# Curious question on samples that are watermarked



## dathyr1 (May 16, 2014)

Hello,

There is a commercial song libraries which run in Kontakt that say they watermark their product or samples which I am somewhat interested in getting.

My only question is if I create a multitrack song in my DAW and one or two of the tracks use these watermarked samples, if I do a mixdown to a stereo track, do the watermarks also transfer over into the final mixdown?

I am not worried about it, the songs I create are for my own use and entertainment, I do not sell any songs, but just curious how watermarks follow/stay with a song creation and processes.

thank you for any info,

DT


----------



## dannthr (May 16, 2014)

This should not be a concern of yours if you've licensed the library legally.

Watermarking is designed to identify the person at fault for releasing a library illegally.

It's not illegal to download a sample library, it's illegal to redistribute a sample library without the consent of the manufacturer.

Watermarking is designed to make a case against the person responsible for releasing it for pirating.

ALSO, I AM NOT A LAWYER! THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.


----------



## artsoundz (May 16, 2014)

It's highly illegal to dl a library without paying for it. Doesn't matter if its redistributed which, of course, only compounds the problem.


----------



## Gusfmm (May 16, 2014)

dannthr @ Fri May 16 said:


> *It's not illegal to download a sample library, ...*
> 
> ALSO, I AM NOT A LAWYER! THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.




I'd highly suggest you reconsider your above statement in bold.

I'm glad you included such caviat at the bottom.


----------



## G.E. (May 16, 2014)

Wow,you sure have some nerve asking a question like this, because I think it's obvious why you are asking.


----------



## TimJohnson (May 16, 2014)

You should rename this post "Do they know I stole their library?"


----------



## RiffWraith (May 16, 2014)

dannthr @ Sat May 17 said:


> It's not illegal to download a sample library....



It IS illegal to download a sample library from anyone other than the sw dev.



G.E. @ Sat May 17 said:


> Wow,you sure have some nerve asking a question like this, because I think it's obvious why you are asking.



That's pretty harsh. I would not be one to automatically draw that conclusion.



TimJohnson @ Sat May 17 said:


> You should rename this post "Do they know I stole their library?"



People should stop passing judgement without factual evidence to back it up.


From what I know, watermarks are not transferred from original audio file to a copy, unless you are actually copying that file in your OS. ie - if you load a watermarked .wav in your seq., and then export it to a new .wav file, that new .wav will not contain the watermark. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

That said, I would like someone to explain to me (privately if necessary) how each one of a sample lib's audio files are watermarked for each individual user. Anyone can claim they are; but I will cry BS until someone proves otherwise.

All in all, watermarking is not something that should be cause for concern to an end user.

Cheers.


----------



## playz123 (May 16, 2014)

Along the lines of what Jeff said, if you have legally licensed a library then, based on your usage description, you have nothing to worry about. If you are thinking of grabbing a copy of a library licensed to someone else and watermarked, then that's a question to which you already know the answer. Don't do it please.

As for watermarking, I understand there are a number of ways to watermark (Samples) a library, and so what one developer does may not be the same as another. I doubt though you are going to get any developer to explain to you exactly what they do, and which files are marked and how they can trace them.  It's really one of those things that if you just do things legally and follow the license agreement, there's no cause for concern.


----------



## jleckie (May 16, 2014)

If you listen very carefully , sometimes you can HEAR the watermarking. Its like a very gentle "drip, drip, drip"


----------



## dannthr (May 16, 2014)

Yeah, I don't think so, again not a lawyer, but I believe that downloading is fine but using a library is not--you are not licensed to use it.

Distributing or sharing a library breaks the licensing agreement between the manufacturer and the user. Watermarking is used to identify people who break the licensing agreement to redistribute the library and build a case against them.

You can't use it, you can't share it, but download it? I can't see how you can't unless somehow you circumvented an online purchasing system--then we're talking cyber theft or something along those lines.


----------



## artsoundz (May 16, 2014)

I can assure you, if you didn't pay the company that made the library directly, you absolutely cannot DL. It does not matter one iota if you use it or not. The act of DL w/o paying is as illegal as it gets. 

The only way to DL w/o paying is to use a torrent site or a private source. So very illegal.

What scenario would someone DL and not even use, check out, or re- distribute?

Splitting hairs on this is silly. Whats your point?


----------



## RiffWraith (May 16, 2014)

Dan - say you are sitting in the park with your laptop. You put it down next to you, and turn your head. I walk by, pick it up, and walk off with it. I take it home, but I do not use it - I am just going to let it sit on my shelf. According to your reasoning, I am doing nothing illegal here. 

Keep in mind - a sample lib, by law, is someone's property... the same way that the laptop is your property.

Cheers.


----------



## dathyr1 (May 16, 2014)

Hello,

You guys are reading too much into my original question.

I plan to buy the kontakt library from "In Sessions Audio" which are audio guitar libraries made up from the guys creating/playing song tracks. They sound pretty cool to use as a tool. My only hold up on buying this product is, do I have an application for it? And how well can the individual segments be interchanged/swapped around and sound good.

My curious general question is do watermarks get transferred also down to the final stereo mix from a multitrack song?

DT


----------



## dathyr1 (May 16, 2014)

Plus I will ask the same question to "In Session Audio". So far in their license guidelines, I cant use their instrument tracks standalone, they have to be mixed with other instruments besides their own.

I already have some other technical questions into them already about their product. Havent heard back from them yet.

DT


----------



## playz123 (May 16, 2014)

dathyr1 @ Fri May 16 said:


> Hello,
> 
> You guys are reading too much into my original question.
> 
> ...



Not everyone read too much into your question, but some were curious as to where you were headed and why. 

In any case, my guess is that, in most cases, watermarks are not carried forward at all unless for example you were to take a sample and simply insert it in your song. Once something is mixed combined and rendered with other instruments, I suspect most times the watermarking wouldn't be there.

As you probably know, Kyle, who formerly was associated with 9 Volt Audio is the person who will more than likely respond to you from his new venture..."In Session Audio".


----------



## dathyr1 (May 16, 2014)

Thanks for your reply playz123.

I just sent the same question to "In Sessions Audio"

I am a guitarist myself(not a pro) and find his products as being a nice learning tool to practice to. I just recently bought a midi guitar which has opened up a whole new avenue of playing virtual instruments.

Hope to hear back from Kyle. They now have a cool idea with these guitar libraries. And I am glad they also put it into a Kontakt format.

take care,

DT


----------



## dannthr (May 16, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Fri May 16 said:


> Dan - say you are sitting in the park with your laptop. You put it down next to you, and turn your head. I walk by, pick it up, and walk off with it. I take it home, but I do not use it - I am just going to let it sit on my shelf. According to your reasoning, I am doing nothing illegal here.
> 
> Keep in mind - a sample lib, by law, is someone's property... the same way that the laptop is your property.
> 
> Cheers.



Not a very good analogy--it's more like if I was in a park with a bunch of laptops, and I said "hey, here are some free laptops!" And you took one home only to find out it was stolen. It wasn't wrong of you to take it, and as long as you didn't know it was stolen, you wouldn't be culpable. 

With a computer file, you may not be aware of existing licensing terms when downloading it--often it won't be until after you've downloaded it that licensing terms are even presented to you. In which case, you would read and learn that you do not have the license to use the software. You did nothing wrong downloading it, but at this stage, you can not use it and you can not copy it in anyway.


----------



## artsoundz (May 16, 2014)

How can one not be aware that there are licenses and copyright laws associated with music library files? 

What am I missing here? Are you talking about something other than copyrighted files or, more specifically, sample libraries? For those examples, the second you start downloading, you have broken the law. You get that, right?

Sounds to me like you are saying you don't need to use a parachute when you jump out of an airplane. Just make sure you don't land. Huh?


----------



## dannthr (May 16, 2014)

Yeah, I'm not arguing about whether or not something is wrong--I'm just not sure about the technicality.


----------



## artsoundz (May 16, 2014)

Okay. Im unaware of a scenario where this happens but it wouldn't be the first time I was out of touch.

I'm assuming children and young people?


----------



## Goosewinkle (May 16, 2014)

My guess is the watermark would be preserved during a stereo audio mixdown. Or at least that is the intent. Otherwise what would be the point?


----------



## G.E. (May 17, 2014)

I'm sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion but still... I can't possibly imagine a plausible explanation for anyone to care about watermarks in a mixdown if the library is bought legally. It's not like they are something which you can hear and distracts from the music.

By the way I hope it's okay if I quote Mike Greene on this from a post he made on kvraudio: 


> But as far as sample libraries go, I don't know any developer who watermarks the audio files themselves. We (Realitone) don't, for instance. Instead, the watermarks are hidden in the Instrument files and KSP scripts. They have no effect whatsoever on the sound or functionality of the instruments. They basically just amount to hiding a serial number in the code, so that if you illegally share your copy, we can see who the sharer was.
> 
> In the interest of full disclosure, with Realivox, we do also watermark the NKS sample monoliths, but it's in the header information, not the wave files. (It's not actually the header, but for obvious reasons, I can't say exactly where.) The audio itself is completely untouched.


----------



## StatKsn (May 17, 2014)

For what it is worth, Dan's technical discretion is right in my opinion.

For example, there have been countless discussions over the internet whether browsing YouTube is illegal or not (because if you are, whether knowing what it is, browsing a video containing unlicensed materials, YT temporarily downloads it to your PC). A few years ago, Japan almost made this illegal and caused some controversy. The law also differs from country to country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... ownloading
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-st ... 05921.html

But then, if someone has downloaded a commercial sample library from file sharing without paying, they without doubt have an intention to pirate it...


----------



## tripseemcguy (May 17, 2014)

StatKsn @ Sat May 17 said:


> For what it is worth, Dan's technical discretion is right in my opinion.


No one can argue the illegality of distributing copyright material (at least in countries with clear copyright laws). I think it's worth remembering when using peer to peer systems like Torrents that the user is not only downloading, but distributing to fellow peers and this has shown in courts to be illegal and punishable.


----------



## dannthr (May 17, 2014)

Right, but we've also encountered people selling samples illegally, even here on this forum.

The customer can't always know beforehand--don't assume all file distribution occurs over torrents or through obvious pirating channels.

I, myself, have released a cello library for free, hosted on my own webspace, and you all must trust that the samples are mine to distribute.


----------



## Goosewinkle (May 17, 2014)

> But as far as sample libraries go, I don't know any developer who watermarks the audio files themselves....



Ohh ok. That is a revelation to me. I always assumed samples "watermarking" meant something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_watermark


----------



## tripseemcguy (May 17, 2014)

dannthr @ Sat May 17 said:


> The customer can't always know beforehand. Don't assume all file distribution occurs over torrents or through obvious pirating channels.


That's not how the law is applied in most countries. Just because you don't realize you're breaking the law, doesn't make it okay to do so. It may mean that the actions taken against someone are more lenient if there's a true misunderstanding, but illegal activities shouldn't be justified by ignorance, else the law becomes completely subjective (or at least more subjective than it already can be). 

I don't assume all piracy to occur over torrents - simply pointing out that anyone who participates is definitely breaking the law in most countries (even Canada) as they are actively distributing copyright material.



dannthr @ Sat May 17 said:


> I, myself, have released a cello library for free, hosted on my own webspace, and you all must trust that the samples are mine to distribute.


There is a difference between being offered a free product, and going out of your way to find a product you _know_ is not legitimate. These pirate sites don't say 'Free Cello library'. They make it relatively clear you're circumventing paying for a copy of a specific company's specific product.

I won't compare theft and piracy because the nature of non-tangible goods makes for a poor comparison, but I will point out that in many states if you handle stolen goods (ie. buy something stolen) you are committing a misdemeanor or felony regardless of knowing it was stolen. Ignorance doesn't invalidate the crime, merely affects the likelihood of being prosecuted and punishment.


----------



## muk (May 17, 2014)

tripseemcguy @ Sat May 17 said:


> That's not how the law is applied in most countries. Just because you don't realize you're breaking the law, doesn't make it okay to do so.



But exactly because it can be difficult to judge for a private person whether an internet source is legal or not, in some countries - at least in europe - downloading is not illegal. Distributing is illegal, or using such a product for other than private purposes only is, but not the download itself. And mind that 'legal' and 'morally acceptable' are not always the same thing.


----------



## tripseemcguy (May 17, 2014)

muk @ Sat May 17 said:


> But exactly because it can be difficult to judge for a private person whether an internet source is legal or not, in some countries - at least in europe - downloading is not illegal.


But unless you're in the minority of EU states that do not uphold EU copyright laws, it doesn't matter. Recently the EU have reinforced EU copyright law and the illegality of downloader's actions. The Netherlands, for example, implemented a tax that would compensate copyright owners for infringement, believing this was compatible with EU law. However, they've recently had to scrap this and ban individuals from illegally downloading following a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union that stated it was not compatible. The EU AG had commented this year that the 'trivialization of copyright infringement' is not compatible with EU law. Even in Canada, which has had very relaxed laws on individuals infringing copyright has made it clear that downloading is illegal (and punishable by $5000 fines), and had a court recently state _“If you are infringing copyright you are breaking the law. We urge you to use the alternatives, there is so much streaming content and affordable content available.”_

Sorry for going off on a tangent but as a fellow musician that creates art it's a subject I find interesting and felt it worth discussing dannthr's comments.


----------



## muk (May 17, 2014)

Interesting I didn't know about the Netherlands example, only that France considered a similar tax. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Musicologo (May 17, 2014)

I might jump in and say that until very recently in most countries from EU downloading for private purposes was not illegal. It was illegal to distribute or sell or try to make profit with a pirated product, but it was not illegal if you just downloaded some stuff for your own use.

I don't know if the law changed in the meantime, or if it is changing slowly one country after the other...

There is also a highly cultural bias - many european citizens, specially kids and teenagers don't actually KNOW or are aware of copyright rules. And some others who know are actually against them - just see the several pirate parties (political parties) along several countries. So it's not such a linear issue to be taken lightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party


----------



## G.E. (May 17, 2014)

> There is also a highly cultural bias - many european citizens, specially kids and teenagers don't actually KNOW or are aware of copyright rules. And some others who know are actually against them - just see the several pirate parties (political parties) along several countries. So it's not such a linear issue to be taken lightly.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party



I guess there's a political party for everything, but I'm not surprised.Since I found out about the existence of NAMBLA, nothing surprises me anymore.
People are so entitled these days...For some reason they think everything is their birth right.


----------



## Luca Capozzi (May 17, 2014)

I agree with some of your opinions and technical digression.. but I see over and over (luckily not here now), when it comes to talk about piracy, hundreds of words spent to philosophize about rights, if this is stealing and so on. There is a very simple fact: software (and other digital media) are created by persons who spend their time and their money on them. I do this for a living and with my humble products I pay my rent, my food, my bills. I license the use of my work and demand a price for that. If ANYBODY is taking advantage (downloading, using, redistributing and so on) of my work without paying... well, the conclusion is very clear, isn't? 

o-[][]-o 
Luca


----------



## Greeny (Feb 6, 2018)

I wish I had seen this thread earlier as I have just asked a similar question. I think you are all being harsh on
*dathyr1* for his question.
I too want to know exactly what those watermarks are and if they can be heard. I am interested in purchasing the Berlin Strings library for orchestral compositions and there may be 30 different samples all crossed and overlayed and I want to know if there will be any audio degradation or artifacts from all these watermarks played simultaiously if they want 900 Euros out of my bank account!
To assume someone wants to know these things on dubious grounds suggests something about your own honesty!


----------



## blougui (Feb 6, 2018)

You won’t hear them, that’s it.


----------



## Greeny (Feb 6, 2018)

Oh thats fine then I shall go and spend just short of a thousand Euros on the library because you say "you wont hear them thats it".
Very strange atitude towards legitimate questions. I expected a couple of responses like "yea dont worry I have mixed thousands of songs with that library and never had any added noise" or "sure there is a little added noise but no more than the dither in your final mixdown" or even "sure theres noise but its worth it to defend ourselves against piracy" but people here seem to have sand in their vaginas over this topic.


----------



## Tatu (Feb 6, 2018)

And here I was thinking, that watermarks are actually just locked metadata stored in the files.


----------



## C.R. Rivera (Feb 6, 2018)

tripseemcguy said:


> I won't compare theft and piracy because the nature of non-tangible goods makes for a poor comparison, but I will point out that in many states if you handle stolen goods (ie. buy something stolen) you are committing a misdemeanor or felony regardless of knowing it was stolen. Ignorance doesn't invalidate the crime, merely affects the likelihood of being prosecuted and punishment.



---Four years later as to this post: Would today the Washington Post be completely clear if the "pentagon papers" fell in their hands, again?


----------



## clisma (Feb 6, 2018)

Greeny said:


> "sure theres noise but its worth it to defend ourselves against piracy" but people here seem to have *sand in their vaginas *over this topic.


Forgive the digression, but the above portion of sentence is absolutely unnecessary, potentially offensive, and most definitely puerile. Let’s behave like gentlemen, shall we?


----------



## blougui (Feb 6, 2018)

Then do not spend your money and try to avoid the vulgar discourse, may be?

More to the point, you could also listen to the maaaaany tracks here and there, on SC, YT, whatever and listen for yourself. If something bothers you in these songs or tracks then don’t bother spending 1000€.
Most probably, if you cave in for these libs you’ll be quick to complain about audible noises in the recordings or niggles in the scripting... I’m confident that watermarking will rapidly be the least of your preoccupation.


----------



## paoling (Feb 6, 2018)

It's just basic watermarking on the resource files and patches. All Continuata libraries have it. As far as I know, nobody, not even NI, has the infrastructure to do a watermarking of the samples, since it will require enormous computational power and specialized tools to do it.


----------



## VinRice (Feb 7, 2018)

Greeny said:


> Oh thats fine then I shall go and spend just short of a thousand Euros on the library because you say "you wont hear them thats it".
> Very strange atitude towards legitimate questions. I expected a couple of responses like "yea dont worry I have mixed thousands of songs with that library and never had any added noise" or "sure there is a little added noise but no more than the dither in your final mixdown" or even "sure theres noise but its worth it to defend ourselves against piracy" but people here seem to have sand in their vaginas over this topic.



THERE IS NOTHING IN THE AUDIO TO HEAR. You seem obsessed with something that is utterly irrelevant. There are literally thousands of professional users of both the Berlin and Spitfire libraries and it is not, and never will be an issue.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Feb 7, 2018)

blougui said:


> Then do not spend your money and try to avoid the vulgar discourse, may be?
> 
> More to the point, you could also listen to the maaaaany tracks here and there, on SC, YT, whatever and listen for yourself. If something bothers you in these songs or tracks then don’t bother spending 1000€.
> Most probably, if you cave in for these libs you’ll be quick to complain about audible noises in the recordings or niggles in the scripting... I’m confident that watermarking will rapidly be the least of your preoccupation.



+1


----------



## Desire Inspires (Feb 7, 2018)

Should we get the FBI involved?


----------



## DSmolken (Feb 7, 2018)

paoling said:


> As far as I know, nobody, not even NI, has the infrastructure to do a watermarking of the samples, since it will require enormous computational power and specialized tools to do it.


Here comes a fairly pointless post, but whenever I hear that something is too difficult to do, I take that as a challenge to find a simple way.

I think it'd be doable, and not terribly complicated, if you record at a higher bitrate, then add dither when converting. Pick one sample and do a bunch of unique dithers for that file, let's say 5000 if you're hoping to sell 5000 downloads. The delivery software then takes a different version of that file and puts it in the final compressed package. Would get considerably more complicated with NKI monoliths, but with one file per sample, it would work, make no audible difference, and allow a shared package to be identified (but not be possible to retrieve from a mix of a track using the sample).

Sure, embedding the watermark in script comments is easier and makes more sense with the vast majority of VIs, but on a technical level, watermarking the samples is doable, if you're doing something like one-shot drum samples or loops where the deliverable contains basically only wav files.


----------



## Rasmus Hartvig (Feb 7, 2018)

@DSmolken Definitely doable that way. But would you be able to recover the info from the dithering when the instrument is in a musical context with other instruments, mixed with effects and mastered with another dithering pass?


----------



## DSmolken (Feb 7, 2018)

No, just if somebody were to share that library and you found it on, say, a torrent site. Definitely not from a mixed track.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 7, 2018)

Watermarking to prevent copyright infringement (piracy) doesn't work. Piracy is making a copy of a copyrighted work without the copyright holder's permission, no amount of watermarking can stop that. Ok but you say watermarking will deter people from creating unauthorised copies, yes, possibly, but anyone who purchases a software product with the intention of redistributing copies would likely not be foolish enough to reveal their identity when making that purchase. And, as demonstrated by the Cinesamples case, even if you do manage to catch the pirate through the use of your watermarking system you will spend a year or more taking the person to court (assuming you can afford to and that the person is in an accessible country) and it may turn out that they don't have any assets - so you will receive no compensation and will be out of pocket for all of your expenses. Cinesamples were awarded a payout but the guy had nothing so they got nothing (at least that's what I heard).

Also with watermarking you have to be able to make it unique for each customer, this requires that you either manually watermark the samples (not practical) or you have your webserver do it (expensive when you consider the file size of a large sample library). Once the WAV files are watermarked you also want to be able to compress them as NCW (Kontakt's lossless format) but unfortunately because the format is a secret known only to NI you can only do this manually in Kontakt (again, not practical).


----------



## paoling (Feb 7, 2018)

DSmolken said:


> Here comes a fairly pointless post, but whenever I hear that something is too difficult to do, I take that as a challenge to find a simple way.



Yes, hiding the info in just one file is simpler, but... to make a super-secure and working thing is not completely very easy, because this means some serious server-side programming and some security concerns about how the desktop installer works with the webapp that "hides" the real file locations. 
So while it's easy for us to create a unique copy fo a product for a customer (by hand changing whatever we like in the library), building an automated system is out of reach for most of us, since, in the end, our hybrid nature (half musicians, half coders) collapses :D


----------



## DSmolken (Feb 7, 2018)

Heh, true. I work with non-musician developers and sysadmins all day, so I'm thinking it would be doable for one of them in a few weeks.


----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 7, 2018)

d.healey said:


> Watermarking to prevent copyright infringement (piracy) doesn't work.


It doesn't completely prevent it, but from what I've seen amongst developers who do watermark, it does slow it down. Quite a bit in fact, at least from the limited numbers I've seen.

Contrary to their image as being mysterious master hackers, pirates are, for the most part, not a very sophisticated bunch. They're mostly just kids who upload for the thrill and fame. They believe there are no consequences, so they do it. If they think there's a watermark or some way that might bust them, then they don't. Simple as that.

Yes, I know that there are some who use stolen credit cards, but that's a smaller pool of people who can do that, so that will take longer. In the case of my products, usually 6 months to a year. Also, as I mentioned in another thread, thanks to watermarking, I know which copy was uploaded, so I don't give updates to that person. So my version 2 or 3 releases will be _un_pirated again.

Back to my point about pirates not being very sophisticated, when I originally released the Realivox Ladies, the "watermark" was the customer's name right there on the GUI. "Licensed to: Bob Smith." We wrote a script that added that automatically, as well as some other more subtle hidden watermarks that I was convinced no one could crack. (I think DSmolken and I would have a lot of fun talking about ways to do this stuff.  )

Here's the thing, though. When it was finally pirated (more than a year after release), there was a lot of fanfare over Synthicate or whatever "scene" or "group" or whatever terminology these guys use. Tons and tons of animated thank you's and acknowledgements. But ... these "hackers" didn't even change the name on the GUI in their release. Even someone with the most rudimentary of KSP skills could have gone to line 4 of my script and changed "Bob Smith" to "Screw you, Mike Greene!" or to whatever they wanted. But they didn't.

Honestly, I was disappointed. I was all ready to dig into my checks and double-checks that I had so masterfully installed, but they put no effort into even changing the name on the GUI. ~sigh~ Even in my other other products that have been pirated since then (two have not yet been pirated, by the way), they didn't change a single thing. Obviously, with a stolen credit card, there's no need, but I would have expected there would be some pride that went along with it. But no.

The thing I've learned is that there is no "Wizard." This is not some well oiled machine that sees a release, then pirates it. It's a _"wait until some unsophisticated kid buys it and uploads it"_ machine. And if it's watermarked, it's a _"wait a while longer until some unsophisticated kid who manages to get a stolen credit card buys it and uploads it"_ machine.


----------



## Greeny (Feb 7, 2018)

I am neither obsessed nor know whether it is irrelevant or not, i simply joined a VI forum because I was interested in purchasing one of those two libraries and when researching their use was confonted with the watermark issue WHICH I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT COMING FROM AN ORCHESTRAL BACKGROUND and then after asking one of you guys on here was faced with "you wont hear it so thats it!"
It is difficult to be civil with such abrupt and unhelpful responses!
I wasn't aware of the piracy angle and am not in the least bit concerned with what is in a product I purchase as long as it cannot be heard.
After reading the responses here i understanmd that I misunderstood what the watermark was and so apologise if I seemed a little annoyed of some of the responses here.


----------



## catsass (Feb 8, 2018)

Mike Greene said:


> thanks to watermarking, I know which copy was uploaded, so I don't give updates to that person. When I originally released the Realivox Ladies, the "watermark" was the customer's name right there on the GUI.


So, no future updates for Seymore Butts! Bill Loney and Sal Ami are also out of luck.


----------



## quantum7 (Feb 8, 2018)

catsass said:


> So, no future updates for Seymore Butts! Bill Loney and Sal Ami are also out of luck.



Let’s also not forget Mr. I.P. Freely.


----------



## Saxer (Feb 8, 2018)

Everybody is wrong. Actually you hear in every release sample a girls choir singing: „This library belongs to Mr Greeny!“


----------



## Fleer (Feb 8, 2018)

Of only that sax solo could be dumped


----------



## prodigalson (Feb 8, 2018)

Greeny said:


> It is difficult to be civil with such abrupt and unhelpful responses!



No it's not. How about "I was hoping for more information, thanks."?


----------

