Troublesome Modeler & Software Piracy

#41 FREE - OPEN SOURCE - 3D Modelling and Animation package is already available... http://www.openfx.org

#42 It confuses me how the NET Act can be around for 4 years and rarely ever be mentioned by anyone. While I can't say I didn't know of these laws, I Can say I won't stop downloading mp3s. If they arrange a format so that I can buy a track I want, then fine. I'll happily do that instead of picking out mp3s I want on kazaa.

I will never again buy a full cd. I've yet to find an entire CD that is worth owning, and the only legal way of getting music is by purchasing entire CDs. I want one track, and I have to buy 14 other crappy ones.

Software is not like that. You either buy it or you don't. You either own the entire software, or none of it (well, if you want it to work. hehe)

Music you can own 1/20th of the CD and it might be exactly what you wanted... the problem is you can't buy only 1/20th of the CD. You must pay them for the entire CD and the crap that comes along with it.

It's monopolizing the sale. "Want these two tracks? Well, pay us for 13 and you can have them!". Until they come up with a suitable way for purchases to be made to reflect the "custom" nature of sales nowadays, then they can keep whining about the Napster clones.

I don't hear them. They want more money to support their greedy tactics of forcing you to buy the entire CD if you only want one song. Software companies I understand their grief, as I do producers of vhs/dvd videos. You either own it in it's entirety or you don't. There is no grey area with those, but with music you are forced into purchasing the crap you don't want if you want to legally own a small portion of the music.

Until they come up with a legitimate format to distribute seperate tracks, then I really don't care want they want or what is legal regarding music.


As for the support of online distribution of music, why is it that 4 out of the 5 top sales records for last week have full mp3s and/or music videos on their website for download? Brandy's site alone has 3 entire tracks from her newest CD... what's up with that?

It's mixed signals.

"Don't download our music or you will be in trouble! Download our music from our site... but make sure to buy our CD as well!"

Well, i still won't be pirating software but damn if I'm going to buy a full CD ever again.

#43 Matt, that's because you're a musical consumer. You like what they play on the radio and could care less that there's a world beyond the radio and MTV. Us real fans of music who really live by it don't mind spending a measily $15 on a CD. Maybe you should start listening to other bands if they only have one good song. You being a musical consumer is like someone being a casual computer user. They're not going to pay $3000 for a piece of software that they're barely going to use half the features of, and you're not going to pay $15 for a CD that you won't listen to most of. Tell me the difference between the two, please.

And as to monopolizing the sale? LOL, it's FIFTEEN DOLLARS. Greedy tactics? LOL, you're comparing a $15 music CD to $100+ software programs? Hell, some places even sell CDs for less! Packing the software with a ton of features is monopolizing the sale, then. I don't use half the features in Microsoft Word, and it costs $100 or so. Why don't they allow me to pick the features I want and only pay of them? I guess that's monopolizing the sale too. They load it with a bunch of extra features and charge more for it. Maybe once they let me pick and choose, I'll start paying for it again.

Oh, and about buying 1/20th of a CD? You're wrong. All the music you listen to is off popular radio, correct? That's what it seems. Have you ever heard of "singles"? You go to the store and there should be a nice big section of them. The singles are of the songs they're playing on the radio. You can buy them for about $5 of so. They come with the popular song and a B-Side or two...the B-Sides are an extra treat because they're songs you can't get elsewhere (unless you download them, of course). And actually, I think there are sites on the internet where you can make your own custom, LEGAL mix CDs...you pick the tracks, they make the CD and send it your way.

Your argument has no substance. And just because the law is "4 years old" and "no one discusses it" doesn't make it any less of a law. And why do they have songs on their site you ask? Promotion, of course. Some record companies and artists are fine with giving out MP3s as promotion...some software companies are fine with giving out demos and freeware for promotion. There's no different. A single MP3 is to an album as a demo is to a full program. You're fighting a losing battle here, Matt...just give it up.

#44 I'm not fighting a battle at all.

Just explaining why I have, and will continue to download mp3s but will never pirate software. I couldn't really expect anyone to change their views just because I have my own opinion.

Heh, what I do find funny is how you feel anyone who doesn't want to listen to some live version of some B-side or hear some remix of some song that only the band likes is a MTV person. Yeah uh, and I listen to Backstreet Boys and Nsync.

Well, the majority of music I like is what I hear. I don't go scouring the world to hear some new music... I just turn on my radio, hear what I like, then download what I like since I heard it on the radio. Then I can hear it whenever I want to.

You on the otherhand feel you're a special music connaisseur, so you're better than the average person. Well... completely off-topic I'll just break it down for you. There are three kinds of people in the world and it would relate to pretty much any form of media or art.

1. Pop people. People who like (and worship) Kincaid's "paintings", Nsync or Grisham's novels.

2. Underground people. People who actively try to avoid whatever other people who aren't underground people are liking. Almost cliche in that rejecting the norm is almost the norm now!

3. People who like whatever they like. Usually a mix of 1 and 2. Not really caring what is or isn't popular.

I'm #3, and you are clearly #2. Underground people feel they are better than #1 and #3. They feel as die-hard fans of the non-mainstream they have better tastes than other people, and thus make them better people.

I dont' give a damn what mtv plays or what you listen to. If I hear it, and I like it... I listen to it.

#1 takes an active effort to follow whatever is popular. #2 takes an active effort to go against whatever is popular. #3 follows their own instinct.

Oh, and sorry for having to label you. I've just learned that in arguements where someone has to blindly label people it's best to hand them a mirror. It makes them realize they shouldn't be acting like the final voice of authority on a subject.

#45 Actually, I am a music connaisseur as opposed to a music consumer. And no, I don't like bands "just cause no one has heard of them." I like what I like when I hear it. And in this case, everything on the radio sucks (with very few/no exceptions) and everything on MTV sucks. I'm all into music-related "politics" too. I'm a musician, and I reserve the right to be a music connaisseur. You're obviously a musical consumer. You don't care much about music other than tuning into the radio and downloading the tunes you hear.

As for Type 3 of the people you listed, I would say they're more of a Type 1 mix with an opinion. People who like what they hear usually only hear one side of the story...the popular music on the radio and MTV. Tell me when the last time you hear Sonic Youth, or Frank Black, or the Pixies, or Television on the radio. Maybe you'd like em if you heard em. Oh wait, you might have to buy a CD of theirs...nevermind, I don't want you to spend your hard earned $11.

You can be a programming snob if you want to, cause you're the programmer here. I can be the music snob if I want to, cause I'm the musician and lifelong lover of music. It's not really a matter of who's right or wrong, it's who's more knowledgeable on the subject. You trying to say you know more about music, etc. is like me trying to say that I know more about programming. And I know you're not trying to say you know more about music, but I find it pretty insulting when you attempt to cut down my knowledge on a subject that I obviously know more about.

#46 Uh, if there's one difference between us it's that you're trying to lord your "knowledge" over other people. I don't try to brag or belittle anyone in any area I might know more than them. If I did, I would definately have heard about it from the people I would be insulting.

The whole "consumer versus connaisseur" is a stealthy insult. "You just enjoy listening to crap" is not a very nice thing to say, especially when the discussion is not based around who's the better person or what music is better.

I prefer the music I hear on the radio. I don't like experimental music, nor do I enjoy listening to stuff that isn't polished or is vulgar. Which is one of the reasons I dislike "live" versions of music. Never quite sounds perfect...

So you might want to drop the attitude and learn that just because you like something different doesn't make you a better person. It's like me saying anyone who likes Quake is an idiot when it comes to the game development arena. "You lack refinement, so therefore I am better than you."

Learn to show some respect, because your insults are not welcome.

EDIT: And just in case you were wondering, the radio station I listen to is "The End" located in Seattle Washington. Definately one of the most cutting-edge alternative music radio stations in the country. First in playing Nirvana, Wheezer, Sonic Youth (yes, it is played) among so many others. Not to mention underground music played each Saturday night for 6 hours, and electronic music played every sunday night. 80s music played frequently during 2 hours everyday and 4 on weekends.

So if you're going to insult people at least understand where they are coming from. I don't listen to pop radio, and I don't mind if it's on. If it sounds good, I like it. Country, rock, rap, classical, blues, electronic... it's all good.

#47 I stopped reading half way. But I do have somethign important to add. On my desk I have:

cinema 4D v5
Poser 3
Real 3d 3.53

These all cost me less than

#48 This is my last reply on this subject. It's getting way too annoying, way too off course. You picked one thing in my long reply to pick on...me saying you're a musical consumer. I'm not going to go any further in explaining this, and I'm not going to take the "holier than thou" approach either. I know what I know, and I know when I know more than someone on a certain subject. I can't help that some people just get all touchy over it.

You have a good knowledge of programming. Therefore you have all the right to take the "holier than thou" approach when it comes to this. You're a liar when you say that you don't "try to brag or belittle" other people. I've talked to many a people who have complained about your constant criticism of other people's works...and I'm talking unconstructive. You seem to take the stance of a master level designer because you've done it for a while or whatever. So don't attack me when I once take a higher position against someone for my knowledge; you have no room to talk. I'm sure others could back me up on this but I'm not going to go there.

I think this is the first time I've showed any "attitude" on any subject here on the forum. It's too bad you can't say the same...I don't have enough fingers and toes to count your arrogance and attitude that you've shown around these parts. I don't know about you saying that anyone who likes Quake is an idiot, but I know you've come close in many things you've said. So before you go ahead and tell someone to drop their attitude because they might have gotten defensive on a single post, maybe you should click on your profile and go through the threads you've replied to and see the attitude you've presented to others.

The whole point of this thread was to say that pirating software is no different than pirating music. I think it's safe to say that I (and Yacine) are correct in this respect. I never said I'm against pirating music or software, I more or less said it's rediculous for someone to think one is more OK than another, and it is. That's all I have to say to this...thank you and good night. Oh, and by the way, it's Weezer. And while The End is a good station, I don't think they're "the first" to play Nirvana or Sonic Youth.

#49 Okay I'm done with this thread.

Gonna make fun of my spelling? heh, nice touch.

Sorry if you think I've been harsh on people (I Don't think I have, nor have all the people I've spoken with about me being rude) but I'm pretty annoyed by your statements in this thread.

Have a nice day. I'm going to go listen to my music now.

#50 Matt Webster, no offense, but you are not making sense.

Consider the following facts:

a: Yes, SOME artists give away SOME songs via MP3, but not ALL artists and ALL songs.

b: Yes, SOME artists give away SOME songs via radio, but not ALL artists and ALL songs.

Under your logic, the songs that are OK to download are songs that are already given away, either on radio or by mp3.

Even that logic is stretching it, because an MP3 you download is cut from the CD, NOT the radio, and there is a quality difference. When you listen to the radio, you get a low quality version. Similar to a game demo that is crippled. You are supposed to pay for the CD quality version. Notice that even though you can record singles off the radio, those singles are still for sale, in part because of higher quality.

You also try to take specific examples and generalize them to everyone. Yes, some artists give away MP3s. You conclude from that that "until they stop giving them away, why should I pay for them...?" Who is THEY? Is that JUST the artists giving music away, or are you generalizing to all without reason?

Furthermore, artists that give music away are often artists with cult followings. They know their cult followers will support them, and the free music is a way to gain more of those followers. When you have die-hard fans you can do that.

Basically, the flaw in your logic is you are taking some specific examples and then assuming that the logic that holds in those examples holds in EVERY example.

I suspect the real bottom line is that you simply don't feel like paying for music.

Downloading an MP3 that is made available by the artist is legal, yes. And I don't see much wrong with dl'ing an MP3 that is ACTUALLY CUT from the radio. I must point out again that part of the reason to buy a single that is played on the radio is the higher quality.

Under your logic, it is perfectly ok to download the entire album of a band that does NOT have ANY radio songs, and does NOT give away ANY MP3s...just because some other bands do...that doesn't make any sense!

#51 I don't care what other people are downloading music wise, my posts were only defending what I've downloaded.

I download music I hear on the radio.

"Under your logic, the songs that are OK to download are songs that are already given away, either on radio or by mp3."

So you walk in on a thread that has gone from piracy to music to "I am better than you because you listen to radio music!". Now you're saying I made blanketing statements? Hah, nice one.

The stuff I downloaded is stuff I've heard on the radio. Sure, it doesn't make it much better than songs only found on their CD but that's what keeps me happy. My point of referring to other musicians distributing online was that they are sending mixed messages. "Dont download music... but some of us don't mind". Until I hear a unified voice or agreed upon format I really don't care.

So yeah, to me downloading a song I heard on the radio isn't going to weigh on my conscience. Downloading Quake 3 or Maya would. Not the costs, but the fact that I wouldn't be able to access the software unless I pirated (or bought it) The music I can freely hear on the radio, so if I want to listen to it on my own time I'll do it.

I'm not asking for an "okay that's perfectly legal". I couldn't give a damn what the law is if I'm downloading music I hear on the radio. No one is losing one cent from my actions. If I didn't download it I'd listen to it on the radio. Either way they don't make any money (radio plays aren't pay per play, so yes... this statement is correct) so who's getting harmed?

I can understand music that can't be heard on the radio (thus making it impossible to hear freely without owning CD) that is downloaded would be a problem (afterall, buy the cd if you wanna hear it) but what's the problem?

Yeah good, I know it's not very legal but morally I'm not doing anything wrong. I could listen to the exact same music if I never owned a computer or a CD and this wouldn't even be a discussion.

And one thing. I'm glad I can at least voice my opinion because it's really annoying to see people complain about a topic that is pretty much synonymous with the internet. Only people who can complain about me (and the other millions) who download mp3s are the people who have never done it.

I'm not saying what I'm doing is legal, just that I won't feel guilty about doing it. And when I know I won't be getting in trouble or costing the artist one cent, my conscience is all that I really care about in a situation like this.

#52 Matt, if you do not create a demo of your game will you be upset if people make copies of it and give it to friends? Or do you expect each person who plays it to pay for it?

#53 ""Yeah good, I know it's not very legal but morally I'm not doing anything wrong. I could listen to the exact same music if I never owned a computer or a CD and this wouldn't even be a discussion.""

How is that different form software piracy?

The difference in cost is only a relation to the number of sales. If PC games sold as many copies as music CDs they would be cheaper.

As for max the extra cost is only in devemopment and again consumer numbers. The cost of something does NOT repersent its true value. This is the case of all things in captailsm.

I don't care what you pirate, or how you justify it too your self. But too be honest the whole "anti-warez" arguement stinks of hypocracy.

I hate to sound like a bible basher (even thou I'm jewish) but "let he who is with out sin cast the first stone"

No one who owns a PC, radio or VCR is not guilty of some software piracy. The reason why personal piracy (including warez) is unlikely to get you in front of a court, is that the problem is not me or you owning any pirate copies, but the distrabution network. I believe that max and the music intrustry cares only about those who give the stuff away to a large base of users. I even think discreet does not care. Most of the people getting their warez software could not buy it anyway, so they lose nothing.

The only thing discreet gives a damn about, and in fact the courts to do with almost any piracy case, is wether you profit from it.

So let the warez monkies play with a warez of max. If they ever want to make only from it they will need a bank loan, or a good lawyer.

I really do not recall the last time some one was "done" for owning warez, or mp3 pirates, the only people who seem to get done are the resellers (for warez this is mostly use of max in a game, or ebay PC games).

If you want to argue that warez of PC games is bad, that maybe more true. But discreet is a different kettle of fish. For the simple fact that max is a program used to make money, to do that you need a licence. Its very easy for discreet to track most of this, unlike how easy it is too track use of a PC game or pirate mp3s.

I do not agree with piracy. But I can not clam to be clean of it. I bet very few people can clam that.

#54 If I give a demo of a game to a friend and he hands it out to 1000 people I wouldn't mind. No company in the world would mind (unless it was under NDA or something)

That's the exact same situation I'm talking about with me downloading radio music. If I downloaded music that wasn't played on the radio (thus not being free to access) I would effectively be creating my own demo.

Radio music is like playing a computer game demo given to the world by the company who made the game. No one loses one cent if you hand out copies of the demos to friends.

Nonradio music though, would be like creating your own demo from a retail software product that allows the user to do things they couldn't in other demos for the same program.

This isn't like software piracy. It's like handing out copies of software demos. Piracy of music would involve distributing copies of music that the musician didn't want you to hear unless you paid them for the CD. They obviously want you to hear it since they aren't charging you to hear it on your radio.

So yes, music piracy is just as bad as software piracy. Piracy is copying or distribution of media that results in the possible loss of money by the person that created it. Downloading music heard on the radio (and only that) will not cost the artist even one cent since I could turn off my computer and turn on my radio and hear the exact same music without paying anything.

#55 But Matt, it IS illegal to tape the radio.

#56 No Matt, they aren't charging you to listen to it on the radio. They're charging the radio station to play it on the radio.

If it's downloaded, who are they supposed to charge for the broadcast? The person downloading? The person being downloaded from? Napster? Kazaa?

This isn't freely distruibuting a software demo. The demo sites aren't charged to host demos.

#57 I have to add something.

I agree with Matt that the current format for distributing music in digital format is flawed, but the record companies are trying to work towards that. That they haven't yet doesn't give you anymore rights over their copyrighted songs.
They are trying to get their act together. They are working on stuff like the very-broken SDMI, and other DRM-enabled digital audio format. But which would you download given the choice? A $1.50 WMA format song, or a free mp3?

Quote:This isn't like software piracy. It's like handing out copies of software demos. Piracy of music would involve distributing copies of music that the musician didn't want you to hear unless you paid them for the CD. They obviously want you to hear it since they aren't charging you to hear it on your radio.

That third sentence says it all. If the artist doesn't want you to hear mp3s of his songs without paying for them, then do you still download them? When a asong gets played on the radio, the artist gets compensated by the station, and the station makes its money off advertisement, which you have to sit and listen to.

Quote:So yes, music piracy is just as bad as software piracy. Piracy is copying or distribution of media that results in the possible loss of money by the person that created it. Downloading music heard on the radio (and only that) will not cost the artist even one cent since I could turn off my computer and turn on my radio and hear the exact same music without paying anything.

Well, then downloading mp3s without the consent of the copyright holder is piracy. Since the author is losing money (since the only legal way to get an mp3 of the author's song is buy buying the song, or purchasing the CD and ripping the songs to mp3 (which is legal. You just can't distribute to anyone).
In fact the NET act which you mentioned earlier says:

Quote: The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act criminalizes sound recording copyright infringements occurring on the Internet regardless of whether there is financial gain from such infringements. A copyright is infringed when a song is made available to the public by uploading it to an Internet site for other people to download, sending it through an e-mail or chat service, or otherwise reproducing or distributing copies without authorization from the copyright owner.

There doesn't even have to be financial gain for your to be violating the law.

As for songs not being available individually. So what? That's not up to you to decide. some artists feel that their music is a whole package. Ignoring that, when the technology works, individual songs will be sold.

I don't claim to be high and mighty. I don't think I'm better than anyone who downloads music. Since I've started being interested in making games, I've stopped downloading games. I''ve made more purchases in the past two years then in the previous 5. I've also stopped downloading music. If I like just one song, then it's usually on the radio, so I just listen there until I get tired of it. Bands I really enjoy, I just purchase their CDs because I know I will usually enjoy all their tracks.

I'm not saying you should be like me. I don't even care that you download music. I just things should be described as they are. The cost may be smaller (at $1-$2 a song), but it doesn't make it any less of a theft.

#58 I declare this thread official derailed

=)

We now return to our regularly scheduled MP3 arguing

#59 So am I completely wrong in thinking that radio stations don't pay per play for each song?

I always thought it was just a one-time sale of a track to the radio station in order to legally play it.

#60 I strongly doubt it's not pay-per-play. Well, maybe they negotiate deals for each song for time periods or something.
I think that they still want to give the radio some amount of control over what they play. Maybe the stations pay for a song for a certain time period. Say $1000 for one month of the latest Creed song or something.

I'm not too sure.

EDIT:
On a side note, check this site on all the different types of licenses available, and that one has to get before doing anything:
License page

The most interesting one is for websites which create custom CDs. They have to obtain a license for each song they put on their custom CDs.