>> 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. > > > Do not forget! Apple is on touchy grounds with the Music industry - > trying to prove they can do the iTunes Music Store on the up and up. > They are also still involved in a law suit with Apple Records. The ironic > thing about that one is - The iTunes music store will probably end up > with the Beatle Music Catalog first - they just will not make any money > on it! All of which is irrelevant to whether apple should be assuming the burden of trying to determine whether files being copied from one machine to another are moving in accordance with copywrite restrictions or not. Microsoft does not pretend that it is their responsibility and more audio files are copied on MS machines than ever will be on apple machines. The same thing with sample libraries. Duplicating sample libraries across multiple machines is already common practice in the Windows world, so whatever apple does it is not going to change that and if apple decides to hobble their own technology for that reason all they are doing is giving MS an opportunity to catch up with the node technology and you can bet your ass that MS are working the problem. In fact I just got a mail from the apulsoft who make Wormhole that said among other things: - PC version! You can now send audio between macs and pcs. - TCP/IP latency drastically reduced. It should not be a consideration even for a second apple are not responsible at that level any more than 3M are responsible for people making duplicate recordings of other people's albums. This same debate has been done over and over again and no technical restriction of that kind has ever worked. > This is related to Logic - only in the sense that Logic is now Apple. The thing were were discussing is if and how EXS will be implemented on nodes which is about as logic related as a topic could be.