ASIAN INSTRUMENT SAMPLES (need advice)

rrominet4 · Post by **rrominet4** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 7:47 pm

ah, i was more having fun than anything else. they won't refund the cd in general, + i thought the monk thing was a joke too.... i wasn't taking it seriously anyway... but is it written "the monks ask you not to...." that's something different....
peace

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 10:13 pm

Someone who produces a sample library has the right to restrict the use of the samples he made... If one won't agree with those restrictions, then by all means no one will use force to have him buy it! I mean, it's their business and none of ours.

[ This Message was edited by: eliam on 2003-09-03 13:13 ]

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:38 am

they won't refund the cd in general

Along as you don't break the seal on the CD they have to refund your money, as you can't necessarily read the restrictions of use until you receive it. This is the law (in the UK, US and Europe i suppose and probably most other places too). So just read the usage restrictions before opening any product and you have a right to your money back if you're not happy.

No harm meant here other, just informing you of your consumer rights

Have fun with making your porn soundtracks

rrominet4 · Post by **rrominet4** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:50 am

no due to cd copy, you'll get hard time getting a refund of any digital media. io know what i talk about. As you asked, i read you post more carefully and see that you don't have the sample bank in question. Of course "if you read the restrictions...." , but if they are readable without opening it, you wouldn't even have bought the cd. May be someone will tell us if that restriction is readable on the sleeve or not (it seems to be a very serious matter in here).
what a lot of hate in your post... Why you despise the one who do porn tracks. I don't but for some people it's money and the only ressource. Do you think they do it because that's what they want to do with there lifes ? i don't ask you to share my opinion, but there's a lot of hate in your post. You quoted my reply about cds just to attack me personnally when i just excused myself. I wasn't replying to your post anyway. I must have disturbed you a lot, but please note i didn't attack you personnally, and you must have not read my post very well neither. I wouldn't change a line to what i said, because it doesn't attack anyone personnally or religion or whatsoever. That's still my personal opinion and i have the right to say it. Again, it was more fun things about sex. But don't worry, i won't answer here anymore if that's so serious that it puts people in such states that they can't help attacking people personnally.
and the swar plug stills sucks anyway.

[ This Message was edited by: rrominet4 on 2003-09-03 04:31 ]

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:31 am

i think you'd have to be very foolish to see any hate in any of my posts. Maybe English is not your first language as you seem to be completely missing my point. That's fine, but don't accuse me of spreading hate anywhere (especially on the z). i even put little smileys in there to show it was meant in good fun. You expect people to accept your porn stance (with which i have no problem) yet you don't want to accept, in this case, the Tibetan Monks' view.

Anyway this is getting way too serious and very off topic, so maybe we should let it lie.

Mr A

PS. And you're wrong about the CD thing.

PPS. i have no religious beliefs so please don't call me a mormon

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2003-09-03 04:36 ]

rrominet4 · Post by **rrominet4** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:42 am

On 2003-09-03 02:38, Mr Arkadin wrote:
they won't refund the cd in general
So just read the usage restrictions before opening any product and you have a right to your money back if you're not happy.

No harm meant here other, just informing you of your consumer rights

Have fun with making your porn soundtracks

i don't think i misunderstood you were talking and having fun of me. As English is my second language i perfectly understood your message.... what do you know of me to say that... let's leave it here it's much better, but it wouldn't have gone so far if you didn't adress me, my opinions and what you suppose i do with my life...

rrominet4 · Post by **rrominet4** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:45 am

i have nothing against mormons, i read their Book, went to their church, discussed with them, but finnally didn't join, when i knew what it was about. and some of them don't like the puritans amongst them (and they don't like the puritan polygamists neither: but even in that "religion" there are differences amongst them. But they respect each other. There's nothing to be ashamed to be a mormon

rrominet4 · Post by **rrominet4** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:53 am

about consumer rights, the law was that you could be refund EVEN if the cd is opened, because the "Product doesn't Fit". That's the criteria (in Europe). Now, in shops, you have panels saying that "due to cd copy, we won't refund or exchange blah blah blah". I know that, i worked in such shop, and was the one who had to refuse the requests for refunds or exchange. Sometimes it's close to fight. And even if the law doesn't say so, a tribunal is much likely to accept such rule, due to cd copy and all that have been said about it.
It's not an opinion, that's just how it happens now in most places i know.
You are right only if the restriction is well redable on the cd. Like on shakira CD, you can't miss it that it "doesn't work on computer cd rom".... there's a sticker on the front, on the back etc....
I have no idea how it is labelled on spectrasonics' cd.... (but frankly, i don't care of the answer anymore right now).

borg · Post by **borg** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:08 am

come on rrominet... cheer up. honestly, i can't see either where tony (mr. a) tried to attack you! on the contrary... he merely expressed his respect to what must be the most respected religion amongst western atheists...

mmmm, peace, anyone??? come on, lets shake virtual hands...

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:47 am

Quite.

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2003-09-03 11:50 ]

rrominet4 · Post by **rrominet4** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:43 am

ok ...

[ This Message was edited by: rrominet4 on 2003-09-03 12:45 ]

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:50 am

The restrictions are ridiculous. It reminds me of the types of restrictions in the deed of homes in the usa which read that you can never sell the home to a black person. They do not hold up in court.

I have the agreement in front of me. It is not a suggestion it clearly is in the Heart of Africa Licensing agreement:

"You may not use these samples to create music associated with obscene or immoral works such as pornography".

I don't consider pornography imoral unless it involves children, or is against the will of the participants and furthermore pornography is offered only as an example of imoral work. No imoral work is allowed.

I dare them to define what exactly imoral is. This agreement is laughable!

On 2003-09-02 23:13, eliam wrote:
Someone who produces a sample library has the right to restrict the use of the samples ha made... If one won't agree with those restrictions, then by all means no obe will use force to have him buy it! I mean, it's their business and none of ours.

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:34 pm

Agree totaly, this is ridiculous... If you apply this kind of restriction, just don't sell them at all.. Cuz LOTSA thing may seem immoral to lotsa people... What about if a guy masturbate while listening to music you did with those samples? Is it immoral? The guy? Or you that created the music? Nah... Like i said before, not only is it ridiculous, but on the limit of being illegal. It's alomost as if you said, if you're of that kinda of people, i restrict you to use those samples. Not to mention like you said, they have to define immoral. Is smoking a cigarette immoral? Ah ah!

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 11:03 pm

Dare I say... it seems to morally offend you that someone wouln't want his samples to be used in a morally offendant way...

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:57 am

Well, that's what i'm saying! How can they judge what's immoral or not?

For me it's immoral that they can sell thing to PUBLIC and restrict their use on what THEY think is immoral... So they shouldn't sell it at all, period!

Public means everyone, including the guys who's living out of doing porno movie music.

That's liberty

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:38 am

This is not so uncommon though, the Bosendorfer imperial grand samples can be used in anything except movie trailers... Why? I believe it's because Kip McGinnis (the producer) earns a living in making film previews... Now, is this immoral? Well, it's not for me to judge, but I wouldn't approve either if my music or samples were used along with pornography. Not because I judge those who produce or use it, -that's none of my business- but I don't find it constructive, so if I could forbid it I would do it too.

It's just amusing to see you get upset and sit in judgement because you think it's unbearable... Your point is valid in some aspects though, but it's easy to slip into the "should" and "shouldn't"... Haven't we all made mistakes, let alone condemn other people's mistakes?

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 7:08 am

On 2003-09-04 02:38, eliam wrote:
the Bosendorfer imperial grand samples can be used in anything except movie trailers... Why? I believe it's because Kip McGinnis (the producer) earns a living in making film previews...

Well, still is my point... He's not talking about moral there. BTW, have you seen Hanz Zimmer restrict his samples so you won't use it in movies? He's doing movie score allright. Even Kip McGinnis restriction is stupid i think. Because i would use HIS samples in a movie score will prevent him of doing business? No away! You do not sell a movie trailer by the sound of the piano samples you use in it.

Again, if you don't want people to use the stuff you sell them, DON'T SELL IT!

My thinking is simple, you sell to PUBLIC or not... If you decide to sell to public, well public is everyone. You could restrict illegal use, like using those in child porno for instance.

This is totally fair, and more. You could restrict on copying, you could even put something that state that you should mention the source of the samples when you use it. But you can't decide on what usage people will do to your samples.

For example. Ford do not build car to crash them. But if you are rich i like to crash cars, this is your business, ford can't prevent this, or even have a license that specificaly prevent you of buying it if your goal is crashing the car. But they can have clauses that prevent selling a car to a guy that plan to do a robbery with it (obviously, the guys won't tell you anyway). But this way ford protect itself, they didn't build the car for criminals.

BTW mon Etienne, if it's immoral for me to think that they don't have right to restrict those samples to porn music maker's, doesn't it prevent me from buying those samples?

Anyway, this is just discussion, we could argue for ages.

Have a nice day

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:15 am

The license says that when you purchase this product (for $299 USD in my case) you do not own it. You only have the license to use it. I don't like it but it's not like there is another similar CD I could buy with no restrictions. Their excuse is that these are recorded performances.

I would like to point out that hardware synthesizers in many cases have samples that are recorded performances but have no such restrictions. I fail to see the distinction between a ROM chip with samples on it and a CD ROM with samples on it.

I can never legally sell my Spectrasonics CD but of course I can sell my synthesizers. If such restrictions were put on hardware I don't think customers would be not be very happy about it. The software industry has gotten away with murder by brainwashing us into thinking they are somehow different.

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2003-09-04 11:16 ]

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:07 pm

There's been many, many threads of 10 - 20 pages at northernsounds on this copy protection stuff and licence to use vs ownership, but it is not as clear cut as we would like to think at first glance... I don't pretend to understand much of this debate nor any of the laws behind it, but if anyone is feeling for a headache, you can make a search there... Actually some discussions were interesting, involving many well known sample developers along with other guys who thought like you, that "you buy samples, you own them"... This synth debate has been really much discussed also.

Marcus, I see your point and respect it, I just want to discuss kindly with you about different perspectives... My last post was more about compassion than sample protection though, but it's all right.

Braincell -what murder has to do with that? Oh, you hot tempered buddy! Don't let your anger go away with your emotions and let forgiveness enfold and fill you with it bliss...

Be at peace

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:39 pm

Of course, for anyone to take you to court they would have to admit they watched porn to hear your use of their sample, thus negating their argument somewhat.