maarvold wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 10:39 |
There is a bit of a dispute going on between Audio Ease (Altiverb) and some of its end users over impulse responses created by end users that were created with Audio Ease's proprietary software. |
robdarling@mail.com wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 15:50 |
If you are trying to sell Altiverb impulses to Altiverb customers, using the tool they created, you are trying to make money using a platform that someone else developed and continues to develop. Your business is very directly derived from their art. It is not at all out of hand for them to expect some kind of license fee, or stop you from profiting on their product if they have decided that the environment for impulses working in their product should be open and not profit-driven. |
raw-tracks wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 16:53 |
I guess I am playing the devil's advocate here. How is this different than if someone goes into business selling templates for Microsoft Word or Excel? Does the Microsoft License Agreement prohibit that? |
maarvold wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 12:15 |
Erik: I sense some irritation in your response...... It seems that your point is... well, I'm not exactly sure what it is. You seem a little bitter. |
maarvold wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 15:15 |
But, maybe with the exception of one analog simulation that I haven't used in years, the creators of the software I use, and used, for music have all been paid for their efforts--paid for several years and through several upgrades. So I made good and righted past wrongs. It seems that your point is... well, I'm not exactly sure what it is. |
Quote: |
It seems that your point is... well, I'm not exactly sure what it is. |
maarvold wrote on Thu, 06 May 2004 11:39 |
There needs to be a better way--the software equivalent of speed bumps in the road (I HATE speed bumps, but they do work). Software creators (including artists) need to solve this problem themselves, maybe as a group, and leave the attorneys out of it. Actually, I personally believe solving it should have been done before any software worthy of protection was created. |
maarvold wrote on Fri, 07 May 2004 17:28 |
maarvold wrote on Fri, 07 May 2004 12:28 |
Quote: |
It doesn't have to meet MY standards. But if cracked plug-ins are everywhere, maybe the copy protection scheme wasn't strong enough/ingenious enough. And please--by all means--let the next poster be someone who has never, ever used a piece of software in violation of the rights of the creators of that software. Michael Aarvold Audio Engineer |
nobjob wrote on Sat, 08 May 2004 00:51 | ||
And by this logic, if a solution to this problem that meets your standards is never developed, then no software worthy of protection should ever be created. Courtney Love Corn Hole Music |
Quote: |
It doesn't have to meet MY standards. But if cracked plug-ins are everywhere, maybe the copy protection scheme wasn't strong enough/ingenious enough. And please--by all means--let the next poster be someone who has never, ever used a piece of software in violation of the rights of the creators of that software. Michael Aarvold Audio Engineer |