DAW for Electronic music

[pottering]

I did say I was arguing from KVR rules, which I see as pretty "draconian" regarding licenses and such.

I understand that, however, you are going beyond that. You are embracing those ideas to push your own agenda and making up things that are untrue as a part of the process.

I like reading KVR exactly because people argue the cost/benefit of stuff based in their actual price, instead of treating everything as it was the same price (that is, "free" from torrents).

Nobody is talking about torrenting anything. Reaper costs $60 for most users here. That is the actual cost. Your desire to make it $225 to show your preferences in a more favorable light is simply without basis.

Also, if we are going to compare Traktion and Reaper, then the cost for Traktion is not free, rather, it is $60. That is the cost of the latest version of Traktion. With Reaper, you are always getting the latest version.

LOL, "push your own agenda", pretty easy insult to attach to anyone defending their own opinions.

[ghettosynth]

LOL, "push your own agenda", pretty easy insult to attach to anyone defending their own opinions.

You can have whatever opinion you want, but you don't get your own facts. You completely misunderstand the letter of the Reaper license agreement. Your confusion about the poverty line is simply factually incorrect. Reaper costs $60 for most users. Further, only the old version of Traktion is free, to get the current version you also have to spend $60. Those are facts, bringing up torrenting has nothing to do with any of this.

Reaper and Traktion cost the same for the initial license in comparable versions. Reaper has a much more solid history of being stably supported. Traktion has come and gone and come back again. Which you prefer is certainly up to you. However, if you are interested in comparing actual costs, those are the actual costs for most users.

You can use the outdated version of Traktion for free for as long as you like, and you can evaluate Reaper indefinitely. Both have downsides, Traktion is outdated, with Reaper you are technically violating the license agreement. Traktion vies for your attention with "legally free forever but we aren't going to give you are latest goodies", while Reaper vies for it with "practically free forever, but, we'd like you to feel a little bit guilty about it." Make no mistake, both are intentional marketing strategies. Both want you to spend at least that $60, both know that some users won't.

[1wob2many]

Have I got the wrong end of the stick or is somebody trying to argue that "You are an individual or business using REAPER commercially, and yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000" means anything other the revenue from using Reaper?

I think I may have ruptured something important from laughing.

And what's the poverty line in the USA got to do with anything? Nearly everybody on planet earth doesn't live in the USA.

[pottering]

Have I got the wrong end of the stick or is somebody trying to argue that "You are an individual or business using REAPER commercially, and yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000" means anything other the revenue from using Reaper?

I think I may have ruptured something important from laughing.

And what's the poverty line in the USA got to do with anything? Nearly everybody on planet earth doesn't live in the USA.

It COULD mean (of course, I don't know, I said it was just a opinion) that Reaper discounted license was meant for people that are actually poor and disadvantaged, for which setting the limit at the poverty line (which is relative, but usually a bit above 20k) is a solid measure, especially when you have zero intention of interrogating people.

In poorer countries 20k dollars may be middle-class BUT in such countries buying audio gear is much more expensive, there are very few audio jobs, ETCETERA, so they are as f**ked (probably worse) as someone under the poverty line in the US when trying to get an audio-related career going, so a 20k limit works the same for people in poorer countries too.

There are richer countries than the US, but those don't have the stupid prejudice against "welfare" that americans have.


The phrase "You are an individual or business using REAPER commercially, and yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000" OLD-SCHOOL-LITERALLY does not contain "from using Reaper" in any form.

[GaryG]

The phrase "You are an individual or business using REAPER commercially, and yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000" OLD-SCHOOL-LITERALLY does not contain "from using Reaper" in any form.

This was clarified once (and needless to say I can't find the link...) but the $20,000 was from making music in general. ie. you are actually making a fairly decent sum of cash from music each year and so Cockos consider you a pro, not an amateur.

[pottering]

The phrase "You are an individual or business using REAPER commercially, and yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000" OLD-SCHOOL-LITERALLY does not contain "from using Reaper" in any form.

This was clarified once (and needless to say I can't find the link...) but the $20,000 was from making music in general. ie. you are actually making a fairly decent sum of cash from music each year and so Cockos consider you a pro, not an amateur.

OK, I believe that without any link, I have no reason to doubt you.

[1wob2many]

Nope, still laughing my nuts off.

Have you heard the phrase "Not even wrong"?

[ghettosynth]

Nope, still laughing my nuts off.

Have you heard the phrase "Not even wrong"?

Exactly.

[LawrenceF]

Nothing to do with music, it's just the Internet in general where people make stuff up and argue about it. It took me all of 60 seconds to find Justin Frankel saying...

"If the business earns $20k, then you need a commercial license."

Less time than it took to read that argument.

You can rationalize that in various ways but my take on that doesn't mean "made $20k with Reaper exclusively making beats", but if you earned $20k doing anything in any business and Reaper is any part of that... like ...if you occasionally use it to edit court reporting tapes or anything else.

[sfxsound3]

Why not ask Cocks what they mean by this. If the statement is ambiguous, they should clarify.

[ghettosynth]

Why not ask Cocks what they mean by this. If the statement is ambiguous, they should clarify.

It doesn't matter. That's really the point here. All that matters is the document itself. What you intend in a license isn't important.

[ghettosynth]

Nothing to do with music, it's just the Internet in general where people make stuff up and argue about it. It took me all of 60 seconds to find Justin Frankel saying...

"If the business earns $20k, then you need a commercial license."

Less time than it took to read that argument.

You can rationalize that in various ways but my take on that doesn't mean "made $20k with Reaper exclusively making beats", but if you earned $20k doing anything in any business and Reaper is any part of that... like ...if you occasionally use it to edit court reporting tapes or anything else.

As I said in my first post, given that it's easy enough to define separate business entities, what's intended is irrelevant. The aforementioned lawn business and home studio, for example, would not need a commercial license if the home studio created a radio spot for the lawn business. They are separate and unrelated business entities. In that case, "the business" still only earned $5k.

Moreover, as I was saying, it has absolutely nothing to do with your personal income or the poverty line.

Since it took you so little time to find that quote, perhaps you could provide the link?

[chk071]

Boy has this thread gone boring... wake me when you're through, yeah?

BTW, everyone should try Reaper. No matter what. Dismissed.

[pottering]

OK, I noticed my prior comments were based on a assumption I made about Cockos, but I did not actually write that assumption.

Here it is:

I assumed that Cockos was a nice and (in other words) ideological company that wanted to help poorer and disadvantaged people that wanted to work w/ audio. My thoughts about the poverty line (which I've been forced to repeat multiple times already) come from that assumption, since the poverty line fits so well that ASSUMPTION (you have to repeat EVERYTHING when debating some people, what a bore).

Of course, if you are cynical like ghettosynth and 1wob2many, and think Cockos only cares about money, and the $60 license is just marketing, then yes, my "naive" views are "laughable".

Apologies again to inkwarp, I agree w/ you, Cockos made a decent effort to be inclusive.

[ghettosynth]

OK, I noticed my prior comments were based on a assumption I made about Cockos, but I did not actually write that assumption.

Here it is:

I assumed that Cockos was a nice ... and the $60 license is just marketing, then yes, my "naive" views are "laughable".

Your naive views are laughable. Being nice and marketing effectively are not mutually exclusive. Again, hold whatever opinion, you want, however, the choice to offer the same product at two different pricing levels is a well known pricing strategy. It isn't my opinion that it is being used to generate sales, that's exactly why it's done. Of course Cockos cares about sales and market share. If they didn't, why did they discount version 3 right before 4 came out?

They are in a unique position, yes, but Frankel has said on numerous occasions that Cockos is a business unit and that he runs it accordingly.