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

[aciddose]

the problem with your theory becomes evident when you take the theory to it's extreme. it is possible to exactly reproduce the samples bit-for-bit using a synthesizer of sufficient complexity. by your theory, this would not be a derivative work.

i'm asserting that it would, in fact, be.

[beej]

No, it's not a derivative work, although if it was really bit-for-bit, the assumption would be that it was a copy, unless you could prove somehow you had in fact made it.

Assuming you had made it completely by yourself, and could prove in court that it wasn't a derivative work, then you wouldn't be infringing on copyright, even if the copy was virtually identical (as far as I know - I'm no legal expert here!)

As is often the case, it largely comes down more on what you can prove in court, or get beyond reasonable doubt, rather than what the "truth" may be...

[aciddose]

you seem not to understand the term "derivative".

if your reproduction were based at all upon the original work - it would be derivative to some degree.

if you produced a reproduction of a work of substantial complexity - it would automatically be considered derivative even if you had never been influenced directly by the original work, there is no requirement for evidence to be provided to show you were influenced. the only evidence required is showing that a substantial substance of the original work exists within the derived work. the 'verb' element of "derived" need not be proven. the issue is not that "derivation" is prohibited, it is that a monopoly on the rights to a work have been granted and those rights may not be undermined by derivative works.

[whyterabbyt]

the problem with your theory becomes evident when you take the theory to it's extreme. it is possible to exactly reproduce the samples bit-for-bit using a synthesizer of sufficient complexity. by your theory, this would not be a derivative work.

i'm asserting that it would, in fact, be.

You can assert all you want. Its about deriving from the recording itself, not a completely independent reverse engineering of the recording.

[storyboard]

My tow cents worth as noob in Law.

I give an company a lot of money for the synth. For the money gives the company the right to make what I want with the gear to me. As long as not rebuild the synth or components and sell as my own. Inclusive of sampled waveforms!!!

With every Output from the synth that I create by myself, I can do what I want. Samples for Sampling Cds, Patches for Libarys, Music and so one. As long as my own work, I have buy with my money the rights from the manufacturer.
The Synth is only a tool to do this, nothing more.

With the same logic, every time you knock a nail in a wand, you need the permission from the manufacturer of the hammer.

[whyterabbyt]

My tow cents worth as noob in Law.

I give an company a lot of money for the synth. For the money gives the company the right to make what I want with the gear to me. As long as not rebuild the synth or components and sell as my own. Inclusive of sampled waveforms!!!

With every Output from the synth that I create by myself, I can do what I want. Samples for Sampling Cds, Patches for Libarys, Music and so one. As long as my own work, I have buy with my money the rights from the manufacturer.
The Synth is only a tool to do this, nothing more.

With the same logic, every time you knock a nail in a wand, you need the permission from the manufacturer of the hammer.

wrong, on a multiplicity of counts.

[beej]

With every Output from the synth that I create by myself, I can do what I want.

You may assume what you want, but don't think your assumptions are correct in reality.

Plenty of lawsuits have proved otherwise...

[storyboard]

Whats wrong?

When I use a preset from another as part of an loop, sample or everythink else, thats clear its wrong.

But I can not unterstand whats wrong, when I build a patch from scratch. And use it in Samples, Loops and so on.

I have the last few ours search on many sides and manuals from synthmanufractures and synths by a licence agreement. But I have nothing found.

Its a fact thats first the manufacturer can say me with his Licence Agreement what can I do or what can I not do. The copyright law comes second.

[whyterabbyt]

But I can not unterstand whats wrong, when I build a patch from scratch. And use it in Samples, Loops and so on.

this bit

With every Output from the synth that I create by myself, I can do what I want. Samples for Sampling Cds, Patches for Libarys, Music and so one. As long as my own work, I have buy with my money the rights from the manufacturer.

If your patches rely on sounds already recorded and stored on the synth (ie a rompler's wavebanks) then selling those patches as samples would fall under 'derivative work'.

If the samples are your own, or the synth generates its waveforms, then thats not an issue, but your question was phrased such that the situation would be universal across all synths, and its not.

For the money gives the company the right to make what I want with the gear to me.

Incorrect; you may not have the right to make what you want.

[1-2-Many]

...another more specific example: if you recreate the pan-flute sample from the d-50 by actually playing and recording a pan-flute and you do so in such a way as to exactly match both the timbre and dynamics of the original sample; assuming the original sample is under copyright at all in the first place your newly created sample is then a derivative work

As long as we're talking bullshit...are your eyes brown?
You argument revolves on the fallacy that it is possible to "exactly match both timbre and dynamics of the original sample" with a live recording. Following your reasoning, if I create a commercial sampleset of a Steinway piano, I'm infringing on anyone else who has done so...baloney.

Like's been said over and over, it's about the use of the original copyrighted recordings. If a synth contains these to generate its sound, you cannot record them (or lift them from the waverom) with the intent to distribute them or use them in the creation of another product. Furthermore, you could not create your own patches and distribute those in recorded form, as your recording is derived from the original recorded wavs in the synth. You could however create and distribute patches for that synth since doing so would not be distributing the copyrighted recorded PCM wavs.

My point is still valid - You could match the original wavset by making your own as long as the creation of such was not directly derived from the original recording - i.e. resampling or resynthesizing the original wavs. Using the wavset as a reference for doing your own samples is not, nor could not be shown to be, a direct derivative from the original since there is no way in hell that there could/would be any correlation between the wavs - superimposing them would clearly illustrate this. Your new sample would be an original work, no matter how much it sounds like a panflute.

Hell, If I wanted to, I could sample all the raw waves of xhip (or any other synth that generates its sound via synthesis and not PCMs) and distribute them, since they do not originate from recorded material.

[kevvvvv]

Phrrr ... yet another potentially interesting thread that's been manipulated in to a dull diatribe

[1-2-Many]

Phrrr ... yet another potentially interesting thread that's been manipulated in to a dull diatribe

Ya whatever, I'm just trying to disabuse Xenos of the misinformation he was given when he shared his idea, and which continues to trickle in on the subject. The way he explained carrying it out is completely within bounds.

I thought it was interesting read (up until your post). Have you considered that the dull element in your perception just might be YOU?

[theUnTall]

AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.

Hi Folks,

this thread is quite old, the link is outdated - is the download (http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/0ac2577269_25.94MB (http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/0ac2577269_25.94MB)) still available somewhere else ?

Many thanks !

[godly]

That's the one. It's a classic patch, and heavily overused... but I like it...

When I get a second, I'll try to do a Zebra version of it, it should be plenty capable...

mmm I've got a great soundtrack preset on synth1 also

[godly]

Hi Folks,

this thread is quite old, the link is outdated - is the download (http://myfreefilehosting.com/f/0ac2577269_25.94MB) still available somewhere else ?

Many thanks !

Nope internal server error.
I've found some nice kontakt d50 rompler on YouTube for download. Seems that the Synth is popular in the Latino part of the world!