# Piracy - the difficult questions [WAS Is piracy EVER remotely justifiable?]



## noiseboyuk (Jan 6, 2011)

NO.... right?

OK, here's what's prompted this. There's a plugin that I'd like, but the vst version got discontinued... it's only AU now. Which I can't use. I contacted the manufacturer directly to see if they would still sell a legacy product, unsupported, if I was lucky for a reduced amount. They said they wouldn't / couldn't sell vst at all any more. 

Interestingly, they said the reason they stopped vst was piracy - 70& of their vst products out there were pirates, they said. Couldn't help but reflect that now it's 100%... surely it makes sense to sell unsupported legacy on that basis?

Further, there is no other similar product on the market from anyone else that I'm aware of. So I can't buy it, the manufacturer says they never will sell it again, and no-one else has an alternative. Still not saying it's RIGHT as such, but... who would lose, exactly?

Throwing it open to the floor....


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Is piracy EVER remotely justifiable?*

VI does not support piracy and never has. Piracy essentially kills new development as well as the desire to develop. If there is no economic advantage, why bother? Many new developers are small companies in start up mode but regardless, piracy is devastating to new development meaning less cool stuff for end users. 

I've heard of some of the negative impact firsthand. Look at Slate Digital for example: they stopped development of their Virtual Console Collection beta because of piracy which pushed back the timetables for release by many months while new protection schemes with the newer iLok2 were developed out of necessity. It also makes it more expensive in that the costs for additional protection schemes are eventually passed onto legitimate end users. Also I'm sure you've noticed that certain favorite software sampling engines are essentially abandoned in favor of others with more stringent anti-piracy schemes. Developing new sampling engines is also a cost consideration which affects the cost of products.

Aside from viruses, several lawsuits were lodged successfully against studios and musicians by Waves. Some of the judgments awarded were ten times the amount of the actual software that was pirated. Even that won't stop piracy though. Again, piracy kills new development and the ones suffering the most aside from the developers themselves is the market, new development and the legitimate end user.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Is piracy EVER remotely justifiable?*

You could always buy DSP plugs.
The extra price has resale value, and often better sound quality.
After 12 years of use I can still sell my ancient Pulsar II Project for 500 USD.
And in 12 years never once a crack, and no scammy iLok's or Syncrosoft jive.
But I need realtime stuff used outside of the house, so it's a little different I suppose.
Ankyu...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 6, 2011)

Frederick - did you read my OP?

Everything I have is legit, and I agree with everything you say. But what about THIS sort of case?


----------



## JJP (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Is piracy EVER remotely justifiable?*

This topic popped up in another form recently regarding printed scores that were not commercially available. This is definitely a discussion worth having.

I think the underlying question that people are asking is, "If something is not commercially available, but I want it anyway, do I have the right to take it?" The argument in favor seems to be that if the product is not currently being sold by anyone, stealing it does no harm and is morally ambiguous.

I think there is another underlying postulate in this argument that most people are loath to admit. That is, "I have a right to have whatever I want. Therefore if the owner will not make the product I want available to me, I should have the right to take it."

When laid bare like this, I think it sounds like the morality of a 2 year old child screaming, "But Mom, I WANT it! I NEED it!" It also has the all the moral justification of breaking into a store and stealing discontinued items from the stockroom because "they weren't going to sell that stuff anyway."

Just because something is not available to you doesn't mean it never will be. If it never will be, that still does not give a person the right to steal it. The declaration of value of a product by someone who does not own it does not give that someone moral superiority or right of ownership.

The same argument could be put to pirating Disney DVDs which Disney puts "in the vault" for years at a time. :roll: Just because Disney doesn't make the films available exactly when and in the format someone wants them does not give that person the right to steal them. The films are still a valuable commodity even though Disney is not making them available at the moment.

Want of a product does not grant a moral right to possess a product. Likewise, a product's commercial availability has no bearing on your "right" to possess it.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 6, 2011)

Well argued, JJP. I'd been thinking on similar lines, which is why I contacted the manufacturer directly to try to ascertain their position. If I'd have got even a flicker of "we might review this in the future", end of discussion. However, the response was "we've wound it down - there is no possibility of winding it back up again".

I was wondering about a different analogy. Piracy is killing music - sure. Legal CDs, legal downloads, absolutely. But what about that rare gig tape that only the bootleggers sell? Some still say this is absolutely wrong, but many bands themselves take a different view. This is a far from perfect analogy, btw, but as much illustrating that the situation is perhaps a little more morally complex than you suggest.

In the case in my OP, my hand-wringing (and 10-1 I'll remain squeaky-clean anyway) it could be argued, is irrelevant. If there is no alternative, of course piracy will increase in the real world. This is how illegal downloading became ubiquitous - there was no legal market to compete until the genie was way, way out of the bottle. In the OP case, part of me is annoyed at the developers for giving up completely. I can understand why they wouldn't peruse new products with all the R&D it entails, but not to withdraw off-the-shelf legacy without a substitute.

Take the analogy with breaking into the storeroom for discontinued stuff. Now change it - it's not a storeroom, but a skip ready to go off to the landfill. Still theft? Yup. But to me, certainly a morally grey area. Again, not a perfect analogy, but still...


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 6, 2011)

Good idea, stonzthro - would definitely check these damn pirate things work first before doing it tho!

wst - very thoughtful post.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2011)

I find it hard to believe that there's no other software that you can get legit that can't replace the software you're trying to dl illegally. 

Sounds to me like you're kind of smelling an opportunity to get something for nothing and you're asking if it's "OK".


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 6, 2011)

josejherring @ Thu Jan 06 said:


> I find it hard to believe that there's no other software that you can get legit that can't replace the software you're trying to dl illegally.
> 
> Sounds to me like you're kind of smelling an opportunity to get something for nothing and you're asking if it's "OK".



As politely as I can say it - "think whatever you like!"

It's a genuinely unique sound design plugin, and MORE than happy to pay (as my post above says, actually).


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2011)

Then pay! 

Buy the AU versions and ask the company for the vst's or use the cracks after you pay for the AU version. 

Why make it a pubic dilemma? It's between you and your conscience. Which as far as I can see is eating away at you.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 6, 2011)

Jose - what's your problem, mate? Others have contributed constructively to this, and indeed the possibility of paying for an AU version has already come up. And has been discussed - I'd first need to know that a cracked version genuinely worked, and secondly that the company in question were happy with the arrangement - this is every bit as illegal as not paying for AU, don't forget, and they may very well not appreciate the gesture. IMHO you're being unnecesarily rude and patronising on a complex topic that is clearly of interest - and directly relevant - to others. Thought better of you.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2011)

I have no problem with you. but, don't think that I'm mr. nice guy all the time.

Personally I have a hard time believing that you can't replace this software with something else. You haven't even mentioned the software. So it seems like you're being cryptic. 

Personally, I'd just come clean. Mention the software and see if anybody else has the suggestion of perhaps other apps that may do the same thing.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 6, 2011)

I guess I was reluctant to name the software to draw attention to the specific unavailable product, and be accused of encouraging piracy against the developer - by keeping it generic it's one less mine in a crowded minefield. If others also think there's no problem in naming then am happy to do so... tomorrow though, I need to go to bed!


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2011)

When you wake up. You don't have to name the product, but you could mention what you're trying to do. I know of plenty of sound design products. Not to mention that they folded all of the Max Dsp stuff into Ableton Live 8.

Have a good night.

--Jose


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Is piracy EVER remotely justifiable?*

Buy the AU wrapper.
It's just 1's and 0's anyways according to the nullifying experts.... 8)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 6, 2011)

I agree with Jose's solution: buy the AU and use the VST crack. And tell the company that's what you're doing.

If you can use the wrapper, as chimuelo suggests, do that.

Subtext: yes it's a moral dilemma, but a very small one. Meanwhile you're making it a bigger deal than necessary by posting, methinks - including forcing Frederick to make the corporate comment that VI-C doesn't support piracy (which of course it doesn't).


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 6, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jan 07 said:


> I agree with Jose's solution: buy the AU and use the VST crack. And tell the company that's what you're doing.



Agreed. This way, the co. does not lose out, as it gets it's money for the plug - the same (theoretically) amount they would have recvd had you bought the vst, and then you get the satisfaction of doing the right thing, and everyone is happy. If you buy the AU version, show the co. POP, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't send you a VST version.

Cheers.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 6, 2011)

AU-vst wrapper?! Does that exist? A quick google search says "no"...

Won't name the product, then - if I even say what it does it's obvious what it is, cos it's the only one!

I'll go to the devs again with the crack plan (as it were) and see what they say about it.

Dan - yup, I've no problem with your approach, I'm sure some will bite your head off for it though!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 7, 2011)

Well that's absolutely BIZARRE!

I contacted them about this idea just now, and - VERY efficient reply, btw - they then said "oh, if you buy the mac VST version, we always throw in the windows VST for free anyway".

!!!!!

A - why didn't they say that when in enquired in the first place rather then telling me there was no way the windows version was available, and 

B - why not advertise the fact on the website? Very few people will bother, as I did, to ask after all.

Well, given that it IS available and has been all along (!!!!) I may as well say the product - it's the Prosoniq Morph plugin. I know synths like Alchemy claim to morph sounds, but actually they don't, certainly nothing like the Prosoniq which sounds like a genuine morph. Awesome sound design tool, even if it is only mono.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 7, 2011)

*Re: Is piracy EVER remotely justifiable?*

Guy, that is a good outcome to a thread that showed that ethics and rules are not always the same. Interesting company too, thinkers and inventors at it seems.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 7, 2011)

"AU-vst wrapper?! Does that exist? A quick google search says "no"..."

A quick re-check of my brain also says no. The FXpansion wrapper is the other way around.

Sorry about that.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 7, 2011)

The nice man from Prosoniq (who was always super-quick to answer emails) says he's going to suggest they make it clear on their website you CAN get legacy PC stuff. It's crazy to be told on a specific enquiry you can't do it, only to find a fully functioning system they have in place the next day. I wonder how much custom they've lost over the years through people in my position thinking a legal purchase isn't possible any more?

I bought the AU, then sent the serial number to get one which works on the PC, then you register and download the old PC version. So the system works. And the morph is amazing! FWIW, 95% of the time I'd be using this for my sound design work, not music.


----------



## snowleopard (Jan 8, 2011)

Glad to know this had a good outcome. 

As to pirating, haven't we discussed that to death already? 

Now that there's been a resolution, it seems to me like this thread could be closed.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2011)

What the thread showed me is that piracy in any way shape or form is as close to a taboo subject at VI-C as anything.. And of course I can understand why. But Frederick (whom I respect enormously)'s blanket cut and paste statement was I felt a little sad - it was something that had to be done to satisfy the commercial interests on the board, but it didn't engage in any of the issues.

I know even typing this will be controversial, so I should be clear once more - I have always argued that piracy is unacceptable, that it destroys the industry. As I've said already, everything I use in music is bought and paid for, that's how it should be and I'm sure all of us on the board would agree. But I think it's a shame that free discussion on the very grey areas at the fringes isn't welcome, cos I think it's counter-productive.

I guess I was a little shocked at some of the responses. I know some of you will say "well duh, what did you expect", but I think the tone was set by Frederick's initial reply. It felt like however carefully I wrote that OP with all appropriate caveats and disclaimers, just writing the word PIRACY was enough to close down debate. In our industry, where piracy is endemic, I think closing down debate is a bad thing, it's an issue that needs engagement.

Take my example. Prosoniq have a clear message from their website - "we don't sell PC vst any more". If as a result of my transaction this situation may be about to change, and in a very small way that might help reduce piracy - future shoppers will hopefully find new legal options beyond "don't buy anything". I'm not saying I'm a conquering hero or anything, but it's an illustration that debating complex areas (and challenging developers where appropriate) can have positive outcomes.

So Snow - actually I think there should be more piracy discussions, not less. They should be focused on specific issues, and a free exchange of ideas of what we can do to help reduce it (beyond just reciting that it is bad). And I should also add that some responses to this thread have been exactly this, and really helpful, don't want to be too negative. I'd probably have given up with Prosoniq after my initial response from them, but the ideas here galvanised me to try again. And here kudos to the mods - I guess it would have been easy just to lock the thread at the outset, benefiting no-one.

Here's an issue that I've thought of recently, hardly original of course. Do you think Google have a major responsibility in piracy? With all the talk of censorship of wikileaks and China etc, I'm surprised there hasn't been a more concerted effort to get this subject discussed at a high level. Just typing the name of a sample library will produce hits, sometimes right at the top, from torrents sites, and for newbies in particular it may not even be obvious that that's what they are. Can this be right? Can it be effectively stopped without harming any legitimate concerns? Is there any form of pressure group working on this?

One of the problems of piracy is that it's too easy. If someone is determined to track down a hacked product then they will be difficult to stop. But my point is - ANYONE typing the name of a normal library is bombarded with offers to get it for free or next-to-nothing. If - magically - torrent / warez sites were all google-invisible (and even better against the law on rival engines too) it's hard to believe that piracy use wouldn't be dramatically reduced. Now this might not be practical, but thought it's a discussion worth having. Criminals are clever. But - it seems to me - so are Google. Already they filter search results in many complex ways, so I'm just proposing an extension of that I guess.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2011)

*Re: Is piracy EVER remotely justifiable?*



kb123 @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> Firstly, I would be surprised if there is anyone that is unaware that torrent sites are a source of pirated software, newbie or not.
> 
> The visibilty of such sites is a double edged sword. It does allow the developer the opportunity to quickly identify where the software is being leaked and take appropriate action, otherwise they may carry on unaware there is a problem.
> 
> It is my belief that those silly enough to take advantage of these sites, usually get more than they bargained for on their computers at the end of it, opening themselves up to their own exploitation. So they may well be paying for their download one way or another. Awareness of that is likely to curb pirating more than any other message.



Does being aware that they exist help developers though? Look at The Pirate Bay - AFAIK still sailing after all these years and arrests. And if they ever do shut down completely, there will be a thousands other sources.

Removing the sites from the search engines is more powerful IMHO. By just being less in-your-face and difficult to find, it will make a huge difference.

I think it's obvious to most that torrent sites are illegal, but the ones that consistently catch out newbies are the ones selling themselves as OEM etc. Of course there are legit OEM software sales (certainly in the UK the largest computer retailers sell OEM software), but we all know sites that are not legit, again I guess it's technically tricky for Google to differentiate, but I'm not convinced it's impossible.

EDIT - I just typed in a very well known and popular sample library into Google - just the name, nothing else. The first page of Google was clean - no illegal sites as far as I could see. But somewhat offsetting this good news, Google wanted to help me further by automatically suggesting these search alternatives, all in bold.

Did I mean...

(sample lib name) torrent
(sample lib name) rapidshare
(sample lib name) download
(sample lib name) crack
(sample lib name) reviews
(sample lib name) price
(sample lib name) serial keygen
(sample lib name) search

Four of the 8 related searches are directly for illegal software ("download" COULD be legal if you didn't know this particular library was boxed only), put there whether the computer user likes it or not. It's things like that that really piss me off. How is this possibly justified? It would take 2 minutes of coding to eliminate these words from Google's suggestions for good. It wouldn't eliminate piracy, of course, but it would stop actively suggesting it when you're searching for something else. It's insane.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 9, 2011)

*Re: Is piracy EVER remotely justifiable?*



kb123 @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> The visibilty of such sites is a double edged sword. It does allow the developer the opportunity to quickly identify where the software is being leaked and take appropriate action, otherwise they may carry on unaware there is a problem.



I think it goes even further than that...

In my more naive days I railed rather strongly against copy protection schemes of any sort that put the onus on the honest consumer. Gary Garritan took offense at my argument that piracy was not a problem. I argued that no one in their right mind would download, let alone upload, a nine CD library (this was the period when 56K ISDN was pretty exotic!) He set me straight, and after a visit to several binary newsgroups I discovered just how easy it would be to bet both GOS and SISS for free. Gotta say, it was an eye opener for me!

If search engines were to hide the torrent sites it would cloak the problem, and that would lead folks to believe it was no longer a problem, and that would be bad! We need it to be obvious to all that pirates are running rampant, and doing serious damage to several marketplaces.

Then we need them to go away - that will be a bit trickier.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2011)

IMHO closing this thread would be pretty ironic. If no-one else wants to debate these important issues, fine, but I'd be surprised if NO-ONE else is interested. And a lot of these things absolutely HAVEN'T been discussed to death - the general standard of debate is very poor, actually, and it goes "it's all wrong so let's not do it and furthermore not talk about what to do about it".

Any comments on the Google question, for example? It's a cause I'd certainly sign up to if there was a concerted effort anywhere to do something.


----------



## Ed (Jan 9, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Jan 06 said:


> Interestingly, they said the reason they stopped vst was piracy - 70& of their vst products out there were pirates, they said. Couldn't help but reflect that now it's 100%... surely it makes sense to sell unsupported legacy on that basis?
> .



Wow that sounds like REALLY stupid logic to me.

Surely if it was being pirated you would keep selling it because a few people WOULD buy it like you. Instead legitimate users like yourself would be more likely to consider pirating it, just to get it even though they would have paid for it.


----------



## Ed (Jan 9, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Fri Jan 07 said:


> Well that's absolutely BIZARRE!
> 
> I contacted them about this idea just now, and - VERY efficient reply, btw - they then said "oh, if you buy the mac VST version, we always throw in the windows VST for free anyway".
> 
> ...



Why do I always feel like I could be better at business than many business'? When I think that I always feel like surely I wouldn't I must be wrong, then I read stuff like this.

It is indeed ridiculous that they are not advertising the fact that you are not just buying the AU version of the plugin, you are buying a plugin that includes the AU version and the VST version. When i find a cool plugin I immediately go check if its VST, if it only says AU I immediately ignore it because I don't want to get excited about a plugin I'll never be able to use. 

And then as I said earlier the ridiculous logic a company has that they would refuse to sell a small downloadable product because it was being pirated. I can see absolutely no reason why that makes sense.

And yes there is a legitimate reason for piracy, but... its not really piracy... And that is to make sure you can still use your product you paid for after the company refuses to support it. I got pissed off by Tascam when I needed to reauthorise Gigastudio so I had to download a keygen to get me up and running again. Otherwise I have to wait for some kind soul at Tascam who still gives a damn about Gigastudio users to kindly give me a new key. Screw that. I don't need the stress. Even Spectrasonics is easy but still annoying. Native Instruments did a good thing creating their Service Centre, their authorisation procedure before that was enough to drive anyone CRAZY and I certainly would have downloaded all the keygens I could for the products I owned for them, thankfully I don't have to and Service Centre makes it really easy.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2011)

I remember when I was 20 or so I had the full retail version of Cubase for the Atari ST. The dongle was such a dodgy piece of hardware, the computer kept crashing. Eventually I got hold of a cracked copy, it worked flawlessly! In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd sorted a few more bugs. Needless to say, I didn't feel bad about using it cos I'd paid full whack for the real thing, same situation as you, Ed.

Just to be clear about Prosoniq - as well as AU and RTAS they do advertise a vst verion, but for Mac ONLY (my earlier post got this detail wrong I think, but the effect is the same for a PC user). You have to buy the Mac VST, then email them and they can issue a new serial number and download link for a PC version. This absolutely should be advertised on their website, and at least when someone like me enquires, they should reply with a big "yes we can help you" not "we've deleted our entire windows infrastrcture so there's nothing we can do, sorry", which doesn't quite tell the full story, does it?

I kinda get their logic about abandoning windows... I guess, but only as far as new products. If their sales are very low compared to Mac and there's a lot of piracy, then sure why invest all that time and money in the platform? But withdrawing all legacy (or at least telling people that's what you've done) makes no sense at all.


----------



## Mr Greg G (Jan 9, 2011)

noiseboyuk, why don't you use the EAT function of Kontakt 4 for sound morphing? From what I read it's working quite efficiently!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 9, 2011)

Mr Pringles @ Sun Jan 09 said:


> noiseboyuk, why don't you use the EAT function of Kontakt 4 for sound morphing? From what I read it's working quite efficiently!



It's not really the same thing I need for sound design. The Kontakt morph is designed to smooth transitions between similar sounding samples. What the Prosoniq can do is mash ANYTHING together, very simply in a VST effect interface (so it'll just run in, say, Adobe Audition... as I say, I'm after it really as a dubbing tool more than a music one). Great for effecting voices from an actor's sync track, for example.

I tried Alchemy that in theory does the same thing, but it only really sounded like a crossfade to me. Prosoniq was the only thing that genuinely sounded like an organic meld between 2 totally different sounds.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 10, 2011)

Oh good Lord, you couldn't make it up - I've just heard from Prosoniq and they're gonna completely withdraw windows at Musikmesse this year, so the option I stumbled upon will soon be closed again and once more the pirates will roam the seas unchallenged.

Insane. Feel free to write to them, anyone...


----------



## José Herring (Jan 10, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Oh good Lord, you couldn't make it up - I've just heard from Prosoniq and they're gonna completely withdraw windows at Musikmesse this year, so the option I stumbled upon will soon be closed again and once more the pirates will roam the seas unchallenged.
> 
> Insane. Feel free to write to them, anyone...



Ah, I heard the demos on their sight. No big loss.

Jose


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 10, 2011)

josejherring @ Mon Jan 10 said:


> Ah, I heard the demos on their sight. No big loss.
> 
> Jose



...except for those of us who need to morph.


----------

