Does anybody know if there is any legal document on the net for the microwave waveforms ?
I'm interested if I can use them in a release.
Best regards,
A.F.

I wonder who's got the patent on sine and saw waveforms hmmmm

This kind of thing cant be covered by patents; patents simply aren't relevant But the wavetables probably are covered by copyright (exactly the same as any other digital source waveforms in any other synth), so you wouldn't be able to legitimately copy and redistribute them. Technically, though, synthesising them from scratch without reference to the original dgigitally-encoded wafeorms might be permissable. But it couldn't be guaranteed. But if you start from any kind of copy of the original waveforms, you're almost certainly in breach of copyright territory.

And it doesnt really matter whether the individual waveforms are 'obvious' (ie sine and saw) it matters whether or not you'd be reproducing a wavetable directly derived from someone else's original source material, which is implicitly and automatically copyrighted.

if you have a fft-analysis of them you can recreate them without breaching any copyrights

the problem is that apparently there isn't any proper fft-analysis of them on the web

I've searched everywhere for it because Jon from COFX was looking for it to include it into Kubik.

so where is the MW owner who's gonna make a fft-analysis of its wavetable?

Hi Jens,

you could take the PPG synth for that as it includes the original WAVE 2.x waves.


rawcan

yeah - you're partly right - I think the first half of the PPG's wavetable is included in the MW but the MW specific waves are the other half of its original table...

Ah OK,

don't know much about the MV. Just have some insider info about the PPG.


Good luck, rawcan

jens wrote:

if you have a fft-analysis of them you can recreate them without breaching any copyrights the problem is that apparently there isn't any proper fft-analysis of them on the web I've searched everywhere for it because Jon from COFX was looking for it to include it into Kubik. so where is the MW owner who's gonna make a fft-analysis of its wavetable?

Hi Jens!
There is a pdf on the web, with all the waveforms and frequency domain plot.
I started from there and made my own waveforms.
Here is a demo i made with it :
www.panicnow.net/~emusic/mp3/demo.mp3

edit:
Made with synthedit

no_signal wrote:

Does anybody know if there is any legal document on the net for the microwave waveforms ? I'm interested if I can use them in a release. Best regards, A.F.

Best place to ask is here:

http://www.Stadler-electro.de/contact.html

Stefan Stenzel is the former chief developer of Waldorf, so he should know.

dr.wackler wrote:

Best place to ask is here: http://www.Stadler-electro.de/contact.html Stefan Stenzel is the former chief developer of Waldorf, so he should know.

Thanks!

no_signal wrote:

jens wrote: if you have a fft-analysis of them you can recreate them without breaching any copyrights the problem is that apparently there isn't any proper fft-analysis of them on the web I've searched everywhere for it because Jon from COFX was looking for it to include it into Kubik. so where is the MW owner who's gonna make a fft-analysis of its wavetable? Hi Jens! There is a pdf on the web, with all the waveforms and frequency domain plot. I started from there and made my own waveforms. Here is a demo i made with it : www.panicnow.net/~emusic/mp3/demo.mp3 edit: Made with synthedit

WOW - that sounds gorgeous

Waldorf is in receivership but all Waldorf assets are still owned by whomever is administering the company's assets (the German courts I think). IF that entity decides to release Waldorf assets into the public domain, then the waveforms would be fair game. There is some chance, however, that they will sell Waldorf assets to pay Waldorf's debts, and if they sell the Microwave, Wave, or any of the pieces that make them up, then those waveforms would remain copyrighted.

Personally, I don't see how reconstructing waveforms from FFTs of the originals would get around the copyrights. Copyrights almost always cover derivative works. Caveat: I'm no lawyer so don't listen to me. But I sure would advise CoFX to get a legal opinion before releasing those waveforms.

Now - if someone were to hand-draw an equivalent set of waveforms or otherwise generate those waveforms *independent* of any Waldorf asset, it's hard to see how there could be any legal issues. Again, I'm no lawyer, but it seems reasonable. The waveforms are all single-cycle, no? How hard could it be to reproduce those by hand?

dburgan wrote:

Waldorf is in receivership but all Waldorf assets are still owned by whomever is administering the company's assets (the German courts I think). IF that entity decides to release Waldorf assets into the public domain, then the waveforms would be fair game. There is some chance, however, that they will sell Waldorf assets to pay Waldorf's debts, and if they sell the Microwave, Wave, or any of the pieces that make them up, then those waveforms would remain copyrighted. Personally, I don't see how reconstructing waveforms from FFTs of the originals would get around the copyrights. Copyrights almost always cover derivative works. Caveat: I'm no lawyer so don't listen to me. But I sure would advise CoFX to get a legal opinion before releasing those waveforms. Now - if someone were to hand-draw an equivalent set of waveforms or otherwise generate those waveforms *independent* of any Waldorf asset, it's hard to see how there could be any legal issues. Again, I'm no lawyer, but it seems reasonable. The waveforms are all single-cycle, no? How hard could it be to reproduce those by hand?

I think one can worry too much about legalities

Even if recreating waves from fft-analysis would breach copyrights all the then owners of the copyrights could demand is to not deliver them anymore...


tbh I'm a bit worried about all your worries

jens wrote:

Even if recreating waves from fft-analysis would breach copyrights all the then owners of the copyrights could demand is to not deliver them anymore...

Actually, the owners of the copyrights could sue for damages, lost sales, etc, which might not be so trivial! Maybe I'm just being anal, but if I were a software developer (and I am ) the issue of intellectual property is a big one. I would definitely want to make sure I'm reasonably in the clear before I release something, and unfortunately that means a lot of legal mumbo jumbo sometimes.

jens wrote:

tbh I'm a bit worried about all your worries

I used to worry about my worries. Then I started worrying about my worrying about my worries. Then I started drinking herbal tea.

dburgan wrote:

jens wrote: Even if recreating waves from fft-analysis would breach copyrights all the then owners of the copyrights could demand is to not deliver them anymore... Actually, the owners of the copyrights could sue for damages, lost sales, etc, which might not be so trivial! Maybe I'm just being anal, but if I were a software developer (and I am ) the issue of intellectual property is a big one. I would definitely want to make sure I'm reasonably in the clear before I release something, and unfortunately that means a lot of legal mumbo jumbo sometimes.

that would be hard - they had to prove their point about the theoretical losses.

It's relatively easy to forbid the usage of something copyrighted but it's a bit of a different story to make claims about losses.

Quote:

jens wrote: tbh I'm a bit worried about all your worries I used to worry about my worries. Then I started worrying about my worrying about my worries. Then I started drinking herbal tea.

So what are you saying jens? That its okay to derive samples from someone else because they might not object, and if they do object, then its still okay because they might not be able to show loss of revenue?

So which forms of copyrighted material do you extend this to? Is it just because its wavetables, rather than samples, or are they okay? What about whole music tracks and albums, and software? All your statements can be applied but does that make it okay?

no_signal wrote:

Does anybody know if there is any legal document on the net for the microwave waveforms ? I'm interested if I can use them in a release. Best regards, A.F.

Why not just make it possible for the user to dump the waveforms from a Waldorf into your program? If the user owns a Waldorf, it's his right to do it. That way, you don't have to worry about the legalities. Plus, someone in a Free Country could publish the wavetables, and if someone is inclined to use them, he can keep his own counsel on the matter.

I would like a softsynth that could take the place of my MW2. Is there such a beast? Do you have something that could load the wavetables from my MW2Xt?

dburgan wrote:

I used to worry about my worries. Then I started worrying about my worrying about my worries. Then I started drinking herbal tea.

Herbal tea? Now, it's time to start worrying!


McLilith

fishbowl.tucson.az quoth Plus, someone in a Free Country could publish the wavetables, and if someone is inclined to use them, he can keep his own counsel on the matter.


By 'Free Country' I presume you mean one that doesnt actually protect the creator of a piece of work with any kind of copyright legislation.

whyterabbyt wrote:

By 'Free Country' I presume you mean one that doesnt actually protect the creator of a piece of work with any kind of copyright legislation.

There are degress of freedom. For example, you might find some place that does not throw you in jail without a trial at the mere suggestion that you might make a machine that sounds like another machine. Or you might find one that does not use force administred by men with guns, to protect the creator of a piece of work after he is dead, or in this case, a corporation that has long since dissappeared.

fishbowl.tucson.az quoth

There are degress of freedom.

And which 'degree of freedom' applies to the kind of 'Free Country' you mentioned?

For example, you might find some place that does not throw you in jail without a trial at the mere suggestion that you might make a machine that sounds like another machine.

I think you'll find that there are very few countries in which the 'mere suggestion' of breach of copyright is punished by jail sentences. So are those the ones you mean?

Or you might find one that does not use force administred by men with guns, to protect the creator of a piece of work after he is dead, or in this case, a corporation that has long since dissappeared.

Firstly, Waldorf is not 'long disappeared'. Secondly, another company owns Waldorf, and hence its IP. Thirdly the men who produced the waveforms are not dead.

And finally, try and remember that not every country in the world which enforces copyright laws has an armed police force it uses to do so. Are those the ones you mean?

great - another pedantic copyright discussion - how exiting

So how you doin' mate? Seem a bit cranky these days, not getting enough to eat or summat?

nah - just missing my lady

Poor jens...

she's coming home at christmas though and is going to stay for about four weeks

cool. merry christmas then

I sent an email to that guy Stefan Stenzel, you posted in the thread, to ask about copyright info.

McLilith wrote:

dburgan wrote: I used to worry about my worries. Then I started worrying about my worrying about my worries. Then I started drinking herbal tea. Herbal tea? Now, it's time to start worrying! McLilith

Hehe well I said I stopped worrying about worrying. I didn't say I stopped worrying.

whyterabbyt wrote:

fishbowl.tucson.az quoth There are degress of freedom. And which 'degree of freedom' applies to the kind of 'Free Country' you mentioned?

If you want to smoke pot legally, go to the Netherlands. If you want to copy sound waves legally, and it's illegal where you are, don't do it. If you care enough to go someplace where your behavior, which is illegal in your location, is legal somewhere else, then go there.

My ethos permits this line of reasoning, and perhaps yours does not.

Personally, I'd prefer an answer to the first part of my question, than to get embroiled about the intricacies and implications of international copyright laws.

Is someone making a softsynth that can supplement or replace my Waldorf?

I do not believe anyone can make an argument that I would be forbidden myself, to take the waveforms from my Waldorf, and use then any way I see fit. (Well, you might argue, but you will be wrong).

I like the idea implied in the OP's message, wish I had more context on it. I've also wondered if, say, Kubik is what I'm looking for? (Can you load a waldorf wavetable in Kubik? Or vice-versa?)

My advice was to leave it open, so that if a person can legally use these wavetables, he has the ability to load them. I go further to suggest that if the laws where you live permit you to take some action, then by all means, you are empowered to take that action.

I don't see this as being at all unreasonable. You seem to be quick on the judgements vis a vis copyright law. I'll assume you have a vested interest in this area, and I would recommend you apply your energy somewhere it can be constructive.

So what if you can get hold of the full MW 2 wave set - you then have to emulate that wonderful filter! I love the MW, but to me that filters and particularly the 'quality' page are what make it so amazing. These are the 'sound' for me.

no_signal wrote:

I sent an email to that guy Stefan Stenzel, you posted in the thread, to ask about copyright info.

I'm curious if and what he answered.

fishbowl.tucson.az quoth

Is someone making a softsynth that can supplement or replace my Waldorf?

What's missing in Kubik, XPhrase or Wusikstation that you need?

I do not believe anyone can make an argument that I would be forbidden myself, to take the waveforms from my Waldorf, and use then any way I see fit. (Well, you might argue, but you will be wrong).

I wouldnt argue, thats perfectly correct. Flawed as copyright legislation is, fair use is still (generally) protected.

I like the idea implied in the OP's message, wish I had more context on it. I've also wondered if, say, Kubik is what I'm looking for? (Can you load a waldorf wavetable in Kubik? Or vice-versa?)

It might be. Kubik is definitely capable of handling user-defined waveforms and loading single-wave samples, AFAIK, so I dont think its quite a one-step thing.

My advice was to leave it open, so that if a person can legally use these wavetables, he has the ability to load them. I go further to suggest that if the laws where you live permit you to take some action, then by all means, you are empowered to take that action.

Fair enough. That's a tad less reactionary than the capitalisation of 'free country' and references to 'men with guns', and hence easier to understand.

You seem to be quick on the judgements vis a vis copyright law. I'll assume you have a vested interest in this area, and I would recommend you apply your energy somewhere it can be constructive.

I have a vested interest in that I wouldn't want to see small developers get screwed over by larger companies because they didn't think through, or dismissed, the implications of what they're doing. So, for example, if no_signal were to provide waldorf waveforms, and 'got done' for it, then he might find his whole synthedit oscillator project had to be abandoned as a result...
And this is where that can be constructive.

dr.wackler wrote:

no_signal wrote: I sent an email to that guy Stefan Stenzel, you posted in the thread, to ask about copyright info. I'm curious if and what he answered.

Stefan Stenzel wrote:

Just go ahead and use these waveforms, things like these cannot be copyrighted, at least not here in europe. Thanks god. However, it would be a good idea to mention the reference to waldorf in your product.

www.panicnow.net/~emusic

Congrats...

tee boy wrote:

So what if you can get hold of the full MW 2 wave set - you then have to emulate that wonderful filter! I love the MW, but to me that filters and particularly the 'quality' page are what make it so amazing. These are the 'sound' for me.

Hi tee boy.
I'm not making any emulation of the MW, I will just include the waveform banks into the package of the oscillator.

It's pretty cool the way this basic technology is being changed and refined as it gets passed from digital generation to digital generation...

no_signal wrote:

tee boy wrote: So what if you can get hold of the full MW 2 wave set - you then have to emulate that wonderful filter! I love the MW, but to me that filters and particularly the 'quality' page are what make it so amazing. These are the 'sound' for me. Hi tee boy. I'm not making any emulation of the MW, I will just include the waveform banks into the package of the oscillator.

Great, put me down for two! Im sure some kind of emulation might be possible by running this through dpole (even though this sounds a little... questionable!).

You should do the same for the Virus . But seriously, if you could do this and include some of the cliche tarnce features (unison), Im sure it would be most popular.

Is there anything stopping you from sampling single waves from VA osc's? Or are you using FFT's?

ps. Forgive my ignorance, this shit goes a cm or two over my head.

whyterabbyt wrote:

fishbowl.tucson.az quoth Is someone making a softsynth that can supplement or replace my Waldorf? What's missing in Kubik, XPhrase or Wusikstation that you need?

I haven't really discovered Kubik or XPhrase yet. I absolutely love Wusik though. Just now starting to get into it, thanks to the KVR groupbuy. Kubik looks awesome. Thank you Rabbyt.

Just so you know, you are preaching to the choir on this copyright issue with me. I may play the devils advocate quite a bit, but you might be very surprised to know that we are probably very much on the same page on copr issues. That's why I really don't want to get into any kind of argument, since I don't imagine we truly disagree much on this stuff. I checked out your website and your tunes. I appreciate your glitch/bent compositions, very cool stuff.

Quote:

I have a vested interest in that I wouldn't want to see small developers get screwed over by larger companies because they didn't think through, or dismissed, the implications of what they're doing. So, for example, if no_signal were to provide waldorf waveforms, and 'got done' for it, then he might find his whole synthedit oscillator project had to be abandoned as a result... And this is where that can be constructive.

Sure, I get'cha. But I still think the US is turning into a dictatorship ruled partly by media corporations. Fighting too hard on the side of strong copyright law will have a disastrous effect of empowering corporations to the point that we end up with something even worse than the State controlled media of any communist regime. THAT is where ideas like the DMCA lead, and THAT is where the dangerous idea that media and entertainment are things that are "produced" only by large corporations for consumption of the individual, rather than the other way around.

And yeah, I really do believe this kind of thinking is going to take us into a very dark, violent place.

It's not just about copyright law, there's a much bigger picture here.

fishbowl.tucson.az wrote:

Fighting too hard on the side of strong copyright law will have a disastrous effect of empowering corporations to the point that we end up with something even worse than the State controlled media of any communist regime.

Careful how you generalize here. Corporations are HARDLY the only entities that hold copyrights. Most copyrights, in fact, are held by individuals or small companies. If your goal is to restrain corporate hegemony by throwing out copyright law, you are throwing out the baby with the bath water. I am not a greedy corporation but I have every right to the copyrights I hold to the products I made with my own hands. Same goes for every other small developer.