Softphonics are done???!!

[madmacman]

Nail in the RE coffin? Don't hold your breath that this will have any effect on the RE market at all. This forum is frequented by less than a percent of the total user base as far as I know, so even if this is news on ReasonTalk, this event will pass pretty much unnoticed for the great majority of users.

Exactly, there was a new thread started over there at KVR and in 24h no reply at all. This might turn out as fart in the wind for the overall Reason market.

Props job is to make sure that submitted RE conforms to the standard, not to investigate whether the RE contains stolen assets. Or do you expect DAW developers to ask every VST/AU developer the question of sample sources? It's both naive and unreasonable to be honest.

With the difference of
1. Props store is somewhat „closed“ and curated
2. Props keeping a share of all sales

But you are right: this is similar to the Apple App stores - and no one ever has successfully sued Apple for copyright infringements.

[jimmyklane]

If it’s true that all of the samples have been ripped from a Kontakt instrument(s) then it is perhaps the most shameful deception I’ve seen within the Reason universe. I’m making the simplest of refills....a sampler emulation....and I’ve got pictures of all the synths that went in to it, the sampling process, and hours and hours of work put in....to release multiples of these in a month would be an almost impossible effort, especially if I was in “extreme” I’ll health.

[EdGrip]

It is a bit surprising, with hindsight, that no questions were asked about the source of libraries like that.

Can't really compare REs to VST, as RE is a plugin format exclusively compatible with Reason. REs are marketed by, and sold and distributed exclusively by the makers of Reason, and RE sales are a sizeable chunk of that company's business and income.

Obviously this will have no effect on my RE buying habits! I doubt it'll affect RE sales at all.

[jappe]

. I was already extremely hesitant about picking up new REs/ReFills, and given how this is playing out (no refunds period, I saw earlier) I guess I have to be even more prudent from now on.

What information do you have on no refund?
AFAIK the props haven't yet commented on the issue so refunding discussion seems premature?

[HeavyViper]

What information do you have on no refund?
AFAIK the props haven't yet commented on the issue so refunding discussion seems premature?

viewtopic.php?p=394707#p394707

I contacted Props about this, because I own one of the re-sampled refills. I can't post the entire reply from Props because of their terms of service, but the short version of their reply is:

"We don't do refunds on Refills or Rack Extensions."

...

[jappe]

What information do you have on no refund?
AFAIK the props haven't yet commented on the issue so refunding discussion seems premature?

viewtopic.php?p=394707#p394707

I contacted Props about this, because I own one of the re-sampled refills. I can't post the entire reply from Props because of their terms of service, but the short version of their reply is:

"We don't do refunds on Refills or Rack Extensions."

...

Hmm...that statement sounds like a reply on their general refunding policy and not a decision on refunding for this particular case.
Would be interesting to read the full question + full reply on this.
I don't understand what "terms of service" would prohibit sharing this information?

[tc13]

What information do you have on no refund?
AFAIK the props haven't yet commented on the issue so refunding discussion seems premature?

viewtopic.php?p=394707#p394707

I contacted Props about this, because I own one of the re-sampled refills. I can't post the entire reply from Props because of their terms of service, but the short version of their reply is:

"We don't do refunds on Refills or Rack Extensions."

...

This is probably a standard answer and what is noprmal procedure for Refills and Rack Extensions, but in the case of Softphonic I wouldn't be surprised if there is going to be some sort of statement from PH.

But I'm curious, has anyone tried to delete a Softphonic RE to see if it is downloaded again when syncing your Rack Extensions?

[RandyEspoda]

Whatever happens, I do hope Andrew won't go doing anything stupid, and just strives to get through this. Because he is still a HUMAN BEING. They tend to make mistakes...Here's one that made a huge mistake, for sure, one I will never even understand since as a music lover one fully realizes the wrongfulness in stealing another's work...but still he's one of our own, as in: our sh* smells equally bad when we have to go number two.

Andrew, if you're reading this, remain strong, you'll get through it. You made a very stupid mistake, but you'll have an opportunity to make it right, and to learn from this.

[bxbrkrz]

I have seen supermarkets and bodegas with a wall of shame. A wall full of the shoplifters ' picture in action. Why can't online stores have something similar (in the US, not sure about Europe and their laws). It would be a great way to protect future victims.

[sdst]

imagine an alondra's Keys re.

what a balls.lol

for the next get permission man

[RandyEspoda]

I have seen supermarkets and bodegas with a wall of shame. A wall full of the shoplifters ' picture in action. Why can't online stores have something similar (in the US, not sure about Europe and their laws). It would be a great way to protect future victims.

Better QC is what would better protect future victims, and avoid such things ending up in the shop.
Unlike an online store, where one can expect hit and runs, and the wall of shame is often also to try and find/catch the shoplifters and get them to take responsibility, in this case the shoplifter has been caught already, and there is no need to crucify him in such manner. The name is forever stained with or without such wall of shame, imo.

[avasopht]

I have seen supermarkets and bodegas with a wall of shame. A wall full of the shoplifters ' picture in action. Why can't online stores have something similar (in the US, not sure about Europe and their laws). It would be a great way to protect future victims.

Better QC is what would better protect future victims, and avoid such things ending up in the shop.
Unlike an online store, where one can expect hit and runs, and the wall of shame is often also to try and find/catch the shoplifters and get them to take responsibility, in this case the shoplifter has been caught already, and there is no need to crucify him in such manner. The name is forever stained with or without such wall of shame, imo.

You willing to pay triple the price for Propellerhead's QC to check every Rack Extension against all the available products out there, yeah?

[selig]

Better QC is what would better protect future victims, and avoid such things ending up in the shop.
Unlike an online store, where one can expect hit and runs, and the wall of shame is often also to try and find/catch the shoplifters and get them to take responsibility, in this case the shoplifter has been caught already, and there is no need to crucify him in such manner. The name is forever stained with or without such wall of shame, imo.

You willing to pay triple the price for Propellerhead's QC to check every Rack Extension against all the available products out there, yeah?

Exactly what I was going to ask.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[chaosroyale]

Yeah, Avasopht and Selig are correct, it's completely unrealistic to expect Props to content-check everything. This kind of shop is a de facto honor system, backed up by a legal agreement which will force developers to take responsibility for any infringements if they come to light. A VST would have been busted much earlier, but refills and REs have far fewer users which is how this went on for so long.

The gray area comes with Props keeping the profits from the dodgy product even after a case like this. That's why I would have hoped for a store credit (and ideally Props would have a legal recourse / commercial pressure to get some money back from the developer for example by holding the income or freezing all their other REs, but in this case it seems way too late for that)

jappe & tc13: As I thought I made clear, I contacted Props specifically about this issue. The rest of my post means exactly what it said.

[jappe]

jappe & tc13: As I thought I made clear, I contacted Props specifically about this issue. The rest of my post means exactly what it said.

I'm curious: What terms of service would prohibit you to share the full question and reply?

[Catblack]

jappe & tc13: As I thought I made clear, I contacted Props specifically about this issue. The rest of my post means exactly what it said.

I'm curious: What terms of service would prohibit you to share the full question and reply?

Probably the (imho unenforceable) one at the end of all the Propellerhead support emails.

[WongoTheSane]

The idea that PH is guilty because they "shared a part of the profits" is really weird. They're distributing products, and they bill their distribution service to whomever wants to sell a product through their Shop. I don't know the terms of their contracts, but usually, this is billed to the producer, not to the final user. Which means that if refunds were being considered, the producer should be the one reimbursing the users, including the distribution costs. Imagine you've been sold a faulty car, would you be suing the government to refund the VAT portion of the cost? That simply makes no sense... And in the same context, would you be suing the government for lack of oversight? Sue the fucker who sold you the car for full cost, because no judge is going to allow more than that.

[bxbrkrz]

I have seen supermarkets and bodegas with a wall of shame. A wall full of the shoplifters ' picture in action. Why can't online stores have something similar (in the US, not sure about Europe and their laws). It would be a great way to protect future victims.

Better QC is what would better protect future victims, and avoid such things ending up in the shop.
Unlike an online store, where one can expect hit and runs, and the wall of shame is often also to try and find/catch the shoplifters and get them to take responsibility, in this case the shoplifter has been caught already, and there is no need to crucify him in such manner. The name is forever stained with or without such wall of shame, imo.

1. We are the victims. Props are the victims.
How come we should give our precious commodity (trust) at the same rate and level as other contributors, to him? There is no need to name names but a few people here got our respect because of years and years of perfect trust score. We may not agree on many things beyond our love for Reason, but if these people were surgeons I would gladly be going under their knife, No problem.
Would you be glad to have Dr. SoftPhonics in charge of your surgery, knowing what you know now? The answer is NO.

2.Stockholm's Syndrome.
Why are we here? This thread exists because of somebody's sickness being a fraud: that human being could not stop himself. He was CAUGHT, just like a shoplifter. Being a victim of a fraud does not stop because the fraudster was caught. We don't need to like somebody who broke our trust. He is not a puppy with a broken leg in a Disney movie. We, the human being victims, should not care if the fraudster is reading this thread or not. I know children with autism. None of them tried to rip me off.
Do you think Dr. Softphonics would have stopped himself from being a fraudster? The answer is NO.

3. Forgiveness.
We built and rebuilt societies with forgiveness. If there is a sign of a first step from the fraudster toward that direction, this should be welcomed. It would be great for him to move on. Until that first step, we will be victims forever.

[jappe]

I'm curious: What terms of service would prohibit you to share the full question and reply?

Probably the (imho unenforceable) one at the end of all the Propellerhead support emails.

Ah ok, looked up an old mail and saw that now.
Still think there is some misunderstanding.
Refunding should be a question when they settle this

[Ostermilk]

Probably the (imho unenforceable) one at the end of all the Propellerhead support emails.

Ah ok, looked up an old mail and saw that now.
Still think there is some misunderstanding.
Refunding should be a question when they settle this

I just clicked delete on my Encore refill. That's all the catharsis I need. I feel sorry for those that invested more cash than me for a bunch of stuff they can no longer use. They stole my money but I don't intend to pass on any further emotional investment for free.

I think that Hydlide summarized it best when he signed of his vlog that appeared before this similarly titled thread appeared.

'Piss off Softphonics!'

[stratatonic]

The gray area comes with Props keeping the profits from the dodgy product even after a case like this. That's why I would have hoped for a store credit (and ideally Props would have a legal recourse / commercial pressure to get some money back from the developer for example by holding the income or freezing all their other REs, but in this case it seems way too late for that

Well, Propellerhead made profits off of the products. But they can say that they are simply a distribution system for REs, refills, etc. It's probably in their agreement somewhere.

There is still money floating around somewhere - don't the developers get paid after a 30/45 day window? Or has that changed? That will have to be figured out. It's still technically Softphonics' money, or is it?

[CephaloPod]

In response to several posts:

Yes, I realize the Props can't investigate every RE to the point of certainty. But I'm a bit surprised that they apparently do nothing at all in terms of quality control. It's not like there are several new RE's every day they would need to wade through. And anything that uses samples should get greater scrutiny.

The RE format is Reason-only. You can only get them from the Props' shop. They take a cut of the profits for each sale. I think they should be more involved, and this would make the RE format more attractive. Allowing all kinds of garbage in their shop based on some "honor system" cheapens their brand, IMO.

[chaosroyale]

I'm curious: What terms of service would prohibit you to share the full question and reply?

Probably the (imho unenforceable) one at the end of all the Propellerhead support emails.

Catblack is correct.
I do not know if it is enforceable or not but I have no desire to piss off props without a good reason, and I gave all of the necessary information. There was nothing else to be gained from reading the whole email.

[miscend]

I don’t understand the “we don’t give refunds policy”. There are definite legal protections for digital downloads under EU law. Even Apple will give you a refund if you buy an app that does something fraudulent or illegal. And there are pro users who might unknowingly put out illegal music tracks, if they don’t visit FB or the forums. Unfortunately they can’t pass the buck on this. I think as users we should push Props for some clarity on the situation in the coming days.

[QVprod]

The gray area comes with Props keeping the profits from the dodgy product even after a case like this. That's why I would have hoped for a store credit (and ideally Props would have a legal recourse / commercial pressure to get some money back from the developer for example by holding the income or freezing all their other REs, but in this case it seems way too late for that)

jappe & tc13: As I thought I made clear, I contacted Props specifically about this issue. The rest of my post means exactly what it said.

As far as we know, this case is still in "alleged" status despite being seemingly obvious. I'm sure there are also some legal issues to work out before Propellerhead would be able to give you any real response. As of now, if the product is still in your account, of course they wont refund you. If the product is ever removed from your account then you'd have a case. Also this isn't exactly as nightmarish as people think it is for Propellerhead, and quite simply is only really a big deal within our small little Reason community. Aside from the fact that the video is private so only a relative few have seen it, I'd say the vast majority of Reason users (not on this forum) possibly don't even know much about Softphonics' products existence. I'm sure it'll be handled, but it's not gonna be handled quickly.

In response to several posts:

Yes, I realize the Props can't investigate every RE to the point of certainty. But I'm a bit surprised that they apparently do nothing at all in terms of quality control. It's not like there are several new RE's every day they would need to wade through. And anything that uses samples should get greater scrutiny.

The RE format is Reason-only. You can only get them from the Props' shop. They take a cut of the profits for each sale. I think they should be more involved, and this would make the RE format more attractive. Allowing all kinds of garbage in their shop based on some "honor system" cheapens their brand, IMO.

Unless you know the specific sample library used it's not easy to pick out something like this. I could almost guarantee the creator of the video stumbled on this by chance. As mentioned above, is QA supposed to compare products to every similar product on the market? If not then how would they know which ones to check? It's an impossible task.

As far as the quality of RE in the shop, the Shop is a store. Every store has lesser quality items. Judging the quality of
the entire RE format because of some not so great RE (amongst many great ones) is the same as judging the entire VST format becasue of a few bad ones. There's a free trial available so that users can weed out what they like and dislike. As far as this case, it's just one person who (if true) had illegal practices long before he started make REs.