EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Hollow Sun wrote:

>>Royalties are too difficult for a sample library manufacturer to deal
>>with in regards to collecting (I think).
> 
> Yep. Unless some body like the PRS was formed where studios have to log what
> was used and from where and then do the royalty collection/distribution from
> a licence paid by the studio (who would have to be registered to use the
> library), it would be unfeasible.

Another possibility: VSL, East-West etc. provide a service where you 
send 'em a MIDI file, specify which sound(s) you want (chosen from an 
online list, complete with demos), they invoice you, you pay 'em, they 
post you the .wav files on CD. Feasible?

>>The easy way to determine legal use is to not lend out the
>>library and own a valid licensed copy of it yourself.

Easy if you've got loads of $. Or if the range of musical styles you do 
enables you to buy a small number of libraries that you'll use a lot.

>>Same with a studio.  In regards to legality,
>>the studio should not be providing the use of the sample library to its
>>customers who do not own the library.
> 
> Hmmmm... technically that might be the case but I have to be honest and say
> that *I* personally would not be too bothered with that.
> 
> I see the library that the studio has bought as their asset that they can
> use as part of their service (much like they have a copy of Logic or
> ProTools or CuBase and use that to record the band) - I would not
> realistically expect each band that used a noise or two of mine from the
> studio's CD(s) to buy their own copy and I'd turn a blind eye to that (if,
> indeed, I even found out about it). I suppose in this particular case (which
> is a very grey area in terms of enforcement), much like an album credits who
> played bass, whatever, perhaps the *decent* thing is to credit the library
> provider - that way, at least the provider gets some free publicity.

EXACTLY! Hey Steve, can you please talk some sense into yr fellow sample 
library developers? ;-)

> The situation would be different if your client *took away* the sequence
> files and the samples used in the project - *that* would be blatant
> violation in my eyes.

Of course!

>>I think that the sad thing is that many people don't see the point and
>>feel a sense of entitlement to some of these things, scoffing at the
>>prices.  Many people forget that lots of hard work went into creating
>>these libraries and, in many cases, so did a lot of money.  So many
>>people look at just the cost of burning a CD and forget that the
>>recording, hiring of talent, studio time, editing, etc. will cost a lot
>>of money.

Sad but true, from what I've seen. :-(

> Yep..... I think that sums up the whole situation from the library
> providers' side of the fence 100% perfectly - couldn't have said it better
> or more succinctly myself!

Trouble is, AFAICT the countermeasures sometimes screw the honest 
customers as much as the software thieves screw the developers.