Need some advice on hardware sampling license issues

[BertKoor]

[it is pretty much implicit in the sale of a musical instrument that you are licensed/allowed to record its sounds as part of a musical performance.

That's why I made that composition in my first reply Do you think it's illegal to distribute that?

When pieces of that "composition" are cut out and used in new compositions, there is no way to tell weather the original was used. Hey, if I had not permitted redistribution I could even sue anybody that uses D20 percussion sounds!

I think I chose the right carreer by not becoming a lawyer

[Ben [Camel Audio]]

Hi,

I'm not a lawyer, but the message I've heard from people in the know is exactly what whyterabbyt said:

When I say 'recording' below, I actually mean 'recording and redistributing in a form that is not part of a musical composition'. Its just shorter this way)

Recording 'old style' analog hardware without presets - fine

Recording digital hardware based on samples (including PCM waves, technically) - not fine unless permissson has been granted.

Recording digital hardware not based on samples, or analog hardware with some kind of preset - grey area, but generally guaranteed fine as long as its not someone else's presets being used. May also be fine to record the presets as long as permission of the preset author is given.

(And I dont care about all the people who'll bitch about 'we should be allowed to do this, that, the other, et.c.; this is how the law generally defines it, and its pretty much been confirmed by 'big name' sample/preset designer folk like Spectrum and Squids et.c. here)

Hmmm, very interesting. I'm going to have to come up with a system for this, to rewrite the rules. I want to stay legal, as I've said.

The problem comes when you really don't know how the samples were made. Which is a problem I have. Some of the samples uploaded are not detailed in the description to say how they were recorded.

You could post rules similar to what whyterabbyt said above clearly on your site, and ask that people adhere to this when putting new content up. You would also need to contact those who have already posted to confirm whether it adheres to the rules or not. If there was content which violated the rules and a copyright holder contacted you, you could take the stuff down immediately - or ask the seeders to do so. I doubt that they would be likely to pursue things any further if you were seen to be doing your best to avoid copyright infringement.

I'd better reiterate that I'm not a lawyer, so follow this advice at your own risk

Ben

[whyterabbyt]

That's why I made that composition in my first reply

Then why claim there's a contradiction in the law.

Do you think it's illegal to distribute that?

I think that if you used that 'composition' as the basis of a legal defence for redistributing samples, you'd be screwed.

When pieces of that "composition" are cut out and used in new compositions, there is no way to tell weather the original was used.

Irrelevant.

Hey, if I had not permitted redistribution I could even sue anybody that uses D20 percussion sounds!

Nonsense.

[jupiter8]

The only thing i think is missing in Whyterabbyts post is sampling PCM based synths. I believe he was refering to drummachines and such which isn't allowed.
But to sample a Roland D50 for example is.
If you've done the patches themselves.

I could be wrong of course as i'm no lawyer either but that is my understanding.

[whyterabbyt]

The only thing i think is missing in Whyterabbyts post is sampling PCM based synths. I believe he was refering to drummachines and such which isn't allowed.
But to sample a Roland D50 for example is.
If you've done the patches themselves.

I could be wrong of course as i'm no lawyer either but that is my understanding.

Actually, I was referring to synths with waveforms stored as PCM or whatever. And, as I say, technically, those waveforms are protected by copyright law. However I think you'd have far less to worry about with something using basic waveforms (eg triangle, square, saw et.c.) than something more complex (eg a multisampled piano).

[jupiter8]

The only thing i think is missing in Whyterabbyts post is sampling PCM based synths. I believe he was refering to drummachines and such which isn't allowed.
But to sample a Roland D50 for example is.
If you've done the patches themselves.

I could be wrong of course as i'm no lawyer either but that is my understanding.

Actually, I was referring to synths with waveforms stored as PCM or whatever. And, as I say, technically, those waveforms are protected by copyright law. However I think you'd have far less to worry about with something using basic waveforms (eg triangle, square, saw et.c.) than something more complex (eg a multisampled piano).

Ok,i see your point.But you stated that is was'nt allowed to sample PCM based synths at all IIRC. And as i understand it,it is. There are of course grey areas where you can prove me wrong.

But if i make my own "unique" patch on, say a D50, i can sample that and share it ? No ?
That was my understanding from WilliamKs letter from Rolands atterneys (how the hell do you spell that? ).

[stevieb19]

attorneys

[whyterabbyt]

Ok,i see your point.But you stated that is was'nt allowed to sample PCM based synths at all IIRC.

No, I didnt. I said it wasnt allowed without permisson

And as i understand it,it is.

Nope, I disagree.

There are of course grey areas where you can prove me wrong.

No, to be honest, I dont. I just needed to advise the OP on what the law actually covers.

But if i make my own "unique" patch on, say a D50, i can sample that and share it ? No ?

Generally, yes, since permission is usually implied for that situation as well. However you cant sample the raw waveforms of the D50 and distribute them.

That was my understanding from WilliamKs letter from Rolands atterneys (how the hell do you spell that? ).

The letter WilliamK received was about replicating the D50, including its onboard waveforms. That was its focus, not making samples based on D50 patches; as such its relevance is not that appropriate to the OP's question.

[Ben [Camel Audio]]

But if i make my own "unique" patch on, say a D50, i can sample that and share it ? No ?
That was my understanding from WilliamKs letter from Rolands atterneys (how the hell do you spell that? ).

Just because one company gave permission to sample their PCM waveforms (if that is what the letter said - I haven't read it), doesn't mean that applies to all other companies. I believe that technically its illegal to sample a preset which includes PCM data, without gaining permission. However, if the raw PCM data is just bog standard sine/saw/square/triangle/.. then I would doubt anyone would mind, providing you're sampling your own presets.

Ben

[spacefox]

The thing people usually to grasp here is the concept of "recording" which refers to any stored audio, at any length. Single cycle waveform included. In the eyes of the law, for all purposes of copyright protection, the single cycle triangle is no different than a 20 minutes prog rock opus. Sampling a PCM based synth is in no way different than burning a CD: it requires the owner permisson, or it is illegal.
Also: whether you would or would not get caught is irrelevant to the legality of the deed. Since koolkeys doing this to keep Sample Torrents clean (as opposed of trying to "get way with it") this is what matters.

Recordings are protected by law under much stricter rules than ideas. This is why any analogies refering to melodies, lyrics etc. are generally irrelevant.

[spacefox]

@koolkeys:

One possible solution is to prefer quality over quantity. An unpopular notion on websites, I know. But think about this: all files on the site are hand picked by a small group of editors. These will be people you know and trust that are commited to the site.

This will ensure that all files are legal, from known sources and of sufficient quality. True, Sample Torrents will not boast the "Web's largerst sample collection", but people will know that it is a source of quality legal content and an excellent starting point of any sample hunt. Hell, this might even be one and only stop.

This will also aid file distribution. The more focused the site, the faster file will be downloaded. Bit Torrent shines when everybody are loading the same files.

[xsub]

Yeah I agree... I also would like to add that:

From when I first started the first topic on this idea, I wanted the site to have very large files, and within those large files - many smaller files which contain the subject of source.. For example, drum machine samples which specifically outline what they are from, what kind of samples they are (electronic, industrial etc) much rather than having many torrents roughly 7mb which consist of some shady samples, unlabeled and low quality.

I think this is best for the both of worlds. The quality and bandwidth ideology in place to keep the site's torrents quick, and painless.

Of course, a good example would be the stark contrast, where everything is allowed, and hundreds of torrents fill the site… could you imagine how un-organized and scattered that would be?

Anyway, thanks guys for all this advice it's really a huge help to us.

[koolkeys]

Yes, thanks for all the advice. It something that I'll have to figure out, with the help of the rest of the staff.

I can understand not using the original waveforums. But say I take a Motif and record myself hitting every note of a piano patch, cut it up, map it out, and upload it. Is this considered original waveform? Or would there have to be some uniqueness to it?

I give this specific example because there are some samples on the site that SEEM to have done that, although I don't know exactly how they were made. I will have to go through and email everyone who has uploaded samples like this, and get their words.

I agree on the quality over quantity thing. I think we have some stellar stuff so far there. Myself, I've given the whole Mats Helgesson sample sets. But with explicit permission, of course.

So the discussion rolls on, and I'm learning alot. Thanks to all who have chimed in. We're going to have to just draw a line and stick to it. I have been way busy lately, but if I can find time, I will start working on a rewrite of the rules.

Thanks guys.

Brent

[Ildon]

But say I take a Motif and record myself hitting every note of a piano patch, cut it up, map it out, and upload it. Is this considered original waveform? Or would there have to be some uniqueness to it?

According to William, you can do that with Roland synths. Not sure about Yamaha, but that's exactly what grymmjack is planning on doing with his XP-60.

It isn't considered the original waveform if you're sampling a preset, from what I understand.

[spacefox]

To the best of my knowledge, every sample is considered a "recording" and therefore cannot be copied, modified or distributed without the consent of the owner.
I don't think the law regards samples, even very short ones, as any different than complete songs. These laws came into being before sampling was commonplace and remain outdated - but it is the law still.

Unless the samples are licensed to you, you cannot legally record, modify or distribute them. This would require the EULA to allow this, or that you get approval from the copyright holder.