pouët.net

Steinberg sending DMCA takedown notices for the VST2 SDK

category: general [glöplog]
I wonder how law works though... If any of those third-party sources were made available by breaking the SDK license, would the Bero header (and subsequent ports) be tainted and technically illegal?
added on the 2018-07-06 18:42:20 by absence absence
Quote:
If any of those third-party sources were made available by breaking the SDK license, would the Bero header (and subsequent ports) be tainted and technically illegal?


Then Steinberg should demand BeRo to take the code offline?
added on the 2018-07-06 19:08:19 by yzi yzi
It could happen but I don't think Steinberg is a subsidiary of EvilCorp.

We still need a new "awesome" ;) and free plugin SDK (sorry Saga Musix, I hope I did not sound too harsh in my last post).

When I have a bit more free time I'll whip up a prototype and then we can all discuss _how_ much it sucks (or rules) :-)
added on the 2018-07-06 19:21:00 by bsp bsp
If you could make it drop-in compatible with VST2.4 it would be great.
added on the 2018-07-06 20:48:51 by yzi yzi
Yes, I will definitely keep this in mind (i.e. keep it as simple as the VST SDK, and improve on that).

I won't promise you a drop-in replacement but a small (3rd party) compatibility layer (BeRo?) could take care of this.
added on the 2018-07-06 21:04:37 by bsp bsp
It was a joke. I tried to say, we already have an implemented and working widespread thing that could be extended. If Saga Musix's translation of BeRo's code works, it might actually solve the whole thing.

What's your plan, how are you going to make your new better thing work in Ableton Live 9.x 32 bit? Buy Ableton?
added on the 2018-07-06 21:24:32 by yzi yzi
Quote:
I wonder how law works though... If any of those third-party sources were made available by breaking the SDK license

Redistributing the SDK is not allowed, documenting its content is not explicitly forbidden. That's the point of a clean-room design. Documenting the contents of the SDK is not equal to "reverse-engineering any products based upon this specification", which is forbidden.
Quote:
What's your plan, how are you going to make your new better thing work in Ableton Live 9.x 32 bit? Buy Ableton?

sure, that's petty cash.

In all seriousness, reverse engineering the VST2 SDK might get you "so" far, but you have to take a big leap of faith and pray that Steinberg won't sue you once this becomes widespread. (=> Thin ice, good luck !)

Like I said before, the problem with these kind of disputes is that unless you are a company with a budget for law suits, you will probably lose, even if you're right.

"can APIs be copyrighted"? I for one hope they cannot since that would have a serious (negative) impact on many other (open source) projects as well.
added on the 2018-07-06 21:42:36 by bsp bsp
i bet apis can be copyrighted if they qualify as a work of literature...
added on the 2018-07-07 00:43:21 by jco jco
Quote:
i bet apis can be copyrighted if they qualify as a work of literature...


Q: When to formalize your opinion as sarcasm?
A: Well that's easy:

1., find a subject that's already loaded with true and genuine an inherent confusion
2., that's not it.
added on the 2018-07-07 02:06:26 by Zeal_ Zeal_
----------------------------------------------------------
-oh the code is inside the wind is inside the =
-the rain is cooling the computer earth circuits=
-oh nothing else to say except I'd like a alien =
-to work me kike but i do not want to breath =
-breathing slows me down work my but hole =
-v egging vegie mite and let me see my lien =
-there boastful octosquid baby that rides wild =
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
---------tricky ricky goon skull------------------------
------------------------on a jounery to relearn trust-
-----------------------------------------------------------
added on the 2018-07-07 07:47:27 by ecsquartz ecsquartz
in a world where "swipe to unlock" can be patented, leading to a legal dispute with one party having to pay 120 millions in the end, a bit of sarcasm is highly appropriate!
added on the 2018-07-07 12:34:59 by jco jco
btw, I doubt that this clean room stuff would hold up in court.
Imagin person A creating a detailled, textual description of the contents of "Never gonna give you up".
Person B would then use this description to write a song.
Oops, still the same song.

Afaik this kind of constructed hackery doesn't work, at least in the German legal system.
added on the 2018-07-07 12:42:25 by jco jco
added on the 2018-07-07 14:39:00 by absence absence
So what's wrong with using the VST3 SDK exactly?
added on the 2018-07-08 00:47:56 by trc_wm trc_wm
trc_wm: probably perceived complexity and lack of support in some DAWs (e.g. ableton)
added on the 2018-07-08 05:52:34 by cpdt cpdt
VST3 is overengineered COM nonsense. But apart from that: There are tons of unmaintained VST2 plugins out there which are still being used by many people. Not having the VST2 SDK available anymore means that it's essentially no longer possible to use those.
trc_wm: Steinberg is trying to prevent people from sharing source code. That's what's wrong. Whatever VST3 is, it is poisoned shit, and going into detailed features seems irrelevant.
added on the 2018-07-08 13:27:14 by yzi yzi
I haven't looked into VST 3 licensing, but I'm curious how it prevents people from sharing their own source code?
added on the 2018-07-09 12:13:00 by absence absence
Quote:
VST3 is overengineered COM nonsense. But apart from that: There are tons of unmaintained VST2 plugins out there which are still being used by many people. Not having the VST2 SDK available anymore means that it's essentially no longer possible to use those.

Not just unmaintained; e.g. I have a VST2 plugin that I maintain which I didn't include the SDK with because for some reason I foresaw this coming.
added on the 2018-07-09 12:30:14 by Gargaj Gargaj
absence: seems like you didn't look into this thread either. Steinberg is trying to prevent people from sharing full, buildable source code, by taking away an essential component. If a new person wants to contribute to a VST2 plugin project, she'll have to get SDK header files from somewhere else, possibly somewhere "illegal". Why did so many people think that Steinberg would not do this? I don't know. To me it seemed like, oh, these things are being shared widely - maybe Steinberg don't mind, so let's just continue even though it's forbidden... BZZZZT. Mistake. We've been suckers. But I hope people can learn from mistakes, so --> no poisoned Steinberg shit again. Just stop eating shit already. I don't get why some people want to get out their microscopes and study the functional properties of some particular piece of fecal matter. It's shit! Stop putting it in your mouth!
added on the 2018-07-09 12:53:25 by yzi yzi
...and as we others speak and watch the world cup, Saga Musix is trying to help us get rid of the Steinberg shit, by translating BeRo's Object Pascal header into C/C++. I hope it works out.
added on the 2018-07-09 13:04:14 by yzi yzi
Here's the takedown request for GitHub.
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2018/2018-06-13-Steinberg.md

I wonder why they don't tell GitHub to remove VST3 SDK stuff, only VST2? Maybe the projects have a "prior written agreement by Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH" to distribute the VST3 SDK?

https://github.com/AdrianGin/Pathogen/blob/master/VST3_SDK/public.sdk/source/vst 3stdsdk.cpp
https://github.com/AdrianGin/Pathogen/blob/master/VST3_SDK/public.sdk/source/vst /vstaudioeffect.cpp
etc.
added on the 2018-07-09 14:51:50 by yzi yzi
Quote:
VST3 is overengineered COM nonsense. But apart from that: There are tons of unmaintained VST2 plugins out there which are still being used by many people. Not having the VST2 SDK available anymore means that it's essentially no longer possible to use those.

Existing, proprietary DAWs will likely continue to support VST2 for a long time (because it is meaningless to drop the support). It is new and open source DAWs/hosts which have the problem.

Quote:
I haven't looked into VST 3 licensing, but I'm curious how it prevents people from sharing their own source code?

The situation is in some sense both better and worse than VST2. VST3 is dual licenssed under GPLv3 and the Steinberg proprietary license.

So if you can live with your whole project being GPLv3, you are all set: use the license under GPLv3 and Steinberg can never take the license away from you again.

The Steinberg proprietary license prohibits redistribution of the SDK, and it additionally requires you to get explicit permission from Steinberg by filling out a form and sending it to them. If the distributor is different from the developer, both have to sign the form, so essentially everybody who wants to build your VST must acquire their own license from Steinberg. Steinberg can retract the license with 6 months notice if they publish a newer version.

I guess this means that Steinberg could not DMCA the VST3 SDK, since any copy out there could potentially be licensed under GPLv3 and thus legally distributed.
added on the 2018-07-09 17:27:28 by Blueberry Blueberry
Quote:
If a new person wants to contribute to a VST2 plugin project, she'll have to get SDK header files from somewhere else

So people are prevented from sharing Steinberg's code, not their own code. To me your comment sounded like VST 3 licensing somehow prevented people from sharing their own code, which would've been a bit more extreme. :)
added on the 2018-07-09 19:15:22 by absence absence

login