EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

--- Hollow Sun <steve@...> wrote:
> 
> In the days when I had a commercial studio, I bought
> library and people
> booked my place *BECAUSE* I had that library. I
> charged them a studio rate
> and that money was used to repay my investment in
> the library I had bought
> much like it repaid my investment in the MTR, desk,
> outboard, the sampler
> the library was used in, the keyboard that played
> those samples, etc..
> 
> > So, If I have the VSL and bring my composition
> including the library to
> > a studio, I guess the studio has to refuse if it
> does not own this
> > library. Even if just one tone is used, this can
> be a violation of the
> > copyright because VSL does not sell single tones.
> Yes, theory is far
> > away from daily live, sometimes.
> Well... it proves that the law's a bit of an ass
> with this one because if
> what you say is true (and thinking about it, it
> appears it could well be), I
> can't (in theory) take my Akai S5000 to a local
> studio with some commercial
> library *I* have bought and *I* have licenced for
> use in *my* music because
> the studio does not have that library and is
> potentially in violation of
> copyright laws when it records it in my composition!
> Hmmmm!
> 
> But even if you are not using a commercial studio to
> record your music and
> you literally do the whole track laying and mixdown
> process at home with no
> contravention of copyright, technically, you cannot
> then take your master to
> a mastering house because that facility doesn't have
> that library.... even a
> CD pressing plant should refuse to take it!! Hmmmmm!
> 
> No doubt this one can run and run!
> 
> Anyway.... happy new year to all of you.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Steve
> http://www.hollowsun.com
> 
Steve,

      Thanks for being the voice of reason on this
subject. I agree with you 100%. There has to be some
common-sensical view of fair use of a library for
studio owners that still respects the intellectual
property rights of developers. Some of these license
clauses do become their own reductio ex absurdum (gee,
I hope I remembered the latin right) and their literal
interpretation and strict enforcement would clearly be
over the line into unreasonable intrusiveness and
impediment of the creative process. How ridiculous
would it be for me to say to a client, "no, I'm sorry
you can't do that piano overdub without buying the
sample library first"? Something like VSL is a massive
investment for a producer or a studio owner and should
be an asset of the business. And what about
rompler-libraries like Atmosphere or Ultrafocus? How
are these in any way different that an XV5080 except
in size of sample rom? I think that if a studio owns
one of these, it should be as accessable to the
clientele for use in the studio as the XV.

      But, just as clearly, there is a very real, very
serious problem with piracy, and even simple sharing
of libraries among creative teams, eg band members or
songwriting partners multiplied across the whole scene
can quickly add up to truly harmful loss of revenue
for developers. 

      It seems to me that there has to be some way to
get everybody on the same page. What if developers
offered their products on terms that recognize the
realities of the creative process, through special
studio or band licences that permit multiple users in
those contexts for a little more money? Some software
companies do this. I think that such a scheme would
push people out of their perceived "legitimate"
reasons to abuse the system. We all need to be allies,
artists, developers, producers and studio owners,
against copyright violation and piracy of music,
samples and software. We are all in this together.