KVR Audio

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:10 pm

Nobody needs a license to the interface. That is fully public domain. Nobody owns a patent on such a thing and nobody can control what you do without one.

You do need a license for creating a derivative of third party source-code: so if you use any copyright protected SDKs you need a license, obviously.

The problem is entirely about which code you use. If you write your own code you don't need anything.

pressplay1 · Post by **pressplay1** » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:35 pm

I stumbled upon this little sentence in the VST3 license agreement which makes me a bit nervous: "Any and all prior VST PlugIn SDK Agreements between Steinberg and the Licensee regarding previous VST PlugIn SDK versions shall be automatically terminated by signing this Agreement." Now this makes any existing VST2 agreement useless.

Edit: The contract for version 3.6.12 is phrased differently: "Any and all prior VST 3 Plug-In SDK Agreements... ".

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:22 am

That's a normal clause in a contract that updates/replaces an existing one. The reason for it is that in order for the new contract to cover the same material the old one needs to be terminated. With multiple agreements providing the same license you can end up in a situation where the contract is non-enforceable.

A contract that contains a clause that impacts other agreements unnecessarily however wouldn't be valid: in order for any clause or term to be valid it must provide reasonable consideration. So for example if the contract asked you to sign over your "eternal soul" or "infinite money" this would not be valid because it wouldn't be possible for you to be provided reasonable consideration for an entirely abstract thing like "infinity".

This is one reason I believe most of the terms in the VST related agreements are non-enforceable.

tony10000 · Post by **tony10000** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:13 am

So, what happens to new devs that haven't signed the Steinberg agreement? They can't make VSTs that work on many popular DAWs (like Ableton and Reason). So, they are pretty much locked out of the marketplace?

sth · Post by **sth** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:29 pm

Unfortunately, I do not pay attention to matters such as these and I missed the chance to get my older licensing agreement. I've been making plugins as a hobby slowly and with little attention given to this. Only when I thought about releasing it because it's turned out quite nice is when I find out I missed the deadline! Oops!

I run Linux, so you can surely imagine my arguments over this VST situation. I mainly want to point out what a ****ing pain VST3 is compared to VST2. Keep in mind, I'm just in C/C++ with the SDK and a quick UI framework; I'm not using any larger frameworks or plugin-making libraries. I was quickly able to setup my ideas in VST2, and I found the idea of the IRunLoop in VST3 might improve my UI's refresh rate which is important for this plugin. However, days/weeks of messing with the VST3 implementation and I just abandoned it because some of it is frustratingly unclear and I hate the architecture of it even more. Even though I got my processing part done, I could not figure out the GUI. The passing of parameters/data between the Controller/Processor is so convoluted; and as an analyzer, the primary purpose of my plugin is to show in the GUI a ton of information that comes from the processing.

So, Tony, not only is there a very tiny market for VST3 (currently), it's harder for you to build the product that goes into it! What's yet to be seen is how even those who *have signed* the VST2 License Agreement will be treated by $teinberg.

unevens · Post by **unevens** » Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:25 pm

aciddose wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:10 pm Nobody needs a license to the interface. That is fully public domain. Nobody owns a patent on such a thing and nobody can control what you do without one.

You do need a license for creating a derivative of third party source-code: so if you use any copyright protected SDKs you need a license, obviously.

The problem is entirely about which code you use. If you write your own code you don't need anything.

Hi aciddose. You make an interesting point.
I read your post, smiled, and found a minimal implementation of the vst2 interface.

However, after some research, I believe that the situation is not that easy.

Have you considered the Google vs Oracle legal battle for the Java API?
The judges decided that APIs are copyrightable.

Now, IMHO the Java API is actually a something with an intellectual value worth of the concept of copyright.

Many other APIs shouldn't qualify for copyright (again, IMHO).

Also, in a more decent world, APIs wouldn't be copyrightable, and there would be a open standard for audio plugins, used by all DAWs and in the public domain...

...too bad, APIs are copyrightable. So if I made a plugin that practically implements the vst2 API, without using any file from the sdk, I would be still infringing steinberg's copyright. I guess any decision in that matter would be up to a judge/court/dictator.

Am I wrong? Please, tell me I'm wrong.

stratum · Post by **stratum** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:42 am

https://github.com/jonasstrandstedt/Min ... /windows.h

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:43 am

unevens: You're wrong. Do your research before you post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_Insti ... amming_Ltd

tony10000 · Post by **tony10000** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 3:05 am

JUCE has also removed the VST2 header files from the JUCE repo.

https://forum.juce.com/t/the-removal-of ... -sdk/29994

So, new devs are pretty well locked out.

unevens · Post by **unevens** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:38 pm

aciddose: Thank you for that link!
stratum: eheh, ok, ok.

I'm sorry for my ignorance, I don't have much of a culture about law.
That's why I was doing my research and how I read about Google vs Oracle - which is what comes up these days if you search for "api copyright" and similar stuff.
But you clearly know more than me about this topic, so please bear with me.

One of the things I read about Google vs Oracle was

Software developers routinely treat APIs as exempt from copyright protection. [...] Under the court’s logic, nearly any API larger than a few words or phrases could be protected by copyright.

On the other hand, in the wikipedia link about the EU ruling on SAS Institute vs World Programming, it says that

The EU Court of Justice ruled that copyright protection does not extend to the software functionality, the programming language used and the format of the data files used by the program.

So, to my understanding, APIs are not copyrightable in the EU, but they are in the USA.

Anyway, thank you again, you guys have given me enough to think about.

tony10000 · Post by **tony10000** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:36 pm

Steinberg has issued DCMA takedown notices to everyone who had posted the VST2 SDK on Github: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/mas ... einberg.md

tony10000 · Post by **tony10000** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:37 pm

tony10000 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:36 pm Steinberg has issued DMCA takedown notices to everyone who had posted the VST2 SDK on Github: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/mas ... einberg.md

sth · Post by **sth** » Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:02 pm

That makes sense though, as the VST2 SDK license prohibited sharing/redistributing it. The VST3 SDK allows you to redistribute it if you are operating under the GPL license.

More interesting is the DMCA takedowns for the "vestige.h" which was not from the VST2 SDK, but rather a bare-bones header defining the necessary parts to build a VST2 plugin.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:00 pm

unevens wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:38 pm So, to my understanding, APIs are not copyrightable in the EU, but they are in the USA.

Anyway, thank you again, you guys have given me enough to think about.

No, that's incorrect. An "API" or any document including creative expression is eligible for copyright protection.

That is how copyright is defined!

What isn't protected is an idea.

We protect a work of art.

The definition of art is: an abstract concept or idea applied to a concrete medium.

So it's something you've taken from the abstract and made into a concrete realization of that idea.

A concept like the "language" and "protocol" used by VST is not protected.

The source-code for the VST SDK itself is protected because it's a concrete realization of that abstract interface.

Copyright protection can extend to alternative realizations of the same abstract only when the alternative is derived in whole or in part from the original which was under protection.

When we define something like an abstract interface such as VST it becomes a concrete reality that can be measured. It is not simply the concrete implementation of the interface but a real communication that happens in fact.

So if we document these facts stripped of any of the original creative expression those facts are not protected by copyright.

These are essential, foundational concepts of copyright law.

Re: Google v Oracle

This case is actually still not finalized.

There are a couple important points to remember:

1) Google was found to have infringed by copying original portions of the copyright protected Java SDK verbatim (this means copy and paste.)

2) There are pending appeals that will possibly last for the next decade. The case is likely to end up in the US supreme court.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:10 pm

sth wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:02 pm More interesting is the DMCA takedowns for the "vestige.h" which was not from the VST2 SDK, but rather a bare-bones header defining the necessary parts to build a VST2 plugin.

Not really.

The process was automated and used filenames and sub-string searches. Since the vestige header was named "audioeffectx.h" this would have triggered the filename match and content inside the header (matching words or phrases) would have triggered the substring search to match.

If the file had been named "vestige.h" it is likely this would have never occurred.

See here:

https://github.com/falkTX/dssi-vst/blob ... aeffectx.h

(Note: since these matches were not valid, it wasn't required for anyone hosting the vestige headers to do anything but respond to the complaint via github's procedures. Notice that no action has been taken and you can continue to find copies of the VST SDK all over github.)

Selling VST2 after October 2018: Steinberg agreement