Copy Protection Survey [Archive] - Northern Sound Source

Thomas_J

09-09-2002, 06:11 PM

I second that, Simon. Dongles and cd-checks are annoying. I always feel like there\'s something draining resources.. especially with background tasks.

For a production as large as QLSO (which i\'m sure is the product in mind for your post, Nick) I would think of other possibilities. Watermarking isn\'t working for you?

Whatever you think of, no matter how ingenius the concept is, it will get reverse-engineered and cracked, eventually.

Software developers are at high risk and they should know that they\'re fighting a never ending war against the millions of pirates out there.

I completely understand your concern, though. Maybe a good idea would be to require online-checks with a user-database once every week? The check would be automated and not a hassle for the end-user.

The online-check would verify the data you provided when you bought the product (Full name, birthdate, social security number, serial number, and LOCATION.) If any of these datas were to change you\'d have to call the database administrators and have them upgrade the information.

Of course this protection would be cracked in a matter of days and your green would be flying out the window...

On the other hand, a library such as QLSO would without a doubt be out of reach for regular composers with orchestral music as a hobby on the side. The big guys who would be using it commercially, in projects that would earn them money sure as hell wouldn\'t feel confident using pirated samples, and they would most likely fear the watermarking + the fact that the sounds are probably recognizable by their character. In the end they would buy it.

These are the only people you can expect to sell a sample library with a price-tag of $3-5000 to.

For these people the copy protection would seem like an insult.

I would compare it to a car purchase:

You steal a car coz it was real expensive, you can\'t afford it and you\'d love to play around with it. You\'ll have to unscrew the number plates, and thus you can\'t drive around in public with it. You\'ll be burning rubber in your backyard. No one will ever know. Now, if you\'d like to drive around in public you\'d have to buy the car. Simple as that.

Thomas

Lance_M

09-09-2002, 06:55 PM

I\'d have to say no to online checks, even if it was to ask only sporadically. My Giga machine has no modem or network card, and I would prefer to keep it that way. I know others that have their machines far from a phone line/ethernet jack in the first place.

It\'d be better than dongles, imo, but there\'s gotta be other ways.

By the way, sorry that we\'ve hijacked your topic, Nick. Hopefully the conversation will still be useful. images/icons/smile.gif

meeehoon

09-09-2002, 06:57 PM

Steinberg\'s VSTi Virtual Guitarist has a protection that prevents you from copying the CDs... On the CD itself you can see a circular ring in the center of the CD... It allows you to install all the files but you can\'t duplicate the CDs... You can copy all of the wav files but that would be pointless because you would still have to find a way to link the Guitarist to the appropriate wav files, which will obviously take ages to map about 3000 samples!!!

Gigastudio should make all instruments like a VST instrument, ie, instead of loading the gig files, you would have to load a funky virtual instrument, like GOS, and then from within that instrument, load the sounds you want... I think that would be good... Combine that with a CD check once a month and that is ok...

I think you guys probably donno what I am saying!!! hhehehehe... images/icons/tongue.gif

meeehoon

09-09-2002, 07:32 PM

It seems that Native Instruments\' approach to copy protection, that is to physically punch holes in the CD\'s to prevent copying, may be the best and most cost effective way to prevent piracy. The combination of that and the serial numbers (as in Absynth and FM7) or the install of a 50 meg \"key\" as in Pro-52 seems to work pretty well.

I\'m not sure what the concensus on watermarking is, but I understand that it\'s very expensive to implement the technology to track the watermark. Does anyone know?

Synth2k

09-09-2002, 10:04 PM

I agree with Spectrum, it is a huge hassle to have to swap disks and dongles when you use a lot of them on one machine. Reinstalling software on a machine can be a nightmare as well! Especially when you have a number of crucial plug-ins that require a dongle system. I don\'t know of anyone who has lost their XSkey yet for Logic, but apparently if you do, you automatically get to buy yourself another copy of Logic - I don\'t think Emagic offers a replacement for any modest cost. Very expensive keychain!

That said, once I\'ve installed my software I have not had many problems in regards to dongle or key checks that get in the way of writing music so I have been most fortunate.

Ryan.

Munsie

09-09-2002, 10:27 PM

It\'s kind of weird, but if you review this topic it just looks like developers have made it hard for the honest users to use their product. That\'s all they have accomplished. They still havn\'t stopped piracy because just about every title mentioned in this thread has a pirated version waiting to be downloaded. It\'s ironic that the pirates don\'t have to go through the dongle, cd check, bs, but us honest users do.

C\'mon guys, water marking should be more than enough with samples. With full computer applications I might understand the desire for the extra copy protection bs, but for audio samples? Water mark your samples and spend the extra money saved by hunting down the guys that produce commercial music with your libraries. And from what I\'ve read, that\'s the biggest area of revenue loss for sample developers anyway.

If this is a survery, than my vote is no copy protection for samples. Water marking samples, big YES.

p.s. I also don\'t have any interenet connection on my Gigastudio machine.

David Govett

09-09-2002, 11:50 PM

Sounds like Watermarking is popular for sure. That and one other form of protection and ideally if it\'s not too prohibitive, let the user decide between dongle or CD hassle or internet check before shipping the product. That would be my ideal world scenario. Could be expensive though to support 3 or 4 different schemes. It would be the ideal though to have everything watermarked and then offer Dongle, CD hassle or internet check. It also seems that watermarking could be used more as a deterrant if you want to save money by not doing the monitoring service full tilt. Use it to prove and investigate copyright abuse at the very least. Who knows.
Good feedback all around.
Dave

eliam

09-09-2002, 11:51 PM

That might be the reason why some people buy a program and then run the cracked version on their DAW...

THOR

09-10-2002, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Nick Phoenix:
Does anyone have any comments about the copy-protection used by Native Instruments?No problem whatsoever - got Abysynth,Battery,FM7,Kontact,Pro-52,B4 and its running very smooth...
I also agree with what Simon said . You can\'t think of anything that can\'t be unthought...for example all of the bombfactory stuff is iloked...great idea , but..I had to do a mix and bring all my plugs with me..and the night before my ilok broke. I was basically screwed and had to find $%$%^ of the stuff I am using...That kind of scenario really sucks - I tryed to get a new ilok but they needed me to send mine in first...I think making it easy is better - also, if I spend $600 on a product I am not really willing to give that away to my competitors...let them buy it too

SCARBEE

09-10-2002, 01:05 AM

Hi Nick,

Thanks for taking up this issue again. I\'m very confused what to do myself. Lately I have strongly considered to shut down the sample business as it is a minus-profit experience. I have done what I could - I have a good product, I have released light versions, upgrade paths, taken down the price, etc. The only reason why I haven\'t stopped yet is the fact that I have not seen the results of releasing to other formats. If this doesn\'t profit - I\'m out of here... images/icons/confused.gif

I simply doesn\'t pay off to spend 6 months creating a product and then selling a few hundred copies. It\'s money down the drain and I DO have a wife and 3 kids... I rather concentrate on my composer career which actually GIVES profit. (thanks for that)

We developers aren\'t given any chance - if we protect we get bashed and if we don\'t we get pirated. Hopefully one day moral will be higher. images/icons/smile.gif

When I\'ve said this I want to express my concern with the general bad economy for a large part of the world and especially young kids, students, etc. The have NO money so how can I expect them to pay? The price of a sample library is 1 months student support in Denmark... images/icons/shocked.gif

I wish I could offer 50% discount to all under 25 but unfortunately my webshop doesn\'t support rabates. And I can\'t afford to get a more advanced shop. (another negative spiral) images/icons/rolleyes.gif

regards

meeehoon

09-10-2002, 02:05 AM

Hiya...

This is just to clarify the situation with Logic Audio. The XSKey is only used on their latest version, Logic 5.

Logic 5 comes in 2 forms:
(1) Upgrade
(2) Full

The Upgrade version comes with an XSKey with a type A code, meaning that the Logic 5 Upgrade version will expire in 3 months from first use.

The Full version comes with an XSKey with a type B code, meaning that Logic 5 Full version will run forever.

If you break/lose an XSKey with type A code, the cost for a new XSKey is about US$25. But if the same thing happens when you are holding an XSKey with type B code, you will have to pay the full price for the replacement, which is about US$625!

That\'s all...

meeehoon

Simon Ravn

09-10-2002, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by meeehoon:
Steinberg\'s VSTi Virtual Guitarist has a protection that prevents you from copying the CDs... On the CD itself you can see a circular ring in the center of the CD... It allows you to install all the files but you can\'t duplicate the CDs... You can copy all of the wav files but that would be pointless because you would still have to find a way to link the Guitarist to the appropriate wav files, which will obviously take ages to map about 3000 samples!!!

That\'s all very fine, Meehoon, but I can tell you that Virtual Guitarist was cracked within days, and distributed on newsgroups etc. - so much for that \'fantastic\' protection...

Simon Ravn

09-10-2002, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by KC:
It seems that Native Instruments\' approach to copy protection, that is to physically punch holes in the CD\'s to prevent copying, may be the best and most cost effective way to prevent piracy. The combination of that and the serial numbers (as in Absynth and FM7) or the install of a 50 meg \"key\" as in Pro-52 seems to work pretty well.
How do you mean \'work really well\' - Battery, FM7, Absynth etc. were available in cracked versions a few hours/days after release.

Simon Ravn

09-10-2002, 03:11 AM

SCARBEE, I am really sorry to hear about this - I thought your business was going well now. I don\'t believe your prices are too high - but obviously I can say that as a reasonable well-paid video-editor. Students, as you say, probably won\'t give buying sample libraries high priority, if/when they can get them for free. On the other hand - that kinda proves the point that protection is more or less pointless, doesn\'t it. Watermarking (if this really works) is the best solution for both developers and users as I see it.

SCARBEE

09-10-2002, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Simon Ravn:
SCARBEE, I am really sorry to hear about this - I thought your business was going well now.Thanks Simon. Well in a way it does: I have plenty of good press and more to come in the next months from E.M SOS, etc. I have also set up distributores all over the world and evrything, but the point is that there is a conflict between the production cost, support, general costs and the number of CD sold/price.
If you read the one of the latest TASCAM Giga newsletters you\'ll even see that my libraries \"are one of the best selling Giga-libraries\"...

The last months my sales are increasing, but still - compared to a normal job or my composer career you need to be a fool or VERY idealistic, or rich to keep on creating libraries, because it simply ain\'t good business. Why do you think there was so much debate about the banners? Because developers budgets are very tight.

All the new formats: VST instruments etc, will be evn more expensive to create since you need out-of-town programmers, designers. etc.

I will still sample for my own sake - I love this thing and I need my own sampled instruments in my work as a composer. But I\'m not throwing in the towel yet - as I said other formats may save my butt... images/icons/wink.gif

I think it is on time that people realize that sample libraries are EXCLUSIVE! You own an exclusive tool together with a few hundred people on this planet (out of 6 billion...)
Normally (unless you are a thief) we respect exclusive products only sold a few of - If they are good. But not in the software business...

And it\'s so stupid to give libraries to your \"friends\" and competitors: keep you unique investment/sound for yourself and get an advantage!

spectrum

09-10-2002, 03:39 AM

I know this isn\'t something that you guys want to hear, because it goes against the grain of \"free access= more sales\" notions that I see discussed here all the time. But the reality in our case has been that copy protection makes a huge difference in sales. I\'ve done it both ways for many years (since selling patches on Cassette interface for synths!), and there is no comparison in the quantities sold. The axim is always true that the harder it is to copy, the more you can potentially sell.....and visa-versa.

It isn\'t that your product won\'t get pirated, but it helps tremendously with the casual copying among pros and semi-pros that is the real business threat. A very large number of customers trade stuff that they should be and could be buying.....and that\'s what kills the biz and developers. This really is a tough and tricky business....every sale counts.

Copy protection systems just encourage honest people to remain honest. It\'s like the difference between having a front door with a standard lock, and leaving your front door wide open. It\'s really easy to break a standard door lock, but a lot less people try it when you lock your door. If the door of your house is wide open, you will quite likely have intruders in a short period of time and loose everything.

It\'s the same argument with luggage. Why do they even bother putting those lame locks on suitcases? Well, because it actually does make a big difference compared to having all your stuff with zero protection.

Watermarking is a waste of time and pointless. It isn\'t any protection at all. Everyone really needs to get used to the idea of copy protection schemes, because it is here to stay. If they are implemented well, it can be done with minimal hassle.

I think it\'s more useful to discuss the various methods for Nick to consider. It\'s cool that he has opened up for feedback on the subject of what method he uses with end users. Debating whether it should be there or not is probably moot at this point.

I\'m a firm believer that copy protection systems should be the least hassle for the honest user and as transparent as possible. I much prefer systems that are a \"set and forget\" deal. As a musician, I don\'t like having to think about it all the time and deal with it on a constant basis.

spectrum
(aka: EP from Spectrasonics)

PS. I\'m sure the flames are coming, but I thought it was important to post some real-world feedback on how effective copy protection actually is. I know very well that it is no silver bullet or a guarantee of good sales, but it at least grants the opportunity for a product to reach it\'s potential.

SCARBEE

09-10-2002, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by spectrum:
But the reality in our case has been that copy protection makes a huge difference in sales. ...and there is no comparison in the quantities sold. The axim is always true that the harder it is to copy, the more you can potentially sell.....and visa-versa.
Finally someone with real long time experience said it! images/icons/smile.gif Thanks Eric - you are and will alway be my developer role model!

I buy a lot of software and I have no problems with the way companies \"Sound Forge\" does:

You need an unlock key with is based on your system setup. If you change your computer too many times your unlock key will have to be renewed, but that is not a problem if you can prove you own it - and that is fairy easy.

But how much does it cost? Can we get some direct information: systems, links, prices etc?

Thomas

Chadwick

09-10-2002, 05:03 AM

I agree with Thomas.

I bought Acid Pro3 from SF, went through the activation procedure on my music PC, which isn\'t on the net, and I haven\'t had to think about it since.

Sure, one day I\'ll upgrade the PC and OS, but I just have to go through the procedure once more.

That\'s a lot less hassle than a string of dongles or cd checks at random intervals.

mschiff

09-10-2002, 09:13 AM

I am firmly against copy protection and have been for some time, but NOT against protection that does not cause problems. Watermarking works, as does an unlock key that you enter one time and get from the software vendor. These things make perfect sense, and do not interfere with the ability to use the products you have legitimately purchased. The unlock key is a very small incovenience if it contributes to the bottom line of the sample vendors. I buy plug-ins and software all the time with that kind of protection. I will NOT buy anything (like Pace) that screws around with my operating system, uses dongles, or makes me insert disks periodically.

-- Martin

passacaglia

09-10-2002, 10:16 AM

Hello Gents,

great forum you all have assembled - hope to contribute.

very nice (err, business-minded) of you Nick to sample (no pun intended) the populous before implementing a protection scheme. as usual, you will receive a fair share of \'NO! please no more customer abuse\' replies. although, alot of us understand that it is a necessary-evil. spectrum (wow, eric persing is here images/icons/cool.gif ) has some excellent points; it is here to stay. –but- I must beg the issue a bit more -- unless the protection scheme is proprietary or of little to no cost, it will certainly bloat the product\'s price, which again affects the bottom-line. ironically, the ones with steady income are the companies making the protection devices - time and time again, claiming to have an infallible scheme. I guess they don\'t mind pie-in-their-face.

a few years ago, I watched the US Congressional Hearings on Digital Rights (something to that effect) on late night C-SPAN *yes, c-span, I was awake with my infant child at the time* images/icons/grin.gif

speaking to our illustrious group of \'elder\' senators and representatives, were the likes of Dr. John Warnock, co-founder of Adobe, Bill Joy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Bill Gates, and representatives of Intel, Disney and AOL/Time Warner. The premise of the discussion was how to deal with digital rights in the new millennium. Each panel member was presented with almost the same questions. Most of the discussion was an education forum for techno-phobic southern senators. ** “Mr Gates, can you again tell me why a watermark is non-effective?” - That sort of thing. Anti-piracy was a big part of the discussion. I will try to paraphrase the key points.

Dr Warnock made this comment *paraphrased* “Little Billy downloading a pirated copy of Photoshop for grandma to edit pics of the grandkids is not our primary concern. We are more worried as to how the entire press of South Korea is published using Adobe software, yet, there is no proof of license to anyone affiliated to the press of S. Korea.”

Michael Eisner started the discussion of watermarking, but it was quickly debunked by the Intel and Sun people. Intel’s representative went as far as saying “There is and will NEVER be a hardware or software based system of protection that cannot be cracked”. And I remember the smirk on his face as he said it, almost like he has said it a million times, but no one listens.

And our favorite man we love to hate, Bill Gates, re-enforced the position; telling everyone that is his belief that the only way to fight piracy to do it on a grass-roots level, through education. Implying that software companies and media giants invest $$ in the education of piracy. Teach kids that it is WRONG to steal software and music. To me, this seems to be the most logical approach thus far.

Back to the main topic, Nick’s new library. I’m still not convinced there is a great need for this product, as wonderful as it sounds, are we not just reinventing the wheel?? At what point will this all become obsessive and impractical? But, I’m making assumptions w/o hearing any demos, but for the modest work I do, I have found little advantage to upgrading from Advanced Orchestra, suits my needs just fine. Sometimes less is more.

Now it is my guess (grant you, I’m not a prophet) that if a sophisticated CD Check system is built into Giga 3.0 and consequently all libraries released afterwards …. This great technology will fizzle out …. And composers will find a convenient sampler, it’s all about work flow! And I cannot image having to CD Check a 100 gig library that is spread across a network, due to the gratuitous amount of polyphony use, and the current hardware/OS limitations. Until a library like this can run in its full pride and glory on ONE machine, w/o restrictions, a cd check system will certainly takes years off the composer’s lives!!!! In turn, they will not recommend it to their colleges … And you can do the rest of the math …..

It boggles my mind as to how watermarking works …. Not the technology, that seems straight forward, but the checks and balances system. My creative mind envisions a huge number cruncher at Princeton with a Quantum Leap logo on the front, being fed TV and radio signals from all over the world, filtering the 00011010110110, looking for the ‘watermark’ and THEN cross referencing it to a catalog of user licenses. How else could such a system be maintained or effective ??? I have no idea.

Finally, I would like to salute you all (developers) ….. you take great chances ….. as we all in music do … hopefully in 5 years discussions like this will not be taking place …. Maybe all the bugs will be worked out, and we can live the ‘perfect world’.

Best regards,
Passacaglia

thesoundsmith

09-10-2002, 02:03 PM

I have to say that I am unhappy about the need for copy protection. But when I see a post by one of the best developers saying he\'s thinking about quitting, and when \"spectrum\" admits that his sales are higher when his products are well-protected, then I can\'t avoid the obvious conclusion: we have to have copy proteciton.

I hate it, I abhor it, I despise it! It costs money, causes hassles, makes it harder to upgrade, and generally is a major PITA. But I agree that we need it...

A system like Eric\'s, that causes the user no hassle and yet prevents casual piracy, is a solution I can live with, providing it doesn\'t wind up costing the developer (and thus the end user) a bunch of extra bucks to amortize.

Yet the most telling phrase was Scarbee stating he sells only a few hundred copies of a given library. And these are great, well thought-out libraries,not quick-and-dirty hacks.

The implications, as I see them:

Giga is (currently) used by orchestrators more than us \'pop/jazz/world-etc.\' types. Thus the need for electric bass is lower than for orchestral tools.

The number of \'mee-too\' libraries definitely has a significant impact on sales. Example: I really wanted Scarbee\'s basses, but I wound up buying Dan Dean becuase in one library I had the styles I needed-and I got a decent acoustic bass. This means I didn\'t buy Scarbee, AND I didn\'t buy Larry Seyer. Eventually, I hope to add both of these to my collection, but this doesn\'t help Scarbee make his mortgage today.

I would imagine East-West significantly outsells Scarbee because of the number of products offered, and the large, reasonably well-maintained website (AND the fact they advertise large in major music mags.) But this is an economy of scale as much as quality, an age-old facet of the business world. Thomas, I wonder if you might want to consider offering your products on sites like East-West and BiggaGiggas, just to see if your numbers improve. (Three time the sales at half the price...)

OTOH, I don\'t believe copy protection is part of the BiggaGigga line, and they keep their prices quite low, and offer excellent products. I wonder how adding copy protection and raising their price to compensate would impact their sales?

Just my .02 Euros (if the exchange rate is even today...)

And thanks, Nick, for opening a thread that can perhaps sanely discuss a most sensitive issue...

Dasher

fmfgs

09-10-2002, 03:05 PM

I dont have to repeat how useless and annoying copy protection is for the enduser today and how complicated and expensive it is for the developpers. Since samples have no executable code, protection is much more difficult than for virtual instruments or plugins etc.
The only realistic solution for me would be a collaboration with tascam to implement a protection scheme into gigastudio. The enduser has to supply his serial number of gigastudio and the sample developper has a software to encrypt his samples to run only on a single copy of giga, who will decrypt the file at runtime. The problem of multiple gigas for huge libraries could be solved by installing the master gigastudio on a network server. This solution is not perfect either, but at least it\'s cheap. If sample producers stop supporting the giga plattform for economic reasons, tascam should have all interest in supporting such a idea.
my 0.02 swiss francs
fmfgs

Lance_M

09-10-2002, 05:59 PM

Here\'s another problem... By eliminating low-level trading (or rather attempting to), you are forcing those former newbies to become even smarter.

They WILL (no doubt about it) search for the more \"advanced\" ways to get their hands on the product, and once again you will be out of luck.

And I\'ll have to agree about Scarbee\'s situation... there just isn\'t that much of a demand for all these different basses.

dougrogers

09-10-2002, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by thesoundsmith:
I would imagine East-West significantly outsells Scarbee because of the number of products offered, and the large, reasonably well-maintained website (AND the fact they advertise large in major music mags.) But this is an economy of scale as much as quality, an age-old facet of the business world. Thomas, I wonder if you might want to consider offering your products on sites like East-West and BiggaGiggas, just to see if your numbers improve. (Three time the sales at half the price...)

DasherHi Dasher,

I feel qualified to comment on this subject. My company EASTWEST has probably sold more sample libraries than anyone on earth over the past fifteen years, and we estimate for each one we sell there are dozens of illegal copies. How do we know? Sampler sales statistics. With the number of samplers out there, even if 5% of the users purchased a legal copy of the best selling library of all time, it would amount to many more sales than that library has sold. So I ask you, what are the other 95% doing with their samplers?

I agree with the other developers in this forum, copy protection enables us to somewhat control this problem; it will never stop the hackers; but they are not our focus; we are trying to stop the casual user that now has a copy machine in their computer. If we succeed, I\'m sure you will see a dramatic drop in the price of these libraries, which will be good news for most of the participants of this forum, whom I can tell are honest.

I also agree with many in this discussion, that copy protection should be transparent to the legitimate purchaser. That is the challenge we face, and the purpose of this dialog.

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST

RickD

09-10-2002, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Nick Phoenix:
Does anyone have any comments about the copy-protection used by Native Instruments?Nick, the best C.P. scheme with the least customer aggravation seems to be the Challenge Response method used by the likes of Antares and Audiomedia. Apparenty it works well enough that they offer their software for download over the net.

I don\'t like it everytime I have to clean a HD or get a new computer because I have to re-authorize it but so far it\'s been taken care of fairly easily.

It sure beats disk swapping and dongles. I had an earlier version of Finale once that required the disk to be inserted quite frequently, and I was really glad when their next upgrade came around and they reverted back to normal, just a serial number, the good ole days...

that\'s my 2 cents worth.
Rick

Bruce A. Richardson

09-10-2002, 08:29 PM

Can we really make the leap that sampler sales and sample library sales should necessarily have a relationship? I have some experience to share in this regard.

I can think of 20-30 samplers right now, in my town, that are currently part of theater installations...samplers which have never had any need for a sample library because that is not the purpose for which they are used. I\'ve done several amusement park installations with multiple racks of samplers as well...until recently this was how most sounds for amusement park rides and automated theatrical shows ran, and a great number of them still run on samplers. I attended an art exhibit at the MAC in Dallas where three racks of four Akai samplers each were triggered by sensors mounted all over a huge floor. A trade show I used to do for a major toy manufacturer used at least one sampler in each of almost 100 showrooms...sometimes two. I did a live \"haunted house\" sound design for American Movie Classics that used six Akai samplers triggered by both sensors and \"graveyard animation.\"

On that gig, I actually got to bite Linda Blair on the neck...hehe. No, she didn\'t spew. The other interesting thing that happened on that gig was that I felt something bonk me on the head, and bounce to the ground. I picked it up, and it was a peyote button!!

Anyway, where was I?

None of these samplers I mentioned above used any libraries, nor do they represent any sort of potential piracy. But that\'s several dozen samplers right there to my one, so we can certainly make a case for the numbers being a bit misguiding. Samplers are used very widely for these types of non-musicmaking applications. I don\'t have formal numbers, but I would say that these situations I\'ve named from my own personal experience should be an indicator that the correllation is anything but direct.

I agree that there is a problem, and I loathe the problem. I am a total advocate of all these wonderful developers, and I want all of them to be drowning in hundred dollar bills, hookers, and blow. But I don\'t agree that copy protection will solve it to nearly the degree that is being proposed. How do we account for the fact that Cakewalk outsells every other brand of sequencer, with no copy protection besides a simple serial number? The issues are complex.

I don\'t think copy protection is going to be a substitute for a solid business model, and I fear that it is being viewed as something of a panacea...when in fact, the issues of supply and demand, and those of diversified income streams may be more at fault in some situations than losses through piracy.

Doug and I had a great discussion about this one day, actually, in judging the viability of some products I was throwing at him. I learned a lot about the kinds of vetting that he does to ensure that his production money gets spent where it will result in the highest profits and sales. You might actually think that he puts every sample library he can get on his site, but that is far from true. He is very conscious of his \"shelf space\" and libraries have to earn their spot on his site. So, no one should think that I am considering Doug to be ignorant of any of these details--he\'s a pretty shrewd cookie. I\'m throwing this stuff out because I think it\'s useful for the purpose of this discussion, and because as a person who does a lot of sound design in the course of a year, I see some situations that many people do not see.

Well, enough idle chat.

I see the following as the most important issues. To me, transparency of copy protection means these things:

1) Portability

A busy composer may work on several machines. He may work in different locations and need to access his samples via someone else\'s machine. Soundware should not restrict that user\'s ability to honestly leverage the material he has licensed.

2) Editing Capability

One man\'s idea of a perfect sample is another man\'s idea of a starting point. A user should be able to edit, modify, and utilize a sample library in any creative way he sees fit. Two developers (who I respect) have expressed an idea to me that I absolutely disagree with--that an end user is not \"qualified\" to make decisions about the way a library is constructed...he\'s an \"amateur.\" I was a bit taken aback by that. To say that is to say there is no art...artmaking is the very act of bending a medium in ways that it doesn\'t gracefully go. Some of the best sample libraries I have used are combinations that I\'ve made of more than one product, in combination with my own samples. This is a way to get a unique and personalized sound, and it would be a pity to see this ability further eroded (Giga\'s so called \"compression\" scheme is in fact a major inconvenience beyond its worth).

3) Dependability

Any copy protection scheme must be dependable, so that not only does it protect the end user against the \"weekend crisis\" but also protects him against a sample developer\'s potential failure to remain in business. As the markets become more saturated this is a true concern. This aspect disqualifies the \"pace style\" machine-locked \"response\" system, since a user would lose his investment the moment he had to upgrade a machine in the event the developer went out of business.

4) Convenience

\"Disc-begging\" methodologies, while seemingly benign, do create problems. Eric Persing rightly points out that the old \"if everyone did it\" exercise makes this obvious. I have personally had the unfortunate experience of forgetting to pack a B4 disc for a gig, and having the app beg for it when I set up. The gig started in 15 minutes, and home was 20 minutes away. I ended up faking it with a synth, and catching total grief from my bandmates who were already totally skeptical of software synthesis. One more log on the fire...Native Instruments probably could have made a sale from one of those guys, but instead they saw me looking like a chump.

Dongles, as well, are problematic already. My current \"dongle tail\" is about six inches on my road machine. One more dongle, and the door of my IsoRaxx will no longer close. As anyone can see, this is a ridiculous approach when carried out to logical conclusions.

_______________________________

Some of these \"inconveniences\" are more benign than others. I am most concerned about portability and editing potential.

There is one aspect of this discussion we cannot ignore, and that is the responsibility of the end user to stop this madness where it starts.

DO NOT COPY SAMPLE LIBRARIES FOR ANYONE. Not your partner. Not your best friend. Not your boss. Not your mama. NOBODY.

I have people ask me ALL THE TIME, and I feel proud to say that I do not say yes. I tell them, \"I\'d be happy to play some tracks for you, but I just can\'t do that.\" And people get mad about it...which goes to show that we DO need to educate our fellow musicians about the rights of the people who produce these things. A person getting mad because you won\'t let him copy a library is probably a good person--who doesn\'t understand that he\'s asking you to hurt a fellow musician. It\'s up to you and me to make people understand this. We are a powerful force, and the time has come for us to do some good--for the developers and ultimately for ourselves.

Becuase folks, it\'s not me putting these libraries on the internet. It\'s not YOU putting these libraries on the internet. It\'s the guy who got a copy from the guy who got a copy...a person with no investment, no relationships, and no stakes. That\'s the person who is the worst \"spreader.\" And somewhere down the line, someone who bought a copy made a terrible misjudgement to produce that situation--thinking they could trust that \"friend\" to take a copy and not spread it around. Hey, that \"friend\" has already proved himself untrustworthy just by asking you.

So again...please do not copy libraries. Ever. If every person who reads this forum will make that simple pledge, it will do more to stop this madness than all the copy protection in the world.

spectrum

09-10-2002, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Sharmy:
S.O.L (This is not an abbreviation for a string library).LOL!!!!!
images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/cool.gif

I think that might actually be a good product name for the name of the next developer who does a String Library....the market is just a wee bit crowded these days in that department! images/icons/wink.gif

Thanks for injecting some humor into a rather humorless topic! (and thanks also for the good feedback on our system...glad it is working for you)

spectrum

Bruce A. Richardson

09-10-2002, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by RickD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Nick Phoenix:
Does anyone have any comments about the copy-protection used by Native Instruments?Nick, the best C.P. scheme with the least customer aggravation seems to be the Challenge Response method used by the likes of Antares and Audiomedia.<hr /></blockquote>Unfortunately, Rick, that is a very poor choice for sample libraries, due to the necessary portability between machines, and due to the potential for de-authorization at precisely the time a person is probably needing desparately to be back up and running (hard drive failure, hardware change, etc.)

Applications don\'t need to be nearly as portable as samples.

Bruce A. Richardson

09-10-2002, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Sharmy:
I know developers who are starving because no write protection was in place.Hi Sharmy,

I think a developer who is unprofitable is usually a developer who has not pursued a successful business model.

The sampleware business is very much like the songwriting business or the jingle/scoring business. You can jump for the brass ring, but you\'d also better be picking all the low-hanging fruit you see...in other words, diversity of income streams and product offerings are the best insulation against negative cash flow.

I\'d cite Eric Persing as a great example. He has corporate hardware clients, he has library material for multiple platforms and price points, software applications, consulting, studio work, and composing all contributing to his bottom line. There\'s something there for a whole lot of different profile clients, and lots of people can find some reason to leave some of their money with him. Another great example is Jennifer Hruska\'s Sonic Implants. Their product line extends from $20 downloadable soundfonts to cell-phone ringer technology to the $1200 string library to rhythm instruments covering about every genre. That is a deep offering, and there\'s something there that will appeal to just about any profile of musician looking to buy.

Those are very solid business plans, which will make money. Lots of people get into this business because they\'re motivated to make the greatest \"fill in your choice of instrument\" library in the world, or because they\'re talented or because they enjoy it, but the fact is, it\'s one of the most highly competitive businesses around, with perhaps one of the smallest client bases and tightest margins. So I don\'t think we can really make the leap that piracy or copying is putting people out of business, when in fact, it is to a greater or lesser degree a cost of doing business in this industry. I\'m sure not advocating it, don\'t get me wrong there. I\'m just saying that a person who doesn\'t plan for it and compensate for it is a person who has not studied his market very well, and who has left himself vulnerable.

In fact, the cost and overhead of supporting any copy protection system strong enough to be effective may well be more than most one-man shops can bear, and no one has really proven that this cost would not be better invested in diversifying the product offering.

We don\'t do ourselves any favors by oversimplifying on either side of this issue. We all have high stakes.

BlueScreen

09-10-2002, 08:57 PM

Two quick thoughts:

1. Please don\'t use the \"connect-to-the-Internet\" authorization. My PC has neither a modem nor a \'net connection and I want to keep it that way.

2. Please don\'t use anything that requires me to insert the CD-ROM every x number of days. I had to do this with one of my apps about a year ago (Cubase?) and the disc surface got scratched in the process. It was a *huge* PIA to convince Steinberg I was a legit, registered user and not some warez dude.

That\'s all.

images/icons/grin.gif

peter269

09-10-2002, 10:29 PM

Anyone had experinece with iLok?

spectrum

09-10-2002, 11:17 PM

Nick, the best C.P. scheme with the least customer aggravation seems to be the Challenge Response method used by the likes of Antares and Audiomedia.
Unfortunately, Rick, that is a very poor choice for sample libraries, due to the necessary portability between machines, and due to the potential for de-authorization at precisely the time a person is probably needing desparately to be back up and running (hard drive failure, hardware change, etc.)

Applications don\'t need to be nearly as portable as samples.Hi Bruce,

That\'s not necessarily true of every system. Our\'s is fully automated web-based Challenge and Response and you can get reauthorizations 24/7 instantly at the site....no problem. Legit users can reformat a drive on a holiday weekend or buy an new computer and get it installed completely on their own....it\'s very portable. Our system is both very intelligent and generous, and it automatically keeps track of how often you are needing reauthorizations. There\'s basically no limit...legit users can have as many as you need....we just have figured out some clever safeguards in there so that it\'s tough for people to abuse our system. For 99% of the customers all of this stuff is invisible and they never run into the checks and balances.

By offering a generous system to our customers, we have found that it works really well. We have little to no abuse of this system. People don\'t have to ask our permission to get a new install, but it locks out the abusers too.

(If I gave you the details how we do this.....I would have to....well you know images/icons/wink.gif )

Anyway, we struggled over this issue forever, and are super happy with the balance we came up with. Our customers are fine with it too. (...can\'t really say they love it of course, because who really likes any copy protection...I sure don\'t)

Of course you are right in that the developer\'s commitment to tech support is incredibly important for this to work right. We\'ve needed to add a whole new department for this, and it is essential that people can get help quickly, if they have problems with any aspect of the product. It is a very big commitment of time, people and resources.....but it makes complete sense for us, with what we are doing now.

In answer to Peter\'s question. Some of the biggest problems of iLok are that if it crashes (and it can) and loses all your authorizations, PACE will not help you get your authorizations back from the companies....and it can be a real mess from what I have heard. The other thing is that it is complicated to sell that way. Every dealer that carries your product also has to sell iLok and have it in stock at all times.....unlikely. If they don\'t have it to buy, then you can\'t use the product you bought...yuck! Also, even mentioning PACE at this point is likely to start a riot....they haven\'t made too many friends recently. It\'s also not very secure, once you crack iLock you have access to EVERY iLock compatible piece of software. At least when you have your own systems, you have some lead time before it is cracked, because the hackers have to at least crack each product individually....you can keep changing it a bit, etc....all of which does help in fighting the battle.

I\'m sure there are some companies that are doing fine with iLock, but those were our reservations with it.

spectrum

thesoundsmith

09-10-2002, 11:41 PM

Doug Rogers wrote:

My company EASTWEST has probably sold more sample libraries than anyone on earth over the past fifteen years, and we estimate for each one we sell there are dozens of illegal copies. How do we know? Sampler sales statistics. With the number of samplers out there, even if 5% of the users purchased a legal copy of the best selling library of all time, it would amount to many more sales than that library has sold. So I ask you, what are the other 95% doing with their samplers?
So I was right, you ARE the biggest-congratulations. I figured you must be doing something right to be able to put those two-pagers into keboard...

But what are the other 95% doing? Since I got Giga, about a month after I got my Emu ESI400 wit all the bells and whistles, I have NEVER turned it on again...

But a LOT of the hip-hoppers and rap guys are not using libraries that much (at least the two I know in the Monterey area-now THERE\'S a reliable statistic! images/icons/rolleyes.gif ) They\'re sampling vinyl and drum machines to make their own libraries, which are typically more variations of Boom Boom Chunk, , Boom ba boom Chunk... with every effect know to man applied with all the knobs tweaked to 11.

Still I agree that sample CD copying is probably rampant-but I reeeeely don\'t get it; as someone mentioned earlier, why give up your creative edge?

So copy protect, whatever method works the most transparently, but still works. Just please, make it easy on the paying customers.

Dasher

SCARBEE

09-10-2002, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by thesoundsmith:

Yet the most telling phrase was Scarbee stating he sells only a few hundred copies of a given library. And these are great, well thought-out libraries,not quick-and-dirty hacks.
I\'m not the only one - Nick says the same about his Strat library here: \"We have only sold a few hundred worldwide\" (http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=003060#000013
) East west have a good market plan, etc. In Denmark the CD ALBUM sale in 2001 dropped 50%! Bad marketing or piracy?

Every week I get false registrations from people who have illigally got a copy, I find places every day offering my libraries for free/swap or few dollars. I\'ve even seen the CD\'s on gamesites too.

It seems that everytime piracy is mentioned - it is rejected as the REAL problem. If 1 out of 2 CD\'s are copied it means the difference between profit.

And just for the record: I\'m still here...

SCARBEE

09-10-2002, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Lance_M:
And I\'ll have to agree about Scarbee\'s situation... there just isn\'t that much of a demand for all these different basses.So what do we need? Pianos (no) Drums (no) Guitars (no) Strings (no) woodwinds (no) percussion (no) Rhodes (no) Brass (no) etc.

The fact is that every niche of samples are covered. So does this mean that all of us developers can reseign? Should car makers resign because the the Ford T WAS out already?
Please - this is no argument.

ed hamilton

09-11-2002, 12:00 AM

I will not buy any program that uses the \"insert cd upon request\" system.

Challange/response like spectrasonics is fine.

Input one string of auth codes is even better (motu).

Please find a way to allow multiple computer usages for a single composer.
I am up to 5 PC\'s at this point with no end in site. I do not even feel comfortable dedicating on pc to a single instrument grouping (strings in one, brass in another etc etc).
As polyphony gets eaten up I am constantly using my PC;s in a different order on each project. One day I only need 1 pc. The next day I need 2 just for strings.
Yesterday I had 2 machines for just piano\'s and rhodes!!
ya get the idea.

Please do not require that the PC you library is installed on be hooked up to the internet.
None of my giga machines have modems in them.

thesoundsmith

09-11-2002, 12:02 AM

It seems that everytime piracy is mentioned - it is rejected as the REAL problem. If 1 out of 2 CD\'s are copied it means the difference between profit.

And just for the record: I\'m still here...
Thomas, I think the problem is that RIAA has been screaming piracy for so many years, yet posting record (OK, enormous) profits, it makes it difficult for the artist to believe there is THAT much copying going on. If it is true, as your experience would seem to dictate, then indeed, piracy is a genuinely serious issue in the sample library marketplace.

I live in a small town atmosphere, only one other person I know actualy uses Gigastudio (though I know of a couple of others who own it, but don\'t actively use it.) So piracy here would be me and the one other guy swapping CDs, which we don\'t, because we compete for the ad and demo market in this small area, and a new CD is a bonus to our customer.

But you\'re correct, if each sale is copied by only one other person, and only HALF of those would have considered buying, you\'ve still lost a LOT of money. And you don\'t get to charge it back to the artist, like Geffen or Columbia.

Good luck with the Scarbee libraries-be sure to keep us posted on the Rhodes.

Dasher

SCARBEE

09-11-2002, 12:18 AM

Hi thesoundsmith:

The reason why I choose to \"tell the truth\" about sales (I know it isn\'t good marketing images/icons/wink.gif )

Is because I think many musicians believes that we sell 100.000 CD\'s - so copying is no big problem. Maybe they confuse sampling CD\'s with music Cd\'s and think: hey Dan Dean probably sell 125.000 of his libraries so he is already rich... images/icons/rolleyes.gif How many developers sell more tahn 1000 copies within 1-2 years?

I read somewhere that there were 200.000 logic users before the Apple take over. Do only a few thousand need sample libraries? What about Cubase users, Cakewalk, Performer etc.

It doesn\'t add up...

I talk to people face to face that have NO probelem piracing. They exist. They really do.

Bruce A. Richardson

09-11-2002, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by spectrum:
[QUOTE]That\'s not necessarily true of every system. Our\'s is fully automated web-based Challenge and Response and you can get reauthorizations 24/7 instantly at the site....no problem. Legit users can reformat a drive on a holiday weekend or buy an new computer and get it installed completely on their own....it\'s very portable. Our system is both very intelligent and generous, and it automatically keeps track of how often you are needing reauthorizations. There\'s basically no limit...legit users can have as many as you need....we just have figured out some clever safeguards in there so that it\'s tough for people to abuse our system. For 99% of the customers all of this stuff is invisible and they never run into the checks and balances.
Hi Eric,

Well, I can agree that some of these c/r systems are good. Sonic Foundry\'s is excellent, and generous...and uses probably a similar algorithmic intelligence to ferret out the legit reauthorizations from the pirates.

HOWEVER...

You\'re talking about an application, not a sample library.

Unless this is strictly an installation-based system, how can it protect against copying of samples?

That is my point...sample developers who are strictly designing libraries won\'t be satisfied with that...because a user can just copy from the hard drive once the installation is complete and they\'re good to go. So, they\'ll want more Draconian protection...like perhaps that system tied into TASCAM\'s compression/encryption hooey.

Then we users are screwed right up the poop chute. We\'ll have no portability. We\'ll have no ability to edit on the sample level. We\'ll have problems combining waveforms from the various products we license into new, unique instruments of our own design.

That\'s the whole reason I\'m into sampling...creative combinations of things. I don\'t want to see samplers turned into sample-library jukeboxes. That completely and totally changes the rules. Is that really the way this has to be?

Like I have said, I want all of you developers to make money, and LOTS of it. But unfortunately, copy protection as a paradigm--if designed to be truly mission critical--is very incompatible with the creative end use of the product. It is a terrible catch-22.

I\'d love it if I could come up with a recommendation for a copy protection scheme that would actually work, and still protect the end user\'s ability to freely use the product in any creative way. But there is not one. TASCAM\'s idea is terrible and restrictive. C/R, to be effective in a sample situation, would either have to be totally toothless, or it too would be completely restrictive. Even seemingly benign disc-begging and dongle schemes--when applied to LIBRARY material--would have to be totally restrictive to work.

Any of these schemes would have to keep users from accessing the raw waveforms, or they\'d be completely useless wastes of money and time.

So where does that leave us? Man, I\'m burning my brain cells to a crisp over this, because I\'d do anything to head this off...but I cannot come up with any combination that doesn\'t require basically turning a library into an essentially monolithic, uneditable, uncombinable entity.

What am I missing? You solved this by moving to a monolithic paradigm, but what of the library market?

I\'ll close with this comment, which people should REALLY consider:

Native Instruments and Steinberg are two of the biggest copy-protection advocates in the world. Yet both have released multiple sample-oriented products and NEITHER has attempted to copy-protect those samples in any way.

Is it because they don\'t want to? I think not. I think that they too have put their minds against this problem, and realized that the catch-22 is simply too pervasive. Anything that will effectively copy-protect sampleware will effectively bar legitimate users from free access to it.

Please, someone say something brilliant. I would love that. I\'ve got nothing, folks. I cannot come up with a single effective scheme that doesn\'t screw the paying customer out of his creative license with the material.

Unless we\'re satisfied with a sample-jukebox, because that\'s where this is leading, like it or not.

Please, someone. Prove me wrong.

midphase

09-11-2002, 12:40 PM

Scarbee,

Nobody is denying that piracy is real. But the bottom line is how much does it really affect you? What I mean is how many of those people who are copying your cd\'s would buy it if they had no other choice?

The other way of looking at it is the way that insurance companies use which is:
You know accidents happen so...how much do you need to charge to make it worth your while?

For sample developers the answer is simple....can you make a profit by selling to only 5% of your potential market? If the answer is no then get out while you still can.
But I get the feeling that the answer is a resounding yes since new sample libraries and developers are coming out each day. Since the advent of broadband file-sharing, there has actually been an increase in sample libraries and developers. If all those guys are getting into the sample biz just to lose money then they\'re pretty dumb and don\'t have any right to complain.

I\'d like to stress once again that I am not advocating piracy or even justifying it....but it ain\'t going away so start dealing with it.....oh, and here\'s a hint....new obstrusive copy protection schemes are not a good way of dealing with it.

peter269

09-11-2002, 01:02 PM

I see two issues emerging in this thread:

1. The need for copy protection to protect the investment of the developer (aka publisher).

2. The need to create sales to make money.

Since I\'m mostly known for being the guy that published the \"blue books\" on MIDI keyboards, software, etc., I want to give what I hope will be some positive input.

COPY PROTECTION
First, you have to copy protect yourself. Eric has noted that even a basic copy protection scheme improves sales. In looking at all your posts, and seeing where computing and GigaStudio may be headed, it appears that the stronger selection for copy protection is to use the CD approach. And here\'s why. As customers expand to multiple Giga systems or use Kontakt/HALion etc., to expand their library investment for use on multiple machines, they have to be able to move the samples.

In all these discussions, only piracy has been considered as the basis for customer use. As I expand my studio, I have to be able to move the data to other drives and other systems.

So the question is: which copy protection method protects the library but facilitates the customer to expand as painlessly as possible to multiple Giga Systems or use in plug-in samplers?

This is a very serious R&D question I\'m not seeing discussed here. RAM is a factor. If I have two systems, say a PIII with 768MB RAM for Giga, and a P4 for the host sequencing program where I have 2GB RAM available, depending on the sequencing software, I just picked up 1GB RAM, the equal of a new Giga system. If the samples load well into HALion, Kontakt, EXS24, Etc., then my investment in that library has become more valuable because I can expand its use without having to purchase another full Giga system.

The issue isn\'t worrying about Audio Units on the Mac, it\'s pushing plug-in samplers to improve their Giga input so developer/publishers have a smooth transition from one system to the next.

I agree with an earlier post from EP. The Akai format is 15 years old. BUT! Maybe you need two versions of your library - Giga, Giga Lite, and Akai to help insure that you recoup your R&D money by having product that loads into virtually any plug in.

COPY PROTECTION AND LICENSING FOR MULTIPLE SYSTEMS
There is a second issue, too. What about composers who hire techs, but the tech\'s don\'t have the libraries? Does the composer repurchase all the libraries so the tech can use them?

The point to be made is that copy protection issues and licensing issues are sales issues.

GENERAL SALES ISSUES
Here\'s sales reality, and it\'s the same reality I confront when developing a book or class either privately or with having Hal Leonard publish it:

No software manufacturer can or will tell you:

1. the number of CURRENT installs for the PC
2. the number of CURRENT installs for the Mac
3. the number of CURRENT installs for their virutal sampler

The most you get is the TOTAL number of installs for all versions. Those numbers are ALL spurious because they do NOT tell how many current units are in place, nor the sales per month figures.

Again, I agree 100% with Eric about Akai. BUT! and this is a very big BUT: If you don\'t develop your basic sample libraries for the older Akai S1000 format, you lose sales to a huge installed base of E-MU units, Akai units, Korg units that import Akai, older ASR10s that are still being used, etc.

I don\'t care who you are, any time you develop a library, you are doing so on faith with no statistical guidance for the total number of potential customers able to purchase today because they have the means to execute use of the CD library. Nor do you know how many of the available statistical unknowns have an interest in purchasing what you just sampled! This leads to:

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE
In the past in our catalogs, I\'ve represented EW, ILIO, and Sound Source (remember those guys?). Here are the top four customer questions:

1. Does it sound good?
2. Have you heard it?
3. Are there really a lot of useful presets?
4. Have a lot of people bought it?

We\'ve been representing libraries since they came out. And these questions haven\'t changed. So this tells me that sound sales (let\'s use a generic title) are a consultant sale and the person who sells them needs to have used them and can talk about them positively.

This may not be the experience of an OEM like ILIO or Spectrasonics or EW. But as someone who represents them, it is my experience as the dealer. So as a dealer, we\'ve done two things.

1. We require that any company we represent supply us with NFRs so we can hear what they\'re selling.

2. In fairness to the OEM, we restrict the number of titles we represent so that we can do a better job with a few. Since I\'m the only one to have revised the Rimsky book and other similar titles, we tend to restrict title support to orchestral, vocal, percussion, keyboard, etc. In general, acoustic instruments. This way we can speak with authority and knowledge because we\'ve used the programs. And where possible, we try to support the various libraries in our books, with selected classes (like our string writing classes), and general sales.

This is the kind of dealer relationship I want and how I support the OEM. And by taking this road for our organization, we\'re able to answer the 4 questions I listed above.

But now we get to the mutual problem shared by the dealer, the publisher/OEM: where do advertise and what do we advertise to create awareness and sales?

Then: If I invest my money to support this library, will I find myself being undersold by other dealers or even the OEM himself?

These are all critical sales questions, moreso for those of us who\'ve tried going through larger distributors and haven\'t seen either the sales results or income we expected.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO BOOST SALES?
On the immediate, separate from copy protection, I think three things.

1. As a group, go to Electronic Musician in the US and maybe SOS in the UK and request a special Classified ad page for independent developers only that will be promoted in the publication\'s table of contents. Objective: get them to the demo page of your web site.

2. Make the web site and demo page easy to read and easy to access. White lettering or gold lettering on a black background lowers readership dramatically. For acoustic sounds, where possible, try to do a few emulations from public domain classical works so that the listener has something to compare too.

3. Instead of trying to sell your library to dealers, sell your company and what you\'re about. Find a small select group of dealers who will support you and in turn, make sure you support them.

For all the companies I represent, I can\'t remember once in the past decade where a sample publisher called and asked, \"How are things going and what can we do to help you sell more?\"

I usually have to call them!

CONCLUSION
My apologies for the tome. However, I want to conclude by suggesting two excellent business books to read that are VERY practical:

Good to Great by Jim Collins
Built to Last by Jim Collins

I\'ve found these enormously helpful in developing our work at Alexander University, TrueSpec Systems and Biblestory.NET. I hope you\'ll consider reading them.

Thomas_J

09-11-2002, 01:21 PM

The sample library industry sucks for the developers. That\'s why I haven\'t gone down that road. I really admire those who have taken a great risk and developed libraries. Without them I wouldn\'t have many tools to realize the music I compose.

In a few years, or even earlier, I believe the orchestral sample library market will be satiated. The way I see it the whole sampled acoustic instrument market is already beginning to look pretty stuffed.

Solo samples seem to me a waste of time and money for developers, as much as the end user, as most people composing music based around solo instruments will most likely end up with a real recording in the end anyway. These people might as well use older dated samples like AO and Miroslav in the compositional process.

Pianos will always be improving, but there are too many people involved in creating giga piano libraries already.

Decent guitar and bass players come in high numbers. I know at least 4 decent guitar players who I could call for a fairly easy gig at no fee worth mentioning.

Realistic solo strings will never be possible to do with samples I think, unless you sample a billion different articulations, besides a decent string player is a phone call away for anyone who is serious about their music.

Drums.. don\'t even get me started on this. The market is flooded with drum samples. Loops, fills, kits, you name it, it probably has been done.

Sampled ethnic instruments would have to be my best bet at a successful business idea, hadn\'t it been for the numerous titles that have emerged in the past few months.

I see very few gaps left to fill. On the other hand, those that remain are big. For example a decent complete symphony orchestra library has not yet surfaced. Vienna and Nick are on those projects, but we can\'t be sure they will be everything we hoped for.

The only thing I\'m missing right now is a complete choir library, covering all kinds of different moods and settings. The choir should also be a GREAT one, and not just one of average quality that you could find at nearly any university.

Ok, I\'m rambling. And this thread is way off topic now. I guess my point is, don\'t start a career as a sample developer right now, unless you have some REALLY great business idea. It\'ll most likely be a non-profitable experience.

Thomas

spectrum

09-11-2002, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Z6:
Eric talks about the \'swap parties\' but don\'t those guys have internet connections? I wasn\'t talking about the infamous swap parties as much as the \"friend to friend\" thing. That\'s a huge part of it. With networked studios and CD-Rs built into the computers now, the problem is really huge.

As a generalization, pros don\'t have the time to be downloading stuff all the time and going to the hack sites. There\'s an awful lot of copying that happens at an almost unconcious level....especially when the \"copies of the copies\" start going with the friendship network...then no one has any personal investment in the product, and the copying is exponential.

Also Eric, your vast experience adds incredible weight to your opinion, so your comment on protection versus no-protection is taken like a verse from the Quran. But is there really such a direct correlation that can be so cleanly mapped?That\'s exactly why I decided to chime in here. Everyone needs to know that it DOES make a difference and there is a direct correlation of sales between protection and no protection.

The music industry is a really small community, and if you are in it long enough....you\'ll get to know just about everybody. Because of that, and our wide network of friends, we know very well (especially the LA people) who has illegal copies of our libraries and which production houses and composers are doing what nasty things to us. Finding out this information has always been easy. These guys have also disappeared from our database of customers in recent years for obvious reasons, and we know for sure that they\'ve been getting and using our stuff without paying for it. \"Why don\'t we go after them\" you say? Simple....it\'s a choice between whether we decide to use our energy creating new exciting products, or spend all of our time chasing down thousands of bad boys and turning into the \"Sample Police\". We can\'t do both. As a creative person, which would you choose?

A big experiment with our new system was to see whether it would work with these guys we know have been using our stuff illegally and not buying it.

Guess what?

They are -almost without exception- all magically legit customers again! So we can surmise the following possible reasons for this change of behavior:

• They all simultaneously found Jesus, felt a conviction of the Holy Spirit and started doing the right thing again.

• Were all simultaneously convinced by the excellent magazine articles and well written internet postings extolling the virtues of maintaining a high ethical standard by paying for all the software and sounds they use.

• Were all simultaneously struck with the notion that the pirated copies of Spectrasonics products they were using were actually very good quality, so therefore maybe the next thing Spectrasonics released they would buy.....

OR

• Our Copy Protection system is working as we planned, and it provides just enough protection so that these people can\'t get it that easily.....and they need to get it through legit channels. They grumbled for a second and then picked up the phone to call the nice people at ILIO.

Which do you think is the reason for the mass change of heart?

This info may surprise some of you, but it shouldn\'t. When there is some copy protection, there can be some business....when there is none, it evaporates quickly.

Here\'s a little ancient history for you (and the basis of why I make the claim that protection matters):

When I worked in retail way back in the day, I used to sell my custom Roland JX-3P synth patches on cassette interface for $100. (A whopping 32 patches!) I could sell them all day and word got around about them and I made a nice little business out of it. A lot of the reason for the success was that people couldn\'t copy the cassettes....if you did, the data wouldn\'t load properly. So guys who bought it told their buddies about it, and if they wanted the sounds, they had to get them from me directly. (This sounds like I planned it this way, but really it was just the technical realities of the time that afforded me this opportunity)

Then I started to sell my DX-7 patches and it was a little easier to copy them on cartridges. I sold about the same amount as JX-3P sounds, but then I started hearing about a bunch of pro guys that were using copies of my patches, that hadn\'t puchased them. So this ceased to be an interesting business and I stopped selling sounds, and just kept all of my sounds for my studio work which was a lot better business.

Right about that time, a number of companies attempted to sell synth patches as a full blown business. (Remember K-Muse, Greytsounds and all the rest?) That was also about exactly the time that Sys-Ex dumping to your sequencer and floppy disc became a possibility. Illegal copying shot through the roof and every one of these companies died a painful death.

(Think about this too...there are more than 10 times the number of synth owners than sampler owners in the world.....why isn\'t this an amazing business opportunity now? How come NO ONE can turn this into an even midly profitable business? Simple....it\'s too easy to copy the sounds and virtually everyone has abandoned this area of sound selling. The guys that still do, are doing it for fun and as a hobby)

No one sold sounds seriously for a while until CD-ROMs and Audio CDs of samples came along. Suddenly, there was an excellent business and a big demand for samples. The samples could not be easily copied. (Our first CD-R Burner cost $9,000 and removable media was limited to 44meg Syquest cartridges). Business was great and for the first time, you could support a real business with advertising, staff and pro packaging, etc.

Guess what happened when CD-R drive prices dropped? I don\'t really need to spell it out....you can use your imagination.

The same increase of users, and decline in business happened with soft samplers like GIGA/EXS....suddenly, you don\'t really need the physical discs anymore...and the files are sitting on a computer with access to networks, the internet and have built-in CD-RW drives for convenient copying for friends and family. Not suprisingly, the same phenomenon with synth patches has happened all over again with sample libraries.

Now with our new products, we have some reasonable protection....is it a coincidence that business is way better too? Maybe...but I doubt it. (I know there are lots of other reasons for the success too...so let\'s not argue about that)

This stuff only has to be cracked one time and it is everywhere. It\'s not as cut and dried as that....that\'s a way oversimplification of the issue. Like I said before, EVERY sale counts, so if you can get a few more, then that\'s a good thing. (As long as you don\'t mess up your existing customers of course).

And the question, for the customer, is not what \'mild\' torture we\'ll accept, but what is the sum of that torture across many products? Bruce talked a few weeks ago about a \'multi-colored cock\' sticking out of the back of his computer (man, you crack me up).

What about the one-man studio with 150 libraries and twenty applications and 60 plug-ins spun across his three or four computers?...Don\'t make it more attractive to be a pirate.I really agree with you here and think that this is an incredibly important point. A lot of companies do miss the forest for the trees when implementing their protection systems. The last thing you want to do is make life impossbile for your loyal customers...they\'re your life blood! It\'s actually worse to implement a scheme that forces people to go to crack sites and pirates, and that\'s incredibly counter-productive.

I find it hard to believe that it is not the business model that has the greatest impact on the life of a business.You are absolutely right....copy protection is no substitute for a good business model and great products.

Having a viable market is a really essential ingredient in any good business plan. That\'s why protection of some kind is so important. It really makes a difference and always has.

All the best,

spectrum

Thomas_J

09-11-2002, 01:37 PM

Even if you sell 500 cds a year, each at $200, and you sell them with 100% profit - taxes, you\'d still be making around $100k a year. Not bad considering you probably didn\'t pay anything to do the library, but only worked some months on the sampling and programming. Sell half of that and you\'re getting $50k a year. Still twice the average US citizen income. Sample library developers don\'t earn millions of dollars. I would guess Nick earns quite a lot, but not the average piano developer. No offence to any of you guys, just my personal belief.

Thomas

Bruce A. Richardson

09-11-2002, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by peter269:

The issue isn\'t worrying about Audio Units on the Mac, it\'s pushing plug-in samplers to improve their Giga input so developer/publishers have a smooth transition from one system to the next.
But therein lies the rub. Mark my words, any \"free\" protection Tascam offers will thwart use of the protected library on other platforms.

I hate this.

dougrogers

09-11-2002, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:
[QUOTE]But therein lies the rub. Mark my words, any \"free\" protection Tascam offers will thwart use of the protected library on other platforms.

I hate this.Hello Bruce,

Dare I disagree with such a scholar of the fine art of sampling - but I\'m going to anyway!

Putting on my producers hat - I hate the fact that users take a library programmed for one format and use it on another. It never sounds right to me. Some conversions sound absolutely horrible!

The format war will disappear soon - you\'ll see!

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST

peter269

09-11-2002, 04:10 PM

As an end user, I always prefer the native format which is why I have Roland, E-MU and Giga in my studio. However, there are many programs from both EW and ILIO that aren\'t in Giga format, but are in Akai.

I\'m wondering, Doug, can you estimate over the years how many Akai libraries you sold to E-MU and Giga users because no E-MU or Giga version was available?

Out of curiosity, do you now require developers to offer you all native formats, or will you accept Akai if Giga isn\'t available?

midphase

09-11-2002, 04:40 PM

Putting on my producers hat - I hate the fact that users take a library programmed for one format and use it on another. It never sounds right to me. Some conversions sound absolutely horrible!
Doug, I take some offense at that statement. I am very meticulous in my translations and never rely on a pure software translation (unless it\'s loops and phrases). In many instances I can restore and add more functionality to the translated instrument than the original version.
I find that many samplers out there (including Akai) are quite restricted by older architectures and memory limitations. I wish that you guys supported a wider variety of formats. How about some Unity CD\'s? How about some native EXS? That will get some sales going.

Sometimes I feel ripped off because of all the time that I have to spend on converting an Akai title. The time that it takes me to do a satisfactory conversion is probably equivalent to the time that it took to program the original sound.

I have been known to tune samples that are out of tune, correct some of the levels, trim dead space, and even get rid of bad loop points and pops!

I know that when I get a Spectrasonic title, I am buying a really good quality product with basic sample specs that match my own very high demands. I\'m not sure I can say the same about you guys. The very first title I purchased from East West many years ago called \"New World Order\" was so poor sounding that to this day I wish I could have gotten my money back.

I am so sick and tired of this \"do it our way or don\'t do it at all\" For me, the tools that I use blow away everything else. I have personal preferences for my sample platform and I have the right to convert titles to that platform, especially if you guys will not support that format.

You say you hate guys that convert your stuff to different platforms? I say I hate developers who think they are God\'s gift to musicians and whose work can not possibly be improved upon by us mortals (especially if we happen to live outside of LA).

Get real.

Bolt Thrower

09-11-2002, 05:03 PM

Midphase: Unity still sucks.

And to all us peeps: GET READY FOR 128-BIT, WEB-VERIFIED ENCRYPTION!!

Obviously, developers are already setting up background web processes.

Golem

09-11-2002, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Nick Phoenix:
Does anyone have any comments about the copy-protection used by Native Instruments?Every now and then I would be asked for the pro-52 cd and would have to dig it out, etc. but, it finally dawned on me to just point to the \"mystery bin\" file which is usually copied to the NI program folder (but, not to the vst folder so, u get asked when first opening it cubase for instance) This always works for me. you can put the
mystery bin anywere on the computer but, in standalone it checks the program folder. and if cubase, for instance, knows where it is once, it usually dosen\'t ask again.

I have sound forge 5.0 and for ahwile was reconfiguring this one box so much I had to email and have sonic foundry re authorize or extend my allotment but, they did, a hassle but, it worked and not as bad as having a bunch of dongles, etc. hanging off my rackmount box or having to get a hub for my laptop. I think sonic foundrys scheme is somewhat similar to microsofts xp phone home ET registration scheme i.e hardware I.D based serial combo, whatever...

Downloaded any good cracks for linux, of late? : )

I keep looking but, so far no luck! Lots of stuff for windows and mac out there, though...

hmmm...

\"I think a developer who is unprofitable is usually a developer who has not pursued a successful business model.\"

I agree. So, would Eric Raymond, I think.

\" on the open source Web pages, you set forth the reasons why programmers won\'t starve in a world where software is free. But is that really the issue? Does Netscape or Microsoft care if programmers starve or not? What does Netscape have to gain from going open source?

I have identified several business models for open source. The one that Netscape is working is called market position or loss leader. This is where you have some open source software out there, which you use to create market position for closed source. Since I\'m not a fanatic, this is fine with me.

So there is a model in which closed source is appropriate?

I\'m not a fanatic. I\'m not a Richard Stallman. I\'m not against closed source in absolute principle, I just think it\'s an inferior, shoddy way to do things most of the time. But I\'ve sat down and thought about under what circumstances it makes sense to be closed vs. open. And I\'ve identified a spectrum with two extremes of software that you might want.

On the one hand you have research intensive software. A real good example of that is something everyone is talking about right now -- iris scanning for biometrics. It\'s a research intensive technology that depends on algorithms nobody else has, and it\'s only being prototyped in relatively small systems where reliability is not a huge concern. On the other end of the spectrum you have what I call implementational kinds of software. The paramount case of that is something like an office mailing list. All the techniques for running mailing lists are very well known. There is no knowledge in particular, there is no special algorithm -- the big problems are robustness, reliability and scalabilty, and that situation is where the open source model really, really shines, because what you want at that point is massive peer review, to get your reliability.

The interesting thing to notice is that individual software technology is always moving from one end to the other of the spectrum. A perfect example is real-time 3-D animation. Five years ago, when [the computer game] \"Doom\" came out, that was a research intensive technology. Few people knew how to do it well and you could capture a lot of value by adding a new trade secret -- it made sense to be closed. Come 1998 and lots of people know how to do it. There are several alternative packages out there, some of them are free, it\'s being implemented in larger and larger systems where again your problems are scalability, reliability and robustness, rather than just getting the details of the animation right.

Well, the implication of this is at that some point during the last five years the payoff curves crossed over -- there came a point when the gain from peer review exceeded the gain from holding the software captive and having it be a trade secret. The interesting question is where is that crossover point? How do you identify that? My thinking now is that every software technology goes through the same evolution. I am beginning to think that this may be the fundamental software management question of the 21st century: Where is the crossover point? And I love to say these things to business people, because this is exactly the kind of optimization problem that gives them enormous erections. And if I can get them thinking in those terms, we\'ve won.

You have some harsh words to say about the way business people have traditionally looked at the software marketplace.

The thing I realized when I sat down and thought about business models is that nobody thinks about the economics of software. Nobody thinks real hard.

Not even those Microsoft guys up in Redmond?

Not even them. Anybody who has studied software engineering knows that programmers do not actually spend most of their time originating software. They spend most of their time on service updates and maintenance. Nobody thinks about the implications of this: that the software industry is actually a service industry operating under the delusion that it is a manufacturing industry. Software producers are operating under a manufacturing and cost model, under which the way you make money is building a product and getting it out the door. Because they have this model of themselves as a manufacturing industry, all the bright people go to production and the dumb people go to the support desk. That\'s why when you call a vendor support line you have to fight your way through three layers of idiots to get down to anyone who knows anything.

As long as the software industry continues to misperceive itself as a manufacturing industry, instead of a service industry, reliability is going to be awful. But that shift is not going to happen until source is open. That\'s the difference between closed and open source.

In the closed source world, your short-term profit incentive is to try and keep everything you do a trade secret and extract the absolute maximum rent from that trade secret in terms of initial cost of the software. And then your economic incentive is to put as little money as you can get away with into supporting the fiction that you support your software. OK? Now as a consumer do you want to live in that world, or do you want to live in a world where source is primarily open and the people competing for your dollars are service bureaus? This is why I think that ultimately the closed software model and the whole Microsoft paradigm is doomed, because eventually software consumers are going to wake up and realize that they are being scammed -- that the cost and pricing model of the software industry fundamentally does not fit the economics of the situation or the needs of consumers.

At the party Netscape threw for the release of their source code, Marc Andreessen was talking about getting companies like Sun and Oracle to join the free software crusade. Wouldn\'t this be just another case of Silicon Valley lining up its wagons against Microsoft?

Oh sure. One of the things that I tell corporate types is, \"Hi there, Mr. CEO -- tell me, do you have any strategic problem right now that is bigger than whether Microsoft is going to either crush you or own your soul in a few years? No? You don\'t? OK, well, listen carefully then. You cannot survive against Bill Gates playing Bill Gates\' game. To thrive, or even survive, you\'re going to have to change the rules. I\'m here to show you how.\"
SALON | April 14, 1998

E-mail Andrew Leonard.

Now, I know selling sample cd\'s isn\'t the same as applications and as for me, I do like to get paid for my work, the family and I do need to eat, etc.
but, if you want to listen to my music which i do out of love than visit my website or mp3.cpm and download all you want for free! and if you like it and want to get the 1440kbs cd version buy it from cdbaby for $10 or if you just got to have it now, support my local merchant (he\'s got overhead, too) for $15 etc etc.

hey! Linux is free! You can download it and install on however many machines you like! free!
but, those guys (and ladies) at Red Hat and SuSE seem to be making a living...hmmm...

Maybe if, for example, Steinburg were in the service business instead of the manufacturing buisness... you wouldn\'t be waiting for the bugs in halion to get fixed while they are busy introducing their latest \"product\"...etc.

Speaking of piracy...just what did Meyer Lanski and those guys do with all that loot, anyway? Maybe, someone at the RIAA knows...

Maybe, some at Microsoft can tell us why ILM and PIXAR are all using linux workstation? stay tuned...

Me? I\'m excited about the ALSA drivers for my RME HDSP !!! Are audio/midi and apps. for Linux ready, yet? compared to Cubase,Nuendo on XP? Well not, yet...but, will see...

As far as $3500 sample cds... well if sony or warner brothers is paying sure...next time i get the soundtrack deal for lethal stupid x...until then, I will enjoy making music just for the sake of it. use cheap gritty samples or make my own with what tools I have...
or until, I can just go to the public library and check them out, along with my Bach and Mozart cd\'s etc...

Must be tough if your Sony, Warner, Microsoft, etc... One the one hand ... and on the other... gee, I really feel for ya! but, If your a golem like me and and you want to sell software and be as rich as Bill G. Well,... don\'t give up your day job... unless of course.. you can steal some good ideas somewhere and license it to IBM...

\"There were and still are rumors that the original code of MS-DOS 1.0 was copied from CP/M by its designer (who worked for a company called Seattle Computer Products from which it was purchased by Microsoft). Long after the dust had settled, Gary Kildall himself told several interviewers \"Ask Bill [Gates] why the string in function 9 is terminated by a dollar sign. Ask him, because he can\'t answer, only I know that.\".

Just some food for thought.. Sorry, Thanx

I feel much better, now. -Hal

have a good 9/11

franz

09-11-2002, 05:50 PM

Developers are not sales people.
They are people who love to create sounds. Mostly for themselves first.
Like Bruce mixing and tweaking parameters to plug a void in their own audio fantasy.
Copy protection will not hamper this in any way and should be not left to the developers but to the sampler manufacturers after all we are selling their hard and software with our sounds.

Consolations for pirated developers:
Maybe one guy didn\'t beat his wife and played with your \"free\" sounds instead?
Maybe one guy didn\'t rob your mom so he could buy your sounds?
Maybe someone wrote great lyrics because of your sounds? ...

It could be beneficial to respect the ones who try to inspire creativity.
The key to all survival.

dougrogers

09-11-2002, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by peter269:
As an end user, I always prefer the native format which is why I have Roland, E-MU and Giga in my studio. However, there are many programs from both EW and ILIO that aren\'t in Giga format, but are in Akai.

I\'m wondering, Doug, can you estimate over the years how many Akai libraries you sold to E-MU and Giga users because no E-MU or Giga version was available?

Out of curiosity, do you now require developers to offer you all native formats, or will you accept Akai if Giga isn\'t available?Hi Peter,

The producers we distribute make these decisions based on their past experience with the various formats. We don\'t require them to supply any specific formats. Lately, many of the best libraries available are only in the Giga format. Now other samplers are trying to read Giga libraries with mixed success. For example, we tried to convert both Voices of the Apocalypse and QL \'56 Stratocaster into Halion by reading the Giga format - what a mess!! In the end, there was nothing we could do about it, it was a Halion conversion problem that will be fixed in the next version, according to Steinberg.

dr

dougrogers

09-11-2002, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by midphase:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Putting on my producers hat - I hate the fact that users take a library programmed for one format and use it on another. It never sounds right to me. Some conversions sound absolutely horrible!
Doug, I take some offense at that statement. I am very meticulous in my translations and never rely on a pure software translation (unless it\'s loops and phrases). In many instances I can restore and add more functionality to the translated instrument than the original version.<hr /></blockquote>As the producer of the work, this is the equivalent to remixing my track. Maybe you prefer your version, but it still changes what I created.

I wish that you guys supported a wider variety of formats. How about some Unity CD\'s? How about some native EXS? That will get some sales going.Actually, we have more native EXS and Unity libraries than anyone else. There are so many formats to support now, we could spend all of our time on one of two libraries a year if we supported them all. We have a plan to address this, which will become apparent in the near future.

The very first title I purchased from East West many years ago called \"New World Order\" was so poor sounding that to this day I wish I could have gotten my money back.The library you refer to was not produced by EASTWEST, it was distributed by EASTWEST for a company in Sweden called SOUNDS GOOD (who, btw, made many great titles). Our situation is very different to developers that control every library they release; we can only do this with the EASTWEST and QUANTUM LEAP branded titles (which have won many awards). Everything else comes to us by way of distribution agreements with other developers. Here\'s some titles EASTWEST or QUANTUM LEAP produced recently - Breakz from the Nu Skool (KEY BUY AWARD), Twisted Textures (Future Music PLATINUM AWARD, SOS FIVE STAR AWARD), Joey Kramer Drumloops (KEY BUY AWARD), Rare Instruments (KEY BUY AWARD), Quantum Leap Brass (KEY BUY AWARD, SOS 5 STAR AWARD etc.), Percussive Adventures (KEY BUY AWARD, SOS 5 STAR AWARD). Steve Smith Rhythmic Journey (KEY BUY AWARD). Voices of the Apocalypse (scheduled for review shortly). Public Enemy (scheduled for review shortly). Nick Phoenix and I are currently co-producing the East West/Quantum Leap Symphonic Orchestra - which is a massive project that we are confident you will love!

You say you hate guys that convert your stuff to different platforms? I say I hate developers who think they are God\'s gift to musicians and whose work can not possibly be improved upon by us mortals (especially if we happen to live outside of LA).In another post in this thread I gave an example of some libraries we tried to convert for a Mac Halion customer, and they were a complete mess once they were converted! If he had done this himself, and never heard how the library was supposed to sound in the first place, he might have formed a really bad impression of the library - that\'s the point I was trying to make.

dr

midphase

09-11-2002, 09:41 PM

I gotcha. Still think your analogy of translating a title to \"remixing\" a piece of music is faulty. You guys are not selling completed works but tools for musicians. It\'s not any different than a painter modifying his brush to fit his style of painting. For as much \"art\" as you guys put into it, you are still creating tools which are meant to be changed, disassembled, processed and challenged.

Don\'t take this the wrong way, I have a great respect for developers of sample libraries, but we also have to draw the line somewhere. A recording of a plucked sustained E string is not a piece of music. No matter how much art you put into getting the most perfect E string sound imaginable, it\'s still not a piece of music.

Perhaps you guys should encourage users to modify the base sounds, and even offer tips and tricks to do so. How about guidelines on how to best \"translate\" an Akai S1000 library to HALion or some other format.

I think this is the true spirit of sampling, not a strict \"you must do it this way\" approach.

You should realize and appreciate the diversity and desire of innovation that exists in the musical community. Otherwise, if you had it your way, every piece of music would sound \"alike\" Every drum hit would be consistent, perfect and boring!

I am sure that your plan to \"eliminate\" the problem of different formats is essentially the same path than Spectrasonic and Big Fish are taking which is essentially to create \"plug-ins\" of your libraries.

Then each library will be a proprietary format, encrypted and pirate proof, and extremely unfriendly to guys like me and King Idiot who really enjoy looking under the hood.

I know that my words will not make any difference, but I really wish that people would be aware of the potential negatives of this approach.

I am really afraid that sampling as we know it will soon be a thing of the past.

Either way Doug, I am glad that you are participating in this forum....it makes me feel slightly better knowing that there is some form of communication going on between the end users and the developers.

peter269

09-11-2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by spectrum:
[QUOTE]I\'m sure there are some companies that are doing fine with iLock, but those were our reservations with it. spectrumEric, thanks for graciously clearing up that iLok was PACE. Too many deadlines to keep up!

09-11-2002, 11:41 PM

Bruce, isn\'t this really just a demonstration of some growing pains?

Scarbee tells a sad story, but perhaps he has to implement some kind of scheme if only to prove to himself that there may be a whole matrix of reasons for his perceived \'low\' sales figures, outside of the dastardly \'casual\' pirates.

Also, Scarbee you\'re not quite as explicit about your sales figures as you seem to feel. A \'few hundred\' in 1-2 years? Well, how many hundred? Three hundred? Nine hundred? One year? Two years? If you sell nine hundred copies a year (by direct marketing, and therefore some pretty good revenues), well, that\'s not exactly chump change is it (and neither is 300 in two years)? What did you expect? Most businesses don\'t make a penny until they\'re at least a couple of years down the road. If you believe that a copy protection scheme will help your bottom line then implement it already. I hope you make millions, but I doubt you\'re going to make millions right away. If you want to make millions I\'m sure there are ways. I suspect that GOS is on it\'s way to those kinds of numbers without anything but a flimsy watermark to protect it. Garritan started just like you, did he not? First a harp then... Give the people what they want, no? It\'s hard to find a business that makes a lot of money, otherwise we\'d all do it. You have a btter chance than most of building a business that makes money from something you say you enjoy.

Remember Nick didn\'t ask anyone what they thought about the concept of protection, this thread is about which method of torture the victims prefer to have inflicted upon them for being honest.

Bruce, I think your distinction between \'software\' and libraries is paramount here. But even with software; has anyone cited a piece of software here that you cannot get off a peer-to-peer network in a few minutes? This protection is \'better\' than that? Get real guys. I work in a company that builds (part of) the security that many governments and banks use. I don\'t believe it\'s secure - I believe it provides the highest perception of security (and probably the highest real level), but Scarbee, and Nick, you guys can\'t afford it. You want a lot when you ask for \'protection\'.

Eric talks about the \'swap parties\' but don\'t those guys have internet connections? Also Eric, your vast experience adds incredible weight to your opinion, so your comment on protection versus no-protection is taken like a verse from the Quran. But is there really such a direct correlation that can be so cleanly mapped? I\'m not saying there\'s not, but isn\'t there even a faint possibility that one piece of software was just better than the other, or that the marketing for one was more effective than the other, or even perhaps, that when a protected piece of software is cracked it becomes more \'attractive\' somehow; then more people use it to see what the fuss is about, then some turn into customers? Are we not all pretty sceptical about freeware and shareware? Not that we don\'t try them from time to time, but often under a kind of duress?

This stuff only has to be cracked one time and it is everywhere. And the question, for the customer, is not what \'mild\' torture we\'ll accept, but what is the sum of that torture across many products? Bruce talked a few weeks ago about a \'multi-colored cock\' sticking out of the back of his computer (man, you crack me up).

What about the one-man studio with 150 libraries and twenty applications and 60 plug-ins spun across his three or four computers? Do you really believe this guy has that kind of goodwill when all his pals are laughing and sending him urls to the pirated stuff? (And make no mistake, because this important - the pirated stuff is better - if we\'re going to discuss this we should really allow reality to raise it\'s head from time to time.)

The dream that turns thieves into customers is attractive. I have a ton of \'pirated\' MP3s on my machine. From time to time, those MP3s make me a paying customer - I buy CDs BECAUSE of the MP3s. But if I have to pay to download the \'Shoogles\' latest work, then I will never find out how good they are. Copy protection rewards dishonesty and penalizes honesty. It\'s your business, and you must do what you think is best, but please don\'t forget the big picture - we customers are only a click away from getting all of your stuff for free. Bear it in mind. You are not selling into a vacuum, you are providing a little part of what we want. Don\'t make it more attractive to be a pirate.

I\'d urge all developers to look at the GOS (business) model. It is daring but at the same time almost organic. It is the kind of model that cynical businessmen would probably laugh at (I suspect until they saw the bottom line). But it is obviously about much more than the bottom line.

If you find a completely transparent scheme that knows me across many applications and machines, and allows me to morph anything into anything else, then congratulations. Until then, I find it hard to believe that it is not the business model that has the greatest impact on the life of a business.

spectrum

09-11-2002, 11:50 PM

Bruce, you bring up some good points.

However, you have to keep in mind that for those minority of users like yourself that do extensive editing and recombining, it isn\'t a matter of not being able to do this anymore....it\'s only a matter that it will be less convenient. You can always rerender files and that\'s certainly a little more time consuming....but it isn\'t really that hard either. It\'s not as bad as you are making it sound...and truthfully, all sample level editing and mapping is time consuming.

You should keep in mind that the number of end users that actually edit library multisamples at the sample level is incredibly tiny. You and King are in a group with a handful of others. Doesn\'t mean that it isn\'t an important and valid point, but like I said, it\'s not like you necessarily lose that facility either.

Steinberg and NI have sound library products that are unprotected not because they don\'t want to, but because they treat it as an \"add-on\" item to their main product...which they consider to be the software. If people pirate it, they don\'t really care....it still sells more apps.

This Copy Protection debate is always presented is such Black and White terms, when in reality there are many shades of gray. It doesn\'t have to come down to the extremes of Toothless\' vs Draconian or Effective vs Ineffective. Our C/R system is in the middle ground and really helps the problem, and I would encourage other developers to adopt systems like this that allow multiple installations, with minimal hassle. When the legit customer has to register each machine only once, it cuts down a lot on the problem of people sharing copies and gives us very useful feedback too.

You are 100% right that protecting sample libraries is different and has to be done in cooperation with the sampler manufacturer. This is one of the reasons we decided to create our own integrated instruments now for sure (but it\'s certainly not the main reason!) We know our customers needs and what will work for them a lot better than the sampler manufacturers do. I think it is important to be able to control that aspect of your product, because it does reflect greatly on how you do business and is a part of your companies philosophy. It\'s an incredibly important decision for any company and should be taken with utmost consideration of the needs of their customers.

All the best,

spectrum

Munsie

09-12-2002, 04:01 AM

\"I feel qualified to comment on this subject. My company EASTWEST has probably sold more sample libraries than anyone on earth over the past fifteen years, and we estimate for each one we sell there are dozens of illegal copies. How do we know? Sampler sales statistics. With the number of samplers out there, even if 5% of the users purchased a legal copy of the best selling library of all time, it would amount to many more sales than that library has sold. So I ask you, what are the other 95% doing with their samplers?\"

Buying samples from other vendors, that\'s what.

That\'s a pretty egotisic/bloated remark if you ask me. In my situtation it\'s just the opposite as far as your company goes. I have purchased about 95% of my libraries from OTHER vendors, including local stores and other websites and DIRECT from the developer. That just leaves (like you mentioned) 5% of my purchases from your website. And I\'m SURE alot of the higher end composers here purchase direct from the developer.

For the record my last $500.00 (over a period of 2 months) in sample purchases has been from http://www.wizoosounds.com (\"http://www.wizoosounds.com\") where you can download decent samples in the 5.00-20.00 range!

Chadwick

09-12-2002, 05:04 AM

\"A recording of a plucked sustained E string is not a piece of music.\"

Midphase, Midphase, Midphase...

I\'m afraid the short guy (with the temper to match) from Tenacious D disagrees with you. As far as he\'s concerned, that\'s HIS composition, HE wrote it FIRST, and:

\"That\'s one song in the bank! NEXT SONG!\"

(Although, I suppose he did bend it every once in a while...)

You\'ve gotta be really careful knocking the result of other people\'s blood sweat \'n tears.

I mean...it\'s all somebody\'s art, y\'know?

spectrum

09-12-2002, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by midphase:
I gotcha. Still think your analogy of translating a title to \"remixing\" a piece of music is faulty. You guys are not selling completed works but tools for musicians. It\'s not any different than a painter modifying his brush to fit his style of painting. For as much \"art\" as you guys put into it, you are still creating tools which are meant to be changed, disassembled, processed and challenged.

Don\'t take this the wrong way, I have a great respect for developers of sample libraries, but we also have to draw the line somewhere. A recording of a plucked sustained E string is not a piece of music. No matter how much art you put into getting the most perfect E string sound imaginable, it\'s still not a piece of music.

Perhaps you guys should encourage users to modify the base sounds, and even offer tips and tricks to do so. How about guidelines on how to best \"translate\" an Akai S1000 library to HALion or some other format.

I think this is the true spirit of sampling, not a strict \"you must do it this way\" approach.

You should realize and appreciate the diversity and desire of innovation that exists in the musical community. Otherwise, if you had it your way, every piece of music would sound \"alike\" Every drum hit would be consistent, perfect and boring!

I am sure that your plan to \"eliminate\" the problem of different formats is essentially the same path than Spectrasonic and Big Fish are taking which is essentially to create \"plug-ins\" of your libraries.

Then each library will be a proprietary format, encrypted and pirate proof, and extremely unfriendly to guys like me and King Idiot who really enjoy looking under the hood.

I know that my words will not make any difference, but I really wish that people would be aware of the potential negatives of this approach.

I am really afraid that sampling as we know it will soon be a thing of the past..Hi midiphase...please don\'t lump what we are doing with the Spectrasonics Virtual Instruments in with all the other stuff you are mentioning. It is really unfair to represent our approach \"tweaker-unfriendly\", when it is designed specifically to being extremely flexible. I don\'t think you are really that unfamiliar with what our products actually can do, so don\'t judge it until you\'ve really checked it out.

We are 100% for user customization and that\'s what Spectrasonics has always been about. This move into instruments offers way more user customization that sample libraries could ever offer us. You\'re not grasping that we are doing a lot of the sound modification and shaping stuff in real-time in our own custom engine. Having access to the raw samples is not the actual sound anyway....it\'s a sum of all the parts. Besides, as I said earlier....you can always render and do whatever you like with the samples for further editing....it\'s really extremely easy to do this in every host program, and then you can mess with the audio whereever you like. If there\'s tweaking stuff you are desperately missing in our instruments...TELL US....we\'ll probably add it if it\'s really important. (Try getting that happening with the sampler companies!)

You should understand too that what we are doing goes WAY beyond the preset playback mentailty of the Big Fish instruments. These are fully programmable instruments.

I know that you want everything to remain exactly as it is, but hey.....new things can be a pretty great thing actually.

Best,

spectrum

dougrogers

09-12-2002, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Munsie:
\"I feel qualified to comment on this subject. My company EASTWEST has probably sold more sample libraries than anyone on earth over the past fifteen years.

That\'s a pretty egotisic/bloated remark if you ask me.It wasn\'t intended to be, just a fact, based on the number of products we distribute, and our overall market share.

The purpose of this discussion is to find out the least intrusive copy protection method we can adopt, so it\'s transparent to the legitimate purchaser. So far the preferred method seems to be challenge/response. Is there a consensus on this?

dr

dougrogers

09-12-2002, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by midphase:
I gotcha. Still think your analogy of translating a title to \"remixing\" a piece of music is faulty. You guys are not selling completed works but tools for musicians. It\'s not any different than a painter modifying his brush to fit his style of painting. For as much \"art\" as you guys put into it, you are still creating tools which are meant to be changed, disassembled, processed and challenged.
In some cases we provide sounds and loops to build a track on (BT is a good example of a Giga library that does this); in other cases we try to get as close to the real sound and playability of the instrument (recorded) as possible with the technology at our disposal (which is always changing - hopefully for the better).

Orchestral instruments and pianos are a good example of the second approach. These libraries are generally judged by critics and users \'out of the box\' as to their sound quality and playability. If the producer captures the sound and dynamics of the instrument superbly, it is only fair to reproduce it on the same software/equipment it was designed on.

Please don\'t get me wrong - I\'m not suggesting that the end user should only use this sound in their track, I\'m simply saying the end user should start \'tweaking\' with an accurate reproduction of the producer\'s work - that\'s all.

I will give you an example of a piano library EASTWEST released in 1995 \"The Ultimate Piano Collection\". In 1995 there was no Giga format, 32Mbs was a \'huge\' amount of ram to have in your sampler (I remember 8Mbs going for $1000 from Akai at one time!). This library was universally critically acclaimed. Sound on Sound said in review \"The Ultimate Piano Collection is, in my experience, is as close to the real thing as technology will currently allow.\"

In order to achieve this result in 1995, the producer - Olivier Truan (who also produced our Giga pianos), had to extensively program the instruments to conserve memory. Piano libraries were one dynamic instruments back then and this library offered two (don\'t laugh, this was seven years ago). This was achieved by using 2 Akai samplers with 32Mbs of ram in each - one for the upper dynamic, and one for the lower dynamic (does anyone remember this?). Obviously we offered smaller loads for those with less memory, but the 64Mb Steinways, Boesendorfer, Fazioli pianos included in that collection were considered \'state of the art\' back then.

These pianos sound horrible on Akai compatible samplers (including Giga) - because they contain programming that does not get converted. In fact we even advise potential customers on our website to \'not\' use them on Akai compatible samplers.

Some libraries are designed to be mangled, distorted, sample rate converted, whatever! Some are complex recordings (a combination of multi-sampled instruments, their sound characteristics, and dynamic structure) which are designed to be accurately reproduced on the best equipment you can afford.

This was the point I was trying to make previously about reproducing the producer\'s work accurately. It is not fair to the producer to critique their work if you reproduce it on software/equipment it was not designed for.

I wasn\'t trying to start a war (boy, you are a spirited lot!)

dr

Bruce A. Richardson

09-12-2002, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by dougrogers:
[QUOTE]

The purpose of this discussion is to find out the least intrusive copy protection method we can adopt, so it\'s transparent to the legitimate purchaser. So far the preferred method seems to be challenge/response. Is there a consensus on this?

drI would support that under two conditions:

1) MISSION CRITICAL technology in the mold of Sonic Foundry\'s system, which allows 24/7 reauthorizations which are virtually unlimited. The secret, by the way, is not such a secret but simply an algorithmic intelligence that detects the difference in a \"pirated\" pattern of reauthorizations vs. a pro/multi-machine scenario.

2) That this be a methodology which allows waveform editing by the end user, including GigaStudio\'s export features.

BY THE WAY.....

Eric and Franz, I do appreciate the attempts to \"educate\" me on the slight inconvenience of rendering out samples for editing vs. exporting them.

So, let me get this straight. Say I\'m wanting to do a full rework of a piano. I can:

1) Open an instrument in the GigaStudio editor and select \"Export all sample folders,\" edit/batch, and then \"replace all\"

OR

2) Open the instrument in the GigaStudio editor, individually isolate each of the approximately 2000 layers and dimensions images/icons/shocked.gif , alter the instrument settings so that I can play out a \"perfect\" copy of each (rather than one that is affected by my velocity, filter settings, or any other mapping parameter), play these out in such a way as I can keep them organized images/icons/shocked.gif , cut apart that huge file (over 2000 individual samples) images/icons/shocked.gif , edit the tips and tails, THEN do my batch and individual editing, THEN completely re-map the entire instrument (because, of course, nothing\'s going to match the original any more and the editor will croak on the .art files I saved. No one has ever seen that happen before, have they? images/icons/rolleyes.gif ).

images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif

Yes, you guys are right. That is only a slight inconvenience. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

Phooey.

Look, I\'m going to lose this battle. I know it. It has been decided, blessed by Tascam, endorsed by dealers as \"the only way to save the market\" and accepted by developers who just want to make a buck (rightly so). The \"few\" users like me who happen to LIKE actually using a sampler to its full benefit and flexibility get scratched off like fleas.

Well, who am I, anyway? Just one of those two or three guys that thinks a sampler should be a sampler and samples should be samples, I guess...just one of those necessary casualties.

A little inconvenient? Please. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

dougrogers

09-12-2002, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:

Look, I\'m going to lose this battle. I know it. It has been decided, blessed by Tascam, endorsed by dealers as \"the only way to save the market\" and accepted by developers who just want to make a buck (rightly so). The \"few\" users like me who happen to LIKE actually using a sampler to its full benefit and flexibility get scratched off like fleas.Bruce,

Your arguments are not falling on deaf ears. Nick asked the question (which was very brave) so we could have this debate with users.

I think it\'s possible to find a solution that will work for everyone. There have been some excellent suggestions put forward.

Ultimately, we will find a way of protecting our investment AND accommodating your needs. You have my word we will do our best to achieve this.

dr

Bruce A. Richardson

09-12-2002, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by dougrogers:
[QUOTE]

I wasn\'t trying to start a war (boy, you are a spirited lot!)

Hi Doug,

Well, in all truthfulness, as hard as I am fighting to be heard on this issue, I am not taking it personally against anyone.

To me, though, it is something of a war--for the preservation of a way of using samplers that will be largely lost as a result.

I want to be able to edit and combine things on the waveform level. That is really important to me.

Since day one of GigaSampler, I have been hammering Jim and Joe to allow export of those compressed libraries. Little did I know that was only the beginning of the end.

Look, I respect you and all the developers here a great deal. But I don\'t think you have given the user base a fair chance to respond to your concerns either. And certainly the user base is 100% to blame here...the legit user base, at that, because these copies don\'t make themselves. There is not a pirated library in existance that didn\'t get that way because somebody made that copy for that \"friend.\"

Some \"friend,\" guys (I\'m talking to my fellow users here). Wake up and see where this has landed us as a community!!!! YOU DON\'T HAVE ANY FRIENDS when it comes to copying libraries, and if you have done it, you are the ENEMY. You cause this. You don\'t just hurt Eric, or Nick, or Doug. You hurt us all.

Maybe this sounds completely silly, but what if there were a little experiment here? What if we give the user base a chance to actually respond to what I think we can all agree is a crisis?

What if we forego the protection/compression/encryption for one more generation, and let this be a watershed moment? Either people stop copying libraries and show a difference that vendors can actually see, or suck up the results.

It would be far cheaper to print out a little piece of paper explaining the experiment than constructing the elaborate support mechanisms which will make protection successful. And the only way these libraries get spread is when someone who paid decides to make that \"one\" copy for a friend--who then starts the exponential chain of piracy that brings us all to this discussion.

Would anyone be willing to take THAT gamble--to put this in the customers\' hands for one more concentrated try?

I would be happy to donate my services in helping to write such a plea--making the case that we\'re standing at \"last chance Texaco\" and that unless legit sales go up and piracy goes down, it\'s all over.

Yes, probably silly. This all just makes me extremely sad, for everyone involved, because like it or not, NO ONE can deny that this is going to change everything, and no one is going to come out of this feeling very good except a person whose pure and single motivation is money. I don\'t think any of us are that person. We wouldn\'t be having this discussion if that were the case. We wouldn\'t be in this business if that were the case.

midphase

09-12-2002, 08:12 AM

You\'ve gotta be really careful knocking the result of other people\'s blood sweat \'n tears.
I mean...it\'s all somebody\'s art, y\'know? Chadwick, if you read my post carefully, you\'ll realize that I\'m not knocking other people\'s work. But in all seriousness, you have to agree that samples are not music. This is not me saying it, it\'s the law! If it were otherwise, every time a sample gets played, developers would get royalties. There are some exceptions such as \"construction kit\" type of phrase samples that would constitute a larger piece....but when talking about sampled instruments, this logic doesn\'t apply.

midphase

09-12-2002, 08:33 AM

Eric,

Sorry to clump all you guys\' efforts together....but virtual plug-in instruments are virtual plug-in instruments. I am sure that each individual technology has its strenghts and weaknesses....but it\'s essentially the same idea.

I am sure that you guys (Spectrasonic) are adding all kinds of neat bells and whistles to your apps....but I wish you, Doug and Nick would take off your salesmen hats every once in a while on this forum for practicality\'s sake.

I have read the specs and literature on your site about the new plug-ins (I have the Stylus screen right in front of me). It sounds like I have control over basic ADSR, Tempo, sample Stretching, Filter, Volume, Pan and a few other things. Here\'s one for you.....can I reverse the samples? How \'bout this one.....can I build a 2-4 layer instrument that used the Mod. Wheel or some other controller of my choice to Xfade between the layers? How about alter the start of the sample?

I am well aware that I could \"print\" the individual samples to disk, and then edit them.....but what a pain!

I also realize that 99.9% of sample users in the world generally prefer a plug-and-play library. So I guess economics dictate that simpler is better.

I still really enjoy your work, and use it every day in my music. Heart of Africa is a highlight of my library (even though Survivor:Africa overused the sounds too much). I love how you guys suggested donations to African help groups in the literature....that\'s a really cool thing!

Whatever the direction of your efforts, I am sure that the quality and sounds will never be an issue!

franz

09-12-2002, 08:40 AM

Normally the license reads:
bla, bla ...
...for use in music production..
bla, bla..

This excludes use in re-programming which I have not seen expressly granted. One could argue that taking the samples out of their original program context is illegal and probably win the case.
Bruce,
try getting raw waveforms out of your Yamaha synth.

midphase

09-12-2002, 08:41 AM

Doug,

Where there\'s a will, there\'s a way! If you use a particular sampler\'s \"import\" function, I am sure that the results will be pretty horrible....but if you use your brain and some TLC, it\'s amazing what you can accomplish!
If I told you the amounts of work that I have put into some of my conversions, you would probably thing I\'m completely insane. I think it\'s well worth it.....it definitely takes the patience of a monk for some of this stuff, and I realize that economics do not allow you to put all that time into a conversion. Nontheless, I bet you I could convert QL Strat to a more than satisfactory quality in another soft-sampler platform.

As a producer, you have the right to be upset if someone screws with your work....but as long as there\'s guys like me around.....BWAHAHAHA!!!! images/icons/grin.gif

PS.
You must really despise guys like Chickensystems uh?

midphase

09-12-2002, 08:51 AM

This excludes use in re-programming which I have not seen expressly granted. One could argue that taking the samples out of their original program context is illegal and probably win the case. I\'m not a lawyer but I would beg to differ! I am not distributing my conversion to the public. This is for my personal use. There is no express warning against me doing something to the programs. Even if there were, you could argue that it\'s unconstitutional and I doubt any lawsuit from a developer would hold up in a court of law. This is equivalent to me taping \"American Idol\" and re-editing it on my iMovie so that Justin wins! If it\'s for my own personal use, I don\'t think I\'m infringing on any laws.

The last time I checked we were still living in the land of the free, right?

Bruce A. Richardson

09-12-2002, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by franz:

try getting raw waveforms out of your Yamaha synth.Man, is that really the point?

We enjoy the use of better tools. One might just as well say \"try sliding a chorus one bar to the left on your analog tape deck.\"

The thing is, we have this capability, today, and we are enjoying it greatly. It was established as a paradigm in the tool, and is one of the delights of software sampling--that we CAN completely and easily edit the baseline samples. That\'s one of the amazing and wonderful advantages of the medium, and one of the most exciting things software synthesis brought to the table. It shattered some walls, and made things possible that hadn\'t been easy before. It is functionality that we have had every right and desire to use, because it was provided for us. We are grateful for it.

Now, we stand to lose that really attractive and valuable functionality.

I don\'t see what is impeachable about that statement. It is simply a truth. Any realtime protection scheme that works would have to necessarily disallow full waveform export. How else could it possibly work?

It may not be important to you. You may have a poor opinion of me personally. You may want to place a clause in your licensing agreement expressly forbidding the editing of your instruments...

But that doesn\'t make my position wrong, or something to just flippantly dismiss. It\'s pretty important--eliminating one of the most powerful advantages of the soft-sampling paradigm is not a small issue.

Bruce A. Richardson

09-12-2002, 09:39 AM

sorry...double post...my bad

mschiff

09-12-2002, 09:58 AM

Bruce,

In response to your idea to give the users another chance to solve this problem. It seems that someone has taken the initiative to do just that.

http://www.be-cool.org (\"http://www.be-cool.org\")

-- Martin

Bolt Thrower

09-12-2002, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by midphase:

I am well aware that I could \"print\" the individual samples to disk, and then edit them.....but what a pain!...but if you use your brain and some TLC, it\'s amazing what you can accomplish! If I told you the amounts of work that I have put into some of my conversions, you would probably thing I\'m completely insane.
I think it\'s well worth it.....

Nice contradictions! If you and Bruce are such busy little beavers, then why don\'t you just go ahead and chew your way through the same work the developer did. Oh, it takes forever, does it? Then how could $300 be an unreasonable price? I spent that much on a terrible-sounding Alesis 8MB Classical ROM card for my QS6!

You pay for the developer\'s development. His raw materials are gravy and (once again for those who eschew logic and reason) developers could have an additional license that costs extra for such a feature. It should be so expensive that the developer gains a personal relationship from each such sale. Piracy will be nil and highly trackable because few people REALLY need it. Neither of you two clowns will acknowledge this because it defeats your argument. I\'d rather just spend a few extra hundred dollars, instead of spurting all over these message boards to anyone and everyone... shouldn\'t you?

The simple fact is that since piracy has also been ingrained into the sampleware \"paradigm\", encryption has become necessary. Therefore, if you absolutley MUST have the raw files, the business relationship should recognize that value and cause you to pay extra for it. I understand that you can\'t debate me. I\'m quite good.

As for what has happened to our community, some of us have devolved into hackneyed, laughing idiots.

BWAHAHAHA!!!! images/icons/grin.gif

See what I mean?

spectrum

09-12-2002, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:

images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif

Yes, you guys are right. That is only a slight inconvenience. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

Phooey......

A little inconvenient? Please. images/icons/rolleyes.gif Bruce......I\'m not sure what you are you talking about? We don\'t have a piano virtual instrument.

I get your point, but it\'s not accurate that your lumping Spectrasonics into this camp. We haven\'t made anything yet that could be even remotely considered a major pain to use! Our new instruments simplifies everything, not the other way around. Rendering loops in Stylus is a breeze.

Every one of our instruments has a custom interface tailored to the needs of that product. If we made a piano virtual instrument, we would make sure to include in the interface the editing features that would be necessary to edit those sounds to the musicians needs. If something is missing, we can update it.

Please be careful what you say. A lot of people here respect your opinion and experience.

Also, you can be sure that there will be many sample libraries produced and available from a wide variety of companies. Not everyone chooses to distribute their products this way. Is anyone really worried that their won\'t be enough libraries to buy?

Best,

spectrum

Bruce A. Richardson

09-12-2002, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Bolt Thrower:
[QUOTE]If you and Bruce are such busy little beavers, then why don\'t you just go ahead and chew your way through the same work the developer did. Oh, it takes forever, does it? Then how could $300 be an unreasonable price? ???????

You lost me. His raw materials are gravy? The raw materials ARE the product.

Every licensing agreement I have read essentially grants permission for using the underlying recordings (which is the basis for penalty should you be caught on the wrong side of the agreement...detection of the unlicensed use of said recordings). You\'re going pretty far out here just to play devil\'s advocate.

We have the ability to edit samples right now on the basic level, but that\'s nothing new. You can transfer samples in and out of most hardware samplers, too, either via MIDI or a SCSI protocol especially developed for the purpose. The underlying format for samples in AKAI has been PC wav for some time. It\'s something we\'re accustomed to. That ability is being placed in question.

How does that constitute a laughable or invalid point of concern? It\'s a loss. It\'s a legitimate and powerful feature of software samplers--to be capable of breaking the barriers that existed in hardware relationships and to enable more detailed and convenient methods of working.

Bolt Thrower

09-12-2002, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:
You lost me. His raw materials are gravy? The raw materials ARE the product. Every licensing agreement I have read
Those are for libraries you already own. We\'re talking about future libraries. Those agreements will be different.

Just to make sure we\'re on the same page, I\'m talking about [encrypted] libraries without extraction feature. You might recall that you\'ve been on this topic since before I bought in to Nemesys.

I will now defeat you with the LICENSE GRANT section of the well-regarded Sonic Implants agreement:

\"You may not transfer, sell, resell, loan, share, rent, lease, loan, trade, reissue, assign or otherwise distribute the Work, in part or in whole, or any derivative work thereof, either as it exists on disc, reformatted for use in another digital sampler, or mixed, combined, filtered, resynthesized, or otherwise edited, for use as sounds, multisounds, samples, multisamples, wavetables, programs or patches in a game product, sampler, microchip or any sample playback device. You may not modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative Works based on the Work or the written materials.\"

spectrum

09-12-2002, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by midphase:

I am sure that you guys (Spectrasonic) are adding all kinds of neat bells and whistles to your apps....but I wish you, Doug and Nick would take off your salesmen hats every once in a while on this forum for practicality\'s sake.

I have read the specs and literature on your site about the new plug-ins (I have the Stylus screen right in front of me). It sounds like I have control over basic ADSR, Tempo, sample Stretching, Filter, Volume, Pan and a few other things. Here\'s one for you.....can I reverse the samples? How \'bout this one.....can I build a 2-4 layer instrument that used the Mod. Wheel or some other controller of my choice to Xfade between the layers? How about alter the start of the sample?Gotcha!

The answer is basically yes to everything you are asking to do, it\'s just done in a faster and more streamlined way than in something like GIGA...there are incredibly fast and easy ways to do everything you are requesting already.....and we have MANY plans for making all of these techniques and many more easier and more intergrated into the engine and interface...it\'s an ongoing and evolving instrument...not a simple player.

Watch the Stylus video...how much of what I\'m doing in real-time could you do in Gigastudio?

The reason it irks me that you put me in the \"salesman\" camp is that I approach designing these instruments as a musician and sound designer first, that wants to use these instruments in creative applications too!

Yes....it\'s a different way to work than with the sampler/library model, but I think that it is way better....that\'s why we did it.

spectrum

Bruce A. Richardson

09-12-2002, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by spectrum:
[QUOTE]
... not accurate that your lumping Spectrasonics into this camp. We haven\'t made anything yet that could be even remotely considered a major pain to use! Our new instruments simplifies everything, not the other way around. Rendering loops in Stylus is a breeze.
Hi Eric,

If that\'s how it came out, that\'s my bad. I never meant to imply that you had a piano product, only that while rendering out might be very easy for a \"loop,\" it is not so easy when a person might want to impulse and re-construct a piano library, for instance. Or tighten up attacks on the waveform level for a multisampled cello section.

You\'re talking a minute\'s inconvenience on one hand, compared to a week\'s labor on the other. Suddenly it makes those things no longer worth doing, and we end up blowing off cool things we would have done to enhance our playing experience and our individual expression with sample materials.

It changes the rules.

And that\'s my only point in all of this...strictly concerning the relationship of GigaStudio libraries, waveform editing and manipulation, and copy protection.

So if someone finds a protection methodology that doesn\'t limit my ability to import and export waveforms from the instrument for editing and custom combining, I may not love it, but I won\'t be going ballistic like I am now.

Everything I have heard of so far breaks that capability, and that is my bottom line concern. It\'s not just about some abstract intellectual dislike of copy protection. I don\'t want to lose that functionality...it\'s a feature I use as a means of expression.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding of my intent, because I think it\'s very easy for these high-spirited discussions to wander into lots of murky territory.

spectrum

09-12-2002, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by midphase:

Sorry to clump all you guys\' efforts together....but virtual plug-in instruments are virtual plug-in instruments. I am sure that each individual technology has its strenghts and weaknesses....but it\'s essentially the same idea.!Really? That\'s quite a statement.

Absynth, the B-4, EVP-88 and Sampletank are all the same idea?

How about MIDI instruments.....are they all the same idea too?

All analog synths basically the same deal too?

How about sample-based synthesizers?

A JV-1080, PPG Wave, Maelstrom and a Sound Canvas are all basically the \"same idea\"?

Wow...you sure like to paint with a pretty wide brush! images/icons/wink.gif images/icons/wink.gif

spectrum

PS. A plug-in standard is only something like MIDI....you can do a zillion different things with plug-in instruments, and as with every instrument...it\'s the engine, the sound and the details that make all the difference.

caveman

09-12-2002, 02:35 PM

Yes....it\'s a different way to work than with the sampler/library model, but I think that it is way better....that\'s why we did it.

spectrum[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yest, and this is why, I am very excited for the Atmosphere and future products of Erics. I do not want to be waisting time on accomplishing what I can, much more efficient and more control than Giga could offer. I am open to Giga and love using it, but am very excited to pursue the path that Eric has created.

Now if Eric could just give me a glimpse or hope that there will be a Grand Piano in there somewehere, I will wait in my Cave till it comes, and work on Stylus and Atmosphere in the meantime. I am also very interested in the Groove Control Libraries, and to me Giga is exceptional a strong product when it comes to Orchestral Libraries.

I am very much in awe with all this technology, and think we can do wonders.

Waitng for Atmosphere!!!

Ill go back to my Cave Now!!!

Bruce A. Richardson

09-12-2002, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Bolt Thrower:
[QUOTE]
\"You may not transfer, sell, resell, loan, share, rent, lease, loan, trade, reissue, assign or otherwise distribute the Work, in part or in whole, or any derivative work thereof, either as it exists on disc, reformatted for use in another digital sampler, or mixed, combined, filtered, resynthesized, or otherwise edited, for use as sounds, multisounds, samples, multisamples, wavetables, programs or patches in a game product, sampler, microchip or any sample playback device. You may not modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative Works based on the Work or the written materials.\"The first clause deals with distribution only. You can\'t make a product from the product and sell it. The second clause is murky even for legalese, but I believe the word \"Work\" synonymous with \"product\"...the inclusion of the written materials provides best clue to the intent of this clause. In other words, you can\'t just go in and recompile the Work with your own tasty edits and create a derivative Work called \"Bruce\'s Extra Tasty Sonic Implants Library.\" We would have to drag Jennifer (or more likely her attorney) in here to clarify that last clause, but I don\'t believe they are placing limitations on editing for personal use.

Call me a criminal if they are, because I have already done some tasty edits, I must say. Not for sale.

Bolt Thrower

09-12-2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:

The first clause deals with distribution only. The second clause is murky even for legalese...Call me a criminal [because] I have already done some tasty edits, I must say. Not for sale.

Sounds like a clean case to me; you have a grey area to exploit, and you do with much verbal outflow. The law is a two-way street, so the developer must do the same. You\'re not the only one who needs protection!

You must admit, isn\'t it interesting how the extraction prevention is directly tied to piracy reduction? The transitive symmetry is perfect.

Bruce A. Richardson

09-12-2002, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Bolt Thrower:
[QUOTE]
You must admit, isn\'t it interesting how the extraction prevention is directly tied to piracy reduction? Well, of course. It\'s the Achilles Heel of this entire subject. In order to have a sample protection scheme that works, you have to break that functionality.

That is the reason I\'m arguing against it. The other issues pale to me. I put up with PACE. I don\'t like it, but it doesn\'t keep me from doing things I like to do.

This kills a piece of functionality that, at least to me, is the very essence of software sampling and one of the biggest benefits that the technology provided.

Bolt Thrower

09-12-2002, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:

It\'s the Achilles Heel of this entire subject. In order to have a sample protection scheme that works, you have to break that functionality. That is the reason I\'m arguing against it.Excellent; now we\'re getting somewhere.

Let\'s say your dream library, that exotic instrument that you wish someone would make, is on the drawing board. But the developer can\'t decide whether or not to approve the project because projected profits are slim. He therefore has a business problem, and it must be addressed before that library can be released.

Let\'s also say his problem can occur at any time prior to release, because of the complexities of production.

But you\'ll want that library! So how can we fix the business problem? With value. Make it possible for developers to protect their property, and that library will be released. In fact, prices should drop as a result.

Eventually, all libraries will be encrypted, and all virtual instruments/sampler platforms will support this technology. It will work, and it will spawn the next boom for developers. That\'s why Pershing, Scarbee, and even Rogers are here to discuss. Either render and do the same work to extract samples, or pay extra for a source license.

It is mighty of you to take them all on like you have. But dude, give it a rest! Your message has been delivered. I picture you as the lone samurai, trudging painfully down the Tokkaido road. Body peppered with arrows, you are deeply wounded and the sun has beaten many years into your withered face. The blood is drying brown, your hair a matted mess of battlefield dust and clay.

Prithee, keep that honor for thyself!

midphase

09-12-2002, 10:23 PM

Eric,

I didn\'t mean to strike a nerve with the salesman hat thing, but you have to admit that sometime your posts sound a bit like you copied and pasted the promo stuff from the Ilio site.

Also, as far as my plug-in comment, I was primarily referring to what you, Big Fish and apparently East West are doing, not the other variety of soft synths and apps out there. (you have to admit there are some pretty striking similiarities between your interface and Big Fish\'s Plug Sound)

You must forgive my skepticism but by making it simpler for the end user, you also have to take away some of the options. I\'m glad that you\'re planning on implementing some of the additional things that I mentioned, I hope that it\'ll be all and more of what you\'re promising.

The future looks a bit gloomy right now from my point of view....you have to allow me to have this opinion at least until I am proven wrong by your apps.

The whole idea of this forum is to give and receive feedback, challenge ideas and keep an open mind. Some other obnoxious poseurs....sorry, I meant posters, would prefer to have people see it only their way.

Nonetheless, you sound like you have a plan and I wish you luck with it. At some point some friend of mine will purchase your products, and they\'ll show me how great they really are, and perhaps convince me to buy one. For the time being I\'ll probably stick to your past CD Rom titles.

One of my main concerns is that introducing additional soft sampler engines will task the processor a lot more than simply running a single soft sampler. If I have Stylus running along with a Plug Sound plug in, and a couple more from East West, is that going to tax my processor too much?

Bruce A. Richardson

09-13-2002, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Bolt Thrower:
[QUOTE]Excellent; now we\'re getting somewhere.
No, Bolt Thrower...

We\'re not \"getting anywhere.\" I\'m not arguing my position out of ignorance or obstinance. I\'m not sure why you characterize me as unthoughtful in your responses, but I don\'t appreciate it. People who actually have a dog in the fight are certainly not being flippant about these concerns. This is far too important to reduce to a game of cocksmanship and \"gotcha.\"

Everyone on both sides of this issue knows where the consequences play out, we\'re all bright people.

I am certain of my position, and I believe in it with every fiber of my being--restricting access to the samples themselves, while perhaps attractive in preventing the casual \"copyist,\" is too much of a price to extract from the musician, and too Draconian a methodology to pursue. It pushes an important aspect of the tool\'s flexibility back to the dark ages.

And in fact, the economic model for such a move exists only because Tascam apparently plans to provide the means. I have pointed out the obvious consequences there enough times--that as generous a gesture as that might seem to be, it must necessarily tie these libraries to the GigaStudio application...a consequence which is far from generous to the end user, OR the sample developer. Perhaps it\'s Tascam\'s play for GigaStudio\'s survival, or maybe just hardball competitive practice, but still...there are other ways to enhance market share for everyone without throwing up barriers. I disagree that a lockdown is a healthy thing.

With all due respect to Tascam, and my most sincere best wishes for their continued profit and growth, my recommendation to sample developers is to just say no. Let Tascam compete on the strength of its technology and quality of customer service...but not on your sounds. If Tascam wishes to produce exclusive sounds, let Tascam do so. Instead of taking that carrot, release your libraries in every possible format and make your money through an entirely positive method. I truly believe that is a healthier long-term economic model for the sample developer\'s business, and I know for a fact that it is a much better artistic model for the musician community.

And in doing so, it\'s really even a healthier model for Tascam. It forces Tascam to put ideas and technology (and timely improvements) ahead of all else. I don\'t know what Tascam paid for the technology, nor do I know what the big veiny heads have outlined as a time frame for profitability before they toss it into the scrap bin...

But I do know this much: Releasing some product might be one excellent step towards that goal.

Case in point: NFX Plugins. There\'s a market for Tascam--completely and totally wide open, with a user base that is literally begging for something to buy. But...nothing. That is money being left on the table. In fact, if the conversion process from VST/DX is as \"trivial\" as is bandied about, then I\'m sure there are armies of underemployed plugin developers waiting to knock out an entire line of NFX plugins in two shakes of their pecker.

Just some food for thought. I tend to wander, but to recap...protection which places the end user in a creative lockdown is not protection at all. It\'s slow suicide.

You\'re right about one thing, Bolt Thrower. I sure do feel alone. But my heart is pure. I have the strength of 10,000 men. images/icons/tongue.gif

dwdonehoo

09-13-2002, 01:07 PM

Just for the record here, I am pretty much on the side of Richardson the Bruce. I do sympathize with the developers, and I am sure, after debating this thing elsewhere, Nick already knows where I stand. So, I will just put a point on how I feel about all this.
I am resigned to the fact there will be some form of copy protection (CP), despite the fact it will be useless, easy to crack, but will perhaps deter the casual pirate. Some developers have suggested that with CP there was a difference in sales, but I have my doubts. Statistics are a funny thing, and many things can explain sales fluctuations. Really, there is no solid proof that CP has an effect on sales. Certainly, they will not make an additional red cent from real pirates. If anything, the resulting customer service calls will eat into any additional profits. And I also do not believe for a second that “good” CP will lower lib prices. Nick has said his orch lib will cost about $5000, and with or without CP, it would be the same IMO. And why not? Why should he gamble that CP will impact his sales in a positive way?
But, that aside, many lib developers are bound and determined to have CP, and I would like to put in a word to head off the damage. This is what I personally want:
1) The CP must not screw with the OS, start background tasks or need a dongle.
2) The CP must allow me to move the lib around or be installed on multiple machines I own and use. (A good reason for no dongle.)
3) The CP must allow me to reprogram gigs/arts and modify the waves. I have had to do too much “correction” to suit my playing style to give that up. This is art, and when you limit the extent of artistic expression, you reduce the value of the product.
4) The CP must not be a nagging pain in the azs. This is my job, I’m workin’ here, please don’t screw with my train of thought.

There are top-flight products out there I will not buy because I hate their CP. I do not expect to change. I have no problems with SONAR or the Sonic Foundry CP, but then again they are applications and not libs, so I do not know how their CP would affect the points above. I am sure something can be worked out within the points above, and already, to his credit, Nick said elsewhere that he would not use CP that prevented multiple copies on different owner machines.
Have no doubts: this is an issue of great concern to users and developers alike.

One last thing. I know this is an important and emotional issue, but I would strongly urge everyone to debate the issues and not the person. Personalities have no place in this discussion IMHO, and the quickest way for anyone to strip away their credibility is to get personal and/or insulting. Lets just stick to the facts and issues and leave the posturing out of this. Thanks.

Bolt Thrower

09-13-2002, 04:05 PM

Hear hear, well spoken Bruce!

If I were to summarize my position in a sentence it would be: \"You are as loud as 10,000 men.\"

Chadwick

09-13-2002, 04:18 PM

Midphase, I was just being facetious. Your post brought that satirical Tenacious D piece to mind and I couldn\'t resist... images/icons/wink.gif

Bruce A. Richardson

09-13-2002, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Bolt Thrower:

If I were to summarize my position in a sentence it would be: \"You are as loud as 10,000 men.\"And I have the volume turned down to about 3.

peter269

09-14-2002, 02:49 AM

mschiff

09-14-2002, 10:28 AM

Since I have posted a lot of negative messages about Pace copy protection here based on other people\'s experiences, I thought it would be only fair to post some information about my own (good) experience.

After listening to all the horror stories about Pace, I have been understandably reluctant to use it on my totally stable DAW (Athlon 950 with 3 Maxtor 30 gig drives running Windows 2000 Prof.). In fact, so much so, that I had bought Autotune over a year ago, and had never installed it. Well, I went to the Axis of Audio (Cakewalk, Waves and NI) show on Thursday, and they offered a deal I couldn\'t refuse on the Waves Renaissance Collection 2 (reverb, EQ & compressor for $175). So now I had two Pace protected packages. Lately I\'ve been hearing from a lot of people that they haven\'t had any problems with Pace, so I decided to give it a try. I downloaded the latest TPKD.SYS from the Pace site, and installed that first. Then I installed the entire Waves package in demo mode (all 10 zillion plugs), and finally installed Autotune. There was not a single glitch or problem throughout the entire procedure. All plugs work properly, my DAW still works perfectly, no degredation in performance that I could notice.

All the plugs that I tried (Autotune, reverb and L2 Maximizer) worked beautifully, and will definitely fill a spot in my work. Not necessarily \"better\" than the other plugs I have, but different and high quality enough that they will be used frequently (If I decide to go ahead and buy L2 after the demo period).

I discussed this issue with the Waves representative that was at the show, and he assured me that they have all problems with Pace under control. That they have had only 2 customers whose problems that they were unable to fix, and one of those customers was using cracked software on his machine and the other would not follow the steps they gave him to resolve the problem. I would say he is correct by my experience. It was his suggestion to install all the plugs in demo mode first, because after you enable any of them (after installing all of them together) you can no longer use them in demo mode. So I\'ll get my 14 days use of them and then register the ones I bought.

I am still not pleased that I have something working at such a low level on my machine, but so far, it has worked flawlessly.

-- Martin

Bruce A. Richardson

09-14-2002, 12:29 PM

Either way, I think we as a group need a larger catalog of innovative libraries more than you need to extract each and every sample in a perfectly orderly fashion sans effort. Thanks for the tip on Sound Forge, but I\'m very well aware of that feature, features like it, and other apps that have even more automated features like it.

That is not the point.

You are making the same logical leap that is being put forth by the vested interests in \"protection,\" that somehow it will benefit the marketplace.

There is ZERO proof it will benefit the marketplace. There is ZERO proof it will result in more titles, priced lower. Zilch, zero, none.

On the other hand, there is not a shred of doubt that end users will lose valuable functionality.

more than you need to extract each and every sample in a perfectly orderly fashion sans effort. Again, you attempt to reduce this to some little tiny thing...I do love your well-veiled ad hominems, but I\'m immune.

In fact, I should not be required to put as much effort into a subsequent editing of a sample library as was demanded to author it. This doesn\'t make me lazy, or unwilling to work. I want to work smart. If I have the choice of a method where I spend one hour doing baseline edits, or a method where I spend one week, choosing the one-week route makes me stupid, not lazy.

So why should I think it\'s a fantastic idea for the protection systems proposed to force me to work \"stupid?\"

In terms of functionality, this would be tantamount to exporting a mix to analog tape so I could cut out a chorus with a razor blade.

You are essentially proposing that it is more valuable to establish a protectionist market for sampleware developers than to insist that our tools remain as capable and flexible as possible.

I reject that argument totally and completely, and I believe you would find that most musicians would agree with me on that.

Bolt Thrower

09-14-2002, 12:35 PM

If you were immune, or wanted to appear so, you would refrain from comment.

You are essentially proposing that it is more valuable to establish a protectionist market for sampleware developers than to insist that our tools remain as capable and flexible as possible.
And to think you said we weren\'t getting anywhere with this!

First, I think developers need an improvement in their business model before prices will drop. Once I know what I want, cost is my primary issue. Better protection allows for reduced cost.

Second, it\'s old-fashioned bad luck that your banner issue is chained at the ankles to perhaps the single largest albatross in the library business. Meanwhile, Tascam has made the strategic decision that supporting developers is job #1, which makes sense because NemeSys had already built the platform. How that revs up means new technologies that weren\'t possible until recently. The inevitable lockstep of progress drags some of us kicking and screaming into the future...

Third, I use samplers too and I\'m probably a more typical GS user than you are. I have no interest in Giga extraction. And, until I can run a virtual effects rack within 1ms of realtime in my PC, I will never run a sampler as a process within a sequencer. Period.

midphase

09-14-2002, 12:37 PM

Look at the Playstation 2. It dominates other and better consoles because it has the titles. Giga wants and deserves the same.You are absolutely right! Every time I try to load Onimusha 2 in GS it crashes the system!

Bruce A. Richardson

09-14-2002, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Bolt Thrower:
First, I think developers need an improvement in their business model before prices will drop. Once I know what I want, cost is my primary issue. Better protection allows for reduced cost.

Second, it\'s old-fashioned bad luck that your banner issue is chained at the ankles to perhaps the single largest albatross in the library business. Meanwhile, Tascam has made the strategic decision that supporting developers is job #1, which makes sense because NemeSys had already built the platform. How that revs up means new technologies that weren\'t possible until recently. The inevitable lockstep of progress drags some of us kicking and screaming into the future...

Third, I use samplers too and I\'m probably a more typical GS user than you are. I have no interest in Giga extraction. And, until I can run a virtual effects rack within 1ms of realtime in my PC, I will never run a sampler as a process within a sequencer. Period.

J. Whaley

09-14-2002, 03:02 PM

I\'ve read a bunch of these posts, but not all.... how about an \"ilok\" type key, like the XS key. If we have to have copyprotection, then at least this way we\'re not being asked for a CD every 30 days. There\'s nothing I hate worse then that. I think Giga\'s copyprotection is fine, once you get it unlocked, but it sure was a pain to get it registered. The cool thing about the XS key and the Ilok is you can take it whereever you\'re going and use it there, then take it back home. I think most pirating within the professional world (at least the pirates I run into) start by installing their software on a friends computer so they can use their stuff over there. It use to be we had to take a keyboard to a friends house, now we have to drag out the whole computer, or install the software. Well, then the friend doesn\'t uninstall it and before you know it... boom, we need copy protection.

I just ran into this yesterday. I use the NI B4 plugin. I had a guy want me to do some organ on a CD. I told him he needed to come to my house because need my computer, but he wanted me to go to his place. Even though I\'m making him come here, if I could have taken an ilok key to his house, I could have installed B4, used it that day, and then brought my key home. Then he can\'t use it. I\'m the one who owns the rights to use the software, so I\'m the one with the key. even though I hate copy protection, that\'s a kind I can get behind because it\'s the most convienient inconvienint way ( I know I can\'t spell today).

Take it for what it\'s worth.

J-

Bruce A. Richardson

09-14-2002, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by J. Whaley:
I could have installed B4, used it that day, and then brought my key home.
J-You can install B4 at a remote location, use it, and uninstall it when you\'re done. I\'m not sure what advantage the key would provide.

The major objection to ILok-type protection schemes (besides the frightening prospect of having a 15\" strand of them hanging off your computer) is the need for folks to have multi-machine and network compatibility with their libraries. That\'s what the GigaStudio functionality is all about--in fact, one of the major \"feature push\" items of GigaStudio 2.0 was the fact that a large organization could keep library materials on a central server and network to machines in various control rooms/soundstages.

Chadwick

09-14-2002, 08:34 PM

I love the inter-app functionality that you can get going between things like Giga, and audio editors.

I getmore and more mileage out of the \'edit audio\' function in Gst, which allows export of a single wav to your nominated editor and automatic replacement of that wav in the instrument with the edited version upon saving in the audio editor.

The only thing I\'d prefer is to be able to do this with multiple files, rather than one by one.

On a daily basis I take advantage of the ability to export a drum loop to a folder, load it into Acid, adjust it\'s tempo/pitch, and add the new variation to the Giga instrument file. Again, I\'d like to be able to do this with multiple files as well as have more direct integration between the Giga editor and Acid.

The only way I can see Tascam being able to even come close to keeping both the the guys who want to protect their samples and the editors amongst us happy, would be if they really blew out the editor, giving it the functionality of a Wavelab or Sound Forge, including the ability to incorporate VST and DX plugins.

That seems too much like reinventing the wheel at great time and expense, and still won\'t impress people who already have a well oiled relationship with their current audio editor and don\'t see the point in learning a new app.

When I first heard about Eric\'s new instruments, I thought they were a master stroke in copy protection. It\'s way harder for people to knock off a library when it:

a) Takes up a massive 3gb, and
b) uses non standard wav files

He has every right to market his samples in a \'virtual hardware plugin\' model, where he includes many great patches and any editing features he feels are appropriate to the style of sample pool.

The sad thing is that both the \'non-editable wav\' and \'virtual hardware plugin\' models turn their back on the traditional sampling concept, taking core sampling/editing out of the hands of the user and leaving it all to the original library developer. We\'re left with some really great sounding romplers, like a Roland 1080 on steroids.

What is sadder than that is that I think both these models will be accepted and sell well with the right sound libraries under the hood.

Maybe better sales will deliver us better and cheaper libraries?

However, what happens when a competitor sees this type of crippling as a market opportunity?

NI, Bitheadz, Sampletank, Wizoo, Steinberg and Emagic would all look at these product limitations as a way of positioning their next sampler/sample play back unit in a \'superior\' slot.

Do you think Akai will stay out of the soft sampler market forever? They\'re already making \'pro\' VST plugins.

How far does Roland need to go beyond their Hypercanvas before they find themselves with a soft 770 for the new millenium?

I wonder what happened to the Emu soft sampler, maybe they\'re just sitting back and watching what happens next....

Bolt Thrower

09-14-2002, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:
And I have the volume turned down to about 3.How precious! Assuming you don\'t intended to fan the flames of fury, which is trollish behavior, you should be concerned about reaching the point of diminishing returns.

When it\'s written 10,000 times, clearly there is no catharsis in the writing itself. It\'s not pining; it\'s a professional using his greatest talent for a specific end. You clearly have the personal contacts, and if you had more business sense you\'d realize that direct channels are more effective. You might even try to sell them a focus group or a consulting project. THEN would be the time to exploit.

Either way, I think we need a larger catalog of innovative, inexpensive libraries more than you need to extract each and every sample in a perfectly orderly fashion sans effort.

Look at the Playstation 2. It dominates other and better consoles because it has the titles. Giga wants and deserves the same. Sure, all the major categories have been done, but the design aspect is still in its infancy.

Don\'t worry, when the time comes the scene will release some sort of little extraction tool. Until then, have you used the Auto Region & Extract Regions combo in Soundforge? It\'s a peach.

spectrum

09-15-2002, 12:10 AM

I\'ve made this point already, but I want to try again to respond to Chadwick\'s points that he brings up about our virtual instruments.

(My comments relate only to our virtual instruments, and not the Gigastudio protection scheme)

HARDWARE VS SOFTWARE EXPORTING:
We are not taking any wave level editing away from users. There is just simply another way of doing it. Comparing to hardware synths in this case is not a good comparison. There\'s really a big difference between turning a hardware 5080 into a wave file, compared to doing this with one of our instruments. All you have to do is hit \"Bouce\" or \"Render\" in your host and you\'ve got a nice little trimmed wav file...that includes all of the real-time stuff we are doing in the sound engine. (The is true for every virtual instrument out there too). The internal raw waves are often times not the actual sound anyway.

Tons of users, (myself included) work with virtual instruments to create something, export the audio...play with it in their audio editor or DAW, blow it over to a soft sampler and play it from there. This is really standard stuff that many people do. The environments in todays hosts really allow for incredible flexibility now in sharing audio across plug-ins and apps.

It\'s also really important to note that this exporting is only necessary to do when there\'s something really important that you need that the instrument cannot do itself. This is usually rare, and we can add features if enough people say that they feel something important is missing.

(I agree with you Bruce about the negative aspects of encryption within Giga libraries, BTW. I think this IS more of a limitation than a protection)

Our new instruments are not intended to replace samplers. A sampler is an invaluable tool that is absolutely essential IMO. With the auto mapping capabilities of most modern soft samplers, even quick multisampling can be done in a fraction of the time it used to take. My samplers will always be key parts of my music making arsenal.

The copy protection advantage of virtual instruments for us is nice (and does make a quantifiable difference), but that\'s not the main reason we went this route...it was just a side benefit. We decided to go this route because the traditional sampler method is far too restrictive for the types of ideas we have, and we were getting horribly bogged down with dealing with the limitations of universal sampler compatibility. For many other companies and library products...the current sampler scene is perfectly fine....we are just interested in going further than what\'s available, and the only way to do that is to do it ourselves.

As a result of this new direction, our virtual instruments offer many enhancements over working with traditional samplers, and a lot of cool new things that aren\'t available anywhere else. Since we are now combining ongoing software technology innovation with our expertise in sound design...the future holds very exciting possibilities....what we have released so far is just our first \"baby steps\"!

This being the case....why all the sadness being expressed here?

There are more inspiring tools available and amazing variety of methods to work than have ever been available to electronic musicians. If you look around, you\'ll see that this is the truth.

Keep an open mind, explore new possibilities and territories, and embrace new approaches.......these are the attitudes that I try to cultivate as a musician and now as an instrument designer.

I would like to encourage all of you that this is a very healthy approach, and encourages creativity.

All the best,

spectrum

jubal

09-15-2002, 12:25 AM

Actually, as powerful a voice Bruce has, he isn\'t alone in his thinking.

...Once I know what I want, cost is my primary issue.
Not mine. It is one of the issues, but more important is the flexability of the library.

I\'ve modified quite a few of my libraries now, the most recent being GOS. Now GOS has to be one of the most usable libraries out, but the great thing about it is the raw sounds it contains. With the update it contains a great sustained detache, however it comes in one dynamic layer. I took the advice of my friend KingIdiot and created new waves that crossfade between the attack of the detaches and the sustain of the \'vibrato sustains\'. Reminds me a little bit of a Miroslavish sound, but crossfadable between multiple dynamics. The point here is that I have an instrument that is very usable for me because I was able to take advantage of the raw samples.

Meanwhile, Tascam has made the strategic decision that supporting developers is job #1, which makes sense because NemeSys had already built the platform.
A** backwards. Supporting customers should be and will be job #1. The developers are not the primary buyers of GigaStudio or the libraries. No doubt being developer friendly is important, but not primary.

Third, I use samplers too and I\'m probably a more typical GS user than you are. I have no interest in Giga extraction. And, until I can run a virtual effects rack within 1ms of realtime in my PC, I will never run a sampler as a process within a sequencer. Period.To be sure some of the GS users will be content with that use model, but not all and perhaps not most. I certainly take advantage of the extraction capability and with the MOST helpful tutorial on using the Giga editor I will be doing more.

One last note. My day to day job is developing imaging and printing products. One thing I\'ve learned is that once a customer has been introduced to a feature of the product and is using it, one must be wary of removing that feature.

If Tascam or developers took away the capability to \'tweak\' the libraries (and I am referring to libraries not plug-ins), I would look elsewhere for solutions.

Chadwick

09-15-2002, 02:31 AM

Eric, I suppose I should have addressed the two issues of your gear and the copy protection issue for Giga separately.

If you look at your approach in isolation, it is light years ahead of any external hardware module in terms of accessability and flexibility. I love the integration of plugins. It makes work much more quick and intuitive.

Your paradigm will be extremely successful, and I can\'t help thinking that other sound developers will opt for the same approach - lock their library in a dedicated plugin, rather than make it available for samplers in general. I\'ve spoken to more than one developer who has had your problem of getting the sampler manufacturer to incorporate added features to a sampler in order to improve the functionality of their library. At least one of the guys I spoke to basically said \'to hell with it, I\'ll make my own sampler!\'.

Gary had to come up with the Maestro middle man in order to help GOS realise its full potential, Nuno made the text to midi utility for Nick Phoenix\'s VOTA, Michiel has \'Virtuoso\' underway to help extend what can be done with the humble piano sample, and the guys making the Vienna library seem to be intent on creating a new sequencer interface for dealing with orchestration in a more efficient manner.

So I can understand the idea of designing a user interface customized to each new style of library. But, if this happens, we end up with samplers being less relevant over time.

Look at how the success of the DX7 heralded the ice age for synthesizers with control panels. Note how this factor and the annecdotal evidence that 9/10ths of users never ventured beyond the factory patches has led to the devolution of the editability of synthesizers. Sure, we can all buy Sound Diver and mouse about on the PC, or get a Peavey knob box and make a bunch of templates, but it\'s not the same.

Don\'t get me wrong, faced with the same choices and resources, I think I\'d be doing exactly what you are. From a developer\'s point of view, it makes great sense.

I do understand that most people should simply regard your new releases as an alternative to the Attack, Pro53, Model E etc.,

I think it\'s simply the fact that many of us anticipate a high quality sample library combined with a brilliantly designed UI, and this makes us wonder where the future of open ended samplers lies images/icons/smile.gif

Bruce A. Richardson

09-15-2002, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Chadwick:
The only thing I\'d prefer is to be able to do this with multiple files, rather than one by one.We do already have this in the Editor. You can export ALL samples, and replace them by folder.

Bruce A. Richardson

09-15-2002, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by spectrum:

(I agree with you Bruce about the negative aspects of encryption within Giga libraries, BTW. I think this IS more of a limitation than a protection)

Thanks Eric. I appreciate that.

Originally posted by jubal:

I took the advice of my friend KingIdiot and created new waves that crossfade between the attack of the detaches and the sustain of the \'vibrato sustains\'. Reminds me a little bit of a Miroslavish sound, but crossfadable between multiple dynamics. The point here is that I have an instrument that is very usable for me because I was able to take advantage of the raw samples.

A perfect example of what I\'m talking about.

Grafting waveforms together to achieve desired attack sounds is something you really can\'t achieve with ASDR ramps--you\'ve gotta get in there and work at the baseline. And when you\'re done, you end up with something no one else has!!

I think the success GOS has achieved is due in no small part to this \"open source\" sort of attitude. People respond to it. They feel trusted. They feel encouraged, and indeed, some of those people have even been promoted and featured for those contributions back to the library. Win-Win.

You cannot put a price on good will. It\'s one of those magical things that costs nothing, yet cannot be purchased for all the money in the world.

A** backwards. Supporting customers should be and will be job #1. The developers are not the primary buyers of GigaStudio or the libraries. No doubt being developer friendly is important, but not primary. Thanks. Got tired of making this point, but there is only one source of income for both Tascam and library developers--and that is the end user. Utilizing invasive and restrictive copy protection schemes as an anti-competitive tool is going to backfire on Tascam, and kills multi-platform sales for the developer (unless he wishes to spend his time porting instead of creating). For the musician, it\'s a lose-lose situation, and will just drive people off the platform.

One thing I\'ve learned is that once a customer has been introduced to a feature of the product and is using it, one must be wary of removing that feature. A key point.

I think Tascam worries that cross-platform use of Giga libraries is a threat. What they should realize is that INNOVATION is the key to keeping GigaStudio\'s market position, not thowing up barriers. Someone will just knock those barriers down (just as GigaStudio did to gain its current position), and Tascam will have learned its first hard lesson in the software business. You cannot turn back the clock. Users will not accept it.

If Tascam continues advancing the medium, it should have no fear of competitors.