Poll: Ethics of profiling using Impulse Responses

    Quote from wwittman

    If I use your commercially available IR to get the guitar sounds I record onto my record and release for sale to the public, do I owe you a royalty?

    Or was that use (for my personal guitar sounds) included in the license you sold me with the IR?


    This is the same.

    Okay then- so therefore I'm able to use your guitar sounds then for my own performance, which I release for sale to the public. I'm totally free to sample your music and use it for my own commercial purposes. Right?

    I say it's not black and white - it's a grey zone that needs to be clarified by legal minds more finely tuned than ours .


    KPA Unpowered Rack, Kemper Remote, Headrush FRFR108s, BC Rich Mockingbird(s), and a nasty attitude.

    Thanks a good point. Just connect the cabinet to the thru output of the load is and you have the actual load. You can then route that through an IR.


    Thanks for the clips.

    Quote from mollydyer

    Okay then- so therefore I'm able to use your guitar sounds then for my own performance, which I release for sale to the public. I'm totally free to sample your music and use it for my own commercial purposes. Right?

    I say it's not black and white - it's a grey zone that needs to be clarified by legal minds more finely tuned than ours .

    it is indeed "black and white"


    i haven't sold you or licensed you the use the use of my recorded performance.


    the IR maker HAS done.

    He/she is certainly entitled to attach terms or conditions to that license, but a commercially sold IR HAS those attached implicit use conditions.

    wwittman... I'm not clear on what your position is now. Can you clarify? Cos I think maybe we're saying the same thing in a way.


    KPA Unpowered Rack, Kemper Remote, Headrush FRFR108s, BC Rich Mockingbird(s), and a nasty attitude.

    Out of curiosity, has anyone actually read the license agreements?


    Not that you wouldn't need a shot of whiskey and a handful of Advil to get through one, but when you're talking about IP rights our perspective on what's fair has very little to do with the terms that we agreed to.

    Kemper remote -> Powered toaster -> Yamaha DXR-10

    I have, actually. Celestion and Ownhammer both have clauses regarding unintended use and redistribution/modification, which *I* intrepret to mean "yeah buddy don't do this"


    :/


    KPA Unpowered Rack, Kemper Remote, Headrush FRFR108s, BC Rich Mockingbird(s), and a nasty attitude.

    Quote from mollydyer

    I have, actually. Celestion and Ownhammer both have clauses regarding unintended use and redistribution/modification, which *I* intrepret to mean "yeah buddy don't do this"


    :/

    Yeah, I believe "better safe than sorry" applies here.

    Kemper remote -> Powered toaster -> Yamaha DXR-10

    My position is that if I use a purchased IR in my recordings via software or hardware or a Kemper profile I create from it, it’s the same.

    I’m still using it to make my recordings, and for what one could clearly argue as the intended purpose of my purchase and the implied use.

    Gotcha. Yeah, so the OP's question was if you created a profile using an IR, and then *sold that profile for commercial gain*- not personal use. Personal use, I doubt anyone would even know. And I'd argue in your favour there - if you're using the IR to create music, regardless of *how* you're using that IR to create music, it's the MUSIC that's the commercial property. Not the IR.


    So - I didn't catch on that you were saying you would use them yourself. That's really quite different than if you were selling the profiles for profit.


    KPA Unpowered Rack, Kemper Remote, Headrush FRFR108s, BC Rich Mockingbird(s), and a nasty attitude.

    Quote from mollydyer

    Gotcha. Yeah, so the OP's question was if you created a profile using an IR, and then *sold that profile for commercial gain*- not personal use. Personal use, I doubt anyone would even know. And I'd argue in your favour there - if you're using the IR to create music, regardless of *how* you're using that IR to create music, it's the MUSIC that's the commercial property. Not the IR.


    So - I didn't catch on that you were saying you would use them yourself. That's really quite different than if you were selling the profiles for profit.


    OK, I am detecting some real angst here. You just keep jumping at this idea that I am going to sell the profiles. I am not selling anything, so kindly stop saying that. I haven't sold anything on these forums or anywhere else.


    At the same time, other people have, and we have mentioned it on this thread, so it is a valid topic beyond my OP post that "I would like to share some profiles."


    Second, it's clear you don't have any of the answers to this philosophical question even though you try to take some kind of self-perceived moral high ground.


    For example, you say that it's okay to create profiles using IRs if they're for personal use. I assume this is based on some gut feeling and perceived moral superiority over me.


    Now, here are the licence terms from Ownhammer.


    WE grant YOU - provided that YOU comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA - a personal, non-exclusive license, with no right to grant sub-licenses, to install and use the copy of the SOFTWARE provided with this EULA on a single computer. YOU agree that YOU may not copy the written materials accompanying the SOFTWARE. Modifying, translating, renting, copying, transferring or assigning all or part of the SOFTWARE, or any rights granted hereunder, to any other persons and removing any proprietary notices, labels or marks from the SOFTWARE is strictly prohibited. Furthermore, YOU hereby agree not to create derivative works based on the SOFTWARE in whole or in part. YOU are allowed to make one copy of the SOFTWARE in machine-readable form for backup purposes only, provided that this backup-copy includes all copyright and other proprietary notices included with the SOFTWARE. The terms of this License Agreement will govern any updates and/or supplements to the SOFTWARE that WE may provide to YOU unless they are accompanied by a separate license agreement.



    There is one clause that is interesting, with regard to derivative works.


    The question is therefore, is a Kemper profile a derivative work if I use an IR to create it?


    If that is the case, you are not allowed to use it for personal use as well.


    Heck, if we go by your stringent terms of not sharing with anybody else, I am not allowed to share music created using it as well.


    However, if I had to argue it in court, I would say that an impulse response is the reaction of any dynamic system in response to some external change. It is a static capture at any point in time.


    If I run an amp through a blend of IRs, then through a preamp and compressor, then profile it, the resultant Kemper profile is not an impulse response, nor is it a derived work, even if you use an IR.


    I'd say fair and intended use of these IRs is to approximate a cab in a situation when I cannot run a real cabinet. The IR has no sound of its own.

    Further expanding on the subject.


    In some ways, buying a guitar cab IR is like buying a guitar cab.


    To tell someone you can use it to create a recording but we'll sue you if you create a profile is a bit worrying.


    What if the recording does well and they sue you saying this work is derived from the IR I created and violates MY IDEA of fair and intended use?

    First off, the intellectual property laws are very different for a cab and a piece of software.


    Secondly, a recording using an IR is in no way a derivative work.

    Quote from nightlight

    YOU hereby agree not to create derivative works based on the SOFTWARE in whole or in part.

    In the world of software development, this statement is generally meant to say, "You can't take my stuff, add a bumper sticker and a new antennae, and then distribute it as your own product."


    This is particularly relevant in the case of software libraries that include source code. It would be easy for me to take that code, make some modifications, and then sell a competing library that's profiting off of their work. Of course, for those with way too much time on their hands, it's often possible to reverse engineer binaries to get some form of source code and do this even of the code wasn't provided.


    So, in common usage involving software, "derivative works" is generally understood as "another software product derived from this one." And while this is pure speculation on my part, I'm guessing if you talked to the owners of the company, they would confirm that this is what's meant, and not music / profiles created using the IR. But of course, that's just me making assumptions, and we know how that can be.


    But here's where it gets tricky. If "derivative works" isn't explicitly defined in the license agreement (I'm assuming you only provided the relevant snippet), that means it's up for legal interpretation. Hell, even if it is explicitly defined, that definition can still be argued in court. However, if "derivative works" isn't explicitly defined, the quoted line from the agreement is vague in the extreme. And that's the way lawyers like it, because then you have to pay them to argue the point for you. And that's where I invoke my rule of, "the moment lawyers become involved, everyone loses except the lawyers."


    The way I read your original post, you were considering the ethical implications (which I applaud). From the conversation generated, it's been highlighted that there are actually two very separate considerations - ethics, which involve personal morality in contrast to legality, in which ethics (sadly) are completely irrelevant.


    The ethical question doesn't have a black and white answer as each person will interpret the question in the context of their own beliefs. Unfortunately, the legal issues aren't black and white either because no matter how clearly something is spelled out in a contract, it can still be argued in court - which costs you money.


    As for my personal opinions, which are nothing more than that, I believe the spirit of the license agreement is meant to protect the company from you filing off the serial numbers, slapping a new coat of paint on it and selling a competing product. I would concur with the many voices here who point out that, like a microphone, an IR is intended to be used for creating music, so from an ethical point of view I see no dishonor in creating and distributing profiles using them.


    That said, whether or not there would be legal hassles depends on whether or not the companies involved are litigation happy. Unlike an ethical consideration, that can vary wildly from one company to the next.

    Kemper remote -> Powered toaster -> Yamaha DXR-10

    Edited once, last by Chris Duncan ().

    Like 1
    Quote from Michael_dk

    First off, the intellectual property laws are very different for a cab and a piece of software.


    Secondly, a recording using an IR is in no way a derivative work.


    If a profile created using an IR could be considered a derivative work, I don't see why a recording created using an IR couldn't.


    It would just depend on which lawyer you hire, I assume. But I don't think either argument would stand up in court, and I'm not a legal eagle.


    Quote from Chris Duncan

    The way I read your original post, you were considering the ethical implications (which I applaud). From the conversation generated, it's been highlighted that there are actually two very separate considerations - ethics, which involve personal morality in contrast to legality, in which ethics (sadly) are completely irrelevant.

    ...


    As for my personal opinions, which are nothing more than that, I believe the spirit of the license agreement is meant to protect the company from you filing off the serial numbers, slapping a new coat of paint on it and selling a competing product. I would concur with the many voices here who point out that, like a microphone, an IR is intended to be used for creating music, so from an ethical point of view I see no dishonor in creating and distributing profiles using them.

    ...


    That's a very important point, and I'm sorry to have got sidetracked.


    That's an interesting view on the ethics. Personally, as I mentioned, I am a bit wary of somehow infringing on someone's livelihood or work, being a creative kind of person myself. We have such a little protection from being outright robbed, if not somehow having our IP or copyright infringed.


    That was the whole purpose of this thread, really, to see how others viewed it.

    Quote from nightlight

    Personally, as I mentioned, I am a bit wary of somehow infringing on someone's livelihood or work, being a creative kind of person myself. We have such a little protection from being outright robbed, if not somehow having our IP or copyright infringed.

    I write music, books, software, scripts and probably other things that don't come to mind, so my entire life pretty much revolves around IP. As you might imagine, I have fairly strong opinions on the matter, but they seem to be completely out of sync with current social norms. I was raised to believe you don't take something that doesn't belong to you, even if you can get away with it (honor is how you behave when no one is looking). I am, apparently, a fossil.


    The majority of people I talk to feel that it's perfectly okay to take IP without paying for it. Music is a great example of this, and the web is full of discussions where people wax poetic about the fact that IP isn't really property, so it's okay to take it whether it's free or not. The concept of a copyright is outdated or even completely evil and should be abolished, because people feel a sense of entitlement to take whatever they want. If it's digital, so the justification goes, it didn't cost you anything to make a copy and so therefore no one else should be expected to pay for it.


    There are many other variations of this pretzel logic, all of which exist primarily to make people feel better about themselves. After all, if it's not really stealing then they're not really thieves, so they don't have to feel guilty about it. Never mind the decades you put into learning your art, the countless thousands of dollars you spend on gear to create it, or the sacrifices you make in life just to be able to pursue it. If the result is digital, it doesn't belong to you. It belongs to everyone, whether you like it or not. Because, you know, information wants to be free.


    I have on occasion been foolish enough to point out how that looks to the people who create the IP that you love enough to steal in the first place, and am typically shouted out of the room. A friend once introduced me to a mate of his, who then spent the first ten minutes trying to impress me with how active and important he was in his church. Then he mentioned that he was halfway through my first book and was really enjoying it. I told him I'd be happy to sign it if he liked. He said no need, he'd just pirated a digital copy off the web, "So I guess I owe you some money, huh. Ha, ha." And then walked away as though he'd just told a joke that we both found funny.


    So, when I see a thread on the Internet that talks about ethics and the rights of IP creators, it's a rare and welcome deviation from the norm. But then, we're musicians, so I guess hanging out with deviants isn't all that surprising. :)

    Kemper remote -> Powered toaster -> Yamaha DXR-10

    Like 4
    Quote from nightlight

    If a profile created using an IR could be considered a derivative work, I don't see why a recording created using an IR couldn't.


    It would just depend on which lawyer you hire, I assume. But I don't think either argument would stand up in court, and I'm not a legal eagle.

    A recording is not derived from an IR, even if it is made with one.


    You can derive a car design from blueprints for another car - but you can't derive a car design from the welding machine you use in the process of building it.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    A recording is not derived from an IR, even if it is made with one.


    You can derive a car design from blueprints for another car - but you can't derive a car design from the welding machine you use in the process of building it.


    I wouldn't think of an IR so much as a blueprint as a component in a signal chain, Michael. In that sense, in the profiling process, it is a small cog, but the resultant machine is far greater than the part that was put in.


    We could go around in circles with this in court. And one judge may say guilty, the next will say innocent on appeal, and so on till the top court, where the judges could be bought and sold or are maybe related to the IR creator.


    Hence, we should stick to the ethicality of using Its to make profiles, methinks.

    Quote from nightlight

    I wouldn't think of an IR so much as a blueprint as a component in a signal chain, Michael. In that sense, in the profiling process, it is a small cog, but the resultant machine is far greater than the part that was put in.

    Re. blueprint and component in signal chain: I mostly agree, but intellectual property rights are funny when it comes to software (I'm no expert of course! :-))


    Re. the profiling process: I agree that this is at least a grey area. I was speaking about a recording of a performance using an IR not being derivative of that IR. If it is used to make a kemper profile, I suspect things are different.


    That book story is awful. One of the reasons I am not concerned about ever finishing this album I'm writing. I will someday, but it's a good thing not to be dependent on art for a living.


    I have a pet peeve about the whole piracy thing, because it is indeed theft but justified by the masses that do it as "everyone is doing it".


    I have a great collection of music. Just CDs I acquired over the years and periodically update.


    Whenever I discover some hidden gem, I sometimes tell guys, "Man, this was a great song, have you heard it?"


    They probably haven't, but the natural thing that comes to those a*holes is "Yeah, I have it in my mp3 collection!"


    Totally sucks and it really doesn't make sense to think strongly about it, like you said. But it's really sad how they destroyed a whole bunch of lives.


    It's kind of funny, in a sick way. What do capitalists and Communists both want? Free stuff!