It sounds like copyright protection for keyboard music styles is still in a legal twilight zone. It seems to me, that if a keyboard manufacturer developes a product for sale to the general public that includes onboard rhythm styles, then the buyer has purchased permission to use the styles in any way they please, even for commercial gain. Why would any musician, professional or amateur, have to pay the instrument maker for the music that comes from that instrument, when ultimately the musician is responsible for the composition? Do you think Baldwin should collect royalities for every song produced with their instruments? On course not! It would be absurd. Even the commercial music styles we buy on disk, should be ours to use for whatever reason. That there is a way to delete the sequenced song and keep the style, is something that was developed by the manufacturer, not by the end user, and shouldn't be a factor to keep us from using the "purchased" style in our musical career. By offering us the style for money, it would seem again, we are buying the right to use the style for personal gain. Professional musicians must run some sort of risk by using styles or music at gigs where they are paid for their performance, the same as those who use the styles for recorded music that they will eventually try to sell. The difference is that the recording musician pays for the use of the music, not the style of the composition. If you were to copy an Elvis song note for note, sound for sound, with your voice or instrument, who gets the royalities? The song writer, not Elvis. It also seems that if there were an actual legal leg to stand on, this would have gone before some court, somewhere, long before now. A precedence has been allowed to establish itself that might not be able to be changed without a lot of legal wrangling. But then, not being a lawyer, I may be totally wrong. Just don't ask me to be on the jury and be in favor of the manufacturer.