Piracy and its effects

[Today]

They aren't selling The Software
They're selling you the right to use it on one machine.

Next time you build enough freeware to prove you're competent, attract enough investors to pay yourself a living wage, while spending your time going to work every day coding a piece of software that does something remarkable, and someone tells you "i wasn't gonna buy it anyway, so why shouldn't i crack it" let's see what you think about it then.

if you can't afford high quality plugins, they don't want you to have them. And why should you... what did you do to earn professional software? you're no better than the little shits bitching about santa not dropping a range rover made out of ipads in their lap. If there's nothing protecting them from little shit head kids fucking them in the ass and stealing their work, they'll get different jobs, stop coding plugins entirely, and then you can have nothing.

[VirtualMark]

They aren't selling The Software
They're selling you the right to use it on one machine.

Next time you build enough freeware to prove you're competent, attract enough investors to pay yourself a living wage, while spending your time going to work every day coding a piece of software that does something remarkable, and someone tells you "i wasn't gonna buy it anyway, so why shouldn't i crack it" let's see what you think about it then.

if you can't afford high quality plugins, they don't want you to have them. And why should you... what did you do to earn professional software? you're no better than the little shits bitching about santa not dropping a range rover made out of ipads in their lap. If there's nothing protecting them from little shit head kids fucking them in the ass and stealing their work, they'll get different jobs, stop coding plugins entirely, and then you can have nothing.

boo fucking hoo. tell me something, when was the last time you went more than a day without food? when was the last time you slept on the streets? we all live a rich life in the western world. some people have real problems, yet we all turn a blind eye to that. theres not one of us that deserves to have the life we have over anyone else in the third world. we're lucky enough to be able to afford nice computers and tv's, yet all people care about is more money, more money.

plus, you all complain about stealing music. have you used samples in your music? ever used the amen break for example? did you post the winstons some money? i doubt it. if you do use samples then you're hypocritical, as its the same as piracy. i couldn't care less either way, just pointing out that anti-pirates don't always have the moral high ground.

and with music, people claim to be doing it for the love of music... so surely they'd love the idea of someone else enjoying their tunes? i know i would. but its always about the money, thats all people really care about.

and you failed to point out the difference between freeware and cracked plugins. how does this affect the developer differently? i doubt you could point anything out, as you're clearly a moron who likes to resort to calling people shits who disagree with your narrow minded viewpoint.

[Today]

what the hell does being poor, starving, or third world civilizations have to do with this?

The difference between freeware and cracks, is that the people who built freeware wanted it to be free.
You clearly have never been in a position where you needed your work to earn you money. It's called compensation, and its what you get when you do whats known as a job.

the sampling=piracy argument has too many grey areas. obviously sometimes it is.
But if you download music illegally, you obviously never had a release of your own for sale. you wouldn't know what it feels like. You want people to love your music, but not all of it was made for free download. When you've worked hard enough, and highly value something that you created, maybe your intent isn't for anyone to have it free of charge. if you want to charge money for a master recording of your property, you have that right. Sidestepping the barriers is violating that person's right

it's about choice. And you're taking the choice away from the owner

[Today]

i doubt you could point anything out, as you're clearly a moron who likes to resort to calling people shits who disagree with your narrow minded viewpoint.

If freeware gets downloaded for free, the developer isn't going to get upset and quit their job. keep cracking Massive, and NI will stop releasing software, pull tech support, pull upgrades, and tell the world to fuck off while they get a new job building custom digital studios only for major record studios, with proprietary hardware that you can't get, and nothing else will run the software.

you're clearly the one resorting to name calling, since your emotions are getting the best of you as you try to justify illegally alienating people's rights to their own property.

[AllNightDayDream]

So every time you pirate a song instead of pay for it, you are consuming a product for free and not paying all of these people for their work while consuming their work.

Make sense to you now?

When you follow that line of logic, you have to admit that when I stream songs on soundcloud, youtube, etc. i'm consuming it just the same as if I played it from my hard drive. People don't pay for little zeros and ones, they're paying for the listening experience. Therefore everytime sometime listens to a song when they haven't paid for it, they are "robbing revenue". The entire use of the internet would be criminal since a large portion of what we do on the internet is use of property that isn't ours for free. You can't apply the same ideas of property on digital data. I haven't been arguing anything about the effect itself, but it is not theft. The same way if I buy an apple from a farmer, grow an apple tree, and then give all my apples away for free, no one is stealing anything from the farmer. Could he lose sales? Maybe, but it's not theft either way.

I'm not arguing that it's ok not to pay for your music, of course you should pay for your music. But you're making huge assumptions: People who download music don't ever pay for it, and that if someone wasn't able to download a song, they would buy it. It's empirically false and it's used to fuel the large record companies propaganda.

[VirtualMark]

what the hell does being poor, starving, or third world civilizations have to do with this?

i'm just saying that theres people with much bigger problems than losing a few quid from piracy. theres people dying every day, yet nobody does a thing. so much injustice, am i really supposed to feel sorry for a successful artist that loses a few sales? in my opinion, having anything more than you need is just greed.

The difference between freeware and cracks, is that the people who built freeware wanted it to be free.
You clearly have never been in a position where you needed your work to earn you money. It's called compensation, and its what you get when you do whats known as a job.

no, my money grows on trees, i've never had to work.

yes people deserve compensation. i'm pretty sure that most successful producers are compensated. and if they're not successful, then they're just not good enough and need to either work harder or give it up.

the sampling=piracy argument has too many grey areas. obviously sometimes it is.
But if you download music illegally, you obviously never had a release of your own for sale. you wouldn't know what it feels like. You want people to love your music, but not all of it was made for free download. When you've worked hard enough, and highly value something that you created, maybe your intent isn't for anyone to have it free of charge. if you want to charge money for a master recording of your property, you have that right. Sidestepping the barriers is violating that person's right

it's about choice. And you're taking the choice away from the owner

i wouldn't care less about people downloading my stuff, as long as my name appeared on the track. i'd be recognised as the creator, thats all i'd care about. i think its a mistake to get into music for the money, i'm personally chasing making good tunes and being able to play them to people. if i'm ever good enough the money will follow. and so will a lot of purchases of studio equipment.

to be honest, as i said before, i don't see piracy as a problem. its only a problem for amateur producers and greedy people. i'm in the amateur producer category - i doubt i could sell my tunes as they're not good enough. am i going to moan about it? no way. i'll get better and then when i'm really good i might make some money.

lets face it, making music for a living is a privilege. there just isn't enough room for everyone to be making money, so its reserved for the best in the world. the rest of us have to try to get better. aim for making great music instead of worrying about the internet killing off music sales. years back the film industry didn't want vhs recorders to be released to the public, as they could be used to pirate movies. but just think how much money they then made from rentals! every cloud has a silver lining, we just need to find it.

[VirtualMark]

i doubt you could point anything out, as you're clearly a moron who likes to resort to calling people shits who disagree with your narrow minded viewpoint.

If freeware gets downloaded for free, the developer isn't going to get upset and quit their job. keep cracking Massive, and NI will stop releasing software, pull tech support, pull upgrades, and tell the world to fuck off while they get a new job building custom digital studios only for major record studios, with proprietary hardware that you can't get, and nothing else will run the software.

thats a fair point. i do intend to buy my favourite plugins and support the developers. i'll probably delete the ones i don't like or use. for now i'm still trying everything out and seeing whats what. i hardly get a chance to use all the stuff i've downloaded anyhow as i made the noob mistake of thinking that i needed the best vst's to make a good sound, and literally downloaded everything i could find. i now know that deep knowledge of just a handful of products is loads more valuable than not knowing tons of products.

you're clearly the one resorting to name calling, since your emotions are getting the best of you as you try to justify illegally alienating people's rights to their own property.

no, you started the name calling. this is obvious from the chronological order of the above posts.

anyhow, whats to say that your music is your property? once someone else hears a tune, they know the tune. its not like you can take it back. i'm sorry but i just don't see non physical things as 'property'. if someone else listens to your music for free, how does it harm you? if someone else takes your food, that harms you. but music? its just a pattern of sound waves sent out into the air, or a stream of data. all we're doing is copying that data and replaying it. i think everyone should have the right to hear what they want, and information should be free. unfortunately society doesn't work like that, and people who want to improve their knowledge to make something of themselves usually end up in tons of debt from tuition fees. i won't ever agree with this, and think its one of the biggest problems of this world. although the internet is probably the biggest solution, as i now have access to almost unlimited information.

[Turnipish_Thoughts]

Virtual mark. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Don't think my comments on 'the law' were coming from some naive laws=morals perspective because that wasn't what i was trying to say. I meant that the law is in general what societies base some levels of a moral code on. 300 years or so ago we burnt 'witches' at the stake for carrying out alternative medicines and everyone thought that was ok. I simply mean that in some respects the law is what people on the whole have decided is unfair in regard to the many different elements of a society functioning as one. Of course its also always been a way for the establishment to orchestrate social control over the masses and force people into difficult situations. I mean dam, look at monetary-ism, its a huge system of modern slavery.

So these days, people are generally going to see things in line with certain aspects of the law as more moral than things that are not. Which is down to views from different political perspectives (conservative vs socialist). I'm personally very much a socialist and believe money should be replaced with a relative worth type of exchange system. The whole thing with pirating is down to a situational thing. Sometimes its morally ok to do so, sometimes it isn't. and people draw the line at different degrees. It doesn't mean that any one person is 'wrong' though.

For me i base the morality of it (and i do pirate things sometimes) on who or what it will effect and in which way. I don't want to knock someone out of hard earned money, which translates into paying bills and putting food on the table. I'll only pirate something if i know I'm gonna be 'not' paying a huge company that rapes too much money in the first place.

I pirated Cubase back in the day, for example, and I'll download blockbuster type films, but less known 'art house' films I'll go and buy or rent. same with music, I don't mind downloading a tune from a huge multinational recording company, but an indi producer/band, i'll give them the basic respect of paying for the privilege of experiencing their work, because thats the system we live in as a society, a monetary system where we exchange things for their worth in money so they can then go and use that money to exchange someone elses work for what 'they' need. With software that i think comes from a decent company I'll pay for, I payed for Reaper and I buy CM every month even though I could easily download the PDF and DVD for free. Its down to a moral thing at the end of the day. If you have the 'option' to pirate things, it becomes a moral question.

i guess its what you feel is ok/moral on a personal level, which depends on how you see the world works, no one is right, no one is wrong. meh.

[VirtualMark]

Turnipish Thoughts - to be honest mate, your arguments are the most convincing. I agree that money is a necessary evil, and we definitely need laws. Don't kill, don't steal etc are vital to protect the weak and vulnerable. I just have a problem with the way new laws are made up seemingly everytime politicians decide they need more money.

My moral viewpoint is that if it isn't harming anyone then its ok. Now if i listen to someones tunes, i'm not doing them any harm. And i believe that by playing them i'm actually doing them a favour, as sometimes my friends will ask who the artist is.

Just out of interest, which would you prefer? To sell a tune to one person? Or give it away for free to 10 people? Personally i'd rather give it away to 10 just so i can get my name out there. I think this really should be every new producers focus. By charging for it, they're essentially limiting their audience and maybe their growth.

i agree with you about having a line. My line is that i wouldn't make money from someone elses work. You wouldn't find me selling pirate dvd's or using cracked vst's when i'm selling music. but for now i'm a nobody just wanting to learn as much as possible. like you said, its an investment, i'll definitely buy a lot of products if my career is in music.

[Today]

i might as well just come out and say I'm a professional composer.
There are a lot of markets for media and a lot of ways people screw other people with it because of the nature of digital media
so i have a personal stake and thats why i'm sensitive about it
No one owns the idea or memory of a musical passage
but you can bet ur ass i own the rights to my master recordings.
Not even owning the physical masters protects me anymore -- a digital copy is identical to my own and anyone can have custody over it.
I own the right to broadcast or otherwise publish that master recording, and i own the rights to the composition/lyrics, so if someone else makes their own master i'm still protected.
But only when the surrounding industries aren't full of thieves.
Its the same relationship i have with software developers, sample libraries, etc. so i feel protective of them as well

We wont see eye to eye until the day comes you're making a living producing digital media..
And when you see that idealistic views about music being free and wonderful because its art, just aren't the views of everyone
We operate within economies, societies where shit costs money. there isn't some private elite group of pro musicians who throw their heads back laughing at the rest of us while pouring champagne all over mixing consoles
tens of thousands of us do small jobs and work our asses off all day every day, to afford a halfway decent lifestyle and legitimately purchase the equipment we need to continue working

We're from different planets basically, and we aren't ever going to agree.

[VirtualMark]

i might as well just come out and say I'm a professional composer.
There are a lot of markets for media and a lot of ways people screw other people with it because of the nature of digital media
so i have a personal stake and thats why i'm sensitive about it
No one owns the idea or memory of a musical passage
but you can bet ur ass i own the rights to my master recordings.
Not even owning the physical masters protects me anymore -- a digital copy is identical to my own and anyone can have custody over it.
I own the right to broadcast or otherwise publish that master recording, and i own the rights to the composition/lyrics, so if someone else makes their own master i'm still protected.
But only when the surrounding industries aren't full of thieves.
Its the same relationship i have with software developers, sample libraries, etc. so i feel protective of them as well

We wont see eye to eye until the day comes you're making a living producing digital media..
And when you see that idealistic views about music being free and wonderful because its art, just aren't the views of everyone
We operate within economies, societies where shit costs money. there isn't some private elite group of pro musicians who throw their heads back laughing at the rest of us while pouring champagne all over mixing consoles
tens of thousands of us do small jobs and work our asses off all day every day, to afford a halfway decent lifestyle and legitimately purchase the equipment we need to continue working

We're from different planets basically, and we aren't ever going to agree.

so do you compose and sell your tunes to the public? or do you do it for tv or radio or something like that? i'd have thought that if its for the latter, you'd get contracted to do a job and paid at the end of it?

but if you're selling stuff to the public, do you get a lot from the actual sale of tunes? or do you play live?

the internet hasn't just affected the creative industry, it turned the whole world upside down. previously booming industries like newspapers are now dying. its not a bad thing, it just means everyone has to adapt. the simple fact is that if you release a tune, you lose control over it. kind of like dropping a bit of ink into the ocean - you're never going to get it back and it'll spread out over the world. you'll still get paid, and more importantly recognized. i'd say that piracy is just going to be something we all have to put up with and write off as an acceptable loss. the other option is to get all upset about it, which isn't going to do any good as its pretty much impossible to stop.

[dubdisciple]

One of the reasons that these discussions never seem to remain civil is because it always seems to drown in semantics and red herrings being thrown. Piracy is a complicated issue due to the fact that morality is a very subjective thing that does not always coincide with legal definitions. Even the courts have shifted dramatically over the past few decades in regards to intellectual property. When the basic intellectual property laws were designed, nobody had a clue that we would live in a world where near flawless duplication that did not involve raw materials would be possible and worldwide. if one wanted a copy of the Mona Lisa, one wanted to duplicate the great pyramids, one had to find capable architects, loads of slaves and lots of money and land. i think a lot of these arguments would go smoother if we stop trying to compare apples to oranges. Downloading a song, movie, software is not the same as stealing a physical object. It can be argued that is is just as wrong and is no doubt stealing, but to say it is the exact same thing is not accurate. getting caught up in semantics battles leads nowhere because the two sides never quite agree what they are debating, let alone move forward with it.

I don't steal cars. I don't steal software. I don't steal music. In general, I simply try not to steal (and for any smartass that says "how can you try not to steal", i once paid for software only to discover it was a very clever counterfeit). In the past, I have. I recall my mindset back ion those days and I strongly disagree with it now. My decisions to pay for my products came for a deep seeded desire to do the right thing for my own piece of mind and not due to some misguided notion that i am somehow hurting software companies. Piracy has become the white whale for industries that are struggling to adapt old world sales models and expectations to a more saavy and connected consumer. For me , it is simple math. The idea of counting sales of people who are not likely to purchase your software as "losses" is absurd and akin to division by zero in math. When I used to download software and music, i downloaded stuff because "I could" and am 100% certain that those company's were not going to get a cent of my money. it was kind of how one will often accept a free sample of some product in a grocery that you had no interest in but consumed because it was free. Every now and then taste something you like enough to buy, but most of the time you walk out never thinking about the product again. Anyway, my point is that the only thing a company has lost when someone pirates a digital product is principle based and certainly not a direct financial one. Again, this does not make piracy right by any means, but let's be clear about what we are debating; principle. If Company A sold 300 of a product in 2011, that number is exactly the same whether people pirated it or not. The only money the company has actually lost is the money they blew in trying to prevent piracy.

Ironically, it was my admission to pirating a product that led me to being legal. I was having an email convo with a rep from a popular company who I admitted to that i was using their product illegally. He said he realizes a lot of people do and that they used to waste tons of money to try and stop it only to have those efforts inconvenience customers and have no effect on pirates. They also realized that they were trying to stop something that did not affect sales one way or the other. They stripped their copy protection other than serial number and focused more on making their product more appealing to purchase. He offered me a great price and i became a loyal customer. Eventually i dumped all of my illegal software and focused on learning to use the stuff i paid for better.

i think a lot of people forget that intellectual property laws have in some ways created criminality of things that were once not considered so. i grew up with it being perfectly legal to record music off the radio or programs from television. The music and tv industry did not like it, yet their profits went through the roof. The extra exposure only boosted their sales. Now we live in a world where people try to trademark basic english words and phrases and even proper names. Companies should spend more time and money focusing on "Why is my product not selling?" rather than harping on the idea that spending more money and energy on stopping non-customers will gain them more customers. Itunes did more harm to album sales than any pirate ever did. The music business model in the 80's and 90's was to put out a hot single and then get a full album in the store while that hit was still hot enough to get people to pay $15 for 10 tracks of filler. Kids today buy the hit on itunes and are less apt to buy the album because the album typically sucks. Pirates download albums, delete the crap tracks. In any case the album didn't sell because odds are the album did not deserve to sell. With dance music, outside of the occsasional dance craze gone pop like disco did and the crossover artist, most dance music is enjoyed in clubs. Album sales of dance music were weak in comparison to pop long before pirates. The perception has often been that it's music by dj's being sold to other dj's to fill up clubs. BTW, i am reffering to US market. Dance music fares much better in other areas. Anyway, i will sum up that no matter how you slice it, stealing is wrong, but it is certainly not the cause of declining sales.

[cmgoodman1226]

One of the reasons that these discussions never seem to remain civil is because it always seems to drown in semantics and red herrings being thrown. Piracy is a complicated issue due to the fact that morality is a very subjective thing that does not always coincide with legal definitions. Even the courts have shifted dramatically over the past few decades in regards to intellectual property. When the basic intellectual property laws were designed, nobody had a clue that we would live in a world where near flawless duplication that did not involve raw materials would be possible and worldwide. if one wanted a copy of the Mona Lisa, one wanted to duplicate the great pyramids, one had to find capable architects, loads of slaves and lots of money and land. i think a lot of these arguments would go smoother if we stop trying to compare apples to oranges. Downloading a song, movie, software is not the same as stealing a physical object. It can be argued that is is just as wrong and is no doubt stealing, but to say it is the exact same thing is not accurate. getting caught up in semantics battles leads nowhere because the two sides never quite agree what they are debating, let alone move forward with it.

I don't steal cars. I don't steal software. I don't steal music. In general, I simply try not to steal (and for any smartass that says "how can you try not to steal", i once paid for software only to discover it was a very clever counterfeit). In the past, I have. I recall my mindset back ion those days and I strongly disagree with it now. My decisions to pay for my products came for a deep seeded desire to do the right thing for my own piece of mind and not due to some misguided notion that i am somehow hurting software companies. Piracy has become the white whale for industries that are struggling to adapt old world sales models and expectations to a more saavy and connected consumer. For me , it is simple math. The idea of counting sales of people who are not likely to purchase your software as "losses" is absurd and akin to division by zero in math. When I used to download software and music, i downloaded stuff because "I could" and am 100% certain that those company's were not going to get a cent of my money. it was kind of how one will often accept a free sample of some product in a grocery that you had no interest in but consumed because it was free. Every now and then taste something you like enough to buy, but most of the time you walk out never thinking about the product again. Anyway, my point is that the only thing a company has lost when someone pirates a digital product is principle based and certainly not a direct financial one. Again, this does not make piracy right by any means, but let's be clear about what we are debating; principle. If Company A sold 300 of a product in 2011, that number is exactly the same whether people pirated it or not. The only money the company has actually lost is the money they blew in trying to prevent piracy.

Ironically, it was my admission to pirating a product that led me to being legal. I was having an email convo with a rep from a popular company who I admitted to that i was using their product illegally. He said he realizes a lot of people do and that they used to waste tons of money to try and stop it only to have those efforts inconvenience customers and have no effect on pirates. They also realized that they were trying to stop something that did not affect sales one way or the other. They stripped their copy protection other than serial number and focused more on making their product more appealing to purchase. He offered me a great price and i became a loyal customer. Eventually i dumped all of my illegal software and focused on learning to use the stuff i paid for better.

i think a lot of people forget that intellectual property laws have in some ways created criminality of things that were once not considered so. i grew up with it being perfectly legal to record music off the radio or programs from television. The music and tv industry did not like it, yet their profits went through the roof. The extra exposure only boosted their sales. Now we live in a world where people try to trademark basic english words and phrases and even proper names. Companies should spend more time and money focusing on "Why is my product not selling?" rather than harping on the idea that spending more money and energy on stopping non-customers will gain them more customers. Itunes did more harm to album sales than any pirate ever did. The music business model in the 80's and 90's was to put out a hot single and then get a full album in the store while that hit was still hot enough to get people to pay $15 for 10 tracks of filler. Kids today buy the hit on itunes and are less apt to buy the album because the album typically sucks. Pirates download albums, delete the crap tracks. In any case the album didn't sell because odds are the album did not deserve to sell. With dance music, outside of the occsasional dance craze gone pop like disco did and the crossover artist, most dance music is enjoyed in clubs. Album sales of dance music were weak in comparison to pop long before pirates. The perception has often been that it's music by dj's being sold to other dj's to fill up clubs. BTW, i am reffering to US market. Dance music fares much better in other areas. Anyway, i will sum up that no matter how you slice it, stealing is wrong, but it is certainly not the cause of declining sales.

What he said.

[AllNightDayDream]

One of the reasons that these discussions never seem to remain civil is because it always seems to drown in semantics and red herrings being thrown.

I think it's more the fact that people make assumptions about both sides. Pro-pirates are all ungrateful freeloaders who don't want to pay for shit or compensate anyone for their work, and the anti-pirates are record label drones who think every tune is an opportunity to squeeze as much cash from people as possible.

I don't care about morality, I think it's one of those words that doesn't mean anything. We already live in a world of file sharing and the industry is booming in many ways. The huge losses large music holding companies report are not due to piracy, but Apple and the advent of the MP3 player, and consequently compressed files being the preferred medium of music consumers. A quick glance at album vs. single sales tells the story:



You're careful not to call piracy positive in absolutely any light, but there are empirical studies that have exposed positive effects. David Blackburn of Harvard is the prime example:


As much as the bottom 75% of artists (by popularity) see a boost in their sales when their music is pirated. It is VERY complicated, as you say. That's why these false notions that piracy is theft need to be done away with because only when you can objectively view this phenomenon as the mixed bag that it is can we gain a better understanding of what our industry and our copyright law should look like.

[dubdisciple]

very compelling. I know it was very common for the record label people to leak songs to mixtape djs because the buzz actually generated more sales despite the fact that they wopuld publicly complain about them.

[grooki]

epic discussion is epic

[Gryphonyx]

it should also be worth a mention that the majority of the larger names that do the free/pay what you want for our material can get away with it, because they already have a strong built up fanbase, can fall back on touring and merchandising, and more than likely have a bunch of cash already saved up and invested from the old model before the digital age made a dent in their pockets.
basically this model works well for larger more established acts and not so much for the indie labels or newcomers.

not strictly speaking true, I knew a guy who had a small fanbase (~400 likes on Facebook, ~200 followers on sound cloud) who used bandcamp name your price to release his first EP. Tbh I slapped $0 in without a second thought, because i don't have an account / credit card etc. Having said that i later gave £4 to my mate who has an account and he re downloaded the ep but paid for it to say thankyou

[Crimsonghost]

What's with all these old threds getting necroed?

[Gryphonyx]

What's with all these old threds getting necroed?

oh, I was just scrolling through futures untold's post (stalker not much) because he wrote a really good guide on production and stuff so I wondered what else he had to say

[bassbum]

I have contradictory feelings about this. I don't think miss multi millionaire pop start has a right to complain about people stealing her music. I do feel though that people in the underground should get money for there music. It's the backbone of music and where all the new fresh sounds and ideas are coming from. So I feel if artists in the underground can at least make a living out of it then we are doing something right.

As a artist it would be nice to make money from my music. If so 16 year old kid though wants to download my album from free because he really likes it then so be it. £10 for a CD can be a lot of money when you are broke/young.

Thing is I know not all my ideas can work together in some kind of working economy.