On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:52 AM, John wrote: >> This is too bad, especially because the exclusion seems to be dictated >> not at all by any sort of technical limit, but in order to avoid >> "violation" of sample licenses (such as the VSL). Surely a better >> solution for everyone would be for the licenses to be augmented to >> include uses such as these, rather than ham-stringing creative >> development. (Make the lawyers work for you, instead of crippling our >> tools to bend to them!) > > Excuse me, Paul, > > What do you mean by "violation" ?? It is a clear illegal situation to > allow > EXS to work on multiple computers using the same library. Well that kind of blows my theory that the creators of the sample libraries will not object you being the author of some of the very best samples there are. But sorry John, I still don't go for it because I make a lot of my own samples and I do not want to be hobbled by those artificial limitations. Why should I be restricted from making multiple copies of my own samples that I have created if that is what I want to do. Also apple clearly *does not* have any more responsibility for people copying sample libraries to multiple machines than they do for people copying albums across multiple machines. Also what about the good John lemunkuhl customer who buys a separate set of samples for each machine on his network? You are gaining nothing by obstructing the people who would do that. > I don't see enough > residual money due to the illegal copying of my CDROMS already - a > large > corporation like Apple would not dare violate this area of legality and > trust with 3rd party developers such as Ilio and myself, even if it > does > "hurt" users of the larger sampler libraries in the "ease of use" of > these > libraries. That is unfortunate because your work is the best but obstructing this technology will hurt you more than help you.