Plugin Piracy Thread

[LP59]

Just to make it clear. I'm just trying to understand the actual reason someone can say one IP theft is ok and the other one is not.

Morally, ethically, legally. Any way you look at it, our society has concluded that sound (as distinct from music) is not intellectual property. Just look at all the different amp designs out there that are intended to produce the same sound.

 

[maddnotez]

Ah, yes. A world where you only have to pay for stuff that turns out to be your fave. That'd be awesome (says the guy that used a huge trove of pirated Kemper profiles to do sorta that).

Right.

Where does morality draw its line? Isn't Kemper and Quad Corext a form of stealing?

Then you have people out there charging money for stolen data.

 

[GTR37]

Morally, ethically, legally. Any way you look at it, our society has concluded that sound (as distinct from music) is not intellectual property. Just look at all the different amp designs out there that are intended to produce the same sound.

Yep , someone posted this on FAS forum and it very true
People thought Lars was the biggest prick for being annoyed that his stuff was being shared to 20 people w one album purchase
In the end he was not wrong
If Napster and Limewire were stopped at the beginning we probably would have a different world
But at that point it became ok you were not “stealing but sharing someone’s work and it was a community

IMO it did not matter as it reeked havoc on album sales and the record industry ( which was not all that great to begin with)
Nowadays so many of the older bands can’t be bothered to do new albums and that sad

 

[Tito83]

Morally, ethically, legally. Any way you look at it, our society has concluded that sound (as distinct from music) is not intellectual property. Just look at all the different amp designs out there that are intended to produce the same sound.

I could legally profile all my favorite settings of any plugin that offers a trial period, no? Seems wrong to me. I could buy an amp just to clone it and return it also.

If you look at morals and ethics as practice alone, I think the inevitable conclusion is that any discussion about it is invalid. I don't agree with this view.

Again, it's not just "sound" you're copying. When I hear a tone and I myself build an amp to go for that sound, that can fall into that category. But if this tone is particular enough for me to go for it, how do you argue it's not IP? And even if you can, how would you argue it's not IP theft when you get the actual amp you're trying to "copy the sound" of and go through the circuit or make it a measurable reference in order to derive models to work as close as possible to the original device? How can you say this is not IP theft when this is done without compensation or authorization? What is the actual logical argument there?

 

[paisleywookiee]

I could legally profile all my favorite settings of any plugin that offers a trial period, no? Seems wrong to me. I could buy an amp just to clone it and return it also.

If you look at morals and ethics as practice alone, I think the inevitable conclusion is that any discussion about it is invalid. I don't agree with this view.

Again, it's not just "sound" you're copying. When I hear a tone and I myself build an amp to go for that sound, that can fall into that category. But if this tone is particular enough for me to go for it, how do you argue it's not IP? And even if you can, how would you argue it's not IP theft when you get the actual amp you're trying to "copy the sound" of and go through the circuit or make it a measurable reference in order to derive models to work as close as possible to the original device? How can you say this is not IP theft when this is done without compensation or authorization? What is the actual logical argument there?

Great question that touches on some interesting legal and technical distinctions.
The core reason is that capturing the sonic characteristics of an amplifier is not the same as copying the amp itself. Here’s why it doesn’t constitute IP theft:
You can’t copyright a sound or a tone. Copyright law protects specific creative works — recordings, compositions, written code, artistic designs — but it does not protect the general “character” or “feel” of a sound. The warm breakup of a vintage Marshall plexi is not ownable intellectual property. This is well-established in law; otherwise, anyone who made a distorted guitar tone could be sued by whoever first created that sound.
The hardware design isn’t being copied. A Kemper or Quad Cortex doesn’t reverse-engineer the circuit schematics, copy the transformer specs, or clone the PCB layout of a Fender Deluxe Reverb. Those physical designs are protectable as trade secrets or patents. The profiling device is simply listening to the output and mathematically modeling the transfer function — what goes in versus what comes out. It never “sees” the internals.
It’s closer to transcription than counterfeiting. A useful analogy: if you listen to a Miles Davis solo and transcribe it by ear, you haven’t infringed on the sheet music copyright. You’ve created your own representation of observable information. Profiling works similarly — it observes the amp’s behavior acoustically and builds its own independent model.
There’s precedent in other industries. Clean-room reverse engineering of observable behavior (as opposed to copying source code or design documents) has long been considered legal. Famous examples include compatible BIOS implementations and third-party game cartridges. Profiling an amp’s sound sits in that same tradition.
The amp manufacturers haven’t really disputed this. While some have grumbled, no major amp manufacturer has successfully sued a profiling company over this. If there were a solid legal theory for IP infringement, you’d expect litigation — and it largely hasn’t happened.
The one area with some nuance is preset names. Calling a preset “Vintage Plexi” is generally fine, but if a company called a preset “Marshall JTM45” using the trademarked brand name in a misleading way, that could raise trademark concerns — which is why you sometimes see vague naming like “Brit 45” instead.

 

[LP59]

What is the actual logical argument there?

The logic that was applied in the Harley Davidson case is: the raw sound produced by a machine is not a creative act, and is therefore not intellectual property. Contrast this with an implementation of audio plugin software, which is a creative act and is intellectual property. This is a distinction that is well established in our society.

 

[SillyOctpuss]

 

[Tito83]

@paisleywookiee

Law is related to morals, it is not the same though. While I think it can be an important discussion, I think we are mainly talking about the morality of it. Most importantly: saying something is moral because it's legal is a hard pass for me.

All I read was "it's legal", "It can't be copyrighted" and resorting to legal technicalities. I had to research for "clean-room reverse engineering" and funnily enough the description starts with "Clean-room reverse engineering is a legal strategy...". That's no moral argument IMO.

The only thing I read that looks like an argument is the transcription one. Which would look like going for an amp sound without going through the amp, only from the sound, and that's what not what we're mainly talking about here. A better comparison would be to take Miles Davis, seat him down and make him play it again and again until you learned it - and argue that no compensation is granted.

And about the names, and silly graphics... It's all BS legal technicality. For the most part anyone in the guitar community is able to tell the actual amp being referenced from these names.

The logic that was applied in the Harley Davidson case is: the raw sound produced by a machine is not a creative act, and is therefore not intellectual property. Contrast this with an implementation of audio plugin software, which is a creative act and is intellectual property. This is a distinction that is well established in our society.

Again, not interested in "case" nor anything related to law. How do you argue that it's not creative? In this instance the machine is created in order to make this sound exactly like it is, it is it's core function and a lot to do with its intrinsic value.

 

[paisleywookiee]

@paisleywookiee

Law is related to morals, it is not the same though. While I think it can be an important discussion, I think we are mainly talking about the morality of it. Most importantly: saying something is moral because it's legal is a hard pass for me.

All I read was "it's legal", "It can't be copyrighted" and resorting to legal technicalities. I had to research for "clean-room reverse engineering" and funnily enough the description starts with "Clean-room reverse engineering is a legal strategy...". That's no moral argument IMO.

The only thing I read that looks like an argument is the transcription one. Which would look like going for an amp sound without going through the amp, only from the sound, and that's what not what we're mainly talking about here. A better comparison would be to take Miles Davis, seat him down and make him play it again and again until you learned it - and argue that no compensation is granted.

And about the names, and silly graphics... It's all BS legal technicality. For the most part anyone in the guitar community is able to tell the actual amp being referenced from these names.



Again, not interested in "case" nor anything related to law. How do you argue that it's not creative? In this instance the machine is created in order to make this sound exactly like it is, it is it's core function and a lot to do with its intrinsic value.

While it’s true legal != moral or ethical, I think in regards to capturing or modeling, it lines up, and it’s not remotely similar to stealing software.

Here's a great example of ethical vs. legal.

I could legally profile all my favorite settings of any plugin that offers a trial period, no? Seems wrong to me. I could buy an amp just to clone it and return it also.

Is it illegal? No. Is it ethical? Absolutely not. Same goes for buying stuff with no intention of keeping it, and returning it on day 45.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Isn't Kemper and Quad Corext a form of stealing?

Not in the slightest. Is taking a photograph of a beautiful piece of architecture stealing?

 

[ian_dissonance]

What a weird conversation. Buy your software. If you’re not using it for anything don’t use it. If you’re not using it professionally you don’t need the expensive shit, there’s literally a gajillion free plugins out there. If you’re just making demos in your basement for yourself you don’t need ProQ 4 or whatever.

 

[paisleywookiee]

This is just a thread for morally gray, unethical people to justify their own shitty behavior. As @ian_dissonance said, there are tons of free apps out there now, in every conceivable category. If you don't like how Tracktion/Ardour/GIMP/LibreOffice/Neural Amp Modeler/etc work, then save your lunch money that mom gave you, and buy the commercial product. But you being a cheap fuck doesn't excuse theft.

 

[Tito83]

While it’s true legal != moral or ethical, I think in regards to capturing or modeling, it lines up, and it’s not remotely similar to stealing software.

Here's a great example of ethical vs. legal.



Is it illegal? No. Is it ethical? Absolutely not. Same goes for buying stuff with no intention of keeping it, and returning it on day 45.

Agree that's not exactly the same, but in both cases someone created something, someone else copied it and it's using it without compensation. I'm still not seeing anything regarding an actual argument without resourcing to law/legality. How can you justify using a profile of an amp you do not own?

And I agree it's a good example, both are indeed not the same.

Not in the slightest. Is taking a photograph of a beautiful piece of architecture stealing?

Can the photograph perform the same core function to the building in a comparable meaningful way even if only in certain cases? It obviously can't. The profile of an amp can.

This is just a thread for morally gray, unethical people to justify their own shitty behavior.

So, you said it was wrong for people to get an amp, clone and return it... Cool. What if I bought it, cloned it and now sold the amp? Isn't it about the same? Not exactly, but still... What if now I start to sell my profiles using the weight of the brand/tone of the real amp I do not own? Surprisingly you seem ok with it.

 

[paisleywookiee]

So, you said it was wrong for people to get an amp, clone and return it... Cool. What if I bought it, cloned it and now sold the amp? Isn't it about the same? Not exactly, but still... What if now I start to sell my profiles using the weight of the brand/tone of the real amp I do not own? Surprisingly you seem ok with it.

No, it's not the same. Glad I could clear that up for you. If you bought the amp, and then sold it to a third party, that's not the same as buying it and returning it. If you bought it, and made profiles, it's not the same either, because selling profiles to people with a profiler isn't the same either.

I don't know how in-depth you want us to go, to teach you what your parents apparently didn't.

 

[Tito83]

No, it's not the same. Glad I could clear that up for you. If you bought the amp, and then sold it to a third party, that's not the same as buying it and returning it. If you bought it, and made profiles, it's not the same either, because selling profiles to people with a profiler isn't the same either.

I don't know how in-depth you want us to go, to teach you what your parents apparently didn't.

You're just pointing out trivial differences in order to avoid having to address how they actual differ in respect to morals.

You seem angry, but I get it. It's a common reaction when people get their own contradictions pointed out.

 

[paisleywookiee]

You're just pointing out trivial differences in order to avoid having to address how they actual differ in respect to morals.

You seem angry, but I get it. It's a common reaction when people get their own contradictions pointed out.

Oh no, not angry at all. No contradictions either. That's just your moral gray area showing.

EDIT

Let me put it plain as day for ya.

1. Pay for software you use. Don't steal it or use a crack.
2. Don't exploit return policies to rent something for free. It hurts the retailers.
3. You can't copyright, trademark, or patent a sound something makes.

 

[Tito83]

Oh no, not angry at all. No contradictions either. That's just your moral gray area showing.

EDIT

Let me put it plain as day for ya.

1. Pay for software you use. Don't steal it or use a crack.
2. Don't exploit return policies to rent something for free. It hurts the retailers.
3. You can't copyright, trademark, or patent a sound something makes.

Not in this case, but I'm fully aware I have mine. As do you and so does everyone else.

1. I don't.
2. I don't.
3. You yourself agreed that legal != moral.

Problem with arguing morality using the law is that it will invariably imply that if it was not for the law, you'd do whatever. That's not a moral person.

Again, I pointed out a few slightly different scenarios and I've yet to read a line where you try to logically make a moral distinction and give an actual reason why you think the first is not ok and the last is. So far you're at "no, it is not the same".

 

[paisleywookiee]

Not in this case, but I'm fully aware I have mine. As do you and so does everyone else.

1. I don't.
2. I don't.
3. You yourself agreed that legal != moral.

Problem with arguing morality using the law is that it will invariably imply that if it was not for the law, you'd do whatever. That's not a moral person.

Again, I pointed out a few slightly different scenarios and I've yet to read a line where you try to logically make a moral distinction and give an actual reason why you think the first is not ok and the last is. So far you're at "no, it is not the same".

I'm not arguing the morality with the law. I'm saying they align here (for me) with this topic. I think in every example you've mentioned, you're morally wrong, if you think taking something that they're charging for for free is acceptable. You've already been told multiple times that a sound made isn't the same thing as the device making it. I don't know how else to phrase it.

Law, ethics, and morality aren't exactly the same thing, but the former is based on the latter two. The fact that people for decades have not morally or ethically equated capturing, profiling, and modeling to thievery is why there also isn't a law against it anywhere in the world (to my knowledge).

The fact that it's illegal to pirate software nearly everywhere in the world as well also lines up to the moral and ethical compass of the people making those laws. They're not going to say "well, we think it's fucking swell to steal other people's hard work. But let's make it illegal anyway."

 

[Dom Mcsweeney]

Little known fact:

"Audio plugin piracy was first invented by Timbuck3 back when he first got a Hotub, circa 2004. Tim was very worried that no babes would ever want to party in his new Hotub if he didn't have the latest sick vst tones... but he had run out of money buying the Hotub. The rest is history".

 

[maddnotez]

Not in the slightest. Is taking a photograph of a beautiful piece of architecture stealing?

It's a device that literally copies someone else's work. Yes, im aware you cant trademark an amp schematic, unfortunate for some amp builders and a blessing for other amp builders. But to deny that the Kemper or Quad isn't doing exactly what it was designed to do is complete insanity.

Like I said where do you draw the line when it comes to morality. I really dont care, ive owned a Kemper and im on the waiting list for the QC mini with the sole intent of Copying my amp and running in stereo so I dont have to spend another 3k on the actual amp that im copying.