EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Fernstudio wrote: 
>
> On 24-Dec-04, at 6:12 PM, Hollow Sun wrote:
> >  > snip <
> >  > Just because you are paying a studio for time and
> >  > they happen to have a library, does not entitle you to legally use 
> > it
> >  > on your CD.
> >  True..... but in the *real* world.... !!!!
>
> Yes, I agree and understand your point.  The person who originally 
> posted appeared to think that this was legal which is not - even if it 
> does happen in the real world.


I understand that these may be the terms of the licence on the software package
but I wonder if they have been tested in the courts. I guess it would end up
being the record companies lawyers Vs the sample library publishers lawyers.

Here are two comparable scenarios:

1: You have a Rompler in the studio - a Roland 2080 say or a Korg Trident.
These instruments are sample based. A band you are recording plays some parts
using your rompler and these end up on their CD.

2. You buy Logic 6 or 7 Pro and discover that you are the proud owner of a set
of EXS24 sampler instruments sourced by Emagic from Wizoo or Yellow Tools or
whoever. You have a band in your studio and they lay down some pads using these
sounds and they end up on their CD.

Do you think Roland and Emapple are missing a trick here and should change
their licence agreements to that anyone who uses these sounds has to buy a
licence to Logic Pro 7 or a Korg Trident of their very own? Do you think that
UAD should make any band that uses the Fairchild compressor on their CD should
pay for a licence for the use of this software?
Would you want to own these products if these conditions applied?

What about your DAW software - does it seem fair that a band can avail itself
of Logic and Protools and a host of other software items just for paying for a
few hours of studio time? If an engineer/producer's licence of Logic/Pro
Tools/UAD stuff is enough why should a sample vendor be able to demand a
different regime?

I believe the classic counter case is the one mentioned previously on this list
before by Eric P. from Spectrasonics who cited Enigma's use of african vocal
samples as the lead vocal line on their million selling album which was used on
rather too many soundtracks at the time. But should the same apply to a set of
drum or piano samples or a string library?

Some software licence agreements have been invalidated by courts - in instances
where they demanded that consumers waive their statutary rights for example. I
wonder how well the above requirement for a separate licence for the band would
stand up in court in various jurisdictions around the world.

The other point is that being too aggressive in their requirements can actually
come back and bite a vendor:  a studio owner might say, "Why the f@#$ should I
buy any sample libraries - I'm not making an album for myself." There goes a
customer. 

We have seen how overzealous copy protection has burnt some vendors -
encouraging legit users to look elsewhere for plugins and widespread use of
pirate versions.

Regards,
M