A Question of Ethics

jtsuited

Right, you lads will probably be able to help me out with this. My knowledge of this area is fairly nonexistent so I could be way off in my thoughts about this...

A few weeks back a couple of you were discussing the CLA-76 by Waves (think it was Paul who brought it up). Anywho I was on holiday and as the mind wanders as it does on holidays, something occured to me.

The Waves CLA-76, CLA-2a, CLA-3a, v series plugs and a good few other ones are excellent plugins modelled on very very specific pieces of gear by companies other than Waves who I imagine have not given Waves permission to use the actual name of the original unit. (this is the first part I may be wrong on so please correct me if I am).

Now they're marketed as being based on them in a sort of nod nod wink wink way, so I imagine that there's legal issues and all that involved. Which makes me presume that Waves pay no royalties/copyright permissions/etc. to said companies for such products. (if I'm wrong on this, PLEASE correct me because it kind of makes the next bit redundant!)

If this is indeed the case, surely it's some semi-legal form of intellectual property theft to model a plugin on a piece of hardware, market it as such, and pay NOTHING to the original intellectual property owners? Yeah? No?

Well whatever the legality of it, the ethics of it is where it gets really interesting.
If my assertion that it is tantamount to intellectual property theft is correct, then Waves are exhibiting hypocrisy of the highest level in their approach to software piracy.

At the end of the day, their software is merely intellectual property, in the same way that the design of certain classic compressors is. To copy or emulate both these properties without credit given or respect to patent/copyright mechanisms is much the same in each scenario in my eyes.

I mean if Waves come out with an unauthorised emulation of a piece of hardware who's sole purpose is to act like that hardware (but not have the permission to say precisely what it's modelled on), then surely the market for the hardware is hurt.

In the same way the market for commercial plugin developers is hurt every time their intellectual property is copied. Plugin piracy is essentially just making a copy of the information and distributing it.

Now the ethics of ownership of intellectual property is something we're never going to make significant ground on in this here humble forum (although the clocking debate was still a debate of historical significance imo),
but can someone point out what I'm missing here in saying that companies like Waves are not doing something a million miles away from software piracy in developing plugs based on famous pieces of gear, marketing them as such, but not actually having paid for that right/got permission from the actual legal owner of that intellectual property?

DamagedTrax

firstly you cant copyright the sound. harley tried it with their exhaust tone and failed.

as far as design and name is concerned they are differant enough not to infringe. they used a similiar name but when you're talking numbers does it mean waves arent allowed to use 7, 6, L, A, 2 or 3?

looks wise they've used differant knobs than the hardware, dimensions are slightly differant and colours are differant.

also, the owners of the hardware that waves have modelled (UAD) did similiar to waves. they modelled the SSL strip and comp and called it UAD 9k even though waves had the license so UAD really wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

jtsuited

but this is precisely my point damaged - legally they're fine but ethically it's a whole different matter.
They make deliberate changes to knobs to not get sued, but leave the gui look close enough to be associated with the original unit (mainly for marketing reasons).

DamagedTrax

but like i said UAD screwed them on the ssl plugs so maybe it was cheeky revenge?

who knows but one things for sure, its very very few companies give a crap about ethics when money comes into the equation. if they're legally covered they'll run with it.

jtsuited

DamagedTrax wrote: »

its very very few companies give a crap about ethics when money comes into the equation.

I'd say most legitimate purchasers of their plugins these days don't download the fully-functioning pirate bundles because of an ethical issue, rather than any other issue (legal, support, etc.).
If you're a company whose survival is soooo dependendent on your target markets' collective ethics, I think it's an important issue.

There are a lot of things I get legitimately (music,software, etc), and it's mainly out of some sort of (probably ill-founded) conscience/ethics type reasoning rather than any sort of legal fear.
But when you look at the bigger picture in this case, things get a lot more complicated imo.

MilanPan!c

It's all very complex. There's VERY LITTLE real innovation. Most music technology is just tweaked a version of something existing.

As with most products, whoever manages to tweak it just right and market at the right time get the market-share.

I think a slightly better way to ask the question might be:

If I could take the code from a Waves compressor, add, say, a mono button, that barely worked, and changed the graphics, Waves probably wouldn't do anything about it... or even care... it's not like I have the resources to compete with them... in fact they probably wouldn't even care if I gave it away for free....

but, of course, if I stole it and used it for purely recreational use, they'd be able to sue me for thousands.

Like I recently said elsewhere on B.IE, it's damn near impossible to legislate morality...

...so companies just use the law, as best the can, to protect themselves and to cover themselves when they steal and cheat.

madtheory

Milan has it somewhat correct I think, at least about the marketing part.

There was an article at the back of Tape Op recently, where a technician pointed out that all of these circuits are just implementations of well known designs, and are not anyone's "intellectual property". He was complaining that modern manufacturers erroneously use that as an excuse to not provide service notes as standard. In the olden days, all electronic gear came with service notes, because it was so unreliable.

For example, there is proliferation of Neve, Pultec and Urei clones. And I was just reading today that the new/old Schoeps mic pre is based on the old Valley People low noise pre. Analogue audio electronics is pretty much "open source" to borrow a computing term, because it is not a big earner compared to, say, RAM, nor is it very complicated compared to, say, mobile phone technology.

Rockshamrover

So all those plugins out there are basically the same things with slight tweaks and just a different logo on the box?

I thought Waves had some super duper magic technology that gave them the edge on the rest of the guys, hence the huge price difference.

Companero

were making physical boxes based on Universal Audios original design that might be true.

As they are using their own ingenuity to use DSP to emulate the qualities of someone elses analog electronics, that doesn't apply.

If I used a raytracing program to make a 3D model of a building, am I stealing intellectual property from the architect?

Companero

Companero wrote: »

were making physical boxes based on Universal Audios original design that might be true.

As they are using their own ingenuity to use DSP to emulate the qualities of someone elses analog electronics, that doesn't apply.

If I used a raytracing program to make a 3D model of a building, am I stealing intellectual property from the architect?

Can waves really justify sueing someone who uses a cracked version of their sofware, when they're actually making money off someone else's design(intellectual property)..?

(id like to point out i dont use any (cracked) waves plugins..

jtsuited

Deleted User wrote: »

Can waves really justify sueing someone who uses a cracked version of their sofware, when they're actually making money off someone else's design(intellectual property)..?

sh1te i just realised I didn't pose this simple question at the end of the OP. So eh yeah.... what CQD said.

dav nagle

jtsuited wrote: »

sh1te i just realised I didn't pose this simple question at the end of the OP. So eh yeah.... what CQD said.

Agreed there was no need for that speech

madtheory

The point I was trying to make is that those vintage boxes are not anyone's intellectual property. I don't know the legalities of it, but the fact is that there are a lot of products out there, both hardware and software, that are repackaged old designs.

These vintage plugins are based on convolution, the tricky part is interpolating between static settings and getting all the possible combinations without caning the CPU or changing the sound. That is where the R+D cost is. Actually imitating the box is simple, you could do that yourself if you're prepared to sample every possible setting. Stuff like the Waves makes the result of a mammoth sampling session like that easier to use.

MilanPan!c

madtheory wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that those vintage boxes are not anyone's intellectual property. I don't know the legalities of it, but the fact is that there are a lot of products out there, both hardware and software, that are repackaged old designs.

These vintage plugins are based on convolution, the tricky part is interpolating between static settings and getting all the possible combinations without caning the CPU or changing the sound. That is where the R+D cost is. Actually imitating the box is simple, you could do that yourself if you're prepared to sample every possible setting. Stuff like the Waves makes the result of a mammoth sampling session like that easier to use.

So, to be devil's advocate here:

it's ok to steal as long as it's hard.. Or costly?

madtheory

No, see my earlier post. The designs are very basic and well known, basically the equivalent of "open source".

madtheory

No, see my earlier post. The designs are very basic and well known, basically the equivalent of "open source". That is my understanding anyway.

MilanPan!c

madtheory wrote: »

No, see my earlier post. The designs are very basic and well known, basically the equivalent of "open source". That is my understanding anyway.

Yeah, but that's not about ethics, that just an historical legacy.

Ethically, it's no different.

Someone DID invent compression. In today's market he's be able to protect that invention... we're just so used to it that we consider it "open source".

How long did hardware companied spend perfecting hardware? And yet, because of the historical legacy of hardware being reverse engineered those hours or work and the products they created are fair game?

It's be one thing (kind of) if they made no reference to the hardware they've cloned... but... they use the fact that they successfully stolen an idea as a marketing technique.

If they broke into your house and stole the hardware, that'd be illegal, but if they paid £1000 for the hardware, stole it's functionality, re-branded it and made $50,000, that's grand.


(I'm being a bit facetious to try and prove a point.)

madtheory

No, if "someone" was entitled to a remuneration, they would have a patent on it (intellectual property is the wrong term actually, because we're talking about a physical product, not an idea). That system is ancient and reasonably effective. If a patent violation occurs, it is generally pursued. The point here is that the majority of these circuits are not patented, because they're too basic/ unoriginal so don't qualify. That's not an ethical matter, it's a legal one. There must be some patented designs, but I can't think of any.

It would help if we could speak of actual examples, rather than the hypothetical someone who "invented" compression. Certainly the Pultec eq is not patented, that's just a bunch of passive filters with an amplifier for make up gain. I don't know what the situation is with the Schoeps mic pre. A search of the US patent office would show if the Urei 1176 is patented. My guess is that it is not, given the proliferation of clones.

MilanPan!c

You might be missing my point.

Legality isn't really the point.

Waves, and a LOT of other companies, 'clone' hardware. They then sell the models for a miniscule amount, relative to what the hardware costs. They sell the clones by naming them in such a way/use graphics which make them obvious clones.

In other words, they wink and say, "yes this is essentially a copy of hardware".

Ethically, that, to me, is essentially quite similar to theft.

Legally, they're grand, but so what... The main tool that software manufacturer s have used to stop piracy is guilt: don't steal all out hard work.... But in essence, when they clone without giving a cut the creators of the products they're essentially selling, they're doing exactly that.


For what it's worth, my own attitude is that theft is wrong, but that businesses are often run by crooks, just like governments. That doesn't justify theft, but it does make me question where they derive their suposed moral authority. If you know what I mean.

madtheory

I think you're point is based on hearsay and common assumptions, and lacks grounding in basics of law, which go back hundreds of years. As a result you're reinventing the wheel, in a manner of speaking.

The main tool software vendors use is the law. Patent (and also trademark and copyright) law. Guilt is a by product. In that sense, it is a legal question, arising from an ethical issue. The law was put in place due to ethics and commercial interests. That goes back to Queen Elizabeth I and the printing of books. I suggest you research copyright, trademark and patent law, it is very interesting and illuminating, even on Wiki.

But the fact is, in most cases, the original hardware manufacturers did not create an original design! So "copying" one of those designs is not unethical. What is protected under trademark law is the look and feel of the original product, that is why Waves and other software designers "allude" so they are not prosecuted for "passing off" their product as someone else's, and using someone else's good name to make money. Basic trademark law.

This discussion is best settled by a search of the US patent office for the compressors and eqs in question. Plus, Waves may even have a patent for their software.

MilanPan!c

madtheory wrote: »

I think you're point is based on hearsay and common assumptions, and lacks grounding in basics of law, which go back hundreds of years. As a result you're reinventing the wheel, in a manner of speaking.

The main tool software vendors use is the law. Patent (and also trademark and copyright) law. Guilt is a by product. In that sense, it is a legal question, arising from an ethical issue. The law was put in place due to ethics and commercial interests. That goes back to Queen Elizabeth I and the printing of books. I suggest you research copyright, trademark and patent law, it is very interesting and illuminating, even on Wiki.

But the fact is, in most cases, the original hardware manufacturers did not create an original design! So "copying" one of those designs is not unethical. What is protected under trademark law is the look and feel of the original product, that is why Waves and other software designers "allude" so they are not prosecuted for "passing off" their product as someone else's, and using someone else's good name to make money. Basic trademark law.

This discussion is best settled by a search of the US patent office for the compressors and eqs in question. Plus, Waves may even have a patent for their software.

I think may be at an agree to disagree moment.

In my mind, if the hardware that software manufactures created is so "unoriginal" then why are people desperate for software clones of it and why do people prefer certain compressors?

The last thing I'll say (yet again) is that the question is not about law, copyright or patents, but about ethics.

Legal doesn't mean ethical and vice versa.

madtheory

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think may be at an agree to disagree moment.

In my mind, if the hardware that software manufactures created is so "unoriginal" then why are people desperate for software clones of it and why do people prefer certain compressors?

The last thing I'll say (yet again) is that the question is not about law, copyright or patents, but about ethics.

Legal doesn't mean ethical and vice versa.

What does the documentation with the Waves plugins say about licensing? Can the OP check that for us please?

I think this is really about disliking Waves for a misplaced reason. i.e. it's not about the ethics of "cloning" vintage gear, but the ethics of their pursuit of users of cracked software. That's a different issue I think.

Their use of vintage gear is far from unprecedented. There's a market for this stuff because it's proven technology. Waves are not the only ones selling clones, and there are DIY projects of this gear too, i.e. it's "public domain".

jtsuited

madtheory wrote: »

I think this is really about disliking Waves for a misplaced reason. i.e. it's not about the ethics of "cloning" vintage gear, but the ethics of their pursuit of users of cracked software. That's a different issue I think.

The whole point of me posting this thread is because I think it mightn't be THAT much of a different issue.
I haven't formed an opinion on whether it is or it's not, but would like to know a bit more about the whole thing.

Thanks for the input in this thread madtheory, much food for thought.

madtheory

You're welcome, it's a good question. FWIW I think they're being ridiculous with the "don't crack" pursuit. No other vendor has taken up with them on that AFAIK, which shows how ridiculous it is. What makes it worse is that, as woodsdennis pointed out recently, other vendors make better/ more reasonably priced stuff. I try not to use their plugins, but at work we have them, and the RComp is excellent still. If only they sold individual plugins...

MilanPan!c

madtheory wrote: »

What does the documentation with the Waves plugins say about licensing? Can the OP check that for us please?

I think this is really about disliking Waves for a misplaced reason. i.e. it's not about the ethics of "cloning" vintage gear, but the ethics of their pursuit of users of cracked software. That's a different issue I think.

Their use of vintage gear is far from unprecedented. There's a market for this stuff because it's proven technology. Waves are not the only ones selling clones, and there are DIY projects of this gear too, i.e. it's "public domain".

I completely agree that Waves isn't the only one... In fact it's completely widespread.. And hey the use IRs (whatever you think about their quality) only makes this more confusing...

In fairness though, sampling long ago made this whole area very grey, which is why I scrath my head and question how some folks can pretend this is a moral issue with good guys and bad guys and no one in between.

krd

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You might be missing my point.


Waves, and a LOT of other companies, 'clone' hardware. They then sell the models for a miniscule amount, relative to what the hardware costs. They sell the clones by naming them in such a way/use graphics which make them obvious clones.

A lot of the time it's just the companies can't be bothered suing each other. There's no money in it.

For any electronic instrument that gets made, there are only ever a few thousand or hundred put into production.

Mobile phone manufactures sue each other for stealing their circuits and algorithms all the time. But the mobile phone electronics market is worth billions. Musical instruments are not.

I think Roger Linn managed to stop people copying the Linn drum in the 80s. But he was selling each drum for about 20 grand a go. Then there were a handful of other drum machines. The chips got much cheaper and he couldn't make that kind of money any more. I think he went on to make the early AKAI samplers for AKAI (obviously).

They'd sue each other if there was money in it. Or if they thought they were really losing money by not suing.

If someone releases a software clone of a piece of hardware - people will want that original piece of hardware, if it was so good that people are copying it. It's promotion for the original company. They'll sell more units of the back of it.

ebaysellerrob

waves pay the companies a licensing fee.......

dav nagle

ebaysellerrob wrote: »

waves pay the companies a licensing fee.......

So there you go they pay to clone everyone has a price, money is power and all that..

madtheory

ebaysellerrob wrote: »

waves pay the companies a licensing fee.......

How do you know that? Is it in the documentation that comes with the Waves plugs?

jtsuited

ebaysellerrob wrote: »

waves pay the companies a licensing fee.......

so is that they just pay more for the ones they actually use the name of?

ebaysellerrob

are you guys trying justify using cracked plugins?
I know cos I was talking to an ssl rep when matrix was demoed here and himself,myself and another engineer got talking on how I liked there duende ranged and how I found some of the plugins in relation to the actual units. Then the other engineer thinking he was about to mention a taboo said how do they compare to waves with oops afterwards then myself and the guy from ssl just looked at him like he was an idiot for thinking waves were abusing a loop hole in the copyright law or just stealing from ssl.We had to explain that waves pay ssl a licensing fee.I was already full aware of this because even if they didnt have to pay for the look or sound of the plugin I knew from basic school business that a company can not use anothers name the way waves do with paying for it other wise it can be considered all sorts of things like slander.

jtsuited

eh rob, we're not talking about the ssl ones which waves obviously pay a royalty for as they use the ssl name.
We're talking about the CLA-2A, CLA76, V-series (which is based on neve stuff) and the other plugs that don't have the name of the original on them but are clearly emulations.

ebaysellerrob

a copyright is held for 50 years after the death.so work it out from there if rupert neve died today his copyrights in his name would no longer be valid in 50 years time...its like copyright on a song its not the notes that are copyrighted but the order and the way you get from one to another if you apply the same logic to waves then yes even the plugin giant will have to pay

ebaysellerrob

as far as I can see and know from my own copyrights.Waves copyright the algorithm and that is what you pay for.Neve has copyright for how the sound is changed ie how it distorts and alters the signal put into it.So if it sounds like neve its prob close but no cigar otherwise waves pay....and any one else getting the feeling that this topic is a should waves be so expensive/justify the use of cracked plugin topic.

madtheory

Products are not copyrighted, they are subject to trademark and/ or patent. It is creative works are subject to copyright, such as books, songs etc. Something that is a product, such as what we're discussing here, is normally patented, and these have to be renewed about every 20 years, at a fairly high cost. It is copyright that lasts after the creator's death, not patent. Ya, I know an electronic circuit is creative, but that is actually the legal distinction.A trademark would cover the look of the product.

That's the basics off the top of my head anyway.

So, does anyone on this thread actually own the Waves plugins, and can post the pdf of the license?

I agree that all this should be unrelated to Waves's pursuit of crackers, but that's just my POV.