Your feelings on "impulse ethics"

[Ocean Zen]

if it sounds good... use it!

[John Vulich]

Fags!

I got your fuckin' impulse files... right here mother f**kers!

[Forever Sun]

Is there a similarity between taking impulse samples of hardware FX and providing samples of hardware synths ? Have any of the synth manufacturers ever complained ? Asking out of curiosity.

[foosnark]

Right up there with taking pictures of famous landmarks. If the impulse stole the soul out of the machine and all its tweakability that would be another matter.

Although I take issue with your analogy, since landmarks aren't mass produced products that are intended for sale.

Oddly enough, it is now illegal to take unauthorized photographs of the Eiffel Tower because France (according to its own law) holds a copyright on the pattern of lights that illuminate it.

[snooky]

jeez, what's with the ethics of this place...just steal as much as you can get away with and thank god you don't have to pay for breathing fresh air, or get running water or food!!!!

[ShawnG]

It's no worse than sampling an instrument for a sampler. does fender get upset when someone samples a strat for a soundfont? they know that a simple sample of one sound made by their instrument is nowhere near as flexible as owning the real thing. I suppose that these companies could sue to protect the use of their name when promoting the impulses. ironically the person who made the impulse would have the intellectual property rights on it, not the company that made the hardware.

[Amberience]

So let me get this straight snook... you would rather pay for something very expensive than be creative with a modular host and experiment with some impulse files?

Heh... I bet you make some of the lamest most unoriginal music there is.

[ShawnG]

Thinking about it some more, I don't think that hardware manufacturers (or software synth programmers) have any rights to sounds created by thier products, otherwise most of us would owe some royalties to lots of people.

[Forever Sun]

That's what I asked for earlier. What does the law say about sampling hardware synths ( your own patches and not presets) and offering samples for sale ?

[dburgan]

I dunno about the ethics but to my knowledge the law has never been tested. I have no idea which way the law would come down, but I would probably guess it will come down on the side of the manufacturers. I can hear the argument they'll make: "the sole purpose of these IRs is to process audio identically to our products but without requiring the user to purchase our products". I can see a judge buying that argument.

The ethics are, in my view, grey. If a manufacturer explicitly endorses IRs then there's obviously no issue. If a manufactuer explicity says the IRs are a violation of its rights, then the issue becomes muddled, because in one sense they are a violation of the rights of the people who designed the fx, whereas on the other hand all an IR is a recording of a sound processed through the fx, right?

Convolution is such a messy business ...

[cptgone]

No, not at all, I don't get the hardware, and the manufacturer loses nothing (I don't want hardware anyway, so I won't buy it!)

[snooky]

So let me get this straight snook... you would rather pay for something very expensive than be creative with a modular host and experiment with some impulse files?

Heh... I bet you make some of the lamest most unoriginal music there is.

nope, I meant what I said..steal as much as you can get away with, because we're always getting ripped of anyways...not talking about warez, but stuff you legally can use..impulses, taxreturns, free meals etc...it's not technically stealing I know, but hey!

[Amberience]

Oh ok, I misread.

[Frippertronix]

I dunno about the ethics but to my knowledge the law has never been tested. I have no idea which way the law would come down, but I would probably guess it will come down on the side of the manufacturers. I can hear the argument they'll make: "the sole purpose of these IRs is to process audio identically to our products but without requiring the user to purchase our products". I can see a judge buying that argument.

The ethics are, in my view, grey. If a manufacturer explicitly endorses IRs then there's obviously no issue. If a manufactuer explicity says the IRs are a violation of its rights, then the issue becomes muddled, because in one sense they are a violation of the rights of the people who designed the fx, whereas on the other hand all an IR is a recording of a sound processed through the fx, right?

Convolution is such a messy business ...

I think we're on the tip of the iceberg to some extent here, since convolution is relatively new in terms of mass use.

You can do it with so many kinds of hardware, not just effects but all kinds of recording gear. Some of it is old so it doesn't matter really, legally (though companies like UAD may eventually start reacting to IR's of their old gear being out there). Generally, I think it's a good idea to get IR's of classic gear out there since the stuff is rare, expensive, and unreliable so why not get a reliable IR out for people to benefit from?

I think it's a much trickier issue when you start talking about the current crop of $1,500 reverbs, though.

That thing about the Eiffel tower is truly surreal. No cracks about the French, now...

[dburgan]

Actually this same question applies equally to software. If I capture an IR from the output of a friend's expensive Massenburg Labs EQ Protools plugin, then distribute that IR over the net, have I violated the rights of Massenburg Labs? It's not just outboard gear that has the same question mark.

It will be interesting to see the courts decide. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the needs of artists aren't likely to be a significant factor ...