# Cinesamples Awarded $379,050 in Digital Piracy Case



## Peter Alexander (Mar 11, 2012)

Breaking news:

http://soniccontrol.tv/2012/03/11/california-federal-district-court-awards-cinesamples-llc-379050-in-digital-piracy-suit/ (http://soniccontrol.tv/2012/03/11/calif ... racy-suit/)

More to follow.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 11, 2012)

Good for them. Wow, I can't really believe somebody would do that though. Pure evil.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Mar 11, 2012)

$379,050! :shock:


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 11, 2012)

Cool deal. Maybe this will open some eyes and make people think twice before doing something like this.



josejherring @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Pure evil.



Eh, that's not _pure evil_. Is it bad? Yes. Taking someone's life for no reason is pure evil. Uploading cracked sw is not, sorry.

Two things:

1) I wonder if they are going to be able to collect. I know Chile is a Signatory Of The Berne Convention, but it still may not be easy.

2) I wonder if an appeal, which states that there is no way that anyone could know if those d/ls would have been purchases, would hold any weight. If it does, the argument will come forth that the monetary award is way too high, based on the probablity that CS would not have made that much money even if thos d/ls never took place.

It is interesting nonetheless, and I wish Mike and Mike the best of luck with this.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 11, 2012)

Your point taken.

I think that it kind of goes down to the reason that piracy exist. I mean, there's really not too many people in the world that can afford sample libraries, and I've often heard to this board composers from poorer nations that have all the talent to be a great composer but lack the funds to buy the right libraries. I'm sure Mr. Vargas thought that he was doing the world a favor.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 11, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Cool deal. Maybe this will open some eyes and make people think twice before doing something like this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Judges don't just throw out arbitrary numbers. While a certain amount of damages must be provable, there are statutory damages, etc. , and legal fees. Not an outrageous number.

Good for you Mike & Mike!

MichaelL (Esq)


----------



## Peter Alexander (Mar 11, 2012)

josejherring @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Your point taken.
> 
> I think that it kind of goes down to the reason that piracy exist. I mean, there's really not too many people in the world that can afford sample libraries, and I've often heard to this board composers from poorer nations that have all the talent to be a great composer but lack the funds to buy the right libraries. I'm sure Mr. Vargas thought that he was doing the world a favor.



I did a study for Korg once and we projected the US market size for pro midi keyboards at 12 million households.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2012)

Yeah, but nobody will take a Judge called Dolly seriously, will they? :lol: 

D


----------



## Ed (Mar 11, 2012)

ahah wow!

Can you actually get that money though? I know myself Ive tried to sue a company and I won but then they just claimed they werent at the address and they bailiffs were like "ok then!! BYEE" I guess its different if its a person. But if hes in a different country? Seems like theres no way to get him. Do they even know his address?


----------



## MaestroRage (Mar 11, 2012)

I would be -very- interested in seeing what actually happens. That amount of money from an individual from another country whom after googling clearly doesn't seem to have any presence (outside this lawsuit) would indicate he doesn't have nearly 400 grand sitting around.

What would happen if he doesn't have the money? Just tons of jail time?


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 11, 2012)

Good for CineSamples!


----------



## Peter Alexander (Mar 11, 2012)

story updated at 3:32pm edt to include background om Mr. Casas.


----------



## dannthr (Mar 11, 2012)

If someone steals a car, you don't punish them any less because they were not likely to buy the car full price.


----------



## dannthr (Mar 11, 2012)

Ah, yes, I knew we've heard of IceSamples before.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 11, 2012)

MaestroRage @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> I would be -very- interested in seeing what actually happens. That amount of money from an individual from another country whom after googling clearly doesn't seem to have any presence (outside this lawsuit) would indicate he doesn't have nearly 400 grand sitting around.
> 
> What would happen if he doesn't have the money? Just tons of jail time?



+1

i think the guy said: "whatev's" and just doesnt have to show in the US. 

how a US CA court decision can affect a guy in chile?


----------



## dannthr (Mar 11, 2012)

The bitch is these people think of themselves as heroes against the man.

And Cinesamples is not The Man.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 11, 2012)

MichaelL @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> RiffWraith @ Sun Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Cool deal. Maybe this will open some eyes and make people think twice before doing something like this.
> ...



Not saying the judge threw out an arbitrary number. I am sure she calculated the amount carefully ; that is not what my post is about.

It's a matter of the old argument of how much piracy actually hurts sales. We can debate it here all we want, but there are many people who feel piracy does not affect sales to a large degree, the argument being that most of the people who obtained pirated copies would not have purchsed the sw anyway. Is that true? I am sure it is to some extent, but how much - I really have no idea. Point is, it will be very easy for an attorney during an appeal, to say, "your honor, nobody can prove that these 950 people would have bought the product anyway, in fact, statistics show that most of them would not have - making the 950 potential sales an inaccurate figure."

That's all I am saying.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 11, 2012)

Congrats to Cinesamples.

The Mikes have been very forthcoming with this case with other developers and we (the developers) have followed this with great interest. Their attorney (Greg) is a very sharp guy and does his homework.

With regards to collecting $$ in the judgement, as far as I understand it, the pirate now owes $395K in damages... and Cinesamples may pursue any and all legal means to collect... which may include paying 1/3 to Chilean Collection agencies to take care of it for them. If the guy owns a house... they may take a lien on it. (for example -- correct me if I'm wrong Mikes)

In this new global internet economy, countries are being MUCH more responsive to IP theft and piracy... because those countries too would like to benefit from the same rights/benefits and protection as other legal IP owners.

Watermarking does work.

Cheers,

Andrew K


----------



## Ed (Mar 11, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> It's a matter of the old argument of how much piracy actually hurts sales. We can debate it here all we want, but there are many people who feel piracy does not affect sales to a large degree, the argument being that most of the people who obtained pirated copies would not have purchsed the sw anyway. Is that true? I am sure it is to some extent, but how much - I really have no idea. Point is, it will be very easy for an attorney during an appeal, to say, "your honor, nobody can prove that these 950 people would have bought the product anyway, in fact, statistics show that most of them would not have - making the 950 potential sales an inaccurate figure."
> 
> That's all I am saying.



The number is nonsense, for sure. I just want to know how they can get anything out of him. I guess at least they are legally allowed to dissuade people from buying from Ice Samples by telling people what he did.


----------



## MaestroRage (Mar 11, 2012)

I had to laugh a bit. He is the sole owner of a VI library company? 

A shame, he actually has decent libraries out there. None of which I will buy as I refuse to support that kind of person.

Unless of course all that money would go to the Mike's anyway 8D!

Edit: Also I find it hilarious he's selling wall papers of his libraries. WALLPAPERS!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 11, 2012)

Good for them. And that sounds promising Andrew K - I must admit my first thought was "oh no, they'll never get a cent from him". But using local debt collection - presumably if they don't get anything they don't get their cut - could be a good way to go.

I hope this gets a lot of publicity too. It's potentially a huge PR coup for watermarking. If people genuinely thought they'd end up with a $400k bill for ripping off, things might actually change. Good luck to CS.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 11, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Good for them. And that sounds promising Andrew K - I must admit my first thought was "oh no, they'll never get a cent from him". But using local debt collection - presumably if they don't get anything they don't get their cut - could be a good way to go.
> 
> I hope this gets a lot of publicity too. It's potentially a huge PR coup for watermarking. If people genuinely thought they'd end up with a $400k bill for ripping off, things might actually change. Good luck to CS.



Yes... I assume a $130K share of debt collection fees would be HIGHLY motivating for any collection agency... not to mention one in Chile.

Cheers,

Andrew K


----------



## Inductance (Mar 11, 2012)

Congratulations to Cinesamples! I think this is a victory for anyone that works hard for their craft and too often get ripped off (composers, musicians, as well as software developers). 

On related topic... Does anyone know about this? I just stumbled across this...

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trademark-lawsuits/california-central-district-court/82567/cinesamples-llc-v-east-west-studios-llc/summary/ (http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... c/summary/)

The "cause" is listed as "Trademark Infringement." I wonder if this is about the Hollywood series...


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 11, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> RiffWraith @ Sun Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a matter of the old argument of how much piracy actually hurts sales. We can debate it here all we want, but there are many people who feel piracy does not affect sales to a large degree, the argument being that most of the people who obtained pirated copies would not have purchsed the sw anyway. Is that true? I am sure it is to some extent, but how much - I really have no idea. Point is, it will be very easy for an attorney during an appeal, to say, "your honor, nobody can prove that these 950 people would have bought the product anyway, in fact, statistics show that most of them would not have - making the 950 potential sales an inaccurate figure."
> ...



I am not so sure the number is nonsense. $399 x 950 = $379,050. Which then makes me curious as to where the legal fees are - shouldnt' that 379 number be a bit higher?

But yeah, I dont know how they can get anything out of him either. Even if the Chilean authoroties are chomping at the bit (Andrew's post makes alot of sense), you cant get out of him what he doesn't have.

But Guy is on the money -_ If people genuinely thought they'd end up with a $400k bill for ripping off, things might actually change._ - hopefully. Who knows, this may be the very beginnings of reducing piracy.....


----------



## Peter Alexander (Mar 11, 2012)

Legal Fees - it's in the story.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 11, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> [ Point is, it will be very easy for an attorney during an appeal, to say, "your honor, nobody can prove that these 950 people would have bought the product anyway, in fact, statistics show that most of them would not have - making the 950 potential sales an inaccurate figure."
> That's all I am saying.



Whether they would or would not have actually purchased the product isn't relevant.

In law school they called that a red herring issue.


----------



## Thonex (Mar 11, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> But yeah, I dont know how they can get anything out of him either. Even if the Chilean authoroties are chomping at the bit (Andrew's post makes alot of sense), you cant get out of him what he doesn't have.
> 
> ....



If Chilean debt collectors have $130K in motivation to collect... I would assume that this guy's life is going to be fairly crappy and if he doesn't have the money now, future earnings are still game.

The bottom line, the message is it's not worth it... And with good watermarking, you can absolutely catch these guys.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 11, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> Legal Fees - it's in the story.



_awarded $379,050 in damages and lost profits plus attorney fees _

Ah - right.


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 11, 2012)

Thonex @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> RiffWraith @ Sun Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > But yeah, I dont know how they can get anything out of him either. Even if the Chilean authoroties are chomping at the bit (Andrew's post makes alot of sense), you cant get out of him what he doesn't have.
> ...



True.


----------



## MA-Simon (Mar 11, 2012)

Hm, i think "Damage" is the wrong word here. 
The number only states "extra sales".

So if all people who are "the marked", would buy from cinesamples, there cant be any damage done by people who are not buying from cinesamples, becouse they are clearly outside the "the marked"-of cinesamples, it doesent actually matter if they are composers ore not, and are therefor not in theirsales-market etc. Marked for digital Stuff = paying people, not the product using people. So if there are not enough paying people, then there just isn´t the market for things like this, ore (hopefully not) the libraries would have to be sold for a higher price to regain cost.


----------



## Ed (Mar 11, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> I am not so sure the number is nonsense. $399 x 950 = $379,050.



I just meant nonsense in the sense that you were talking about.


----------



## Ed (Mar 11, 2012)

btw I think its worth pointing out that he cracked a program people claim has copy protection. The only hard part for them was to get a copy in the first place. 

The way you catch them is by watermarking so you can trace it, so people dont want to risk letting lots of people download a pirated copy with their details locked into it, you cant stop people cracking the actual programs.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 11, 2012)

Hey VI guys, thanks for the support. This was a somewhat emotional experience let me kind of go through the thoughts we had. 

A while back I got an instant message from my friend Thor who was very upset that he just lost a nice project to a composer, here in LA, who uses all fake samples and was able to underbid him due to no overhead (other then a mac pro). For us this put piracy in a new light, a way never thought of before. He said "you HAVE to do something, this is out of hand!" Not only does piracy effect the developer but this is a direct example of it effecting an honest composer who supports us. Piracy is here in LA, as much as we try to avoid thinking of it. 

Next - Mike and I felt we have a "duty" to protect the AFM players, Dennis, Kevin etc.. and protect their revenue shares. This is not fair to them to be subject to this- and what we will recover will be shared with all as usual.

As it happens, I live next door to one of the best up and coming attorneys in the LA area. And what started as chatter over the fence soon became something we will willing to invest in. Greg was amazing and did so much work researching this case, and gave us such a friendly rate because he is my neighbor and friend. It was developing to a perfect storm. This might seem like a lot of money to you but if you looked at a budget for these products you would shit yourself, it costs SOOOO much money to do this type of work. 

Soon you will find out from VSL and Tonehammer this guy was no ordinary pirate - he stole other peoples property and sold it for profit himself. The judge gave him double the time to respond to the case, she made every effort to allow him to defend himself. He was served the papers in Chile a LONG time ago and had ample time to contact us but he never did. A bunch of us developers have been emailing for like a year, figuring out plans to help ourselves and our customers. They have been informed on this case since the beginning. 


Next, the one thing Native did supply us with was the watermark. Otherwise they have been extremely UNhelpful and UNwilling to help us for some reason. As Andrew said "Hey I have one product, at the time LASS 1, if it gets Pirated that is it for me!" I hope they will step up to the plate now that we have done this and will support their own product. They care 0% about this and need to be called out on it. 

The world is changing, globalizing, you will see more of these cases.
Once again thank you all for your support and honest ways, it is appreciated more then you know!


----------



## dedersen (Mar 11, 2012)

Wow, pretty big win for Cinesamples. Good for them, and hopefully for all developers, really. Wow, I seem to remember this guy even posted a few times on this forum, regarding his products? Quite a nerve.


----------



## dedersen (Mar 11, 2012)

Good read, Mike. And Kudos for taking a stand against this sort of thing! Depressing to hear your tale of NI's response to this. You'd think a fellow software company would be more supportive?!


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 11, 2012)

Thanks for the insight Mike.



mikebarry @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> Next, the one thing Native did supply us with was the watermark. Otherwise they have been extremely UNhelpful and UNwilling to help us for some reason. As Andrew said "Hey I have one product, at the time LASS 1, if it gets Pirated that is it for me!" I hope they will step up to the plate now that we have done this and will support their own product. They care 0% about this and need to be called out on it.



I'd like to be able to say that that's unbelievable, but it's not. They sell x-amount of copies of Kontakt (along with other stuff), and they collect x-amount of dollars from the dev for each serial, regardless of how many are sold, and how many are pirated. If you sell 100 copies and there are 1000 that have been pirated, this is not money out of NI's pocket; they have made their money already.

We should all call them tomorrow morning, and complain:

Telephone: +49.30.61 10 35-0

http://www.native-instruments.com/company/contact-ni/


----------



## pulse (Mar 11, 2012)

This is great news Mike, Congrats!


----------



## nikolas (Mar 11, 2012)

WOW! Huge congratulations to Mike & Mike for following on this and making sure icesamples was 'caught red handed'.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 11, 2012)

Good to know this!

Some days ago I started a thread here about a solo violin , what I had found on the net. 

The developer: ICE SAMPLES.

The thread was deleted very quickly and I asked the mods here why.... . They gave me the same answer: pirates.

Good for CineSamples!

And it is also good that we talk about this here and name those thiefs!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 11, 2012)

What the hell?!!! I'm really shocked by NI's response here. What's the most helpful thing we foot soldiers can do with regard to this aspect of it? Is it worth writing to them to complain?


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 11, 2012)

mikebarry @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Hey VI guys, thanks for the support. This was a somewhat emotional experience let me kind of go through the thoughts we had.
> 
> A while back I got an instant message from my friend Thor who was very upset that he just lost a nice project to a composer, here in LA, who uses all fake samples and was able to underbid him due to no overhead (other then a mac pro). For us this put piracy in a new light, a way never thought of before. He said "you HAVE to do something, this is out of hand!" Not only does piracy effect the developer but this is a direct example of it effecting an honest composer who supports us. Piracy is here in LA, as much as we try to avoid thinking of it.
> 
> ...



wow.. that pretty shitty form NI 

maybe talk to nick phenix to open up play ? (after they take care of the kinks)


----------



## MikeH (Mar 11, 2012)

Congrats guys!

In other thoughts, maybe the name of the composer in LA who uses all pirated samples should be named!


----------



## MaestroRage (Mar 11, 2012)

MikeH @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Congrats guys!
> 
> In other thoughts, maybe the name of the composer in LA who uses all pirated samples should be named!



That seems like a rather messy affair. What if the guy is wrong? Wouldn't that be considered slandering somebodies name and is a sue-able offense?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 11, 2012)

Congratulations. That's all I can say.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 11, 2012)

> who uses all fake samples and was able to underbid him due to no overhead (other than a mac pro)



...except to rub in that tangential point: Apple wins no matter what.


----------



## victorv (Mar 11, 2012)

Congrats Mikes!
What will happen with his site?


----------



## dfhagai (Mar 11, 2012)

Congrats, you deserve it!


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 11, 2012)

Congrats and thank you for fighting the good fight. I'm really happy not just for you guys, but for all of us. Thank you. Thanks to Greg as well. o-[][]-o


----------



## jleckie (Mar 11, 2012)

This is rather distressing news regarding NI TBH.

Everytime we purchase another developed library through them we are supporting them. 

I would suggest a petition.


----------



## Dietz (Mar 11, 2012)

mikebarry @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> [...] A while back I got an instant message from my friend Thor who was very upset that he just lost a nice project to a composer, here in LA, who uses all fake samples and was able to underbid him due to no overhead (other then a mac pro). For us this put piracy in a new light, a way never thought of before. [...] Not only does piracy effect the developer but this is a direct example of it effecting an honest composer who supports us. [...]



That's exactly the point. I'm trying to get this into the minds of professional musicians, composers and producers since many years now (... I even wrote a small article for Nick's VI Magazine, back in the days).

... but I have little hopes that there will be much insight, in times when the acceptance for all kinds of copyright infringements (music, movies, software ... you name it) has reached the mainstream of public opinion. Criminals like Kim "Dotcom" Schmitz, the filthy rich founder of Megaupload, are regarded as "heroes of free data traffic". -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom ... Chances are that we will see that guy in Chile in a comparable position. (o) 

/Dietz



.


----------



## ed buller (Mar 11, 2012)

Well done Mike....and props to your neighbour for helping you with the case. Piracy is killing us all

e o=<


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 11, 2012)

This is excellent news, and I'm very happy you guys saw this thing through. A stand had to be made. I hope many more will be made, until the message gets across that this stuff isn't okay, isn't cute, isn't revolutionary or cool, isn't about anything but theft.


----------



## KMuzzey (Mar 11, 2012)

Score one for the good guys. 

Mikes, I'm really curious to know what sort of recourse you'll have for pursuing the damages because this guy is outside of the US. Like, I know that a lien can be put against someone's house, but let's say he just rents and doesn't have anything that a lien can be put against: what's the likelihood of recovering some of the $$ from that judgement? I've sent takedown notices to websites before (for pirated albums and mp3's, not for sample libraries) and they're almost always outside of the US: Belarus, Spain, Russia... and most times they've complied with the takedown notice, but sometimes they don't, and then you hit a brick wall: it feels like the geography insulates them, because short of hiring an attorney in that territory to try to chase them down, you're at a dead end. It's very frustrating, but it's so hard to stop the hemorrhaging once it's started that it feels like you're trying to put a band-aid on a severed limb. 

I'm thrilled to see a copyright claimant WIN... I'll be even happier when they're able to collect. It gives some hope to us little guys trying to do the same thing.

Kerry


----------



## Farkle (Mar 11, 2012)

Hi, all!

Mike and Mike, congratulations! This is a great win for you, and definitely helps set the tone for future protection for honest, premium sample library developers.

Incidentally, just met and hung out with Mike P at GDC last week; one of the nicest guys I've met, and a killer musician, too. It's good to hear that good things like this happen to a guy like Mike.

Take care!

Another Mike


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 11, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> > who uses all fake samples and was able to underbid him due to no overhead (other than a mac pro)
> 
> 
> 
> ...except to rub in that tangential point: Apple wins no matter what.



not too much of a tangent...

imo there is a huge tectnonic fight between the new up and coming big ass tech companies like apple, google plus older ones like sony etc against content producers/artists. 

because if its easy to rip off, steal, sell cheap then better buy a good computer


----------



## gregjazz (Mar 11, 2012)

Farkle @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> This is a great win for you, and definitely helps set the tone for future protection for honest, premium sample library developers


Absolutely! Not to mention this goes to show how effective watermarking is as a form of copy protection that doesn't inconvenience legitimate users. Not to mention, as CineBrass wasn't the only sample library this guy pirated, the lawsuit will benefit fellow sample library developers as well.


----------



## Udo (Mar 11, 2012)

Getting that money may be difficult.

There's still a strong anti USA sentiment among many Chileans, because the US helped put murderous dictator Pinochet into power. What makes the US involvement extra despicable is that Chile had an extensive democratic tradition, dating back to the 1930s. It was more democratic than the US has been for a long time.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 11, 2012)

Udo @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Getting that money may be difficult.
> 
> There's still a strong anti USA sentiment in among many Chileans, because the US helped put murderous dictator Pinochet into power. What makes the US involvement extra dispicable is that Chile had an extensive democratic tradition, dating back to the 1930s. It was far more democratic than the US has been for a long time.



(not that you have a negative view about the U.S. or anything)


----------



## dannthr (Mar 11, 2012)

It's really sad that NI isn't more invested in protecting their own technology.

I honestly wish all my VIs were attached to dongles--I would be really happy being able to bring them to class to show my students different VIs.

Or to take them to other studios as I move around as I might a real instrument.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Mar 11, 2012)

NICE!

now, use that money to make CineStrings, pleeease! 8)


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Mar 11, 2012)

Farkle @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Hi, all!
> 
> Mike and Mike, congratulations! This is a great win for you, and definitely helps set the tone for future protection for honest, premium sample library developers.
> 
> ...



Absolutely, agreed 100%. For the blood, sweat and tears BOTH Mikes put into their products, they deserve a win like this. Hope it sends a message to would-be pirates everywhere.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Mar 11, 2012)

dannthr @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> It's really sad that NI isn't more invested in protecting their own technology.
> 
> I honestly wish all my VIs were attached to dongles--I would be really happy being able to bring them to class to show my students different VIs.
> 
> Or to take them to other studios as I move around as I might a real instrument.



It's not that they aren't invested, but they, like Valve & Steam, have massive market power and influence and would (seemingly) rather focus on product development and marketing than anti-piracy. There is something to be said for that approach given their success and the success of Steam, but they don't seem to provide enough marketing + distribution support to really make up for the lack in protection, unlike with Steam.


----------



## Ed (Mar 11, 2012)

Gabriel Oliveira @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> NICE!
> 
> now, use that money to make CineStrings, pleeease! 8)



They already said they are doing strings, and that they have recorded 2 sections already.

I love how we have so many string libraries now, and they are still coming :D


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Mar 11, 2012)

Ed @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> They already said they are doing strings, and that they have recorded 2 sections already.



wow, didn't see it coming! nice to know o/~


----------



## gamalataki (Mar 11, 2012)

You can just imagine what this Doucheus de Bagius is doing with his customers payment info.


----------



## MaestroRage (Mar 11, 2012)

gamalataki @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> You can just imagine what this Doucheus de Bagius is doing with his customers payment info.



nothing? Paypal doesn't share any information outside of how much money they spent.


----------



## IFM (Mar 11, 2012)

Grats Mike and Mike! I hope you guys can collect (as mentioned before).


----------



## Udo (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm sorry for mentioning Pinochet and Chilean anti-American sentiment in this thread.

If there's money available to track the pirate down, I'm sure there will be takers.

I had the Pinochet issue on my mind after talking to a Chilean a few days ago. He's not some "lefty", but a multinational co executive. I was surprised how strong their feeling about it still is.


----------



## gamalataki (Mar 11, 2012)

MaestroRage @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> [
> nothing? Paypal doesn't share any information outside of how much money they spent.


Unless you use a paypal credit card or mastercard or visa.....


----------



## MaestroRage (Mar 11, 2012)

gamalataki @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> MaestroRage @ Sun Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



i'm still pretty sure paypal keeps that information from him. The whole point of paypal is to exchange money without giving each other sensitive information.


----------



## gamalataki (Mar 11, 2012)

MaestroRage @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> gamalataki @ Sun Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > MaestroRage @ Sun Mar 11 said:
> ...



Then get their credit card and go shopping, it's like any other card. The point is, the guy is not someone you should trust, right? And he takes visa and mastercard.
I just hope potential customers will hit the pause button. Well, until the Mikes can garnish his income.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 11, 2012)

MaestroRage @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> gamalataki @ Sun Mar 11 said:
> 
> 
> > You can just imagine what this Doucheus de Bagius is doing with his customers payment info.
> ...


No, paypal doesn't share information about his 'clients', but it sure has information about himself! Any business account in paypal needs to be verified to lift the limits, in which case paypal knows his address, bank account, card number, etc... And I would think that paypal has a way to trace the money and all that jangle... 

I just hope that Mikex2 will be able to get their money back (and it IS a large sum of money, but regardless of that it's the principal here that matters).

BTW, I am aware that various LA studios use cracked software and that upset the shit out of me!


----------



## MaestroRage (Mar 12, 2012)

gamalataki @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Then get their credit card and go shopping, it's like any other card. The point is, the guy is not someone you should trust, right? And he takes visa and mastercard.
> I just hope potential customers will hit the pause button. Well, until the Mikes can garnish his income.



I think we can both agree that he's not someone you can trust, however you can rest assured that PayPal gives him no information on their cards. The money is transferred to paypal, whom transfers it to his paypal account for him.


----------



## Graham Keitch (Mar 12, 2012)

My best wishes to CineSamples in resolving this. 

I'm sorry to learn about the reported indifference from NI but (with reference to an earlier post here) please, whatever you do, don't even think about porting your excellent libraries across to EW Play!!! This will lose even more potential sales - well from me at any rate!!

Good luck going forward.

Regards, Graham

www.soundclick.com/grahamkeitch


----------



## nikolas (Mar 12, 2012)

Graham Keitch @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> I'm sorry to learn about the reported indifference from NI but (with reference to an earlier post here) please, whatever you do, don't even think about porting your excellent libraries across to EW Play!!! This will lose even more potential sales - well from me at any rate!!


Graham.

This is thread is NOT about sample players or other companies. I don't like interfering like that, but I see absolutely no reason for your sour post! Do think before you post, please.


----------



## Graham Keitch (Mar 12, 2012)

Thanks Nikolas, 

A previous poster (who was not corrected by a moderator) did raise the issue of considering Play as an alternative engine and I am expressing my view that that would not be a wise response to the piracy issue. 

This has become a discussion about sample engines because a lot of us are concerned that NI has been 'UNhelpful' to quote Mike. That is a concern and it is relevant to this thread. 

I might be mistaken but I recall answering a survey from CineSamples sometime ago about alternative engines so it's not impossible they're thinking along those lines. That would be understandable and it's unlikely my one voice will influence their decision. So, yep, my comments were probably unnecessary and I apologise for that. 

Regards, Graham


----------



## Pedro Camacho (Mar 12, 2012)

Amazing news!


----------



## williemyers (Mar 12, 2012)

mikebarry @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> A while back I got an instant message from my friend Thor who was very upset that he just lost a nice project to a composer, here in LA, who uses all fake samples and was able to underbid him due to no overhead (other then a mac pro). For us this put piracy in a new light, a way never thought of before. He said "you HAVE to do something, this is out of hand!" Not only does piracy effect the developer but this is a direct example of it effecting an honest composer who supports us. Piracy is here in LA, as much as we try to avoid thinking of it.


All well said, Mike and it's certainly not just in LA, but rather it's everywhere that a kid has access to a torrent site. 
My own case, similiar to Thor's was; in addition to being a commercial composer, I also teach Music Tech at a local univ. I often suspect that many of my ("starving, college") students are bringing projects to class that have been crafted with libraries that I can't afford. 
Last year, I lost a bid for a short-film score to one of those students and the producer commented on how great the orch. sounds of that student's demos sounded. 
All pirated, as it turned out. The student bragged about it.....


----------



## stonzthro (Mar 12, 2012)

Fascinating! Way to go Mikes (and all the other devs involved). Is there anything we can do as a community to urge NI to be more responsible?


----------



## soniccouture (Mar 12, 2012)

mikebarry @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> A while back I got an instant message from my friend Thor who was very upset that he just lost a nice project to a composer, here in LA, who uses all fake samples and was able to underbid him due to no overhead (other then a mac pro). For us this put piracy in a new light, a way never thought of before. He said "you HAVE to do something, this is out of hand!"





Well done for pursuing this, Mike and everyone else involved.

The above point also makes me think - if a TV or film soundtrack is made up of unlicensed samples, isn't the production company (also) ultimately liable?

Therefore if production companies are made aware that some composers are submitting 'pirated' work and leaving them open to lawsuits themselves, perhaps this is another way in which pressure could be applied to those composers using cracks.

James


----------



## kgdrum (Mar 12, 2012)

Great News!! Congratulations to Mike & Mike @ Cinesamples.
I remember that guy came back here last year sniveling apologetically , I guess because he realized he was sinking into some deep sh*t! 
I hope M&M get what's due to them and all of the other developers who have been ripped off as well.
As far as enforceability goes does Chile have bankruptcy available for companies & or individuals? I know it's different in each country but unfortunately Pablo aka Ice might have ways to shield himself or hide his assets in other peoples or company names etc...
To hear about NI's indifference to all of this is very dissapointing ,IMO their response unfortunately probably came from their legal team.Big business sucks when the $$ interests supersede what's right or wrong.
I hope M&M get some actual $atisfaction from this as well as the other developers who have given us all of the great tools to work with & keep getting pirated.
Great News again, CONGRATULATIONS!
KG


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 12, 2012)

soniccouture @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> The above point also makes me think - if a TV or film soundtrack is made up of unlicensed samples, isn't the production company (also) ultimately liable?


I would think so. In other copyright cases involving music, it's almost always the production company (or ad agency or other deep pocket entity) who gets named in the suit and winds up footing the bill.

It might make for an interesting precedent if one of us does that. Back when I produced hip hop records, record companies got sued so often that they eventually put clauses in producer contracts that we had to certify that no uncleared samples were used. I could see the same thing becoming a standard clause in composer contracts, that no unauthorized sample libraries were used.

In my own situation, since my library (vocals) is pretty easy for me to recognize, I do plan to check whether the named composer bought Realivox when I hear the samples used. "Willful infringement" carries compulsory (punitive) damages of up to $150,000 per occurrence, above and beyond compensatory damages. If I think I've been ripped off, the production company would certainly be amongst the parties hearing about it.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 12, 2012)

Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> soniccouture @ Mon Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > The above point also makes me think - if a TV or film soundtrack is made up of unlicensed samples, isn't the production company (also) ultimately liable?
> ...



I've seen that in some contracts I've signed over the years for film. I even had to convince one person that even though I was using samples that I had the rights to use them. Its a tough area really. I just stopped using the word "sample" because that means so many different things to different people. I also stopped using the word "library" as in "sample libraries" because that means something totally different to the non musicians. I only use the word, "virtual" now. For some reason people get what that means and they don't fear it. Though that could mean anything really. But using terms like "virtual orchestra" or "virtual vocals" seems to clear up a lot of confusion. Puts their mind at ease.


----------



## Inductance (Mar 12, 2012)

Ha! Text from the defendant's commercial website, under the section "Terms and Conditions"...

"Only the ORIGINAL PURCHASER has the right to use the sound samples. This means you CANNOT SELL or give the sounds to anyone else."


----------



## gamalataki (Mar 12, 2012)

> i'm still pretty sure paypal keeps that information from him. The whole point of paypal is to exchange money without giving each other sensitive information.


No, like I said, it's like any other card. I have a paypal mastercard, in addition to a regular paypal account, so I'm not making this up. Regular paypal may shield, but the cards don't.




> Next, the one thing Native did supply us with was the watermark. Otherwise they have been extremely UNhelpful and UNwilling to help us for some reason.



I would think that this is just the beginning of his legal entanglements. He's selling Kontakt based libraries, which it appears are derived from other companies content. The Cinesamples award may prove to be peanuts compared to what's ahead. I suspect his site will soon vaporize.
At any rate, a great precedent.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 12, 2012)

> In my own situation, since my library (vocals) is pretty easy for me to recognize, I do plan to check whether the named composer bought Realivox when I hear the samples used. "Willful infringement" carries compulsory (punitive) damages of up to $150,000 per occurrence, above and beyond compensatory damages. If I think I've been ripped off, the production company would certainly be amongst the parties hearing about it.



Ok, this is interesting what about these scenarios:
- What if you were hired by a pen and paper composer who hires you to sequence and record a 'virtual orchestration' of his written score with legit sample lisences you own that is then used in a commercial production? Would you go after that composer even though he did not ever use or own the samples? 

- What if a buddy calls you to compose some additional tracks for his film and you use your purchased legit library to make the tracks even though his name is on it?

In either way, I don't see how the license agreement is broken, seems like a grey area there. Perhaps some light could be shared on this since I'm sure alot of composers here have been in these type of scenarios.


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 12, 2012)

At some point all court documents are made legal so for the curious you can follow the signal chain.


----------



## jleckie (Mar 12, 2012)

I would guess you mean made PUBLIC. Yeah. I've gone to the court house and looked over a lot of interesting cases over the years...


----------



## jleckie (Mar 12, 2012)

passenger57 @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> > Ok, this is interesting what about these scenarios:
> > - What if you were hired by a pen and paper composer who hires you to sequence and record a 'virtual orchestration' of his written score with legit sample lisences you own that is then used in a commercial production? Would you go after that composer even though he did not ever use or own the samples?
> > .



Or how about: Composer 'A' hires composer 'B' to write a track with VOP in it. Composer 'B' owns VOP, Composer 'A' does not. (in fact perhaps thats even why composer 'A' hired composer 'B' in the first place (but I digress)

East West sees film, sees credited composer 'A's name in credits, finds he doesn't own VOP. What then?


----------



## Cinesamples (Mar 12, 2012)

I get hired to do mockups all the time. Mike and I just finished work on a big film with a composer we all know, we did mockups, the composer doesn't own the library. We have made a side business as "synthestrators" who know how to program samples and do mockups. We can all offer a business of services like this. Everyone has "additional music" composers nowadays.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 12, 2012)

I know this a bit off the main topic, but since it has come up...
As I understand it, as long as your the only one using the samples you purchased, then your abiding by the license agreement, Correct?. But aren't we as working composers sometimes asked to write cues, or do midi orchestrations, or orchestrate someone's song, etc.. that is used in other peoples productions? As long as your the only one using the samples you purchased, whats wrong with that?


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 12, 2012)

Thanks Mike, I feel better know. My old composer mentor who hand writes all his music occasionally hires me to mockup his music, so if your doing the same thing, then thats good enough for me. Congrats on the baby!


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2012)

passenger57 @ Tue Mar 13 said:


> I know this a bit off the main topic, but since it has come up...
> As I understand it, as long as your the only one using the samples you purchased, then your abiding by the license agreement, Correct?. But aren't we as working composers sometimes asked to write cues, or do midi orchestrations, or orchestrate someone's song, etc.. that is used in other peoples productions? As long as your the only one using the samples you purchased, whats wrong with that?


I agree. There are lots of little areas that technically maybe against the EULA of some sample libraries, but the sensible developers (there are a few nutters out there) are not really interested in trying to enforce those cases. The cases that they need to enforce are the ones that we all know where people have behaved badly. I don't think that anyone really cares about the grey areas, nor should they when there are examples around like the one this thread is about.

D


----------



## kitekrazy (Mar 12, 2012)

dannthr @ Sun Mar 11 said:


> Ah, yes, I knew we've heard of IceSamples before.



They have been accused of stealing samples and putting them in their products before.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 12, 2012)

Daryl @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> I agree. There are lots of little areas that technically maybe against the EULA of some sample libraries, but the sensible developers (there are a few nutters out there) are not really interested in trying to enforce those cases. The cases that they need to enforce are the ones that we all know where people have behaved badly. I don't think that anyone really cares about the grey areas, nor should they when there are examples around like the one this thread is about.


Yes, I do want to be clear that for me personally, I'm not talking about battling grey area instances. It's the more blatant cases where I'd want to make an example.

(With that said, I wouldn't be cool with someone simply "renting" my session singers, as opposed to legitimate arrangement/orchestration work. But I don't think anyone would disagree with that.)

Again, it's really the blatant cases that developers would be interested in.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2012)

Mike Greene @ Tue Mar 13 said:


> Yes, I do want to be clear that for me personally, I'm not talking about battling grey area instances. It's the more blatant cases where I'd want to make an example.
> 
> (With that said, I wouldn't be cool with someone simply "renting" my session singers, as opposed to legitimate arrangement/orchestration work. But I don't think anyone would disagree with that.)
> 
> Again, it's really the blatant cases that developers would be interested in.


And that's the point really. We all instinctively know when people are taking the piss.

D


----------



## mikebarry (Mar 12, 2012)

Yes I mean "PUBLIC" not "LEGAL". Fingers beat the brain.

You are all on the same,our, page regarding the agreements.


----------



## Reegs (Mar 12, 2012)

Congratulations on the victory, Mike and Mike!

It's about time for a sizeable legal precedent in our industry.


----------



## Anders (Mar 13, 2012)

A while back I got an instant message from my friend Thor who was very upset that he just lost a nice project to a composer said:


> This is something that's rarely talked about when it comes to piracy.
> It's happened to me as well and it's not a nice feeling...
> 
> I liken it to athletes who gains an unfair advantage by using performance enhancing drugs.


----------



## 667 (Mar 13, 2012)

Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> (With that said, I wouldn't be cool with someone simply "renting" my session singers, as opposed to legitimate arrangement/orchestration work. But I don't think anyone would disagree with that.)


So when I play my guitar on someone else's record it's cool, and when I use the ROM samples in my Korg M3 there's no problem but if I program in some Realivox backing vocals suddenly I'm stealing?

Not to single you out, Mike-- this is how most sample devs approach copyright/licensing and I think it's a little heavy handed sometimes.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 13, 2012)

667 @ Tue Mar 13 said:


> Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > (With that said, I wouldn't be cool with someone simply "renting" my session singers, as opposed to legitimate arrangement/orchestration work. But I don't think anyone would disagree with that.)
> ...


I think those would be the nutter developers. :wink: 

D


----------



## Jaap (Mar 13, 2012)

I think he is referring to if somebody is using a pirated version.

Congratulations Mike and Mike. Very good news!


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 13, 2012)

667 @ Tue Mar 13 said:


> Mike Greene @ Mon Mar 12 said:
> 
> 
> > (With that said, I wouldn't be cool with someone simply "renting" my session singers, as opposed to legitimate arrangement/orchestration work. But I don't think anyone would disagree with that.)
> ...


I need to start listening to that little voice in my head telling me it's a bad idea to post in threads like this . . . 

For legal reasons, I can't post all the various instances where despite the literal wording of my EULA, I wouldn't actually have a problem with people using Realivox in various ways. As Daryl said, developers have to write very strict EULA's, generally stricter than what we really plan to enforce, simply because if we don't, we expose ourselves to unscrupulous people who would twist things to their advantage and use our wordings against us.

Sort of like how the police won't publicly *say* they won't ticket you for driving 60 in a 55 zone, but everyone knows they won't. Even though it says 55, the reality is that if you're driving 60, they figure you're still safe, plus when it's just a couple miles over the speed limit, there will be a big argument over accuracy of radar guns or speedometers and it's a big mess. So they give you that cushion. But they can't come out and say, _"Okay, we won't ticket you for driving 60,"_ because then _65_ will become the new fudge speed instead of 60. And then 70. And then 75 . . . 

So I can't come out and say I won't ticket you for driving 60. Heck, my lawyer will tell me I shouldn't even imply it, so kindly ignore the previous two paragraphs. :mrgreen: Suffice it to say I'm a sample _user_ far more than I'm a sample developer. I make my living as a composer. I've got 2,000 posts spanning six years here, and a few years at NS before that. (That's why I post as Mike Greene, not Realitone.) Other than a couple of humorless developers (check out my old "NAMM Report" posts if you want to see who's side I'm on,) I don't think anyone here would consider me to be an unreasonable guy. If I ever _do_ pursue legal action against anyone over Realivox, I can't imagine the particular case would be anything that people here would disagree with me over. I think that applies to _all_ developers, by the way. I've never heard of a nitpicky case being pursued.


----------



## playz123 (Mar 13, 2012)

I really believe that most readers knew exactly what you were saying previously, Mike, and what's sad is you having to explain, elaborate, and clarify. And I guess there will always be people out there looking for loopholes, or stealing, or using products in a way they know deep inside is wrong, but then all some of these people need to do is become a developer or offer some of their work for public consumption, or have something they wrote stolen and suddenly everything changes.

It still surprises me when I hear the excuses offered by some members of our society as to why it's perfectly okay to steal...and that's what they are doing...anything they happen to find via the internet. For those of us who are trying to do the 'right thing', buy only what we can afford and not just steal what we want, it's very disheartening when many of the examples given in this thread occur. Quite honestly, I for one, fully support developers challenging thieves, and personally I'd like to see a lot more court cases like this one. I hope that you don't have to involve yourself in too many confrontations in the future, but if you do, I hope you win. You, and other legitimate developers certainly have my support....and I think most of us should already know when and how we can and can't use a developer's product, without a developer ever having to explain and justify in court.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 13, 2012)

> - What if a buddy calls you to compose some additional tracks for his film and you use your purchased legit library to make the tracks even though his name is on it?



You buy a license to use the library on your own projects. Anything you work on is your own project. Whether you get paid or credited is irrelevant*, as is your job description - in other words you don't have to be the composer.

*VSL's license asks for credit when their libraries are used.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 13, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 13 said:


> You buy a license to use the library on your own projects. Anything you work on is your own project. Whether you get paid or credited is irrelevant*, as is your job description - in other words you don't have to be the composer.



Just checking - does that imply that you can play in a part for someone else who doesn't own the same library you do?


----------



## 667 (Mar 13, 2012)

Mike Greene @ Tue Mar 13 said:


> I need to start listening to that little voice in my head telling me it's a bad idea to post in threads like this . . .


I disagree-- your comments make sense and I appreciate the clarification! This forum benefits greatly from developer involvement and agree or disagree I would not want to discourage any of them from speaking freely.

I do personally think that many EULA's for sample libraries and sample-based instruments have gone too far in terms of usage, restrictions, etc. But that's just my opinion and I'll leave the derail at that. 

Congrats to Cinesamples on this case. I think it's awful that someone was reselling pirated samples and I think it's very cool that you're sharing the proceeds with the team and the players; they would have been harmed by lost sales, after all.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 13, 2012)

667 @ Tue Mar 13 said:


> Mike Greene @ Tue Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> > I need to start listening to that little voice in my head telling me it's a bad idea to post in threads like this . . .
> ...


I'm with you. I love it when developers post about these sorts of things. It's dangerous territory, though, because anything we say contrary to what our EULAs say (reasonable exceptions, for instance) could be used against us later in court. That legal danger is what I was referring to when I made that _"I need to listen to my little voice"_ remark. It wasn't aimed at you, because your questions and remarks are fair ones. (Plus you made a recent very wise purchase which I appreciate! :mrgreen: )


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 13, 2012)

Kudos for having the guts and going after the guy. Boo to Native Instruments for not supporting you better.


----------



## masonroza (Mar 13, 2012)

But wasn't Native Instruments' watermarking system that helped identify this guy?
Without it my guess is that it would have been impossible...right?


----------



## Bunford (Mar 14, 2012)

These kind of judgements always make me a bit uncomfortable. True, piracy is wrong.

However, to simply multiply the list price by the number of downloads to come up with a judgement for apparent lost earnings is very underhand, deceiving and unfair and lacks common sense. That judgement is therefore assuming all the people who downloaded would have bought the item if the pirate version wasn't an option, where this is simply not true. In fact, my stab would be that a very low number of the 950 downloads would have actually bought it if illegal version wasn't an option. This kind of judgement simplifies things too much, pandering to companies too much I would say and being unfair on the guilty party (who should still be treated with some rights and fairly in my opinion).

A judgement of 50 x list price, resulting in about a $20,000 judgement would have been substantial enough and more realistic as it only assumes 50 of the 950 downloads would maybe have bought the item if downloading illegally wan't an option, which seems to be a more realistic and common sense outcome for me.

People need to be punished, but it also needs to be sensible and fair. These days, unfortunately, I feel courts almost by default do whatever companies want/tell them to and guilty parties are not treated in a fair, reasonable and realistic manner, which raises the question of who is actually in control of copyright laws?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 14, 2012)

Bunford - you won't get much sympathy with those views here to be honest. Apart from anything else, the guy has refused all contact with CS or their lawyers for a year, he has made no attempt at a defence. He's ripped off the product and sold it as his own, pocketing the cash. He absolutely deserves what's coming.


----------



## rpaillot (Mar 14, 2012)

Bunford @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> These kind of judgements always make me a bit uncomfortable. True, piracy is wrong.
> 
> However, to simply multiply the list price by the number of downloads to come up with a judgement for apparent lost earnings is very underhand, deceiving and unfair and lacks common sense. That judgement is therefore assuming all the people who downloaded would have bought the item if the pirate version wasn't an option, where this is simply not true. In fact, my stab would be that a very low number of the 950 downloads would have actually bought it if illegal version wasn't an option. This kind of judgement simplifies things too much, pandering to companies too much I would say and being unfair on the guilty party (who should still be treated with some rights and fairly in my opinion).
> 
> A judgement of 50 x list price, resulting in about a $20,000 judgement would have been substantial enough and more realistic as it only assumes 50 of the 950 downloads would maybe have bought the item if downloading illegally wan't an option, which seems to be a more realistic and common sense outcome for me.



Well its a nice view. But out of these 950 illegal CB , who make money with it ? Probably much more than 50.


----------



## dedersen (Mar 14, 2012)

Ah, I've heard the "they were not going to buy it anyway" argument a million times when discussing piracy with people, and it's just based on odd logic, I think. And a rather weird sense of right and wrong on top of that, mixed in with a sprinkle of that modern sense of entitlement. We're not talking bread or water here; if people can't afford these products, well damnit, they will just have to do without them them won't they?


----------



## Markus S (Mar 14, 2012)

Mike Greene @ Tue Mar 13 said:


> 667 @ Tue Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Sort of like how the police won't publicly *say* they won't ticket you for driving 60 in a 55 zone, but everyone knows they won't.



Don't come to France..


----------



## organix (Mar 14, 2012)

It's no matter of how many of the downloaders had bought the program. Maybe no one of them had bought the software, maybe all of them. It's a fact, that they all got the software and if they want downloaded it from CS, they had to pay.

It's a really simple thing. Every download counts, because each is a "potential" customer. If they're not potential customers, they never had downloaded this piece of software. Very simple thing in my opinion.

Markus


----------



## Inductance (Mar 14, 2012)

Bunford @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> However, to simply multiply the list price by the number of downloads to come up with a judgement for apparent lost earnings is very underhand, deceiving and unfair and lacks common sense.



So theoretically, we could have a case where NONE of these people would have otherwise legally purchased the software--so would that mean that the company whose software was pirated didn't lose anything? Huh??

Obviously the people that downloaded the software think it's of value to them. Otherwise they wouldn't have downloaded it, and wouldn't be using it. So it's only fair that Cinesamples get value in return (the cash). I think the judgment is very fair.


----------



## Ed (Mar 14, 2012)

dedersen @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Ah, *I've heard the "they were not going to buy it anyway" argument a million time*s when discussing piracy with people, and it's just based on odd logic, I think. And a rather weird sense of right and wrong on top of that, mixed in with a sprinkle of that modern sense of entitlement. We're not talking bread or water here; if people can't afford these products,* well damnit, they will just have to do without them them won't they?*



That is two different things though. . .

If there exists a pirated version of VSL's library online, sure lots of people are going to download it, but that doesnt mean that they would have ever paid 5k or 10k or whatever it costs for the whole VSL library. Some people just download everything because they can. I mean I listen to a lot of music on youtube without paying for it, doesnt mean I was ever going to buy the album or single of all that music. Im not sure how you _would _work it out, but thats still true.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Mar 14, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> dedersen @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, *I've heard the "they were not going to buy it anyway" argument a million time*s when discussing piracy with people, and it's just based on odd logic, I think. And a rather weird sense of right and wrong on top of that, mixed in with a sprinkle of that modern sense of entitlement. We're not talking bread or water here; if people can't afford these products,* well damnit, they will just have to do without them them won't they?*
> ...



Uploading/filesharing is illegal.

Downloading a product illegally uploaded is illegal because stolen intellectual property is still stolen property.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 14, 2012)

Now that Cinesamples are 1%'r's will they spread the wealth and lower their prices...?
Just kiding.
Being awarded and actually collecting are two seperate matters.
I was awarded a large sum of cash by a Jury, but had to settle for something entirely different.
Let's hope P.Alexander can do a follow up on what they actuially win...

Good Job Of reporting the truth though.
Thanks Pete


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Mar 14, 2012)

I get called to do additional composing/programming/mock-ups all the time. In fact, that is the bulk of my work.

I think that is okay even if you are not the composer. Everyone has different libraries and sometimes, cues end up with more than one but in fact the composer may or may not own both of those particular libraries used to bring the said cue to life.

Additional composing/MIDI orchestrations is big right now and there is so much work like that.

I am sure in Hollywood its the same as Mike has pointed out.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 14, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> dedersen @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, *I've heard the "they were not going to buy it anyway" argument a million time*s when discussing piracy with people, and it's just based on odd logic, I think. And a rather weird sense of right and wrong on top of that, mixed in with a sprinkle of that modern sense of entitlement. We're not talking bread or water here; if people can't afford these products,* well damnit, they will just have to do without them them won't they?*
> ...



I don't think that argument is really relevant in this case though. This isn't free downloading - it's pirating then selling that as a profit (if I've understood right). So all these people parted with cash - just not much of it. This isn't downloading "because I can", it's a conscious transaction. Being very charitable, some of these people may not have been aware it was even illegal, perhaps they thought it was a legit group buy or something. Which, again, puts the onus back onto ChileMan.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made here that if it were more expensive, only 5% would have actually bought it (or whatever). It's totally unknowable. And as I said before, he's never bothered to offer a defence anyway. Each sale was a criminal offence, so sting him for the lot.


----------



## Ed (Mar 14, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Uploading/filesharing is illegal.
> 
> Downloading a product illegally uploaded is illegal because stolen intellectual property is still stolen property.



Correct. Not sure how that relates but hey.


----------



## Ed (Mar 14, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> I don't think that argument is really relevant in this case though. This isn't free downloading - it's pirating then selling that as a profit (if I've understood right).



I didnt understand it as that.

The way I understood it is that him and a bunch of others got together to share the cost of CineBrass, then they went and hacked the library after he received it so that it could be used in a hacked version of Kontakt that didnt require any CP. Then he uploaded it to file sharing networks so anyone can download it. The reason they knew it was him was because the watermark in the files showed it was him that technically bought it. Correct me if Im wrong.



> I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made here that if it were more expensive, only 5% would have actually bought it (or whatever). It's totally unknowable. And as I said before, he's never bothered to offer a defence anyway. Each sale was a criminal offence, so sting him for the lot.



Yes its totally unknowable, even if it was how you said. Even if its all agreed its fair that he has to pay that figure for flaunting the law so obviously, the actual figure still doesn't relate to an objective amount that makes sense and goes back to every other argument related to digital piracy. The music and film industry claims massive loses, but even if its true, when they base the figures on illegal downloads as if all those people would have bought the product and therefore its a lost sale, its just not valid.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 14, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that argument is really relevant in this case though. This isn't free downloading - it's pirating then selling that as a profit (if I've understood right).
> ...



That makes sense - I guess I interpreted the "bunch of people sharing the cost" as meaning everyone who had the library.

Well, I still say the ruling is entirely fair. The figure makes complete sense - it is the maximum possible loss, sure, but given that he is ground zero here and never bothered to give a defence, awarding maximum possible damages is entirely appropriate. Any other amount would involve bargaining, and he made it clear he wasn't interested in any of that when he never bothered to respond to the legal papers. Fine - only available option then is to bill him for the full amount. As well as a criminal, he also appears to be stupid.


----------



## Ed (Mar 14, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> The figure makes complete sense - it is the maximum possible loss, sure,



I get that, its just my only point is that the idea of "maximum possible loss" based on the number of downloads is an unrealistic fantasy and therefore I say makes no sense, objectively. There's no reason to believe and also no way to work out how many of those would have bought it if there was no pirate version. 



> but given that he is ground zero here and never bothered to give a defence, awarding maximum possible damages is entirely appropriate. .



Oh sure with no defence he deserves it. I'd also say he deserves it for being a moron and not realising they could track him through the files he was sharing.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Mar 14, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > The figure makes complete sense - it is the maximum possible loss, sure,
> ...



If you download something that's illegal to download, regardless of whether you'd have bought it or not has nothing to do with it. You stole it. Plain and simple. 

All you're doing is greying a black and white issue!


----------



## techeverlasting (Mar 14, 2012)

Bunford @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> However, to simply multiply the list price by the number of downloads to come up with a judgement for apparent lost earnings is very underhand, deceiving and unfair and lacks common sense. That judgement is therefore assuming all the people who downloaded would have bought the item if the pirate version wasn't an option, where this is simply not true...



My opinion is that in this case just multiplying the 950 known downloaders by the sale price could underestimate the actual damages. Once a library is pirated in this fashion it can be argued that its value is permanently diminished, since internet searches for it will often return illegal file sharing sites and torrents. Unfortunately it isn't possible to completely "un-leak" something once it's posted on-line. The actual long-term damages could be far higher than just the price of 950 copies.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 14, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> I get that, its just my only point is that the idea of "maximum possible loss" based on the number of downloads is an unrealistic fantasy and therefore I say makes no sense, objectively.



No, I disagree. They know 950 people have his version of the library - as techeverlasting says, it'll be more, but that's the figure we know. All of those have a library that is worth $399. The maximum loss is therefore $379,000. Note - that's the maximum possible figure (just taking that 950 into account), and that's an objective fact.

What, presumably, could have happened is that this guy could have got a lawyer and argued that X% wouldn't have bought the library, and done a deal for a lower amount. He chose not to do that - so no-one argued that case, or even made the point. What is the judge therefore supposed to do? Does he randomly pluck a percentage out of thin air? How is that just, fair or reasonable? In that absence of any other information, there is only one figure to discuss - the maximum. So yes - objectively, that's the ONLY figure that makes sense in this case.


----------



## Ed (Mar 14, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > noiseboyuk @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> ...



I dont know what posts you keep replying to but they don't seem to be mine.


----------



## Ed (Mar 14, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I get that, its just my only point is that the idea of "maximum possible loss" based on the number of downloads is an unrealistic fantasy and therefore I say makes no sense, objectively.
> ...



Im not really disagreeing with you on this, it is the only figure that can be quantified thats true and he deserves to pay a fine no doubt. This isnt about this specific case.

The point is that the assumption that each download is a lost sale is not a valid one. The "maximum possible" loss while theoretically possible is totally unrealistic. In the same way that everyone who uses youtube to listen to music could be said to be a lost sale for that album or single. Theoretically possible but realistically speaking nonsense. I disagree generally with this assumption that all illegal downloads or views, whether its samples, music, films etc are necessarily lost sales and should be factored into companies statistics on how much revenue they are losing. That doesnt mean I know of a better way to calculate a loss, but I can still point out the wrong way to do it. Look at it this way, if you want *accurate *information on how many sales you're losing then this is not going to give you that *accurate* data. It doesnt matter how much someone hates piracy, that isnt going to change the facts.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 14, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Look at it this way, if you want *accurate *information on how many sales you're losing then this is not going to give you that *accurate* data. It doesnt matter how much someone hates piracy, that isnt going to change the facts.



All well and good, but as you say there is no better way. Sort of a dead end discussion, especially in this case where the defendant waived his right to have ANY kind of discussion. The only available figure therefore is the maximum one.


----------



## Mike Greene (Mar 14, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> The point is that the assumption that each download is a lost sale is not a valid one.


I don't think they claimed that each download was a lost sale. The claim is that each download is a _theft._ There were 950 downloads, hence 950 thefts, each valued at $399. Simple.

Whether or not illegal downloads costs sales (or are lost sales) is an entirely different topic. I suppose the defendant could have presented the argument that damages should be limited to "loss of sales" rather than "value of merchandise stolen." But he didn't show up, so that wasn't considered. I'm not sure he would have been successful with that argument anyway, though.

Plus, I'm not so sure he would have even _wanted_ to argue that "loss of sales" should be the basis for monetary damages. That would have opened up a whole new can of worms that would include potential *future* sales of CB. (With "theft," you can only sue for product _already_ stolen, hence the 950 cap.) And it would also open the door for Cinesamples to argue that their value of CB, even for legitimate sales, has been lessened by it being available on torrent sites, which the defendant is to blame for. I could see damages ultimately being even *more* than $379,050 if that happened.


----------



## MacQ (Mar 14, 2012)

Can you make a Kontakt library call a Steinberg/Syncrosoft eLicenser in the KSP? 

Or an iLok. Man, I wish there were better, safer options to protect library content without resorting to building your own sample player, as so many developers have done.

I guess in the case of Kontakt, ubiquity is a double-edged sword.

~Stu


----------



## prognathus (Mar 14, 2012)

OK, a few points.

First off, the judgment was punitive and symbolic because the defendant refused to appear, not because the judge wanted to set a precedent for how damages are calculated. Cinesamples knows the plaintiff is unlikely to recover those damages.

Second, if I were general counsel for Native, I'd advise them not to hand over customer information to a third party claiming damages without a warrant or a judgment. That's opening up NI to liability for potential harassment by the third party, and it's poor business -- had the third party been wrong, for example.

As someone who worked in copy shops 20 years ago, I am incredulous that there is not a "hold harmless" indemnification agreement between composers and production companies as there has been in other fields.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 14, 2012)

Sorry for the digression-"'Indemnify and hold harmless" clauses became ubiquitous in Ad Agency/composer dealings. More than one person got caught up in the next of unintentional copyright infringement after an agency said "I want it to sound like this" and the composer got too close. Then the publishing company sued the agency, the agency settled for whatever, then went after the composer. Pure evil.


----------



## techeverlasting (Mar 14, 2012)

MacQ @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Can you make a Kontakt library call a Steinberg/Syncrosoft eLicenser in the KSP?
> 
> Or an iLok. Man, I wish there were better, safer options to protect library content without resorting to building your own sample player, as so many developers have done.
> 
> ...



I think NI could greatly improve Kontakt's copy protection without resorting to dongles. As it stands it's far too easy for pirates to circumvent Kontakt's library activation process. I'm also hoping that the combination of widespread use of watermarking and a few well publicized judgements like this one will discourage purchasers from "sharing" this sort of intellectual property in the first place.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 14, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Sorry for the digression-"'Indemnify and hold harmless" clauses became ubiquitous in Ad Agency/composer dealings. More than one person got caught up in the next of unintentional copyright infringement after an agency said "I want it to sound like this" and the composer got too close. Then the publishing company sued the agency, the agency settled for whatever, then went after the composer. Pure evil.




My nightmare scenario is losing or having my laptop with all my personal watermarked samples stolen when traveling and then getting sued if someone uploaded them somewhere. 
Being a film composer these days is a dangerous occupation! lol
Ok I know off topic..Sorry bout that


----------



## techeverlasting (Mar 14, 2012)

passenger57 @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Stories like this almost make me want to give up. My worst nightmare is having someone say my music sounded too close to something, and then they come after me and totally destroy my career and put me and my family in the poor house.
> My other nightmare scenario is losing or having my laptop with all my personal watermarked samples stolen when traveling and then getting sued if someone uploaded them somewhere.



In general it's not a bad idea to password protect any laptop you travel with. I'm as concerned about some unscrupulous studio intern copying files onto a jump drive when no one's looking. As far as being concerned about ending up in the poor house, have you considered operating as an LLC?


----------



## 667 (Mar 14, 2012)

To secure my laptop I use TrueCrypt full disk encryption. All my backup drives also use full disk encryption (FDE). My main DAW does not but that's only because when I built it TrueCrypt only supported decrypting the main drive on boot and I didn't want to have to manually mount the rest of my disks (type passwords etc.) on every boot. But this feature has now been added to TrueCrypt.

Some modern CPUs support AES directly so there is basically no CPU penalty to using encryption on your disks, even for streaming samples. At least, in theory; I haven't been brave enough to try it yet. 

http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hardware-acceleration

Windows also has Bitlocker which is FDE but I don't use it because the encryption certificate chain management seems too bothersome to me and I don't see the point in learning it when TrueCrypt just works out of the box anyway. But I'm sure there are some good advantages or features Bitlocker can offer and I will research it more again when I build my new DAW.


----------



## passenger57 (Mar 14, 2012)

> In general it's not a bad idea to password protect any laptop you travel with. I'm as concerned about some unscrupulous studio intern copying files onto a jump drive when no one's looking. As far as being concerned about ending up in the poor house, have you considered operating as an LLC?



My accountant said LLCs are not worth it unless I was making at least several hundred thousand a year which I am not. But I do manage to at least make enough to support my family and also update my gear and purchase sample libraries (tax write offs YAY!). Do most film composers use an LLC? Perhaps a separate thread should be created on this topic or maybe one already exists.

Also thanks, I'll look into TrueCrypt. I was recently at an airport security area and my laptop went ahead of me ALONE in an OPEN container while I got stuck behind way in the scanner area. I was freaking out.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 14, 2012)

> You buy a license to use the library on your own projects. Anything you work on is your own project. Whether you get paid or credited is irrelevant*, as is your job description - in other words you don't have to be the composer.
> 
> 
> Just checking - does that imply that you can play in a part for someone else who doesn't own the same library you do?




In that case you're a performer, so I can't see why not. Mike? Mikes?

Where it's less clearcut is if someone asks you to render parts with your licensed library using their MIDI data. If I were a sample library developer I'd be okay with that as long as you were doing something other than just loading and hitting Play, and oddly I think I'd feel better if you were getting paid.

But I'm not sure that's a) entirely rational, and b) what the license says.


----------



## dosdays (Mar 14, 2012)

Bunford @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> These kind of judgements always make me a bit uncomfortable....to simply multiply the list price by the number of downloads to come up with a judgement for apparent lost earnings is very underhand, deceiving and unfair and lacks common sense.



I have $12 million in judgments, 50+ lawsuits since 1992

If you are uncomfortable with amounts, speak with your congressman. The rules are set by Congress. 

When I file a complaint, I have a choice of either calculating requested damages based on actual loss value (if I have a way to calculate that), or simply ask for statutory damages of $150,000 per each of my works found in possession of the defendant. Court/attorney costs can also be asked for.

If the defendant answers and actually shows up in court, that's where the defendant will have his/her day(s) in court to answer.

The judge decides the final award based on the guidelines Congress has set. Nobody's just making up numbers out of thin air here.

I signed up here at this forum because it appears the plaintiff is basically "one guy". 

As am I.

I want to say to the Cinesample guy that my heart goes out to you.

It is tremendously stressful to have your works pirated. It can affect your health when it goes on for years (like my situation). As much as it hurts to be ripped off, it's almost as horrible and painful to go through the court process itself.

My first two cases in the 90s were via law firms. I won the cases... but the legal fees cleaned me out.

As piracy situations can be such emotional issues when you're speaking about one's livelihood, as is the case with me, I made the choice to go it alone (no lawyers) for the next 48 or so cases after the early ones in the 90s.
 
I have won every single case. 

Mind you, I was trembling every time I had to appear before a judge... had plenty of filings returned to me as defective that I then had to fix and re-file. But this is not rocket science... not like the saying a "doctor who operates on himself has a fool for a patient" 

What it is... is hard. And draining. It's mind-numbingly expensive, even if you go forward alone with no law firms as I made the choice to many years ago.

I don't regret the way I fight piracy ... if you want something done.. sometimes, you have to do it yourself. Or at least you have to do it yourself or go broke. 

My way has worked for sort of "knocking one guy out at a time". Do I advocate not using lawyers? No. But the fight it has been that important to me to go it alone.

And I've felt like giving up so many times.

Like I say, I know the exact feelings the Cinesamples guy has. There is no describing it. It is horrible. There is no real satisfaction in filing a lawsuit or receiving a judgment.... and if one has a lawyer, it's entirely possible to be further in debt after the judgment than before the complaint began.

A judgment is only a piece of paper. All it does is allow you to move to the next steps in the process to attempt to collect. Which in and of itself, is a long long road.

No one helps. The police don't go knocking on anyone's door... anywhere. If you think it's simple to file a judgment in a foreign district (which can even be the next state over) and then attempt to garnish a wage, repossess a car, put a lien on a house... think again. The process is horrendous, costly, and time consuming. 

I have complained to the FBI over and over through the years. They don't get involved in small stuff. Their suggestion? File lawsuits.

I won't even begin to go into the process of trying to collect a judgment when the defendant is outside the US. The best to hope for is that they disappear.

The problem is, for each pirate that disappears, ten more crawl out of the woodwork.

I realize I'm not adding much here. You can not begin to understand and really feel the horror of piracy and the way that navigating the legal system to try and fight it can drain you of your life energy.

You have to go through it yourself to understand. From what I have read here, the Cinesamples guy is in that unique situation... that I wouldn't wish for anyone to have to go through.

If you are a person who still has a problem with the concept of someone fighting via the legal system to protect what may be his/her life's work, so be it.

Again, my heart is with Cinesample. I know what you're going through and what you probably feel.


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 15, 2012)

dosdays @ Thu Mar 15 said:


> Bunford @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > These kind of judgements always make me a bit uncomfortable....to simply multiply the list price by the number of downloads to come up with a judgement for apparent lost earnings is very underhand, deceiving and unfair and lacks common sense.
> ...



Have you ever considered just getting it over with and becoming what you were born to be-- a lawyer? 8)


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 15, 2012)

You guys are pretty chintzy about sharing your porn. Just sayin'.


----------



## midphase (Mar 15, 2012)

I agree with Choco...from your post dosdays (whoever you are), it sounds like you're a bit obsessive about this. If you feel that being pirated is that much of a soul/money/time drain on yourself, why not do something else? There is something to be said about going back to the basics and stepping away from the ledge.

Piracy has been a fact of life for over 3 decades now, yet I have never seen a more vibrant and populated sample developing community as we have today which would seem to indicate that there are strong financial incentives to create and distribute sample libraries despite the pirating.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's good and fair that you guys do everything in your power to protect your product, but with some developers it seems like it can become an obsession and I think that's not the right approach.

I dunno...maybe it's just me, but if I was working in a field where I had needed to file 50+ lawsuits to protect myself and gone as far as representing myself and dealing with all the extra hassle that you describe, I would be seriously taking a long hard look in the mirror and wonder if it might be the wrong field for me to be in. I think Choco is spot on, you apparently seem to enjoy litigation more than whatever it is that you do to get you in said litigation.


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 15, 2012)

dosdays, welcome to this forum, and thank you for expressing yourself. Much appreciated.

I have no tolerance for those that say piracy is trivial, even if unfortunately there are some here even. They are entitled to express themselves but I enjoy the current return of virtues. 

As for the little acid sprinkled here on your post ... don't take that seriously. I feel ashamed about that from the bottom of my heart but hey, opinions are free.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 15, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Thu Mar 15 said:


> dosdays, welcome to this forum, and thank you for expressing yourself. Much appreciated.
> 
> I have no tolerance for those that say piracy is trivial, even if unfortunately there are some here even. They are entitled to express themselves but I enjoy the current return of virtues.
> 
> As for the little acid sprinkled here on your post ... don't take that seriously. I feel ashamed about that from the bottom of my heart but hey, opinions are free.


Yep, I think I'm with you on all of those points.

D


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 15, 2012)

@dosdays...

That is a boatload of litigation. As an attorney, I'm curious did you win all of these cases on the merits, or were they default judgments, like the CineSamples case?

Also, just curious, are you a composer or a product developer? 

And, along the lines of what Choco and Kays said, I know what it takes to file and pursue 50 complaints. I couldn't imagine taking that kind of time away from my work...which thankfully is now composing.

I'm guessing that you used the original complaint as a template and then just inserted the names of each new defendant.

The next question, of course, did you ever collect any money, or did you just add to your losses?


----------



## noiseboyuk (Mar 15, 2012)

Yes, welcome dosdays!

Some of the replies may have been a little too acidic, but I think the underlying point is worthy of discussion - if fighting piracy takes up a huge percentage of your time and resources, is it counter-productive for your business? Tough call.

This CineSamples action was timely. I've not been aware of a case brought as a result of watermarked samples before. I'd even read somewhere suggestions that the whole watermarking thing was a work of fiction designed to scare people! So this will hopefully put paid to that particular rumour, this was very much a needed case for the VI community I think. If no-one fights any cases, then what limited deterrent is out there will vanish. But the flip side is that if you spend an overwhelming amount of time fighting it, I can see it could become the law of diminishing returns.


----------



## jleckie (Mar 15, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Mar 15 said:


> Hannes_F @ Thu Mar 15 said:
> 
> 
> > dosdays, welcome to this forum, and thank you for expressing yourself. Much appreciated.
> ...



I completely agree. And welcome. Keep fighting the good fight. 

If MORE people would move towards FIGHTING piracy instead of doing nothing then pirates would feel less 'rewarded' as it were. 

I know a guy who owns a small business. His bookkeeper took him for well over 100K. This BK had been doing this to small businesses for well over 20 years. A few knew of what he had done and rather than fight him they simply found reasons to dismiss him. Finally someone had enough, stepped up to the plate and unleashed the legal system on him. It waz not eazy. It ended up costing time and money and the owner received a pittance of what was owed him and the BK did a short stint of jail time.

But...the thief had plenty of time to think about his thievery while in jail. Wow- I have not been rewarded this time! someone actually thought enough to go after me. What if I lose more $$'s and spend MORE time in jail next time?????

Someone HAS to be brave enough to do this rather than rolling over belly up each time.

Well done Mike&Mike and DosDays! Hopefully your not alone and others will step up and put a fighting foot forward as well.

And shame on those that trivialize piracy. A stain upon us all.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 15, 2012)

It's worse than trivializing-I've seen and participated in discussions on this very forum regarding the beneficent effects of piracy-you know, it puts things into more people's hands, and the ones who become professionals buy it eventually-all a pile of hocum to me, and another justification for the same philosophy that made music "file sharing" so popular among young folks. It's all so anarchistic and rebellious, you know. Youth must be served-we older folks couldn't possibly understand the new business models.


----------



## spectrum (Mar 15, 2012)

passenger57 @ Mon Mar 12 said:


> I know this a bit off the main topic, but since it has come up...
> As I understand it, as long as your the only one using the samples you purchased, then your abiding by the license agreement, Correct?. But aren't we as working composers sometimes asked to write cues, or do midi orchestrations, or orchestrate someone's song, etc.. that is used in other peoples productions? As long as your the only one using the samples you purchased, whats wrong with that?


Sure. Nothing wrong or illegal about that.

No different than if you are a session musician using your purchased virtual instrument or sample library on a recording session for an album.

If the licensed single user is using the library to work on a project for someone else, then that's allowed of course. 

I've never heard of a license agreement that had any problem with the basic concept of using the library for basic session/arranging/orchestration work.

If any developer had restrictions against this kind of use, you would have heard about it by now, since that kind of use is probably a majority of how pro musicians use virtual instruments/sample libraries.


----------



## spectrum (Mar 15, 2012)

jleckie @ Thu Mar 15 said:


> I completely agree. And welcome. Keep fighting the good fight.
> 
> .....Well done Mike&Mike and DosDays!


Agreed! 

Major congrats and THANKS from all of us at Spectrasonics!


----------



## AcousticsampleS (Apr 19, 2012)

Congrats guys! i'm really happy that somebody actually fought one of these so called "sharing heroes".
They really are killing the business getting companies like NI to give away their products (just look at Komplete)... and it kills small companies...

But yeah, hopefully with big sharing platforms like megaupload being shut down and that kind of lawsuits actions, people might think twice before sharing their stuff.

And to those again claiming that piracy is good and that it helps people releasing more stuff and being creative, just THINK twice before saying that. All it does is forcing small devs to release more products to be able to make a living out of it, because once they are pirated, people litterally stop buying it (except for a few honest people), i mean why would they pay when they can have it for free...

Anyway, i could go on and on about it as it's been a real problem to me too, but god, it's good to see a won battle!


----------



## P.T. (Apr 19, 2012)

The only problem I have with rulings like this is that the law is not equally applied.

If someone breaks into my house and steals everything and gets caught, but the stolen items are no longer in his possession and there is no cash to be found the law doesn't force the thief to make restitution to the person he stole from.

The law only gets tough when it is a company that has been harmed.
If an individual is harmed there is no forced restitution.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 19, 2012)

P.T. @ Thu Apr 19 said:


> The only problem I have with rulings like this is that the law is not equally applied.
> 
> If someone breaks into my house and steals everything and gets caught, but the stolen items are no longer in his possession and there is no cash to be found the law doesn't force the thief to make restitution to the person he stole from.
> 
> ...



I disagree with that generalization. You are confusing civil court with criminal court.

First, Cinesamples filed suit against the thief. That is a civil complaint in which the plaintiff seeks restitution.

With respect to restitution in criminal courts:

When I was in law school, I clerked for a judge who presided in criminal court. As a practicing attorney, I handled numerous cases involving victims who sustained monetary losses. In both instances, court-ordered restitution was common. BUT...you must ask the court for restitution, and document your damages.

Once restitution is ordered, the difficult part is collecting. Most criminals, unlike Bernie Madoff, are not living large. Often, the best that can be done is to enter judgment (like a lien) against the defendant that will follow them in the event that they come into money or property. However, if the criminal would be likely resort to committing additional crimes in order to pay the restitution, what would that accomplish?

Additionally many victims of monetary crimes, like theft and vandalism are initially compensated by insurance. Their insurance companies then step into their insured's place...subrogation..and do vigorously pursue restitution from the responsible party.


----------



## P.T. (Apr 19, 2012)

Maybe software companies need to be insured against piracy, considering that piracy probably isn't going to go away any time soon.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 19, 2012)

welcome dosdays. Thank you for writing; I heartily sympathise with anyone who is getting ripped off by pirates (or having music used without payment or authorisation as well).


----------



## Hans Adamson (Apr 19, 2012)

dosdays @ Wed Mar 14 said:


> Bunford @ Wed Mar 14 said:
> 
> 
> > These kind of judgements always make me a bit uncomfortable....to simply multiply the list price by the number of downloads to come up with a judgement for apparent lost earnings is very underhand, deceiving and unfair and lacks common sense.
> ...



Thanks for sharing dosdays,

It was inspirational to read your story. I am also very impressed with CineSamples. Both of you have showed that it is possible to fight back. When the day comes your examples become the norm, sample development and other IP creating endevours will take a giant leap forward, to the benefit of the end user/consumer.

/Hans


----------

