Sampletank 2.1 - What the heck is going on?

[scottedog]

I have heard of missing a release date slightly but cmon already! - right from their own damn press release:

Price, availability, upgrades
SampleTank 2.1® XL will have a suggested retail price of $/€499and is expected to be shipping in May 2005.

By my watch - tis about 9 days until October - what's the deal?

Your quote from the press release might be missing a few words. I've inserted in red what they probably meant:

Price, availability, upgrades
SampleTank 2.1® XL will have a suggested retail price of $/€499and is expected to be shipping in Maybe 2005 and Maybe 2006.

Too funny!

[Kim Lajoie]

You don't have Philharmonik? You have to get it now!

-Kim.

Hey Beardedone, why so down?

-Kim.

[Rellik]

Hm - how exactly do you figure that Philharmonik has scroll wheel support? It certainly doesn't have scroll wheel support in any of MY hosts....

What host are you using to test this with?

[Meffy]

My (meager) understanding of the issue is that it's up to the host to use the scroll wheel signals itself, or to pass them on to plug-ins. I might be wrong about that. (Please someone let me know if that's the case!) But if it's so, and if the host doesn't pass wheel events along, I'm thinking there's nothing a plug can do to seize those events.

[Kim Lajoie]

You're not getting scroll wheel support? That's odd. Works fine for me - Cubase SX2.2 (Windows XP). What host/OS are you using?

-Kim.

[Rellik]

I'm using energyXT and FLStudio5 on WindowsXP - both of these work fine with other Scroll-Wheel VST's (namely z3ta+) so they definitely pass along the signal.

[Beardedone]

Beardedone wrote:
Quote:
You don't have Philharmonik? You have to get it now!

-Kim.






Hey Beardedone, why so down?

-Kim.

I eschew the dongle and thus Philharmonik! I really don't trust it.

Gordon

[james0tucson]

I eschew the dongle and thus Philharmonik! I really don't trust it.

Gordon

One step in the right direction might be a written binding statement from the publisher, that ensures when the company goes out of business or the product is discontinued that the copy protection will be removed.

Without a contract like that, your creative work is locked away from you at the whim of another company.

That is unacceptable because it is ultimately a potential, if not a certain, abridgement of your copyright.

The publisher's copyright should not exist only at the expense of yours.

This is a much more serious problem than I think the company acknowledges. I cannot buy their product because to do so would mean surrendering some of my own copyright, and could mean being locked out of my work sometime in the future.

Software companies come and go. Do you really want it to be impossible to reproduce your own creative work, some years down the road, just because a software company went out of business? I've watched them come and go. It's not a compromise I would ever be willing to make.

[Beardedone]

Exactly my concerns as well, James! Thanks for expressing this so well.

Sincerely,
Gordon

[telebunke]

One step in the right direction might be a written binding statement from the publisher, that ensures when the company goes out of business or the product is discontinued that the copy protection will be removed.

That is actually a nice idea. Not necessary for a discontinued product though, as long as the company still supports you. So, to make it more precise it should be when support and further developement is stopped for the product in such a way that you could not get a new key if necessary.

In case of Philharmonik, we got 2 companies involved in the product, so the chances that both go out of business is really lower than low.

Personally I do not have much concerns about these things, but this is a suggestion which is doable by a company without too much effort.

tele

[Squids]

Live life now and enjoy it. I see what you mean. But, I can't see us letting people down like that. Still, understandable. Who knows, maybe I have a good solution for the Bearded in the works.

[Kim Lajoie]

It's not just software that has this problem - if you compose a piece of music and record some human instrumentalists performing your work, are you going to make them sign a contract that they'll always be around in case you want to rewrite and rerecord it in the future?

-Kim.

[Beardedone]

Live life now and enjoy it. I see what you mean. But, I can't see us letting people down like that. Still, understandable. Who knows, maybe I have a good solution for the Bearded in the works.

Thanks Dave! I look forward to see what you come up with.

Cheers,
Gordon

[TaoMannaDon]

....

[james0tucson]

It's not just software that has this problem - if you compose a piece of music and record some human instrumentalists performing your work, are you going to make them sign a contract that they'll always be around in case you want to rewrite and rerecord it in the future?

-Kim.

No, but you're missing something fundamental -- they haven't created a situation whereby it will become impossible to use their work product at some arbitrary time in the future. Their master wav doesn't self destruct when the contract expires, or when I change the light bulbs in my studio, or when they die, or when I do.

In the case of dongled, and some call-home software, that *does* happen. I get locked out of my project at some arbitrary point in the future. I can't store a project that depends on specific software, together with the software product, in a time capsule, and have people in 2125 open it and pick up where I left off.

Unfortunately for certain software vendors, that's my litmus test for whether I can use a product in good conscience. I refuse to compromise my own rights in order to preserve someone else's, especially when they try to enter into the relationship already framing me as the bad guy.