View Single Post
Old 26th May 2009 | Show parent
Special guest
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
False analogy on the grounds that you own your guitar, but you do not own your software. Your software is licensed to you for use. Among other reasons this is because there are tangible costs associated with building a tangible guitar, while software can be duplicated and delivered to the end user for only the cost of a little bandwidth, effectively free for a company charging any amount of money for their plugins. Ergo it is strange indeed that an iLok should act as a sort of "physicalizer" of intangible licensing agreements, but as it works right now, in many cases that's almost how it works. It takes the intangible and makes it tangible, but with none of the benefits of other tangible goods (actual ownership) and all of the risks.
What? You are saying that there are no tangible costs to the developing software? You don't think Steinberg spent money to make Cubase or Microsoft spent money to make Windows? So I guess all the people who toil in the software companies are just volunteering? Software costs money to develop. A Fender Strat costs money to develop. Why are you trying to draw a distinction where there is none? If you steal something you steal something.