Cockos, Reaper, and Justin Frankel

[Shooshie]

I'm not much for being a fan of anyone except those who show monstrous talents and the humility to use them well without swelling up and exploding with self-importance. I don't know how much of Fanning, Frankel, et all is legend and how much is real vision, but I'm pretty sure it's a mix. But what strikes me about each one is what appears to be genuine humility. That's almost always a sign of someone who either has their head on straight, or who gets their head straightened by real world experience. Again, I'm just learning about these people beyond the obvious contribution each made to changing the digital world. That much is established fact, and we've known it for years. The question remains, however: "do they know something the rest of us only find out later?" I've no vested interest in whether that answer is yes or no, but if it's yes, we'd all be wise to cock an ear their way.

Shooshie

I don't see any of those you cite as being humble. Rather, it's more hubris than anything else. And opening the door for piracy and illegal file sharing especially in the case of Napster.

I'm talking about their current selves. See my post above for why I don't think it matters whether or not we think they were pirates. They performed a function for History. They were facilitators for the outcome we all knew was coming, but which was going to require a force not stoppable by edicts or judgments. They wrote the software that gave the Internet the very power for which it had been touted for over a decade before they came along. They proved that in this case, at least, the Internet (the collective will of the people) was bigger than corporations or governments. I won't repeat my previous post here, but that's it in a nutshell: these guys were facilitators of paradigm shifts, caught between two ages and ultimately responding to a higher moral compass -- for this exact context alone -- than that of ownership or laws of governments. They were Kierkegaard's "Particulars." If all that had come of this was that a bunch of kids stole a lot of music, and that was the end of it, we'd be having a different conversation. But History had other plans.

Shooshie

[James Steele]

Absolutely, and as they live in peace spending their millions-- some of them-- I will continue to view them as reckless profiteers with no regard for the "ecosystem" or what was damaged, in what for them was a quest of selfishness and not a noble bid to change history. Plenty of people change history, but not all would we glorify for doing so. If not for Napster we wouldn't be left with iTunes. iTunes is the silver lining? There are many cases in history where SOMETHING good comes from something being destroyed, but is that consolation prize worth the destruction? Does it absolve the destroyers and imbue them with some sort of nobility?

I maintain that these are individuals who weren't concerned in the slightest with history or changing a model but profiteering. The Gen X of capitalism proving that they are the worst nightmare of those who thought the Boomer capitalists were bereft of morals. They're just clever enough to have tried to cover their tracks after laying waste to industries in their scorched earth strategy by cloaking themselves in some sort of "movement" in the context of history. Considering the damage and that the music industry has been a shadow of it's former self since, I'm not going to go shake any of these guy's hands and thank them for iTunes. They had no intention of that, nor any concern for any one or any thing in pursuit of their own selfish goals. Steve Jobs tried to create something good from the wreckage. Jobs deserves the credit for salvaging something. Yet Apple's motivations were profit driven of course as well. But the people we're discussing get no credit because one little bright spot appeared after their ego-driven selfish pursuits helped screw over so many.

Put me down as a vote for "villains" as far as these individuals. I'm not necessarily lumping Frankel in there, but the first three, absolutely.

[James Steele]

...these guys were facilitators of paradigm shifts, caught between two ages and ultimately responding to a higher moral compass -- for this exact context alone -- than that of ownership or laws of governments.

I guess I'm missing their "higher moral compass." Their higher moral calling was to enrich themselves by attracting venture capital in an era where it was being doled out with abandon. Whether they profited from illegally trading the PRIVATE PROPERTY of others (not government property) mattered not one bit to them. But in our society, money and power ultimately justify the means. Just get across the finish line and you're in the club and all past sins are forgiven.

[n2mpujack]

...these guys were facilitators of paradigm shifts, caught between two ages and ultimately responding to a higher moral compass -- for this exact context alone -- than that of ownership or laws of governments.

I guess I'm missing their "higher moral compass." Their higher moral calling was to enrich themselves by attracting venture capital in an era where it was being doled out with abandon. Whether they profited from illegally trading the PRIVATE PROPERTY of others (not government property) mattered not one bit to them. But in our society, money and power ultimately justify the means. Just get across the finish line and you're in the club and all past sins are forgiven.

You're not the only one missing whatever higher moral compass these 4 miscreants may have. I can't fathom it either, especially Shooshie's acceptance of them. To me, theft is theft, no matter what the end outcome or what is built on that theft. Whatever end does NOT justify the means. It'd be like if the money gotten from Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme built the biggest hospital in the world with free service for all. Nice end but with ill-gotten gains. Robin Hood was nothing more than a common thief.

iTunes would have happened without Napster because of Steve Jobs.

[davedempsey]

I think we will learn something from Frankel and the Reaper project .. something that we already know, so I guess I should modify that to "re-learn" .. and that is : you can't attempt to "buy a market" and expect, thereby, to establish a long term successful business. The client base will never accept as justified any price increase that would render the business profitable and at some time either the money will run out, or the willingness to support the non-profitable enterprise will. At that time all involved in Cockos will be left high and dry and the rest of the industry will be left with whatever remains. I might be wrong and Frankel might just have the sufficient funds (and willingness to loose them) that's required to destroy the very market he wants so much to be part of. Time will tell.

[bongo_x]

I’m not understanding the disparaging of Reaper and Cockos that goes on here by some.

It’s the Free Market, nothing more or less, and they’re playing by those rules.

bb

[James Steele]

I’m not understanding the disparaging of Reaper and Cockos that goes on here by some.

It’s the Free Market, nothing more or less, and they’re playing by those rules.

Let me try and be more clear:

I wouldn't disparage Reaper if Cockos were actually SELLING the app... even at $40, viciously undercutting everyone.

Let me make this clear and put this in straight language:

MY PROBLEM WITH REAPER IS RELEASING IT WITHOUT COPY PROTECTION AND BUILDING MARKET SHARE BY DUMPING PRODUCT, ESSENTIALLY FREE, INTO THAT MARKET, THUS BENEFITTING FROM AN EXPANDED USER BASE BUILT IN SOME PORTION BY PIRACY.

Hopefully, that's clear. I'm not really sure how that fits into the rules of the free market.

[i7user]

Justin Frankel=WinAmp+Gnutella+reaper
PC byproducts....

[bongo_x]

I’m not understanding the disparaging of Reaper and Cockos that goes on here by some.

It’s the Free Market, nothing more or less, and they’re playing by those rules.

Let me try and be more clear:

I wouldn't disparage Reaper if Cockos were actually SELLING the app... even at $40, viciously undercutting everyone.

Let me make this clear and put this in straight language:

MY PROBLEM WITH REAPER IS RELEASING IT WITHOUT COPY PROTECTION AND BUILDING MARKET SHARE BY DUMPING PRODUCT, ESSENTIALLY FREE, INTO THAT MARKET, THUS BENEFITTING FROM AN EXPANDED USER BASE BUILT IN SOME PORTION BY PIRACY.

Hopefully, that's clear. I'm not really sure how that fits into the rules of the free market.

It’s clear why you don’t like it. It’s not at all clear why you don’t think that is part of the Free Market. The rules of the Free Market are basically that there are no rules, you do what you think will work best for you and the market forces will sort things out and assure that the right thing will prevail in the end. If you think that the price of something should be determined by what it costs to produce and make sure everyone gets fairly paid and all customers pay that price, that would be the opposite of a free market. A managed economy of some sort.

What about when Ableton gives away lite versions of Live? There could be a free lite version of Reaper, but how many features would they have to cripple before it became fair? What if Cockos just made Reaper free, like Ardour? What if they had really strict copy protection but charged $5? My point is; how competitive can they get before they are not playing fair? According to pure Free Market principles there is no limit.

I was really annoyed by the way Microsoft took the market in the 90’s with Windows, but they weren’t following the rules, they were forcing people to pay for it by bullying companies. If they had just given Windows away it would be a different story.

I’m not trying to be a smart ass at all, I just think many people are not clear on how markets work, not that I’m any sort of expert. To me your anger should be directed at the state of the economy and the rules we’ve decided to follow, not Cockos, who are playing by those rules. I don’t intend this to be a political argument either, just an economics discussion.

bb

[James Steele]

Look up "product dumping" on Wikipedia. There's some debate as to whether that's "within the rules." I grant you that ethics has no place in the discussion obviously.

Oh and further I will absolutely direct my anger at Cockos. In my opinion they deserve it until they stop hiding behind the pathetic nag screen trying to claim that they're not happily riding the theft of their product in exchange for its increasing popularity.

Let's see them at least require a serial number and have the BALLS to compete on their feature set alone. Really.

[n2mpujack]

It’s clear why you don’t like it. It’s not at all clear why you don’t think that is part of the Free Market. The rules of the Free Market are basically that there are no rules, you do what you think will work best for you and the market forces will sort things out and assure that the right thing will prevail in the end. If you think that the price of something should be determined by what it costs to produce and make sure everyone gets fairly paid and all customers pay that price, that would be the opposite of a free market. A managed economy of some sort.

What about when Ableton gives away lite versions of Live? There could be a free lite version of Reaper, but how many features would they have to cripple before it became fair? What if Cockos just made Reaper free, like Ardour? What if they had really strict copy protection but charged $5? My point is; how competitive can they get before they are not playing fair? According to pure Free Market principles there is no limit.

I was really annoyed by the way Microsoft took the market in the 90’s with Windows, but they weren’t following the rules, they were forcing people to pay for it by bullying companies. If they had just given Windows away it would be a different story.

I’m not trying to be a smart ass at all, I just think many people are not clear on how markets work, not that I’m any sort of expert. To me your anger should be directed at the state of the economy and the rules we’ve decided to follow, not Cockos, who are playing by those rules. I don’t intend this to be a political argument either, just an economics discussion.

bb

The thing is with giving something away for free like Cockos is people are less likely to pay for something. After all why spend money on something you get for nothing? And Cockos (actually it should be called Cock-up is they have no way of making sure and end user coughs up the money. The honor system which is what they are running on never works. People would like to think that it does, but reality is way different.

You say 'what if Cockos made Reaper free'? It's already F R E E ! You only have to pay to get rid of the nag screen. And Cockos is not playing by any sense of fair rules but their own rules (which just ain't right).

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who supports Cockos & Reaper is nothing but a bent on ruining the market for legitimate users.

[James Steele]

The nag screen only appears for a matter of a few seconds once PER DAY-- not per launch. Simply dismiss it once a day and you've defeated the copy protection. If the nag screen still bothers you, it's a piece of cake for a halfway savvy user to figure out how to reset the clock.

[kassonica]

The four were Shawn Fanning (Napster), Jon Lech Johansen (decrypted commercial DVD's), Bram Cohen (BitTorrent),

Explain to me how these types are heros instead of parasites and or criminals? Especially in the case of the DVD cracker?

I didn't use the word hero's BTW....

their app's can be used legally as well as illegally as proved by iTunes.

Now DVD cracker can be used when say one Buys the DVD and wants to have a copy on their laptop, a bit like making a cassette copy back in the old days, or a burn for the car now days.

IMHO it's how you use their technology NOT the technology itself.

[kassonica]

iTunes would have happened without Napster because of Steve Jobs.

Thats completely academic....

These guys lead the way and part of the internet explosion (read a BIG PART) is due to them....

[James Steele]

Now DVD cracker can be used when say one Buys the DVD and wants to have a copy on their laptop, a bit like making a cassette copy back in the old days, or a burn for the car now days.

IMHO it's how you use their technology NOT the technology itself.

But it's not like making a cassette. A cassette suffered generational loss. What's analogous is someone using the analog video and outputs and dubbing that DVD to some sort of tape format, etc. Not only that the DVD cracker broke laws making the crack, and I'm pretty sure when you buy the DVD you are not authorized to make copies. I might be wrong on that last bit. Perhaps you can use ill-gotten technology to make purely "archival" copies. Certainly nobody would DREAM of giving a copy away to a friend.

The DVD crackers/rippers also made it possible to file share this stuff. I had a guy I know offer to give me a copy of Rush's latest live DVD when I mentioned I saw it on Amazon and was going to buy it. I refused. He has everything under the sun that he bit torrents.

Yeah... it's HOW you use the technology, NOT the technology itself. However, when the practical application of that technology is violating copyright and few use it for whatever possible purposes makers of the technology hide behind, it's a pretty thin defense. There used to be a store in my neighborhood (it's gone now!) that sold "paraphernalia" like bongs and crack pipes. A blight on the neighborhood in my opinion. Of course the person selling these wares and profiting from catering to those engaged in illegal activity will tell you with a straight face that it's for tobacco. He too hid behind the "how you USE the technology" argument. Fortunately, he went out of business and is no longer there.