I agree with you completely Squids. Soundware is a delicate thing indeed and should be purchased! But I have some questions of my own that you're in a good position to answer... Do you personally feel there are any grey areas concerning these license agreements? There's another thread about Stylus that's floating around here that caught my interest and got me thinking...

Strictly Hypothetical:

I purchase a copy of your new World Instruments CD for use in my studio. I'm strictly on the level, and I have no thought of ripping anybody off intentionally.

Scenario 1 - I'm producing an artist and they want to use some sounds off the disc... Is there a problem?

Scenario 2 - The artist is paying me to use my studio gear and equipment but I'm receiving no production credit and they use a sound off the disc... Is there a problem?

Scenario 3 - I'm working in someone elses studio and I'm using my disc on a track where I receive credit - be it as a player, producer or whatever... Is there a problem?

Scenario 4 - I'm present in someone elses studio with my disc, and someone wants to use one of the sounds on a track so I let them but I receive no credit... Is there a problem?

Scenario 5 - I no longer want to use my disc for any projects so I freely give it to a colleague/friend/dog/whoever. You as the creator have made your money for the one disc, and only one user is in posession and using it... Is there a problem?

In the first 4 scenarios, is having credit a distinction or is being present during the use the distinction (I could be considered an inspirational source just by being in the room with the disc)?

Where is the line drawn?

And what's your take on sequencer license agreements? Should they be any different from soundware? Using scenario 5 again - if I give whoever the software and key (dongle/xskey/serial/whatever) and clearly I can no longer use the product without them... Is there a problem?

This is where I myself become confused with the agreements. If I buy a car, I can trade it, scrap it, sell it... it's physically tangible and I become the owner. As the owner I can do whatver the hell I want with it.

If I buy software, I own a license and I seem to have no rights whatsoever... The creators are not bound to give me support, they are clearly not bound by quality controls, and I can't return it if it doesn't work. Why is it so different?

If it's hardware copy-protected (like a dongle), does it not become a physically tangible thing? Why can I not trade it or sell it?

I'm just wondering if you can shed some light on these questions...

I appreciate your valuable insight, and I hope you understand I ask these questions in all seriousness... You know me as a loyal SR customer so please realize I'm not trying to stir anything up here - I'm just looking for some solid answers.

Thanks in advance.

Res

[ 05 July 2002, 05:54: Message edited by: Resonance ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Resonance:
I agree with you completely Squids. Soundware is a delicate thing indeed and should be purchased! But I have some questions of my own that you're in a good position to answer... Do you personally feel there are any grey areas concerning these license agreements? There's another thread about Stylus that's floating around here that caught my interest and got me thinking...

-- I do think there are some grey areas and I will explain my take. But, this may not reflect how other sound developers view their product's license agreements. I know for example that some specify you must credit the use of their product in a commercial work by you if you use it. At SR we don't care if you credit us or not (but if you want to that is nice of you).

Strictly Hypothetical:

I purchase a copy of your new World Instruments CD for use in my studio. I'm strictly on the level, and I have no thought of ripping anybody off intentionally.

Scenario 1 - I'm producing an artist and they want to use some sounds off the disc... Is there a problem?

-- If you are producing an artist and you are playing the instruments on their recording then it is not a problem. If their keyboardist wants to continue using those sounds on other recordings or live then he/she needs to buy it to have the license to use it himself.

Scenario 2 - The artist is paying me to use my studio gear and equipment but I'm receiving no production credit and they use a sound off the disc... Is there a problem?

--Technically yes. In the license agreement the library is not something you can rent to others. You can use it in your own musical productions. But, it cannot be legally offered as a studio tool for others to use unless they own the license to use it. If they are releasing a commercial record it would be wise for them to have it anyway and be covered legally to use it on the record. If it's YOU performing on the record and you have the license to use it then you have no problem. This is grey mostly in the sense that there is no way for anyone outside of your studio to really know how it is being done so it is up to you or them to do the right thing.

Of course, legally they can try it out on the track all they want the bigger issue would be if they record it and keep it in the track without having the proper license to do so. This is the trade-off for buying soundware vs. hardware keyboards. But, I stress that SR is super lenient on this anyway....especially on Sonic Synth since it is very "workstation-like". Most other companies are way more strict about it.

Scenario 3 - I'm working in someone elses studio and I'm using my disc on a track where I receive credit - be it as a player, producer or whatever... Is there a problem?

-- No problem because you are the licensed user of the product.

Scenario 4 - I'm present in someone elses studio with my disc, and someone wants to use one of the sounds on a track so I let them but I receive no credit... Is there a problem?

--technically yes (only if the track is recorded and especially if it is released commercially). However, I am lenient on this and if it's not abused (as in: this person is repeatedly relying on YOUR Sonic Synth to use in his music) then it is not something I would be too upset over. If you are turing someone on to it and letting them play it a little then that is a good thing in my eyes. But, since you can't rent it to them I have to trust that if they really dig using it a lot that you will explain that they should be buying their own copy or at least work out a discounted "license" from us to use yours. That is the other way around it (especially if they are not the type to be able to use the technology without your help). Typically, purchasing the basic license to use it is not that much less than buying the product itself though.

Scenario 5 - I no longer want to use my disc for any projects so I freely give it to a colleague/friend/dog/whoever. You as the creator have made your money for the one disc, and only one user is in posession and using it... Is there a problem?

-- Yes, this is a big problem because the person you give it to is not registered and has no legal right to use it. The license is non-transferable. They CAN purchase a license to use it though- like I just mentioned- which would make them registered. I guess they could save a few bucks if you gave it to them and they just purchased the license and the ability to register themselves as legit users. I'd think most people would rather pay a few bucks extra though to have it brand new from us. Look, I know this sucks but that is the trade off with most sample libraries and soundware. It's cheaper and sounds better than hardware but it's intellectual property rights and not something physical (as in: something that can only be used in one place at one time).

In the first 4 scenarios, is having credit a distinction or is being present during the use the distinction (I could be considered an inspirational source just by being in the room with the disc)?

Where is the line drawn?

-- Well, it really is that you actually were creatively involved as a player, engineer or producer. For me, just being there is okay too as long as our products aren't used on the WHOLE record (or repeatedly on every session) without them having a proper license to use it. But, if it is just trying it out on some tracks with you present it DOES technically go against the agreement but it doesn't bother me personally. Again, I can't speak for other companies.

And what's your take on sequencer license agreements? Should they be any different from soundware? Using scenario 5 again - if I give whoever the software and key (dongle/xskey/serial/whatever) and clearly I can no longer use the product without them... Is there a problem?

--My personal take on it is that if it has a dongle then it is attached to a physicality that makes it only capable of being in one place at one time. In my opinion, such a product should be resellable. If Sonic Synth had a dongle then I would be more apt to allow it to be resellable. Unfortunately, the last thing anyone wants is MORE dongles to have to use!!!!

This is where I myself become confused with the agreements. If I buy a car, I can trade it, scrap it, sell it... it's physically tangible and I become the owner. As the owner I can do whatver the hell I want with it.

-- That IS because it is physically tangible.

If I buy software, I own a license and I seem to have no rights whatsoever... The creators are not bound to give me support, they are clearly not bound by quality controls, and I can't return it if it doesn't work. Why is it so different?

-- You seem to have no rights? You have the right to use it forever and ever in your music!!! That's AMAZING!!! Think about it. I go out and spend THOUSANDS on recording a string orchestra and then spend an unbelievable amount of time editing, looping, mapping and programming the stuff so it can be played via midi and then it gets sold to you for a mere $59. and you can play it forever and ever at any time of the day or night. If this type of product didn't exist you only other options to get realistic string sounds of this quality would be to hire a string orchestra at $10,000 per 3 hours of use each time you do a tune! (Okay, if you did that then the strings would even be better but...you see my point?).

You have the right to choose the products you want to buy, you have the right to research and ask questions, read reviews, ask others on forums about it, music stores, magazines etc. You have the right to use it once you get it or the right not to use it. Hey, it's not like you have to pay royalties each time you use it (or even credit us- for SR products). It very well could have been THAT way! The whole sound industry might have been (and probably should have been) so that if you use this work that would cost you REDICULOUS amounts of money to create on your own- you pay a little bit each time you use it. Hey, that is better than paying the thousands to create it or for all the live players and instrument rentals (if you can find them all).

If it's hardware copy-protected (like a dongle), does it not become a physically tangible thing? Why can I not trade it or sell it?

--IMO, I think you should be able to if it becomes "tangible" as you say. But, this depends on the agreements for each product. I think that for the most part though the products that have dongles or are mostly hardware can be resold without conflict in the license agreement. If you know of any that are otherwise, please tell me as I would be interested to know.

I'm just wondering if you can shed some light on these questions...

I appreciate your valuable insight, and I hope you understand I ask these questions in all seriousness... You know me as a loyal SR customer so please realize I'm not trying to stir anything up here - I'm just looking for some solid answers.

-- Yes, I respect that you are coming from this place. No problem. It's not my favorite subject to discuss and it's a little "sticky" sometimes. I don't want people to think that my words can be attached to other company's products because I can only speak about my own. It is important for you guys to understand how I view the distinctions. The bottom line is that no matter how much I trust some of you guys personally as I meet you, the reality is that if people can keep something on their hard drive and then give it away to a friend too (or worse- sell it) then this is abusive. It's not like as a policy we can say "well, if you promise, promise, promise that you took it off your hard drive then you can do it..." I mean what substance is that? If it WAS tied to a dongle then even if it was still on your hard drive you still couldn't use it if you sold it to someone else with the dongle. So, that would make more sense for us to accept it. Now, of course I am not even going to discuss cracks or dongle emulators because we ALL know that this is sctrictly illegal and there are NO grey areas about that!!!

Of course, I don't think that you are anywhere near discussing that side of things (but, I was forewarning the potential anti-license agreement warez user from replying with that angle).

Thanks in advance.

Res[/QUOTE

-- Sorry my answers were bold inside your quote but it was a lot of questions and it was the fastes way for me to answer. I spent a good 45 minutes answering your question though. I hope it is satisfactory. It is 2:15 am.

Res,

Okay, yes I am a Zombie this morning at work but that is my fault not yours. I see something and can get into the thick of it at any time of the day or night...that's just me.

As to your perfect world thing with sound discs or soundware, yes I know. It would be nice if it was the same as a car but you can't copy and paste your car into your driveway AND sell it to someone else too. It's hard for people to get their head around it but most of what you are buying when you buy a soundware product is intangeable. It is the use of the sound recordings (samples) in your music. The CD itself doesn't physically cost much more than a music CD! It's what is on it and what you are allowed to do with it that makes these CD ROMS worth $50-500. etc. But, you simply can't do what you are wishing because there is no way to know that it is legitimately leaving your possession and entering another's. With hardware there is no question because it is a physical impossibility for it to be in two places at once. If it is software attached to hardware (like in the form of a dongle or a PCI card) then this gives it the physicality at least to be in one person's hands only. Sometimes I wish we had that to offer you too. But, it would have cost you more money and been another thing to cart around.

I like to think that the people that buy our products are going to use them and that they can at least get their money's worth before it sits on the shelf so to speak. In fact, that is one thing about Sonic Reality products I would say is an edge over most products out there that are highly loop and riff based. Because our products are made up of mostly (if not all) multisampled playable instruments, there is more of a chance that you, the user, will be able to make use of it in a variety of musical contexts over time. If you purchased a product from another company that was a fad oriented house music library or even someone's "super licks" disc you may find yourself sick of it fast and not able to find a new use for it (or a use for it ever).

I programmed the Akai version of East West's "Symphonic Adventures". This library sounds like a real orchestra because it IS recordings of a real orchestra. Upon hearing the demo one might think you could finally sound like a real orchestra. However, if you have the product and try to use it in music (which I have tried once) you may find that the all phrase oriented library is tough to make it do what YOU want it to do. In fact, I spent so much time just trying to get it to lock to tempo I figured I could have recreated my own orchestra in that time. Incidentally, I was working on their "Scoring Tools" library and quit because I was fed up working on libraries that were done this way...essentially library music- Q's for the Qless. I quit that project and decided to just work only on my own produced products...Sonic Reality products. Perhaps this is what separates us from others- our usability and longevity factor. People are STILL buying Vintage Timetraveler in large quantities 6 years after it was first created because it is still every bit as usable!

Okay, enough about me and SR. You know this and so do a lot of you (maybe some new to SR might have liked to know that though). As for the whole Apple/Emagic thing...that is a whole other can of worms. If you are talking about THAT then it probably could have been in the Apple/Emagic thread that Jason made in our company forum (or the other mammoth one in the regulard K-v-R forum). So, for the rest of this message about that please refer to that thread where I will continue to rant...

why was my post removed? do i need to license an SR product to be able to post here?

Afx, I got the wrong impression. I am really sorry that you think I don't like you. I didn't mean for you to think that. I just see your posts pop up with some harsh side perspectives a lot and jumped the gun on this one. It looked like you were promoting disobeying the license agreements which I think is disrespectful in a company forum- especially when I am in the midst of explaining in great detail why they exist and are important.

But, we need not be on bad terms. Also, I said I don't presume to know if you did or didn't use legit software but that it just seems that way from some of the comments I've seen you make (or just being against companies often). I mean no offense by it and if you say this is not the case then please accept my humble apology. Still, I think that we can all be friends on this place- both developers and consumers- but please understand that there are sticky issues discussed at times and it is important to try to be responsible with what is said particularly when it comes to promoting anything illegal. I am a strict moderator about it here and I don't know if everyone else is as much. I don't just close a thread or delete a post if it is negative (so we look squeaky clean or something) but if it is inappropriate or even puts us in a bad policital situation then I ask that you guys are forgiving of me for it. In order to be able to have a company forum thrive like this one has there has to be some boundries of what is appropriate and inappopriate (or what can be damaging to the industry).

So, Afx, please understand that I am very honest and upfront like you. I think we can get along. Sorry about the out of the blue issue I had there. It's not a big one at least as far as I can see. Okay?

[ 05 July 2002, 17:22: Message edited by: Squids ]

It s all cool!

Just like you said sometimes i play the devil's advocate! It's mostly because i do feel people who are interested in music enough to ask a question in front of an audience deserves a better answer than "it's in the manual". It's all about the music , the buisness side will always come in second in my heart! and the users of cracked software that matter will always come legit one day, if only for the support/documentation/upgrades.

peace out mista squids

[ 05 July 2002, 20:04: Message edited by: afx23 ]

Been reading with interest about Licensing agreements.
I do agree that property and copyright leglislation needs to be there to protect the company/artist. The problem is does Licencing conform to the law in the UK? not sure about the US although they modled their system on ours.

As the law goes any item I buy retail is protected by The Sale Of Good Act 189x as ammended by The Supply Of Goods Act 197x. Sorry cant check the exact dates at the moment.

This gives ME legal rights bound in Law.

Now, any contract of sale I make is with the retailer and NOT the manufacturer of the product.
In a retail sale the contract ends with me handing over money and the retailer accepting it.
And thats it. It stops there except for the usual copyright conditions, which does also allow me to make a copy for backup purposes providing I retain the origional, (3rd party). No additional contracts, licensing agreements etc can be added at a later date. ie when I open or use the product. If the product is faulty etc the RETAILER is responsible in Law for dealing with it not the maker. This ony applies to a Retail sales however.
If I buy online or direct from the maker then other arrangements can apply as the contract starts with me offering money and only when it is accepted by the seller is the contract done.

If I decide to resell that is entirely up to ME. The protection for the maker comes from copyrighting the item. That is why the record companies cannot legally stop secondhand sales!
A few cases have allready been settled out of court to avoid any publicity and more are planned.
A true case.
A person who purchased a Microsoft product direct from Microsoft was able to sue Microsoft on the grounds that the product had bugs in it! He settled out of court for lots of money. Not many heard about that.
So online sale seem the way to go as conditions can be applied. The problem then is that they can be sued directly! see above.
I hope this helps with some of the legal stuff.
FYI.
(ex consumer advisor, dealing in consumer law and litigation) Now do music, less stressful!

Fake

The above changes in various consumer protection laws do not apply to the licensing of sound recordings. There have been numerous challenges about software resales, but none of this applies to licensing a sound recording for creating new or derivitive works based on those recordings.

The situation with regular music CDs is totally different, because you aren't allowed to sell a new recording based on samples taken from a music CD. To do so would require an additional license from the copyright holder.

In the case of sample-based instruments, the license to use the recordings to create derivitive and new works is included in the purchase price. This is the main reason why sample CDs are much more expensive than standard Music CDs.

The licensing terms on Spectrasonics products are presented on the outside of the packaging in clear English. If you don't agree with them, you can return the package with the CD seal unbroken.

spectrum

Okay, let me put it to you all this way. Legal or not, this country or that country, this is what the sound developer or software developer is wanting expressly in this license agreement. It is made for the protection of the use of the product so that the company can continue to make more products like it. The better this is respected the better the products can be from the revenue it deserves. It's not as big an industry as some people think and each person counts (which is why I treat each person like they count too).

So, regardless of whether you think you can get around issues legally in your region or not the point is that there is a right and wrong here according to the manufacturer. People should respect how it is intended. If they don't then they are contributing toward that company not being able to give you as good a price in the future or worse- not be able to produce more products.

Look, as a sound development company and especially as a sound designer personally both Sonic Reality and myself have been around a long time doing this. I've seen companies come and go in this time. I think that at least speaking for our work and dedication a lot of people feel that they get good VFM and versatility from our products. They know that if they are registered users that there may be updates or special offers for them in the future. Plus, they know that we treat our loyal customers well and that we appreciate their business. So, for us, it seems to make sense that people would WANT to respect the license agreement regardless of any technicalities of the law in your area.

I am slightly getting uncomfortable having this as a discussion in our forum though. If you really think you have something to add to it then by all means.... but if you are just going to argue technicalities then please...let's not do that. It is what it is and you do what you want anyway. Will you get in trouble? Maybe, maybe not. That is not the point.

Squids,

I certainly understand and respect your position. And frankly with the value you provide in SonicSynth (along with things like SampleTank Free) I think your position is particularly strong. However, let me just give you the flip-side of your "intention" statement above, as a user of sample libraries, and describe what we as sample consumers are frustrated by with the current licensing scheme.

The main problem with the current setup is that as a purchaser of sample libraries, I have less recourse if I'm dissatisfied with a library than almost any other type of purchase I make. This comes up on the GigaSampler forum a lot, where you have libraries devoted to say, solo brass, selling for $3-400. You can't demo them, really, because 1) they would be huge to download, and 2) sample library developers seem loathe to release light, "tester" versions, and 3) with a library like that, the strength is in the programming you can do with all the different articulations, so you really need the whole library to evaluate.

But if I buy such a library based on some MP3 demos that I think sound good, I might find that it takes an "unacceptable" (to me) amount of programming to get good results, or that the brass was buried in the mix in the demo and I need it to stand on its own but doesn't. Or whatever. The point is, if I don't like it once I've bought it I'm SOL. I can't return it, I can't resell it, and I was operating on less than full information when I bought it since I can't try a demo. If I actually use the library in a production, personal or professional, I personally don't think I should be able to transfer the license. But I'm talking the "try it out for a few days, get that sinking feeling you just blew $300" situation, where you'd return it right then if you could.

There's almost no other type of product I frequently buy where there's that kind of limitation on the purchasing process. Unfortunately I've personally got several hundred dollars worth of Giga libraries that are not really useful to me. Maybe I should have been smarter about purchasing them and listened harder to the MP3 demos, but there's still a big "leap of faith" to be taken with a lot of these libraries that is disconcerting, considering how permanent the purchase is.

All that said, I completely understand your position as a developer. And I don't really have any easy solutions, since I can't think of a way to protect both the sample library developers and the consumer within the current system. Something like dongles for sample libraries would never fly and I'd never purchase a library with copy protection, so I don't really have an answer.

But, I don't think most of us are trying to figure out tricky ways around the licensing agreements. We're just voicing our frustration with a (probably necessary) scheme that limits our rights as a consumer more than we are used to with other types of purchases.

Again, I still don't think much of this applies to SonicSynth because of the variety and quality of sounds offered. But if I'm an idiot and buy SonicSynth solely for it's solo brass to use in mocking up a soundtrack, and am disappointed, again I'm SOL. Yes, I may be an idiot, but in most other purchases (at least in the US), I'm somewhat protected from my own idiocy by consumer protection laws, warranties, and the like. The lack of this protection is what frustrates me (and I suspect others) with sample library licenses, not so much the desire to get something for nothing.

John

[ 06 July 2002, 00:55: Message edited by: johner ]

If I buy software, I own a license and I seem to have no rights whatsoever... The creators are not bound to give me support, they are clearly not bound by quality controls, and I can't return it if it doesn't work. Why is it so different?

-- You seem to have no rights? You have the right to use it forever and ever in your music!!! That's AMAZING!!! Think about it. I go out and spend THOUSANDS on recording a string orchestra and then spend an unbelievable amount of time editing, looping, mapping and programming the stuff so it can be played via midi and then it gets sold to you for a mere $59. and you can play it forever and ever at any time of the day or night. If this type of product didn't exist you only other options to get realistic string sounds of this quality would be to hire a string orchestra at $10,000 per 3 hours of use each time you do a tune! (Okay, if you did that then the strings would even be better but...you see my point?).

You have the right to choose the products you want to buy, you have the right to research and ask questions, read reviews, ask others on forums about it, music stores, magazines etc. You have the right to use it once you get it or the right not to use it. Hey, it's not like you have to pay royalties each time you use it (or even credit us- for SR products). It very well could have been THAT way! The whole sound industry might have been (and probably should have been) so that if you use this work that would cost you REDICULOUS amounts of money to create on your own- you pay a little bit each time you use it. Hey, that is better than paying the thousands to create it or for all the live players and instrument rentals (if you can find them all).

-------------

Actually Squids, I wasn't talking about soundware here. As far as recordings are concerned, I'm totally in agreement with you - and I don't really consider Sonic Synth software (even though it is of course).

I guess it was late and you weren't following my train of thought like I had expected (I was up till 1:00am writing these questions...) - I was thinking about the whole Emagic situation at this point (no soundware or sample rights there)... It wasn't meant to be a sound industry question - just a general software question, in which case most of us really ARE at the mercy of these license agreements and seem to have no rights whatsoever. Software manufacturers aren't held accountable like other manufacturers. If my car doesn't work when I get it, I CAN return it. It's covered under a warranty... software isn't.

But bringing up the whole 'trading' idea as far soundware in general is concerned I do have some niggles (not specifically SR related). I would like to be allowed to transfer my license agreement to someone else if I no longer wished to use a sample CD - just like a car. You go to the DMV and sign over your ownership, a fee is paid, you now no longer own the car and clearly can't drive it. Can you imagine the full creative potential if a sample CD was handled in the same way? I sign over the agreement, a small fee is paid to the creator, and then the new user is in complete control. I know you're screaming about lost revenue at this point... but what a shame to have something sit on a shelf when someone else could be making music with it... Just a "wouldn't it be nice in a perfect world" sort of thing...

I appreciate that you find discussing this a 'sticky' thing because it IS, but I'm glad you took the time to answer my questions.

Thank you VERY much.

Your answers could have waited till morning - it wasn't my intention to keep you from your sleep. Sorry.

Res

[ 05 July 2002, 12:47: Message edited by: Resonance ]