An update on copyright...

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
Locked
User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 4503
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

avasopht wrote:
06 Jun 2018
EnochLight wrote:
06 Jun 2018
:roll:

Yeah, hyperbole. And please don’t get me wrong - of course “stealing is wrong”, but you’re making it sound like the FBI or the CIA or the KGB or whatever era you’re from wil come knocking on your door just because some kid in his bedroom studio bought one of Softphoncs refills or RE’s.
They'd better be if they stole my samples :evil:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Indeed, they’d better!
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10 |  Studio One 3.5| Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 4.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | M-Audio Trigger Finger Pro

User avatar
DJBuddhaBear
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 May 2016
Location: Arizona

06 Jun 2018

EnochLight wrote:
06 Jun 2018
DJBuddhaBear wrote:
06 Jun 2018
Nope. Sorry, it doesn't matter if it is bedroom 'producers' or hobbyists. If you buy stolen property and use it only at home and not in public, it is still theft.

Wow, I seriously can't believe some of the shit I am reading here about this. You do know that ISP's will suspend users caught torrenting movies and TV shows, right? The users are not selling them. They are not playing them in public. They are only watching them in the privacy of their own homes. And, it is still theft.

Since when did following laws become 'hyperbolic'? *facepalm*
:roll:

Yeah, hyperbole. And please don’t get me wrong - of course “stealing is wrong”, but you’re making it sound like the FBI or the CIA or the KGB or whatever era you’re from wil come knocking on your door just because some kid in his bedroom studio bought one of Softphoncs refills or RE’s.

That’s patently wrong, if not at least disingenuous.

But sure, continue running around with your hands in the air and scream. Meanwhile, I’ll get my bike off your lawn.
Actually discussing copyright law is now 'hyperbole' and 'running around with your hands in the air screaming'? :roll:

Children.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6835
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

DJBuddhaBear wrote:
EnochLight wrote:
06 Jun 2018
:roll:

Yeah, hyperbole. And please don’t get me wrong - of course “stealing is wrong”, but you’re making it sound like the FBI or the CIA or the KGB or whatever era you’re from wil come knocking on your door just because some kid in his bedroom studio bought one of Softphoncs refills or RE’s.

That’s patently wrong, if not at least disingenuous.

But sure, continue running around with your hands in the air and scream. Meanwhile, I’ll get my bike off your lawn.
Actually discussing copyright law is now 'hyperbole' and 'running around with your hands in the air screaming'? :roll:

Children.
Calm down everyone, and if you’re calling anyone here “children”, well that would be “childish” (and frowned upon). ;)

Back to the topic, with just a tad more civility please.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
DJBuddhaBear
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 May 2016
Location: Arizona

06 Jun 2018

avasopht wrote:
06 Jun 2018
DJBuddhaBear wrote:
06 Jun 2018

Nope. Sorry, it doesn't matter if it is bedroom 'producers' or hobbyists. If you buy stolen property and use it only at home and not in public, it is still theft.

Wow, I seriously can't believe some of the shit I am reading here about this. You do know that ISP's will suspend users caught torrenting movies and TV shows, right? The users are not selling them. They are not playing them in public. They are only watching them in the privacy of their own homes. And, it is still theft.

Since when did following laws become 'hyperbolic'? *facepalm*
I wouldn't compare deliberately downloading and sharing torrents of TV shows with purchasing samples off of the Propellerhead shop and then later realising they are unlicensed.

I might have mentioned it in this thread or another, but back in the mid 00's music magazines used to include a CD with free samples. You would have the obvious 808's and ARP string ensemble samples, but for a while they would also include samples of hardware romplers.

Eventually the hardware manufacturers asked them to stop supplying them. I suspect there are a lot of chart songs built with those samples! Some aware and some not.

I guess we all have our own feelings about this, but I wouldn't expect some bedroom producer who's just spent money they can't be refunded to also delete their RE / Refill because they were duped. They shouldn't be the ones biting the bullet in this instance. It's a very unrealistic expectation.
Simply downloading a torrent without sharing it is still an illegal action. Taking a DVD from a store and downloading the same movie to your computer even if there is no intent to resell it, share it, or host a public view for free or paid, is still stealing.

If that bedroom producer ever expects that song to be made public, if it contains samples that are not properly licensed, that bedroom producer will still be liable for a copyright infringement. Yeah, it sucks and is unfair that they were duped by a con artist & thief but now that there is definite uncertainty around the licensing of said samples from Softphonics, then an individual who knowingly uses said samples risks legal consequences.

I just don't understand the mentality here that thinks that is OK. I guess this site is mostly kids and hobbyists. Professionals know otherwise.

User avatar
DJBuddhaBear
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 May 2016
Location: Arizona

06 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
06 Jun 2018
DJBuddhaBear wrote:
Actually discussing copyright law is now 'hyperbole' and 'running around with your hands in the air screaming'? :roll:

Children.
Calm down everyone, and if you’re calling anyone here “children”, well that would be “childish” (and frowned upon). ;)

Back to the topic, with just a tad more civility please.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
But it is A-OK to rationalize copyright violations and insult those who recognize it is not ok?

Yeah, time for a break from ReasonTalk, I think.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6835
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

DJBuddhaBear wrote:
avasopht wrote:
06 Jun 2018

I guess we all have our own feelings about this, but I wouldn't expect some bedroom producer who's just spent money they can't be refunded to also delete their RE / Refill because they were duped. They shouldn't be the ones biting the bullet in this instance. It's a very unrealistic expectation.
I just don't understand the mentality here that thinks that is OK. I guess this site is mostly kids and hobbyists. Professionals know otherwise.
Yay, consensus!

The reason “professionals know otherwise” is that their work is public and therefore they can actually be sued (though it’s unlikely). At the least they can be shamed, and thus looks less professional in the eyes of those paying for their work (which of course, is bad news).

The hobbiests, OTOH, which are the majority here I would agree, don’t have either of these risks. Neither are they making any money off of these samples, and I understand why they have different concerns.

What I’m saying is both views are correct: Stealing is wrong AND hobbyists cannot afford to throw stuff away after doing no wrong themselves and finding they paid for “stolen” goods. And as long as they are not getting paid for their work, and in this one instance, I would totally agree!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 1815
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

DJBuddhaBear wrote:
06 Jun 2018
Simply downloading a torrent without sharing it is still an illegal action. Taking a DVD from a store and downloading the same movie to your computer even if there is no intent to resell it, share it, or host a public view for free or paid, is still stealing.
I was not debating the legality of torrenting or copying DVDs from the store. Not sure why you felt the need to state the that. I don't think I said anything to warrant that. This is obvious. That has added nothing to the discussion.
DJBuddhaBear wrote:
06 Jun 2018
If that bedroom producer ever expects that song to be made public, if it contains samples that are not properly licensed, that bedroom producer will still be liable for a copyright infringement. Yeah, it sucks and is unfair that they were duped by a con artist & thief but now that there is definite uncertainty around the licensing of said samples from Softphonics, then an individual who knowingly uses said samples risks legal consequences.
If that song is released publicly on Soundcloud, I can safely bet my future child's college fund that there will never be a copyright lawsuit on the use of those samples in a track. In the real world, no, there are no actual legal risks. There will be no secret police knocking at their door for uploading a track to Soundcloud with 47 views because you used Softphonics RE / Refill. Even for a released song it's highly unlikely. I don't think there has ever been a case, nor is there any pursuit.

And no, I am not talking about legal liability, I am talking about risks (since you brought it up).

Obviously there is still legal liability. It is, obviously, good conduct and best practices for a business or a professional to take the legal liability much more seriously in this case. This is obviously a given.

My point is that I don't expect nameless Tom from Selby to have the same legal compulsion as a business or a professional. Stating that does not mean you are not professional. That's silly.
DJBuddhaBear wrote:
06 Jun 2018
I just don't understand the mentality here that thinks that is OK. I guess this site is mostly kids and hobbyists. Professionals know otherwise.
If you need to be condescending to get your point across, you either don't have a valid point or do not know how to communicate it.
---

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1001
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

06 Jun 2018

kitekrazy wrote:
01 Jun 2018
normen wrote:
30 May 2018
Technically Andrew said „I recorded them“, right? It could also mean recording NI instruments.. As said I am also 99% sure this is a scam but I‘d also say that theres no one at least in this thread who could say anything definitive about this apart from the fact that these are NI samples. And definitely not what should or should not be done to Andrew.
Considering the price I would say no. Studio time and paying the musician doesn't = a $49 refill. When East West released their Hollywood series they were over a $1000. 10 years later they can sell them for half since they recovered their costs.
Euphonic Strings is 29 bucks. They hired 11 classical musicians, engineers and a studio.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6835
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

DJBuddhaBear wrote:
06 Jun 2018
selig wrote:
06 Jun 2018


Calm down everyone, and if you’re calling anyone here “children”, well that would be “childish” (and frowned upon). ;)

Back to the topic, with just a tad more civility please.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
But it is A-OK to rationalize copyright violations and insult those who recognize it is not ok?

Yeah, time for a break from ReasonTalk, I think.
YES - it's totally OK for anyone here to have a different opinion from yours. But it is not OK to express that opinion without civility and respect.

If I missed the "insult" I apologize - please report to mods (I'll re-read the thread just in case I missed something).

[I DID explore EVERYONE to calm down - sorry if you felt it was directly only at you (moderation is not my day job, just trying to keep folks civil in a potentially touchy topic).]

That's all I'm saying here, carry on.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 4503
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

DJBuddhaBear wrote:
06 Jun 2018
Simply downloading a torrent without sharing it is still an illegal action.
DJBuddhaBear wrote:
06 Jun 2018
But it is A-OK to rationalize copyright violations and insult those who recognize it is not ok?
I'm not rationalizing copyright violations, nor am I debating that downloading a torrent (of a copyrighted film/TV show/music/software/WHATEVER without paying for it) is an illegal action. Please re-read my comments. I'm stating that things seem to be much less of a concern for bedroom "producers" & hobbyists, and that professionals who are working in film/TV or the music industry represents a much smaller percentage of people. Suggesting that people think this is a game? Nah. As I said, you make it sound like the authorities are going to be knocking on all the doors of Softphonics customers.

They're not.

There has not been any copyright claim made towards Propellerhead or Softphonics at this point (as the entire point of this thread indicated). So, relax? ;)
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10 |  Studio One 3.5| Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 4.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | M-Audio Trigger Finger Pro

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 988
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

06 Jun 2018

miscend wrote:
06 Jun 2018
kitekrazy wrote:
01 Jun 2018


Considering the price I would say no. Studio time and paying the musician doesn't = a $49 refill. When East West released their Hollywood series they were over a $1000. 10 years later they can sell them for half since they recovered their costs.
Euphonic Strings is 29 bucks. They hired 11 classical musicians, engineers and a studio.
I'm not so sure. There are some clues that strongly suggest Euphonic may have been cobbled together from preexisting libraries, possibly a few different ones layered on top of each other.

There are very audible phasing artifacts on many of the samples, which wouldn't exist in authentic live recordings. The note-silde samples are very short and click at the end, as though they were intended for use as part of a Kontakt instrument's scripted legato system rather than on their own. Many of the short staccato notes have noticeably different lengths between the left and right channels, in a way that wouldn't happen if they were recorded in the same room. The website claims that they were recorded on pro equipment but has absolutely no information about what that equipment is, and there are no performers or engineers credited in the pdf manual.
Sarah Mancuso
New album「Transmission Control: Music from Subserial Network」is out now!

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2016
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Contact:

06 Jun 2018

yes, maybe these are free samples.you have many open content libraries even without the need to credit. Berkley has done these and there was a One Laptop Per Child which came with a huge librairy as well.
Marco Raaphorst

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

kitekrazy
Posts: 638
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

miscend wrote:
06 Jun 2018
kitekrazy wrote:
01 Jun 2018


Considering the price I would say no. Studio time and paying the musician doesn't = a $49 refill. When East West released their Hollywood series they were over a $1000. 10 years later they can sell them for half since they recovered their costs.
Euphonic Strings is 29 bucks. They hired 11 classical musicians, engineers and a studio.
It wasn't that price when they were released. You proved my point.

kitekrazy
Posts: 638
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

esselfortium wrote:
06 Jun 2018
miscend wrote:
06 Jun 2018

Euphonic Strings is 29 bucks. They hired 11 classical musicians, engineers and a studio.
I'm not so sure. There are some clues that strongly suggest Euphonic may have been cobbled together from preexisting libraries, possibly a few different ones layered on top of each other.

There are very audible phasing artifacts on many of the samples, which wouldn't exist in authentic live recordings. The note-silde samples are very short and click at the end, as though they were intended for use as part of a Kontakt instrument's scripted legato system rather than on their own. Many of the short staccato notes have noticeably different lengths between the left and right channels, in a way that wouldn't happen if they were recorded in the same room. The website claims that they were recorded on pro equipment but has absolutely no information about what that equipment is, and there are no performers or engineers credited in the pdf manual.
I agree. They sound very synthy but still a nice refill.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 6835
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

esselfortium wrote:
miscend wrote:
06 Jun 2018
Euphonic Strings is 29 bucks. They hired 11 classical musicians, engineers and a studio.
I'm not so sure. There are some clues that strongly suggest Euphonic may have been cobbled together from preexisting libraries, possibly a few different ones layered on top of each other.

There are very audible phasing artifacts on many of the samples, which wouldn't exist in authentic live recordings. The note-silde samples are very short and click at the end, as though they were intended for use as part of a Kontakt instrument's scripted legato system rather than on their own. Many of the short staccato notes have noticeably different lengths between the left and right channels, in a way that wouldn't happen if they were recorded in the same room. The website claims that they were recorded on pro equipment but has absolutely no information about what that equipment is, and there are no performers or engineers credited in the pdf manual.
Lots of speculation - remember, this thread was the result of someone showing a direct comparison between two libraries. Your observations are circumstantial at best IMO.

Playing devils advocate, because I don’t agree that your examples “strongly suggest” these are from existing libraries (will gladly eat my words if proven otherwise!).

As to your assertions, and in the spirit of fairness:

Phasing:
Phasing commonly comes from recordings with multiple microphones (not from unrelated recordings being combined), which can be common with orchestral recordings if you’re not extremely careful. I’ve not heard examples of this on these samples (which samples do you hear this on?), but acknowledge I’ve not spent a great deal of time with the entire library (liking mainly the spicatto samples as previously mentioned).

Staccato:
I found one example in the staccato samples of one channel lasting longer than the other, which on further inspection shows both channels playing all the way to the end, so the “effect” is perceived but not obvious. I could just as easily attribute this to one player of a stereo pair not playing as long as the other player (common!). This is part of an alternate sample and so it only comes up every third time or so. Again, only found one example of this (4VnDetSh1B4.wav)

Note slides:
I only found one example of a slight click at the end of one of the alternate samples (4VnSU4bB4.wav), which turns out was trimmed too short. They could have stolen it and faded the end and you would never have suspected anything, fwiw. Sloppy editing either way (but does’t indicate it came from an existing library), but as one of many samples one would never notice this in context IMO.

Credits:
Just checked with the NI Symphony Series, looking to find the equipment and performer list, which you suggest would give credence to claims of originality. Found some microphone lists and a console mentioned, but absolutely no credit to engineers or performers, and no credit to the studio used (it just says “recorded in Budapest in a large orchestral studio with high ceilings and a beautifully controlled wet ambient sound”. You’d think they’d want to promote the actual location if they were “for real”, right?

Zampled is in Suffolk, England and has photos for folks named Zander, Anna, Dave, and Sam (their photos do not come up as stock photos or used elsewhere online) if you want to do research. Maybe someone here knows them, as they claim to be Reason users?

Please take this in the spirit of providing an alternate point of view, not as someone set on defending Zampled or claiming with 100% authority these are completely original samples.
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

Ostermilk
Posts: 1422
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2018

Summarizing,t we are all pretty certain that a number previously available products that people have purchased are now worthless, all the involved companies that exist on the fact that customers need to purchase their products in order that they even have a business, can look away in a spirit of covering their own arses and will allow those customers to be the ones the end up under the bus.

It might not be the fault of those companies that someone decides to drive a vehicle through their foyer, but I do think all of these vendors could get together in order to secure the best outcome for their customers in this unusual circumstance, rather than expect them to pay for the damage.

Doing the 'right' thing is all very legal and proper, but nobody seems to be doing the 'best' thing for those that actually fuel the industry with revenue.

I just wish somebody would look closely at the available evidence and come up with a solution for those that are out of pocket by whatever amount large or small. Certainly nobody needs to be called a snitch because they want to enquire how to proceed correctly in this instance, whether they spent £5 or £500.

My, my, how quickly views of customer service have eroded since business started being done remotely.

Caveat emptor seems more important now than it ever was.

kitekrazy
Posts: 638
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

07 Jun 2018

Ostermilk wrote:
06 Jun 2018
Summarizing,t we are all pretty certain that a number previously available products that people have purchased are now worthless, all the involved companies that exist on the fact that customers need to purchase their products in order that they even have a business, can look away in a spirit of covering their own arses and will allow those customers to be the ones the end up under the bus.

It might not be the fault of those companies that someone decides to drive a vehicle through their foyer, but I do think all of these vendors could get together in order to secure the best outcome for their customers in this unusual circumstance, rather than expect them to pay for the damage.

Doing the 'right' thing is all very legal and proper, but nobody seems to be doing the 'best' thing for those that actually fuel the industry with revenue.

I just wish somebody would look closely at the available evidence and come up with a solution for those that are out of pocket by whatever amount large or small. Certainly nobody needs to be called a snitch because they want to enquire how to proceed correctly in this instance, whether they spent £5 or £500.

My, my, how quickly views of customer service have eroded since business started being done remotely.

Caveat emptor seems more important now than it ever was.
Probably not. I don't think it's that big for NI to worry about. Someone took some sounds and sold them as a proprietary format. Who knows how many copies were sold. Usually they are worried about pirating their libraries to use with Kontakt and avoid the registration issue with Kontatkt player.

There are products out there using royalty free orchestra sounds they developer could have used to create those refills. It would probably be less work and probably better. Versaillain Studios did this and there was also a free orchestra using sfz format.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1422
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

08 Jun 2018

Anyway it looks like nobody is pressing any complaints. Which, perhaps, is an indicator of any actual significance of the now erstwhile Softphonics banner.

A little more caution when I reach for my wallet seems to be about the size of it.

I guess as my nick here shows, I come from a time just after wartime rationing had ended in the UK and Ostermilk was the now commercial brand of the previously government supplied baby formula. I still care about getting the best value for my beans.

Lets all light a candle for Age Concern... :roll:

Locked
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests