I've yet to hear any argument one way or the other convince someone to change their mind.
I think the argument belongs on the philosophy bookshelf somewhere between the right to life/choice, god/atheism, curly/shemp debate.

yes, but you never commented on the Curly/Shemp debate.griffin avid wrote:That's why I said this earlier in the thread.
I just wish we'd all admit it's a philosophical stance and not any part of it is rooted in logic or reason or economics.
It's actually very firmly rooted in logic, reason and economics. If people think they don't have to pay for software then nobody will pay, and then there will be no money to employ the developers to make the next version of the software. It's pretty simple really. I don't know about you but I work hard and I'm good at my job and I expect to be paid for what I do. The same should go for the software developers.griffin avid wrote:That's why I said this earlier in the thread.
I just wish we'd all admit it's a philosophical stance and not any part of it is rooted in logic or reason or economics.
Well, capitalism isn't necessarily the best, or most ethical system for supporting the creation and proliferation of software/media. It just happens to be the way we're doing things now. People fear change & the unknown, and the free exchange of programs and media may be the beginning of a new and different (possibly not capitalist? [nothing against it per se]) way of supporting the creation and proliferation of software/digital media. Once upon a time there was this idea that competition made people design better products, and the best products would be the most successful, and generate more money and get stronger. Instead, all we get is a stupid plurality of file types, and average but flashy products that maximize the initial "wow" factor but minimize cost and effort, usually coming in just above mediocrity. Some of the best things that could be done won't because it's not practical/ profitable as part of a business model. If pirating can undermine the business aspect, maybe we could replace it with something that works better.skunk3 wrote:I know that pirating software is not ethically justifiable (from a strictly philosphical perspective),
I do this all the time, or at least some version of this. I actually discovered good looking records by buying a cheap used copy of earth vol. 4 sight unseen from an FYE because of the cover art! You never know what you're going to stumble into. I Swear you take an inch and give a mile sometimes Actually, this is good to do, and in a previous post I explained how NI stood to benefit from people doing this, viz.. Maybe you were just getting started, not really sure if you even wanted to get into making music electronically at all, but you downloaded FM7 many years ago. Now that you have some cash, weaned on FM7, and encountering NI's stuff constantly, when it's time to buys some software, you already have your brand loyalty. You go for Komplete over the Arturia stuff. Not only did downloading FM7 act as a foot in the door to create a costomer, but it helped secure brand loyalty. I think they know about this effect, and are trying to do things like limited free distributions to attempt to have it occur on their terms. They also famously hired at least one pirate as a sound designer after hearing his stuff, which he talks about in an interview!skunk3 wrote: if I wanted to listen to a Justin Beiber album just to see how terrible it might be, and I download a copy of it, am I wrong for doing this even though I would never pay for it to begin with?
It doesn't matter if I really needed to be using the Waves bundle. I am sure that for some people who use it a lot for specific reasons, it could ostensibly be a good value, but from my admittedly limited perspective (hobbyist bedroom producer) I was laughing at how much people were paying for it. I know many, many people who use audio software of different sorts and I think that the people who download vs. the people who pay is a ratio around 20:1 based upon what I've seen. Also, if someone were okay with downloading pirated software, why would they not obtain what they perceive to be 'the best,' rather than some freeware? I am personally glad that I made the decision to obtain this stuff because it has taught me a lot about production, mixing, and mastering. Stuff that I probably never would have learned otherwise. As far as the price of FL Studio goes, I'm sure that you can probably get a basic, stripped-down version for $99, but last I checked, the full version of the program that includes lifetime updates was somewhere around $400-500. Then again, this was years ago so who knows what it is today? I stand by what I said though... I'm never going to spend money on something that I can get for free, and I don't believe that obtaining bootlegged digital goods is "stealing," per se. It's something different. Similar, but not the same. Anyhow, different strokes for different folks. I'll buy a physical video game or vinyl record or a drum machine, but there's no way I'm going to buy any software unless I absolutely *had* to. If that makes me a terrible human being, oh well. I think I can live with it. Like I said before, I think that paying for software is dumb unless you just so happen to have so much disposable income that you could do so without blinking.griffin avid wrote:Here's my thoughts on the matter, and I hope that I do not offend anyone.
I think it's too open a topic to find anyone left offended anymore.
If I paid full retail price for them, I would have been a bit pissed off.
Since you weren't in an industry or relied on music for any sort of income, YOU never needed to be using WAVES.
You would have been fine with cheaper or free stuff.
For most kids that age, the price of that program would be a small fortune....
Fruity Loops is $99. Stop it.
Everything else is pretty standard justifications, which all really boiled down to this...
I'd never spend money on something that I know that I can get for free...
And that's not exactly new news.
Well, what is it then if it's not stealing?skunk3 wrote:[...] and I don't believe that obtaining bootlegged digital goods is "stealing," per se. It's something different. Similar, but not the same.
I don't consider it stealing because of two main reasons:synthroom wrote:Well, what is it then if it's not stealing?skunk3 wrote:[...] and I don't believe that obtaining bootlegged digital goods is "stealing," per se. It's something different. Similar, but not the same.
By the way - From Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com):
bootleg: an illegal copy of a video, CD, etc., or an illegal recording of a live performance
Theft of digital goods is so easy for people to rationalize - it's not a tangible item like something substantial. But, as other have pointed out, there is a lot of work and time that goes into the creation of them. I find it interesting that people will pay for vinyl, but not music that has been digitized. Same for software, I guess they feel that if there's no disk, then it must not be worth anything.