This was good thanks so much bro

 

Sağol abı

 

Sağol kardeşim

 

Yes I will, I actually planning on buying some, but I don't have enough savings now

 

I would contact the developer and see if they could provide you with a copy in exchange for creating and posting a video review and/or vid of a lesson using their plugin.

 

warning, unpopular opinions ahead...
It's difficult to answer any of your questions because well, it depends..

Is it legal?
A plugin is not "legit" by itself. For any an every plugin there is usually a legal "contract" between the dev and the user. It is the so called End User License Agreement (EULA). In 98.7% of the cases this gives a personal, non-transferable licence to use the SW. This can usually be installed on 2 or more HW devices, but used by one person only. That means, if your boss didn't contact the dev for additional licenses (e.g. for yourself specifically), you can't (legally) use the SW as we speak.

For now you are somehow hiding behind the walls of your studio. But your intention is to go on open platform. I would really, strongly advise AGAINST writing your (real) name on non legit plugs and/or advertising the studio, while being in non-legal situation.

One option is to use the demo version to teach. Just looking at the channels with 10K+ subscribers like "Mixing With Mike". There is always the xx days left (demo) written on the plugin. His videos are then featured on dev's pages. Don't really know if you have to ask them.. a lot depends on how popular are you. Maybe some devs would give you a copy of the plugin if you present them your project..

If you are serious about this, you'll have to be legally in order sooner or later

Will you get in trouble?
Well that's the 1m $ question. Asking myself the same every day....;)

 

Thanks for the advice

 

..

 

If you reach a certain amount of views and/or subscribers, it's possible some developers give you a free copy as it's an advertisement for them.

About the studio, if the owner bought the software for the studio and not for personal use, anyone working in the studio should have the right to use the software.

And about the developers chasing you, there have been confirmed cases published where companies like the developer of Waves went after cracked copies in big studios.

I think whatever you do on youtube, you should always be aware of not breaking any law as it's public and you will somehow earn money with your video.

Now, there is another problem you guys haven't discussed yet. So, the instruction video is released on youtube, people are watching it, and then some if not most of them will comment the obvious: "Where can I download it?" "I need a cracked version" etc.
How would you deal with this situation? Would you give them a hint about where to find that software?

 

Thanks for the great info! I think the owner bought all of the plugins for the studio.
About your last topic I was actually planning on adding the legit vst plugin links under my YouTube videos.
For example teaching Waves compressors then directing my viewers to waves's actual site. and I wasn't going to tell that I'm using the cracked ones I don't think they're going to find out. Still undecided
Just a thought

 

Everything should be OK as long as none of the songs you use as examples criticize Mr. Recep Erdogan. If you do then there will be a swift takedown and harsh reprisals.

 

Nah. Doesn't work like that according to most licences for Kontakt sound libraries.
Else we'd all be hiring the one studio that owned the Spitfire Audio BBC stuff, or whatever! And we would only need to say that we'd recorded there if we wanted to use a shared library!

 

No I'm not going to talk about him

 

The question is what has happened so far?
Developers can threaten people with their statements over the internet but have they ever won any case on court with it?
I know it has been discussed on forums like here but I doubt they could do it.
Studios must have employees, the goods are purchased by the owner. And a studio is not necessarily built only for recording songs for one musician or band.
These license rules are nonsenses.
If you buy a software in general, it's usually registered for a hardware, not for a person.
I guess it's a polemic topic, I don't really want to start a storm here, it just doen't make any logical sense to me, in a democratic system at least.
If a developer is so greedy and wants this rule to be taken seriously, they should offer different licenses for persons and for studios. That happens for other softwares, a company can't install a Windows Home version legally.
In the meanwhile can you imagine Adobe sueining for use of their software by multiple people on a computer at an agency?
If you buy a music software (not a loop collection) people will be able to use it for one project at a time and that's why that restriction doesn't make sense.
And f*ck S*itfire, their strings libraries are just evoluted from the old Albion samples, regardless of whether it's a chamber or symphonic orchestra sound, whatever name they put on it, those are faked.

 

Good point.
But yet, what is legal the court is due to decide.

 

remember when Avicii was caught using a cracked Sylenth, and similar with Martin Garrix
someone will see it always and if that guy/girl send a screenshot to the company... prepare for trouble.
so my advice... don't . You don't give drivers lessons in stolen car too, do you.?