Yes you're absolutely right, but a friend in here mentioned a good point. I don't get if you buy a software for your studio why shouldn't your engineer that works for you or your co producer use it or teach it. I know I didn't buy the plugin but I'm the one working with all the softwares here and mixing stuff! It just doesn't make any sense to me
I think some developers are really greedy
Since I posted this thread in here I went and checked myself to see if companies allow me to use the studio softwares or not and I found really weird stuff!!
Some plugin companies don't allow the licensee to share the plugin with anybody else even someone that you hired to work on your production!! Like an engineer that works for the licensee!!! Now to me this sounds really stupid! Like who would find out and why would you make such a rule?
No disrespect to anyone, this is just my opinion

 

Last edited: Jun 21, 2020

With the money I'm making as an engineer I just don't think when I'm adding up all the bills (rent, gas, etc...also supporting my family) I can ever effort to buy the plugins I love dearly.

 

i don't stream, youtube, etc, NOTHING...

BUT...
if that really worries you,
if you use a keygen, where you can type your own user name,
i ALWAYS type
"Demo Version"
or
"Trial Version"

nobody can know if it really is a demo or not(most apps work 100%, but are limited in time...)
so, if you are going to intall a particular warez plugin, and will have it on video, stream, etc, just install the official demo of that particular plugin, and see what is written (demo version... trial version.... demo version- 22 days left..... demo version-expires in 4 days". etc etc....

and just use that EXACT text as your username (some plugins GUI might show the username, but it will never show the serial. eg: 232-3453-223-64)

So, if plugin XY demo displays "demo version-11 days left",
if you use that text as a username, on your keygen,
it will then display "demo version-11 days left".... pretty much NO COMPANY can know if it really is a demo, or a warez install with "demo" as username...

this is my little technique... because i was tired of having to pick a random name... terminator... judge dread... mickey mouse...
DEMO VERSION or TRIAL VERSION never change, and are easy to type ;)

hope you like my little hidden, ultra secret technique ;)

 

Sorry but in this case why don't just install the demo version of the plugin right before recording the tutorial video?

 

They can find out. Sometimes an envy colleague is enough to denounce you. So it's better avoiding any trouble. I'm speaking about using warez, not about using legit staff in your studio. Your attempt does not harm them in any way.

And for those who believe that a music software in a studio can't be used by the clients: that's just not realistic. Why woukd a studio purchase any software then?
It's like stating the same about the hardware, those companies don't want that many musicians record their music using the same hardware, it would be laughable.
That's why I'm saying this kind of rule doesn't match with any lawful environment.
Probably one developer started this disgrace without contacting any lawyer and others just followed.
If it was a loop collection that's another story.

 

Wow Thank you so much I think this is a good Idea

 

Last edited: Jun 22, 2020

Thanks for the advice, no I never use warez when I'm in the studio, that's the only time that I see my colleagues.

 

Last time I checked sharing of knowledge or 'skillshare' is very common and legal. It only becomes illegal if you say you are qualified and are not or say you own it and do not.
You can circumvent any worry you may have over unregistered plugins if they have a trial period. Demonstrate it in full clearly showing it is the trial on a different computer. It is also worth considering that if you use it all the time then it is worth buying.
Because you have focused on demonstration as the comprehension, don't put yourself in a compromising position. As a trial, often the developer offers it to you if you are saying 'I recommend buying this for......" if your demonstration ends up selling it to others. That is not as uncommon as people think.

 

Why is a loop collection any different to a load of wavs nicely edited into vst with a nice GUI and a MIDI interface?
Like, for instance, Omnisphere?

In fact, if you read the t&c of anything by Spectrasonics, I think you'll agree that they got it sussed with that agreement.
That's how I would do it, too.

The only answer to the first comment we spoke about, is to either write in the studio owner as a songwriter's split, or write them in as a producer on the track where you would use the instruments that they owned.
So as I said, I think Eric Persing had thought long and hard about this, many many moons ago!

 

Very true. Hopefully, anyone making a video for demonstration purposes not only tries either scripting it or bullet-pointing so the valuable aspects go in a logical sequence, they give themselves enough time to do more than one take. That should remove any problems. To be helpful they will make a note that there will be beeps in the trial version that are not present in the retail version.

 

to teach elements of ITB audio engineering, we need only DAW or Audio Editor stock plugs, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Oh, and btw, we also need the ability to teach.
making videos of ourselves using specific commercial plugs while talking about them isn't really teaching and is no more than the company that codes the plug often supplies anyway (in an effort to try to get us to part with our money of course). Us making more vids of the same ilk just amounts to bunging up t'interwebz with more useless shash.
As for legalities, I think the wholesale use of autotune should be a crime along with the creation, marketing and distribution of anything that could meaningfully be described as a boy band... but that's just me.
namaste folks.

 

I don't know, can't explain accurately. But I'll try.
And it's funny that it seems I value loops more than sound libraries or vst/vsti plugins, when I don't.
Perhaps I could defend my point of view saying that loops are like ready food, vst plugins are the variety of ingredients that you can bake/cook in your way. You can say that loops can also be used as ingredients however they already had an author. A recorded sample has only an owner who sells a product that contains it. It's like the difference between a modern artwork and a screensaver on your computer. One has a given identity, the other hasn't. The developer of a screensaver can only protect the script with which he creates the moving images but can't claim author rights for the (randomised) result.

 

I don't know how long you have been mixing or mastering but for me I've been mixing for more than 8 years and have a degree on audio engineering and there are no stock plugins that can come close to UAD or Waves (the coloring and accuracy of vintage compressors/eqs that are so close to actual hardwares). And many Mixers can Understand what I'm saying when you have a client that is used to vintage sound and color they want a Vintage mix vibe! That's it period.
About teaching again I have to disagree with you...
Not many Turkish mixers understand English and want high-end products and literally they want to understand every single knob/tweak about the plugin. So I want to make a platform to help these gentlemen. Although I never owned waves due to financial situation but I mastered them while working and mixing in different studios so I know how precious these plugins are.

 

I've had professors use demo versions in class to illustrate teaching points and it's totally fine. It would be a terrible look if your students find out their teacher is using nonlegit stuff though and might take away your credibility.

 

Yes I was thinking about using the demo version.
Also I'm going to ask the studio owner to teach with their plugins that's the better option. But I don't think all the people on YouTube are using legit plugins

 

I know of one audio engineer and musician who wrote to the Devs at waves and said he was going to make a series of videos on their plugins as he purchased them. They then turned around and gave him full-time educational pricing. Eventually, over a few years, they gave him what he wanted to demonstrate in a full version often without asking him for payment. He never went overboard and never asked for everything. He is on their website list of artists now.
Attitude is everything because talent is cheap.

 

Thanks for the great advice

 

...both have to be created by a person, was my point.
So a product, be it loops or an instrument, still has a creator that would like to get paid. The same amount of work may have gone into either.

 

Yes, they must get paid. The discussion is only about paid per user or per device.
Vst/vsti/app are tools, not artworks. A tool is not meant to be locked to one person but to a device.
If a construction company buys a hammer, there's no exclusive user limitation.
For software there exists a special type of licence for personal use but nobody restricts the buyer to lend his computer, rather the restriction is defined by the type of usage: personal instead of professional.
If the developer of a sound creating tool gives these two options and a studio buys the latter, paying extra, it should have the right per device.
If there's only one option (single user), the developer should shut up.