| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Cain" wrote in message
... Hev wrote: I think the current system is just fine and the problem is that lots of folks just want free stuff. Rationalize it any way you want, it's just begging for a handout. Ignore it all you want. The problem is here to stay. Now how are we going to deal with it??? Simple. Bust the people who do it aggressively, loudly and often. Make sure people know that they shouldn't do the crime unless they are willing to do the time and that there is some serious probablity of that. Same as how all crimes against person or property should be dealt with. Bob -- I'm sorry Bob but that is the most naive thing I have ever heard. The amount of man power required to aggressively pursue the millions of offenders is laughable. You obviously aren't aware of how widespread the problem is. To "Bust the people who do it aggressively, loudly and often" is like putting a band-aid on a missing limb. Your answer is not a viable solution to the problem. The problem will only worsen as compression gets more effective and our connections to the internet improve over time. Encryption CD's have been cracked on all occasions (funniest is the sharpie trick) and only serve as frustration to the consumer as compatibility issues arise. -- -Hev find me he www.michaelspringer.com |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hev" wrote in message
... I'm not trying to defend the actions as legal or "right". We all know software piracy is wrong. But there is a distinct difference between the physical constraints of a bank robbery and "information exchange", or put another way; software piracy. To explain why I'll use your bank scenario. Think of software piracy as an "online bank" that, because of the inherent nature of its contents, has a permanent hole in the wall the size you could bike through with a nicely sized bag of loot. It is futile to try to stop it, so adapt! Tried robbing a bank? I hear it's actually pretty damn easy. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hev" wrote in message
... I'm not trying to defend the actions as legal or "right". We all know software piracy is wrong. But there is a distinct difference between the physical constraints of a bank robbery and "information exchange", or put another way; software piracy. To explain why I'll use your bank scenario. Think of software piracy as an "online bank" that, because of the inherent nature of its contents, has a permanent hole in the wall the size you could bike through with a nicely sized bag of loot. It is futile to try to stop it, so adapt! Tried robbing a bank? I hear it's actually pretty damn easy. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chris Smedley" wrote:
[...] I would be happy to pay $50-100 for new versions of Ableton, Protools or Recycle. Sure, I'll take your $100 for a copy of Pro Tools. Latest version, 6.4. Of course, you'll still have to go out and buy a Digidesign hardware device to actually *use* it, and said hardware device will include the software anyway, but I don't see why that should impede your giving me my well-deserved $100. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chris Smedley" wrote:
[...] I would be happy to pay $50-100 for new versions of Ableton, Protools or Recycle. Sure, I'll take your $100 for a copy of Pro Tools. Latest version, 6.4. Of course, you'll still have to go out and buy a Digidesign hardware device to actually *use* it, and said hardware device will include the software anyway, but I don't see why that should impede your giving me my well-deserved $100. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Walter Harley wrote:
"Hev" wrote in message I'm not trying to defend the actions as legal or "right". We all know software piracy is wrong. But there is a distinct difference between the physical constraints of a bank robbery and "information exchange", or put another way; software piracy. To explain why I'll use your bank scenario. Think of software piracy as an "online bank" that, because of the inherent nature of its contents, has a permanent hole in the wall the size you could bike through with a nicely sized bag of loot. It is futile to try to stop it, so adapt! Tried robbing a bank? I hear it's actually pretty damn easy. No, but I worked for a bank where the chairman of the board took all the money out and ran off to Japan. He was eventually extradited, though. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Walter Harley" wrote in message
... "Hev" wrote in message ... I'm not trying to defend the actions as legal or "right". We all know software piracy is wrong. But there is a distinct difference between the physical constraints of a bank robbery and "information exchange", or put another way; software piracy. To explain why I'll use your bank scenario. Think of software piracy as an "online bank" that, because of the inherent nature of its contents, has a permanent hole in the wall the size you could bike through with a nicely sized bag of loot. It is futile to try to stop it, so adapt! Tried robbing a bank? I hear it's actually pretty damn easy. Why don't you video tape it and send it our way. Or you can send us an illegal file you downloaded. The choice is yours... but I would recommend the latter. -- -Hev find me he www.michaelspringer.com |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1097024228k@trad... In article writes: And that technology is comprised of nothing but information. Ones and zeros to be precise. So your argument is circular. Software = information. Ones and zeros are irrelevant unless they're arranged in a specific order - which makes it software. Doesn't matter if you specifically arrange the ones and zeros into say an audio format, video, or computer software. It is all information that is easily exchanged. That is the point; It breaks down to a intellectual/licensed property without the physical constraints typically associated with someone owning something. If I own a horse but that horse is just running wild somewhere and someone jumps on for a ride, it would be a hard sell for the person on the horse to acknowledge my ownership of it. Even if I do have the papers. That is just the reality of our situation. Why not accept this and start working within the new rules. All the moral jibber jabber in the world won't change the current situation. The point is there isn't a chance in the world to stop piracy... so we better figure out the best way to live with it (and profit anyway). The music industry says to offer them the product they want at the price they'll be willing to pay and that will stop piracy - not completely of course, but will reduce it. I think this is a great way for the audio and video industry to combat the piracy. I think people are sick of paying for the outrageously priced CD's ($18.99). But I also think record companies need to adapt in other ways. Having a place to download new albums at a reduced download price is long overdue. And I'm talking the wave files, not MP3's. That might not be too hard if you're selling a couple of million music downloads at half a buck a piece, but not if you're selling a couple of thousand copies of software that cost as much to write and test as a pop record does to record and market. I agree that it will be hard for companies selling pro software for a limited clientele. Which is why I believe more than ever that you will have to buy a piece of hardware with the software integrated into the hardware in such cases. -- -Hev find me he www.michaelspringer.com |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1097061092k@trad... In article writes: Bust the people who do it aggressively, loudly and often. Make sure people know that they shouldn't do the crime unless they are willing to do the time and that there is some serious probablity of that. Same as how all crimes against person or property should be dealt with. While the major bootleggers know that they're committing a crime, the informal traders don't, or they don't consider it a "serious" crime so they figure they can and should get away with it. I feel you are wrong in the assumption that informal traders don't know it is a crime. While people who smoke pot (like me) don't consider it a crime, I know damn well there is a law on the books that says I am a criminal. People who trade files know it is a crime, but I'm sure that just adds to the allure. -- -Hev find me he www.michaelspringer.com |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1097091887k@trad... In article writes: Doesn't matter if you specifically arrange the ones and zeros into say an audio format, video, or computer software. It is all information that is easily exchanged. That is the point; It breaks down to a intellectual/licensed property without the physical constraints typically associated with someone owning something. This is true. But if you want to sell software on disk, you can't separate the disk from the software. Things get muddier when there's no tangible media exchanged, but as long as you're exchanging the software and that's the property of value, then it's subject to some rules. The rules of fair play (I bought it so I can do whatever I want with it, including selling it to someone else) don't always apply because you didn't buy the code, you bought the right to run the code. Someone you sell it to did not buy the right to run it. Again, I do believe it is wrong. But the internet is like a store that has no doors and no employees guarding the stores property. There is a "collective information" source created between users (P2P) and it is growing every day. It would be great if everyone lived by "rules of fair play" but they don't. If I own a horse but that horse is just running wild somewhere and someone jumps on for a ride, it would be a hard sell for the person on the horse to acknowledge my ownership of it. Even if I do have the papers. Oh. So if you parked your car in front of your house last night, the parking brake slips and it rolls down the hill, it's OK if I drive it away and call it mine even though you have the registration for it? I don't think so. Well I tried to use the wild horse analogy to invoke a sense of the information having a life of its own on the internet, far away from its owner. It isn't an inanimate thing like a car. It has a life of its own even though it is someones property. Or the right to ride that horse is someones property... whatever. That is just the reality of our situation. Why not accept this and start working within the new rules. The old rule is fine. You don't own the software, you own the right to run it. You can't sell your right. I agree, the old rule is fine. But it still doesn't mean it works now because you can't enforce it. The problem is that people don't understand this, or if they do, they don't like it, they don't believe in it, and they do what they want. Yes! That is the problem... now the companies need to learn to adapt to this new uncharted territory. The answer can never be "be good and follow these rules". Rules are meaningless if they can't be enforced. -- -Hev find me he www.michaelSCREWspringerROBOTS.com |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1097146881k@trad... Just because you can't stop the problem doesn't mean it's OK. Othewise we wouldn't worry about things like cancer. I have stated over and over that I ethically and morally object to software piracy. The point is we can object until we are blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that files are being freely shared on the internet. File cracking and sharing is here to stay, once that is accepted we can move towards companies adapting to the new market instead of wasting their time and money on piracy prevention that has done little or no good thus far. I think that companies that achieve this will prosper and those that don't adapt will get left in the dust. The answer can never be "be good and follow these rules". Rules are meaningless if they can't be enforced. So what do you suggest? One approach is to price the software so high that only those who really need it will purchase it, and they're the ones who tend to follow the rules. But there will always be a rich kid who decides to do some good for the world. Price alone will never make a piece of software safe. If there is enough demand for something crackers will do it just for the glory regardless of price. The flip side is that companies wouldn't stay in business long by dramatically raising prices. Anothe approach is one that's sort of working and that's to tie software to hardware where you need a key (like i-Lok) or a particular hardware (like Digidesign). It's not uncrackable, but it's inconvenient. They tried something like that with music, making disks that would only play in a music CD player and not on a computer drive, but that didn't work well enough. And again, not uncrackable. This idea is more feasible, but if it becomes the standard way that software is delivered, widespread cracking of the system will occur. Any product in the digital domain can (and will) be broken down to the code (1's & 0's). That inherent trait of the digital domain is what makes it so great and convenient, but also makes it eternally vulnerable. Surely there must be some way to control this since people won't police themselves, but every time I suggest this, it gets shot down by someone who says "any 10 year old kid could break it in five minutes." So maybe the best thing to do is just every violator (no matter how small) in jail and let 'em rot. Do that to a few hundred people and the other hundred thousand will get the idea that it could happen to them. But of course that takes a law that would never pass. Impossible. Not only from the standpoint that there are probably millions of people doing it (we are well past the hundreds of thousands probably), with jails already at capacity. Plus the amount of money needed to track these people down and bring them to justice would be enormous. Besides that there are other jurisdiction problems. For example: European person X stealing software from American company Y and sharing it with Japanese person Z. I dunno. Maybe we just need a simpler world where people could write useful shareware for fun and pride and the commercial software companies could concentrate on writing for commercial customers. Mike, the problem with this logic is that it doesn't matter who the software is intended for. Crackers will crack software intended for commercial customers just the same as they would any other as long as the demand is there. It is just a different world now... let me put a little perspective into this. I graduated from audio school a few years back. Everyone who owned a PC was running Cubase SX and/or Nuendo 2.0 with waves platinum bundle and every other plug-in you could possibly desire. This is not an exaggeration. I think the only way software companies will stay in business is through subscription type services. -- -Hev Find Me He www.michaelROBOTSspringerBEGONE.com |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1097235742k@trad... In article 7Xe9d.10144$r3.8292@trnddc05 writes: I think the only way software companies will stay in business is through subscription type services. That's been tried. People don't like not owning things that they use every day. Has it been tried? What services were offered? Maybe they didn't do it right... I guess people making the products are just hoping for a silver bullet technology to come around and blow piracy out of the water. I have a hard time seeing what that technology might entail. -- -Hev find me he www.michaelSCREWspringerROBOTS.com |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hev wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1097235742k@trad... In article 7Xe9d.10144$r3.8292@trnddc05 writes: I think the only way software companies will stay in business is through subscription type services. That's been tried. People don't like not owning things that they use every day. Has it been tried? What services were offered? Maybe they didn't do it right... I guess people making the products are just hoping for a silver bullet technology to come around and blow piracy out of the water. I have a hard time seeing what that technology might entail. On the other hand, we have other software where you need to keep the maintenance up to date or the software is not supported and can't be updated. This works pretty well in places where the software is part of a critical system and therefore users are almost always willing to pay for support. This seems a good model for some software. Then, there are other packages where you basically need to keep the maintenance up to date or the software refuses to function. The problem with this is that people who aren't going to use it in a critical system just plain won't buy it, and the people who are going to use it in a critical system would be paying for maintenance anyway. So this does not seem like as good a model. Then there is the Microsoft model, where you buy the software outright but then pay per minute for support to talk to some bozo who knows less about the system than the users. But then, I'm typing this on a machine made by a company that hasn't even existed for nearly a decade now. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ableton live | Pro Audio | |||
| ableton live | Pro Audio | |||
| ProTools LE 6.4, Reason, and a Newbie | Pro Audio | |||
| DAW & Windows XP RAID Tips, ProTools error -9086 | Pro Audio | |||
| Question: Just bought ProTools software... | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
