Heads-up to soundware vendors: Soundware sharks preying on newbies.

[Robmobius]

I work really hard to create original work from scratch. I design every sound from a single, very basic, blank canvas. If a synth doesn't have an "init" function, I go out of my way to create a basic, single saw wave with all parameters initialized, then save it as a blank canvas to work with. When somebody takes another person's work, which was probably pirated to begin with, alters a few settings, then calls it "their" work, that's not "sound design." Doing so without permission falls into legally dangerous territory, and it can be proven a lot easier than many of those soundware sharks seem to think .

Anyone taking or pirating your work is scum and they deserve everything they get...

However, I'd say it would be very hard to take litigious action against someone using your preset as a starting point, and then reworking it into something else.

Can you actually own envelope, LFO, effects or modulation settings? I presume these pirates would re-save your preset with their own details. How different does a preset need to be for you to hold the intellectual rights. I'm just curious from a legal standpoint.

That's something you'd really need to prove, or you could be considered, (right or wrongly) libelous.

[Xenos]

I work really hard to create original work from scratch. I design every sound from a single, very basic, blank canvas. If a synth doesn't have an "init" function, I go out of my way to create a basic, single saw wave with all parameters initialized, then save it as a blank canvas to work with. When somebody takes another person's work, which was probably pirated to begin with, alters a few settings, then calls it "their" work, that's not "sound design." Doing so without permission falls into legally dangerous territory, and it can be proven a lot easier than many of those soundware sharks seem to think .

Anyone taking or pirating your work is scum and they deserve everything they get...

However, I'd say it would be very hard to take litigious action against someone using your preset as a starting point, and then reworking it into something else.

Can you actually own envelope, LFO, effects or modulation settings? I presume these pirates would re-save your preset with their own details. How different does a preset need to be for you to hold the intellectual rights. I'm just curious from a legal standpoint.

That's something you'd really need to prove, or you could be considered, (right or wrongly) libelous.

These issues can be easily solved without resorting to such childish behavior. Just saying there are others out there who may not feel the same as you and I do. Creating original work has the added benefit of not having to constantly worry about getting caught by the wrong person.

[Robmobius]

These issues can be easily solved without resorting to such childish behavior.

Riiight... Well, I wish you the best of luck with it.

However, it now it sounds like an empty threat to a potential sound abuser. And if that certain individual lacks that morale compass to prevent them stealing or heavily borrowing in the first place - I'm sure they'd tell you to 'jog on'.

Also, for sound Internet sellers I'd say it's not really worth the hassle to rigorously check everything they sell. Beyond a heads up from someone like your good self.

And I guess, if they had some clout, then it would be your word vs their word. That brings me kinda' back to just how different a sound has to be? I'd say proving it is beyond reasonable doubt is very tricky... Asuming they re saved it.

I say this because I upload stock art - which is potentially very lucrative. The larger sites are fine. Because their resources are virtually infinite. So, if someone is found in copyright infringement, they are basically fooked because they will be sued (if said image is not removed). Even if it's for very little money. It's the principal of course and to deter others.

However on two smaller sites I've found my artwork used on two occasions by a total fluke. I'm not sure how much has been used overall - same goes for other artists). I should say 'plagiarized' much like someone would do for a preset IE - use the base and then 'change it a tad'. However, I could easily prove that my artwork (badly copied btw) was originally mine. Photo shop, 2 layers lined up and one with opacity. And I had the original file.

But even then, I guess it not really worth the hassle because I can spend more time doing artwork that sells. Karten hit the nail on the head I think.

I also think your strategy is off kilter - I can't really see your elite club doing all that much or having the power to do so.

But best of luck with it...

[Xenos]

There are definitely flaws to be worked out, but I believe it can have a powerful indirect effect IF done properly. Still gathering ideas at the moment. Just to be clear, the whole point of the club is gaining buyer trust in its members and encouraging higher standards across the board. IMHO, we have to approach this club idea from a buyer's perspective, not a seller's perspective.

[Robmobius]

There are definitely flaws to be worked out, but I believe it can have a powerful indirect effect IF done properly. Still gathering ideas at the moment. Just to be clear, the whole point of the club is gaining buyer trust in its members and encouraging higher standards across the board. IMHO, we have to approach this club idea from a buyer's perspective, not a seller's perspective.

I hear ya'. I think the idea has merit for sure. But as you say if implemented in the right way - could be a powerful tool.

For me, after much thought, it seems like a near impossible challenge for one, but if you get a collective of enough people (as you're trying to do), and using the correct form of profiling (ie - targeting the suspicious or narrowing the size of the search) it could definitely work.

[Ridan]

So, basically have the sound designers who want their sound banks "stamped for approval" submit it to the committee?

[Ridan]

There could also be a tiny logo "stamped" onto the soundbank to show that's it's been tested. Not sure if artists would want their covers messed with though. I personally wouldn't mind.

Sorry if that's been mentioned. Read through all of this rather quickly.

[Xenos]

@ Ridan: That's pretty much what I'm thinking. Still ironing things out.

Just to clarify, guys, this isn't about going after people or any sort of militant approach. The club's purpose would be similar to how accredited universities work. Would you hire someone whose "degree" is from a diploma mill?

[planetearth]

There are definitely flaws to be worked out, but I believe it can have a powerful indirect effect IF done properly. Still gathering ideas at the moment. Just to be clear, the whole point of the club is gaining buyer trust in its members and encouraging higher standards across the board. IMHO, we have to approach this club idea from a buyer's perspective, not a seller's perspective.

Over all, I think this could be a good idea. It would be interesting to see how it gets implemented, and how it can remain fair to all the developers who submit or who are members.

As a non-developer (but a fervent user of great sounds that I know I can't design myself!), I'd like to see this progress.

But how would you determine who created a patch first? That is, if someone is basically copying/ripping off Tim Conrardy or someone like that, who will say something? (Well, other than Eric Persing, who will threaten to sue anyone who makes anything that sounds like a Roland patch.) But, how will you even determine who made a patch first? If someone comes to you saying "I developed this sound for the [whatever] synth, and your version in Sylenth is set up/programmed the same way, but you gave credit to someone else," how will you determine the true owner/developer?

It's only fairly recently that patch developers have been given credit, so if someone decides to make their own version of a "famous" patch, who will determine the ownership?

Steve

[Xenos]

Hi, Planetearth,

That would be too complicated. As far as authenticity goes, the members would simply be checking to make sure THEIR work isnt in the submitted item. If someone believes he spots his own work, he'll have to be able to convince other members that such claims are valid, otherwise it's BS.

Also, here's another thing to consider: All the club members would be listed publicly on the site. If a shark recognises the names of people he ripped off, and he knows that the members in question might review his submission themselves, he wont apply for membership. The more members we have, the fewer sharks will even bother applying, because that would be more names the sharks recognize.

BTW, if anyone is wondering, the club would not be an online store. Each member would have their own page on the club's website, with links to where their club-approved products can be purchased directly at the member's own store. No collecting commissions from sales or anything like that.

[planetearth]

Hi, Planetearth,

That would be too complicated. As far as authenticity goes, the members would simply be checking to make sure THEIR work isnt in the submitted item. If someone believes he spots his own work, he'll have to be able to convince other members that such claims are valid, otherwise it's BS.

Also, here's another thing to consider: All the club members would be listed publicly on the site. If a shark recognises the names of people he ripped off, and he knows that the members in question might review his submission themselves, he wont apply for membership. The more members we have, the fewer sharks will even bother applying, because that would be more names the sharks recognize.

Okay, but how will I know if my stuff is being submitted by someone else, if it's for a different synth? Say I developed a set for NI's synths, but I don't have Sylenth or Diva. How will I know if something submitted for Sylenth or Diva is the same sound as what I created, if I can't test them? (This is assuming the "shark" had enough sense to change the name of the patch.)

I'm not trying to poke holes in the plan; I'm just trying to understand how it would work. As it is now, it seems that each developer in the "club" would need access to all the synths/plug-ins that all the other developers had, so that he could...somehow...test the patches to see if they sounded like something he created. I'm just trying to understand how that would work on a day-to-day basis.

Steve

[elassi]

At first glance I see some advantages in "the club":

- more weight on the market than each individual would have when "fighting" alone
- first class reputation (every individual member would profit from each other, too)
- more sales (due to combined triggering of potential customer's attention)
- wide palette/portfolio which is for sure bigger than those of the individual sound designer

This (and surely more) advantages all lead to improving numbers (=turn over).

But imho they won't stop pirating or plagiarism, I'm afraid.

[Xenos]

Hi, Planetearth,

That would be too complicated. As far as authenticity goes, the members would simply be checking to make sure THEIR work isnt in the submitted item. If someone believes he spots his own work, he'll have to be able to convince other members that such claims are valid, otherwise it's BS.

Also, here's another thing to consider: All the club members would be listed publicly on the site. If a shark recognises the names of people he ripped off, and he knows that the members in question might review his submission themselves, he wont apply for membership. The more members we have, the fewer sharks will even bother applying, because that would be more names the sharks recognize.

Okay, but how will I know if my stuff is being submitted by someone else, if it's for a different synth? Say I developed a set for NI's synths, but I don't have Sylenth or Diva. How will I know if something submitted for Sylenth or Diva is the same sound as what I created, if I can't test them? (This is assuming the "shark" had enough sense to change the name of the patch.)

I'm not trying to poke holes in the plan; I'm just trying to understand how it would work. As it is now, it seems that each developer in the "club" would need access to all the synths/plug-ins that all the other developers had, so that he could...somehow...test the patches to see if they sounded like something he created. I'm just trying to understand how that would work on a day-to-day basis.

Steve

It's not the sound we worry about, just the patch file. If it's a sound for a different synth, it's not the same patch file. That's impossible. As sound designers often use the word "sound" when we mean "preset file", that's why people sometimes misunderstand what we mean by "ripping of our work".

Glad you brought this up. It never occured to me to clarify this point. Files, not soundwaves lol.

[Xenos]

At first glance I see some advantages in "the club":

- more weight on the market than each individual would have when "fighting" alone
- first class reputation (every individual member would profit from each other, too)
- more sales (due to combined triggering of potential customer's attention)
- wide palette/portfolio which is for sure bigger than those of the individual sound designer

This (and surely more) advantages all lead to improving numbers (=turn over).

But imho they won't stop pirating or plagiarism, I'm afraid.

I agree on all points . Plagerism and piracy will never be stopped, and frankly I dont trust Big Government "solutions". It's simply the price of "doing business" online, and we have to accept it.

The club's purpose is to separate the legitimate artists from the plagerists. By having more original artists on board, volunteering to review new submissions before acceptance, the better we would be at filtering out the plagerists.

[trimph1]

Would watermarking work?