Measuring the worth of my work

skOre · 23 Nov 2005

Btw: this is the reason why my synths are not on the server anymore atm. Sorry for any inconvenience. Just ask me for a personal copy if you really really want one.

Shifrin · 23 Nov 2005

Well, there's nothing wrong in asking a small fee for your work, don't really have anything else to say on the matter except good luck 😉

Shif.

lalo · 23 Nov 2005

good luck 😉

fritzman · 23 Nov 2005

Well,

the problem I see here is this: What if I would buy your module pack and release a schematic that uses some of your pay-modules for free? Others would get your modules this way. While I think that it's uncool to not allow this schematic to be made public, a way would be needed to hide the content of your pay modules. Or modules in general. It should be a feature in SM then. Actually it should be a way for the user to make a module to behave like a component: Closed innards with some connectors to the outside world. I'm not sure in which ways your business ideas will change the Synthmaker community while I'm sure that it will. But I think it's absolutely OK that you want to get paid for your work. No problem with that. 🙂 Another thing that I see coming along with that is that a roadmap for SM from the Outsim side and from the user side would be very useful. We had this problem before where Dan was talking about wasting his time with developing FX plugins. The next level of this problem is that it could be a waste of time and effort if 10 people would develop a certain module, feature, synthesis algorithm, etc. while it would be much cooler and way more useful for Outsim and the users if everybody would be able to go for something "unique". Not that I'm speaking against what I was saying in the other thread about users having fun doing their stuff but this here is more for a "developer" level of users. While I'm not extremely hot on earning money with such stuff I still have a few ideas here and there about it. And I can imagine that a few other people have similar ambitions which is totally cool. After all this is a development environment and people want to use it to make money. Please comment. 😉

All the best, FRitz

skOre · 23 Nov 2005

A very good point raised here. On the one hand, I don't want to put a license agreement on it to limit users on their work. On the other hand I guess that people will indeed put stuff to the forum that use my modules.

I think I will handle it this way:

Every user that bought the module pack or my synth-schematics can use the modules as he likes to. The stuff that is so low level is mostly something that is untrackable, so its not big thing if people than steal this, as they could just as well throw a handfull of components together. I guess the already pure mass of the synth pack (200+ modules), will keep damage in limits.

Now the second case is the more complex modules. If I find any of my modules of higher levels in a free schematic, this will be a reason for me to kindly ask the person to either remove the schematic or buy the pack/synth. This is why I asked for EULAs. I think that it would be fair to say "You are free to use the module as you like in every way you like, but you have to actually own it". I will start to tag my schematics with my logo here and there.

I should also prevent stupid resales with an agreement.

And thanks for the heads up 🙂

angstrom · 23 Nov 2005

I think this issue is quite an important one : 3rd party developers making 'mid level' modules or coding 'low level' modules (in asm module) deserve some cash, but their work requires protection within the SM system (somehow)

without this protection some trouble will happen.

Someone will buy a copy of your module, they will pass it on to someone who uses it in a synth and then tries to sell that synth. The community will split acrimoniously into venemous factions with witch hunts all round.

This is known as the "dreaded saga of Chris Kerry"

if you have a history in SE you will know how ugly and unpleasant a saga that was. Both times!

Tom7777 · 23 Nov 2005

Well you know me, i like to develop stuff low level and i usually check most of the posted schematics to see if theres anything that i had not thought of before ect, i think that if you want to start making money thats fine im sure theres alot of SM users wanting to do the same and as fritzman says SM is made for this. First off the format of .osm is best i think rather than an installer, with your current free module pack i don't really use that many of the modules but from time to time theres something i will add to my toolbox, im guessing this would be the same for most other users also in that they would rather have the choice of which modules they would want to add and not just add them all, but a installer would probably seem like a good thing for someone thats just downloaded SM and wants a load of modules so maybe make both the .osm and installer available.

Fritzman made a very good point about people that have purchased the new module pack making synths and then sharing them. For example also i recently made a post about having made effects that were similar to the new high level modules so i have wasted time on this, but what if someone had not purchased and made similar modules to those in your pack and released a public synth would you then say that they were your modules used ect? I find that with modular audio there will always be people making similar things and remaking the same algorythms over and over so this may well happen. What we currently need if we want to sell module packs is a decent password lock system and a information module which says who the dev is, so if this were ever to happen then some big argument would not start, we could then also allow users to use level1 or something becuase of course they would expect to be able to do some modifying in some way. This would also be great becuase then for the really low level stuff which you don't want them to be able to use in this way you could block them from doing so, but with audio modular software there is always going to be people copying things so things like this can be hard to sort out sometimes.

As for selling your synths ect good luck, im sure a module pack would be of interest to lots of people, would you document/advertise every module though, i know for some people they would have to know what they were getting before purchasing the pack, anyway i hope i make some valid points, thanks 😀

The Sound Scientist · 23 Nov 2005

Hello skOre...=)... Great topic! I think what you're doing is wonderful and I wish you the very best of luck!!!!! I think the price for the plugins is reasonable (50)...if not great(20)..... However i think that the module thing is not really my favorite.. I personally think you should use the modules to pull people to your site constantly.... Set it up so that a new module of yours is released every so often, this way it will keep SM users going to your site over and over again.... This marketing tactic will increase sales probably only slightly but I see it as a "Cool" alternative.... Or make a "Exclusive Module Pack Included With These Plugins" type of incentive to buy your plugins... Or, you can have an OSM included with "special modules" included...... Basically I think that you should use the mod pack as an advertising strength....Please let me know what you think of these alternative ideas??? 🙂 I really wish you the best of luck and I hope everything goes excellent!! Much Love 😍 Peace and Science 🙂 😀 😉

sambean · 23 Nov 2005

Hey Sk0re, best of luck with your enteprise.. I think you have every right to do what you wish with whatever you make, be it modules or completed vsts. SM is a development tool the same as Photoshop, Cubase, etc.

I think though it may be more difficult with modules as opposed to completed vsts.. As Fritz says we should really be able to compile modules, in doing so perhaps it would be possible to embed an ID code to avoid confusion if someone has developed a similar module, something highly likely with mid-level components.. Without the ability to compile modules you may have the complicated situation where someone has used a proportion of the module or made modifications, would this class as a breach of the EULA..

Keep us posted on how it goes.. 😀

Sam

djaram · 13 Dec 2005

May be..

??

NothanUmber · 15 Dec 2005

Well I would gladly be willing to pay adequate amounts of money for really high quality modules that I'd like to have but which would require too much time to aquire the neccessary in-depth knowledge to make them myself. Specifically that would include:

* "physical" modelled arbitrary recombinable components of (wood)wind-like instruments. (Wrote physical in quotes as I really don't care which model/synthesis technique is used as long as the result is very expressive (with care for subtle nuances), tweakable, overall good sounding and well suited for live playing (no "look ahead" neccessary as it's the case e.g. with Synful)) * really good va components (I'm thinking in the range of at least vaz modular here) * some high quality spectral effects (e.g. a module that convincingly morphs two audio input signals via resynthesis)

Concerning the license: I'd at least expect that I'm allowed to do with the exported vsts whatever I want (even give them away for free) without further charge. (A dual license policy for commercial synths and a cheaper one that's limited to free stuff would also be ok) Having to hold the schematic closed is a little bit a pity but I could live with that (e.g. one could give out a schematic that replaces the commercial components with dummies to interested people so all the other things except the internals of the 3rd party modules could be studied)

Greetings, NothanUmber

posh · 1 Jan 2006

imo, you shouldnt make modules available for people if you require money for them, cause if they use them and release a schematic featuring them things can get complicated really fast.

even if your modules are locked (which i know alot of people wants to be added, locked modules).

thing is that your making modules for people to help their development etc, and most of those people would most likely use them for learning purposes etc, and then they would most likely post their schematics up on the forums, for further analysis etc. now, i dont blame you for asking money for them at all, but i think its kind of a wierd take on it to create modules to be used in schematics, if your not allowed to post your schematic after using them etc.

id say donation ware then or something similar.

then again i support opensource alot, so that mmight just be me.

im not sure what to say, cant blame you, seeing how much work youve put into it, but i cant say that i support the idea either.

same as i dont really support the idea of locked modules either, cause i like to fiddle with modules, be high level or low level and try to understand whats going on, and if its locked i cant.

..,so then basicly ill have a module that does something, but im not sure WHY, nor HOW it does it, so that wont help me pretty much. it would only make me count on that module for making that specific task. so i cant elaborate on that idea, since im not sure how its done in the first place.

but yeah, donation ware imo, but its your call mate. good luck with whatever way your going. great work nonetheless. 😉

fritzman · 1 Jan 2006

posh wrote: same as i dont really support the idea of locked modules either, cause i like to fiddle with modules, be high level or low level and try to understand whats going on, and if its locked i cant.

..,so then basicly ill have a module that does something, but im not sure WHY, nor HOW it does it, so that wont help me pretty much. it would only make me count on that module for making that specific task. so i cant elaborate on that idea, since im not sure how its done in the first place.

What about SMs components? Do you feel restricted by not being able to look under their hood, too? 😉 If yes, then well, your problem (and mine). If not, where's the difference to locked modules? 😮

Best wishes, FRitz

skOre · 2 Jan 2006

Well, I have thought of this a lot since I posted it, and I think that it is not a good idea to post full commercially available schematics for the masses, since this will only create hudle. I have a different model in mind that will be based on a different approach, and might also involve contributing to a module database. But I will see how this idea turns out to be.

Tom7777 · 2 Jan 2006

Well the thing is with donationware it basically mean freeware as theres hardly ever people that donate money to the developer. As for having locked modules i don't think people need to see the contents or code, with programs like SE and reaktor alot of the modules are high level yet this has no effect on people and doesn't stop them from making good synths and effects, im sure that people who can code would like to see the SM source code but i doubt the devs would want them to be able to see it, its just the same case but with modules. I think lockable modules is a great idea and in my case would allow me to share a lot of stuff.

fritzman · 2 Jan 2006

skOre wrote: I have a different model in mind that will be based on a different approach, and might also involve contributing to a module database. But I will see how this idea turns out to be.

Thanx for telling us, eh, what? 😀 😉

skOre · 2 Jan 2006

fritzman wrote: Thanx for telling us, eh, what? 😀 😉

In time... In time...

The solution I have in mind could be a huge thing, but I have to get it sorted right.

Tom7777 · 2 Jan 2006

Will we be able to use your solution also?

skOre · 3 Jan 2006

possible 🙂

infuzion · 9 Mar 2006

related topic: "DEVs... your best/worst sellers?" http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... torder=asc