Tone2 Gladiator 3 (public beta)

[fmr]

If I am able to use audio that I create with a Tone2 product within other third party software (e.g. Harmor, Fathom, Galaxy X, Serum, Falcon, Codex, etc.), I will do so, as I believe that it is within my royalty-free license of reasonable-use to do so, since it will be for the sole purpose of using within my own music productions and not for creating sound sets to distribute to others or sell for profit. Likewise, I also believe that it is within my license of reasonable use to import derivative audio which I have created with a non-Tone2 product within a Tone2 product (such as Icarus) for use in my own music productions.

I am with you on this. Some restrictions are simply absurd. Even on sample based synths. And I can't see how creating a wavetable in Icarus with my own sounds will make it copyrighted to Tone2. It's absurd.

[tonedef71]

I wish I had this kind of offers when I first looked to buy them.

Indeed. I purchased Gladiator 2 Expanded and Icarus on sale separately and that total comes to $216. So $179 for both right now is a pretty good (non-second-hand) deal.

[tonedef71]

I'm only missing 1 Tone 2 synth.

I forget... which one would that be?

Gladiator

Yeah, in that case, you would probably be better off waiting for an individual sale on Gladiator, since you already own every other Tone2 product. This is assuming, of course, that you are interested in Gladiator.

[tonedef71]

If I am able to use audio that I create with a Tone2 product within other third party software (e.g. Harmor, Fathom, Galaxy X, Serum, Falcon, Codex, etc.), I will do so, as I believe that it is within my royalty-free license of reasonable-use to do so, since it will be for the sole purpose of using within my own music productions and not for creating sound sets to distribute to others or sell for profit. Likewise, I also believe that it is within my license of reasonable use to import derivative audio which I have created with a non-Tone2 product within a Tone2 product (such as Icarus) for use in my own music productions.

I am with you on this. Some restrictions are simply absurd. Even on sample based synths. And I can't see how creating a wavetable in Icarus with my own sounds will make it copyrighted to Tone2. It's absurd.

Viral-like licenses on derivative works is just bad juju.

Here is another case (which I just plain avoid because I'm not really sure about the ramifications): Submitting presets/patches here on KVR (or to a place like PatchArena.com) for a virtual synth which were derived from commercial factory or commercial third party. What number of changes starting from an existing preset constitutes a new original preset? 6 degrees of separation? 60 degrees of separation? It is within the realm of possibility and coincidence to create a patch from the "init" patch that just so happens to resemble a derivation (within some N degrees of separation) from an existing commercial patch.

[wagtunes]

If I am able to use audio that I create with a Tone2 product within other third party software (e.g. Harmor, Fathom, Galaxy X, Serum, Falcon, Codex, etc.), I will do so, as I believe that it is within my royalty-free license of reasonable-use to do so, since it will be for the sole purpose of using within my own music productions and not for creating sound sets to distribute to others or sell for profit. Likewise, I also believe that it is within my license of reasonable use to import derivative audio which I have created with a non-Tone2 product within a Tone2 product (such as Icarus) for use in my own music productions.

I am with you on this. Some restrictions are simply absurd. Even on sample based synths. And I can't see how creating a wavetable in Icarus with my own sounds will make it copyrighted to Tone2. It's absurd.

Viral-like licenses on derivative works is just bad juju.

Here is another case (which I just plain avoid because I'm not really sure about the ramifications): Submitting presets/patches here on KVR (or to a place like PatchArena.com) for a virtual synth which were derived from commercial factory or commercial third party. What number of changes starting from an existing preset constitutes a new original preset? 6 degrees of separation? 60 degrees of separation? It is within the realm of possibility and coincidence to create a patch from the "init" patch that just so happens to resemble a derivation (within some N degrees of separation) from an existing commercial patch.

That depends on how simple the patch is. I mean I know I have made patches simple enough that the possibility of it being an existing patch is very great. Ironically, however, I'm told my patches are SO bad because they are so simple that nobody in their right mind would WANT to create a patch like it. So there's a distinct possibility that my patches are quite unique, in a very bad way.

I don't know. I can only go by what I'm told.

I know my customers don't agree, thank goodness.

[hivkorn]

Please contact me in private. We should not discuss business-internals in the public.

I don't know man, I think we came off on the wrong foot. I don't think I want another such unpleasant endeavor "in private".

If I wanted to open my copyrighted waveforms in licensed versions of your synths to use your algorithms to mangle them, I still retain the copyright to those waveforms. What do you wanna do about it? Change copyright laws? I have no idea why you would want extra "payments" or "business" from me to make that happen. In fact, the idea sounds so awkward to me, I'd rather seek for other tools. So today we bought a site license of a different tool and we'll happily use that instead. Hence, case closed for me, not sure what you're still going on about.

Off to a nice glass of wine with my loved one. Pity though, the waveform mangling tools in Tone2 products seem superb. But business-wise, not my cuppa tea.

Tone 2 deserve respect too.

[EnGee]

Anyway, I'm not sure if I choose between Gladiator and Icarus, which one it could be. Probably I'll get one of them as they both are easy to use program without even the need for manual.

If you can scrape up the dough to buy Gladiator now, you could actually purchase both of them. BestService.de is having a two-for-one sale on Tone2 products.

This is really excellent! Thanks
Do you know till when this offer?

[tonedef71]

Do you know till when this offer?

The promotion will end Friday, July 13th 2018 at midnight.

Please note: During our 2for1 promotion you will still be credited BestCoin for every purchase and, of course, you can redeem the BestCoin you have already collected.

[Urs]

Tone 2 deserve respect too.

Can we let this go please?

[EnGee]

Do you know till when this offer?

The promotion will end Friday, July 13th 2018 at midnight.

Please note: During our 2for1 promotion you will still be credited BestCoin for every purchase and, of course, you can redeem the BestCoin you have already collected.

Thanks

I was on my phone browser so I was lazy to check

[thecontrolcentre]

That's a nice offer

[ENV1]

Tone 2 deserve respect too.

Everyone deserves respect. So if a synth author says 'dont sample and sell the raw factory waveforms and/or factory presets' then thats perfectly alright and something that any fair-minded person would certainly accept and respect, never minding of course that with most people this probably goes without saying anyway.

But in my view thats also as far as it goes. While you can certainly limit the use of your own material, you cant sell people a musical instrument and then dictate to them what they can and cannot do with the material they have created themselves by using said instrument for the very purpose the author sold it to them, i.e. as a tool to create synthesized sounds. Because like it or not, and dislike it if you want, you cant just penetrate your way into peoples private spheres with a few lines in an EULA and in doing so infringe upon their rights and liberties as if you were in a position (let alone legally entitled) to grant or deny them. Thats just not on, as the Canadians would say.

And it should be obvious why too. Because the world as we know it would explode in a blaze of chaos if every author of a tool could suddenly LEGALLY claim copyright on user created material just because they are the ones who created the tool. Microsoft could say you cant sell your softsynth in Russia, you used our developing tools and our libraries/code/algorithms/whatever so we are within our right to demand that. Apple could say you cant sell to China or Korea for the same reason. Steinberg could say the money earned with plugins based on the VST standard may be used for rent and food, but not for hookers and booze because they find that morally questionable. (Though if youre really horny and absolutely need a drink they would cut you a deal but it will cost ya.) And all sorts of other outlandish demands from other tool authors who think they can stick their noses into things which are none of their damned business. Im sure you see the problem-potential here.

So like i said, respect where respect is due. If a synth author says leave my factory stuff alone, fine, its their property so they get to say what can and cant be done with it. But it goes the other way too. If i pay for a synth then i have the right to use it, and if i use a synth to create own original sounds then that is my creative work, which automatically makes it my property, which means i can do with it whatever i want, and unless the law changes thats the end of it too.

[wagtunes]

Tone 2 deserve respect too.

Everyone deserves respect. So if a synth author says 'dont sample and sell the raw factory waveforms and/or factory presets' then thats perfectly alright and something that any fair-minded person would certainly accept and respect, never minding of course that with most people this probably goes without saying anyway.

But in my view thats also as far as it goes. While you can certainly limit the use of your own material, you cant sell people a musical instrument and then dictate to them what they can and cannot do with the material they have created themselves by using said instrument for the very purpose the author sold it to them, i.e. as a tool to create synthesized sounds. Because like it or not, and dislike it if you want, you cant just penetrate your way into peoples personal spheres with a few lines in an EULA and in doing so infringe upon their rights and liberties as if you were in a position (let alone legally entitled) to grant or deny them. Thats just not on, as the Canadians would say.

And it should be obvious why too. Because the world as we know it would explode in a blaze of chaos if every author of a tool could suddenly LEGALLY claim copyright on user created material just because they are the ones who created the tool. Microsoft could say you cant sell your softsynth in Russia, you used our developing tools and our libraries/code/algorithms/whatever so we are within our right to demand that. Apple could say you cant sell to China or Korea for the same reason. Steinberg could say the money earned with plugins based on the VST standard may be used for rent and food, but not for hookers and booze because they find that morally questionable. (Though if youre really horny and absolutely need a drink they would cut you a deal but it will cost ya.) And all sorts of other outlandish demands from other tool authors who think they can stick their noses into things which are none of their damned business. Im sure you see the problem-potential here.

So like i said, respect where respect is due. If a synth author says leave my factory stuff alone, fine, its their property so they get to say what can and cant be done with it. But it goes the other way too. If i pay for a synth then i have the right to use it, and if i use a synth to create own original sounds then that is my creative work, which automatically makes it my property, which means i can do with it whatever i want, and unless the law changes thats the end of it too.

Thank you!!!!!

Somebody gets it.

Whatever Markus is smoking he needs to get rid of it because it's warping his brain.

[EnGee]

So like i said, respect where respect is due. If a synth author says leave my factory stuff alone, fine, its their property so they get to say what can and cant be done with it. But it goes the other way too. If i pay for a synth then i have the right to use it, and if i use a synth to create own original sounds then that is my creative work, which automatically makes it my property, which means i can do with it whatever i want, and unless the law changes thats the end of it too.

Thank you!!!!!

Somebody gets it.

Whatever Markus is smoking he needs to get rid of it because it's warping his brain.

Why? How many synths you are promoting or how many companies you are working for?! How many of those synths you want to use wavetables generated in Tone2 synths in?!

Suddenly most of KVR members now are synth developers want to use Tone2 products to help them in their products!

Anyway, if Tone2 'magic' is so essential to you, then contact them and get a permission to use it (paid or not!).

[wagtunes]

So like i said, respect where respect is due. If a synth author says leave my factory stuff alone, fine, its their property so they get to say what can and cant be done with it. But it goes the other way too. If i pay for a synth then i have the right to use it, and if i use a synth to create own original sounds then that is my creative work, which automatically makes it my property, which means i can do with it whatever i want, and unless the law changes thats the end of it too.

Thank you!!!!!

Somebody gets it.

Whatever Markus is smoking he needs to get rid of it because it's warping his brain.

Why? How many synths you are promoting or how many companies you are working for?! How many of those synths you want to use wavetables generated in Tone2 synths in?!

Suddenly most of KVR members now are synth developers want to use Tone2 products to help them in their products!

Anyway, if Tone2 'magic' is so essential to you, then contact them and get a permission to use it (paid or not!).

I have no personal stake in this. But ENV1's response is dead on the money.

Next they're going to want part of the royalties for any songs we create using their synths because we're using their sounds.

Where does it end?

But like I said, it's no skin off my nose.