The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
legalities and ethics of borrowed software
Old 27th July 2012
  #1
legalities and ethics of borrowed software

The premise:

I have an old copy of CoolEdit Pro that I have kept loaded on various computers over the last 10 years. A friend of mine gave a copy to me, along with his legit registration key. We collaborated on a lot of stuff, and his original copy was a business expense. He said that because of that, my copy qualified under "fair use".

We have not worked together in a few years now. If the application of fair use is correct, is it legit for myself to keep a working copy on my PC? I'm not opposed to buying a legit copy, I just have little desire to get the current Adobe Audition; for what I do I'm fine with the old version of CoolEdit.

I guess another way of putting it is that even if my old version of CoolEdit is considered "pirated", is it illegal to have it if it cannot be obtained any more?
Old 27th July 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 

The laws are clear, that is and always was a pirated piece of software illegally used.

As to the specifics, you'd have to read the EULA.

Everybody dances around about how they feel and what makes sense to them, and blah blah, blah.., but it is really pretty simple stuff, you learned it in kindergarten. It is just so easy to cheat and steal that most people don't even think twice about it. I recently had a lawyer offer me a copy of 30 gigs of pre-recorded music. He didn't even thik twice about it or consider it to be wrong. (sigh...) Now everybody gets to be the schoolyard bully and steal lunch money from the kids who can't stop them.

On the practical side, likely nobody at Adobe cares about it today.
Old 28th July 2012
  #3
Eat
Lives for gear
 

1o yo software? pfffft.. who cares. do what you want with it. you have my permish
Old 28th July 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
Gonna party like its 1999.


In all seriousness as much as people won't admit it.. I bet 80 percent of home studios outside professional money making studios or commercial studios with an earned income is borrowed or pirated. Mostly people at home making their own personal music as opposed to people who make a living and record others...well at least to the few talented fortunate got big and bought licenses because they could and to cover their ass. Morals aside its just the reality of it. But there is such a thing is legacy software that's out of print most companies could care less about
Old 28th July 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattg082 View Post

I bet 80 percent of home studios outside professional money making studios or commercial studios with an earned income is borrowed or pirated....
I take exception to this. No software in my studio was ever pirated. I can't speak for 80% of the studios making money, but I believe that most, at least when I was in the game, got what they needed, and used it. it is the home-gamers who feel the need to have 10 DAWs and every effect on the planet, even if they do not know how to use the stuff.
Old 28th July 2012
  #6
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattg082 View Post
is borrowed or pirated.
No difference.
Old 28th July 2012
  #7
Gear Maniac
 
kennyda's Avatar
 

I have mixed feelings. In principle I oppose all intellectual property rights. However in practice, if someone tries to make a living building software, and everyone just nicks it, obviously there's little incentive to continue. Anyway, the industry seems to survive whatever percentage steal/borrow/claim their stuff.

As for a 10 year old borrowed copy of something, it's not worth worrying about.

Personally I pay for everything but it's cleaned me out and I'm broke! However I did use a borrowed copy of Reason 2 when I started. If you think about it, my borrowing of that got me started and since then I spent £1,000's, so in the long run it did benefit the industry.
Old 29th July 2012
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
it is the home-gamers who feel the need to have 10 DAWs and every effect on the planet, even if they do not know how to use the stuff.
Not only do I not need 10 DAWs, I don't want 10 DAWs. I only -need- and -want- one that will give me very basic recording, editing, and mixdown functionality. I don't even need effects; the way I am going to use it, either the room ambience will be my effect or reverb can more easily be added in the final mastering.

I already know my way around Cool Edit Pro v2, and if there is a way I can buy a legit copy of it, I will. But the current Adobe Audition is overkill and over priced for what I need.

In the interest of being "legit", I've downloaded Audacity and Reaper, and I really don't care for either one, though that's more of a familiarity issue than anything. Although I heard a HUGE difference when I imported some .wav files I recorded direct to a Fostex cd recorder a few years back. Doing nothing but importing the files, Cool Edit sounded much better than Audacity or Reaper. Seriously, it did. The difference was noticeable and obvious.
Old 29th July 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 

fwiw I picked up a legitimate version of the last CEP on ebay for about $5.
Proper disk and serial number, amazingly I also managed to register it!
So hunt around - IF there is any more of that NOS stuff you may be able to use it with a clear consience for only $5
Old 29th July 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyda View Post
In principle I oppose all intellectual property rights.
Funny somehow this attitude just always works for the exploiters and never for the people who did the work.

To the original poster: get an old legal copy like poster #9 said. It's cheap and then your question is answered.
Old 29th July 2012
  #11
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
I always like to use any argument i hear for the use of pirated software changed to be the use of a track the user of cracked software did.

So e.g. some dude somewhere saying "I have a copy of kmaaj's track that i got for free, i listen to it quite a lot but if it wasnt free, there's no way i would have bought it. Any maybe if i keep listening to it i might be tempted to buy some more of his stuff. So it's right that i havnt paid, noone's hurt, right?"

You worked on your track, it's being listened to for free but the listener is pretty sure that he's not ripping you off. How do the intellectual somersaults feel in that one?

Not being completely purist here, and i'm not someone who thinks the government should chase down all users of cracked, but it is theft, and i see no problem in the creaters of the cracks being chased down (!!) and also heavy users who are making money from cracks...


My 2c
Old 29th July 2012
  #12
Gear Maniac
 
kennyda's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
Funny somehow this attitude just always works for the exploiters and never for the people who did the work.
what are you talking about? The exploiters are the ones who own the property rights. The people who do the work usually don't own intellectual property rights, unless they have their own company. You seem to have it backwards.

Are you using the word exploiter to mean something else? A exploiter is someone who employs people, a capitalist.
Old 29th July 2012
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyda View Post
what are you talking about? The exploiters are the ones who own the property rights. The people who do the work usually don't own intellectual property rights, unless they have their own company. You seem to have it backwards.

Are you using the word exploiter to mean something else? A exploiter is someone who employs people, a capitalist.
The incentive for development is profit. If you can do the development on your own and keep all the money for yourself, good for you. This was the case for many of the early software DAW developers. many got quite wealthy and created corporations of their own... with all the up and down sides that brings to the table.

Take away the profit incentive, you remove the reason for the developer to bother to tray to make the tool he may have built for himself into a product for others. (My stepfather, who is a mechanic, has custom built a lot of tools that amaze his contemporaries. He refuses to try to market them, because of the current rip-off mentality in the world. He'd rather just go on using them to make his own work easier.)

It is true that corporations get involved in the process and often own the rights. Many times, without the deep pockets of the corporation, there would be no development. If you chose to work for a corporation in order to get that weekly paycheck, then you have no right to complain if your employment contract gives them the rights to your developments, since more than 99% of the people working with you are not going to create anything new or earth-shattering, they are just going to make improvements on what already exists.

But the other side of that are guys like you... I'm sure you want paid for your work, but you seem happy to steal the work of others, so long as you don't have to do it face to face. You don't help develop it. You don't create it. You don't support it. You just think you should be able to take it. The people who do participate in some fashion support the dead-weight. Correct me if I got it wrong. And convince me that this attitude advances us.

Music and the tools to create it should be free... but we pay $4 for coffee and $1.50 for water. hmmm....
Old 29th July 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyda View Post
The exploiters are the ones who own the property rights.
Those who create own the rights, even if there are employment contracts where you sign away all of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyda View Post
The people who do the work usually don't own intellectual property rights, unless they have their own company.
As a creator myself I should know. It's not just companies that own rights, it's mostly companies that buy/lease and use these rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyda View Post
Are you using the word exploiter to mean something else? A exploiter is someone who employs people, a capitalist.
You mix up three words into one. Exploiter, capitalist and employ. If they all were the same, there would be one word. They are not identical.
I especially refer as "exploiters" to companies and people who make money on the work of people they don't employ and don't pay, see this link and how it relates to the situation at hand:
Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss? -Full Post | The Trichordist
Old 29th July 2012
  #15
Gear Maniac
 
kennyda's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
The incentive for development is profit. If you can do the development on your own and keep all the money for yourself, good for you.
That's not profit technically, profit comes from exploiting the labour of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
This was the case for many of the early software DAW developers. many got quite wealthy and created corporations of their own... with all the up and down sides that brings to the table.

Take away the profit incentive, you remove the reason for the developer to bother to tray to make the tool he may have built for himself into a product for others.
Most researchers and developers are in receipt of profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

It is true that corporations get involved in the process and often own the rights. Many times, without the deep pockets of the corporation, there would be no development.
I would dispute that. Big companies hold back development in general, not just talking about software. And intellectual property rights hold back the spread of development. If you can't afford it, you don't get it. Do you know that the bloke who invented the world wide web refused to patent it because that would be detrimental to humanity?

You know that bloke who invented the wheel...?


Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

If you chose to work for a corporation in order to get that weekly paycheck, then you have no right to complain if your employment contract gives them the rights to your developments, since more than 99% of the people working with you are not going to create anything new or earth-shattering, they are just going to make improvements on what already exists.
You think everyone has a choice about working for a company? Anyway, I'm not talking about people complaining, I'm just stating facts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

But the other side of that are guys like you... I'm sure you want paid for your work, but you seem happy to steal the work of others, so long as you don't have to do it face to face.
What? I have got no stolen software, and I don't advocate stealing it either. I said someone gave me a copy of Reason years ago. I never would have bought it. Since then I bought Ableton Suite.


Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

You don't help develop it. You don't create it. You don't support it. You just think you should be able to take it.
I send feedback on the beta versions. I run a website about Ableton Live. I do free tutorials 15 hours a day. Don't tell me I do nothing. I said I opposed intellectual property rights IN GENERAL. Try to think about people with Aids in Africa and not some bloke who started a little software company.


Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

The people who do participate in some fashion support the dead-weight. Correct me if I got it wrong. And convince me that this attitude advances us.
I have no idea what that means

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

Music and the tools to create it should be free... but we pay $4 for coffee and $1.50 for water. hmmm....
Everything should be free. But I would start with healthcare and public transport.
Old 29th July 2012
  #16
Gear Maniac
 
kennyda's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
Those who create own the rights, even if there are employment contracts where you sign away all of it.
What? This sounds contradictory. If you work for a company. you do not usually own the intellectual property rights of your work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
As a creator myself I should know. It's not just companies that own rights, it's mostly companies that buy/lease and use these rights.
You have statistics on this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post

You mix up three words into one. Exploiter, capitalist and employ. If they all were the same, there would be one word. They are not identical.
I especially refer as "exploiters" to companies and people who make money on the work of people they don't employ and don't pay, see this link and how it relates to the situation at hand:
Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss? -Full Post | The Trichordist
If they meant the same there would be only one word? That's rubbish. I mean garbage. There are plenty of words that mean the same.

A capitalist is an employer and an exploiter of labour. An employer is not necessarily a capitalist though, if you employ one person you are not a capitalist. All employers who do it for profit are exploiters.
Old 30th July 2012
  #17
Lives for gear
 
frans's Avatar
As Kennyda has his own version of what certain words mean I cease to contribute to this discussion.
Old 30th July 2012
  #18
Gear Addict
 
Tashez's Avatar
 

And down loading music is illegal too . When was the last time any one got busted for that ? The labels are also backed by alot of money and rooms full of lawyers and its still too hard .It is illegal but how would they ever know ? When they arrive at your door ask who they are and delete the program before you let them in .
Old 30th July 2012
  #19
Rather than minding, why don't you get a basic free software, that does what you need?
Old 30th July 2012
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by deft_bonz View Post
Rather than minding, why don't you get a basic free software, that does what you need?
I'm still looking through Reaper and Audacity. Plus, I have yet to buy a USB pre-amp, and a lot of those come bundled with their own recording software. I'd like to get the MOTU 4pre, but I don't have a Mac. The unit itself will work with Win7, but the included AudioDesk only works with OS X. Which I think blows.

Besides, I'm really wanting to try M-S mic'ing for the closer mics, and I've already figured out how to mix down for that in Audacity. The guys in the Reaper forum say that's easy in Reaper; I must be a total blob of spam 'cuz I can't figure it out. Have not been able to figure it out in CEP, either, so Audacity just nosed ahead a bit. I guess that kind of renders this thread useless for my original intent, eh? Sorry to the guys who exchanged barbs.
Old 30th July 2012
  #21
Gear Maniac
 
kennyda's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frans View Post
As Kennyda has his own version of what certain words mean I cease to contribute to this discussion.
Exploitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Economics

Most often, the word exploitation is used to refer to economic exploitation; that is, the act of using another person's labor without offering them an adequate compensation. There are two major perspectives on economic exploitation:

Organizational or "micro-level" exploitation: most theories of exploitation center on the market power of economic organizations within a market setting. Some neoclassical theory points to exploitation not based on market power.
Structural or "macro-level" exploitation: focuses on exploitation by large sections of society even (or especially) in the context of free markets. Marxist theory points to the entire capitalist class as an exploitative entity, and to capitalism as a system based on exploitation."


Definition of exploitation - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)
Definition of exploitation
noun
1 [mass noun] the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work:
the exploitation of migrant workers
2the action of making use of and benefiting from resources:
the Bronze Age saw exploitation of gold deposits
the fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage for oneself:
the Government’s exploitation of the fear of crime

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. "
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 93 views: 92875
Avatar for kennybro
kennybro 27th April 2016
replies: 55 views: 50874
Avatar for Fleaman
Fleaman 10th June 2013
replies: 3 views: 867
Avatar for Will-Low
Will-Low 5th December 2010
replies: 46 views: 2343
Avatar for Quetz
Quetz 14th June 2019
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump