Sample Library Depreciation thread

Discussion in 'SAMPLE Talk' started by NYC Composer, May 10, 2019.

  1. chocobitz825

    chocobitz825 Active Member

    479
    428
    Aug 7, 2018
    So then theoretically trial kontakt libraries would only be possible in the free kontakt player or with stripped down free samples?
     
  2. Paul Cardon

    Paul Cardon Ninja Otter Music

    38
    57
    Apr 3, 2018
    There may be other demo functionality I don't know about. It's just no one uses it.

    And yes, most devs that do demos just release stripped down versions with a limited patch or two.
     
    chocobitz825 likes this.
  3. Shiirai

    Shiirai Resident Crow

    268
    309
    Oct 11, 2018
    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.

    "Allowing resale or returns will kill smaller developers" is nonsense. Or, it can absolutely be true, but that really shouldn't be the consumer's problem. You're allowed to resell and return absolutely everything other than software, but software really isn't special, even though developers/publishers would *really* like it to be and they will forever fight tooth and nail for the right to exploit their customers.

    It's just that it's so much easier to sell stuff online than it is to do so in the physical world. It's also much easier to deny your customers basic commercial rights.

    Maybe, just maybe, if your company can't exist while being honest and consumer-friendly, maybe your company isn't supposed to exist.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  4. Daryl

    Daryl Senior Member

    5,900
    713
    Mar 25, 2006
    This is not about software. It's about the copyright contained within recordings. There is a huge difference.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    NYC Composer

    NYC Composer Senior Member

    11,126
    1,824
    Jul 24, 2008
    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?)
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  6. chocobitz825

    chocobitz825 Active Member

    479
    428
    Aug 7, 2018
    putting the weird american stereotype comment aside, I agree with this statement, but I disagree with the notion that every developer is out there trying to scam their customers. Maybe because I generally feel like I'm getting what I paid for, or because I'm happy when developers try hard to do something new, innovative or creative with their products. Maybe because I dont think of any of the current developers outside of Native Instruments as huge powerful companies with the massive staffing and and predatory sales method. Honestly Native instruments is the only company I've ever felt had just confusing predatory methods for how it sells its products....and given that they make one of the standard platforms for VIs, i think that negative image bleeds out to some of the developers that play by NI's rules.

    Maybe we'll never all see eye-to-eye on this, so I'd like to pose a question. Say, for example, iLok becomes standard. Now every developer must design their own players/samplers, or use a current iLok compatible sampler. If this shift in business model allowed for trial periods, but came with the unfortunate need for developers to further increase the cost of sample libraries, would that be an acceptable trade off?
     
    Paul Cardon and scoringdreams like this.
  7. Daryl

    Daryl Senior Member

    5,900
    713
    Mar 25, 2006
    No, you buy a licence to use the samples in your music.
     
  8. OP
    OP
    NYC Composer

    NYC Composer Senior Member

    11,126
    1,824
    Jul 24, 2008
    Ok. Why can’t you sell the license to someone else to use in their music?
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  9. Alex Fraser

    Alex Fraser Senior Member

    1,088
    1,505
    Jun 21, 2017
    UK
    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 (I assume) 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. :)
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
    chocobitz825 likes this.
  10. Daryl

    Daryl Senior Member

    5,900
    713
    Mar 25, 2006
    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?
     
    dzilizzi and chocobitz825 like this.
  11. OP
    OP
    NYC Composer

    NYC Composer Senior Member

    11,126
    1,824
    Jul 24, 2008
    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.
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  12. FriFlo

    FriFlo Senior Member

    1,909
    708
    Jun 13, 2011
    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!
    The difference with samples is, they are recordings of people. Well, they are! But the sound of a Moog Synthesizer is also the result of people having spent much time into creating that sound. So, if people keep telling that libraries are a differente story then software or physical products, they have to realise, it is only a legal consideration and it might change any time, if someone would sue for it successfully. It might not change, but that is not a certainty! It will be the result of legal debate, but it is by no means set in stone, like the declarations n of human rights.
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  13. chocobitz825

    chocobitz825 Active Member

    479
    428
    Aug 7, 2018
    so maybe the question is, how many kontakt based libraries allow license transfer?
     
  14. FriFlo

    FriFlo Senior Member

    1,909
    708
    Jun 13, 2011
    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 ...
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  15. FriFlo

    FriFlo Senior Member

    1,909
    708
    Jun 13, 2011
    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! :)
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  16. chocobitz825

    chocobitz825 Active Member

    479
    428
    Aug 7, 2018
    but i dont think you're breaking this down to its most reasonable equivalent. No one would give you permission to strip down the contents of a moog and creator a new instrument form it. You couldn't just tear out the internal parts and take what you like to make something new and say that just because you bought the instrument, you have free right to use it's individual proprietary components for your own commercial use. you have right to use the components, but not right to resell the components in most cases.

    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?
     
  17. Daryl

    Daryl Senior Member

    5,900
    713
    Mar 25, 2006
    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.
     
  18. OP
    OP
    NYC Composer

    NYC Composer Senior Member

    11,126
    1,824
    Jul 24, 2008
    My guess would be that they pay a royalty when a copy is sold. Assumably, they’d still be selling copies.
     
  19. Daryl

    Daryl Senior Member

    5,900
    713
    Mar 25, 2006
    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.
     
  20. OP
    OP
    NYC Composer

    NYC Composer Senior Member

    11,126
    1,824
    Jul 24, 2008
    Only up to us whether or not we accept the EULA and license the software.
     

Share This Page