Seems like Steinberg is really keen on killing VST2

[Attic]

Here's the recent list of Steinberg's DMCA takedown request of GitHub projects:
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2018/2018-06-13-Steinberg.md

It includes nearly 300 VST2-related repositories from open source
projects that they want removed from the Internet. It means that all
of these repos are now unavailable, due to the DMCA takedown request.
If you try to visit any of those links, you'll be greeted with the
message:

"Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown."

Seems like Steinberg is really keen on killing VST2 for everyone. They
send one takedown request, and now ~300 open-source DSP projects are
gone. Thanks, Steinberg!

[tulamide]

This is mad!
We are yet safe, because DMCA is a US law, but DSPRobotics is British. However, it breaks my heart that Steinberg, just to push VST3, is willing to destroy a complete Indie-scene. No harm is done by those projects. They even helped Steinberg establishing its name. Very rude, very old-school, very disappointing.

Well, let's see at what point they find some helpful law in Britain.

[Attic]

It's fairly worrisome. Let me just share the content's from a thread from over at syntheditusers yahoo group.

Here is the current thread. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/syntheditusers/conversations/messages

Now, *legally* the SDK agreement says that Steinberg can terminate
your license any time, but does that mean that one day they will start
sending out lawyers and suing your ass for still supporting VST2?
Sounds like a nonsense scenario. I bet if that happened, people would
rather move to a completely different format and ditch Steinberg all
together, instead of going VST3.

In other words, this doesn't seem like something Steinberg can
(reasonably) enforce, or if they tried to do so legally, that would be
totally contra productive and they would probably go down the drain.

If I release a VST2 plugin after October, will Steinberg send their
lawyers and sue me? If that happened, do you think that would be an
incentive for me to go to VST3 instead? Ummm... nope... I'd rather
choose some other format then. There are so many plugin formats
nowadays.



"Concerning VST2:
Plugin developers having already signed a VST2 license agreement with
Steinberg could continue to develop VST2 after the first of October
2018.
After this date NEW developers (the one having not signed the VST2
license agreement until this date) will be not allow to distribute
VST2 plugins.
Note that distributing or reverse engineering the VST2 SDK (partially
or fully) is NOT allowed by the current Steinberg VST2 license
agreement.
Thanks for your attention
Yvan"

https://forum.juce.com/t/steinberg-clos ... d/27722/24

So he says - if you have a VST2 license already, they will not sue
your ass (they don't retroactively terminate your existing VST2
license on October).

But if you're a *new* plugin developer and haven't signed the VST2
license agreement before October, they may sue your ass if you release
a VST2 plugin.

Sounds like a nice, friendly company.

Also, how do you *prove* in court, that you've *signed* the VST2
agreement when you downloaded it from Steinberg's website back in
2005? You have no paper trail remaining, you just clicked on "agree"
and downloaded the VST2 SDK...

Lol, here's what Yvan says:

"Concerning the VST2 License, we will include it again for last time
into the next update of the VST3 SDK coming very soon.
If you are not sure that you have signed or not the license, it will
be the last change to do it. This concerns plugins or host
developers/companies.
You have to fill it, sign it and send it back to Steinberg, we will
send you it back again signed by us (for VST2 until October 1th
2018)."

So if you do this bullshit paperwork (sending some signed paper back
and forth, basically nonsense), then they won't sue you, otherwise
they will? Sounds funny!

Yep, Steinberg does file DMCA takedown requests:

https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/l ... 37131.html

JUCE has their own VST2 headers too (which Yvan Grabit says is illegal
as technically it's a "reverse engineering" of the header) - wonder if
Steinberg's gonna sue JUCE too

So I wonder who's gonna get sued after October Time to grab some
popcorn, and watch the shitshow unfold.

***IMPORTANT INFO***

If you want to release VST2 plugins after October 2018, then you
should send a VST2 license agreement to Steinberg email address, so
that they won't sue you later on

That is if you have a VST2 license already too. Don't know how that is
even legal to require *another* agreement on top of the one you
already signed, but whatever, that's what Yvan Grabit said... Maybe if
you don't have an email proof that you've accepted their agreement,
then they may claim you don't have an agreement and they may sue
you... Don't know how that would stand up in court if you've already
released VST2 plugins in the past (implying that you've accepted the
license agreement in the past), but whatever.... it's nonsense
alltogether

(Finding the VST2 license online may be hard, as Steinberg files DMCA
takedowns everywhere it exists online, but maybe you can still find it
on Pirate Bay?)

So... that's some funny shitshow.



Reply to sender

https://download.steinberg.net/sdk_down ... ld_37..zip

It now includes VST_SDK\VST2_SDK\VST_SDK\VST2_SDK\VST2_License_Agreement.pdf

You have to print this out, fill it in, sign it, and send it to
Steinberg before October, if you want to release VST2 plugins in the
future.

If you don't send them this paperwork bullshit, then they may say:
"Hey kid, you don't have a license agreement, so we may send our
lawyers and sue your product off the face of the planet."

And they will probably do so.

Steinberg is a funny company.



Reply to sender .

"§ 9 TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
1.The Agreement shall run for an unlimited period"

So, it says legally, that it is for an "unlimited period". Until the
end of time. Not to be terminated in October 2018, or at any other
date.

So if you sign this bullshit and send them to Steinberg before
October, then you're good to go with VST2 forever.

I wonder what lawsuits will happen in October, and with what outcome.
Time to grab some popcorn.



Reply to sender .
And , what does it mean for SE developer ?

We may not sell the older VST 2 Plugs ?

Or ,

SE may not compile VST 2 Plugs ??





> BTW, the aforementioned VST2 licensee agreement (included in the
> VST3.6.10 SDK) says:
>
> "§ 9 TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
> 1.The Agreement shall run for an unlimited period"
>
> So, it says legally, that it is for an "unlimited period". Until the
> end of time. Not to be terminated in October 2018, or at any other
> date.
>
> So if you sign this bullshit and send them to Steinberg before
> October, then you're good to go with VST2 forever.
>
> I wonder what lawsuits will happen in October, and with what outcome.
> Time to grab some popcorn.
>


Reply to sender .

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/mas ... einberg.md

It includes nearly 300 VST2-related repositories from open source
projects that they want removed from the Internet. It means that all
of these repos are now unavailable, due to the DMCA takedown request.
If you try to visit any of those links, you'll be greeted with the
message:

"Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown."

Seems like Steinberg is really keen on killing VST2 for everyone. They
send one takedown request, and now ~300 open-source DSP projects are
gone. Thanks, Steinberg!

The fun has just started I'm still waiting for the lawsuits.

-Peter

Reply to sender .:
> And , what does it mean for SE developer ?
>
> We may not sell the older VST 2 Plugs ?
>
> Or ,
>
> SE may not compile VST 2 Plugs ??

Some points.

1) Technically, you as an end-user of SynthEdit, you're not even a
licensee of the VST SDK. The licensee is Jeff McClintock.

2) Jeff obtained a VST SDK license when building SynthEdit. In legal
terms I don't think that license can be retroactively terminated.
However now Steinberg requires you to fill in additional paperwork to
keep your license valid (they say). Therefore, if Jeff does this
paperwork, he is still a valid licensee of the VST SDK, and therefore,
SynthEdit can still legally use VST2 plugin architecture. Even all the
future versions, since the VST SDK license that Jeff can obtain, is
for an "unlimited period".

3) Despite that, I think Jeff will drop VST2 support anyways. Even
though it could be legal within the VST2 SDK agreement to keep using
VST2.

4) The "legal" actions that Steinberg taken so far (DMCA takedown
requests), involved open-source projects that distribute files of the
VST2 SDK headers. So their main target (so far) are open-source VST2
projects. If you distribute binary compiled version of plugins,
there's no such simple copyright claim that they can make to takedown
your projects. Whether Steinberg will do some other action against
VST2 plugin devs, is yet to be seen.

5) If you file the legal paperwork to obtain a VST2 SDK license, then
there's nothing that Steinberg can do against you since you have a
valid VST2 SDK license. However as an end-user of SynthEdit, you are
not the licensee of the VST2 SDK, therefore I don't know if this
applies to you. So I wonder what happen if you - for example - release
a VST2 plugin after October 2018, made with an old version SynthEdit
v1.0.

The whole thing sounds kinda nonsense to me.

[Spogg]

This is pure craziness.

There’s an old saying: Never sue your customers.

Do they think they will get a bigger market share from this behaviour?

Anyway, thanks for the info Attic.

Cheers

Spogg