Sad state of Native Instruments

[mixyguy2]

There are lots of kontakt instruments that don't require kontakt player and therefor no installation.

Now I'm confused. How are they "Kontakt instruments" then?

They have samples, scripts, custom U/I, the whole shebang. That's how you create an instrument. If you then want to sell it as a "player" compatible instrument then you engage in a process with NI that has, AFAIK, you paying a chunk of change up front to buy licenses. At least that's how it is if you want to sell Reaktor instruments.

So then they're not actually Kontakt?

Maybe give me a list of examples since I'm completely unaware of them?

Most instruments are like this. Everything produced by Rhythmic Robot for example. Home Grown sounds has put out multiple series of this kind of instrument. I think that they're doing a group buy now. Other than those from NI, my non-player libraries far outnumber my player libraries.

Yes, I own a great many of those as well.

Then I don't understand what you don't understand, not that I need to.

And thanks to those who replied to explain

[BBFG#]

Now I'm confused. How are they "Kontakt instruments" then?

They have samples, scripts, custom U/I, the whole shebang. That's how you create an instrument. If you then want to sell it as a "player" compatible instrument then you engage in a process with NI that has, AFAIK, you paying a chunk of change up front to buy licenses. At least that's how it is if you want to sell Reaktor instruments.

So then they're not actually Kontakt?

Maybe give me a list of examples since I'm completely unaware of them?

Most instruments are like this. Everything produced by Rhythmic Robot for example. Home Grown sounds has put out multiple series of this kind of instrument. I think that they're doing a group buy now. Other than those from NI, my non-player libraries far outnumber my player libraries.

Yes, I own a great many of those as well.

Then I don't understand what you don't understand, not that I need to.

That you don't need to worry about activation of Kontakt (the plugin) to use those libraries. This implies you're using a cracked version of Kontakt. No matter how you try to derail it, your argument doesn't hold. But you keep trying to run this gaslit circle.

Kontakt is the plugin instrument.
Kontakt must be activated.
Sample libraries that require Kontakt are just libraries and not the plugin itself. And those may or may not have a serial activation.

And way too much time has been spent on this.

[Danilo Villanova]

I’ve been angry for months because NI doesn’t allow their **synths** to be used to make sample packs (loops). They’re basically arguing that a musical idea that I created with a sound that I made from init patch is theirs. How can these a**holes get away with such restrictive eulas?

They can go f*ck themselves. I paid for them to use them and if they want to claim that MY musical performance with MY sound design is THEIR intellectual property they can f*cking sue me.

Rant over.

[audiojunkie]

Here's a question for all Kontakt users:

Let's say long ago you bought a 3rd party library that just needs Kontakt Player. The developer paid the extra money so that his library is licensed and doesn't need a full version of Kontakt in order to run. Let's say this hypothetical 3rd party library was produced back in the days of Kontakt 4. Would that library still work on the modern versions of Kontakt player?

Is there any "gotcha" that could prevent a person who bought a Kontakt library from long ago from using it on the modern Kontakt player?

[ghettosynth]

I’ve been angry for months because NI doesn’t allow their **synths** to be used to make sample packs (loops). They’re basically arguing that a musical idea that I created with a sound that I made from init patch is theirs. How can these a**holes get away with such restrictive eulas?

They can go f*ck themselves. I paid for them to use them and if they want to claim that MY musical performance with MY sound design is THEIR intellectual property they can f*cking sue me.

Rant over.

Is this something that you found in their license agreement?

If it's a synth with no samples, I wouldn't even ask, nor would I care what their license agreement says. Of course, if you advertise it as a <NI Product> sample pack, then you may attract their attention.

If it contains samples, sorry, you need a license unless you have the resources to battle NI in court or the stones to ignore copyright law. This rules out Battery and virtually all Kontakt instruments.

I doubt that they will sue over it anyway. There has been pushback in the courts over the bright line rule for sampling and I think that an edge case like this will have a good chance of introducing a de-minimis standard for sampling. They may send you a threatening letter though.

[Danilo Villanova]

I’ve been angry for months because NI doesn’t allow their **synths** to be used to make sample packs (loops). They’re basically arguing that a musical idea that I created with a sound that I made from init patch is theirs. How can these a**holes get away with such restrictive eulas?

They can go f*ck themselves. I paid for them to use them and if they want to claim that MY musical performance with MY sound design is THEIR intellectual property they can f*cking sue me.

Rant over.

Is this something that you found in their license agreement?

If it's a synth with no samples, I wouldn't even ask, nor would I care what their license agreement says. Of course, if you advertise it as a <NI Product> sample pack, then you may attract their attention.

If it contains samples, sorry, you need a license unless you have the resources to battle NI in court or the stones to ignore copyright law. This rules out Battery and virtually all Kontakt instruments.

I doubt that they will sue over it anyway. There has been pushback in the courts over the bright line rule for sampling and I think that an edge case like this will have a good chance of introducing a de-minimis standard for sampling. They may send you a threatening letter though.

I mean Massive, FM8, Reaktor (synths), etc. Not Kontakt or Battery instruments. Their EULA is kind of ambiguous, so I emailed them, and they confirmed that they don't allow ANY of their instruments to be used for making loops/samples. Other people have done the same and gotten the same response.

To be clear, I'm only interested in making original (short) compositions, using sounds that I made from INIT patch. I wouldn't even use the noise oscillators from Massive X. I do respect their right to protect their intellectual property.

But I think the restrictions they impose are absurd and I don't think they have the legal or moral right to enforce such a EULA, so I've decided to not respect it. I'm obviously not going to use their trademarks nor say that I'm using their synths but that's about it.

[BBFG#]

Just began wondering if NI has an interoffice private thread called "The Sad State of NI Customers".

[enroe]

But I think the restrictions they impose are absurd and I don't think they have the legal or moral right to enforce such a EULA, so I've decided to not respect it. ...

If you do that, it's illegal - and they could - even have to (!) - sue you.

The consequence that would have to follow from the NI EULAs would be different.

[elxsound]

But I think the restrictions they impose are absurd and I don't think they have the legal or moral right to enforce such a EULA, so I've decided to not respect it. ...

If you do that, it's illegal - and they could - even have to (!) - sue you.

The consequence that would have to follow from the NI EULAs would be different.

Not gonna armchair lawyer this, but a loop could be a composition. Is it an original work? If they don’t allow that, then you would need to forget about using them in any commercial context. What they don’t allow is to sample their software synths and to sell those sounds as a sample library.

The subject can get confusing depending who you speak to, and who’s explaining things.

Anyway as mentioned, not gonna pretend lawyer this thing, but I will suggest to apply some reasoning into considering what’s an original work.

[BBFG#]

This controversy of loops is one I've not been able to justify in myself. Kudos to those that can, but it ends up feeling like a cheat to me and those tracks get removed fairly quick. They have served a purpose of example of what can be done, but already has been done. If there is something in particular I like in the loop, then I teach myself to play it in hopes it will come out in some variation later I can easily justify. Also with vocal phrasing, I found it's one of those tricky things to use, depending on your audience. For instance in the Ethnic World Vocal sets, playing anything that is a phrase of that ethnicity can be quickly pointed out as "appropriation". And I live in a multicultural area with several indigenous tribes and world immigrants. If I use any of these, it's better using a "key" file rather than "loop". Though I find using a vox synth preset to be more acceptable to all.

I also find that almost all the instruments have a range of being really good but always fails when trying for the intimacy that instrument calls for. So as much as I love the idea of sampling, it often equally disgusts me in its limitations.
I can get by with their faults in any production, but the company itself has been the greatest disappointment to me. They seem to delight in sadism.

[DrGonzo]

While I am unsure that anyone can impose such strict EULAs legally all over the world, the immediate result is simply that people will take their business elsewhere.

It's like buying paint, but you cannot use our paint if you are paint figurines and then resell them. Or you cannot use our nails if you sell something you built with them.
You may not drive our car while you are earning money.

But the issue is kind of moot from a broader perspective. Who cares? It's not like there aren't alternatives around and NI hasn't been on top of the game in decades.

I do hope though, that we soon will see new EULAs forbidding making music in certain styles.
Or being used by supporters of certain political parties.
Or be used on certain days of the week.

[noiseboyuk]

But I think the restrictions they impose are absurd and I don't think they have the legal or moral right to enforce such a EULA, so I've decided to not respect it. ...

If you do that, it's illegal - and they could - even have to (!) - sue you.

The consequence that would have to follow from the NI EULAs would be different.

I agree with those who say it's a practical non-issue. If you marketed a sound set as "Sounds Of Absynth"... just maaaaybe you could get in trouble for your own sounds, but I highly doubt it even then.

This is one of those subjects that is uniformly absurd. It is utterly absurd of NI or Spectrasonics to forbid you making your own patch with their sound engine and re-selling it. It is doubly absurd because it is never, ever, ever going to be enforced. It's all-but unproveable and undetectable, and there is no negative consquence. And perhaps most pertinently - no-one has ever done so. I invite anyone to link a single case of anyone anywhere in the known universe who has been sued - let alone successfully - by a developer for selling a sound that they themselves made with a synth without using samples.

So foaming at the mouth and boycotting NI seems rather silly. Just ignore the twits like everyone else.

[DrGonzo]

If you marketed a sound set as "Sounds Of Absynth"... just maaaaybe you could get in trouble for your own sounds, but I highly doubt it even then.

Right. But Selling something that is called 'Sounds of Absynth' would probably be going into their territory of trademarks, and I doubt that would be greeted with open arms in any court.

Anyway - seriously nothing to be bothered about.

[chk071]

I’ve been angry for months because NI doesn’t allow their **synths** to be used to make sample packs (loops). They’re basically arguing that a musical idea that I created with a sound that I made from init patch is theirs. How can these a**holes get away with such restrictive eulas?

They can go f*ck themselves. I paid for them to use them and if they want to claim that MY musical performance with MY sound design is THEIR intellectual property they can f*cking sue me.

Rant over.

Is this something that you found in their license agreement?

If it's a synth with no samples, I wouldn't even ask, nor would I care what their license agreement says. Of course, if you advertise it as a <NI Product> sample pack, then you may attract their attention.

If it contains samples, sorry, you need a license unless you have the resources to battle NI in court or the stones to ignore copyright law. This rules out Battery and virtually all Kontakt instruments.

I doubt that they will sue over it anyway. There has been pushback in the courts over the bright line rule for sampling and I think that an edge case like this will have a good chance of introducing a de-minimis standard for sampling. They may send you a threatening letter though.

I mean Massive, FM8, Reaktor (synths), etc. Not Kontakt or Battery instruments. Their EULA is kind of ambiguous, so I emailed them, and they confirmed that they don't allow ANY of their instruments to be used for making loops/samples. Other people have done the same and gotten the same response.

To be clear, I'm only interested in making original (short) compositions, using sounds that I made from INIT patch. I wouldn't even use the noise oscillators from Massive X. I do respect their right to protect their intellectual property.

Your "colourful" rant aside: What exactly do you want to do? First, you talk about creating loops and samples, then you talk about "compositions". What exactly is it you want to do with the synths?

Also, I fail to see how doing loops and samples actually differs from composing. After all, you bounce it all down in the end. And, don't tell me you can't use your sampled instruments in a track.

[ghettosynth]

But I think the restrictions they impose are absurd and I don't think they have the legal or moral right to enforce such a EULA, so I've decided to not respect it. ...

If you do that, it's illegal - and they could - even have to (!) - sue you.

The consequence that would have to follow from the NI EULAs would be different.

Not gonna armchair lawyer this, but a loop could be a composition. Is it an original work? If they don’t allow that, then you would need to forget about using them in any commercial context. What they don’t allow is to sample their software synths and to sell those sounds as a sample library.

The subject can get confusing depending who you speak to, and who’s explaining things.

Anyway as mentioned, not gonna pretend lawyer this thing, but I will suggest to apply some reasoning into considering what’s an original work.

No, you don't forget about it. You simply make a reasonable choice of whether you think that they are likely to initiate a legal action or not.

Look, I wouldn't take anything that you get from NI support seriously. This person just got some human who is going to say, naturally, that the most restrictive perspective is their perspective.

That's it. If NI thought that they could really get away with stronger language in the EULA, it would be in there. They know that they can't so it's ambiguous and, when you ask, they're going to tell you a story.

I've heard bullshit ad-nauseum from devs here on KVR who think that they're entitled to more rights than they are. Loops are absolutely a composition and nobody is going to want to take this to court because that is exactly what the outcome will be.

Trademarks are a thing and it's really best to avoid trying to use them to sell your works. However, if you are creating ambient loops or house loops, or whatever, copyright law is on your side.

As I said, I wouldn't even ask their permission to sample a synth output if it contained no samples.