Pirated software

[analoq]

Just to throw in my view on the matter.. basically, I am a hobbyist. I don't intend on selling my work at all.

This is the worst and most common argument I see in amateur communities. If the software companies were only making their products for professionals...

• There would be few software solutions available
  
• They would be prohibitively expensive
  
• They would be very difficult to use
  

The very reason there is such a variety of music producing software that is inexpensive and easy to use is because of hobbyists like us. We're their main customers; their bread and butter.

But at least if I pirate it I can have a way to have a little fun and learn about how things work ... For me it's more about learning

That's why they provide educational licenses and stripped-down cheaper versions of products: so you can learn.

I don't see how I'm doing anyone any harm.

That's because you're a philosophically-bankrupt adolescent who is trying (and failing) to rationalize your anti-social behavior.

[SnappleMan]

This is the worst and most common argument I see in amateur communities. If the software companies were only making their products for professionals...

• There would be few software solutions available
  
• They would be prohibitively expensive
  
• They would be very difficult to use
  

The very reason there is such a variety of music producing software that is inexpensive and easy to use is because of hobbyists like us. We're their main customers; their bread and butter.

That's why they provide educational licenses and stripped-down cheaper versions of products: so you can learn.

That's because you're a philosophically-bankrupt adolescent who is trying (and failing) to rationalize your anti-social behavior.

<3<3<3<3<3

[Patrick Burns]

tough love from the community leaders

ftw

[BluefoxIcy]

I'm an Open Source Software guy, I use Linux, I would probably point you at Ubuntu Studio, etc.

Open source software is free, and it's a great charity; however, I always have to take a direct stance against insane people like Richard Stallman or all the GNU fanboys that say absurd things like "asking for money for software is {unethical,a crime}" or some stupid shit.

If you make software and give it away for free, that's wonderful; if you're selling it, then I am obligated to buy it to use it. It's a fucking lot of work to make and takes time and money and you make $50/hr so you're either not getting paid for your hard work or some company dumped a $90,000 paycheck on you and about 20 other programmers, 10 QA testers, 10 managers, 2 project managers (YOU NEED THESE TOO), marketing research, and God knows what else. It's a lot easier and cheaper if they hire real software engineering experts too instead of leaving the design to the programmers; but again, someone got paid for that position too.

zircon might laugh if he's making millions off his music and I'm like "yeah I downloaded most of that shit." He might not laugh so hard if I'm standing on the corner passing out free copies of his CDs to every person in my whole town, and then going to the next town; he'll be decidedly pissed if I'm selling them for money he's not making. When the whole huge network of 95%-Zircon-music-isn't-paid-for-yet goes up and he's in the poor house for lack of sales, he'll either sue everyone in the world or cut his wrists and take up burger flipping instead. Can you see why yet??? Do you understand how software is similar???

[BluefoxIcy]

• There would be few software solutions available
  
• They would be prohibitively expensive
  
• They would be very difficult to use
  

The very reason there is such a variety of music producing software that is inexpensive and easy to use is because of hobbyists like us. We're their main customers; their bread and butter.

I want to say, "difficult to use" costs productivity time even when experienced users have to perform long and complex action paths for simple common tasks; forget doing anything nifty-but-obscure, you'll spend forever figuring out how or looking for the manual. A lot of professional software is actually "too dumbed down" though, in other fields at least (look at Windows, where a sysadmin might do something unsupported and Windows will gleefully undo the change because it doesn't think that's what you want). They want the ability to say "It doesn't do that" instead of "wow that's an interesting thought and we have no idea, try combining the powers of these low-level features with some scripting... maybe you'll find something."

Beyond that good call on all points. Just remember, YOU are a professional; they aren't special, only proficient. The only thing that sets them apart is they get paid for it (as a, you know, profession?).

[Nicholestien]

piracy is wrong in my opinon, but when it comes to music and such, nah, not really, just the way I see it. I mean, how the hell does one go from making music, to making money off of music? I just don't understand that logic. is it because you want to make a living doing what you've always loved to do? So I take it you completely forgot about everyone else when you choose to be a musician for a living? pretty pointless living, I see no reason as to why you can't make this software without having to be payed for it.

[BluefoxIcy]

Demos suck and free stuff is never as good as professional products.

.... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I've used some lovely professional products, but I've found that a lot of things like Blender have a special place in the market, while Gimp has been used with or in place of PhotoShop even when PS was available (Shrek comes to mind). I love Gnucash as accounting software. Certain security software almost EXCLUSIVELY goes to open source solutions, and not because "we need the source code to make sure it's secure" (some stuff like firewalls goes to closed solutions, while IDS and security event monitoring always falls square on Snort and a number of open source packages).

In the realm of audio software, it's such a niche market and nobody wants to really put the time in if they have the real experience (i.e. no actual musicians give any feedback on the stuff that's out there), so it's kind of a shot in the dark for the developers unless they direct clone another software. Audacity is the only example I'll give there.

You made a blanket statement stretching past just audio programs. I'm not arguing the free audio software market has not much of anything great going for it; but saying "professional products" are always better is directly false.

[BluefoxIcy]

but when it comes to music and such, nah, not really, just the way I see it. I mean, how the hell does one go from making music, to making money off of music? I just don't understand that logic. is it because you want to make a living doing what you've always loved to do? So I take it you completely forgot about everyone else when you choose to be a musician for a living? pretty pointless living, I see no reason as to why you can't make this software without having to be payed for it.

You are no longer allowed to eat on any 24 hour standard calendar day in which you have listened to any music. Musicians don't need to eat, neither do you.

[Nicholestien]

You are no longer allowed to eat on any 24 hour standard calendar day in which you have listened to any music. Musicians don't need to eat, neither do you.

I just think it's better to say that musicians, and music software companies make money for giving music, and giving software, not for making it, people who make music for money are most likely people that are doucebags, and the same goes for software companies. this is so self evident its just crazy, i've seen the potential of the people on this site alone, i just know that they are all capible of making huge bucks from making music if they're original mind-set, was to make money from it. >_>

[BluefoxIcy]

I just think it's better to say that musicians, and music software companies make money for giving music, and giving software, not for making it, people who make music for money are most likely people that are doucebags, and the same goes for software companies.

McDonalds makes food, and people are starving, they are also douchebags.

The music industry is full of shit, but there's nothing wrong with trying to make money off your creations, be they music or movies or software. Some software COMPANIES are very responsible and listen to their user base-- this is a good marketing move because it means they put effort into developing a good, user-driven product, and fixing user-discovered bugs as quickly as possible. It means you CAN'T COMPETE WITH THEM because they have the very best, which means they can price in the same range as everyone else and kick ass.

One company called Dragon doesn't even sell software, it makes it. If you have a broken pile of shit code you can't fix, pay them money, they'll examine it and task it and tell your engineers where they messed up the design, and how to rewrite it, and help rewrite it. By your philosophy this is a valuable service (it is in this case); but the music industry basically hires talented musicians to stamp out whatever "today's hot sound" is in the same formula, which is a costly philosophical and cultural disservice. The artists need to make money making whatever they damn well please, or get a new job if their music's that bad that nobody wants to pay for it.

[Yoozer]

I just think it's better to say that musicians, and music software companies make money for giving music, and giving software, not for making it

what

people who make music for money are most likely people that are doucebags, and the same goes for software companies.

God forbid that a programmer wants to receive money for services rendered. No, seriously. There's research involved that costs money and that doesn't gain anyone a bit for the first 3 years, and then it's a matter of hoping that the product will be a success so the company can continue.

i've seen the potential of the people on this site alone, i just know that they are all capible of making huge bucks from making music if they're original mind-set, was to make money from it. >_>

They're not capable of doing that because you plus thousands of others just download their stuff for free anyway, and if they'd ask cash you'd call 'm douchebags and happily run off with the torrent of their work.

[big giant circles]

I just think it's better to say that musicians, and music software companies make money for giving music, and giving software, not for making it, people who make music for money are most likely people that are doucebags, and the same goes for software companies. this is so self evident its just crazy, i've seen the potential of the people on this site alone, i just know that they are all capible of making huge bucks from making music if they're original mind-set, was to make money from it. >_>

if i'm translating this (as best i can) at face value, and if what i think you are saying actually IS what you are saying, then you, sir, are an idiot.

if i'm mistranslating this in anyway, perhaps you should restate yourself, because comprehending that paragraph was not an easy thing.

[Kanthos]

piracy is wrong in my opinon, but when it comes to music and such, nah, not really, just the way I see it. I mean, how the hell does one go from making music, to making money off of music? I just don't understand that logic. is it because you want to make a living doing what you've always loved to do? So I take it you completely forgot about everyone else when you choose to be a musician for a living? pretty pointless living, I see no reason as to why you can't make this software without having to be payed for it.

Many people across many industries love their job. Does that mean they should work for free? Should a teacher who's passionate about teaching students not get paid for what they do because it's something they love?

You forget the difference between those who make music or write code as a hobby and those who do it as a full-time job, who *will not make money otherwise*. Then again, your posts read as if you're a pre-pubescent, spoiled, entitled white kid who's never had to work for anything in his life, so it's not surprising that you place no value on real work.

I just think it's better to say that musicians, and music software companies make money for giving music, and giving software, not for making it, people who make music for money are most likely people that are doucebags, and the same goes for software companies. this is so self evident its just crazy, i've seen the potential of the people on this site alone, i just know that they are all capible of making huge bucks from making music if they're original mind-set, was to make money from it. >_>

Ok, so tell me again, using English please (instead of the grammatically deficient crap you usually post) why I should not make money for working as a software developer. Tell me why I should tell the bank to screw off about my mortgage, car insurance, food, and other essentials because I should be some kind of idealized person who works for free. There's no way I can or will do that. And if I want to charge something reasonable for software or make music I wrote as a hobbyist, independent of work, what's wrong with that? I paid good money that I worked for to acquire the set of development tools, computer hardware, and audio software that I have; it'd be nice to make a bit of my investment back.

Guess what? The FL Studio team, Steinberg, Native Instruments, Garritan, all of those developers and sound engineers do that as their *job*, not as a hobby. So what if they happen to love what they do? If you're seriously suggesting that we all should find jobs that we like and should work for free, you have a lot to learn about basic economics and financial principles.

And if you're so high and mighty, what have you produced and offered to the general public, free of charge, no strings attached? And, for that matter, is it actually worth releasing? If you want to release stuff for free, be my guest, but the fact that you come in here and openly condemn those of us who work in fields we enjoy says that you have a lot of balls and no brains.

[BluefoxIcy]

And if you're so high and mighty, what have you produced and offered to the general public, free of charge, no strings attached?

He has produced douchebaggery. I believe that goes for 4 WoW gold.

[sgx]

Then there's Adobe. Lower your prices, and I might buy your stuff. In the meanwhile, I will enjoy the privileges of going to the local university (which gets a deal where certain subjects give out free copies of required software. Things like Audition, Photoshop CS3 etc are at worst discounted).

Actually I don't think Adobe gives a shit if you pirate their software. The single newb user or college student that pirates Photoshop will then learn Photoshop and demand it once they finally get a professional job, keeping Photoshop as the all important "industry standard" EVERYONE must know. Companies buy multiple licences of photoshop out the wazoo. At my office, basically everyone has a license for it and 98% are doing no more than resizing some gifs.

It is different for music software though, since there are MANY MANY fewer music producers out there than people who need to work with graphics. Every single sale counts.

[BluefoxIcy]

Actually I don't think Adobe gives a shit if you pirate their software. The single newb user or college student that pirates Photoshop will then learn Photoshop and demand it once they finally get a professional job, keeping Photoshop as the all important "industry standard" EVERYONE must know. Companies buy multiple licences of photoshop out the wazoo. At my office, basically everyone has a license for it and 98% are doing no more than resizing some gifs.

Adobe also doesn't like you using the term "Photoshopping" because it genericizes their trademark and they can't sue over it. I've taken up using "Gimping" to no real end, but if too many people did this they'd start sweating for exactly the reasons you've stated: Photoshop is the de facto, and they don't want any whisper of anything else to enter the market.

[Fray]

Actually I don't think Adobe gives a shit if you pirate their software. The single newb user or college student that pirates Photoshop will then learn Photoshop and demand it once they finally get a professional job, keeping Photoshop as the all important "industry standard" EVERYONE must know. Companies buy multiple licences of photoshop out the wazoo. At my office, basically everyone has a license for it and 98% are doing no more than resizing some gifs.

It is different for music software though, since there are MANY MANY fewer music producers out there than people who need to work with graphics. Every single sale counts.

I'd even go a step further and say that hobbyists and small project studios are perhaps the most important market for a lot of music software makers. Up until recently I think most pro studios used ProTools, Digital Performer, and things like that -- they were stabler and offered exclusive access to some very high end hardware. I think FLStudio is very much directed at the casual user, even if it is powerful enough for some serious use. I also doubt Sonar would include so many bundled plugins if they were really directed at pro users -- those guys are going to use more high end VST's.

if i'm translating this (as best i can) at face value, and if what i think you are saying actually IS what you are saying, then you, sir, are an idiot.

You just summed up the Nicholestien experience I personally find him charming.

[Nicholestien]

what

God forbid that a programmer wants to receive money for services rendered. No, seriously. There's research involved that costs money and that doesn't gain anyone a bit for the first 3 years, and then it's a matter of hoping that the product will be a success so the company can continue.

They're not capable of doing that because you plus thousands of others just download their stuff for free anyway, and if they'd ask cash you'd call 'm douchebags and happily run off with the torrent of their work.

actors can say the same shit alright bro, that dosn't make it right.

do you honestly believe britney spears deserves to make the amount of money she's making?

do you believe, that as a musician, you deserve to make more money then firefighters who risk there lives doing there "job"?

[Rozovian]

I just wrote along reply, but I think I can better sum it up like this:

If you make music commersially and people download it for free, they're stealing profit from you. You can't be a a full-time musician without getting paid. If you make music using software you don't own, you're stealing profit from the developers. They can't develop software full-time without being paid.

Obviously, since people download music, they wanted it, ergo they should have bought it. Same applies to software. Same applies to you.

All this regardless of how much some artists get paid, how much a CD costs, how much the software costs, and how much people like their jobs.

Not that it changes anything, but: Do you, honestly, spend the money you don't spend on the software, music, movies etc on supporting teachers, firefighters and doing other good things more deserving of the money?

[Nicholestien]

But I'm a pirate.

So, I'm not going to pay for it,

*loads shotgun*

PREPARE THE CANNONS!

[Moseph]

actors can say the same shit alright bro, that dosn't make it right.

do you honestly believe britney spears deserves to make the amount of money she's making?

Britney makes so much money because people are idiots and buy her music and love to read about her in the tabloids. American culture is driving the hype machine that nets her so much money -- Britney herself has little to do with it. I think you're confusing actor/musician with pop culture superstar. For every Britney Spears or Angeline Jolie, there are countless other actors and musicians who are just barely getting by and have to supplement their meager incomes by waiting tables. Visit a college campus and find a musical theater major or a music performance major and talk to them a bit. These guys are not going to make much money when they get out of school, at least not from their performance abilities, because there's not much of a market for them -- and they know it.

I, for example, would love to compose art music for a living, but that just ain't gonna happen because there's no market for it. Not enough people want to listen to the stuff I want to compose for it to be feasible. To make any sort of living in music, I'll either have to break into the film/media market (difficult) or or find a university to teach at (my current long-term goal). Last I checked, no one was offering me a Britney Spears-type deal.

do you believe, that as a musician, you deserve to make more money then firefighters who risk there lives doing there "job"?

Do you believe that as an architect, you deserve to make more money than firefighters who risk their lives doing their "job"? Do you believe that as an airline pilot ... ? Do you believe that as a business consultant ... ? Do you see what I'm driving at here? All of these occupations are potentially more profitable and less dangerous than firefighting, so why single out musicians? The amount of money someone makes is determined by market forces, not by who is arguably morally superior.

[Nicholestien]

Britney makes so much money because people are idiots and buy her music and love to read about her in the tabloids. American culture is driving the hype machine that nets her so much money -- Britney herself has little to do with it. I think you're confusing actor/musician with pop culture superstar. For every Britney Spears or Angeline Jolie, there are countless other actors and musicians who are just barely getting by and have to supplement their meager incomes by waiting tables. Visit a college campus and find a musical theater major or a music performance major and talk to them a bit. These guys are not going to make much money when they get out of school, at least not from their performance abilities, because there's not much of a market for them -- and they know it.

I, for example, would love to compose art music for a living, but that just ain't gonna happen because there's no market for it. Not enough people want to listen to the stuff I want to compose for it to be feasible. To make any sort of living in music, I'll either have to break into the film/media market (difficult) or or find a university to teach at (my current long-term goal). Last I checked, no one was offering me a Britney Spears-type deal.

Do you believe that as an architect, you deserve to make more money than firefighters who risk their lives doing their "job"? Do you believe that as an airline pilot ... ? Do you believe that as a business consultant ... ? Do you see what I'm driving at here? All of these occupations are potentially more profitable and less dangerous than firefighting, so why single out musicians? The amount of money someone makes is determined by market forces, not by who is arguably morally superior.

I can also attempt counting to infinity and back, that dosn't mean I"m going to do it.

I'm going to set limits.

bottom line, whether or not society agrees with it, there is no amount of money more valueable than a life.

[SnappleMan]

Can we hold a poll to ban Nicholestien? If we get an overwhelming number of votes, the forum staff might listen!

[Yoozer]

actors can say the same shit alright bro, that dosn't make it right.

They entertain you. They choose to put a pricetag on it, and studios, directors, and the populace buying the DVD or seeing the movie chooses to pay that price.

do you honestly believe britney spears deserves to make the amount of money she's making?

Yes. Actually - the artist doing the work is rich. The people who invented the rest of the scheme are wealthy.

So what do you do? Download Britney's music? That says more about your taste than anything else, really.

do you believe, that as a musician, you deserve to make more money then firefighters who risk there lives doing there "job"?

*their

As a musician, I would already be satisfied if I could make a living doing what I do. You have a completely distorted idea of what most musicians have to put up with.

We live in a society that puts entertainment above all else. Blame society, not its consequences.

[Moseph]

I can also attempt counting to infinity and back, that dosn't mean I"m going to do it.

I'm going to set limits.

bottom line, whether or not society agrees with it, there is no amount of money more valueable than a life.

So, and correct me if I'm wrong, the gist of your argument is "I deserve to have whatever music or software I want, but music and software aren't important enough to actually pay someone for, so musicians and software-makers therefore don't deserve to be paid, and they're bad people for wanting to be paid."