EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Eric Persing wrote:

>It's pretty hard to restrict how people use a "free gift" like this on
>the internet.....especially when the data can easily be
>reprogrammed like this....I'm not even sure what license
>agreements would even hold up when you give it away. I think
>you would have to expressly agree to certain things before you
>downloaded the files.....but still, it's a very gray area.

The whole business is grey, as far as I'm concerned! I feel there's 
*a disconnect* (as the talking head pundits call it) between the 
complicated ethics, legalities, and often ridiculously half-baked 
license agreements that sample library developers concoct. Examples:

- I've long felt that it's wrong for a license to forbid you from 
reselling the library. If a developer wants to charge a registration 
transfer fee for support and updates, fine, but you should be able to 
sell a disc you don't use anymore. You can sell a hardware instrument 
with its factory sounds, and I see no difference.

And it's not that I don't sympathize with developers who take a dim 
view of being bypassed. But every manufacturer would rather the used 
market didn't exist to compete with its new products (leaving aside 
the issue of the proceeds of the old model sale helping pay for the 
new model); why should the fact that this is a small market have 
anything to do with it?

I say that sample libraries should be sold as a *lease,* not a 
product. That at least would make it clear what's expected of the 
customer. The EW1 electric car was only leased, for example.

- Likewise, I don't understand the performance restrictions some 
companies impose. (I'm not talking about Spectrasonics, who just ask 
for credit on albums - that's perfectly reasonable.) But if you can 
use the factory sounds you paid for when you bought a hardware 
instrument any which way you choose, why are samples you bought any 
different?
-- 

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, fax -5434, cell 818/601-4874