# European Resell Laws: what does this mean for Sample Library developers?



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

Oracle finally lost in the European Court of Justice. The Law now is clear in the European Community :

All software licenses may be resold, even if it is downloadable software. This means it is no longer legal for a software company, to deny a European customer the reselling of his software license.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

FINALLY! I was always amazed this was not possible before legally.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

About time. What I didn't understand was whether or not the new user would be entitled to updates, as if they were the old user.

I also wonder how quickly we will see court cases against developers who refuse to honour this ruling. I can see queues of people wanting to sell their old NI powered libraries, for example. EW will be another prime target, I would have thought.

D


----------



## leafInTheWind (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

There's a certain library I know I would love to get rid off but can't :3


----------



## Onlinefrank (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

I noticed it this morning. Very nice :D 
So, it is possible to sell EW stuff now ?


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Onlinefrank @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> I noticed it this morning. Very nice :D
> So, it is possible to sell EW stuff now ?


Theoretically... In Europe, at least. :wink: 

D


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

So somebdoy have something to sell???  (really)


BTW I never get that...
I buy proram, I have it physically on my drive, it is my program, nobody can force me to delete it so what is all this bu****it about licences, you buy the program and it this version is yours, same with music, same with car...


----------



## mark812 (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

http://yeahbutton.com/


----------



## playz123 (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> So somebdoy have something to sell???  (really)
> 
> 
> BTW I never get that...
> I buy proram, I have it physically on my drive, it is my program, nobody can force me to delete it so what is all this bu****it about licences, you buy the program and it this version is yours, same with music, same with car...



Perhaps read a few EULA documents sometime? Most times you are paying for the right to use the samples etc., but you do not own them. You are buying a license not the samples themselves. So it's very different than buying a car.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 3, 2012)

playz123 @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > So somebdoy have something to sell???  (really)
> ...



That's about to change. At least in Europe and really its about time.


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

playz123 that is the bull*** Im talking about - Im buying data on the DVD or downloaded data, once I have them, they are mine, the disk is not anybodys else, I have not credits for making the samples but that one specific copy of "licence" is mine - same with music cd, Im not owner of the songs but Im owner of the copy printed on cd, I payed for it. If I pay for licence - why would I have not right to sell the licence how on earht somebody can force you to not sell what is yours.


----------



## P.T. (Jul 3, 2012)

What's to stop someone from buying software and then selling it to get most of the money back and keeping it on the harddrive so that you can continue using it?

You would be selling a copy.

It's not like a car where you sell the actual physical item.

Unless there is a way to make certain that the software is deleted from the sellers system and cannot be reinstalled in the future without repurchasing, I would expect the price of software to go up considerably.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> playz123 that is the bull*** Im talking about - Im buying data on the DVD or downloaded data, once I have them, they are mine, the disk is not anybodys else, I have not credits for making the samples but that one specific copy of "licence" is mine - same with music cd, Im not owner of the songs but Im owner of the copy printed on cd, I payed for it. If I pay for licence - why would I have not right to sell the licence how on earht somebody can force you to not sell what is yours.


Can you sell your driving licence? can you sell your passport? You see it's not quite as easy as that, but I'm glad that a licence has now been proven to be legally transferable, whether the originator likes it or not. It means that when you get a sample library that turns out to be cr*p, you can off-load it onto some other mug, er user, who has different tastes. :lol: 

D


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

Daryl - sample libraries are not federal documents protected by national law (at least for now) this is not very comparable. 

P.T. - what stop someone to not buy movie or audio cd and then burn it and sell it - NOTHING - but you can legally do it. sample libs or software are not anything different. And piracy - I can tell you, if people could buy things second hand for cheap sometimes they would not try to pirate them. of course majority will do anyway but this would help a lot.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



kb123 @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Actually, very little of EW products are download, i.e. you get a boxed delivery, so the essence hasn't actually changed there. I wouldn't get overly excited yet as I can imagine the difference between a sample and software being highlighted. Its very specific to software, I see no reference to downloadable media, which would have been far more encompassing


I'm not so sure. Sample libraries are classed as data and software, not as sound recordings, which have always been re-salable. I can see some developers trying to avoid this ruling, but it seems to me that the writing is on the wall.

However, leaving that issue aside. I still wonder how licence transfers and updates will be dealt with, if the developer doesn't really want to cooperate.

D


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Daryl - sample libraries are not federal documents protected by national law (at least for now) this is not very comparable.


True, but I was pointing out that a licence that is tied to one person at least has a precedent.

D


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Daryl @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> About time. What I didn't understand was whether or not the new user would be entitled to updates, as if they were the old user.



According to what I read: Yes.

BTW in Germany you could resell software before, this was already the case e. g. for all BestService and NativeInstruments products.


----------



## 667 (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

Samples are licensed as sound recordings and not software. Some even still come as .wav files! Even PLAY is a free download from EW. You pay for license to use the samples in musical compositions. 

So this ruling may not cover standalone sample libraries.


----------



## RobertPeetersPiano (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

How great would it be to be able to sell parts of the Complete Composers collection


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



667 @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Samples are licensed as sound recordings and not software. Some even still come as .wav files! Even PLAY is a free download from EW. You pay for license to use the samples in musical compositions.
> 
> So this ruling may not cover standalone sample libraries.


Sound recordings have always been re-sellable.

D


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Hannes_F @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> BTW in Germany you could resell software before, this was already the case e. g. for all BestService and NativeInstruments products.


But not necessarily for products that use Native Instruments software.

D


----------



## 667 (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

In that case I predict all sample library licensing agreements are about to get a lot more annoying and restrictive (unintended consequences of the ruling).


----------



## RobertPeetersPiano (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

Does anybody know what this means for specific NFR licenses? (like the ones you get for free, because you did something for that library)


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RobertPeetersPiano @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Does anybody know what this means for specific NFR licenses? (like the ones you get for free, because you did something for that library)


I would imagine that it wouldn't affect those, because you never bought them in the first place. In fact many NFR licences have a time limit.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Daryl ... And piracy - I can tell you, if people could buy things second hand for cheap sometimes they would not try to pirate them. of course majority will do anyway but this would help a lot.



An interesting point.


----------



## RobertPeetersPiano (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

It would be very interesting to see an official response of a VSTi-company.

I posted this on the EW-forum, and after approx 5 minutes, they deleted my tread, so I think it's pretty clear what they are saying 

But what about the others?


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RobertPeetersPiano @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> It would be very interesting to see an official response of a VSTi-company.
> 
> I posted this on the EW-forum, and after approx 5 minutes, they deleted my tread, so I think it's pretty clear what they are saying
> 
> But what about the others?




The matter is a bit more complicated with some "software" :

Sometimes buying a "software license" lets you own the software product , which in Europe 
now enables you to resell this (used) product , even when it was a download product.

In other cases , however , you are not purchasing the software and it's content ( i.e. its samplecontent ) but the license to use the software ( and i.e. its samplecontent ) for commercial use, a license that can not be transferred or re-sold , even not under the new law in europe.
This is the situation when you are purchasing EASTWEST Hollywoodstrings or any other title of their PLAY collection.


----------



## SergeD (Jul 3, 2012)

Good, piracy will be erased once for all since it's gonna be legal to sell second hand software...

I really wonder how small developers will manage this parallel market if they cannot afford the iLok licensing scheme.

Humm, not sure it's good news regarding innovative emergent products from VHTLS (Very huge tiny little small) companies .


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

I do not see how this can change anything - wake up guys - If you wanted to sell anythign before you could - do you think if you sell sample lib to other musician somebody sent a cops on you or what? 
Or what about one person buys a lib and then let 10 fellow musicians to copy the samples for themselves. 

only thing what is changed is that you can now legally get rid of product you paid for. it is exactly same like music or movies - of course you can keep copies and nobody will know, but this is how people are...


----------



## Resoded (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

Great, I have one library that I'd love getting rid off. My only buy that I regret.

Though does this apply even if the country selling the library is situated in the US?


----------



## midphase (Jul 3, 2012)

P.T. @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> What's to stop someone from buying software and then selling it to get most of the money back and keeping it on the harddrive so that you can continue using it?



The law has to presume honesty, that is how it's always been...innocent until proven guilty (at least in most civilized countries).

You can't create laws based on the idea that you need to preemptively punish people on the chance that they might be dishonest.


----------



## playz123 (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> playz123 that is the bull*** Im talking about - Im buying data on the DVD or downloaded data, once I have them, they are mine, the disk is not anybodys else, I have not credits for making the samples but that one specific copy of "licence" is mine - same with music cd, Im not owner of the songs but Im owner of the copy printed on cd, I payed for it. If I pay for licence - why would I have not right to sell the licence how on earht somebody can force you to not sell what is yours.



Not BS at all; read the agreements. I stated what _many_ agreements state, so you can argue with it all you want, but you will be wrong. With many companies you are buying a license to use their software...period. You do not 'own' the media and are currently not free to do _all things_ with it as YOU choose even though it is in your possession. How these types of EULA will be affected by the new ruling in Europe is open to much speculation...as indicated by the responses here, but your apparent interpretation of many current licensing agreements is not correct; it's wishful thinking. Note Gerd's post too: "In other cases , however , you are not purchasing the software and it's content ( i.e. its samplecontent ) but the license to use the software ( and i.e. its samplecontent ) for commercial use, a license that can not be transferred or re-sold , even not under the new law in europe.
This is the situation when you are purchasing EASTWEST Hollywoodstrings or any other title of their PLAY collection."
The courts will eventually decide what takes place and where, but I think we can also expect challenges or appeals to this ruling as well.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

If this does effect sample developers, I suspect that it won't really be good news for most users here. Any used sale is a sale lost to the developer, so he either has to accept fewer sales, or make up that amount with higher prices. Or cut costs somewhere. Or get out of the business.

I can say from my own experience as a developer (albeit a very small one) that there's a lot less money in this business than you might think. (I still haven't sold 100 copies of Realivox yet.) A few lost sales effects boutique developers a lot more than it effects the "1001 Beats" companies, so I don't think this bodes well for us in the long run.


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

"Any used sale is a sale lost to the developer"

this is only little bit less nonsense as the favorite "every pirated software copy is loss to a developer"

is it really? 

do the people who are buying cheaper second hand items or pirate otherwise buy them for full price in some cases yes but in most NO.


----------



## RobertPeetersPiano (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

So, thanx to Michiel Post, I got an official EW response (which is IMO very clear and understandable). He wrote it in Dutch to me, so I will (try to) translate it:

_ ... I know from our leaders that if it is necessary, they will change the user agreement from a 'personal non-transferrable license' to an other form, which will yield in a registration in The Library of Congress. We are very clear on this topic, that if someone uses our software (or used), the result needs to be covered by a current license. So, if you ever scored a hit on youtube with our piano samples, you will need to keep the license. Otherwise, you could have created your hit for free. The federal Lawyer in LA did approve this, but if more software companies in Europe will get in trouble, we will do everything to defend our interest..._


----------



## TGV (Jul 3, 2012)

playz123 @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Not BS at all; read the agreements. I stated what _many_ agreements state, so you can argue with it all you want, but you will be wrong. With many companies you are buying a license to use their software...period. You do not 'own' the media and are currently not free to do _all things_ with it as YOU choose even though it is in your possession.


The whole idea of licensing software was just a lawyer inspired move to earn more money, not something grounded in the framework of the law. And what do you think Oracle put in their contracts? About the same thing. And companies can put in their EULAs whatever they want, when a clause is against the law, it's null and void.

And it's going to do squat with respect to piracy, of course. That's never going to change, not even if you offer your products for free.


----------



## rgames (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> playz123 that is the bull*** Im talking about - Im buying data on the DVD or downloaded data, once I have them, they are mine, the disk is not anybodys else, I have not credits for making the samples but that one specific copy of "licence" is mine - same with music cd, Im not owner of the songs but Im owner of the copy printed on cd, I payed for it. If I pay for licence - why would I have not right to sell the licence how on earht somebody can force you to not sell what is yours.


So when you license your music you think it's OK for that person to be able to re-sell that license to someone else?

So you enter an agreement to license your music for a TV show. That show has the music, they bought the data, it's on their disk. So you think it's OK for that TV show to take your music and license it to other TV shows? No way.

You create a license with one entity. If the other TV show wants the license, they come back to you and/or your publisher.

rgames


----------



## MaestroRage (Jul 3, 2012)

I will kill a rhino if this stops realimen from coming out Mike. Please hold strong lol.

I've personally never had an issue with the resale thing tbh.


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

rgames - sorry, but I think you comparing apples to oranges.

we talk about "physical" prodcut the fact sample developers like pretend you buying "licence" you in fact buying product containing of files, licence, medium etc and the product is not unique it is mass produced goods.


--------------------

"The whole idea of licensing software was just a lawyer inspired move to earn more money, not something grounded in the framework of the law"

exactly!


----------



## bennis (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

I think you all forget one thing..

Are sample library 'software'?

Kontakt libraries - Kontakt is the software..
Loop libraries of wavs.. where is the software there?
Play libraries - Play is the software

Developer of sample libraries and loop packs are not software developers. The license they give is not for software. Personally I read this ruling and I see nothing that changes a thing.

If we are going to decide anything someone buys with a license can be resold then they just killed the music industry.. no one can ever license a peice of music to anyone again. no one can do contract work anymore and expect their contract to stop the client reselling their assets.

This document also too broad. It says the user must make their copy unusable when selling. how do you do this with a sample library? unless you go through the developer then your copy is never unusable. i dont consider something that you could email developer and ask 'hey can I get a new download code' as unusable.

I think we need to wait for developers to check their lawyer guys to see how this affects things and make a statement but I think nothing will be different


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 3, 2012)

What would happen if the EULA were to stipulate that the developer may charge a transfer fee equal to the list price of the license?


----------



## playz123 (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Mike Greene @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> (I still haven't sold 100 copies of Realivox yet.)



Off topic for just a second please, but that is really very sad to hear, Mike. Realivox -the Ladies is an excellent product that we've found extremely useful, it's very versatile, well organized and highly recommended. Maybe the word just isn't getting out there? Anyway, I understand how small developers must feel about this ruling, but I truly hope you will continue to release a new product when possible, and based on 'the Ladies' I'll fully support your endeavors any way I can.


----------



## rgames (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> rgames - sorry, but I think you comparing apples to oranges.


It's not apples to oranges - both software and music are handled via licenses. Neither is owned. Same thing.

Here's a scenario: you license a track to a TV show for a year. They pay you $5k.

The track becomes a hit within one month.

The TV show then transfers the remainder of the license for $100k.

You're OK with that?

rgames


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> playz123 that is the bull*** Im talking about - Im buying data on the DVD or downloaded data, once I have them, they are mine, the disk is not anybodys else, I have not credits for making the samples but that one specific copy of "licence" is mine - same with music cd, Im not owner of the songs but Im owner of the copy printed on cd, I payed for it. If I pay for licence - why would I have not right to sell the licence how on earht somebody can force you to not sell what is yours.



We have gone over this so many times.

When you buy a licence to use a piece of music in your production you do not own it, you own a licence to use it under the terms of that licence. Maybe its only licensed for use in that production, maybe it covers a number of usages, but YOU DO NOT OWN IT AND CANNOT DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT. You cannot sell it to anyone else, they have to buy their own licence. 

The licence for sample libraries is with the sound recordings, not the software. Does this law specifically apply to sample libraries as well? Is the current wording ambiguous? If so, agreements will probably be tweaked because of this in order to make sure they do not apply to this law.


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

rgames @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames - sorry, but I think you comparing apples to oranges.
> ...



but sample libs are not "music" it is product created for creating music, it may not be "software" like cubase for example, but still it is some kind of software music tool. 

it is again same like with movie or music on cd - you buy it you can sell it, even you are not owner of licence to the content.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

Arn`t Sample libraries "instruments", Ed?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



playz123 @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Mike Greene @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > (I still haven't sold 100 copies of Realivox yet.)
> ...



+1!

Realivox -the Ladies is a very excellent lib! .....


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> but sample libs are not "music" it is product created for creating music, it may not be "software" like cubase for example, but still it is some kind of software music tool.
> 
> it is again same like with movie or music on cd - you buy it you can sell it, even you are not owner of licence to the content.



You said you own it like a car, you dont seem to realise that if you buy a movie or buy a cd you are actually restricted under a licence as well. You may be able to resell the cd, but you cannot copy the cd then resell it and there are restrictions on how you can use it. You are allowed to show it to your friends and family, but not allowed to hold and event where you show the movie like a cinema without other licences involved. There's a whole load of warmings about what you can and cannot do when you put in a DVD, used to be at the start of VHS tapes as well.


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Arn`t Sample libraries "instruments", Ed?



They are recordings, so its different.


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > playz123 that is the bull*** Im talking about - Im buying data on the DVD or downloaded data, once I have them, they are mine, the disk is not anybodys else, I have not credits for making the samples but that one specific copy of "licence" is mine - same with music cd, Im not owner of the songs but Im owner of the copy printed on cd, I payed for it. If I pay for licence - why would I have not right to sell the licence how on earht somebody can force you to not sell what is yours.
> ...



Sorry but NO. for example with EWQL Im buying "HOLLYWOOD STRINGS virtual (software) instrument "

and I dont see any point how virtual software instrument is same as musical recording. The fact the software contains musical recordings does noo change the fact it is not recording, it is software tool Im buying. And it is phyasical mass produced product.


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

Or course its software, everything on the internet is software. Its digital. :S But is it "software" under this law?


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Or course its software, everything on the internet is software. Its digital. :S But is it "software" under this law?



Not only internet, many of libs are still aviable as boxed dvds...
And still Im not buying recordings Im buying software virtual insturment. 

"You may be able to resell the cd, but you cannot copy the cd then resell it and there are restrictions on how you can use it."


Same it should be with sample libs or any other software, what is difference here?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

Ed, what`s about the waveforms what are used in the synth plugs?


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Same it should be with sample libs or any other software, what is difference here?



The difference is you cannot use the music you buy on a CD to make other music. 

In other words, the difference you keep missing is *copyright*. Unless you are given a licence to use the sound recording you are not allowed to use that sound recording in your music. The licence agreement in a sample library you buy is saying "you are granted a licence to use these sound recordings in your music". But it only applies to that person, unless specified in the agreement or granted by the developer you cannot sell your licence to someone else. 

Think of it like this, feel free to sell your sample libraries, but they arent allowed to use the sound recordings in their music. So, where did that get you? The software itself (Kontakt patches, VI) might be legally be able to be sold but then the sound recording licence isnt. Surely you can see there IS a difference here?


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Ed, what`s about the waveforms what are used in the synth plugs?



If they are actually software synths that generate waveforms, I dont know how the law works regarding that. I imagine thats pretty shaky if they say it cant be resold. But if its a recording of a synth (waveform) then that is - technically - different. As I said to Hans, the difference here is copyright. When you buy a cd you can sell it, but you arent allowed to use any part of sound on the cd to resell (ie. sample it and use it in music or a film or something). If you resell your sample library that person doesn't own a licence to use the sounds in their music. Actually reselling of the software itself might be legal but in terms of copyright thats different. 

So unless someone can show that this law or any law contradicts specifically sample libraries, then sample libraries not being transferable still stands.


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

Just like to quote from the OP's pdf link:



> "Furthermore, the Court states that an original acquirer of a tangible or intangible copy of a
> computer program for which the copyright holder’s right of distribution is exhausted must make
> the copy downloaded onto his own computer unusable at the time of resale. If he continued
> to use it, he would infringe the copyright holder’s exclusive right of reproduction of his computer
> ...



How does this sound anything like it applies to sample libraries?

I know some of you would really really like it to apply to it, but it doesn't.


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Same it should be with sample libs or any other software, what is difference here?
> ...



But this is because music cds ARE NOT sold as tools for creating music, dont they??

And for sure Sample library is not"music" it is virtual instument / music software tool created to record music.


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> But this is because music cds ARE NOT sold as tools for creating music, dont they??
> 
> And for sure Sample library is not"music" it is virtual instument / music software tool created to record music.



Have you never had to sign a contract that asks you to state that you own all the rights to the samples in your music? 

The reason is because if you use samples that arent cleared (ie. you have a licence to use them) then you could be sued for copyright infringement. If I make a sample library I can have a licence that says "_This agreement grants you and only you permission to use these sound recordings in all your music. This is not transferable"_. But if you sold that sample library then that new person would not have that licence to use the sound recordings in their music. 

Already just explained this... but the VI/Kontakt/patches itself can be resold, but whats the point if the samples themselves are only licensed to one person? The price you pay isnt for the software anyway, its for the licence to USE the sounds. Why do you not see the difference between the software and the copyright aspect of this? If you use a Kontakt version of a library vs a version that came on an audio cd, it doesnt matter because either way the sound recording still ends up in your music even though one was made with a piece of software and one was ripped from an audio cd.

Its the same as having a music library and saying that when you buy a track to use in your film/event/etc only you can use it and maybe only for that one event. It doesnt matter if the music library company distributed their music with some kind of software that helps you search/remix their music, you still cant point to that and say "_see!!! its software therefore its mine like a car!!"_ The fact is sound recordings in sample libraries are different and not considered software, so unless you know of an actual piece of law that says what you'd like it to say Im afraid you're still out of luck.


----------



## Saxer (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RobertPeetersPiano @ 3.7.2012 said:


> So, thanx to Michiel Post, I got an official EW response...
> _ ... So, if you ever scored a hit on youtube with our piano samples, you will need to keep the license. Otherwise, you could have created your hit for free. The federal Lawyer in LA did approve this, but if more software companies in Europe will get in trouble, we will do everything to defend our interest..._



this is a funny argument. to compare it to the 'real world': i can buy a car, drive a race and win with it. and after that i want to sell my car. so i if i sell it i've got the win for free... and i must keep the car for my lifetime?
no: if i have a youtube hit made with the samples, the creation is result of my work, using samples i owned a licence at the time i worked with it. after i sold the licence i can't make any more hits with it. and a used licence is cheaper than a new one.


but i can understand the fear of the developers. the main problem is: you can't control if the reseller isn't using the samples anymore illegal. at least i think that's the main problem.


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

The obvious problem with selling any Soundiron license 2nd-hand is that:

1) We don't make or sell software. We create custom audio content and then license the right to use our content in various commercial and non-commercial applications and public performances. You're paying for the right to use our sounds in the production of your professional work and creative projects. Once we've licensed you that right, it covers your use of it at any point in the future as long as you haven't violated the terms of the contract you enter into when you order the product from us. You can then publish and commercialize that finished work as you see fit without having to pay us a share of your future royalties or asking for permission, as long as you're actually creating finished work and not simply just repackaging our sounds as derivative sample or loop libraries. It's a contract, not a bill of sale. 

2) There's no way to insure that the original purchaser has deleted and will no longer ever use the product. An aspect of the license is the provision of product support and updates. That can't be transferred. It's necessarily tied to the person we specifically and originally licensed the rights to use our content to. 

3) The original purchaser would also either have to cease all publishing and performance of any content created with our libraries. Ironically, the new purchaser wouldn't have a right to use the content commercially either, since we had not granted it to them. The thing you've "Used" up is the assigned right to do anything with it publicly or commercially at all. 

4) If you license your music for use in a commercial, and then that contract is later invalidated or somehow terminated, that commercial is no longer going to be on the air period. The license has to be valid and in good standing as long as the results of it remain in the public eye or in any way generating revenue for the licensee. Because it's absolutely no different from a composer licensing their music to a film or commercial production company and then having them feel free to use it to their heart's content and then when that 3rd party is done with it, letting them simply resell those rights to others down the line for their own gain in perpetuity. Buying a used CD doesn't grant you that right. Neither would buying "used" software. 

5) CDs can be resold because they don't include the right to distribute, manufacture, broadcast, perform or otherwise publish their contents. Does buying the Batman Begins soundtrack CD at a used record store give you the legal right to sample the recordings and use them in your next album without clearance or a license fee? No, it does not. 

6) This is creative content, not hardware or software. I could see if being feasible for personal *non-public* use, but any and all commercial use, public performance and any other form of publication is restricted to the original license holder under the normal provisions of the DMCA. 

Basically, if you decide to resell your DVD or let a friend copy your downloaded sample libraries (and then *pretend* that you actually erased your copy and won't ever redownload a new one), you're still going to want to let them know that they'll never actually heave the legal right to do anything with that copy other than sit at home and play around with it for fun. 

If they ever intend to actually_ *do *_anything with it, they're going to need to buy a license.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

The notion that sample libraries would be different from software is so wrong!

If you buy the naked samples, say an AKAI format CD, now that would be correct, but this is not the case anymore since a long time!

What we see instead is software development based on the Kontakt platform for example. Take Sample Logic's offers, it is programmed, there is a distinct GUI with functions that are programmed on the Kontakt platform, scripts etc., it is clearly a software product, making use of their custom samples, and programming done in Kontakt.

Edit:
I didn't mean to single out a specific company, the same counts of course for 8DIO, Soundiron, Spitfire Audio etc.

Stop claiming you would not distribute and sell software folks, it is utterly risible really! You design software products, program very specific and elaborate scripts and functions to use in a specifically designed GUI, now THAT is software!

Period
.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Saxer @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> RobertPeetersPiano @ 3.7.2012 said:
> 
> 
> > So, thanx to Michiel Post, I got an official EW response...
> ...



+1


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Saxer @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> RobertPeetersPiano @ 3.7.2012 said:
> 
> 
> > So, thanx to Michiel Post, I got an official EW response...
> ...



Wanted to use similar example too. 




Ed - I still not see problem here - I buy the licence - I can use samples, I sell licence I cant from then. Whats the problem (I know what may be problem - but same problem is there with music and movies), where is the difference? 

and still - sample libs now are not recordings, you not buying recordings but software tool, the fact it includes recordings and its licensing should be care of its developer not user. It is just a little trick with law that developers are using but it have no logic.


----------



## Audio Genetics Lab (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

What about this as an alternative analogy:

If a TV production needs an outdoor shot of the Eiffel Tower, they are unlikely to send their camera crew to France to film the outdoor shot and fly home with the footage. They will likely license a shot of stock video from a company that distributes these little kinds of snapshots for generic use. The TV episode is finished and airs, beginning the generate revenue. The TV company still has the Eiffel Tower stock video on their computer...should they now be able to sell that stock footage to another company for inclusion in another TV episode or movie? Did they "own" the footage because of that license agreement? They could have the need come up, purchase the stock shot license at the current used market rate, finish their episode, then resell the license at the same used market rate, essentially getting the shot into their episode for free.

In this analogy, the episode is your track of music. You want to add in convincing brass effect swells. You buy a used copy of Symphobia, add in the brass swells you need, and then sell the library on to another composer. 

All piracy aside, does that method of economics sound sustainable?


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



G.R. Baumann @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> The notion that sample libraries would be different from software is so wrong!
> 
> If you buy the naked samples, say an AKAI format CD, now that would be correct, but this is not the case anymore since a long time!
> 
> ...



None of that has changed at all since then actually. All of our products are huge directories of standard wav files. The core content is the same as it ever was. Adding value by providing additional functionality and features to make it easier to use doesn't mean that the underlying sounds are somehow less protected under copyright law. We license the commercial use of the source _audio _content, _not _the Kontakt presets that we provide for convenience of use by the licensee. Quite obviously, that's because the presets and images aren't being published, commercialized or repackaged in some form by the end user. Only the audio content is licensed for re-use and it physically makes up 99% of the data in a library.


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Ed - I still not see problem here - I buy the licence - I can use samples, I sell licence I cant from then. Whats the problem (I know what may be problem - but same problem is there with music and movies), where is the difference?
> 
> and still - sample libs now are not recordings, you not buying recordings but software tool, the fact it includes recordings and its licensing should be care of its developer not user. It is just a little trick with law that developers are using but it have no logic.



Maybe theres a language barrier...

In copyright law, do you believe there is the difference that the sound source came from a Kontakt instrument, or from an audio cd? The sound in your track must first be cleared (licenced) for use in your music. You do understand that right? Complex software may house a lot of modern sample libraries, but the law itself pertaining to the sound recording copyright doesnt change. The price you pay isnt for the software its for the licence for the sound (though obviously the cost is factored in), you therefore cannot resell the licence for the sound in the same way Sony cannot buy a track from APM and then resell it to some other company or do whatever they want with it* even if* that music they bought came included with some complex software. 

Modern sample libraries contain software *AND *sound. The software may be sold, but the sound cannot. But sample libraries are pointless without the sounds so essentially they cannot be sold, see?

As I said Hanz I can see you dont like it, but you're going to have to find the law that shows its lawful to sell sample libraries otherwise you're just telling us how you think things should be.


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Audio Genetics Lab @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> All piracy aside, does that method of economics sound sustainable?



Nope, you'd have to kiss all future generations of high quality sample libraries goodbye, or the best stuff would all funnel into private collections and subscription models. 

What's to stop a user from "renting" libraries out on a per-project basis or pools of users from passing around a single license indefinitely? If it became a problem, you'd start seeing fewer and fewer new sample products available in Europe. I guess there would be plenty of old "used" libraries floating around to get by on, but just as developers wouldn't be able to compete in that market (due to being undercut by "used" copies of their own products), composers would be less able to compete with those from countries who chose to uphold traditional copyright law. 

Would we continue to spend 10 hours a day, 6-7 days a week building these massive libraries to then only sell a handful of copies to real customers and completely fail to even break even while we're forced to watch thousands of other people turn around and make money off of our creations? Doubtful. 

Would you?


----------



## Audio Genetics Lab (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Peaslee @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Would you?



Not likely. As a developer a few orders of magnitude smaller than Soundiron, it would be even less worth it. I was amazed that even the Lab's $15 libraries are pirated and distributed around the net. It seems people think these are all straight-forward math and legal questions, but I believe there is a very present social/psychology/cultural layer that is pulling a lot of these strings (even if subconsciously).


----------



## jcs88 (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

So, who wants to buy my hollywood strings gold?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

For my understanding, sample libs are instruments and not recordings like ready produced music. 

Ok, when those "modern composers" are using mostly ready pre-produced loops, this for sure is another story.


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> For my understanding, sample libs are instruments and not recordings like ready produced music.
> 
> Ok, when those "modern composers" are using mostly ready pre-produced loops, this for sure is another story.



Well your understanding is wrong. Do you know the difference between what you'd like the law to be, compared to what it actually is? 

There is no difference between a pre-composed loop and a multisample or a couple of seconds off a Beatles album. *You still need a licence to use the sound recording in your track.* I dont see why thats so difficult to understand.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

"sample libs are instruments and not recordings"

"sample libs are sw"

"sample libs are not sw"


Guys - may I repesctfully ask where you are getting this info from? And please do not say "another internet forum". :roll: 

Seriously - where are you getting this info from?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

Smile, Ed: What about Samplemodeling instruments?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RiffWraith @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> "sample libs are instruments and not recordings"
> 
> "sample libs are sw"
> 
> ...



You can license your song somewhere, but not the air that you breathe during the recording.... .


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

Ed - I same as germancomponist believe that "sample libs are instruments and not recordings like ready produced music. "

And about the law - I think developers actually abuse law by making those TOU like you cant sell product you bought etc etc - you buy their finished software product containing recordings - but not recordings. The product is sold as software.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



playz123 @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Mike Greene @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > (I still haven't sold 100 copies of Realivox yet.)
> ...


Truth be told, I've sold 92. It's just that I love being able to still say _"It's doing great! Sales are already in two digits!"_ and watching people's faces as they try and mask their pity. I have an odd sense of humor that way. :mrgreen: 

My reason for bringing that up in this thread, though, was to illustrate that these instruments don't sell in huge numbers. 100 copies so far for Realivox is actually not that bad (especially considering I haven't officially "announced" anywhere but here.) If it eventually sells 1,000 copies, that would be considered a huge hit. For the most part, these boutique libraries don't make anyone rich. So possibly being forced to allow used sales is pretty scary for some of us. In my own case, it's not that bad because this is just a part time thing (I'm primarily a composer.) But it's still kinda scary.

Thank you for the nice words and sentiment, by the way. o-[][]-o


----------



## williemyers (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Audio Genetics Lab @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> ...I believe there is a very present social/psychology/cultural layer that is pulling a lot of these strings (even if subconsciously).


Zem, it's called the "*Entitlement* Generation" - - an entire generation of folks who believed that they were "entitled" to music and so began to rip mp3s, etc. And, btw, there's nothing subconcious about it!!


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Mike Greene @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> playz123 @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Greene @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> ...



Mike, there exist an option for you for selling much more....... .


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Smile, Ed: What about Samplemodeling instruments?



I imagine that modeled instruments that totally synthesize the sound from scratch are software. However, if it's just intelligently triggering wav files from a pool of recordings, then it's not simple software. The recordings are recordings. 

Sample libraries on the other hand are completely the same as any other copyrighted recording. You need permission to use them in any commercial capacity or in any way that would allow them to be heard in any public venue or medium. That permission is one that is fully up to the copyright holder to give, on their own terms, with whatever licensing or royalty costs and restrictions they may choose to require. If you don't like the terms, you can choose to go with another product with terms you prefer. If you accept the terms set forth by the copyright holder by choosing to order the product, then you're bound by those terms. 

Most sample library developers simply charge an up-front fee and place ongoing restrictions on how that content can be used in return for the grant of license to the person who wishes to use the library content commercially in some other public way.


----------



## leafInTheWind (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

Just wanted to say, I thought this reselling of software would be a good thing, but now with the viewpoint of how it may/will affect the smaller sample developers, I'm not so sure if it is good after all....


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RiffWraith @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> "sample libs are instruments and not recordings"
> 
> "sample libs are sw"
> 
> ...



I'd say until someone can show a precedent that says otherwise, sample libraries are clearly still sound recordings and therefore the sound componant requires clearence like any other sample would. It doesnt matter if a software triggers the sound recording, the sound recording ends up in your music you're gonna need a licence for it. 

People that actually develop software have a problem because they do not have copyright law on their side. Sample developers do. 

The problem people like Hanz has is thinking that what he wants to be true matters, I dont care that he really believes sample libraries should be sold, he is arguing as if its legal to do so. If he wants to say sample libraries are legally treated as any other software then he has to show that copyright law does not apply to sample libraries, because that is what he is arguing.


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



leafInTheWind @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Just wanted to say, I thought this reselling of software would be a good thing, but now with the viewpoint of how it may/will affect the smaller sample developers, I'm not so sure if it is good after all....




I imagine a lot of sample developers fall into that category. Soundiron is just us three (Gregg, Chris and Myself). We do all of the recording, editing, programming, client support, publishing, etc ourselves. It's a job that we love and hearing our work in music, films, games, television and all manner of other ways makes it so worthwhile. However it's only sustainable at the prices we offer because we're willing to put in long, long hours and we can count on the honesty of our clients. 

The larger developers get by with a glut of generic mass market products, but the really detailed professional grade stuff requires specialists and smaller shops with a real depth of expertise and hardcore dedication to quality. True innovation most often comes from fairly small companies who can move quickly and take greater creative and technical risks on a day to day basis. Forcing small companies to compete with their own products on secondary after-markets would drive them to narrow their product range or filter down their customer base to a select few professional clients.

I have a feeling that things would return to the days, with the best stuff costing a fortune and only made available privately to top tier guys like Zimmer. The explosion of dedicated professional grade sample library developers has made the explosion of upstart freelance composers who could compete with the big names for paid projects possible. You don't need a private custom library or access to an orchestra to land a film score anymore. 

If those long hours stopped paying fair dividends, guys like us would return to custom or in-house production work and the advantage would return once again to the select few with the resources to fund it.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

I don't really think that allowing re-selling would harm the market. There are already a number of developers who allow this, and it doesn't seem to have done them any harm. To be quite honest if a sample library is any good, it's unlikely that I'd want to sell it anyway. I think that the times that anyone would be likely to buy a product for one job and then sell it straight away is such a small number that it is not really worth worrying about.

What I think developers should be more worried about is the logical conclusion to all this. That would be that software products can be returned if they are faulty. That should scare the vast majority of developers, I would have thought. :wink: 

D


----------



## handz (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

ED - "The problem people like Hanz has is thinking that what he wants to be true matters" You are lawyer? 

you are giving too much importance to "recording" licences, Im really not sure it is like you want it to be - that sound files in the music software are specially protected like stand alone recordings. That way selling of the movie dvd would be even more "against the law" as it contains music too. 



If reselling will be aviable I think it will not be any big issue - as the people who sell the lib probably use money to buy another one and the one who bought it for cheap second hand would probably not buy this lib for full price anyway


----------



## MaestroRage (Jul 3, 2012)

this makes me think about the big fiasco that recently went down with GameStop, EBGames and many other game retail stores that offered second hand sales. 

Did you guys know that the next Xbox and PlayStation was rumored to lock out any used games?

Why? Because developers were not making enough money from initial sales. They had to sell games at this ludicrous price of $40-$70 (sometimes much more). 

The second hand industry however was a multi billion dollar industry which EB/GameStop were not offering to share profits with the developers.

So something drastic had to happen. Basically Xbox and PlayStation flat out said "go f*** yourselves then" and moved in to kill that industry completely.

NOW, many retail stores are offering a percent of second hand profits to the developers.

It makes me wonder how much of this story will retell itself in our little community. More importantly, can it even? The game industry had a specific element to attack to regain lost sales/funds.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

When I read some posts here, I think: All the movie credits would have to be changed!

All libraries which the composer has used would have to be mentioned! o=<


----------



## Reegs (Jul 3, 2012)

Does this law change still permit the presence of transfer fees like IK Multimedia and Vienna charge?

Also, just as a thought experiment, do you think a subscription-based or rent-to-own system might be an alternative pricing structure for the sample industry? Instead of owning a lib outright, you have an annual cost, let's say 20% of what would be its market price. There are pros and cons of it, for sure. For consumers it's convenient because libraries are often useful for five years before something bigger and better comes along and it spreads out the perceived cost. From a developer, it would curb resale. Lower prices would mean less immediate revenue per head but demand might increase since the hobbyist market might see it as more accessible. Additionally, an 'auto-renew' function might increase recurring sales. 

(Not sure if the subscription would require transferrability with the new law. Also given Mike's figures I may be overestimating the market size by a lot...)

Peter


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Jul 3, 2012)

I really don't think a used/secondhand market would affect even small devs very much. The kind of people who actually support us are not the kind of people to use a product once and toss it away. They typically support small developers because, well, they WANT to support small developers. The kind of people who are not interested in supporting us would not BUY something, use it a bit, and resell it. They would (and do) pirate instead. 

I can count on one hand the number of times anyone has even asked us about a license transfer. All were for legitimate reasons. eg. One guy was selling his entire studio, another guy had a hand injury that prevented him from making computer music. We granted the license transfers, of course.

As a composer myself, even if I were allowed to sell various libraries I've purchased from companies like 8dio, I wouldn't (because I would rather support devs) - unless I absolutely hated them so much from the moment I bought them that they never even got used for anything. But that's never happened and in this day and age of audio + video demos/walkthroughs, I highly doubt it ever will.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 3, 2012)

MaestroRage @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Did you guys know that the next Xbox and PlayStation was rumored to lock out any used games?


I looked this up just now. It looks like it was a rumor that the next generation of consoles might do this, but supposedly it is unlikely to be true.



> So something drastic had to happen. Basically Xbox and PlayStation flat out said "go f*** yourselves then" and moved in to kill that industry completely.


Except, they didn't actually.



> It makes me wonder how much of this story will retell itself in our little community. More importantly, can it even? The game industry had a specific element to attack to regain lost sales/funds.


Isn't this actually what a lot of sample libraries already do, requiring you to register them before use? Like, Kontakt Player libraries, for example.


----------



## Chriss Ons (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

I think the TV stock footage analogy is spot on. This is about copyright and licensing. Software or not? That's really semantics, and it's not the core of the issue here; no matter how some people would like that to be the case, just so they could do whatever they want with the product - regardless of the fact than when installing it, they specifically agreed to the terms of the EULA.

Speaking of which: here's a revolutionary idea: don't agree to the terms of the EULA? Don't buy the product. In the same way you're not going to sign an agreement/contract of any significance without reading it first. It continues to baffle me when people say 'But I OWN this! What do you mean I can't sell it, or you can't buy it used on eBay?". In the majority of cases it's not ignorance, it's feigned ignorance. And then someone comes on and explains it three times in a row and they still don't get the very essence of said EULA, because they don't WANT to. Or they dispute it's validity, simply because it's, well, not convenient for them.

On the other hand, there's also the argument that the 'the EULA prevents me from trying before I buy' - which is understandable. What I don't get is that developers in general (I can only think of a few exceptions) don't put in more effort to make trial versions of their VI's / libraries available. If you provide the customer with a version that is trimmed-down in terms of content to the point where it's not really usable for generating your own musical content, but is still giving an accurate representation in terms of sonic quality, functionality, GUI and what have you, it would take away that whole argument. You can't just complain about how every license transfer is a lost sale - give people a chance to, at least to some extent, try your product and while you're at it generate some sales that way. It's more work, sure, but I don't see how it could be counterproductive. 

(But then again I'm sure some people will argue that this is like "test driving a car with only three wheels". For some reason, car analogies are always very popular in this type of discussion)


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> When I read some posts here, I think: All the movie credits would have to be changed!
> 
> All libraries which the composer has used would have to be mentioned! o=<



If customers try to resell copyrighted products under the incorrect assumption that doing so can somehow magically convey the copyright permissions to a new user, then that may be something that has to start happening to prove a composer's legal right to use the content for public performance and distribution, just like it is already required for licensed music.


----------



## Manuel (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

Knowing Soundiron as a company with not only great products, but also great customer support, updates and very generous EULAs, I think it would be great to respect their interpretation of what they are generating. After all, they know best what they do and if they say they create custom audio content, then that's it. At least for me 

Manuel


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 3, 2012)

While I have composed my music, I had eaten all my food bought at x. 
I had breathed the air in LA, 
I had written down my notes on a list of y, and I had used the ink from xyz.

Huh..... ))


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> ED - "The problem people like Hanz has is thinking that what he wants to be true matters" You are lawyer?
> 
> you are giving too much importance to "recording" licences, Im really not sure it is like you want it to be - that sound files in the music software are specially protected like stand alone recordings. That way selling of the movie dvd would be even more "against the law" as it contains music too.



Look, enough of this Hanz.

We all know what the copyright law is as it exists with sound recordings, surely you don't dispute that. *YOU *are the one claiming that it does not exist with sample libraries and that sound recordings in a sample library are copyright free and are legally treated exactly like other software. *YOU *provide some *EVIDENCE *that shows you are correct. If not, then clearly we have every reason to assume a sample libraries copyright requires clearence and a licence just like any other sample would. 

Do you see a difference between sampling a few seconds of song on Beatles album and sampling a clip from an audio sample cd of drum loops? What legal reason do you have to think that it makes any difference that its a sample library, rather than someone chopping a section out of a Lady Gaga song? Evidence please, I dont care if you don't like it, you claim you are legally correct so prove it.

I once argued for a long time with a guy on YT that - I kid you not - comment after comment, claimed that copyright on games ended after 4 years and became public domain and thats why emulators were legal. Thats how I feel talking to you.


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> While I have composed my music, I had eaten all my food bought at x.
> I had breathed the air in LA,
> I had written down my notes on a list of y, and I had used the ink from xyz.
> 
> Huh..... ))



yes, but you quite literally and directly use the actual content of the sample library to produce the actual music. Those samples are still right there in your finished track, in some directly derived form or another. 

Whether it's your favorite record or a commercial sample library, you're simply going to be dealing with licensing rules if you intend to use any part of the recording directly in your music and hope to have it ever see the light of day. 

If I go to a record store and buy the soundtrack to Prometheus, I don't get to turn around and say I have the right to use it as the soundtrack for my own movie, do I?

And if you do license that piece of music to a film, game company or TV commercial, you also put that company on the legal hook as well. That last thing they're going to want is a cease and desist letter from a sample developer saying that the composer they paid to provide original music hadn't actually ever licensed the right to use the sounds. You'll notice that most contracts of that type include an indemnity clause for that very reason. It means you'll probably have to pay that company's lawyers and then also refund whatever you might have been paid for the job. Good luck getting gigs after that happens. 

Or would you be fine seeing your own creative works re-marketed in the same way, to be used and resold by a parade of thousands of unauthorized 3rd parties at their leisure, all because once upon a time, one single random customer in another country sent you a few bucks to download a copy? That one transaction would justify the weeks or months of long hours and thousands or tens of thousands of dollars you put into it? Of course not.

Because of the cost and time that sample libraries take to build and the huge amount of creative and intellectual energy that goes into each one, we (and every other sample developer) arrive at a fair one-time fee that we think works and is fair in return for granting an individual user the right to use that library without having to clear it with us each time, or mention us in the credits, or pay residual fees or ongoing royalties. The price you see is based on granting that right to a single composer. 

If we (and every other company like us) have to start factoring in an unlimited number of subsequent composers that can each share that single license indefinitely, prices would change to reflect the death of viability for the way the market currently works - and realistically, the death of the way that composers would be able to make their living as well, since their songs would be just as vulnerable to the same kind of open-ended abuse. 

And hey, who's to say one couldn't just argue that if allowing multiple users of the same license in sequence was to be allowed, parallel users shouldn't be allowed as well? Or some sort of time-share? 

Prices would sky-rocket, products would shrink, variety would vanish and only the select few would have access to the truly top tier products. You can't have it both ways. 

For example, Venus took over a thousand man hours to make, split between Gregg, Chris and myself. That's not factoring in the cost of the choir and equipment. It's an extraordinary complex and specialized product and the type of thing very few people have the ability, will and wherewithal to ever build. 

Nevertheless, it's not the kind of thing that every composer is going to use in every track they write probably. If they could just order a copy, use it once when they needed and then resell it, we'd be competing with a flood of cut rate used Ebay copies very quickly. We'd have no choice but to commit our services and skills to private library production, or basically just sit back and watch as we put ourselves further out of business with every new release that took more than a few days and a few bucks to create. 

I think the error a lot of people make is assuming that these products are made by robots slaving away in monolithic industrial empires that reap billions, as opposed to the reality that it's usually a couple of really hardcore guys who basically work around the clock to create functional art and hope to pay the bills along the way, just like you do.


----------



## Cowtothesky (Jul 3, 2012)

Peaslee @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > While I have composed my music, I had eaten all my food bought at x.
> ...



=o 
I totally agree here. That was well said. I am not a developer, but I understand that they need to be compensated for their hard work or we would never get a product. This is a specialized market. There just isn't a large pool of buyers. We have to support the developers who create great products because they help us make great music. I wish more would see this. 

I want Soundiron to be profitable. I also want Cinesamples, Tonehammer, Project Sam, all of them, to be profitable. They make great products and I support them. But, allowing the sharing or selling of licenses is going to kill the market.


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

Ironically, Tonehammer is actually no longer among the living. It closed down and split down the middle last summer, branching off into what you now know as Soundiron (us) and 8dio Productions. As they say, the flesh is gone, but the spirits live on.


----------



## jleckie (Jul 3, 2012)

Heres an interesting hypothesis. 

Would the allowing of reselling sample libraries in effect create BETTER sample libraries. In other words WOULD a sample developer take the time to make BETTER libraries knowing people can resell them if they didnt like them?


----------



## Diffusor (Jul 3, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > playz123 that is the bull*** Im talking about - Im buying data on the DVD or downloaded data, once I have them, they are mine, the disk is not anybodys else, I have not credits for making the samples but that one specific copy of "licence" is mine - same with music cd, Im not owner of the songs but Im owner of the copy printed on cd, I payed for it. If I pay for licence - why would I have not right to sell the licence how on earht somebody can force you to not sell what is yours.
> ...



How is that different from a Korg Triton with instrument samples on it? Why would you say if Korg said you couldn't resell your keyboard? Next, usually comes the argument that the keyboard with it's sound is a physical object and can't be copied. EastWest libraries with a dongle is essentially a physical object that can't be copied.


----------



## bannedfromNS (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

I don't quite understand how the ruling affects my Vienna symphonic libraries. I can copy my dvds all day long ... but if I sell my set, they won't run unless I also give my dongle to the buyer.

But then, my dvds won't work once my dongle is gone... no surprise there.

Don't exactly see how to make a copy of an elicenser dongle with my vsl licenses on it.

So, I don't see how this ruling as an effect on Vienna stuff.

In fact, sounds to me like this ruling would have every sample library maker rushing out to get dongles adapted so that for sure, only one guy at a time would be able to run a particular serial numbered set.

By the way, my VSL Solo 1 standard and expanded... and dongle... are for sale here in the classifieds (might as well do a plug while we're on the topic... and Vienna has already given me the approval to sell)


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

sample libraries are not resellable since they are software and music samples.

the samples have a sound recording license .

how do i know?

spectrum aka eric from spectrasonics has been very vocal about it. 

and also, ive been trying to sell my LASS since forever now and of course ive gotten replies and emails from audiobro/thonex saying i cant re sell it cause of the samples. even so i said that LASS would fall under software license.

btw: some sample libraries allow you to sell their libraries.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

BannedFromNS beat me to it!

I think a lot of issues are being conflated here. The issue is not whether you need a license for an audio recording - of course you do, and that's not in dispute. The issue with this new ruling is whether that license is, by law, able to be transferred.

And there's no unique principle to sample libraries here imho. If I buy BigBrass today, I have a license. Tomorrow I use it in a terrific composition called Epic Squared. But the day after I think - "well, in the end BigBrass isn't doing any more for than LargeBrass does, so I think I'll sell it". And by next week it's gone on eBay to BrassHead123 for $100 less than I paid for it.

My license convered me to use it in any recording FOREVER, while I was the license holder. Once BrassHead123 has it and the license transferred, I can't use it for any more new compositions, but he can of course. In that sense - no, it's no different to a car really. I used it for a week, all the journeys I made in it and high powered deals I swung as a result are still legal (!) and keep all the benefits I accrued from having owned it for a whole week. But I can't use it for any new journeys. The car cost me $4,000 - the difference in sale and resale value. And in fact, my use in Epic Squared cost me $100, effectively a rental fee of the license, (or the equivalent of a session fee).

Now that's all very well, but BannedFromNS points out the huge problem with all this - copy protection. In practice, if I installed the Kontakt library BigBrass on my system and then sold the license to BrassHead123, it is possible to keep it on mine as well. If it is an official Kontakt Library, then that might well cause one or both of us problems, and there are procedures for reselling - ignore those at your peril. But if it's not an official library, then there's nothing at all to stop it. Even watermarking is unlikely to help in practice if it's just two folks using it - that kicks in when multiple copies are made from torrents. So the problem is not one of legal principles, it is a technical one that Kontakt is very weak with regard to copy protection in this area. With dongles the situation is a whole lot easier and more robust, which has always made EWQL's position seem slightly perverse to me.

Of course, I understand the frustration for developers in a small market. But in that sense, we are no different to other creative industries. Secondhand bookshops and record shops have been with us for an awful long time, with all the problems that that has given authors and musicians.


----------



## spectrum (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RobertPeetersPiano @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> It would be very interesting to see an official response of a VSTi-company.


Happy to!

Although I see that Mike Peaslee, Ed and others have stated the facts much better than me already. 

We have extensively researched this topic with our lawyers over the last few years and have confirmed that this consumer-oriented law from 1991 and the recent ruling on it absolutely does NOT apply to any professional sample-based virtual instrument software.

Virtual Instrument software (like Spectrasonics instruments and most of the other products discussed here at VI Control) comes with TWO distinct licenses:

• A software license (which could potentially be at issue here)

AND

• A license to use the samples (sound recordings) in new musical sound recordings which can also be copyrighted by the licensee (legally called "derivative works")

This case with Oracle does not cover anything about Sound Recording copyrights and licensing. In fact, basic single user SR licensing rights of samples has never been challenged in any court in the world to my knowledge.

Under US Copyright Law, the owner of the SR Copyright (sampled sound recordings) has the right to license usage under the owners terms. (ie: single user licensing, control over re-licensing, etc)

EU/EEC countries must support and are bound to the SR Copyright law since the member countries are also signatories to the Bern Convertion.

This is the legal basis by which our industry was set-up and continues to be able to function.



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> playz123 that is the bull*** Im talking about - Im buying data on the DVD or downloaded data, once I have them, they are mine, the disk is not anybodys else,


No…the disc or physical product are really not the "product" (that's why we give free replacements discs for example)

What you have actually purchased is a legal license to re-use copyrighted sound recordings to make new copyrighted music recordings.

That's quite different than the rights you get when buying a music CD.

That's why sample-based products are much more expensive than music CDs too.



> If I pay for licence - why would I have not right to sell the licence how on earht somebody can force you to not sell what is yours.


You cannot give someone else the right to use the samples in their music recordings, because you don't own the rights to the original recordings.

What you paid for is the right to use the samples for YOUR music only. (this is what all professional single-user sample licenses allow)

Simply because it is broadly classified under "Music Software" does not make it the same as many other consumer software products.

Sound recording licensing is something unique compared to consumer software….not the same type of "product" at all.

Sample/Sound Recording Licensing for use in new music Sound Recordings is entirely different than software "use" licensing.



> P.T. - what stop someone to not buy movie or audio cd and then burn it and sell it - NOTHING - but you can legally do it.


Sorry, but you are incorrect and confused about the law. While technically possible, it is indeed illegal.

The law states that you are only entitled to backup your purchased media. If you have the right to resell that media, you are always legally required to delete all backups of the media.



> sample libs or software are not anything different.


As I've explained above, they are indeed quite different under the law.



Daryl @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> I'm not so sure. Sample libraries are classed as data and software, not as sound recordings,


You've got your facts mixed up. 

Samples are legally categorized as "Sound Recordings" and are all protected under the SR Copyright act. (not as software and data)



Daryl @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Sound recordings have always been re-sellable.


You confusing used consumer music CDs with professional sound recording licensing.

Consumer Music CDs have entirely different rules, because the product is just about "listening"….not using the sound recordings on the CD to make new sound recordings of your own. As you know, if you want to do that it requires a different type of license with the owner of the Sound Recording Copyright.

That type of agreement is exactly what you get when you license a sample library or any sample-based product.



> However, leaving that issue aside. I still wonder how licence transfers and updates will be dealt with, if the developer doesn't really want to cooperate.


Simple. It's the same as it has always been.

The Copyright owner has the right to set the terms of the license (use, resale, time period, etc)

These terms vary greatly from developer to developer. (some allow resale and others do not, etc)



667 @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> In that case I predict all sample library licensing agreements are about to get a lot more annoying and restrictive (unintended consequences of the ruling).


There's no reason for them to change, as this old German consumer resale law has never applied to sample libraries and still does not.



RobertPeetersPiano @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Does anybody know what this means for specific NFR licenses? (like the ones you get for free, because you did something for that library)


Yes. The terms of NFR licenses have not changed, because this law does not apply to them.



SergeD @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Good, piracy will be erased once for all since it's gonna be legal to sell second hand software...


Nope on both counts. 



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> I do not see how this can change anything - wake up guys - If you wanted to sell anythign before you could - do you think if you sell sample lib to other musician somebody sent a cops on you or what?
> Or what about one person buys a lib and then let 10 fellow musicians to copy the samples for themselves.


What you are describing is illegal usage. This discussion is about legal usage.



> it is exactly same like music or movies….


No…it's nothing like consumer products like music and movies. That where the confusion is coming from.

When you buy a DVD movie, you don't get the right to use footage from that movie in your own film. (making a legal "derivative work")

Sample Libraries DO allow this kind of usage, which is why they are completely different than consumer products.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 3, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



noiseboyuk @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Now that's all very well, but BannedFromNS points out the huge problem with all this - copy protection. In practice, if I installed the Kontakt library BigBrass on my system and then sold the license to BrassHead123, it is possible to keep it on mine as well. If it is an official Kontakt Library, then that might well cause one or both of us problems, and there are procedures for reselling - ignore those at your peril. But if it's not an official library, then there's nothing at all to stop it. Even watermarking is unlikely to help in practice if it's just two folks using it - that kicks in when multiple copies are made from torrents. So the problem is not one of legal principles, it is a technical one that Kontakt is very weak with regard to copy protection in this area. With dongles the situation is a whole lot easier and more robust, which has always made EWQL's position seem slightly perverse to me.



So, your argument is that the end user should not be allowed to resell a lib, because the original owner _may_ keep a copy for himself? While that may happen, you shouldn't disallow resales based on that. Isn't that kinda like saying that gun manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to sell guns to people, because a person who buys a gun _may_ shoot someone? I think there are good arguments on both sides, concerning the debate of whether or not resales of sample libs should be allowed, but - with respect - that ain't one of 'em. :wink: You don't prohibit something based on what a small percentage of the population _might_ do - at least not in the US, where the presumption of innocence reigns.

Cheers.


----------



## spectrum (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> rgames - sorry, but I think you comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> we talk about "physical" prodcut the fact sample developers like pretend you buying "licence" you in fact buying product containing of files, licence, medium etc and the product is not unique it is mass produced goods.


Sorry, it is indeed the very same copyright law that applies to both sample licensing and music recording licensing.

Simply because the discs are mass-produced does not change the reality that Sample Libraries are single user licensed products since the very beginning.

Many, many companies have made this clear.

We make sure this is even printed on the outside of the disc packet, so that you understand that you are NOT buying a typical product, but rather a license to use the sound recordings.



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> but sample libs are not "music" it is product created for creating music


What we are talking about is "Sound Recording Licensing" rights. These apply to any type of recording, whether it's a recording of music, spoken word, sfx or a sample. They are all under the same copyright.

Don't confuse this with publishing/copyrighting the musical composition - which is a different copyright altogether.



> it is again same like with movie or music on cd - you buy it you can sell it, even you are not owner of licence to the content.


But you can't take the recording on the Music CD and use it in your own music tracks. 

Hence, different types of licenses for different types of use.

These EU resale laws have always been about CONSUMER resale, not the type of Pro Music Production work we do with Sample Libraries.



germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Arn`t Sample libraries "instruments", Ed?


Legally, they are classified as a collection of sound recordings.



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Sorry but NO. for example with EWQL Im buying "HOLLYWOOD STRINGS virtual (software) instrument "
> 
> and I dont see any point how virtual software instrument is same as musical recording. The fact the software contains musical recordings does noo change the fact it is not recording, it is software tool Im buying. And it is phyasical mass produced product.


In addition to the software license, you are also buying the right to reuse those copyrighted recordings in new musical recordings that you can copyright yourself.



germancomponist @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Ed, what`s about the waveforms what are used in the synth plugs?


Depends if they are sample-based or not.

Samples are sound recordings and copyrightable under SR Copyright law.



Ed @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> The difference is you cannot use the music you buy on a CD to make other music.
> 
> In other words, the difference you keep missing is *copyright*. Unless you are given a licence to use the sound recording you are not allowed to use that sound recording in your music. The licence agreement in a sample library you buy is saying "you are granted a licence to use these sound recordings in your music". But it only applies to that person, unless specified in the agreement or granted by the developer you cannot sell your licence to someone else.
> 
> Think of it like this, feel free to sell your sample libraries, but they arent allowed to use the sound recordings in their music. So, where did that get you? The software itself (Kontakt patches, VI) might be legally be able to be sold but then the sound recording licence isnt. Surely you can see there IS a difference here?


Yes! Good posts and this topic Ed! 



G.R. Baumann @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> The notion that sample libraries would be different from software is so wrong!


Of course they are legally very different. Read Mike Peaslee's post for an excellent explanation of the differences.



> If you buy the naked samples, say an AKAI format CD, now that would be correct, but this is not the case anymore since a long time!
> 
> What we see instead is software development based on the Kontakt platform for example. Take Sample Logic's offers, it is programmed, there is a distinct GUI with functions that are programmed on the Kontakt platform, scripts etc., it is clearly a software product, making use of their custom samples, and programming done in Kontakt.


It's just more sophisticated these days, but it's still the same principle of using copyrighted sound recordings that can be used in a new musical sound recording by the end user.

That's why there are TWO licenses in most of these VI products (software license and Sounds License)



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> I still not see problem here - I buy the licence - I can use samples...


Sure...whatever the terms of the agreement are what you are allowed to do.



> and still - sample libs now are not recordings, you not buying recordings but software tool, the fact it includes recordings and its licensing should be care of its developer not user. It is just a little trick with law that developers are using but it have no logic.


There's no trick and it's not complicated.

Modern VIs are both Software and Samples. That's why they have two licenses.



handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> ED - "The problem people like Hanz has is thinking that what he wants to be true matters" You are lawyer?
> 
> you are giving too much importance to "recording" licences, Im really not sure it is like you want it to be - that sound files in the music software are specially protected like stand alone recordings.


They are indeed.

This has even been challenged several times (most notably in the famous "Roland vs Dream Corporation" case, which Roland won by classifying samples as Sound Recordings and the court confirming the legality of this)



> That way selling of the movie dvd would be even more "against the law" as it contains music too.


See my specific replies above about movies and footage.



Reegs @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> Does this law change still permit the presence of transfer fees like IK Multimedia and Vienna charge?


Sure.



Diffusor @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> How is that different from a Korg Triton with instrument samples on it? Why would you say if Korg said you couldn't resell your keyboard?


Actually, a lot of sample-based hardware keyobards are coming with sample license agreements these days too.

So it's the same law, same rights.

If you don't like the terms, don't support that company.


----------



## passenger57 (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



> I have a feeling that things would return to the days, with the best stuff costing a fortune and only made available privately to top tier guys like Zimmer. The explosion of dedicated professional grade sample library developers has made the explosion of upstart freelance composers who could compete with the big names for paid projects possible. You don't need a private custom library or access to an orchestra to land a film score anymore.
> 
> If those long hours stopped paying fair dividends, guys like us would return to custom or in-house production work and the advantage would return once again to the select few with the resources to fund it.



I just want to say how grateful I am to the developers that create these amazing libraries. Without them, I would be totally out of business and would never be able to compete w/ the big guys. Paying a relatively small one time license fee for use of the libraries is really not much to ask. Do composers think this stuff just grows on trees? Sample developers already have to deal with piracy, and now with people thinking that you can just sell it and take even more $ away from the developers is ridiculous. Your purchasing a license as as single user not a microwave oven.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



spectrum @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not so sure. Sample libraries are classed as data and software, not as sound recordings,
> ...


Eric, you may be right, but I was only quoting what I was told by HM Customs and Excise.

Edit: Just to add one more related point to this; if samples library are classed as sound recordings, and not data, then develpoers who sell download libraries should be charging Duty to UK customers, as well as VAT. Anyone in the UK who buys a download library without Duty and VAT added onto the cost is breaking the law, if they don't then declare it to HM Customs and Excise.

D


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RiffWraith @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed Jul 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Now that's all very well, but BannedFromNS points out the huge problem with all this - copy protection. In practice, if I installed the Kontakt library BigBrass on my system and then sold the license to BrassHead123, it is possible to keep it on mine as well. If it is an official Kontakt Library, then that might well cause one or both of us problems, and there are procedures for reselling - ignore those at your peril. But if it's not an official library, then there's nothing at all to stop it. Even watermarking is unlikely to help in practice if it's just two folks using it - that kicks in when multiple copies are made from torrents. So the problem is not one of legal principles, it is a technical one that Kontakt is very weak with regard to copy protection in this area. With dongles the situation is a whole lot easier and more robust, which has always made EWQL's position seem slightly perverse to me.
> ...



Er, no - that's 2+2 = 132. I'm merely pointing out the practical problems that devs face, no such conclusion as you've drawn.

However, Eric has made good points which on reflection kinda supercedes some of my post - at least in regards to this specific case (it still applies for libraries which allow reselling of course). If the legal precedent in the Orcacle case just applies to software - and not the music license - then this entire thread has in effect been a waste of time!


----------



## Daniel James (Jul 4, 2012)

I think what I am getting from this is that sure you could legally sell your sample libraries but not the copyright permission to use them in your own productions.

Dan


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Spectrum said:


> The Copyright owner has the right to set the terms of the license (use, resale, time period, etc).



That is true to a large degree, but not entirely; that right is not absolute, as some would think. As a person, or company, does not have the right to draw up and execute a contract which contains anything illegal (as one ex.), a dev does not posess that right either. The terms of the license must fall within the framework of the law, and as the courts have yet to catch up to the ever changing technology, some of the terms that have been set, may down the road be rendered illegal.



Spectrum said:


> You cannot give someone else the right to use the samples in their music recordings, because you don't own the rights to the original recordings.
> 
> What you paid for is the right to use the samples for YOUR music only. (this is what all professional single-user sample licenses allow).



Here, you are correct. However, I don't see how it is legal to forbid an end user to sell that right to another potential end user. ie: I buy a sample lib - I don't own the samples; I own the right to use those samples. Now along comes the dev, telling me that I do not have the right to resell to someone else, that right to use those samples....I question whether or not that is legal. And I am not sure if the fact that the end user does not own the original recordings, would be a valid argument against reselling that right.

Cheers.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



noiseboyuk @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Er, no - that's 2+2 = 132. I'm merely pointing out the practical problems that devs face, no such conclusion as you've drawn.



Oh.

Right! :D


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RiffWraith @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> And I am not sure if the fact that the end user does not own the original recordings, would be a valid argument against reselling that right.



Sound recording copyright law has been adjudicated and upheld as is stands now decade after decade. Sound licensing and issues of rights of use are not new problems. Before there were sample CDs, there were production sound effect and music libraries, distributed on tape and vinyl. Sample-based instruments - regardless of the complexity of any modern programming enhancements - are simply more granular evolutions on the same concept. The same laws continue to apply, and will likely do so for many years to come, considering what's at stake for both producers and consumers. Incorrectly asserting that there is some lack of clarity in the matter doesn't create a legally sound argument under any interpretation of the law. 

The granularity found in modern sample libraries is ironically there for the sole purpose of empowering the very composers who might seek to undermine the commercial viability of the entire industry by presuming that paying a small licensing fee somehow magically conveys total and irrevocable copyright co-ownership equal to that possessed by the original content creator. Because of that granularity, I can see sample instruments and sfx libraries one day becoming the canary in the coal mine for the entire world of sound and visual media industries. 

If copyright law fails in some international court at some future date as it applies to sample libraries, it must also quickly fall for all other recorded sound and musical content - including the recorded works of every person on this forum. Either a sound or musical performance has been recorded or it hasn't. Either the copyright owner can determine how rights can be licensed, assigned and monetized or they can't. A lot of arguments have been made about samples not being special in some way and in fact the law already agrees with that. Sample libraries are legally the same as any other music or sound recording, whether you like it or not. 

The law still stands untouched by any unrelated judgement governing used CD sales between consumers for non commercial listening. As Eric pointed out so eloquently, this ruling has literally nothing to do with the transfer of copyright.

In any case, it's foolish to presume that a change in the status quo wouldn't hurt composers just as much as it would hurt library developers. If anything, the average composer would be the biggest loser, facing both severely reducing access to high quality content and suddenly finding their own music at risk for the very same type of abuse by others.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Peaslee @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> If anything, the average composer would be the biggest loser, facing both severely reducing access to high quality content and suddenly finding their own music at risk for the very same type of abuse by others.


That's not totally accurate. In a composer's music there are basically 3 possibly Copyrights. The music itself, the recording (if there is one) and the printed material (if there is any). Whatever happens to sound recordings and the rights contained within them is a totally different argument from the copyright enshrined within a piece of music. The only overlap may be with loop libraries, where there is an element of compositional creativity, and also possibly phrase libraries. That's not to say that composers Copyright couldn't also come under scrutiny and possible devaluing.

D


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

*Proposal to developers*

Eric,

I appreciate your detailed effort! I always try to look at it from both sides.

In my own words, two legal frameworks apply here. 

What I question is the assumption that the existence and application of two legal frameworks gives the developer the right to effectively block any second hand market, and this is what you essentially are saying.

In Reality, it is like everything in life, you have nasty people, and you have common sense and approachable people. :lol: 

I suggest two situations to consider:

a) Enduser perspective:

I purchase a product A and use it for a few years, let's say that I have no use for it anymore after a while, and now I am stuck with it. _Personally, inevitably this will influence my purchasing decision in the future, and I certainly will not dish out that easy anymore on such products, _

b) Developer perspective

A lot of work, risk and labor of love goes into such products. To sell my product once, and then have to transfer the license 20 or more times, is a painful process, is economical harakiri. 

Conclusion:

I would like to suggest and promote Project SAM's handling to developers, to me it makes perfect sense, serving both perspectives.

Martin handles it this way: You buy the product and you have the right to sell it on one time only, no transfer fees apply, and you have to provide him with the details of the new owner, fill out a small form and that's all there is to it. From here on the product is classified as NFR.

This way, there is no threat to the developer, and the enduser never would be stuck with a bunch of products he has no use anymore for.

The developer himself also has a new potential customer in his client database for future or existing products, and he could easily take advantage of that by targeting these second hand product customers with a special offer for example.

All my best
Georg


----------



## Daryl (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

A better alternative would be to adopt a Droit de suite equivalent for sample libraries, so that a small fee goes to the original developer for each licence re-sale. This is perfectly reasonable, as registrations have to be changed, and update paths documented for the new user. I guess this is part of what VSL does with their transfer fee.

D


----------



## organix (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

The difference, in my opinion, is the type of contract between customer and producer. 

10-20 years ago I had some rompler stuff. Hardware with built in software and with samples too. I have some of the nice Roland JV/XV, AKAI and Yamaha Hardware samplers. I bought samples for that machines. 
Ant there wasn't a legal problem to sell all that gears and software. 

It's not a problem to resell Cubase and the content of that program also contains many samples and sounds. 

VSL offers a service to transfer licenses and it's not necessary to delete all your songs made with VSL samples after reselling. 

It's really different on every contract and thus corresponds to a different legal basis.


Markus


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

Diffusor @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> How is that different from a Korg Triton with instrument samples on it? Why would you say if Korg said you couldn't resell your keyboard? Next, usually comes the argument that the keyboard with it's sound is a physical object and can't be copied. EastWest libraries with a dongle is essentially a physical object that can't be copied.



Well EW libs with a dongle are copyprotection so its not the same thing as being intrinsically tied to the hardware itself.Im sure Eric could tell you since he has worked for hardware companies like Roland. My guess would be that the hardware licences and laws work differently. But what I am sure about is that its not legal to sample a Korg Triton and resell the samples or distribute them (without permission) however it IS legal to sample a Moog or Juno or something becuase they aren't waveform based. I would guess that if you develop sound libraries for inclusion in a hardware Korg workstation (for example) you automatically give away much more of your rights to your sounds. 

While it would be interesting to know what the difference is and where the legal line is drawn, in the end the OP's assertion that this new law regarding reselling software applies to sample libraries is wrong. As if they werent resellable when they were on audio cd, but if they are programmed in Kontakt now its "software"? Sample libraries are not just software, they dont become copyright free as soon as you house them in some software. You arent buying the software you're buying the licence, the rights to use the sounds in your music.The main reason why pirating sample libraries is against the law isnt just becuase you're using the library without paying for it, its because you have no licence to use it in anything. So at the point you sell a library (you dont have permission to sell) the new buyer has as much rights to use those samples as someone who torrented it does, in the same way someone who licenced the right to use a few second sample from a track you made in some other song does not have the right to sell that licence to someone else. 

The only debate here could be about whether or not the law SHOULD be changed and licences SHOULD be able to be resold to someone else or if this were common practise if it would hurt the industry. But right now it IS the law and there is no debate about that, if someone wants to say the law does allow reselling then please show some evidence of this. The law is what it is whether you like it or not, whether or not I like it or not. Like the concept of abandonware in many cases in games may be ethically valid and you could possibly even make a valid case that it should be legal but it still wouldnt BE legal. 

I do think it may be a poor argument (though I understand it) for a sample developer to say they wouldnt be able to afford to do this if they allowed their libraries to be resold because if they made normal software or made hardware instruments (or really anything else) you could use the same argument but now the law isnt on their side and they wouldnt be able to say their products cant be resold. What it does show however is that sample developers are in a far better position and it means small devs can afford to develop products they might not have been able to if reselling were legal.

I do think composers probably more than anyone should not want to fight against copyright law.... I can imagine this same sort of argument happening on some film makers forum about why they cant just use the music they licenced from APM in everything and anything they want forever and then sell that track to someone else... though I imagine even amateur film makers would have more understanding of copyright law to know that they cant do that


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*

Here you can read the entire judgment:

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2562339


----------



## SergeD (Jul 4, 2012)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



Daryl @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> A better alternative would be to adopt a Droit de suite equivalent for sample libraries, so that a small fee goes to the original developer for each licence re-sale. This is perfectly reasonable, as registrations have to be changed, and update paths documented for the new user. I guess this is part of what VSL does with their transfer fee.
> 
> D



It's the big common sense for the new user to assume the cost of changing registration. The cost should take in account the amortization factor of the library release date. 

A second hand library should never be sold more then 50% of it nominal value. A small transfer fee would apply to old libraries while a high fee would apply to new ones. And high fee means high...

Save the waves...


----------



## scientist (Jul 4, 2012)

just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical, and - speaking for myself - ethics trump legalities any day of the week.

1. if a product has a fully functional trial option, then the potential customer has an opportunity to try the product with no financial risk.

2. if no fully functional trial option is available then the EULA should allow the costumer to resell the product if they are not satisfied, thus minimizing financial risk.

if neither option exists and the consumer is asked to purchase a product without ever using it and with no option to resell it if they aren't satisfied, then imho that is unethical.

developers can argue definitive minutiae regarding what is software and what is a sound recording until they're blue in the face, but that does not change the fact that asking someone to buy something sight unseen and with no recourse if they are unsatisfied with the product is shady commerce.

one of the solutions i like best is the unenforced NFR clause. i.e. the EULA states that the product and license may not be resold (thus covering the dev's butt), but the developer will override that clause if the seller emails them and asks (politely). everyone wins: the dev may have "lost" that one sale, but they gained two customers for future products.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Jul 4, 2012)

> one of the solutions i like best is the unenforced NFR clause. i.e. the EULA states that the product and license may not be resold (thus covering the dev's butt), but the developer will override that clause if the seller emails them and asks (politely). everyone wins: the dev may have "lost" that one sale, but they gained two customers for future products.



That's our preferred approach. It's very rare that anyone even asks for a license transfer but when they do, we evaluate the case and grant it.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 4, 2012)

I need to look at software as an investment similar to other tools that go into the balance sheet.

There are several scenarios where re-selling would be important:

- I die by accident
- I get sick beyond remedy
- My one person enterprise goes broke

In all those cases me or my widow would need to sell all instruments and studio gear. It has always been a thorn in my side that the thousands I've put into sample libraries (way too much, actually, but at times I felt an urge to support the technology a bit) should entirely be void in these cases and from a certain point on it admittedly made me think thrice before buying.

Look at Voxengo, you can sell and buy their software since long, and I never regretted any purchase, whether it ended up being essential or not.


----------



## Audio Genetics Lab (Jul 4, 2012)

Daniel James @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> I think what I am getting from this is that sure you could legally sell your sample libraries but not the copyright permission to use them in your own productions.
> 
> Dan



I'm imagining someone purchasing a resold copy of the latest brass library and then just opening up the samples folder and going through one by one:

"Oh, yeah, that's a great A#4. The best. They don't make records like this anymore. Totally worth it. WHAT? B4 is just a good? These guys are incredible. When are they coming to Pittsburg?"


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 4, 2012)

Eric and Mike have made all of the points extremely eloquently.

I would just add that while VSL will allow a resale subject to a charge, they have built that eventuality into their pricing structure.

If there ever was a situation where developers were forced to allow resale, those who chose to stay in the business would have to drastically increase the price of libraries to compensate for the loss in revenue.

I'd also second Mike's point that we are small groups of people putting in insane hours and effort, coaxing great musical performances from players, in an attempt to provide a decent creative set of tools for our licensees.


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Look at Voxengo, you can sell and buy their software since long, and I never regretted any purchase, whether it ended up being essential or not.



Yea but it doesnt really work the same way Voxengo make software not audio that requires clearence before it can be legally used in a track. 

When you record strings for someone, you give the a licence to use your recording under certain conditions, right? Maybe its just that project, maybe its all projects forever but he cant give the recording to someone else or sell it as a sample library. They cant try and sell that licence you granted them if they get sick or times get tough.

Or think of it like this if someone licences a clip from a track you did to use in their music, they cant sell that licence if they die or get sick either.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Huh,

who was so friendly and exchanged the head-line here?


----------



## scientist (Jul 4, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> If there ever was a situation where developers were forced to allow resale, those who chose to stay in the business would have to drastically increase the price of libraries to compensate for the loss in revenue.



serious question: is there any real world evidence to back this up? i hear this position trumpeted all of the time, but never have i seen a single piece of evidence proving it to be true. on the contrary, many software developers creating products that take just as many (if not more) resources as sample libraries to create allow resale and for the most part do just fine.

to play devil's advocate: stating that "if resale is permitted we'll go out of business" can be construed as an admission that you're selling a product to people who don't actually want or need it. if the product is good, the vast majority of people won't want to sell it and you're in the exact same position as when you started.

i point to ethics again: there is a longstanding tradition of "satisfaction guaranteed" in modern western commerce, and imho v.i. developers are using a legal loophole as a scapegoat to avoid that concept.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 4, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> When you record strings for someone, you give the a licence to use your recording under certain conditions, right? Maybe its just that project, maybe its all projects forever but he cant give the recording to someone else or sell it as a sample library. They cant try and sell that licence you granted them if they get sick or times get tough.



Ed, while it seems to be a good analogy it is not. Absolutely not, and I'll explain why.

In the case of my recordings (and I guess this is the same for others) the client gets mp3 versions for approval before he pays. With other words he knows ENTIRELY what he gets for the money, and in case he is not satisfied we repair before payment.

With sample libraries it is still the case that you have to own them before you really can judge. Only exception are the libraries at http://www.try-sound.com (www.try-sound.com) but - guess what - they can be resold. With every other library the promise is big and the delivery small, and the only question usually is how big the letdown then really is.

How inconsistent will the patches be this time? How much will the stereo image jump from articulation to articulation this time? How taxing to the system will the vsts be? How much of a one trick pony will it be this time? All this can not be judged from listening to demos, only from using the thing.

Let's face it: The overall quality in regards to these points is often more than poor (laudable exceptions aside) and the usual buyer's remorse is high. However everybody new to the scene will buy a fair number of libraries before he realizes that. This is the market that developers don't want to loose, and therefore they are against second hand trade.

The better the quality, the less risk of re-sellings there is. Nobody sells a tool he really uses.


----------



## passenger57 (Jul 4, 2012)

This whole conversation really seems like a waste of time to me. Do you really want to sell your watermarked sample libraries and then have them floating around out in the world with your information on it? I've purchased a few libraries that I rarely use, big deal.
The main thing is there is no way I'd be able to make a living at this and be competitive with rich composers without the sample developers putting out new and exciting products every year. Not to mention the fact that I can use my purchase of the libraries as a tax write-off. Considering I'm an independent contractor, thats a big deal!
If developers stopped making libraries or didn't at all, most of us wouldn't even be able to work!


----------



## Audio Genetics Lab (Jul 4, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Let's face it: The overall quality in regards to these points is often more than poor (laudable exceptions aside) and the usual buyer's remorse is high. However everybody new to the scene will buy a fair number of libraries before he realizes that. This is the market that developers don't want to loose, and therefore they are against second hand trade.



Ouch. I think most developers really do want to make a great product that everyone wants to use. I highly doubt there are discussions along the lines you suggest of "let's make sure to not lose those dummies that we tricked into buying our poorly made library". That's the marketing strategy of late-night infomercials, not something to expect from the dedicated and passionate folks like Mike, Eric, Greg, Nick, Troels, Mike, Mike (how many Mikes are there now anyways?), Hendrik, etc etc etc.

If that is your concern, then maybe pushing for more reform along the lines of returns or trial periods is really what you want. I think the second hand trade discussion is coming from a different place (namely ownership versus licensing, copyright, etc see the well-described posts above).


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

Thats a different issue entirely Hannes, the idea that Devs dont allow us to be totally sure we actually want the library with more demo/trial versions etc. I do think that you should be able to get a refund if you really say you hate the product and will never use it, I recently bought something from Big Fish and I wish I could get my money back.

It doesnt stop a licence being required before one to can use audio material in a finished track. An FX plugin is not audio material and therefore doesnt have the same copyright law on its side. So if you dont like my comparison its still more on point than comparing to Voxengo! This is like comparing an AfterFX visual effects plugin to a stock footage library.


----------



## passenger57 (Jul 4, 2012)

Thats what this site is for:
http://www.try-sound.com/


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 4, 2012)

@passenger57: I wish people would read my posts before commenting ... sigh. Happens often.



Audio Genetics Lab @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> If that is your concern, then maybe pushing for more reform along the lines of returns or trial periods is really what you want. I think the second hand trade discussion is coming from a different place (namely ownership versus licensing, copyright, etc see the well-described posts above).



Zem, this is not against you since we appearently don't have a history yet. As for the other companies ... 

Look at this thread http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... s&start=35

where re-peat points out certain problems with a library. These are the same problems I am having since years with a lot of products. I really wished I could have had the chance of returning several high-priced libraries after a week of possession _or at least resell them for half the price_. If you want then regard this as a sign of my overall frustration with the state of art (and this includes libraries done with participation of a good number out of those that you mentioned).

I am usually not very vocal about that because in my case there easily comes up the live vs. sampled discussion (as in this thread too) and I don't want to force that. But besides being a player I am also a composer and sample user, and as such ... deeply disappointed.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 4, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Eric and Mike have made all of the points extremely eloquently.
> 
> I would just add that while VSL will allow a resale subject to a charge, they have built that eventuality into their pricing structure.
> 
> ...




playing devils advocate here but...


doesn't ANY product physical or otherwise be subject to the same issue?

i buy a used headphone set and sony is not getting any money for that. 
resale value will only consist of quality. if its bad quality then its cheap construction and if its good quality then the resale value will be higher thus more people will be likely to buy it. which then the resale value is not tied to future resale but to actual quality of the product you buy for the first time.


----------



## Audio Genetics Lab (Jul 4, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> where re-peat points out certain problems with a library. These are the same problems I am having since years with a lot of products. I really wished I could have had the chance of returning several high-priced libraries after a week of possession _or at least resell them for half the price_.



Then it definitely sounds like you want more refund options and trials rather than resale. Why resell a poor product to someone else for half your money back? I would push for more clearly allowable refunds or trial periods. This would also do more to encourage good development and products, as a refund equals a non-sale to the developer, while a sale and then a second-hand sale still gives the developer your initial sale, perhaps not even knowing that you were dissatisfied.

I think you have a valid point for the most part, I just think it belongs to a different issue than second-hand sales.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 4, 2012)

even though i understand the law and i understand that i cant resale software libraries because of the sample sound copyright, i think its wrong and its just an excuse from sample developers to keep selling and get more profits. 

wouldn't a car company love to have this law? maybe tied to the design of the interior radio components?. so everyone in the world will have to always buy a new car.

if software falls in the rule that it CAN be re sold i think sample library developers are trying to hide behind an exception. at the end of the day, sample libraries are the same thing as software in the way that its a software tool to create something else.
sound recording shouldnt fall under another law, and wouldnt hold up in court under a software resale case. 

i know sample developers fall under the tyranny of torrent sites so kudos for them to try to stay away from the resale law to help get more profits. 

its just that LASS cost me $1500 so if i cant re sell then so be it. if i decided to start a lawsuit to be able to get sample developers to start reselling its libraries ill probably win easily. but a lawyer will charge me about $1500 for only 1 days work( x many many days) and winning a big settlement out of this will be unlikely , plus screwing a small company for a small reason. 

i have a huge amount of libraries and i am grateful to have them and developers to do this, but my moral compass says its wrong for developers to not let the resale their libraries.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 4, 2012)

Daniel James @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> I think what I am getting from this is that sure you could legally sell your sample libraries but not the copyright permission to use them in your own productions.
> 
> Dan




kind of. 

you cant transfer the sound copyright of the samples. but in general yes. 

you wouldn't get that far since the copy protection would not let you use it, maybe only demo period.


----------



## playz123 (Jul 4, 2012)

gsilbers @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> I have a huge amount of libraries and i am grateful to have them and developers to do this, but my moral compass says its wrong for developers to not let the resale their libraries.



I expect there are many people who would disagree _in part_ with that, and I see nothing here that deals with morals. Perhaps if we were the developers and had put a huge amount of time and money into a library and were trying to make a living, we might feel very differently and also be interested in receiving compensation for our hard work. Perhaps resale could be considered if the purchaser was willing to pay the developer a substantial fee, but I don't feel any developer is under any moral obligation to permit resale. It is a business not a charity, and I would suggest if someone feels differently then simply don't buy a product. In any case, the time for us to consider the license requirements is before purchasing, not after.


----------



## tcollins (Jul 4, 2012)

How would resale work with a library that required authorization?
If someone bought such a library on ebay, would the dev be forced to authorize that product without compensation? What if the dev was no longer in business or the product was discontinued? An unintended consequence would be people buying useless software.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 4, 2012)

scientist @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Synesthesia @ Wed Jul 04 said:
> 
> 
> > If there ever was a situation where developers were forced to allow resale, those who chose to stay in the business would have to drastically increase the price of libraries to compensate for the loss in revenue.
> ...




There won't be 'evidence' unless the law is changed to abandon copyright in sound recordings, and then we'd all better look for a new job.

I can make a significantly better educated guess that you can though, from the perspective of having spent a mind boggling amount of money on sampling sessions over the last four years.

If people neither want nor need a sample library why would they buy it?

We provide massively detailed youtube videos where you can see the product, bare and un-tampered with, in use. Its like sitting next to a person demonstrating it to you. What you hear is what you get.

You can use our products for pleasure, as a hobby, or you can use them to make literally millions of dollars, at the other end. Most of us fall somewhere within that spectrum.

What you are buying is a non transferable license to use the sound recordings in your own compositions. 

We also pay our musicians and team royalties on sales of our products. We fiercely protect that right of our talented musicians to receive that fair compensation in royalty form from the licensee, as we believe this is a fair exchange.

I have nothing to fear from people hearing our products naked, sadly the youtube approach is the best way we have of giving as much info as possible before purchase.

A few years back, before I became a developer, I spent many thousands of pounds on Orchestral and non orchestral samples, without any of the benefits of advance knowledge that people have today when making their decisions. One well known library cost over 5 grand. I spent over a thousand pounds on a library that was so harshly recorded it was essentially unusable for me. I had to chalk it up to experience.

Maybe we've all forgotten those old days....?


----------



## paulcole (Jul 4, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Maybe we've all forgotten those old days....?




Definitely not. Keep on making your product and people will either buy it or they won't. And they certainly won't have anything to complain about with these prices and quality.

Unles they're morons of course.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Lots of interesting posts here!

I ask myself: Why should you sample lib manufacturers get special rights? 

Car makers invest as much and much more time in their cars, and it is allowed to resell cars. Even the pictures of the great painters may be resold. And, as I said earlier, sample libs are not comparable with art works, they are not stand-alone compositions!

A wide field, sure! And, do not get me wrong! I have a heart for all developers!

But...... .

o-[][]-o


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Lots of interesting posts here!
> 
> I ask myself: Why should you sample lib manufacturers get special rights?



Gunther so often I cant tell if you're just trolling.

You've been told the difference, *sound recording copyright *makes it different from software and diffferent from a car.

You may not agree with it, you may think its unfair, but you cant act like you don't understand WHY there is a difference. Why ask questions you already know the answers to?


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 4, 2012)

Gunther,

A car doesn't enable you to continue earning money if you sell it.


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

tcollins @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> How would resale work with a library that required authorization?
> If someone bought such a library on ebay, would the dev be forced to authorize that product without compensation? What if the dev was no longer in business or the product was discontinued? An unintended consequence would be people buying useless software.



I believe that devs should be forced to release some kind of auto authorisation tool if they go out of business. 

I remember knowing of composers that used the EW pirate keygens for products they already own because it was such a hassle to reregister each time they reinstalled something. Course now they have Service Center which makes it super easy but back at the start it was a horribly annoying prodcedure


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> You've been told the difference, *sound recording copyright *makes it different from software and diffferent from a car.



Huh, Ed, I understand now: When an engineer works 60 hours a week, spending all his craft to built a new product, it is pretty normal, that we all can resell it, if we want. 

But, when a musician gives his best at a recording session, it is not allowed to resell his recordings.

Where is the difference?


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Ed @ Wed Jul 04 said:
> 
> 
> > You've been told the difference, *sound recording copyright *makes it different from software and diffferent from a car.
> ...



I just told you the difference.

Do you actually work as a composer Gunther? Even if not its pretty simple to learn the basics of how this works. I have explained several times here that if a composer's track gets licenced for a movie or TV show that doesnt mean that licence can be sold on, that licence comes with limits. Another scenario might be someone that wants to sample a clip from a Michael Jackson song (maybe a drum loop) or maybe he wants to sample some ethnic vocals he found on some world African choir cd, he needs to obtain a licence to use the sample in his own music. When that person pays for and is granted permission to use that sample he probably can only use it in that one song and certainly cannot resell his licence to his friend. I am working on a game score right now, they have bought the exclusive rights to use my music in this game, they cannot however use it in another game or sell the licence to anyone else.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> I just told you the difference.
> 
> Do you actually work as a composer Gunther? Even if not its pretty simple to learn the basics of how this works. I have explained several times here that if a composer's track gets licenced for a movie or TV show that doesnt mean that licence can be sold on, that licence comes with limits. Another scenario might be someone that wants to sample a clip from a Michael Jackson song (maybe a drum loop) or maybe he wants to sample some ethic vocals he found on some world African choir cd, he needs to obtain a licence to use the sample in his own music. When that person pays for and is granted permission to use that sample he probably can only use it in that one song and certainly cannot resell his licence to his friend.



I work as a composer, Ed, and I see your points. 

But: We are talking about sample libraries. Single notes in pp, mf. f and ff, or fff....! In no country in the world, you can make individual notes under copyright. This is not a work of art! These single notes are needed for the sampler to let you play a melody, to let you compose! You are the composer, not the library! No sampler or player can be used without samples, so samples are a part of the software!  o-[][]-o


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> I work as a composer, Ed, and I see your points.
> 
> But: We are talking about sample libraries. Single notes in pp, mf. f and ff, or fff....! In no country in the world, you can make individual notes under copyright. This is not a work of art! These single notes are needed for the sampler to let you play a melody, to let you compose! You are the composer, not the library!  o-[][]-o



Uuuh sorry Gunther but sound *"recording" *copyright makes no difference if its one note or several notes. What you're talking about is another aspect of copyright, you cant copyright a rhythm or a chord sequence etc. 

Are you suggesting that a sample cd of drum loops is copyrightable and a cd full of individual drum samples is copyright free and anyone can use them as much as they want? 

It doesnt need to be a "work of art" to qualify here. Its scary and laughable to think you actually have this ridiculous misconception and say you're a working composer.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Ed, think about if all other products would be handled in the same manner as you described.... . 

You buy a car and you are not allowed to resell it.... . You are not allowed to resell anything. Would you like this?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Its scary and laughable to think you actually have this ridiculous misconception and say you're a working composer.



A loud laugh!

Apples and pears! o=<

BTW: I never have resold a lib! o/~


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Ed, think about if all other products would be handled in the same manner as you described.... .
> 
> You buy a car and you are not allowed to resell it.... . You are not allowed to resell anything. Would you like this?



Once again Gunther, if you feel its unfair then its equally unfair that someone that makes a sculpture can have it bought by one person and have it legally resold to a ton of people who never paid a penny to the artist compared with a composer that can write and record a piece of music and earn royalties from it for their entire life and anyone that wants to use it has to pay them again for the rights to do so. 

What you dont seem to realise is you're wanting to overturn laws that would destroy your own profession. How does it feel punching yourself in the proverbial face?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Again, Ed: I see your point!!!

But we are talking about sample libs, samplers who need the samples for their work (so the samples are a part of the instruments) and the European Resell Laws! This is the theme here!

Do not take my comments personally!

Salut!


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Again, Ed: I see your point!!!
> 
> But we are talking about sample libs, samplers who need the samples for their work (so the samples are a part of the instruments) and the European Resell Laws! This is the theme here!



What do you mean "but" we are talking about sample libraries? You said it was unfair that sample libraries are treated differently to cars, so I told you in that case the entire music industries business model and the laws associated and protecting it is also unfair for the same reason.

But what is unfair is irrelevant anyway, we are talking first and foremost about what the law actually is. Since sample libraries are sound recordings they are protected under copyright law. They are not software and the European resell laws you linked to have NOTHING do with sample libraries. They money you pay for a sample library is NOT for the software included with it, it is for the licence to use the sound recordings in your work. We have said all this in so many ways so many times, is your inability to grasp this simple concept a language issue or something else?

You claimed you cannot in any country copyright a single recorded note, i assume since you've not followed up this claim with any evidence that you realise you just made this up. If you had some you could finish the debate right here


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

I can spend you only a smile.

Let us all see what this new European Resell Laws will bring us..... . 

And, Ed, it was not I who brought this new European Resell Laws on the way!


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 4, 2012)

Oh, Ed! You seem always so defensive with your POV, that your posts get furious and almost aggressive ... 
There is always (at least) two sides of the coin: One is the the law written and the other is what feels right or wrong. The law is as it is, until somebody changes it ...
But IMHO it does not feel right at all, that a synthesizer, which took years of development can be easily resold, while a sample developer, who sampled the very same synth can sell it and prohibit the buyer to put it on ebay, in case he didn't like it ... Don't you realize, that in both cases the very same signature sound was imprinted in the buyers music? Why shouldn't the synth developer be against the re-sale, while his sound has already been used and possibly made money with?
With what logic could you justify that none-sense? I certainly understand, that the devs would be very upset by a law, which made their common practice impossible in europe. But I sure feel it would be the right thing! 
Also, I disagree, that they would earn less money! Look at Native Instruments: more an more of their products deal with samples. Do you really belive, they don't make enough money, because they allow re-sale of their products? 
When I buy a sample library today, I know I will never use 80% of it in any commercial production. Also, there is almost no instrument left, which I don't own at least 2 libraries of. Consequently, any library I buy today is mostly just for my personal amusement ... pretty much dead money. If I buy an expensive microphone on the other hand, it is like an investment. If I bought too many, I can sell some and often get almost the same amount back! So, recently I found I rather spend 1000€ without a second thought on some expensive microphone, while I am reluctant to buy a $300 sample library ... This would be a different thing, if I knew I could sell it again ...
And one more thing: A lot of buyers are indeed hobbyists, never making any serious amount of money with their music. What do you tell them?


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 4, 2012)

Because when you buy a hardware synth, unless I'm way out of date, you are spending anything from 1500-2000 dollars or more on something that is MAINLY a synth - and has a small amount of sample content which has already been licensed from the Synth manufacturer at a significant cost (unless of course they recorded it themselves.)

In whichever case, the sample libs we are referring to here are massively more detailed and better sounding, have massively more content, and cost massively more to produce.

They are however in general significantly cheaper than a hardware synth.

Of course, we could go back to the days of £3000 for EWQLSO to take an example, plus another £3000 for the XP expansion. Or £7000 (if I recall correctly) for the VSL original first edition, plus upgrade to cube (paid of course) and so on and so on.

All of which is academic anyway, as these are sound recordings that cost a lot of money to make. There are two ways to get that back, plus hopefully a little profit.

One is to license at a reasonable cost to single end users with an idea of how many you will sell. 

The other is to either license the content to someone who will make 100,000 synths, costing $1500 dollars each. They will give you a large fee for the content I would imagine.

Or of course, you license the whole thing to a massively successful A list film composer.


----------



## bennis (Jul 4, 2012)

When you buy a sample lib you buy various things
1) The software including installer ui script etc
2) The files and wavs and patches themselves
3) A single right to make derivitive musics from the sound recordings in the wavs

Sample libraries are recordings. When they make them they record a long session of notes with instruments that the developer wrote to make the library. Just because they chop it up into usable parts and make software to easily play them doesnt meant its lose its copyright or the developer lose their rights

This ruling only affects 1) and it cannot affect 3). If it did the very music you write would be able to be stolen and it would not be good for anyone.

This thread is a headache. handz you come across with the attitude of a typical pirate. Not saying you are one but you should maybe think how you present yourself - you say here many things that are legally wrong and you also have attitude 'well i can copy it if i want, what they gonna do arrest me??'. germancomponist you are just coming across as a troll. It has been explain so many times now and yet you bring up the same things over and over including a lot of stupid comparisons to cars and cds/dvds so here some analogies.

You buy a car and you drive it. To drive it you also get a drivers license. Your friend who has no license say 'hey like your car, sell me it?' so you sell your car to a different friend. Can that friend now drive a car? *no* because you sold him a car, not the drivers license which isnt legal to sell.

If you buy an album you buy the rights to listen. let say you like a song and you sample it to make a remix. to legaly post this remix anywhere you need permission from the band or you need a license. so lets say you buy a mechanical license and you now have 1) and 3) from above. You sell the album to a friend. Can your friend now release a mix? *no*. You didnt sell mchanical license because you cant - its non transferable.


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

FriFlo @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Oh, Ed! You seem always so defensive with your POV, that your posts get furious and almost aggressive ...



FriFlo what gets me annoyed is at least 3 major things.

1. Gunther acts like he doesnt understand something that has been explained numerous times in different ways asking questins as if he hasnt already heard a very well explained answer already, requring me to again restate the same thing to him.

2. He ignores the answers. He asks why its fair that buying a sample library is not treated the same as buying a car, when explained that comparable to car sale (and most other things) the *entire *music industries business model and laws associated with it are "unfair" by comparison for *exactly *the same reasons he then acts like this is an irrelevent point. 

3. He makes the huge claim that single recorded notes are copyright free in all countries. If he could prove this he could prove its legal to sell many sample libraries, but he hasnt because he just made it up and now just expects us to forget he made said this I suppose.






> One is the the law written and the other is what feels right or wrong.



Yup, Ive already said thats what the debate is about.



> But IMHO it does not feel right at all, that a synthesizer, which took years of development can be easily resold, while a sample developer, who sampled the very same synth can sell it and prohibit the buyer to put it on ebay, in case he didn't like it ... Don't you realize, that in both cases the very same signature sound was imprinted in the buyers music? Why shouldn't the synth developer be against the re-sale, while his sound has already been used and possibly made money with?
> With what logic could you justify that none-sense?



Did you not read my responces to Guther? The entire music industries business model is unfair when you compare it to something like selling a car, creating hardware instruments, or other art like sculpture or painting (or just about anything else). When you realise that someone could just as easily (and with *exactly *the same justification) look at your work as a composer and say its not "right" or "fair" that you get royalties from its broadcast and its not "right" or "fair" that licences cannot be resold by your clients and only allowed limited use of what they can do it you'll realise what you're missing here as well. 



> I certainly understand, that the devs would be very upset by a law, which made their common practice impossible in europe.



Sure but as we have established now the law Gunther posted does not apply to sample libraries. 

It does apply to things like FX plugins, software synths (non waveform) After FX, Adobe Premiere etc. 



> But I sure feel it would be the right thing!
> Also, I disagree, that they would earn less money! Look at Native Instruments: more an more of their products deal with samples. Do you really belive, they don't make enough money, because they allow re-sale of their products?



Ive already said I wish I could resell some of my libraries and if I really hate them I really think I should be able to get a refund, but I dont really care much about this side of the debate when people like Gunther still cant get their head around if its legal or not in the first place!


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 4, 2012)

Well, considering your logic, your bespoke libraries should be re-sellable then, right? Are they? 
And I really doubt, that a killer synth's development of the 2000€ price range would cost less then e.g. symphobia ...
The EW example is also not a good one, as their library was not re- sellable at that point either. The price drop was simply due their strategy! Do you really believe, that the majority of buyers of EWQL SO are professionals? They opened their product to the masses, so they significantly dropped the price ...
Also, please read my post thoroughly: I brought up the case of a synth being sampled, which is not an out of this world example, as there are many libraries like that! Don't you agree it is kind of unfair, that the sample developer gets a right granted, the synth developer doesn't although it definitely cost more effort and money to build the synth, than to sample it? IMO this is where your logic just fails ...


----------



## Ed (Jul 4, 2012)

FriFlo @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> Well, considering your logic, your bespoke libraries should be re-sellable then, right? Is it?



Um, how did you get that from what I wrote? No, they shouldn't be.



> And I really doubt, that a killer synth's development of the 2000€ price range would cost less then e.g. symphobia ...
> The EW example is also not a good one, as their library was not re- sellable at that point either. The price drop was simply due their strategy! Do you really believe, that the majority of buyers of EWQL SO are professionals? They opened their product to the masses, so they significantly dropped the price ...



You still arent getting this, it doesnt matter how much work has gone into a product or service. You cannot say its unfair sample libraries work differently to other things like selling cars, microphones, hardware instruments etc when you also have to ignore the ENTIRE music industry and its laws seem also unfair to just about anyone else for the exact same reasons you are arguing here. Seriously, you explain to someone in a normal job that you can earn, on one track potentially thousands and thosuands (and more) of _[insert your currency here]_ for years by doing nothing (royalties) and they will think you're a cheeky bastard. They have to work for every penny they get. They find it absurd to think a we can write and record music and get money every time it gets used. To them this seems like free money.




> Also, please read my post thoroughly: I brought up the case of a synth being sampled, which is not an out of this world example, as there are many libraries like that! Don't you agree it is kind of unfair, that the sample developer gets a right granted, the synth developer doesn't although it definitely cost more effort and money to build the synth, than to sample it? IMO this is where your logic just fails ...



If a synth is sampled then the recording is copyrighted - technically, yes, you cannot use that recording without permission from the guy who recorded it. It is a whole different issue if anyone will ever notice, since you could have simply recorded the synth yourself, who is going to know you just used a cracked version of Omnisphere right? But thats still technically against the law.


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 4, 2012)

I think a guy who needs to sell his (just an example) 5000€ VSL library would rather spend the 10% to VSL, than risking a law suite with VSL. If he would have the balls to sue them, he wouldn't be in need to sell the library. THAT ist the only reason, DEVs seem to be able to make their laws as they think. If anybody had the balls to risk a law suite, I have few doubts, he would not succeed! Maybe time will tell us ...


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 4, 2012)

ED, my second post was towards spitfire ... cross-posting!


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 4, 2012)

FriFlo @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Well, considering your logic, your bespoke libraries should be re-sellable then, right? Are they?
> And I really doubt, that a killer synth's development of the 2000€ price range would cost less then e.g. symphobia ...
> The EW example is also not a good one, as their library was not re- sellable at that point either. The price drop was simply due their strategy! Do you really believe, that the majority of buyers of EWQL SO are professionals? They opened their product to the masses, so they significantly dropped the price ...
> Also, please read my post thoroughly: I brought up the case of a synth being sampled, which is not an out of this world example, as there are many libraries like that! Don't you agree it is kind of unfair, that the sample developer gets a right granted, the synth developer doesn't although it definitely cost more effort and money to build the synth, than to sample it? IMO this is where your logic just fails ...



Firstly, no my logic does not state that our bespoke libraries should be resalable.

My example for EW was simply that - back then, libraries cost a LOT more than now.

And your example of a Synth - if it has sample content, its illegal to sample it and resell.


----------



## KMuzzey (Jul 4, 2012)

It's worth mentioning here that germancomponist is based in Germany, and Germany takes so many liberties with copyright that it's astounding. It sounds like the germancomponist apple hasn't fallen far from the Germany tree. Reading his posts is just like reading the responses that my lawyer gets back from a German tv network when he tries to chase this stuff down for me.

Signed,

Someone who's currently in legal hell with a major German broadcaster and GEMA.


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 4, 2012)

Well, you probably assume US law as the standard, while every nation that deviates from it "takes much liberty" ... Germany's laws are pretty much in a line with all europe. But you are not very detailed in your problem with the GEMA and a german broadcaster, so why bring it on without any information?


----------



## Audio Genetics Lab (Jul 4, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> You buy a car and you are not allowed to resell it.... . You are not allowed to resell anything. Would you like this?



You are not allowed to sell a car you lease, though. :D


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 4, 2012)

FriFlo @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Well, you probably assume US law as the standard....



It is.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Audio Genetics Lab @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Jul 04 said:
> 
> 
> > You buy a car and you are not allowed to resell it.... . You are not allowed to resell anything. Would you like this?
> ...



Yeah, a good idea: Leasing libraries, and, when you write a hit and make thousends of dollars with it, then you have to pay 10% to the sample lib developer... .


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

KMuzzey @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> It's worth mentioning here that germancomponist is based in Germany, and Germany takes so many liberties with copyright that it's astounding. It sounds like the germancomponist apple hasn't fallen far from the Germany tree. Reading his posts is just like reading the responses that my lawyer gets back from a German tv network when he tries to chase this stuff down for me.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> Someone who's currently in legal hell with a major German broadcaster and GEMA.



WOW, what a great post!

And yes, I live in Germany and have to respect our laws.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 4, 2012)

Ed @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> FriFlo @ Wed Jul 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, Ed! You seem always so defensive with your POV, that your posts get furious and almost aggressive ...
> ...


Oh Ed, I understand very well your points and what many others are meaning, but I for myself see it different, as I explained to you more than once! It seems that you doesnt understand my fiew? 

Please note: We are discussing here and not fighting for our opinions!

At least I am discussing about the new European Resell Laws and what it could mean for sample lib developers. And, I am neither the court nor a judge!



> 3. He makes the huge claim that single recorded notes are copyright free in all countries. If he could prove this he could prove its legal to sell many sample libraries, but he hasnt because he just made it up and now just expects us to forget he made said this I suppose.



I don`t understand what you mean here exactly. I never expected you to forget anything.... . o/~


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Gunther, examine this hypothetical situation:
> 
> 1) You are contracted to compose a theme tune for a TV series
> 
> ...



Absolutely not!

But you are talking about a composition, and I was talking about vst instruments/libs, with what I compose. I am the composer, not the library is the composer!


----------



## Ah_dziz (Jul 5, 2012)

germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Gunther, examine this hypothetical situation:
> ...



I believe you are confused. Owning the composition and owning the recording are two separate types of ownership. These days when nobody is asked to simply write a piece of music without producing it the distinction sometimes gets forgotten, but there is a definite legal distinction. A sound recording is owned by someone (the copyright holder). A published work is owned by someone (author/ composer). These two types of ownership are not always held by the same person. 

In the case of the sample library, you are not the owner of the original samples (sound recordings), but the owner of any derivative works containing the original samples as per the license agreement (still sound recordings), and you are also the owner of the published work which exists as your intellectual property from the moment you write it down or record it. Only the latter two of these are you legally allowed allowed to transfer or sell.


----------



## mk282 (Jul 5, 2012)

RiffWraith @ 5.7.2012 said:


> FriFlo @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you probably assume US law as the standard....
> ...



It's not, US law is "standard" only in US. Not in the whole wide world.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Honestly I am starting to think you _are_ just trolling now.
> 
> A high-level rough overview of sound recording copyright:
> "A sound recording has a separate copyright that is distinct from that of the underlying work (usually a musical work, expressible in musical notation and written lyrics), if any. This is a copyright for just the sound itself, and will not apply to any other rendition or version, even if performed by the same artist."
> ...


I think you are mixing two things up. If I write the theme tune for a TV company, there are many situations where they actually own the recording (and that is normally in the contract), so of course they can do anything they like with it. However, as I am the Copyright holder of the music, they can't do anything else with the actual music, unless I tell them that they can, which sort of makes the sound recording useless for secondary exploitation. Similarly, I can't do anything with the sound recording, because I don't own it. This is why when composers keep secondary exploitation rights, they have to re-record the music, in order to use it again.

So as a composer, sound recording Copyright is not at all integral to how I earn my living, because mostly I don't own the sound recording. In fact if I was a real composer, and not just a Media hack, sound recordings would hardly be an issue. Performance Royalties and music hire fees would be much more important. :wink: 

That's not to say that I disagree with Copyright of sound recordings; of course I don't, but don't confuse it with composers' rights. They are two separate things.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> That's not to say that I disagree with Copyright of sound recordings; of course I don't, but don't confuse it with composers' rights. They are two separate things.
> 
> D



+1


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 5, 2012)

Oh boy! You guys just talk, as if law was something very easy to understand and you got it all! Calm down! All of you are not lawyers and even if you were, you couldn't assure your client of the outcome of such a law suite with a 100%. That is why I don't understand you keep angily defending the common practice of sample library license agreements, while this might just be that: a common practice that could easily change with just a single ruling of some court. Didn't the US just decide by a single voice majority that obama care is ok with the constitution? Take that as an example for how different countries judge, as this is just natral in Europe for at least half a decade. That the US laws are the standard to the world is just plain arrogant, so I won't even reply to that!
I consider this discussion rather futile alltogether, as some of yo jut have a pov you deem right and just try to convince everyone else with your wisdom by repeating your same points like a mantra. I don't claim to know the outcome a hundred percent, I just have a suspicion this situation might indeed change for europe at least.
Comparing the license agreement of a sample library to a contract for a media composition is indeed not a wise one. There is the compositional copyright, that does not apply to the libraries at all, and then there is the sound recording side. If it was for libraries like the recent vivace by sonocintetic, I would give you the point! But 90% of the libraries we speak about are indeed just single notes put together an edited by a program to create something entirely diverse from the original product. You may see it your way and keep doing so, but I find it very comparable to a synth or (to stay in the same price category) soft synth.


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 5, 2012)

You just didn't read carefully: I made the very same distinction between copyright of the composition and sound recording. And I am not saying the laws are not covered now and interpreted like sound recordings. You are right: The beginning of the tread was implying, that with this ruling one could from now on sell any library. I never said that to be true. But this discussion changed over the time into if that is just a fact or if it could be interpreted differently. An IMO it might change. The future will be physical modeling anyway, where soundrecordings are not involved anymore and then it will be software only and we won't have to discuss about it. 
Just for now, I don't see why recording a sound, that can be forged into a composition would earn different rights than the intellectual achievement of the software-developer, that helps the very same purpose as a product. This of course has to do with "what feels right"! But often laws changes over the time, when there is a big gap between what is felt and what is applicable law ...


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 5, 2012)

Yeah, so we actually agree with most things, after sorting it out. That is what I call a discussion. I should probably have started another discussion, as I didn't want to cover Gunther's theory of everything changing with this law right now! He probably made a wrong assumption to start with. Let us just see, what the future will bring ... Imagine how much richer Bob Moog's heirs would be today, if his inventions would have been regarded equal to sound recordings ...  I just wanted to point out that in the end there is not much difference in the way you use both and how your production can gain from it!


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> I was trying to stay on topic with the thread and was replying to Gunther as he obviously has not grasped the distinction between sound recording and compositional copyright. It's evident from his last few posts that he still does not believe sample developers have a right to control copyright license transfer. I've been patiently trying to explain the exact reasons why his assertion is wrong and hopefully prevent anyone scanning the topic from taking away the wrong advice or taking them as fact.



Hm, stop! Maybe it is my bad englich, but for sure developers have a right to control copyright license transfer! But I think it must be allowed to resell sample libraries, and that is the theme here in this thread..... .


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

FriFlo @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Yeah, so we actually agree with most things, after sorting it out. That is what I call a discussion. I should probably have started another discussion, as I didn't want to cover Gunther's theory of everything changing with this law right now! He probably made a wrong assumption to start with. Let us just see, what the future will bring ... Imagine how much richer Bob Moog's heirs would be today, if his inventions would have been regarded equal to sound recordings ...  I just wanted to point out that in the end there is not much difference in the way you use both and how your production can gain from it!



A good post!

As I said earlier: Let us see how this new European Resell Laws will work and let us see, what the future will bring.


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 5, 2012)

Yes, Gunther! Better stop it now.  The law you were starting the topic about has to do with software and not with sound recordings. I agree this is not fair, others do not ... However, there is no indication right now, that this will change after the ruling in Europe.
In this thread there are just people with a different pov which is just normal I guess ...


----------



## FriFlo (Jul 5, 2012)

Yahooo! That was my hundredth post! Watching the number of your posts, Gunther: Wow! This should have improved your english by now ...


----------



## Daryl (Jul 5, 2012)

So now we have covered most of what needs to be covered. A sample library includes recordings, and developers don't have to allow you to sell your licence to use those recordings, if they don't want to.

So we now need two more threads:

1) The first about being able to return sample libraries where the recordings are faulty or the performances are of a bad quality. Being stuck with something that is a bad product is not acceptable.

2) Developers of software being forced to make it work as advertised, and if not, fix their programming errors in a timely manner. Again a refund should be possible. None of this "you opened the packet, so you agreed that it might not work" nonsense.

Who's going to start the threads then? :lol: 

D


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jul 04 said:


> I don`t understand what you mean here exactly. I never expected you to forget anything.... . o/~



You said this:




> "But: We are talking about sample libraries. Single notes in pp, mf. f and ff, or fff....! In no country in the world, you can make individual notes under copyright. This is not a work of art! These single notes are needed for the sampler to let you play a melody, to let you compose! You are the composer, not the library! "




If you could prove this then you'd show every sample dev here they are wrong, but you wont because you just made it up. What you said above is what you'd LIKE to be true, but it isnt. 

Based on what you say here and what you said above to Blake, you dont understand that sound recording copyright has absolutely NOTHING to do with composition (or even music) AT ALL.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

Ed @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Based on what you say here and what you said above to Blake, you dont understand that sound recording copyright has absolutely NOTHING to do with composition (or even music) AT ALL.



Smile,

I for sure know what sound recording copyright is, but I for myself see a big different between loop/phrases e.t.c. recordings and only simple note recordings. This is what I meant!


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2012)

germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> I for sure know what sound recording copyright is, but I for myself see a big different between loop/phrases e.t.c. recordings and only simple note recordings. This is what I meant!



Thats the thing Gunther, you cannot understand what sound recording copyright is because it has nothing to do with what has been recorded. It doesnt matter if its one note or several, it doesnt matter if its not a note at all or not music at all. Its got nothing to do with music, its simply the recording itself. 

Now can you prove your claim about single notes being legally copyright free in all countries everywhere, or can you admit you just made this up? Or is this all about what you'd LIKE things to be? Do you accept that the law your linked to has nothing to do with sample libraries?


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

Ed @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I for sure know what sound recording copyright is, but I for myself see a big different between loop/phrases e.t.c. recordings and only simple note recordings. This is what I meant!
> ...



Can`t you read, Ed?

I wrote "I for myself.....see it in this way...." It is only my opinion and I know that my opinion isn`t a law for all!!! 

And, I said not that "single notes being legally copyright free in all countries everywhere", I said that you never can copyright single notes as a piece/music! 

Cheers!


----------



## radec (Jul 5, 2012)

wow what a thread! pretty clear to me this ruling doesnt affect reselling libraries even though itd be nice sometimes i completely understand when it is explained.

germancomponist i understand how you feel but i tell you the world would be a better place for me if the laws worked how i feel they should work. just not sure itd be a better place for everyone else hehe. sometimes you just gotta accept your feeling is just your feeling and not everyone shares it. kick back and make some music and dont worry about it 8)


----------



## Ed (Jul 5, 2012)

germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Can`t you read, Ed?
> 
> I wrote "I for myself.....see it in this way...." It is only my opinion and I know that my opinion isn`t a law for all!!!
> 
> ...



And you wonder why I get frustrated with you?
This is an exact quote from you: "_ In no country in the world, you can make individual notes under copyright. "_

We're talking about sound *recording* copyright, we were *always *talking about sound *recordings*. You cant now claim you were talking about compositional copyright when you said this, what relevance does it have to anything here?

Its irrelevant if its an individual note, or not a note at all, or not musical at all, its the recording itself.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 5, 2012)

Gunther was always talking about compositional copyright (intellectual property), you were always talking about recording copyright, Ed (isn't that what mechanicals mean).

;/c] 

Honestly, I learned something from this thread. It might even be that german law perception regarding sample libraries could change on the long run if a sharper distinction gets accepted. With other words it could perhaps be that the re-sell-ability of sample libraries could get restricted here in future ... possible.

However the real question will probably not be whether sample libraries are software or not or whether there is a mechanical copyright on them. The main point will be onto which measure lawmakers and courts will judge the right of developers as being exhausted by the financial compensation they get with the buying act. 

_Exhausted _is really the key word here, and the element that was new for me in the court decision we are talking about. Oracle thought they could refer to their EULA but the court said certain rights were _exhausted _with the money they got, no matter what the respective EULA says. Whether or not this principle applies to sample libraries too (copyright distinctions aside) still seems to be a grey line and a question I would like to hear a lawyers well-researched opinion about instead of the speculations of ours (including mine). :mrgreen:


----------



## radec (Jul 5, 2012)

seems no grey area to me. this rulings clear in the area of software licenses being exhausted. nothing so complex as copyrights to deal with in that case

now if we get one pops up about copyright licenses then theres some speculation to be had! honestly the day that happens and people forfeit their copyrights just for being paid is the day we're all in trouble as composers and got more to worrys about than reselling our sounds!


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 5, 2012)

mk282 @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> RiffWraith @ 5.7.2012 said:
> 
> 
> > FriFlo @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> ...



Wait - you mean that the US is not the center of the universe???

I was_ joking_!


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Gunther, examine this hypothetical situation:
> 
> 1) You are contracted to compose a theme tune for a TV series.
> 
> ...



I can't imagine anyone in their right mind being ok with that.

And you raise a good point. But your point is based on an assumption that a sample lib is the equivalent of a musical cue. I am not sure that they are. I am not saying they aren't, but you could make the case that they are two different entities, and are not entitled to the same protection under the law.

I really don't think that there has been a case yet where a sample lib has been definitvely declared as a sound recording (someone correct me if i am wrong). Sure, we'd all like to think it is, especially seeing as though it is closer to 'sound recording' than 'sw', as far as the legal description goes. But does that mean it is? Maybe. Both are intangible goods; both serve different purposes. I don't know - this is still such a gray area, and I think the jury is still out on this one.

Cheers.


----------



## 667 (Jul 5, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> I really don't think that there has been a case yet where a sample lib has been definitvely declared as a sound recording (someone correct me if i am wrong).


There was the case with Roland referenced earlier in this thread. So there's precedent that samples are protected this way.

That was for a hardware synth but I fail to see how standalone samples would not meet the same standard as far as being 'recordings'.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Also, I believe that when you become involved in the design and development of a large sample library, you realise that it's not just as simple as 'a bunch of single notes' boshed out with no effort.



Of course they aren't - but the question is not how someone involved in the design and development of a large sample library sees it - it's how the law sees it. The law genrally doesn't care how simple or complicated something si to create.



blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Again, these are sound recordings. The law is very clear and very defined and they are entitled to the same protection.



Actually, the law is not clear and defined. Maybe it is in GB? Here in the US, Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act, sound recordings are defined as: 

_works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds... _

Key word there is 'series'. A sample library that cotains loops and/or phrases, might fall under this category. But a sample lib of single hits or single notes is not a series of sounds. It is once a composer gets his/her hands on it, but until that happens, the sounds are single, standalone sounds - not a series of sounds. Maybe one day a court will find that it is a series of sounds, but as of right now, AFAIAC, it's still a gray area. Then the law goes on to say:

_....but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work,_ 

Might not a smple lib fall under the category of 'other audiovisual work'? Maybe, maybe not. Still a gray area there.

Then we have:

_A sound recordings is a derivative work of the preexisting musical work, and to obtain a copyright...._

Is a sample lib a derivative work of the preexisting musical work? You could easily argue it isn't. 

Sorry, missed the Roland reference. 



667 @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> .... but I fail to see how standalone samples would not meet the same standard as far as being 'recordings'.



They are recordings, but the Q is - do they meet all the requirements to be a 'sound recording'. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

Hopefully nobody is taking this as me trying to be difficult; I am sure not trying to be. Just offering a view from the other side, is all.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

It sounds to me, from what I've read in this thread, that the new law won't apply to sample libraries, and that seems pretty reasonable. But just to play devil's advocate. . .

Let's say that I buy both a piano sample library and an actual piano. The argument against being able to resell the sample library is that I can continue to generate revenue from it after I sell it (because presumably, I've made recordings using it) and the manufacturer won't generate any additional revenue if I sell it to someone else, who can also use it in commercial recordings.

However, I could do the same exact thing with the actual piano. I could use it in commercial recordings, sell it, and continue to generate revenue off of those recordings even while someone else does the same. I could even rent out my piano to other people to use in their own recordings without selling it. The manufacturer doesn't get any additional money while I and others continue making money off of this one piece of equipment.

So from that standpoint, how is it any different if I do the same thing with my piano sample library?


----------



## Daryl (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> However, I could do the same exact thing with the actual piano. I could use it in commercial recordings, sell it, and continue to generate revenue off of those recordings even while someone else does the same. I could even rent out my piano to other people to use in their own recordings without selling it. The manufacturer doesn't get any additional money while I and others continue making money off of this one piece of equipment.
> 
> So from that standpoint, how is it any different if I do the same thing with my piano sample library?


It isn't any different. Except in law. :wink: 

The developers are using the term "sound recording" in a very different sense from which it was intended. Nothing wrong with that; they are not doing anything they shouldn't. However, your example just points out the anomaly with the whole "licence" issue for a sample library.

D


----------



## Chriss Ons (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ 5th July said:


> So from that standpoint, how is it any different if I do the same thing with my piano sample library?



That's a little far fetched don't you think...
If you were an author or in the publishing or printing business you could ask yourself the same question about your physical typewriter and your virtual one, i.e. word processor.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> It sounds to me, from what I've read in this thread, that the new law won't apply to sample libraries, and that seems pretty reasonable. But just to play devil's advocate. . .
> 
> Let's say that I buy both a piano sample library and an actual piano. The argument against being able to resell the sample library is that I can continue to generate revenue from it after I sell it (because presumably, I've made recordings using it) and the manufacturer won't generate any additional revenue if I sell it to someone else, who can also use it in commercial recordings.
> 
> ...



A cool example! Why should sample libs producer earn more money with their "piano-sample recordings" than the original builder of the piano? Maybe it is more a moral theme? o/~


----------



## Gusfmm (Jul 5, 2012)

Quick question for all Developers-

*Do you formally copyright the samples you record and bundle/sell with your libraries?*

I'm not sure there is any copyright law applicable to these libraries if the samples are not copyrighted... and I'm not even certain a copyright office would copyright such samples either, as much as anybody may desire that they be consider a legally protected "sound recording". On the other hand, reselling a license is far from representing an "unlicensed performance/distribution" breach.

Having said that, to me, the only "protection" a Developer has on its library product is the general T&C's / Use License (EULA) any prospective buyer has to agree with before purchasing the product. And if as a buyer you agree to such terms, you are legally bound by them. 

I don't see this Oracle case changing the course of history and Ebay becoming plagued by Windows XP re-sold licenses, for instance, as a result. Again, terms in the EULA will always preclude such instances.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Gunther, there is no way you cannot be trolling or just being difficult. Read my response to mpalenik and you'll see exactly how it is different. There *are no* copyright licenses involved in physically buying a piano. There *are* copyright licenses involved in using someone else's recordings.
> 
> Not a 'cool example' at all and *yet again* showing that you have no understanding of what a 'sound recording' is and the copyright protecting it.



I do not think that there is something wrong in my words/post! What I mean is that this, what is described in the piano lib vs real piano example, is very well commented! This is the real life! And: I don`t like this! o-[][]-o


----------



## handz (Jul 5, 2012)

you can never justify that - example with piano is a very good example - it is exactly same, I dont care if in the music software I buy are some recordings or ice cream or illustrative stock photos - this licensing is developers thing. 


it seems to me that developers are having good time by hiding under the copyright law about recordings - but I believe this may also change in future as the sample libs are not sold as recrodings but instruments or software. If you can resell software than I really do not understand why sample libs should be different - they contain recordings? Well every software contains some sounds that probably can be count as recordings if 1sec long samples are.


----------



## Gusfmm (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> 3) The TV show ends. The TV company decide that they no longer have a use for your theme tune and they would like to recoup some money so they sell the rights to your theme tune to another TV company. This new company then use your theme tune and you receive nothing from either the sale, nor royalties from it being aired.



As a composer, it's your complete fault not having negotiated a clause whereby re-selling was prohibited. Exactly the same case as in a sample library EULA.


----------



## handz (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson - you all still somparing sample recording - something used for mass selling and using in other compositions with finished piece created on base of single contract for one single occassion. Sorry this is not the same. 

Sample lib is not finished recording on its own it is just a tool - instrument, it is composed from small recordings but not only from them, it is software instrument. not recording.


----------



## Gusfmm (Jul 5, 2012)

Although I have read it several times over the years, I don't pretend to be a subject matter expert. But what I can tell you is that there are several instances in the US copyright law where the law doesn't sound as clearly stating what you'd like it to protect; and I quote-


§ 109 · Limitations on exclusive rights:
Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord42
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular
copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by
such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 5, 2012)

But don't you understand that you are licensing the right to use OUR recordings of that theoretical piano, not YOUR recordings of your own purchased real piano?

Maybe you don't have a nice big studio and decent mics, plus a great engineering mind to know how to make a superb sounding recording?

So you think that buying the Steinway Model D (current list price $152,600) that we sampled for our £59 Orchestral Grand library, and recording it yourself, compares as a 'very good example', 'exactly the same', as using the sample library?

You think it equally fair that after we spent the money to sample this piano and our skill to make these great recordings, and then provide them as a usable instrument, that you should have the same right to sell our recordings on to someone else, that cost you a license fee of £59 to use them, as selling on your Piano that cost you $152,600?

I mean, aside from the VERY clear legality of the issue, you think this is morally fair and equitable, and that we are somehow being greedy by applying the law to safeguard our own businesses, which are the same as yours - vis the right to earn a living from our copyrights?

I am staggered.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

handz @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> blakerobinson - you all still somparing sample recording - something used for mass selling and using in other compositions with finished piece created on base of single contract for one single occassion. Sorry this is not the same.
> 
> Sample lib is not finished recording on its own it is just a tool - instrument, it is composed from small recordings but not only from them, it is software instrument. not recording.



+1


----------



## Gusfmm (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Gusfmm @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > As a composer, it's your complete fault not having negotiated a clause whereby re-selling was prohibited. Exactly the same case as in a sample library EULA.
> ...




You got to realize there will always be two sides to every story. In your example, there will always be a rebuttal to either 2 or 3. When you agreed to terms, and that *exclusive license* was granted, you based your decision on the such conditions at signature time. A contract can be negotiated under whatever terms you can negotiate, and exclusivity can take various forms. Again, in your example, if there was no guaranteed volume, and no contingency to the re-sale, you should not be surprised that you left yourself exposed to such situation.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

Paul,

let us go back to the thread theme! Reselling libs...., allowed or not?


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 5, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Although I have read it several times over the years, I don't pretend to be a subject matter expert. But what I can tell you is that there are several instances in the US copyright law where the law doesn't sound as clearly stating what you'd like it to protect; and I quote-
> 
> 
> § 109 · Limitations on exclusive rights:
> ...



Gus - it is indeed very very clear.

You are talking about selling a CD or whatever form. NOT a license to use the recordings embodied on the CD.

You can buy Madonna's Ray Of Light album. You can then sell it to someone else when you get bored of it.

That doesn't entitle you or they to use her recordings in your own derivative compositions.

Guys, I think I should bow out at this point, like it seems Mike and Eric have.

I'm not sure we are having a sensible discussion.

The law is extremely clear, and I am feeling that some of the responses in this thread are either deliberately obtuse or just some kind of trolling. I think its instructive that the vast majority of composers here on VI are not participating in this thread.


----------



## Gusfmm (Jul 5, 2012)

No Paul, the actual definition is much broader than that, and includes and covers software, art, music, etc, and I quote:

“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is
fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work
can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with
the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object,
other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.


I think the subject is much more complicated than that, and I do not pretend to or try to oversimplify it. And I think some of the comments above have given such impression. I, myself, agree with what I've understood your position is. But also repeat this is not a trivial black and white issue. And BTW, completely disagree with your position on the synth hardware example.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

blakerobinson @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



You know what? Instead of posting another and another respond I will open now a nice bottle of beer and enjoy it! 

Salut! o-[][]-o


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> But don't you understand that you are licensing the right to use OUR recordings of that theoretical piano, not YOUR recordings of your own purchased real piano?


I'm not sure who this is directed at. If at me, I've already said that I agree that the new laws won't apply to sample libraries and that I think this is reasonable. However, I think some of the reasoning about WHY the new laws shouldn't apply to recordings doesn't quite hold up.



> Maybe you don't have a nice big studio and decent mics, plus a great engineering mind to know how to make a superb sounding recording?


Maybe I don't have a nice machine shop and skilled craftsman or the know how to build a piano, either. What's the difference?

In fact, I'll bet you guys don't have any of those things either, and yet you still record pianos made by people who do--and the purchasers of your libraries can then get the sound of those pianos (with higher quality recordings than they could make on their own and without renting studio time) without having to buy one of those pianos.

Just to be clear, I don't have any moral problem with samples and I'm not trying to take a shot at spitfire. I just don't think the whole "we put a lot of effort into making good sounding recordings" holds up any more that "we put a lot of effort into making good sounding pianos" does.



> So you think that buying the Steinway Model D (current list price $152,600) that we sampled for our £59 Orchestral Grand library, and recording it yourself, compares as a 'very good example', 'exactly the same', as using the sample library?


Hopefully it would be better than the sample library.



> You think it equally fair that after we spent the money to sample this piano and our skill to make these great recordings, and then provide them as a usable instrument, that you should have the same right to sell our recordings on to someone else, that cost you a license fee of £59 to use them, as selling on your Piano that cost you $152,600?


So, the main issue to you is the difference in price between the two products?

The Steinway people also put a lot of money and skill into making a usable instrument.

edit: In fact, doesn't a lot of this sound like the arguments that musicians use AGAINST sample libraries (or the arguments against pre-recorded soundtracks vs. live in-theater orchestras)--namely that it takes work and revenue away from real musicians, just like how resale of sample libraries would take sales and revenue from the companies that make them?

That aside, there are a finite number of copies of libraries out there. If I resell my copy of a library, I can no longer compose with it, and so I would have no reason to sell if if I thought it was a useful product. I'll sell it at a lower price, most likely, which also means that there's a good chance it will be going to someone who wouldn't pay full price for it anyway. This is a completely separate argument--but if the sample libraries are actually worth having, this shouldn't detract too much from sales, because the people who buy them will want to keep them in their arsenal.


----------



## Theseus (Jul 5, 2012)

There's obviously in this thread only 2 types of people :

- developers like Eric, Mike and Christian (and the people like Blake who substantially have the same views), who obviously know what they're talking about, especially Eric (if I may) since he researched those things pretty intensively other the past as he stated himself ;

- trolls with an agenda (selling their unwanted libraries ?) who just talk nonsense, or simply don't understand the basic principles of law regarding copyrighted material and sound recordings.

People, think about the Mercedes logo sound. It was a single one-shot sound from a Spectrasonics library. You would think then they could use it simply by buying the library and pressing the key. Well, do your research and ask Eric. And yes, it's a German company.

If this thread doesn't get locked, which it should be, it should be transferred into the "blablabla" section.

Piece of advise : don't feed the troll(s).


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

Theseus @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> There's obviously in this thread only 2 types of people :
> 
> - developers like Eric, Mike and Christian (and the people like Blake who substantially have the same views), who obviously know what they're talking about, especially Eric (if I may) since he researched those things pretty intensively other the past as he stated himself ;
> 
> - trolls with an agenda (selling their unwanted libraries ?) who just talk nonsense, or simply don't understand the basic principles of law regarding copyrighted material and sound recordings.



It's like how in the US supreme court, a lot of times, there are 5 justices who know what they're talking about, but then there are still the 4 trolls who simply don't understand the basics of law, so they have dissenting opinions :roll:


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

Gusfmm @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Quick question for all Developers-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They certainly do. 

I have been copyrighting samples for 25 years this way, both for Roland and Spectrasonics.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

Theseus @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> There's obviously in this thread only 2 types of people :
> 
> - developers like Eric, Mike and Christian (and the people like Blake who substantially have the same views), who obviously know what they're talking about, especially Eric (if I may) since he researched those things pretty intensively other the past as he stated himself ;



So far as I remember...., you as a composer are not allowed to use a single sample/sound from Eric`s (Spectrasonics) libs in a spot. There was this Mercedes example..... .

Very cool!


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

handz @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> blakerobinson - you all still somparing sample recording - something used for mass selling and using in other compositions with finished piece created on base of single contract for one single occassion. Sorry this is not the same.


Of course they are not the same at all.

The only thing they share is that they are both Sound Recordings which can be copyrighted.



> Sample lib is not finished recording on its own


Sure it is.

This applies to any audio file. 

Very simple.

The SR copyright law is very simple. Any sound recording can be copyrighted.

Compositional copyright is a whole other matter and part of the law. 

Don't confuse the two. 



> it is just a tool - instrument, it is composed from small recordings but not only from them, it is software instrument. not recording.


That may be your opinion because you are confused about the different between SR Copyright and Composition Copyright/Publishing, but the law is quite clear and has been tested many, many times over the years.


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> It's like how in the US supreme court, a lot of times, there are 5 justices who know what they're talking about, but then there are still the 4 trolls who simply don't understand the basics of law, so they have dissenting opinions :roll:


Except there are zero courts or even any attorneys around who are saying that Sound Recordings are software or that samples are not sound recordings. 

Find me a single attorney with any experience in intellectual property litigation that has a position about Sample Libraries and Sample-based products like VIs, that believes that the SR Copyright law does not include sample libraries and then we'll have something to discuss.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

spectrum @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Find me a single attorney with any experience in intellectual property litigation that has a position about Sample Libraries and Sample-based products like VIs, that believes that the SR Copyright law does not include sample libraries and then we'll have something to discuss.



How does the copyright of recorded samples differ from the copyright of actual software? Software is protected by copyright as well, and in the case of the Oracle program in question, licensed to the users of the software, in the same way that samples are licensed to the user.

"The user right for such a program, which is granted by a licence agreement, includes the right to store a copy of the program permanently on a server and to allow up to 25 users to access it by downloading it to the main memory of their work-station computers. The licence agreement gives the customer a non-transferable user right for an unlimited period, exclusively for his internal business purposes"

If you've never coded, coding good software takes just as much effort--or more--than making good recordings.


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> A cool example! Why should sample libs producer earn more money with their "piano-sample recordings" than the original builder of the piano? Maybe it is more a moral theme? o/~


No...the piano maker is covered under different laws:

• Trademark Law - which covers the brand name

• Soundmark Law - which can cover the actual sound something produces. (Harley Davidson motorcycles and the Roland TR-808 synthesized drum sounds are both examples of legal "Soundmarks")


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

spectrum @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > A cool example! Why should sample libs producer earn more money with their "piano-sample recordings" than the original builder of the piano? Maybe it is more a moral theme? o/~
> ...



Since your post appeared just below mine after I posted, I want to make sure that you don't miss it. Essentially, the point was that copyright law applies to software as well as samples, and that the Oracle software in the ruling was only licensed, via a non-transferrable license. Also, all the revenue arguments apply equally well to software, which also takes a highly skilled team of people to produce.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

spectrum @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > A cool example! Why should sample libs producer earn more money with their "piano-sample recordings" than the original builder of the piano? Maybe it is more a moral theme? o/~
> ...



Good examples, Eric!

Soundmark law...... . How many sample libs devs have copyrighted their libs in this way?

A wide field, isn`t it?

Do you forbid your clients to resell the libs what they have bought from you?


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> How does the copyright of recorded samples differ from the copyright of actual software? Software is protected by copyright as well, and in the case of the Oracle program in question, licensed to the users of the software, in the same way that samples are licensed to the user.


Sample Library licenses allow you to take the copyrighted work (the sound recording) and produce a new copyrightable work which contains the original copyrighted material within it. In layman's terms, we call this the end users music recording. In legal terms, this is called a "derivative work".

Software licensing is different. It simply allows you to use the product, not to creative "derivative works" based on the copyrighted software code. This would be like the end user getting to use some of Oracle's code within new software they were creating and copyrighting.

So it is indeed a different situation legally. Hence why our products and many others like it come with two separate license agreements that our users agree to aphold - one for software and another for the sound recordings.



> If you've never coded, coding good software takes just as much effort--or more--than making good recordings.


Please note that copyrights have never been granted based on "quality", "innovation" "amount of time spent" or "degree of difficulty"....simply on that it is an original recording that has not already been copyrighted.

It's pretty much like fingerprints....everyone's got 'em. 

People often confuse Copyright Law with the Patent Law process, which is an entirely different matter and does require a great deal of proof of merit, etc.


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Since your post appeared just below mine after I posted, I want to make sure that you don't miss it. Essentially, the point was that copyright law applies to software as well as samples


Answered above hopefully, but the key is that they are protected under different parts of the copyright law.


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Good examples, Eric!
> 
> Soundmark law...... . How many sample libs devs have copyrighted their libs in this way?


It's not necessary (even very relevant) for samples, since the Sound Recording copyright is much simpler and easier to register. It's also easier to apply (since it's just simple registering of audio "fingerprints")



> A wide field, isn`t it?


Yes. And for what it's worth, I'm not too crazy about Soundmark Law (which is a brand new thing), but I have to respect it as a developer and do my research.



> Do you forbid your user to resell the virtual instruments what they have bought from you?


No. We handle License Transfers on a case-by-case basis.

Here's a link to lots of FAQs about all these Licensing Issues with Spectrasonics Instruments and explanations of our policies:

http://www.spectrasonics.net/support/kn ... owcatID=78


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 5, 2012)

Guys, I must say I feel irritated a bit by some comments here. It is not necessary to get personal and insulting, please. This is a good occasion to tolerate people with different opinions.

A law has changed, and this is a point to ask simple questions. When if not now?


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

spectrum @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > How does the copyright of recorded samples differ from the copyright of actual software? Software is protected by copyright as well, and in the case of the Oracle program in question, licensed to the users of the software, in the same way that samples are licensed to the user.
> ...


Or would that actually be more akin to creating another sample library using samples from the first sample library?

I assume the purpose for making a distinction with a derivative work is because the derivative work can continue to generate revenue even after you resell the product. But it seems like the same could be said about a picture you create in photoshop--which I don't think would qualify as a derivative work. And if that's not covered by the same rules, then I don't see why *logically* there should be any distinction, even if *legally* there is one.


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

mk282 @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> RiffWraith @ 5.7.2012 said:
> 
> 
> > FriFlo @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> ...


I'm sorry, but you are 100% incorrect about this.

All countries that are part of the "Berne Union" (the 165 countries that are signatories of the Berne Convention) are bound to EACH OTHERS copyright and intellectual property laws.

BTW, Victor Hugo (a French dude) got the Berne Convention together, not any of us evil Americanos. 

Please read this for more information. It may surprise you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Conv ... stic_Works


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 5, 2012)

spectrum @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you forbid your user to resell the virtual instruments what they have bought from you?
> ...



+1


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> I assume the purpose for making a distinction with a derivative work is because the derivative work can continue to generate revenue even after you resell the product.


It doesn't have anything to do with whether it generates revenue. "Derivative work" means a work that _contains_ a previously copyrighted work. If I sample a hook for a rap song, then that is considered a derivative work. Or a "mash-up" is a derivative work.

It doesn't have anything to do with whether copyrighted *tools* were used in the process. So using Photoshop (or Logic or any software) doesn't result in a "derivative work." Although . . . using Photoshop's clip art or any other previously done art or pictures *does* result in a derivative work, though.


----------



## spectrum (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Or would that actually be more akin to creating another sample library using samples from the first sample library?


No. Legally, there are only "Sound Recordings" to copyright. (not specific types of copyright for each type of recording)

So any type of new recording using the copyrighted work is considered a "derivative work".



> I assume the purpose for making a distinction with a derivative work is because the derivative work can continue to generate revenue even after you resell the product.


No...it's simply about the right to reuse the copyrighted material in any new work - whether for profit or not.



> But it seems like the same could be said about a picture you create in photoshop--which I don't think would qualify as a derivative work.


Aha! Perfect example. 

Indeed, this is a huge issue for any illustrator and graphic artist.

"photoshopping" "collaging", etc are all considered "derivitive works" when they are based on any copyrighted images.

(ask any of your friends who are commercial artists and they will confirm this fact)



> And if that's not covered by the same rules, then I don't see why *logically* there should be any distinction, even if *legally* there is one.


There's no distinction.

The beauty of the law is that it is super simple: Any recording can be copyrighted and protected under copyright law.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

Spectrum, I think this essentially covers the points I would make in a reply to your post as well.



Mike Greene @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I assume the purpose for making a distinction with a derivative work is because the derivative work can continue to generate revenue even after you resell the product.
> ...


Right, but if you're allowed to create derivative works while you own the product and when you sold the product, all your derivative works disappeared, why would it matter if you sold it? What good would any derivative works do you if they ceased to generate revenue when you sold the product.

We do agree that you're licensed to create derivative works while you own the product, right?


> It doesn't have anything to do with whether copyrighted *tools* were used in the process. So using Photoshop (or Logic or any software) doesn't result in a "derivative work."


I never said otherwise. In fact, I think I specifically said that it wasn't.

The point was actually, I don't see the big distinction between using a set of brushes, effects, and tools in photoshop, which were all developed by skilled artists and programmers, but which do not qualify as derivative works, and using a series of short, single note recordings, created by skilled musicians and recording engineers, which do qualify as derivative works.

The distinction does exist because of the way the law is written. I agree with that. I just don't see the PRACTICAL distinction between the two. That is my only point.

edit: I do see a distinction when it comes to recorded musical phrases, just like with clip art. If you want to get into the gray area of "how small does a phrase have to be before the distinction disappears", you could make the same argument with the brushes in any drawing program, which have a definite shape and color pattern associated with them. The distinction might be somewhat subjective or necessary to review on a case by case basis, but I don't think that means it doesn't exist.


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 5, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Right, but if you're allowed to create derivative works while you own the product and when you sold the product, all your derivative works disappeared, why would it matter if you sold it? What good would any derivative works do you if they ceased to generate revenue when you sold the product.



A license is nothing more than a contract between the party granting rights and the party receiving them. The terms of the license are spelled out in the EULA. If the contract states that rights can't be assigned to a 3rd party without agreement from the party granting the original license, then it can't be reassigned to a 3rd party. The receiving party can't change the terms of the contract after the fact.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

Peaslee @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> A license is nothing more than a contract between the party granting rights and the party receiving them. The terms of the license are spelled out in the EULA. If the contract states that rights can't be assigned to a 3rd party without agreement from the party granting the original license, then it can't be reassigned to a 3rd party. The receiving party can't change the terms of the contract after the fact.



I think this is a separate issue, because if that were the only ground that this had to stand on, it sounds like the new ruling would overturn that. In the case of the Oracle software, Oracle had ALSO granted the purchaser a non-transferable license to the software.


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 5, 2012)

yes, but the Oracle ruling for software doesn't pertain in any way at all to sound recording copyrights, so contract law does indeed govern the exact rules for how any specific license can be transferred and assigned.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

Then the issue is back to one of derivative works. My only point was that using phrases, snippets of incidental music, or entire works of music to formulate a soundtrack--or whatever--is obviously a derivative work. Using individually recorded notes to "perform" a song seems almost like using a photoshop brush (which must have been crafted by an artist, since it has a definite shape, texture, and color gradient) to draw a picture. And yes, the line between "phrase" and "sample" can get blurry (like trills and legato intervals), but so, theoretically could the line between "brush" and "clip art", if we wanted it to.

I'm not debating the fact that the law says those are different things, I've agreed to that in at least two messages. My point is only that it seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

(and while we might be able to argue about whether or not a lot more work goes into sampling than creating a photoshop brush, as spectrum has pointed out, it's not an issue of the amount of effort that goes into creating the product. A sample library with a single sample stretched over all notes/velocities would be privy to the same copyright protection as the most sophisticated library).

But I really care very little about this, actually. It was fun to think about for a while, but ultimately, it doesn't affect me in any way, and I can't afford to spend any more time thinking about it.


----------



## tcollins (Jul 5, 2012)

To their credit, the posters in this thread on either side of the issue are most likely honest people, and perhaps cannot see what could happen if a law permitted resale of sample libraries without regard to the copyright holder:

-Within hours of the first sale of a new library, a 'purchaser' would realize that they now "owned" it, and could sell it if they pleased. 

-If they can sell it, they can give it away. They do.

-The library, which took months or years to create, is now available for free all over the internet. Legally? I'm not a lawyer, but the logic works.

-Sales stop after the first few pro composers support the developer, hoping to keep them afloat.

-Months later, the purchaser checks the developer's website to check on updates and possible new products. Only there's no website. The developer has returned to composing for a living. He still creates libraries once in a while (since he still has that skill) for his own use and a few other Hollywood heavies who hire him.

This is my concern. The ruling in question would not allow this, but if this kind of thing becomes the trend... 

Sample library developers, for the most part, are your fellow composers. They have learned by experience what kind of sounds work while composing and have learned how to create them. They hire orchestras, buy or rent instruments, and hold their breath for the entire duration of countless piano (for example) notes to give you multiple velocity and round-robin samples in your new affordable library. A single note may not qualify as a composition, but certainly the time, equipment, experience, and the very fact that it IS a recording are worthy of copyright protection. 

There is no trick, no hiding behind copyright laws. When I (Indiginus) released my first product, I called the US Copyright Office and asked which form to use for a sample library. They told me to use form SR (sound recording), which I did.

I buy (er, lease) many more libraries than I produce, and I am certainly glad to have companies like SoundIron, 8dio, SampleTekk, and all the others to choose from!

The only way for this thing to work (affordable sample libraries) is for developers to have copyright protection.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 5, 2012)

tcollins @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> To their credit, the posters in this thread on either side of the issue are most likely honest people, and perhaps cannot see what could happen if a law permitted resale of sample libraries without regard to the copyright holder:
> 
> -Within hours of the first sale of a new library, a 'purchaser' would realize that they now "owned" it, and could sell it if they pleased.
> 
> ...



They would still only own one copy to sell or give away, this would be illegal.


----------



## tcollins (Jul 5, 2012)

I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.
I'm just wary of any law or ruling that erodes intellectual property rights and could be abused. 
Happily, we're not anywhere near that point with the ruling in question!


----------



## dannthr (Jul 6, 2012)

License to use a recording is not software. PLAY is a free software download, the library content is licensed in the same way that music is licensed.

You want companies you sell your music to in Europe to transfer their licenses and resell your music for however much they wish?

Think about what you're actually paying for when you buy a sample library.

It's not unlike licensing a sound effects library, or a production music library.

Pirates don't pirate because they can only afford a library at 50% of the retail cost. They pirate because they want to pay 0.


----------



## star.keys (Jul 6, 2012)

Developers can be classified under 3 categories:

A. Spectrasonics, Audio Ease, VSL set the benchmark when it comes to sample libraries and fair terms of selling/ re-selling it.

B. Spitfire, Cinesamples etc who won't allow reselling but are at least try to be fair to the instrument players by giving them the royalty

C. EastWest (and some obvious titles not to stir this up) etc are at the other end spectrum which set bad example of consumer T&Cs.

In regards category C developers, I will always treat them like contractors/ vendors that I hire to do a job and forget about them when the job is over (or explore corrective action if the job is not done), as against category A developers, who will get a treatment as being my essential and friendly partners into my musical journey. For category B developers, they will get good treatment at least from those instrument player and good will from other instrument players (that's nothing to do with me as a consumer).

In summary, as a consumer I care about consumer protection and not developer protection.

p.s. corrected the data in previous post


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2012)

germancomponist @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> Paul,
> 
> let us go back to the thread theme! Reselling libs...., allowed or not?



:| .... Its not. The discussion about copyright is WHY its not. 

Is your english that bad that you dont understand a single thing in this thread?


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2012)

mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> If you've never coded, coding good software takes just as much effort--or more--than making good recordings.



So? Why does the effort put into it make any difference?

Someone might put a whole lot of effort into building and designing your house, maybe and probably way more than you writing some music, but you have rights to your music after you finished that he doesnt with his work. The* entire music industry isnt fair *when you compare it to other industries, you are looking at this with blinkers on. Ive already given the example earlier of a painter or sculptor that has no rights like a composer does if he sells his work. Does that mean its not fair? Sure! But you either have to have a problem with it all or not at all, you and a few others here just act like sample library developers are some strange (greedy) anomaly

I cant remember if it was you that said its not fair a piano can be sold but a sample of a piano cannot be. Once again, you have narrow blinkers on. Its the same with *any *recording. If Im a singer, why should someone who records me singing potentially have rights to the recording of my own voice and even potentially become extremely rich off it, while I dont get a penny? You could logically, in the exact same way, argue I should have inherent rights to my own voice because its my voice. You see the problem yet? If you say single samples are copyright free you just opened a massive grey area requiring arbitrary distinctions as to what is and what isnt musical, but all your examples are even worse than that, because in order to reconcile them and make it "fair" would mean the entire concept of sound recording copyright cant exist. Whereas people like Hanz and Gunther seem to think that if the samples are housed in a software program makes it software _(which in this case would make no distinction at all as to the musicality of the recordings _), means that any software with books, film, music, etc on them now means all that is now copyright free as well. Likewise if some music library company like APM distributes to their clients their music on some software, this makes all their music just as copyright free as the software it comes on too. Do you really not see the slippery slope?

The main problem here is that its so easy to buy sample libraries, if it werent as easy as clicking buy and after a few clicks downloading one, or buying one off the shelf in a box *as easily as any other software,* then maybe people would feel differently. They see it as normal software rather than licensing sound recordings, because the process of buying sample libs is no different to buying a software synth or a virus checker. If you actually try and licence an existing piece of music to use in your own music or your film its very different and I think most everyone that has to do this clearly understands how and why its not the same as just buying a track on itunes.


----------



## germancomponist (Jul 6, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Is your english that bad that you dont understand a single thing in this thread?



Nice try, but you'll never make it to insult me!


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 6, 2012)

spectrum @ Thu Jul 05 said:


> • Soundmark Law - which can cover the actual sound something produces. (Harley Davidson motorcycles and the Roland TR-808 synthesized drum sounds are both examples of legal "Soundmarks")



Interesting. Have any companies making physical instruments tried to do soundmarks, or is that anticipated?


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 6, 2012)

star.keys @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Developers can be classified under 3 categories:
> 
> A. Spectrasonics, Audio Ease, VSL set the benchmark when it comes to sample libraries and fair terms of selling/ re-selling it.
> 
> ...




Thanks! Very kind. I appreciate your candor and bravery taking anonymous potshots at people. 

Just for the record though we were the first company to pay royalties to the musicians in your little list.


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Thanks! Very kind. I appreciate your candor and bravery taking anonymous potshots at people.



Dont worry Paul, he just doesnt realise he is punching himself in the face by arguing against laws that protect the entire music profession.


----------



## ThomasL (Jul 6, 2012)

star.keys @ 2012-07-06 said:


> In summary, as a consumer I care about consumer protection and not developer protection.


You should care for the devs as well, otherwise you'll sit there with nothing to "consume".

My 2 cents in this very baffling thread.


----------



## ThomasL (Jul 6, 2012)

germancomponist @ 2012-07-06 said:


> Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Is your english that bad that you dont understand a single thing in this thread?
> ...


I'm sorry to say Gunther that I think you've managed that quite well on your own in this thread...


----------



## Gusfmm (Jul 6, 2012)

The official Court Judgement is no trivial reading, multiple implications associated to existing copyright treaties, older EU Directives and Laws. Definitely not trivial. The original case was ruled in favor to Oracle, then appealed, failed, re-appealed in Federal Court, and now ruled against Oracle as a result. Not sure whether it could be now (re)appealed by Oracle in Federal Court or some European Parliament; I'd not be surprised if that were to happen next.

Although I'm not a legal counsel, my bottom line interpretation, as I said before, is that a well-written sample library EULA, defining terms of use, should be above and beyond this ruling. One thing is dealing with resale and right of distribution, as directly pertain to this case, one another is using the product for a certain (commercial) purpose. And I think this is a key point, where similarly to licensing a cue for a movie, the *(copyrighted) content* of a sample library is (or rather more generally, can be) *licensed* to the original purchaser, only. Unless different terms are otherwise defined.






Footnote comment- there is an interesting mention by the Court, I quote:
It is "...permissible for the distributor – whether ‘classic’ or ‘digital’ – to make use of technical protective measures such as product keys..."


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 6, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> mpalenik @ Thu Jul 05 said:
> 
> 
> > If you've never coded, coding good software takes just as much effort--or more--than making good recordings.
> ...



Ed, are you really going to use one line from 2/3 of the way through the discussion as your springing off point? The discussion evolved well beyond the message you quoted and this has been addressed. 

It doesn't really matter. Heck, read my post from two before this one, I specifically agreed that it DOESN'T. But some developers were arguing that it does, if you read more than just my message.



> you and a few others here just act like sample library developers are some strange (greedy) anomaly


Excuse me, Ed? Stop putting words into my mouth. Show me where I said this. Also show me where I EVER said that I actually thought the new ruling DID apply to samples.

Also, re: all your comments on fairness. None of this really has to do with the fairness of the music industry, it has to do with the law.


----------



## mark812 (Jul 6, 2012)

star.keys @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Developers can be classified under 3 categories:
> 
> A. Spectrasonics, Audio Ease, VSL set the benchmark when it comes to sample libraries and fair terms of selling/ re-selling it.
> 
> ...



I didn't know that Audio Ease does sample libraries.

CineWinds were recorded with union players?

BTW, EastWest and Spitfire in the same sentence when talking about customer relations..LOL. :D


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2012)

mpalenik @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Ed, are you really going to use one line from 2/3 of the way through the discussion as your springing off point? The discussion evolved well beyond the message you quoted and this has been addressed.
> 
> It doesn't really matter. Heck, read my post from two before this one, I specifically agreed that it DOESN'T. But some developers were arguing that it does, if you read more than just my message.



You only said this 1 page back and you never replied to Eric (spectrum's) response to you, I see on page 8 you indirectly did say it has nothing to do with how much effort has gone into it, fair enough.

But you still said this in the same post:



> Using individually recorded notes to "perform" a song seems almost like using a photoshop brush (which must have been crafted by an artist, since it has a definite shape, texture, and color gradient) to draw a picture. And yes, the line between "phrase" and "sample" can get blurry (like trills and legato intervals), but so, theoretically could the line between "brush" and "clip art", if we wanted it to



You're still comparing two different things and implying they should be treated the same because ethically you cant see how its that different. Creating and recording music is essentially the same as painting a picture or sculpting something, but a composer and people who record sound have more/different rights than people who do that. So as I said in my post I hope you didnt just read one line of, you either accept that there are differences here or you accept none of them. In order to make it all "fair" (to compare the things you have done) the ENTIRE idea of music copyright must be rejected.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 6, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> mpalenik @ Fri Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, are you really going to use one line from 2/3 of the way through the discussion as your springing off point? The discussion evolved well beyond the message you quoted and this has been addressed.
> ...


Yes, because the post from Synesthesia from Spitfire was directly making arguments based on the amount of work that they put into their libraries--which I agree is probably a lot. However, if it's not relevant when I was arguing against him, it's not relevant when he said it either.

Remember when just before that, I said something along the lines of "I agree sample libraries are still protected, but I think some of the reasoning why is wrong"? Or did you ignore that part?

And in case you missed the edits to my last post, please stop putting words into my mouth about treating sample developers like a few greedy people. I never did anything of the sort.



> I see on page 8 you indirectly did say it has nothing to do with how much effort has gone into it, fair enough.
> 
> But you still said this in the same post:
> 
> ...



Yes, they have different rights. I never said they didn't. I never said that legally this wasn't the case. Just that LOGICALLY, I don't think it should be.

Also, are you so sure that digital pictures are subject to different laws than recordings? Obviously a sculpture or physical painting is something different, but it sounds like--from the discussion here--that pictures, e.g. clipart, are subject to the same laws regarding derivative works that recordings are. That's what's relevant here.

But then, we could also ask if the laws that protect composers and recording artists were actually MEANT to be used this way for sample libraries--for single recorded notes, used to "perform" compositions of the purchaser. I don't know. Maybe not. And maybe it's actually possible that somebody could convince a judge of that some day, but that's just speculation and not the point at all. . .



> So as I said in my post I hope you didnt just read one line of, you either accept that there are differences here or you accept none of them. In order to make it all "fair" (to compare the things you have done) the ENTIRE idea of music copyright must be rejected.



No, you don't. It doesn't have to be black and white like that. There's room for judgement and treating things on a case by case basis in the law. It's always possible to create new laws that treat things differently as well.

If we WERE to change the way copyright worked--and I'm not suggesting that anyone will or that it necessarily SHOULD be done--I'm pretty sure it would be possible to do so without throwing out the idea of music copyright all together.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 6, 2012)

mark812 @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> BTW, EastWest and Spitfire in the same sentence when talking about customer relations..LOL. :D



:roll: 


Between us, Christian and I respond to some 30-40 emails a day from our users, many just happy end users, some with tech questions. 

Luckily 99.99% or our customers are very happy and we work hard to make that the case. 

We make products that we want to use, so it wouldn't make any sense to make them poor quality!

Anyway - that really is me over and out. I must not look at this bizarre thread again!


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2012)

mpalenik @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Yes, because the post from Synesthesia from Spitfire was directly making arguments based on the amount of work that they put into their libraries--which I agree is probably a lot. However, if it's not relevant when I was arguing against him, it's not relevant when he said it either.



You werent replying to Synesthesia when you said either of the posts I had mentioned. The one of yours I had replied to on this page is your response to Eric Persing, the second one doesnt seem to be anyone in particular but Paul (Synesthesia) only posted after that.

Pedantic observation? Maybe, but at any rate Ive already said before that its not a good argument for a sample developer to make for why the law should be the way it is, merely that the amount of work they do is protected far more than other kinds of work and puts a small developer of sample libraries in a better position than, say, a small developer of FX plugins or real acoustic instruments or something. Saying it takes a lot of work IS relevant if the argument is that if sound recording copyright didnt exist with sample libraries they would have a much harder time justifying the time and expense and may not be able to afford to exist at all. 






> Remember when just before that, I said something along the lines of "I agree sample libraries are still protected, but I think some of the reasoning why is wrong"? Or did you ignore that part?



No, since I mentioned you said that in the post you replied to. You even quoted it in your post.



> And in case you missed the edits to my last post, please stop putting words into my mouth about treating sample developers like a few greedy people. I never did anything of the sort.



1. Its your continued, albeit at an increasingly restrained *implication*, that sample developers are somehow an anomaly in the music and sound recording industry with unfair and arbitrary laws. 
2. I should have been clearer, the part about "greed" is not just directed at you. If you read the KVR thread about this, that is literally what some people are saying. 




> Yes, they have different rights. I never said they didn't. I never said
> that legally this wasn't the case. Just that LOGICALLY, I don't think it should be.



And as Ive told you several times in different ways, in order to "logically" reconcile your examples we have to throw out the entire idea of copyright. Ive given plenty of examples now of what happens if we try and do it and the slippery slope we end up on, I really dont see why I need to keep repeating them when you just ignore them. Try reading that post where you snipped all but the first sentence again.


----------



## mark812 (Jul 6, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> mark812 @ Fri Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, EastWest and Spitfire in the same sentence when talking about customer relations..LOL. :D
> ...



Paul, you completely misunderstood me. What I meant: East West with their "great" customer support and forum where they delete every criticism or even simple questions that they don't like..and their student discounts with ridiculous limitations. 

On the other side is Spitfire with generous student discount without any limitations and with fantastic customer support. 

I'm a very satisfied Spitfire customer and if you browse through some of my previous posts, you'll only find words of praise for Spitfire.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 6, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> mpalenik @ Fri Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, because the post from Synesthesia from Spitfire was directly making arguments based on the amount of work that they put into their libraries--which I agree is probably a lot. However, if it's not relevant when I was arguing against him, it's not relevant when he said it either.
> ...


Fair enough. I forgot the order of posts when I was replying to you. But it was an argument that he made.



> Pedantic observation? Maybe, but at any rate Ive already said before that its not a good argument for a sample developer to make for why the law should be the way it is, merely that the amount of work they do is protected far more than other kinds of work and puts a small developer of sample libraries in a better position than, say, a small developer of FX plugins or real acoustic instruments or something. Saying it takes a lot of work IS relevant if the argument is that if sound recording copyright didnt exist with sample libraries they would have a much harder time justifying the time and expense and may not be able to afford to exist at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First post I made: "It sounds to me, from what I've read in this thread, that the new law won't apply to sample libraries, and that seems pretty reasonable. But *just to play devil's advocate*. . . "

From my second post:
*"ust to be clear, I don't have any moral problem with samples and I'm not trying to take a shot at spitfire."*

Clearly implying that there's something wrong with sample developers :roll: 




> 2. I should have been clearer, the part about "greed" is not just directed at you. If you read the KVR thread about this, that is literally what some people are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not entirely sure that you're arguing examples that have anything to do with the law. Both images and recordings are protected by laws regarding derivative works. So, if I draw a picture, you can't use it to create other pictures without my consent. This seems to be the crux of the argument that Spectrum was making.

Obviously a single painting or sculpture is different than a musical composition, because musical compositions can be repeated on demand, whereas there is only one copy of a painting or sculpture. But for a digital recording vs. digital image, are you so sure that there's actually a difference in the law?

Apparently, there's also the idea of sound copyright, where the characteristic sound that an object makes can be copyrighted--but it doesn't sound like this can be (or at least has not been) applied to sample libraries.

So, to go back to the analogy of photoshop: I cannot make and sell pictures using an illegally obtained copy of photoshop. I also cannot take photographs of other people's pictures and put them together to make a collage and sell it.

I can, however, continue to sell pictures made in photoshop AFTER transfering the license to someone else (assuming that such a thing is possible, at least under the new EU ruling), despite the fact that in a minimalist sense the brushes COULD be considered artwork. According to previous discussion on this thread, once again, clipart is protected in the same way samples are--unless you are arguing otherwise.

I'm pretty sure if people sat around and thought about it for a while, they could revise copyright law--once again, not that it's actually necessary. You're telling me that's completely impossible?

My point is that samples in sample libraries seem closer to the minimalist sense in which photoshop brushes are artwork, then they do to recorded music. Admittedly, there are times when this gets a bit blurry. But I'm relatively certain that there is SOME POSSIBLE way to define a distinction that would cover 90% of cases that would allow us to treat sample libraries differently from recorded music.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 6, 2012)

mark812 @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Synesthesia @ Fri Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > mark812 @ Fri Jul 06 said:
> ...



Hi Mark - 

Not at all!!!! Sorry you got that impression - I totally saw what you were saying and I was agreeing with you!!

The written word is terribly imprecise!

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## TGV (Jul 6, 2012)

tcollins @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> This is my concern. The ruling in question would not allow this, but if this kind of thing becomes the trend...


I think everyone shares you concern, but all these products are already available out there. The other day I was looking for a review of ***********, and I found this:

**LINKS REMOVED**

All downloads, just from the first couple of hits. No idea if they work, or if there is some trick.

And that is for a new and pretty small library, that costs just €10. The reality is that whatever you produce, it has already been pirated. Changing the law cannot make it faster. The only thing you can do against piracy is try to bind your customers.


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2012)

mpalenik @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> First post I made: "It sounds to me, from what I've read in this thread, that the new law won't apply to sample libraries, and that seems pretty reasonable. But *just to play devil's advocate*. . . "



I remember you said that. That doesnt change what I said you have been arguing. 



> From my second post:
> *"ust to be clear, I don't have any moral problem with samples and I'm not trying to take a shot at spitfire."*
> 
> Clearly implying that there's something wrong with sample developers :roll:



And yet you still keep arguing that samples _should _be treated like things like photoshop pen/paint tools. Its not my fault you keep giving these examples. 



> I'm not entirely sure that you're arguing examples that have anything to do with the law. Both images and recordings are protected by laws regarding derivative works. So, if I draw a picture, you can't use it to create other pictures without my consent. This seems to be the crux of the argument that Spectrum was making.
> 
> Obviously a single painting or sculpture is different than a musical composition, because musical compositions can be repeated on demand, whereas there is only one copy of a painting or sculpture. But for a digital recording vs. digital image, are you so sure that there's actually a difference in the law?



The big difference is that if you're a painter or a sculptor if you sell your work you cant say that customer cant resell to someone else. Same with the car maker, same with a maker of physical musical instruments etc. If you're a composer for media, thats in fact usually where you make most of your money. Is it unfair? Yes, in the exact same way as we're talking about sample libraries. 



> So, to go back to the analogy of photoshop: I cannot make and sell pictures using an illegally obtained copy of photoshop. I also cannot take photographs of other people's pictures and put them together to make a collage and sell it.
> 
> I can, however, continue to sell pictures made in photoshop AFTER transfering the license to someone else (assuming that such a thing is possible, at least under the new EU ruling)... According to previous discussion on this thread, once again, clipart is protected in the same way samples are--unless you are arguing otherwise



I dont know if its possible, maybe it isnt. I dont know what the laws are regarding clip art in a program like photoshop, maybe its copyright free from the start or something. But unless you can find an actual law that says if it isnt or not probably best not to give it as an example. Here's a better example, if you want to licence actual footage from a film or company that licences out stock footage, you cannot resell that licence to someone else. It doesnt matter if they have a pack of hundreds of videos and implement that into a piece of easy to use software, you cant resell the licence unless it specifies they allow you to do that. 




> despite the fact that in a minimalist sense the brushes COULD be considered artwork. .



Stop giving that example, a brush tool is not clip art its essentially an FX plugin. If theres a picture of a child crying, thats different. 



> I'm pretty sure if people sat around and thought about it for a while, they could revise copyright law--once again, not that it's actually necessary. You're telling me that's completely impossible?



Yes Im saying it is impossible if you took all your examples and made them "LOGICALLY FAIR". There is no way you can do that given the examples you gave. With the exact same logic and arguments you could still show ways the music industry is not fair. 

The only reason you want to fix this perceived unfairness is because *you'd* like it if you could resell sample libraries. Thats why you cant be against one part and not all of it.

I gave the example of a singer who can be recorded for a project, the person who recorded her can potentially make millions off her and she has no rights at all to any of that money. You could "logically" say she has an inherent right to the recording no matter what, because its her own voice. It opens up so many holes and grey areas it would fall apart. What about if it were true that this European software resale law applied to sample libraries? Then audio sample cds would still not be resellable, but if they were programmed into Kontakt suddenly they are. If a music library like APM distributed their music in some software that means the music can be bought and resold like the software can. If its just how complex the software is thats now more grey area, just how complex does it have to be? What if its software on the internet? Does that count too? etc. I could go on for pages. If you took your blinkers off you'd soon realise the implications of what you're suggesting would mean for the music industry.



> My point is that samples in sample libraries seem closer to the minimalist sense in which photoshop brushes are artwork, then they do to recorded music.



No they do not, they are closer to sound recordings, because thats what they are. The fact that you are actually comparing them to a brush tool in what is essentially a complex version of Paint shows how much you still arent really understanding this. Sound recordings have different rights. A brush tool in a Paint program is software. The only argument you can come back with is that its not fair its treated differently and that it can take a lot of time and skill to make that software, which goes right back to my response about the entire music industry is based on laws that WHEN COMPARED to other industries are unfair and therefore to try and make them NOT unfair you need to get rid of them all.


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2012)

TGV, the forum doesnt allow "pirate" links I recommend you remove them.


----------



## star.keys (Jul 6, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> star.keys @ Fri Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Developers can be classified under 3 categories:
> ...



Paul, fantastic, I didn''t know that - maybe you guys didn't market that fact and hype it the way Cinesamples did! So Spitfire moves to category B if that's true, and you earn additional goodwill from musicians. As far the customers are concerned, I own Albion and your customer support is fabulous, period. However customer support is not what we are discussing here and it has to be be good as yours to be able to sustain the existing customers and have the ability to cross sell to increase the overall wallet share per customer (level-100 business management lesson?). This post is about the T&Cs impacting the ability of customers to re-sell Vs. what the EULA allows. Obviously I can probably see where you are coming from, I shouldn't have compared Spitfire and EW on the same plane, EW is a totally different/difficult story, I don't want to start on that and digress from the topic.

It is also important to note that a post being anonymous doesn't diminish it's value. It may be anonymous to you but to mods and some other forum members know who I am.


----------



## star.keys (Jul 6, 2012)

Corrected the data in my original post, Paul


----------



## Synesthesia (Jul 6, 2012)

star.keys @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Corrected the data in my original post, Paul



OK thanks and point understood.

Look - the reality is that if someone dies, and their widow contacts us to ask about disposal of their assets including libraries etc, or if there are extenuating circumstances, then we DO take these into consideration. I've actually issued two refunds over the last few months, for specific reasons and kindness. (I was able to confirm that these had not been downloaded.)

However, that doesn't alter the fact that our T&C forbid the resale of our licenses. The reasons for this are all here in the thread, far more ably explained by Eric & Mike than I am eloquent enough to do.

The main reasons, moral, for us remain: we want our musicians to earn from every sale. We want to be fairly compensated. We want to keep our prices as low as we can. We want to continue to help students get their careers going without all their investment being useless the second they leave college.

We play fair and we hope for a fair shake in return. We are just a couple of guys making libraries and working as composers.

Anyway: MUST STOP LOOKING AT THE THREAD!!! :lol:


----------



## TGV (Jul 6, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> TGV, the forum doesnt allow "pirate" links I recommend you remove them.


Changed them to non-functioning links. Let's hope that's not too offensive in this discussion.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 6, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> mpalenik @ Fri Jul 06 said:
> 
> 
> > First post I made: "It sounds to me, from what I've read in this thread, that the new law won't apply to sample libraries, and that seems pretty reasonable. But *just to play devil's advocate*. . . "
> ...


I think maybe you don't understand the concept of "devil's advocate". . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

And for the record, I have no issue with you arguing this topic with me. What I did have issue with was you accusing me of badmouthing sample developers.



> And yet you still keep arguing that samples _should _be treated like things like photoshop pen/paint tools. Its not my fault you keep giving these examples.


No, I've specifically said that I don't think it necessarily SHOULD. And by SHOULD I mean SHOULD as in: Would be good for the music industry, composers, or sample developers.

If by SHOULD you mean "I can see the logic behind X and will argue with you if you try to pretend that it's a nonsensical position, that it would unravel the music industry, that it is impossible to change copyright law to make this work, or that it's impossible that in the future a judge might rule this way", then yes. In that bizarre, nonstandard, speculative definition of "should", I have been arguing that this is what "should" happen. But I never once indicated that I believe we actually SHOULD try to push the law in this direction by the actual, standard definition of should. In fact, I have repeatedly said that I do not.




> > So, to go back to the analogy of photoshop: I cannot make and sell pictures using an illegally obtained copy of photoshop. I also cannot take photographs of other people's pictures and put them together to make a collage and sell it.
> >
> > I can, however, continue to sell pictures made in photoshop AFTER transfering the license to someone else (assuming that such a thing is possible, at least under the new EU ruling)... According to previous discussion on this thread, once again, clipart is protected in the same way samples are--unless you are arguing otherwise
> 
> ...


Forget about the specific clipart that might be contained in any one particular drawing package (which they may or may not license to you to use for commercial purposes). In general, you cannot go around using other people's images unless you are licensed to do so. Even Youtube doesn't let you do this for legal reasons if you want to put ads on your videos.



> Here's a better example, if you want to licence actual footage from a film or company that licences out stock footage, you cannot resell that licence to someone else. It doesnt matter if they have a pack of hundreds of videos and implement that into a piece of easy to use software, you cant resell the licence unless it specifies they allow you to do that.


Ok, that's the same exact situation.



> > despite the fact that in a minimalist sense the brushes COULD be considered artwork. .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Recording her singing is the same as taking a photo of someone else's picture and using it in a collage. There's no need for any special music/sound recording copyright. It's all down to what the creator agrees to.

If she has a recording session that she's payed for, she has whatever rights are granted to her in the contract. If it's just a one time payment, then that's what she gets. If it includes royalties, then she gets royalties.

If it's a recording WITHOUT her permission, that's different. At least in US law, you're not allowed to record conversations without someone's consent. I don't know about Europe. I wouldn't be too surprised ifthe same applied to any sound recording of the person's voice.



> If a music library like APM distributed their music in some software that means the music can be bought and resold like the software can.


No, it doesn't. Because as I've repeatedly said, we should be able to differentiate between those two things. For the 3rd or 4th time--yes, there CAN be gray areas when it comes to samples (such as very short recorded phrases), but I think we could EASILY come up with laws that covered 90% of cases.

This is PRECISELY the type of thing I was talking about.



> If its just how complex the software is thats now more grey area,


It has nothing to do with the complexity of the software. It has to do with the musical content of the samples. A vaguely defined term for now, but I'm SURE we could come up with a specific definition that covers 90% of cases, and couple that with the ability of the judge to use his own judgement in a ruling (the human element in the law often serves the useful purpose of making sure the spirit and not the letter of the law is followed).



> > My point is that samples in sample libraries seem closer to the minimalist sense in which photoshop brushes are artwork, then they do to recorded music.
> 
> 
> 
> No they do not, they are closer to sound recordings, because thats what they are. The fact that you are actually comparing them to a brush tool in what is essentially a complex version of Paint shows how much you still arent really understanding this.


A brush tool is an image. You click the mouse, it puts an image on the screen. Not a fancy image, but an image nonetheless. The simplest tool is just a single pixel. I'll grant there's nothing artistic about that whatsoever. But more complex brushes have color gradients, a definite shape, and sometimes can even make a pattern texture. Those are all images that have to be drawn by someone.



> Sound recordings have different rights. A brush tool in a Paint program is software.


But it's also an image. And rights are granted to the creators of images as well.



> The only argument you can come back with is that its not fair its treated differently and that it can take a lot of time and skill to make that software,


It's not the software itself that I'm talking about, it's the images within the software. Ok, sure a plugin that does embossing isn't an image, but a brush that paints a plaid texture as you drag it across the screen is. Somebody had to draw that plaid texture. And as we said before, it's not about the amount of effort/skill involved in creating the thing that matters.

Additionally, while I could sell an image that I made using photoshop's brushes, I could most likely not copy a single brush stroke from each of photoshop's brushes pixel for pixel and include it in a drawing program that I create and sell myself.



> which goes right back to my response about the entire music industry is based on laws that WHEN COMPARED to other industries are unfair and therefore to try and make them NOT unfair you need to get rid of them all.



Why do we need to get rid of them ALL? And what standard of fairness are we using that says all laws in the music industry are unfair?

Look, prior to the EU ruling--which still has implications that are a bit unclear--I would have said obviously there's no way that you can resell a sample library if the license forbids it. And legally, it sounds like that's almost definitely still the case.

Now, if the interpretation that some people have is correct, the reason the license still holds up is because music created with samples qualifies as a derivative work. It's the classification of music performed by samples as a derivative work that I find tenuous (although not necessarily in ALL circumstances--it depends on the type of samples used). Legally I'm sure it still holds up, but I think would be possible to change this without unraveling all copyright law


----------



## Ed (Jul 6, 2012)

mpalenik @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> I think maybe you don't understand the concept of "devil's advocate". . .
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate
> 
> And for the record, I have no issue with you arguing this topic with me. What I did have issue with was you accusing me of badmouthing sample developers.



Devils advocate means you dont really believe any of the stuff you say is a valid argument, you're producing a _hypothetical _argument the "other side" might say to see what what the response would be.

You cant say you're only playing devils advocate but at the same time strongly argue a point as if you actually do agree with the position. Look at that wikipedia definition you gave, it says it means you "_take a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument._ ". So are you saying that you're continuing to argue and defending a position you dont even agree with just "for the sake of argument"? 






> No, I've specifically said that I don't think it necessarily SHOULD. And by SHOULD I mean SHOULD as in: Would be good for the music industry, composers, or sample developers.
> 
> If by SHOULD you mean "I can see the logic behind X and will argue with you if you try to pretend that it's a nonsensical position, that it would unravel the music industry, that it is impossible to change copyright law to make this work, or that it's impossible that in the future a judge might rule this way", then yes. In that bizarre, nonstandard, speculative definition of "should", I have been arguing that this is what "should" happen. But I never once indicated that I believe we actually SHOULD try to push the law in this direction by the actual, standard definition of should. In fact, I have repeatedly said that I do not.



All that was pretty confusing, Im really not sure what you mean to be saying here. 

You have been trying to compare sample libraries to all kinds of things. Cars, physical pianos and now a brush tool in photoshop. Why? You started off doing this by concluding that it wasnt fair that sample libraries have these laws protecting them and these other things _(like pianos and cars)_ do not, even though there is a lot of work that goes into making them and how it just doesnt make sense to you _ (eg. a piano itself can be resold but a sample library of one cannot). _ Then you agreed that it didnt matter how much work went into it, but then immediately started saying that you think sample libraries are quite close to a brush tool in photoshop and therefore shouldn't have the copyright protection that it has while the brush tool in photoshop does not. If you dont agree that it "should", then then the entire argument is pointless and irrelevant. As I keep telling you, I can compare hundreds of different scenarios in the music industry to other things like this and they are just as valid as yours is, especially since your examples are so broad (ie. samples are like brush tools in PhotoShop) that make a ton more generalised comparisons possible. 



> Forget about the specific clipart that might be contained in any one particular drawing package (which they may or may not license to you to use for commercial purposes). In general, you cannot go around using other people's images unless you are licensed to do so. Even Youtube doesn't let you do this for legal reasons if you want to put ads on your videos.



"Technically" they dont, but it happens all the time. But yes, you're right. Glad you understand this, we may have to come back to it.



> Recording her singing is the same as taking a photo of someone else's picture and using it in a collage. There's no need for any special music/sound recording copyright.



... are you saying its okay to use a recording of a recording as much as you like? Because I should tell you you do not. Theres a reason why you cannot video tape a film in a cinema.



> By the way, at least in US law, you're not allowed to record conversations without someone's consent. I don't know about Europe. I wouldn't be too surprised ifthe same applied to any sound recording of the person's voice.



Well firstly you can record things like crowds and have rights to it without having to get everyone in the crowd to sign a release and secondly I didnt say that it was not consensual. When I first made this example I was referring to your previous example about the physical piano that can be resold while a sample of a piano cannot. You couldnt seem to understand why the actual piano maker had less rights than the sample of the piano. Now regarding my example of the singer, if you're a session musician/vocalist typically they sign over their rights to make any further money off the recording no matter how well it does. This is just as unfair as in your example, with the only difference that she may get paid something for the performance. You could easily argue using the same "logic" and ethics that since its her own voice she should have some rights to it forever because its her voice, just like the piano maker should. 




> No, it doesn't. Because as I've repeatedly said, we should be able to differentiate between those two things. For the 3rd or 4th time--yes, there CAN be gray areas when it comes to samples (such as very short recorded phrases), but I think we could EASILY come up with laws that covered 90% of cases.



Again with "should". You claim we should treat sample libraries differently, okay so if I go sample a "very short recording phrase" from a Michael Jackson record, you think that should be copyright free? And what justification do you have have to try and correct your perceived "unfairness" in sample library licences but not any other unfairness in the music industry? Very important question, that one.






> It has nothing to do with the complexity of the software. It has to do with the musical content of the samples. A vaguely defined term for now, but I'm SURE we could come up with a specific definition that covers 90% of cases, and couple that with the ability of the judge to use his own judgement in a ruling (the human element in the law often serves the useful purpose of making sure the spirit and not the letter of the law is followed).



I was of course replying to Gunther's argument that because its distributed in software means its lost all its rights as a sound recording. 

You cant define it the way you want it to, because of the slippery slope you end up on. The more you open up what is a "very short phrase" so to include as many sample libraries under the umbrella of yours as possible, meaning the most possible libraries can be therefore resold then it means you make it even more legal to sample more of someones music without having to pay them anything to do so. 




> But it's also an image. And rights are granted to the creators of images as well.



Actually no, in this case it really isnt. You've far exceeded your comparisons. You should have stuck to clip art.



> Why do we need to get rid of them ALL? And what standard of fairness are we using that says all laws in the music industry are unfair?



By the standards you have already given us in different ways with all your examples of how unfair it is that sample libraries are treated differently from all these different things. You have given no reason *why *- other than your own interest in reselling sample libraries - *why *the law should be changed. The entire reason for this argument in the first place is that some people think its "unfair" you cannot resell your sample library. If you're going to say its not about what is fair then there is no reason for the argument at all. So why sample libraries, other than your own personal interest? Using the same standard of fairness, using the same exact logic you've used here you can say the same thing about the entire music industry. That is why I say you cannot remain consistent by being against the copyright protection in sample libraries, while not having any problem with any other aspect. When anyone gives you an example, like a track being licensed to Sony cannot be resold by Sony you say you agree and that you have no problem with this. Well what justification do you have to NOT have a problem with this? Its just as unfair in the exact same ways as all your examples have been, which is what Im keep trying to tell you.

So, why just pick on sample libraries to complain about? Because those other unfairness' dont affect you, in fact they help you to make money and even protect your work, but selling a sample library would be beneficial to you and so thats the only reason you have a problem with it whether you realise it or not. If however you were a developer, you'd probably want to keep your rights, just as you do your rights as a composer.


----------



## radec (Jul 6, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> So, why just pick on sample libraries to complain about? Because those other unfairness' dont affect you, in fact they help you to make money and even protect your work



ya know this is the biggest problem i have here.

finally read post to post and its clear the eu ruling has no affect on reselling libs. from what spec, peaslee, blakerobinson, synesthesia, etc. say it is clear copyright laws still protects the libs from being resold.

so what we have left is a small number of people thinking 'hey this is unfair that i cant sell this thing i dont want anymore'.

now im pretty sure these people dont think its unfair that their music is protected by the same copyright laws, man i sure would be p*d off if my music was resold 'cos some executive thinks 'hey this is unfair that we cant sell this music we dont want anymore'. reading developers posts it seems its this same situation for them, so i can put myself in their shoes and understand theyd be just as p*d off as me

yeah it may be unfair for the executive who wants to make back some money, it may be unfair for us composers sometimes, especially if i just spent a ton of money on a library i dont think was worth it, but thats the law, it exists to protect people and businesses

i think the only beef left was what someone said about starting a new thread about expecting companies to release quality products that dont need long waitin updates and patches to fix things. seems valid to me, and it is a reason i would want to resell (cant tell you the amount of times something i buy sure doesnt sound like the demos) but i dont think that needs a new thread to get that message across to the few developers that do this, just needs people to send the message with their wallets


----------



## scientist (Jul 7, 2012)

despite all of this legal minutiae, it still comes down to "satisfaction guaranteed" for me. having no way to try before you buy, and no way to return a product if it is unsatisfactory, is quite simply unethical.

i still haven't seen a single shred of evidence that says that if reselling was required that the industry would collapse, which is the argument that is being promoted to defend the no-resale position. yet, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary: many companies who deal in sample libraries for at least a part of their business who allow resale are still in business and doing just fine.

the ultimate irony is that imho every single developer who has contributed to this conversation (thanks guys, i know it can't be easy) makes good enough products that they would have nothing to worry about if no-resale policies were forced to change. with only one exception, every single library/product purchased (from 8dio, spectrasonics, spitfire, etc) is top notch, sounds great, comes with friendly and quick customer service...i have zero complaints about any of them (except in some instances, for that damn EULA).


----------



## lux (Jul 7, 2012)

Well, perhaps this is not the right thread to point this out, and maybe could be a matter for a different topic, but...

I think every policy able to reduce sales is a potential killer for sample developers, as we're probably a very fragile market, despite all "muscular" marketing you can read on boards, magazines and such.

My impression is much of this fragility comes out of a lack of collaboration between developers, which keeps the costs structure on a very high level, no matter what you sample and program.

I mean, instead of having six developers sampling an own flute, a cool idea would be having just two groups of developers sampling two flutes and integrating techniques, ideas and concepts. 

Reducing costs of sampling and programming could lead to many benefits for both customers and developers and make the market more solid. But, as of today, i cant count many examples of such type of synergy. On the opposite, many companies have or will split in the next future.

Most mid-small developers are carrying in-house the whole work and, de facto, duplicating efforts and offers, while the market keeps having its limited (as it is perfectly normal) capacity of eating products.

Luca


----------



## 667 (Jul 7, 2012)

scientist @ Sat Jul 07 said:


> despite all of this legal minutiae, it still comes down to "satisfaction guaranteed" for me. having no way to try before you buy, and no way to return a product if it is unsatisfactory, is quite simply unethical.


This is true: when you license a sample of an existing sound recording you know what you're getting. With sample libraries you really don't k now because so much of their utility is actually in the Kontakt programming (what some people might call software)  and not in the recordings themselves.

But, let's think about it another way: a sample library developer could simply make a series of long recordings, with the single notes, and legato charts and phrases, etc., and then license you those recordings for your use. Because then there's no doubt about them being sound recordings then, is there? But it's more useful when they do the extra work of turning those recordings into something we can all use to make new music. Otherwise you'd need edit the recordings into the phrases you need and do the legato edits and all that stuff if you wanted to have a playable instrument based on those sound recordings.

In other words, the library and programming is a monsterous value-add relative to the source sound recordings and we should be grateful anyone is willing to do this work and sell us a license to use it.

I totally see the perspective on how this finished product resembles a tool more than a sound recording. But if you look at it this way you'll see why they are, even if the point of the recordings was to build this tool and not to create a musical work in and of itself.


----------



## marcotronic (Jul 7, 2012)

By the way: Just got some customers asking for custom compositions (which I offer) and after reading my license terms (stating that I don't permit re-licensing or re-selling my music which is a common thing, of course) they told me that this is a problem for them and they sent me an article with that oracle court decision saying that re-selling software is allowed...)

Well, I told them custom music is not software... Waiting for their answer.

It's really a bad thing that there is suddenly the need at all to begin discussions with customers about that kind of stuff - really annoying...

Marco


----------



## Ed (Jul 7, 2012)

marcotronic @ Sat Jul 07 said:


> By the way: Just got some customers asking for custom compositions (which I offer) and after reading my license terms (stating that I don't permit re-licensing or re-selling my music which is a common thing, of course) they told me that this is a problem for them and they sent me an article with that oracle court decision saying that re-selling software is allowed...)
> 
> Well, I told them custom music is not software... Waiting for their answer.



Wow. Thats amazing. Do let us know what they say, you have to be really delusional to try and make this law fit actual music.


----------



## TGV (Jul 7, 2012)

kb123 @ Sun Jul 08 said:


> Just to be clear on the scripting angle that some are using to try and define libraries as software. Kontakt is the software that provides the environment for a Kontakt library. It is available to be resold. Scripting within that environment is configuration of the settings within Kontakt, its not software in the truest sense of the word. Without Kontakt, the scripts wouldn't work.


A script is most definitely software, according to the usual definitions: a set of instructions that allow a computer to perform the required task.


----------



## Peaslee (Jul 8, 2012)

The scripting, UI, images, kontakt presets and other ancillary components of any sample library, regardless of the sampler format, are not relevant to this issue at all legally. First, none of them are even being licensed for inclusion in any derivative work at all. Any form of unauthorized distribution, re-use or publication of the presets would be a direct copyright violation, since the EULA doesn't grant you those rights under any circumstance. Only the samples are licensed for that purpose.

Even if the Kontakt presets somehow qualify as software, they can't legally be used in any way not explicitly approved by the developer in the first place. If the developer doesn't say they can be used outside of the library they came with, that's the end of it legally. Since you can't re-license the sound recordings to a 3rd party without the developer's explicit consent and the receiving party can't use the presets at all without a license for the sound recordings, you'd be selling unusable bits.

If you were to somehow find a buyer on Ebay, you would not legally be able to include any of the samples in the sale. Now _you _no longer have a legal license to use those library presets. The receiving party still wouldn't have a license to the samples, so _they _couldn't use the presets _either _since those are only legal to use with the samples they were originally sold with.


----------



## radec (Jul 8, 2012)

marcotronic @ Sat Jul 07 said:


> By the way: Just got some customers asking for custom compositions (which I offer) and after reading my license terms (stating that I don't permit re-licensing or re-selling my music which is a common thing, of course) they told me that this is a problem for them and they sent me an article with that oracle court decision saying that re-selling software is allowed...)



ya see what i mean? i bet not composer does not agree with your position here. i sure dont. if i make a piece of music for a client i dont expect them to sell the damn thing when they dont need it anymore, i expect them to tell people about me so that i get more clients! to me this is how i imagine sample libraries relate to their devs and thinking about it i see why. a lib isnt just a piece of software, it has its own character.



scientist @ Sat Jul 07 said:


> despite all of this legal minutiae, it still comes down to "satisfaction guaranteed" for me. having no way to try before you buy, and no way to return a product if it is unsatisfactory, is quite simply unethical.



nailed it for me. this really isnt about reselling for me. its about what i do with products i bought and had no idea they plain sucked. honestly i dont care an ounce about selling. what i do care about is being able to go 'hey this product sure doesnt sound like your demos, can i get my money back?'

all i can add is that this only applies to some companies. some of em release great youtube videos (some not so great) best ive seen are cinematic strings - those show me exactly what im getting. other devs have installed a great reputation in my mind with super products and showing they care (few that come to mind are soundiron, sample modelling and spitfire).

like i said, ill sure be sending a message with my wallet from now on. you could have the greatest sounding demos ive ever heard but if your last product was bad and youve shown lousy support, im not dropping anything for your latest lib


----------



## azeteg (Jul 8, 2012)

A major issue, which has not been discussed much, is customer support. The price of a product should also cover the company's costs for customer support. Some companies (like ours) take customer support seriously, trying to help the user to get started, assist in any issues that occur, may they be system issues and/or usage issues.

Most support is requested when the product is just purchased, when the customer is not used to the product. If a product would continue to change hands on a second-hand market, support costs would thus increase. So developers would have to deny support for second-hand customers. This becomes more complicated if a user has bought one product directly and another secondhand.

Would you expect any support/updates when buying a software secondhand?

Perhaps developers would have to change the EULA's, so a part of the purchase price would cover a support plan (non-transferrable), and one part would cover the price of the software itself. A secondhand customer, requesting support and updates, would then have to buy this support plan from the developer, to be back "on board" as a real customer. The question is just how much this support and update plan is worth? 10% or 50% of product price?


----------



## 667 (Jul 8, 2012)

kb123 @ Sat Jul 07 said:


> Without Kontakt, the scripts wouldn't work.


Without a C++ compiler lots of source code won't work either but it's still definitely software. KSP is a programming language for Kontakt. It is absolutely software; just because Kontakt is the interpreter does not take away from this.



Peaslee @ Sun Jul 08 said:


> The scripting, UI, images, kontakt presets and other ancillary components of any sample library, regardless of the sampler format, are not relevant to this issue at all legally.


I agree with this statement 100%. No matter how fancy-pants the editing and programming is, if an instrument uses sound recordings in its source sounds then those are covered by sound recordings copyrights.

My point was really about the value, which in my opinion is almost entirely in the editing and programming, but that's really on the business/marketing side of things and not a legal distinction at all. It is, however, why some customers view what they buy as an "instrument" or "software". I was trying to spin that around and remind people that they should be thankful for that value-add because the alternative is companies licensing raw source samples and end users doing the edits and programming themselves. And I for one do not want to go back to the days of .wav files on sample CDs!!!


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 8, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Jul 06 said:


> Devils advocate means you dont really believe any of the stuff you say is a valid argument, you're producing a _hypothetical _argument the "other side" might say to see what what the response would be.


And I don't actually believe that this ruling applies to sample developers or that sample developers are doing anything wrong. I'm snipping the rest of what I wanted to say for lack of space.



> So are you saying that you're continuing to argue and defending a position you dont even agree with just "for the sake of argument"?


I probably would not be arguing nearly this strongly if you hadn't taken such an emotional and hostile attitude toward my posts. But I don't think there's anything illogical about what I've said, and I think you keep setting up straw men when you respond to me, so yes, I'm going to keep arguing anyway.



> All that was pretty confusing, Im really not sure what you mean to be saying here.


Fine, clearly you don't understand, so let me just say this: I have never once said that the law SHOULD be changed. In fact, I have gone out of my way to say that things are ok the way they are. Honestly, I must have said that 10 times by now.



> You have been trying to compare sample libraries to all kinds of things. Cars,


Where did I make an analogy with cars? Please point out the post.



> physical pianos


My first post



> and now a brush tool in photoshop.


The second thing that I compared it to, yes.



> You started off doing this by concluding that it wasnt fair that sample libraries have these laws protecting them and these other things _(like pianos and cars)_


I never said cars. The piano post is the one where I said I was playing devil's advocate, and if you were paying attention, I haven't mentioned it again since then.



> a piano itself can be resold but a sample library of one cannot). [/i] Then you agreed that it didnt matter how much work went into it,


Yes, I agree with that.



> then immediately started saying that you think sample libraries are quite close to a brush tool in photoshop and therefore shouldn't have the copyright protection that it has while the brush tool in photoshop does not.


I'm going to wait to address this because I think you may be missing the point.



> > Recording her singing is the same as taking a photo of someone else's picture and using it in a collage. There's no need for any special music/sound recording copyright.
> 
> 
> 
> ... are you saying its okay to use a recording of a recording as much as you like? Because I should tell you you do not.


No, I'm saying you CAN'T photograph somebody's picture and use it. I think you're reading exactly he opposite of what I'm saying into what I wrote.



> if you're a session musician/vocalist typically they sign over their rights to make any further money off the recording no matter how well it does.


Yes, exactly as I said.



> This is just as unfair as in your example, with the only difference that she may get paid something for the performance. You could easily argue using the same "logic" and ethics that since its her own voice she should have some rights to it forever because its her voice, just like the piano maker should.


No you can't, because she signed a contract (presumably) or there was some kind of oral contract or something that says she gets payed x amount for her work. You can't logically argue that she should get payed for something she agreed not to.

You keep bringing up "fairness", though, no matter how many times I tell you that the vague, ill defined notion of fairness has nothing to do with it. There is no purely logical axiomatic definition of fairness, so let's just ignore that for now.



> > as I've repeatedly said, we should be able to differentiate between those two things.
> 
> 
> 
> Again with "should".


"Should" be able to "DIFFERENTIATE". This has nothing to do with what we should or should not make the laws. All I said is that we should be able to TELL THE DIFFERENCE. Read more carefully.



> so if I go sample a "very short recording phrase" from a Michael Jackson record, you think that should be copyright free?


Are you not even reading what I wrote? I just said that there are gray areas, such as very short phrases, which we may need to deal with on a case by case basis.



> And what justification do you have have to try and correct your perceived "unfairness" in sample library licences but not any other unfairness in the music industry?


Once again, I never mentioned fairness. Not once. You keep bringing it up.



> I was of course replying to Gunther's argument that because its distributed in software means its lost all its rights as a sound recording.


But you put it in a reply to me, below text that I wrote, when I had not made any such argument.



> You cant define it the way you want it to, because of the slippery slope you end up on. The more you open up what is a "very short phrase" so to include as many sample libraries under the umbrella of yours as possible, meaning the most possible libraries can be therefore resold then it means you make it even more legal to sample more of someones music without having to pay them anything to do so.


Yes, there may be slippery slopes or gray areas, but I personally think that--once again, not that the law necessarily NEEDS to be changed--if you were to write the law with a few examples of things that contain "musical value" or whatever we want to call it, things that don't, and ultimately leave it up to the discretion of a judge, it would work out ok. If you disagree, you disagree.



> > But it's also an image. And rights are granted to the creators of images as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, in this case it really isnt.


Actually yes, it is. How is it not an image? Where did it come from? As I said, a single picture isn't an image. But when I click the screen with a photoshop brush, it reproduces an image on the screen. Where do you think that comes from?

Let me put it this way--do you think I would have the right to copy the image the brush makes pixel for pixel and include it in my own drawing package? If not, why not?



> > Why do we need to get rid of them ALL? And what standard of fairness are we using that says all laws in the music industry are unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> By the standards you have already given us in different ways with all your examples


I have basically two examples, then a few additional examples you insist I made that I didn't (like cars), and then a ton of straw men that you set up that have nothing to do with my arguments. So try again.



> other than your own interest in reselling sample libraries


*I HAVE NO DESIRE TO RESELL EVEN A SINGLE SAMPLE LIBRARY* (nor do I live in the EU)

Also, there are only a handful of libraries I'd be interested in buying now, and they're not ones that people will be reselling any time soon.



> - *why *the law should be changed.


Once again, I've gone out of my way to say that I don't actually think that changing the law is something that we need to push for.



> The entire reason for this argument in the first place is that some people think its "unfair" you cannot resell your sample library. If you're going to say its not about what is fair then there is no reason for the argument at all. So why sample libraries, other than your own personal interest?


Straw man.



> Using the same standard of fairness,


Again, straw man.


> you cannot remain consistent by being against the copyright protection in sample libraries, while not having any problem with any other aspect. When anyone gives you an example, like a track being licensed to Sony cannot be resold by Sony you say you agree and that you have no problem with this. Well what justification do you have to NOT have a problem with this? Its just as unfair in the exact same ways as all your examples have been, which is what Im keep trying to tell you.



The difference is that while both are sound recordings, one is a sound recording that contains a developed musical idea, while the other is a tool to allow other people to perform musical ideas that they've come up with.

It's exactly the same as how a piece of clipart is a picture that expresses an artistic idea, whereas a digital brush stroke is an image (yes it is an image. Click the mouse once without moving it and you will see with the image looks like) that allows other people to express their own artistic ideas.



> So, why just pick on sample libraries to complain about? Because those other unfairness' dont affect you, in fact they help you to make money and even protect your work, but selling a sample library would be beneficial to you and so thats the nly reason you have a problem with it whether you realise it or not.


None of this actually affects me.



> If however you were a developer, you'd probably want to keep your rights, just as you do your rights as a composer.


I've been a software developer (not with samples, unless you consider something I did for fun one time and made about $50 off of). I completely 100% understand their side of it. In fact, years ago, when you did a google search for my product, the first links that came up were to WaReZ sites with cracks of my software (ahead of the actual website). This has nothing to do with what I want for myself or think developers are entitled to.


----------



## Ed (Jul 8, 2012)

mpalenik, since you've become EXTREMLY difficult and I have no desire to put myself or anyone else who is reading this thread through reading more extreme quoted replies I'll only go over a few things.

You said strawman several times, as if you never really said or implied an argument about what is fair. Even though its easy for anyone to read your arguments and see that was *exactly* your point I'm okay accepting that for the sake of argument here.

So here's where we're at :

You say its got nothing to do with what is fair or unfair.
You say we have no reason to change the law.
You say the law should not be changed.
You say it wouldnt benefit you if it were.

Surely there is no reason to discuss the issue at all. Whats the point of the argument?I asked you what justifcation you have in talking about sample libraries rather than any other part of music law and I still dont get an answer. I suggested the perceived "unfairness" of not being able to sell a sample library and explained the problem with this, but then you say you dont think its got anything to do with fairness and now you say you dont think it should be changed anyway! So do you just like to argue then? Because i cant think of a single other reason and you havent given one (_other than telling me my understanding of what you previously said you didnt really mean_)

Unless you can come up with a reason you keep wanting to push this argument then I have no desire to just keep beating this dead horse.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 8, 2012)

Ed @ Sun Jul 08 said:


> You said strawman several times, as if you never really said or implied an argument about what is fair. Even though its easy for anyone to read your arguments and see that was *exactly* your point I'm okay accepting that for the sake of argument here.


First of all, you're being extremely difficult as well, putting words into my mouth about cars (I never mentioned this), making assumptions that I have sample libraries that I wish to sell, or that I have no idea what it's like to be a developer, and apparently responding to points within Gunther's posts or things people at KVR have said within replies to me.

Also, it is not about fairness. You haven't provided a meaningful, logical, axiomatic definition of fairness. I can't make an argument based on what is essentially your personal preference. You and I have subjectively different ideas about what fairness entails. Logical does not equal fair, and I'm trying to make an argument based on logic, which may violate either your or my personal notions of fairness.



> So here's where we're at :
> 
> You say its got nothing to do with what is fair or unfair.
> You say we have no reason to change the law.
> ...



I don't really care if you want to discuss with me or not. Please, feel free to stop at any time.

My only motivation for discussing this is the question "Could the Oracle ruling set a precident that leads to this law being changed in the EU". I think it would not be logically inconsistant, I think it's forseeable that a judge might see it that way, and I don't think it would unravel the music industry in the way you seem to.

The rest, about me wanting to resell libraries and fairness is entirely you.



> I asked you what justifcation you have in talking about sample libraries rather than any other part of music law and I still dont get an answer.


Oh, also: I addressed this near the end of my last post. If you want to ask me where, I will point it out to you (it's the point that I've been trying to make all along). So, don't tell me I didn't.

edit: I've also asked you several questions that you haven't answered. I don't think it's worth going into specifics, though, since I don't forsee you responding.


----------



## Ed (Jul 8, 2012)

mpalenik @ Sun Jul 08 said:


> First of all, you're being extremely difficult as well, putting words into my mouth about cars (I never mentioned this),



While I do seem to have confused you with someone who did mention cars, you are however being intentionally difficult for acting like you never made any comparable examples. In fact your whole argument about the piano and the "nice machine shop and skilled craftsman" was essentially *exactly* the same as how people were using the example of the car. You cant yell strawman for that, thats not what strawman means.

Your whole argument was the logic that the laws dont apply to sample libraries "don't hold up" and "is a stretch". In your examples you asked the question, "what's the difference?" because your point was there was no inherent difference and so in other words, if these things (your examples) are able to be resold then why shouldn't sample libraries be also. There is no other possible reason you could use these arguments or examples if that wasnt your point, and I have already talked at great length about why this argument doesnt work in various ways now. 



> making assumptions that I have sample libraries that I wish to sell, or that I have no idea what it's like to be a developer, and apparently responding to points within Gunther's posts or things people at KVR have said within replies to me.



Im not saying you necessarily want to sell your libraries, what I am saying it would be of potential benefit to you so you arent seeing that you're only choosing to see this "difference" (_I guess you will have an allergic reaction if I say 'fairness_') with sample libraries rather than any other part of the industry because you're closest to being a composer. Someone that buys a licence for a track they can use on YT would also benefit if they could resell it, and they could use the exact same arguments and the exact same logic you used to argue that they should and it would be JUST as valid. But when you are given all those kinds of counter examples you say you have no problem with those laws and dont want to talk about them. So why not? Because you're a composer and want to protect your rights. If you were a developer you'd see it exactly the same as you do when someone tells you that music licences cannot be resold. If this was a hypthetical "devils advocate" argument, something you were only giving as an example of how someone could MISUNDERSTAND this subject, that would be different. 






> Also, it is not about fairness. You haven't provided a meaningful, logical, axiomatic definition of fairness.



All of your examples were about fairness. The piano, the materials and craftmansip used to make the piano, coding software, the brush tools in Photoshop. All these things you say is no different to a sample library and so therefore why do sample libraries have more rights than them. I dont need to define fairness, Im going off your own examples. 



> My only motivation for discussing this is the question "Could the Oracle ruling set a precident that leads to this law being changed in the EU". I think it would not be logically inconsistant, I think it's forseeable that a judge might see it that way, and I don't think it would unravel the music industry in the way you seem to.



So here at least there is a reason for why you're arguing, but doesnt explain why you actually seem to believe any of it is a valid argument. I could understand you telling us WHY some ignorant judge somewhere might misunderstand all these laws and issues, but its a whole other thing you arguing that its a valid understanding.


----------



## mpalenik (Jul 8, 2012)

Ed @ Sun Jul 08 said:


> mpalenik @ Sun Jul 08 said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, you're being extremely difficult as well, putting words into my mouth about cars (I never mentioned this),
> ...


I have not mentioned the piano since my first post in this thread (technically it was my second, but the first where I was arguing about this. My first post had something to do with video game consoles. It may have also been in my first reply to Spitfire, I don't remember for sure, but I dropped the argument very quickly). The piano example is not even relevant to anything that I've said for pages. No matter how many times I concede that the amount of work doesn't matter, you repeatedly bring it up.



> Your whole argument was the logic that the laws dont apply to sample libraries "don't hold up" and in your examples you asked the question, "what's the difference?" because your point was there was no inherent difference. In other words, if these things (your examples) are able to be resold then why shouldn't sample libraries be also. There is no other possible reason you could use these arguments or examples if that wasnt your point, and I have already talked at great length about why this argument doesnt work in various ways now.


Yes, but let's move beyond the piano example, since the only post that I made that it's relevant to is the first. Nothing I've said since then has anything to do with it. So, let's stop talking about pianos or cars.




> > making assumptions that I have sample libraries that I wish to sell, or that I have no idea what it's like to be a developer, and apparently responding to points within Gunther's posts or things people at KVR have said within replies to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not saying you necessarily want to sell your libraries, what I am saying it would be of potential benefit to you so you arent seeing that you're only choosing to see this "difference" (_I guess you will have an alergic rection if I say 'fairness_') with sample libraries rather than any other part of the industry. Someone that buys a licence for a track they can use on YT would also have a benefit of reselling it, and they could use the exact same arguments and the exact same logic you used to argue that they should and it would be JUST as valid. But when you are given all those kinds of counter examples you say you have no problem with those laws. So why not? Because you're a composer and want to protect your rights. If you were a developer you'd see it exactly the same as you do when someone tells you that music licences cannot be resold. If this was a hypthetical "devils advocate" argument, something you were only giving as an example of how someone could MISUNDERSTAND this subject, that would be different.







> > Also, it is not about fairness. You haven't provided a meaningful, logical, axiomatic definition of fairness.
> 
> 
> 
> All of your examples were about fairness. The piano, the materials and craftmansip used to make the piano, coding software, the brush tools in Photoshop. All these things you say is no different to a sample library and so therefore why do sample libraries have more rights than them. I dont need to define fairness, Im going off your own examples.


Ok, just a reminder in case you forget by the time we get here, I dropped the piano argument after 1, or possibly 2 posts, long before you joined the conversation.

Fairness to me implies not only whether or not two situations are different, but also how much an individual or a business is entitled to. E.g. if we talk about fairness, we could say that Spitfire puts a lot of work into their products, so they're entitled to make money off of them. But I don't think we can or should make arguments along those lines. There's a subjective relationship between work and monetary value. Also things like "it's her voice, she should get payed for it" are subjective notions that you may be able to defend or argue against depending on your point of view.



> > My only motivation for discussing this is the question "Could the Oracle ruling set a precident that leads to this law being changed in the EU". I think it would not be logically inconsistant, I think it's forseeable that a judge might see it that way, and I don't think it would unravel the music industry in the way you seem to.
> 
> 
> 
> So here at least there is some reason for why you're arguing, but doesnt explain why you actuyally seem to believe any of it is a valid argument. I could understand you telling is WHY some ignorant judge somewhere might misunderstand all these laws, but its a whole other thing you arguing that its a valid understanding.


[/quote]
Fine, let's start with these two questions, because I never heard your answer, then.

Spectrum's argument seemed to be (to me at least, and I will quote the part that I understand to be saying this, if you want) that the copyrights that protect recorded music are the same as those that protect images. Are you saying that this is correct or incorrect?

Second of all, a two part question:

1) When you choose a brush tool that is more complex than just a single pixel in photoshop, and click the screen, it leaves behind a definite shape, color gradient, and pattern. This pattern had to be designed by someone. You say it is not an image. Why not? Please note, I'm not trying to incite you to anger with this question. I just want to know why you don't consider this an image. What does it take to be an image.

2) You say it is not an image. Do you believe that you could copy this brush pattern pixel for pixel and include it in a drawing program that you create and sell? If not, why not?


----------



## Ed (Jul 8, 2012)

Apologies to anyone bored of seeing this thread at the top of the forum..



mpalenik @ Sun Jul 08 said:


> I have not mentioned the piano since my first post in this thread (technically it was my second, but the first where I was really making an argument. It may have also been in my first reply to Spitfire, I don't remember for sure, but I dropped the argument very quickly). The piano example is not even relevant to anything that I've said for pages. No matter how many times I concede that the amount of work doesn't matter, you repeatedly bring it up.



Well... I just checked and unless I missed it you didnt drop the argument because you admitted you were wrong, you just stopped making it. Second of all you went straight onto comparing sample libraries to programming software saying it takes a lot of work or more than it does to make a sample library. Then you started comparing it to "brushes, effects, and tools in photoshop". Its just as wrong for pretty much the same reasons the piano example was.

You said regarding this law on page 7:

_"I think some of the reasoning about WHY the new laws shouldn't apply to recordings doesn't quite hold up. "
_
A page later you compared it with Photoshop FX tools.

"_I don't see the big distinction between using a set of brushes, effects, and tools in photoshop, which were all developed by skilled artists and programmers, but which do not qualify as derivative works, and using a series of short, single note recordings, created by skilled musicians and recording engineers, which do qualify as derivative works. _"

Your premise is that the the law is illogical.
Your argument to prove that is that its really no different to X,Y,Z which dont have any of those rights. 
Thats your whole argument. 

If you conclude using your argument that the law doesnt stand up to logical scrutiny, you then have to also be against other music law that is *equally *illogical for the *exact *same reasons. You are not, therefore you are inconsistent because you have blinkers on and cannot see you are only looking at this from a narrow field of you being a composer.




> Yes, but let's move beyond the piano example, since the only post that I made that it's relevant to is the first. Nothing I've said since then has anything to do with it. So, let's stop talking about pianos or cars.



It doesnt matter if we ignore the piano example since all your examples are just as faulty and just as wrong essentially in exactly the same ways. You seem to think they are different but they arent at all.



> Fairness to me implies not only whether or not two situations are different, but also how much an individual or a business is entitled to. E.g. we could say that Spitfire puts a lot of work into their products, so they're entitled to make money off of them. But I don't think we can or should make arguments along those lines. There's a subjective relationship between work and monetary value. Also things like "it's her voice, she should get payed for it" are subjective notions that you may be able to defend or argue against depending on your point of view.



True and you may not want to use the word fairness however thats what it comes down to. If you want instead use the word logical, thats fine with me. But when we talk about fairness there is a motivation for the argument, if its just what is logical and what isnt then you have to provide a valid justifcation for choosing to pick on sample libraries having a perceived illogical laws while ignoring and not having an issue with other parts of the music and sound industry despite the exact same illogic there too. Saying its unfair isnt a valid justification, but its at least a reason. You have yet to provide any justication, if unfairness is not one of them. If you're just saying, look its illogical, I can understand that, but when you cant admit all these other examples youve been given are equally illogical then there's a problem. 




> Fine, let's start with these two questions, because I never heard your answer, then.
> 
> Spectrum's argument seemed to be (to me at least, and I will quote the part that I understand to be saying this, if you want) that the copyrights that protect recorded music are the same as those that protect images. Are you saying that this is correct or incorrect?



I dont really care or am 100% sure, its irrelevant what the law is regarding visual recordings, it matters what the law is regarding audio recordings. 



> Second of all, a two part question:
> 
> 1) When you choose a brush tool that is more complex than just a single pixel in photoshop, and click the screen, it leaves behind a definite shape, color gradient, and pattern. This pattern had to be designed by someone. You say it is not an image. Why not? Please note, I'm not trying to incite you to anger with this question. I just want to know why you don't consider this an image. What does it take to be an image.
> 
> 2) You say it is not an image. Do you believe that you could copy this brush pattern pixel for pixel and include it in a drawing program that you create and sell? If not, why not?



1. I didnt say it wasnt an image I am saying not all designed artwork like this is protected under the same laws because if you define it as broadly as you want to then practically everything can be considered artwork that is protected. Kind of like how you cannot copyright a chord structure or a rhythm, see?

And 2. This is all irrelevant since it doesnt matter what the differences or similarities are since its entirely missing the point. See above.


----------



## syashdown (Jul 13, 2012)

Ok, can you two just stop now. Maybe be take each others emails and continue your personal dispute privately? 

I think it would be much appreciated as it's completely taking over this thread.

Thanks,
S


----------



## Vlzmusic (Jul 13, 2012)

handz @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> So somebdoy have something to sell???  (really)
> .




You shall laugh, but there were many times when I felt like selling my old Wivi collection, cause all my rig and sound palette changed since. This thread brought those impulses back, and I guess if I had a buyer, in light of these developments - I would contact Arne and persuade him to allow such resell.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jul 14, 2012)

syashdown @ Fri Jul 13 said:


> Ok, can you two just stop now. Maybe be take each others emails and continue your personal dispute privately?
> 
> I think it would be much appreciated as it's completely taking over this thread.
> 
> ...



Mr. Single Post Noob trying to be a moderator.


----------



## syashdown (Oct 1, 2013)

kitekrazy @ Sun Jul 15 said:


> syashdown @ Fri Jul 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, can you two just stop now. Maybe be take each others emails and continue your personal dispute privately?
> ...



Ha, only just read this. Sorry to speak reason, I'm only a poor noob who shouldn't say anything on such matters, particularly in the presence of such experienced and wise forum users. 

Grow up you plonker. This isn't a school yard.


----------



## Sasje (Oct 2, 2013)

*Re: Very important for all developers: New European right to resell software!*



RobertPeetersPiano @ Tue Jul 03 said:


> So, thanx to Michiel Post, I got an official EW response (which is IMO very clear and understandable). He wrote it in Dutch to me, so I will (try to) translate it:
> 
> _ ... I know from our leaders that if it is necessary, they will change the user agreement from a 'personal non-transferrable license' to an other form, which will yield in a registration in The Library of Congress. We are very clear on this topic, that if someone uses our software (or used), the result needs to be covered by a current license. So, if you ever scored a hit on youtube with our piano samples, you will need to keep the license. Otherwise, you could have created your hit for free. The federal Lawyer in LA did approve this, but if more software companies in Europe will get in trouble, we will do everything to defend our interest..._



Completely reasonable response by EW. I agree with them: if you have used the license to record a track (and make money from it) then you should keep the license and not resell it. You made a profit from it, so selling the license mean you've basically pirated it and got a free ride over the back of developers. (in a strange way, still piracy if used and sold)

However, if you never used the licensed samples in any track, then I think you are eligible to sell the license.


----------



## muk (Oct 2, 2013)

So if Daniel Hope bought the 'Dolphin' Stradivari, redorded a CD playing it - lets assume it's a huge hit - he should then not be allowed to sell the violin ever again? Because then, he'd actually would have pirated the Stradivari?

I'm not certain about this reasoning.
In any case, reselling has nothing to do with piracy as you don't multiply the good. One license is still one license. Whether it should be allowed is another question.

What I have some difficulties to understand is why you are allowed to sell the computer you used to produce a track, but not the software. What's the difference really? Buying a computer gives you the means to use it while you own it. And a software license gives you the right and the means to use a certain software while you own it.
With my limited understanding of the matter, right now I think it must be allowed to resell software. But I'm open to counter-arguments.


----------

