@dbudde said:

You have some semi-obsolete copyrighted samples. They're unprotected and so are being copied via p2p sites. And yet your license policies are such such that my giving my copy away violates the license but throwing them in the trash is perfectly acceptable.

What sense does this make?

I couldn't agree more.

@dbudde said:

So let's follow this train of thought a bit further. You have some semi-obsolete copyrighted samples. They're unprotected and so are being copied via p2p sites. And yet your license policies are such such that my giving my copy away violates the license but throwing them in the trash is perfectly acceptable.

What sense does this make?

Why not just make your Horizon series available to everyone for a nominal charge and use that as leverage to your protected products. And/or allow existing owners to donate them to educational institutions without violating their license agreement. You either think the newer products have significantly more value and can justify their prices or you don't.

Lots of companies make older semi-obsolete products available for free or a close to free to encourage new business.

Food for thought.

It all makes sense except for one thing: someone will take ill advantage of this in some way with no regard or respect to proper use or reuse of such material. Unfortunately, it ruins it for everyone especially where such a vast and expensive library is concerned.

The other thing that comes to mind is that the same samples are being used as collections are repackaged and expanded. I'm not 100% sure how this is handled legally or ethically where audio samples are changing hands, but it is indeed a sticky set of circumstances to reconcile.

I do agree that it's rather wasteful in many ways to have such materials sitting around not being put to good use-- or to have them relegated to trashbins and landfills.

If you're dealing with honest people, then there's no question about what to do at all. It just places greater emphasis, sadly, on the notion that this world is filled with mal-intended opportunists for whom the protections were designed.

On a different note, the authorization process is wonky as it is. It may be better than it used to be, but I still wrestle with Syncrosoft more often than should be reasonably allowed. For this reason alone, I wouldn't wish that headache on anyone.

JWL:

Of course it's true that there are unethical people - - but, I'd guess, more frequently, simply a lot of musicians who lack the financial means to legitimately purchase expensive sample libraries and the software they'd like to have to work with. The latter is, I think, the reason that intensive copy protection is ubiquitous in the music software and sample industries. On the other hand, making sample libraries - - especially those that have been superseded by more advanced versions - - available at affordable prices to educational institutions and students also makes sense (E.g. One of my former students recently purchased Logic from his school bookstore - due to an agreement between the school and Apple - - at a price significantly below Apple's "educational price" - - and Apple is hardly known for reckless generosity - - and, in this case, the condition for obtaining the software at the lower price is that it is not upgradeable).

Such a practice, I think, is not simply altruistic but makes sense from a strictly business-oriented viewpoint. Students who go on to professional work are likely to remember the software and samples they worked with in school and to purchase both from the companies that made them.

I also think, along with JWL, that users who have purchased the newer version of a sample library should have the right to donate the older version to an educational instituion - - which seems to me an altogether more desirable outcome - - for everyone concerned, including the manufacturer of the sample libraries - - than disposing of those libraries in the trash. I strongly believe that legitmizing this kind of license transfer would be very much in the interests of the folks at VSL - - and everyone else.

@stevesong said:

I also think, along with JWL, that users who have purchased the newer version of a sample library should have the right to donate the older version to an educational instituion - - which seems to me an altogether more desirable outcome - - for everyone concerned, including the manufacturer of the sample libraries - - than disposing of those libraries in the trash. I strongly believe that legitmizing this kind of license transfer would be very much in the interests of the folks at VSL - - and everyone else.

I've often wondered about the pros and cons of VIP users returning their older collections to VSL as they upgrade for an extra "honesty bonus" of some sort. That at least would keep the redistribution in the hands of the VSL team which would be handled as they see fit from their business point of view....

But I got stuck on the notion that almost out of the gate many of the discs are obsolete because some installers didn't work or replacement samples and installation files have been required after the discs went to market. (Memories of SE and PE come to mind-- what a nightmare!)

This brings up another side of the same question: what *does* one do with their older discs?

I'm not against the idea of putting old discs to good use, especially if this means it goes into the hands of honest, needy folks who don't have $11k+ to shell out, but there are so many pot holes to fall into along the way-- and as sure as the sky is blue, some idiot will take a very noble idea and figure out a way to totally botch it up.

Maybe VSL has their own plans which avoid the pitfalls of user redistribution?

Sorry, I meant to say that I agreed with dbudde on the point of being able to donate superseded software and samples to educational institutions.

One of the important aspects here is that if a legitimate way of doing this were provided, it would tend to preclude the illegitimate ways in which such things are often done. I spent many years teaching at a college and it was quite evident to me - - as it is to every college professor - - that many students used "cracked" copies of copy protected software. I never singled anyone out, but I said that as a matter of general principle, one should recognize that creating software takes enormous amounts of intelectual effort as well as signifigant investment of time and resources - - so that if everyone followed the principle that using software "for free" was ok - - if one were clever enough to "crack" the copy protection - - eventually no one would - - or could afford to - - expend the necessary effort, time and resources to create it. (I was making the point that to determine whether one's actions are ethical one needs to imagine that what one does is a universal practice and then judge whether its consequences as a universal practice would be desirable.)

I strongly encouraged my students to purchase the lower priced "student edtions" of the software they used, if they had not already done so.

My campaign was reasonably successful - I can say that every one of my students who went on to pursue music professionally eventually purchased the software that they may have first used illegitimately. However it's important to note that this was made easier by companies who offered lower priced student editions. The idea is to get young people in the habit of doing things ethically in this regard - - but doing this definitely requires the help of manufacturers as well.

Is it not a better fate for a somewhat obsolete sample library that its license be legitimately transferred to an educational institution where hundreds of students will get a chance to work with it - - than that it become part of a landfill? If my experience is any guide, those who go on to pursue music professionally will, most likely, purchase newer versions of what they have already become familiar with. Few educational institutions have the resources to purchase multiple copies of expensive sample libraries - - so making available site licenses at reasonable cost is another constructive possibility. Exposure to such libraries will, I think, help create a loyal future user base for companies who create legitimate and affordable ways for students to encounter their products.

Professor Steve-- you're a good man.... and I personally understood that we both agreed with dbudde.

There appear to be two questions being asked here:

1. why not?
2. how?

The former is an easier issue to address, with it being the motivation behind a topic which has been followed up with numerous reasonable suggestions, including yours.

The latter is the tougher question, ironically, because we do not know VSL's answer to the former question. While a scaled down collection may address the issue of affordability, it doesn't attempt to address what to do with the mountain of DVD ROMs we've amassed over the years.

We may never know VSL's answer to this, but it is clear that the questions are timely and relevant.

I don't think that donating older VSL libraries to educational instiutions is in the best interest of VSL team.

Why do people insist that EVERYONE should be entitled to have everything at an affordable price? I mean, this is an extremely professional library. It is designed for professionals, not for students, right? There are other more affordable libraries in the market for that purpose.

Why would I need to pay top dollars for this library, when I know that some student got it for free? That would diminish its merits. Just imagine that some one says "ok. We'll make all the Ferraris cheap, so anyone can afford them..." Owners would JUMP at this. It would be an insult to them.
Not everyone is meant to have a Ferrari, right? Only those who can afford it. How is it different in VSL (or any other library or software)? [8-)] [8-)]

@Miguélez said:

I don't think that donating older VSL libraries to educational instiutions is in the best interest of VSL team.

Why do people insist that EVERYONE should be entitled to have everything at an affordable price? I mean, this is an extremely professional library. It is designed for professionals, not for students, right? There are other more affordable libraries in the market for that purpose.

Why would I need to pay top dollars for this library, when I know that some student got it for free? That would diminish its merits. Just imagine that some one says "ok. We'll make all the Ferraris cheap, so anyone can afford them..." Owners would JUMP at this. It would be an insult to them.
Not everyone is meant to have a Ferrari, right? Only those who can afford it. How is it different in VSL (or any other library or software)? [8-)] [8-)]

I'd have to agree with this, Miguelez.

It would would reduce the value of a Rolls Royce to a Ford, before its time!

Alex.

@Another User said:

I'd have to agree with this, Miguelez.

It would would reduce the value of a Rolls Royce to a Ford, before its time!

Alex.

I own the Cube for which I paid the going price. If VSL were to make their products more affordable for educational institutions and legitimize donations of earlier versions, I would not feel slighted in the least.

Owning this library is not a matter of owning something "prestigious" like a Rolls Royce whose main purpose is a conspicuous display of the wealth its owner, but a very serious tool for creative musicians.

Steinways and Bösendorfers are a lot more expensive than any sample library and yet the practice rooms of conservatories are populated with these instruments. That came about because of the policies of the companies involved and the generosity of donors. Does anyone think that the students at these conservatories should be condemned to cheap electronic keyboards? Does anyone think that donors ought not to be able to give their own instruments to educational institutions? Is your Steinway diminshed in value by the fact that mine (as I described in another thread) was rebuilt by the chief piano technician at Juilliard - - one of the kindest aand most generous people I've ever met - - for much less than the then going price?

Similarly, conservatories lend some of their most gifted string players instruments worth many times more than any Steinway or Bösendorfer. Steinways and Strads are not, I think, objects whose primary value is conspicuous display of their owners wealth - - they are first and foremost instruments for creating music - as are the VSL libraries. This does not mean that Steinway, Bösendorfer and VSL do not have to make money - - obviously they do in order to continue to exist, innovate and make products of excellence. But what is the best way to insure long term prosperity? Piano manufacturers have long recognized the fact it is in their interest to make it possible for students, whether of limited means or not, to have access to their instruments. Does it diminish the value of these instruments that "mere" students have access to them? Does anyone imagine that Itzhak Perlman feels diminished because a student at Juilliard might have access to an instrument of similar monentary value to his own?

As far as the software business angle is concerned, most major and minor software companies recognize that making student editions of their products is in their own interest. The Student/Teacher edition of MS/Office is $128 while he "full" version is $430, there are similar price differentials between the student and "full" versions of Finale, Sibelius, Cubase, Logic. AutoCAD - the dominant software in the architecture and design industry in the US - - costs thousands of dollars in its full version but is made available in a student edition for a fraction of the cost. I know a lot architects because I'm married to one, and I don't a single architect who is resentful that AutCAD is available in a low-priced student edition. After all, most of them first owned the student edition when they were in school.

These companies do not do this sheerly because they are driven by altruism. Rather, experience has taught them that students grow up and buy the full versions of their software - - and they also know that if they did not make their software available to students at affordable prices, the most likely result would be that the some bright students would find ways to crack the copy protection and their software would then be available for free. In other words, they've recognized that it is in their own interest to provide a legitimate way for students to license their software rather than to create conditions which would, predictably, encourage theft.

I must say that I utterly reject the argument that reinforcing distinctions in economic class between "professionals" and "mere" students is in anyone's interest - - except perhaps for those whose egos are served more by conspicuous consumption rather than by creative achievement. Every professional was once a student. It is doubtful that anyone trained on a Casio keyboard would become a great pianist - a fact that is not lost on Steinway. Steinways and Bösendorfers are designed and built with the capabilities of the greatest pianists in mind, but they are in the practice rooms of conservatories where students - - of whom a few may become great pianists while many more will become piano teachers - and others will give up the idea of any professional career in music - - are trained.

I want to emphasize that what I say here is NOT meant as a criticism of the folks at VSL for whom I have the greatest respect and whose work is of enormous value to composers and musicians. They have most definitely deserve to be rewarded for their effort. However, I suspect that their views on this subject are not fully formed at this point and my hope is that they will consider the views I've as they deliberate about this issue. Christian said that he didn't want to think about the unlicensed copies of the original VSL libraries that may now be on University servers and I am suggesting that there might be a way to create a legitimate path in this situation - one that benefits everyone. For example, a donor to an educational institution or the educational institution itself could be required to pay a reasonable royalty fee for the license transfer or a reasonably yearly licensing fee could be required of the educational institution - - thus creating a new and ongoing revenue stream for VSL. There are, without doubt, a lot of other, potentially constructive, ways of handling this issue. If I am critical of anything it is of the views expressed by the two writers I quoted at the outset.

stephen, a tiny but important correction: you have licensed usage of the samples from the symphonic cube, you do not own them - VSL owns them.

if companies like bösendorfer or steinberg donate an instrument to some educational instituton the background is clearly the same you are arguing with: make the students familiar with the instrument and love it so much, that at a later date they might purchase one.

and this is the point: VSL can (and has already done) donate a license for a library - a licensee of a VSL product can not. even if you donate the DVDs, this is just the media and no license is included.
a year ago or so there has been a price-reduced student-version of first edition for sale (actually including the usual upgrade options!)

in my eyes it would not make sense to donate a product which is not state of the art - if you would ask for a Vienna Special Edition Student's Version ... ok, i could understand (although i find the VSE already pricy), but to allow transfering the older sample libraries to students and leave VSL the support for it (new operating systems, new verions of samplers would require regulary updates of the performance tool for example) does not make any sense and would be highly unfair to VSL.

i can hear already requests like *we have lost/scratched DVD2 from opus - how can we get the samples back* and similar issues ... no, thank you ...

christian

VSL started a revolution when it adopted the VIP upgrade program. I believe it to be very fair in regards to protecting the consumer and the company.

While I have certain issues with the VI player in regards to the lack of manipulating/programing on the sample level I feel that my investment will be more secure and my money will go farther in the long run.

To recycle content in this manner will dilute my investment. If VSL decides to implement a student discount it should do so based on its own merit and not because we have extra media going unused in our studios.

A different example:

AS A COMPROMISE, VSL could implement as a part of its upgrade plan an extra buyback option where for an extra 'bump' in the discount we could send back to VSL our old disks. VSL could then have a "refurbished" line of products where they could sell these returned disks for an additional discount to new consumers with smaller budgets or older systems, giving them the opportunity to become members at a lower price point.


UNFORTUNATELY, this still leaves us with that problem "I've got a scratched DVD and need a replacement" so even this would be illogical.

VSL shouldn't change its policy

Clark

thanks clark, this is a point i almost forgot ...

so here would be the consequent handling: request from VSL a license transfer including a declaration to whom you'd like to donate which product, pay the difference to all VIP prices and discounts you have received for the registered product you want to donate, hand over the product with all related material, VSL transfers the license after confirmation.

note: i'm not saying this could even happen, it is just an example to illustrate the impact of such a demand.
christian

Christian:

I do understand the distinction you make regarding owning samples and having licensed usage of a sample library. What I wrote was, clearly, inexact on this point. My aim was to make clear to the writers whose views I disagreed with that, although I'd paid the normal price for this license, I would not feel that its value was lessened if licenses were made available to educational institutions at lower prices. My argument was with those who claim that the value of the Vienna Instruments Library would somehow be less if it were available to educational institutions for less than they paid - - not with VSL. Perhaps what I said was a little edged because I, frankly, have little sympathy with those who presume to judge a thing's merit on the basis of its high price tag or because it has, in their minds, an ambience of "exclusivity."

For me, the Vienna Library is a powerful musical instrument whose value stems from its musical excellence - - not the price of its license. At the same time, I think I have some appreciation of the immense amount of initiative, effort, intellect and imagination that went in to making it what it is and I think the folks at VSL have every right to expect to be well rewarded for creating such a product. It is also very apparent to me that the making VSL libraries was driven by valuing musical excellence - - there are, after all, less arduous ways of making money.

Please don't take anything I've said as a criticism of VSL. I understand that allowing an individual to donate licenses to an educational institution is not allowed by your current policy. What I and some other writers in this thread wanted to suggest is that there might be some constructive alternatives to the current policy that VSL might consider at some point.

You bring up some points I had not thought of regarding support and updates. But, playing devil’s advocate, I’d ask what if continued support and updates were not part of the deal? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, one of my former students recently was able to purchase Logic from his school's bookstore (again, to be exact, he only bought a license) at a price significantly less than Apple's published "educational" price (through an agreement between his school and Apple). BUT, buying it at this price specifically excluded his eligibility for any future upgrades. Similarly if I decided to donate my piano to an educational institution, neither I - - nor Steinway - - would be obligated to provide tunings, replacement parts, etc. Many people continue to use older versions of software for long periods of time forgoing continued support and upgrades. I, for example, paid for the last two updates to Finale (2006 and 2007) but these proved so buggy, that I continue to use Finale 2005 and plan to keep my G5 as long as there is no, more current, version of Finale that demonstrates the reliability I need. Since you said, that you didn’t "want to know on how many servers of various universities or P2P networks we would find VSL files already," I wanted to suggest a way of making this illegitimate use less likely - by creating a legitimate path for donations of semi-obsolete software and charging a reasonable fee for transferring the license – with either a specific exclusion of continued support and upgrades or a continuing yearly subscription fee if support and upgrades were to be made available. That would, at least in theory, also be a way of enlarging the legitimate user base and promoting future sales. Perhaps I am wrong about all this, perhaps it wouldn’t work, but it is a suggestion -- not a "demand" -- based on good will towards VSL and an appreciation of your work and your products. I apologize if I, inadvertently, gave any other impression.

stephen, many of your considerations are valid and maybe VSL would open one or another route in the future - i am no judge of this.

just a comment to continuing support: we had already to stop support for windows 98 and it looks we will have to do the same for OS 9 in the near future. nevertheless development and support continued related to apple's move to intel processors (refering to the performance tool now).

but the day will come where VSL possibly has not even an option to continue support, because an update of an operating system or an application simply does not allow it. what should one do then in such a situation if someone might have a donated license but no possibility to use it?

if VSL would start to allow *recycling* of older products this might lead to a very uncomfortable situation in the future - better to think very accurate about possible subsequent consequences now.

christian

ps: personally i hate to realize a certain amount of DVDs is going into *garbage*, but sometimes one had to choose the least worse.

I think what Christian says makes perfect sense. Furthermore, the production cost of some DVDs must be extremely low compared to the licensing costs of these products. I think part of the reason why this discussion arises is because it's very human to associate something concrete (installation DVD discs) with something abstract (license to use samples) to aid the thought. It's also easy to make the mistake to think of it as ownership rather than licensing because although one probably understands the difference the former concept is more intuitive and familiar to us. There is also all this talk about piracy as theft of property (whereas because of the nonexclusivity of information it's rather intellectual rights violations, which moraly one can choose to consider to be equaly wrong but is still a different concept) which tries to make us think of software as property rather than something licensed in order to make people more heavily condemn copyright infringement.

I think it's noble of people to try to support education but distributing an earlier-generation product to new users seems illogical. Distributing VI instruments is better PR-wise and significantly less support. Surely the value of that must be much higher than the production cost of some DVD discs.

Nils

.

Why DONATE to TOP educational institutions? I mean, they can afford to PAY for them, right? Most of them charge top tuitions in the first place.

Some distinctions must be made. I don't think freshman students have access to the same instruments Senior students do, right? Does a typical beginner have access to that same glorious Grand Italian piano as a TRULLY gifted and tallented sutdent? I don't think so... It wouldn't make sense.

There are more ad hoc libraries for student use. They just need to become familiar with the technology, learn the basics, and THEN, when they become professionals, they can move up to more top-of-the-line stuff.

I'm not sure if VSL is aware of their MONUMENTAL mistake to have issued the Pro Edition libraries without any anti-piracy protection. If they came here to Mexico and see that basically almost NOBODY will ever buy anything from them (because they already got it for free), they will have a heart attack. Every pseudo-musician, every kid in their bedroom studios have the Pro edition. Pirated, that is. It doesn't take a genious to know this is the same situation in EVERY 3rd world country. Same in Colombia, Venezuela, etc. I've also heard the situation regarding pirated VSL (and every software in general) is the same throughout Eastern Europe. Even top professionals here in Mexico have offered me some stuff. They do it with the same loosenes as if they were offering you a cigarrete.
Is it not TOO much to ask VSL to, in top of this, "donate" a little more?????

I think it is an insult.

A student doesn't "need" the best commercial stuff money can buy. They can, as mentioned earlier, start with other good products, and then move up. Give them something to aim for. They will pirate them later anyway... I studied in the US in a top University, and pirated software from the "learning center" happened ALL the time. It was run by senior students, and they even charged some money to give you a password to steal ANYTHING they had in there...

This "I have the right to have the best for free" set of mind is something like the plague. Every kid now thinks he/she can have in his iPod every song/composition ever created because they can... [[:|]]
I mean, it is out there. They just need to reach out and grab everything they can. The are not even aware of IP issues.

As I wrote earlier, distinctions MUST be made. A luxory is a luxory.
VSL is not targeting amateurs and is not targeting students, thus the price of their stuff. People get what they pay for, thus the different pricing among different products. There is stuff out there that fits EVERYBODYs financial situation. It is not that they can never get an orchestral library. People will get the one that they can afford, right?
I want to move into a bigger appartment. Can I go to the real state guy and ask him that I am entitled to that bigger apartment, eventhough i can't afford it?

And please do not say that tallented students would be stifled form their learning if they don't have this stuff. TRULLY tallented students need nothing more than a good pencil and some score paper. Or little more than a decent computer and a decent sampling library. They will shine with the amazing quality of their compositions anyway, right? They will get nothing but As.

I REALLY don't want to find out that I pay TOP dollars for something, and then there are people who get it for free. It is just not fair. It doesn't make sense, and it is not how the market works.

It is just that my blood boils everytime I see a colleague here bragging about his new pirated VSL. They think it is so cool to beat the system. They laugh at me for "wasting" my money on software and libraries. They trully believe I am an idiot.
"Hey, Fernando. You must be rich. I just got the whole library for the price of 10 blank DVDs, jajaja. You must be an idiot. My dealer even threw in there a couple of Horizon stuff. You are so weird".

These people just don't get they are stealing. They must go to prison.

Sorry about the rant. I just HATE free raiders. They will ruin developers, they will ruin creative drive of the makers, and they will make it so hard for companies to keep developing great stuff.

Please notice this was not a personal attack on anyone in particular. I am just venitng out.

Cheers.

It might be a good idea at this point to examine the facts dispassionately from a business viewpoint.

Miguélez describes a problem that has existed in the software industry as whole for a very long time. The facts, long recognized by most software companies appear to be:

1. Software piracy exists on a fairly large scale.

2. It is unlikely that there ever will be a copy protection scheme so bulletproof that it will not be cracked by some bright person somewhere.

3. When a software copy protection scheme is “cracked” it is likely that the person or persons involved will surreptiously publish a “how to” guide for cracking that copy protection scheme – and this will make pirated versions of the software more common - - while necessitating improvements in copy protection.

The available remedies are:

1. Go after perpetrators.

2. Improve copy protection – knowing, however, that it will eventually be broken.

3. Create conditions, which make piracy less likely.

The problem with the first option is that it would involve expensive investigation and litigation. It could also conceivably have the effect of turning colleagues, friends, teachers, school administrators into a kind of software police force – a role that most people would reject and which would likely have a strongly negative impact on a company’s reputation.

Historically, most software companies have adopted the second and third options - - they have both increased the effectiveness of copy protection and attempted to create conditions in which piracy is less likely.

In trying to reduce piracy, a company needs to identify the demographics of piracy. It is evident that, in developed countries, the perpetrators are likely to be young people, often students. In the developing world, the demographics may include educated people in general. In some countries, a lax attitude on the part of government towards intellectual property rights is prevalent making any control of piracy more difficult.

Having identified the fact that, at least in developed countries, the largest group of perpetrators are young people and students - - a great majority of whom do not engage in theft in ways other than using pirated software, music or video - - companies have developed a strategy of offering full versions of their software to educational institutions and/or students in “educational,” “student” or “student/teacher” editions (the last in recognition of the fact that in some countries, such as the United States, teachers often have quite moderate salaries.) whose price is a fraction of the course of the normal retail price. (E.g. The normal retail price AutoDesk’s AutoCAD is $4,695, while the “student edition” of the same is $159.95 - - while upgrading the “student edition” to the “commercial edition” is $3599.95; the normal retail price (pre-order) for Adobe’s CS 3 Master Collection is $2474, the “student edition” of the same is $989.95. Not all companies offer such large discounts. For example the current price of the EWQLSO Platinum bundle is $2995 while the educational version of the same is $2790).

Among companies marketing educational, student and student teacher editions of their software are Microsoft, Apple, Adobe (Acrobat Professional, CS2, CS3, CS 3 Master Collection, Studio Premium, Video Bundle, Web Bundle, etc.), Native Instruments (multiple products) AutoDesk (AutoCAD, Maya), Nemtschek (VectorWorks Architect) EastWest (EWQLSO), Steinberg, MakeMusic (Finale), Avid (Sibelius, Pro Tools LE, Media Composer) Cakewalk (Sonar) Wolfram (Mathematica).

These companies would not engage in this practice if they did not see it as constructive in a business sense. The consequences of this practice are:

1. It reduces piracy and, although the selling price may be a fraction of the normal price, it produces revenue that might, otherwise, be lost to piracy.
2. It enlarges the legitimate user base.
3. It develops a future market for full priced versions of the company’s software by helping train a large number of people in the use of their software.
4. It reduces the sense of an adversarial relation between companies and customers.
5. By reducing the number of people impelled towards cracking copy protection - - makes it likely (from a statistical point of view) that revamps of copy protection schemes will be less frequently necessary.

Most, but not all, of the companies cited are fairly large. Whether this kind of policy discussed above makes sense for small or very small companies, I don’t know. There are a number of questions involved. Among them is how large the potential customer base actually is. This means having a rough idea of how many pirated as well as legitimately licensed copies are in use - - the assumption being that people would not pirate software that was not uniquely useful to them. (It is, for example, doubtful that VSL libraries have been pirated by non-musicians.) If it is determined that the potential customer base is much larger than the legitimately licensed customer base, that opens the question of what the best price is (and what kind of price structure - - e.g. "student" vs. "commercial" licensing - - might reduce piracy) – obviously a complex calculation.

Some questions might be:

1. At what price point would a significant share of those using pirated versions of the software be attracted into purchasing licenses?
2. Would that price point make up for revenues lost by having lower price - -would it decrease or increase revenues?

The reasoning for allowing donated license transfers of software to educational institutions is approximately the same as that which underlies issuance of “student editions” of software. One objection is that it would necessitate continued support of obsolete software. It could be argued that this would be avoided by making the license transfer conditional upon making the transferred license ineligible for continuing support or upgrades. It might also be argued that, by allowing such donations and charging a fee for the license transfer, a company could create an additional source of revenue.

I hope that it is clear that what I’ve attempted is an objective account outlining the strategies historically employed by many companies to deal with the issue of software piracy. I am explicitly not trying to assign blame to anyone for anything. I am fully aware that this is an incomplete account, but hope that it provides some basis for constructive discussion.

stephen, among the companies you name are many which are pure software vendors - VSL is providing a license to use content. also i don't know any case where one of those companies would allow to give away (donate or sell) a product which has been used for an upgrade - the final license is only valid if the underlying product's license is still active (eg. office 98 with upgrade to office 10 - you cannot give away your office98 license without loosing the office 10 license).
in my eyes it is that simple, christian

Christian:

Clearly this is simply a business decision. You and your colleagues are the only ones who can determine what is in the best interests of VSL. If I have suggested alternatives to current policies, it is not meant as a criticism, but as part of a constructive dialogue. Whether any of my suggestions make sense or not, I can't say, but I can say that my aim has been to suggest possible ways for VSL to increase its legitmate user base and revenue. I mentioned the policies some software companies have adopted not to compare them to VSL's policies but, to give an objective reference point regarding strategies that have been developed to combat the problem that everyone in the software industry (whether their products are "pure" software or are content based) faces: piracy. My hope was to avoid upsetting anyone, on the contrary, my aim was to make the discussion as objective as I could.

For the record, I continue to use the one Horizon library for which I purchased a license - the solo string library - before I purchased licenses for the VI libraries - - including the VI Solo String Library. I continue to find this Horizon series library useful - - so, I have absolutely no personal stake in any argument about donations. However as well as being a composer I am a teacher - - so I may have both the insights and prejudices of someone who has trained many young composers and worked, for many years, in higher education.

I remain immensely grateful to VSL for providing musicians (including me) with an extraordinarily powerful musical instrument. I hope you will see that what I have written is founded on good will and appreciation of VSL's work. (I also haven't forgotten that you, personally, helped me out on a weekend when I had difficulty downloading licenses for the VI libraries - - thanks again for that.)

Stephen

Stevesong:
I have to admit you have interesting points.

But one thing that bothers me is this:

@Another User said:

Having identified the fact that, at least in developed countries, the largest group of perpetrators are young people and students - - a great majority of whom do not engage in theft in ways other than using pirated software, music or video - - companies have developed a strategy of offering full versions of their software to educational institutions and/or students in “educational,” “student” or “student/teacher” editions (the last in recognition of the fact that in some countries, such as the United States, teachers often have quite moderate salaries.) whose price is a fraction of the course of the normal retail price. (E.g. The normal retail price AutoDesk’s AutoCAD is $4,695, while the “student edition” of the same is $159.95 - - while upgrading the “student edition” to the “commercial edition” is $3599.95; the normal retail price (pre-order) for Adobe’s CS 3 Master Collection is $2474, the “student edition” of the same is $989.95. Not all companies offer such large discounts. For example the current price of the EWQLSO Platinum bundle is $2995 while the educational version of the same is $2790).

This sends the wrong message. The ONLY way to defeat piracy is by a direct and strong attack, not by avoiding it. I don´t see why schools or manufacturers would make a bad reputation for ¨being anti'piracy¨cops.

Any school-university will not tolerate certain conducts, such as sexual harassment, cheating on tests, bribing, etc. Why can they not incorporate a strong anty-piracy policy as well? I mean, students must learn why piracy is wrong, and how it affects R&D, and the whole industry in general.

Sorry for this extreme example, but wouldn´t offering software or libraries to students with a special disccount in order to avoid piracy be like a father giving drugs to his kids in order to avoid the kid to go and get them on the street by himself?
I don't think that's the solution.

I am saying this with all due respect to you. It's obvious your intentions are good.
It's just too bad students tend to be smart-asses sometimes.