revenue have been misinterpreted. It's simple and easy to solely blame piracy. Of course, the simple and easy explanation is more often than not the right explanation, but exploring alternative explanations never hurts.

Ps. I haven't seen any posts here indicating that anyone participating in the discussion would be a pirate.

Edit: what would be more interesting to know than the increase in sales after adding copy protection is the effect of piracy with working, but unobtrusive copy protection. I do think that it's ok to have some kind of copy protection, but if it makes the customer's life more or less significantly harder, you're on the wrong tracks.


----------



## Arbee (Jul 3, 2013)

klawire @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> Ps. I haven't seen any posts here indicating that anyone participating in the discussion would be a pirate.


It's not a big jump from thinking piracy is OK to actually doing it, and then trying to convince the world (and yourself) that what you've done is not wrong or harming anyone. Just saying....


.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jul 3, 2013)

Why this endless search for justification in stealing other peoples work.
That's what using and/or selling pirated software is.
Can't afford to buy it? Tough.

Everybody stop waffling and just say yes that's right or no it's wrong.


----------



## Ganvai (Jul 3, 2013)

@Paolo:

What happened with your pirate? Did you do anything?

Also, maybe you have been pirated, but you also sold one more product. Discovered your MyPiano and it's so awesome. 

So, now we probably have a real example for what pirating may be good for :D But I think it will be the only one.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jul 3, 2013)

Arbee @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> klawire @ Wed Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Ps. I haven't seen any posts here indicating that anyone participating in the discussion would be a pirate.
> ...



Indeed - if you're not going to get prosecuted and you consider it not to be morally wrong, why on earth buy it?

Have to say, for the most part this is following the exact same trajectory of the Piracy Solutions thread a few months ago. Some of the posts might even be copy and paste for all I can tell, although there's a more vocal (and newer) brigade who seem a bit more aggressive in suggesting that there's no problem at all and everyone should just get over it.

IMO the debate isn't helped by hyperbole on both sides. Last time we had the suggestion that once a library had been hacked, there were no more legitimate sales ever again, which was patently ridiculous. Then here we have Yuri here begging us to stop saying piracy is harmful at all, suggesting that stealing is some kind of utopia for which developers should be thankful - all those customers using your products, wow that must be an amazing feeling. Of course piracy has very serious consequences, and of course it is not a given that developers will go out of business because of it. That's not too difficult a concept to grasp now, is it?

The problem with all the debates on morality is that - it seems to me anyway - no-one can do much about it. We can complain about absent moral compasses all millenia (and I'd probably agree), but it won't change that fact Out There. That's why, I guess, many people went for the education option as a solution ie get the message out there that it is wrong. Now that's all well and good, but I don't see a very effective device for doing that. By and large, people don't like having it pointed out to them that they are bad people, and tend to disregard it. At its worst, you get the absurd situation where you can't watch a legitimate DVD or Blu Ray without having to forcibly sit through endless copyright and anti-piracy ads, whereas those who get the same movie illegally can watch the film immediately from the first frame without bothering with all that nonsense, a tremendous situation that penalises ONLY legitimate customers.

I wish there was a silver bullet. iLok has the best protection out there (even now I believe that not a single EWQL Play library has been cracked), but they are an absolute disaster as a company - the recent collapse of the licensing software had dire consequences for businesses. Watermarking is helpful, but limited in what it can do. The companies that take down illegal files ditto. For the smaller companies, the best solution imo is watermarking alongside a positive presence online and in communications with the customers. It's a little little like the old hostage technique of making your captor see you as a human being, not a pawn - if a you see a developer as a human being with a wife and two kids trying to do a good job and keep the baliffs from the door, it can only help. Free updates really helps brand loyalty too imo.

Probably the best approach is to attack on multiple fronts - customer relations, watermarking, take down services.


----------



## Arbee (Jul 3, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> Probably the best approach is to attack on multiple fronts - customer relations, watermarking, take down services.


Agreed, though isn't the real target that very first person who actually buys a copy and a) has the intent to share his cost with others or b) is overwhelmed by his/her caring, sharing nature for the benefit of all mankind or c) wants to prove how cool he/she is in the presence of other lowlife?

.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 3, 2013)

> Also there is a subtle but important difference between Spotify/Pandora and 'what tv and radio do'. Conventional media outlets play a specific set list of material which means their royalty payments are capped and I assume fairly straightforward to predict in advance.
> 
> With a system allowing anyone to play anything from their available tracks at any time then the royalty payments are going to be far harder to predict and control. This is presumably why Pandora are trying to reduce royalty payments.



Pandora doesn't even REPORT the listens you get. It's something they are working on. So the articles going around saying "I got a million plays and got $16." are wrong.

The problem with the streaming vs. "bad in the day" comparison is that they CAN'T be compared.

Before the streaming age, to make it at all you had to get signed. Today, you can get your album on over 15 music networks for the cost of a tank of gas (give or take)

The fact is, musicians that actually promote and work on their brand DO make money on Pandora and Spotify. They pay less royalties then radio, but radio is still a widely used media that is controlled (as far as ads and playlists go) compared to streaming.

When I say money, I don't mean millions. But enough to justify it as a stream of income added to all other streams of income.

Back in the day, you'd sell CDs as a small artist. That was the only media you had. The income would big at the start, but not constant. Today, the revenue from Spotify, Pandora, soon to be iTunes streaming, Youtube, etc. is constant. Musicians today can make a living from multiple streams of income, not just one (CD). In some cases they can make more than they would just by touring and selling CDs.



Now as far as the copyright protection discussion goes:

I saw a comment saying that developers are wrong to not attempt to prevent piracy by any means necessary. I must point out that atleast in the gaming industry, DRM has ruined some titles.

Example: EA's Simcity (2013) required an always on connection. At launch the server wasn't up for days. Probably the most horrible launch in EA's history. And they definitely lost millions because of the always on DRM.

Sadly, always on DRM is something that can't be cracked, so we may see it in other products in the future.

Another example: Xbox One. At first Microsoft announced the console would require a connection every 24 hours. That essentially lost them billions.

So, super heavy anti-piracy is NOT always the answer, and some developers choose not to fight it. Because of non-DRM titles, they sometimes sell more. Some people wil NOT buy a title with DRM on it.

I'm not saying Software = Games, but the piracy level is probably the same for both.


----------



## SamGarnerStudios (Jul 3, 2013)

A couple years ago when I was pirating software on a daily basis (which I refuse to do now) I had to make the decision on a couple DAWS, some of which don't offer trials. While I'm not saying that is a justified reason, it's very frustrating when companies have a flawed business model of not offering a trial or demo version. 

I went on to actually buy that software for real, so I think there is some validity in the statement that people that like the pirated software will buy it. I don't pirate software anymore, but at least in my case I did this for a purely trial basis.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 3, 2013)

klawire @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Mike Greene @ Wed Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > klawire @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> ...


In Spectrasonics' case, it's hard to say, because their copy protected releases (starting with Atmosphere, Trilogy and Stylus) were significantly different from their previous products.

But with VSL, when they introduced their custom player (which requires a dongle,) I believe the samples themselves were identical to what was previously on Gigastudio and EXS24. This new player was a bit of a splash when it was introduced, but nothing compared to the *huge* splash when they introduced VSL in the first place a couple years earlier on Gigastudio and EXS24. I think this is as close as we can get to a legitimate apples to apples comparison.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 3, 2013)

No, piracy is wrong! Piracy hurts developers!


----------



## williemyers (Jul 3, 2013)

zacnelson @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> It's weird though how people these days seem to think abortion is okay, when it is obviously murder


this is probably where a Moderator should step in and....moderate?


----------



## kitekrazy (Jul 3, 2013)

williemyers @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> zacnelson @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > It's weird though how people these days seem to think abortion is okay, when it is obviously murder
> ...



Nope. Just don't let it derail the discussion.


----------



## williemyers (Jul 3, 2013)

Arbee @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> ...that very first person who actually buys a copy and a) has the intent to share his cost with others or b) is overwhelmed by his/her caring, sharing nature for the benefit of all mankind or *c) wants to prove how cool he/she is in the presence of other lowlife?*


it's "(c.)", Arbee...without a doubt, it's "(c.)"! 
It's a primary trait of the "entitlement" generation..... (which are, in fact, entitled to squat)


----------



## kitekrazy (Jul 3, 2013)

SamGarnerStudios @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> A couple years ago when I was pirating software on a daily basis (which I refuse to do now) I had to make the decision on a couple DAWS, some of which don't offer trials. While I'm not saying that is a justified reason, it's very frustrating when companies have a flawed business model of not offering a trial or demo version.
> 
> I went on to actually buy that software for real, so I think there is some validity in the statement that people that like the pirated software will buy it. I don't pirate software anymore, but at least in my case I did this for a purely trial basis.



There could be more protection on the consumer side as well.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jul 3, 2013)

Nathan Allen Pinard @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> Now as far as the copyright protection discussion goes:
> 
> I saw a comment saying that developers are wrong to not attempt to prevent piracy by any means necessary. I must point out that atleast in the gaming industry, DRM has ruined some titles.
> 
> ...



EA is an example of why there needs to be more consumer protection. I believe there were no refunds and there may be a class action suit.

MS just got rid of TechNet. As long as Steve Ballmer is around he will make billions for Apple. 

Most game developers lie about the PC platform as the cause for piracy. It is exists for consoles as well. It just an excuse because it's much easier to develop for consoles but the reason they still develop for PC because it's still the top gaming platform.


----------



## paoling (Jul 3, 2013)

Thank you Ganvai! I'm glad that you liked My Piano, I wish more people could be honest as you are 

I contacted Paypal and I'm waiting for their answer. About removing the software from the sites it's something that I really didn't think I can do. I will try in the next days to send mails to the filesharing sites, but I suppose that once it is on Bit Torrent it's lost. 

Anyway I want to reassure that, although is not nice to be pirated, AudioTrap was really an unsuccessful product as sales, and that's one of the main reasons because now we are pushing our business exclusively on sample libraries and not plugins. Our satisfied user opinions on our other products have helped us to make the definive step. So don't be sad for me, at least not this time.

So, in the end, if there's something that disturbs me of what happened is that something that has our name is spreading on the net and its quality isn't on par with the other products from us (from my point of view).


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 3, 2013)

Ed @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > The Torah says that to take a seller's time knowing you do not intend to buy from him is morally the same as stealing. Not a big leap to my conclusion, is it?
> ...



"This is generally included Gneivas Daas - theft of mind. Gnivas Daas is a Biblical idea. Like all Mitzvot, It is expounded upon in the oral tradition. This too is part of the Torah. The further commentary are given in later generations as the principles get applied to new situations.

The most obvious application of this law would therefore be in a situation where you are certainly not going to buy it or even plan on buying it elsewhere but want to see actual item, get advice, etc.

Let me know if this helps.

Yours truly,
Rabbi Yisroel Cotlar"


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 3, 2013)

You know, I think Alex Lifeson of Rush said it best in his speech accepting the award for Rush's Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame induction.....if I may quote..

"Blah....blah blah BLAH blah blah blah blah...BLAH blah blah BLAH blah blah BLAH BLAH...blahblahblah blah BLAH, blah blah. Blah, blah blah blah BLAH.."

He went on to say...oh, never mind.


----------



## muk (Jul 4, 2013)

Apart from copy protection - which companies have every right to employ - I think there is sth more that can be done against piracy. And that would be different packages for different customers.
An example: I'd love to have Sable, but as a hobbyist I simply cannot justify that amount of money. From a pirates point of view it could be argued: "I'm never gonna buy this library anyway, so I may as well download it for free".
But there's one major flaw in that argument: There might at one point be a "light" offer with just the most common articulations for example, which I would be very inclined to buy. Waiting for such offers is the way really.
So, while I sadly cannot afford to buy full fledged flagship libraries, I do buy smaller libraries and "light" packages instead, and such offers help me against the temptation of pirating libraries.
VSL SE goes a long way for example, or LASS Lite etc. Such offers are great and it's amazing how much can be achieved with them.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 4, 2013)

BTW, the Rabbi went on to say a great deal that to although I am not an observant Jew, to me is fascinating about the relationship of written and oral Torah. PM me if you are interested.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jul 4, 2013)

Ok, now we're talking about Rabbi's and sample piracy...

I love VI-Control for allowing silly threads like this...

There are quite a few posts here that I would have like to have removed.

But VI-Control has a bunch of great moderators and none of them is allowed to be trigger-happy.

Even some of my stuff is pirated (I am probably the tiniest developer here).

I sell IRs, register the customers and tell them what is not allowed. So sharing the results of my hard work is illegal. Period. 

I hope Instant Karma is gonna get all downloaders.


----------



## RasmusFors (Jul 4, 2013)

I think it's quite ridicolous to argue that piracy don't hurt the devolper. Off coarse you loose your potential sales when some asshole uploads your product to piratebay (or whatever). If there are no ways to stop piracy but to have extensive drms and dongles, then there aren't an alternative. I would gladly pay for a good library even if it required some sort of tricky verification process or dongle. If thats the only way to stop pirates, I would accept it and continue making music


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 4, 2013)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Thu Jul 04 said:


> Ok, now we're talking about Rabbi's and sample piracy...
> 
> I love VI-Control for allowing silly threads like this...
> 
> ...



If you maintain that piracy is theft and theft is a moral issue, who better than a Rabbi?


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jul 4, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jul 04 said:


> Peter Emanuel Roos @ Thu Jul 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, now we're talking about Rabbi's and sample piracy...
> ...



I cannot appreciate this. Piracy is theft. Period. Not maintaining anything. I have nothing to do with Rabbi's.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 4, 2013)

I appreciate all religious and non-religious viewpoints on morality and theft is a moral issue IMHO.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jul 4, 2013)

Theft is criminal and if and when an opportunity arises the thief must face the consequences of their actions. The difficulties the developer/manufacturer/seller has in bringing the offender/s to court therefore leaving many to assume they can get away with it doesn't change the fact. It's theft, it's a crime.

Morality?..............irrelevant.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jul 5, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Jul 02 said:


> Plasuma!!! @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I have solar panels on my home that give me free power 24/7, while others have to pay for electricity. Is it morally wrong that I get that for free? I could put other people on my grid and start charging them for it, but if they also get solar panels and energy storage, is it morally wrong that I can no longer profit off them?
> ...


But it's not my argument, it's Synesthesia's (_read the post I quoted_). I'm actually giving an example of their argument. 
Besides that, the topic is piracy and economics, not Shylock law or morality.

... and holy crap this thread moves fast. Nobody's going to read any of this except the first and last posts, so continuing any of these arguments is just going to circulate the same opinions and bile.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jul 5, 2013)

rayinstirling @ Thu Jul 04 said:


> Theft is criminal and if and when an opportunity arises the thief must face the consequences of their actions. The difficulties the developer/manufacturer/seller has in bringing the offender/s to court therefore leaving many to assume they can get away with it doesn't change the fact. It's theft, it's a crime.
> 
> Morality?..............irrelevant.


That is a sad fact for many self-justifying pirates, but imagine if you sold something that couldn't be 'stolen' - e.g. a service.

Would piracy matter at all then?


I still think it's ironic that any company would want its user-base to help them against piracy, when their license terms directly inhibit them from participating in the real economy by limiting aftermarket and used goods.

"Hey, thanks for buying this. Here's a big EULA full of 'fuck you' that you'll ignore, but we'll make sure you recognize it later when your product doesn't work or is broken and we refuse to let you return, resell, or repair it even if we're required by law to allow it."

Hypocrisy much?


----------



## trumpoz (Jul 5, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sat Jul 06 said:


> Hey, thanks for buying this. Here's a big EULA full of 'fuck you' that you'll ignore, but we'll make sure you recognize it later when your product doesn't work or is broken and we refuse to let you return, resell, or repair it even if we're required by law to allow it."
> 
> Hypocrisy much?



I'm not going to get in to the legalities of reselling licenses as I'm in a different country to you and different companies have different policies and different countries have different laws. 

What idiot doesn't read a contract before signing it? The EULAs are available on company websites for viewing/reading before purchase. Do a google search for any developer name and eula and you will find it online (i've looked at east west, spitfire, projectsam, native instruments and VSL). If you sign or commit to a contract without reading the terms and conditions and you get burnt...... that is your own fault. Before you ask - yes I read the EULA before purching my CCC, HB/HS bundle, Spaces, CHH. Yes i read terms and conditions before ticking yes. Yes I read contracts before signing them (it comes when my partner, bless her, is a lawyer).


----------



## kb123 (Jul 5, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Fri Jul 05 said:


> I still think it's ironic that any company would want its user-base to help them against piracy, when their license terms directly inhibit them from participating in the real economy by limiting aftermarket and used goods.
> 
> "Hey, thanks for buying this. Here's a big EULA full of 'fuck you' that you'll ignore, but we'll make sure you recognize it later when your product doesn't work or is broken and we refuse to let you return, resell, or repair it even if we're required by law to allow it."
> 
> Hypocrisy much?



So is this your real reason for entering this thread and attacking paul/spitfire? You are actually protesting against the eula rather than anything to do with piracy? That's how it seems to me.

Like others have said, the eula is there and clear before you purchase, and spitfire are by no means the only devs to take this approach. If you don't like it, don't buy it and dont download it from a pirate site. Simple. Just choose a product that meets your buying criteria


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jul 6, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Sat Jul 06 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Plasuma!!! @ Tue Jul 02 said:
> ...



You've been clear here, so you must mean this from Synethesia:



> The end result, is that you have something in your possession that other people have had to pay for, that you can use without having paid for it.
> 
> If you use it, then by definition the vendor has lost money, as there is someone using their creation without paying them for the right to use it.
> 
> ...



I've re-read it four times now, and the logical leap from this comment to solar power as an example eludes me. Is it that we all have the right to free energy because some people have paid many thousands for converting the sun's rays and some haven't? Is that... um... the sun is free in the same way that oxygen in the air is free and, um, both pirates and professional string players breathe the same air so anyone who has an expensive process to store oxygen in a tank is... um... er.... nope, I just can't find a logical connection no matter how hard I try.

If I were you I'd move on regarding this one, Plusuma - it's a terrible, terrible argument.


----------



## hector (Jul 6, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Fri Jul 05 said:


> But it's not my argument, it's Synesthesia's (read the post I quoted). I'm actually giving an example of their argument.


And a few people included myself showed you how the analogy was not correct and this not was synesthesia said. By the logic you say then most things should be free (paper afterall is just trees, trees grow free. Electicity is just burning coal; coal can be made free. Water in my faucet was from free rain, Sausage is just the pigs, pigs grow free).



Plasuma!!! @ Fri Jul 05 said:


> That is a sad fact for many self-justifying pirates, but imagine if you sold something that couldn't be 'stolen' - e.g. a service. Would piracy matter at all then?


You mean like a psychiatrists advice? A guitar lessons? A sun tanning salon session? A massage? You have the very naive view of services... Commercial services cost time and money for someone to provide, so yes it would matter if someone sneaked into the service without paying and would be immoral...



Plasuma!!! @ Fri Jul 05 said:


> I still think it's ironic that any company would want its user-base to help them against piracy, when their license terms directly inhibit them from participating in the real economy by limiting aftermarket and used goods.
> 
> "Hey, thanks for buying this. Here's a big EULA full of 'fuck you' that you'll ignore, but we'll make sure you recognize it later when your product doesn't work or is broken and we refuse to let you return, resell, or repair it even if we're required by law to allow it."
> 
> Hypocrisy much?


That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be to do as you say but never have a EULA, there must be deception.

As the consumer you have the right to disagree with your wallet and to not purchase, what is not the right is to steal the product. It seems your problem here is EULA? If so then buy from a company whose EULA I agree with. Your product doesn't work and can't resell? Then don't buy from the company again. I think most us who buy samples have no issues with the reselling or returning with a company regularly used because we know neither are important as we keep and use our samples.

Funny how you do not answer about if you commit sharing when the wording is not left for you to vaguely specify.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 6, 2013)

I do not know much about piracy and the technicalities. I buy all of my software. 

It was common when I was in university in the UK. And things would get passed around. Luckily, my father supported me and I bought all of my VSL and other libraries. 

I agree that the basic starter packages are quite good. I remember, getting some advice from fellow composers (Daryl helped me through even back then, not sure if he remembers that) on the VSL forum back when I was about to buy my first orchestral samples. 

I was asked to consider if I would not buy the entire Pro edition but go with the OPUS bundle and learn how to use it correctly because its takes time. 

VSL's upgrade policy was so great that it made complete sense. I was not going to pay twice for the samples. And it did pay off a few years later when Vienna Instruments came out. 

Buying original software and samples is also a long term investment. I know composers now who can afford the whole thing but never bought it when they were starting and for them shelling out $10,000 or more for VSL or other things seems like a huge sudden investment. 

People run crack Kontakt so that it allows them to use any of the latest products. I am considered as being 'stuck' because I have original NI stuff and cannot run cracked libraries when sometimes offered by a fellow producer. 

I once even had an e-mail exchange from a guy (ex-army) in the US. He was getting into composing but wanted to get going with samples. He also ran a small website and said he could help me push my music in the US in a small way if I shared some of my samples. That was the last time we spoke I believe.

The problem is in the thinking - its so easily available. With the download option, this is really not a fair point anymore - not that it was back then.

As far as I know - VSL has not yet been cracked. I am not sure why and how this is possible. Cubase is also on e-licenser but Cubase has been cracked - I last saw someone using Cubase 5 cracked.

If VSL indeed has not been cracked - then I believe, this security method works just fine and all developers should follow that.

May be it costs them more to go that route - I dont know but it simply means that a more secure option is available.

VSL has been around for many years and if it has not been cracked - simply, it means that its really secure and that this method works completely. 

The only problem is back up of licenses or insurance if the dongle breaks or stops working suddenly. At least in India, there is no insurance to cover music software at the moment.


Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 6, 2013)

Piracy not only has an effect on developers, it also hurts composers who pay.

If everyone can just get all the latest stuff for free and feature them in their work then it does somewhat affect other composers who pay for their software.

Luckily, this kind of a problem is only limited to loop based or small arppegiated libraries or synth stuff because you dont need to be that skilled.

For example, I love using Diva and lots of my friends or others do not like or cant make it sound good because it does not have usable trailer styled 2000 presets. It is not like Omnisphere or what have you.

But, I make sounds from scratch in Diva all the time and I know how to make it sound good. 

Those who use a lot of pirated software also often have a quirk in their music. It shows - the lack of skill/time/effort.

I value my samples and software and I like to keep it limited. I am not one to buy every other latest software. It just confuses me and makes it too messy to use everything right. 

But, because of piracy it has become common for composers to just download the latest stuff - its a habit. They may not even use it, but it sits there in their Kontakt library tab - looking nice.

Of course, its not OK to steal.

Tanuj.


----------



## PavlovsCat (Jul 6, 2013)

Just one more perspective. I'm not a developer, but I've worked with/advised/helped dozens of independent sample and VST developers over more than ten years and my background is marketing, but includes heading digital marketing for a consultant that has a anti-counterfeit/anti-piracy practice that consults to large software and hardware manufacturers. 

I don't think there is any fair justification for software piracy, whether it's that it allows you to try software out where a trial version is not available or something else. It's simply wrong to steal others work. Deep down, I believe we all know this. And I've seen software, VST and sample developers get very depressed over seeing their work pirated. 

Early on in this thread, an independent developer said it right, imo. Basically, developers should always think about piracy, but realize that they will not be able to eliminate it. They also must realize that a legitimate market still exists and if you focus your effort on the legitimate market, there is still plenty of opportunity for a talented independent developer to succeed regardless of your work being pirated. Consequently, I think it's best to not dedicate more than a small amount -- say 2% of one's total efforts to combating piracy -- but design your work around legitimate users, not pirates, and seek to make it as usable as possible; don't punish legitimate users for illegitimate users sins.


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jul 9, 2013)

kb123 @ Fri Jul 05 said:


> Plasuma!!! @ Fri Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I still think it's ironic that any company would want its user-base to help them against piracy, when their license terms directly inhibit them from participating in the real economy by limiting aftermarket and used goods.
> ...


That's not at all the reason. 
I think it's hypocritical that a content creator puts such ridiculous terms in a contract, and then releases the associated product and expects people to not try and circumvent it. And really, who do you know actually reads the EULA? They're so long-winded and unreadable, there's just no point, and they never hold up in court. It's really just ammunition for a publisher to threaten customers who don't have the funds to protect themselves legally, which is abusive.

Now the reason I dislike this anti-piracy crusade and those who jump on the bandwagon is because these software developers make the stupidest contracts imaginable and then complain when they get shafted.

Tell me, how do you draw up the terms for a contract with a client when you create music for them? 

I know what you *don't* do: you *don't* start working on a project without consulting them first, you *don't* finish the whole thing and deliver it as-is one day before the deadline and expect them to be happy, and you *don't* give it to them polished and complete expecting payment in full without some assurance that they are willing and have the means to pay for it (_especially when they could very easily just walk away with what you made_).


Developing software is the same as any other project-based service industry: you start a project you know is wanted, you outline the concept and terms of use with your clients (_your investors / potential customers_), you get deadlines for milestones and get paid to complete them, and, if you're very lucky, you get royalties on top of that.

This is what I mean: don't expect people to pay for your work just because you did it. There's a procedure and negotiations that have to be made, and in this day and age of social networking and crowd-sourced everything, it's a piss-poor company that sticks to an outdated 'software manufacturing' business model to operate within a service-based industry.


----------



## kb123 (Jul 9, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Tue Jul 09 said:


> Now the reason I dislike this anti-piracy crusade and those who jump on the bandwagon is because these software developers make the stupidest contracts imaginable and then complain when they get shafted.



I have never read such ill informed rubbish as you have spouted in this thread.

I would also like to say that I am extremely disappointed with the moderators on vi-control. They are quick enough to jump on some things ... and yet this rubbish which is clearly pro piracy is left for all to see .. You say you support developers .. I think its about time you started to show it.


----------



## hector (Jul 9, 2013)

Plasuma!!! @ Tue Jul 09 said:


> I know what you *don't* do: you *don't* start working on a project without consulting them first,


LOL I don't think you ever have worked in a consumer lead mass market. All I hear is independent and freelancer and over the top open source philosophy trying to be applied to a completely different area you obviously have no expertise in. The two areas are mutual exclusive and what works for one does not always work for another.

You know how expensive a TV would be if your logic was followed? Or a kettle? or a spoon? If manufacturers go about consulting a customer first to find out if there is a demand... set about terms of using the spoon... if you think an ipad is expensive by Apple imagine how much if they met with all billion consumers and found out what they need individually and set about milestones for deadlines. This whole thing makes me laugh how ridiculous it all is! Do you know how expensive a library like Adagio or CineBrass or Spitfire would be if you treated it like a freelance project as you wish? You would not be getting so much for under €1000.... try 10 to 100 times more.

This thread turned to drivel by certain people who troll and try to justify not paying for a service because they do not agree with its terms. here is an idea: if you do not agree with the terms you *don't have to give your money*. I also cannot believe it is not closed or moderated.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 9, 2013)

Plasuma,

Our EULA is 675 words long.

One and a half pages.

This is the first half of page 1:



> SPITFIRE End User License Agreement
> 
> CAREFULLY READ this agreement: if you download, use, install, or authorise this software you agree to be bound by these terms.
> 
> ...




Is this the stupidest contract imaginable?

You must be very dull witted if thats as far as your imagination can carry you.

Regards,

Paul


----------



## pinki (Jul 9, 2013)

On EULAS

I never used to read them because I thought I was buying A THING that was mine. When I realised this was not the case I started to read EULAS.

I do believe that there should be consistency in EULAS regarding re-selling software. I think it should be allowed period. But some do.... some don't, so it's confusing. 

(This is why I will never buy another East West library after I bought SILK and did not read the EULA. I will buy Project Sam again because they allow it.)

I guess what I'm saying is that the developers are not perfect either- and this idea of "It's merely a license to use our software" is really hard to get across to Joe Public- especially when the marketing always uses glossy images of software as a box. I remember when I got SILK- the box was 400 times bigger than the DVD inside because EW wanted it both ways- it's a THING but it's NOT A THING!

Strange times this virtualisation!


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 9, 2013)

Hey Pinki. Thats not the case. I hope Eric doesn't mind me quoting him, he explains it far more eloquently than I can:



spectrum @ Sun Jan 06 said:


> gsilbers said:
> 
> 
> > so, its up for someone to sue one sample company to be able to let you resell and the rest will have to follow. its just so expensive and time consuming that it just easier to let it go.
> ...


----------



## 667 (Jul 9, 2013)

Yeah it's all about the license to use the sound recordings. 

I used to have really strong feelings about this because I have a lot of hardware synths, guitars, etc. and it really irritated me that I couldn't re-sell a library I didn't like, whereas selling a piece of hardware is no problem at all. But my position has evolved, and the way I look at it now is that the prices of libraries are probably cheaper due to this effect of sound recording copyright. And so I just accept that's the reality of sample-based instruments.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 9, 2013)

667 @ Wed Jul 10 said:


> Yeah it's all about the license to use the sound recordings.
> 
> I used to have really strong feelings about this because I have a lot of hardware synths, guitars, etc. and it really irritated me that I couldn't re-sell a library I didn't like, whereas selling a piece of hardware is no problem at all. But my position has evolved, and the way I look at it now is that the prices of libraries are probably cheaper due to this effect of sound recording copyright. And so I just accept that's the reality of sample-based instruments.



Exactly. And there's no probably about it.. We've spent well over a million dollars on recordings so far. Our libraries would need to be a factor of 3-4 times the price if we were to allow resale.

What would people prefer? Affordable prices or resale?


----------



## zacnelson (Jul 9, 2013)

The value for money is extraordinary these days, it astounds me that people have so many grievances


----------



## 667 (Jul 9, 2013)

Well it was really when I started thinking about my mortality and that the rights to the samples would die with me and that all these virtual instruments would not be able to be passed on... Which is fine if I live 100 years but if I get hit by a bus tomorrow it seems a little unfair. 

Funny that OMG MY PRECIOUS SAMPLES is somehow the most unfair thing about being hit by a bus in my mind but somehow I'm sure some of my fellow musicians understand. 

But as I say, I've just come to accept that sample-based instruments are in a different legal realm and don't dwell on this anymore.


----------



## pinki (Jul 10, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Tue Jul 09 said:


> Hey Pinki. Thats not the case.



Hi Synesthesia

I think you slightly misunderstood my post....I wasn't saying anything about the legal aspect...merely asking for consistency across the board so that we don't get caught by the "you should have read the EULA' scenario.

After all, many many companies do allow resale and many don't. NI, Project SAM yes, EW no etc. Also added to the confusion is the sample versus synth argument and ..it's an odd situation and it's confusing.

I definitely agree about price being so low these days though.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 10, 2013)

667 @ Wed Jul 10 said:


> Yeah it's all about the license to use the sound recordings.
> 
> I used to have really strong feelings about this because I have a lot of hardware synths, guitars, etc. and it really irritated me that I couldn't re-sell a library I didn't like, whereas selling a piece of hardware is no problem at all. But my position has evolved, and the way I look at it now is that the prices of libraries are probably cheaper due to this effect of sound recording copyright. And so I just accept that's the reality of sample-based instruments.



The same here, after some discussions with Erik from Spectrasonic. Erik had given me plenty of food for thought. ..


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Jul 11, 2013)

> Developing software is the same as any other project-based service industry: you start a project you know is wanted, you outline the concept and terms of use with your clients (your investors / potential customers), you get deadlines for milestones and get paid to complete them, and, if you're very lucky, you get royalties on top of that.



Unfortunately piracy ends up lowering the royalties. I'm probably a victim of piracy and I don't even *DEVELOP* software.


----------



## RasmusFors (Jul 11, 2013)

> Unfortunately piracy ends up lowering the royalties. I'm probably a victim of piracy and I don't even DEVELOP software.



+1

Pirate all the great sounding libraries, make a decent song in fl studio and release it for free ! It's easy, fun and it dosen't cost a single piss. *obvious sarcasm


----------



## Plasuma!!! (Jul 13, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Tue Jul 09 said:


> Plasuma,
> 
> Our EULA is 675 words long.
> 
> ...


Yes, it is in many ways. For one, you don't even require the user to actually have a license to use it. Given that your current business model is to sell licenses, you aren't even pretending to protect yourself at all. It's really hard not to call that stupid. Generally, when you make a contract with any client / customer you're doing business with, you make it extensive and readable, and that EULA only meets one of those criteria.

What I'm pointing out throughout this convo are two things: 1) your contract doesn't protect you or the user/client or define any rights either one of you might have in any event, and 2) that business model you're currently using doesn't work with software in the first place.


What I mean in my previous posts by this lack of imagination and that software is a service industry, it's just that. You think you can approach this by selling a license to a product that other people already 'own', but it just doesn't work that way. People will share it if they like it since they aren't treating it like a corporate asset, and using a business model designed around control over distribution, rather than control over production or support services, you're making an active effort to set yourself up for failure. You either do this exclusive and work closely with your client, or you do it like a service and provide the product as an incentive to subscribe to something you provide or to directly help you continue development on the features and content they desire a la crowd-sourced funding for initiation and milestones.


Beyond these things, when you catch yourself jumping back and forth between states like "this is a physical good, it can be stolen" and "this is a digital good, it can't be re-sold", that's confused at best, hypocritical at worst, and it's the biggest reason why these contracts suck - they're contradictory if not too vague, no matter how long or well-worded they are, and that's entirely because the people drafting them have no idea what their business is supposed to do.


----------



## bbunker (Jul 13, 2013)

Plasuma,

Not to split hairs, but you didn't read Paul's comment very carefully. "Our EULA is 675 words long. / One and a half pages. / This is the first half of page 1:" precedes the portion of the EULA you were commenting on. You then go on to discuss the things that the contract lacks, how it isn't extensive, etc. Clearly, making judgements like this from 33% of the actual EULA shows that you either haven't understood or cared exactly what it is that you're reading, and your comments need to be dismissed as such.

Clearly it would be impossible for anyone from Spitfire, a company that you clearly harbo(u)r some kind of resentment towards, to put forth anything that you would find acceptable. Do you have some kind of a draft EULA that you'd like to bring to the table to show the way forward to your digital utopia?

I also have some complaint to make about your final point, and a point you've made continuously throughout, in which you decry Spitfire as existing hypocritically between the two worlds of physical and digital. Which is akin to complaining that light tries to be both a wave and a particle. The existence of music itself is one of fleetingness. How are my compositions to be known? By sound recording, by notation, or by something else? While both the sonic and visual realizations of a composition begin to describe the full '-ness' of music, I doubt that many would find them adequate as describing the ENTIRETY of a work. So, a business model that is at times contradictory would not NECESSARILY also be hypocritical, as long as the contradictions arise from the duality inherent in the publishing of music libraries. I don't mean to condescend, but it really does sound as though you're trying to force your rather fixed and fundamentalist conception of how business models should exist upon a reality which is existing quite well enough in its own unique form.

Sorry if that last paragraph is meaningless...I'd better read more Schopenhauer before my next post!

-Brian


----------



## muk (Jul 13, 2013)

Plasuma, I guess you have a lot of experience in running a sample developing company? Otherwise, how comes that you exactly know how it works, whereas apparently people doing it for years don't?
Where does this hate against Spitfire come from? I think you might have some interesting ideas about distributing samples etc., but put them as THE ONLY ONES and discrediting everything else as failure and garbage is a little presumptous, isn't it?


----------

