Atomic Tonocracy (Inc NAM support)

So…. I personally don’t see anything wrong with the “you can use this for free, but your creations are public” idea. I use another software that follows the same idea (OnShape). I think it’s a fair trade-off—you get to use something (software and cloud resources) in exchange for contributing to the platform.

Is the primary issue that this was not disclosed? If it was clearly disclosed, would it be a more acceptable arrangement?

Or is the issue that this is a demo for paid software and not freeware, thus it should default to keep your creations private?

I do think the observation that this arrangement may actually contribute to a lot of clutter in the cloud is accurate.

I’m asking purely from a place of wanting to understand, not to challenge.
 
I think if they'd been fully transparent about it, then it wouldn't be an issue. It would still be hugely shitty, but then people could fairly and openly vote with their wallets.

I use Adobe Substance Designer, Painter, and Sampler. It is subscription based, which I hate. But it is what it is. If they were taking my custom textures and giving them away for free without telling me, I'd be suuuuuuuppppperrrrr pissed.

Imagine if your DAW saved all your track templates and FX chains and uploaded them to the cloud so that other people could use them? Nah fam. Keep your fingers out of my IP. I don't steal your stuff, don't steal mine.
 
Am I reading this right (escaped me so far): any capture you do during the trial period will be uploaded to their cloud system and will then be available to anyone? Is that correct?
 
A fair deal would be an exchange of a capture pack for a license, if that's the way they want to roll.
An unfair deal is a company that thinks that in order to prevent piracy, that they can take anything of value of yours and never give you anything in return.
 
eggpl@nt said:
Is the primary issue that this was not disclosed? If it was clearly disclosed, would it be a more acceptable arrangement?

Or is the issue that this is a demo for paid software and not freeware, thus it should default to keep your creations private?
Click to expand...
Yes, both. It should be disclosed very clearly if this is the case. The user can then decide.

and with the second point - if this is a free plugin, then I don’t think it’s the worst deal, if the user is aware and happy with those terms. If this is a trial/demo for a paid product, then I think it’s shitty. If the user isn’t aware AND doesn’t have a choice? no way of removing the file? then it’s really bad. I don’t think it sends out a good message for a $150 product, even if it’s only during the trial period.
 
Enchilada Jones said:
Could be a problem. Maybe it wouldn’t be hard for someone to write an app that redirects the cloud destination search to ‘find’ your cpu?
I don’t know if that is as easy to do as it was to type but it seems like it could happen.
im probably going to be fine with all the captures other people make so I’m not too concerned.
Click to expand...
It's not redirecting that's the hard part. It's replicating the functionality of what it does for cloud processing. It's most likely a PyTorch solution like NAM uses, so you could potentially use a chunk of NAM to make it work. But it's still a lot of work to do so it would make more sense to just move to another product.

This is a risk for any product that heavily relies on a cloud service, internet account login, computer or mobile app. Eventually you might have to run the app in a virtual machine to make it work, someone might need to figure out how to bypass a login prompt or how to replace a cloud service. Or you just move to another product because that's a lot of work and it's not like Toneocracy is the only game in town.

Toneocracy devs would be smart to offer also an offline version for those of us with fast CPUs and GPUs capable of processing captures offline, or just privacy-conscious users. Make that a paid feature for example.

Enchilada Jones said:
Either I'm missing something or you have a really over inflated opinion of the value you potentially add by a couple captures you might make and someone else might like, download and play guitar with them!

Your file isn't the 5th Symphony for crying out loud. It's you, using a demo software for copying the digital foot print of some amp manufacturers hard work, and then getting upset because strangers might make music with it and end up liking the software!
Is your capture fu really all that?!?
Click to expand...
It's not about how good your captures are, it's about clarity in how your data is stored and used. This needs to be clearly stated in terms and conditions, preferably when using cloud features and really should not be buried under a pile of legalese that nobody bothers to read.

Seems users thought that their captures would be processed using cloud services for CPU/GPU processing power reasons and then the resulting files piped back to you and any source data discarded. But instead your capture now became publicly available. That's an issue of ownership that is not clearly communicated.

Atomic has had a lot of oversight with the launch of this product and honestly should have paid some money to conduct a security audit before launch and fix any issues that arise. That username issue would have come up as an easy fix. I get that cloud services are new in the guitar world, but this is basically bread and butter for web services.
 
Perhaps Atomic can void those public cloud captures. Certainly doable.

And then they can amend their disclosure and clearly state that future captures using the trial will be public.

I hope that happens. It would be the right thing to do.

I understand that some frustration and even anger is probably justified.

But it seems to me that some seem to be equating the capture policy with being sodomized.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting.
 
Boudoir Guitar said:
Uuuuugg.

A civilized person can be skeptical and share their concerns about someone without proof of “guilt”. This isn’t a criminal court of law.
Click to expand...
A civilized person would voice their concerns without making accusations based on speculation.
I don’t take issue with the concerns. I’m taking issue with someone saying they aren’t accusing someone of criminal intent within their accusation of that very thing!

If someone thinks Atomic is stealing content then own it. Quit trying to have it both ways. By trying to do that they are signaling they know they would be crossing a line so they say they aren’t and then make all sorts of unfounded accusations anyway.

On the other hand, if you think Atomic are having to correct the mistakes in their release then have the grace to back up that sentiment with deeds that don’t include accusations that derail the release. Some of these people are literally saying “I hope the product succeeds in the same sentance they are trying to destroy it chances to do so. It makes their complaint seem very disingenuous.

the drama diva crap is ridiculous.
Here’s an exercise in examining the logic/moral high ground these people are trying to stand on:

It’s free software designed to ‘steal’ the primary value of a product someone else is selling, making the market for that product shrink.
It’s technically not illegal if you do it carefully so we will call it ‘take-without-permission‘. Which is exactly what they have alleged Atomic is doing to them.
While the software isn’t licensed to a user they have no rights granted by its use nor to what they upload to the software vendors cloud space. So if you use the free demo version of the software designed to take-without-permission the work of others for fucks sake don’t be a diva about the result of your part in the process. It’s like watching someone breaking into a house and complaining the guy who loaned him the burglar tools is unethical in the way he provided them!
 
Last edited:
Enchilada Jones said:
Either I'm missing something or you have a really over inflated opinion of the value you potentially add by a couple captures you might make and someone else might like, download and play guitar with them!
Click to expand...
Bear in mind, you could be talking potentially thousands to tens of thousands of people; although at this rate and by the impression of the launch, we're actually talking a few hundred. Which is a real shame. I don't like seeing companies in music tech making mistakes and not getting sales. Because at the end of the day, that is our job - sell music software.

Enchilada Jones said:
based on speculation.
Click to expand...
Based on a pretty reasonable usage of logical deduction. They didn't tell anyone about this, therefore it is already suspect.

Enchilada Jones said:
So if you use the free demo version of the software designed to take-without-permission the work of others for fucks sake don’t be a diva about the result of your part in the process
Click to expand...
Are you implying that taking a capture of an amplifier is taking the work of others? Because it isn't. It has been well established that a capture/profile is not the amplifier itself. It is a capture of the amplifier in a certain configuration that the user has assembled, not the company.

IE: I dial in an amp to my taste, put a microphone in position, and pair it with a specific cab, then that is my IP. Not the amp company.
 
Orvillain said:
…Are you implying that taking a capture of an amplifier is taking the work of others? Because it isn't. It has been well established that a capture/profile is not the amplifier itself. It is a capture of the amplifier in a certain configuration that the user has assembled, not the company.

IE: I dial in an amp to my taste, put a microphone in position, and pair it with a specific cab, then that is my IP. Not the amp company.
Click to expand...
I stated it isn’t illegal but it very much is the same practice you are complaining about in a slightly different way.
The amplifier is designed to produce the sound. That is the primary function the buyer of the amp is paying for.
the Amp Designer/ manufacturer has way more invested in its production than you and you cpu and mic’s etc
so, if You make a great capture of a Marshall amp and use free software to do it you are no more harmed by it landing in the public domain without your permission than Marshall is. That’s the reality of what is being discussed. You can rephrase it all you like but that is the net result of what is happening.
if your ip is so precious use your own tools to complete its creation. Don’t go to BestBuy and set up capturing with their machine and whine they don’t give you the stores Wi-Fi password because you want to send it to the cloud of your choosing

TLDR: your IP isn’t so fantastic Atomic invested all the time and money they have in this product just to trick you into uploading some of your amazing captures. So if you understand that chill with the drama. If you don’t then don’t. Good luck with the sales of your precious.
 
Last edited:
Enchilada Jones said:
A civilized person would voice their concerns without making accusations based on speculation.
I don’t take issue with the concerns. I’m taking issue with someone saying they aren’t accusing someone of criminal intent within their accusation of that very thing!

If someone thinks Atomic is stealing content then own it. Quit trying to have it both ways. By trying to do that they are signaling they know they would be crossing a line so they say they aren’t and then make all sorts of unfounded accusations anyway.

On the other hand, if you think Atomic are having to correct the mistakes in their release then have the grace to back up that sentiment with deeds that don’t include accusations that derail the release. Some of these people are literally saying “I hope the product succeeds in the same sentance they are trying to destroy it chances to do so. It makes their complaint seem very disingenuous.

the drama diva crap is ridiculous.
Here’s an exercise in examining the logic/moral high ground these people are trying to stand on:

It’s free software designed to ‘steal’ the primary value of a product someone else is selling, making the market for that product shrink.
It’s technically not illegal if you do it carefully so we will call it ‘take-without-permission‘. Which is exactly what they have alleged Atomic is doing to them.
While the software isn’t licensed to a user they have no rights granted by its use nor to what they upload to the software vendors cloud space. So if you use the free demo version of the software designed to take-without-permission the work of others for fucks sake don’t be a diva about the result of your part in the process. It’s like watching someone breaking into a house and complaining the guy who loaned him the burglar tools is unethical in the way he provided them!
Click to expand...
That's a lot of spilled ink...

Having things I create while using a piece of software automatically uploaded to a public cloud database without my knowledge that that is what's going to happen is...outside the scope of standard industry practice to date. Granted these aren't like, photos from my phone or something. But nonetheless, even as a hack amateur, I would be really annoyed if some stuff I was just dicking around with within the context of a software demo got uploaded to the cloud with my username on it and I couldn't get it down...I'd be annoyed because I wouldn't want folks to think those were things that I thought were good enough to be posted publicly.

This falls squarely in the realm of "how does Atomic treat its customers" and there is plenty of track record in that area. With the weight of evidence there, intent has nothing to do with it -- I don't think the folks behind Atomic are bad people out to rip people off, nor do I have to. At some point repeated negligence in one area gives you a pretty short leash in the respectful, benefit-of-the-doubt, blah blah blah realm.
 
unix-guy said:
You’ve said this a couple times.

Tom commented on the username / email address part, not sharing of profiles / captures.
Click to expand...

He replied to the specific point of the demo terms on TGP and I quoted his response above. He acknowledged the terms should be and will be expressed more clearly. It looks like the dead horse beating will continue anyway.
 
shocked ron burgundy GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

laxu
Hotone Ampero II Stomp - Review
2
Replies
29
Views
878
laxu
laxu
Back
Top