Zampled gone down

Need some fresh sounds? Want to show off your sound design skills? Here's the place!
User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2453
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jul 2019

keep in mind though that copyright is not international law. there are many countries without copyright and totally different copyright law.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 138
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 11 Jul 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
keep in mind though that copyright is not international law. there are many countries without copyright and totally different copyright law.
True but from my understanding of countries where the law offers less protection, there are still clauses that sampling is only legal and does not constitute copyright infringement if the right of quotation is properly executed.

Softphonics never advertised where the samples were from so even by the yardstick of these weaker forms of international copyright law, the law was still broken as there was no citation.

Also other laws were likely broken. For example, in the UK, there is the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 which prevents manufacturers, retailers or service industry providers from misleading consumers as to what they are spending their money on. Softphonics clearly broke that law.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7745
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jul 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
10 Jul 2019

It's grey imo because many sample libraries consists of sampled material. But sampling a sample is suddenly illegal. I know that many sampling manufacturers say so but I am not sure it is legal. Sampling a 909 and resampling the sample is the same thing imo.
The law is simply not a mater of "opinion". It's great to share opinions here, but there is also the subject of the law, and I don't believe anyone here has the proper understanding and background to discuss local or global sample law with any authority.

Without that foundation, we are beating a horse that has been dead for MANY years now. May as well argue Beta/VHS, Gibson/Fender, Mac/PC if you want pure speculation and opinion.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2453
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jul 2019

Law jurisprudence changes all the time. I find it very interesting and have researched it for many years. Art of sampling, Napster, Creative Commons, open source etc.

It’s always changing and we can also change it.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7745
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jul 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Law jurisprudence changes all the time. I find it very interesting and have researched it for many years. Art of sampling, Napster, Creative Commons, open source etc.

It’s always changing and we can also change it.
What does that have to do with the discussion in this thread?
(serious question, not trying to be facetious)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2453
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jul 2019

selig wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Law jurisprudence changes all the time. I find it very interesting and have researched it for many years. Art of sampling, Napster, Creative Commons, open source etc.

It’s always changing and we can also change it.
What does that have to do with the discussion in this thread?
(serious question, not trying to be facetious)
1. law is not simple a fixed set of rules, it's based on local rules, ethics, always changing and we have different opinions about it.
2. because we here are judging a situation of which I keep on saying "show me the facts, a settlement between the person and NI", this situation is not at all simple although some people claim it to be, but I don't think so. I am not saying it SHOULD be like that, but that is how things work. OJ Simpson was not accused of murder. He fooled many people. I want to know more about this. Did NI in this case take actions? Why not? Why are we judging him when the Props didn't do anything and NI didn't do anything?

It's very grey area to me. But SUPER interesting if we can find out what is really going on here. But we are just guessing. (yes it looks like the samples are resampled from kontakt, but other than that... nothing).

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 138
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 11 Jul 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
selig wrote:
11 Jul 2019


What does that have to do with the discussion in this thread?
(serious question, not trying to be facetious)
1. law is not simple a fixed set of rules, it's based on local rules, ethics, always changing and we have different opinions about it.
2. because we here are judging a situation of which I keep on saying "show me the facts, a settlement between the person and NI", this situation is not at all simple although some people claim it to be, but I don't think so. I am not saying it SHOULD be like that, but that is how things work. OJ Simpson was not accused of murder. He fooled many people. I want to know more about this. Did NI in this case take actions? Why not? Why are we judging him when the Props didn't do anything and NI didn't do anything?

It's very grey area to me. But SUPER interesting if we can find out what is really going on here. But we are just guessing. (yes it looks like the samples are resampled from kontakt, but other than that... nothing).
I can't believe you're still being so obstinate about this. It doesn't require a statement from the Props or NI to know for certain what happened! The proof is undeniable.

Andrew Skelton is a charlatan. His products were fraudulent, his behaviour was that of a rip-off artist. He knowingly stole when he created facsimiles of Native Instruments' work and passed them off as his own. He knowingly stole when he took money from the Reason community in return for his fake goods. He disappeared and never admitted to his 100% provable crimes; there can be no grey area, no personal or private opinion about it. His behaviour was seriously wrong in any decent lawful country and his behaviour was seriously wrong ethically to any decent artist.

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2453
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jul 2019

Magnus wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019


1. law is not simple a fixed set of rules, it's based on local rules, ethics, always changing and we have different opinions about it.
2. because we here are judging a situation of which I keep on saying "show me the facts, a settlement between the person and NI", this situation is not at all simple although some people claim it to be, but I don't think so. I am not saying it SHOULD be like that, but that is how things work. OJ Simpson was not accused of murder. He fooled many people. I want to know more about this. Did NI in this case take actions? Why not? Why are we judging him when the Props didn't do anything and NI didn't do anything?

It's very grey area to me. But SUPER interesting if we can find out what is really going on here. But we are just guessing. (yes it looks like the samples are resampled from kontakt, but other than that... nothing).
I can't believe you're still being so obstinate about this. It doesn't require a statement from the Props or NI to know for certain what happened! The proof is undeniable.

Andrew Skelton is a charlatan. His products were fraudulent, his behaviour was that of a rip-off artist. He knowingly stole when he created facsimiles of Native Instruments' work and passed them off as his own. He knowingly stole when he took money from the Reason community in return for his fake goods. He disappeared and never admitted to his 100% provable crimes; there can be no grey area, no personal or private opinion about it. His behaviour was seriously wrong in any decent lawful country and his behaviour was seriously wrong ethically to any decent artist.
What's missing is the people involved in this. Not you and me. We have nothing to do with it, we are ok. I haven't bought the product. I don't give a fuck. But NI, I am interested in their story. And the Props. If they have a problem with it, which seems they have NOT, then I would totally agree.

You got it all wrong. We are ok.

WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1726
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

Post 11 Jul 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
1. law is not simple a fixed set of rules,
Yes it is.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
it's based on local rules,
Yes, rules are rules, we can all agree on that. And they are locally local.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
ethics,
Yes, ethics is one of the numerous components that are taken into account when edicting laws.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
always changing
Yes, although most laws being non-retroactive, you will be judged by whatever laws were in effect when the offense was committed.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
and we have different opinions about it.
Yes, and again, while it may cause new laws to come into effect, it doesn't change the set of laws that were actionable when an offense was committed.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
2. because we here are judging a situation
We are not. We are exchanging information and opinions.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
of which I keep on saying "show me the facts, a settlement between the person and NI",
Well, first of all, that's not what is being discussed. What's being discussed is: did Softphonics commit blatant theft? And as far as we can see, they did, seing as they did indeed rip the samples from several NI products, and that said products all carry a "don't resell samples in a sample pack"-type clause. There is no reason on Earth why the parties involved would have to show you any kind of settlement. Most of the time, settlements are made privately and never disclosed. If, instead of a private settlement, there is a judgement, there would be ways to read said judgement, but they are rather involved and in general require being a member of the judicial system (for instance, when you're a lawyer you subscribe to services providing cases summaries). So, asking "show me the settlement" is completely unrealistic.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
this situation is not at all simple although some people claim it to be,
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
but I don't think so. I am not saying it SHOULD be like that, but that is how things work. OJ Simpson was not accused of murder.
Oh FFS, yes he was! Where were you?
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
He fooled many people.
That bit I agree.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
I want to know more about this.
Well, that's the problem right there: this is one of the judicial stories that has had the most articles and books written about, and there are literally - and I'm using the term "literally" literally - hundreds of thousands of official documents available online. What does "I want to know more" mean in this context? You want someone to click on the links for you, you want the information to be spoon-fed to you, or is it just a general statement, like "I wish I knew more but I don't have the patience to actually read it all"?
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Did NI in this case take actions? Why not? Why are we judging him when the Props didn't do anything and NI didn't do anything?
Not the kind of information they'll share with you. Or you're not the kind of guy they'll share the info with. One or the other.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
It's very grey area to me.
"to me". Yes.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
But SUPER interesting if we can find out what is really going on here.
You won't. In the meantime, you're welcome to share whatever info you have and to discuss the matter with other uninformed earthlings, because that's fun.
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
But we are just guessing. (yes it looks like the samples are resampled from kontakt, but other than that... nothing).
Yep, we know a little but not much. Life in a nutshell!

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2453
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jul 2019

this is not our problem. in fact there's no problem at all for us.

if there is a problem it's between companies. between RE developer and Propellerhead. maybe. or between RE developer and NI. maybe. or between NI and Propellerhead. maybe.

what I think of this RE developer is for private ears. but it all comes down to law. and we can't do anything about. we know nothing.

final words. I am leaving.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 138
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 11 Jul 2019

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
11 Jul 2019
this is not our problem. in fact there's no problem at all for us.

if there is a problem it's between companies. between RE developer and Propellerhead. maybe. or between RE developer and NI. maybe. or between NI and Propellerhead. maybe.

what I think of this RE developer is for private ears. but it all comes down to law. and we can't do anything about. we know nothing.

final words. I am leaving.
This is a problem for us if we bought products we thought were legitimate and it turns out that they're knock-off products. I would never have bought Softphonics if I'd known. I would have saved a bit more money and bought the real deal from Native Instruments instead; at least then I could still use that product legally and with a clear conscience!

We cannot continue to use the Softphonics products now in good faith because they are illegal products and it isn't right to use them.

User avatar
diminished
Posts: 729
Joined: 15 Dec 2018

Post 11 Jul 2019

My biggest gripe with the whole Softphonics fiasco: who's accountable? If I ever get in trouble using them, can I refer to PH, saying they are still offering the refill for download via my account? Can I refer to Andrew Skelton, as the person who licensed it to the users? Is my license void because it's technically a stolen good? The official PH statement simply said that they continue to give access to people who already bought it. Honestly that's the very opposite of legal certainty.

WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1726
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

Post 11 Jul 2019

diminished wrote:
11 Jul 2019
My biggest gripe with the whole Softphonics fiasco: who's accountable? If I ever get in trouble using them, can I refer to PH, saying they are still offering the refill for download via my account? Can I refer to Andrew Skelton, as the person who licensed it to the users? Is my license void because it's technically a stolen good? The official PH statement simply said that they continue to give access to people who already bought it. Honestly that's the very opposite of legal certainty.
You didn't sell copied samples yourself, you did buy it in good faith from an erstwhile reputable developer, you didn't steal it and the contract hasn't been amended: your license is still valid and you can use it as you wish.

User avatar
diminished
Posts: 729
Joined: 15 Dec 2018

Post 11 Jul 2019

WongoTheSane wrote:
11 Jul 2019
diminished wrote:
11 Jul 2019
My biggest gripe with the whole Softphonics fiasco: who's accountable? If I ever get in trouble using them, can I refer to PH, saying they are still offering the refill for download via my account? Can I refer to Andrew Skelton, as the person who licensed it to the users? Is my license void because it's technically a stolen good? The official PH statement simply said that they continue to give access to people who already bought it. Honestly that's the very opposite of legal certainty.
You didn't sell copied samples yourself, you did buy it in good faith from an erstwhile reputable developer, you didn't steal it and the contract hasn't been amended: your license is still valid and you can use it as you wish.
Can you understand why I'd love to read that in an official PH statement? :D

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 138
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 11 Jul 2019

WongoTheSane wrote:
11 Jul 2019
diminished wrote:
11 Jul 2019
My biggest gripe with the whole Softphonics fiasco: who's accountable? If I ever get in trouble using them, can I refer to PH, saying they are still offering the refill for download via my account? Can I refer to Andrew Skelton, as the person who licensed it to the users? Is my license void because it's technically a stolen good? The official PH statement simply said that they continue to give access to people who already bought it. Honestly that's the very opposite of legal certainty.
You didn't sell copied samples yourself, you did buy it in good faith from an erstwhile reputable developer, you didn't steal it and the contract hasn't been amended: your license is still valid and you can use it as you wish.
Whilst I still have a license to use the Softphonics stuff I have, I feel like I was mis-sold. I don't feel like the license is valid as Softphonics never had the rights to grant me that license (to NI's original material!) in the first place.

WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1726
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

Post 11 Jul 2019

diminished wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Can you understand why I'd love to read that in an official PH statement? :D
Magnus wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Whilst I still have a license to use the Softphonics stuff I have, I feel like I was mis-sold. I don't feel like the license is valid as Softphonics never had the rights to grant me that license (to NI's original material!) in the first place.
Yep, seems I was a bit too vague in phrasing that: what I meant was that legally speaking, you're probably not allowed to use them (similar to not being able to keep a fake watch at the customs even if you bought it in good faith), but the chances of you being sued are almost exactly zero, because no one is going to knock at your door at 6am to put you in jail for using a couple of string samples in a song. For this reason, you will probably never get any reassurance from anyone, and it's down to your own code of ethics. I hope it's clearer.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 138
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 11 Jul 2019

WongoTheSane wrote:
11 Jul 2019
diminished wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Can you understand why I'd love to read that in an official PH statement? :D
Magnus wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Whilst I still have a license to use the Softphonics stuff I have, I feel like I was mis-sold. I don't feel like the license is valid as Softphonics never had the rights to grant me that license (to NI's original material!) in the first place.
Yep, seems I was a bit too vague in phrasing that: what I meant was that legally speaking, you're probably not allowed to use them (similar to not being able to keep a fake watch at the customs even if you bought it in good faith), but the chances of you being sued are almost exactly zero, because no one is going to knock at your door at 6am to put you in jail for using a couple of string samples in a song. For this reason, you will probably never get any reassurance from anyone, and it's down to your own code of ethics. I hope it's clearer.
That makes sense; but it's also why I cannot use Softphonics or Zampled now. I don't want to wear a watch that at the time of purchase was sold to me as a handcrafted one of a kind original but it now turns out is a fake and badly made unauthorised knock-off copy of a world class watch. I'd rather just throw that fake watch in the trash where it belongs.

User avatar
Boombastix
Posts: 610
Joined: 18 May 2018
Location: Bay Area, CA

Post 11 Jul 2019

diminished wrote:
11 Jul 2019
Can I refer to Andrew Skelton, as the person who licensed it to the users? Is my license void because it's technically a stolen good?
Here is a place where it is easy to misunderstand. Andrew Skelton did not own the samples he used so he could not give you a license. Your license is not void, you simply never had a license in the first place to those samples.
WongoTheSane wrote:
11 Jul 2019
You didn't sell copied samples yourself, you did buy it in good faith from an erstwhile reputable developer, you didn't steal it and the contract hasn't been amended: your license is still valid and you can use it as you wish.
Good faith law differ from country to country. I'm a bit rusty here (and there are many countries :o), but PH is based in Sweden and Swedish law used to allow a good faith purchase of stolen goods, but nowadays the rightful owner can claim it back but will have to cover the purchase price. Meaning the "good faith buyer" will get his money back from the original owner as he returns the stolen goods, and the original owner will have to fight the thief for compensation.
US and UK law does not allow you to keep stolen goods and you have to give it up with no compensation!. Meaning the "good faith buyer" has to fight the thief to get his money back, but the original owner is kept "harmless".

"Your license is still valid" is again based on the misunderstanding that Andrew Skelton gave you a license, but he could not do that since he never owned the right to make copies, i.e. copyright. Again YOU DO NOT HAVE A LICENSE, you never had.

When it comes to refunds then this will be covered by consumer laws as it was a business (PH) -> consumer transaction. On my PH receipts it says Sweden so Swedish consumer law would be the case, and you will be able to claim a refund up to 3yrs after purchase (Swedish law), but you need to do it no later than 2-3 months after the fault was discovered (it is called "reasonable time" in the law and it is not defined by a certain number of days). If the goods was stolen (i.e. unlicensed copyrighted materials) the "faulty product" at the time of sale will be applicable.

Question is, has a fault been discovered, based on the above Zampled video? I'd say probably yes. It is a higher probability this is copyright infringement than it is not.
Question is, has a fault been discovered, based on the SoftPhonics video? I think so (based on the SP video), but I'm not sure if PH has officially made such statement.

Keep in mind, in case you own the NI libs that Softphonics sampled from, then you actually have a license, and can use the Softphonics RE 100% legally.
If you don't own a license then it is a case of your own moral, I suppose. Do you walk across a street when red, do you roll past stop sign, do you speed past a school with children, do you take a pack of gum from 7/11. You define yourself what your morale accepts, and the risk for discovery is basically 0% as long as you keep your mouth shut.
The Zampled case a bit more tricky since we do not yet know where it came from. So you cannot determine if you have a license or not. Again your own moral has do decide.

If PH hasen't offered refunds for Softphonics buyers then I think it is morally questionable as they decided to remove the REs from the shop and they by that action probably indicate they understood they sold faulty products. They can remove REs from user accounts preventing further access to the product as well if they want, after a refund has been issued. Anyhow, Swedish consumer law protects the buyer for this stuff. It is up to you to claim your money back.

You have a VERY strong case to get money back from PH (Zampled or Softphonics) and they would most likely break Swedish consumer law if denying you. Though the loss of goodwill is probably more important to them if the user base start to boycott.
10% off at Waves with link: https://www.waves.com/r/6gh2b0
Disclaimer - I get 10% as well.

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2250
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 12 Jul 2019

I think we're taking this a bit too deep here. Folk are afraid getting into legal trouble. Ultimately, choosing not to use the refills for moral reasons is one thing, but no one cares enough to look at your computer to see what Refills or REs you used in your songs. You're not going to be sued for using a product you paid for and still have access to in your Propellerhead account. If that was an issue, Propellerhead would have said so and removed the products from all accounts. You're safe.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 138
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 12 Jul 2019

QVprod wrote:
12 Jul 2019
I think we're taking this a bit too deep here. Folk are afraid getting into legal trouble. Ultimately, choosing not to use the refills for moral reasons is one thing, but no one cares enough to look at your computer to see what Refills or REs you used in your songs. You're not going to be sued for using a product you paid for and still have access to in your Propellerhead account. If that was an issue, Propellerhead would have said so and removed the products from all accounts. You're safe.
Why would you want to use such products though; knowing what we now know?

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2250
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 12 Jul 2019

Magnus wrote:
12 Jul 2019
QVprod wrote:
12 Jul 2019
I think we're taking this a bit too deep here. Folk are afraid getting into legal trouble. Ultimately, choosing not to use the refills for moral reasons is one thing, but no one cares enough to look at your computer to see what Refills or REs you used in your songs. You're not going to be sued for using a product you paid for and still have access to in your Propellerhead account. If that was an issue, Propellerhead would have said so and removed the products from all accounts. You're safe.
Why would you want to use such products though; knowing what we now know?
As I stated, choosing not to use it for moral reasons is one thing. I'm not in disagreement with people choosing not to use it. Simply responding to the legal fears. Fact is, if you choose to use these products, you're not in any legal danger. Whether or not that sits well with one's own personal moral compass is up to the individual. I personally wouldn't be mad at someone using it anyway if it's the only thing they have. I'd guess a fair amount of the people who bought the Softphonics stuff don't even know about the controversy (the Propellerhead statement was only posted here and not on their website) and Andrew likely pulled his stuff to avoid being sued before any legal action took place.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 138
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 12 Jul 2019

QVprod wrote:
12 Jul 2019
Magnus wrote:
12 Jul 2019


Why would you want to use such products though; knowing what we now know?
As I stated, choosing not to use it for moral reasons is one thing. I'm not in disagreement with people choosing not to use it. Simply responding to the legal fears. Fact is, if you choose to use these products, you're not in any legal danger. Whether or not that sits well with one's own personal moral compass is up to the individual. I personally wouldn't be mad at someone using it anyway if it's the only thing they have. I'd guess a fair amount of the people who bought the Softphonics stuff don't even know about the controversy (the Propellerhead statement was only posted here and not on their website) and Andrew likely pulled his stuff to avoid being sued before any legal action took place.
I see what you're saying. I personally feel it's dubious that the files are still hosted by Propellerhead on their servers! Given what we now know, is that not essentially supporting a form of piracy?

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2250
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 12 Jul 2019

Magnus wrote:
12 Jul 2019
QVprod wrote:
12 Jul 2019


As I stated, choosing not to use it for moral reasons is one thing. I'm not in disagreement with people choosing not to use it. Simply responding to the legal fears. Fact is, if you choose to use these products, you're not in any legal danger. Whether or not that sits well with one's own personal moral compass is up to the individual. I personally wouldn't be mad at someone using it anyway if it's the only thing they have. I'd guess a fair amount of the people who bought the Softphonics stuff don't even know about the controversy (the Propellerhead statement was only posted here and not on their website) and Andrew likely pulled his stuff to avoid being sued before any legal action took place.
I see what you're saying. I personally feel it's dubious that the files are still hosted by Propellerhead on their servers! Given what we now know, is that not essentially supporting a form of piracy?
If NI never made a copyright claim (according to this they haven't viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7507209&hilit=copyright), then they have no reason to take any further action and refunding every person who bought any Softphonics products would be a financial loss. As it is, they're simply allowing the people who payed for a product to continue to have access to it, I wouldn't equate that with piracy.

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2453
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 12 Jul 2019

QVprod wrote:
12 Jul 2019
Magnus wrote:
12 Jul 2019


I see what you're saying. I personally feel it's dubious that the files are still hosted by Propellerhead on their servers! Given what we now know, is that not essentially supporting a form of piracy?
If NI never made a copyright claim (according to this they haven't viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7507209&hilit=copyright), then they have no reason to take any further action and refunding every person who bought any Softphonics products would be a financial loss. As it is, they're simply allowing the people who payed for a product to continue to have access to it, I wouldn't equate that with piracy.
Hallelujah!

User avatar
Boombastix
Posts: 610
Joined: 18 May 2018
Location: Bay Area, CA

Post 12 Jul 2019

QVprod wrote:
12 Jul 2019
If NI never made a copyright claim (according to this they haven't viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7507209&hilit=copyright), then they have no reason to take any further action and refunding every person who bought any Softphonics products would be a financial loss. As it is, they're simply allowing the people who payed for a product to continue to have access to it, I wouldn't equate that with piracy.
I'm sorry if anyone thinks I put to much effort into this, but I just want to avoid that guesses/assumptions fly around that are not correct.

Actually the above is not how I understand Swedish law works. That statement regarding the Softphonics case: "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." is strange. PH are required by law to go to great length to assure they do not sell a faulty products. They try to comply by stating in the RE/PH seller contract that no copyright infringement is allowed. And that is fine, but the law will not stop there. They are required to continuously assure they do not sell fault products (copyright infringement = faulty product). Since the Softphonics case is so obvious they MUST take action and go to a great length to ASSURE they do not sell a faulty product.

Since the copyright owner has been identified, Native Instruments, PH should really contact NI and keep this documented in writing, that they did that, and what NI responds with and so on. They could as an alternative just remove/refund all the products in a recall if they prefer. Again the law puts a HIGH burden on the seller. And a smart business documents every step and every contact made as they investigate a faulty product so they can prove in court that they in fact went to a great length to ASSURE the product was not faulty. For electronics for instance, you have to create a "technical file" that includes several 3rd part test reports etc. The law is STRICT when it comes to consumer protection. To identify a product as stolen (i.e. faulty product), they law will not require that you can identify the original owner. It is enough if the circumstances are so strong that there is no doubt it is a faulty product, the law requires that you basically need to prove it was NOT stolen.

If they continue to sell a copyright infringement product, they need to be careful as the Swedish law "Häleri" (Dealing with Stolen Goods) could come into play with up to 6 yrs in prison if the value exceeds about $10 000 (probably closer to 1yr for 1st offenders). This is not a playground where you joke around, not at all... Before they were aware of the infringement they can claim the were exposed to "Bedrägeri" (Fraud) and then the "Häleri" law will not apply, but once they know it changes... The situation now where they removed the faulty product but keep it available for download if you purchased it before, would probably make an interesting case for law scholars and if taken all they way to the "Hösta Domstolen" (supreme court), it might set a precedence.

According to Swedish consumer law you can request a refund, you are legally entitled to it. PH may refuse to pay, but that is a different story, you have the law on your side if you want the product removed and refunded. They are also required to cover your expenses to claim the refund (but not for emotional distress, but costs that you can present as (actual e.g. receipts). Though additional expenses are quite unlikely to exist for anyone in this case, but if it was furniture you could claim the cost for gas to your car if you have to transport the furniture back.

I do not have any Softphonics and I just hope they make the smart thing for their consumers and are able to avoid unnecessary legal battles. A fight that goes to the supreme court can easily cost >$100 000 and suck up an enormous amount of time. It is not fun...I know...
10% off at Waves with link: https://www.waves.com/r/6gh2b0
Disclaimer - I get 10% as well.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Yandex [Bot] and 0 guests