Legal Question

[G-Ro124]

I've noticed that EastWest tends to do this, put lots of small print in their license agreements. But I've also seen that many a time, issues that people have had with EastWest have been solved by emailing EastWest.

@Nikolas: One key issue here is whether you are using this piano for a commercial distribution or a non-commercial distribution. Please clarify

@Sascha:

I'm 100% positive that such maneuvres won't hold any legal water in any court.

EastWest is an American company and you happen to be German. You'd be surprised at how conservative American law is when it comes to copyrights. Your attitude would not at all hold in the U.S.

[Sascha Franck]

It seems to me that this is a bit of a grey area... You aren't going into a studio to record your songs. You're sending a MIDI file to friend who has this plugin, and he's sending you a .wav file of the piano plugin playing that MIDI file.

So, where's the difference to actually record/reproduce the piano part in that very studio?
There's none.

[deastman]

It seems to me that this is a bit of a grey area... You aren't going into a studio to record your songs. You're sending a MIDI file to friend who has this plugin, and he's sending you a .wav file of the piano plugin playing that MIDI file.

So, where's the difference to actually record/reproduce the piano part in that very studio?
There's none.

I'm suggesting that going into a recording studio and recording a whole song there, part of which includes a piano performance using their plugin, is a little different than your friend passing you back a single isolated recording of the piano plugin. Think of it in "black box" terms. The black box could be your own VST host with the plug in running on it... MIDI notes in, piano sounds out. It could be a remote VST host via some MIDI over Ethernet scheme. Or in this context, it could be your email outbox->friends inbox->VST Host->Plugin->Wave file->Outbox->Inbox. The net result is the same in "black box" terms: MIDI file in, piano sounds out.
A recording studio could be theoretically different: Musician in, finished song out. Yes, you'd probably get an unmixed copy of all your tracks, but the overall intention is different.

That said, I don't want to argue the difference too strongly. I already said I think its a grey area, perhaps one which really does need clearer definition through legal challenges...

[Meffy]

I know quite some folks doing just that, yes.

Sorry, I ought to have addressed that part to Nikolas. I agree that German and American laws will be very different.

The only way to REALLY know what's going on is to consult a lawyer or someone else with specific expertise in this area of music law.

[Ildon]

It seems to me that this is a bit of a grey area... You aren't going into a studio to record your songs. You're sending a MIDI file to friend who has this plugin, and he's sending you a .wav file of the piano plugin playing that MIDI file.

So, where's the difference to actually record/reproduce the piano part in that very studio?
There's none.

I'm suggesting that going into a recording studio and recording a whole song there, part of which includes a piano performance using their plugin, is a little different than your friend passing you back a single isolated recording of the piano plugin. Think of it in "black box" terms. The black box could be your own VST host with the plug in running on it... MIDI notes in, piano sounds out. It could be a remote VST host via some MIDI over Ethernet scheme. Or in this context, it could be your email outbox->friends inbox->VST Host->Plugin->Wave file->Outbox->Inbox. The net result is the same in "black box" terms: MIDI file in, piano sounds out.
A recording studio could be theoretically different: Musician in, finished song out. Yes, you'd probably get an unmixed copy of all your tracks, but the overall intention is different.

That said, I don't want to argue the difference too strongly. I already said I think its a grey area, perhaps one which really does need clearer definition through legal challenges...

Wouldn't that basically be the same as recording someone's Motif?

But yeah, I agree with Meffy. Ask a lawyer.

[Sascha Franck]

I'm suggesting that going into a recording studio and recording a whole song there, part of which includes a piano performance using their plugin, is a little different than your friend passing you back a single isolated recording of the piano plugin. [...]

All that still doesn't make a difference.
I may go to a studio to just record a drumset in there, nothing else. Simply because they've got the capabilities I haven't. I may as well go there because they have a (real) grand and record just that. Or I may go there because they've got that great virtual grand.
Not a difference at all, really.

And G-Ro124, I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue in any american court either.

The hardware analogy that most plugin companies are happily using comes to mind: Don't have a grand at home? Fine, record it on your Clavinova scratch pad and do the real takes in studio XYZ later on. There's nothing immoral or illegal about such tactics at all.

Maybe we should just wait and see for the first lawsuit to happen... I seriously doubt there'll be any.

[Sascha Franck]

The only way to REALLY know what's going on is to consult a lawyer or someone else with specific expertise in this area of music law.

I would never do that. Opening a can of worms, etc.
The good thing probably being that sample library companies couldn't afford any lawsuits either, unless they wanted to be out of business the day after.

[Ildon]

The only thing that makes this a gray area, I think, is the fact this is software. So long as your friend is recording it himself and not giving you the plugin, you'll be fine. These licenses grant you the right to use the software however you choose in a piece of music, right? So what's the big deal? Your friend's using it musically in one of your tunes. I think it's the same as a session keyboardist who's on a Roland.

[Sascha Franck]

So what's the big deal? Your friend's using it musically in one of your tunes. I think it's the same as a session keyboardist who's on a Roland.

Exactly! That should just cover everything.

[deastman]

Precisely. A Motif doesn't come with the same licensing restrictions as a VSTi.

[deastman]

So what's the big deal? Your friend's using it musically in one of your tunes. I think it's the same as a session keyboardist who's on a Roland.

Exactly! That should just cover everything.

He's a session player playing a MIDI file of your performance? How is that a session player?

[Meffy]

The only way to REALLY know what's going on is to consult a lawyer or someone else with specific expertise in this area of music law.

I would never do that. Opening a can of worms, etc.

Then you would be operating on guesswork and hope. Which is probably what I'd do too in the same situation. *shrug* Might be a risk but whaddaya gonna do?

[Sascha Franck]

He's a session player playing a MIDI file of your performance? How is that a session player?

He might just play it note by note. And his performance might be quantized after that.
Seriously, there's no factual difference.

[Ildon]

Precisely. A Motif doesn't come with the same licensing restrictions as a VSTi.

Can you prove that? My Hyper Canvas and Ravity licenses don't seem to be very restrictive at all. Basically just... "use this only on one computer, don't redistribute or take apart any of this software," etc. Seems the same to hardware to me.

He's a session player playing a MIDI file of your performance? How is that a session player?

For all you know, the guy is going to play it out into his sequencer though.

[Sascha Franck]

Then you would be operating on guesswork and hope.

Don't think so - I'd be operating on some "I have a sort of a clue" basis. Which would be pretty much valid for me