EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

From: Hollow Sun <steve@...>

>Another grey area... am I renting the library to them (I am not renting the
>mixer or hiring it out for them to take away) ... I am (was) charging them a
>price for using my facilities and *I* happen to think that this includes the
>client being able to avail themselves of the facilities I have to offer
>whether it's stunning monitoring, a great desk, more tracks than the
>competition, more *experience* than the competition... whatever... inc. the
>creative possibilities available at my studio be it a particular synth or a
>particular keyboard or...

Again, they have to rent *you* and not your license; only you have 
the license to use your tools.

Now, I agree wholeheartedly your (and was it Dogberry?) saying that 
the law is an ass, although not so much in this regard. And I think 
VSL's license is quite reasonable compared to some.

My biggest disagreement is with the multiple machines restriction, 
which VSL and some other companies like Spectrasonics don't have but 
NI, Tascam, and others do (not to dis NI and Tascam, because their 
programs are great). The reason for this restriction is obviously to 
limit the software to a single user, but the problem is that large 
sample libraries can't be used properly on only one or two machines. 
It's that simple.

So it's okay to run the software on one extremely powerful machine 
that's crammed full of memory, but you can't run it on three lesser 
machines. To me this is silly, since the only distinction is that the 
other machines are in separate boxes.

But how do developers get around the problem of people spreading 
their software around? I don't know, but VSL and Spectrasonics seem 
unconcerned. It's a tough problem. As a practical matter, maybe they 
could run some kind of check over ethernet while you're installing 
and registering the software, i.e. master and slave machines.

The other big issue is that you can't resell most software licenses. 
My feeling is that there should be a time restriction to allow for 
the product to become "out of date," and after that everyone would 
benefit if companies allowed a transfer fee.

I've led myself into fights over this in one case, which is 
Patchman's ROM replacement chip for the Yamaha VL70m module. Matt 
Traum of Patchman is an excellent programmer, and judging from his 
VL1 programs, his $300 chip turns that low-end box into a 
professional instrument. But you're not allowed to resell the unit 
with the new chip in it. To me that makes no sense, practically or 
any other way.

Bottom line, though, the developer can just say If you don't like the 
terms of my license, don't buy it.

I wrote:

>  > People are making it more complicated than it really is.

Steve wrote:

>Hmmmm.... Contentious!
>
>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.

Absolutely, and I actually asked VSL about this when I reviewed it 
for Mix magazine. It is confusing. But their answer to me, which I've 
conveyed here, is pretty simple. There shouldn't be any more 
confusion. :)

Nick Batzdorf
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101, fax 905-5434

And then when we do a cue for a film which just consists of a single
note of violin tremolo or a single tymp hit.  We are working under a
"work for hire" agreement.  Meaning our client owns everything we write.
Who then owns that note of tremolo, and have we then, really, done
something illegal.  

~gary

--- In exs-users@yahoogroups.com, "gary pozner" <gary@w...> wrote:
> 
> And then when we do a cue for a film which just consists of a single
> note of violin tremolo or a single tymp hit.  We are working under a
> "work for hire" agreement.  Meaning our client owns everything we write.
> Who then owns that note of tremolo, and have we then, really, done
> something illegal.  
> 
> ~gary

Here in the UK, if you pay the violinist or timpanist according to
union scale, you can use that performance for the media/territory you
agreed.

Normally you pass on the rights to the production company you are
working for in your licence/contract, ie they can hold you responsible
if that musician then claims the useage was illegal.

-- 
Pete Thomas
www.petethomas.co.uk
- Free Logic Icons, Environments and EXS Instruments

> > And then when we do a cue for a film which just consists of a single
> > note of violin tremolo or a single tymp hit.  We are working under a
> > "work for hire" agreement.  Meaning our client owns everything we write.
> > Who then owns that note of tremolo, and have we then, really, done
> > something illegal.  
> 
> Here in the UK, if you pay the violinist or timpanist according to
> union scale, you can use that performance for the media/territory you
> agreed.
> 
> Normally you pass on the rights to the production company you are
> working for in your licence/contract, ie they can hold you responsible
> if that musician then claims the useage was illegal.

Hey Peter,

I was actually continuing the licensing question. Let's say this is not
a live musician playing this note but you playing it from your
(licensed) library.  In truth you are voiding your agreement with the
company who made the library if your transfer ownership to your client.

~gary