ethics of warez ad nauseum (was: "to John Cooper")

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Oct 01, 2001 1:26 pm

If you think that cracked software costs a company money this could only be true if these people would have bought the software had they not found a cracked version of it. Most of them can't afford it and that is why they use cracked software. There is a certain amount of very valuable free word of mouth advertixing that companies make from having a large userbase be it legitimate or cracked. How many of you own more than one computer and have purchased only one copy of Microsoft Windows? In Windows XP this will not be possible because Microsoft is going to force you to connect to the internet to register it and make notes on the computer's components. If you try to register another computer with the same components they will not allow it. How many of the people reading this forum agree with this policy?

Micha · Post by **Micha** » Tue Oct 02, 2001 2:28 am

As a developer I'm not so amused about cracks: they steal my bread! As a political oriented human being I can understand. As Pablo Fasan pointed out: sometimes it is difficult for the poor to compete with the rich, so they try to make it in whatever way they can. Not so easy to solve the dilemma that the rich get richer and the poor poorer.
Now the whole struggle has produced a new state of control. If your HD breaks down and you repair with a second disc, you run the risk of not beeing able to continue because of some additions you've made and your activations are outnumbered. Hmm... I buy a product and can use it 4,5 times and then have to buy it again???
I don't buy this software. Activation keys are ok if they are part of the lifetime of the product. I don't want them to expire, because this again produces arguments for the rippers. That is not necessary and I don't want this. They say that the license is for one machine only and if it changes it is a different machine. For me it is just my one computer. Again a dilemma that has to be solved, this time solution by law is possible. In my country, germany, I think it will be solved for us, the consumers. "one computer - one license". That's how it should be. (IMHO)

Happy pulsaring
Micha

peripatitis · Post by **peripatitis** » Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:55 am

I feel that its a big mistake to follow such a policy (beeing allowed to use the sofware only with a certain computer)once you have bought the software you sould be allowed to use it however you want.I feel that this kind of measure instead of dealing with cracked software moves the burdon to the lowfull consumer who bought the product.What would happen if you bought a software and that you are not happy with it how could you sell it ?I also have a problem with the forced registration through the net.I am not a computer wizard and i keep two computers one for my work and one for getting in the web , with those viruses in the net and the fact than many people can mess with your system i feel very insecure to use my p.c. that i work in for the internet not to mention that i don't want to have any additional software like firewall or any non musical application ones in my hard drive, knowing that especially in p.c.'s you can never be certain enough of what software could provoke problems in your system.
I think that software developres should try to find those hackers or make codes tougher to beat(although i am not sure that a full proof code will ever exist) than passing the "blame"to users.I understand that for small developers this could be difficult and they certainly have a big loss from the situation however i am not convinced whether or not the big developers did allow the use of cracked software for their one benefit.
It seems to me that steinberg , just to name one certanly benefited from the software piracy , concidering also that many cracked versions of some sofware appear before even those products hit the shelves makes me wonder .Closing just think of the reaction that would be caused if t.c. or lexicon forced their users not to take their effect processors out of their premises to use in another studio.absurd?

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Tue Oct 02, 2001 9:03 am

Nobody is stopping you from taking your Creamware rackmount on the road, it works fine outside the studio actually

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Wed Oct 03, 2001 7:06 pm

but back to microsoft, a point a lot of people make is that they are just greedy. They are making gazillions of dollars and yet they are worried about people using their software without a license. Let's face it, one of the reasons they are so big is because unlike Apple you can always find plenty of friends to copy software from, and unlike apple you can use the microsoft OS without buying a computer from microsoft and on many affordable or old PCs or make one yourself. I would urge everyone to boycott XP and use windows 2000 instead, also I would urge Creamware to develop for Linux. It's much better anyway. If the problem is a sequencer let Creamware make one of those distribute one. It might not be much to start but it will grow.

peripatitis · Post by **peripatitis** » Thu Oct 04, 2001 5:14 am

Brainsell:i am not sure about this but wasn't apple aquired by bill gates recently?
I am saying this because if i am correct then it wouldn't matter if you were to boycot microsoft by buing apple computers since the money would reach the same pocket.I dont think that greed is a sin for companies in capitalism and personally i understand that they have to protect their rights .My problem with microsoft is the ways that they used to monopolise the market
espesially when it is evident that they don't care about professional sound and visual users.It is a big same that the beos software never found support and there are many rumors about microsoft involved with the final outcome of this.Many software companies like cubase initially claimed that they would support beos but then for some unidentified reason changed their mind.
subhuman:how about an lcd monitor to complete the system?

coc999 · Post by **coc999** » Thu Oct 04, 2001 8:05 am

Just to add that the 6th august 1997 bill gates invest 150 millions $ in apple.At this period apple was loosing 1.6 billion $
on the market.The deal was i think to allow microsoft to do the microsoft internet explorer for mac and surely more:)
Today i don't know how much bill gates have in apple.Beetween steve jobs and bill it is a long love story...

lionel_talkover · Post by **lionel_talkover** » Sat Oct 06, 2001 11:14 am

Braincell, I think you're not right. First, there is a lot freeware or shareware to make almost everything. Ok, they have not all huge possibilities but to write a single letter or list expenses, we don't need word or excel. Why everyone use it so ? Do we need Photoshop to work and mail some little pictures ? No. Free alternative exists to all this softs if you have not the money or don't want to spent money in "word" or "excel". Everyone is fucking Bill gates but a lot of this guys are using the softs. Real Rebels...
Here we talk about music, all guys here who are using a Pulsar or Scope need a sequencer. When I see some subjets around the forums, it's evident that a lot of people (and I think a lot is far from reality) are using a crack of Logic or cubase or cakewalk.
It's a non sense to me.
The thing I agree could be a kind of special price for several machines. I use Logic Platinium in a laptop and I was kind of agressive to pay my second license the same price. It's a thing that could be considered.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Oct 07, 2001 11:13 am

Certainly if you buy something you should be able to use it for whatever purpose you want to. Think of how ridiculous it would be if Ford said if you buy our car you can only go 500 miles and if you want to go further you have to pay an extra fee, or if they say that only you can drive this car and if other people are going to drive it then you have to pay extra.

Post by **garyb** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 11:05 pm

i don't think anyone is reading those agreements.they only LEASE software.they don't SELL it.it's only rental.that's why so many crazy rules exist.therfore, a crack is by definition, stolen.it is taken from the one who owns it.welcome to the new world. anyone with a mortgage read it lately?

PabloFasan · Post by **PabloFasan** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:04 pm

Without disagree for complete with you, the rental concept would be applied to all patents of any kind.

For example in theory you can't disassembly your car for to know how it's built.

But nobody will think in this, if his car's engine stops working in the middle of a lonely road in the night.

Although the "rental" concept or "licence agreements" vary from country to country very much.

For example in many countries don't exist patents for medical drugs and in others like in mine they are very limited.

In what I disagree strongly is in to copy a "licence protected software", but NOT into dissasembly it for to know how it works.

And also to use this knowledge for to built a different thing.

The humanity knowledge is built over the discoveries that happened along the humanity history.

If not imagine the man who discovered "the wheel" patenting it and forbidding to other people to analize it's phisical working priciples.

Or imagine all of you to have forbiden to analize J.S.Bach or Mozart music, due a "patent licence".(very different from to steal a piece of copywright protected music, sampling it for comercial purposes, without the author's authorization).

Is really a completely idiot concept that programmers and software companies pretend to establish, like if they were building only by themselves the laws that will guide the whole world.

When you buy a software package, what's really important is the copywright laws of the country in where you are phisically stand up (independent if you use Internet or not).

Anything in the licence agreement that could conflict with the country's laws in where you are in that moment will be null in any legal court.

Have all of you your gens patented ? Hurry up!!!!

Post by **garyb** » Tue Oct 16, 2001 11:09 pm

is this discussion legal or ethical? 'cause if it's legal,we're talking about whether a person (or the company who owns the rights to that work) can liscense and control the use of their product.the answer is simple. of course they can!they don't even have to let anyone have it at all.we could live without these machine easily.(that's how humans got to this point in time) so the ethical discussion is moot from that perspective. if the arguement is ethical however, then it could be said that we should all help each other and share and be nice for the mutual benefit of all.this however, makes the profit motive and greed icky and then there is no reason for liscencing or the profit motive and the whole romantic system goes to hell.where do you stand with YOUR profits? maybe the arguement IS ethical and some software must be public for the good of all.i would submit that recording software (especially high end pro apps) are unfortunately(?!) a luxury to all but musicians and engineers.not necessary for life at all.the hard workers who put these companies and packages together control thier work,just like poets and musicians.it is how they eat and get big houses,fancy cars and easy beautiful women just like the ones you want.

come to think of it, it IS an ethical question.literally, "to steal or not to steal",that is the question.in this wicked and evil world,sometimes it appears that to do wrong is actually doing right and sometimes it is so.this is not one of those times.it is not the megasatan m-soft that is being ripped off,it is the small company which serves a small segment of society (which all from loyalists to revolutionaries depend on) and the mom and pop operation, neither of which can handle any economic loss,who is stolen from. that is the most greedy thing. it is wrong.(even if i have nice friends who might want to do it.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2001-10-17 00:23 ]</font>

Micha · Post by **Micha** » Wed Oct 17, 2001 1:38 am

maybe a short anlysis can help. I take Pulsar as the entry point:
It consists mainly of algorythms a) in hardware b) in software. The ones in a) result out of the evolution in mechanics, the ones in b) of acoustics. The formulas used are found/invented since schools exist, something about 2-3000 years minimum. For the legal side that is: what belongs to whom? and, since mathematics itself is independent, is it just another use of a well known formula/fact?
(So that it is just a ripoff of a common good?)
IMHO a correct "protection" is not possible. To develop new algorithms it is necessary to use the mathematical building that exists because of the work from Thales to Einstein. This one developed because each of them claimed no copyright, but instead did it for the honour and the progress of the development. This is why we now are so rich. And this big cake they now try to cut in pieces, for exclusive use of those who can afford it? My impression is, that exactly this is what they try to do.
It should not be allowed, IMHO.
Happy pulsaring
Micha

Post by **garyb** » Wed Oct 17, 2001 9:05 am

sorry, the math is many thousands of years older than that.(ask the romans about burning of libraries and ask the chinese)what IS copywritable however is a specific application of general principals (just like your musical creation which is made of many thousands of years old elements).traditionally,copywrites have a limited lifespan to allow one to benefit from ones own work but still leave the work in the public domain for future generations. since corporations recieved infinite lifespan recently(unlike people who die),these rules have been changed to some degree to allow for infinite ownership.check your latin, this is the roman way.in any economic system that benefits people, people have the right to benefit from their work. patenting genes is a different matter, because no actual construction is done. only research.gene patenting is an attempt to liscence that which already exists. if you want to fight for justice, fight against companies that have indefinite lives, are not human were created by humans for humans and compete with and enslave humans. but don't steal from the pockets of those you depend on to take care of your little niche. just like you don't want anyone stealing your great musical ideas B4 you get to profit from them.if you speak ethically behave ethically.

PabloFasan · Post by **PabloFasan** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

In facts I have suffered of all that things that you reject in your posts: Copyright violation , stealed author and player wrights , illegal MP3 distribution and so.

What I never can imagine, as a genuine wright for to claim, is if anybody takes a recording, composition or arrange done by me and then transcript it note by note.

More than crime is a merit that deserves a recognition for the effort.

If he then sells the score or sample without permission parts of the recording for commercial use is other matter, that's clearly forbiden.

Why programmers can't allow to others (I'm not a programmer) to debug their creations for learning how are they developed?

I learned to play piano not only reading scores and practicing technique otherwise doing trancriptions by ear of works that never were printed.

Can anyone consider this a violation of his wrights?

Why programmers or software companies should have an exceptional treatement that the rest of the creators don't have?

Post by **garyb** » Thu Oct 18, 2001 10:03 pm

i agree that some software liscences do take the extreme.musicians and authors of books and paintings etc. can also make ridiculous rules over the use of their creations,however.most things we copy or tape are also illegal.(you know,movies,tv shows, sporting events, concerts and records.)i also agree that it would be nice to live in a less greedy, nicer world.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 6:21 pm

Wait a minute there! It's perfectly legal to make music tapes for yourself. That is called the "Fair Use Law" and many would argue that "Fair Use" ought to apply to software as well. Developers ought to be careful because if they anger their customers enough open souce code will be the rule of the day. It probably will all end up that way eventually anyway as it should.

Post by **garyb** » Sat Oct 20, 2001 11:34 pm

Funktastico · Post by **Funktastico** » Thu Oct 25, 2001 1:46 am

Do you really expect people to work hundreds of hours on software and then let you use it for free?? Of course they want money for their work. Afterall it is work. If you want free software, you can write it yourself!

I didn't read the whole thread but the few posts I read pissed me off enough to yell.

Toni L.
http://www.mp3.com/NativeAlien

PabloFasan · Post by **PabloFasan** » Sat Oct 27, 2001 9:26 pm

Do you really expect people to work hundreds of hours on creating and playing music and then let you to use it for free??

Of course they want money for their work.

Afterall it is their work. If you want want free music, you can write it yourself!

Yes , instead of you I have read your whole thread and it represents the hypocritical position of many programmers that pretend that the rest of the people in the world respect their author wrights, while they create/use or promote software for to destroy music copy protection codecs, violate author and player wrights and/or support MP3 sites that earn his bucks with music piracy.