While this litigation was tabled in the United States, it’s worth considering the repercussions if you happen to be hiding a few illegitimate plug-ins amongst your DAW processing arsenal. Two recent cases highlight Waves’s right to protect its software products from illegal ‘cracking’ and use.
During May, Waves Audio, the company that makes all those plug-ins we like to use, won a lawsuit and had a defendant admit liability in another regarding intellectual property infringements and the illegal use of Waves software. The two studios were New York City-based Skyline Recording Studios, and Quad Recording Studios.
The following statements were issued:
“This is a tremendous victory for the studio recording industry and Waves in particular,” said Waves’s lawyer, Mr. Guy H. Weiss, of the international business law firm Adorno & Yoss. “The Courts are serious about protecting the rights of copyright holders, whether they are singers and musicians, or the software companies that allow the recording industry to mix and record their music,” Mr. Weiss explained. “In the Skyline case, the jury found Waves had valid copyrights and that the defendant infringed on those copyrights. The law is clear: A recording studio is responsible for the copyright infringement committed by its employees, independent contractors or customers.”
Accordingly, James C. Francis, IV, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern Federal District Court of New York, instructed the Jury, “[a] person is liable for copyright infringement by another if the person has a financial interest and the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity, whether or not the person knew of the infringement.”
Weiss continued, “Thus, Skyline could not rely on the defence that it did not know that its employees, engineers or customers were using cracked software.
It had an absolute duty to stop the copyright infringement committed in its studios. In the Quad Studios case, the defendant admitted liability. At settlement, Quad’s owner committed to run a 100 percent crack-free studio in the future.
“The judgments obtained in these two court cases should send a targeted message to all users of illegal software that Waves is very serious about defending its rights and will continue to fight against the use of cracked software,” stated Gilad Keren, CEO of Waves. “In the long-term, illegal software does not benefit anyone, as it hurts not just Waves, but all developers and manufacturers of software products including their distributors, retail partners and of course, loyal customers who have purchased legitimate versions of the product. We consider a lawsuit the very last resort, but unfortunately it is a course of action that can protect our intellectual property and ensure that we can continue to develop and bring to market the right tools for the recording, broadcast and post-production industries.”
‘nuff said.
We’re keen to hear your comments regarding software copyright infringement, so please feel free to add your opinion below…
Comments
When you charge $10,000 for a frickin’ plugin pack, you can’t really complain when people crack your software… you’re pretty much asking for it to happen.
Agreed. While I value the protection of copyright for the good of the industry, Waves really does need to reconsider the cost of its product. No doubt there has been significant R&D work to produce their high quality products- a cost which they need to recover before making a profit… but now they just charge for their status and brand name- and that’s just greedy.
Software developers take note- the App Store is the way of the future- just a a few $$ for increasingly good products- bought by the masses is how software should be sold. This is the only way to kill piracy. People are happy to pay a FAIR price for product.
I have to agree with SB and DR. I went to purchase 4 plugins and it was more than double my DAW software! And none of these were bundled together. Some of the Waves tools are over 10 years old now and being sold for MORE than when they were released back in the 90′s. Waves should ditch it’s silly dongle thing and just release Mercury for $1500, 20 x their legit user base and I’m sure most of us would add it to our shelves. I’ve since found alternatives for my requirements that are almost on par for a fraction of the price.
it’s only 1′s and 0′s
make it affordable and we’ll pay
I am very glad that they won the lawsuit, and I hope their lawyers (and others) smell blood-money and start chasing every cracked plug-in they can find and sue HARD!!!
I dislike Waves and their products immensely; I moved away from them some time ago and it’ll be a cold day in hell’s studio before any of my audio passes through a Waves plug-in again. Their plug-ins always add the same thin and harsh sound to everything that passes through them and are extremely over-rated, imho. I also dislike Waves’ philosophies regarding bundling stuff together. Finally, I hate their pricing and upgrade policies – they’ve been taking the piss out of the audio industry for many years now. BUT… that’s no justification for stealing. If you can’t afford it, you can’t have it. Simple.
As owners of intellectual property, Waves have a right to defend themselves from theft. Perhaps their prices are too high, but that doesn’t change the reality of the law. And it doesn’t justify stealing from them on the grounds that someone thinks they are charging too much.
You know, I’d really like a Ferrari. Based on my miniscule knowledge of the costs involved to design, prototype, test, manufacture, market, ship, sell and support a great sports car, I reckon Ferrari are charging way too much. Therefore, I’m going to steal one instead. That’ll be okay, won’t it?
The nice thing about bits (1s and 0s) is that they take the atoms out of the equation, and atoms are hopelessly expensive (in comparison) to create, ship and store – so bits have the potential to be cheaper. But this isn’t about whether it’s bits or atoms, it is about the thinking and knowledge that goes into programming a stable plug-in – whether it’s sold as bits or atoms. We should always be prepared to pay for that if we want it…
Greg you have hit the nail on the head!
Intellectual property is being decimated by the belief that production costs are so small, companies must be ripping us off!!! Wrong.
All business’ are set up to make a profit by selling a product. Waves sells software, MacDonald’s
sells burgers, Audi sell cars. The fact remains that theft is theft, and we need to stop this theft.
I am glad Waves have had this decision go in there favor. Perhaps they need to reconsider there pricing policies and how they bundle there software, thats up to them!
Henry Ford use to offer the model-T Ford in any colour you liked, as long as it was black!
he still sold cars!!!
I find that most of the people who justify their criminal actions (stealing) on the grounds that something is too expensive (a Waves plug-in, for example) have *never* created anything that they relied on to make a living. Hence, they have no concept of the learning, research, thinking, experimenting, trial-and-error beta testing and so on that went into producing that little bit of code they downloaded in 10 seconds.
But when they make their first CD and hope that it earns at least enough money to pay for itself and perhaps fund the next one, things become very different.
Intellectual property is intellectual property…
One of the reasons people get involved in the music industry is to make a living doing something they are passionate about. That passion manifests in many different ways: songwriting, performing, sound recording, sound reinforcement, management, promotion, production, etc. That list also includes developing and manufacturing tools for making music, which includes musical instruments, sound equipment and, of course, software. Most of the people developing audio plug-ins are as passionate about sound and/or music as anyone else in the music industry, and their contributions have become absolutely fundamental parts of the recording process. In fact, there are entire genres of popular music that are 100% reliant on it…
I have met software developers who are as passionate and enthusiastic as any musician I’ve ever met, some moreso. Most of them are musicians, but their real talent lies in writing code, not notes – so they focus their energies and talents on making cool tools to help others record music. Despite that, people continue to steal from them…
I would dare any jerk who uses cracked software to walk into the local music store and steal a $250 Stratocaster rip-off on the same grounds that he/she justifies using cracked software – cannot afford it but really wants it. Unlike the cracked software, that rip-off guitar owes its manufacturer nothing in research and development, cost them about $10 in parts and labour, and is probably made by some faceless and passionless employee who is just doing a job. (Remember Chris Holders’ video tour of the Behringer factory?)
Stealing is stealing, and the ramifications and punishments are the same (and should be). But for the stupid, ignorant, greedy and selfish among us, when the thing being stolen exists as bits (a plug-in) instead of atoms (the guitar), the guilt equation changes significantly…
I agree with ownership of intellectual properties etc, and I’m not debating that nor am I pro-piracy, but I definitely think that, as somebody pointed out above, their software would incur far less piracy if their pricing was fairer and closer in tune with what other software companies charge.
Their plugins simply don’t stand out from the [usually much cheaper...] crowd in order to justify the price, yet you don’t see other plugin companies taking studios to court.
Also, historically, taking pirates to court isn’t a particularly effective tactic (for example, thepiratebay.org).
“Henry Ford use to offer the model-T Ford in any colour you liked, as long as it was black!
he still sold cars!!!”
Yes, and the more he sold the cheaper they got….
Universal Audio has the best method…. A dsp card (dongle).
There’s plenty of awesome cheap software if you don’t want to buy waves. It’s a pretty lane excuse. You really can get two of everything for under a grand and never need another plugin – cytomic, psp, ik mutimedia all do amazing stuff for cheap.
This is gonna sound like sour grapes – or even self-righteousness, but trust me, I’m over it… I think
Going back quite a few years ago I made a sizeable investment into music software. My shoulders slumped when I discovered that other colleagues were having the time of their lives producing their tunes with even better software than I owned, yet they hadn’t paid a blinking cent! Their entire DAWs consisted of cracked software.
I contemplated joining the dark side, then the Wise One’s words reminded me, “What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet loses his own soul?”.
Add to that the benefit of sleeping well at night.
But here’s a sticky one. I know of at least one studio where I’ve done freelance work that has a sizeable rack of cracked plugins. When I work there I avoid using the cracked plugins and stick to using the legit plugins in their collection. But if the judge’s gavel fell upon that studio would I be considered guilty by association? Food for thought!
Interesting question, DD. I’m no legal expert, but let’s look at some possibilities…
Your best defence would be to argue that you were not aware that the software was cracked. As a paying client of the studio you assumed you were working with a professional organisation, not criminals, and therefore everything was legitimate and above-board. That defence would crumble if the cracked plug-in displayed a notice when launched or in operation advising it was cracked (as many do).
You *did* benefit from the use of those stolen goods, and that was part of the judge’s ruling, but I am not sure how that would translate to a client… The difference between the client and the studio owners is that the latter have the “right and ability to supervise the infringing activity”. Does the client have such a right? That would be an interesting argument. If information appeared while the plug-in was loading or in use advising that it was cracked, then it might be argued that you were aware of it and therefore had the ability to supervise it being used in your mix (i.e. by refusing or accepting the use of the plug-in). In other words, you were aware of its existence and had the choice of benefitting from it (by using it) or not. Benefitting from stolen goods, perhaps?
Interesting conundrum. Safest bet is to take your business elsewhere…
Are the people who have condemned piracy able to provide proof that EVERY CD and MP3 in their collection is a legitimate copy?