A truly disingenuous argument relying on a vague supposition as a straight equivalence. You must ignore the point of the arpeggio as a melody or melodic figure to arrive at that. Cancelling your equivalance. It's the same silly argument as saying 'you didn't luthier your guitar', and let's just go for the farthest reach then, 'you didn't invent the guitar, so you can never be an original guitarist'. Believe it or not, some people do endeavor to roll their own rhythm and melody.

You ignore that point to turn it into the point you want. In support of what?

To me, it's not in quality very different, to rely on someone's machine for your melody - and the context, the question regards in order to turn a profit - vs relying on someone's melody qua making melody.
Last edited by jancivil on Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:21 pm; edited 2 times in total

as to you're arguing about legality, seriously?

I think it would be legal to use an arpeggiator vst and a separate synth to make loops for sale. With that same arpeggiator vst and synth, you could make an almost infinite combination of arpeggiated synth loops. If you're good at finding good combinations, then you'd have a worthwhile product.

As for using a synth preset that's already arpeggiated. That could be a problem. There is case law that you can't make sampled instruments from synth presets. A sampled instrument will play the same as the (untweaked) synth preset. So distributing a sampled instrument is essentially stealing the preset and selling it.

But arpeggiated presets are different. You can come up with wildly different sounding "loops" depending on the notes, chords, sequence, tempo, etc. you choose. So there is definitely creative effort on the part of whoever is playing the arpeggiated preset.

In truth I don't know if such a situation has ever been tested in a court of law. If you just held down a key or octave and recorded a loop of an arpeggiated preset, I think the preset owner would have a strong case against you. But for loops that use an arp preset as well as varying notes, sequences, etc., seems to me that you're making your own music with a synth preset, which is of course, perfectly legal.

I won't address any issues regarding creative merit. This is just my interpretation of current laws as I know them.
Last edited by chj on Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

Do you have a link for that case. I'm not familiar with it at all. I expect that there must be something more to it than that.

So, as I understood it, the OP is not talking about using anybody else's synth presets at all, rather, only the arpegio preset. So, if you have a very simple up/down 1 octave pattern as a preset, can you use that. Of course, it's very unlikely that anyone could claim copyright to such a pattern.

An interesting comparison is perhaps the MPC grooves that appear on virtually every platform, are those subject to copyright protection?

I don't have a link. But the basic argument is that many people buy synths to use the presets. They may not know the first thing about sound design. So they buy a synth with a good preset collection knowing it has sounds they will use. If someone were to make sampled instruments out of all the presets, it would be the same exact product to such a buyer.

Agreed. As I understand it, case law has found that pure synthesis patches are fair game, while ROMpler patches are not.

The argument is clear, the link is important. These things tend to have a false memory effect. I'm interested in reading the case.

Does anyone else know of this case?

Which of course would have little to nothing to do with the presets, per se, or even the equivalence of the experience and everything to do with the fact that audio sampling has a bright line rule.

I'm even more interested in any such references now.

While it may be immoral, I believe sampling a preset is not illegal.

I know that has nothing todo with the arp question.

dw

why not ?
sounds themselves cannot be copyrighted, not even rhythms or chord progressions.
melodies however, can.

Relying on a tool to create a piece of work makes the work a derivative of the tool? That's an entirely new definition of derivative I've never seen argued anywhere before.

Two main reasons; one is staying clear of any potential legal issues should the creator of the preset be litigous - its always better to be safe than sorry, IMO).

The second is basically that anyone could create an arp with that same factory or third part presety. So, assuming that someone is making samples for some reason with an intrinsic reward (recognition, cash, whatever...) how could they claim that their samples were being used in any given production rather than those original presets arpeggiated by someone else? The fundamental parts of their work are not unique to them.

Plus, at the end of the day, its a bit naff. If all you're bringing to the sample world is machine-generated arps of someone else's presets, you're sort of working at the lowest level of creativity. There's likely to be much more original competition out there, and as sampling factory presets, arp'd or not, is something anyone can do, its not creative 'enough'...

I do not sell samples of any kind, so my question is just from couriosity. Which of the following scenarios is it that you guys think is illegal and why?

1. Someone multisamples the factory bank of Sylenth 1 and sells the package.

2. Someone slightly tweak the factory banks of Sylenth 1 and sells the package.

3. Someone makes 2 bar loops by choosing random arp rhythms from Sylenth 1 and the factory presets and sells the package.

4. Someone use a sequenser to control Sylenth 1 , makes his own three note melodies/ arp rhythms using the factory presets and sells the package.


None, some or all?

Correction:



...he asks about both cases.



Well, there are two kinds basic of arpeggiators, really. One is based on automatically triggering the fingering of a user-played chord, possibly with transposition, the other is based on playing a sequence of notes relative to a root note, and I guess we have to make the assumption that this is what the OP is asking about.

The up/down 1 octave example is basically emulating the behaviour of the former type, so is arguably trivial, although a suitably tenacious lawyer might make an argument that it's not trivial based on note timing and any performance characteristsics (eg velocity). But if it were the riff to iron man, or satisfaction, then we'd be in a different territory, as you admit earlier.

Legally, in the UK, there's no 'minimum length' for any copyrighted work below which copyright doesnt apply, and use is protected for any fraction of a copyrighted work. Thus the OP could potentially be infringing of copyright in sampling the arps, and would (subject to the license of the product being used(*)) definitely be open to being sued for infringement, even if that were ultimately disproven. To be sure of not being infringing they should be constructed from scratch.

(*) This is the most important point. In copyright, permission trumps just about everything. If in doubt, seek explicit permission. Or license it.