Law against sampling IRs from altiverb or some samplers and sharing them online

[MeldaProduction]

Out of curiosity - let's say I buy Altiverb, sample some of the IRs and just put them online. I mean you can do it with hardware, but are forbidden to do that in software? How would you even specify such a law? I mean the recorded IRs are "music", from an impulse true, so the musician wasn't very creative , but still, how you define this is ok, and something else isn't?
Same thing with samplers - you find an instrument that works well, record several notes from it, like you would be recording the real thing.

Any ideas?

[Sampleconstruct]

So are you questioning the licensing if samples in general, can you be serious?

[MeldaProduction]

Actually I am! Think about it, where's the line between legal and illegal? Sure it's crazy, but take any hardware and sample it - and it's ok. Take any software - it's not ok? And what if you sample a software that samples hardware?
And I can get easily more creative - what if you sample IRs from altiverb, but don't provide the samples themselves, but provide a loop, and processed versions of that loop. Then you may even provide a deconvolution software .

So how on earth can one prevent this from happening?

[Mayae]

I'm sure you'll get challenged in court based on other premises, like loss of revenue from X company you sampled or even parameterized.

Wait, are you trying to cover your own ass?

[Sampleconstruct]

Actually I am! Think about it, where's the line between legal and illegal? Sure it's crazy, but take any hardware and sample it - and it's ok. Take any software - it's not ok? And what if you sample a software that samples hardware?
And I can get easily more creative - what if you sample IRs from altiverb, but don't provide the samples themselves, but provide a loop, and processed versions of that loop. Then you may even provide a deconvolution software .

So how on earth can one prevent this from happening?

Eventually it's all about trust, I have been torrented so badly in the last months, so many people on the planet just give a total f**k about EULAS anyway, but still I rely on people who accept the fact, that the samples and synth or whatever presets I create are my intellectual and artistic property and that they must not distribute, share or re-sample them and sell them as their own. If that model doesn't work anymore, it'll be the end of it all.

[MeldaProduction]

I agree. But as you know, these days the piracy got out of hands. I actually have a company scanning the net for cracks and deleting them. And that's where torrents are the doomsday . Fortunately every crack for our stuff I have found contained viruses, so... And while there's enough honest people, it is just fine. In your case, selling samples, it is worse, since the licence is all you have. But at the end it's the same thing for both of us - in my case there's the need to "crack" it, whichi Russians are very happy to do apparently , but then the sharing is the problem.

Anyways my point was purely theoretical - I'd simply like to understand, what the law permits and what not. I got into that when I was sampling my altiverb myself (for myself ), because I'm just done with that creepy gui + ilok, and I thought like "why didn't anyone do that and share the IRs". And the legal issue is obvious, but, well, is it? We can share our music processed by the software, but we cannot share tiny bit of music processed by the software? And at the same time we can do that with hardware and everything is fine. Sure, there's the recording mechanism, which is more complex, but at the end it is the same. It's probably because what is being sampled was an algorithm, while sampling say altiverb would be more like extracting content from the software. But again, some line between ok and not ok could be useful .

Mayae: hehe, purely theoretical, trying to understand, and so far I must say, my guess is that the law is full of holes and then depends on "how the judge would like you" .
I'm also preparing another drum sample recording session, so it is kinda something with quite some interest for me...not much to do about it anyways though.

[Zombie Queen]

I mean you can do it with hardware, but are forbidden to do that in software?

My understanding is, it's not about hardware/software, it's about recorded sound. Any sound recording is subject to copyright. You can't sample a sound recording. IR is a sound recording. You can sample algorithmic hardware/software.

[MeldaProduction]

Hmmm, I'm not sure how to understand that, but I think it's similar to my idea above - that sampling something that is based on samples is not ok because you are just extracting the content. But there's a catch - you cannot be 100% sure how exactly that thing works. For instance, Bricasti make easily be a convolution reverb, which means sampling it and god forbid selling it would not be ok, but many do that. Hmmm... the more I think about it the more I'm lost

[BertKoor]

Hmmm... the more I think about it the more I'm lost

My thoughts exactly...

Take for instance workstation synths. You may use them to play music, to record albums, etc. But you may not sell a collection of unprocessed samples. Right!?

What you however legally can do: make a composition (which I have already done, present somewhere in the KVR forum archive) that constitutes of instructions: take this or that synth workstation, switch to the rhytm bank, play each key in a sequence of 1/8th notes. That is MY composition (rather abstract, but still...) and MY intellectual property. I may record that and sell that on CD. I could even take artists to court that used that instrument on a commercial track after I have done my publishing, and I can claim they used MY recording.

Another mindboggling case... Sampling a snippet from someone else's recording, and using it without permission: illegal ofcourse. Does it matter how long the snippet is? What if the snippet is just one cycle of a sine wave? I can use that sine wave to reconstruct whatever, AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Because it can not ever be prover I took it from someone else. Still it's illegal.

So yeah, taken to extreme cases the copyright laws don't make any sense. It's a totally flawed system and it doesn't work. In the rare cases I do publish something (mainly software) it's all open source with the DBAD license.

[deastman]

Under US copyright law, a "sound recording"is a specific type of copyright. It is designed to prevent someone from stealing the recording of your music. But there is no length requirement to the sound recording. A single sampled drum hit in a drum machine is still a sound recording. Same with a software drum machine. Or a recorded impulse response. You can use these things to create music, but not to redistribute their product in a different form. You're wondering about the difference between those two things, and if there is some kind of loophole. The answer is that the courts will decide. Anyone can sue you for any reason at all, and it will be up to the judge to determine the validity of the complaint. If you go before the judge and admit that all you did was sample their samples to wrap up in your own competing product, you're going to lose.

[MeldaProduction]

Now that is madness! I didn't think that far actually! Hehe yeah it's messed up .

But still, back to my original question, which is actually a bit different: if you have music, yes, I get it, it's the way you said folks. But if it's a software, that does something, it's going to be problematic, because you didn't take any product. You processed something with the software. What complicates things even more is that comparing 2 audio signals is virtually impossible - if someone takes samples from our MDrummer and processes it with just some allpass filter, it will just become different enough. Sure, by ears you can tell it's the same, but technically it won't and the one who stole it sells it under his name may say "I liked it so much, that I synthesized the same thing somehow". Well, if someone steals a dozen of samples, who cares, but if you'd take like EZ Drummer or something, which basically has "one" kit, and take it entirely, I wouldn't blame them to be mad .
But then again, you might say you simulated it somehow. Which brings another question - if you simulate it, it might be nearly the same, and then what, is it ok or not . Holy crap, I need to stop thinking .

[deastman]

Okay, with respect to audio files sounding the same but looking different, you're really just asking if it is possible to break the law and get away with it. Yes, of course that is possible. And is it possible to use legal loopholes for unethical practices? Yes, of course.

Now, a simulation is something else entirely.

[elxsound]

There's no thinking to this... That's what courts are there to determine, the legality of something.

There will always be similarities in sound, but it doesn't matter unless someone takes you to court. If your source IR is unique and no one can prove otherwise, then you are free and clear. If no one takes you to court and your source is unique, then you are free and clear.

Generative hardware vs. sample playback via software are vastly different. Audio you record as affected by the software (or hardware) is yours. Using the same exact sample (IR) that came included with the software for the purpose of resale is stealing.

If you were to capture an impulse response of the IR as it passes through Altiverb, then you could make the case for a unique recording (and this is where it would become a grey area of legality, which would be the job of courts to determine the legality of such a move, should someone take you to court).

[MeldaProduction]

Good point about the "uniquity". (or uniqueness? damn, no idea... )

deastman, my point was more about the attempts of everyone simulating some piece of HW/SW. It's "2 sides of the same coin" - on one hand you want to be as close as possible, on the other hand you need to be different, otherwise you violate copyright rules...

At the end I suppose you can be either "ok" by making your music from scratch, "not ok" by taking something and reselling/sharing it under a different name, and everything else is grey area, where it depends on the willingness of the other person/company to go to the court and the jury.

That makes me think about another scenario - imagine you create a really awesome song, put it on youtube, but since it was already released on soundcloud before, someone used it in his youtube mix. He mentioned you in the comments, but his video is now successful, because people like mixes, and yours wasn't because the social media just prefers already famous stuff. So he earns money and you don't. Well, for me music is not about money, but most musicians wish they would make their living this way.

[elxsound]

That last scenario is not a confusing one.

Licensing is the issue here. You as the song creator determine the type of license, so the only way this scenario is possible is with consent from the content creator or attributable licensing (which is determined by the creator/so again with consent).

If the newly youtube mixed version properly attributes the original works/original author as required then there is no grey area. The ability of the newly mixed version to earn revenue is purely consequential of determining licensing, which is why its important to choose carefully when publishing works.