Ethics question about Receptor plug-ins

[CrownRoyal]

So, I have a little ethical problem. I could run a cracked copy of Pluggo on the Receptor and it would probably work since Pluggo Jr works (I'm guessing).

You are guessing wrong

This thread is very long already. I will read all the posts later. Right now I'm going to answer just to the technical problem, which makes your ethical problem moot.

The reason we offer only Pluggo Jr. is that nothing else from Cycling '74 works with Receptor. We tried.

We would like to support Pluggo as well as other Cycling '74 products, and we will. Right now our priority is getting plug-ins like Ivory or Symphonic Choir ready to ship.

Thanks Dan!

It was the first plug-in that I came across that I can't use. As I go down my list, I bet Antares Filter and Kantos won't, either.

I used Pluggo as an example. This is going to come up, again for some other plug, I'm sure.

I'm just so curious about this stuff. I'm a newbie so I have lots of learning to do.

[CrownRoyal]

What do you think?

Dont buy software with stupid protection schemes.

Aren't they all stupid except for name and serial number?

Pluggo changed to iLok last year... same for Antares Auto-tune 4 and I owned licenses for them before they changed. Since I can't predict what software protection is coming in the future, I can't judge my software purchases on that in the present. I'm just trying to get my existing plugs to work and protect my "investment".

Ciao!

[original flipper]

HI

I would say get confident in what you want to do - this kind of question is childish: I assume your a grown man, you know about licences and their implications - the fact that you ask for what? .. some kind of moral support in going against the licence transfer!

I know what I would do - I certainly wouldn't go to a forum full of software developers asking this nonsense!

Flipper.

[DanTimis]

Let's suppose just for the sake of argument that it is both legal and ethical to use craked software, as long as you also payed for it. But, how did you get it?

A developer writes the software and adds copy protection to it. A craker tampers with the software and bypasses the copy protection - that's illegal. The craker makes the craked version available to others - that's illegal too. The user who paid for the software acquires a craked copy - I think that's illegal or at least it should be. I also think it is not ethical.

So whether using a craked copy after you already paid for it is legal/ethical or it is not legal/ethical, is a moot point. Acquiring it is not ethical and probably not legal either. If you acquire it, you are getting involved in an illegal and unethical activity started by the craker.

A different aspect is why are developers adding all this annoying copy protection schemes with dongles or challenge/response. If they didn't do it, they could not make a living. If they can't make a living, they can't write the software that you enjoy using. The aggravation that copy protection brings, is the price that all of us have to pay because of piracy.

The thing I would encourage everyone to do is tell all your friends, family, and neighbors that it is wrong to make copies of CD's, DVD's, and software. You trust your neighbor; you know that if you throw your wallet full of cash in his/hers backyard it will get returned with all its contents intact. Yet, your neighbor doesn't think twice to offer you a copy of a CD. "I just got this CD and I thought you might enjoy it too. I made a copy on my computer."

You should politely say "Thank you. If you recommend it, I'll write down the title and buy a copy. I appreciate the gesture, but what you trying to do is illegal." Because when all decent people understand that contents should be treated like physical objects, then we will be able to remove copy protection from software completely.

[Lord Snarebottom]

even if developers are aware of cracks they still seem sometimes to prefer to make life difficult to legal owners; doing so they push more legal users to use cracked software.

So you're saying that people are forcing you to commit criminal acts? David Berkowitz (the "Son of Sam") murdered people because his dog "told" him to. What then makes you any different or better than he?

"You see your honor, he made me shoot him..."

What a wanker. If you're not a wanker, surely you must realize that you aren't being forced to use *ANY* software. You either deal with the CP, or you get something else or disable the CP using your incredible programming skillz...you do have those skillz, right?

HAHA!! Yeah right, and I don't own a tube amp!

[CrownRoyal]

HI

I would say get confident in what you want to do - this kind of question is childish: I assume your a grown man, you know about licences and their implications - the fact that you ask for what? .. some kind of moral support in going against the licence transfer!

I know what I would do - I certainly wouldn't go to a forum full of software developers asking this nonsense!

Flipper.

Really? Childish? Interesting. Yes, I'm quite grown. You can think childish if you want.

I'm not looking for moral support. I certainly wouldn't look for moral support in here... you can be whatever you want to be in here. What if I'm a developer, too? I made my decision before I posted. I'm curious what people think and nothing more.

Is it bad to debate in a forum? Can't I pose questions to test the characters in the forum? Regardless of where I stand on an issue? I've insulted noboby. I haven't used vulgar language. Nobody asked me what I thought. I was posing questions and nothing more. I stole nothing. If I'm guilty of anything, it's wasting time.

Okay?

Tomorrow, I'll have a registered Receptor. That adds to a list of software that I've purchased licenses for: Pro Tools, Live 5, Stylus RMX, Pluggo, Logic Express, MelodyneUno, Albino 2, Antares Filter, Auto-tune 4 and Kantos, Reason 3, BFD, Camel Audio Space, Phat and Cameleon, SampleTank 2, Amplitube, Minimonsta and impOSCar.... the list goes on. I bought a license from baggio for z3ta+ so I can have it on the Receptor. Tonight, I'm uninstalling quite a few plugs to shift them over to the Receptor.

If I've insulted anyone, I do apologize but I PAY for my software and always have. If I could PAY of a cross grade for Pluggo, I would. I have to wait for it. No biggie. I see nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate. If you can't think like your enemy, you'll never beat him. I think that's from Art of War. I'm not the enemy.

[CrownRoyal]

HI

I would say get confident in what you want to do - this kind of question is childish: I assume your a grown man, you know about licences and their implications - the fact that you ask for what? .. some kind of moral support in going against the licence transfer!

I know what I would do - I certainly wouldn't go to a forum full of software developers asking this nonsense!

Flipper.

One other thing, why would you assume I'm a man? And what of my skin colour? And because I spelled (spelt?) colour with a "u", would you also think I'm non-U.S.?

[CrownRoyal]

The thing I would encourage everyone to do is tell all your friends, family, and neighbors that it is wrong to make copies of CD's, DVD's, and software. You trust your neighbor; you know that if you throw your wallet full of cash in his/hers backyard it will get returned with all its contents intact. Yet, your neighbor doesn't think twice to offer you a copy of a CD. "I just got this CD and I thought you might enjoy it too. I made a copy on my computer."

You should politely say "Thank you. If you recommend it, I'll write down the title and buy a copy. I appreciate the gesture, but what you trying to do is illegal." Because when all decent people understand that contents should be treated like physical objects, then we will be able to remove copy protection from software completely.

I agree. Don't you think that there should be better advertising for this crime? You'd think the government would be all over it due to the tax revenues they're missing out on.

Gotta go, dryer buzzer!

[TaoMannaDon]

Darn it! This is my thread! If you don't like it, sew me!

If this were my thread, I'd be trying to get it deleted.

I think you got the answer you were looking for; and I think you got to feel some heat from forum members who thought (or think) you support using cracked software.

You indicated in one of your responses that you pay for all the software you use. I believe you. But people who use cracked software will think you were just being clever when you said that. They will see you as a kindred spirit.

The thought of that would make me very uncomfortable.

[CrownRoyal]

Darn it! This is my thread! If you don't like it, sew me!

If this were my thread, I'd be trying to get it deleted.

I think you got the answer you were looking for; and I think you got to feel some heat from forum members who thought (or think) you support using cracked software.

You indicated in one of your responses that you pay for all the software you use. I believe you. But people who use cracked software will think you were just being clever when you said that. They will see you as a kindred spirit.

The thought of that would make me very uncomfortable.

Thanks Don, but I'll let KVR delete it if they wish. I'm not uncomfortable at all talking about it nor ashamed of bringing it up. If people wish to judge me, let them. I don't fear it. I'm judged everyday. It's part of being human. It is a forum but not a place for free-speech, I understand.


FWIW, I especially appreciated your comments.

I've had some fun in here and now that I got my Receptor, you'll be seeing far less of me or not at all. I do have to get hold of that Tim Conrardy guy. What an interesting fellow he is! There's a guy that has incredible passion for music. Wow! So, I'll still be poking my nose around here to see what works on my Receptor or not.

Cheers and ciao!

[eduardo_b]

The user who paid for the software acquires a craked copy - I think that's illegal or at least it should be. I also think it is not ethical.

I've been in these kinds of discussions many times, so here's my take on this topic. I think it comes down to more than broad generalizations about buying software and then also acquiring a cracked version. It's also a matter of intent.

If someone finds the copy protection is an issue on their system, but they want to use the software they paid for, using a cracked version isn't exactly wrong. No one was deprived of revenue, and the user is able to run the software without compromising his computer or other software. Or perhaps the developer won't allow a desktop installation and a laptop installation at the same time, a completely unreasonable and arbitrary position in an attempt to double sales. So the user runs a cracked version on one of the systems. I don't have a problem with this, because this use is reasonable and widely allowed by a large number of developers, who use the book principle (you can only read one copy at a time even if you have two copies).

Illegal and unethical are not the same thing. Many software publishers have EULAs that are ridiculous from a customer point of view and are designed to give all rights to the publisher -- both reasonable and unreasonable. It may be illegal to ignore some aspects of a EULA, but not necessarily unethical.

The thing I would encourage everyone to do is tell all your friends, family, and neighbors that it is wrong to make copies of CD's, DVD's, and software.

Not really. Fair use allows for copies for backup or use in more than one location. I'm not buying two or three copies of a CD so I can have one at home and one in each car. If I'm going to take DVDs with me for whatever reason, I make copies and leave the originals at home. I don't much care that this requires breaking the copy protection, because I'm not selling or giving the copies to anyone. It may be illegal, but it's not unethical. Again, it's intent that makes all the difference.

While I understand the intent of copy protection for software, it should not interfere with fair use -- a principle that media companies and software publishers would like to see go away. You aren't likely to agree with this because you have a vested economnic interest, but from a customer standpoint, there's much to be said for fair, reasonable personal use.

[DanTimis]

The thing I would encourage everyone to do is tell all your friends, family, and neighbors that it is wrong to make copies of CD's, DVD's, and software.

Not really. Fair use allows for copies for backup or use in more than one location. I'm not buying two or three copies of a CD so I can have one at home and one in each car. If I'm going to take DVDs with me for whatever reason, I make copies and leave the originals at home. I don't much care that this requires breaking the copy protection, because I'm not selling or giving the copies to anyone. It may be illegal, but it's not unethical. Again, it's intent that makes all the difference.

Let me give you another example. A while ago I was flipping through channels and I stumbled on Oprah, Montel, Sally, or some other afternoon maudlin talk show that I don't watch usually. It was about some love story, something like they were sweethearts in high school, they lost touch, got married, had children, both spouses died of cancer, met again, and got married. I don't remember exactly.

What made me stop and watch was a statement that went something like this: "We had a big wedding, 120 guests. We made a CD on our computer with all our favorite songs, and we gave a copy to each guest."

Do you think that's fair use? These people were very decent people. These people were not crooks. The problem is that they had no idea that they were doing something wrong. The problem is that nobody on the show understood that it was wrong and that maybe they should edit out that portion. The problem is that probably nobody watching was outraged enough to write back to the show or to the FCC, like everybody was outrages about the wardrobe malfunction incident.

If I have a mansion and a CD player in every room and I make 15 copies of a CD, that may be fair use, although I think there is a limit on how many copies you can make legally. But if I give a copy to a friend, family, or neighbor - and I'm not talking about a loan here - that's downright theft. My statement should have read "... it is wrong to make copies of CD's, DVD's, and software in order to give it away" In the context of the neighbor story it was very clear what I was trying to say. Of course, if you take it out of context it may seem like I never heard of fair use. The problem is that most decent people don't know the difference between fair use and theft and we need to educate them.

BTW, you are not helping.

[DanTimis]

The user who paid for the software acquires a craked copy - I think that's illegal or at least it should be. I also think it is not ethical.

I've been in these kinds of discussions many times, so here's my take on this topic. I think it comes down to more than broad generalizations about buying software and then also acquiring a cracked version. It's also a matter of intent.

EXACTLY. The intent of the craker was not to help the people who paid for the software, it was to let people - many, many people - who did not pay for the software to use it illegally. By downloading and using a crak that was intended to defraud the developer of well deserved revenue, you are "aiding and abetting the enemy"

That may sound a bit like an exaggeration, but it's not really. Using craked software only encourages the crakers. As a result developers have to spend time writing copy protection code instead of developing new synthesis algorithms, the honest user has to pay a little bit more and put up with annoying copy protection, and so on.

Look what I'm doing now! Instead of writing software I have to debate about something that should be clear as daylight. If you enjoy your music software and want to get bigger and better plug-ins, it is not in your interest to justify the use of craked software under any circumstance.

[eduardo_b]

It was about some love story, something like they were sweethearts in high school, they lost touch, got married, had children, both spouses died of cancer, met again, and got married. I don't remember exactly.

What made me stop and watch was a statement that went something like this: "We had a big wedding, 120 guests. We made a CD on our computer with all our favorite songs, and we gave a copy to each guest."

Do you think that's fair use? These people were very decent people. These people were not crooks. The problem is that they had no idea that they were doing something wrong. The problem is that nobody on the show understood that it was wrong and that maybe they should edit out that portion. The problem is that probably nobody watching was outraged enough to write back to the show or to the FCC...

Before I reply, I have to say that this reminds me of one of my absolute favorite classes at university -- a philosophy class that was about everyday ethics in the real world. It was just this sort of case study that made the class so interesting for everyone in it.

Okay, I'm very big on relative or situational ethics, probably because my pragmatic nature is so dominant. So, I'm not outraged by the couple giving everyone a CD of their favorite songs. I'm not so sure this doesn't come under fair use because they were being given away to wedding guests, and because this was not going to have even the slightest effect on the potential sales of any of the individual songs. I say this because I assume that none of the guests were going to be customers for CDs containing these songs if they didn't already own them.

I understand that under the letter of the law, there might be an issue. But I hardly think anyone, including record company executives, would expect the couple to purchase 120 copies of each CD containing one or more of the songs on the compilation they gave to wedding guests. They weren't taking revenue from songwriters, recording artists and record companies but these compilation CDs were given to wedding guests who were not going to be buying sometime in the future anyway.

You are probably correct that they didn't recognize that there might be legal issues involved in doing this, but I also would assume that no one in the studio nor those watching would consider what this couple did to be "wrong." I've had people give me copies of CDs that I would never had purchased, and I don't think I ever listened to any of these copies more than once or twice. My point being that I wasn't going to be a customer for those CDs now or in the future, so no sales were lost in the process.

I think public awareness that downloading and copying is illegal is rather general because of the news stories over the last five years or so about the topic. But fair use is fairly broad, while clearly not allowing the resulting copies to be sold. I think decent people know the difference between what would justifiably be called stealing and what is fair and reasonable use. I think you are simply more upset than most people because you believe it impacts you and/or those in your business. To me, it's all about balance and reasonable expectations.

BTW, you are not helping.

Actually, I think these kinds of discussions are good for everyone because that's how we come to concensus about what is right, wrong and in between. And there certainly is an in between.

[eduardo_b]

The intent of the craker was not to help the people who paid for the software, it was to let people - many, many people - who did not pay for the software to use it illegally. By downloading and using a crak that was intended to defraud the developer of well deserved revenue, you are "aiding and abetting the enemy"

I find this sort of argument tenuous because it assumes that H20, Paradox and others are not going to crack software if there isn't an audience for their work. That's simply not true. If nothing else, they do it just to prove they can. And, they specifically state that their work is not to be sold or used to make a profit. Not that there's necessarily honor among thieves, but this isn't about them trying to compete with developers for the same customers.

Which is my second point. I find it a broad assumption that if those who had cracked software didn't have it, they would by buying legal copies. They more likely wouldn't buy any copies. Probably couldn't afford to. And those who buy the legal version and use the crack to avoid the mutlitude of issues with copy protection and challenge/response registration are still customers aren't they?

Not condoning any of this, but pretending that simply discussing these issues creates a market for cracked software is not to be taken seriously. You can write software and still discuss the relative merits of copy protection and how customers choose to deal with it. It's a good thing...really.