In his feedback history there's only one sale of the profile pack (59€)... so at least he's not being very successful taking advantage of other people's work...
Yes, but this tricky Guy is selling also from the site Mercatino Musicale well known in Italy ... and he is making money with the work of others ... 
seems to me, DRM is "growing up and paying for it"... without DRM we can be swash-bucking pirates... But considering the turn on software development cycles, I'd say even if it were implemented, you're looking at.. well, not any time soon and most likely, never.
Apple's OS X is built heavily upon the foundation of FreeBSD, a piece of free software developed outside of Apple.
So what? If they're acting within the scope of their license, I think the word "thief" is totally inappropriate.
The Kemper is a camera for sound. It "captures" sound waves. A photo camera "captures" lightwaves. A photograph is art and not theft. A Kemper profile is art not theft!
The Kemper is a camera for sound. It "captures" sound waves. A photo camera "captures" lightwaves. A photograph is art and not theft. A Kemper profile is art not theft!
Very nice! 
burningyen, I was never actually calling Apple a theif. Someone made the point (maybe it was you) that using the work of others without paying them for it is theft. I don't agree with that. It is an attempt to conflate value and money exchange into the same thing. It'd be like saying strangers on the subway owe me money because a I wear deoderant, or I owe them money if I don't and I smell like crap. Positive and negative externalities occur all the time, but without mutually-agreed upon contracts or clear cut violations of property rights, nobody should be entitled to anyone else's scarce property or labor just because they provided them with something they happen to enjoy or dislike.
Obviously, the FreeBSD and Apple is clearly not a problematic issue - the BSD team isn't complaining nor is Apple. A less clear-cut example would be for patents, which are often vague. Copyright is usually more clear-cut, but not always. Look at the Joe Satriani - Coldplay lawsuit. It's the same chords, same melody almost exactly, but if you actually listen, do you feel it's the same song. I don't. I think the outcome was correct. But there are other cases where the opposite occurs.
So let me just throw out a hypothetical to make my point. I develop X software, copyright it, and charge $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 for a single license. Somebody copies it and uses it illegally. Should they owe me the $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00? Maybe you could say they do, or more likely you'd say they owe me something but not that outrageous amount. Now let's get a little worse - someone copies the code, removes the copyright notices (or replaces them) and gives/sells it to a third party who structures their business around this. Can I bring the hammer down on them? Legally, I think I could; and then they'd have to sue the person they got the code from. But if they can't find that person at that point, they get screwed.
Of course hypotheticals are always extreme, not the norm. See below.
At the same time, I'm not pro-pirate. While I think IP should be eliminated from a legal perspective, we still live in an IP world and producers are basing their business on this. It is wrong to commercially rerelease their wares without their authority. There's a big difference between wanting to change the rules in the future and breaking the rules in the present.
While I am in favor of eliminating all IP law, I would certainly be willing to make an exception for the commercial rerelease of direct copies of copyrighted works. That's not sharing with friends or expanding upon others' work - it's trying to undercut the producer without adding any value to the product. Of course there are cases where I want to argue against protection even in that case, but I certainly sympathize with producers here.
My preferred method to move from an IP world to a free-flowing information world isn't an overnight elimination of all law. Just start winding it down. Shorten patent protection and copyright periods. Make what can be copyrighted and patented stricter and stricter. Loosen fair use exemptions. Expand fair usage to cover derivative works that are significantly differentiated from the original work. Give everyone time to adapt.
burningyen, I was never actually calling Apple a theif. Someone made the point (maybe it was you) that using the work of others without paying them for it is theft. I don't agree with that.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
The Kemper is a camera for sound. It "captures" sound waves. A photo camera "captures" lightwaves. A photograph is art and not theft. A Kemper profile is art not theft!
Hmm... How about this counter argument...
The sound created by a Vox AC30 is a piece of art, handcrafted by master artisans. Capturing and re-creating this artistic rendering is counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is theft. Therefore, a profile is...
Hey, I'm not going there. I'm willing to rationalize like everyone else. 
I buy commercial profiles and love them but there is something I don't fell comfortable with.
What do you think about taking profit of the successful brand image of others to sell your products?
As we have gone way off track with this...
I think the original post was about a group of users who were sharing profiles and then inviting others to buy profiles and they could all then share.Not exactly the worst case of theft I have heard of.
I don't have a problem with a group purchase as such - that would be maybe something like a licensing issue for the companies (a 5 user licence) involved.Where it really oversteps the mark for me is where there are attempts to sell for profit to unknown individuals.I'm not sure that was the intention here.
pacocito, you are talking about trademark violation. In the case that a street vendor claims his wares are authentic ___ brand, then yeah, I think that's fraud. But in the case where profiles were created using ___ amp, it's clearly not fraud - in fact its almost necessary to understand what you're buying. If you notice the commercial vendors that are concerned with complying with the law will put a * next to any amps they list, then say something like * based on the sounds created by ___ amp and credit that brand with their trademark.
I think the best point about trademark is that its original intent was to protect CUSTOMERS from the chaotic confusion that would ensue if every vendor could piggyback on the name recognition of their competitors. It was quickly subverted by companies to disparage competition even where there was no customer confusion.
As we have gone way off track with this...
I think the original post was about a group of users who were sharing profiles and then inviting others to buy profiles and they could all then share.Not exactly the worst case of theft I have heard of.
I don't have a problem with a group purchase as such - that would be maybe something like a licensing issue for the companies (a 5 user licence) involved.Where it really oversteps the mark for me is where there are attempts to sell for profit to unknown individuals.I'm not sure that was the intention here.
Yeah, the problem is "the mark". Your mark is subjective and personal. The mark for other people is either further or closer, so intentionally overstepping happens quite frequently, or not at all, depending on your mark.
That's why this discussion has gone off track, and why there will likely never be complete agreement.
While I am in favor of eliminating all IP law, I would certainly be willing to make an exception for the commercial rerelease of direct copies of copyrighted works. That's not sharing with friends or expanding upon others' work - it's trying to undercut the producer without adding any value to the product. Of course there are cases where I want to argue against protection even in that case, but I certainly sympathize with producers here.
My preferred method to move from an IP world to a free-flowing information world isn't an overnight elimination of all law. Just start winding it down. Shorten patent protection and copyright periods. Make what can be copyrighted and patented stricter and stricter. Loosen fair use exemptions. Expand fair usage to cover derivative works that are significantly differentiated from the original work. Give everyone time to adapt.
We will agree to disagree that IP laws are outdated and should be eliminated. The removal of a revenue stream for intellectual or artistic endeavors will curtail their production. It already has. I believe that people have a right to where, when, and how, their creations are distributed.
Trying to tie this to whether money changes hand is a ploy that has no legs to stand on. It's as simple as people deciding for themselves that they want but they won't pay in order to have.
People can gift what is theirs, contract with others for monetary gain < even poorly worded contracts >, an idea, or realization of a dream such as a movie, book, musical capture, etc. are the maker's of such thing to keep to themselves, give away, or sell... There are other ways to approach price gouging, fixing. Notions that those who can't or won't pay should have have things anyway without payment is wrong IMO. If something is of no value there is no need to possess it. We aren't talking life sustaining, can't survive without things here. People can't just have thing because their desire trumps all other considerations.
Jonas Salk gave away his rights polio vaccine. I salute him for doing so. It was his choice.
Hey. it's just one guys opinion.
Hmm... How about this counter argument...
The sound created by a Vox AC30 is a piece of art, handcrafted by master artisans. Capturing and re-creating this artistic rendering is counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is theft. Therefore, a profile is...
Hey, I'm not going there. I'm willing to rationalize like everyone else.
It's a good notion to point to. Even though it isn't your convicted belief.
Harley Davidson tried going there to seek protection against v twin motorcycles produced in
other countries which sounded like HD engines. After 6 years in litigation, they dropped the quest. I'd venture that it might seem difficult to trademark the sound of something which has knobs to vary the sound.... I'd say Harley had a better shot than amp companies which sell amps that have adjustable tone knobs and volume controls. 
So let me just throw out a hypothetical to make my point. I develop X software, copyright it, and charge $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 for a single license. Somebody copies it and uses it illegally. Should they owe me the $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00? Maybe you could say they do, or more likely you'd say they owe me something but not that outrageous amount.
So this happened to me; I wrote it, licensed it and the customer sold it, (valued in the millions) without paying me. Let me tell you, it hurts!! Thank God for IP laws. Of course because of IP laws, I was able to get restitution. When you write something, be it software or music, as it relates around here, you put your knowledge, environment and time into it; "good will" hopefully takes root and the value of your efforts increase. If so, the value could be ten or a hundred times what you put into it; of course, it's not guaranteed. I have the right, when I claim my right, to receive restitution to make me whole again; the courts decide the amount, my job is to provide facts.
It's wrong to steal... though many justify it to themselves with whatever means to get what they want. "What's a few KPA profiles?"
Yes, in a 'human' community a case like this had to happen some time and inevitably so.
No surprise here.
But children, remember that using pirate profiles builds very very bad karma.
It can cause failure in your profiler and arthritis in your hands.
Or something along these lines.
+1
"The removal of a revenue stream for intellectual or artistic endeavors will curtail their production."
This assumes that IP is the only means to obtain a revenue stream for intellectual or artistic endeavors, but there are countless counter-examples.
"It already has."
In what field? Against Intellectual Property provides lots of specific examples of fields that thrived without IP. In my short life time I have not noticed that there are less of any informational goods being produced, despite Napster and derivatives. My one friend who is an actual artist makes his money without any reliance on IP.
Duke, I am curious as to what the product is - are you at liberty to say? I am glad you got restitution. Again, I want to reiterate that I am not pro-pirate or pro-fraud or pro-contract violation. I think we should change the law and everyone would then change how they produce and distribute informational goods. In such an environment, maybe you make less money. I assure you its nothing personal. Maybe I do too. It's just what I feel is right, although I certainly understand and have sympathy in some cases for the opposite side of the argument. But maybe we make more money. Or maybe our money buys more.
I'm not saying it applies in your case, but it's just a curious thought experiment. I'm saying "you", but it's really a hypothetical: if you charge $1.00 to your customers and your license forbids re-release, but they end up selling it to others for $1,000,000, do you get $1.00 for each unsanctioned release, or $1,000,000 for each?
Or vice versa. Then you have the case where the people that bought for $1.00 likely wouldn't have bought at $1,000,000. So what's your restitution? How can anyone possibly determine what real damage to you are? You could use customary pricing, but it's definitely assumptive and in many ways arbitrary.
In any case, I think what's obviously fair is that you get ALL the money they made off the illegal redistributions.
Unfortunately, i didn't get all the money they made off of their resale. It was software.. in an industry that didn't have anything like my company had developed; very cutting edge stuff that a giant company wanted. I signed an agreement/license for redistribution with them and they paid me a deposit up front but when they sold the software to the huge account (international multi-location licenses), they didn't pay me according to the contract; it was taken care of.
I used to have to keep my programmers off of Napster.. they'd store tons of illegal music on company servers and then serve it back out to the world. I had to let a couple go to stop it. It's just wrong.. I give away music that I write.. I sell some to provide for more distribution and I donate all of my profits to charity.. but all of this is my choice as an artist. So in the end, I believe it's up to the artist, creator, what have you, to make the decision as to how they want to address their creations. And so it goes for all of you who create really cool profiles.. and I'm happy to use freebies, there's so many that are just great; but I'd gladly pay for ones that I found that are commercial.
As soon as I got my Kemper I spent £100 on TAF.
I thought they would be encrypted to my account? Is this not the case? I could give the profiles to a friend or receive them without restriction?
I think that TAF is a business that survives alone on the money it makes from those profiles alone. It doesn't operate like a record company that can make money in lots of ways and so I do feel that paying for those that ask for payment is right.
I believe it's always right to pay what a manufacturer asks, unless it's a first need good. You can choose to not give them your money, not to dispute about the price.
