Lockable Modules (split from "SynthMaker Update" topic)

Disco_Steve · 29 Oct 2010

the problem with that would be sharing between people. and making the modules locked just didn't work, so alot of work would be needed. I do really like that idea though. and potentially you could get module deelopers within the SM comunity! we could have our own little module store

AMAZZING LIMITER ALGO just £3 uber linear phase EQ just £2

would probably kill the forum! but would be great! and getting recognition for your modules would be garentieed, even if you only got £3.

I think the rate of development and the number of users of SM would greatly increase. the word would get out that with SM you can by myco's BLAR for £3 on top of buying SM, add it to a Disco_Steve Limiter for £4 and you have an UBER mastering VST.

I'm in love with this idea! DO it SM do it!!!!

aliasant · 29 Oct 2010

Disco_Steve wrote: the problem with that would be sharing between people. and making the modules locked just didn't work, so alot of work would be needed. I do really like that idea though. and potentially you could get module deelopers within the SM comunity! we could have our own little module store

AMAZZING LIMITER ALGO just £3 uber linear phase EQ just £2

would probably kill the forum! but would be great! and getting recognition for your modules would be garentieed, even if you only got £3.

I think the rate of development and the number of users of SM would greatly increase. the word would get out that with SM you can by myco's BLAR for £3 on top of buying SM, add it to a Disco_Steve Limiter for £4 and you have an UBER mastering VST.

I'm in love with this idea! DO it SM do it!!!!

Been having the same wet dream since Malc started working on lockable modules but since it seems to hard to realize I dont think we will ever get that lucky 🙁

mwvdlee · 3 Nov 2010

aliasant wrote: Been having the same wet dream since Malc started working on lockable modules but since it seems to hard to realize I dont think we will ever get that lucky 🙁

What's to stop anybody from selling user-made modules right now? Sure, there's no copyright protection, but copyright protection would be cracked anyway, not having it just gives you more time to create sellable modules 😉 The only thing that might be an issue is that it's pretty hard to come up with something worthwhile that other people couldn't easily duplicate themselves.

aliasant · 3 Nov 2010

mwvdlee wrote: aliasant wrote: Been having the same wet dream since Malc started working on lockable modules but since it seems to hard to realize I dont think we will ever get that lucky 🙁

What's to stop anybody from selling user-made modules right now? Sure, there's no copyright protection, but copyright protection would be cracked anyway, not having it just gives you more time to create sellable modules 😉 The only thing that might be an issue is that it's pretty hard to come up with something worthwhile that other people couldn't easily duplicate themselves.

Well.

If I could lock modules some how I could sell eg. aliasants Crispy Limiter or iPhoonish gui module b labla... for say 3 euro / copy. Then others can use them as they please in their own builds but if my module is all open and my secret ingredients are fully visible..... Copyrights.. Well. Not that many that seems to care about that these days 🙁

If I could lock modules or create my own primitives that noone can "hack" then I would be much more willing to give stuff away for free too. Thats probably the most intruiging aspect of this. I think thees a lot of us that has modules that we feel reluctant sharing simply because we dont want to spill our secret sauce.

MichaelBenjamin · 3 Nov 2010

stop with the secrets already. if something is secret it very quickly tends to be stupid and not interesting. if you want to share, share 100% - or if you think its not yet the time, dont share at all. either is ok.

besides i think its much more fun to build a personal wacko limiter and doing stuff with it compared to buying prefabs and then wiring them together like plugins in energy xt. in general electronic music needs less presets, less prefabs, less commercial and free plugins, and more individual structures to keep it alive. sm is perfect to build such structures from scratch without being bothered by the madness of a vst sdk or c++ in general. thats why the the codebox needs an update, since its simply the most powerful feature of sm.

tor · 3 Nov 2010

Amen 🙂

datsound · 4 Nov 2010

The idea of locking is sly but what prevents you from selling your modules to us as long as you trust that synthmaker users have the honesty to not give it to others, and how would locking a module make it better to sell? Access to the module is the same whether it is locked or not as long as you sell it. It would even be less versatile if it were locked. say that you sell 10-20 of a good module unlocked, for $5 that would be ok too?...

i would pay loads and loads for certain modules if they made the sound more powerful, for a resale vsti, cos some of the things in my present synth are rather insipid or thin.

aliasant · 4 Nov 2010

datsound wrote: The idea of locking is sly but what prevents you from selling your modules to us as long as you trust that synthmaker users have the honesty to not give it to others, and how would locking a module make it better to sell? Access to the module is the same whether it is locked or not as long as you sell it. It would even be less versatile if it were locked. say that you sell 10-20 of a good module unlocked, for $5 that would be ok too?...

i would pay loads and loads for certain modules if they made the sound more powerful, for a resale vsti, cos some of the things in my present synth are rather insipid or thin.

Well. Writing this before I had my first coffe.......

Its not all about selling. Its about being able to upload a schematic as an example or upload a whole .osm when asking help of others in the community and so much more.

We all, except MB and Tor, have our little secrets that we have spent weeks, months or even years on developing and just giving those away feels sour. (Just because it takes me years to develope something doesnt mean its any good. It just means Im slow but it's still my valued time and my effort in the product)

About asking for help: Lets say I have an osm Im working on but I need help solving a specific part. As it is today its often we think. "Hmm. If I upload the whole .osm as it is I will reveal all my little secrets.. Ill skip uploading it...." Maybe we really really need help so we start taking out parts that are secret and by this we make the whole .osm non functional. Uploading a non functioning osm is not as fun for those trying to solve your problems so you will get less help.

If we could lock modules inside our schematic we would be able to upload the whole thing but lock the modules that we dont want others to look inside. Others can test the locked modules by sending in data and looking at the outputs (eg. for trouble shooting) . This would save us the hassle of trying to remove all the secret parts and would therefor enable us to upload a fully working osm to the forums instead of a non working, hatched up osm.

Im also thinking about the future. If we had lockable modules I think popularity of SM would reach new hights. People love to create little mini apps, which is what modules are in a way. We could trade them like baseball cards, sell them or just give them away. We would also know that this module will always work the way we intended ( bugs included) so if someone asks for help and has the "Exo Module 415b" you would know that this particular module has a bug that prevents naked ladies from entering your lair and that this is likely to be the probably the problem with the osm.

SM could even have its own little AppStore( like Apples) were we can trade, sell or give away apps and modules and also give critics and what nots. Lockable modules are a key for this to work. It adds a new dimension to SM ( and I guess Flowstone)

About selling an unlocked module. Well. Before you buy anything from me you would need to know what it is Im selling and to know that you would need to test my modules. If I give you an unlocked module o test and you say... neeeh. That was not what I was looking for at all......

I dont mind giving those I know a little peak or even a whole idea or system but this is not about that. This is about being able to give a complete stranger access to whatever I want to trade.

Lockable modules are a big part of a great future for SM ad Flowstone but only if they are truly lockable.

mwvdlee · 4 Nov 2010

Maybe move the discussion of users selling modules to other users to a new thread?

Disco_Steve · 4 Nov 2010

if a synth guy, used an excelent pre fabed limiter at the end of the chain. he would be able to spend all his time on the synthy bits. thats the advantage of using pre fabed modules, it gives you more time for the bits you actually care about!

also new memebrs can 'shove somthing together' even easier than they can curently, which is surly a good thing? as I remember being a noob ARRRRRRRRRR 😉

TomC · 4 Nov 2010

Disco_Steve wrote: also new memebrs can 'shove somthing together' even easier than they can curently, which is surly a good thing? as I remember being a noob ARRRRRRRRRR 😉

Let me slightly disagree with you. The scenario you mentioned above is probably the MAIN reason for the not-so-good reputation SynthMaker had for a long time (and still has).

Tom

Disco_Steve · 4 Nov 2010

it is a pitty that people felt that by conecting a few defaut modules together they had made something worth distrobuting. for learning I think it is fantastic. and the way you can drill down and see the detail but you only need to drill as far as you're ready for.

could we have a 'No Export' locked modules. that would allow people to learn, but would not allow people to export?

Jay · 4 Nov 2010

Exellent idea to have some sort of module mart 🙂 would be nice if ADMIN could arrange a modules offered and wanted section for the forum and website!

I would have been delighted to pay for the module packs already provided by some of you guys, had they not been free in the first place 🙂

I also agree that there is a nessesity for having prefabs for newbies, even not so newbies,I am maths challenged so theres a lot of stuff i can't make but want to make. I came here at the time of SM CM Edition when there was already a fair smattering of modules and examples available to users on the forum. But, had i came here and was faced with nothing but learning curve then i most likely would not have remained here to date! I feel thet there are many users that fit that bill also.

Locked modules, good idea but could end up a waste of time because, the modules would be secure for the most part , normal everyday users don't have the kind of knowhow to force them open.However the minute someone puts together a module pack and asks for money they then give that module pack value and hence the incentive for the crackers to crack it!

and you bet you ass they will! they F&*£*ng love SM and SE, both packages give them lots of new VST makers and lots new VSTs to crack! The music application crack scene is flooded with stuff SM & SE based.Most of it is the half assed stuff tom speaks of above 😉 lol they perate stuff that you guys would fall about laughing at! some twit even rebranded the SM example and team assign pirated it!In fact i am sure they did the rebranding too.

But roll on the SM Module Shop! 😀 Hope you are all busy making 😍

Best Regards Jay

bootsy · 4 Nov 2010

why sell modules if you can't sell an S|M made app?

Jay · 4 Nov 2010

Bootsy Most of SM's users are not here hopeing to become the next big audio soft maker and use SM for personal usage and some might not be able to make cetain things but still would like to have them, so hence there is a market for modules

I don't know where all this "you can't sell SM made plugs" comes from,there are a few ppl doing very well out of their SM based stuff

it should be more "you cant sell half assed SM plugs" because most i have found for sale SM based have been half assed or just not worth the money. Thats where the bad press comes from not SM's Bugs however bad they are.

Bootsy you are a good developer who should find no probs getting recompensated no-matter what platform you use and there are others just like you here! All the usual suspects that frequent this place are devs or wanna be devs right! but that couple of dozen ppl are not the SM userbase, who would appreciate the abillity to purchase modules they may not have the learning to make for themselves nor the time to learn

Best Regards Jay

trogluddite · 4 Nov 2010

Hmm, I think actually bootsy made a very good point.

If you want to sell SM plugins you need a developer licence (more expensive) - the personal licence only covers doing non-public stuff or freebies - that's perfectly fair, as OutSim provided the tools to produce the things from which a commercial developer may profit.

To have 'module trading' implies yet another layer of licensing terms - and it is easily possible that a 'module' could contain more 'value' (functionality/quality) than many of the 'half-assed' full blown plugins that have been spoken of.

That scalability is one of SMs charms - but at what point of complexity is a module just a module? To export my 30000+ primitive PLUGIN that took me 2 years to make, I put it into a MODULE and press the little VST button. So could I profit from it by 'module trading' and claim not to be a commercial developer? - What license would I need? - Who would I be allowed to sell it to? - just reg'd SM users? (who might trade it on to a 3rd party, or make a commercial plugin with it) - Who's job it is to police such a scheme to see that it is not abused?

etc. etc.

The idea of locked module sharing (I'm against trading for $$) is not in principle a bad one - but I believe that it could open up a massive can of worms re: licensing, piracy, disputes between developers etc. Look already at the turmoil created here by the release of Flowstone - cross compatible (sort of) yet with totally different licensing term than SM - do we really want to invite more of that kind of confusion? We already have a regular hackle-raising 'spot the pirate' thread every couple of months or so as it is! 😈

I do think ultimately that either you share or you don't - and if you choose not to share then you cannot have it both ways and expect to share in other's knowledge and discoveries

aliasant · 4 Nov 2010

trogluddite wrote: ....mercial developer? - What license would I need? - Who would I be allowed to sell it to? - just reg'd SM users? (who might trade it on to a 3rd party, or make a commercial plugin with it) - Who's job it is to police such a scheme to see that it is not abused?

' Simple.

Full license can create and use locked modules. Cheap License can only use locked modules but not create them.

About Piracy, disputes between developers etc. We have that already and will continue having it as long as there are humans.

trogluddite · 4 Nov 2010

The creation part yes, fine, makes sense - selling is selling at whatever level.

It's the trading of the modules that concerns me - if they are to be sold (rather than just freely shared), then the developers creating modules will require reasonable security that only those who paid can use them. I'll not concern myself with how that could be implemented (but I doubt it would be easy or particularly effective)

Suddenly our nice little helpful community on the forum becomes fractured - I'd like to help 'userA' with his schematic, but I can't download it because it contains a module that I don't have permission to use. I want to post a beta of my osm for some help with debugging/suggestions - but only 1 other user can download it because I used 'moduleX' that didn't sell very well To see what could happen - just look at SynthEdit - it's capabilities are great, but every user effectively has a different version of the software, which is really off putting if you're looking for help, or to find collaborators for projects.

I'm sure that as a purely 'hobbyist' user my perspective differs from that of a 'pro' -but I really do think that keeping the 'point of sale' as complete plugins just makes life a whole lot easier.

And, of course, there will always be pirates - but I do think that opening up a market in 'component parts' would just encourage them even more.

mwvdlee · 4 Nov 2010

trogluddite wrote: And, of course, there will always be pirates - but I do think that opening up a market in 'component parts' would just encourage them even more.

This always makes me think of the excellent "World of Goo" game. Besides being an absolutely brilliantly fun game, it also had a business model of that let you download it for free, without any copyright protection, and pay whatever you wanted. Kinda like what Radiohead did with their recent album. Pretty soon the warez sites were full of groups claiming to have cracked this wonderful game. I myself had commercial software which didn't have any copyright protection (note; there is no noticable difference in sales depending on the existance of copyright protection in any of the commercial product I ever released; it simply makes absolutely no difference). I've even seen "warez releases" for free, open source software. Pirates don't need any encouragement. They pirate for the benefit of "social status" with their peer group, even if all they're doing is pretending to crack something. I'd be perfecly happy with a market place without copyright protection. Only thing I'd ask is that people do not share the purchased modules. Then again, I really don't care much about the plan of selling user-made modules: I use modules to make bigger things; sharing those modules makes sure other people can improve the things I missed and vice versa.

aliasant · 4 Nov 2010

trogluddite wrote: The creation part yes, fine, makes sense - selling is selling at whatever level.

It's the trading of the modules that concerns me - if they are to be sold (rather than just freely shared), then the developers creating modules will require reasonable security that only those who paid can use them. I'll not concern myself with how that could be implemented (but I doubt it would be easy or particularly effective)

I see you point now. You are right in your view but I dont think it matters that much unless you thinking about making a livin out of selling modules.

I just had an idea...

EDIT: This first idea wouldnt work but maybe another would... Ill drop the new idea at the bottom of this post....

There could be a time based protection system. Meaning if I give you an .osm that has a special module "X15" that I bought from mwvdlee you and anyone else that downloads te .osm will be able to use that module for 5 days and then it will stop functioning. That should be fairly simple to build into the lockable system. It could use something like harddrive id number, MAC address or something to sense that it has been deployed on a new computer and then start in 5 days demo mode.

Of course it wont be hacker proof or even near that but Id rather be living out there in some danger then locking myself into a safe bunker...

I do agree with mwdlee though. I want lockable modules and if copy protection is to hard to make thats ok. As long as we get this function. There are so many other really interesting aspects of this. Selling is just one small part of it.

Here is idea 2: Instead of a time demo maybe a limit so that only the owner of a module can create .exe, vst or what ever Flowstone can create. If you dont own the module you can use it in SM/FS but you cant use it in an export. That should work much better. We can still share .osm's no matter how many weird locked modules we have and we can test new modules out but not create apps with it. If we really like it we should contact the creater and buy a copy or even better go to the new Outsim ModStore and just grab it. Outsim already has our visa card number ( in my fantasy that is) so grabbing it and paying the 3 usd for it is no harder then 1 mouseclick. This would also mean that new modules would get a good spread trough the community and that helps a good module to proof itself.

If you try to create, eg. a VST plug from SM but one or more of your modules arnt really yours a popup tells you that; this and that module is a demo only and to buy them click on respective link button... and off you go 🙂 If you want them that is.

The only thing now is to make a lockable system that knows if you bought the module or not. And forget about the hackers. No matter what we do they will hack it in no time but I dont think that matters that much. A well working system will have plenty of honest users. Just like Apples iTunes Store / App store. Some hack their iPhones but 95% dont.

trogluddite · 5 Nov 2010

mwvdlee wrote: sharing those modules makes sure other people can improve the things I missed and vice versa.

Yes, whether we sell our plugins or not, we want them to be able to compete with the quality of the best plugins out there.

I don't have a problem per se with hard working developers ('pro' or otherwise) protecting their 'trade secrets' - but sharing our knowledge is much more likely to raise the level of what we can all achieve with SM - even the gurus and 'pros' benefit by SM plugins having a better reputation. In this sense, sharing our knowledge seems a better approach than merely amassing a collection of 'secret' modules that (a) we can learn nothing from; and (b) the maker of the 'secret' module cannot benefit from enhancements made by other users. The overall quality of SM plugins can only ever be held back by such secrecy, even though a clever few might temporarily gain some advantage by it (but only temporarily - because someone else will always find a way to duplicate the clever tricks sooner or later - even doing it the hard way with no cracking/piracy)

Lockable modules, especially if they are for sale and will require keys or licences, seems to me a big burden to place on the developers. Surely there are far more pressing issues (host compatability, timing issues, CPU load etc.) that would be much better use of the dev's time and resources.

Ultimately, if people wish to have their secrets, they can do so by not sharing and I would not hold that against them - but dealing with the other bugs/issues will benefit every single user whatever their skill level or opinion of 'module locking'. Good bug free software plus a forum community that is inclusive and generous leads to a healthy user-base for SM, without which the software will die out, and we will all be left with nothing.

mwvdlee · 5 Nov 2010

Ofcourse, somebody could always just try it out. I'm sure some of us have stuff lying around which isn't critical to our full-scale projects but may still be worth a price to others; set up a paypal account and basic website and see how it goes with selling plain .OSM schedules. I'll see if I have something worthwhile lying around to test this myself.

Disco_Steve · 5 Nov 2010

thats why I sugested the 'No Export' locked modules

you can send it to your friend, they can look at it, fix the bits they can penetrate I.E not the locked modules bit, but they wont be able to export the plugin or coppy the locked module to other projects or to the toolbox.

SM is linked into your username, and you down load the modules directly into your toolbox via a 'module store'

modules then have a licenece, no export for non developers, or developer export for developers.

there will be hundreds of free modules on their too. just like the app store ranging from compleate VST's to some knobs.

it wont ever happen! but I think its a great idea. I personally would become a module developer, because that's what I'm good at! algorithms, not compleate products! I want o be able to sell an algorithm, but people dont want algorithms they want fully working sexy looking VST's.

Nu Audio Science · 5 Nov 2010

I think there is some kind of pipe dream here that SM can do like SE and have a third party market of locked modules Never going to happen because 1 SM is percieved as a toy even compared to SE 2 There simply aren't enough clever developers around here to do anything worthwhile that somebody else couldn't do easily (Restrictions of no SDK/API)

Unless the new update of SM is radical (Lets be honest here it wont be) SM will remain a great toy/fixer for when you are in the studio and need a plugin to do such and such real quick Beyond that it will never be a serious development platform because it has no weight of development behind it If it had any weight behind it there would already be a mac version (How they think they will make anything with flowstone with no mac version surprises me)

I know this may be a "I hate NAS from now on" kind of statement to some of you but hey its just being honest Accept SM for what it is because it isn't going anywhere rapidly so deal with it

NAS

tektoog · 5 Nov 2010

I know this may be a "I hate NAS from now on" kind of statement to some of you but hey its just being honest

Hahaha... No worries NAS, I still like you...and I always have... First because you were the first one to help me here on this forum...(I'll always be grateful for that) and second because I just love so much your direct way to tell things... Like you always say aloud what we think a low... It is true that this second business coming out of nowhere for us, SM users, with absolutlly no anticipation what so ever from the managers part, is kind of impolite and rude, almost could say disrespectfull... But As I always, since the begining, enjoyed the SM spirit ' sofware, forum, users, admins...and possibilities... I've always been trusty and I did well..As reasonnable and sensible people they are at SM/Flowstone management, they kind of quickly gave us a satisfying answer... the FS crossgrade and the ability to pay-per-render with the free version... Thanks guys !!! But as far as SM is a toy...I wouldn't be that radical... the more time I spend using this software, the more I understand how these thousands payware little apps and freebies are flooding sites like 01net or download.com... and now I understand how I've been ripp off all these years...buying stuff that I've could have done myself..... Thanks SM...just for that....And the more I work (and I say work !!) with SM, leads me to think that at one point, I just might take all the plugins, apps and module I made over the time, and just put them together to make a complete workstation, including, sequencer, synths, drummachines; visualization, and even video now with FS... Of course this wouldn't be doable without adding a bit of ASM and coding... but the GrooveBox project shows that something really consequent can really be made with SM... ( And I like my personal instruments I made that I coudn't find nowhere on the internet when I started with SM...)

Personally I don't think SM is a toy, it's fun to use, that's for sure....but no toy for me....

UNLess the whole world is a game and computers toys to play with... in that way...yeah...that's a toy

Nu Audio Science · 5 Nov 2010

No you misread me I don't think SM is a toy far from it It is however percieved as one by the very customers we would wish to sell plugins or apps to This next update may well rectify that by sorting out a few long time issues but the truth be told here the only value currently in SM is the userbase nothing else SM and Flowstone will live and die by its community support (Don't like saying but the devs had little time before for the community and that will be even less now, not saying Malc hasn't helped me immensly over the years with bugs but the missing presence here on the forum has been telling)

On that note i don't think the crossgrade prices are fair in any way at all Every owner of SM full should have been given a free crossgrade and the two apps combined simple as that Splintering the userbase will be the worst thing ever for SM and Flowstone If you don't get players like Exo and Oddson (Yes there are others but these two guys have been prolific over the years) on the Flowstone platform the knowledge that is not being utilised is terrible If i didn't have faith in Malc (I do) i would say very much that this is a last gasp attempt to eek out every penny of a failed project The ultimate shame of it all s they spent time creating Flowstone when in reality a mac port of SM with full price upgrade would have pulled nearly all current users into the update and a vast portion of SE and MAX/MSP users (Who just lost their plugin support) So really i look on this new app in puzzlement at the moment simply because like i say i have a lot of faith in Malc

NAS

NAS

infuzion · 6 Nov 2010

Oh no, not the lockable modules subject again! MichaelBenjamin wrote: stop with the secrets already. if something is secret it very quickly tends to be stupid and not interesting.

SM's source code is secret, as is alot of source code...

I tend to hold back modules due to not protecting them. IMHO SE's community got bigger than SM simple due to the SDK.

Acrobat · 7 Nov 2010

Disco_Steve wrote: thats why I sugested the 'No Export' locked modules

that's quite an original idea, but consider for a moment what will happen if the application is been cracked: EVERY locked modules from EVERY developers will be unlocked in just ONE shot! For this reason, it's a better idea if locking is linked to a PERCONAL key, it is safer from app-hacking.

Anyway I think the locking is not necessary anyway, I'm with Trogluddite on this, it will make exchanges too much complicated. ATM I don't want to put economics into that and, think about it, it's also a bit funny for such a microscopic business it could be!

I just see sharing as real sharing, then I judge people who are grateful in some way as "friends", people who don't as "enemies" - period. 😉 A.

infuzion · 9 Nov 2010

Nu Audio Science wrote: Unless the new update of SM is radical (Lets be honest here it wont be) SM will remain a great toy/fixer for when you are in the studio and need a plugin to do such and such real quick

Obviously you've never used AcmeBarGig's stuff. He uses full convolution; does SE have that. I've never heard convolution as a "toy" before, have you NAS?

Nu Audio Science · 15 Nov 2010

Your not serious right ? No disrespect to Ken here he is doing some great stuff (Outside of SM i must say) but the ABG SM stuff is not what i would say is up to the standard of commercial products Go try anything by Lepou or the new ignite amp All free and all kicking ass Like i say Ken is doing stuff outside of SM that will propel him much further

NAS

McBarGig · 22 Nov 2011

Well, I have to put my 2 pents in here and say some stuff on my mind...

I agree with you on some of your points... SM does lack a lot, and I can say for sure that it has taken us at least 3 times longer to get where we are with head case than if we just bit the bullet and wrote it in C++. This is directly related to the fact that SM has no way of IPC, apart from idiotic files usage! I think at one time Malc and Jorge were going to try and make this cross platform and what makes me think that is the lack of standard windows operations. The fact that nothing in SM seems to have an hwnd, says to me that they have built all their controls. Why would you do that if you were not going to make it cross platform? Why wouldn't you just use the standard windows controls? However I think some time through its development it became a windows product only at which point they had already invested the time to create the cross platform controls, so why replace them with proper windows controls? Either way, that left it hard to work with to create something that is NOT a TOY.

attic · 22 Nov 2011

I'm not sure that you can compare the Synthedit situation to Synthmaker. The SDK on the Synthedit side allows developers to design stuff that is not available from within Synthedit's regular components. I use the CK stuff in Synthedit and his modules add many things that are not available otherwise. Synthmaker is a closed system so it is not as if we are building anything that someone else could not build granted they have the knowledge, but with the synthedit SDK developers have the choice to design anything they can dream up as they are not locked to a set amount of prefab components. Lets hope RUBY makes it to SM.

As far as people making money off of components they have designed, I'm all for it. I think people should try to make some money off their hard work. I personally would buy some off Bootsy's vst's and some of Trog's code and I'm sure there are many others around here I would purchase something from. On the other hand I am poor right now, so I couldn't even afford coffee last week. 🙁

If you are contemplating selling SM modules but holding out for a way to protect them I'm not sure your thinking clearly about the situation. I don't think that someone that buys some code from someone else is just going to release it into the wild. I think they will keep it to themselves so they can have less competition in potential uses of it. I have the CK set of modules for Synthedit I think there are over 500 of them total all with huge potential. I will recommend other people buy them as that gives chris incentive to build more that I can then purchase and use myself, however I would not share them as someone else might beat me to the killer application and also it wouldn't be fair to chris. His stuff was cracked recently not the modules mind you the vst's he built with them. That makes me believe the pirate groups will more than likely leave code and and modules alone and have more of an interest in just the vst's themselves. I don't believe pirate groups would even bother with modules, they would only crack vst's made with the module or code.

Now if you have something that is so big a secret that you would want to lock and hide it maybe you shouldn't be considering selling it as a user module but try to release it as a vst if it is of such great value? I hope that SM user's figure out a way to make some money off their creations, it would promote greater respect in the Vst developer world if we saw some commercial success around here. I myself will be giving the things I make back to this community free of charge for the help I have received here, but I can see the need for some commercial success around here to breath some life into SM sales and so you all can afford coffee.

infuzion · 23 Nov 2011

attic wrote: If you are contemplating selling SM modules but holding out for a way to protect them I'm not sure your thinking clearly about the situation. I don't think that someone that buys some code from someone else is just going to release it into the wild. I think they will keep it to themselves so they can have less competition in potential uses of it.

I'm thinking more of people posting the OSMs to this forum. Parts already have been exposed this way.

attic · 23 Nov 2011

I'm thinking more of people posting the OSMs to this forum. Parts already have been exposed this way.

Yeah I hear you. I saw that thread. Shameful behavior. 😠

infuzion · 23 Nov 2011

attic wrote: I'm thinking more of people posting the OSMs to this forum. Parts already have been exposed this way.

Yeah I hear you. I saw that thread. Shameful behavior. 😠

Sometimes by accident.

CoreStyler · 23 Nov 2011

Seems a good commercial idea. But i prefer "open source" solutions since with a complete view i can learn something istead to create a synth that use a chorus used for 200 SM synths.

If you want to sell your schematics, i will buy them. You had a really cool chorus, compressor, reverb or somethings that is great? Sell it for 40-60$.. Developers may accept your licensing and will not share it. Sell your DSP unlocked. If i need a good effect i will try, than buy your. 😀