I know what u mean mucker! These emojis can tell a story expressivelly all on their own.
I've had to learn to use them in order to express that I'm only kidding sometimes as I can sound downright ""Offensive"" to some folk If I didn't use em! Defo an age thing

 

Try to make a sarcastic joke on reddit and forget to put an emoti...

 

I don't use reddit but I imagine there would be some slap on the wrist or ban put in place! Then it forces everyone to act in accordance to the rules and we can all tow the line and be nice little tykes!!!

 

Errr. You could be right about me. The thing is, i buy the software i use, as i run a commercial studio and i am subject to a handful of checks by various state and other officials. The fact that i somewhat sympathize with the pirates has nothing to do with my professional life. In fact i have a huge drawer the size of a small room full of software invoices, floppies, cds, dvds from anything ranging from Cubase 1 & 2 and Notator all the way to Cubase Pro 10, and from East West's first distributed libraries to Omnisphere 2.5 and any kind of original software memorabilia you may think of, plus a heap load of current plugs, secondary daws etc.
So now that we cleared this, your common sense is quite selective to be common. You are focusing on where do the money go or better where they don't. My common sense implies that those who were less fortunate and cannot buy all these softies should be able to have access to them. And because this kind of democracy is never imposed correctly, piracy is the poor man's last resort. I will not sit around and discuss how in many countries people still don't have even drinking water. For a musician in BanglaDesh or wherever, Cubase and any kind of pro daw, could very well be worth all the money he makes in 6 months or even a year. So spare me your -imho- short sighted western common sense please.
If soft companies weren't solely driven by profit but instead they put the human factor first, those people would not have to resort to piracy. So, first start seeing the world for what it really is, with all its inequalities and injustice and then you might start having a real common sense.
Cheers

 

"If soft companies weren't solely driven by profit but instead they put the human factor first, those people would not have to resort to piracy."

Seriously?

If Mercedes weren't solely driven by profit but instead they put the human factor first, I wouldn't be forced to steal them.

And with that, your Honour, the defence rests.

 

This was the same on ebay with the scum that would to sell unreleased live bootlegs of shows on DVD and CD.
Downloading them from TradersDen and Dime A Dozen and selling them for high prices. This used to really piss off the bootleg trading community.

 

Just came here to accumulate some logic and move on to the next room.

 

Forget the illegal aspect of all of this, there's a code even amongst pyrates; you don't claim or capitalize on someone elses work. Selling software that wasn't cracked by you--especially when the release team *specifically says not to (not that they should have to,)--essentially, making money off of other peoples hard work, is the act of someone who is most likely just some random asshole who has found a hustle, not anyone in the community (though, of course, I could be wrong...I have been once or twice before.)
And before someone makes the argument that the software isn't owned or created by the release team, or something equally inane, the difference is the one that is selling cracked software is making money off of the company and off of the release teams work, whereas the release teams, who don't make a dime off of what they do, are providing for people who often don't have the money to purchase it anyway, thus, the company wouldn't make any money off of them anyway. Try Before You Buy may not always end up in sales, but I can honestly say that I have bought plugins that I never would have if I hadn't "borrowed" them for a while before purchasing them when I was able to. Is it illegal? Sure, but at the end of the day, if the company puts out a quality product, they'll get my jar of pennies when it's managable.
I know for a fact that some people may find it difficult to believe that there *are still people who are broke and can do very little about it in this glorious day & age that we live in, but it's the dead-on truth; I believe these people should still have the opportunity to make the best music that they can, despite the fact they're broke.
And feel free to disagree; I won't lose any sleep over it--the fact remains that, laws aside, there is still right and wrong.

 

Valid to point out the similarity, but this post seems to be about the the differences.
Those who wish to see no difference can do so, but the legal variations seem good evidence that many who who deal in law and judgments have found a difference.
At the bottom is emotion and "reasons" are justifications given to validate the emotions.
Sometimes the reasons are valid and sound because the ideas or principles to which the emotions are attached are valid and sound.
Sometimes the reasons are pathetic because the ideas or principles to which the emotions are attached are invalid or unsound.
We are mostly unaware of the process of justifying with reasons after the occurrence of the emotions because it happens so fast.
Only for new scenarios is the process an active one, but for every judgment comes emotions first and reasons afterwards within a matrix of emotions and reasons built over time since birth upon a foundation of emotions and reasons that are subconscious and out of our direct manipulation.
Now, I can tell you why I wrote all that... I can write about a page of reasons... but if you want to REALLY know why, it is probably something genetic and would take a long report.
Anyway, the internet sellers seem like worse people to me, and regardless of the legal analysis, it probably has something to do with food sharing, sex, and willingness to defend group members.

 

Two brothers steal a load of cocaine. One uses his share for himself, the other sells his to kids on the street. As you can probably see by my example, the context will alter the result drastically. Using examples with interchangeable words is foolish don't you think?

 

I'm not saying I'm a good guy,but selling pirated softwares or drugs is way worse IMO.
And as I said I buy all the softwares I can.

 

Last edited: Nov 10, 2019

This is a really bad example because selling drugs per se is criminal, no matter if you stole them before of you are the producer.

 

How can be using some cracked tool to work with, to enjoy it, and to create something of value be compared to nefariously selling it to earn money? Low-income people to bloodsucker parasites?

 

Seriously. Your comparison is irrelevant, you can't compare ip with cars. I never complained how torrents distributed my (hit in my country) album for free. It was 2000-2001 though and some people were still buying cds. But at the same time, many dudes were also selling cd-r copies of my album(s) on the dam street with no remorse.
Now you should stop the comparisons with stupid cars and such, and answer the simple question derived from the op, please:
Which is worse, people sharing your music or people selling bootleg copies of your music, practically making a living from your work?
And this is the only real apples to apples comparison imho. In both cases the ip owner loses money, but in the second case someone is actually making profit from your work. I could even argue that in the sharing/torrent case, you get some free publicity because people who share music, are people who buy music as well as it was shown in many official surveys, so in a weird way it is also a targeted group advertisement. Now, i respect yours and everyone else's right to your opinion, but anyone who thinks for a moment that black market sellers and sharers are one and the same, is naive and hasn't been in music's front line ever, remaining an outsider spectator criticizing this and that.
Cheers

 

Last edited: Nov 10, 2019

I consider cracking as a justified answer to human inequality. People with privileges of accumulating unrestricted number of royalties for a single product /and just distributing copies of it in exchange/ (you can not just copy a Mercedes and sell it, each unit must be produced from scratch) create goods for people with privileges (of having much more money than average people). They make some sort of privilege exchange social caste. Others are left out to stand and watch. But when privilege exchange within the caste is over, it makes the production sustainable (plus more ritchies pour in), so there is time and space for non-privileged to feel treated as human beings, not as some outcast eye-hungry losers.

 

in which world you live...

the junkies get 5 years for nothing or 30 in states while brick movers get 4 years and are out ater 2....all the big timers dealers from back in the time are free man nowadays...
over here they bust no big timers nor zwischen händler...no no

 

Last edited: Nov 10, 2019

I think this kind of sums everything up, as per the eBay thing (which *was the topic.) short of the actual legal aspect of it

This may be one of the most presumptuous and inherently false statements yet, and that's sayin' something. I know a lot of people, whether it's people on the SIster Site or people I know personally (in the "real" world,) who pyrate shit left and right, keep very little of it, and usually end up buying the software they do use when they are able to. And, note that I said "use;" not everyone is a hobbyist, and more-so, a lot of people are fringe hobbyists, not working professionally, but selling their music, be it on Bandcamp or to television shows.

 

"Seriously. Your comparison is irrelevant, you can't compare ip with cars."

I can. And I just did.

Whether or not you care about whether or not your "hit album" was illegally distributed is both irrelevant and oddly self serving.

"Which is worse, people sharing your music or people selling bootleg copies of your music, practically making a living from your work?"

Theft for personal pleasure or theft for personal gain?

I really don't draw much of a distinction.

But I find the self-justification and obfuscation in threads like these only mildly amusing as it is my sincere hope that in their own hearts, those that excuse their own behaviour know it's wrong.

 

Sure, dream on mate. I mean this has already got boringly thick. The only thing you have worded clearly so far is, "theft is theft no matter what". Which is the kind of opinion that cuts the hand of someone who stole an apple, because he stole.
Now you can go on comparing cars with intellectual property because, hey it's the same in your imaginary world. Whatever. Just be careful not to step on any ant on the street because you 'll be a killer.
Cheers

 

Somewhat random and incoherent response.

Morally, theft is theft. But thank you for illustrating my point regarding obfuscation and self-justification.

Look, I don't particularly think bad of you because you steal shit (hell, I do), I just don't like to see people attempting to morally justify it. My particular favourite goes along the lines of; "those greedy developers charge too much, therefore I am forced to steal it."

That one always gives me a giggle.