Using cracked versions boosts the street creds of cyber-thieves. Suffice it to say that someone who is smart enough to use a crack, is also smart enough to be unaware of nefarious capabilities included as the 'price of admission', or added later to a compromised system. Most every category of plugin has multiple competing products that are 'good enough' for music, if one's favorite is unavailable. I've heard the ice gets thinner the farther out you go...TBH, their plugins are officially supported on pc and Mac only, so the fact I cannot use them on Linux does not make a valid reason to use a cracked version. On the other side I payed for them, and I am not causing economical loss to them because there's no official Linux version available even with extra cash, so in practice there's no harm...You mention something that I hadn't considered, but seems ethical enough for me--cracked versions. Hear me out--if someone buys a software package, and then finds that the copy protection prevents the user from making it work on Linux, is it really so wrong at that point to grab and use a cracked version--especially if you have a legitimately purchased copy? I know that those who follow the exact wording of the license agreement would totally disagree. But if one were to consider the "spirit" of the law, things may be seen differently. Copy protection is to prevent piracy. It is to enforce that people legitimately purchase a licensed copy of the program. Well, if one has legitimately purchased a licensed copy of the program, and if one never shares that software with another, then that person is in keeping with the spirit of the law--in my opinion, at least. I don't use any wares or cracks at all, and I have legitimately purchased everything that I own that isn't free or open source--but that doesn't stop me from considering these things when stuck in a position such as this...
https://youtu.be/IhvC_80y7cM
Statistics: Posted by glokraw — Sat Oct 12, 2024 3:58 am
