FREE: Alexis D-Four ... 90s drum sounds

[whyterabbyt]

Strange loop alarm.

The only thing strange here is your failure to accept a simple fact.

You legitimes a law with "couse its a law".

I have no idea what 'legitimes' means.

If it means Im pointing out that a set of laws which cover a specific set of circumstances dont cover, other, completely different circumstances, then yeah, whatever.

If not, then the 'strange loop' is you thinking that laws about things should get extended into other different things for arbitrary, and nonsensical reasons.

Is it not a lot of work to craft a natural drumset ?

Why would the laws concerning copying the recording of a sound have any relationship with the amount of work it took to create an item that was recorded?

Its harder to make an audio recording device than it is to make a drum. So what?

If i would be a drumset=(x) (put in any natural soundsource in here) maker i would be very upset with this law and would try to change it.

That's nice. Utterly pointless though.

Meanwhile, the tree, the goat, the drummer, the guy who made the sticks he used to play it, the makers of the recorder, and the guy who made the microphone all say they're upset too and want some of the imaginary rights you think you have.

And the relevant copyright law will still be entirely about the right to control the distribution of copies of recordings.

[tomtoo]

Well, I live in Germany, and German law has the following to say about "copying the works of others":
http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/24.html

§ 24
Freie Benutzung
(1) Ein selbständiges Werk, das in freier Benutzung des Werkes eines anderen geschaffen worden ist, darf ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers des benutzten Werkes veröffentlicht und verwertet werden.
(2) Absatz 1 gilt nicht für die Benutzung eines Werkes der Musik, durch welche eine Melodie erkennbar dem Werk entnommen und einem neuen Werk zugrunde gelegt wird.

Which quickly translated into English means:

§24
Free use
(1) An independent piece of work that has been created in the free use of another's work may be published and used without the consent of the author of the work used.
(2) Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the use of a work of music, where a recognizable melody is taken from that work and used as a base for a new work of music.

Nuff said.

I'm not copying source material, I'm not circumventing any (!) form of copy protection and I'm not distributing anyone's works of music recognizable by their melody.

If you start arguing about "one sound can be a melody", I'll gladly invest the time to dig up that legal blurb where it is stated how many notes are legally required to form a melody. But you all know how Google works.

I realy wonder where this "digital rights" should lead to.

I have the patent how my cockatiel sings, so i have the patent for all bird songs.

[whyterabbyt]

I realy wonder where this "digital rights" should lead to.

Nowhere nearly as nightmarish as your own notion (ie that the maker of any device gets the <cough> 'respect' to control the conditions under which the buyer of that device uses it) would take us.

[tomtoo]

I realy wonder where this "digital rights" should lead to.

Nowhere nearlyas nightmarish as your own notion (ie that the maker of any device gets the <cough> 'respect' to control the conditions under which the buyer of that device uses it) would take us.

I not like to talk about your answer before and if you think over it you know why.

So if i buy a Sonor record it and sell the samples its ok. But if i buy a alesis SR-16 and record it, its not ok ?

If i sample a c64 sid is this ok or not ?

But if i sample a ensonic or a waldorf ?

Questions over questions.

And please dont talk again about the "LAW". Its not natural its made by humans.

[bftucker]

Another instance of "no good deed unpunished."

[whyterabbyt]

I realy wonder where this "digital rights" should lead to.

Nowhere nearlyas nightmarish as your own notion (ie that the maker of any device gets the <cough> 'respect' to control the conditions under which the buyer of that device uses it) would take us.

I not like to talk about your answer before and if you think over it you know why.

No, Im afraid the lack of logic in your thinking pretty much precludes me understanding any 'why'.

So if i buy a Sonor record it and sell the samples its ok. But if i buy a alesis SR-16 and record it, its not ok ?

If i sample a c64 sid is this ok or not ?

But if i sample a ensonic or a waldorf ?

Questions over questions.

And please dont talk again about the "LAW". Its not natural its made by humans.

Ah, I see. You want to talk about something thats not 'LAW'.

And what precisely would that be? Ethics? Morality? Shinyness? Peanut butteryness?

Because, you know, without some sort of context I have no idea what the hell your 'questions over questions' pertain to, apart from some nebulous thing about 'respect'.

In other words, you've taken a conversation about what's legal, and turned it into some masturbatory 'what if' shite and then insisted that it has to be done so outside the remit of the single thing it was actually relevant.

Whoop de f**king do.

Meanwhile, your drums are 'made by humans' and so would the recording be, so please dont talk about reocrdings, or drums, or c64 sids, because, like the law, they're not natural, so they dont belong in your pointless, contextless musing either.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we were talking about real recordings of real devices, and the laws that apply to them.

But hey, if the peanut butter residue of your drums doesnt have enough respect compared to the marzipan of your recording, then when you sample a giraffe how many goats does a duck. Have fun with that, preferably in a thread all of its own where those of us dealing with those 'unnatural' legal implications can avoid it. Meanwhile, I suspect that here, in this thread, you're either an idiot or a troll.

[tomtoo]

And what precisely would that be? Ethics? Morality? Shinyness? Peanut butteryness?

If you like to talk about if "this is legal" i just dont know, couse there are a lot of laws in this world.

And yes

And what precisely would that be? Ethics? Morality? Shinyness? Peanut butteryness?

thats what laws are exactly made of.

So whats your point ?

[whyterabbyt]

And what precisely would that be? Ethics? Morality? Shinyness? Peanut butteryness?

If you like to talk about if "this is legal" i just dont know, couse there are a lot of laws in this world.

And yes

And what precisely would that be? Ethics? Morality? Shinyness? Peanut butteryness?

thats what laws are exactly made of.

So whats your point ?

troll, then.

f**k off.

[tomtoo]

And what precisely would that be? Ethics? Morality? Shinyness? Peanut butteryness?

If you like to talk about if "this is legal" i just dont know, couse there are a lot of laws in this world.

And yes

And what precisely would that be? Ethics? Morality? Shinyness? Peanut butteryness?

thats what laws are exactly made of.

So whats your point ?

troll, then.

f**k off.

[chokehold]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

[tomtoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI

"What" escalation ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPHuE5pDlEs

[HenriAugusto]

Thanks for the support.

Nah, this shouldn't be a Win/Mac issue, and also not related to 32/64 bits. It should perform quite well on any system.

I don't know if it has anything to do with it, but the plugin is set to DFD, that is Direct From Disk streaming mode, which means it pre-loads only a minimal part of the samples into RAM and when a sample is played back it starts off with the part that is in the RAM while it quickly loads the rest from HDD again.

My system has two internal SATA3 SSDs, and the plugin is on one of them.
So maybe that could be a reason for quicker access to the samples and a lower CPU load as a result?

Would be cool if someone could check if it makes any difference to the CPU load if the samples are on a HDD or SSD or external USB drive?

I could create a non-DFD player without problems, but that would mean ALL the samples (of the loaded instrument pack) are loaded into RAM, which would mean a constant RAM footprint of 50 to 75 MB -per AD4 instance- rather than just the few it takes now.

If any of you care, please try this and let me know what you can find out.

About the DFD player:
I just tried running from a flash drive (2.0 USB ports) and the performance was equal when i tried from the internal HD.

I noticed that the more notes per second i play the more CPU it uses.
Playing aprox. 1 note per second it consumed arround 2,5% CPU. While slamming the key with my two fingers it went to around 12%. Since i usually write fast funky grooves even with fewer (ie. 10) instances, the drum set still uses more than 100% cpu =P

Now about the non-DFD player.
Well, considering a medium value of 62,5 Mb loaded in the Ram per AD4 instance, 23 instances would use 1,4375 Gb of RAM. It's usable for someone who have a lot of RAM (more than 6Gb?), but it's definitively not optimum as it would load a lot of unused samples in the memory. There is no way of making it load only the selected sample in the memory? Even if it will take more time to cycle through the sounds, after you created your Drum set it would be way lighter on the CPU and the RAM

Thanks for your attention and generosity, Chokehold.

[ghettosynth]

Well, I live in Germany, and German law has the following to say about "copying the works of others":
http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/24.html

§ 24
Freie Benutzung
(1) Ein selbständiges Werk, das in freier Benutzung des Werkes eines anderen geschaffen worden ist, darf ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers des benutzten Werkes veröffentlicht und verwertet werden.
(2) Absatz 1 gilt nicht für die Benutzung eines Werkes der Musik, durch welche eine Melodie erkennbar dem Werk entnommen und einem neuen Werk zugrunde gelegt wird.

Which quickly translated into English means:

§24
Free use
(1) An independent piece of work that has been created in the free use of another's work may be published and used without the consent of the author of the work used.
(2) Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the use of a work of music, where a recognizable melody is taken from that work and used as a base for a new work of music.

Nuff said.

I'm not copying source material, I'm not circumventing any (!) form of copy protection and I'm not distributing anyone's works of music recognizable by their melody.

If you start arguing about "one sound can be a melody", I'll gladly invest the time to dig up that legal blurb where it is stated how many notes are legally required to form a melody. But you all know how Google works.

I'm not a lawyer, or a legal scholar, and, I recognize that German law is not U.S. law, however, AFAIK, free use = fair use, and that's what (1) is referring to and it is very unlikely that you could make a "free use" argument for "sampling" recordings whole cloth.

Tracy Riley, however, is a legal scholar and has drafted a fascinating paper on the current state of affairs in both the United States and Germany.

http://www.law.depaul.edu/centers_insti ... _Paper.pdf

It's long, but damn is it a good read and provides a far better perspective on the issue than is typically present in arguments here on KVR.

I'll get to the punchline for you though, basically, any "di minimis" claim is out in Germany just as it is in the U.S.

The crux of both the Bridgeport Music and Kraftwerk courts is a two-fold
message to samplers: de minimis is out, but fair use and free use are in. In other words, when samplers take any amount from somebody else's sound recording absent prior license, they will not be able to wage an argument that such use is not copyright infringement (in the United States) or neighboring right's infringement (in Germany), because both courts essentially agree that any taking of a sound recording is a per se taking. On the other hand, defendants will nonetheless be entitled to a legal assessment of the defenses of fair use or free use as applied to their conduct

In short, the reasoning that I applied earlier in the thread, applies to you in Germany as well. So, you must get permission for what you're doing. The D4 contains numerous "recordings" that are not yours. It doesn't matter that you record them using analog means, the courts still view that as a "copy" of the recording.

The reason that I'm discussing this is not because I care about your sampling, per se, I don't, but I care about this legal issue. In fact, I don't believe that the courts intend for this argument to be applied to instruments that are, by definition, intended to be used to create recordings of themselves expressly for commercial purposes. Until someone makes that legal argument, however, the view here is that it is not allowed by either U.S. or German law.

YMMV

[tomtoo]

.... however, the view here is that it is not allowed by either U.S. or German law.

YMMV

Iam also not a lawyer and imho its very hard on the edge. But nobody has to donate or ?

What would makes me think, if i would donate, would i maybe parcipate in something illegal ?

Law's not easy !

[ghettosynth]

.... however, the view here is that it is not allowed by either U.S. or German law.

YMMV

Iam also not a lawyer and imho its very hard on the edge. But nobody has to donate or ?

What would makes me think, if i would donate, would i maybe parcipate in something illegal ?

Law's not easy !

Whether money changes hands or not isn't relevant here.