sending demos to labels which use "naughty" plugs..

[paravrais]

The biggest joke of this whole ongoing saga is that Massive really isn't all that 0.o At some point Datsik said the word Massive and all the spotty 14 year old wannabes suddenly decided that if they had Massive too then they would suddenly be as good as him. It's a good synth sure, but it's not a fantastic one when compared to the other big names. There's so much better out there and some synths that come with DAWs are better in my opinion, like operator for example. I wonder if Z3ta+, Circle, Zebra, Alchemy, Reaktor, Albino, Absynth, FM8 etc etc etc all feel left out that nobody is pirating them

I'd recommend the TAL synths, Crystal, Oatmeal, Chimera and SQ8L for people wanting good freeware synths...

[Wrigzilla]

What if i need a free modular ala reaktor... Kind of a long shot but does anyone know of one?

Sonic Birth?

Maybe Pd (disclaimer time, it's a freeware version of MAX/MSP so it won't load up as a VST in your DAW, the learning curve is STEEP as and it doesn't look purdy).

[bassinine]

i used to agree that massive was over rated (used Operator initially for everything). however, at the moment i have to say it's pretty amazing. sure, the resulting sounds could have been made from almost any other synth (freeware or payware) on the market; but what makes massive amazing is how easy it is to modulate parameters (and routing) and how easy it is to keep track of everything... it's hard to clutter and extremely easy to tweak. bit of a cpu hog, though.

on that note, albino and blue are probably my favorite sounding synths i use. z3ta+ i bought when on sale a few months back, and while i love it for leads... i really just don't like making bass on it as much as others mentioned (always seem to have trouble with envelopes on it) - for pads it's amazing.

although alchemy and circle look amazing, and i probably wouldn't use anything else if i had them.

in hindsight: a bit off topic, i was talking about vst's in general... not pirating them.

[abZ]

You can buy it used bros, for half that price. I sold massive to a dood here on the forums for that price.

I honestly don't see how that makes it any better. The company makes no money off of used software. I don't agree with spending crazy amounts of cash for records or whatever either. Producer probably made nothing from the release and some collector is getting 100 bucks a pop. It's worse than stealing. Obviously software is a little bit different but it's in the ballpark. There is a bright side to piracy. It will benefit us all in the long run. Some of the software is just way more expensive than it's worth. Most of it is. And most software doesn't take teams of engineers to produce anymore. It's more compiling bits of code that is already written and a little photoshop action. It's the reason someone can write this amazing freeware in their sparetime. And DAW's for fucks sake, you have to spend nearly a grand for something that needs a paid upgrade in 3 years. That's just criminal. The better Reaper gets or Fruity the more pressure there will be on these companies to have a fair pricing scheme. I have this phone here and the audio apps for it are getting pretty amazing yet you won't find much over 15/20 bucks and guess what? They are making a lot of fucking money. The better freeware gets in general is going to make it harder and harder on companies trying to overcharge. It's not just with music. There is some free software out there for just about anything you want to do.

Anyway as a label I am not asking my artists at all about their studio. It's what hits my ears that matters and the cracks are 100% on them. I honestly don't think I could be prosecuted for that as a label. I just don't think it's my business. Maybe I am wrong but that's where I am at.

[hifi]

personally if the tunes are good who gives a fuck, i'm doubting the labels do
it's when people feel the need to ask for tutorials or why their pirated software doesn't work because they're too stupid to steal and get away with it or know where to ask that irks me
ffs some of my fav dnb producers and such had etchings in some of their 12" like big ups h2o
if you can afford it(or reasonably save for it by skipping some unnecessary things for a bit like eating out, drinking, drugs etc), use it a shitload, think it's a great plugin and don't buy it... you need to reevaluate your moral compass

This. OP, tell your friend to stop being such a pussy. And you really think the label will ask you if you paid for your software or not? Your dumb(not trying to be offensive)....






















...well actually I am.

[nowaysj]

I honestly don't see how that makes it any better. The company makes no money off of used software.

Think for a minute bro, you trying to tell me home builders don't benefit from the buyer's ability to resell the house? You don't think car manufacturers don't benefit from buyers being able to resell? They don't make any money off the resale...

Just think for half a second on this one, and I think you'll realize your error.

[abZ]

I honestly don't see how that makes it any better. The company makes no money off of used software.

Think for a minute bro, you trying to tell me home builders don't benefit from the buyer's ability to resell the house? You don't think car manufacturers don't benefit from buyers being able to resell? They don't make any money off the resale...

Just think for half a second on this one, and I think you'll realize your error.

Are you saying that people are enticed to purchase software because they know they can re-sell it? I don't think so man. I thought they were trying to make this illegal too?

EDIT - yeah the big software companies have taken it to court to make it illegal but as of now it is still legal. My question for you is if it benefits the software companies so much as you say, why are they trying to get rid of it?

[deadly_habit]

some companies allow for resale and license transfers (hell it's how i got my uad)

[pete_bubonic]

I honestly don't see how that makes it any better. The company makes no money off of used software.

Think for a minute bro, you trying to tell me home builders don't benefit from the buyer's ability to resell the house? You don't think car manufacturers don't benefit from buyers being able to resell? They don't make any money off the resale...

Just think for half a second on this one, and I think you'll realize your error.

Are you saying that people are enticed to purchase software because they know they can re-sell it? I don't think so man. I thought they were trying to make this illegal too?

Software manufactures have been trying to make second hand sales illegal for time (game companies are more the industry I know about in this respect). It is rights of economics, if I buy something you can be damn sure if I don't have further use for it I'm going to sell it off. Regardless off the original producers not making money from it, in reference to any industry. I'm not fucking renting the software at 150+ quid a pop. Imagine for second, the complete collapse of retail and the monopolisation of direct production/distribution houses if we are not allowed to sell products second hand. Do you think prices would go down because you can only get certain software direct from the development houses? No one involved in this chain of economy is a charity and none should be treated as such. imo.

[abZ]

some companies allow for resale and license transfers (hell it's how i got my uad)

Isn't UAD hardware though?

Anyway it's legal so go ahead but it doesn't support the opinion that paying for software helps the company keep the updates coming.

[pete_bubonic]

And no label I can think of, especially at the level/size/affluence the OP is talking about is going to give two shits what it's produced on let alone whether it was legal or not.

[abZ]

I honestly don't see how that makes it any better. The company makes no money off of used software.

Think for a minute bro, you trying to tell me home builders don't benefit from the buyer's ability to resell the house? You don't think car manufacturers don't benefit from buyers being able to resell? They don't make any money off the resale...

Just think for half a second on this one, and I think you'll realize your error.

Are you saying that people are enticed to purchase software because they know they can re-sell it? I don't think so man. I thought they were trying to make this illegal too?

Software manufactures have been trying to make second hand sales illegal for time (game companies are more the industry I know about in this respect). It is rights of economics, if I buy something you can be damn sure if I don't have further use for it I'm going to sell it off. Regardless off the original producers not making money from it, in reference to any industry. I'm not fucking renting the software at 150+ quid a pop. Imagine for second, the complete collapse of retail and the monopolisation of direct production/distribution houses if we are not allowed to sell products second hand. Do you think prices would go down because you can only get certain software direct from the development houses? No one involved in this chain of economy is a charity and none should be treated as such. imo.

I am not arguing this. I am arguing that you guys don't care about how much the software companies make so they can develop more amazing software. You only care about "ownership".

[abZ]

So how much do you guys want for my Mp3 collection while we are at it?

[deadly_habit]

some companies allow for resale and license transfers (hell it's how i got my uad)

Isn't UAD hardware though?

Anyway it's legal so go ahead but it doesn't support the opinion that paying for software helps the company keep the updates coming.

uad is hardware and software
native instruments also allows for license transfer as do some other companies
they aren't losing or gaining a sale as it's just a transfer of ownership and no copies being made, they've already made their profit from it

[abZ]

some companies allow for resale and license transfers (hell it's how i got my uad)

Isn't UAD hardware though?

Anyway it's legal so go ahead but it doesn't support the opinion that paying for software helps the company keep the updates coming.

uad is hardware and software
native instruments also allows for license transfer as do some other companies
they aren't losing or gaining a sale as it's just a transfer of ownership and no copies being made, they've already made their profit from it

They have no choice, it's legal.

[deadly_habit]

actually they could charge a fee for ownership transfer (which some companies do)

[abZ]

actually they could charge a fee for ownership transfer (which some companies do)

In order for the support to transfer but you should still be able to install the software and use the serials. Anyway if it has any benefit to the company I would say it's less than the benefit of having cracks all over the internet as free advertisement if you will.

[gen_]

why pay when you can get it for free

Why do you buy food when you can just walk out of the store with it? Whether or not you get caught is beside the point, you still just robbed someone.




The only time I can see stealing being OK in the computing world is 'when its not for sale anymore' (usually just to make you buy another product)

e.g. Logic 5 (for PC)

[deadly_habit]

yes but when serials are net based check systems (such as ni service center) or device based (ilok), the reason these systems exist, is due to piracy
i will say that the audio warez scene has it's benefits and advantages, especially when it comes to demoing products (when a company doesn't offer it or has a really poor demo) or finding legacy products that have been discontinued and can no longer be found on the manufactures sites

[pete_bubonic]

I honestly don't see how that makes it any better. The company makes no money off of used software.

Think for a minute bro, you trying to tell me home builders don't benefit from the buyer's ability to resell the house? You don't think car manufacturers don't benefit from buyers being able to resell? They don't make any money off the resale...

Just think for half a second on this one, and I think you'll realize your error.

Are you saying that people are enticed to purchase software because they know they can re-sell it? I don't think so man. I thought they were trying to make this illegal too?

Software manufactures have been trying to make second hand sales illegal for time (game companies are more the industry I know about in this respect). It is rights of economics, if I buy something you can be damn sure if I don't have further use for it I'm going to sell it off. Regardless off the original producers not making money from it, in reference to any industry. I'm not fucking renting the software at 150+ quid a pop. Imagine for second, the complete collapse of retail and the monopolisation of direct production/distribution houses if we are not allowed to sell products second hand. Do you think prices would go down because you can only get certain software direct from the development houses? No one involved in this chain of economy is a charity and none should be treated as such. imo.

I am not arguing this. I am arguing that you guys don't care about how much the software companies make so they can develop more amazing software. You only care about "ownership".

Why do you assume that software companies will make better software if they sell more? It's business, they're looking for profit margins. Assuming that they'll make a synth that tickles your balls whilst making some Noisia synth with no resampling, because they made a boat load of cash off of a previous release is flawed imo. WIndows XP was (and may still be?) the most popular OS in the world, Vista was still poorly developed.

If they were open source developers then I'd be more inclined to not purchase second hand, I don't think Native Instruments are strapped for cash to spend on development for the next product because of second hand sales.