View Single Post
Old 27th May 2009 | Show parent
Lives for gear
Agreed's Avatar
Originally Posted by MMI ➡️
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.
You're completely misunderstanding me. First, I'm not advocating piracy or trying to say in any way that software engineers aren't putting in work for which they deserve compensation. That would be ludicrous and frankly I wonder if you read the post to which I was responding, then my post fully before replying, that you should have come to such an apparent non sequitur of a conclusion.

When you buy software, you don't own it, you are using it under license from the company. What you've bought is the license. Surely you're aware that there is a significant distinction between owning property, and licensing the use of something. You buy a Fender Strat, you own it. You buy a copy of Cubase, you don't - you have a license. Many products today have eschewed the physical trappings of a box copy altogether and offer totally digital downloads, a significant point only in that it rather drives home the distinction between physical property that can entirely change hands in normal transactions, and an intangible licensing agreement which entitles you to the usage of software under specific conditions.

The iLok is weird because it is a physical device to which your licenses become tied, and if something happens to it, there's a real question as to whether or not you still have your licenses. It alters our relationship to our licenses in a funny way because it makes them all of a sudden physical. This wouldn't be odd except then the companies start treating them weirdly like physical things, too, and you can be out far more than the $40 an iLok costs if yours is lost or stolen, because not every company is willing to replace the license under those circumstances. In my opinion this is a bad thing, because now you have all of the risks of physical property but you're still under the restrictive conditions of having purchased only a license to use something. You have the worst of both worlds, but this is just the industry standard. I think this is a good venue to consider whether that really is the best thing for everyone.

Nothing about that says anything at all about stealing. I don't know where you got that.