chocobitz825
Senior Member
So then theoretically trial kontakt libraries would only be possible in the free kontakt player or with stripped down free samples?
There may be other demo functionality I don't know about. It's just no one uses it.So then theoretically trial kontakt libraries would only be possible in the free kontakt player or with stripped down free samples?
This is not about software. It's about the copyright contained within recordings. There is a huge difference.You're allowed to resell and return absolutely everything other than software...
Maybe, just maybe, if your company can't exist while being honest and consumer-friendly, maybe your company isn't supposed to exist.
No, you buy a licence to use the samples in your music.Daryl-agreed, but one buys a license to use the software. Why shouldn’t the license be resale-able? (Some companies do it, so it’s just a matter of business policy/EULA, yes?)
Well, fellow Brit here!Man. You can tell pretty much exactly who is American in this thread and who isn't. See, on this side of the water, we expect laws to protect consumers above companies, not the other way around. No-return and non-resale policies are *not* normal.
Also, 'stop bitching cause shit is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago' is not a valid argument. The Behringer model D is also 10 times cheaper than the Moog Model D is, even right now. But if you don't like it, you can still return it. Or resell it. Which is as it should be, because that's how the market works.
So if you licenced one of your tracks for use in a film, you'd be quite happy for that film company to sell that licence onto another film company for use in their film, with no further payment to you?Ok. Why can’t you sell the license to someone else to use in their music?
That is usually not the reason, people refer to. Usually it is, you already used the samples on compositions which still are there for you to use and potentially make money with them. I find both reasonings highly doubious! If you bought a mini Moog 35 years ago, you could have hundreds of tracks made from those sounds - all of these can potentially still make money for you, even if you decide to sell the Moog!Well, fellow Brit here!
The key difference here is - with the Behringer, and any other physical product - you have to return it to the shop before you get a refund. It's a clear relationship between consumer and company.
Large companies like NI, with copy protection systems, can afford to allow a license resale. If your license is transferred, Native Access will stop foul play. A smaller developer by contrast, has no such way of knowing if you're still going to use the library. This at least muddies the waters?
There's also the "fit for purpose" argument to consider. A washing machine that doesn't wash clothes is not fit for purpose. But a sample library (as proven by hundreds of threads on the subject) is either "not fit for purpose", or the "best buy ever", depending on the ear of the beholder.
I know the analogy you’re making, but I think the argument is circuitous. Yes, both involve sound recordings, but one is a tool.
In any case, I know you own products from VSL and other companies that allow a license transfer, so obviously it is up to the owner of the sound recordings and possibly the sample player they’re used in as well.
The difference clearly is ... a piece of music is a piece of music. A sample library is a bunch of sustains with different intensities and transitions and what not, but by no means a composition. Only phrase based libraries may come close to that ...So if you licenced one of your tracks for use in a film, you'd be quite happy for that film company to sell that licence onto another film company for use in their film, with no further payment to you?
And now imagine Bob Moog saying: My Synthesizer is not actually a "thing". It is really a composition of sound possibilities from my imaginations, packed into a box of wires. I am not selling you the box, but I am selling you the license to use that box in order to get those sounds I composed into your recordings.
Welcome to the world of legal BS talk!
Actually that's your interpretation, but its not a fact. The fact is that you apply for a licence to use sound recordings in your own music, and the terms and conditions of that licence is set by the Copyright owner of the recordings. The law doesn't care what is on the recording. It makes no distinction between one note or a whole symphony.I know the analogy you’re making, but I think the argument is circuitous. Yes, both involve sound recordings, but one is a tool.
Yes it is up to the owner, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not up to us.It's up to the Copyright holder of the recordings.In any case, I know you own products from VSL and other companies that allow a license transfer, so obviously it is up to the owner of the sound recordings and possibly the sample player they’re used in as well.
My guess would be that they pay a royalty when a copy is sold. Assumably, they’d still be selling copies.the other thing I believe is an issue with libraries, is dont they pay royalties to players? does this not complicate matters in the same way audio recordings do?
And this is the problem. You think it is about music. It's not. It's about the Copyright contained within a recording, not the musical, or otherwise, content. Two different Copyrights.The difference clearly is ... a piece of music is a piece of music. A sample library is a bunch of sustains with different intensities and transitions and what not, but by no means a composition. Only phrase based libraries may come close to that ...
Only up to us whether or not we accept the EULA and license the software.Actually that's your interpretation, but its not a fact. The fact is that you apply for a licence to use sound recordings in your own music, and the terms and conditions of that licence is set by the Copyright owner of the recordings. The law doesn't care what is on the recording. It makes no distinction between one note or a whole symphony.
Yes it is up to the owner, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not up to us.It's up to the Copyright holder of the recordings.