Old Free VSTi Gems From The Past

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Was it the sample source sounds which were used in some of the intruments not being legitable/not tied to any terms and conditions? That is the only reason i can think of why he could/has pulled all the plug-ins. Some of them were big in download/disk space size so it would fit. Shame though as some of you were getting some good stuff from them

Dean

[MaxSynths]

Was it the sample source sounds which were used in some of the intruments not being legitable/not tied to any terms and conditions?

It was sample content ripped from commercial libraries.

[eidenk]

It was sample content ripped from commercial libraries.

From what I read on Necromare's site it was only free samples under the Creative Commons license and crediting them but apparently this was breaking the said license according to some guys who complained.

If this is a lie and you know better MaxSynths, bring on the evidence.

[pinkjimiphoton]

Was it the sample source sounds which were used in some of the intruments not being legitable/not tied to any terms and conditions?

It was sample content ripped from commercial libraries.

how can someone tell if a sample is ripped, there's lots of ways to get some similar sounds to virtually ANY audio source...as a guitar player, pretty much my LIFE is about recreating all kindsa tones at every gig, including some pretty wild ones. i tend to find any software synth i've tried i can pretty much get the same sounds out of, hell there's a million ways to create pretty much any sound you can dream of these days, and mix and match til ya have a little wiggle down there.
=)
if i take a shitload of vst and hardware sources, combine them and sample the result and get something pretty much identical to something else (that somebody else did probably in much the same way sometimes), is that a problem too?
if you modify the settings on a patch of ANY library till it's somewhat mutated
from the original sound and you sample that, well, hell, isn't that your own creation at that point? (especially if you've paid for the source, which shouldn't be any different from using any other kind of commercial synthesizer, the sounds in them are all ripped from previous sounds etc...)
i mean...
i don't know the particulars of this case at all, but it seems to me that copywriting sounds can be a peculiarly interesting subject.

sorry if i'm hitting on any nerves here or whatever.

i am but an egg.

[MaxSynths]

The Oud samples come from a library of old instruments for Akai (I own the original samples). Also the choirs are from a Roland CD. I think Necromare didn't tried to do something bad, he has been correct and deleted the plugins. I have no doubt he found that samples in some "free" collections, but some of that material is not free at all. It's not a matter of "lies".

[MaxSynths]

Jimi that samples are not modified and the general terms of sample libraries do not allow to sample the audio produced with that library, otherwise it will be easy for everyone to put together a choir or symphonic library. That said everyone is free to do what he think is right.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Yes indeed the EULA of say the Toontrack stuff i pay for/use is long winded but it makes clear in no uncertain terms that if i re-sampled the sounds coming out (even if i attempted to cover them with processing) and give them out for free or money it is illegal full-stop/period - Even drumloops - I understand that and how they have to cover all the possible basses.

I remember some peoples work (Maybe yourself Max?, Arksun was but one example...etc.) turning up in 'Free' SoundFonts for example so its is obviously easy to go wrong without knowing it: Let alone re-use straight up unmodified material from a commercial sample set, It is no wonder he pulled them down!!!

Thanks for the information Max mate, appreciated

Dean

[MaxSynths]

I remember some peoples work (Maybe yourself Max?, Arksun was but one example...etc.) turning up in 'Free' SoundFonts for example

No never happened to me, but it's something that happen very often. There's a lot of "free" soundfonts that come from commercial libraries.

Thanks for the information Max mate, appreciated

[pinkjimiphoton]

interesting. so why bother to make any audio releases using ANY of these kind of commercial synthesizers, hard or soft? cuz as soon as you record the net result, you are thereby literally sampling it as part of the recording process..
so it effectively means that any sound you use on a commercial release of your own becomes impossible if you use stuff being created by someone else's synthesizer that you've paid to use?
i dunno about you, but i mess with damn near every sample or sound i play with, i rarely ever leave the knobs alone. to me, any sound i create by doing so would become MY sound, and i could be free to use it any way i would see fit. right? is it someone else's sound that i've created using another sound as a starting point?

interesting ethics. this may be less about modifying a sample as creating an entirely new one... because if someone claims that you can't do just that, they just killed the music industry completely. how can you release a commercial recording using any of the sounds violating someone's intellectual copywrite?

too chicken and egg for me i guess. i see no difference between creating and using sounds from hard or soft synthesis...either way, there's likely a starting point that is worked from, and the end result of a modified sound is the end result of a modified sound created using tools created by another.
what's the sense of a free sample library if you cannot use it?

you make it, it's yours imho...
this may not apply here...but it seems it kinda should (playing devil's advocate here)
tools are used by humans to create sounds. tools are then used to record and share them, or sell them. a violin is a violin. who owns that sound? it's public domain, and has been for centuries. yet someone can use that sound, rip it off, claim it as their own, sell the said recording to someone else who then can't use the sound they just paid for? ummmm....what?

i don't care, i'm wayyyyyyyyyy too lazy to go thru all that. if i want a sound, i do it the old way with new toys...
grab a couple vstis or whatever, build sounds layer by layer, edit them in audacity or whatever, maybe mix it with real or hardware synthesized sounds, reverse it and flange the piss outta it in a couple directions maybe, then load it in a vst sample player and get nuts with it...lol

i guess what i'm trying to say is, once you take a source and modify it's result, the resulting sound makes you the creator of THAT sound, not the creator of the tool it's made with, unless the actual sample is completely unmolested and a direct rip of the initial sound, which apparently is unkosher to even use in the first place.

man..i can't seem to be succinct today. sorry.
just curious as to the ethics of this stuff.

[pinkjimiphoton]

and also, what happens then when some dj "samples" someone else's stuff and then uses it to make cash? or "new" creations? seems somebody always ends up sampling something if it sounds cool.
i don't do it myself generally, i am only asking these questions cuz i wanna understand the ethics of this stuff better..it seems paradoxical.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Oh as long as it is in your own work as in tracks/music then it is absolutely fine Jimi/no problems on that front with commercial software. It is just the bit about taking the sounds it spits out and giving them/distributing them to other people as in you might as well give them the plug-in instrument synth/sampler/rompler...etc. So its fine on your music/tracks but a huge no no to give out multi-samples straight from again as an example the toontrack music drum software i use

You are not breaking any illegal bounderies with your tracks bro i can assure you

Hope that makes sense/clears up what Max and Myself mean (how the real small print works when read and i have to stick my glasses or a magnifying glass to the screen to read it sometimes )

As you are using samples in a 'creative' means in original works that is in keeping with the EULA totally...It is a black and white area most of the time but is somewhat confusing until you read into it all

As for the DJ thing - different kettle of fish and one i know little about. Usually played live its fine but if used on a record/studio release it then becomes ALOT more complicated

Sorry if i have confused more than cleared up/maybe someone else can explain better than I am able to

Dean

Edit: The Acoustic Drumkit Multi-Sample Set in my signature, which i recorded and edited from scratch using an acoustic drumkit, lots of pricey mics, very pricey mic-amps, a Tape machine and finally Pro Tools HD to edit down the results are 100% free to the point where you can use them in a commercial product if you want to/anyone else wants to - This is because i choose to give them away 100% free with no strings attached. Not all people who release sample sets do this. So actually with mine you could make a ROMpler like Necromare was doing and even charge for it and it is not breaking the agreement as there is not one. Not all free sample sets are as free as the one i created though I wanted to give something away Free as in totally free hence no strings anywhere along the line but i am not a developer or wanting to make money from them or even be credited, my thanks and giving back to the community as a humble member who has gotten so much i had to give back something

[pinkjimiphoton]

dean, thanks bro...i get it now..
if you CREATE an original sound it's cool to use that...
if you COPY someone else's, and give it to or sell it to someone else,
well, THAT shit is not ok...
i think i get it now?

[MaxSynths]

dean, thanks bro...i get it now..
if you CREATE an original sound it's cool to use that...
if you COPY someone else's, and give it to or sell it to someone else,
well, THAT shit is not ok...
i think i get it now?

If you create an original sound with a synthesizer you can do whatever you want with it (I've asked directly to Korg some time ago and they confirmed this).

The same thing is not true for sample libraries because the product are the samples itself. If the EULA grants you the permission to sample the audio of the sample library then you are ok, but as far as I know all sample libraries are restricted to these terms. Obiouvsly you can use the sample library to produce your music (clearly written in the EULA usally) but you can't produce a product and distribute it for money or free (usually clearly written in the EULA).

Concerning DJs... well they pay (at least they should) the rights to the original owner of the recording. Usually this is done through the record label which take care to manage all the legal stuff.

Hope now is more clear




Cheers,
Max

[bob bobwood]

Start a new thread will ya ?

[pinkjimiphoton]

hi bob.
everybody drink.


max, thanks bud. between you and dean, i get it now.
peace!