Indeed.selig wrote: ↑29 May 2018I see the shop as more like the Apple App Store. But in this case, unless NI complains, the Props can’t really do anything that I can think of. And I’m not expecting Andrew to step up and respond positively (like by proving refunds to all that ask), or anything similar.Ostermilk wrote:
No you are right it isn't the ecosystem, it's the e-commerce system.
But it does serve to highlight the fact that I've come to expect excellent service from Devs (an exemplar being yourself) via the Prop Shop and I guess I've perhaps wrongly thought that some demonstrable form of effective vetting occurs that distinguishes the Prop Shop from an online auction site.
It’s a depressing situation all around IMO, and at present I would think the ball is in NI’s court if we’re going to see any action.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
An update on copyright...
Was there even a need for this post?QVprod wrote: ↑29 May 2018Let's not make a mess of this current thread. Your posts in the previous thread weren't the only ones that were deleted, in fact it was several users all for the sake of attempting to keep things civil (for better or for worse). We ourselves did not demonize any user. Now, that aside let's please follow the moderation request that has already been made for this thread.
Give us a chance to shut up at least...
- Exowildebeest
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
The mods could take a cue from Props and not delete any posts unless anyone complains by handwritten letter...
(this post is a joke)
(this post is a joke)
Welp, regarding the Props' statement.
They just need to blacklist that individual for life, and share their decision with their other partners so they too don't fall into the same trap.
It's naive to believe that individual won't come back with a new face. The Props, and us, need to stay vigilant.
They just need to blacklist that individual for life, and share their decision with their other partners so they too don't fall into the same trap.
It's naive to believe that individual won't come back with a new face. The Props, and us, need to stay vigilant.
757365206C6F67696320746F207365656B20616E73776572732075736520726561736F6E20746F2066696E6420776973646F6D20676574206F7574206F6620796F757220636F6D666F7274207A6F6E65206F7220796F757220696E737069726174696F6E2077696C6C206372797374616C6C697A6520666F7265766572
The point is, put loosely, is that no injured party has made a complaint about any copyright infringing product currently in the store, so nobody is going to be blacklisted or otherwise sanctioned in any way, as things stand.bxbrkrz wrote: ↑29 May 2018Welp, regarding the Props' statement.
They just need to blacklist that individual for life, and share their decision with their other partners so they too don't fall into the same trap.
It's naive to believe that individual won't come back with a new face. The Props, and us, need to stay vigilant.
The basis for any allegations so far only exist in this unlisted video, posted earlier on this board, which I'm linking to for context here.
I can hardly believe that Andrew would ever be welcome back into the Prop Store, and if so (for whatever reasons) he would be throughly scrutinized. But it would be far easier for them to simply deny him the opportunity, especially if they want their customers to have any faith in future products!
So I expect he is already "blacklisted" on some level, but I cannot imagine how they would approach any type of sanctioning in this particular case.
Selig Audio, LLC
I wonder if anyone has already snitched to Native Instruments? (EDIT: No, I have not! )
That's exactly how I'm 'feeling' it too.selig wrote: ↑29 May 2018I can hardly believe that Andrew would ever be welcome back into the Prop Store, and if so (for whatever reasons) he would be throughly scrutinized. But it would be far easier for them to simply deny him the opportunity, especially if they want their customers to have any faith in future products!
So I expect he is already "blacklisted" on some level, but I cannot imagine how they would approach any type of sanctioning in this particular case.
It's not a case of 'snitching', anyone that owns any of the products withdrawn from the store is likely to have doubts about themselves unwittingly using someone else's samples in their productions.
It would be wise to check with the copyright holder.
I don't know what to say. But I think this sums it up -
Nick Baxter
SKP Sound Design - http://www.skpsounds.com
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/c/SKPSoundDesign
SKP Sound Design - http://www.skpsounds.com
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/c/SKPSoundDesign
Here is another video I found in another site, it's from a spanish guy who feel cheated by softphonics products, pointing out horrific sample issues in 2 products purchased, null support and warning other users to stay away from softphonics products.
In the video he also question the origin of their samples, he even thought that could be grabbed from some free public source bank in the internet... I wish I saw this video some months ago before purchase myself some of their products....what I found most disturbing for me is the lack of quality control by the props to what they sale in the shop, I mean all samples shown in the first part are clicking at the end!! Anyway here is the video in case you're interested
Found on this post https://www.hispasonic.com/noticias/sof ... ples/43747
In the video he also question the origin of their samples, he even thought that could be grabbed from some free public source bank in the internet... I wish I saw this video some months ago before purchase myself some of their products....what I found most disturbing for me is the lack of quality control by the props to what they sale in the shop, I mean all samples shown in the first part are clicking at the end!! Anyway here is the video in case you're interested
Found on this post https://www.hispasonic.com/noticias/sof ... ples/43747
- Exowildebeest
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
I don't think it works that way...
Luckily for Softphonics, there's a small chance that nobody tells NI and/or NI don't feel like it's financially worth persuing a damages claim or whatever punishment in civil court, and they'll just send an angry letter. And Softphonics has already ceased and desisted - and he might actually be committed to a psych ward. Good luck sueing such an individual - all kinds of legal protections and complications could come into play if he's declared mentally unfit [strike]to be president[/strike] to be held accountable at this time.
Then again, NI is German... Those fellows are usually pretty thorough in playing things by the books, so I heard
Hm yeah, might be I mix up trademarks and copyright there.
- fieldframe
- RE Developer
- Posts: 1038
- Joined: 19 Apr 2016
That's correct. Trademark suits in the US can be thrown out if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff didn't defend their name / logo / trade dress previously, but copyright has no such provision.
It would only make sense for NI to pursue litigation in this case if they had a reasonable expectation of recouping enough in compensatory or statutory damages to justify the cost of litigating. And that... could be tough to call.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Softphonics clearly denied* (EDIT: to me it seems clear at least - but to say the least it's not approved) the allegations at the same time of closing down.
Propellerhead Software remained neutral.
Alleged product removal other than by Softphonics was denied, too.
Apparently Native Instruments' statement is missing now, approving or denying whether the alleged copyrighted contents' usage was rightful.
Should the allegations win, Andrew Skelton most likely can't be held responsible; and all probably wasn't his fault or intention.
EDIT:
*"1. The constant manipulated bad press over some recent beta tests, attacks and smearing older reason refills has been the final nail." Quoted from http://www.softphonics.com
Softphonics clearly denied* (EDIT: to me it seems clear at least - but to say the least it's not approved) the allegations at the same time of closing down.
Propellerhead Software remained neutral.
Alleged product removal other than by Softphonics was denied, too.
Apparently Native Instruments' statement is missing now, approving or denying whether the alleged copyrighted contents' usage was rightful.
Should the allegations win, Andrew Skelton most likely can't be held responsible; and all probably wasn't his fault or intention.
EDIT:
*"1. The constant manipulated bad press over some recent beta tests, attacks and smearing older reason refills has been the final nail." Quoted from http://www.softphonics.com
Last edited by RobC on 30 May 2018, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think people are seeking to apportion blame, I know I'm certainly not.
I'm mostly interested in what happens in these circumstance when people have purchased stuff from the shop they can no longer use through no fault of their own.
For me I lost the price of a nice Fish and Chip supper with the Mrs, i.e. I'm not that bothered (but she's furious...,
Always go with the fish supper man. Always. I’m stuck here in Sweden without and I’d trade you half my REs for one right now. If only Props would let me :):).Ostermilk wrote: ↑30 May 2018I don't think people are seeking to apportion blame, I know I'm certainly not.
I'm mostly interested in what happens in these circumstance when people have purchased stuff from the shop they can no longer use through no fault of their own.
For me I lost the price of a nice Fish and Chip supper with the Mrs, i.e. I'm not that bothered (but she's furious...,
🗲 2ॐ ᛉ
I am curious why you are so dead set on defending an indefensible act. Copyright infringement on this scale is criminal. It does not matter if he denies the allegations or not. I have contacted NI about this as I bought one Refill and realized there were issues early on. I didn't have the libraries to compare it to but others have, hence the videos.RobC wrote: ↑30 May 2018Innocent until proven guilty.
Softphonics clearly denied the allegations at the same time of closing down.
Propellerhead Software remained neutral.
Alleged product removal other than by Softphonics was denied, too.
Apparently Native Instruments' statement is missing now, approving or denying whether the alleged copyrighted contents' usage was rightful.
Should the allegations win, Andrew Skelton most likely can't be held responsible; and all probably wasn't his fault or intention.
How could he not possibly be held responsible? Because he is 'autistic'? That does not absolve him of fault or intent. Propellerheads statement clearly shows that this is ongoing and it remains to be seen what happens next. Anyone who purchased the Refills and RE's should be very aware of this situation if they intend to use them. I certainly would not.
He's defending due process.DJBuddhaBear wrote: ↑30 May 2018I am curious why you are so dead set on defending an indefensible act.
I neutrally stated facts.
Let's not forget if allegations turn out to be wrong, then mass defamation happened, which can result things to turn criminal for the accusers in as much as a flip of a coin.
Once Native Instruments makes a statement, we'll see the outcome.
From the looks of it, all that can be done for Andrew, is lighting a candle and pray.
Let's not forget if allegations turn out to be wrong, then mass defamation happened, which can result things to turn criminal for the accusers in as much as a flip of a coin.
Once Native Instruments makes a statement, we'll see the outcome.
From the looks of it, all that can be done for Andrew, is lighting a candle and pray.
I hear you.
But where exactly has Andrew claimed the samples were licensed? Because his only mention of the samples was when he claimed to have recorded them himself so I'm all ears. This is highly suspicious and unless supported by evidence at this point his innocence in that realm of unrealistic wishful thinking.
They likely completely unaware of this. Given it took this long to discover the link, unless they've been explicitly informed I wouldn't expect them to respond, especially now the products aren't even in the store.
---
All in all this is such a tricky one, and I just hope his customers don't end up losing out in this, or that it in any way harms the shop.
Last edited by avasopht on 30 May 2018, edited 2 times in total.
I think a good lawyer may also be helpful if NI decides to prosecute…RobC wrote:I neutrally stated facts.
Let's not forget if allegations turn out to be wrong, then mass defamation happened, which can result things to turn criminal for the accusers in as much as a flip of a coin.
Once Native Instruments makes a statement, we'll see the outcome.
From the looks of it, all that can be done for Andrew, is lighting a candle and pray.
The allegations are that these samples come from NI, and that HAS been proven.
Another fact is that Andrew lied about the source of at least some of these samples, describing the recording process for the string samples (which he did not record).
There is nothing criminal about stating facts, and in these threads we are asking everyone stick to the known facts.
You mentioned previously that Softphonics somehow denied these samples were from NI - I never saw that on their site, can you clarify so we can be sure we’re discussing only known facts here?
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests