KVR Audio

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:09 pm

Polster wrote:Cracking and re-distributing a plug-in, or other such audio technology, is not breach of copyright or intellectual property, it is straightforward material theft - just as if someone had broken into a warehouse, stolen a load of DVD players and sold them on. This is absolutely not the same as ripping and distributing videos and mp3s - which is called (I think) copyright theft. Even if the cracker doesn't actually sell the goods on, the act of breaking and entering is still illegal.

Whatever you may call it, the examples you gave are hardly relevant to the discussion.

Oh dear! What a mishmash of misinformation. You don't even know whether or not ripping mp3's is copyright theft and yet you base your whole post on the legal difference between downloading an mp3 and downloading warez. You then have the cheek to dismiss xRAVENx in such a off-hand way by claiming that the example he gave is irrelevant. Amazing!

dburgan · Post by **dburgan** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:22 pm

xRAVENx wrote:Its not all black and white.

Can we agree on this: stealing MY products is black.

Polster · Post by **Polster** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:35 pm

munchkin wrote:Oh dear! What a mishmash of misinformation. You don't even know whether or not ripping mp3's is copyright theft and yet you base your whole post on the legal difference between downloading an mp3 and downloading warez. You then have the cheek to dismiss xRAVENx in such a off-hand way by claiming that the example he gave is irrelevant. Amazing!

The only point you can pivot your argument on in my response are the two words I put in brackets - you try and then use that to undermine my argument.

What were the words I used? Ahh!

I THINK!

Ironic isn't it.

I didn't dismiss xRAVENx - just his arguments. There is a difference.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:03 pm

Polster wrote:
munchkin wrote:Oh dear! What a mishmash of misinformation. You don't even know whether or not ripping mp3's is copyright theft and yet you base your whole post on the legal difference between downloading an mp3 and downloading warez. You then have the cheek to dismiss xRAVENx in such a off-hand way by claiming that the example he gave is irrelevant. Amazing!
The only point you can pivot your argument on in my response are the two words I put in brackets - you try and then use that to undermine my argument. What were the words I used? Ahh!

I THINK!

Ironic isn't it.

Another red herring!

Either you know the facts or you don't. The only irony is that you pose as some kind of authority on this but in fact you don't know the correct information.

Polster wrote:I didn't dismiss xRAVENx - just his arguments. There is a difference.

More semantic twisting to deflect away from your didactic approach.

Polster · Post by **Polster** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:35 pm

munchkin wrote:The only irony is that you pose as some kind of authority on this but in fact you don't know the correct information.

Polster wrote:I didn't dismiss xRAVENx - just his arguments. There is a difference.
More semantic twisting to deflect away from your didactic approach.

Munchkin, you appear to be an expert please then tell us what you understand to be the correct information. Not an essay on my behavior or my semantics, I mean something factual relating to this discussion.

What is the difference between Copyright, Intellectual property, Material Theft, Copyright Theft, Breach of Copyright, Patent Infringement?

An honest straightforward question - no semantics - please correct me with some facts.

You've got the whole internet available to help you out.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:50 pm

Polster wrote:
munchkin wrote:The only irony is that you pose as some kind of authority on this but in fact you don't know the correct information.

Polster wrote:I didn't dismiss xRAVENx - just his arguments. There is a difference.
More semantic twisting to deflect away from your didactic approach.
Munchkin, you appear to be an expert please then tell us what you understand to be the correct information. Not an essay on my behavior or my semantics, I mean something factual relating to this discussion.

What is the difference between Copyright, Intellectual property, Material Theft, Copyright Theft, Breach of Copyright, Patent Infringement?

An honest straightforward question - no semantics - please correct me with some facts.

You've got the whole internet available to help you out.

I am the expert? That's news to me. I don't think I'll take seriously your sarcastic recommendation.

You're the one pontificating on this issue without the correct information and then dismissing others opinions as irrelevant. So why don't you do a search instead of expecting me to do it for you? Then perhaps you will have the correct info at hand. You've got the whole web to help you out as you point out sarcastically.

Polster · Post by **Polster** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:10 pm

munchkin wrote:I am the expert? That's news to me. I don't think I'll take seriously your sarcastic recommendation.

You're the one pontificating on this issue without the correct information and then dismissing others opinions as irrelevant. So why don't you do a search instead of expecting me to do it for you? Then perhaps you will have the correct info at hand. You've got the whole web to help you out as you point out sarcastically.

I've done my search, I've given my views. We need a second opinion now. Since you are the one who questions my statements, you claim that they are incorrect, then you must know the truth. Either give us the truth that you know or admit that you don't know.

Seriously, stop avoiding the question and correct me with the facts since you have stated that I am giving the wrong information here.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:48 pm

Polster wrote:
munchkin wrote:I am the expert? That's news to me. I don't think I'll take seriously your sarcastic recommendation.

You're the one pontificating on this issue without the correct information and then dismissing others opinions as irrelevant. So why don't you do a search instead of expecting me to do it for you? Then perhaps you will have the correct info at hand. You've got the whole web to help you out as you point out sarcastically.
I've done my search, I've given my views. We need a second opinion now. Since you are the one who questions my statements, you claim that they are incorrect, then you must know the truth. Either give us the truth that you know or admit that you don't know.

Seriously, stop avoiding the question and correct me with the facts since you have stated that I am giving the wrong information here.

This is tedious. You are the one obsessed with this issue and you are the one who has admitted that you don't know for certain what legal category ripping mp3's comes under. So how can you claim that there is a difference between downloading mp3's and software if you're not sure?

Go do your own research to get the definitive information if this subject interests you so much. Good luck with this as interpretation of the concept is different all over the world unlike the picture you try to paint.

I'm pointing out that you are didactic and prone to asserting your opinion as if it is fact. The reason I'm doing so is because you dismiss others opinions with unresearched information. It's exactly what you accuse others of doing so I'm calling you on it. The issue here is your hypocrisy not the legality of copyright and intellectual property rights.

Polster · Post by **Polster** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:21 pm

Munchkin,

Just for you

Copyright Theft - A Definition from Oxford University

With my compliments

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:34 pm

been watching this spat - can i just say that the file you have listed is for the rules used on oxford university computers - ie the ones on campus - it has nothing at all to do with legal definitions of copyright theft

but it does imply that software copying and cd copying are exactly the same thing - copyright theft- which is clearly not what you keep asserting - i.e. very differnt offence compared to common theft

Polster · Post by **Polster** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:54 pm

ericj23 wrote:been watching this spat - can i just say that the file you have listed is for the rules used on oxford university computers - ie the ones on campus - it has nothing at all to do with legal definitions of copyright theft

but it does imply that software copying and cd copying are exactly the same thing - copyright theft- which is clearly not what you keep asserting - i.e. very differnt offence compared to common theft

I would expect that Oxford University might use a reasonable definition in instructions to its students. And, I agree, it implies.

There is a difference, in my opinion, (let's be very sure about that) between simply copying software and cracking software. I don't need to tamper with the software if you just give me a copy on CD along with the registration code. That's, at least, copyright theft.

If I break the software security open and re-distribute it wholesale, one could argue that the software is no longer identical to the original software (because I have altered it) but it would still constitute a theft.

Of the cases I have browsed, they quote breach of both copyright and civil laws. The civil law aspect very likely relates to common theft (but I am not in a position to prove that here).

hoffy · Post by **hoffy** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:36 am

Sorry to come so late to the party

It is ignorant to expect for every warezed plugin there is a potential legitimate buyer.

It is the responsiblity of software companies to come up with marketing strategies to tempt buyers away from the alternatives- which include other software products *and* the pirated versions. Camel Audio and NI have user libraries that are accessible only to paying users- that is one fine example.

I would expect that the majority of Kvr users are warez users. No offence to everyone, this is just my opinion.

Warez are great. I used warez when i was having fun using audio technology, and continued to use warez while i was recieving my tertiary education in the audio/music industry.

Now i have gained employment in the industry, i no longer use warez software- why would i, when i can pay for it? Without warez i doubt i would be in this position, working in a field that i love, and being able to contribute to the developers who create brilliant software/hardware.

Just my 2cents.

Rik · Post by **Rik** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:22 pm

Aleksey Vaneev wrote:Of course I'm not talking about PACE or iLok systems which have a bad reputation in pro audio community.

It seems ProTools people LOVE their iLok systems... I think it is quite nice... you store all your authorizations on a key and you just take your key to work somewhere else!
Izotope kept iLok for their RTAS plugs because the protools people requested it.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:30 pm

Rik wrote: It seems ProTools people LOVE their iLok systems... I think it is quite nice... you store all your authorizations on a key and you just take your key to work somewhere else!
Izotope kept iLok for their RTAS plugs because the protools people requested it.

I somewhat like dongles with multiple authorisations as well, especially considering that you can just install things on as many machines as you wish.

There's two downsides though:
What if too many apps you're using would be dongled? That'd make laptop useage for instance quite more of a hassle as you may eventually need some non-selfpowered USB hub.
What if you lose the thing? I won't even think about it... some companies offer generous replacement schemes, blacklisting the old dongle, others don't.

Rik · Post by **Rik** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:36 pm

Sascha Franck wrote: There's two downsides though:
What if too many apps you're using would be dongled? That'd make laptop useage for instance quite more of a hassle as you may eventually need some non-selfpowered USB hub.

The idea about the iLok is to have many applications on the same dongle... And in the Protools world most plugs are using the same dongle... which makes the laptop usage quite nice. I find that system much better than having to deal with several authorizations. It drives me crazy with all the different logins and infos you need!

Sascha Franck wrote: What if you lose the thing? I won't even think about it... some companies offer generous replacement schemes, blacklisting the old dongle, others don't.

Pace offers to replace the dongle with all the authorizations... not cheap but works!

Voxengo - protection policy?????