An update on copyright...

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
User avatar
Lukaspropellerheads
Posts: 1
Joined: 29 May 2018

Post 29 May 2018

Dear Reason Talk,

We have been made aware of some questions and concerns regarding copyright on specific products published in the Propellerhead Shop. While we’re not at liberty to publicly discuss specific business situations we have with certain vendors, we will here try to provide you with some information about the general situation regarding such issues.

First, products can be removed from the Shop. Propellerhead have the rights to unilaterally stop selling a product, but that’s a right that we have never exercised. A vendor can by themselves decide to stop selling a product, for whatever reason they might have (that they don’t have to disclose). They then make a request to us, which we are contractually obliged to adhere to.

However, the way our technology works, and the way our agreements with vendors is written, we are allowed to distribute a product to customers who have purchased it, even after it is no longer available for sale. This for example means that if a customer gets a new computer, they can reinstall all the products they own, even those that are not still for sale. As always the rights of our customers are protected by our agreements and any use of products bought in our shop thereof.

Propellerhead take copyright issues very seriously. In our agreements with vendors we point out clearly that any violation of copyright, in any shape or form, is a violation of the contract. However, what must be understood is that for something to be considered a breach, there must at the very least be a copyright owner claiming their rights have been violated. In the history of the shop, this has happened on occasion with names and trademarks, and these situations have always been solved amicably. It has never happened that any content owner has claimed copyright violation on the content of the product, and we don’t have any such ongoing situation now either. If we receive any such claim from a copyright owner, we will act on it promptly, just as we have in the past.

All the best,
Lukas

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1874
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Thanks for taking the time out to update us.
---

User avatar
C//AZM
Posts: 331
Joined: 20 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Thanks

User avatar
Catblack
Posts: 750
Joined: 15 Apr 2016

Post 29 May 2018

Thank you.
Do you sing like Olive Oyl on purpose? You guys must be into the Eurythmics.

madmacman
Posts: 451
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Thank you, I appreciate.

User avatar
Exowildebeest
Posts: 1492
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

That's how things work. It's up to Softphonics to go into hiding/hope that claims don't come. If they haven't already, although I assume Props would have been informed as well. Looks like he pulled everything to prevent future damage.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Thanks Lukas for clarifying Propellerheads stance, and outlining that some products recently withdrawn from the shop weren't withdrawn by Propellerheads themselves and further, that owners of those products will continue to have download access to those particular products.

Does this then mean that end-users (Prop Shop Customers) that unwittingly buy products that are latterly found to contain copyright infringing materal , subsequently withdrawn by the dev or not, are the ones expected to take the hit in these circumstances?

So having learned that a product purchased from the store likely contains 'pirated' material you still facilitate users continued use, and download, of such products, knowing (or even suspecting) that their use could in fact be a breach of copyright in itself?

Is see no consumer protection in this stance and it kind of makes it looks like a disclaimer to the effect of: "Please note you purchase Rack Extensions at your own risk, as it is up to you to decide whether a vendor is 'dodgy' or not as if they disappear off the face of the Earth you will take the hit"

That is clarity I suppose. So thanks for the communication.
Last edited by Ostermilk on 29 May 2018, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
eusti
Posts: 2108
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Exowildebeest wrote:
29 May 2018
That's how things work. It's up to Softphonics to go into hiding/hope that claims don't come. If they haven't already, although I assume Props would have been informed as well. Looks like he pulled everything to prevent future damage.
Seems all but one of their products are gone from the shop as of now.

Screen Shot 2018-05-29 at 09.50.08.png
D.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

I guess I shall have to enquire with the alleged source of the infringed material as to whether they are happy with my continued use of the potentially infringing product(s) and see what they suggest.

Perhaps everyone that is currently out of pocket because they've bought products that have the same doubt surrounding them should do the same.

After all currently we only have a video suggestion that although it looks very convincing isn't confirmation that it infringes anything.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

I also hope we are free to discuss the implications of the issues arising here without the ham-fisted moderation that took place during the last discussion of what must be the most pertinent thing that's been discussed by any Reason user on this board anytime that I can remember.

jimmyklane
Posts: 737
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

Post 29 May 2018

Since the copyright holders haven’t complained about it yet....and let’s face it, this is a smaller forum and they may not even KNOW yet....my assumption is that PH will take no action at all until they are forced to either by the contract with the dev (Softphonics) or by a cease and desist order from the other sample library’s owner. Sounds to me like Lucas told us that Softphonics took everything but the one product down of his own accord, and therefore, again, PH doesn’t have to and won’t touch it.

We shall see (or maybe never know) if this dev gets sued into the ground by the software companies he seems to have (allegedly) stolen from.
DAW: Reason 10,

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

jimmyklane
Posts: 737
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

Post 29 May 2018

Ostermilk wrote:
29 May 2018
I also hope we are free to discuss the implications of the issues arising here without the ham-fisted moderation that took place during the last discussion of what must be the most pertinent thing that's been discussed by any Reason user on this board anytime that I can remember.
Can you share with me what happened? I seem to have missed something “big”....
DAW: Reason 10,

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

jimmyklane wrote:
29 May 2018
Ostermilk wrote:
29 May 2018
I also hope we are free to discuss the implications of the issues arising here without the ham-fisted moderation that took place during the last discussion of what must be the most pertinent thing that's been discussed by any Reason user on this board anytime that I can remember.
Can you share with me what happened? I seem to have missed something “big”....
I could but I don't want to stir the pot... ;)

I really do want to see the issue discussed fully and sensibly. Put it this way other thread lost any contextual sense and continuity through over-editing.whilst it was active. They'd have shown more humanity if they'd shot the last thread in the head rather than butchering it to death.

Looks like the only way this will go quiet is when everyone that spent good money on now suspect products is OK with losing that amount.
Last edited by Ostermilk on 29 May 2018, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kenni
Site Admin
Posts: 1195
Joined: 02 Jun 2015
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post 29 May 2018

Indeed you are!

The "ham-fisted" moderation took place because people wouldn't stop speculating and discussing health related topics related to this issue in a scale that spanned from "juvenile" to "downright nasty".

I understand how some people feel cheated, and I also understand the defensive stance a few people took in regards to the validity of the video. That's why I'm happy Lukas and Propellerhead took the time to make this statement. It may clear up some misunderstandings regarding the terms and the general issue about liability, and also give a picture of the position they're in regarding legal issues and what they're contractually allowed to say and/or not say. I think it's safe to make some pretty clear assumptions based on this post, and most importantly:

It invites all of us to ask questions and stay more closely on topic regarding the situtation and the products.

So what I ask of all of you guys: Please see this as an invitation to show that we can be civil and on-topic in a matter that has already triggered a lot overly sarcastic and hateful comments. Let's be clear-cut and leave sarcasm at the door, for once :)
Ostermilk wrote:
29 May 2018
I also hope we are free to discuss the implications of the issues arising here without the ham-fisted moderation that took place during the last discussion of what must be the most pertinent thing that's been discussed by any Reason user on this board anytime that I can remember.
Kenni Andruszkow
SoundCloud

User avatar
Exowildebeest
Posts: 1492
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Ostermilk wrote:
29 May 2018
Thanks Lukas for clarifying Propellerheads stance, and outlining that some products recently withdrawn from the shop weren't withdrawn by Propellerheads themselves and further, that owners of those products will continue to have download access to those particular products.

Does this then mean that end-users (Prop Shop Customers) that unwittingly buy products that are latterly found to contain copyright infringing materal , subsequently withdrawn by the dev or not, are the ones expected to take the hit in these circumstances?

So having learned that a product purchased from the store likely contains 'pirated' material you still facilitate users continued use, and download, of such products, knowing (or even suspecting) that their use could in fact be a breach of copyright in itself?

Is see no consumer protection in this stance and it kind of makes it looks like a disclaimer to the effect of: "Please note you purchase Rack Extensions at your own risk, as it is up to you to decide whether a vendor is 'dodgy' or not as if they disappear off the face of the Earth you will take the hit"

That is clarity I suppose. So thanks for the communication.
This is difficult... As long as there hasn't been a court case or settlement or even letter, then Props can hardly deny paying customers access to what they bought... Even though it may be fraudulent material.

User avatar
Kenni
Site Admin
Posts: 1195
Joined: 02 Jun 2015
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post 29 May 2018

Dear ReasonTalkers,

Please refrain from discussing what went on in other threads, and/or link to other threads that are not related.

Stay on topic.
Kenni Andruszkow
SoundCloud

User avatar
Exowildebeest
Posts: 1492
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Kenni wrote:
29 May 2018
Dear ReasonTalkers,

Please refrain from discussing what went on in other threads, and/or link to other threads that are not related.

Stay on topic.
A link to the old thread seems essential to understanding this thread. Context matters.

Who knows, a reader might mistake this thread to be about any other developer.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Kenni wrote:
29 May 2018
Indeed you are!

The "ham-fisted" moderation took place because people wouldn't stop speculating and discussing health related topics related to this issue in a scale that spanned from "juvenile" to "downright nasty".

I understand how some people feel cheated, and I also understand the defensive stance a few people took in regards to the validity of the video. That's why I'm happy Lukas and Propellerhead took the time to make this statement. It may clear up some misunderstandings regarding the terms and the general issue about liability, and also give a picture of the position they're in regarding legal issues and what they're contractually allowed to say and/or not say. I think it's safe to make some pretty clear assumptions based on this post, and most importantly:

It invites all of us to ask questions and stay more closely on topic regarding the situtation and the products.

So what I ask of all of you guys: Please see this as an invitation to show that we can be civil and on-topic in a matter that has already triggered a lot overly sarcastic and hateful comments. Let's be clear-cut and leave sarcasm at the door, for once :)
Ostermilk wrote:
29 May 2018
I also hope we are free to discuss the implications of the issues arising here without the ham-fisted moderation that took place during the last discussion of what must be the most pertinent thing that's been discussed by any Reason user on this board anytime that I can remember.
See, this is the thing, I DID stay on topic, was watching my words very carefully (I usually do anyway in order to convey the precise meaning I'm trying to express!), was neither 'juvenile", nor 'downright nasty', sarcastic at times perhaps but then I consider that to be an ability done right, yet ALL my posts were being deleted and I was being subjected to all manner of 'false accussations', posts urging me to 'have some humanity', to 'watch my words' in order that fit into a specific posters narrow world view, I later got told to have a heart by a poster who himself didn't know what he was referring to were all allowed stand.

Which is why I say ham-fisted, and it would have been better shut=down so everyone knew that you did it rather than casting me as a villain where everyone could construe from your perspective that I was some kind of perpetrator in an unlawful affray.

Like I said, it's a big topic it would be great if the flock could chew the cud on it without being hastily herded away at the mere sight of some opportunistic foxes.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Exowildebeest wrote:
29 May 2018
Kenni wrote:
29 May 2018
Dear ReasonTalkers,

Please refrain from discussing what went on in other threads, and/or link to other threads that are not related.

Stay on topic.
A link to the old thread seems essential to understanding this thread. Context matters.

Who knows, a reader might mistake this thread to be about any other developer.
Really the thread needs no link, it's like looking at what was a fine looking Oak with branches extending outward being reduced to a pile of smouldering embers after a freak lightining strike.

The rammifications of this shine something on the whole RE/IDT ecosystem so i guess it is not about any specific developer anyway.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7343
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Ostermilk wrote:
Exowildebeest wrote:
29 May 2018
A link to the old thread seems essential to understanding this thread. Context matters.

Who knows, a reader might mistake this thread to be about any other developer.
Really the thread needs no link, it's like looking at what was a fine looking Oak with branches extending outward being reduced to a pile of smouldering embers after a freak lightining strike.

The rammifications of this shine something on the whole RE/IDT ecosystem so i guess it is not about any specific developer anyway.
IMHO, and FWIW, this subject has no more bearing on the tools used to create and release the products (many of which were ReFills and not RE/IDTs, btw), than copyright infringement has to do with the tools used to record or release the music that infringes.

What relationship are you seeing that I’m missing?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

selig wrote:
29 May 2018
Ostermilk wrote:
Really the thread needs no link, it's like looking at what was a fine looking Oak with branches extending outward being reduced to a pile of smouldering embers after a freak lightining strike.

The rammifications of this shine something on the whole RE/IDT ecosystem so i guess it is not about any specific developer anyway.
IMHO, and FWIW, this subject has no more bearing on the tools used to create and release the products (many of which were ReFills and not RE/IDTs, btw), than copyright infringement has to do with the tools used to record or release the music that infringes.

What relationship are you seeing that I’m missing?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
You're not missing anything.

You can already see even in hypothesis, that currently a dev 'could' upload re-packaged wares, withdraw them when they got rumbled, Props can't help further than saying perhaps trying to chase up the 'pirate'. i.e. Customer has to suck it up.

You weren't really 'missing' that were you?

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7343
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Ostermilk wrote:
selig wrote:
29 May 2018
IMHO, and FWIW, this subject has no more bearing on the tools used to create and release the products (many of which were ReFills and not RE/IDTs, btw), than copyright infringement has to do with the tools used to record or release the music that infringes.

What relationship are you seeing that I’m missing?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
You're not missing anything.

You can already see even in hypothesis, that currently a dev 'could' upload re-packaged wares, withdraw them when they got rumbled, Props can't help further than saying perhaps trying to chase up the 'pirate'. i.e. Customer has to suck it up.

You weren't really 'missing' that were you?
No, but that’s not the “ecosystem”, right? That’s policy, I would think.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2027
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Ostermilk wrote:
29 May 2018

See, this is the thing, I DID stay on topic...
Let's not make a mess of this current thread. Your posts in the previous thread weren't the only ones that were deleted, in fact it was several users all for the sake of attempting to keep things civil (for better or for worse). We ourselves did not demonize any user. Now, that aside let's please follow the moderation request that has already been made for this thread.
Kenni wrote:
29 May 2018
Dear ReasonTalkers,

Please refrain from discussing what went on in other threads, and/or link to other threads that are not related.

Stay on topic.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1462
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

selig wrote:
29 May 2018
Ostermilk wrote:
You're not missing anything.

You can already see even in hypothesis, that currently a dev 'could' upload re-packaged wares, withdraw them when they got rumbled, Props can't help further than saying perhaps trying to chase up the 'pirate'. i.e. Customer has to suck it up.

You weren't really 'missing' that were you?
No, but that’s not the “ecosystem”, right? That’s policy, I would think.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
No you are right it isn't the ecosystem, it's the e-commerce system.

But it does serve to highlight the fact that I've come to expect excellent service from Devs (an exemplar being yourself) via the Prop Shop and I guess I've perhaps wrongly thought that some demonstrable form of effective vetting/QA occurs that distinguishes the Prop Shop from an online auction site.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7343
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 May 2018

Ostermilk wrote:
selig wrote:
29 May 2018
No, but that’s not the “ecosystem”, right? That’s policy, I would think.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
No you are right it isn't the ecosystem, it's the e-commerce system.

But it does serve to highlight the fact that I've come to expect excellent service from Devs (an exemplar being yourself) via the Prop Shop and I guess I've perhaps wrongly thought that some demonstrable form of effective vetting occurs that distinguishes the Prop Shop from an online auction site.
I see the shop as more like the Apple App Store. But in this case, unless NI complains, the Props can’t really do anything that I can think of. And I’m not expecting Andrew to step up and respond positively (like by proving refunds to all that ask), or anything similar.

It’s a depressing situation all around IMO, and at present I would think the ball is in NI’s court if we’re going to see any action.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], eusti, FHtH, ScuzzyEye, Wook and 5 guests