There are some lessons to be learned here:
If you have something of value, it’s only natural for the righful owner to want to protect it.
In the case of Steinberg, they are protecting the value of thier software by using a hardware based anti-piracy deterrant called the elicenser. While many may disagree with the manner in which Steinberg chooses to protect thier intelectual property, it is thier choice nonetheless, just as it is our choice to use Steinberg products or not.
It’s very unfortunate that the original poster experienced a real fire with real damage. And it is somewhat understandable to be upset to hear (at first) that the replacement cost of the Cubase license would require another purchase. In the end Steinberg came through. But the original poster’s comments illustrate a never-ending problem that many music software users (in particualr) have when it comes to how they percieve software.
Here’s something to think about:
If I bought an $500 engagment ring for my girlfriend at a jeweler, left the store with it in hand, and then got mugged walking down the street and had it stolen from me, how could I expect the jeweler to replace the ring at little to no cost to them. In this situation, unexpected and undesirable events took place (fire and mugging) that weren’t the fault of the victim or the supplier (Steinberg and jeweler). We’d understandably be angry at the mugger and feel bad for the victim, but somehow we wouldn’t be very angry at the jeweler for not providing a free or discounted replacement engagement ring.
Why is that?
Is it because there is a general consensus among most people that a diamond ring has monetary value and somehow music software does not?
Is it because you can touch, hold and feel a physical diamond ring, while you can’t physically touch the virtual faders, audio waves or plug-in dials in the Cubase?
Why is it OK to download and use software that wasn’t paid for, but it’s considered wrong to break into a music store and start using a Fender Stratocaster that wasn’t paid for? I use this as an example to illustrate that as long as users of music software continue to perceive intellectual property as having less value than physical property, there will always be users who feel it’s just fine to use pirated software and there will be companies (like Steinberg) that feel it’s completely appropriate to charge a replacement fee for lost or damaged goods.
Now I’m sure many people will say that me comparing an engagement ring to a Cubase 6 license is a bad example and a ridiculous comparison. But is it really? When I go into a jewelry store and see a ring in the display case, does anyone scoff at the jeweler and say “you’re crazy for expecting me to pay you $500 for that ring!” No, you just determine if you can afford it our not, and then buy it or pass on it. Same thing at a music store. If there’s a box of Cubase 6 on the shelf, we don’t scoff at the saleperson and say, “you’re crazy for expecting me to pay you $500 for Cubase!” No, you just determine if you can afford it our not, and then buy it or pass on it.
Something happens when we’re by ourselves, behind closed doors and have a high speed internet connection…
Did you ever notice how when you go into a jewelry store, the items are in a locked display case, there’s an alarm system, usually a security guard, and video cameras watching everyone in the store? All these things are PHYSICAL and VISUAL reminders without any ambiguity, that clearly tell you that the items in the jewelry store have VALUE and the seller is going to protect thier property at all costs.
But somehow when we’re in the private comfort of our homes, we’re all alone and have a high speed internet connection, all of a sudden it becomes totally fine to start downloading software that has market value (at least to some people) without paying anything for it. It’s really ironic that many people will have no problems using pirated music software to make their music, and then get angry when people copy thier finished CD’s or get free MP3 copies of thier albums without compensating the artist.
In the end, it’s all about what you perceive as having real value. And until we can all agree that intellectual property has just as much value as physical property, this hot topic will continue to be one of ongoing disagreement. Just something for us all to think about.