Thoughts on Discover

[mozaic36]

Although I haven't gotten into Discover very deeply yet, I am kind of frustrated with it. It seems like they are forcing a certain type of collaboration that I am just not that into. I am sure that some feel differently, but why would I want to use something that someone else started when I could do it myself and get exactly what I want? In reality, I would be much happier with a more user controlled set up where it was easier to get connected with exactly who I am looking for. Personally I would find it much more helpful to get directly connected with vocalists (emcees in particular) who use Take, and might be interesting in my productions. Maybe I am missing something, and this is possible in the current setup.

Thoughts?

[gak]

Discover is FAR from perfect. That is just one of many issues. Of course then again, people are gonna "jump in" anytime they feel like it.

For me the biggie is really how the copyright goes. If it's using reasons embedded song credits and that is remaining throughout the process, then that's fine. But I don't think it is. Need to be addressed.

Maybe I'm missing something, but there should be (if again, I'm missing it's there) are EXPLICIT instructions on what the "player" wants. For me, for example, I wouldn't just want some potty mouth to start rapping over something (just because it's there to be rapped to, though maybe if it's someone that doesn't fit the standard mold, would have a rap that is cool)

AND people should just be mature and accept the guidelines. If that is there and I'm not aware of it, then PLEASE correct me

[zakalwe]

for me it just seems pointlessly platform specific as it's just sharing stems/loops/acapellas etc. if we were back in the reason 5 days then it would have been brilliant but now there's splice and it's probably going to win because discover is the wrong kind of exclusive. ie. it's orkut not The Facebook.

cloud storage for their iOS apps though.

[jfrichards]

Here is Ernst, the Props CEO, on Discover:

Propellerhead: Make Music Together
Posted Jan. 16, 2015, 10:58 a.m.

Today is a big day for Propellerhead. But not only for us. In the future we might look back on this day and say that this was when we saw the first incarnation of the world’s open music sharing network. If you haven’t done so already, check it out and try it for yourself. It’s free and it's super easy to get started.

What we launch today is a beta, meaning it’s far from finished. We have a lot of things planned. What you can see today is a glimpse of the future, an open internet music creation network letting anyone take part in music making, right as it happens. Our new service is a place where you can create from scratch or find building blocks, where you can discover tracks to remix or sample. But most importantly, it’s a place where you can get into music creation only doing the parts you love, whether it’s singing, playing guitar, rapping, creating beats, producing or just messing around with sound.

I think I also have to say something about what this service is not. It’s not a publishing service. It will be where music creation is happening, not where you see the polished result. And it’s not for backup or archiving—it’s for the music you are making, here and now. It’s not a tool for professionals who are looking to fully integrate their DAW production work. But don’t get me wrong, Reason fits beautifully into our new system too, as the music production powerhouse it is.

Let me also tell you that launching the service hasn't changed anything about how you use our apps. You can still be completely private about your music. What we are offering is an extension to what you already do. When you do decide to collaborate, you’re still in control. The stuff you have dropped can be visible to the whole world or only to those you want to share it with.

On a more personal note, this is the most exciting thing that this company has done since I helped found it. I have dedicated my life to help people’s musical dreams come true and as of today we start expanding that idea to people I never dreamed that we could reach.

We want your feedback. We have ideas about what to do next, but we’re building this for you so if you want the service to do something special, be sure to let us know via our survey!

So, go create a piece. Drop it to Propellerhead. Discover what others are doing. But most importantly, forget about technology and have fun!

Ernst is happy about Discover being for non-professionals to collaborate using Take, Figure, and Reason. Purely for fun. With no commercial use. It is essentially a giant free refill and in fact anyone can take anything off Discover and use it in any commercial way they please. But clearly, the orientation is for non-professionals to have fun. I sure hope nobody gets burned.

There are a few ways professionals can use it, such as a quick way to post an unlisted work in progress for yourself or others to hear. Or a quick way to get unlisted collaborative suggestions. Or to share your no-commercial-potential music.

[Last Alternative]

It's just for peeps to have fun and play around. I think that's great. But it's not for me.

[joeyluck]

I'm still uncomfortable sharing anything on Discover because of the vague copyright rules and I am typically too attached to my own work to collaborate with artists not of my choosing.

However, I am open to the idea of building on other users' work and allowing them to take that and run with it or have someone else build on that (as I might be much less attached to it since it wasn't my seed of an idea).

I like how Reason opens the audio files and sets the project to the correct BPM. But sharing project files (Reason files) in addition would be much more fun! Same goes for projects from Figure. I know they are based on Thor and Kong, so perhaps those songs and riffs could open using those devices? Or perhaps some Figure style devices could be made for Reason for just this?

I think Discover is exciting and am curious to see where it goes. But I want it to be more than sharing stereo audio files and I want copyright guidelines to be set (anything—if even just creative commons—but something) to really peak my interest.

[gak]

I totally get what jf and last are saying, but let's be realistic: People want more.

Like joey said, it's uncomfortable sharing things imho. It's not a suckey idea or anything, but me thinks that some thoughts I had (and others) are the future of it.

[jfrichards]

I'm still uncomfortable sharing anything on Discover because of the vague copyright rules...

Copyright rules are so far untested related to Discover. The rules they impose in the Terms of Service are for the most part not vague at all and simply say any music uploaded to Discover becomes completely free music for anyone else to use commercially, in other words, the composer has no financial rights after uploading. Here is the relevant section:

3. SHARING SERVICES – LICENSE
If you don’t use the sharing service, then you don’t need to read this section as it only applies to its use.
THIS SECTION ONLY APPLIES WHEN USING THE SPECIFIC SHARING SERVICE PLATFORMS PROVIDED BY PROPELLERHEAD. IT WILL ONLY APPLY IN RELATION TO MUSIC AND CONTENT THAT YOU ACTIVELY SHARE THROUGH PROPELLERHEAD’S SERVICES AND DETERMINES WHICH USE OF YOUR MUSIC AND OTHER CONTENT THAT YOU ARE ALLOWING OTHERS. BASICALLY, YOU ARE GIVING AND GETTING AN EXTENSIVE LICENSE FOR USE AND ADAPTION OF MUSIC THAT IS UPLOADED TO THE SHARING SERVICES.
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.
Because we offer an open music sharing service, we ask for broad rights, so we can publish files on the Internet, and so others can freely use the stuff that is posted. In kind, you’ll to be able to use everything you find on the service.
Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
We don’t intend to sell your content. Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it (and so could you for that matter).
3.2 You understand that the Content uploaded by you may be used freely by other users, as well as included in the music, songs and Content of other users – even for commercial releases. You also understand that your uploaded music may be modified by other users of the Sharing Services without your prior approval.
3.3 The license to Propellerhead includes a right to use the Content to perform the Sharing Services and in marketing of the Sharing Services or Propellerhead. Propellerhead has the right to assign and sublicense the license.
We want to be able to highlight cool stuff we find.
Note: there’s a way for you to set your content to “unlisted” (in the Music section of your account). Your unlisted content won’t be discoverable by others, and we won’t highlight it. Unlisted files have secret links on the Internet and theoretically could be viewed if someone happens to get the secret URL.
You can always delete files, but know that someone could have already downloaded them before you deleted them.
3.4 You agree to and warrant that the Content is created, owned or duly licensed by you and that Propellerhead does not need the permission or license from any third party to use the described rights. You may not upload Content that contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have the permission from the rightful owner of the material.
3.5 By uploading Content you further – to the extent permitted by law – waive any moral rights that may be vested in you as creator.
3.6 Content that you have uploaded may be removed from the Sharing Services on your request. Please note that such removal has no retroactive effect and that your license still applies to use of Content started before such removal.

There are occasional mentions in the Terms of Service that you "retain all of your ownership rights", and "own your stuff" (their terminology, the vagueness of which stands in stark contrast to the pages of specific rights they maintain for their software and for commercial rights to use your music), but that is negated by both the detailed permissions you give for anyone to use it any way they wish, and by the waiving of "moral rights" to your own creations. We have yet to see if any of this would stand up in any copyright infringement case. With Props specific warnings that Discover is not for professionals and anyone can use "your stuff", I'd say don't use it with any music you think might be valuable one day.

[Gaja]

I think that "own your stuff" bit is interesting. I read it so that if someone used it to make a commercial hit, you would still be able to use that same piece of music for commercial purposes, without the other party sueing you.

[robgs]

I actually had a play with it last night by downloading a track with a guy singing and strumming a guitar. Nice track but the problem (IMO) with it was that it had a very clippy drum beat built into it. Until there's a way to separate the elements/tracks it's never going to work effectively.

[jfrichards]

I wonder if adding this line to the Drop window would have any effect?

[joeyluck]

I'm still uncomfortable sharing anything on Discover because of the vague copyright rules...

Copyright rules are so far untested related to Discover. The rules they impose in the Terms of Service are for the most part not vague at all and simply say any music uploaded to Discover becomes completely free music for anyone else to use commercially, in other words, the composer has no financial rights after uploading.

Vague might be the wrong word. Maybe ambiguous? But maybe not even that—probably just user confusion on my part?

The blurb on 'ownership' is very short. You retain ownership. One sentence. No more detail on the matter. So we (many) assume that that simply means you can still use what you wrote to do with as you please commercially—but you cannot pursue compensation from someone else's commercial derivative work.

But saying 'ownership' means something a little more outside the walls of Discover. Here, ownership means nothing it seems. Because if you upload a track and saying 'ownership' grants you the right to still use that track as you please—well everyone has that right after you uploaded it, right? So what's the point of even stating? What does it mean? Is there something more to it than the one, simple statement? We have a ton of points outlined for what you surrender by sharing your work, but no additional points as to what 'ownership' means. Again, could just be that I'm ignorant to something obvious.

My confusion aside, what I have been rallying for is to at least have a Creative Commons attribution license for Discover.
There is nothing in place that says I should credit you if I use your track for a public release (commercial or otherwise). And that is gross.

[tiker01]

I'm still uncomfortable sharing anything on Discover because of the vague copyright rules...

Copyright rules are so far untested related to Discover. The rules they impose in the Terms of Service are for the most part not vague at all and simply say any music uploaded to Discover becomes completely free music for anyone else to use commercially, in other words, the composer has no financial rights after uploading.

Vague might be the wrong word. Maybe ambiguous? But maybe not even that—probably just user confusion on my part?

The blurb on 'ownership' is very short. You retain ownership. One sentence. No more detail on the matter. So we (many) assume that that simply means you can still use what you wrote to do with as you please commercially—but you cannot pursue compensation from someone else's commercial derivative work.

But saying 'ownership' means something a little more outside the walls of Discover. Here, ownership means nothing it seems. Because if you upload a track and saying 'ownership' grants you the right to still use that track as you please—well everyone has that right after you uploaded it, right? So what's the point of even stating? What does it mean? Is there something more to it than the one, simple statement? We have a ton of points outlined for what you surrender by sharing your work, but no additional points as to what 'ownership' means. Again, could just be that I'm ignorant to something obvious.

My confusion aside, what I have been rallying for is to at least have a Creative Commons attribution license for Discover.
There is nothing in place that says I should credit you if I use your track for a public release (commercial or otherwise). And that is gross.

I think the only thing it implies is that you can make it unlisted, however if someone have already downloaded the tune while it was public they can still use it.

My problem is that the unlisted tracks are NOT protected i.e. can be shared with certain people or using password or pin. If someone generates random https://www.propellerheads.se/s/Y0lMoU10 they can access the tune anyway.
That is unacceptable, to me anyway.

[dioxide]

To my understanding, even an unlisted drop is affected by Discover's licensing. So if I wanted to collaborate privately with one other user and send them some audio on Discover using an unlisted drop, I still lose my rights to the audio in the same way as if it were a listed public drop.

The concept of Discover is sound but until they add some better options to allow artists to retain their rights then I won't be getting involved.

[dioxide]

Ha ha. Had to post this as for me it shows just how poorly Discover has been thought through, and how PH are endlessly plugging it, even though it appears to be stuck in eternal beta.

Here's how PH answered this question. Note that half of the answer doesn't even relate to the question as it has nothing to do with real-time collaboration, it's just regurgitating the standard marketing drivel.

MT: Do you see a time where internet connections are fast enough to remove every barrier to actual real-time recording and collaboration over the web? Is this something that’s possible now on a superfast network?

K&L: There are many different ways to collaborate on music. The classic way is, of course, four dudes getting together and jamming in the same room. And that is certainly possible to do over the internet with a fast connection today. Our approach is that collaboration can be unplanned, unstructured, and can even be between people who actually don’t know of each other. A vocal hook I record and drop to Propellerhead can be picked up by many different people, sampled or reworked into something new. We’ve already seen examples of this happening between our users. Jacob Haq’s Figure piece Nebula Rasa is a great example. It’s been turned into over 100 new pieces already

Compared to how Steinberg answer this.

MT: Do you see a time in the future where internet connections are fast enough to remove every barrier to real-time intercontinental recording? Is this possible now on a superfast network?

CS: No matter how far technology evolves, and as long as Einstein is in the right, it’s simply impossible to achieve that with a satisfactory latency. Technology poses at least 10 milliseconds in each direction and it only gets worse because of increasing traffic. But even if we assume that the internet doesn’t apply any latency whatsoever, there’s the limiting factor of the speed of light. From Berlin to New York, considering that information travels at the speed of light on a straight, unbent cable, it takes more than 20 milliseconds in both directions. Add to that latency on both ends due to audio hardware and you easily end up with a latency of more than 50 milliseconds – again, this is if the internet itself were to be without any latency. So even with the most advanced technology and best connections available, you’re faced with latencies of 60 milliseconds and more. So unless Einstein is proved wrong this will never be possible no matter how much technology is improved.

Round one to Steinberg I think, as they seem to be taking this more seriously. Everyone seems to want to be the next Zuckerberg these days, it's today's version of being a lottery winner. IMO if Soundcloud are struggling to survive and fund themselves, Discover has the potential to bring PH down if it ever gains popularity. Nice idea but so far the implementation is lacking and reading this interview didn't give me the idea that there is a huge amount of thought gone into this project.

Sources:
http://www.musictech.net/2015/08/propel ... interview/
http://www.musictech.net/2015/08/steinberg-interview/

[dioxide]

Here's answers from another question that was posed to both PH and Steinberg.

MT: Is mobile technology likely to replace ‘real’ computers any time soon? As good as iPads are, most people still turn to the desktop machine for really serious production work.
CS: The MS Surface is a good example of how a tablet can replace a desktop machine. For instance, for live performance, if it fits your requirements (and it’s quite capable already), you can put it on the keyboard, connect an interface via USB or even use its internal audio output and you’re done. I guess tablets will become more and more capable – as in that example, when the physical circumstances are beneficial, they can replace a desktop computer. This becomes even more true when other paradigms change: for instance, I would never want to write this on a tablet, but speech recognition and control may soon change this, as well as other developments which change the way we deal with these stupid machines!

MT: Is mobile technology likely to replace desktop DAWs any time soon? As good as iPads are, most people still turn to the desktop machine for really serious production work, as evidenced by the fact that systems such as Propellerhead usually end up in a desktop project. [Most pieces dropped to Propellerhead actually don’t end up in Reason—most collaborations happen between users of Figure and Take.]
K&L: We think that mobile and desktop platforms will keep co-existing. Some stuff is perfect to do on a mobile device, while others benefit from big screens and lightning fast processors. Think of it as like using your camera app, Instagram and Photoshop. Sometimes you want to go in and make it perfect and other times you just want to share.

So Discover is aimed at sharing the same kind of disposable content that Instagram and Facebook are used for. It's effectively a walled social platform, as if Instagram had invented their own version of JPG and only allowed content to be shared using their standard. If PH were interested in social sharing they could have created something that worked on Twitter or Soundcloud, but they instead wanted to build their own empire and built a new social network of their own. For me the whole project smells ego driven rather than driven by the needs of musicians. If online collaboration were the priority then Discover would allow me to share a Reason Song file online as a self-contained file, ala ReasonStation. But no, because the whole project is about aiming to build an audio version of Instagram and collaboration comes second to this.

[Jmax]

I was also wondering about the licensing and ownership laws within Discover. I think this pretty much sums it up.

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.

Basically, once you share it in Discover, Propellerhead has the full right to license it themselves. Not own it, but license it and even make money commercially off it. You would also own rights and anyone you collaborated with. I suppose if Props got it licensed under a different name (the rules are a little grey here) they would make the money. Just depends who does what with it and how.

[Namahs Amrak]

In the future we might look back on this day and say that this was when we saw the first incarnation of the world’s open music sharing network.

Quite an odd bit of marketing hype. They have hardly invented the wheel. There are other sharing platforms, and they are not restricted to specific DAW users. I had one such site bookmarked for future use (but then reinstalled OS, and lost the link, and don't remember the name - very frustrating) that allowed people to search by instrument (guitar/drum/bass etc), tempo, genre (rock/pop/metal etc) and perhaps even key.

If anyone knows the site I'm talking about - I think it was a blue design theme - please share

There seems to be nothing revolutionary about Discover in it's current form. I notice this morning that Cubase LE has an option in the file saving screen to upload directly to Soundcloud.

Out of interest, with this Discover implementation, does this mean that Reason 8 projects can be saved as MP3 ?

[dioxide]

I was also wondering about the licensing and ownership laws within Discover. I think this pretty much sums it up.

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.

Basically, once you share it in Discover, Propellerhead has the full right to license it themselves. Not own it, but license it and even make money commercially off it. You would also own rights and anyone you collaborated with. I suppose if Props got it licensed under a different name (the rules are a little grey here) they would make the money. Just depends who does what with it and how.

Yep. I was tempted to download all the Salazar Brothers and Mode Audio content and resell it in a Refill or on iStock Audio. Seeing as they've given up all rights and all that.

[dioxide]

I think it's high time Propellerhead got back into the hardware game.

Propellerhead Take.png (811.6 KiB) Viewed 2663 times

Actually not too dissimilar to their actual marketing.
https://www.propellerheads.se/how-does-this-work

[dioxide]

[dioxide]

Here's how the Propellerhead homepage will look once Discover comes out of beta.

Propellerhead SingStar.png (1.12 MiB) Viewed 2661 times

[Jmax]

I was also wondering about the licensing and ownership laws within Discover. I think this pretty much sums it up.

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.

Basically, once you share it in Discover, Propellerhead has the full right to license it themselves. Not own it, but license it and even make money commercially off it. You would also own rights and anyone you collaborated with. I suppose if Props got it licensed under a different name (the rules are a little grey here) they would make the money. Just depends who does what with it and how.

Yep. I was tempted to download all the Salazar Brothers and Mode Audio content and resell it in a Refill or on iStock Audio. Seeing as they've given up all rights and all that.

Yup basically everyone owns everyone's music on discover and is allowed to modify it in any shape or form.

It all comes down to licensing. Say i here an amazing piece and want to get it licensed by some company. Potentially i could do that thru Discover.

As I understand it i would be the only one getting paid as it would be licensed under my name.

I believe the licensing has to be Non-exclusive so it can licensed by different companies and individuals. So potentially two different people could get the same track licensed (song name change) by two different companies or more. Whoever its licensed to gets the $$$ though.

Props says they don't plan to make any money commercially off discover but who knows you and I sure could.

But i'd be smart to get a music lawyer to look at the fine print before proceeding.

Interesting concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Namahs Amrak]

Dioxide - you just may be in line for Propellerhead's Marketing Manager role if you keep up with those ideas.

Love your avatar by the way.

[zeebot]

No matter whether you upload to public or private as soon as anything leaves reason, take or figure and hits the server it becomes the property of propellerhead. That I'm afraid is not something I'm willing to do.
Sure it's probably great for people sitting on a train or bus messing with generic figure sounds or an amateur singer/instrument player messing around in their bedroom prepared to make throw away audio but for reason users who have used the program for sometime and are more than casual users Discover is a bottomless pit of legal issues.