Roland D-50 Waverom. Anyone care to donate wav samples?

[kavia]

Oh, thanks for the hint.

Did a forum search on "sound sample copyright", didn't find too much at first sight...

Anyway, i understand the argument of the sound recording copyright.

But it's just a too broad/weak argument imho.

Who's owning the copyright on the sinus waveform, and the saw, the triangle, all pulse/blocks with pulsewidth 1 to 50% etc..?

And where in copyright law is the border between these 'mathematical' waveforms and the 'propriatary' waveforms.

Also, pure theoretically, if i would call copyright on the value 1.0, then i would have copyright on all digital sounds, because each sample value is just a multiplication (read: gain aka volume) of the copyrighted value 1.0.

I know this is an extreme reasoning, but i hope you see the point.

There definitely IS room for discussion.

And in fact this doesn't only affect digital audio, but all digital content.

I assume it's not yet perfectly covered by law, and so it's probably the strongest army of lawyers who will win the copyright war.

[kevvvvv]

kavia ... you may be right, you may be wrong.

But what you're saying about could easily be read as encouraging people to go pick a fight on copyright law with a "big kid" ie Roland.

Suggesting "there definitely IS room for discussion" is imho naive advice, unless you're big kid too.

Xenos is playing it smart by being cautious and writing to them, rather than issuing some copyright law challenge on the basis of yadadayadayada.

[kavia]

It was not my intention to give advice, i was just thinking loud about some principles.

I agree it's best to be careful with it.

[1-2-Many]

After careful consideration, I have come up with an even BETTER idea, but for another project at a later time . Sometime within the next couple of months, I will be in contact with Roland's legal department to see if I can obtain permission to carry out some ideas I have and to know EXACTLY what I can and cannot do, straight from the horse's mouth.

You'll likely get a response intended to intimidate, threaten, and stifle anything you put forth (come on man, they're lawyers!). Not trying to discourage your desire to contact them, it might be an educational experience. Either way, if you stick to my earlier advice in regard to avoiding any Roland trademarks and copyrighted material (internal wav data/recordings) I think you should be in the clear.

I have noticed that some folks have gotten into trouble even just emulating their stuff via pure synthesis without contacting them first (303, 808, 909 emulations, Junox2 (I think), etc). Their lawyers don't mess around. I might not like the way things are, but I certainly have a healthy degree of respect for those who have the power to make life uncomfortable for those of us who dare misbehave .

The JunoX2 thing was entirely due to the use of the word 'Juno' in the product name, same thing with other emulations who infringe on trademark i.e. the use of the name TR808/TR909, or coping the look of the synth with the GUI - ala D16 group. Basically using the Roland brand/look to sell your stuff. Avoid these things and you're fine.

[storyboard]

Thats the manufacturer have rights of names like JD 880 or JP 8000 is clear. Thats the manufacturer rights on the visual look of a synth is clear, too.

But on the Waveworms? Maybye, but I cant believe it. With the same logic can the Manufacturers grab all rights of Pachtes that user ever made with a synth. These basis of all the patches are the same waveforms, with rights from the Manufacturer.

Too make the example over the top. When, for Example, Eric Persing make a Atmosphere with an Acess Virus and a Waldorf Wave, he make never ever make money with this Atmo, because he have no rights on the Waveforms thats the basic of the sample.

I'm very confussed now.

[whyterabbyt]

But on the Waveworms?

No, on recordings, stored in whatever form. The creator of a stored recording owns the copyright of that recording, and can dictate the terms of use of that recording, and other recordings derived from it.

Maybye, but I cant believe it.

Tough. Its still the basis of copyright law.

With the same logic can the Manufacturers grab all rights of Pachtes that user ever made with a synth.

Well, they could try. But then they'd lose any such lawsuit on the grounds of reasonable expectations of use, in that the intended purpose of a synth is re-recording of new musical compositions.

However, the intended purpose of a synth is not the copying of its waveforms for use in another synth.

These basis of all the patches are the same waveforms, with rights from the Manufacturer.

The situation only applies if the waveforms are recorded, or stored. If they're generated, then no. And

Too make the example over the top.
When, for Example, Eric Persing make a Atmosphere with an Acess Virus and a Waldorf Wave, he make never ever make money with this Atmo, because he have no rights on the Waveforms thats the basic of the sample.

You're missing out too many possible situations. He could have permission to use the Wave waveforms, for example.

And the Virus generates its sounds, so use of that wouldn't fall under copyright at all, unless he's using presets made by someone else.

I'm very confussed now.

Its very easy. Without permission you don't have the right to redistribute something derived from someone else's copyrighted material. By default you do have the right to record a piece of music with a synth with stored sounds because that is the purpose of the synth. The end.

[storyboard]

Ah OK. I unterstand. But two little thinks

First, When I wont make a commercinal sample cd with patches that create by myself, I must have the permission from the manufracturer?

Second, But how is the situation when I use a softsynth where I can draw own waveforms and make samples of this for use in Samplers? For Example Absynth, Zebra or Zebralette?

I mean the pure waveforms!!! No Processing with Filters, LFOs BuildIn FX or other modules of the synth.

The Main Principle is the same. I use a product of an other for build an own.

Are the rights by me or by the manufraturer?

[whyterabbyt]

First, When I wont make a commercinal sample cd with patches that create by myself, I must have the permission from the manufracturer?

If the synth you used is based around recorded/stored sounds, then yes, technically you do.

Second, But how is the situation when I use a softsynth where I can draw own waveforms and make samples of this for use in Samplers? For Example Absynth, Zebra or Zebralette?

if you draw the waveform, then the copyright is yours.

The Main Principle is the same. I use a product of an other for build an own.

No, the actual main principle isnt the same. in the first case, if the synth you use relies on waveforms created by someone else then that person holds copyright, and can dictate how material derived from those waveforms may be redistributed. in the second case, if you have created your own waveforms 'from scratch', you can do with them as you like.

[beej]

First, When I wont make a commercinal sample cd with patches that create by myself, I must have the permission from the manufracturer?

If those patches contain recordings under copyright, such as samples, then you can't produce a derivative work.

If they don't, such as an analog synthesiser or VA, where there are no sound recordings used in the basis of those sounds, then you can.

Second, But how is the situation when I use a softsynth where I can draw own waveforms and make samples of this for use in Samplers? For Example Absynth, Zebra or Zebralette?

You don't seem to be getting it.

Synthesisers/sounds that USE NO COPYRIGHT RECORDINGS OR SAMPLES *can* generally be sampled without problems.

Synthesisers/sounds that DO USE COPYRIGHT RECORDINGS OR SAMPLES *cannot* generally be sampled without problems.

Drawing a waveform is not using a sound recording.

[storyboard]

Ahhh, now unterstand full.

I was a little confused, while in princible the complete synth with every components (not only the waveforms) are under the rights of the manufacturer.

I was wondering that every Sounddesigner they produce commercinal sample cds or presets libarys, must have the permission of the manufacturer.

[BFunKu]

Well folks, get'em or not... use them or not....
I found them on the net for a long time ago, maybe through this forum.
Listen to them and find out how much you need the D50 to do them right

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/0ac2577269_25.94MB

Thanks Much Olepro! You Rock!

[kavia]

if you draw the waveform, then the copyright is yours.

No, too late, because i own the copyrights on ALL waveforms which were not yet copyrighted before yesterday.

Because i created all possible waveforms meanwhile

Luckily i'm no serious about this. Although it's technically perfectly possible, and so i could do it.

Just want to point out the legal situation is absurd, imho.

I really think this is very discussable.

But the problem is it will have to be discussed with an army of lawyers and that's dangerous, especially if you're only a small company or individual.

So lets be careful.

[whyterabbyt]

No, too late, because i own the copyrights on ALL waveforms which were not yet copyrighted before yesterday.

No, you dont.

Because i created all possible waveforms meanwhile

Your recordings of your waveforms are copyrighted. So what? Nobody is using your copyrighted material unless they use those recordings.

Any recordings I made of from-scratch waveforms with exactly the same spectral makeup as yours would also be copyrighted. But not by you. They'd be mine.

Luckily i'm no serious about this. Although it's technically perfectly possible, and so i could do it.

Its technically possible, and misses the point compleletely.

Just want to point out the legal situation is absurd, imho.

why? because you misunderstood it? its not about the waveform, its about the recording of the waveform. copyright is held on the recording; if I synthesise my own version of your waveform from scratch it is not derived from your recording and is not affected by the copyright on your recording. get it?

Its not 'very discussable', its very simple. The law is there to read, and its very easy to understand. If only people would actuallly do so, instead of making stuff up as they go along, in order to suit what they want the situation to be.

[olepro]

Well folks, get'em or not... use them or not....
I found them on the net for a long time ago, maybe through this forum.
Listen to them and find out how much you need the D50 to do them right

http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/0ac2577269_25.94MB

Thanks Much Olepro! You Rock!

Thank you so much BFunKu.
I allready felt that my efforts finding these samples and uploading them was drowning in copyright laws instead of thank you's

Inspired from this D50 discussion i made a nice patch in Vaz modular with a marimba sample from the D50 waverom where it modulates two FM oscillators.
And you know what, nobody would ever tell that there is a D50 wave in this patch.

[aciddose]

although this guy is an idiot, the situation is a little bit more complicated than you let on in this statement:

"if I synthesise my own version of your waveform from scratch it is not derived from your recording and is not affected by the copyright on your recording. get it?"

you can't "synthesize from scratch", period. the way copyright is in fact defined is that for a work to qualify for copyright protection it must have some "creative" element, this being judged subjectively as it's lacking a rigorous definition itself.

in order for a work to be considered "derived", it must be made up of a substantial component of the "creative" element from the original work, or otherwise a "recognizable", "creative" element from the original work.

due to the way copyright is defined, copyrights as applied to very short and indistinct clips of solo instruments lacking any creative content is not really quite so simple. similar situations exist with photographs of objects where the aspect of the photograph itself is indistinct, regardless of the object in the photograph.

so, back to my original point - without the samples falling under the definition of "creative" content we're stuck on that side. it's also very difficult to define where you've "synthesized from scratch". there are a broad range of synthesis techniques available where you might go from the most simple approximation to one which is indistinguishable to a human, to an exact duplication.

now for the important bit: the only cases i'm aware of having ever taken place always depended upon the "creative" aspect of works when considering whether they qualify for copyright.