cracked software

[A.L.]

There's no, "I don't need to pay full price for this Les Paul, 'cause I only know 2 chords."

As I just pointed out there is.

[bigtoe]

"I'm not saying software piracy is either bad or good and I'm not saying any of the above is, my point is that the lines here are indeed fuzzy and not really so cut and dry."

well...i think it is...if you buy a used copy - that's quite different that downloading the program at one of those file trading sites...don't you think?
i think a lot of people who want to take advantage of a situation put fuzzy terms on it. did you buy it? no? ok - you stole it. easy! hahaha...not to be flippant...

now that's me...again, i'm old. like i once was in zayre and my brother shoplifted a heather thomas poster old...but that was stealing...

Mike

[JGriffin]

porn is a second-order reality

It's a first-order reality if you can't get a date.

[krylenko]

AFAIK (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the reason academic "readers" compiled from other texts are so expensive is because the university pays the copyright holders. So it's not an example of what you're talking about.

One BIG difference between used and pirated is that, at some point, the author/manufacturer did get paid. It's not just money--a million-selling album benefits an artist way more than a million-downloaded album in terms of popular recognition and industry respect (which may or may not be important to the artist, but nonetheless).

I'm also inclined to think that used stuff produces more actual consumers than downloading/stealing. ("Consumer" just refers to a person's willingness to pay for goods/services, thereby supporting creators.) When you can have anything for free, you tend to value nothing. When your options are limited, each one matters more. I know a lot of people here are different, but we are exceptions that point to the rule. And come on--doesn't limitless free music make it easier not to pay real attention to any music? I know it does for me.

[Silverlode]

Record company prints album --> man buys album --> man sells album. One to one.

Record company prints album --> man buys album --> man makes 500 CD-R copies of album and sells them.

BIG difference, A.L. There's nothing wrong with selling the right to ownership for the one copy of the album that I paid for. But for me to fabricate 500 more rights to ownership...the record company and artist will never see their share of those sales.

The used instrument thing - that's just like the first example. I own the right to call this guitar mine. I'll transfer that right to you for a price. One to one. Instrument piracy would be buying one strat, then getting a luthier to make a whole bunch of knockoffs, then selling them to people who would otherwise have bought from Fender.

You're right it's not cut and dry. The TV and radio things are good examples. Broadcast media rights have always been fuzzy. I'm not for draconian rights management, but let's call piracy what it is, and business what it is. Oh, and don't be afraid to call piracy bad. If it's bad, what's wrong with saying that?

[yardleyone]

anybody know where i can buy some pirated pornography?

[A.L.]

AFAIK (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the reason academic "readers" compiled from other texts are so expensive is because the university pays the copyright holders. So it's not an example of what you're talking about.

I would be totally willing to buy this. I guess I'm not sure either. When i went to school, though, there was no way in heck they were paying anyone, unless, like radio hand downs, the school was just sending fixed royalties to some publishing-world ASCAP thing. Which would mean a lot of people didn't get paid. Faculty dropped off readers directly to the mom and pop copy shop on the corner with no account of who published what article passing anyone's hands.

One BIG difference between used and pirated is that, at some point, the author/manufacturer did get paid. It's not just money--a million-selling album benefits an artist way more than a million-downloaded album in terms of popular recognition and industry respect (which may or may not be important to the artist, but nonetheless).

You wouldn't believe the number of press promos I see in used cd bins, especially here in the bay area, ca, rotten with music journalists. I see your point though. Still, you're depriving the artist and label of at least some money... and in most cases someone indeed bought the album they ripped and put online. It seems like a 'how low are you willing to go' scenario to me. If you say, 'well I bought used because I couldn't afford new' it's software piracy all over again... someone bought the program and cracked it, after all, and a CD can be bought used, resold and bought again an infinite number of times.

I'm also inclined to think that used stuff produces more actual consumers than downloading/stealing. ("Consumer" just refers to a person's willingness to pay for goods/services, thereby supporting creators.) When you can have anything for free, you tend to value nothing. When your options are limited, each one matters more.

I can't really disagree with this.

I know a lot of people here are different, but we are exceptions that point to the rule. And come on--doesn't limitless free music make it easier not to pay real attention to any music? I know it does for me.

Well, not for me. Personally I use file sharing programs all the time but of course, without fail I'll buy what I really like. The file sharing movement has been an amazing gift, actually, and has made me buy far more music than I had been. I realize I'm probably an exception.

Anyway, I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here... thanks for indulging me, ha ha

[A.L.]

Record company prints album --> man buys album --> man sells album. One to one.

Record company prints album --> man buys album --> man makes 500 CD-R copies of album and sells them.

BIG difference, A.L. There's nothing wrong with selling the right to ownership for the one copy of the album that I paid for. But for me to fabricate 500 more rights to ownership...the record company and artist will never see their share of those sales.

Is it less wrong for one person to hypothetically steal from the artist/label than 500? One person buying a used copy is still depriving the record company of a sale. (of course I would still say this applies to Gibson, etc. though I understand the connection is tenuous)

And why is selling used software so frowned upon when selling a used CD isn't? You can 'backup' both just as easily, and many do backup CDs before selling them.

I didn't say software piracy is bad or good. The idealist in me says, 'oh, if they can't afford it let 'em copy it, they're not gonna buy it anyway' but I know there's no real way to rationalize making that exception.

[theistheman]

Well, if not for cracked software, I probably would not be in this game.

It's like a gazillion bucks for Logic or Nuendo!

That said, since I'm taking out a loan and buying a powerbook, I'm going to go ahead and buy Logic, since I've been using it for free for years...

Still, you want to talk about evil corporations? How about Apple for buying up emagic and forcing us PC users to buy their computers?

They're about as bad as digidesign...making me buy their grossly overpriced equipment with shitty converters, just so I can use their software...

That's why I use logic in the first place.

[dirty]

Just to clear up the university thing: When professors make large volumes of xeroxed articles, that activity falls under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law, meaning they are not liable for royalties as long as the material is used for educational purposes AND they are making no money off the deal. (The hefty fee for the books goes to the copy shop and allegedly covers the cost of binding and paper. Allegedly... I don't trust Gnomon Copy.)

As for software, I will agree to both arguments. I know someone is working hard somewhere to produce the programs I like to use. They deserve to be paid as much as a luthier or any other artisan. That said, I've used cracked stuff before (particularly photoshop back in college) because it cost literally more money than I had. More than two months rent. I'm not saying I was right, but I'm not that sorry. I've paid for it now. I feel fine.

As for record sales, I think it's a different issue. Unlike software, there is little harm to an artist if a person hears their music for free. In fact, it probably helps more than it hurts (Unless the hack in question is Ashlee "Soundcheck" Simpson.) I know I download a lot of music for free. A lot. But I also buy more CDs than anyone I know. These two behaviors are directly related. I use LimeWire and burned CDs the way people once used AM radio: to hear new music. If I like it, I end up buying it more often than not. I love the packaging, so how could I not?

Record companies lose money on A&R budgets, not because downloaders don't buy CDs. And even if that was true, and major conglomerates decided to leave the silly music business to smaller companies with less money for ads in Best Buy and an ear for actual production, then hey, I wouldn't lose much sleep.

[bigtoe]

'oh, if they can't afford it let 'em copy it, they're not gonna buy it anyway'

well this is the main argument i hear...only it's mostly horseshit with the guys i see. they quite simply don't budget for it cuz it's available for free. one guy i ran into recently said he was a poor college student...at a 25+K a year school! like um...i understand...but then you wait until you can afford it...i'm a docket clerk and spend a lot of money to get a decent studio going - i'm in no way wealthy...i don't see where that would be ok if i stole a bunch of non-digital gear. the thing that really burns gets me is it's not poor folks...it's kids who come from bread and have skills.

it's really easy to get caught up in the macro ideas of IP but lord...just cuz it exists in a screen doesn't mean it's not a tangible good.

blab,
Mike

[A.L.]

Just to clear up the university thing: When professors make large volumes of xeroxed articles, that activity falls under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law, meaning they are not liable for royalties as long as the material is used for educational purposes AND they are making no money off the deal. (The hefty fee for the books goes to the copy shop and allegedly covers the cost of binding and paper. Allegedly... I don't trust Gnomon Copy.)

Ahh thank you. That's what I thought. I'm with you on the rest of your post, too, for better or for worse.

I actually love buying software. I totally fetishize 'the product'. It gives me a warm, fuzzing feeling.

[space_ryerson]

There is one reason I can see for cracking software, but it is a semi-rare case.

In the past I have known many who have had to use cracks of software that they actually bought to make it work properly (specifically, logic platinum). Emagic's dongles have failed on numerous occasions in the past, leaving myself and others stranded until they felt like mailing a new one.

On the more recent versions of Logic, no has been able to crack it, and when that damn key stops working (which it has multiple times), us users are out of business until Emagic mails me a new one.

Also, on the older versions of Logic and Reaktor, I have found that the cracks actually were less problematic than the bought versions.

[A.L.]

well this is the main argument i hear...only it's mostly horseshit with the guys i see. they quite simply don't budget for it cuz it's available for free.

You know what you're right on this. Why buy logic when you can pirate logic and buy a nice preamp, right?

edit: an interesting modification would be "if they wouldn't buy it anyway, let them copy it", which removes any presupposition of their finacial state. Not that it's any better, but...

[krylenko]

[rant]
no one HAS to have anything!! It's not your God-given right to have any software or music you want, even if you can't afford it! I am so fucking sick of hearing people say, "But I NEEDED it to make tracks!" Or "But I HAVE to have music!"
talk about evil corporations--they have exactly the same attitude of "We want this, so we're going to do anything we can to get it, regardless of the cost to other people."
Do what you want, but at least have the smidgen of honesty it takes to say, "I want this, I can't afford it, so I'm going to take it. I don't care whether it's right." I am so very tired of hearing people hide behind bullshit to justify an unjustifiable position.
Plus, for any given program there's almost guaranteed to be a shareware or freeware version, especially on PC. Sure, it's not ProTools, but then you wouldn't lift a Mercedes from a dealer lot because your Honda wasn't as fast--right?
[/rant]

<<takes a deep breath>>

I've always wondered how used CD shops were allowed to stay in business. Any reasonably strict interpretation of copyright law would go something like this:
Buyer buys a license to use content --> Buyer therefore doesn't own content --> Buyer therefore only owns physical CD --> Buyer has no right to sell CD *with* content --> Buying/selling used CDs is illegal, unless the content is rendered inaccessible.
The same would apply to software. Selling used software is no more frowned on than selling used CDs, as long as the seller doesn't retain a backup. Still, neither should *really* be legal.

That said, not even the RIAA wants to kill used CD shops (well, not anymore). At some point you have to balance fair use with protection, and even record companies and software publishers acquiesced on used copies.