RolandSessionSet for Wusikstation

[Kermit Jagger]

German court system, case brought by various manufacturers including Roland to stop Nice Bytes selling their sample CDs of instruments. I don't have a URL for you.

[hollowsun]

Fact, we're still waiting for the court of a major legal system to render a verdict on this matter of sampling instruments.

Roland sued Atmel Corp., Dream S.A. and Crystal Semiconductor Co., in 1996 for sampling their MT32....

And won! Big time!


Steve

[SampleScience]

Fact, we're still waiting for the court of a major legal system to render a verdict on this matter of sampling instruments.

Roland sued Atmel Corp., Dream S.A. and Crystal Semiconductor Co., in 1996 for sampling their MT32....

And won! Big time!


Steve

Why can you sample & sell rom base instruments when anybody else can't? Do you have a special autorhization from Korg?

(Edited: first version was a bit to harsh to my tastes, & I'm a nice guy!)

[jens]

Why can you, Steve from HollowSun, sample & sell rom base instruments when me or anybody else can't? Do you have a special autorhization from Korg? There is something I don't quite understand...

nah - it's just one out of eight - that doesn't count...

[Teksonik]

Fact, we're still waiting for the court of a major legal system to render a verdict on this matter of sampling instruments.

Roland sued Atmel Corp., Dream S.A. and Crystal Semiconductor Co., in 1996 for sampling their MT32....

And won! Big time!


Steve

From SlashDot:

"The MT-32 emulation project, which is an offshoot of the DosBox project recently received a cease and desist letter regarding the use of the PCM samples from the synthesizer. Normally this would be an open and shut case, but it just so happens that U.S. Copyright law (specifically 17 U.S.C. section 405) shows that Roland lost their copyright because nowhere did they explicity register it, and registering (or atleast copyright marking) was required before 1989. The MT-32, of course, was produced in 1987. You can find more details at the emulation forum on Vogons"

[hollowsun]

Why can you sample & sell rom base instruments when anybody else can't? Do you have a special autorhization from Korg?

Errmm - basically - yes! We have a tacit and mutual understanding for any number of reasons.

Not that I have to answer to your allegations/implications or go into any details.

Lets's just say that I have done some work for Korg and I am very friendly with with their exceptionally talented sound design team as well as the son of Mr Korg.

You were saying?


Steve

[hollowsun]

From SlashDot:

"The MT-32 emulation project, which is an offshoot of the DosBox project recently received a cease and desist letter regarding the use of the PCM samples from the synthesizer. Normally this would be an open and shut case, but it just so happens that U.S. Copyright law (specifically 17 U.S.C. section 405) shows that Roland lost their copyright because nowhere did they explicity register it, and registering (or atleast copyright marking) was required before 1989. The MT-32, of course, was produced in 1987. You can find more details at the emulation forum on Vogons"

Ermmmm... Roland won as I understand it ... to the tune of tens of $$thousands despite claims and counter-actions from the appellants.


Steve

[Caleb]

Just to follow-on from that Tek...

From SlashDot:

This is a follow up to the cease and desist letter the MT-32 project received (Original Story). Roland, unable to find documentation establishing a copyright on the MT-32's ROM, has yielded to the project and allowed distribution of the emulator to continue.

But I'm not actually able to verify it against another source as yet.

Regards
Caleb

[Teksonik]

From SlashDot:

"The MT-32 emulation project, which is an offshoot of the DosBox project recently received a cease and desist letter regarding the use of the PCM samples from the synthesizer. Normally this would be an open and shut case, but it just so happens that U.S. Copyright law (specifically 17 U.S.C. section 405) shows that Roland lost their copyright because nowhere did they explicity register it, and registering (or atleast copyright marking) was required before 1989. The MT-32, of course, was produced in 1987. You can find more details at the emulation forum on Vogons"

Ermmmm... Roland won as I understand it ... to the tune of tens of $$thousands despite claims and counter-actions from the appellants.


Steve

Documentation?

[Teksonik]

Just to follow-on from that Tek...

From SlashDot:

This is a follow up to the cease and desist letter the MT-32 project received (Original Story). Roland, unable to find documentation establishing a copyright on the MT-32's ROM, has yielded to the project and allowed distribution of the emulator to continue.

But I'm not actually able to verify it against another source as yet.

Regards
Caleb

Cool! I like that, "allowed" distibution. I guess the larger question would be why anyone would WANT to sample an MT-32. I bought one when they were new and I could get some cool sounds out of it *for the time*. However any decent GM soundfont would probably be able to cover most of the 32's sounds.

[SampleScience]

Why can you sample & sell rom base instruments when anybody else can't? Do you have a special autorhization from Korg?

Errmm - basically - yes! We have a tacit and mutual understanding for any number of reasons.

Not that I have to answer to your allegations/implications or go into any details.

Lets's just say that I have done some work for Korg and I am very friendly with with their exceptionally talented sound design team as well as the son of Mr Korg.

You were saying?


Steve

The son of Mr Korg? I have nothing against you but it seems that there is rules for you & some other "key" people in this industry & other more limitating rules for others... in facts, I can hear many uncleared samples in commercials products by big names who don't get sued & I'd like to know why... it seems to be a very unfair business as I see it.

It doesn't seems very fair & ethical. Especialy when the Korg M1 is available as a virtual instrument now by Korg.

[SampleScience]

Is advertising sample cds with famous manifacturers models numbers is fair use?

Fair use of model names & brands?

Well... not that I have to state my business but there is the tiny detail, perhaps, of permission and allowance and the fact that the instruments involved are long discontinued and not considered 'unfair competition'

http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?A_PROD_NO=KLC1D

long discontinued?

[hollowsun]

The son of Mr Korg? I have nothing against you but it seems that there is rules for you & some other "key" people in this industry & other more limitating rules for others...

No - it's because you make your breaks ... you 'network': go to trade shows, make some calls, meet people, work with and for people, do some favours (some work out, most do not), make friends in the industry ... you persevere, build a CV and a reputation. You negotiate, you get permission, you bargain, you trade favours, you scratch their back if they'll scratch yours. You get setbacks, you fight back, you reach compromises ... you do business in other words!

Anyone can sample the crap out of anything and release it commercially .... WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT HOLDER. How you gain that permission, however, is almost as big a task as creating the 'product' ... if not a bigger task.

But all that is bollocks if you can't back it up with deliverable quality - you can't just horse-shit your way in coz you'll soon get found out ... and you'll be dumped and/or ignored. But conversely, just being good at what you do is not always enough - you have to get out there.

in facts, I can hear many uncleared samples in commercials products by big names who don't get sued & I'd like to know why...

How do you know they haven't been cleared? Litigation is a HUGE concern these days and no-one in their right mind would release anything without clearance and/or permission.

it seems to be a very unfair business as I see it.

Oh for goodness sake - LIFE is a very unfair business as I see it!

For every overpaid city worker wangling the stock exchange for a few hours a day on a salary of a £mill a year plus bonuses, there's a hundred nurses shovelling people's shit on long shift work hours for £14k. For every talentless tosser in the charts or on the radio or in the mags, there are ten, twenty supremely excellent songwriters and musos languishing in bedrooms. For every good looking Hollywood star with perfect teeth getting $15 million a picture, there are hundreds of talented actors (with wonky teeth) treading the boards in worthwhile theatre for a few hundred quid a week. For every shit hot session muso rocking with the stars, there's ten who are twice as good but who can't afford to move to the the city where the action is.

And for every legitimate soundware developer who has gained the proper permissions to use copyrighted sounds/material in their library, there's a hundred people thinking it's ok to upload anything and everything they want.

I don't post here about copyright infringement for my owen amusement - it's because I have been there ... I have gained permission but I have also made mistakes and chanced my arm only to receive the dreaded 'Cease & Desist' orders from high profle, corporate Rottweiller lawyers ... but I have negotiated and come to a settlement, often at my own cost (or loss).

It can be done. It's not about preferential treatment or one law for some people and some other law for others ... it's about working your nuts off gaining respect in the industry and making contacts with people who count in order to be in a bargaining position. Others here have done this too - we work within the boundaries legitimately through hard work, negotiation and mutual understanding ... and it is an affront on my/our reputation for you to imply that our business is anything less that reputable and above board!

You seem to have issues with me and/or what I do. I am sorry about that but you must believe that anything I do is kosher and/or agreed or allowed in one way or another.


Steve

[pw]

Anyone can sample the crap out of anything and release it commercially .... WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT HOLDER. How you gain that permission, however, is almost as big a task as creating the 'product' ... if not a bigger task.

Well, legally, and according to my understanding of what spectrum (from spectrasonics) says in the other thread about the legality of sampling, this statement is only relevant for rom based, or sample based instruments, no?

The sampling of instruments that use true synthesis doesn't break any law (although using trademarks from the original to promote your sample product does potentially break the law).

What I am interested in is where Mellotrons, Chamberlains, and Optigans sit in this picture. Are they 'rom' instruments, or are they under a different interpretation of the law due to other issues (mechanical build, etc)?

[pwedza]

Fact, we're still waiting for the court of a major legal system to render a verdict on this matter of sampling instruments.

Roland sued Atmel Corp., Dream S.A. and Crystal Semiconductor Co., in 1996 for sampling their MT32....

And won! Big time!


Steve

No.