Can I change the label reading to whom my U-he products are "registered to ..."?

[lunardigs]

IMHO, I don't think it's possible to make good music with stolen tools.

True! You can't heal if you steal! Always remember that when you're in a drug store.

[sleepcircle]

A strong argument could be made that C++, Python, PHP, etc. is "free" and thus what's created with it should be as well.

if, in 1983, Michael Crichton gets the idea for Jurassic Park while at a restaurant and writes the idea down on a complimentary restaurant napkin, the restaurant does not consequently own the entirety of the Jurassic Park franchise.

Anyway, C++, Python, PHP etc. are not free products as much as they are international standards that people can adhere to if they like. the compilers are free but theoretically whoever wanted to could make their own compiler. and if someone gives that compiler away for free, it's because they wanted to. if you give someone a present, they aren't obligated to relinquish it to the first guy who comes along and demands it.

that's what i mean about crackers being petty power-grabbers. they FORCE it to be free, against the owner's wishes, just for spite or self-aggrandizement.

[EvilDragon]

IMHO, I don't think it's possible to make good music with stolen tools.

Interesting proposition. But probably false

[Urs]

IMHO, I don't think it's possible to make good music with stolen tools.

Interesting proposition. But probably false

Not quite. In the beginnings I gave away a few NFRs to famous people. As it turned out, none of them ever used them. My theory: Many Musicians have GAS, which may be related to Retail Therapy. Free stuff is not satisfying either of these, hence it's not valued and not used in production. Therefore, I sincerely believe that many people can not make good music, or any music at all, with stolen tools.

[EvilDragon]

Sure, there are "endless collectors" out there. But I would venture a guess there definitely are people making great music even with warezed software. They don't necessarily have to be famous...

[Urs]

Sure, there are "endless collectors" out there. But I would venture a guess there definitely are people making great music even with warezed software. They don't necessarily have to be famous...

Hence, "many", not "all"

[EvilDragon]

Quite.

[ATN69]

There are a bunch of famous musicians use, or have been using, warez. Avicii had Sylent1 and the story became famous when people realized that the copy of Sylenth1 was registered to a well known group that crack software. It was all over Youtube. Of course he bought a real license eventually, and I think that's mostly the case. There have been more stories like this out there. I never heard of any Uhe synth though.

[sleepcircle]

There are a bunch of famous musicians use, or have been using, warez. Avicii had Sylent1 and the story became famous when people realized that the copy of Sylenth1 was registered to a well known group that crack software. It was all over Youtube. Of course he bought a real license eventually, and I think that's mostly the case. There have been more stories like this out there. I never heard of any Uhe synth though.

this story leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[chk071]

Well, at least according to Avicii himself, he always owned a legit license, but used the warezed version so that he can use custom skins. Or something.

Not sure why you'd have a sour taste in your mouth about this though. I don't think there's a difference between rich and poor people using warez. It's rather an attitude than having anything to do with having money or not. And, TBH, i think especially in Sweden, many have that attitude.

I agree with this BTW:

Free stuff is not satisfying either of these, hence it's not valued and not used in production.

Doesn't have to do with the quality of the music IMO, though, rather that you're much more likely to mess around with something of value, than with hundreds of free plugins. Also, plugins which cost more will also have a higher probability of being quality stuff, simply because it's quality work getting paid appropriately.

[AnX]

IMHO, I don't think it's possible to make good music with stolen tools.

Interesting proposition. But probably false

Not quite. In the beginnings I gave away a few NFRs to famous people. As it turned out, none of them ever used them. My theory: Many Musicians have GAS, which may be related to Retail Therapy. Free stuff is not satisfying either of these, hence it's not valued and not used in production. Therefore, I sincerely believe that many people can not make good music, or any music at all, with stolen tools.

Many ppl cannot make good music full stop, regardless of tools.

Either way, there is no evidence to support any of those ridiculous statements.

[sleepcircle]

Doesn't have to do with the quality of the music IMO, though, rather that you're much more likely to mess around with something of value, than with hundreds of free plugins. Also, plugins which cost more will also have a higher probability of being quality stuff, simply because it's quality work getting paid appropriately.

that's pretty much what Urs said, not that pirating somehow made you worse at art.

chk071, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it's spectacularly ungrateful of them.

and regarding Anx's statement, you're not quite correct. There is "sparse anecdotal evidence" for these statements. That is different from 'no evidence' even though many people treat them as the same. There's certainly not enough evidence to make a bet on or postulate a scientific principle, but probably enough to bandy about in an internet forum.

Anyway there wasn't evidence for Einstein's theory of gravitational waves until just last year, so you never know, eh?

[mevla]

.... may be related to Retail Therapy. Free stuff is not satisfying either of these, hence it's not valued and not used in production. Therefore, I sincerely believe that many people can not make good music, or any music at all, with stolen tools.

Hmmmm... How does this impact the definition of a price for a plugin ?

[Benutzername]

There are more sides on this coin. Strictly speaking many software creators are software pirates as well because a lot of them use 3rd party resources without respecting the license of these resources.

As an example. If you use GPL code in part or as a whole in your own code then you have to release your entire code as GPL as well. There is no "I only just used 10 lines of code" limit or something like that. In practice many developers just scan through github and similar sites when they encounter a problem and just use the first code bit that pops up regardless of the license. If they produce closed source applications then it is highly unlikely that someone will ever notice. But it can be illegal nonetheless and happens all the time.

However, many commonly used libraries are using a BSD style license so they can be used with closed source software. No problem. But a lot of these tools require to mention the library and it's developers in the about dialog, on the website and in the documentation. This almost never happens although it is often clearly visible that a specific library was used. In this case the usage of this library was not allowed as the developer doesn't have a valid license.

This list goes on. Many developers only start to care about license violations when it affects their own money and their own rights and not when it affects their own duties.

To make it clear: I'm not talking about u-he here. It is a more general observation.

[sleepcircle]

i'm pretty sure you're not saying that "because some developers do it, all developers should be stolen from indiscriminately"

bearing that in mind, it seems like you're just saying "developers can be bad people too" which i think most people already suspected.