An update on copyright...

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2208
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

avasopht wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
04 Jun 2018
The Props have never claimed there was a copyright case.
Nobody is suggesting the Props have claimed a copyright case.

What people are saying is that he undoubtedly has used samples from NI products that were recorded by e-instruments, claiming they were his own. Many people are also for good reason, highly doubtful he has acquired a license for those samples.

e-instruments is not going to randomly dish out licenses to sell their prime patches to just about anyone (especially when they already have products in that same store). Not to say a license would never be given out to another company, but definitely not some random individual with no history. Given the circumstantial evidence, this is definitely a valid case for skepticism on the legality of this operation.
But the Props did make it clear via their statement that there are no copyright concerns on their behalf. There was no need for them to do this but they did it just to make things clear.

This is very speculative. You can't find the truth this way imo.
Marco Raaphorst

Music & soundware https://melodiefabriek.com.
Check out my new ReFill Rockmen: https://melodiefabriek.com/blog/rockmen ... available/

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7338
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
avasopht wrote:
04 Jun 2018


Nobody is suggesting the Props have claimed a copyright case.

What people are saying is that he undoubtedly has used samples from NI products that were recorded by e-instruments, claiming they were his own. Many people are also for good reason, highly doubtful he has acquired a license for those samples.

e-instruments is not going to randomly dish out licenses to sell their prime patches to just about anyone (especially when they already have products in that same store). Not to say a license would never be given out to another company, but definitely not some random individual with no history. Given the circumstantial evidence, this is definitely a valid case for skepticism on the legality of this operation.
But the Props did make it clear via their statement that there are no copyright concerns on their behalf. There was no need for them to do this but they did it just to make things clear.

This is very speculative. You can't find the truth this way imo.
The “truth” cannot be found in an internet discussion, at least not as it applies to the “law”.

We all appear to know where each other stands on this subject by now.

Is there really any need to continue to re-hash these issues here?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
eusti
Posts: 2108
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
04 Jun 2018


The “truth” cannot be found in an internet discussion, at least not as it applies to the “law”.

We all appear to know where each other stands on this subject by now.

Is there really any need to continue to re-hash these issues here?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
If that's what you feel it might be time to close this thread down.

D.

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1051
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018
avasopht wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Well Softphonics suspiciously disappeared the moment the source was revealed and has chosen not to comment on the legality of the samples he most likely did not acquire.

This is a good case for skepticism on the legitimacy of his case.
Guys, is it so hard to understand that I am neither black nor white? I said that I am 99% sure that you are right but that at the same time you are in no place to demand anything or claim any deeper truths here. I mean that thrown-in rumor/accusation in the previous post is just disgusting don't you think? Repeatedly stating that it's almost 100% sure that he's guilty is just a bit better.
djadalaide wrote:
04 Jun 2018
he did say some things in private about how stupid reason users are, but best to just leave it there and move on!
Uhm, no? I think what's "just disgusting" is that someone looked to this community as a group of suckers and systematically stole from and lied to us all for years while building up a reputation for themselves as a hero, enough so to even be invited by Propellerhead into the Factory Sound Bank. There's no plausible deniability at this point, and there's a lot of legitimate hurt and thoroughly-earned scorn.

I mean, short of a miracle I can't imagine he's going to be mailing out refunds, apologies, or Komplete licenses at any point during my lifetime, so expressing frustration in this thread and making sure the copyright holders are aware is really all the recompense we can get.

I assume Andrew will be on KVR in a month as Phoftsonics trying to sell repackaged Reason ReFills to Kontakt users.
Sarah Mancuso
New album「Transmission Control: Music from Subserial Network」is out now!

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Guys, is it so hard to understand that I am neither black nor white?
Image

;)

On a serious note though, it is one of those 99% sure, but I think we'll get confirmation soon enough.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
04 Jun 2018
This is very speculative. You can't find the truth this way imo.
Not sure what you mean by, "can't find the truth this way"!?! All I have said is that it's just highly unlikely a license from e-instruments was acquired. But now that NI has been contacted we'll soon know for sure.

There is zero speculation on the source of the samples. None at all. They are definitely e-instrument's recordings.

I am not saying, "he has used the samples, therefore he definitely does not have a licence." What I am saying is that given the course of events and reasonable probabilities, it is highly unlikely the samples are legally licensed for this use. It could be, but there is very good reason to remain skeptical on the legitimacy of his usage of the samples.
esselfortium wrote:
04 Jun 2018
I assume Andrew will be on KVR in a month as Phoftsonics trying to sell repackaged Reason ReFills to Kontakt users.
Let's not start giving him any smart ideas now!
Last edited by avasopht on 04 Jun 2018, edited 2 times in total.
---

User avatar
DJBuddhaBear
Posts: 244
Joined: 21 May 2016
Location: Arizona

Post 04 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018
DJBuddhaBear wrote:
04 Jun 2018


"Snitch"? Really? :roll: You act like somehow I and others owe him something. We don't. He sold copyrighted IP as his own. I bought one. I reported it to NI after this news broke. My advantage beyond that? I am a professional, and I take the laws seriously around copyright. As a 'professional engineer' and 'programmer' I would hope you do as well. Bluntly, given your weird defenses and communications around this, you are not someone I would choose to interact with professionally.
Well, I find it weird that a) you keep coming back to this and b) you really don‘t seem to have an issue with random citizens getting into a chorus of „Hang him! It‘s obvious he‘s guilty!“. So yeah, same here :)

Your answer to the question is terribly weak, you‘re aware of that? So your personal advantage is that you feel better about yourself for being a good citizen this way? Thats even weirder! :) Thats a thing I’d normally only ascribe to that dog lady. Like calling the police on the neighbors before asking them whats up.
Classic strawman. No one is calling for him to be 'hung' as you put it. There are sadly only some of us here that appear to be concerned about unlicensed samples being sold and the criminality behind it.

Your question was bluntly put rather stupid. If exposed to illegal actions, the proper course of action is to report it. Of course in this 'modern' age, we worry more about our supposed 'freedoms' than our very real obligations.

jimmyklane
Posts: 737
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

Post 04 Jun 2018

Are we, as creators, legally liable for products that were sold to us with the explicit claim of legitimacy?

In other words: If my last track featured one of the allegedly pirated sample banks, and happens to get enough attention on the internet to get noticed....am ***I*** the one that gets sued into the ground?

Am I not able to offload that liability to the company/person/entity that sold me the product and gave a full story of how it was created, thus explicitly claiming legitimacy for the products in question.
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

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3429
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

avasopht wrote:
04 Jun 2018
normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Guys, is it so hard to understand that I am neither black nor white?
Image

;)

On a serious note though, it is one of those 99% sure, but I think we'll get confirmation soon enough.
xD - Best post in this thread
esselfortium wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Uhm, no?
Okay. Because I heard you post PMs behind peoples back accusing people of being nazis.
DJBuddhaBear wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Classic strawman. No one is calling for him to be 'hung' as you put it. There are sadly only some of us here that appear to be concerned about unlicensed samples being sold and the criminality behind it.

Your question was bluntly put rather stupid. If exposed to illegal actions, the proper course of action is to report it. Of course in this 'modern' age, we worry more about our supposed 'freedoms' than our very real obligations.
Nobody is calling for him to be hung because the mods delete those posts.

The whole thread is about this copyright issue. So I don't see how "nobody cares". My question is about your personal gain in personally repeating the fact that he's most probably guilty. You still didn't answer that.

What @jimmyklane says is something you can demand - info on what you can or can't do with these instruments now.

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1051
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018
esselfortium wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Uhm, no?
Okay. Because I heard you post PMs behind peoples back accusing people of being nazis.
What?! I have no idea what this is in reference to at all.
Sarah Mancuso
New album「Transmission Control: Music from Subserial Network」is out now!

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7338
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

Seems the record is still broken.
Someone say "I'm 99% sure this guy ripped us off".
Someone else says "I am 99% sure that you are right".
Normally that would be the end of it, right?

And now we appear to possibly be only a few posts away from someone invoking Godwin's law… :(
If THAT happens the thread will most likely be locked, and someone may be warned or even banned.

Please think twice about where this thread is headed before posting further…
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3429
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

esselfortium wrote:
04 Jun 2018
normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018


Okay. Because I heard you post PMs behind peoples back accusing people of being nazis.
What?! I have no idea what this is in reference to at all.
Dude, I was playing. I was just making up a disgusting rumor about you because you said you don't mind that. Or at least you answered no to my question which was about that - maybe you understood it differently.

For reference again, this is the comment I am talking about - which I am aware was not made by you:
djadalaide wrote:
04 Jun 2018
he did say some things in private about how stupid reason users are, but best to just leave it there and move on!

WongoTheSane
Posts: 1517
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

Post 04 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018
esselfortium wrote:
04 Jun 2018


What?! I have no idea what this is in reference to at all.
Dude, I was playing. I was just making up a disgusting rumor about you because you said you don't mind that. Or at least you answered no to my question which was about that - maybe you understood it differently.

For reference again, this is the comment I am talking about - which I am aware was not made by you:
djadalaide wrote:
04 Jun 2018
he did say some things in private about how stupid reason users are, but best to just leave it there and move on!
There's a difference though: those comments were published for all to see. They might have been removed by the mods in the meantime, but it's not a rumor.

djadalaide
Posts: 127
Joined: 11 May 2018

Post 04 Jun 2018

Quoted from a post by JiggeryPokery:

Code: Select all

I should also note he called all his customers "idiots" for being dumb about not knowing how easy it was to produce IDT/GE devices, and admitted he was lazy and it was all about as much money for as little work as possible. True story. :( (I posted it on Slack yesterday, I admit I shouldn't have done that, but I was a rather angry,).
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7506343&p=394859#p394859

Whether stupid/idiots - same thing in my book. I should know to provide references. Buts its clear he doesn't care about you, so i don't know why you are defending him!

I shouldn't have to do this, this forum is out of control you can't even have a conversation without a flame war.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7338
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

djadalaide wrote: I shouldn't have to do this, this forum is out of control you can't even have a conversation without a flame war.
I don’t know if it’s fair to single out THIS forum for bad behavior. I’ve not yet seen one that can guarantee no flames…
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

djadalaide
Posts: 127
Joined: 11 May 2018

Post 04 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
04 Jun 2018
djadalaide wrote: I shouldn't have to do this, this forum is out of control you can't even have a conversation without a flame war.
I don’t know if it’s fair to single out THIS forum for bad behavior. I’ve not yet seen one that can guarantee no flames…
:)
Thats true :) :oops: :? :lol:

User avatar
splangie
Posts: 161
Joined: 21 Dec 2017
Location: Park County, Colorado

Post 04 Jun 2018

Snitch. That is a funny word, normally used by criminals or co-conspirators.
Reason 12.7.1xx73391 beta

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7338
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

splangie wrote:Snitch. That is a funny word, normally used by criminals or co-conspirators.
Which of course did not happen here, because to say otherwise would require evidence. ;)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

madmacman
Posts: 449
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

splangie wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Snitch. That is a funny word, normally used by criminals or co-conspirators.
Maybe the (non-native) speakers around here are somewhat "influenced" by the popular Mac tool "Little Snitch" :)

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3429
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

WongoTheSane wrote:
04 Jun 2018
There's a difference though: those comments were published for all to see. They might have been removed by the mods in the meantime, but it's not a rumor.
Eh.. Comments made in private that were made public? Anyway, this is what I am talking about - re-stating these things with your spin never ends good :)
splangie wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Snitch. That is a funny word, normally used by criminals or co-conspirators.
Petze aus reiner Niedertracht - better? :)

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7338
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

Failing to see any relevance with these past few posts to the topic at hand, and things seem to be deteriorating into misunderstandings and unrelated references.

Does anyone have anything specific to add to the "update on copyright" issue?

Otherwise, let's all move on (or we can lock this thread if folks lack self control).
Selig Audio, LLC

WongoTheSane
Posts: 1517
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

Post 04 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018
WongoTheSane wrote:
04 Jun 2018
There's a difference though: those comments were published for all to see. They might have been removed by the mods in the meantime, but it's not a rumor.
Eh.. Comments made in private that were made public? Anyway, this is what I am talking about - re-stating these things with your spin never ends good :)
Er... I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding your position. Someone has been caught doing bad things, people talk about it, it's human nature, and still, unless I'm misunderstanding something, you seem to say that people shouldn't discuss the matter? As for private things being made public, isn't it how it usually goes? Someone does a bad thing, they get reported, and the act of reporting itself most always consists of bringing private stuff to light, doesn't it? Talking about it is also a way to have additional witnesses tell the truth, that they probably wouldn't have said otherwise, for fear of retribution or ridicule or whatever else?

Saying that this matter shouldn't be talked about "until we know more" or "unless we're the copyright holders" (I'm not saying it's your position, mind you, it's one that has been stated several times here and I'm doing a lump answer) is completely untenable IMHO. If it was valid, we wouldn't discuss Trump on political forums. Or Weinstein, or the fake ukrainian death, or Kanye's latest album, or anything else for that matter, because who knows everything about anything? It's a theoretical position but it has no bearing on reality. People have been bamboozled by Softphonics, they have a right to discuss it, wonder what will happen and what the status of the goods they bought is. No one is actually bringing an actual rope to the table.

And saying that he shouldn't be considered guilty because no one has launched an action against him, is paradoxical: we don't know whether an action has been launched against him, because if it has, it's not going to be published on RT with hourly updates. You can't argue against ignorance by reasoning in ignorance. That he hasn't been condemned (yet), I agree. That he hasn't done the deed, considering the overwhelming evidence... that's just naive. Everybody can see that he did. That the punishment should be proportioned to the crime, I agree, and that the proportion should be decided by professional judges, I agree. Not guilty: I disagree, I've seen enough.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3429
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

WongoTheSane wrote:
04 Jun 2018
normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018


Eh.. Comments made in private that were made public? Anyway, this is what I am talking about - re-stating these things with your spin never ends good :)
Er... I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding your position. Someone has been caught doing bad things, people talk about it, it's human nature, and still, unless I'm misunderstanding something, you seem to say that people shouldn't discuss the matter? As for private things being made public, isn't it how it usually goes? Someone does a bad thing, they get reported, and the act of reporting itself most always consists of bringing private stuff to light, doesn't it? Talking about it is also a way to have additional witnesses tell the truth, that they probably wouldn't have said otherwise, for fear of retribution or ridicule or whatever else?

Saying that this matter shouldn't be talked about "until we know more" or "unless we're the copyright holders" (I'm not saying it's your position, mind you, it's one that has been stated several times here and I'm doing a lump answer) is completely untenable IMHO. If it was valid, we wouldn't discuss Trump on political forums. Or Weinstein, or the fake ukrainian death, or Kanye's latest album, or anything else for that matter, because who knows everything about anything? It's a theoretical position but it has no bearing on reality. People have been bamboozled by Softphonics, they have a right to discuss it, wonder what will happen and what the status of the goods they bought is. No one is actually bringing an actual rope to the table.

And saying that he shouldn't be considered guilty because no one has launched an action against him, is paradoxical: we don't know whether an action has been launched against him, because if it has, it's not going to be published on RT with hourly updates. You can't argue against ignorance by reasoning in ignorance. That he hasn't been condemned (yet), I agree. That he hasn't done the deed, considering the overwhelming evidence... that's just naive. Everybody can see that he did. That the punishment should be proportioned to the crime, I agree, and that the proportion should be decided by professional judges, I agree. Not guilty: I disagree, I've seen enough.
Let's take your specific example: The rumor would be that "Andrew said all Reason users are idiots" which is MILES from what he apparently actually said in a heated argument: "They are stupid for not knowing how easy to do IDT instruments are". Do you see what I am talking about when I say disgusting? Or what position don't you understand exactly?

User avatar
moneykube
Posts: 1642
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

Screen Shot 2018-06-04 at 10.57.38 AM.png
wow... this is still going on... not even sure how many people here complaining lost anything... I was making patches for upcoming synth re and testing it... was going to receive synth for the work I did... now... it is gone... bought a few refills as well... I am over it... people here need to get over it whether they lost things or not... wow... the million threads on this , seem like chickens who see blood... can't stop pecking... peck ... peck... peck...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

[/soundcloud_multi]https://www.youtube.com/user/DarrylMiller01[/soundcloud_multi]

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7338
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018
Let's take your specific example: The rumor would be that "Andrew said all Reason users are idiots" which is MILES from what he apparently actually said in a heated argument: "They are stupid for not knowing how easy to do IDT instruments are". Do you see what I am talking about when I say disgusting? Or what position don't you understand exactly?
I'm not understanding your point, but that hardly matters at this point IMO.
What I DO understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you intentionally started a truly disgusting rumor about another forum member, I'm guessing to prove your point that it's bad to start truly disgusting rumors about another forum member?

The problem I have is that what YOU said isn't just "MILES from what someone apparently said".
It was a complete fabrication, and one which could be considered slanderous, or at the least highly inflammatory.
At this point, probably best to let this whole thing go, OK?
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2024
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
04 Jun 2018

Let's take your specific example: The rumor would be that "Andrew said all Reason users are idiots" which is MILES from what he apparently actually said in a heated argument: "They are stupid for not knowing how easy to do IDT instruments are". Do you see what I am talking about when I say disgusting? Or what position don't you understand exactly?
It's actually not a rumor if the person is publicly sharing a private conversation they personally had with the individual in question. If it isn't true then it's simply just a lie. Nonetheless people are frustrated by events that have taken place and have taken action by reporting what strongly seems to be copyright infringement to the copyright holder. The idea that one would take issue with that is very odd. I've done similar for a rip off product I saw a few years back. Ultimately the most recent dialog on this thread is being caused by people telling victims (being people who unknowingly spent money on the alleged rip off products) that they shouldn't care which is just flat out insensitive. Playing devils advocate here doesn't invite productive discussion in this circumstance.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: antic604, Breach The Sky, CommonCrawl [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 4 guests