"Export Audio" grayed out

You know you don't need to export audio but can just bounce to tracks inside the same project. Exporting is usually for when you've done a mix of a multi-track project and want to store the 2-track separately.

Sounds like you know how to bounce or export MIDI files using the Edirol. It should be the same procedure for sound fonts: Select the MIDI track with the data, and while holding the Ctrl key down, select the associated DXi audio track, making sure you have the area in the time line you want, usually the whole project. Then choose bounce or export.

That's what you're doing when you try exporting?

Randy
rbowser

It's not so clear to me that "hand me down software" is illegal. If a relative gives me a hand me down DVD, should I refuse it, and instead go buy a new copy from a store since that disc was intended only for the original purchaser?

Randy
rbowser

If the software hasn't been installed on any other person's system yet, then it's legal

you cannot transfer it to anyone else even in a will.

I'd love to see them enforce that one.

Let's say my uncle dies, leaves me his comp which has CW installed on it. Now he's the only one who has agreed to the EULA - I haven't, so I'm doing nothing wrong by using it. What're they gonna do - hire a necromancer to resurresct the old guy, with a lawyer waiting in the background to sue him as soon as he opens his worm-eaten eyes?

This would be the fist contract (other than the sort that you sign in blood, selling your soul to Satan, kinda thing - you know - the kind Dick Cheney musta signed at some time) that would be enforceable past the death of one of the contractees.

Good post, Mac

To install software, one has to check off the "I agree" box on the pages of fine print there in the agreement box. I could have agreed to give the company my first born as far as I know, since, like most people, I don't read that contract. Legally, of course, it's a "binding contract" once it's been "signed."

But there are people who get a smug kind of charge out of following ever rule and law that exists, and enjoy being unofficial junior cops, by busting other people for their sinful infractions. I'm happy to say I'm not one of them.

It's absurd to think of refusing to accept the gift of software which has already been registered by someone else. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it.

Why I should feel fiercely loyal in this particular way to companies that make money from re-packaging the same technologies over and over again just so they can have more sales--is beyond me.

This reminds me of a copyright question that constantly comes up in the theatre world. Technically, it's illegal to videotape the production of a play, because the theatre has signed a contract which includes the section:

"...All rights, including...video or sound recording, all other forms of mechanical or electronic reproduction, such as CD-ROM, CD-I, DVD...are strictly reserved..."

In other words, community theatres break the law when they videotape their shows so participants can have a copy. Yet virtually every small theatre in America does exactly that.

If some self righteous s.o.b. wants to bust a theatre which tapes their shows, they can call the play's publisher and blow the whistle. And that happens.

But meanwhile, I've talked with the legal reps of play publishers and their attitude is that forbidding theatres to make a video recording for their records and for their casts is impossible to enforce. And they don't Want to enforce it. They're not in the business of wanting to fine theatres, of shutting theatres down. To them, it's a gray area of the copyright law which they know can't be legally changed but which is absurd to worry about. They say that if the tape is strictly for people involved in a production and not being sold to the public, then they will Gladly shrug it off. But the point is--even such "archive" video is technically illegal.

Without acknowledging that in reality copyright laws and their enforcement have many gray areas, then we'd have to insist that photocopiers be removed from public libraries. Those machines are sitting right there in every library in the country, and 99% of the time, users are illegally photocopying copyrighted works. The library staff just smiles and goes about their business while visitors grab books off shelves and copy pages to their hearts content. Everyone knows that it wouldn't be a fruitful situation in which to get literal with the law.

But watch, some conservative jackass could make a big stink out of it and go to the Supreme Court demanding that libraries remove their photocopiers. With the way people seem happy to hand over their freedoms nowadays--I actually wouldn't be surprised if that Does happen.

If someone hands me a copy of Any software which has already been registered but which I could use of, as I said, I don't have an "inner boy scout" who's going to tremble at how it's going to be an >gasp< illeeeeeegal act.

Child of the '60's. So I'm a rebel. Arrest me, go ahead, and make yourself look foolish.

Of course, it's impossible to use most modern software which has already been registered. The companies have closed the loop holes pretty well, with the registration keys, CD keys, secret code emails etc--As we can see from the Forums, legit buyers even have trouble getting their software to install sometimes.

So, Mac, I'm with you. If my uncle dies and wills me registered software that I'm able to use, I'm going to use it. Holding up that long, boring list of legal agreements I'm supposed to be bound to just makes me yawn.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT:---I am not saying I approve of bootleg copies of software. That's a real problem and is in the categories of theft and forgery. I suppose with attitudes as liberal as mine about copyright, bootlegging is one of the unfortunate results. But I'm not my brother's keeper, I can only speak to what I am comfortable or uncomfortable with.

Gray area--that's where the truth always lies, as it does in considering copyright laws. But then, this country has pretty much become a nation of people who don't like the ambiguities of gray-area thinking--hence the black and white thinking mode of our leaders and the millions who swear them allegiance while young men die needlessly in an insane war and the country sinks into its own self-righteous quagmire.

---steps off soap box---

Randy
rbowser

Just a matter of common sense really - I agree that if you were to copy discs & sell them to your friends & family then that's theft, but surely if, say for example, I installed HS4 on my daughter's lap top, I don't really think there's any 'theft' from Cakewalk going on there.

I doubt if there are many of us who haven't made cassette tapes & CDR's of albums for our nearest & dearest, it's never going to bring the music industry crashing down.

ORIGINAL: daveny5

The bottom line is: if enough people steal Cakewalk's products and they go out of business, then the people like me who have been paying for the products and the upgrades year after year will be the ones who lose out. You can rationalize it anyway you want, but the bottom line is: its stealing. If it was YOUR livelihood at stake, you wouldn't want your music or other products stolen, but since its someone else's livelihood, you're willing to look the other way. If it wasn't for the people who justify their stealing, we wouldn't have to have copy protection schemes that make it more difficult for the paying customers. Cakewalk's products are quite reasonably priced (well, maybe not the upgrades... I'm still using Sonar Producer 4 because I don't want to pay $179 to go to version 6, but that's my choice). The only way they'll stay that way is if enough people buy them.

I'm a child of the 60's too, but I grew up.

Its because of people like you that lobbyists representing big corporations can get governmet to pass ridiculous legislation like the DMCA.

Enjoy your regulated, DRM'ed, copy protected life where you have no rights as a consumer and basically get milked for every dollar you own. Enjoy the bug ridden products with a complete lack of support from the content provider who is completely un-motivated to do any better because all laws are on their side and can continually demand you upgrade to the newest mediocre product with more bugs because they have your life in the palm of their hands controlling your every move and crippling it at their whim should you slip for legitimate reasons.

I, on the other hand, will fight for my rights as a consumer and commend Dorozhand for not listening your ignorant and very naive point of view of how the world works.

When Dorozhand's relative installed the software, he promised (by checking the 'agree' box) to abide by the licencing rules which were part of the package he bought.

Existential question for you - when Dorozhand's relative UN- installed the software, is he still bound by those terms, since there is no longer any record anywhere that he agreed to them? A contract that no longer exists is pretty unenforceable.

Sure, one piece of software is negligible, but it is still theft.
Cakewalk sold him the program with the agreement that he wouldn't pass it on to others. So now he's screwing CW out of a few hundred dollars that they've earned, that they could put into developing a better program for the rest of us.

Sorry, have to disagree with you there.
It may be breaking the EULA, but it's not theft.

Theft would be if the relative kept his copy AND copied it for someone else, ie buys ONE copy and makes/distributes 2 (or 3 or 100). Theft implies an illicit gain by the thief. If the relative GAVE his copy away, and is no longer using it, where is the gain? - in fact there's a LOSS to the relative, balanced by a GAIN to Dorozhand, and a NULL impact on CW's profit

If you buy ONE copy, and that ONE copy is all that exists, then nothing has been stolen. Cakewalk have been paid their purchase price for ONE copy, and no-one is out any money. Only ONE person is using that copy.

Whether you stick to the EULA terms (or even read them) or whether those terms are legal and enforceable or even make sense, are separate issues from theft.

I don't think I could have said it better than Slug, and I agree with what he has written.

Again, everyone has a right to their opinions, whether those opinions are right or wrong. The bottom line is that TECHNICALLY it is illegal to transfer the license by any means because whoever installed the software agreed to that license wheny he/she installed it. Does CW care about this ONE license - I seriously doubt it. In fact, they might even look the other way on individuals with older software hand-me-downs because that might lead to future sales.

But it IS illegal according to the EULA. And whether or not anyone is a rebel child of the sixties makes no difference what-so-ever. It makes no difference whether you are FOR or AGAINST DCMA. It makes no difference whether you want to be an "unofficial junior cop" (sic) or whether you want to raise your intelligent finger to the Supreme Court over copyright rules. The person who agreed to the EULA is legally bound by it. Even if they don't ever get caught breaking that agreement, they are still agreeing to a legally binding contract.

And Randy - I am not trying to pick on you specifically and do not want to start a flame war again. And this has nothing to do with your stand on the subject. But you really need to curb your language. It is not allowable in the forum.

It's the same old story as it always has been and always will be. There are people who think in black and white, and others who mature enough to know that kind of thinking is the root of all conflict.

Go ahead and accept the gift of software from someone, and torture yourself thinking you're a "thief" if that's the way you want to treat yourself. I suppose if we were living in pre-Civil War days, you'd have to think you were a criminal if you were involved in the freeing of slaves, simply because it was legal to own slaves?

Beagle, --"...Again, everyone has a right to their opinions, whether those opinions are right or wrong..."--Oh man, do you have any idea how--weird that statement is? What do you think the word "opinion" means? That's scary---You're obviously saying there's only one "right" opinion in this or any argument. brrrrrrr.

'...But you really need to curb your language. It is not allowable in the forum..."

I have no idea what "language" you're talking about. All I know is you are absurd to tell me how and what I can post. Who made you the arbiter of what can be on the Forum? The sanctimoniousness of that comment is laughable.

Randy
rbowser

Once again, randy you have missed the point of my message. It seems every time you get passionate about something that you tend to do that. I will not get sucked into this bashing again this time. I will post one more clip from the CW forum TOS, then I will not post again on this thread:

Profanity
We encourage users of all age groups and beliefs, so please refrain from using offensive language.

If you still don't understand what language I'm talking about, please re-read your threads above. This is what I got so upset about last time and you never seemed to understand then, either.

wow--and all the recent contributions to this thread since my last one, just underline how CRAzy all this fuss is. I suspect it's triggered something in all the participants much deeper than this one topic.

Beagle, twice now you've said you don't want to flame--you don't want to get sucked in--then you keep doing just that. Pal, I Don't know what has bugged you and it's as if you think I should automatically psych out how you feel. You're right, I don't understand, and what I especially don't understand is why you think you need to come on here as if you're a Cakewalk moderator--Stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Slugbaby[/b]--"...And I've been known to play a Gmajor right after a Gminor!.."--But that's a very cool chord progression! YAAaah!

Let's all go back to our registered, officially sanctioned copies of our software which we would rather DIE over than share, and get on with making more music.

Randy
rbowser

Nice post, that last one, Mac.

I would suggest that we all have to "agree" to many things we don't actually agree with, just to get On with things. I'll "agree" to stand up and sing the National Anthem at a baseball game even though I think the song's a crock. Better to "agree" to the singing of it than get tackled by rednecks during the game. And that isn't being hypocritical. In my heart I know what I mean.

There's really no need to feel "very uncomfortable" about having been forced to agree with something you really didn't agree with. You Have to push that button to install the flippin' software. It does not make you a horrible "dishonest" person to then proceed under your own steam, giving away the program you paid for if you want, burning it, flying it up a flag pole. Only if you give up your right to use your own brain and use Reason as opposed to blindly following ANything simply because it's been pronounced "the law" will you feel guilty.

Back to HS.

Randy
rbowser

Oh and Beagle, speaking of legalities - are you paying the estate of Charles Schultz royalties for your use of his intellectual property as your avatar?

(kidding, kidding...)

HEy that's a good question! OK, c'mon now, Beagle--You ARE paying royalties to the Schultz estate, riiight??

That would make about as much sense as what we've been talking about here.

Mac--I could have been more clear earlier. What I'm saying is that you WERE forced to agree to whatever that gobbleydeegook is in the Acceptance window. You've bought the software, you want to get it on your machine--you have NO choice but to say, "yeah, right, um hum, whatever--may I go make music now please?"

After you've been coerced into agreeing to something you may not toally agree with, I'm saying there's no reason to feel strange or Guilty --that would be totally accepting The Rules as they've been given to you. That would be obediantly "guilty" according to Them. And one of our basic rights as adult human beings is to Stop accepting The Rules. It's a hard lesson though, and most people never get there. Many people would rather run to join organizations which can Tell them how to think rather than figure Anything out on their own.

"...didn't read it and signed it nevertheless, which just replaces wussiness with stupidity! (that would be me'n'you.."

No no no, we weren't idiots for signing what we had no choice about. We Do deserve our freedoms, despite the way conservative yahoos in this country are working to take them away.

As a child I had no CHoice but to say The Lord's Prayer in school--can you believe that? But even though my choice was taken away, I was strong within myself, and at peace inside myself knowing that I know what I really believe--despite whatever they're forcing me to say or do.

Gee--can you tell there's an election coming up? Blue and Reds--here we go again. Please, oh please compassionate Universe--save us from the insanity.

Randy
rbowser