legality of sampling sample based hardware?
-
- KVRian
- 717 posts since 30 Apr, 2004 from Jerusalem, Israel
Is it legal? I tryed to find something on it, but found nothing about hardware. (it's Yamaha RM1x in my case).
-
- KVRer
- 5 posts since 3 Dec, 2004 from New York, NY
Don 't know about your unit specifically, but hardware samples are almost always legally sampled, but most preset "auditions" on hardware is not.
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
Lol, not this old gem again 
This has been debated here for a very long time now and we still dont have a 100% conclusive answer.
Let me give you the info i have:
- It is fine to sample your hardware to use in your compositions.
- It is illegal to sample raw audio files to use in derivative products (be it another synthesiser or sample product).
This much is crystal clear. However, the line seems to blur when it comes to sampling original sounds produced using pcm based synths. For example, if i made a new sound on my Triton, then sent it out through a bunch of fx and general mashed it up, would the resulting audio recording belong to me? Well, some say yes some say no.
For example, Eric Persing from Spectrasonics told us that from his experience (as a Roland developer) that this is still illegal (due to phonographic copyright). However, the amount of sample CD's that contain sounds made with pcm synths is vast. To make matters more confusing, representatives from both Roland and Korg told me that it was fine to do this. One was a general tech support (so this info cant be considered 100% accurate). But the other guy claimed that his job was in licensing and copyright etc, and he said it was cool to!
So in an attempt to clarify:
It is not legal to sample and redistribute ANYTHING based on exsisting audio recordings. This means that any sound coming from a pcm synth is legally off limits.
BUT, as with 99.9% of things within the soundware industry, a degree of sampling is accepted. For example, you wont find a loops CD that doesnt contain at least a small percentage of illegal material. Most are made entirely out of it! It seems that as long as no one really takes the piss, that will generally be ok.
Sorry for the confusing answer. The best advice i can give you is to sample whatever you like, but be discrete. If a sample is obvious then you may get in, so it pays to exercise the grey matter!
This has been debated here for a very long time now and we still dont have a 100% conclusive answer.
Let me give you the info i have:
- It is fine to sample your hardware to use in your compositions.
- It is illegal to sample raw audio files to use in derivative products (be it another synthesiser or sample product).
This much is crystal clear. However, the line seems to blur when it comes to sampling original sounds produced using pcm based synths. For example, if i made a new sound on my Triton, then sent it out through a bunch of fx and general mashed it up, would the resulting audio recording belong to me? Well, some say yes some say no.
For example, Eric Persing from Spectrasonics told us that from his experience (as a Roland developer) that this is still illegal (due to phonographic copyright). However, the amount of sample CD's that contain sounds made with pcm synths is vast. To make matters more confusing, representatives from both Roland and Korg told me that it was fine to do this. One was a general tech support (so this info cant be considered 100% accurate). But the other guy claimed that his job was in licensing and copyright etc, and he said it was cool to!
So in an attempt to clarify:
It is not legal to sample and redistribute ANYTHING based on exsisting audio recordings. This means that any sound coming from a pcm synth is legally off limits.
BUT, as with 99.9% of things within the soundware industry, a degree of sampling is accepted. For example, you wont find a loops CD that doesnt contain at least a small percentage of illegal material. Most are made entirely out of it! It seems that as long as no one really takes the piss, that will generally be ok.
Sorry for the confusing answer. The best advice i can give you is to sample whatever you like, but be discrete. If a sample is obvious then you may get in, so it pays to exercise the grey matter!
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 717 posts since 30 Apr, 2004 from Jerusalem, Israel
This was almost what i was thinking except of the Triton thing, there are so many known synths samples on the net that legality issue can't be that easy to solve.
So i guess samples from sample based instruments should stay in the instrument!
So i guess samples from sample based instruments should stay in the instrument!
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
On paper yes. But like i said, dont be supprised to hear samples from these instruments on commerical sample CD's. There are people out there making a lot of money by sampling this type of semi-legal content (while we sit hear arguing over the legality!).
Oh well
Oh well
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 717 posts since 30 Apr, 2004 from Jerusalem, Israel
tee boy wrote:On paper yes. But like i said, dont be supprised to hear samples from these instruments on commerical sample CD's. There are people out there making a lot of money by sampling this type of semi-legal content (while we sit hear arguing over the legality!).
Oh well
Yeah, it's a bummer, i actualy thouth to let people download them (for free) but the thouths of legality came across my mind - that is why i'm asking.
Thank you Tee boy.
-
- KVRist
- 467 posts since 24 Nov, 2000 from Bolton, Lancashire, UK
I've been in touch with Yamaha UK recently regarding a similar issue. Using their gear for loops, they said was fine. One shots are a no-no, though.
-
- KVRist
- 467 posts since 24 Nov, 2000 from Bolton, Lancashire, UK
One thing my contact at Yamaha UK revealed was that some of these commercial sample CD producers provided content for Yamaha gear and are operating within agreements with them.tee boy wrote:..snip.. dont be supprised to hear samples from these instruments on commerical sample CD's..snip..
-
- KVRian
- 500 posts since 13 Oct, 2004 from Durham, NC USA
Good summary, Tee Boy. But I'll quibble on one point:
However, if the original sound is no longer recognizable, it might be hard to prove that it's a violation. Furthermore, many synth manufacturers don't want to be bothered trying to police this kind of thing. So, as a practical matter, you're likely to get away with it. Also, as a practical matter, you're not really competing with the original manufacturer if the sound is stretched pretty far beyond the original.
What makes it more confusing is that the strict legal interpretation I gave above also doesn't allow you to use any sample-based instrument in any recording without permission. Of course, this would be death to sample-based synth manufacturers, and of course they want you to use their instruments in recordings. So, they let you. And that's why loops are cool, but one-shots might not be. And the policy on what's cool can vary quite a bit from one manufacturer to another.
It is ironic that a company like Yamaha can't procect the sound of their acoustic pianos, but can protect the sound of their digital ones (which are presumably based on samples of their acoustic ones). This wasn't specifically intended by the laws, it's just how things worked out. The laws were written for things like songs, backing tracks, spoken word recordings, etc. Samples were kind of a surprise. Life goes on.
This is called a derivitive work. You legally can't distribute it without permission of the original copyright holder.- It is illegal to sample raw audio files to use in derivative products (be it another synthesiser or sample product).
This much is crystal clear. However, the line seems to blur when it comes to sampling original sounds produced using pcm based synths. For example, if i made a new sound on my Triton, then sent it out through a bunch of fx and general mashed it up, would the resulting audio recording belong to me? Well, some say yes some say no.
However, if the original sound is no longer recognizable, it might be hard to prove that it's a violation. Furthermore, many synth manufacturers don't want to be bothered trying to police this kind of thing. So, as a practical matter, you're likely to get away with it. Also, as a practical matter, you're not really competing with the original manufacturer if the sound is stretched pretty far beyond the original.
What makes it more confusing is that the strict legal interpretation I gave above also doesn't allow you to use any sample-based instrument in any recording without permission. Of course, this would be death to sample-based synth manufacturers, and of course they want you to use their instruments in recordings. So, they let you. And that's why loops are cool, but one-shots might not be. And the policy on what's cool can vary quite a bit from one manufacturer to another.
It is ironic that a company like Yamaha can't procect the sound of their acoustic pianos, but can protect the sound of their digital ones (which are presumably based on samples of their acoustic ones). This wasn't specifically intended by the laws, it's just how things worked out. The laws were written for things like songs, backing tracks, spoken word recordings, etc. Samples were kind of a surprise. Life goes on.
-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
From my experience, sampling *anything* is fine as long as it couldn't be recognized as some original content (such as the raw PCM data of a sample based synth). This might inlcude redistribution - you just don't have to call your patches "BigPad_made_from_Triton" or whatever.
Admittedly, there's a rather huge grey zone to all this. Legal bottomline seems to be that you can just sample anything non-sample-based, then use and redistribute it freely, while you just can't use anything based on samples for such purposes.
But then, who would be able to detect that "BigPad_C1.wav" was an extract of whatever synth, especially if you mangled that sound beyond recognition?
My personal (and moral) resume would be that in case you were sampling and redistributing plain presets of any synth (including both hard- and software, including both sample- and non-sample-based synths) which were easy to detect as well, you'd just be plain dumb anyways. In case you spent lots of time tweaking the preset in question - hell, why not? Nobody will ever complain about it either... unless, as said, you just label your samples/presets after a given synth.
In any case you'll be running into problems as soon as you were sampling and redistributing factory (or commercial) presets and raw sample content. Pretty much understandable.
Admittedly, there's a rather huge grey zone to all this. Legal bottomline seems to be that you can just sample anything non-sample-based, then use and redistribute it freely, while you just can't use anything based on samples for such purposes.
But then, who would be able to detect that "BigPad_C1.wav" was an extract of whatever synth, especially if you mangled that sound beyond recognition?
My personal (and moral) resume would be that in case you were sampling and redistributing plain presets of any synth (including both hard- and software, including both sample- and non-sample-based synths) which were easy to detect as well, you'd just be plain dumb anyways. In case you spent lots of time tweaking the preset in question - hell, why not? Nobody will ever complain about it either... unless, as said, you just label your samples/presets after a given synth.
In any case you'll be running into problems as soon as you were sampling and redistributing factory (or commercial) presets and raw sample content. Pretty much understandable.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRian
- 769 posts since 2 Apr, 2005
Just read the manuals. Since sampling became a legal issue somewhere in the 1990's, many manuals for hardware devices have an EULA much like software. Older hardware didn't have this and was fair game. Those older sounds were generally low quality and hardly worth worrying about now. Anything recent is likely to have an EULA if you look for it.
-
- KVRer
- 24 posts since 17 Apr, 2005
How come sampling a single sound from a sample-based synth could be illegal, when you can find impulses reproducing the exact behaviour of a Lexicon reverb? Are impulses illegal too?
-
- KVRAF
- 2336 posts since 13 Oct, 2002 from Terra Firma
Probably!Pollux wrote:How come sampling a single sound from a sample-based synth could be illegal, when you can find impulses reproducing the exact behaviour of a Lexicon reverb? Are impulses illegal too?
In this litigious age taking a shit while leaving your synth switched on is probably illegal too. It's bound to be a condition of the EULA.
-
- KVRAF
- 13444 posts since 14 Nov, 2000 from Hannover / Germany
Guess Lexicon can't do anything about it for their older units anymore. Just until 2-3 years ago impulses weren't anything common at all.
There are 3 kinds of people:
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
Those who can do maths and those who can't.
-
- KVRian
- 500 posts since 13 Oct, 2004 from Durham, NC USA
Pollux, you're applying logic to law. Bad boy! Sit in the corner for 20 minutes.
The law protects (among other things) "sound recordings". Reverbs aren't recordings, they're sound processors. And it turns out there a technology that makes it easy to approximate the effect of many kinds of sound processors -- any that fall into the category of inifinite impulse response (IIR) filters.
Sample-based instruments use sound recordings, which are covered by copyright law.
From the point of view of what seems right and wrong the two cases look similar. But from a legal standpoint they don't have the key ingredient in common: a sound recording.
There may be ways for reverb manufacturers to protect their inventions, but it's not the sound recording copyright. This isn't a matter of whether it's fair or not, just whether there's law to protect them.
Laws like this aren't easy to get right. Many folks think some copyright laws go overboard (and I think they have some very good arguments). In any case, the protection of sampled instruments from being sampled is pure luck on the part of the sampled instrument manufacturers. They're covered, but not because anyone intended them to be. It's only because they use something that's protected for other reasons.
The law protects (among other things) "sound recordings". Reverbs aren't recordings, they're sound processors. And it turns out there a technology that makes it easy to approximate the effect of many kinds of sound processors -- any that fall into the category of inifinite impulse response (IIR) filters.
Sample-based instruments use sound recordings, which are covered by copyright law.
From the point of view of what seems right and wrong the two cases look similar. But from a legal standpoint they don't have the key ingredient in common: a sound recording.
There may be ways for reverb manufacturers to protect their inventions, but it's not the sound recording copyright. This isn't a matter of whether it's fair or not, just whether there's law to protect them.
Laws like this aren't easy to get right. Many folks think some copyright laws go overboard (and I think they have some very good arguments). In any case, the protection of sampled instruments from being sampled is pure luck on the part of the sampled instrument manufacturers. They're covered, but not because anyone intended them to be. It's only because they use something that's protected for other reasons.