Troublesome Modeler & Software Piracy
by Daniel Kay · in General Discussion · 03/16/2002 (4:52 pm) · 76 replies
Another day, another near-death stress related incident.
You see, there I was, in the middle of a Team Meeting, when suddenly our... rather un-punctual Modeler (Who shall remain anonymous) turned up some 1+1/2 hours late. He had somewhat of an attitude about him and immediately began to set upon the Concept Artist, claiming he was not necessary, as the modeler is skilled in making models straight from his head and "Doesn't need Concept Art".
When things began to cool off a little, the same modeler began to attempt to persuade our excellent Concept Artist to start modelling as well (Which would probably waste good time which could be spent creating his usual standard of excellent artwork). Not only this, but he then began to offer the Concept Artist Pirated Software with which he could create models... it is exactly this modeler's attitude which leads me to the inevitable question - Do most Indy developers see Pirated Software as a way of breaking free from the constraints of an Indy Developer's Budget?
*sighs* Sorry, rant over... I'm just feeling a little stressed after that, and wanted to get it off my chest.
Well, there's one thing to be sure of - Dark Circle Software are in need of a new Modeler! :)
You see, there I was, in the middle of a Team Meeting, when suddenly our... rather un-punctual Modeler (Who shall remain anonymous) turned up some 1+1/2 hours late. He had somewhat of an attitude about him and immediately began to set upon the Concept Artist, claiming he was not necessary, as the modeler is skilled in making models straight from his head and "Doesn't need Concept Art".
When things began to cool off a little, the same modeler began to attempt to persuade our excellent Concept Artist to start modelling as well (Which would probably waste good time which could be spent creating his usual standard of excellent artwork). Not only this, but he then began to offer the Concept Artist Pirated Software with which he could create models... it is exactly this modeler's attitude which leads me to the inevitable question - Do most Indy developers see Pirated Software as a way of breaking free from the constraints of an Indy Developer's Budget?
*sighs* Sorry, rant over... I'm just feeling a little stressed after that, and wanted to get it off my chest.
Well, there's one thing to be sure of - Dark Circle Software are in need of a new Modeler! :)
#62
Here, the songwriter/record company/hangers-on get a royalty payment each time the song is played in much the same way that TV shows have to pay royalties to the song-writers of a song if it's played/performed on their show, each time it is done so.
It may be different in other countries but since Australian law takes so much from both UK and US law, I'd hazard a guess that the same concept applies in those countries too.
Now as for mixed signal's, I don't intend to put copy protection on my stuff and so far never have. I have no problem with warezing of my product which means that now the game industry must be giving mixed signals since I say feel to warez my stuff, yet the industry says not to so I guess it's fine for everyone to warez every product in the industry due to the mixed signals being given out.
[edit]
Left out the phrase "of my product" which kinda set the wrong context without it :)
03/20/2002 (4:30 pm)
Yes Matt, you are incorrect on that assumption..at least in Australia.Here, the songwriter/record company/hangers-on get a royalty payment each time the song is played in much the same way that TV shows have to pay royalties to the song-writers of a song if it's played/performed on their show, each time it is done so.
It may be different in other countries but since Australian law takes so much from both UK and US law, I'd hazard a guess that the same concept applies in those countries too.
Now as for mixed signal's, I don't intend to put copy protection on my stuff and so far never have. I have no problem with warezing of my product which means that now the game industry must be giving mixed signals since I say feel to warez my stuff, yet the industry says not to so I guess it's fine for everyone to warez every product in the industry due to the mixed signals being given out.
[edit]
Left out the phrase "of my product" which kinda set the wrong context without it :)
#63
Hey Matt - an interesting variation to your argument. You can go down to your local game-cafe and play Quake 3 (if lucky enough), or to a friend's house. Sorta like turning on the radio to hear a song. Or renting a video.
It's all a mess. The general answer is, when in doubt, it is more likely that you're violating someone's rights. ;) Heh.
And the way you hear that song on the radio 'for free': advertising. :)
-d
03/20/2002 (6:17 pm)
I've always thought that radio stations pay-per-play. Certainly you hear about a given artist getting paid every time someone plays their song, no matter the variation.Hey Matt - an interesting variation to your argument. You can go down to your local game-cafe and play Quake 3 (if lucky enough), or to a friend's house. Sorta like turning on the radio to hear a song. Or renting a video.
It's all a mess. The general answer is, when in doubt, it is more likely that you're violating someone's rights. ;) Heh.
And the way you hear that song on the radio 'for free': advertising. :)
-d
#64
The same is true in America. This includes radio, internet, televsion, etc. Any broadcast media. There is even a service that tracks this for the artist (which the artist pays to do, companies like BMI do this).
03/20/2002 (6:43 pm)
Quote:Here, the songwriter/record company/hangers-on get a royalty payment each time the song is played in much the same way that TV shows have to pay royalties to the song-writers of a song if it's played/performed on their show, each time it is done so.
The same is true in America. This includes radio, internet, televsion, etc. Any broadcast media. There is even a service that tracks this for the artist (which the artist pays to do, companies like BMI do this).
#65
I want you all to go grab a CD of yours from where ever you keep your CDs. Look around on the CD...inside the liner notes, on the back, on the actual CD itself, for something along the lines of either a circle with a P in it, or "published by." These are the music publishers. BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc. etc., there are plenty of them. Every artist (mainstream at least) has a publisher? What does the publisher do? Well, I'll tell you!
The publisher tracks every time someone plays their published artists songs. I'll use Radiohead as an example, as they are published through EMI. EMI tracks the number of public performances Radiohead's songs get, be it on corporate radio, college radio, MTV, the local cafe, musak, your favorite store, etc. EMI pays Radiohead "performance royalties" for each public performace that they track. How much do they get? I don't know...a few cents probably. But when you add up all the performances they receive, that's a lot of money.
Now, I'll use a local cafe as an example. This local cafe has a pretty hip rock crowd who enjoys Radiohead every now and then, so they decide to play select tracks off of OK Computer and Amnesiac. This would be illegal IF the local cafe has not contacted EMI and asked permission to play Radiohead's music publicly. It's perfectly legal when they receive permission because then they are paying EMI, and EMI is in return paying Radiohead.
So it is pay-per-play when it comes to the radio. There are different groups which track and report plays for different outlets. CMJ (College Music Journal) tracks and publishes college radio plays, the Gavin Report tracks and publishes commercial radio plays...
Summary: Publishers track public performances of their artists and pay them for it. The royalties are split in different ways, sometimes it's 50/50 artist/publisher, sometimes it's 75/25 artist/publisher. Anyone who wishes to legally play an artist's music publicly (be a club, TV, radio, etc.) needs permission from the publisher.
Oh, and while you have your CD out, please take a look at the back of the case or on the CD itself...look for the line that says "All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized Duplication is a Violation of Applicable Laws." You do the math. I'll happy answer any questions anyone has.
03/20/2002 (8:06 pm)
OK, I said I was done with this thread, but so did Matt. As I mentioned before (somewhere in this heap of a pickle of a jam), I studied the music industry for a little while when I was with my other band. So everyone please take a seat, no talking, and spit your gum out if you're chewing it. Professor McLuckie has the floor now.I want you all to go grab a CD of yours from where ever you keep your CDs. Look around on the CD...inside the liner notes, on the back, on the actual CD itself, for something along the lines of either a circle with a P in it, or "published by." These are the music publishers. BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc. etc., there are plenty of them. Every artist (mainstream at least) has a publisher? What does the publisher do? Well, I'll tell you!
The publisher tracks every time someone plays their published artists songs. I'll use Radiohead as an example, as they are published through EMI. EMI tracks the number of public performances Radiohead's songs get, be it on corporate radio, college radio, MTV, the local cafe, musak, your favorite store, etc. EMI pays Radiohead "performance royalties" for each public performace that they track. How much do they get? I don't know...a few cents probably. But when you add up all the performances they receive, that's a lot of money.
Now, I'll use a local cafe as an example. This local cafe has a pretty hip rock crowd who enjoys Radiohead every now and then, so they decide to play select tracks off of OK Computer and Amnesiac. This would be illegal IF the local cafe has not contacted EMI and asked permission to play Radiohead's music publicly. It's perfectly legal when they receive permission because then they are paying EMI, and EMI is in return paying Radiohead.
So it is pay-per-play when it comes to the radio. There are different groups which track and report plays for different outlets. CMJ (College Music Journal) tracks and publishes college radio plays, the Gavin Report tracks and publishes commercial radio plays...
Summary: Publishers track public performances of their artists and pay them for it. The royalties are split in different ways, sometimes it's 50/50 artist/publisher, sometimes it's 75/25 artist/publisher. Anyone who wishes to legally play an artist's music publicly (be a club, TV, radio, etc.) needs permission from the publisher.
Oh, and while you have your CD out, please take a look at the back of the case or on the CD itself...look for the line that says "All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized Duplication is a Violation of Applicable Laws." You do the math. I'll happy answer any questions anyone has.
#68
I'm coming into this a bit late, but here goes :-)
Max is expensive, especially if all you are looking to do is model and texture low poly game characters and vehicles. I doubt that someone producing real-time content would have a use for even a tenth of Max's capabilities.
And that's why it's so expensive. The same package that can be used to produce a 400 poly model for a game can be used to produce whole sequences for feature films, and that's just using the plugins it's shipped with and some of the better freebies off the net.
With each release 3D Studio has gained more and more power, and as it did it began to move into areas previously reserved for the heavy hitters like Alias/Wavefront and Softimage. Max is being used more and more for film and long-form broadcast work, there's even a full length animated sci-fi feature being produced in France totally using Max, and what I've seen of it, it puts the Final Fantasy movie to shame - this is all a BIG motivator behind Maya's recent ear-poppingingly steep price drop. And if the rumours I'm hearing pan out, we'll see Discreet counter that aggresively soon.
But it's still too expensive for what we're doing here. Unless you're doing cutscenes etc, it's like using a chainsaw to prune a banzai bush. I hoped Gmax was going to be the answer to this; a stripped down version of Max that was targetted specifaclly for game developers - then Discreet announced their extortionate pricing scheme for it and shot that dream to hell...
For low poly modelling at least, there is an alternative. I did a search on the resources and forums here and only found two mentions of it: Wings3D is an open source version of Nendo that not only duplicates and extends that program's functionality it far exceeds the poly modelling capabilities of Max. Don't let the gallery fool you, this is one of the best polymodellers around. And it's open source. Nendo itself is only USD$75 and both programs can model as good or better than 3dsmax. This should probably be in the modelling FAQ if it's not already :-)
I''d love to see Wings forked or extended to become a full authoring solution for Torque - just keep the Max tools around for us poor sods who shelled out for it ;-)
click here to see a gallery of some of the best Nendo/Mirai stuff on the net
04/02/2002 (9:15 pm)
@Jeff Tunnell:I'm coming into this a bit late, but here goes :-)
Quote:What if the game development community got together and developed a viable alternative to 3DS Max for low poly work that was open source but required a $50 fee in order to release commercially? Now, this product may only deliver 90% of the functionality of 3DS Max, but it would be enough. And, at some point, new game developers would not even remeber the days of being over charged by Discreet.
3DS Max is too expensive, I don't care how you cut it. I don't condone stealing it. I suggest making it obsolete.
Max is expensive, especially if all you are looking to do is model and texture low poly game characters and vehicles. I doubt that someone producing real-time content would have a use for even a tenth of Max's capabilities.
And that's why it's so expensive. The same package that can be used to produce a 400 poly model for a game can be used to produce whole sequences for feature films, and that's just using the plugins it's shipped with and some of the better freebies off the net.
With each release 3D Studio has gained more and more power, and as it did it began to move into areas previously reserved for the heavy hitters like Alias/Wavefront and Softimage. Max is being used more and more for film and long-form broadcast work, there's even a full length animated sci-fi feature being produced in France totally using Max, and what I've seen of it, it puts the Final Fantasy movie to shame - this is all a BIG motivator behind Maya's recent ear-poppingingly steep price drop. And if the rumours I'm hearing pan out, we'll see Discreet counter that aggresively soon.
But it's still too expensive for what we're doing here. Unless you're doing cutscenes etc, it's like using a chainsaw to prune a banzai bush. I hoped Gmax was going to be the answer to this; a stripped down version of Max that was targetted specifaclly for game developers - then Discreet announced their extortionate pricing scheme for it and shot that dream to hell...
For low poly modelling at least, there is an alternative. I did a search on the resources and forums here and only found two mentions of it: Wings3D is an open source version of Nendo that not only duplicates and extends that program's functionality it far exceeds the poly modelling capabilities of Max. Don't let the gallery fool you, this is one of the best polymodellers around. And it's open source. Nendo itself is only USD$75 and both programs can model as good or better than 3dsmax. This should probably be in the modelling FAQ if it's not already :-)
I''d love to see Wings forked or extended to become a full authoring solution for Torque - just keep the Max tools around for us poor sods who shelled out for it ;-)
click here to see a gallery of some of the best Nendo/Mirai stuff on the net
#69
Me too!!!
Alias|Wavefront have just lowered their prices on MAYA. It's now cheaper than 3DS MAX!!
Did anyone read about implementing your game engine in MAYA - in the latest issue of Game Developer?.....
All software should be free for students
04/09/2002 (8:29 am)
Quote:
I''d love to see Wings forked or extended to become a full authoring solution for Torque - just keep the Max tools around for us poor sods who shelled out for it ;-)
Me too!!!
Alias|Wavefront have just lowered their prices on MAYA. It's now cheaper than 3DS MAX!!
Did anyone read about implementing your game engine in MAYA - in the latest issue of Game Developer?.....
All software should be free for students
#70
I want someone to define "low-Poly" for me. Cause I'm a person who believes that your game only has to look as bad as you let it. Does that mean I can't ahev a 700,000 poly model that compares to a CGI version? Or does it mean the characters have to look like they are off of a Playstation/N64 game?
Now as for 3DS MAX, well I'd have to agree with people who say that it'ss in such high demand because so many popuular games ship with these high end modelers as the only way to import stuff. Like Mirrowind, Quake family, Unreal, Torque...
And now, Id is making Doom 3 using Maya, so are alot of new games...
Now I also have this theory thatprofessionals like high priced software cause it makes them feel big. I mean, Photoshop, pro 3D tools, Visual C++ is a few hundred bucks.Pro music programs, and the list goes on.. Now in this argument, I hear no mention of truespace. Features have always rivaled the big boys. In fac, (I think) it was the first package that stood alone and do Radiosity.
Now if I can pull out a 400K poly character in Milkshape easily (elitivly) then who knows. But I remember a post where Jeff pointed out some flaws in MS3D's design as realtion to torque. And I too had high hopes for gMAX....
Just the industries way of making sure indi developers remain as such.
(We must make sure that they can release another half-life repackage for 30 bucks)
And I will forever morn the loss of Indrema.
P.S.
Okay I do have something to add to the mp3 debate Anytime you get music w/o the makers getting money, it's illegal. I mean, your stealling the very bread from the artist mouth. Without supporting the artists, Jinefer Lopez would have to settle for a $15,000 dress. And Then Ludicris would only be able to by 2 cars today... and they wouldn't be limited edition.
Okay, enough with the sarcasm. I am all for supporting the artist(except Britney spears), but I get mp3s for 2 reasons. A) I listen to Jpop, and if you think $11 is bad for a full CD, try 31+ for a full CD. But also there is so much yped crap, that i don't like. If there is a CD so great that I listen to it all the time, like Linkin Park, I will go out and buy it. Like I went and bought Alicia Keys. I listened to 1 or 2 songs. I sold it to a friend soon after.
Am I saying it's legal and good, no. But the record industry is loosing money, under the assumption that I was going to buy the CD in the first place.... (BTW I love Jpop, and have bought a few CDs of it, but I would have never been exposed to it, if it were not for mp3s)
05/27/2002 (10:38 am)
I'm lat on this too, as it has gone way off subject.. but anywho...I want someone to define "low-Poly" for me. Cause I'm a person who believes that your game only has to look as bad as you let it. Does that mean I can't ahev a 700,000 poly model that compares to a CGI version? Or does it mean the characters have to look like they are off of a Playstation/N64 game?
Now as for 3DS MAX, well I'd have to agree with people who say that it'ss in such high demand because so many popuular games ship with these high end modelers as the only way to import stuff. Like Mirrowind, Quake family, Unreal, Torque...
And now, Id is making Doom 3 using Maya, so are alot of new games...
Now I also have this theory thatprofessionals like high priced software cause it makes them feel big. I mean, Photoshop, pro 3D tools, Visual C++ is a few hundred bucks.Pro music programs, and the list goes on.. Now in this argument, I hear no mention of truespace. Features have always rivaled the big boys. In fac, (I think) it was the first package that stood alone and do Radiosity.
Now if I can pull out a 400K poly character in Milkshape easily (elitivly) then who knows. But I remember a post where Jeff pointed out some flaws in MS3D's design as realtion to torque. And I too had high hopes for gMAX....
Just the industries way of making sure indi developers remain as such.
(We must make sure that they can release another half-life repackage for 30 bucks)
And I will forever morn the loss of Indrema.
P.S.
Okay I do have something to add to the mp3 debate Anytime you get music w/o the makers getting money, it's illegal. I mean, your stealling the very bread from the artist mouth. Without supporting the artists, Jinefer Lopez would have to settle for a $15,000 dress. And Then Ludicris would only be able to by 2 cars today... and they wouldn't be limited edition.
Okay, enough with the sarcasm. I am all for supporting the artist(except Britney spears), but I get mp3s for 2 reasons. A) I listen to Jpop, and if you think $11 is bad for a full CD, try 31+ for a full CD. But also there is so much yped crap, that i don't like. If there is a CD so great that I listen to it all the time, like Linkin Park, I will go out and buy it. Like I went and bought Alicia Keys. I listened to 1 or 2 songs. I sold it to a friend soon after.
Am I saying it's legal and good, no. But the record industry is loosing money, under the assumption that I was going to buy the CD in the first place.... (BTW I love Jpop, and have bought a few CDs of it, but I would have never been exposed to it, if it were not for mp3s)
#71
05/28/2002 (5:46 am)
this is probably the most entertaining thread i've read on GG. ;)
#72
~ Sang
(Note: I have windows XP and because of a c-dilla incompatability issue, I can't pirate 3DS Max [yet...])
(Note #2: The only reason I would consider priating 3DS Max is because I simply wouldn't use it enough to make it worthwhile, all I used Max3 for was making tweaks to models my modelers sent me... aligning things a little bit differently, adding things etc.)
05/28/2002 (6:39 am)
The only reason *some people* (hrrummph...) pirate 3DS Max is because of the reasons listed above... because it simply is the industry standard and there is nothing much better, yet it is so completely overpriced it's rediculous... I can buy the student edition/educational edition, yet I was under the impression that those were not useable to produce for-market products and could only be used for training.~ Sang
(Note: I have windows XP and because of a c-dilla incompatability issue, I can't pirate 3DS Max [yet...])
(Note #2: The only reason I would consider priating 3DS Max is because I simply wouldn't use it enough to make it worthwhile, all I used Max3 for was making tweaks to models my modelers sent me... aligning things a little bit differently, adding things etc.)
#73
the key is the "is a violation of APPLICABLE laws". Most of these "offenses" are covered by what is know as the "Fair Use Copyright Act" which protects not only the artist but the CONSUMERS more importantly.
So the MTHY that ANY coping is BAD is completely wrong.
As a former commerical artist, one of the things I had to be intimately familar with was this law. It was required reading in college and was heavily stressed in the commerical arena in the early 1990's with "sampling" becoming an "art form"
Fair Use Copyright Basics ( simplified for Dummies )
The actual federal code
Copyright law is not as black and white as the RIAA and MPAA wants you to believe, they are attacking OUR rights to LEGALLY copy what we have LICENSED with their destructive and or burdensome protection schemes that do nothing but punish the legal purchasers.
Preventing a consumer from LEGALLY coping a CD to MP3 format for use in a portable or car unit is JUST AS ILLEGAL as anyone that ILLEGALLY copies a work.
So the RIAA and MPAA will reap what they sow eventually.
There are a BUNCH of UN-INFORMED POSTS on this subject, about how is illegal to copy television shows and lots of other stuff, which is 100% TRUE and nothing but FUD and dis-information.
There is NOTHING illegal about you taping ER, evening giving that tape to someone that had the oppotunity to watch it and tape it themselves, it WOULD be illegal to show that tape to an audience and charge for it. So the "act of copying is NOT illegal in of itself", it a particlar form of the ACT of re-distribution of the copy that is subject to "applicaable laws" which means, if there are not "applicable laws" then it is not illegal then either.
Most of this FUD and dis-information is on the part of the RIAA and MPAA. Not a SINGLE boardmember of either group is an actual artist, they are almost exclusively LAWYERS, or from other industries.
Learn about Fair Use, and help correct some of these fallacies that are erroding our rights as consumers.
05/28/2002 (7:01 am)
Quote:Oh, and while you have your CD out, please take a look at the back of the case or on the CD itself...look for the line that says "All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized Duplication is a Violation of Applicable Laws." You do the math. I'll happy answer any questions anyone has.
the key is the "is a violation of APPLICABLE laws". Most of these "offenses" are covered by what is know as the "Fair Use Copyright Act" which protects not only the artist but the CONSUMERS more importantly.
So the MTHY that ANY coping is BAD is completely wrong.
As a former commerical artist, one of the things I had to be intimately familar with was this law. It was required reading in college and was heavily stressed in the commerical arena in the early 1990's with "sampling" becoming an "art form"
Fair Use Copyright Basics ( simplified for Dummies )
The actual federal code
Copyright law is not as black and white as the RIAA and MPAA wants you to believe, they are attacking OUR rights to LEGALLY copy what we have LICENSED with their destructive and or burdensome protection schemes that do nothing but punish the legal purchasers.
Preventing a consumer from LEGALLY coping a CD to MP3 format for use in a portable or car unit is JUST AS ILLEGAL as anyone that ILLEGALLY copies a work.
So the RIAA and MPAA will reap what they sow eventually.
There are a BUNCH of UN-INFORMED POSTS on this subject, about how is illegal to copy television shows and lots of other stuff, which is 100% TRUE and nothing but FUD and dis-information.
There is NOTHING illegal about you taping ER, evening giving that tape to someone that had the oppotunity to watch it and tape it themselves, it WOULD be illegal to show that tape to an audience and charge for it. So the "act of copying is NOT illegal in of itself", it a particlar form of the ACT of re-distribution of the copy that is subject to "applicaable laws" which means, if there are not "applicable laws" then it is not illegal then either.
Most of this FUD and dis-information is on the part of the RIAA and MPAA. Not a SINGLE boardmember of either group is an actual artist, they are almost exclusively LAWYERS, or from other industries.
Learn about Fair Use, and help correct some of these fallacies that are erroding our rights as consumers.
#74
05/28/2002 (7:15 am)
Gah, we buried this subject over a month ago...but here we go again. My argument was never "ANY copying is illegal." It's perfectly legal to make backups of what you have purchased. Yes, purchased. It is not legal, however, to copy a friend's CD without actually purchasing or owning the CD yourself. That goes the same with downloading MP3s, distributing the MP3s, etc. 
#75
The thread is over and done! So lets leave it alone, move on, and get back to work
Logan
05/28/2002 (7:32 am)
Jesus can't this thread die in peace? We all said what needed to be said over a month ago and there is nothing new that anyone else can bring to this discussion but their opinions and feelings on the subject.The thread is over and done! So lets leave it alone, move on, and get back to work
Logan
#76
You wrote:
Preventing a consumer from LEGALLY coping a CD to MP3 format for use in a portable or car unit is JUST AS ILLEGAL as anyone that ILLEGALLY copies a work.
If you read the relevant sections of fair use closely, you'll notice that they specifically state personal copies are not an infraction. At no point does the law state the consumer has a _right_ to make a personal copy.
It is perfectly legal to attempt to prevent consumers from making copies of the material they purchase. Under fair use, you just couldn't sue/arrest if the customer was successful in defeating your protection.
Under the DMCA (admittedly on shaky constiutional ground) it is illegal to circumvent copy protection, even to make a single personal copy.
It's unclear wether DMCA trumps fair use or vice versa... we'll have to see what happens when this makes it to the supreme court.
05/28/2002 (8:13 am)
Jarrod, I just have to mention this. You're spreading some misinformation yourself.You wrote:
Preventing a consumer from LEGALLY coping a CD to MP3 format for use in a portable or car unit is JUST AS ILLEGAL as anyone that ILLEGALLY copies a work.
If you read the relevant sections of fair use closely, you'll notice that they specifically state personal copies are not an infraction. At no point does the law state the consumer has a _right_ to make a personal copy.
It is perfectly legal to attempt to prevent consumers from making copies of the material they purchase. Under fair use, you just couldn't sue/arrest if the customer was successful in defeating your protection.
Under the DMCA (admittedly on shaky constiutional ground) it is illegal to circumvent copy protection, even to make a single personal copy.
It's unclear wether DMCA trumps fair use or vice versa... we'll have to see what happens when this makes it to the supreme court.
Darkness40k
But they only pay a licence to play it, not to GIVE every listener a copy of the song. Its like when you buy Torque, you can give you team an exe, but not the source. The song on the radio is like the game exe, the source is like a copy of the soudn on tape or mp3 (or CD or what ever). Its not a very good example, but quite good.
The only point I am making is this:
How is piracy of warez any different from mp3 piracy?
If you choose to pirate songs, far enough, but you have no moral high ground against warez. So let them have there warez, because you could be sure that if a crack down stopped all warez, it would be able to stop your mp3 pirates too.
You see this is a free market, but the free means you have too pay for everything.