EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Hi Andris,

On 28-Dec-04, at 2:40 PM, Andris Sice wrote:

>  I've even heard people argue that Microsoft came to prominence partly
>  due to the proliferation of unprotected copies of Word. The argument
>  goes that most of the world learnt word processing on unprotected
>  copies of Word, then got jobs with companies with legal versions. Thus
>  word processing became almost synonymous with Microsoft word. I know
>  this is over-simplifying.

It is also speculation and not substantiated with fact.  This is put 
forth IMHO by many people who want copy protection completely removed 
so that they can run the software they want without having to pay for 
it.  I was around when Word began taking over.  What I believe caused 
it to take over was its integration with Excel along with the its 
acceptance by the corporate market.  Wordperfect (WP) was pretty big 
back then and there were just as many illegal copies of it back then.  
Word gave you a bit more of WYSIWYG than WP at the time.  I don't 
believe that there has never been any hard proof that unprotected 
copies made Word the most used and most popular word processor on the 
planet.  But then, we digress...

>  The music world seems to have many more protection issues than the
>  world at large. If the vendors simply trusted in customer honesty,  
> the
>  money they saved on litigation and copy protection schemes might 
> exceed
>  what they lost through increased piracy.

Now, if every accountant and lawyer and CEO and secretary were using 
music software, that might work.  The music world needs to have 
protection more because of its small size in comparison to the regular 
software market not because these companies feel that it is good use of 
their development dollars.  Your statement on "trusting in customer 
honesty" seems to make some assumptions that are crucial to the 
argument and bring in a lot of inherent risk.  You're making an 
assumption that the money saved on copy protection and litigation is 
greater than that which they retain by having them in place as 
deterrents to piracy (neither you nor I know what these figures are).  
You're also making a big assumption that people will continue to pay 
for the software they currently pay for after they are able to get it 
for free without cracking of any kind - a pretty big risk for a company 
if that backfires.  There was a time when most software did not have 
very much copy protection in it.  Over time, and as piracy became more 
prevalent, copy protection has increased.  Should the statement rather 
read not that the vendors should simply trust in customer honesty but 
rather that customers should support the vendors by buying all the 
software they use and educating their friends to do the same?

I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here in some of my arguments 
but too many people see these companies as being huge corporate 
entities with deep pockets that don't need to get any deeper so what's 
a little piracy?.  This is partly why we have the situations such as 
Apple buying Emagic, Pinnacle buying and selling Steinberg, Sonic 
Foundry nearly going into oblivion before being bought out by Sony, 
Opcode being bought and slaughtered by Gibson, etc.  Then there are the 
countless "little guys" who simply die off because the costs to 
producing their software outweigh the income earned by sales.  Too many 
people equate these companies to Microsoft.  When looking at revenues 
and such of these companies, it is easy to see how it is not a valid 
comparison - comparing a company such as Emagic which was sold for $30 
Million or so to a company such as Microsoft which is worth several 
billion $.

Anyway, hopefully this thread dies soon now as many of these arguments 
have been put forth in the past.  I don't think that we'll cover any 
new ground and I think that many people will continue to hold their 
same views no matter what you or I say.

Fernstudio

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]