Important: Using Magix Music Maker MX Premium commercially WITHOUT included Soundpools. Copyright issues

solution-seeker wrote on 10/2/2011, 11:16 AM

Hello,

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion over just what users are permitted to do with Magix Music Maker software.

I am posting this to clarify some concerns I have.

I have Music Maker MX Premium, and I have opted not to install the included soundpools. I am only using a separate older soundpool loaded into the program (Best Of Soundpool collection) which according to what I read when I bought it is absolutely royalty free and may be used commercially with no restrictions as long as it is in a derivative work (i.e not selling the samples themselves).

According to the Clause 3 of the present EULA for Music Maker products:

"Commercial use for the software is allowed as long it does not contradict points 1 to 6 of this contract."

According to Clause 6 of the EULA:

"The music, photo and video files included in the MAGIX products may be used only for non-commercial purposes (exclusively for private purposes)."

From this, the conclusion I draw is that we CANNNOT commercially use any of the new soundpools or included sounds without some form of separate licence, but

we CAN use the software itself to create tracks which are the user's intellectual property and may be used at our discretion (including commercially), so long as we do NOT incorporate into such tracks any of the samples included in Magic Music Maker MX premium, or content from other soundpools or sources for which we have no commercial license.

If I am right, this would mean that we may use the software and included synthesizers to create works which are our complete intellectual property and may be used commercially, as long as these works do not include, incorporated within them, any of the content specified in point 6 of the EULA, in other words music and video files provided WITH the program when purchased. We may use source content which is royalty free or that we are licensed to use without consequence, however.

Is everything above correct?

This is a very important distinction and one that has consequences both for users and for Magix, and some clarity would be appreciated. I would be most grateful for a reply, preferably from a Magix representative as it is the responsibility of the user to use products responsibly, but it is also the responsibility of the manufacturer to make the terms of use clear and understandable.

 

Thank you for your time

Comments

Procyon wrote on 10/2/2011, 11:31 AM

I do not work for MAGIX, but I've done my best to make this clear for everyone, especially those who refuse to read any of the usage and licensing agreements. (And, I don't mean you. You've evidently done your homework.)

To the best of my knowledge, you are correct in your assertions.  The EULA was changed with the release of MM-17 to read as if all soundpools were protected by copyright, but that is not the case. In other words, it is not retroactive.  All soundpools PRIOR to MM-17 are royalty free.  All soundpools from MM-17 on, whether included in the software package or purchased separately, required a separate license to use publicly and commercially.

The software itself, and all included instruments, are "royalty free".  Anything CREATED BY YOU using these tools belongs to you, and you own the copyright.

We'll have to see if any MAGIX representatives respond.  99.99% of the time, they don't.

solution-seeker wrote on 10/2/2011, 12:45 PM

Thank you for the information Procyon, and for your attempts to clarify the situation for users at large.

+1 Thanks

May I ask on what exactly you are basing this ? I do not wish to sound impertinent, I just like to err on the side of caution in situations like these. Just to build a clearer picture of the matter for my own reference. Is it personal experience or...

"99.99% of the time, they don't."

No offense meant to anyone in particular but that does not sound very appropiate. I can see why a company would find it potentially convenient to be vague in matters like these, however Magix should realise that in the long run its reputation, and consequently success, will find itself damaged due to situations of this kind.

In any case I think that our assertions make sense. With the current wording of the EULA and other related documentation, I think a case made against someone who used the software as I have specified would quickly get thrown out of court. But you never know...