[Consortium] Re: Fwd: [edmemo] Re. Letter in August Edition from
daniel at linuxaudio.org
Tue Aug 2 13:03:43 EDT 2005
> > I would like to write this as a direct response to your letter in
> > the SOS issue of August 2005, as it seems to me you have got some
> > serious issues badly wrong.
It does appear we disagree on some points.
> > You quote the open source folks - let me point you directly at
> > the open source project dealing with DVD-Audio - based around
> > reverse engineered commercial discs by the authors own admission.
Do you mean http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/ ? That site explicitly
says that the code does not support Meridian Lossless Packing used in
> > This is illegal - it is a criminal offence to do that.
If you could point me towards the law that says that, I'd appreciate
it. I understood that reverse engineering for the purposes of making
systems compatible was legal in many countries, but not in the USA if
it circumvents a copy-protection mechanism.
> > And the argument that software is not property in the same sense
> > as house contents is also either naive or stupid.
If you can invent a physical property replicator, you could make a
fortune on eBay. Maybe someone has, and they're keeping it quiet for
this very reason.
> > Just because it is technically possible to burn an illegal copy
> > still does not make it either right or desirable to do so
Please note that I was talking about free software. It's explicitly
legal to burn a copy.
> > it is still theft, according to the terms of laws in the UK.
No, it's not. Even if it's proprietary software, it's copyright
infringement - different law. Free software also depends on copyright
to enforce its licensing terms, so I'm not knocking the validity or
usefulness of copyright.
> > It
> > is absolute twaddle to suggest that, say, Steinberg would rather
> > you use a stolen copy of Nuendo as opposed to a legal copy of
> > Logic.
Do you have any evidence for this statement, or have you done any
research? You might like to read Selective Enforcement of Copyright
as an Optimal Monopolistic Behavior:
> > And the closing arguments made about the cost of Nuendo being
> > extortionate? I think not.
I didn't say it was extortionate, I meant that if people pay that much
for a single copy of an application they might expect to get bugfix
updates included in the price. That's just good customer service.
> > When you consider that out of the box you get full AES31, OMF and
> > AAF import/export included for the cost, where if you use digi PT
> > LE that same functionality will cost you another £575 for the
> > Digi Toolkit (you don't even get timecode as standard with PT
> > LE), plus yet a further £285 for DigiTranslator, making a total
> > of £860 just for OMF and AAF support alone.
I didn't say ProTools was better value. I wasn't making a comparison
between different proprietary applications.
> > As for the "known
> > bugs" dig, I also suggest that you go read the comments on any
> > forum about any software and it's failings.
No need, I know that software has bugs - that's one of the points I
> > And as a regular in the Nuendo forums, I am constantly
> > amazed by just how many people use stolen copies and then have
> > the brass neck to try & claim bugs when the odds are very high it
> > is the stolen copy that is faulty.
I'm not defending people who infringe copyright, quite the opposite. I
would rather people used free software than infringe copyright.
> > I can give many examples of
> > this with the current Nuendo. Yes, there are issues. And yes,
> > they do get fixed. But with more like you in the world, it will
> > take a lot longer.
Oh please! I'm not even a Nuendo user.
> > And Audio apps are not the only ones either. I also moderate at
> > another well known companies forums, and yet again we see on a
> > daily basis the users of stolen versions pissing and moaning
> > about a repeatable bug that existed only in the pre release
> > versions. Ask then for their build number, and like the fools
> > they are they give it - and we can instantly spot the stolen beta
> > copy.
I'm sure that happens a lot, but it never happens to me. I use Linux
and free software for nearly everything. I do have a copy of Adobe
Reader, but I downloaded that from Adobe's own site.
> > You state you won't "just lend your guitar to anyone" in one
> > sentence, and in the next deny software companies the same right.
I'm not denying anyone anything, and in fact I would like to see
proprietary software companies make it difficult to copy their
software - reintroducing hardware dongles, for instance. Their
userbase would probably drop to a tiny fraction of what it is now.
> > Our industry needs thieves like it needs an extra hole in the
> > head.
We agree on that. There's more than one kind of rip-off though.
> > I wonder how much stolen software is installed to your
> > system??
None at all. I don't even have a copy of Windows, so I'm not sure how
I could run it even if I had it. Would you like a package list from
More information about the Consortium