Poll: Ethics of profiling using Impulse Responses

  • Now, clearly this workflow shows you buying the IRs, converting them, loading them onto your Kemper and using them. However there is NO mention of redistributing these new profiles on the site.

    It's mentioned in the EULA.


    "You agree you will not rent, lease, lend, sell, sublicense, assign, distribute, publish, transfer or otherwise make available any Product, or any portions thereof, to any third party, including on or in connection with the internet or any time-sharing, service bureau, software as a service, cloud or other technology or service."

  • "Product" is in capitals. Probably means the IR itself, no?

    No idea. Context of the quotation isn't clear. It´s like saying " you are not allowed to use a setting of an amp to make music". What it means IMHO is that you are not allowed to copy the IR per se... Not to use it. Then if you use the IR converting it into something else by this logic its no longer an IR. Therefore useable...^^:P

  • From the EULA:


    Quote

    PLEASE READ THESE LICENCE TERMS CAREFULLY BEFORE PURCHASING A DIGITAL DOWNLOAD (PRODUCT) FROM OUR WEBSITE

    So "Product" is the digital download, in this case an IR from Celestion.


    Quote

    Licence restrictions

    In the UK:

    You agree that you will:

    - not rent, lease, sub-license, redistribute, loan, provide, or otherwise make available, the Product in any form, in whole or in part to any person without prior written consent from us;

    "In any form" could be interpreted as "in kemper format".

    Thus, no sharing is allowed unless prior consent from Celestion is obtained.


    Quote

    ...

    - not translate, merge, adapt, vary, alter or modify, the whole or any part of the Product nor permit the Product or any part of it to be combined with, or become incorporated in, any other programs or digital content, except as necessary to use the Product on devices as permitted in these terms;

    As I read this part (I'm not reading the whole thing) : You may convert it to Kemper format for your own use (I assume that the kemper is a "device permitted in these terms").

  • let's not forget that Kemper themselves have provided some Celestion cab IRs in their last update to the OS. So they either don't know or they made a deal with Celestion and Celestion is well aware of how their IRs will be used...


  • To me it reads more like you cannot distribute the IR as it is in any form, in whole or in part.


    But there is no mention of "derivative work" in this EULA. In part in this case, to me, would imply truncating the IR.


    Which again brings me to the question, if I run all of this through a preamp, compressors, etc, and it no longer is even close to the original IR, would this still be afoul of the licensing agreement?


    Ethically, to me, it seems like it would violate the spirit of the agreement. However, to many, this would seem like a fair use of the product as you are not distributing their IR.


    I think that's what's missing from all the T&Cs. The definition of "fair use" with respect to what can or can't be done with their IRs. And that "fair use" policy could in essence define what the ethics are with respect to using IRs to profile.

  • But there is no mention of "derivative work" in this EULA.

    Yes - I just didn't copy that part because it has already been discussed.

    Which again brings me to the question, if I run all of this through a preamp, compressors, etc, and it no longer is even close to the original IR, would this still be afoul of the licensing agreement?

    No, I don't think so (unless you share it) - you're not modifying the IR itself. In any case, if it were in conflict with the license agreement, I don't think anybody would be interested in making a fuss about it - the intention is not to bar you from converting to kemper format for your own personal use.

    However, to many, this would seem like a fair use of the product as you are not distributing their IR.


    I think that's what's missing from all the T&Cs. The definition of "fair use" with respect to what can or can't be done with their IRs. And that "fair use" policy could in essence define what the ethics are with respect to using IRs to profile.


    "Fair use" is defined in US legislation. It has something to do with especially education purposes (like quoting from a copyrighted work in the interest of education etc); not anything we're talking about here. "Fair use" is not relevant to this discussion at all, I'm pretty sure.

  • "Fair use" is defined in US legislation. It has something to do with especially education purposes (like quoting from a copyrighted work in the interest of education etc); not anything we're talking about here. "Fair use" is not relevant to this discussion at all, I'm pretty sure.

    Check this out, Michael, specifically the section on fair use.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

  • Check this out, Michael, specifically the section on fair use.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

    Thanks for the link.


    Running the use of preamps, compressors etc in the chain is not relevant to the discussion of fair use, as I see it, because you're not changing the IR itself.


    It is still relevant to parts of the EULA text.

  • Thanks for the link.


    Running the use of preamps, compressors etc in the chain is not relevant to the discussion of fair use, as I see it, because you're not changing the IR itself.


    It is still relevant to parts of the EULA text.


    Ah, no, Michael. I don't think you're following the gist of what "Fair Use" means.


    In Galoob v. Nintendo, the 9th Circuit held that modification of copyright software for personal use was fair. In Sega v. Accolade, the 9th Circuit held that making copies in the course of reverse engineering is a fair use, when it is the only way to get access to the "ideas and functional elements" in the copyrighted code, and when "there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access".



    Read that and then think how you would argue against your case, rather than rely on sentimental belief or gut feeling.


    I'm pretty sure that the way things stand, if I fundamentally changed the IR, Celestion et al can't do anything about it.


    As such, I suggested a "Fair Use" clause. ;)

  • Ah, no, Michael. I don't think you're following the gist of what "Fair Use" means.


    In Galoob v. Nintendo, the 9th Circuit held that modification of copyright software for personal use was fair. In Sega v. Accolade, the 9th Circuit held that making copies in the course of reverse engineering is a fair use, when it is the only way to get access to the "ideas and functional elements" in the copyrighted code, and when "there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access".

    Read that and then think how you would argue against your case, rather than rely on sentimental belief or gut feeling.


    I'm pretty sure that the way things stand, if I fundamentally changed the IR, Celestion et al can't do anything about it.

    Maybe I'm not following you.


    I don't see how you change the software (the original IR) by making a profile of it with other stuff in the signal chain. I'd consider that "derivative" at best. You're not doing anything to the IR (not reverse engineering it, not modifying it). It keeps existing in the form that it came from the vendor.

  • This thread goes round and round- and it's a fun time killer - but I'm going to go back to the original post for context:


    I would really like to create some profiles for others using a load box and IRs.

    (emphasis mine)

    It's the "for others" that's actually causing the problem. For others. Creating a Kemper profile using an IR would be, without out a shadow of doubt- constitute derivative work.

    Can you create a profile using an IR for your own use? Yes. Of course. And nobody would care. This is what actually happens when you load an IR into some other modellers - For example, Atomic. I can load an IR - even a derivative IR (and I have mixed IRs to meet my tonal needs). However, I am not allowed to distribute that patch - which includes the cabinet - to anyone else.

    As soon as you do this FOR ME- that's distribution of materials contrary to your license agreement.

    That's the thing with the Galoob/Nintendo case @nightflight referenced - I remember this case well - so -while a game-genie modified code in memory (without changing the code stored) - the RESULTING game could not be redistributed. Players still needed the nintendo game cartridge, AND a game genie . That's why it's not considered a derivative work by the 9th.


    Applying this to OUR example would be the equivalent of applying an eq to the IR. You can sell the EQ, and you can even provide the 'settings' of which the EQ.is applied, but a user would have no use for it (in context) without the IR file itself.

    Next up- Sega v. Accolade - the reverse engineering involved wasn't of a game title, it was of the DRM that prevented 'non - sega - developer - partners' from creating games for Sega.

    Now, what's important here is in the ruling:


    Of note to the judges in reviewing Sega's copyright claim was the difference in size between the TMSS file and the sizes of Accolade's games. As noted by Judge Reinhardt in writing the opinion of the court, the TMSS file "contains approximately twenty to twenty-five bytes of data. Each of Accolade's games contains a total of 500,000 to 1,500,000 bytes. According to Accolade employees, the header file is the only portion of Sega's code that Accolade copied into its own game programs." This made the games overwhelmingly original content, and according to Judge Reinhardt,


    So- once again, this wouldn't apply. You're not *reverse engineering* an IR file for the purposes of creating your own IR. Nor are you implementing a new IR loader. You are, however, creating a derivative of an existing IR file.


    This is fun. Don't do anything without seeking out legal council and the expressed, written permission of Major League Baseball the creator of the impulse response.


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

  • Creating a Kemper profile using an IR would be, without out a shadow of doubt- constitute derivative work.

    Is that the common definition of "derivative work", or the IP law definition?



    Can you create a profile using an IR for your own use? Yes. Of course. And nobody would care. This is what actually happens when you load an IR into some other modellers - For example, Atomic. I can load an IR - even a derivative IR (and I have mixed IRs to meet my tonal needs). However, I am not allowed to distribute that patch - which includes the cabinet - to anyone else.

    Correct.


    The OP was not talking about "loading an IR" into the Kemper and distributing the profile. He was talking about combining 1 or more commercial IRs using 3rd party tools and/or hardware, then profiling the entire signal chain. the original IR in any format (wav, kipr, cab, whatever) is never being redistributed.


  • As far as what you're describing, I don't think you can use the argument that "nobody cares if you use the IR to profile for personal use".


    According to the terms of the agreement, it is expressly forbidden. No modification, no derivative work, end of story.


    Forbidden? But what do they mean forbidden, I am using the IR for the purpose it was intended, to simulate a guitar cabinet.


    I mean, let's face facts, I am not going to use it as a room reverb, right?


    But wait, what if I do want to use it as a room reverb?


    Are the creators of the IR (and let's get this out of the way, it is not software, despite claims to the contrary, it is a dynamic response to a stimulus captured in wav format) entitled to tell me, "Woah, you can't do that on stage anymore?"


    Going on to the next point, what am I distributing at the end of the process? An IR file? There is no IR file at the end of this, even if it was used for the profiling process.


    Going further down that legal rabbit hole, the burden of proving that someone used the IR rests with the creator of the IR. If he can't prove it, he's sunk.


    And guess what, there are tools to compare IRs, just like there are tools to compare Kemper profiles.


    Again, I stress, the sole purpose of guitar IRs is to simulate guitar cabinets. It has no other use. Therefore, if you don't like the idea of having your product used as a guitar cabinet, don't sell!


    Because this is (surprise, surprise) fair use.


    So going back to the original point, if it's okay to do it for myself (despite the creator expressly forbidding it), it's also okay to share those profiles with others. Can't be just one way and not the other.


    And this idea of fair use and derivative works are what the arguments will be focused on. No other use for a guitar cabinet IR if the creator says you can't use my guitar cabinet IR to simulate a guitar cabinet, if you get my drift.


    The issue doesn't hinge so much on distribution as much as onerous terms with respect to using the product for the explicit purpose it was intended.


    To underline, I am not distributing IRs or Wav files.

    Maybe I'm not following you.


    I don't see how you change the software (the original IR) by making a profile of it with other stuff in the signal chain. I'd consider that "derivative" at best. You're not doing anything to the IR (not reverse engineering it, not modifying it). It keeps existing in the form that it came from the vendor.


    Actually, the Kemper profiling process could indeed be considered a type of "reverse engineering". It is by no means a simple copy-paste of code. It sends a series of signals through the amp as well as the IR and creates a separate amp section and cabinet section based on the response.


    Also, do check out the resultant format of the cabinet. Is it a wav file, or impulse response?


    Also, is there any way of converting a Kemper cabinet into an impulse response short of using a microphone and doing it at a speaker?


    And if you do create an IR that way, is it the same as the one that you used to create the initial profile?


    These are all arguments that would be considered by the court.


    In that regard, the principle of "fair use" would suggest that if I use a cabinet IR for the purpose it was intended, i.e. as a guitar cabinet simulation, even to create a profile, the IR maker has no case against me because I am using the guitar cabinet simulation for its stated purpose.

  • For an upload to Rig Exchange, the uploader needs to hold all rights for this particular Rig. Usually this means that the uploader has created the Rig by himself. Also, if the source of the Profile used in this Rig, which can be an IR for instance, comes with a license agreement, this agreement needs to be honoured in order to comply with the rules of Rig Exchange. The general advise is to refrain from uploading if you're not 100% certain that you wouldn't violate any third party rights. In other words, even if you believe that you've used a method which could count as "derivative work", please don't upload to Rig Exchange.

    Get in touch with Profiler online support team here

  • For an upload to Rig Exchange, the uploader needs to hold all rights for this particular Rig. Usually this means that the uploader has created the Rig by himself. Also, if the source of the Profile used in this Rig, which can be an IR for instance, comes with a license agreement, this agreement needs to be honoured in order to comply with the rules of Rig Exchange. The general advise is to refrain from uploading if you're not 100% certain that you wouldn't violate any third party rights.


    This is great, @G String in so far as it is applicable to the Rig Exchange. The question we have here is "are we indeed violating any terms and conditions if we upload with IRs".


    Some users have very different interpretations of whether an IR run through a preamp violates the terms of use, for example. It has been done on the Kemper Rig Exchange many times now.


    So the question still remains, "Are we contravening some kind of ethical standard" as opposed to the Rig Exchange rules.


    - not rent, lease, sub-license, redistribute, loan, provide, or otherwise make available, the Product in any form, in whole or in part to any person without prior written consent from us;


    not translate, merge, adapt, vary, alter or modify, the whole or any part of the Product nor permit the Product or any part of it to be combined with, or become incorporated in, any other programs or digital content, except as necessary to use the Product on devices as permitted in these terms;

    No confusion at all, I still think you have to get used to the idea of "fair use".


    Here are the two quotes that I thought were important from the EULA you posted.


    I've highlighted a bit in bold that allows you to create profiles with Celestion IRs for personal use. So that at least is permitted.


    Now, as far as "not translate, merge, adapt, vary, alter or modify, the whole or any part of the Product", I don't think that would apply to profiling either, since the process is not translating, merging, adapting, varying, altering or modifying the IR.


    An Impulse Response is just a wav file recording of a dynamic interaction. The sole purpose of the IR is to simulate a cabinet.


    Therefore, if I am using the Kemper to stimulate the impulse response to determine how it reacts, none of those conditions are being violated.


    It's even less applicable if I route through other processing and then profile.


    WRT the first bit about not making the product available, we are no longer dealing with an Impulse Response. It doesn't even make sense to equate a profile to an impulse response.


    Just want to underline to everyone here that as I mentioned several times, I have no interest in doing any profiles with IR and I think it's unethical. But playing the Devil's Advocate is a useful exercise in debating the merits or demerits of an argument. My argument of "fair use" is centred on the premise that the cabinet IR is meant to be used as a cabinet and that the profiling method of measuring various things (such as analog hardware, or an Axe FX or an impulse response) does not constitute a form of software piracy. I mean, let's assume I put an EQ or compressor through it from a plugin - is that piracy?