View Single Post
Old 26th May 2009 | Show parent
Registered User
Originally Posted by IMSTA ➡️
We are not talking about replacement here. We are talking about the initial purchase, or no purchase. The bottom line is that intellectual property is still property.

Money was spent for its development, marketing, etc……….

People just have to respect that, whatever the cost may be – a few dollars or a few thousand dollars.

Let me ask you something:

Let’s say that you find out that it costs Nike only $15 to make a product overseas and to ship it to the store nearest you. You go out to the store to purchase it and see a price tag of $250.

Is that not an unfair price tag for a $15 product?

Would you steal it?

No, you would most likely buy something else. Why couldn’t people do that with software?

If it is too expensive or you don’t like how the company treats its customers, then buy something else. Don’t steal it.

Is that too much to ask?
That's not the argument I disagree with. In fact I'm wholly with you on the whole stealing aspect. It is wrong but there is a hell of a lot of disgruntled users who are legitimate who DO NOT want some £20 piece of plastic being the difference between you having to fork out another £2000 for software that would only cost £20 to reproduce if you had an accidental loss or theft. This is why I get annoyed when people say it's the same as a tangible item like a car or something similar. That's what's utter none sense.

It's the whole point of the virtual world being so advantageous.

My point is that if someone stole my dongle then I could report that to Steinberg and they could easily put a block on that license to stop that individual getting future upgrades, support etc. In effect making it totally useless and pointless. Also once that information became common knowledge then most people would not see the point in stealing the damned dongle anyway!


But if someone did steal my dongle I would have to pay £1-2K again for what in effect would only cost £20 to get me back up and running again.