EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Hi,

On 3-Jan-05, at 5:23 PM, Hollow Sun wrote:

>  A particular library, a commodity that the client cannot justify 
> buying
>  (much like he couldn't justify buying, say, a Mellotron) for just one 
> track.

That, IMHO, is a bit of a weak excuse.  Just because it seems to be 
relatively expensive in this specific example, doesn't mean that it 
should be justified as a fair use.  We are confronted with many choices 
in life where we choose to pay-for/buy something and it is made more 
difficult when it costs more than we are willing to pay.  Just because 
it is relatively expensive doesn't make it an inherent right.  IMHO, if 
you are making money off of the sales of the CD that has that one 
track, the cost of a sample library needs to be factored in there.  If 
he cannot justify buying the sample lib (because maybe the sales of the 
CD are expected to be small), then maybe it would be better to rent a 
synth which has a similar sound on it or use a different sound.

Again, if I may play devil's advocate here a little bit, where the 
"client" gets a sample from a studio (that they have rented time from) 
or off the internet (illegally), what's the difference?  How is the 
sample library manufacturer supposed to be compensated and be able to 
determine who is/isn't using their library legally/illegaly?  My 
personal feeling in regards to the renting out of "sample libraries" 
from a studio is different.  While I think that it might be a good 
thing for the studio, the manufacturer still needs to be compensated in 
some form.  This would probably be a tracking nightmare for the 
manufacturer so take it with a grain of salt.  Perhaps, the 
manufacturer could sell special "studio" versions of their sample 
libraries with the stipulation that the lib is only used on a studio 
machine (easier to administer than it used to be since some libraries 
are now copy protected and need to be unlocked by registering).  The 
studio could sell a license for each sample someone uses and a fee 
would need to be paid to the sample manufacturer.  Don't know how the 
fees would be arrived at.

This would allow the client to use the sample on their CD for a portion 
of the cost of the entire library and would allow studios to let their 
clients use their sounds.  The samples would be licensed to that client 
for only that one recording.  Multiple recordings (like for example on 
the band's 2nd CD) would need to be re-licensed.  This isn't a fully 
thought out example but perhaps something that would work for the 
studio, client, and sample library manufacturer (if we were trying to 
please everyone) better than the current situation.

>  It could be argued that library developers are making it more 
> complicated
>  than it really is with ever more stringent copyright and licencing
>  stipulations - the very fact that this discussion is taking place is 
> (I
>  think) a testament to the confusion that exists amongst users who have
>  shelled out good $$$ for some library but are not (quite) sure how 
> and where
>  they can use it in certain circumstances.

I don't necessarily agree with this either.  I have found many people 
to not have really read the sample licensing agreements text in detail. 
  While some of it is written in legal-type language, most of it is 
pretty straightforward IMHO.  FWIW, most of the sample library license 
agreements are the same no matter where you go.  Much of the confusion 
I've found is from people making assumptions about what the agreement 
is and isn't.  Not saying that this is 100% the case but I have found 
many people to have not really read these agreements nor checked with 
the developer regarding fair use.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be argumentative here or anything.  There has 
been some discussion on this matter that I have agreed with and some 
that I have disagreed with.  I certainly respect the developers rights 
here and would like to see some things a little bit less restrictive.  
I personally don't buy some of the "it's too expensive - I should be 
able to share with others" type of arguments.  I've said it before but 
I find VSL Pro Edition too expensive for me.  I would never dream of 
using it on a recording without owning it first.  Just because I can't 
justify its purchase doesn't make it my right to use on my track (even 
though it would give me the best sound on that track).

Best regards,
Fernstudio



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]