Sad state of Native Instruments

[Danilo Villanova]

Support workers aren't lawyers either, so, even they could misunderstand the EULA

This is probably the cause of this kerfuffle.

Absolutely. Some support worker thinks that they're doing god's work. Just ignore them, that's not an autoreactive source. Ask your own lawyer what to do. If you don't have one or can't afford one, then you aren't even going to be on NI's radar and all of this is just a metric assload of wasted synapse firings.

Again, I would consult common sense. Gazillions of records were made with NI plugins, and, gazllion of sample packs (and presets) have been created using their synths.

If this was an issue, then you surely would have heard about law suits on a large scale.

And, last but not least, I have to ask what all the fuss is about this anyway. Are you planning to release commercial sample or loop packs which were created with NI plugins?

I guess it's more about the "f**k you" than anything else. Just like 90% of this thread really.

Yes, I make commercial loop packs. I apologize for my shitty attitude; I'm having a pretty bad day for other reasons.

My frustration comes from the fact that Massive X is basically my favorite synth, and I haven't been using it in my business because of the EULA. I've been using some other synths that I don't enjoy as much instead, and I was about to delete everything from NI yesterday before I decided that I would just proceed with using their synths regardless of what their EULA says. Thanks to everyone for their input.

[ahuman]

lizards have emotions!

[Krakatau]

lizards have emotions!

the lounge ones too ?

[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.

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.

Mmmh, it's not that absurd. Not even in this universe.

Think about what NI’s (and others’) business model is. And of
course they will do everything to ensure that their “special sounds”
are not allowed to be sold by others - even if they are slightly
modified. This also and especially applies to loops or samples
from their synthesizers.

In practice, it looks like you probably won't get sued as long as
you sell a few samples from them on a little-known site.

But as soon as your sales figures become relevant, you will be
sued, of course. The NI Legal Department only deals with such
proceedings. It is impossible to say exactly how such a court case
will end. However, copyright law is very similar in most countries,
and it depends on whether the judge can recognize a certain level
of "creation" or not.

[agharta]

How would NI even know if your sample loops were made from custom patches that you created with their synths?
As long as you don’t advertise them as being made with NI synths, it seems unlikely that they would find out.

[machinesworking]

IMO if you're making loops that come from sampled instruments or soft synths etc. then it's near impossible for them to enforce any sort of copyright. I would think they tell everyone not to use their products at all because there are dips out there that would take Play instrument loops and just add another instrument in, call it their own and sell it. How the hell are they going to enforce you using a preset you created from an INIT patch on Massive with few violin strikes and a subtly changed Battery kit in a loop though?

Anyone remember that fiasco with FL Studio and Deadmause? He sued people using the loops he created included with FL in a song if I remember right.

[Danilo Villanova]

IMO if you're making loops that come from sampled instruments or soft synths etc. then it's near impossible for them to enforce any sort of copyright. I would think they tell everyone not to use their products at all because there are dips out there that would take Play instrument loops and just add another instrument in, call it their own and sell it. How the hell are they going to enforce you using a preset you created from an INIT patch on Massive with few violin strikes and a subtly changed Battery kit in a loop though?

Anyone remember that fiasco with FL Studio and Deadmause? He sued people using the loops he created included with FL in a song if I remember right.

True, it’s impossible to enforce. To me, it’s about ethics. I don’t want to do sleazy things in my business, so I respected their EULA. I don’t want to feel like I’m doing something illegal or unethical. But, this whole time that I’ve been avoiding using their synths in my loop packs I’ve felt uneasy about it, something was nagging at me. Now I realize that their EULA is unethical and crosses the line, when it comes to their synths.

[ghettosynth]

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.

I don't think that anyone wants to take a case like this to trial. I'm not sure that it would fair well. I would love to see any cases on this as well, so if someone knows of one, show us the way.

[glokraw]

Maybe there are devs capable of water-marking a foundational sound source in such a way that it can be picked out of a loop or song, but I doubt there is a ton of motivation to do so. To make money at it, you'd need to attack a deep-pockets superstar whose dumbass producer made a blatant eula violation inside a hit song, for there to be actionable damages worth pursuing. And I doubt superstars keep dumbass producers on the payroll long enough to make such a mess. And I doubt a company who wants to sell anything in the current music market, would 'live long and prosper' after such an attack or pattern of threats becomes widely known. Greed often leeds to $$$ quicksand $$$
Cheers

[audiouser720]

Delete

[audiojunkie]

I’m going to try this again, because it is important to me. I posted originally to this thread, because I figured if anyone would know, it would be those who have been burned by N.I. In the past:

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?

After not getting any response, I started my own thread regarding this question. However, I didn’t receive a definitive answer there either, so I’m back again, hoping someone who knows the answer will speak up and the query won’t again be ignored.

Here’s the link to my other post:

viewtopic.php?t=607351

[mixyguy2]

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.

ah I see - you're still in a snit about the definitions of plugin vs VIs etc, so you decided to take a snotty crack at me about using a cracked version of Kontakt...to say nothing of being laughably clueless about how many things requiring Kontakt do not need Kontakt activation or registration. Got it. I bet you're all the rage at Mensa gatherings.

[BBFG#]

Enjoy your bubble, everyone else has settled it and moved on.

[machinesworking]

True, it’s impossible to enforce. To me, it’s about ethics. I don’t want to do sleazy things in my business, so I respected their EULA. I don’t want to feel like I’m doing something illegal or unethical. But, this whole time that I’ve been avoiding using their synths in my loop packs I’ve felt uneasy about it, something was nagging at me. Now I realize that their EULA is unethical and crosses the line, when it comes to their synths.

IMO it's stupid, Massive X is not to be used in sample libraries and loops. This is a stipulation put out by NI who have plenty of sample libraries of old analog gear. My guess is they never even thought about contacting Moog or Roland or Sequential about any of the multisample done of famous patches in Kontakt etc. I'm sure not a dime went to those companies, yet they want to enforce copyright on libraries made with Massive X.

[glokraw]

Plenty of soundbanks exist for Massive x, but I think a dozen libraries known to be based on massive x, would marginally boost sales of both massive X and Kontact. And as the K7 release appears to be a fiasco, every little sale is important. The quality of both in-house marketing and coding is certainly flailing madly in rough seas. If they even have a PR person, they need sent off on a long unpaid vacation.