Kontakt 6 / 7 to SFZ or Decent Sampler: The Fast and Convenient Online Solution You've Been Searching For!

[Echoes in the Attic]

If someone buys a library that requires Kontakt, then it's not player compatible, so there would be no player license, so who cares what NI would say.

My point is if someone buys a library from NI that requires the purchase of Kontakt and this tool allows people to circumvent that requirement and use the samples in other software then I see that as a problem. I'm not saying this tool allows that but what would be the point otherwise?

I can't just download a K7 library from NI and use it because it won't authorize since I haven't purchased it, correct? If this tool would allow me to use those samples outside of K7 therein lies the issue. Maybe I don't understand this tool completely since I don't need it but if it allows using Kontakt samples outside of Kontakt then that's the problem I see.

How long before some people start sharing samples?

Who cares what NI thinks? Anyone who values the sanctity of intellectual property or a website that claims to be anti-piracy like KVR.

I see Evil Dragon has posted since I started making this reply so I'd read what he says carefully.....

My interpretation was that it was for third party instruments where they used Kontakt to build the instrument, not for anything you'd buy from NI, since anything bought from NI would be protected and player compatible. So if you didn't own kontakt you could still use it with the player. Some third party vendors sell instruments that are in the kontakt format, however you need to own kontakt in order to use, but people would of course love to be able to use it in other formats. I'm not aware of a way to download NI libraries with all the samples when you don't actually own it, but again, those would be protected, so they wouldn't be what this tool is for as far as I can tell.

But yeah this is aside from the potential issues EvilDragon pointed out about the method they use. Sounds like that is important.

[Echoes in the Attic]

Yeah if this reverse engineers binary NKIs and NCW formats, this is clearly against EULA.

And this was done without anyone at NI knowing about it. Shady.

UNLESS, this is running a Kontakt 7.5 instance on a server somewhere that executes a Lua script (enabled by Kontakt Lua API - which also allows NCW encoding/decoding) to generate these converted files. This is a legally clean usecase.

This needs to be clarified. If it's not using the above mentioned clean method, well... you can guess what might happen.

The LUA scriping to decode NCW sounds promising for tools like chicken systems, which is far as I know, does not currently support NCW or anything above kontakt 5. Does this mean they would be able to update the tool to allow translating kontakt files that reference ncw? Their site say you first need to save as regular non-compressed files.

Also, is there a way to save as earlier kontakt versions?

[EvilDragon]

NCW is a sample format not the instrument description format, this is not the real problem for Translator. The binary encrypted NKI is the real problem. They can always just keep the NCW references and not allow playback of NCW files (if this is something Translator does, I don't know).

At any rate this conversion needs to run in Kontakt anyways, it's not something they can just run on their own. They would have to call up Kontakt with their Lua script as argument.

And also, of course, Player instruments and those that are locked for editing cannot be converted.

Also, is there a way to save as earlier kontakt versions?

Nope. It is not realistically (and in some aspects also technically) feasible considering all the other things NI wants to do with Kontakt.

[Yadrichik_Chaya]

I think this is running a Kontakt 7.5 instance on a server somewhere that executes a Lua script (enabled by Kontakt Lua API - which also allows NCW encoding/decoding) to generate these converted files. So this is a legally clean use case.

Happy converting everybody!

[audiojunkie]

If someone buys a library that requires Kontakt, then it's not player compatible, so there would be no player license, so who cares what NI would say.

My point is if someone buys a library from NI that requires the purchase of Kontakt and this tool allows people to circumvent that requirement and use the samples in other software then I see that as a problem. I'm not saying this tool allows that but what would be the point otherwise?

I can't just download a K7 library from NI and use it because it won't authorize since I haven't purchased it, correct? If this tool would allow me to use those samples outside of K7 therein lies the issue. Maybe I don't understand this tool completely since I don't need it but if it allows using Kontakt samples outside of Kontakt then that's the problem I see.

How long before some people start sharing samples?

Who cares what NI thinks? Anyone who values the sanctity of intellectual property or a website that claims to be anti-piracy like KVR.

I see Evil Dragon has posted since I started making this reply so I'd read what he says carefully.....

I respect EvilDragon's opinions very highly, so I want to be clear before I type my comments that I am not disagreeing with his comments at all. In fact, I think his edited comment that adds the "clean room" technique for sample swapping is quite clever.

The point that I want to drive home is that I still do think the idea behind the "Right to Repair" movement that is currently growing worldwide should affect all of this as well. For those who don't know the background, here is a brief summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_repair

I understand developers wanting to protect their investments. I also understand the legal licensed user wanting to be able to use the samples that they paid money for a license usage. Just like it is not necessarily illegal for a person who owns a particular hardware synth/sampler to sample (for their own use) the instrument they own, I feel that there should be no harm in a person purchasing a Kontakt library legally and then sampling the library into another format for their own personal use.

Just like some of the equipment is designed purposely with planned obsolescence in mind, and just like people should have the right to repair their own equipment, I feel that some companies encrypt their data for reasons other than to protect from theft--namely, to force consumers into upgrading to the latest version of the software for continued usage of the licensed product.

It's a grey area that is currently being battled legislatively around the world by consumers that are tired of throwing away perfectly good purchases in order to upgrade when it is not absolutely necessary.

The tide is slowly turning. Consumers are tired of the unnecessary waste. I believe some of these software laws are going to be pulled into the hardware right to repair fray along with other unfair industrial practices. Here's an example:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64206913

The movement is growing, and I support it 100%.

BTW, Teksonik, this rant wasn't directed at you. I just sort of got started about my opinions on this and couldn't bring myself to stop without finishing the thought.

I hope you'll forgive me that my "quote post" is making it look like my comment is directed at you.

[EvilDragon]

I think this is running a Kontakt 7.5 instance on a server somewhere that executes a Lua script (enabled by Kontakt Lua API - which also allows NCW encoding/decoding) to generate these converted files. So this is a legally clean use case.

This reply that basically copy pasted what I wrote is extremly, extremely suspicious.

Where is the actual developer of this tool? And why aren't they speaking up explaining this?

[EvilDragon]

I feel that there should be no harm in a person purchasing a Kontakt library legally and then sampling the library into another format for their own personal use.

Most if not all sample library licenses you purchase explicitly forbid doing this, AFAIK. And also sample library developer always reserves the right to revoke the license on any applicable ground they see fit. Such is the world of licenses and intangibles.

[egbert101]

Original Poster/Spammer hasn't been back to answer questions. Sounds sus.

[Yadrichik_Chaya]

I think this is running a Kontakt 7.5 instance on a server somewhere that executes a Lua script (enabled by Kontakt Lua API - which also allows NCW encoding/decoding) to generate these converted files. So this is a legally clean use case.

This reply that basically copy pasted what I wrote is extremly, extremely suspicious.

Where is the actual developer of this tool? And why aren't they speaking up explaining this?

Just a bad joke!

[audiojunkie]

I feel that there should be no harm in a person purchasing a Kontakt library legally and then sampling the library into another format for their own personal use.

Most if not all sample library licenses you purchase explicitly forbid doing this, AFAIK. And also sample library developer always reserves the right to revoke the license on any applicable ground they see fit. Such is the world of licenses and intangibles.

True. But I personally feel that it shouldn't be this way. I can't argue with the current laws, but morally, I look forward with hope that the Right to repair laws eventually extend to protect consumers from software developers. Forcing people to upgrade to newer versions of software in order to keep their license is wrong to me in the same way that hardware developers making it hard to repair their own equipment is. I find it absolutely frustrating. That's why I only purchase samples originally in SFZ format, and only use free samples that are licensed in a way that I agree with. That's why I use Linux and open source software (with the exception of a few properly licensed Linux native commercial products). So, I've got a clean conscience here, but rather than I revolution to change the way things are done, I believe it is best to go through the legal channels provided to make the legislative changes--which is why I support the Right to Repair movement.

And in no way does anything I say of personal opinion lessen what you say about the current laws. You are correct, and I back you up completely. But I do hope for a bit of grey area change.

Much respect, as always, my friend!! I still think you'd make an excellent Linux user and supporter! We've just got to find a way to get you off of Windows!

Best!

[Digivolt]

I feel that there should be no harm in a person purchasing a Kontakt library legally and then sampling the library into another format for their own personal use.

Most if not all sample library licenses you purchase explicitly forbid doing this, AFAIK. And also sample library developer always reserves the right to revoke the license on any applicable ground they see fit. Such is the world of licenses and intangibles.

Could it not fall into grey area the same way emulators are grey area ?

[noaschuetz]

Dear colleagues,

I kindly invite you to test the Kontakt Converter Desktop. You are entitled to three free conversions via the desktop version, or alternatively, there is an option to pay approximately $5 for each online conversion. I would greatly appreciate if someone could try it out and provide feedback on the experience.

For context, I'm a senior developer and every FILE is made up of bytes representing structures and contents. Identifying these structures isn't particularly challenging. For the NKI and NCW formats, it's no different. I have analyzed these files and discerned their organization. Contrary to common perception, an NCW or NKI isn't encrypted or anything of that sort. In reality, it's just a regular file with distinct structures and byte portions. You can open an NKI file in Notepad and you will even be able to identify a few things, what I did was just go a little deeper to understand.

I hope this answers any queries you might have.

[noaschuetz]

My intention is that the individual who develops instruments can provide options for users of their instrument, or that they can easily use their instrument in others free samplers too, not just for Kontakt.

[Dalle]

I feel that there should be no harm in a person purchasing a Kontakt library legally and then sampling the library into another format for their own personal use.

Most if not all sample library licenses you purchase explicitly forbid doing this, AFAIK. And also sample library developer always reserves the right to revoke the license on any applicable ground they see fit. Such is the world of licenses and intangibles.

How on earth does that work? Sample libraries are purchased for music making. That can include multiple iterations of sampling and resampling.

[uselessmind]

I feel that there should be no harm in a person purchasing a Kontakt library legally and then sampling the library into another format for their own personal use.

Most if not all sample library licenses you purchase explicitly forbid doing this, AFAIK. And also sample library developer always reserves the right to revoke the license on any applicable ground they see fit. Such is the world of licenses and intangibles.

Not that it makes a practical difference right now but: What rights sample devs or their customers have or dont have is ultimately governed by law, not EULAs.
EULAs and contracts can very well be illegal themselves.