Zampled gone down

[MrFigg]

Well said.

Look guys just because someone is a fraud (which is something 99% of us can agree on) it is not okay to post private conversations publicly, no matter who this is about. I asked for more excerpts provocatively because I couldn't believe those were posted in the first place. That my request wasn't taken as a broad hint and followed up upon left me speechless tbh. Big no-no.

While i widely agree and i like my privacy very much, i see the requirement on the other side to have someone "leaking" information to have a clue whats going on and if someone failed in his moral deeply which result in penalty of other people, i want to know who, why and whom. While i am not a lawyer, this might be the case here even if this screenshots does not provide evidence rather an indication. IMHO this could have been handled differently and it did not really need to be leaked that way, i still appreciate someone to have the strength to leak such information and stand the argues.

Yeah Loque. I hear you on that. Thing is, it’s not our task to assert his innocence or guilt. And even if we did come to a conclusion it would have no consequence. That’s why we have a judicial system...thats their remit. As far as I was aware it has already been unequivocally shown that a rip off was indeed made so with that in mind further evidence, especially evidence which breaches fundamental rights, was unnecessary. But again...I hear you man

[sleep1979]

judicial system lawers trust them? More than ourselves
Come on , we shouldn't believe anything unless we have proof we can blatantly see ourseves , and there’s proof we saw that and he is gone , he is a ghost will never comeBack and has spent our money probably on a fat holiday , jiggery pokery is only showing us about the subject in hand as this is our judicial system we have seen the proof made our desicion and jiggery is just showing evidence on the matter , its not a
Conversation about having a peanut butter fetish smeared over old age pensioners is it , get a grip
This is about zampled whether theres new evidence on them
Skelton is convicted and banged up
As far as i and a lot of others here are concerened .

[sleep1979]

And isnt a judicial system a bunch of normal people who make a decision based on facts ?

[MrFigg]

And isnt a judicial system a bunch of normal people who make a decision based on facts ?

Yep. Except those people who make the decisions have been appointed with the authority to do so. Foundation of civilized society man.

[Marco Raaphorst]

I am getting myself some popcorn

[MrFigg]

I am getting myself some popcorn

Aye well, keep a seat and a bag for me. I’m killing off my character in this movie as from now.

[sleep1979]

And isnt a judicial system a bunch of normal people who make a decision based on facts ?

Yep. Except those people who make the decisions have been appointed with the authority to do so. Foundation of civilized society man.

civilized society man= sheep
I really don't believe that you can believe the modern system that we
live our lives by is fair and benefits everyone fairly and is just
, but we know no better right that's just the way is it
and random normal people get called up
you could have a mentally ill crackhead decide a murder case in that great system .

back to the subject
no ones got refunded , no ones got convicted
no ones to blame ? when we all know who is guilty ( blatant evidence )
that would get anyone convicted is there
that's your shitty civilized man system

and I really don't like how all these things get forgotten about
big company's hardly come out and say something once they start to earn money
like native instruments or uhe and propellerhead apple etc ( not talking about the little guys here )

notice how once they start getting big the customer service gets weak?
do propellerhead even care if zmpled or softphonics or other people in the shop are doing this ?
makes one scared to buy from there shop tbh
I mean I might as well download a load of cracked software


sites like this with an about me like this
https://www.amazound.com/store/about

is not gonna cut it any more for me

I want to know names of creators
when the studio was formed , reviews and testimonials on sites
if I'm ever going to buy anything else
I mean this guy was respected from what I heard when I bought sphere
I only lost £20 but could have been more I was eyeing up
his refills even though i didn't like sphere before he got caught because of the rave reviews

because of skelton some of that trust has gone
I doubt esselfortium would have gone to that trouble even if she suspected something
if skelton never got caught
the whole shop could be swarming with illegalness
how do we even know any more ?
its looking likely that at least two people were being unfaithfull
to us
how many more ?
are more suspected ?
who should we trust and who shouldn't we trust
skelton if we wanted to crack we wouldn't be here

that's all I have to say your honor

[Marco Raaphorst]

customers can ask the Props for a refund. it's their shop and they need to take legal actions.

[sleep1979]

customers can ask the Props for a refund. it's their shop and they need to take legal actions.

Has anyone got a refund ? Or asked
For one ?
I bought mine from amazon actually im gonna ask amazon

[esselfortium]

I got my copies of Embouchure and Euphonic Strings directly from the Softphonics and Zampled websites, so I'm just screwed. I assume a lot of people are in the same boat.

[Magnus]

I got my copies of Embouchure and Euphonic Strings directly from the Softphonics and Zampled websites, so I'm just screwed. I assume a lot of people are in the same boat.

Me too with Rockenbackre and Euphonic Strings. Waste of money.

In terms of the ethics in this thread of private communications being made public, there's nothing personally identifiable in the messages and no laws have been broken by posting them.Given we've clearly been ripped off, I kind of feel like the sharing of "business related" communications between developers, that incriminate the guilty party, are absolutely acceptable in this instance.

[Marco Raaphorst]

This is what’s good about RE: being able to test it before buying

[JiggeryPokery]

I've decided to delete the screenshots to avoid this thread devolving into a witchunt. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone, it seemed important at the time to provide evidence that he wilfully played you guys and called you idiots. That's a fact. But posting a pm it was an error of judgment on my part in a moment of frustration and for that I apologise.

[Magnus]

I've decided to delete the screenshots to avoid this thread devolving into a witch hunt. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone, it seemed important at the time to provide evidence that he wilfully played you guys and called you idiots. That's a fact. But posting a pm it was an error of judgement on my part in a moment of frustration and for that I apologise.

All good man, you're not the bad guy here. Skelton is.

Is there anything else we can do with Zampled to try and work out where it came from do you think? Are there any clues we're missing that could reveal the source or even maybe just that an automatic ripping tool was definitely used to create the WAV files?

[Marco Raaphorst]

I've already pointed this out: I want facts, not presumptions.

The video Magnus posted above is good proof.

But if you're like me, you'll want to do the tests yourself. I did, and every single sample I compared was a perfect match to the NI library.

It won't take long to compare for yourself, unless you don't have the NI samples handy.
But at the least you should know the tests in that video have been 100% confirmed by myself and a few others I don't recall at the moment (should be in the original thread).

I don't have the NI library but the video was super convincing. They sampled a sampled library.

Must say sampling is tricky. Sampling a 808, 909 and so on is super easy to do. Is that stealing too from Roland?

[selig]

The video Magnus posted above is good proof.

But if you're like me, you'll want to do the tests yourself. I did, and every single sample I compared was a perfect match to the NI library.

It won't take long to compare for yourself, unless you don't have the NI samples handy.
But at the least you should know the tests in that video have been 100% confirmed by myself and a few others I don't recall at the moment (should be in the original thread).

I don't have the NI library but the video was super convincing. They sampled a sampled library.

Must say sampling is tricky. Sampling a 808, 909 and so on is super easy to do. Is that stealing too from Roland?

Sticking to the important point (and avoiding a super deep "rabbit hole of no return"):
There is no doubt in my mind that sampling an existing sample library for the express purpose of selling it as your own IS stealing.

[Marco Raaphorst]

I don't have the NI library but the video was super convincing. They sampled a sampled library.

Must say sampling is tricky. Sampling a 808, 909 and so on is super easy to do. Is that stealing too from Roland?

Sticking to the important point (and avoiding a super deep "rabbit hole of no return"):
There is no doubt in my mind that sampling an existing sample library for the express purpose of selling it as your own IS stealing.

wondering if there are court cases. I think it happens a lot. people sample wavetable synths, mellotrons etc.

for me it's often grey area stuff.

[esselfortium]

Sample libraries' licensing agreements generally specify that you are licensed to use them in your music but not to repackage them in another sample product or similar.

It's definitely not a gray area, not legally and certainly not morally.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Sample libraries' licensing agreements generally specify that you are licensed to use them in your music but not to repackage them in another sample product or similar.

It's definitely not a gray area, not legally and certainly not morally.

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.

[Magnus]

Sample libraries' licensing agreements generally specify that you are licensed to use them in your music but not to repackage them in another sample product or similar.

It's definitely not a gray area, not legally and certainly not morally.

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.

In this particular instance though, Softphonics were just working through copying Native Instruments' original products (which NI themselves actually really did record for real - including paying for the musicians, the venues, the signal chains, sound engineers - everything) and repackaging them and passing them off disingenuously as wholly their own undertakings! There's no grey area there. None whatsoever. This kind of sampling isn't hard at all, there are automated tools to convert VSTs into samples - the output of which is intended for private use - not to resample and then sell the fruits of someone else's labour off as your own!

Sample libraries which contain samples of old keyboards and equipment that are hard to come by, that's a different story. One which is understandable. There is is absolutely no justification for what Skelton did. If he'd done the rips himself for personal use after buying the Kontakt libaries and he preferred to use them in a pre-VST Reason - that's fine too; just don't release other people's work and make money off it fraudulently!

I've just had a thought that we actually don't even know if the Kontakt libraries he sampled to "make" his Softphonics ReFills were even legitimately bought by him; given his ethics I wouldn't be surprised if they were pirated versions!

[Marco Raaphorst]

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.

In this particular instance though, Softphonics were just working through copying Native Instruments' original products (which NI themselves actually really did record for real - including paying for the musicians, the venues, the signal chains, sound engineers - everything) and repackaging them and passing them off disingenuously as wholly their own undertakings! There's no grey area there. None whatsoever. This kind of sampling isn't hard at all, there are automated tools to convert VSTs into samples - the output of which is intended for private use - not to resample and then sell the fruits of someone else's labour off as your own!

Sample libraries which contain samples of old keyboards and equipment that are hard to come by, that's a different story. One which is understandable. There is is absolutely no justification for what Skelton did. If he'd done the rips himself for personal use after buying the Kontakt libaries and he preferred to use them in a pre-VST Reason - that's fine too; just don't release other people's work and make money off it fraudulently!

I've just had a thought that we actually don't even know if the Kontakt libraries he sampled to "make" his Softphonics ReFills were even legitimately bought by him; given his ethics I wouldn't be surprised if they were pirated versions!

I would personally never do this. I never sample myself. Also not for music.

I am wondering what Native Instruments has done. I am also wondering why people, customers, felt they were fooled. I believe that, at least for RE users, you can test a product for 30 days and see if you like it.

I don't think Kontakt allow this kind of resampling, so Skelton did something that is illegal. But at the same time I am thinking: why didn't NI do anything about this? And why didn't the Props give an official statement?

[Boombastix]

It is very little gray area in copyright law. Even reading a Wikipedia gives some more education if that is the reason for assuming there are "gray areas". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ... ted_States

A sample is considered "Sound Recording" (or "Derivative Work" in the case of your own post-recording manipulation). All the Loopmaster etc. stuff, when original, is protected by copyright, but you buy a license to use it under the stated conditions in the license agreement that you must agree to by purchasing the samples.

If the sound originates from a generator (my terminology, i.e. not a recording), such as a guitar string or an analog oscillator, then it is not a sample (it did not come from a recording). Gibson can not claim copyright if you sample the string that you pluck yourself on a Gibson guitar. Roland cannot claim copyright on 808 samples that you make from the actual drum machine. (yeah, this has even been pointed out by copyright lawyers)
Once the guitar or 808 drum is recorded (by you) then that specific recording falls under copyright law. The 909 is different as its hi hats/cymbals ARE recordings, but not the snare/kick.

Roland D-50 was one of the first synths to contain samples, and they do defend its content still. Later HW synths (unless analog) normally are also based on recordings (copyrighted samples). You can only sell copies if you have a license from the owner, such as Roland/Korg/Alesis/Yamaha/etc. Since Roland are VERY restrictive it is a fair assumption that Roland based sample libraries are unlicensed, unless stated it is under license, in particularly if it comes from a small company. However, it may be some sloppy information out there, whereas the seller actually has a license but ignores to state it. Bad idea...
Anyone who uses someone elses sample have no way to protect "his work", since he actually is not the real copyright owner. Eg, if (BIG IF) Zampled is stolen, and they see people sharing this refill on torrent sites etc, then there is nothing they legally can do, since they do not own the copyright. To original copyright holder would have to fight that. But if Zampled tries to fight it they actually would then break the law (again IF that lib is stolen - not saying it is or isn't this is just an EXAMPLE).

If you own the D-50 (or any sample based synth/lib) you have the license to those samples, and yes, you can make your own NN-XT D-50 patches that you use yourself. But if you sell the D-50 you are no longer in possession of the license and technically cannot use your own D-50 libraries.

This topic comes up rather frequently, maybe one of the mods should make a sticky? (This is just an idea, my idea, but ideas are not copyrighted, so you can use it...and that was a joke )

[sleep1979]

It is very little gray area in copyright law. Even reading a Wikipedia gives some more education if that is the reason for assuming there are "gray areas". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ... ted_States

A sample is considered "Sound Recording" (or "Derivative Work" in the case of your own post-recording manipulation). All the Loopmaster etc. stuff, when original, is protected by copyright, but you buy a license to use it under the stated conditions in the license agreement that you must agree to by purchasing the samples.

If the sound originates from a generator (my terminology, i.e. not a recording), such as a guitar string or an analog oscillator, then it is not a sample (it did not come from a recording). Gibson can not claim copyright if you sample the string that you pluck yourself on a Gibson guitar. Roland cannot claim copyright on 808 samples that you make from the actual drum machine. (yeah, this has even been pointed out by copyright lawyers)
Once the guitar or 808 drum is recorded (by you) then that specific recording falls under copyright law. The 909 is different as its hi hats/cymbals ARE recordings, but not the snare/kick.

Roland D-50 was one of the first synths to contain samples, and they do defend its content still. Later HW synths (unless analog) normally are also based on recordings (copyrighted samples). You can only sell copies if you have a license from the owner, such as Roland/Korg/Alesis/Yamaha/etc. Since Roland are VERY restrictive it is a fair assumption that Roland based sample libraries are unlicensed, unless stated it is under license, in particularly if it comes from a small company. However, it may be some sloppy information out there, whereas the seller actually has a license but ignores to state it. Bad idea...
Anyone who uses someone elses sample have no way to protect "his work", since he actually is not the real copyright owner. Eg, if (BIG IF) Zampled is stolen, and they see people sharing this refill on torrent sites etc, then there is nothing they legally can do, since they do not own the copyright. To original copyright holder would have to fight that. But if Zampled tries to fight it they actually would then break the law (again IF that lib is stolen - not saying it is or isn't this is just an EXAMPLE).

If you own the D-50 (or any sample based synth/lib) you have the license to those samples, and yes, you can make your own NN-XT D-50 patches that you use yourself. But if you sell the D-50 you are no longer in possession of the license and technically cannot use your own D-50 libraries.

This topic comes up rather frequently, maybe one of the mods should make a sticky? (This is just an idea, my idea, but ideas are not copyrighted, so you can use it...and that was a joke )

think u have ended this convo and the other well said

[Magnus]

It is very little gray area in copyright law. Even reading a Wikipedia gives some more education if that is the reason for assuming there are "gray areas". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ... ted_States

A sample is considered "Sound Recording" (or "Derivative Work" in the case of your own post-recording manipulation). All the Loopmaster etc. stuff, when original, is protected by copyright, but you buy a license to use it under the stated conditions in the license agreement that you must agree to by purchasing the samples.

If the sound originates from a generator (my terminology, i.e. not a recording), such as a guitar string or an analog oscillator, then it is not a sample (it did not come from a recording). Gibson can not claim copyright if you sample the string that you pluck yourself on a Gibson guitar. Roland cannot claim copyright on 808 samples that you make from the actual drum machine. (yeah, this has even been pointed out by copyright lawyers)
Once the guitar or 808 drum is recorded (by you) then that specific recording falls under copyright law. The 909 is different as its hi hats/cymbals ARE recordings, but not the snare/kick.

Roland D-50 was one of the first synths to contain samples, and they do defend its content still. Later HW synths (unless analog) normally are also based on recordings (copyrighted samples). You can only sell copies if you have a license from the owner, such as Roland/Korg/Alesis/Yamaha/etc. Since Roland are VERY restrictive it is a fair assumption that Roland based sample libraries are unlicensed, unless stated it is under license, in particularly if it comes from a small company. However, it may be some sloppy information out there, whereas the seller actually has a license but ignores to state it. Bad idea...
Anyone who uses someone elses sample have no way to protect "his work", since he actually is not the real copyright owner. Eg, if (BIG IF) Zampled is stolen, and they see people sharing this refill on torrent sites etc, then there is nothing they legally can do, since they do not own the copyright. To original copyright holder would have to fight that. But if Zampled tries to fight it they actually would then break the law (again IF that lib is stolen - not saying it is or isn't this is just an EXAMPLE).

If you own the D-50 (or any sample based synth/lib) you have the license to those samples, and yes, you can make your own NN-XT D-50 patches that you use yourself. But if you sell the D-50 you are no longer in possession of the license and technically cannot use your own D-50 libraries.

This topic comes up rather frequently, maybe one of the mods should make a sticky? (This is just an idea, my idea, but ideas are not copyrighted, so you can use it...and that was a joke )

Superb! Also proves unequivocally that with what we know about Softphonics operation - their behaviour is categorically copyright infringement. In light of that, it also means people are right to be cautious about Zampled given the state that library's WAV files are in. If they have been ripped off and re-sold, this too would be infringement.

[moneykube]

after what happened with softronics I am so happy I never traveled this questionable road as well