Can I change the label reading to whom my U-he products are "registered to ..."?

[mevla]

bearing that in mind, it seems like you're just saying "developers can be bad people too" which i think most people already suspected.

There's only one kind of people who are not bad...

[Delta Sign]

When you can have everything, whether it is because you simply steal stuff, or because you have the money to buy everything, you definitely value what you have less.

People who buy plugin after plugin rarely post music they make, because they make none. They are waiting for "the next big thing" that finally allows them to get the sound they want, not realizing they already have everything they need, except the skill and the patience to actually learn stuff.

So yeah, I think there is a correlation between how much stuff you have and how much stuff you make.
This extends far beyond the world of plugins, of course.

At least that's my experience.

[lunardigs]

A strong argument could be made that C++, Python, PHP, etc. is "free" and thus what's created with it should be as well.

if, in 1983, Michael Crichton gets the idea for Jurassic Park while at a restaurant and writes the idea down on a complimentary restaurant napkin, the restaurant does not consequently own the entirety of the Jurassic Park franchise.

No ... That is unless the restaurant in question is owned by Disney.

Anyway, C++, Python, PHP etc. are not free products as much as they are international standards that people can adhere to if they like. the compilers are free but theoretically whoever wanted to could make their own compiler. and if someone gives that compiler away for free, it's because they wanted to. if you give someone a present, they aren't obligated to relinquish it to the first guy who comes along and demands it.

that's what i mean about crackers being petty power-grabbers. they FORCE it to be free, against the owner's wishes, just for spite or self-aggrandizement.

I get what you're saying, I really do. I'm just making the point that the whole subject is a legalistic wonderland. Thus are the wild arguments which can be made.

For instance, do you actually "own" any of the U-he products you've "bought"? Is that how it works, in the common sense of it? Rather, is there a legal definition of "ownership" here?

Btw, and I'm sure you know, this is also the legal realm of songcraft.

[#rob]

For instance, do you actually "own" any of the U-he products you've "bought"?

That's an easy one: no. Not the code, not the "creation mechanism", not the compiled product, not the downloadable .zip. You "own" nothing.

Is that how it works, in the common sense of it? Rather, is there a legal definition of "ownership" here?

There most definitely is. It's called "licensing".

What you pay for in the end is not, as pointed out above, "a copy of the thing", but "us allowing you to use the thing". You don't pay for anything physical, you only pay for the permission, our consent, to use our intellectual property.

And even that license you don't "own", we own it, at all times. We "grant" it and we could -theoretically- revoke the license at any time, if there were any reason to do so, taking the permission/consent/right to use our intellectual property from you.

It's our intellectual property, our product and our license.
We just lend the license, i.e. the right to use our intellectual property, to you in exchange for payment.

I find this Wikipedia quote a bit harshly formulated, but legally I figure it's kinda true.

A shorthand definition of license is "a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee".

[benheman]

RE: People who buy plugin after plugin rarely post music they make, because they make none. They are waiting for "the next big thing" that finally allows them to get the sound they want, not realizing they already have everything they need, except the skill and the patience to actually learn stuff.

So true, Delta Sign

[mevla]

So true, Delta Sign

And if you do both ?

[40watt]

RE: People who buy plugin after plugin rarely post music they make, because they make none. They are waiting for "the next big thing" that finally allows them to get the sound they want, not realizing they already have everything they need, except the skill and the patience to actually learn stuff.

So true, Delta Sign

The audio industry is composed of many different types of people and different skills and runs on a passion for every aspect of it, not just publishing your own songs. and thank god for that or we wouldn’t have people like Urs. Calling people stupid for buying plugins on a developer form is a bit dim and short-sighted IMHO.
The suggestion that people who collect stuff, legit or not, are simply not professional or can’t learn is just rubbish.
Go tell this guy he’s not a pro cause he collects stuff…
http://eatdrinkplay.events/a-visit-with ... d-erasure/

[40watt]

Sorry transfer ranting mainly caused by lack of Colour Copy Public Beta…
dam you Urs… have my money…..

[Delta Sign]

Ohh yeah, of course there are many people who have loads of gear who make great music, but I'm more talking about the "I have Komplete 11, 49 synths, 54 effects, and I can't make the music I want. What do I have to buy next?" type of things. If you don't have the option to get new stuff all the time, you are more likely to actually use the stuff you have, is all I'm saying. Many of the great musicians who now have all kinds of gear now started out with almost nothing. It's pretty consistent, really. Ask any of them how they started, the answer will almost always be something along the lines of "Back in the day I had a shitty broken 4 track and a Casio sampler".

Of course there is also the Thom Yorke "As soon as you are familiar with a machine, it's useless" line of thinking. I get where he's coming from, as new gear can certainly be inspiring, but I doubt he would be any less creative without all the gear.

[lunardigs]

For instance, do you actually "own" any of the U-he products you've "bought"?

That's an easy one: no. Not the code, not the "creation mechanism", not the compiled product, not the downloadable .zip. You "own" nothing.

Is that how it works, in the common sense of it? Rather, is there a legal definition of "ownership" here?

There most definitely is. It's called "licensing".

What you pay for in the end is not, as pointed out above, "a copy of the thing", but "us allowing you to use the thing". You don't pay for anything physical, you only pay for the permission, our consent, to use our intellectual property.

And even that license you don't "own", we own it, at all times. We "grant" it and we could -theoretically- revoke the license at any time, if there were any reason to do so, taking the permission/consent/right to use our intellectual property from you.

It's our intellectual property, our product and our license.
We just lend the license, i.e. the right to use our intellectual property, to you in exchange for payment.

I find this Wikipedia quote a bit harshly formulated, but legally I figure it's kinda true.

A shorthand definition of license is "a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee".

Yup, all true, and here lays the greatest argument for FOSS. I only wish more people knew, because they might then value FOSS for it's true meaning.

Okay, so here's another fun question: Do you actually own what's been created with said licensed software (your music in this case)?

[sleepcircle]

yes


edit:
i'm sure there's some legal loophole somewhere, whereby you and a team of 50 lawyers could prove that "no you don't own the music you make with the licensed software"

but morally, yes.

[ATN69]

If I sum up all the ideas, comments, facts and opinions in this thread regarding ownership and rights, my conclusion is that it's basically a waste of money to go for plugins and software ..You don't own anything and you have few rights. At least that's what some people make it sounds like. Can't wait to buy more plugins based on such premises

[sleepcircle]

that's what legalism gets you.

of course, it was only invented as a defense against people who will try their hardest to act terrible, anyway.

otherwise you would just give them the money and they'd give you the software and everyone would be happy and no-one would need licensing agreements.

but the moment the first person deliberately misused something and used as a defense "you never SAID i COULDN'T" even when they knew the person would object—or the moment they tried to bend the meaning of truth around, somehow, to get away with a cruel or selfish act—then the law was brought to rear its ugly head, hissing and spitting venom and attacking indiscriminately, in an effort to get people to live within the boundaries of right and wrong.



EDIT: you didn't sum up MY comments and opinions, by the way. i am staunchly against all of this hair-splitting and legal relativism.

[ATN69]

I was of course exaggerating on purpose, just to make a point. I also didn't mention any names, including yours. If you feel pointed at in some way that's entirely your own doing.

[sleepcircle]

i didn't feel pointed at; i felt that you entirely omitted to point at me.



(i'm joking.)

edit: in all honesty i just wanted to make sure that i was influencing the Group Bias a couple micrometers towards natural law. I didn't feel called out or anything.

anyway, i feel like this thread has outlived its ability to improve anyone's life, so i probably won't reply to this again. if you're wondering why i felt the need to spell out that I won't be replying again instead of just quietly leaving: it's because i have very poor self-control and might otherwise feel tempted to get back into it, and this way I am publicly accountable for my claim that I won't do so.

p e a c e