Moseph, I need your opinion on something

[Seafroggys]

I'm sure you know what iLok is (a dongle used to authentice plug-ins and what not). The whole concept behind iLok just goes against my principles (and DRM in general). Now I am also against piracy, but DRM is generally just ridiculous...legitimate owners don't need to be told when and how they can use software they buy.

There's a couple of plug-ins I've been looking into by PSP, problem is is that they are iLok certified. What is your opinion on, say, purchasing a product that requires iLok, but using a cracked version that doesn't require iLok (and, btw, iLok is a seperate $40 purchase)?

Technically I'm sure it is illegal, but could it be considered moral?

[Moseph]

While I think there are plenty of folks who would call this a gray area, and even some who don't see it as an issue, I don't like it.

The key issue with piracy, to me, isn't about prices and availability and ideals of DRM (although, for the record, I also dislike DRM: that's why I'm big on freeware and open-source). For me, it boils down to ensuring that the owner of the intellectual property ("IP"; in this case, the copyrighted software) maintains discretion over how their property is distributed and utilized.

In the example of your situation, it's true that you've purchased the software and PSP has effectively been paid for their efforts. However, the important distinction is that you are still circumventing the manner in which PSP is comfortable with you using their IP. I'm not going to get into the additional issues with using cracked software, the negative side effects of directing bandwidth to warez hosts, etc. That's the key issue in my opinion: the creator of the IP gets to dictate how it's distributed. If you ignore that consideration, you've effectively negated their incentives to produce more useable IP.

Hope that helps.

EDIT:

Also, I don't consider this to be about morals, but ethics. The distinction is sometimes subtle, but significant.

Morals are generally absolute and require little (if any) critical thought. Morals are often determined by an authoritative body.

Ethics are generally less distinctly defined, and will sometimes necessitate a great deal of critical-thinking. Ethics are often determined and considered within a body of like-minded peers (in the case of data piracy, the peers would be "software and data consumers").

[Seafroggys]

Yeah I see your point. I'm not sure what I'm gonna do, but I sure as hell don't want to fork over $40 for a silly flash drive (ebay has some interesting auctions going on...).

The thing is, I don't like it how people can dictate how their IP is used. They're not selling it to you, they're renting it to you, with a one time fee. I want to own my product. When I own my product, I can do what I want with it.

Take published music for concert bands. I remember my first high school director would modify some parts for our songs for different reasons. Imagine if the publishers said "No, you can't do that, its our IP and we have our rights." Its pretty ridiculous, and as it stands now, its very hard to maintain that. But what if they could? Pretty scary thought.

At this time, until I can actually own PSP plug-ins, they won't get my business. Which is a shame, because their MasterQ plug looked really interesting (Haven't tried the demo yet though).

[Moseph]

Yeah I see your point. I'm not sure what I'm gonna do, but I sure as hell don't want to fork over $40 for a silly flash drive (ebay has some interesting auctions going on...).

The thing is, I don't like it how people can dictate how their IP is used. They're not selling it to you, they're renting it to you, with a one time fee. I want to own my product. When I own my product, I can do what I want with it.

It's not the use, per se, that's being dictated, it's the distribution. For a VST plugin, there's really only one way to "use" it (i.e., load it in a compliant host, run digital audio through it). It just so happens that in digital data, control of the distribution will often have effect on the usage.

Keep in mind that (in the USA, anyway) for software you're not typically buying the product, you're generally buying a license to use that product. That's a subtle distinction that has a lot of weight amongst software developers. It's never been tested in a court of law to my knowledge.

Take published music for concert bands. I remember my first high school director would modify some parts for our songs for different reasons. Imagine if the publishers said "No, you can't do that, its our IP and we have our rights." Its pretty ridiculous, and as it stands now, its very hard to maintain that. But what if they could? Pretty scary thought.

Actually, in the USA, none of that is illegal. Public High Schools have a long tradition of using fair use policy to their advantage for published works in music courses: the actual sheet music is purchased, and the copies made are generally limited to create enough for student use and archival purposes in an educational environment.

With regard to the modifications, in that situation either the derivative work has been changed enough to be considered a seperate entity (not likely, but possible), or the fair use rules will still apply. Another big part of it is that publishers aren't stupid: it would be a PR and sales fiasco if they even tried to sue educational institutions that purchase a legitimate copy over the fair use issue. No educational facility in their right mind would buy from that publisher again.


You also need to remember that having an input on who can make use of IP and potentially how is pretty much the biggest incentive for creators to release their works to the public at all. That's the crux of the IP compromise in fact. The idea is that by giving some bit of control over your ideas, you're more inclined to allow the public to have some sort of access to them.

[Seafroggys]

Well, Electri-Q (poshitwhatever) works for me now, so I guess I'm gonna not give anybody their money. For now.

[Aaron]

I think it's the same arguement as justifying downloading a CD for a second time because you lost the first. Does the initial purchase give you exclusive rights to the usage of the program, or just that actual disc?

[Motleyguy]

I ****ing hate iLok, I haven't even started to get my licenses back for all my pro tools plug ins because it's such a hassle. I'm not sure if they'll even give them to me. Their site says they'll give you temporary licenses until you retrieve the old ones. My computer was stolen, along with my iLok, how exactly am I supposed to get those back.

[AKid2]

the authentication dongles are a good idea, but they should be reserved for the highest of the high end software.

At work, I use a computer program that costs about .15 Billions/license. You can bet I'm not going to lose that dongle, any time soon.

You can also understand how even as a user I'm uncomfortable with that software being pirated. My company isn't THAT prolific, and 150K is a significant piece of the pie.

[Seafroggys]

you mean .15 million. ;)

If the dongle actually came with the software, I probably wouldn't mind so much. Its the fact I have to lay down $40 separately that really pissed me off.

[Tripp_chaos]

If the dongle actually came with the software, I probably wouldn't mind so much. Its the fact I have to lay down $40 separately that really pissed me off.

yeah I never understood that, I never understood why it didn't just come with on or like if there was a packaged deal with it...

[Moseph]

yeah I never understood that, I never understood why it didn't just come with on or like if there was a packaged deal with it...

Because then you'd end up with a half dozen USB dongles, and only 2-3 ports to use them with. That's also why the software licenses are generally transferable.

The packaged deal thing, where you purchase the software with the dongle for the difference in costs makes sense to the consumer, but means that manufacturers need to do a lot more costly analysis regarding the state of the industry to determine how many units should go packaged/unpackaged. The current system removes that cost to them and is effectively the same situation to the consumer.

When you really sit down and think about dongles from all angles, the approach to sales regarding software/sales is pretty reasonable.

[Tripp_chaos]

yeah that makes sense... mah bad...

[Aaron]

It also makes sense if they start providing digital services [a la Steam for games] which is likely to be the way of the future with the increased speeds of internet connections and computers.

You shouldn't have to pay for it though. A cash-back system'd be pretty easy to impliment.

[Seafroggys]

Many companies already allow you to download the software, which is crippled until activation of course.