Musikman
 
The problem I'm seeing ahead is that although it gives me the audio, it does not place it in the same spot on the timeline as it was in the original Sonar project. So that means I'll preserve the audio, but won't have any way of knowing exactly where on the timeline it starts and stops. So as far as I can tell it will be guesswork for that part, unless anyone here has an solution for that? Appreciate any suggestions! Thanks

Open the cwp in SONAR and export the tracks as broadcast (timestamped) wav files. Each track will then have a time stamp on where it is to be inserted when imported. Also, in the DAW you are importing into, be sure the option to import to timestamp is enabled (as applicable).

foldaway
@azslow3
I've also been considering this.
 
Here's a link to article 6 of the EU directive (2009/24/EC) on the legal protection of computer programs.
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=208108#LinkTarget_129
 
So, as you're in the EU it would be perfectly legal to reverse engineer the .cwp file format & (if I'm reading the directive correctly) the sonar binary, with the purpose of creating a tool to allow interoperability. eg. conversion to another file format.
 
You would also be free to sell such a tool in the EU.  Not sure about the US though.

I’m not so certain about that.

Firstly, the EU isn’t a single nation-state with a federal structure like the USA, it’s a Union of independent sovereign nation states - countries - held together by treaties, trade agreements and the decisions of the member country’s governments. Plus a parliament, civil service (the Commission) and courts with the limited powers required to administer the Union’s common functions and settle disagreements. Not forgetting that some members have exemptions from some Treaty clauses, just to complicate things a bit more.

Which all means EU Directives and Standards are not like a US federal law, made by a single legislature and implemented by a single executive. They’re the result of negotiations between representatives of the EU member countries and other interested parties. Directives, once agreed and published, are not law - instead they require each member country to create its own law to implement the Directive. Which the members get round to.... eventually.

To make things a bit more complicated different countries sometimes interpret the EU’s documents differently - e.g. there are several languages involved and some things don’t always translate very well from one language into another. So sometimes one country’s version of the law might be slightly different to another country’s.

Short version - don’t rely on the wording of a single Directive to get a picture of what is and isn’t legal in any EU member country. Like any legal interpretation you need to look at everything that’s relevant - other statutes, case law and so on in the EU member you’re in at the time.

The references in the Directive to not breaching patents, intellectual property rights or “trade secrets” for example might be relevant. The legal picture could be very complicated indeed, especially given the money involved in the software industry and the number of cases that the courts have already considered.

The wise thing to do might be to start by asking Gibson/Cakewalk if they have any objections. They might say “it’s OK with us”, or they may want money or say “no” and that they’ll sue anyone who creates such a filter.

But just going ahead without asking them at all is a bit of a gamble and could end up costing a lot of money in legal fees.....

@tlw
 
While I agree that care should be taken, after searching & reading multiple potentially relevant EU directives, I've found no evidence so far to suggest any problems at all! (nb. taking all your points into account)
 
If you've identified any specific issues, it would be great to hear them.  If we can talk in specifics, I think we'd be more help in supporting azslow3's efforts.
 
As to your last point.  If there is no legal basis for Gibson to object, then there is certainly no reason to ask for thier permission.
 

foldaway
@tlw
 
While I agree that care should be taken, after searching & reading multiple potentially relevant EU directives, I've found no evidence so far to suggest any problems at all! (nb. taking all your points into account)
 
If you've identified any specific issues, it would be great to hear them.  If we can talk in specifics, I think we'd be more help in supporting azslow3's efforts.

I also have such impression at the moment.
 
While not all EU Directives are directly laws, I understand that in some areas EU has almost direct control on things. It comes from "EU" meaning in general, while the behavior is not US like, it is definitively stronger then let say UN. Without common patents, trademarks, copyrights and related rules enforcement, economically borderless  EU will fall apart in no time.
 

Anderton
Look at all the programs that can read Acidized files, but I don't know if the file format was considered proprietary or not.

Such formats (several markers) have no technological component. I have already found several (EU) courts decisions that even proprietary scripting languages can be "parsed" without any restrictions or permissions, at least for purpose in question. F.e. when someone creates own program and has considered to USE some proprietary format for it, it is not the same as TRANSFER the information from that format. The later fall into "fair use" case in all documents I have seen so far.
 
But since you are here... Reaper does not support FX chains and CW "FX chain" is not a normal plug-in. I guess I will have to "un-roll" them. Your (locked) FX chains contain not exposed to users IP and so should not be un-rolled. Is that right?
 

foldaway
If you've identified any specific issues, it would be great to hear them.  If we can talk in specifics, I think we'd be more help in supporting azslow3's efforts.

I haven’t in any detail, but I’m not a lawyer specialising in that aspect of the law. Those who are may well find something they can build an objection out of. And as Gibson is a US corporation they may be able to persuade the US courts to take an interest no matter where someone who they want to sue lives.

foldaway 
As to your last point.  If there is no legal basis for Gibson to object, then there is certainly no reason to ask for thier permission.

That “if” is the key word. And it’s not unknown for companies to raise objections and move towards the courts regardless of the legal position with the object of costing their opponent so much money they can’t afford to fight the case.

I’m afraid that thinking Gibson have no legal reason to object doesn’t mean that Gibson have no arguable legal reason to object. That’s something courts exist to sort out.

All I’m saying is that personally I’d start by asking the question.

Anderton
Also, I believe that if you open any locked FX Chains in SONAR X3, they will unlock by themselves.
In any event if there are FX Chains that I created, you are welcome to use them however you want. I am replicating several of the amps in Studio One's FX Chains using S1's processors in conjunction with TH3.

Thanks!

Forgive me for looking stupid, but I thought the OMF export file was supposed to be a way to get your projects into different DAW's. That was my hope. Unfortunately I can't get Mixcraft or Reaper to see or import the OMF files Sonar generates. Maybe the OMF files would be a place to start rather than the CWP files. Again, I know nothing about programming, but it sounds logical to me.

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Here is the EULA. Note the standard reverse assembly sections. http://store.steampowered.com/eula/241070_eula_0
So in theory this isn't kosher to do.

Thanks for the answer. I guess you mention this section:

2.2. You may NOT reverse compile, reverse assemble, reverse engineer, modify, incorporate in whole or in part in any other product or create derivative works based on all or any part of the Product.
...
2.6 You may not perform engineering analyses of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, including performance analyses, or benchmark analyses, without the written permission of Cakewalk.

Are CWP files generated by Sonar also a "part of the Product"?
I mean I do not see any statements about anything GENERATED by the product (WAVs, MIDIs, CWPs, presets, etc). Do I miss something?
 

Besides it would be incredibly difficult to actually do a full translator. Several years ago I was collaborating with a company who wanted to do just this and started writing up a specification. However since our file format is a modern object oriented chunked based (forward and backwards compatible) format, its very hard to write up without providing the actual code. Reverse assembling the file would be prohibitively difficult since each object has its own persistence history of versioned chunks.
 
I'm impressed that you want to try doing this but even if I wanted to do it myself it would be incredibly hard. I wouldn't recommend wasting your life on this :) Even something basic like pulling volume levels and parameter info for tracks would be very tricky since that data is all in a sub document within the project file. Each parameter is keyed by a bunch of guids etc which makes it pretty hard to find.

As I have written in this thread, I am not at "want to try" stage... I am rather close to the first prototype. Even exporting the information I can extract at the moment can simplify project transfer. And I am sure I can advance.
 
So, in short. Are you "do not recommend to do this" or "forbid to do this"? That is the major question.
 

Thanks for the above suggestions, all appreciated. I do know that I can export my tracks individually as wav files with a timestamp, however, I was trying to figure out a way to avoid having to export each track individually. I have a lot of projects, and most have between 10 - 30 tracks, so that's a lot of bouncing and/or exporting one track at a time, it would take forever one track at a time. If I save as a normal cwp file, all the audio does get saved individually as wav files, and they can all be loaded (one at a time) into another DAW, but will all load to the first beat of the first measure by default. I'm trying to find a way for the other DAW to see where the tracks should fall in on the timeline as they were in my Sonar project without having to convert each track one at a time. If Sonar sees that info, why couldn't another DAW see it? 
 
I would think that with so many other DAW companies aware that Sonar is no longer, one of them might step up and put an update into their DAW that enables it to load Sonar Project or Bundle files.  How hard can it be for another DAW company to do that? You would think they would jump on it because they would probably quickly scoop up a lot of Cakewalk's customer base if they make their DAW format compatible to Sonar's....or at least make a provision to read the embedded info that dictates where the track goes on the timeline. Most can read the tempo of an audio track, why not the rest of the info?
 
 
 

azslow3
So, in short. Are you "do not recommend to do this" or "forbid to do this"? That is the major question.

 
Its not up to me azslow, I'm not a lawyer and Cakewalk the company has stopped. However Gibson or another company that potentially acquires the assets and wants to continue the product could take issue with an unauthorized translator even if you could manage to do one so you would have to be prepared to deal with that.
You are a smart dude and I'm sure you could get far with the basic transfer of tracks and audio and maybe even plugin data but a full blown translator that can take a project and make it sound the same in another DAW is a pipe dream. Even the guys who were in the business of doing just that who we were working with couldn't do it.

Wouldn't you need to know the CWP format as well as the new DAW's project format for this to work?
 
Besides... by the time you get it all figured out up and running, I think, you could have spent the same time just exporting/inserting the tracks by conventional means.  Once your projects are exported you'll have a converter you no longer need unless you keep creating new projects in Sonar that you intend on importing into your new DAW. In which case why not just use Sonar?!

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]

azslow3
So, in short. Are you "do not recommend to do this" or "forbid to do this"? That is the major question.

Its not up to me azslow, I'm not a lawyer and Cakewalk the company has stopped. However Gibson or another company that potentially acquires the assets and wants to continue the product could take issue with an unauthorized translator even if you could manage to do one so you would have to be prepared to deal with that.
You are a smart dude and I'm sure you could get far with the basic transfer of tracks and audio and maybe even plugin data but a full blown translator that can take a project and make it sound the same in another DAW is a pipe dream. Even the guys who were in the business of doing just that who we were working with couldn't do it.

Thanks. I will not release the translator into public then. But I am going to demonstrate that is possible.
I understand that full translator which sound the same is even theoretically impossible to make (without izotope, ProChannel, etc.). But I guess just:
* tempo
* moving audio to correct position (with loop points)
* moving MIDI to correct position
* automations
* and FXes
cover the expectation of such transition.
 
But the point is taken. We DO NOT own CWP projects.
 

msmcleod
Firstly, I think there's no doubt you own your .cwp files. 
If you wrote a book in word, does Microsoft own your .doc file? I don't think so.

But if you have typed it on a friends computer, you do not own this computer after putting your book there. Even in case you have rented the flat in which it stay. Your friend has no rights on the book, but till you have a way to copy .doc file somewhere else, the situation is not good. Your friend propose to export it as a text file loosing all formatting or continue on his place (which is still fine, but the flat and the computer are not going to be updated/supported).
 

soens
Wouldn't you need to know the CWP format as well as the new DAW's project format for this to work?

And so my "new DAW" has text based project files and no problem people mess with them. This lesson is learned.
 
Thanks all for thoughts and suggestions. There will be no public prototype release. But we can continue once I can demonstrate something

Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
No you misunderstood. Users most definitely own their projects and any music produced in SONAR! 
I was referring to the translator itself not the project files. Personally I think export tools are cool although they are very hard to get right since all programs store data very differently.

When I own something, I normally can do with it what I want. F.e. I can take my guitar apart and even attach some parts to another guitar, right?
I own my Reaper files. I can open them with any text editor any "copy paste" to any other place, I can buy AATranslator and extract some information out of it automatically, etc.
 
But you write that while I own automations in my CPW file, I am not allowed to extract them out of it.
Sorry, but that sounds like a bit strange interpretation of "owning" things for me. More like CW allows me to store my information in something I do not really own. So like a deposit in a bank. I own the deposit, but I do not own the bank. So to take it out, I have to follow rules...
 
I repeat. I do not disassemble/debug/etc. any CW code. I purely analyze the content of CWP file (sure, including changes in it when I modify the project).  Since you have already mentioned that. Yes, it is in general hierarchical objects container. Most objects are not structured down to primitives, so there are many chunks, relatively big binary structures, lists, arrays and maps of them, with some conditional flags when something exist or requires different interpretation (probably "version" or "types"). "Automatic digging" has produced the outline which was possible to relatively quickly interpret (tracks list->audio slices->audio files, track list->MIDI clip->MIDI events, etc.).
There are some clever (but known) solutions (like packing 6 bytes integer mTicks and seconds in double into one union, using NaN region of double). But so far I have not spotted anything what can be called IP, I mean nothing is so unusual that it should be protected as a technological innovation.
Without that "technological" component, data/software format can not be protected in Europe (from everything I know so far). At that stage I have created this thread, to discuss the topic in public