What's new

Would you pay for software you can legally get for free?

So why do you pay for libraries?

The bottom line is that I understand that it takes a lot of time, money, and effort to craft these libraries. If I find them valuable, if I believe they give me what I need to create the music I want to create, then I have no problem paying the amount the developer is asking for. It's the moral thing to do, imo. Plus, we see a lot of these developers hanging around here, and a lot of us interact with them. It would make me feel even more guilty about taking their stuff for free.

Btw, there are also a lot of people out there that feel there's nothing wrong with taking MUSIC for free.
 
I buy because for the most part it's less hastle than searching for free copies. They always caused problems for my PC and often were just a bitch to install. Of course, I just purchased the Virharmonic Cello and it's been a nightmare to install as every file turns up corrupted, which has never been a problem with any other paid for library EVER.
Otherwise, it tends to be easier.
 
I would not mind people using my so-called “intellectual property” or the fruit of my artistic endeavors for their own pleasure or broader human flourishing. Heck, even I know that anything originating from myself or any other person will never be entirely or even genuinely original.
So, only when people use my musings for financial gain would I intervene and ask them to share their derived wealth with any identifiable source.
Hence, except for them, would I allow my creative produce to be enjoyed freely. Unless we do so, intellectual property unjustly freezes human and societal development.
Your song is never entirely yours, only partly so, dear Elton.
 
I would not mind people using my so-called “intellectual property” or the fruit of my artistic endeavors for their own pleasure or broader human flourishing. Heck, even I know that anything originating from myself or any other person will never be entirely or even genuinely original.
So, only when people use my musings for financial gain would I intervene and ask them to share their derived wealth with any identifiable source.
Hence, except for them, would I allow my creative produce to be enjoyed freely. Unless we do so, intellectual property unjustly freezes human and societal development.
Your song is never entirely yours, only partly so, dear Elton.

This is a great point of view. To a large extent I agree, especially because I have made a lot of music with NO intention of selling it or using it as a part of anything. If someone wants to enjoy it, awesome. I also feel this way about music I did a long time ago, no matter why I created it.

On a similar vein, years ago I read an article where someone suggested the legal free distribution of outdated software. I don't remember much of the details as to HOW it would work other than three years after software is updated or discontinued it should be considered as "freeware" or "abandon-ware" that would not carry the same ramifications as distributing current software. There was some detail about making money with it etc.

Even though I do not use Reaper, I understand that it has a tiered license system that enables users not making money from it to use it for less money. That would be outstanding, but also hard to keep up with because of trust issues.
 
Philately will get you nowhere

-sorry :P

I dunno, seems you're putting your own stamp on sample library development..

giphy.gif
 
Even though I do not use Reaper, I understand that it has a tiered license system that enables users not making money from it to use it for less money. That would be outstanding, but also hard to keep up with because of trust issues.
the Reaper response is very sensible I think - they basically run a trust system as an open response to piracy. My main concern now is with software hiding behind the leasing model so that you can't on-sell it. I have some good libraries that I never use that I can't sell to someone else - harming both me and someone who would actually use them but can't afford them.
 
If you say (a) what is your reason for purchasing something you can get for free, legally?

I often pay for something which I could get for free, because being an artist myself, I appreciate the time and efforts others put into products, music etc. I love and use. Maybe I do not always pay as much as it would cost through a regular distribution (e.g. when an album is usually distributed for 10$, sometimes I pay 9$ or 8$ depending on the value, sometimes I pay full).
 
I would not mind people using my so-called “intellectual property” or the fruit of my artistic endeavors for their own pleasure or broader human flourishing. Heck, even I know that anything originating from myself or any other person will never be entirely or even genuinely original.
So, only when people use my musings for financial gain would I intervene and ask them to share their derived wealth with any identifiable source.
Hence, except for them, would I allow my creative produce to be enjoyed freely. Unless we do so, intellectual property unjustly freezes human and societal development.
Your song is never entirely yours, only partly so, dear Elton.

Remember....

5fd.jpg
 
What about a library that everyone contributes to? Plenty of instrumentalists and noise makers here. Why not sample yourself, another person contributes by editing, another by scripting and another by making either midi tracks or rex files...? You have to contribute in order to use it. Or you pay for it. We can decide by consensus what to sample, how to sample it...you know, stuff to fill in the gaps of what already exists. I sample library co-op in a way. I'd be into it.
 
What about this approach;

You got some VSTs in some way (from a friend or etc.) without paying for just playing with them, in demo mode for ex (you didn't buy because they are not suitable for you or for your paid music style). And some day you used one of them in your commercial work, and you just purchased it?
 
I think it's a fragile business model if you want to sell something that you can get for free elsewhere (without legal/moral/handling hassle). You probably can get some willing people to buy your stuff but they at least need background information to get the reasons why they should pay. A lot of people (including me) pay more for the same thing if they know why (like renewable energy, fair trade products, local area products etc). But you have to have the clients interested in those reasons and have to let them know before they get your stuff for free elsewhere.
 
What's the point of this question? o_O
It just sounds like donation ware - see Ivy Audio. You can can get it for free or pay (what ever you want) aka donate.
 
It just sounds like donation ware - see Ivy Audio.

It is the same if you only care about how much it will set you back. As @d.healey has mentioned elsewhere in the thread, open source / free (as in speech) software has further reaching implications, other than how much it costs.

Private open source projects (i.e., those that don't manage to get the support of a consortium funded by companies or public institutions) don't usually do well finantially. Unless their product is business-oriented (content management, CM templates, software engineering, productivity software, etc.), where customer support is the actual product they sell.

But if your product is not overly complex and most of your potential customers are hobbyists, then it is probably going to be tough to make ends meet with an open source model that anyone can copy and build on. You can maybe gain some insight on the subject of open source audio software from Paul Davis' Ardour blog: https://community.ardour.org/node

It is crazy if you think about it, but something being free diminishes its value to some customers: "I don't have to pay for it? This must be crap, why donate, then?"

Regarding licensing, sample-based virtual instruments fall in a gray area between being software and content. Sound libraries sold separately from the playing engine can maybe be considered something like clipart. Perhaps you could use different licenses for each part of your product.

I recall CC launched a license specific for samples some years ago, but it never gained much traction. I think it had some legal problems or didn't cover well some cases. Sampling is a legal and philosophical minefield, as many discussions in this site or others like it can attest to.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
 
Last edited:
What about a library that everyone contributes to?
Co-op type things are interesting and to some degree I've done this in the past, some of my Kontakt libraries have been co-op developed by me scripting, someone else supplying samples, and another person doing the graphics and we split the income.

But my main goal with creating sample libraries is not to make money, it's to make instruments that I want to use and that means I want to create them my way so usually I do everything. I want my libraries to be of a professional standard and that means I have to implement some quality control, starting with the players I choose, the room, the technicians, and the gear etc. It gets harder to control things when more people are involved. The only parts I would feel confident turning over to someone else are the sample cutting and the graphic design. For some less common instruments I wouldn't mind working with a player who has their own recording setup and let them record the samples but for orchestral stuff I need more consistency between the instruments.

you know, stuff to fill in the gaps of what already exists.
Except for a few sound fonts there are no sample libraries that are free/libre and of a professional quality unfortunately.

But you have to have the clients interested in those reasons and have to let them know before they get your stuff for free elsewhere.
Yes the customer definitely has to be aware.


What's the point of this question? o_O
It just sounds like donation ware - see Ivy Audio. You can can get it for free or pay (what ever you want) aka donate.

In relation to my original question you're right, it could be thought of as donation ware, and the question could be re-worded a little: Why would you donate when you can get it for nothing?

The conversation has drifted a little now and is more focused on my particular work on freedom respecting software in which case it doesn't matter so much if you consider it a donation or a purchase, what matters is that the software respects the user's freedom regardless of if they pay for it or not.
 
At the risk of messing with the semantics there are plenty of 'free as in to breath' instruments that are on the low end of the pro level imo, of course pro level is an open definition, and a few higher than that. I think these are something of the competition whether libre or not since I think libre is important to you but not to most consumers.

Drum'ica for instance is pro level. Ivy Audio I think pushes that level as does Karoryfer. Sampler Science Player is nice though somewhat retro on many sounds.

VSCO2 is certainly better than the soundfonts I'm aware of and I think better than dimension pro orchestral and other older libraries. It is CC0 so I think can be modified at will and might be considered libre? Certainly VPO uses it and Paul is quite passionate about working and reworking that.
 
I think these are something of the competition whether libre or not since I think libre is important to you but not to most consumers.
You're totally right, most users either don't care or don't know that their freedoms are affected by software, but the ones that value their freedom do something about it when they are made aware of it. There isn't really a competition between freeware and libre development though because we have two different goals, I win if my user's freedom is respected regardless of the number of users, you win if you have more users than me(?)

Drum'ica for instance is pro level. Ivy Audio I think pushes that level as does Karoryfer. Sampler Science Player is nice though somewhat retro on many sounds.

VSCO2 is certainly better than the soundfonts I'm aware of and I think better than dimension pro orchestral and other older libraries. It is CC0 so I think can be modified at will and might be considered libre? Certainly VPO uses it and Paul is quite passionate about working and reworking that.
I was actually thinking of the VSCO2 sfz version (which is libre software) when I mentioned soundfonts :) unfortunately there is no libre sfz player that can be used as a plugin (Linux sampler is almost free but not quite). NKI based libraries can't be considered libre, even if the KSP script is accessible, because the NKI is a binary proprietary format, I couldn't run an NKI on Gnu/Linux without reverse engineering Kontakt (or emulating Windows with WINE).

Sample Science Player looks interesting - although I don't agree with putting the saxaphone in the brass category :P
 
Linux sampler is almost free but not quite

The only freedom you aren't allowed is selling a closed source product based on it without acquiring a commercial license from the copyright owners.

As far as freedoms go, is that such a hard one to lose?

LinuxSampler authors said:
the commercial exception is just to prevent commercial exploitation by third parties that haven't contributed anything to open source projects

https://linuxsampler.org/faq.html#commercial_products
 
Top Bottom