Dubstepforum.com

which raises an excellent point about consent of the original artist

Today wrote:and got something terrific, of equal market value, and that was also worked very hard on, in exchange *

Might be true but you don't know what I buy or what kind of work I do

Ill be totally honest,i got into making music when reason 2.5 came out and my mate got a cracked copy from the uni his was studying music tech at.He came home and give it out to fuck loads of us trying to get us all started and i was one of the ones who caught the bug.That was and still is to this day the only ever piece of cracked software i have used or would ever use,i just like the fact that i know if there is a bug that is persistent and pissing me off the developers are more than likely working on a fix that will be released with the next version.
Just paying for that piece of mind is worth shelling out the dough for me but on the flip side if it wasn't for my mate giving me a cracked copy i wouldn't be doing what i'm doing now lol
Long and short of it kids pay for your software as soon as you can because the pros outweigh the cons.

Wow this is definitely an interesting thread and very emotional I might add.

My particular stance on this topic is very much in the gray zone as I have never pirated any DAW or VST in my entire life but I have had friends who have given me VST's. From time to time I will download certain songs from artists if at the time I can't spend the money but just want the song at that moment so bad, but I also pay for music for music via beatport and Amazon.com. Sue me. But I think absolutely anyone who tries to say they've paid for every single mp3 they own is just trying to play the righteous role for sake of sounding politically correct; like a man who uses the word f*ggot loosely among his friends, then says he loves & respects gay people when around a group of sensitive women he's trying to impress. These people who buy ALL their music are out there but they are few and far between, just speaking from real life experience and not delusion.

I do however believe that while it may be stealing, the artist does ultimately benefit from it. I can recall a progressive/dark trance duo by the name of Trance[]Control who in the late 90's were one of the most downloaded electronic music bands ever, and I can assure you any success they've had is a direct result of that. And that was in a time when Napster was seeing it's last days and the era of "actually paying" for mp3s was on the rise, nevertheless most of their downloads, I'm sure, came from people getting their tunes completely free through Napster.
Now, apply that same concept to today's music scene. Any artist that is, for most part a household name, is widely pirated and still arguably very successful because more downloads whether paid for or "stolen" equals more listeners and more listeners equals more people likely to pay a cover charge to see a live performance, which is how real money is made in the music industry nowadays.
As producer and artist I have never been one to whine about whats happened to the music industry or how I think it should be. It is more practical and helpful in my favor to just adapt, step up my game, make more listenable tunes, and get the respect as an artist the old fashioned way. I honestly can't wait for the day to come where hundreds of thousands of people are trying to pirate my music because that could only mean my name and exposure is spreading like wildfire. Dilute it down, every 100,000 pirated downloads is about 1000 people who will come out to see you live and maybe even more than that.

But I completely digress from the original topic lol....as far as the whole cracked software = cracked sound thing, I wouldn't know, but it sounds erroneous (no pun intended lol)
I've read some people on here saying that the cracked software is dismantled then put back together with some sort of bootleg sound, don't know how true that is but I have buddies who do use pirated DAW's and I'll investigate further into that theory.

I do condone testing a software before you actually pay hundreds of dollars for it, but honestly are the trial versions that limiting? And are they all only 30 days? If so, do what you have to do, but don't use pirated software forever, once you are satisfied put aside the money, beg your girlfriend for it, start a $1 jar, whatever, show some respect for the programmers who put together these epic digital workstations for you and buy the real versions, it is truly rewarding. On the other hand I am also willing to bet money that there are some very successful Dubstep producers out there that you listen to everyday that use pirated DAWS to make the tunes you know and love... go figure lol

Read the whole thread and decided i dont care- but whoever was getting annoyed by free mixes can fuck off lol

.

atlascesar wrote:is there sometimes places where to singing can be not allowed too? and this i am knowing to be reading inside of of the NEWSPAPER which has to say that

Can someone write a theme tune for my 'read this sentence, win a dollar' gameshow? Doesn't matter
if the sound is a little cracked.

Unless OP means something regarding the "state of mind" you're in regarding using cracked software, it doesn't really hold any water. I know people are saying Cubase is an exception, but most audio software (or any software for that matter) is not going to have a different quality output than a licensed version. I definitely support paying for software too, but the fact is that a lot of beginning musicians cant afford it or don't know if its something they want to pursue enough to drop hundreds on a DAW. And say a newbie pirates FLStudio and eventually gets some attention and makes a bit of cash, is he going to go buy Logic? No! He's going to give Imageline the money they deserve. Multimedia software goes through that cycle ALL the time. Adobe has somewhat publicly acknowledged that Photoshop is one of the most heavily pirated pieces of software, but doesn't mind because it results in massive sales to companies who need lots of licenses.

It is at the same time hilarious and pathetic that most of you can't discuss the impact of piracy on the world of music without getting sucked into the vortex that is a discussion of money.

Music and money are separate issues.

The sheer number of people who have access to music and musicmaking tools has increased by several orders of magnitude, thanks to piracy. The internet makes it all easy to share (a mouse-click), and allows for far-reaching commentary.

This is, in my view, no more complex an issue than the subject of news, or any other substrata of information. Open access means more is available and the whole world can vet it.

How could that, by itself, be a bad thing?

sorry, but to most actual working developers, musicians, producers and recording artists, music isn't separate from money. It's their business, their chosen field of professionalism. We value entertainment and should be willing to pay for it. How is music supposed to be any more separate from money than basketball is?

I'll address your final question -- how can it be a bad thing?
Supply and demand. Demand has remained static, and supply has approached infinity, driving prices toward zero.

also a point i realized has been oft forgotten -- it isn't the big movie stars or Lil' Wayne who's gonna get stiffed by pirates. Lil Wayne doesn't give a fuck, he's the star. He has a spread in Vibe magazine tomorrow. Doesn't give two fucks about this shit. He has tours and promotions and royalty checks out the ass.
It's the session players, the mix engineer, the graphic artist, the guy holding the boom on set who are getting fucked out of their pay and future job opportunity

Has it occurred to you that maybe you're looking at supply and demand from the wrong direction?

Anyone can hide behind protections of various sorts in order to enshrine their hobby in a theoretically-profitable capsule. But again, if that's what it boils down to, then that's what it is: an enshrinement of a hobby.

Evolution: how does it work?

this is like arguing religion, went from entertaining to just plain dumb

Jas0n wrote:Has it occurred to you that maybe you're looking at supply and demand from the wrong direction?

It's crazy how some people fail to grasp basic business principals eh?

Today wrote: Supply and demand. Demand has remained static, and supply has approached infinity, driving prices toward zero.

Quit regarding music as a completely homogeneous resource-that's not how supply and demand works. Objectively bad products are never in demand, so the proliferation of low quality music arguably makes demand higher for well-produced music. So the 10,000 kids soundclouding subpar tracks have no negative impact on anything professional musicians are producing. The only reason to be upset is if your music isn't at that level so your poor tracks get lost in a sea of mediocrity.

Think of it like this-imagine there's a high demand for Lamborghini's, and in response to this demand a large group of uninformed people haphazardly open 10,000 Toyota plants. Is the demand supplied? Of course not, people are just inundated with more shit as they search for what they were after originally, and will likely cling and put a higher value on quality. Then there's a handful of people that open Lexus factories and still wonder why they're not doing well...who then start a forum to bitch about both groups...

But seriously, demand is extremely high and supply is still pretty damn low. And if I'm being honest, of all the producers I've listened to here and the hundreds of soundclouds I've dug through, I can only think of 1 or 2 who's production and composition sounded like it was really "there". The true professionals will always find a way to make a career for themselves, regardless of industry.

Attila wrote:Objectively bad products are never in demand

This is your problem right off the bat. If you don't think objectively bad products are ever in demand, then you have never heard of VHS, the MP3 or Britney Spears.

Mad EP wrote: This is your problem right off the bat. If you don't think objectively bad products are ever in demand, then you have never heard of VHS, the MP3 or Britney Spears.

And here's your problem right off the bat, if you think any three of those things are objectively bad products relative to their time of popularity, then you need to reevaluate your definition of objectivity.

Attila wrote:

Mad EP wrote: This is your problem right off the bat. If you don't think objectively bad products are ever in demand, then you have never heard of VHS, the MP3 or Britney Spears.

And here's your problem right off the bat, if you think any three of those things are objectively bad products relative to their time of popularity, then you need to reevaluate your definition of objectivity.

It's true - the Britney one was a joke... but VHS & MP3 products are objectively inferior products that thrived. Their time of popularity had nothing to do with it - Betamax was around during VHS days, and it was much better. Full res audio has been around for ages - are you going to argue that mp3s can compete in quality?

Not based strictly on sound quality of course, but when you take into account most people only have 8 gigs in their pocket and can't hear the difference, mp3 is a better product. Maybe I could've used "more valuable" instead and objectively in a business sense instead of scientifically.This thread started to revolve around money so I was speaking more from that perspective. So yes of course lossless audio has more detail, laserdisc looked way better than vhs and there's plenty of music more theoretically impressive than what's popular, but benchmarks of quality are based off majority opinion (in context of building a creative career), so any comparisons Im talking about are in reference those standards as opposed to either of our opinions.

Attila wrote:Not based strictly on sound quality of course, but when you take into account most people only have 8 gigs in their pocket and can't hear the difference, mp3 is a better product. Maybe I could've used "more valuable" instead and objectively in a business sense instead of scientifically.This thread started to revolve around money so I was speaking more from that perspective. So yes of course lossless audio has more detail, laserdisc looked way better than vhs and there's plenty of music more theoretically impressive than what's popular, but benchmarks of quality are based off majority opinion (in context of building a creative career), so any comparisons Im talking about are in reference those standards as opposed to either of our opinions.

Well, but there again, all it really demonstrates - whether we're talking about MP3 versus some lossless format, VHS versus betamax, Britney Spears versus Bach... the consumer's priority isn't always strictly speaking "quality" of some specific feature, nor is it necessarily cost. Supply and demand are so multi-dimensional...

Yeah, but I think especially in the context of edm a lot of what's compelling to consumers is usually also the most well produced material. Just due to the fact that it's mostly consumed through larger sound systems it kinda has to be. And because about 0% of the people hopping on the production bandwagon are willing to put in the effort to produce to that level, it kinda invalidates their role in serving demand. Until a program is made that completely and perfectly auto mixes/masters, it'll probably stay that way. Makes you wonder how far off it is though haha.

And of course, this is all imo.