Display More
I dunno... what do you think?
Is it piracy to copy a sound from a device?
Is it piracy to copy a sound from a human (seller)?
Is copying = piracy?
Well, we're using said device!
Answer my specific question:
If I create a song using a Marshall amp and then turn around and sell that recording to a movie studio that makes money on that recording by using it in a movie, should I be required to pay a royalty to Marshall? Yes or no?
Once I buy an amp, am I free to use it to produce works that can be sold to other entities who will themselves license the product? In my opinion, yes.
Imagine a softsynth. You could sample it and sell those samples. This is stricty forbidden by most companies. So this has to be distinguished from selling something the softsynth is used as a tool for. And marketing people would not buy the softsynth if they need a song for e.g. a commercial, they buy a service. There's a difference.
Answer my specific question:
If I create a song using a Marshall amp and then turn around and sell that recording to a movie studio that makes money on that recording by using it in a movie, should I be required to pay a royalty to Marshall? Yes or no?
Difficult to answer... let me think a minute.
You *sold* the recording... done!
What the other one makes with your recording is no longer of your business IMO - so you get no roylaties.
Now, should Marshall get a royalty?
No as well. Its royalty was being sold to the creater of the music. Done...
IMO
Imagine a softsynth. You could sample it and sell those samples. This is stricty forbidden by most companies.
A profile is an amalgam rather than a perfect 1:1 copy. It includes the guitar and anything else in the signal chain.
Difficult to answer... let me think a minute.
You *sold* the recording... done!
What the other one makes with your recording is no longer of your business IMO - so you get no roylaties.
Now, should Marshall get a royalty?
No as well. Its royalty was being sold to the creater of the music. Done...
And are you legally free to give your recording away to said movie studio should you choose to?
And are you legally free to give your recording away to said movie studio should you choose to?
Yes you are... it's your recording
A profile is an amalgam rather than a perfect 1:1 copy. It includes the guitar and anything else in the signal chain.
I think the approach in regards of piracy is the same. But I think here lies the argument why Henning is wrong in the end: All analog technology is recreated digitally somehow. KAP, AXE or POD, 99% of all plugins for FX or softsynth and even tape machines. They all do the same. I think this process is irreversible. It's evulotion. And if someone wants an original analog synth, well, he will get it. No matter if there is a virtual one. Same with amps.
The point that I don't get: Does what these companies do become more criminal when the quality gets closer to the original unit? I don't think so. And this is, what Henning obviously thinks. And it's close to your argument I quoted.
Yes you are... it's your recording
Thus, if I'm free to use the sounds from an amp to create a product that can be sold or freely distributed, I don't see an ethical conflict with selling or giving away profiles.
Exactly what I said!
Exactly what I said!
Well, there's copying a sound (eg. MP3) and copying a sound(eg. sampling), and profiling falls into neither category, in my opinion. MP3's involves duplicating pre-recorded material and sampling involves recording an instrument or duplicating such a recording. In a way, what Kemper is doing is a bit like what Compaq did when they legally created the first 100% IBM-PC compatible computer by reverse engineering the IBM-PC's BIOS, except KPA profiles aren't perfect copies of the amps they're based on.
I think the approach in regards of piracy is the same. But I think here lies the argument why Henning is wrong in the end: All analog technology is recreated digitally somehow. KAP, AXE or POD, 99% of all plugins for FX or softsynth and even tape machines. They all do the same. I think this process is irreversible. It's evulotion. And if someone wants an original analog synth, well, he will get it. No matter if there is a virtual one. Same with amps.
The point that I don't get: Does what these companies do become more criminal when the quality gets closer to the original unit? I don't think so. And this is, what Henning obviously thinks. And it's close to your argument I quoted.
In other words and in my opinion, Henning is thinking along the lines of the Luddites when they smashed up all the spinning machines in the early days of the industrial revolution. Henning is a protectionist in thinking, and no matter how he sees the matter wants to hold back technological development and support the more "traditional" tube amp maker. Cottage industry support. That's what it is. Time to move on...
Well, there's copying a sound (eg. MP3) and copying a sound(eg. sampling), and profiling falls into neither category, in my opinion. MP3's involves duplicating pre-recorded material and sampling involves recording an instrument or duplicating such a recording. In a way, what Kemper is doing is a bit like what Compaq did when they legally created the first 100% IBM-PC compatible computer by reverse engineering the IBM-PC's BIOS, except KPA profiles aren't perfect copies of the amps they're based on.
Hmmm... copying an entire song (as in an mp3) and earn money with that would be piracy - I think we all agree on that.
Copying a certain setting of an amp - we all do it with the KPA. Some choose to earn money with that.
Copying the copy of a seller - well, I don't see harm in that, It's the same as copying the setting of an amp. It's the KPA-way! But, someone could choose to start earning money with that as well...
Copying an entire amp perfeclty (with EQ's and gain stages and all)... difficult to say if that's ethical. But, I have a Kemper - so if the Kemper was able to do that - I would support it (so would all KPA owners)...
Sorry, I think I got lost somewhere - where exactly do we disagree?
Sorry, I think I got lost somewhere - where exactly do we disagree?
Display MoreHmmm... copying an entire song (as in an mp3) and earn money with that would be piracy - I think we all agree on that.
Copying a certain setting of an amp - we all do it with the KPA. Some choose to earn money with that.
Copying the copy of a seller - well, I don't see harm in that, It's the same as copying the setting of an amp. It's the KPA-way! But, someone could choose to start earning money with that as well...
Copying an entire amp perfeclty (with EQ's and gain stages and all)... difficult to say if that's ethical. But, I have a Kemper - so if the Kemper was able to do that - I would support it (so would all KPA owners)...
Sorry, I think I got lost somewhere - where exactly do we disagree?
I was initially under the impression that you were claiming the KPA copies sounds and presenting rhetorical questions which implied copying sounds equated to piracy. If that's not the case, then nevermind. 
As for creating a perfect clone of an entire amp, I can potentially see legal ramifications if 1) someone started marketing / giving away said clones and 2) assuming the cloning process required the use of the original amp to create the clone vs. creating it from scratch.
Actually quite funny, as I'm an early adopter (started posting here when we had little over 20 members) and am also a beta tester...
No, my questions were not implying anything. It was for anyone to decide by himself.
So no, I don't see piracy in any of that - I'm using it every day 
Sorry for the confusion
Display MoreHmmm... copying an entire song (as in an mp3) and earn money with that would be piracy - I think we all agree on that.
Copying a certain setting of an amp - we all do it with the KPA. Some choose to earn money with that.
Copying the copy of a seller - well, I don't see harm in that, It's the same as copying the setting of an amp. It's the KPA-way! But, someone could choose to start earning money with that as well...
Copying an entire amp perfeclty (with EQ's and gain stages and all)... difficult to say if that's ethical. But, I have a Kemper - so if the Kemper was able to do that - I would support it (so would all KPA owners)...
Sorry, I think I got lost somewhere - where exactly do we disagree?
Piracy is not limited to making money on a copy.
Anyway.
Basically, amps don't come with licensing terms of use. There's no copyright to the sounds you can get out of it. You pay for the product. Are you allowed to make a duplicate of the design and sell it? I don't know. That depends on the patent situation.
If a person profiles an amp at x settings, with microphone A and B in positions Y and Z, then those profiles are a result of his/her choices regarding settings and mic'ing etc. Possibly also the room. Not a real representation of the amp as a whole. There is work, knowledge, experience, time and "taste" involved. What that person sells are those five elements of the profile - not really the amp itself, although the sound of it is of course part of the end product.
Usually the profiles are sold under some kind of "license" stating what you can and can't do with those profiles.
I fail to see how it could be ethically OK to share those profiles in violation of the license, ESPECIALLY considering those five aforementioned elements that are part of the value chain for the product (and, arguably, the better part of the value).
Display MorePiracy is not limited to making money on a copy.
Anyway.
Basically, amps don't come with licensing terms of use. There's no copyright to the sounds you can get out of it. You pay for the product. Are you allowed to make a duplicate of the design and sell it? I don't know. That depends on the patent situation.
If a person profiles an amp at x settings, with microphone A and B in positions Y and Z, then those profiles are a result of his/her choices regarding settings and mic'ing etc. Possibly also the room. Not a real representation of the amp as a whole. There is work, knowledge, experience, time and "taste" involved. What that person sells are those five elements of the profile - not really the amp itself, although the sound of it is of course part of the end product.
Usually the profiles are sold under some kind of "license" stating what you can and can't do with those profiles.
I fail to see how it could be ethically OK to share those profiles in violation of the license, ESPECIALLY considering those five aforementioned elements that are part of the value chain for the product (and, arguably, the better part of the value).
You'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!
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 thought we just went through this? I was under the impression you didn't perceive profiling as piracy.
I thought we just went through this? I was under the impression you didn't perceive profiling as piracy.
That's what I'm saying!
KPA is profilling anything you can with that device.
The KPA is designed to copy.
Where do I say that profilling is piracy?
Where do we two go wrong, CF?
Read my post again please
That's what I'm saying!
KPA is profilling anything you can with that device.
The KPA is designed to copy.
Where do I say that profilling is piracy?
It seemed to be implied by your comment regarding the hypocrisy of licensing profiles while copying "something made by someone else".
