Reason inducted into the NAMM 'TECnology Hall of Fame'

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8405
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

26 Jan 2015

avasopht wrote:1. I don't see anywhere in the agreement that says unlisted uploads are exempt from being royalty free
2. Even though you choose who you send it to, that doesn't prevent them from sharing the link, deliberately or accidentally. Although it is unlikely this will happen and result in someone making mega bucks from your work you planned only to share with your friend, it would be nice to be able to choose a license and even grant a license to specific persons :)
1.  The licensing is irrelevant when neither Propellerhead nor their Discover service have access to said piece.
2.  This is no different than working with a partner in any other capacity.  They can share the stems on every torrent under the sun, rip your melodies off, or just generally be a not very nice person at all.  That's why most professionals would sign a legal agreement in lieu of working together so the artists involved are held to some sort of standard of conduct.  Hence my recommendation in my previous post.   :)

I get that people are nervous about sharing their stuff since the EULA grants a non-exclusive right to use material shared via Discover, but I truly feel the paranoia around using private links for your own use is greatly exaggerated.   ;)
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

26 Jan 2015

Whether anyone agrees that Reason is a world beater now or not it is certainly worthy of this award for its contribution to music making software over the years it's been in exsitence.

It's a great accolade to be awarded and I have no doubt it deserves its place alongside the likes of the Fender Rhodes.

Well done Propellerhead.

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8405
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

26 Jan 2015

joeyluck wrote:Video via Peff:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WepayLMlDrQ
Thanks for sharing this.  It's truly an impressive feat that Propellerhead were awarded the recognition so early - one of the "youngest" companies/products to receive such recognition.

Bravo, gentlemen!  
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
JNeffLind
Posts: 976
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: So. Illinois, USA
Contact:

26 Jan 2015

The Tone Ranger wrote:I'm getting tired of all the Reason is a toy or Reason isn't professional etc... Reason has been capable of professional results since 2000! You can do everything that was possible in Reason 1 in Reason 8, plus a lot more.
Re-read the thread man. No one said that. In fact your exact point was addressed when someone else had the same misunderstanding of what I said. 

User avatar
JNeffLind
Posts: 976
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: So. Illinois, USA
Contact:

26 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:

"3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services. However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable."
I'm not trying to be argumentative (tone is often lost on forums), but I'm legitimately curious. If the license is "irrevocable" and it grants the right "to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service" then how is it that you own it. Is this legal double talk or am I missing something? It seems like saying you own a house but everyone can use it whenever they want, rent it out to their drunk uncle, remodel it, but they can't keep you from doing the same. What am I missing? Any lawyers here?

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8405
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

26 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:

"3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services. However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable."
JNeffLind wrote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative (tone is often lost on forums), but I'm legitimately curious. If the license is "irrevocable" and it grants the right "to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service" then how is it that you own it. Is this legal double talk or am I missing something? It seems like saying you own a house but everyone can use it whenever they want, rent it out to their drunk uncle, remodel it, but they can't keep you from doing the same. What am I missing? Any lawyers here?
Greetings!

No worries - I realize you're not being argumentative at all.  It's all good!   :)

While I am not a lawyer, I have dealt with my fair share of contractual agreements between parties who work together in a profession.  It's not legal double-talk; it's just Propellerhead's way of taking themselves out of the loop and not being responsible for copyright/licensing disputes between artists who do use the service.

One can maintain ownership of their work and still have every commercial right to selling it, while at the same time giving others a non-exclusive right to do the same.  If it was exclusive, then only one person (or however many are licensed) could use it anyway they see fit.

No one knows for sure the reasoning behind the choice of handling licensing/copyright the way that Discover does except for Propellerhead, but I feel it's safe to assume that they wanted to nurture an environment where people could download and manipulate stuff without any fear of legal woes.  

Think of Discover like one, big, ever-evolving Factory Sound Bank of patches that the community contributes.
Anyway, that's just my take on it.   :t2018:
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
Gaja
Posts: 1001
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Germany
Contact:

26 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:

"3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services. However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable."
JNeffLind wrote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative (tone is often lost on forums), but I'm legitimately curious. If the license is "irrevocable" and it grants the right "to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service" then how is it that you own it. Is this legal double talk or am I missing something? It seems like saying you own a house but everyone can use it whenever they want, rent it out to their drunk uncle, remodel it, but they can't keep you from doing the same. What am I missing? Any lawyers here?
EnochLight wrote:
Greetings!

No worries - I realize you're not being argumentative at all.  It's all good!   :)

While I am not a lawyer, I have dealt with my fair share of contractual agreements between parties who work together in a profession.  It's not legal double-talk; it's just Propellerhead's way of taking themselves out of the loop and not being responsible for copyright/licensing disputes between artists who do use the service.

One can maintain ownership of their work and still have every commercial right to selling it, while at the same time giving others a non-exclusive right to do the same.  If it was exclusive, then only one person (or however many are licensed) could use it anyway they see fit.

No one knows for sure the reasoning behind the choice of handling licensing/copyright the way that Discover does except for Propellerhead, but I feel it's safe to assume that they wanted to nurture an environment where people could download and manipulate stuff without any fear of legal woes.  

Think of Discover like one, big, ever-evolving Factory Sound Bank of patches that the community contributes.
Anyway, that's just my
EnochLight wrote:take
EnochLight wrote: on it.   :t2018:
Yes that's how I understood it as well. The term non exclusive being the key here, meaning that each respective collaboration party has the same rights to publish and distribute their version of the song and none of the other parties could take legal action against that, because all parties agreed to give non exclusive rights to everyone involved.
What might be a legally tricky situation is when someone uploads for example a melody which has already been copyrighted and different parties publish the work derived from that ripoff. I'd say probably only those who actually published in the end would be held accountable, but if not then it might become tricky.
Keep in mind I am also no lawyer, so please take my stance with bit of salt.
Cheers!
Fredhoven

KEVMOVE02
Posts: 267
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

26 Jan 2015

If all this energy being directed at prognisticating the future of Propellerhead was instead directed elsewhere, what mighty works that could've been created. Perhaps we should wager who will be around the longest: us or Propellerhead. let's meet up in 10 years and dance on the grave of the ones who are not there.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

26 Jan 2015

avasopht wrote:1. I don't see anywhere in the agreement that says unlisted uploads are exempt from being royalty free
2. Even though you choose who you send it to, that doesn't prevent them from sharing the link, deliberately or accidentally. Although it is unlikely this will happen and result in someone making mega bucks from your work you planned only to share with your friend, it would be nice to be able to choose a license and even grant a license to specific persons :)
EnochLight wrote:
1.  The licensing is irrelevant when neither Propellerhead nor their Discover service
EnochLight wrote:have access to said piece.
EnochLight wrote: 2.  This is no different than working with a partner in any other capacity.  They can share the stems on every torrent under the sun, rip your melodies off, or just generally be a not very nice person at all.  That's why most professionals would sign a legal agreement in lieu of working together so the artists involved are held to some sort of standard of conduct.  Hence my recommendation in my previous post.   :)

I get that people are nervous about sharing their stuff since the EULA grants a non-exclusive right to use material shared via Discover, but I truly feel the paranoia around using
EnochLight wrote:private links for your own use
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:is greatly exaggerated.   ;)
The first difference is that if someone shares your link with someone who then uses your material, you have already granted them rights because of the agreement.

I'm not saying anything other than the fact that that is only possible because of the discover agreement. So whether your link is published to discover is irrelevant because I'm just stating the actual legal position. Maybe this wasn't the intention Propellerhead had and may at a solution to patch that agreement.

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

26 Jan 2015

Hi everyone!

I appreciate the conversations, but could we create a new thread perhaps?

I created this thread just to celebrate Propellerhead's incredible recognition it received by being inducted into NAMM's Hall of Fame.  

It would also serve your conversation better to have a thread committed and titled appropriately for that topic (as you will have more people involved in that conversation when they know that the conversation is happening).

Not trying to be a jerk :)   I realize it naturally happens sometimes...

Thanks!

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8405
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

26 Jan 2015

avasopht wrote:The first difference is that if someone shares your link with someone who then uses your material, you have already granted them rights because of the agreement..
Indeed, which is why I mentioned point 2, which would negate that in the event you chose to work that way.
joeyluck wrote:Hi everyone!

I appreciate the conversations, but could we create a new thread perhaps?

I created this thread just to celebrate Propellerhead's incredible recognition it received by being inducted into NAMM's Hall of Fame.  
Agreed; sorry Joey!  
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
JNeffLind
Posts: 976
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: So. Illinois, USA
Contact:

27 Jan 2015

joeyluck wrote:Hi everyone!

I appreciate the conversations, but could we create a new thread perhaps?

I created this thread just to celebrate Propellerhead's incredible recognition it received by being inducted into NAMM's Hall of Fame.  

It would also serve your conversation better to have a thread committed and titled appropriately for that topic (as you will have more people involved in that conversation when they know that the conversation is happening).

Not trying to be a jerk :)   I realize it naturally happens sometimes...

Thanks!
Sorry if I derailed your thread with a mini rant. My rice-cooker just died after a long and happy relationship, and I'm having to learn the water ratios on a new model and let's just say I'm a bit punchy. Reason definitely deserved this honor on the back of their past innovation. Let's hope they continue breaking new ground with their award winning DAW.

bangaio
Posts: 116
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

27 Jan 2015

It seems there are lots of propellerhead employees here (people seem to know sales figures) and IP lawyers on this site........  

You still own the copyright.  If you publish unlisted there are no provision in the terms to allow you to retain rights although you do still own the copyright you are still licensing it to be used just not putting a front page advert up for it. 

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests