I found a way to make a (legal) custom Vocaloid Editor

[SeleDreams]

Hi everyone, I felt like it was interesting to post about it as other people could be interested by the idea.
For those owning a cryptonloid, when installing piapro studio you probably noticed that it discretly installed a software called VOCALOID4 API (or VOCALOID3 API for old versions).
this "software" is something interesting because it contains the core synthesis engine of VOCALOID, probably because Yamaha only wanted to give prebuilt binaries to crypton future media and not the whole source.


the result though is that piapro uses these DLL files to communicate with the vocaloid engine and use vbs/produce sounds


well if we look closely at these dll files in programs displaying the exports we see that the dlls aren't statically but dynamically linked, so they export ALL the functions used for them to work


The idea that came immediatly to my mind after seeing this was "What if it was possible to call this API the same way as cadencii called the API at the time of vocaloid 2?"

this is why I immediatly tried it.
The result ?


(the code was written quickly, my production code looks a lot better don't worry lol)
A success, the vocaloid 4 api has correctly been initialized and I've correctly retrieved an initialized instance of it.
now it will mostly be an issue of getting to understand how the API works and of retrieving the data structures, but from the looks of it, it seems totally doable

now for the legal side, as it could at first glance seem illegal, it in fact is legal.
the conditions though for it to be legal are to own the vocaloid 4 api, so it requires to :
- own a cryptonloid and piapro for it to install.
- to not modify the vocaloid 4 api
- to not bypass any drm inside (so basically all voicebanks must be purchased and the checks must not be removed).

by only calling the functions given by the dlls we are only asking vocaloid to perform actions for us, it is like calling an executable with an argument, like "Vocaloid.exe dosomething" except that it is much more interesting as with a dll we can perform a lot of operations natively with a program.

UPDATE : it seems like it may be possible that instead of a cryptonloid, a V3 voicebank including tiny vocaloid editor could be used too as tiny vocaloid editor includes its dlls

 

[VocAddict]

So in a way you're doing what Candecii did but instead of making use of the VSTi that came with V2, you're directly calling the API. I'm not sure about the legality about it since until now, everyone that has used the API in their own implementations for products (Piapro, Unity with VOCALOID, Project 575, etc) did so in collaboration with YAMAHA. It might be best to inquire if this is allowed though from a glance it doesn't look like it breaks the end-user agreement.

Legality aside, it's cool to see a project since Candecii is pretty much dead and no one has picked it up. Looking forward to more.

 

[SeleDreams]

So in a way you're doing what Candecii did but instead of making use of the VSTi that came with V2, you're directly calling the API. I'm not sure about the legality about it since until now, everyone that has used the API in their own implementations for products (Piapro, Unity with VOCALOID, Project 575, etc) did so in collaboration with YAMAHA. It might be best to inquire if this is allowed though from a glance it doesn't look like it breaks the end-user agreement.

Legality aside, it's cool to see a project since Candecii is pretty much dead and no one has picked it up. Looking forward to more.

technically, as I am French, End User Licence Agreements don't have any validity at least in europe (EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored | Lexology)
but even then, technically, for instance for piapro the agreement with yamaha is mostly because they *bundle* the vocaloid api if you see what I mean, without agreement I wouldn't be able to bundle it as it would be a copyright infringment, however, a software can use the api as long as it is owned by the user and that it is not modified, it is merely calling functions from it

 

[Katastrophe]

This is a really cool project and I'm interested in watching its progress.

Any chance of making this editor open-source? Or are there too many legal complications?

 

[SeleDreams]

This is a really cool project and I'm interested in watching its progress.

Any chance of making this editor open-source? Or are there too many legal complications?

tbf the idea from the beginning was to make it open source

there is no legal issue with it as long as I don't use any copyrighted code, it is really just calling functions from dlls so there is nothing legally enforceable as long as those dlls aren't bundled and are given by the user

 

[SeleDreams]

it can be considered on the same legal field as emulators

an emulator is totally legal but depending on how it is used (by downloading illegally games) then it can be illegal

so it must just be used properly by using our purchased vocaloid api that comes with cryptonloids

 

[VocAddict]

it can be considered on the same legal field as emulators

an emulator is totally legal but depending on how it is used (by downloading illegally games) then it can be illegal

so it must just be used properly by using our purchased vocaloid api that comes with cryptonloids

Just to correct you there, emulation of a software is code that is written to have the same functions of the original. You're not emulating any code, you're just writing a program that calls upon the function hooks of another. The use of an API (already written code) is not emulation.

The issue is if making use of API without the writer's permission is against their terms of use or not. It is licensed to Crypton by Yamaha to be used in their software (Piapro), there is no agreement between Yamaha and/or Crypton and the user for use of the API.

 

[SeleDreams]

Just to correct you there, emulation of a software is code that is written to have the same functions of the original. You're not emulating any code, you're just writing a program that calls upon the function hooks of another. The use of an API (already written code) is not emulation.

The issue is if making use of API without the writer's permission is against their terms of use or not. It is licensed to Crypton by Yamaha to be used in their software (Piapro), there is no agreement between Yamaha and/or Crypton and the user for use of the API.

as a clarification when I compared to emulation it was more about the fact it depended on the way it is used

also, emulators do use apis the same way because they depend on either the console's actual BIOS, either its OS (this is the case of RPCS3 that actually uses the ps3 OS downloaded from the sony website)

about the licence, like I explained, under the european laws at least, the licences have no legal ground, however, it is unsupported, which means it would more be considered of a grey area than one promoted by yamaha (which is logic to be fair)

and it would only work with the api bundled with piapro studio which makes purchasing a cryptonloid mandatory

 

[VocAddict]

as a clarification when I compared to emulation it was more about the fact it depended on the way it is used

also, emulators do use apis the same way because they depend on either the console's actual BIOS, either its OS (this is the case of RPCS3 that actually uses the ps3 OS downloaded from the sony website)

about the licence, like I explained, under the european laws at least, the licences have no legal ground, however, it is unsupported, which means it would more be considered of a grey area than one promoted by yamaha (which is logic to be fair)

and it would only work with the api bundled with piapro studio which makes purchasing a cryptonloid mandatory

The court case you linked refers to the resale of used copyrighted material, which in the case of this project has no bearing as you are not redistributing the API with your software.

The issue with this is if YAMAHA considers the use of the API outside of its allowed parameters (the software it is distributed and used in). If you look at the EULA for the software you would see in the following, emphasis in bold:

You may not engage in reverse engineering, disassembling, decompiling or otherwise deriving a source code form of the Software and Voice Library by any method whatsoever, and may not reproduce, modify, change, rent, lease, or distribute the Software and Voice Library in whole or in part, or create derivative works thereof.

Referenced from Internet Co.'s English EULA for V3.

This says that derivative works of the software is not allowed. If this includes new front-ends of the API is to be determined but considering YAMAHA considers their software as a whole, it may be breaking the EULA.

I'm not bashing your project but would prefer that it does not come under legal action.

 

[SeleDreams]

The court case you linked refers to the resale of used copyrighted material, which in the case of this project has no bearing as you are not redistributing the API with your software.

The issue with this is if YAMAHA considers the use of the API outside of its allowed parameters (the software it is distributed and used in). If you look at the EULA for the software you would see in the following, emphasis in bold:


Referenced from Internet Co.'s English EULA for V3.

This says that derivative works of the software is not allowed. If this includes new front-ends of the API is to be determined but considering YAMAHA considers their software as a whole, it may be breaking the EULA.

I'm not bashing your project but would prefer that it does not come under legal action.

if you read closely the article I linked they also said that this applies not only to the resale but to all the terms of EULAs
one of the reasons EULAs aren't binding in europe is because they are simple click-through and don't really represent any agreement between two parties and the fact that once the product is purchased it is considered that the manufacturer doesn't have any additional control over it except the simple copyright
it's basically a difference that it is considered "a final sale"
also I guess it would depend as derivative would imply that it includes the software in a modified form

 

[SeleDreams]

that's the exact paragraph btw

 

[VocAddict]

if you read closely the article I linked they also said that this applies not only to the resale but to all the terms of EULAs
one of the reasons EULAs aren't binding in europe is because they are simple click-through and don't really represent any agreement between two parties and the fact that once the product is purchased it is considered that the manufacturer doesn't have any additional control over it except the simple copyright
it's basically a difference that it is considered "a final sale"
also I guess it would depend as derivative would imply that it includes the software in a modified form

I'm not sure where you're cherry picking your evidence from but the ruling of the court concerning that case dealt with the resale of used licenses. Other than the article you sent, I don't see anything in the press release, nor the reference document of the court's judgement stating that software licenses are null and void once it is installed on an user's device. The judgement seems very specific to the case of reselling used software and other reporting sites have supported that. Please correct me if I'm wrong and link to state otherwise, thanks.

 

[SeleDreams]

I'm not sure where you're cherry picking your evidence from but the ruling of the court concerning that case dealt with the resale of used licenses. Other than the article you sent, I don't see anything in the press release, nor the reference document of the court's judgement stating that software licenses are null and void once it is installed on an user's device. The judgement seems very specific to the case of reselling used software and other reporting sites have supported that. Please correct me if I'm wrong and link to state otherwise, thanks.

basically, EULAs in europe are regarded as "sale contracts"

the thing is that sale contracts cannot give arbitrary conditions as a "click through" so by default, the law will ignore all the conditions because they are considered as not accepted
this is a french publication from a lawyer
they repeat that if the sale is a sale that doesn't have a time limit, it is under the law considered a sale so we are allowed to do whatever we want no matter what is included in the EULA, where it changes is in cases of stuff like Netflix etc where it is a subscription to access for a limited time to the stuff

CONTRAT DE LICENCE D'UN LOGICIEL

this is the exact part where the lawyer confirms it, they said that the principal thing about the classification as a "sale" of software sales is "L’enjeu principal reste le transfert de propriété. La vente permet à l’acquéreur de devenir propriétaire de l’exemplaire de l’œuvre. Il peut donc en disposer librement, notamment en le revendant. "

translated to english "The main interest is the transfer of ownership. The sale allows the buyer to become the owner of their copy of the software. They can in this case use it however they want, such as reselling"
basically, the juridiction is originally made to allow reselling, but because of how they classify it it also nullifies all the other conditions because they enter in contradiction with the law (and a contract cannot contradict with law)

 

[VocAddict]

basically, EULAs in europe are regarded as "sale contracts"

the thing is that sale contracts cannot give arbitrary conditions as a "click through" so by default, the law will ignore all the conditions because they are considered as not accepted
this is a french publication from a lawyer
they repeat that if the sale is a sale that doesn't have a time limit, it is under the law considered a sale so we are allowed to do whatever we want no matter what is included in the EULA, where it changes is in cases of stuff like Netflix etc where it is a subscription to access for a limited time to the stuff

CONTRAT DE LICENCE D'UN LOGICIEL

this is the exact part where the lawyer confirms it, they said that the principal thing about the classification as a "sale" of software sales is "L’enjeu principal reste le transfert de propriété. La vente permet à l’acquéreur de devenir propriétaire de l’exemplaire de l’œuvre. Il peut donc en disposer librement, notamment en le revendant. "

translated to english "The main interest is the transfer of ownership. The sale allows the buyer to become the owner of their copy of the software. They can in this case use it however they want, such as reselling"
basically, the juridiction is originally made to allow reselling, but because of how they classify it it also nullifies all the other conditions because they enter in contradiction with the law (and a contract cannot contradict with law)

Thank you for the clarification with the additional article. It does show that the end-user becomes the owner of the software, allowing them to resell if need be but if that's the law, that's the law.

I still do not believe that it refers to the usage of a software while it is still installed on a computer because if that was the case, the software world will be in an uproar because EU users can do anything with software once they receive it, right?

Using your translation of the French "They can in this case use it however they want, such as reselling", it means they could anything they want.

If that was the case, people in the EU could decompile/recompile/modify/redistribute software and would not be held accountable, because the end-user is the owner. But that does not make any sense because regardless of the physical ownership of a software, copyright of the intellectual property remains. No one is going to release the source code for PS4 and get away with it in court.

So if that is wrong and derivations of the copyrighted and trademarked intellectual properties falls under that umbrella, why allow derivation and not the others?

For example, if I buy a book, and I can do as I please with the physical book. Sell it, tear it, burn it, gild it and worship it at an altar. But that remains separate from the intellectual property of the actual book’s contents.

But if this is what the law in the EU suggests, I have no choice but to concede.

 

[SeleDreams]

Thank you for the clarification with the additional article. It does show that the end-user becomes the owner of the software, allowing them to resell if need be but if that's the law, that's the law.

I still do not believe that it refers to the usage of a software while it is still installed on a computer because if that was the case, the software world will be in an uproar because EU users can do anything with software once they receive it, right?

Using your translation of the French "They can in this case use it however they want, such as reselling", it means they could anything they want.

If that was the case, people in the EU could decompile/recompile/modify/redistribute software and would not be held accountable, because the end-user is the owner. But that does not make any sense because regardless of the physical ownership of a software, copyright of the intellectual property remains. No one is going to release the source code for PS4 and get away with it in court.

So if that is wrong and derivations of the copyrighted and trademarked intellectual properties falls under that umbrella, why allow derivation and not the others?

For example, if I buy a book, and I can do as I please with the physical book. Sell it, tear it, burn it, gild it and worship it at an altar. But that remains separate from the intellectual property of the actual book’s contents.

But if this is what the law in the EU suggests, I have no choice but to concede.

That is different, "redistribution" etc falls under the copyright laws which are separate

when we buy a copy we buy it for private use, we aren't granted the right to copy (the lawyer in the article explained that what is sold is the unique copy and not the intellectual property)

people are allowed to decompile and to modify privately in the EU, however any distribution of any section of the source code (in source or binary form) becomes subject to the copyright laws (there's a kind of separation on this topic)

 

[VocAddict]

That is different, "redistribution" etc falls under the copyright laws which are separate

when we buy a copy we buy it for private use, we aren't granted the right to copy (the lawyer in the article explained that what is sold is the unique copy and not the intellectual property)

people are allowed to decompile and to modify privately in the EU, however any distribution of any section of the source code (in source or binary form) becomes subject to the copyright laws (there's a kind of separation on this topic)

I see, thank you for the clarification. It's still a bit iffy in my head for some of it but it clears up a lot. ^^

 

[SeleDreams]

some extreme cases show that to be fair laws are sometimes a bit flawed, take ReactOS as an instance ReactOS - ReactOS Wiki
they are litterally decompiling windows and make it an open source software little by little, but microsoft can't do anything because they use a loophole called "clean room reverse engineering" basically someone else looks at the code and writes the specifications and then someone else looks at the specifications and rewrite the code based on it

 

[VocAddict]

some extreme cases show that to be fair laws are sometimes a bit flawed, take ReactOS as an instance ReactOS - ReactOS Wiki
they are litterally decompiling windows and make it an open source software little by little, but microsoft can't do anything because they use a loophole called "clean room reverse engineering" basically someone else looks at the code and writes the specifications and then someone else looks at the specifications and rewrite the code based on it

As far as I am aware for Micorosft Windows and ReactOS, they are not looking at the source code of Windows but at looking at public documentation and making use of GPL appropriate code (thus making it a GPL licensed program)

 

[SeleDreams]

As far as I am aware for Micorosft Windows and ReactOS, they are not looking at the source code of Windows but at looking at public documentation and making use of GPL appropriate code (thus making it a GPL licensed program)

They do look at the windows code but through a decompiler, they do not have access to the source code files themselves

emulator developers tend to do the same, they use the same technique to understand the hardware calls from the OS

 

[VocAddict]

They do look at the windows code but through a decompiler, they do not have access to the source code files themselves

emulator developers tend to do the same, they use the same technique to understand the hardware calls from the OS

That's true, disassembly is truly the easiest way to reimplement a software's feature without using the software's original code for binary compatibility.