Copy-protection? [Archive] - Northern Sound Source

Munsie

03-21-2002, 04:09 AM

Hi Scarbee,

Take it from someone who has been self employed in the internet software business for over 7 years now. (Creating multimedia software for the Windows platform.) Usually when software sales are not what we think they should be, the first thing we think of is \"stop the pirating and we make more money!\". Problem is, that simply is not true. You will never be able to stop pirating. We have discussed this before. If I am wrong I apologize, but I\'m assuming your sales are not what they should be, otherwise you wouldn\'t be starting this topic. I seriously think you would be making more money getting out of the Tascam contract. In my opinion they are not marketing YOUR bass libraries very well. They ARE however making themselves look bigger and bigger with each ad in the mags, they seem to want to be developer and distributor of all things Giga. Fine, but it sucks for you. The more libraries they distribute, the less focus you get. I have NEVER seen any of your libraries in my local music stores. (Brook Mays, Mars, Guitar Center.) You more than likely have the best bass sample libraries ever created. I can\'t believe you\'re not getting rich from this venture. Get out of the contract, give some stores a cd on consignment. Market it yourself and offer half off sales once in a while so the part time musicians can buy on impulse. Plus, I\'m beginning to realize the \"buying giga market\" seems to be VERY small compared to the other formats. Hey, we\'re glad you support the giga line, but I also want you to stick around and make your J-Pick library, and your guitar library, put your libraries in Roland, Akai, Halion, formats TODAY! Make some money, relax, you\'ll quickly forget about the pirates. I remember the first time I saw my software on all of the pirate websites, newsgroups, etc. It almost drove me nuts for about 6 months straight. I would change registration codes, write new protection, etc, and within 24 hours, the pirate boards would be updated with cracks, patch updates, reg codes, etc. And then it dawned on me, these guys are NEVER going to buy my software, so why am I worrying about it? Sure, if you\'re attempting to bust some of the big composers who pirate your samples then it might, MIGHT, be worth the time and effort, but I KNOW you would make more money by spending your time marketing your products better, converting to other formats, etc. The more time you put into this pirating topic, is just more time taken away from producing new libraries.

SCARBEE

03-21-2002, 04:52 AM

Hi Munsie,

It was actually out of interest. Just wanted some experiences.

I have bought 3 XP\'s for my PC\'s with the new key-registration system and I hate it, but is is effective (I have bought 3 now...)

I also bought XP Office and it is the same - only 1 PC. I have a couple of other programs which uses the same system. It is a pain when you have to make a new install, but it IS effective. I have had to call Microsoft a couple of times to get a new key and have mail to other companies too. Usually no problems.

What do you think?

Mark_Knecht

03-21-2002, 07:50 AM

Scarbee,
I actually think that you library developers are better protected than most folks selling software based on the size of your products. Few people are going to bother uploading 16GB of data!

Make the libraries big and complex, and then keep the costs reasonable. You\'ll make sales and it just won\'t be practical (in the current high speed home network world) to even try and share them

Very few people are going to make CD copies and give them away. That\'s low volume anyway.

Just my thoughts.

Mark

Mark_Knecht

03-21-2002, 07:53 AM

BTW - Waves released the \'Masters Bundle\', which is a wonderful piece of software using an expensive aftermarket software protection scheme, and within 8 hours the cracked version was on the web. That was painful, cost them a lot of money, and did them no good. Why should it be any different for you? You want to make money, not pay money for protection that doesn\'t work.

Thomas_J

03-21-2002, 09:30 AM

The thing about software is that you cannot copy protect anything. Everything is reverse-engineerable. Leaving even the most advanced copy protection algorithm useless in the hands of a skilled \"cracker\". Sad but true. Even hardware dongles that were manufactured as an attempt to overcome the pirates was cracked in the form of a software emulator that would emulate the hardware dongle by making a virtual parallell port driver and pick the dongle apart and obtain the information necessary to recreate the hardware chip as software. (Called reverse-engineering).

So sad but true, but even hardware can be pirated. In theory skilled crackers/hackers could disassemble an expensive hardware box like a tc3000 reverb, and reprogram it as a VST effects plugin. Of course this would take a long time. But in theory it is possible.

So I guess my response is that you can\'t protect yourself from crackers with copy-protection schemes.

A thought would be to use some kind of memory resident (TSR) program that sends out information about your library to an online database, which verifies its origin and serial number + username (That would require online registration of the sample cd) to ensure that it\'s not a duplicate. This require the user to go online prior to loading his samples, send the information to the database server, and then disconnect when his cd had been approved. He would have to do this each and every time he loaded Gigastudio and those samples.

Of course crackers would find a way around this too, by reprogramming the software to obtain access to the library by routing the online request to a local host and set up a fake local server that grants permission to everything.

If people don\'t understand what I\'m talking about don\'t bother to ask. It is of no importance to the average consumer.
I\'m just trying to explain how hard it is to get by the means of crackers and pirates.

Thomas

Lance_M

03-21-2002, 09:40 AM

While it is pretty much impossible to completely stop pirating, some of the simpler protection techniques can help thwart pirating between \"newbies\", I guess you could say.

For example, John Doe could loan his copy of Ultimate Strings to Joe Blow at any time he wanted (not legally, of course). But with VotA, for example (not that I\'m calling its protection scheme \"simple\", btw, in reference to my first statement), Joe could lend his copy to John, but then poor ol\' Joe is asked for the original CD one day and has to go through the trouble of getting it back.

You just gotta hope that neither of them will look for alternative, more advanced techniques of stealing your product.

Don\'t \"go for broke\" trying to stop pirating... you\'ll just lose your money. But keep up with the \"tried and tested\" ways of stopping the average customer from screwing you over.

[This message has been edited by Lance_M (edited 03-21-2002).]

SCARBEE

03-21-2002, 10:43 AM

I believe that Nick is right on trying to stop \"peer to peer\" piracy - like 3 studios in same building swapping CD\'s or musicians swapping. This is the ´worst kind, because they would probably buy it. The Pirates who downloads and crack is probably only doing it because it is exciting and fun. I wonder how much they use the stuff they pirate.

Thomas

Vertigo50

03-21-2002, 02:23 PM

As someone who used to actively participate in software piracy, I can tell you that copy protection doesn\'t work.

Before anyone starts flaming me, I don\'t pirate software anymore, and I\'ve thrown out every piece of software I ever pirated. It was a horrible thing for me to have to do, but it felt good doing it.

Anyway, most of you probably only know the tip of the iceberg in piracy. Pirates can hack ANY program. I can\'t stress this enough. Here\'s a perfect example:

As was stated above by Scarbee himself, \"I have bought 3 XP\'s for my PC\'s with the new key-registration system and I hate it, but is is effective.\"

It\'s effective for you, but not for the pirating community. Before XP went out to consumers, it went out in OEM version to companies like Dell, Gateway, and Compaq so that they could set it up on their new systems. This was about 15 days or so before it was supposed to go on market. What happened? The VERY NEXT DAY, XP was all over the internet in its final version. How? The version that they gave to Dell etc. was without copy protection, and therefore easily crackable. Later, someone figured out how to crack the \"uncrackable\" activation scheme anyway. Now, if Microsoft can\'t keep people from cracking their software, no one can.

So, as it has been said before, these people are NEVER going to buy your software, so there is no point in protecting it. Rely on the honesty of people. After all, I finally saw the light, even though it would be nice to have all my software again, my honesty finally won out.

As I said, please do not flame me. I am trying to help.

EnsoniqWiz

03-21-2002, 04:12 PM

I, too, have burned many brain cells debating this issue. In the end, I sincerely believe that copy protection only ends up hurting the legitimate user - especially the legitimate user who is not technically savvy.

Allow me to digress with a brief story... Many years ago, I bought a high end sequencing package for a computer. It was copy protected using a nasty diskette-based system. Sure, it could be installed to a hard drive, but it went back and parsed the floppy drive for the \"special\" disk. I was not aware of this at the time of purchase, or I would have not purchased the product.

Indeed, the protection scheme used was sophisticated. So sophisticated, in fact, as to be somewhat unreliable even with the original disk. But the company that produced the software was \"reasonable...\" They would send you a \"backup disk\" for $25.00. I thought this was complete and total BS, far from reasonable, so I wouldn\'t buy one. Truth be told, I eventually found software that would make backup copies of this disk, and made myself a dozen or so backups to keep in my safe. (And it was a good thing, too. Over the years, I wore out at least 8 of these disks. And no, I didn\'t give them to anyone else). God help the non-savvy user who had no skills to keep their legitimately purchased software working.

I will no longer purchase software that includes copy protection schemes.

But that aside -- here is my view as a computer professional, a musician, and a purchaser of software products... I am tired (damn tired) of spending TONS of money on unstable, misrepresented, poor quality software (or equivalent). In my life, I have spent literally thousands of dollars on software, and I\'m sick of getting stuck!

As a consumer, I want to be able to try stuff before I buy it. I want to SEE it work, in my environment, on my system, doing the things I want it to do. I\'m tired of paying for things that are simply not up to even low standards.

As a computer professional (who has written and sold commercial software in the past), I want to see developers make good money for making a good product, and I want to see bad products either improve or be darwinized out of the market.

Bottom line is this. Piracy cannot be stopped. It can be reduced. There are ways to do this, I believe.

1) Reasonable pricing strategies for software makes it \"not worth someone\'s time\" to pirate

2) Make real-world demos a possibility so people can honestly try the software

3) Modularize the cost. Plug-ins are a great idea! This allows the consumer to spend money more directly on what they need, rather than paying a fortune for features that will remain unused.

4) Make purchasing and upgrading easy - downloadable, etc.

5) Make stable stuff that works!

Oh well -- flame away! Just my $.02

Mark_Knecht

03-21-2002, 09:41 PM

No flames. I think this is a great set of goals.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by EnsoniqWiz:

1) Reasonable pricing strategies for software makes it \"not worth someone\'s time\" to pirate

2) Make real-world demos a possibility so people can honestly try the software

3) Modularize the cost. Plug-ins are a great idea! This allows the consumer to spend money more directly on what they need, rather than paying a fortune for features that will remain unused.

4) Make purchasing and upgrading easy - downloadable, etc.

5) Make stable stuff that works!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

03-21-2002, 11:18 PM

I believe that Mansie is spot on. I think developers have to take a much wider view here of what they\'re trying to achieve.

Unlike \'normal\' software, you guys can \'watermark\' your samples. This seems like the ideal way to ensure that professionals are not pirating your stuff and making money from it. This kind of piracy is, in my opinion, despicable.

So you already have the answer to that one in watermarking.

The other type; the type that cause Nick to go out and bolt on bits and pieces is simply penalizing legitimate customers. (Sorry to single you out Nick, maybe not fair - but I\'m referring to the ball-and-chain approach employed on your strat; and I just use this an example that most of us may be familiar with.)

Microsft used make a lot of noise about this, but they knew that every pirated copy of their software could eventually produce a legitimate sale.

The same goes for the whole dreaded Napster debacle; music companies squeal about it but there is no evidence that their sales were hurt in any way (the opposite is probably the case).

This is not going to be popular, but I\'d like to see a way where we could use the software; if we like it then we pay, if we don\'t then bin it.

This way is probably very scary to developers, but ultimately it is the most effective marketing tool in the world. Then care for the legitimate customers with fixes, updates, freebies etc. Build a relationship with the customer; make him feel welcome. Saying things like \"people are pigs\" (sorry again Nick) is not the way forward. It doesn\'t hurt a developer if a million copies are used by people at home; you will garner sales from that million, it simply will happen, and the rest would never pay anyway.

Half-arsed protection schemes only accelerate piracy because most of the people involved in cracking don\'t care what they\'re cracking.

Scarbee, Munsie\'s right also about your libraries: get them into the non-exclusive arena, you have a set of libraries that would be in gigantic demand and could make you very wealthy were it not for the exclusivity that Tascam enjoys.

This takes me to another point though. All this talk about \'protection\' of what are essentially copies (I don\'t need to read another post about how hard it is or how much work went into it, or how much the developer paid a musician) leaves a sour taste.

Nemesys has built a platform that allows people who previously had decent studio facilities to jump (inexpensively) onto the bandwagon. I think some reflection is in order here. There is certainly a difference between Scarbee producing a Bass library full of his own articulations and a straight Steinway. I can only assume that musical instrument companies are too covered in cobwebs to see what is taking place at an exponential rate.

Perhaps one of the more prolific developers can experiment here. Try a sharware approach? It will be stolen no matter what you do. You cannot protect it, so it might be worth going with the flow to see what happens.

Munsie

03-21-2002, 11:48 PM

\"The Pirates who downloads and crack is probably only doing it because it is exciting and fun. I wonder how much they use the stuff they pirate.\"

I would think the loop libraries in acid format, mainly techno, drum&bass, dance, are heavily pirated and used by all of those 15-21 year old newbies, dj\'s, etc. A sample library that has to be \"played\", especially like your bass libraries, just dosn\'t have that instant gratification that a loop library offers to pirates. Therefore I would think those libraries are dealing with pirating on a whole new level. Actually I KNOW they are. I see it all the time in other general forums. People trading loops all the time.

The only pirates worth even thinking about are the composers who rip you off and then try to make money with your samples. These guys need to be kicked in the *** and thrown in jail. Watermarking would seem to be the best solution to combat this.

If you can, all of your downloads should be served from a seprate server, go register scarbeefiles.com now. And make sure to have log reporting on so you can see who downloads your samples. (via the ip address) Another good thing about a seperate download server is, if you need to switch over to a faster provider, you don\'t need to worry about your main site, just the downloads!

Obviosuly Giga32 is going to bring in some newbies to the Giga arena. Keep this in mind, the ONLY reason they bought it over the other versions is the price. Do you think those users are going to be able to spend 150.00-300.00 on a sample library? No way. You may want to come out with a cheap jam bass (under $60.00 or so) that can be downloaded. Just a thought, and then contact Tascam and purchase thier Giga32 user database and email them an offer they can\'t refuse! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

JoE

03-22-2002, 02:29 AM

I agree that the piracy problem is indeed severe, especially in the audio community. Advanced software and sample libraries tend to be on the expensive side because (a) quality is top priority, which makes for long and expensive development (both in software and sample libraries) and (b) the volume of sale isn\'t that big. And the giga-market is a very small part of the audio scene where (a) and (b) are particularly severe.

Then, on the other hand, there\'s the problem that cracking protection schemes is, in most cases, an easy task. In my opinion, at least Nemesys (at the time) should have invested some mor effort in attempting to assist library developers in protecting their products. It _is_ possible to provide for ways to identify the libraries used in a recording. And it _is_ possible to keep track of the legitimate buyers of expensive libraries in this small market. Combining these two things would make many composers think twice before commercially using nonlegitimate copies of libraries, for example. (Of course I\'m not suggesting that composers should have to constantly prove that they legitimately own library XY. But in the current situation you could probably use pirated samples in your work and feel very safe selling the sound in your final recording.)
And then again, Nemesys/Tascam wasn\'t even able to prevent the beta version of 2.5 from appearing on the web before it showed up in the stores.
For libraries, watermarking is probably the only feasible solution right now (see my posting of some weeks ago).

It\'s scary to even think what things will be like in, say, 3-5 years when broadband data transmission will be so widespread and webspace will be so big that up-/downloading entire CDs worth of samples will be a minor problem.

I don\'t mean to ruin anybody\'s day, but I feel that (since we\'re seriously discussing the piracy issue here) I should share with you what I recently found on the web. It certainly cured me of any hope that there exists any audio product, program or library, that\'s not being pirated.
But before I do, please let me say this: (1) I actively fight piracy and it\'s on this mission that I found the website referenced below. So I\'m in no way associated with any kind of piracy activity. (2) This site doesn\'t appear to provide ways to purchase the pirated products it lists. So this information shouldn\'t help anyone who wants to engage in illegal activity. I don\'t even understand the purpose of that site. However, it\'s informative. And maybe it\'s old news.

But here it is: try http://discography.x2.nu/ (\"http://discography.x2.nu/\")

Please don\'t flame me for posting this. I really feel that all developers should know about the piracy status of their products and think of solutions.

But I agree that there is some good news. Most likely, the vast majority of those who \'own\' pirate copies of audio software of libraries are\'n even able to properly use these products. Neither an orchestral library nor sophisticated sequencer software is very rewarding unless you sit down for days and weeks and figure out the particularities of these products. The real problem is with those who _would_ almost certainly be buyers if they had no means to get their hands on illegal copies.

[This message has been edited by JoE (edited 03-22-2002).]

Jamieh

03-22-2002, 03:04 AM

>So, as it has been said before, these people are NEVER going to buy your software, so there is no point in protecting it. Rely on the honesty of people.

You are right, there are some people that are never going to buy your software.

HOWEVER....

Sometimes even honest people who would never steal anything else in their life, when forced to choose between paying $1000 for a library or making a copy for a friend, will give in to temptation and make the copy. They may even justify it by splitting the cost with their friend. These are not bad people. It is just too convenient and tempting, especially on very expensive products.

These are the people that, when faced with copy protection, are far more likely to just buy the product. It is the casual copying that you can stop with copy protection. And to be honest, in the sample library business, I would think that casual copying is hurting more than any huge pirating rings. The sample libraries are just too specialized to be of wide interest.

Just as a disclaimer, I have NEVER pirated a sample library, but I also make good money as a software engineer and I can drop the big money on sounds without worrying about it. I\'m sure there are lots of up and coming music guys who don\'t have a lot of cash and are really tempted to copy libraries. These are the people that might save up and spend the money if getting a copy wasn\'t so easy.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 03-22-2002).]

Damon

03-22-2002, 03:28 AM

I always thought selling individual gigs is a great idea like Sonic Implants and Sampleheads. I like the fact that Dan Dean also sells seperate instruments from his libraries http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif. Scarbees demos always sound great to me so I would just buy the whole library for that price.
There are so many libraries with sounds I would love to have, but there are alot of other sounds I just wouldnt use. You could always buy the complete library as well if you dig the sounds enough afterwards.
Depends on the library too. I wouldn\'t expect Gary to sell individual string samples from GOS, but some of these other libraries with 15 or so instruments would be great to be able to buy that certain sound you\'re looking for.
Just a thought http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Damon (edited 03-22-2002).]

David Abraham

03-22-2002, 07:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Munsie:
Hi Scarbee,

but I also want you to stick around and make your J-Pick library, and your guitar library, put your libraries in Roland, Akai, Halion, formats TODAY! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

absolutely, this is the -only- reason I don\'t have this killer bass library today. Libraries should be as sampler agnostic as possible.

-david abraham

shawn

03-22-2002, 07:22 AM

<<<A thought would be to use some kind of memory resident (TSR) program that sends out information about your library to an online database, which verifies its origin and serial number + username (That would require online registration of the sample cd) to ensure that it\'s not a duplicate. This require the user to go online prior to loading his samples, send the information to the database server, and then disconnect when his cd had been approved. He would have to do this each and every time he loaded Gigastudio and those samples.>>>

That sounds like a bloody awful idea. My audio/Gigastudio computer isn\'t anywhere near a modem, nor do I want it to be. And I\'m sure there are others who feel the same way. And even if that wasn\'t the case, I would scream bloody murder the first time the server went down, thereby not allowing me to use my legitimately purchased/licensed/whatever samples whenever I bloody well want to.

Don\'t take it personally, though. I just wanted to see how many times I could use \"bloody\" in a paragraph without discussing actual blood.

-Shawn

shawn

03-22-2002, 07:25 AM

Whoops. I was trying to quote this in the post above:

\"A thought would be to use some kind of memory resident (TSR) program that sends out information about your library to an online database, which verifies its origin and serial number + username (That would require online registration of the sample cd) to ensure that it\'s not a duplicate. This require the user to go online prior to loading his samples, send the information to the database server, and then disconnect when his cd had been approved. He would have to do this each and every time he loaded Gigastudio and those samples.\"

JohnS

03-22-2002, 07:33 AM

I will throw in my $ .02, also. It would appear that there is no silver bullet to totally solve this problem, but there are additional steps that can be taken to increase the legal purchasing of libraries, as opposed to pirating. Because some of those who use illegal libraries do have vulnerabilities. I would think that the \"buyer\" of audio content done with giga libraries would be sympathetic to copy pirating, since his games, movies, TV shows, or whatever may also be illegally copied which may cause his revenue loss. Therefore, the \"content buyers\" may be willing to become participants in \"certifying\" that all audio content they are purchasing from individuals or companies is created with legally acquired and owned libraries.

It could begin with something as simple as requiring all work submitted to content purchasers including a form certifying all samples used in the content and that they were legally acquired. Then a little more \"bite\" could be put into this effort if a special sample identification program was available to \"content purchasers\". What would this program do? It would pick out all watermarked libraries, then identify the library name, creator and the serial number. A simple phone call to the creator, or an internet connection to a clearing house could confirm legal ownership. Then, hopefully, \"content makers\" would be less willing to risk putting pirated samples in the work they are trying to sell, (knowing they could actually get caught) and thereby embarrass themselves, jeopardize their relationship with the \"content purchaser\", and thereby make them a participant in using stolen libraries.

Probably to do this, all libraries would have to be \"watermarked\" with a generally accepted standard and a free \"program\" would have to be distributed to content purchasers that could identify watermarked samples in audio. Obviously, something like this would require a lot of cooperation and support from Tascam, sample developers, content purchasers and others. But at least it could put pressure on those who \"are\" providing content, or are \"trying\" to provide content to consider using legally purchased samples. This may all be a bit elaborate, but there is no easy way.

SCARBEE

03-22-2002, 09:29 AM

The may be a spiritual side of all this piracy. Maybe it is because software arrived so suddenly and became so dominant.
We haven\'t had the time to grasp the fact that software have a real value - even if you can download it or copy it for no money.

If I went into a supermarket and took for $199 food and ran as fast as I could, I would look at myself as a thief. That\'s it.

A great Roman once said that true moral was when you did less than the law allowed and more than the law expected.

Everytime I buy software - big or small I get a good feeling. And sometimes fine relations - even friends. I believe in karma - if I support small companies others will support me.

Peace

Thomas

Archangel

03-22-2002, 09:58 AM

Guys, I\'m thinking about it.....didn\'t you solve the problem with watermarking the .gig file?

Or there\'s the infamous \"put the original CD in your CD drive\" thread about this....

Point is, sadly, as long as we\'re living in a world based on money, there will always be people that will cheat the system.

But I\'m thinking about this.... why would someone make pirate copies of giga libraries? What will he get for? He can\'t produce commercial music because of the copyright of the samples! Unless, when a musician wants to sell his music, the guy who will buy the music has to check the license.

Thus my solution is : whenever money is involved, if you\'re a commercial CD producer or somebody that buys music from a musician, ASK HIM TO BRING HIS LICENSE.

Otherwise, the guy will be stucked with his own Cds and will do nothing. Furthermore, if the musician can\'t show you the licences, you just found pirated copies..... on the paper, to avoid copies, you should put micro-codes that can be scanned in a special machine....but remember , this technique will only REDUCE pirating, not stop it...

Archangel

JohnS

03-22-2002, 10:53 AM

I’ll just make a few final remarks on my previous idea. As I think about my earlier post, I tend to think it would be best to go with only simple certification letter. This could be a sample of a certifying letter that would be required by content purchasers when they buy work from an individual or company

I, Jaun A. B. A. Pirate, certify that the following samples used in the submitted work are legally owned by me:

Sample Library Purchased from
1.
2.
3.

I further agree that this document and/or the music project may be sent to “Online Ownership Verification” to verify sample ownership.

Name: Jaun A B A Pirate
Company: Dewey, Cheetam and Howe Music, Inc.
Address:
Phone:
Email:
Signature:

The “Online Ownership Verification” company could verify sample ownership and provide a “ownership verification” report to the studio, company, or content purchaser. In addition the certification would act as a guaranteed legal document to protect content purchasers (CD manufacturers, Studios, ect) from lawsuits by all member sample library producers. With something as simple as this, all new sample producers could be given additional protection (as well as older existing libraries) by merely establishing a small certifying company. The verifying company could be funded through dues, fees and grants. Anyway, that’s all.

PatS

03-22-2002, 12:33 PM

Watermarking your files is a reasonable solution . . . for now. Anything else is most likely a waste of time and money.

I recently discovered how to extend \"timed\" demos indefinitely for two music-related products. I\'ve notified the two companies and explained to them how I was able to circumvent the anti-piracy authorization scheme (a 3rd-party product), effectively resetting the counter. It takes a smidge of effort and only about 15 minutes of my time. But in the end I can freely and indefinitely use products that add up to about $2,000.

Do I use these essentially unprotected demos? Nope. In fact, I\'ve already uninstalled them. The urge is there, I\'ll grant you that, but the angel on my shoulder yells just a bit louder than the devil on the other side. Of course, as I told the companies, you\'ll just have to take my word for it, which is probably the best you sample developers can get from us consumers, should you opt for weak copy-protection methods.

BTW, last night I purchased and downloaded the Cakewalk FX3 plugin (Cakewalk is not one of the companies in question). I like buying stuff. If I had more money, I\'d buy more stuff. None of this means that I\'ll take stuff \"without asking\" if I don\'t have the money. Of course, I can, but I don\'t feel good about it, so I won\'t. Others can, and they don\'t give a rat\'s arse about it, so they will.

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 03-22-2002).]

03-22-2002, 01:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SCARBEE:
.

A great Roman once said that true moral was when you did less than the law allowed and more than the law expected.

Peace

Thomas

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Thomas. Didn\'t notice this quote. Hope you weren\'t talking about ancient Rome when you could flog and rape your slaves within the law, and you were a stand up guy if you only raped them?

Someone also said \"the law is an arse\" (not quite, but I didn\'t want to say \'Donkey\' to avoid censorship).

I think we should try not to be so mealy-mouthed about this either (not directed at you Thomas). I see the same developers here griping about copy-protection who can\'t be arsed to apply any kind of tracking at all; that would require some effort. I don\'t see anything on my libraries apart from a piece of paper (if that). I bought them from online stores. There is no formal relationship with the developer that I can see.

Much easier just to stick a lock-and-key on it, and then cry thief if someone is not satisfied. I don\'t see any other sector (not even regular software) where the customer is treated like a criminal if he does anything other than swallow whatever \'bad\' decisions (based on a few paltry MP3s) he made.

Please, please, please JUST LET ME KNOW IN A LOUD AND CLEAR VOICE THAT I MIGHT BE BUYING A BRAIN-DAMAGED PRODUCT.

I don\'t expect decent return policies, but if developers insist on \'tickling\' the crackers at the expense of customers, the market for these products will indeed become as small and limited as many developers would like us to believe is currently the case.

And here\'s a thought: I bought the Malmsjo recently and I also own the Dan Dean strings. At $100 apiece they are a steal. This is the kind of customer satisfaction that absolutely ensures a strong market. I also bought RI before Nick went on his protection crusade - thank god (and if you stand outside my window on a Saturday morning you can check out the watermarks).

Online registers, databases, stealth software. I want none of it! When I buy; that is it. That is all of my time that you can have. If you can track me, that\'s great. Dan Dean offers updates on his site. That works for me.

Do not ever make any inroads on my time or patience. I am not your pal if I have paid you money. If you want anything at all from me, you must pay, just as I have paid you.

I\'d like to see less sucking up to developers and more pressure to show them the real market that exists outside of John Williams wanabee-land. You want to sell big? Well, get working guys. Because some of the people making all these helpful suggestions as to how you can protect your software are not the wider market you crave (whoops, sorry, you do it for fun, music, the soul...). Many people here have a vested interest in seeing the market remain small and exclusive - to give them an \'edge\' they way Nick has branded his \'edge\' onto his VoTA library license.

pantonality

03-22-2002, 03:09 PM

I agree with the many posters here that watermarking is the only way to actively go after the pirates that count. However, I believe it\'s important that sample developers add value.

GOS is a great library, but the documentation puts it in a class by itself. Owning the samples is one thing, but being a legitimate owner with the documentation is quite another. I was disappointed by Biggas Orchestral Brass in that there was no documentation whatsoever. Did I miss something? In any case great documentation makes a big difference.

Steve http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler (\"http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler\")
aka Ettienne http://www.mp3.com/ettienne (\"http://www.mp3.com/ettienne\")

Jamieh

03-22-2002, 04:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We can tape movies and watch them at home. We can tape songs and listen to them at home. Would it really be so bad to say we can use samples at home, then if we use those samples for profit, that is when the law is broken? That is when it becomes theft?

It is not at all like stealing from a supermarket. Microsoft became a giant almost because of piracy.

Haven\'t any of you guys ever used a piece of software you\'ve never paid for? I haven\'t met a single person in my life who ever asked if the software was legal before they sat down at a computer.

If you have ever used a piece of software you didn\'t pay for, when are you going to turn yourself in to the FBI? Hell, you are a thief, even if you didn\'t know it was pirated, ignorance of the law is no defence in the eyes of the law.

At Northern Sounds either many people are holier than thou, or nobody wants to come clean.

I do not believe it hurts the developer one bit if someone uses their samples for fun. And I believe that because it is a simple reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is attitudes like this that are the biggest problem. It IS just like stealing from a supermarket. The fact that you don\'t see it that way is the problem. As someone who writes software for a living, I find your position on pirating somewhat offensive.

Just because something is easy to steal does not make it OK to do so. And your argument about people who only \"play with it at home\" not having to buy stuff is laughable. Perhaps we should stop charging for basketballs, baseballs and footballs for those that are only going to \"play around with them at home\".

The reason you can tape something off the radio or TV and replay it is that someone HAS ALREADY PAID FOR IT. Someone, either the radio station or the TV station, has PAID for the rights to distribute the song or show to people. Sample libraries and or computer software has NOT been paid for in this manner.

And the major source of pirating, at least of sample libraries, isn\'t some 15 years olds, so that part of your argument doesn\'t fly either.

The FACT is that someone or some company has spent a huge amount of time and money to create the software or sample library, and a person is using it without paying for it. This is stealing, plain and simple. I don\'t care that it is easy to do, that doesn\'t make it right.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 03-22-2002).]

03-22-2002, 05:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
It is attitudes like this that are the biggest problem. It IS just like stealing from a supermarket.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. No it\'s not. It is quite different from stealing from a supermarket. Perhaps instead of trying to find new protection schemes, we could find some kind of \'attitude altering device\'. After all, it is attitudes \'like this\' that are the biggest problem, is it not?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

The fact that you don\'t see it that way is the problem. As someone who writes software for a living, I find your position on pirating somewhat offensive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the fact that I see it \'that way\' isn\'t the problem at all. How could my view of this issue BE THE PROBLEM? As someone who works in the software industry for a living, I don\'t find my position offensive in the least (strangely?). I hope you don\'t think that your opinion represents all software developers, because it doesn\'t. I\'m assuming you mentioned your occupation for some reason or other?

Interestingly, it is in the field of software where I have most come upon \'pirates\'. Surprise, surprise! How could that be I wonder?

So you are the guy then? You are the one I was talking about? The guy who has never in his life ever used \'illegal\' software? Well, by gum, I am proud that my attitude (or an attitude \'like\' mine) has been designated by your good self as the \'source\' that leads to such a life of crime.

Or could you, like many here, be a \'reformed character\'? Perhaps once upon a time you used pirated software, but no more? No more! By god. That\'s breaking the law, and only bad people do that. Maybe you were young? Maybe you didn\'t know any better? Perhaps you couldn\'t afford some software that, given the chance to use, you could turn into a career?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Just because something is easy to steal does not make it OK to do so. And your argument about people who only \"play with it at home\" not having to buy stuff is laughable. Perhaps we should stop charging for basketballs, baseballs and footballs for those that are only going to \"play around with them at home\".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn\'t say it was OK to steal, nor do I think it\'s necessarily easy to do so. It is certainly easy for those who have the knowledge to do so, and the rest of us get penalized for it.

If you only had to make one basketball and then you could make a million copies for a couple of cents apiece. Yes. Yes. Yes. Get those balls out to the kids who don\'t have any balls! Then we can produce other things; like food and shelter for the planet (having already taken care of the balls department with our handy ball-copier).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

The reason you can tape something off the radio or TV and replay it is that someone HAS ALREADY PAID FOR IT. Someone, either the radio station or the TV station, has PAID for the rights to distribute the song or show to people. Sample libraries and or computer software has NOT been paid for in this manner.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The reason I can tape something is because the law allows it. This is not a market-driven \'gift\' from all of those wonderful entertainment executives. Years ago, when this question was moot, the same people made the same arguments you are making here. All hell was going to break loose, the whole entertainment industry would grind to a halt. It was stealing! It was stealing!

It didn\'t happen. The entertainment industry became more powerful, and more wealthy. The proliferation of copies (as I have been at pains to allude to) seems somehow to expand and nurture the market itself. It is a very, very interesting point that has not been properly explained by any economic theory that I am aware of (although I remain blissfully unaware of most economic theories, preferring instead to live in a non-comatose state during my waking hours).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

And the major source of pirating, at least of sample libraries, isn\'t some 15 years olds, so that part of your argument doesn\'t fly either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says who? You? How do you know what the major source of pirating is? Are you saying that if it were 15-year olds, then that\'s OK? Who are they then? Let me hazzard a guess: How about small studio owners? Composers trying to break into TV? Tell me, who would need those samples then? Other developers maybe?

Understand that I\'m not trying to \'fly an argument\'. I\'m trying to talk about this subject in an open fashion rather than damning it with all the \'good guys\'.

No, I don\'t think it\'s black& white. I would bet the house that there isn\'t a single developer who has never \'bent\' the law on copyright (I don\'t need to go into the \'fringe\' examples of how this \'bending\' might occur; let\'s just say if all developers had an FBI agent stuck up their arses for the last ten years, would there be any copyright violations taking place? (Fill-in your own answers here))

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

The FACT is that someone or some company has spent a huge amount of time and money to create the software or sample library, and a person is using it without paying for it. This is stealing, plain and simple. I don\'t care that it is easy to do, that doesn\'t make it right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You keep saying how easy it is. Is it really? I don\'t think so. I think it\'s easy in the sense that there are people who can do it, but you won\'t stop those people anyway. YOU WON\'T STOP THESE PEOPLE ANYWAY. MAN, I KEEP TRYING TO TURN UP THE VOLUME ON THIS THING, BUT THIS IS AS HIGH AS IT GOES. SORRY.

It really is not the same as stealing other things. This isn\'t an opinion for you to find offensive, this is a fact. It is a victimless crime. There is no loss - Now listen carefully: The only effect on a developer by having millions of people illegally using his libraries would be that some or many of those users might eventually become bona fide customers. There is no other \'measurable\' effect. His bank balance cannot go down according to the number of \'pirates\'(although I get sick of hearing the myth about \'how much they would have made\' yeah; in their dreams), but it may go up. His blood pressure would only go up according to his own penchant for allowing it to vex him.

To imagine somehow that if it weren\'t for those pesky pirates that the developer would be making $X more is not accepting reality.

In the meantime, let\'s stop providing developers with hair-brained ideas to \'protect\' their work. The paying customer is the only one who will suffer.

I don\'t think developers need another: \"Yes. I agree. I think it\'s all bloody dreaful. You poor things. I\'m right with you. Do anything. You\'re all wonderful geniuses who need protection.\"

All of this \"I agree\", \"I don\'t agree\" is so much pantomime. And \"Your attitude... I find offensive...\" is about as bloody offensive as it gets.

Telling someone that his \'attitude\' is offensive rather than just being openly personal doesn\'t get you off the hook for being a complete wanker pal.

And if this post is as offensive as it is long and boring then that\'s fine with me.

And by the way. That\'s the last time I want to be quoted by you (it is copyright because I say so). I get paid good money for this in the real world, and I\'m tired of half-wits such as yourself finding me offensive. Take a phuckin ticket man and get to the end of the line.

Jamieh

03-22-2002, 05:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And by the way. That\'s the last time I want to be quoted by you (it is copyright because I say so). I get paid good money for this in the real world, and I\'m tired of half-wits such as yourself finding me offensive. Take a phuckin ticket man and get to the end of the line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what? You can take your attitude and shove it you know where.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Telling someone that his \'attitude\' is offensive rather than just being openly personal doesn\'t get you off the hook for being a complete wanker pal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine. YOU are offensive. As are your opinions. Happy?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
It really is not the same as stealing other things. This isn\'t an opinion for you to find offensive, this is a fact. It is a victimless crime. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolute BS. Stealing software/sample libraries is NO DIFFERENT that stealing ANY OTHER PRODUCT that is for sale. The product was created by someone for sale, and the person copying it is using it ILLEGALLY without purchasing it. Just because it is easy to do does NOT make it legal. Claiming it is \"victimless\" just because it didn\'t happen to cost the developer MORE money for someone to steal their product just isn\'t true. If that is true, then why don\'t we just give away all software and sample libraries? Why bother selling them at all? Everyone should just get them free!! Free stuff for everyone!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you only had to make one basketball and then you could make a million copies for a couple of cents apiece. Yes. Yes. Yes. Get those balls out to the kids who don\'t have any balls! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate to break it to you, but they DO make those balls for a couple of cents apiece. And then they sell them for HUGE profit. So why don\'t you go steal a bunch of basketballs for all those people that want one but don\'t want to bother to pay for it.

Whatever you may think, it IS attitudes like yours that encourage piracy. Its that whole \"it\'s a victimless crime\" crap that makes people who would normally not steal anything go out and steal software. Just because you feel that is it OK to violate intellectual properly laws doesn\'t make it any less illegal, any more acceptable, or any less of a problem.

03-22-2002, 06:37 PM

Tell you what Jamieh. I thought this was a forum to discuss sample libraries and associated issues.

I see it is not. The \'good\' people on this forum keep making it clear that diversity will not be tolerated, and attempts at such will be met with mealy-mouthed insults and innuendo.

I see this isn\'t a public forum. It\'s a place to come and agree with anything anyone who\'s \'anyone\' says. I\'ve watched quite a few people disappear from here under a flood of sycophancy.

I\'ll hang on for a little while longer just to see if there are any real live adults frequenting this place (I know there are, but so few, I\'m not sure it\'s worth it).

I\'m getting tired of this, you\'ll be thrilled to hear.

Ah, Jamieh, Jamieh, jamieh, if only this technology allowed me to just reach right in and smack you hard in the mouth. I would be so relieved (unless, of course, you\'re a six foot five ex-boxer, then I\'d simply compliment you on your penetrating insights and original thought).

Of course you must be right. All software copying is piracy (although I asked you not to quote me and you did - morally, that\'s equivalent to copyright GBH at least - see how easy it is to trample on the rights of others, when you have no respect for others? Why, a few years ago I could have made four or five hundred dollars from that post by turning it into an article, but nevertheless, you used it. You copied it. You sir, are a bounder and a pirate! Tee, hee, hee. And if you think that\'s NOT THE SAME then you are worse than a \'pirate\'. You rubbed my own words in my face - even though I claimed copyright? Sure it\'s not strong copyright, the way Nick\'s got that bars his competition, but just saying something is copyright is enough in the UK to make it so! I\'m sure you\'ll just think this is flippant? That you can trample on my rights. But what do you care? You know you are good and that\'s the main thing.

But I now agree that it is my attitude that causes all the woes of the world. That when people use words like \'Karma\', it is wrong to examine a statement that assumes the high moral ground for itself.

You are right. From this moment forth, when someone \'famous\' answers a post of mine, I will thank him \'especially\', because I know how busy he is. When a TV composer posts, I will wet myself profusely and wonder how I, with all of my foibles, could possibly share the same data space as he.

When a developer comes down from Olympus, I will thank him and thank him and thank him, for I am not worthy.

And one day in the future I might become good and kind like you Jamieh. It is just a dream I know, but even I can dream.

So, the ball copier of which I spoke exists? Indeed this is a wonderful world is it not?

I think you will solve this problem. These developers should be thankful they have your expertise in this matter.

I also think we should execute people who smoke dope and Nelson mandella should be hunted down as a terrorist.

The scales are falling from my eyes. It is much simpler than I had imagined.

Many thanks good friend. I don\'t deserve your insights.

Jamieh

03-22-2002, 06:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The \'good\' people on this forum keep making it clear that diversity will not be tolerated, and attempts at such will be met with mealy-mouthed insults and innuendo.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should go back and read the posts and see exactly who is handing out \"insults\". I merely voiced an opinion that your views on piracy were somewhat offensive to me. To which you responded with a floodgate of insults. To which you\'ve now added threats of physical violence, as if that somehow makes you a big man to threaten someone you don\'t know and will probably never meet.

I guess your desire for \"diversity\" and free opinions on this board doesn\'t extend to someone disagreeing with you huh?

For someone who supposedly thinks I\'m a \"wanker\" with a worthless opinion, you seem to be pretty \"bloody\" worked up over it. So I\'ll give you another opinion: I suggest you chill out a bit.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 03-22-2002).]

Archangel

03-22-2002, 08:32 PM

Guys,

you should leave piracy fighting concern to developers instead of bitching each other no? I mean, it\'s not a fight, it\'s a forum ... sure we can tell our opinion, but do not turn the forum into a
\"flame=a-guy\" machine....
Let\'s close that thread and talk about some other things...

Archangel

03-22-2002, 11:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SCARBEE:
The may be a spiritual side of all this piracy...

If I went into a supermarket and took for $199 food and ran as fast as I could, I would look at myself as a thief. That\'s it.

Peace

Thomas

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas, but if you only had to grow the food once and then you could make millions of copies to feed the world, then what?

Is it really so bad (karma-wise) for some kid to use your bass in his bedroom because he just loves it? Would you really deny him that pleasure knowing that he cannot afford it, and maybe he\'ll use it for a while, then throw it away or maybe he\'ll save up to buy it?

What kind of karma does trying to find a way to stop that produce? Do you get a pain somewhere if some fifteen year-old kid says \"I\'ve got the Scarbee bass! It\'s the best there is. I love it.\" Or another says \"let\'s club together and buy the Scarbee?\"

Does that get you in the pocketbook? Or is it physical pain? Or is it ethereal? Is it karmic pain? Will the kid die and get reborn as a dung beetle for his sins?

Does that actually hurt? Are these people felons? Thieves?

Current policy and all this talk of resident programs and ugly protection schemes ENCOURAGES piracy.

That\'s what I was trying to get at by asking what it is that developers want to achieve.

We can tape movies and watch them at home. We can tape songs and listen to them at home. Would it really be so bad to say we can use samples at home, then if we use those samples for profit, that is when the law is broken? That is when it becomes theft?

It is not at all like stealing from a supermarket. Microsoft became a giant almost because of piracy.

Haven\'t any of you guys ever used a piece of software you\'ve never paid for? I haven\'t met a single person in my life who ever asked if the software was legal before they sat down at a computer.

If you have ever used a piece of software you didn\'t pay for, when are you going to turn yourself in to the FBI? Hell, you are a thief, even if you didn\'t know it was pirated, ignorance of the law is no defence in the eyes of the law.

At Northern Sounds either many people are holier than thou, or nobody wants to come clean.

I do not believe it hurts the developer one bit if someone uses their samples for fun. And I believe that because it is a simple reality.

It is only the perception that something has been stolen that \'hurts\'. The reality of little Timmy pretending he\'s Jaco after school simply does not hurt the developer.

Watermarking is all you need to make any difference at all to the only real problem you face or can do anything about. You guys are in software heaven; you already have the means to protect your work.

Trying to \'protect\' the stuff from being illegally copied should be a non-issue. It is ludicrous.

If I ever buy a library that demands that I insert the original disk, or it runs a memory-resident program without my permission, not only will I want my money back, I\'ll want the developer in the vicinity while my head explodes.

This kind of protection is dimwitted and childish. It is the ONLY thing I want to hear about when a library is released.

Developers should start giving money-back guarantees and stop ballet-dancing around like artistes. If you make a good product, treat the customer well and provide support, you will make money.

There is far too much talk about how to protect developers and not enough (not any, even) about protecting the consumer here.

It is disgraceful to put libraries on the market for hundreds or thousands of dollars with no way for the customer to be compensated if unsatisfied. Jeez, I even read people here droning on about how stupid customers are, or it\'s their own fault etc.

COPY PROTECTION? KARMA? The libraries that are most copied will be the ones that make the most money. I believe if one could actually do a study of this (without throwing all the participants in jail for this heinous crime) you would find a direct correlation between numbers of sales and copies (that is; a causal relationship where sales are increased by the proliferation of illegal copies).

The sooner that these things are tested in the courts the better. The libraries that do not contain dim-bulb protection schemes will do better. When we can (blasphemy, blasphemy) return purchases, the items purchased will find a wider, paying customer base.

Peace, goodwill, nice thoughts, prayers and lollipops, candy-floss and puppies to all the world: But if you ever steal my stuff I\'ll have you crucified, drawn and quartered you scurvy dogs!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

[This message has been edited by Z6 (edited 03-22-2002).]

Cool7s_Dad

03-23-2002, 02:12 PM

Ah Z6. You\'re a man after my own heart. Hang in there, bud. You\'re so very right on this issue, and you\'re so very articulate in the way that you express yourself.

Things are changing, though. It was just about a year ago that Nick Phoenix threatened to punch me in the face for suggesting that a different business model was in order. Today, several sample vendors offer online purchases and instruments purchased separately.

These vendors will fumble around with copy protection for a while and eventually give up on it... or go out of business. As you\'ve pointed out, it\'s costly and pointless and could destroy their market base.

The next big sea change that needs to occur is to be able to easily do returns. As I\'ve pointed out before, it would be well within the law for someone to return Quantum Leap Brass for a full refund. It just hasn\'t yet been brought to court yet. But no court in the country is going to uphold the assertion that there can be no recompense for a substandard product (not to suggest that QLB is substandard), or one that does not fit the customer\'s needs... particularly when there\'s no way to for the customer to test these things in advance.

Time, and the law, is on the consumer\'s side.

I think the best sentiment you expressed, and the one that is the most appropriate has to do with protecting the customer. Until the consumer has some form of recourse, the vendor will not have, or deserve, any protection.

Peace,
Tim

Chadwick

03-24-2002, 04:11 AM

Can we please not kid ourselves that guys like Thomas and Nick are sitting on bank accounts the size of Bill Gates?

Every time one of these \'developers\' decides he\'ll do another instrument, he has to weigh up the cost of producing the library (including \'lost\' income for the production period) against his potential return via sales. It must leave a very sour taste to be making this decision at the same time as people are suggesting that it doesn\'t harm anyone if a piece of software is duplicated and distributed freely.

I investigated doing a loops CD for a well known company once, only to find that the returns on a good seller were minimal. It made me realise that those of us who\'d like to have the opportunity to buy libraries like GOS, RI and Scarbee are pretty lucky that the developers are in it as much for their own satisfaction as they are for a buck.

On the other side of the coin, please never consider anything as bizarrely counter productive as track sheets for every piece we use samples on!

Watermarking is cool. Even the ball and chain which asks for the original CD every now and then is ok as far as I\'m concerned (as long as it isn\'t every 48 hours!).

[This message has been edited by Chadwick (edited 03-24-2002).]

SCARBEE

03-24-2002, 10:54 AM

It wasn\'t my intention to start a piracy war or complain about the sales of my libraries - never. I was just looking for some experiences so I could get arguments one or the other way.

Please be friends and keep the good spirit here.

Scarbee

Cool7s_Dad

03-24-2002, 11:52 PM

\"It wasn\'t my intention to start a piracy war or complain about the sales of my libraries - never. I was just looking for some experiences so I could get arguments one or the other way.\"

Fair enough. But you must realize when you bring up this subject, the arguments you engender may bring things to the surface that you may not like or agree with.

Chadwick points out that you guys are probably not rich, and are not getting rich building sample libraries. Most of your customers aren\'t rich either. However, the average customer is going to have to have some serious scratch laying around to build a decent sample box with a good enough variety of quality libraries to make real music with. I\'d hate to see the cost spiral upwards even more because of failed, and expensive copy protection schemes. This is exactly the *wrong* direction for things to go.

You have to face facts: A crack will be available for whatever copy protection scheme you use within hours of release. Hours. The evidence to support this assertion is overwhelming.

Therefore, all you can really accomplish by adding some annoying copy protection scheme is to anger a number of your legitimate customers. Watermarking is about the best you\'re going to do from a technical standpoint.

I wish one of you would also at least acknowledge that the customer is also very exposed. The customer can\'t really know what value a sample library is to him until he gets it and uses it. With the current policies of not accepting returns, this gives the customer no recourse at all. I can tell you that I\'ve spent more than $10,000 on sample libraries and I only really use about $2000 worth of them.

The trend towards single sample purchases and downloadable samples could be a viable answer to your problems. Your customers would be less exposed, and therefore more likely to make a purchase, since they could direct their hard-earned dollars at the sounds they really need. You could also roll in a subscription type service where you could provide regular updates and additional sounds for your members. This would also create a recurring revenue stream.

Just food for thought.

Peace,
Tim

SCARBEE

03-25-2002, 01:05 AM

Hi,

I must say that some of the arguments seem odd. It is as if it is legitimate to pirate if you are poor and could\'t buy anyway. So if a poor guy break into my house and steal my TV it\'s OK - because he couldn\'afford it?

This is a political issue but frankly I don\'t believe you have the right to steal even if you are poor.

Think of this: If I get $500 for my libraries each month and you say that everytime I sell one - one is copied. Then I would get $1000 pr. month instead if this copying didn\'t take place. This is a great difference. Eventually it make the difference whether I can solely do libraries or have to work with something else too. Or it means that I can pay back loans, or my wife could work less, etc.

It really matters.

A little \"karma\" story: (I have had so many, that I believe in it...)

Last week I wanted to buy Quark Express and a Mac. Quark Express is EXPENSIVE (more than $2000)

I looked to see if I could buy a second hand Mac and found a Mac G4 where I could get Quark Express, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash - all incl the Mac for $1500! (the programs were cracked...)

But I said no. I then bought Quark Express for my PC and it cost me $2100.

Yesterday a check bumbed in - it was one of my commercial that was played in Finland...

$1800! And I didn\'t expect them at all!!

This is no lie. I have had many experiences like this...

[This message has been edited by SCARBEE (edited 03-25-2002).]

Jamieh

03-25-2002, 03:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can tell you that I\'ve spent more than $10,000 on sample libraries and I only really use about $2000 worth of them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly, between online review resources and the people on this site, you can get a pretty good feel for which libraries are useful and which ones aren\'t. I\'ve also shelled out several grand for sample libraries, however I use instruments off of every single one. Yes they are very expensive. And yes, the customer IS somewhat in a bad position without being able to return stuff. However the research CAN be done to find the sample libraries that are worth the cash.

There are a LOT of ways for pirates to justify why pirating software/sample libraries is \"OK\". \"They are too expensive\". \"I don\'t really use them that much.\" \"Everyone else is stealing them.\" \"I wouldn\'t really have bought it if I hasn\'t stolen it.\" What it really comes down to, is it is too easy to steal. Since it can be done easily AND anonymously, with little to no chance of every getting caught, people do it. That doesn\'t make it right.

Is copy protection the answer? I dunno. I don\'t really feel like having to jump through hoops to use my samples/software. I think the digital watermarking is at least a way to keep people from pirating samples and using them professionally. But if copy protection were to lead to more revenue for sample developers, and in turn lead to more and better sample libraries, it would be a small price to pay IMO. And I know the argument will be that copy protection doesn\'t increase revenue, but I\'m not sure I believe that.

fmfgs

03-25-2002, 03:23 PM

Z6:These products must at least be made tradable, otherwise they will die (and a developer with a dead product might misinterpret the cause of death as \'piracy\' rather than his own lack of foresight).
------------
In Europe we are allowd reselling complete original Packages if we delete all copies and stop using the product. Even Microsoft lost a courtcase in Germany regarding illegal restrictions in theire software license agreement.
A question to my american friends: Has anybody tried these license agreements in a american court? Maybe you just believe this restrictions are valid. If they are, then the amercian customer protection laws are far behind european law.
To the subject of the tread: Watermarking and bring illegal users to court is the way to go for library developers. I know that you would like it better if copying is impossible, but face it: This never ever worked out. Implementing disturbing useless copyprotection will only harm your legitimate customers.
fmfgs

Cool7s_Dad

03-25-2002, 07:09 PM

Dear Z6:

What Congressional district do you live in? \'Cause as soon as I find out, I\'m gonna move there and vote for you to be my representative http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/grin.gif

Dear Scarbee:

No one here has argued that piracy is legitimate. Several of us *have* argued that it is inevitable. You might as well argue about how wrong it is that some guys miss the urinal in a public facility.

As Bruce Richardson has pointed out, the richest man in the world can\'t stop people from pirating Windows XP. What legitimate shot do you think the average sample developer has at stopping piracy?

You seem totally recalcitrant when it comes to the legitimate questions that Z6 and I have raised about protection for the consumer. You have most ardently avoided the issue altogether.

I would have more respect for your plight if you would at least acknowledge the issue and address it... even if I don\'t like the answer. But to continue to ignore it completely shows how little respect you really have for your customers. I can understand how you feel, because I\'ve been victimized by software piracy in the past. But I do not understand this reaction to our questions about the intrinsic value of the products we purchase from you.

If you have little respect for the rights of your customers, then no one will respect your rights as a seller. If you truly believe in Karma, then the fact that piracy is a big problem for you should tell you something.

Nick Phoenix has said, in so many words, that conducting business in a more user-friendly fashion is too much of a hassle and he doesn\'t have time for it. He\'d rather be making music and new libraries. Then he\'s going to be plagued by issues like these. If you don\'t deal with the icky life stuff, then it\'ll just get ickier and eventually make you icky too.

Please understand that these sentiments are expressed with a sincere hope that you succeed in your endeavors. The more you are enriched by your work, the more great work you can do. That\'s all I want. I think you\'d be torpedoing that goal if you failed to understand reality and deal with it accordingly.

Dear Jamieh:

There\'s no way you can get any kind of feel at all for what it\'s like to own a sample library until you actually own it. Reviews and demos are a great help. But they\'re no substitute for actually working with the library.

The HDTV example is a good one. But I think an even better one has to do with cars. I bought a new car a while back. Before I made the purchase I read the reviews, looked in the magazines, and poured over the web sites and marketing literature. My friends all highly recommended the Lexus ES300. It has an excellent buyer satisfaction rating, an excellent reliability record, and a good safety record. All in all, it seemed like an excellent value.

Then I went to the dealership to test drive it. I\'m 6 ft. 2 in. tall. I couldn\'t even fit in the darn thing. The top of my head was firmly planted in the ceiling when I sat in the front seat. I couldn\'t even see out of it. Needless to say, I didn\'t drive it off the lot. All that research and all those recommendations were for nought.

That\'s not to say that the ES300 isn\'t a fine car. That doesn\'t mean that it won\'t fulfill the needs of millions of drivers quite admirably. It\'s just not for me. And because I had the chance to actually drive it before I bought it, I saved myself a lot of heartache.

Dear fmfgs:

You asked: \"A question to my [A]merican friends: Has anybody tried these license agreements in a [A]merican court?\"

Apparently no one has tried this out yet in this niche. However, having been to court on similar intellectual property issues regarding software, I can tell you that it would be handled the same way as it was in Germany.

It doesn\'t matter what you buy. The seller *must* take it back if it is in good, original working condition... no questions asked. With software, the courts have ruled that you must delete and/or surrender all working copies of the product in order to return it, but the dealer must take it back.

The court case I was involved in had to do with high-end publishing software. A very popular publication had used our software for over a year to produce a number of issues of its magazine. Suddenly, they decided they wanted to return it. We said no. The court said yes, and the customer got a full refund... even though they had produced work with it. In addition to that, we had to pay court costs and damages to the customer for lost time dealing with the bugs in our software.

Eventually, someone may test this on sample libraries as well. I hope it\'s never necessary.

There *are* sample producers out there who do the right thing. When the whole Jinjee\'s Horns debacle occured, I received a full refund from Bigga Giggas. As a result, I\'ve done, and will do, business with them again. However, I wouldn\'t care if Nick Phoenix and Donnie sampled Jesus Christ singing \"I\'m a Little Teapot\" and sold it for $3. I still wouldn\'t buy it from them. Attitude is everything.

Peace,
Tim

Mark_Knecht

03-25-2002, 09:05 PM

Wow,
This was a fun thread to read through.

Just a few comments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SCARBEE:
It wasn\'t my intention to start a piracy war or complain about the sales of my libraries - never.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we know this Scarbee. It\'s important that we not lose sight of it in the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SCARBEE:
I must say that some of the arguments seem odd. It is as if it is legitimate to pirate if you are poor and could\'t buy anyway. So if a poor guy break into my house and steal my TV it\'s OK - because he couldn\'afford it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, this is not, I think, a good analogy. In the case of your TV, when the poor person steals it, you\'re left with nothing. In the case of the misappropriation of your library, you still have your copy at home.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Z6:
Please, please, please JUST LET ME KNOW IN A LOUD AND CLEAR VOICE THAT I MIGHT BE BUYING A BRAIN-DAMAGED PRODUCT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you so much on this statement Z6. However, you and I both know that they won\'t do it, nor do I expect them to, as it would cost them far more than all the revenue they think they are losing from poor kids \'stealing\' the libraries...

On the other hand, isn\'t finding this info out the job of an informed consumer? I think we expect too much from this forum in that respect Z6. It\'s not exactly full of dispassionate bystanders who have no reason to tell us anything other than the truth. We must go elsewhere for that info.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Z6:
And here\'s a thought: I bought the Malmsjo recently and I also own the Dan Dean strings. At $100 apiece they are a steal. This is the kind of customer satisfaction that absolutely ensures a strong market.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DEAD ON RIGHT!!! This is the way I feel about Scarbee\'s Fingered Bass right now. If I feel like this in a few weeks, then I\'ll buy the Picked Bass and happily part with the money.

And what I\'m doing now is collaborating with other folks thinking about getting into GigaSampler. They send me a MIDI file, and I send them back some audio using Scarbee\'s library so they can hear hear how great it sounds. So far three folks all tell me they want it. I think that\'s good for Scarbee in the end. Maybe not today, but one day soon.

To me, I don\'t understand why library developers don\'t offer a service like this to sell their products? I send a BASS MIDI file to Thomas, or a piano MIDI file to KIP, and they send me back an mp3 so I can hear it. I stick it in my music, it sounds good, I buy it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jamieh:
It is attitudes like this that are the biggest problem. It IS just like stealing from a supermarket. The fact that you don\'t see it that way is the problem. As someone who writes software for a living, I find your position on pirating somewhat offensive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jamieh - My opinion only, but you\'re just miles off base with this sort of attitude. Every C compiler, every assembler, every game, was properly licensed on every computer you ever used? And you know this for a fact?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jamieh:
The FACT is that someone or some company has spent a huge amount of time and money to create the software or sample library, and a person is using it without paying for it. This is stealing, plain and simple. I don\'t care that it is easy to do, that doesn\'t make it right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, and my opinion only, it\'s not stealing, it\'s using. Did the person using it break in somewhere and take it? Or is finding this stuff on the internet more akin to finding a dollar laying in the street? Let\'s all be honest here again. Raise you hand if you turned every coin you found in your life to the police so that the rightful owner could come claim it.

I don\'t believe your issue Jamieh is with the kid using this stuff in his bedroom as much as the guy who bought it giving it away.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cool7s_Dad:
The next big sea change that needs to occur is to be able to easily do returns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So very right. Even if it costs me a little more, Rasputin Records here in the Bay Area will give me back 76% of anything I spent there for any reason, including I just don\'t like the CD. Very cool policy. It encourages me to buy more music there. I\'ll buy more libraries from vendors who figure this out too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Z6:
It is the tacit assumption that \'beating\' the pirates (and hurting bona fide customers) necessarily increases revenues with which I take issue <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, totally agree Z6. I know Scarbee is on the fence about this or he wouldn\'t have started this thread. Good music made with his library, properly acknowledged of course, will make Scarbee more money. I hope I can do my part in that area. Others here will also, I think.

Thanks for the opportunity to read and make a few comments. They are offered with a lot of respect for everyone here even if I don\'t agree with specific points of view.

Cheers,
Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Knecht (edited 03-25-2002).]

Mark_Knecht

03-25-2002, 09:15 PM

Tim,
Can\'t speak to the last part, but my experience with BiggaGiggas and Worra in general is exactly the same. I\'m at the point where I\'m making multiple purchases from them. I know I\'ll be taken care of fairly.

Cheers,
Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cool7s_Dad:
There *are* sample producers out there who do the right thing. When the whole Jinjee\'s Horns debacle occured, I received a full refund from Bigga Giggas. As a result, I\'ve done, and will do, business with them again. However, I wouldn\'t care if Nick Phoenix and Donnie sampled Jesus Christ singing \"I\'m a Little Teapot\" and sold it for $3. I still wouldn\'t buy it from them. Attitude is everything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bruce A. Richardson

03-25-2002, 11:58 PM

Copy protection is a very risky business decision. Piracy is a well-known cost of doing business in software--not that it\'s correct, it\'s deplorable. I think anyone who would steal and spread the work of sample developers is a sleaze and a jerk.

But it\'s there. Consider this: if Microsoft cannot protect XP (and they can\'t--cracks are everywhere), then how do you propose doing it with limited resources? You cannot.

Spending a cent on piracy protection is simply spending money on something that\'s already costing money--good money after bad. It actually REWARDS the jerks by siphoning resources away from creation. Combat it instead with good money after good--more libraries, more products, more opportunities to gain and please PAYING customers.

03-25-2002, 11:58 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SCARBEE:
Hi,

Think of this: If I get $500 for my libraries each month and you say that everytime I sell one - one is copied. Then I would get $1000 pr. month instead if this copying didn\'t take place.
It really matters.

[This message has been edited by SCARBEE (edited 03-25-2002).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you cannot believe that? I see the conditional \'if\' everywhere. Jamieh says \'If\' it stops pirating, or \'if\' it led to more revenues for developers etc.

There is a saying in my land that goes like this:

\"If my auntie had balls, she\'d be my uncle.\"

I believe Tim and I want the same thing (hi Tim, sorry to make assumptions but it seems so), and I do not believe what we want flies in the face of the ultimate goal of developers either.

I have stated many times on this forum that I absolutely want developers to be able to maximize their profits.

It is the tacit assumption that \'beating\' the pirates (and hurting bona fide customers) necessarily increases revenues with which I take issue - amongst other things.

The assumption that every copy made is a potential sale is patently not a workable assumption to make in this market. It simply cannot happen. The sooner this is taken on board, the sooner this market can head toward maturity.

Consider this: When a customer buys a library, the developer often tells him implicitly (in the form of a Draconian license agreement) that he has just bought a piece of trash.

People here often refer to sample libraries as \'intangible\' goods; they are not; they are less than intangible. Current practice leaves libraries with no residual value whatever. As soon as it is purchased, it depreciates to less than $0.

I say \'less than\' $0 because not only can you not sell it, you cannot even give it away. If you bin it, then someone finds it and uses it in a commercial recording, you may even face legal action. It has, in effect, become an \'illegal substance\'.

Therefore, it is this slightly \'irrational\' (but understandable) stab at protecting intellectual property that denigrates that intellectual property.

Demos are simply not enough to offset the risk a purchaser must take. Demos are about as useful to a potential customer as watching an ad for HDTV on your bog-standard telly (well, less useful really, but I couldn\'t find an analogy that properly describes the risks customers must take).

Take Francis\' example on another thread (although I\'m sure he won\'t thank for doing so). Francis has taken the mantle of \'gracious customer\' to lengths that will surely see him canonized. He obviously has expertise in the field of choral music. He purchased Nick\'s VoTA library. He is not entirely \'taken\' with his purchase for reasons of his own. He is almost apologetic in his comments to Nick. Nick tells him not to worry about it; Francis doesn\'t owe him \'a second look\'.

Well, that would be because Francis has already coughed up $500, and he has a lovely set of coasters for his trouble. The fact that the library is good or bad or tweakable or whatever is inconsequential to the position of the dissatisfied customer.

If this event were repeated five or ten or twenty times, then even Francis might blow a gasket. The only difference between myself (or maybe Tim) and Francis in this regard would be that we might take the bus and Francis might walk (cardiac-arrest-wise). The \'effect\' is the same.

Developers simply must imbue their wares with some \'residual\' value, otherwise the rest of the world might follow their lead and judge the product \'worthless\'.

Scarbee, I sincerely hope I haven\'t caused you any offence, that is not my intention, but seizing the high moral ground simply will not increase your sales.

And while this forum is probably a great place to get critiques and ideas for improving libraries, it is the last place a developer should look to maximize sales.

As I said in a previous (and rather offensive, no doubt) post: The majority of users here have a vested interest in keeping this market small, exclusive, and marginal.

The only way to protect the investment required to produce a library is to add value at every opportunity. Right now, the opposite is the case.

License agreements should not be treated as \'wish lists\'.

It does not help the developer if his license agreement more resembles a letter to Santa containing information on how he would like to be treated, than a sensible contract that provides some value to the buyer. You cannot give with one hand then take back with the other, and expect the customer to just fall in line with your wishes. In a rational world, this will not happen. The fact that you make any sales at all with these license agreements suggests that either the buying public is not entirely rational (which is true) or they don\'t read the license agreement (also true: hands up everyone who reads the license agreement before they buy? - if you even get a chance to; usually they are hidden beneath the cellophane wrapper that seals the product and the fate of the customer both).

I don\'t believe these points are trivial. And I don\'t believe they deserve to be met with (poorly) veiled accusations and insults impersonating counter-arguments.

These products must at least be made tradable, otherwise they will die (and a developer with a dead product might misinterpret the cause of death as \'piracy\' rather than his own lack of foresight).

Developers want (rightly) to see a return on their investments, but it must work both ways.

[This message has been edited by Z6 (edited 03-25-2002).]

SCARBEE

03-26-2002, 02:06 AM

Hi Cool7s_Dad,

Don\'t you think I have to think twice before I make statements about copy protection and license? Can you imagine how I could hurt other developers and distributors?

Law is the law. If you can\'t resell your software in US then it is not my problem.
But I see why. If you bought my bass library played with it for a while, maybe recorded and album with it and then reselled the library to someone else who would do the same, then I would onle get paid once, while 1-100 people could use the bass. (In theory) Hardly a good business.
And Frankly - don\'t you think you would keep \"a little\" back up of the library D - just in case...?

What about piracy of movies (DVD)? What arguments do you use ther? DVD\'s too expensive? \"I only like the last 10 minutes of the film\"? Now that I have seen it I didn\'t like it, so I don\'øt want to buy it? Come on! Just don\'t belive all this argumenting.

The way I see it is this:

If you have a homestudio and don\'t make any money on your music (or anything else), then you must buy what ever you can for a budget suited to your income. This is where you are. You are not a pro then and can not afford pro equipmnet. You will not own Pro tools and you will not buy expensive libarries. But if you believ you are \"entitled\" to better stuff then you are on the wrong track... (this is not aimed at you - just an example)

And Please... don\'t tell me about not caring and listening to my customers. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/frown.gif Have you bought one of my libraries? Have you checked my website?
I offer a lot for free and work hard to make extra stuff for no money. This is not fair! I will do anything to please my customers, but I also have to worry about piracy. Why do you think everybody selling software worries about piracy? Because IT IS A PROBLEM.

Jamieh

03-26-2002, 02:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Again, and my opinion only, it\'s not stealing, it\'s using. Did the person using it break in somewhere and take it? Or is finding this stuff on the internet more akin to finding a dollar laying in the street? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It\'s ILLEGALLY using. From your point of view, why don\'t we just all designate one person to buy all pieces of software (or sample libraries) and post them on the internet. Then the rest of us can just innocently and conveniently \"find\" the stuff we want on the internet and use it.

It\'s not quite the same as finding money on the street. It\'s the same as finding COUNTERFEIT money on the street. Actually, it\'s more like being told where to go find counterfeit money on the street by the counterfeitter himself.

I\'m really surprised at the cavalier attitude towards piracy expressed on here. I would have thought with the level of interaction we get from the sample developers themselves there would be more respect towards protecting the time and money they invest in creating great stuff for us to work with.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And because I had the chance to actually drive it before I bought it, I saved myself a lot of heartache.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point taken. Problem is, with a car, you can\'t go get it duplicated while you have it out for a test drive. If the sample developers could be assured that you didn\'t make a copy of their work while you had it, I\'m sure they would be more than happy to take it back. However, software stores that have return policies have been legendary targets for people who are just looking to pirate software.

[This message has been edited by Jamieh (edited 03-26-2002).]

SCARBEE

03-26-2002, 02:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Cool7s_Dad:
Reviews and demos are a great help. But they\'re no substitute for actually working with the library.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what do you expect? If you go to my website you can hear the bass tracks soloed with no fx/eq etc. Clean. You can download the helpfile and study it too. You can even read reviews and user comments. Don\'t expect me to give a library to test before you buy it...come one, Tim! Don\'t you go on vacation sometimes? Ever spend a whole vacation in rainy weather, sick of the flue?
That\'s life, man! You can\'t control every little detail in you life. Everytime I see a movie I take a chance - sometimes it is bad sometimes good. But I learn from it anyway - how can I tell if a movie is good if I haven\'t seen a bad one?

If you buy I bad library, then the next time you may want to avoid that developer. This is fair, because then the developer have to reconsider his concept.

Mark_Knecht

03-26-2002, 08:20 AM

Jamieh,
Maybe it\'s just the way I interpret your words, but I hope you\'re not as bitter and down on everyone as you make it sound. I get that you are frustrated by this topic. I hope it doesn\'t make you ill.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jamieh:
It\'s ILLEGALLY using. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed if the original terms state that if you didn\'t buy it you can\'t use it.

If the above isn\'t true, then the Developer didn\'t do what\'s required to protect himself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>From your point of view, why don\'t we just all designate one person to buy all pieces of software (or sample libraries) and post them on the internet. Then the rest of us can just innocently and conveniently \"find\" the stuff we want on the internet and use it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the person who bought it, and then placed it on the internet would be breaking his legal agreement with you. HE is the person you have an argument with, not me the legal purchaser and user.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It\'s not quite the same as finding money on the street. It\'s the same as finding COUNTERFEIT money on the street. Actually, it\'s more like being told where to go find counterfeit money on the street by the counterfeitter himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the person who finds money on the street doesn\'t know if it was lost, whether it\'s counterfeit, or put there by Candid Camera to film what he might do when he find it.

The person who \'finds\' a GIG file on the internet doesn\'t know what the original license agreement said, and that\'s not his problem. If it\'s there, it\'s his for the taking. The courts have ruled on that already. He didn\'t hack into someone\'s computer to get it. He didn\'t break any laws to get it. To him it\'s no different than any other program he finds on the net. Your argument is with the person who puts it there to be taken.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I\'m really surprised at the cavalier attitude towards piracy expressed on here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven\'t seen any cavalier attitudes expressed here. We\'re having a discussion. That\'s all.

I will state again, FOR CLARITY ONLY, I don\'t use pirated software, and I don\'t hack or crack software, and I don\'t give the software I purchase to someone who would. Your complaint is NOT against me or the overwhelmingly large portion of your customers that are law abiding, ethical and moral people. Your argument is with the very small percentage of your customers who do break their agreements.

Now, I believe that the portion of your customers that are law abiding, ethical and moral is very high. I\'ll say 99.9%. (My number. No data.) You, on the other hand, express ideas that sound like you think maybe 33% are bad folks who break their agreements. And because you have this unsubstantiated point of view you want to make my computer harder to use and less stable by using some form of copy protection that doesn\'t work, and you KNOW will be cracked in a few days anyway.

I simply don\'t understand...

Now, please do not get me wrong. I want guys like Scarbee to make money. Really! I have purchased his library. But my deeply held belief is that this whole mechanism approaches the problem from a very negative point of view. \"Let\'s make life hard for EVERYBODY because one or two customers WILL put it out there for free.\"

Somewhere earlier someone brought up the issue about going to court against M$. I submit that this isn\'t done because their name has a $ as the second initial and I know I can\'t fight them. I don\'t have enough money, and the issue isn\'t worth enough money to get lawyers to fight it Pro Bono. Hell, even the US government can\'t really beat them.

But in the case we\'re discussing here, the issue is clearly between the software developer and the customer who breaks his legal agreement. I think it\'s up to the individual software developer harmed to seek relief. In Scarbee\'s case, I hope his agreement with Tascam REQUIRES Tascam to take all reasonable legal actions to find and prosecute the wrong-do-er. (Sp?) If not, then Tascam got a great deal and Scarbee didn\'t get what would protect his investment of time and money. But that\'s all after the fact.

Again, I agree with Scarbee about karma. I fear that he will actually create significant negative karma by adding copy protection and harm his sales. Certainly I wouldn\'t buy a library that required me to mess with this stuff.

With true respect, and best regards,
Mark Knecht

[This message has been edited by Mark_Knecht (edited 03-26-2002).]

franz

03-26-2002, 08:40 AM

Karma is real!
Copyright enforcement is real.
And it will come bite you where it hurts. The best copy protection is hi quality and usefulness. Who wants to share tools that make you money and that you paid for. Which professional is willing to risk jail and a stiff fine and loss of their career over a stupid sample?

Piracy is for wannabes who will get really nervous once they get successful and have to spend loads of money for their ulcer treatment.

I take comfort in this for lack of other real protection.

SCARBEE

03-26-2002, 09:14 AM

Just to make it clear:

1)so far none of my libraries use copy protection.

2)I have made free expansion packs and other stuff to registered users to give them a bonus.

3)I am not sure about copy protection in the future, this is why I want other opinions.

Peace

Thomas

Mark_Knecht

03-26-2002, 09:55 AM

Thomas,
If you find any value in what I posted earlier this morning, then please look into watermaking your gig files as opposed to more traditional \'copy protection\'.

If you could find a way to ship a product that had to be \'unlocked\' through registration or a password/key code, I would find no issue with that at all. Once I unlocked my copy, the gig file itself would be watermarked with something in the audio stream that identifies me as the licensee. It would be something that I could copy and keep safe in case of a disk crash, and additionally, it would be something that you could use to determine if the copy of the library found on the internet belonged to me.

To make this work well, each user MUST have his own watermark, and you must be able to determine who\'s watermark has gotten released to the public. Once you determine that, you or your distribution partner can take legal action against the infringing party. Simple, straight forward and addresses the real cause of the problem without placing any restrictions on the honest licensee.

Good luck finding a solution that works for everyone.

With best regards,
Mark

pantonality

03-26-2002, 12:10 PM

This article on Prorec regarding Pace copy protection may be of interest to this discussion.
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/4F0B51C39C17DA6386256B7F0077FBA6 (\"http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/4F0B51C39C17DA6386256B7F0077FBA6\")

Obviously there\'s a trade-off. When the copy protection serious impairs the functionality of the product there\'s a serious problem.

Is this relevant to sample libraries? I don\'t know. The way I see it there are two general classes of sample library lirates, successful composers and arrangers who also happen to be cheap (and do little to improve sales, but make a ton with their libraries) and the hobbyists who may influence sales, but make little or nothing with their pirated libraries. I\'d say that a developers time would be best spent chasing the former. The latter may be irksome, but there\'s not much to be gained by going after those users.

My $.02.

Steve

Mark_Knecht

03-26-2002, 12:35 PM

This was widely discussed in the Pro Tools DUC last weekend until DigiDesign came along and deleted the whole thread. They are very against any discussion of hacks. At least here we can discuss it.

It is germain to the discussion here, presuming a library developer was to use this.

What\'s worse though is the copy protection for the new Waves \'Master\'s Bundle\', wich used Pace, was cracked in under 8 hours on the day Waves released the package. I think they were truly devistated by that event.

I think that if M$ can\'t solve this, and Waves can\'t solve this, the library developers are going down the wrong path if they go this direction...

Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by pantonality:
This article on Prorec regarding Pace copy protection may be of interest to this discussion.
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/4F0B51C39C17DA6386256B7F0077FBA6 (\"http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/4F0B51C39C17DA6386256B7F0077FBA6\")
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PatS

03-26-2002, 12:53 PM

\"What\'s worse though is the copy protection for the new Waves \'Master\'s Bundle\', wich used Pace, was cracked in under 8 hours on the day Waves released the package. I think they were truly devistated by that event.\"

Ah! This explains why they won\'t respond to my messages, in which I tell them how I broke their demo lock (without cracking the software, mind you). I hope the good folks at Noteheads pay close attention; at least they were kind enough to acknowledge my message. The guys at Waves are probably in denial, if not updating their resumes.

Pat

[This message has been edited by PatS (edited 03-26-2002).]

Mark_Knecht

03-26-2002, 02:09 PM

PatS,
I really don\'t think they\'re in denial. I think they\'re in shock even now, and making some decisions how to go forward.

I have no visibility into Waves product planning, but I would speculate that possibly your going to see a tiered approach to their offereings in the future:

1) Home type software plugins for us \'wannabes\' as someone called us here earlier for low cost. Maybe $99 and fewer features, only 48KHz and below. Ideas like that. (Wrong. I don\'t wannabe! I like my life.)

2) Pro level plugins for $1K that handle 192KHz, have all the features, faster support. (You\'d like that, right?) http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

Actually, I think Scarbee would be better off doing that than using copy protection. Again, us \'wannabes\' don\'t need all the fancy stuff that he puts in there. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif It\'s fun, and it will make my tune sound better, but I won\'t use it 99% of the time, \'cause I\'m not a \'Pro\'. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif On the other hand, a single velocity bass with RGSS (Really Great Scarbee-Sound) would suit me 80% of the time, and a 2-velocity bass might get me to 95%. The other 5% of the time I just suffer or play the bass line myself.

$29.95 - The RGSS Library
$199.95 - The Whole Scarbee Package

Cheers,
Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Knecht (edited 03-26-2002).]

SCARBEE

03-26-2002, 03:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mark_Knecht:
$29.95 - The RGSS Library
$199.95 - The Whole Scarbee Package<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

$29.95 is a bit low, but a \"Scarbee Jam Bass edition\" (light) is not an unrealistic idea. Not at all. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/grin.gif Maybe $99 or perhaps $79? Depending on how little the library should be off course.

I know you might only use a part of all the goodies - but isn\'t it nice to know that you can go all the way if you like? That is a major thing for me with all libraries. I hate to \"Give up\" in the middle of the programming and call a musician. http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by SCARBEE (edited 03-26-2002).]

Mark_Knecht

03-26-2002, 03:34 PM

Scarbee,
I certainly encourage you to come up with your own ideas for marketing something like this.

As for being able to go all the way, I think once I get hooked on RGSS for $29.99, if I want to go all the way, you can offer me an upgrade path. Or sell me articulation files over the internet. Something more like that.

Also, be really generaous with those beautiful help files. Let the low end people see (and hear) what they\'re missing. They\'ll make a second purchase. I know I would.

I\'ll share with you that I\'m pretty likely to just buy something quickly off of Wizoo for $5.95 without even considering the cost. I think there are lots of people who fit that catagory, but I\'m not sure yet that the quality will be there with their products, but I\'m spending money. We\'ll see how it works out. For $5.95 I just tell my friends to go there and buy it.

On the other hand, my though is I want you to make some money, and I also want to set up a reason for people NOT to share your stuff with their friends. It\'s my thought that anyone who takes the time to set up a GSt machine will pay $30-$40 to get a good shot at having some of your sounds. And for $30, if they have a friend who they might share with, they\'d tell their friends to spend $30 to get the same capability. $30 won\'t break anybody, and at $30 I know they can afford it, so I just tell them to get it, right?

At $99, I think you run the risk of these folks still sharing because $99 is a lot of money to a lot of people. At $199 you know they will still share. That\'s the problem you beleive you have today. (I\'m not sure you are, but you seem to believe it, so I\'m workign with you!) http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

I\'d even experiment with something like a very good low-end product for maybe $14.99 that has only 10 RGSS samples and uses GSt to pitch shift to fill in the keyboard. Maybe it won\'t cover the whole fretboard, but sounds great over a limited range, so they\'re happy. Anything that gets them in the family and gets you their names. You make a little money, they get to know you, they don\'t cheat as much. The more I talk with you here, the harder it would be for me to ever cheat you. I feel that way about your site also.

Actually, I think you\'d make a lot more money with that sort of product than you know, but that\'s just my thought....

Don\'t make too many low end products like this, or two guys would buy one each and then share.

I\'m convinced, basically from using your library for only a couple of weeks, that once people get started with you, they will go further, and if it isn\'t painful to get started, then they tell their friends to do the same. For $15, or $30 or $40 I just tell people to go buy it. No questions.

So, 1@$99 or 10@$30? Your choice really...

With best regards,
Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Knecht (edited 03-26-2002).]

SCARBEE

03-26-2002, 03:53 PM

Hi Mark,

I hear what you are saying. I have to consider how much the low prize products will hurt the high end products and off course manufacturing costs, adverts, shipping, etc. It will be hard for me to program a minor version, because I want you to have it all...

But yes, we need products for the \"less wealthy.\"

Thanks to you Mark, Tim and all other for contributing to this discussion.

regards

Thomas

03-26-2002, 03:54 PM

I believe Scarbee is in a worse situation with his bass than most libraries (piracy-wise).

Being \'stuck\' exclusively in the Giga platform probably helps Tascam to snag customers who want the best bass (of its genre) but it stops Scarbee from even competing with copies pirated and converted to \'more popular\' formats.

Tascam is Scarbee\'s worst enemy as far as this goes (unless they lighten up and allow him to develop cross-platform).

Apologies Scarbee, if I\'ve mistated your distribution arrangements. But if this is the case, then it\'s crazy that you can\'t even make money from your own work while pirates can sell Akia or E-mu versions etc.

SCARBEE

03-26-2002, 04:00 PM

Hi Z6:

Are there pirates selling my libraries in other formats?

That\'s strange - and bad.

PS. The TASCAM guys are very, very cool. Lets see what the future brings..

Thomas

03-26-2002, 04:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SCARBEE:
Hi Z6:

Are there pirates selling my libraries in other formats?

That\'s strange - and bad.

Thomas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry. No, I didn\'t mean to say there were pirates selling your library. I was pointing out that your library cannot even compete with (potential) pirated copies in those formats as long as it remains chained to the Giga format.

I was also trying to allude to the fact that libraries such as \'bass\' would probably find a much larger market elsewhere than the giga platform (as a majority of hardware sampler users probably are not as orchestrally inclined as the giga user base, and lean more towards guitar/bass/drums).

Mark_Knecht

03-26-2002, 04:30 PM

Thomas,
Z6 raises some points that I have no way of having insight into. Clearly you could be bound by agreements with Tascam that we do not full comprehend and could effect your ability to do any of this even if you wanted to.

However, I would think that the small, low cost versions should be distributed over the internet as a download. 5-10MB at most. Low cost. No physical manufacturing costs at all. After people buy this version, if they want one of your higher-end products, then they buy a CD with everything just like today. I think this is additive to your sales. Pick the right set of low end features and no one will stay forever with the low-end version. your stuff is too good for us guitar/bass/drum types! http://www.northernsounds.com/ubb/NonCGI/images/icons/wink.gif

(BTW - no answers to my pop horn section post?)

Part of your \'drag them in\' strategy could be demos of the other wonderful features of your library - trills, slides, and I\'m sure 20 more things that I haven\'t even found yet. Once they understand the quality of what they have already purchased, then they happily jump in to buy the full product.

Additionally, this could also act as a way to reduce the issue about returning samples. There really wouldn\'t be a musical reason to return things after they have already been using the low end product. They will understand what they own, and better understand what they are buying. The only thing might be a larger library causing some technical problem, but I think that is unlikely.

Please remember, even for me who earns a pretty darn good living, I hesitated for at least 6 weeks about buying the fingered library simply due to the cost. (Even discounted...) This is what you want to get past in my opinion.

Have fun!

Mark

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SCARBEE:
Hi Mark,

I hear what you are saying. I have to consider how much the low prize products will hurt the high end products and off course manufacturing costs, adverts, shipping, etc. It will be hard for me to program a minor version, because I want you to have it all...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ellle

03-26-2002, 11:13 PM

Please have a look or contact www.mediasec.com. (\"http://www.mediasec.com.\") They are partners in our EC funded Research project Imagen. Very knowledgeable guys.

Munsie

03-27-2002, 02:31 AM

The US market is 80% dial up still. Do we REALLY think there is alot of users downloading gigabyte files? I SERIOUSLY doubt it.

Sure pirates suck, but it\'s money the developer NEVER EVER would of made anyway.

I have stated this before and I will state this again, Scarbee\'s problem (with all due respect Thomas) is NOT the number of pirates, it\'s the number of BUYERS! Thomas needs to 100% focus his time on increasing the number of BUYERS rather than wasting his time thinking about how to sell to the pirates. And that is what copy protection is, trying to sell to the pirates, NOT the actual buying public.

The only way to increase the money in his pocket is by being flexable.

Have you ever turned down a customer who requested a discount? I\'m a software developer and I have NEVER said no to this question, \"I\'ll buy your product right now if you give me (20-30-40-50%) off!\"

I\'ve mentioned this before but what the heck, Giga users are a very small market, you want to make MONEY selling samples, on the Giga market price it at $1000.00 and sell it to the 50 or so commercial composers. Sometimes it is SMART business to keep the prices VERY HIGH. It limits the number of commercial users, keeping the state of the art samples to a few in demand composers. I think another developer here uses this theory.

If you want to expand your business and make a name for yourself, and MONEY for years to come, distribute your product in EVERY sample market you can find.

Like I said on the Tascam forum, I like my samples a HELL of alot more than I like Gigastudio, and there are other ways to play gig files popping up all the time.

Archangel

03-27-2002, 06:10 AM

Scarbee,

in my honest opinion, go for watermarking. Copy protection will cost you something and will not stop piracy.... it\'s not profitable in terms of money...imagine : you pay a huge amount of money to a firm for a copy-protection solution, and it saves you less money that what you lost at piracy?

Go with watermarking,it\'s honestly the best solution.

Archangel

Bruce A. Richardson

03-27-2002, 10:24 AM

I agree with every recommendation here.

Watermarking, yes. It shines light.

Copy-Protection, NO. It is a method of secrecy and darkness.

Even ignoring the moral implications (which I personally cannot), copy protection remains a poor business decision. The key to success is a large, diverse, catalog with products in every price category.

If TASCAM\'s policy for distribution relies on exclusivity to the Giga platform, then screw TASCAM!!! Never agree to protectionism, whether it\'s copy protection or myopic marketing protection like platform exclusivity. The only way to make money in the music business is a nickel and dime at a time.

SCARBEE, we\'ve discussed this privately before. Your problem is not piracy, it is your business model. You do not have a successful business plan. Many sample developers don\'t. Now, you may not want to do what it takes to change that, but copy protection won\'t change your profitability. It will only cost you money, friends, and valuable tech support time you could be devoting to other products.

Sample your butt. Sample your car starting. Sample your mother in law. Sample your cat. Sample your kids beating each other up. Sample every musician you know. Sample everything in sight. If you want to be in business selling samples, then you need to have so many products that every sample user in the world needs at least one of them. Unfortunately, not that many people need super-detailed bass sounds, no matter how great (and they ARE great) they are. You\'ve limited your business to a niche within a niche within a niche, and one where there is substantial competition at that.

I know you must feel intense pain seeing your work pirated. However, there is nothing you, TASCAM, PACE, your mama, or even God can do about it. The lock has never been invented which cannot be picked, it is a logical impossibility.

Don\'t waste your time. Go sample something. I guarantee you, if you get 20-30 titles in your catalog, you won\'t give a hoot about pirates, because you\'ll be too busy counting your money.

Love ya,

Bruce