EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

At 11:44 AM 2/11/02 +0000, you wrote:

> > And then, another thing: Recently there was this thread about
> > the (public) AKAI sample FTP and about people converting patches and then
> > posting only the EXS files. If you think about it, there's a problem with
> > that as well.
> > Am I allowed to use a patch that was converted using a
> > program that I don't own by myself?
>Corrct me if I am wrong but I am thinking that as I am the one doing the
>conversion I own the copyright on the .exs files themselves.
>The original wav files retain the original copyright of the owner.. ie
>akai?
>Is this corrct?

Technically, not really. (But I think what you are doing is OK {on the 
ethical front, not necessarily the legal front), since the samples are 
available for public access.)

We take it really seriously at Chicken Systems that Translator isn't used 
for pirating purposes. It's perfectly OK to back your own stuff, and to 
translate it over to another format for your own use, but if you pass it 
on, it's exactly the same as passing on the original. So that's not OK.

We get people calling that say something like this: "I got a couple CD's 
from my friend and I'm translating them..." or " went over to my friends 
house and I converted my CD's and..."

The first instance is infringement on the sounds copyright; the second is 
an infringement on the convertors copyright. Both are no-no's. In both 
instances I insist that they comply with the rules before I help them any 
further.

A personal note: recently I've been working with several sample developers. 
They work their BUTTS off. They deserve the compensation they ask for, and 
are protected by the law (which in America, "we the people" make those 
laws, no matter what you think). When, in the same day, I get one of the 
above calls, I get really, really angry. Just because it's not as 
perceptible that sounds are a tangible good, it doesn't mean that they can 
be passed around without regard to cost.

>What about giga files that pack the sample info and wave data into the
>one file? Is this a copyright infringement?

No, this is different. It doesn't matter how the files are arranged; either 
one file or multiple ones. The same applies.

Garth Hjelte
Sampler User

--- "Rubber Chicken Software Co." <support@...> wrote: 
> We get people calling that say something like this: "I got a 
> couple CD's from my friend and I'm translating them..." or " went 
> over to my friends house and I converted my CD's and..."
> 
> The first instance is infringement on the sounds copyright; the second 
> is  an infringement on the convertors copyright. Both are no-no's. In 
> both  instances I insist that they comply with the rules before I help 
> them any further.
Sorry, legalese isnt my thing ; looking at the second case here, can I infer
from this that its in your licence that only the purchaser can use the
software - that someone using a friends install at their house to convert is
an infringement? If so, if a commercial studio has a copy of translator, does
that means that visiting clients are not able to use it? Just curious as its
a licensing system I have never met before.

BTW, any news on your mac port yet? I'm still waiting! ;-)

~Pev


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

This troubles me as well, Garth. We've known each other over the phone for
some time. I was one of the earliest purchasers of you software, even though
I am Mac-based. I'm amazed to find that you think it improper for me to
exercise the use of my software at my studio for work with a client's
samples. For the most part, I agree with the majority on the ethics of
sample usage. I realize that a lot goes into the effort of building
libraries and the software that reads or translates them. But if you're
suggesting that it angers you when one of your legitimate users is
translating a friend's or client's samples, I feel strongly that you are
encroaching uncomfortably near or even upon the boundaries of fair use.
Ultimately, you could say that I have to own a pink elephant before using
your software, and if that's what your license says, I'd have to adhere to
the rules of your software. I am simply stating as a consumer, I'm not
comfortable with that viewpoint. If CDXtract offered the same function and
didn't have a problem with me translating client samples, I'd begin using
the other software package. Of course this string could open up a whole
other can of worms when you start asking me, are these samples now on my
hard drive? Good question. Truth is, all of this is theoretical and I have
only used your software for my own conversions--namely for the port of my
ASR-10 samples to EXS24. However, I have often been aware of opportunities I
would have to translate samples for others as a service. Yours would be the
first software, that I am aware of, that I can't use for client use, whether
that's Logic, Photoshop or anything else. I'll say it again, I have a
serious problem with that restriction. I don't want to mar my relationship
with you, nor detract for the respect I have for the quality of your
product. Still, this is a major detraction for me.

For the author of CDXtract, what's your viewpoint on this?

Jer

> From: Pev <no_such_user@...>
> Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:11:12 +0000 (GMT)
> To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [exs] Passing around that Akai Thang
> 
> --- "Rubber Chicken Software Co." <support@...> wrote:
>> We get people calling that say something like this: "I got a
>> couple CD's from my friend and I'm translating them..." or " went
>> over to my friends house and I converted my CD's and..."
>> 
>> The first instance is infringement on the sounds copyright; the second
>> is  an infringement on the convertors copyright. Both are no-no's. In
>> both  instances I insist that they comply with the rules before I help
>> them any further.
> Sorry, legalese isnt my thing ; looking at the second case here, can I infer
> from this that its in your licence that only the purchaser can use the
> software - that someone using a friends install at their house to convert is
> an infringement? If so, if a commercial studio has a copy of translator, does
> that means that visiting clients are not able to use it? Just curious as its
> a licensing system I have never met before.
> 
> BTW, any news on your mac port yet? I'm still waiting! ;-)
> 
> ~Pev
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

At 03:11 PM 2/11/02 +0000, you wrote:

>  --- "Rubber Chicken Software Co." <support@...> wrote:
> > We get people calling that say something like this: "I got a
> > couple CD's from my friend and I'm translating them..." or " went
> > over to my friends house and I converted my CD's and..."
> >
> > The first instance is infringement on the sounds copyright; the second
> > is  an infringement on the convertors copyright. Both are no-no's. In
> > both  instances I insist that they comply with the rules before I help
> > them any further.
>Sorry, legalese isnt my thing ; looking at the second case here, can I infer
>from this that its in your licence that only the purchaser can use the
>software - that someone using a friends install at their house to convert is
>an infringement?

Right.

>If so, if a commercial studio has a copy of translator, does
>that means that visiting clients are not able to use it? Just curious as its
>a licensing system I have never met before.

It's a per user license, which essentially means that the person (that's 
singular) that purchases the license can install it on every existing 
computer in the world, but only he/she can use it. And no, in your example, 
visiting clients can't use it. However, this is non-enforceable, so the 
parameter is that the output is the licensee's property and any derivative 
goes to the licensee.

A commercial studio does business with clients, meaning they come together 
based on a separate contract/agreement to share services, and this includes 
use of equipment. But only for that period of time. Someone couldn't come 
in with their sample library, expect to translate all of it, and think they 
could walk out of the facility with the output in their hands. Although 
they probably could expect to come in with their library, translate certain 
sounds if needed for use in a final form of music - but still, they aren't 
walking out of the joint with the output in hand.

"Studio sharing" isn't the real concern of developers, since studio owners 
are generally very conscientious. It's the general public, the casual mass 
public, that is of concern. (don't take that wrong, but piracy is way more 
prevalent among non-professionals.)

We're splitting hairs on this though. I would also plead that this really 
is common sense. Bottom line: if you didn't buy it, you shouldn't benefit 
from it. EVERYTHING ELSE extrapolates from that.

And every time the word "copyright" is brought up, there's always a brief 
thread about "is this OK," or whatever. I think those threads are quite 
boring, so this is the last I'll comment on this. zzzz... =)

>BTW, any news on your mac port yet? I'm still waiting! ;-)

(waking up) Keep watching.

Garth Hjelte
Sampler User

At 12:17 PM 2/11/02 -0500, you wrote:

>I'm amazed to find that you think it improper for me to
>exercise the use of my software at my studio for work with a client's
>samples.

Oh, no. Your suggested use of the product is different than the context I 
was speaking in, which was a recording studio-song recording context. We 
were arguing against the fact that free usage of our software is not 
permissible as an extension of other contracts/agreements (such as a studio 
usage deal). Our view of your context is different.

Again, the basic point is to insure that rightful compensation takes place, 
mostly on our level, but also on other peoples levels. Creating win-win 
situations is in the best interest of everyone.

Being that this is off-topic for the list, and we want to deal with 
individual issues privately, I'll respond off list.


Garth Hjelte
Sampler User

Thank you, Garth. I stand corrected (and relieved).

> From: "Rubber Chicken Software Co." <support@...>
> Reply-To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:23:28 -0600
> To: exs-users@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [exs] Passing around that Akai Thang
> 
> At 12:17 PM 2/11/02 -0500, you wrote:
> 
>> I'm amazed to find that you think it improper for me to
>> exercise the use of my software at my studio for work with a client's
>> samples.
> 
> Oh, no. Your suggested use of the product is different than the context I
> was speaking in, which was a recording studio-song recording context. We
> were arguing against the fact that free usage of our software is not
> permissible as an extension of other contracts/agreements (such as a studio
> usage deal). Our view of your context is different.
> 
> Again, the basic point is to insure that rightful compensation takes place,
> mostly on our level, but also on other peoples levels. Creating win-win
> situations is in the best interest of everyone.
> 
> Being that this is off-topic for the list, and we want to deal with
> individual issues privately, I'll respond off list.
> 
> 
> Garth Hjelte
> Sampler User
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> exs-users-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>