Hy guys
Just yesterday i thinking in that.
I have somes kicks , snare, etc. And im used whit superior drummer 3...
But now this is new for me . " sample is ilegal ".
I mean...if i dont used sample but used some vst like superior drumer or other virtual instrumental and.....of course.. i dont buy it... is ilegal ?

 

Already 'owning' cracked software isn't legal, so...

 

If you used ilegal then virtual instrument is not legal when you use ilegal sample on virtual instrument ilegal.

 

So...if we cant buy it ..we never make music cause they detect this ilegal instruments and samples?

 

If you steal a car but you pay for gasoline at the gas station, I guess, its still illegal to drive this car?!

 

How should they detect a cracked vsti (I mean as long as you don't connect to their homepage and if they're checking this)?

 

Using software without proper license is not legal, but if your question is about making music with illegal software and then distribute it, the answer is, no. While identifying sampled material is very easy by listening to the music, it's not possible to distinguish between music made with illegal and legal software. Big software companies are taking action against illegal software users when there is evidence of a commercial use of the software. Never seen this happening for audio software, but i have seen some legal action taken by Autodesk against illegal professional users, such as interior designers and architects. I know they trace the illegal users by investigating their published products and by using industrial espionage techniques and when they see the evidence of illegal software, they call the user and warn him to buy the appropriate license before a serious action will be taken such as a police inspection. Don't know if in the future something of similar will happen for audio piracy, but in my opinion prices are too low and there isn't a dominant company like it is for cad software in my previous example.

 

that's exactly what I wonder.

 

Just its the point. Thanks!

 

First let’s get rid of this really stupid word ‘illegal’. Murder is illegal, so is blackmail, so is piracy on the high seas. Copying someone else’s stuff is not illegal, it’s litigable. The difference is important because crimes must proven before a jury beyond reasonable doubt, whereas litigations only have to be proven before a judge to the balance of probabilities.

Now using somebody else’s samples is litigable because you’re using somebody else’s work as your own. If you record somebody having a hissy fit in your local mall, you own the recording. It’s your work. If you record somebody playing a harmonica, you own the recording. If you record somebody using a soft synth, you own the recording. There are issues of performance rights attached to the words uttered and the melody performed, but the recording is yours.

What doesn’t happen, ever, is that the maker of the harmonica can claim anything over the performance, or the recording of the harmonica, being played. The same applies to soft synth makers. And nobody is ever going to sue over this. Because the only damage to be claimed in restitution for the unlicensed use of the synth maker’s synth is the cost of the synth. If it costs 150 bucks, 150 bucks is all that can be claimed. Violate somebody’s copyright or performing rights and then you get to pay a share of whatever you made from someone else's work.

 

Well, it depends ..here you are referring to common law judicial systems only (not all of them), that use jury trial. And then there is the rest of the world where there are elements of such procedure only - (like where I live) and countries (e.g. Germany, I think..) that doesn't even have a jury..

Anyway, if I understand OP correctly, he is using software SD3, obtained in a "wrongful" way ;) to trigger samples, that are not part of the SD3 package. IMO he is dealing with copyrighted stuff in both cases (in U.S. programs are copyright protected as literary works AFAIK). Obviously there's copyright infringement regarding the use of the software and there is one reg. the samples that he's triggering, IF he doesn't own a license to use them.

Agree. In fact OP owns the copyright to his work, no matter what means he used to create it. The harmonica though can not be copyrighted (as is software, by default) ..but patented (?)

to OP:
If anything, I would only be "a little concerned" about samples if you plan to make a hit triggering "hit me!" J.B. sample.. and as I already pointed out, it's difficult to give any "legal" advice/opinion without knowing your jurisdiction..

 

Naw fam, its illegal.

 

Thats not true at all they can sue for Tortious interference proving that by someone famous enough to be building a fan-base and profit off of stolen software harbors an uncondusive environment for their economical growth

 

A: It's a library, meaning basic. Not Library should be used plain. Even Toontrack stuff, if you're using just regular presets the settings of everything else will be different. Yes there are times I can be like "hey that's a snare from toontrack kit blah blah" but that's only like 90% guess, it could not be. So unless you advertise it, make it so standard there's no difference in produced wavs...

B:Samples are completely different. Libraries are to write music, samples/loops are already written. Who's to say the synths they used are legal. Point is one is just a sound that should be altered per project and generally you should NEVER be able to tell what instrument library someone is using if used CORRECTLY. Samples and loops are just that. Already written, produced and just placed.

So unless you label it with "made with a hacked version of" or export the library without a single changing modifier [eq, panning, compression, etc] no company has that time or resources to even consider that legally. Most have barely enough money to go after people distributing it in the first place. They don't pay people to listen to every song to see if "oh I think that's our's lets check out sale database"... I mean you buy vst's from everywhere, the company, Musicians friend, ams, sweet water, etc. So no, just no.

 

However, if you do music professionally it is best to buy what you use. If you dl something and don't use it whatever, but if you are doing paid projects you pay taxes on it's in your best interest to own what you are selling just in case. The rest whatever, but Just like web designer's and photoshop, if you're just making pages for a game or whatever then no one cares, but once you get to the point of having to pay taxes and having a legal business, then... Yeah then regardless if they can tell or not you should.

 

Gotta remember no one should be here to screw the workers of the companies that makes these things. They are normal people with lives with a love of music just trying to make a living. In many cases they were never going to get your money anyway, Other cases there are millions of crap vst's that they should pay you to use. So just remember you get to a certain point, you become the people that are worried about having their hard work given out. So if ya make money on it buy it, if not then whatever.

 

"Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm."

TI is applicable if there is a contract in place, as well as incurred damages through the actions of the supposed tortfeasor. There is no contract signed unless you really stretch the concept of what a EULA checkbox is or constitutes as. You shouldn't spread misinformation especially within the context of legal advice. There is no tangible way to quantify damages of anything more than the price of the tool itself and as such the legal expenses over a $100 license for a piece of software would be enough of a deterrent for any company anyway. You should really reconsider your habit of talking out of your ass.

 

^^^ yeah they can't sue you for what you made at most they could only go after you for the price of their product or "damages" and that would cost them more than than they lost out on.

 

Don't worry about using an unpaid for sample and a pirated vsti, everyone knows that two negatives cancel each other out and create a positive.

example: -12 x -12 = +144

 

Wow I just read everything and it's very interesting what you have commented.
the idea is not stealing is to make music
and I was surprised to see that now using samples is illegal.
I then asked if samples of a synthesizer like superior drummer they can detect?and can detect vst that you used ? .after seeing the new technology ozone 9 ,I was surprised to see that you can recognize a battery and a bass and remove an entire audio. And this not is ilegal?

That's when I wonder what is legal and what is illegal.
So if I'm in my recording studio and recorded songs as well as I know men who used are legal or illegal
In conclusion, the idea is to make music at some point to buy it vst.