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

[EvilDragon]

Right, fair.

But a proprietary file format can be considered IP, no? And the EULA segment that says "have reverse engineered the Product or parts thereof", legally, files that the program creates could be interpreted as parts of the program, as well - or no?

[Cyforce]

After reading the complete thread, mhmm... the intention "looks" may be good = option/tool for e.g. sample library developers to offer different formats in an easy way. But... the closer you look, the more "sus" it looks, seriously...

1) It`s against NI EULA- and that counts. It`s a violation of the law / their rights to THEIR intellectual property. If some people here think this is fine - well put yourself in a hypothetical example:
Someone breaks into your house/apartment, and steals your fridge and TV - will you be fine with that? I guess not. Maybe a weird comparison, but they worked for their intellectual property, in terms of work time, personal, and so on... so using it in not legal ways - is basically stealing and abusing their property.

2) If the intention was so noble "giving sample devs easy option for more formats" - well why is it hidden behind a supposedly not-transparent paywall? Mhmm...
Leading to even more "abuse of the intellectual property of others to earn money" instead of "a noble intention" ....

3) Completely un-transparent (probably on purpose) - while offering service for money on the website - does this fit with current data privacy laws and laws in terms of service for money? No imprint, no privacy police information, no information to whom or what your money goes, and no refund policy and so on... in these modern times, alone by that - this looks more than sus.

4) The issue of "Re-Sampling" and "Converting" / EULAs of sample developers
Some people may think, that if they purchase a sample library (doesn`t matter if from NI or other creators/developers) they can do what they want with it - but no... the EULA matters, they decide what rights they give you within the use of the product or sound-library. And in most cases, they only allow you as a single user - to use the library (for creating music and so on)... but not to re-sample, etc (sometimes very specifically written within their EULAs). For good reasons!
It`s their own creative work, property by that - so if they prohibited the users, to re-sample e.g. their piano library to prevent others from using THEIR samples/recordings etc. to create another piano library to sell it on the market. (And you would be surprised how perky some people are... )

A good example: some specific romplers (hardware & software), some had extra lines in the EULA, restricting the use of their product, to make "only" music, and so on - but prohibited to use it for creating sample libraries. Would you, if you spent a lot of work time and money in creating a sound library for your product - allow users to sample it basically 1-to-1 and let them sell it for their own complete benefit? ...

And why is there no transparent information here, or on the website - if it`s absolutely legal? Not to mention - even if the intention is really noble meaned - it opens the floodgate for heavy piracy on Kontakt sound libraries (which the developer most of the time, primary build for Kontakt, and so didn`t have the intention for other formats, by their own reasons e.g.) ..... no matter how much some people may would like to have (their) purchased libraries in other formats, this is not the good way (un-authorized converting is way worse for the developer as time-consuming re-sampling = which this tool gives you the possibility to do so).

[Etienne1973]

IMO should be no difference in enthusiasm to protect intellectual property of artists AND tool developers. We are sitting in the same boat I think. Everything, our work is getting more and more virtual.

[Echoes in the Attic]

If a file format can not be copyright, then there is no issue here. Kontakt isn't being reverse engineered. A file format is being read. That is all. No samples are being distributed, the person who owns the sampled instruments is still the only one who possesses those. What exactly are we trying to protect here by not allowing people to use their samples in multiple formats? And why is this not alrrasynissue with chicken systems and other translators that have existed for years with hardware like emu and akai etc.?

[Yadrichik_Chaya]

Well there is one type of copyright I endorse and another type I reject.

I think it totally ok to rip cds/vinyls and freely spread mp3s or upload music on Youtube.

On the other hand I don't think it is ok, in any shape or form, to steal other artists work and use these musical ideas in your own productions!

So conversion between different sampler formats shouldn't be a problem at all, not even if converted libraries were distributed all over the place for free much like mp3s are.

But if someone converted a sample library, made a few tiny adjustments to the samples and then rebranded the library as THEIR amazing library and were asking money for it that would of course be unethical and a violation of copyright.

[vurt]

well that would be an ecumenical matter...

[Etienne1973]

I think it totally ok to rip cds/vinyls and freely spread mp3s or upload music on Youtube.

I disagree. But it's too late.

On the other hand I don't think it is ok, in any shape or form, to steal other artists work and use these musical ideas in your own productions!

Exactly. Big future challenge after AI has knocking at our doors.

So conversion between different sampler formats shouldn't be a problem at all, not even if converted libraries were distributed all over the place for free much like mp3s are.

Where's empathy for sound library developers?

But if someone converted a sample library, made a few tiny adjustments to the samples and then rebranded the library as THEIR amazing library and were asking money for it that would of course be unethical and a violation of copyright.

Agreed. Sure the absolute pinnacle.

[Yadrichik_Chaya]

I think it totally ok to rip cds/vinyls and freely spread mp3s or upload music on Youtube.

I disagree. But it's too late.

On the other hand I don't think it is ok, in any shape or form, to steal other artists work and use these musical ideas in your own productions!

Exactly. Big future challenge after AI has knocking at our doors.

So conversion between different sampler formats shouldn't be a problem at all, not even if converted libraries were distributed all over the place for free much like mp3s are.

Where's empathy for sound library developers?

But if someone converted a sample library, made a few tiny adjustments to the samples and then rebranded the library as THEIR amazing library and were asking money for it that would of course be unethical and a violation of copyright.

Agreed. Sure the absolute pinnacle.

This reply is not so much about copyright but about developers and artists sitting in the same boat.

Honestly plugin developers are in their very final years of making money and will become much like artists on Spotify are these days.
It takes like 300 000-400 000 monthly Spotify streams to get a monthly US minimum wage…

Because of all the new advances in AI-tech etc., anyone a few years from now can create their own great plugins just by asking AI to write the code, design the GUI etc. There's already now free AI plugins to clone analog gear almost 1:1 - GuitarML Proteus being a prime example of this.
Newer technologies will surface, there will be plenty of software like SynthEdit etc. but with advanced AI integrated.

So there will be a flood of free, cloned or cheap plugins all over the place and eventually something like Spotify but for DAW plugins will show up…
Subscribe to the service and get access to everything and many plugin developers and amateurs will gladly upload new plugins they've made to this platform. Even the heavyweights like NI, Arturia, IK Multimedia etc. will have their whole catalogs there.

And this is when artists and plugin developers finally sit in the same boat.

Don't worry though the established plugin brands will get the most usage and payouts, much like how Spotify works these days…

Just like how major record labels are not on the artists side I don't see how the big plugin developers are there for the artists?
NI forces upgrades, discontinues/abandons software so you can't use it anymore.
Other developers even refuse to do license transfers(!), contacting support can turn out to be very dramatic hehe…

I do have empathy for sample library creators but I still think it is ok to be able to easily convert between formats, those rebranding the product and selling it as their own library are doing the unethical part not us users who already have the original.

[uselessmind]

Right, fair.

But a proprietary file format can be considered IP, no? And the EULA segment that says "have reverse engineered the Product or parts thereof", legally, files that the program creates could be interpreted as parts of the program, as well - or no?

That would be an interesting interpretation of programm or product.
But if IT was, that would also mean distribution nkis and ncw would be against the EULA in this case.
Would be pretty bad news for sample devs that make plain Kontakt libs.

[Digivolt]

I have.

Any chance you could find the specific terms and post, I'd be interested to see what it says

[uselessmind]

It`s against NI EULA- and that counts. It`s a violation of the law / their rights to THEIR intellectual property.

4) The issue of "Re-Sampling" and "Converting" / EULAs of sample developers
Some people may think, that if they purchase a sample library (doesn`t matter if from NI or other creators/developers) they can do what they want with it - but no... the EULA matters, they decide what rights they give you within the use of the product or sound-library.

Because i ready so much of that and it bothers me...
This ist only true as far as those parts of an EULA are within the law.
Image if your respective country does not even acknowledge IP.
Or,as is sometimes the case ,If the law grants certain rights to licensees which the EULA tries to take away.
Does that Law have to be changed to fit the EULA? Or the other way around if push comes to shove?

[uselessmind]

Also regarding EULA violation, people may legally acquire nkis and ncw without entering into a contract with NI at all.
If those where all that was used to make this Tool(which i doubt) how would the EULA even matter?

[moss]

Right, fair.

But a proprietary file format can be considered IP, no? And the EULA segment that says "have reverse engineered the Product or parts thereof", legally, files that the program creates could be interpreted as parts of the program, as well - or no?

I don't think so (but as you know I am not a lawyer so don't take my word on it).
US law mentions 4 types of IP:
https://cpl.thalesgroup.com/software-mo ... l-property
The only thing that could be applied is Trademarks but I never heard about such a law suit.
Basically each software (incl. Kontakt) reads / writes other company's file formats. E.g. LibreOffice can read/write all Microsoft formats, Bitwig can read Ableton and FL Studio projects...

Again: I am only talking about the format, the content can be clearly copyrighted.

[egbert101]

So I set up a business which converts your CDs into mp3 format and I charge you $n for it. Can anyone not see the problem with that?

[moss]

So I set up a business which converts your CDs into mp3 format and I charge you $n for it. Can anyone not see the problem with that?

"wav to mp3 online free" gives 19 Millionen hits. Might be hard to charge for it