Silly EULA's

[MisterB]

It recently came to my attention that Toontrack has updated its EULA so that you can't use AI in any part of your process. This is just a day after they, themselves, released their first AI product (Mix 3). This means that if you use EZ Drummer or EZ Bass or EZ keys, you can't use EZMix 3. That obviously makes no sense, and its unlikely what they intended. I suspect their lawyers don't understand AI. Maybe they should have a chat with ChatGPT. LOL.

 

This isn't the first time an EULA has been written in a way that makes absolutely no sense.  When XLN Audio released Life, their EULA was written in a way that basically meant that they owned everything you did with it, from the samples you collected, to the output. That wasn't the intention, and they backtracked on it somewhat, and clarified in its FAQ's what the intention was. Though it's still a dubious EULA that certainly prevented me from pulling the plug on what seemed like a really fun and creative tool. The EULA even after amendment, gives them the right to use your material to train their machine learning models, modify your work, and waives your "moral rights".  This is ridiculous, and I suspect was again, written by lawyers who don't understand the creative space or how it works. 

 

Do you read EULA's?  Have you come across any that seem ridiculous?

 

 

 

 

 

[VSThost]

On 8/22/2024 at 4:27 PM, MisterB said:

Do you read EULA's?

I don't

[john]

On 8/22/2024 at 3:27 PM, MisterB said:

It recently came to my attention that Toontrack has updated its EULA so that you can't use AI in any part of your process. This is just a day after they, themselves, released their first AI product (Mix 3). This means that if you use EZ Drummer or EZ Bass or EZ keys, you can't use EZMix 3. That obviously makes no sense, and its unlikely what they intended. I suspect their lawyers don't understand AI. Maybe they should have a chat with ChatGPT. LOL.

 

This isn't the first time an EULA has been written in a way that makes absolutely no sense.  When XLN Audio released Life, their EULA was written in a way that basically meant that they owned everything you did with it, from the samples you collected, to the output. That wasn't the intention, and they backtracked on it somewhat, and clarified in its FAQ's what the intention was. Though it's still a dubious EULA that certainly prevented me from pulling the plug on what seemed like a really fun and creative tool. The EULA even after amendment, gives them the right to use your material to train their machine learning models, modify your work, and waives your "moral rights".  This is ridiculous, and I suspect was again, written by lawyers who don't understand the creative space or how it works. 

 

Do you read EULA's?  Have you come across any that seem ridiculous?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I seem to remember that Bandcamp were called out on their EULA or TOS recently. EULAs for software are bad, but the same problem exists with TOS on websites. Everything you upload your music to has TOS that can see you giving away more rights than you intend, for example.

 

That said, some of those terms are necessary in some degree just for the website to function. The issue is when they take too many just to simplify things for themselves.