It seemed to be implied by your comment regarding the hypocrisy of licensing profiles while copying "something made by someone else".
You gotta be kidding me...
I straight out said that it is hypocrisy to label profilling of a digital copy as "unethical" - while labelling the profilling of a physical original as "ethical"!
The KPA is designed to profile!
We use that feature!
So profile anything that can be profiled!
Display MoreYou're overcomplicating/overthinking things.
You copy the sound of an amp at a certain setting - you got a copy. You sell that copy. Fine by me.
You copy the sound someone created with a mic at a certain setting - you got a copy, You sell that copy. Fine by me.
Where's the difference?
That in the second case - someone gave you a licence to use their sound?
And in the first case someone did not sell you a licence but sold you the amp which he did not intended to be copied?
So you support someone that copys something and then adds a note to his copy that this copy is HIS? But he copied something made by someone else (with sweat, tears, knowledge, years of training, time and taste etc.) in the first place?
To me that hypocrisy
So when you support that digitally copying something is acceptable - go all the way - not halfway!
I fail to see the hypocrisy. I think you should read my post again.
I fail to see the hypocrisy. I think you should read my post again.
We disagree then... that's ok 
Display MoreYou gotta be kidding me...
I straight out said that it is hypocrisy to label profilling of a digital copy as "unethical" - while labelling the profilling of a physical original as "ethical"!
The KPA is designed to profile!
We use that feature!
So profile anything that can be profiled!
Do amp manufacturers have licensing agreements that forbid profiling?
Nope.
So?
Nope.
So?
So that's the difference.
So that's the difference.
So according to you:
It's ok to profile an amp.
But it's not ok to profile a digital copy?
And just so you don't get me wrong: I support making profiles of anything that can be profiled
So according to you:
It's ok to profile an amp.
But it's not ok to profile a digital copy?
If the licensing agreement of a seller specifically forbids it, no. Why would it be?
If the licensing agreement of a seller specifically forbids it, no. Why would it be?
Ok I see where we disagree...
1.)The seller strictly forbids copying...
2.)The amp manufacturer does not strictly forbid it...
yet
1.)the seller used a device to *copy* an original (I bet he even orders amps at Thomann, profiles them, and sends them back).
2,)Now, you could use your device to copy *his* original - but that's not cool - the first case was cool though!
And yet you fail to see the hypocrisy?
I'm impressed!
So profilling is cool - but only halfway...
1) The seller uses the device to "copy" (your word, not mine) a specific setting of the amp, with a specific cab/speaker (possibly part of the amp, so never mind), at specific settings, with a specific mic(s) at a specific position(s), based on his or her knowledge, experience etc etc etc. It involves work, and knowhow. Value is added by this process - the original product is not copied, it is altered, most often quite profoundly. It is also only a (series of) snapshot(s) of the amp settings.
2) here there is no added value whatsoever, and no experience, knowledge, blah blah blah involved. not OK to sell, not OK to share.
Display More
Ok I see where we disagree...
1.)The seller strictly forbids copying...
2.)The amp manufacturer does not strictly forbid it...
yet
1.)the seller used a device to *copy* an original (I bet he even orders amps at Thomann, profiles them, and sends them back).
2,)Now, you could use your device to copy *his* original - but that's not cool - the first case was cool though!
I don't see this as much different than buying studio time and using a particular amp in said studio to copy/record the sound of that amp in a song, then licensing that song to entities for use in other commercial projects. In both cases, you're copying the sound of an amp with the intent of producing a product that can be licensed commercially and used in other products for commercial gain. Whether you actually sell the end result is up to you, but either way the amp manufacturer isn't being paid royalties for the sound of their amps and the end product may or may not be licensed many times over to several entities afterward.
1) The seller uses the device to "copy" (your word, not mine) a specific setting of the amp, with a specific cab/speaker (possibly part of the amp, so never mind), at specific settings, with a specific mic(s) at a specific position(s), based on his or her knowledge, experience etc etc etc. It involves work, and knowhow. Value is added by this process - the original product is not copied, it is altered, most often quite profoundly. It is also only a (series of) snapshot(s) of the amp settings.
2) here there is no added value whatsoever, and no experience, knowledge, blah blah blah involved. not OK to sell, not OK to share.
You clearly think different than I do.
What I see is:
1.)you copy an amp at a setting with a device made for copying
2.)you copy a profile at a setting with a device made for copying
I don't see this as much different than buying studio time and using a particular amp in said studio to copy/record the sound of that amp in a song, then licensing that song to entities for use in other commercial projects. In both cases, you're copying the sound of an amp with the intent of producing a product that can be licensed commercially and used in other products for commercial gain. Whether you actually sell the end result is up to you, but either way the amp manufacturer isn't being paid royalties for the sound of their amps and the end product may or may not be licensed many times over to several entities afterward.
So you are for paying royalties to the amp manufacturer?
You clearly think different than I do.
What I see is:
1.)you copy an amp at a setting with a device made for copying
2.)you copy a profile at a setting with a device made for copying
Huh.
If I record an album and have say a thousand copies made, those copies are also done "with a device made for copying". Would it then be OK for anyone to copy that CD and distribute it for free (or for money) simply because THOSE copies were ALSO made on "a device made for copying"?
I think that argument is flawed....
So you are for paying royalties to the amp manufacturer?
The answer is in the last sentence from the paragraph above.
Huh.
If I record an album and have say a thousand copies made, those copies are also done "with a device made for copying". Would it then be OK for anyone to copy that CD and distribute it for free (or for money) simply because THOSE copies were ALSO made on "a device made for copying"?
I think that argument is flawed....
So you're distinguishing between copies. For you it's ok to make a copy of one thing but it's not ok to make a copy of another thing...
So you're the "Guys I have made a perfect copy of one sound of someone else's amp - but I forbid you to make a copy of *my* sound!"-type of guy.
Yikes - should I spell it out?
I'm off... let's agree to disagree
Michael Wagener contacted several amp manufacturers before creating his profiles and the vast majority that he corresponded with gave their approval. You'd have to ask him which ones he corresponded with specifically.
So you're distinguishing between copies. For you it's ok to make a copy of one thing but it's not ok to make a copy of another thing...
So you're the "Guys I have made a perfect copy of one sound of someone else's amp - but I forbid you to make a copy of *my* sound!"-type of guy.
Yikes - should I spell it out?
I'm off... let's agree to disagree
[Blocked Image: http://ci.memecdn.com/12/6441012.jpg]
Michael Wagener contacted several amp manufacturers before creating his profiles and the vast majority that he corresponded with gave their approval. You'd have to ask him which ones he corresponded with specifically.
So by that logic - what if Marshall, Bogner, Vox, Mesa, ENGL and co. come out tomorrow and specifically say "guys, we hereby forbid anyone from making profiles of our amps and existing copies have to be deleted".
Your KPA would suddenly be a device without sounds right?
Oh no wait... we could just do it as some seller in here does... ANGEL instead of ENGL for example. Because by changing the name - you can find that little grey zone - avoid the fact that you copied somone else's design!
HY-PO-CRI-SY - 101.
Let's face it: we're copying... and that's fine! But don't label it differently to make you feel better. Face the truth
Display More
So by that logic - what if Marshall, Bogner, Vox, Mesa, ENGL and co. come out tomorrow and specifically say "guys, we hereby forbid anyone from making profiles of our amps and existing copies have to be deleted".
Your KPA would suddenly be a device without sounds right?
Oh no wait... we could just do it as some seller in here does... ANGEL instead of ENGL for example. Because by changing the name - you can find that little grey zone - avoid the fact that you copied somone else's design!
HY-PO-CRI-SY - 101.
Let's face it: we're copying... and that's fine! But don't label it differently to make you feel better. Face the truth
Come on, man... You're getting copyrights, patents, trademarking and ethics completely mixed up in a jumble.
And you confuse your personal view of the world with some kind of holy law of the universe.
