One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[Mac of BIOnighT]

I think the world we live in today has more than slightly changed when it comes to this issue..

True: once you could get away with it, today it's a Russian roulette - but personally, I wouldn't want to run the risk of getting that one bullet
It's become a difficult world, I must admit I do not like it Mind, I am totally in favor of protecting rights in most cases, but if we go on like this, when you take a picture of a monument while on vacation you'll need to get a written permission by all the people that appeared in it accidentally...

[tattiemannie]

V'ger, I agree there are millions of folk uploading covers, and unauthorised footage etc to youtube, and the world certainly has changed. But that doesn't mean the law has changed. Also, the issue is not a new one.

The best studies will state that more than 50% of people in the Uk have tried cannabis at least once, but it doesn't mean that if you get caught in posession the police will pat you on the head and tell you to 'run along now'.

Wherever the line may be drawn, whatever the chances of being caught, and whatever ways there are around it, I dont see it is the comp organiser's role to define these and participate in the gamble.

I really think it is the responsibility of the artist to make sure that the tracks they produce are legal to distribute/share. I dont know where other folks stand on this, but as comp organiser, I was very concerned about my role in allowing covers in prevoius comps, and I did intend to make a statement of 'no-no' to this ..... but being as busy as I have been, I let it slip. I did not however, make a statement that I was in favour of covers.

There is a lot of middle ground however. For example - OSC 14, my track 'minstrel cycle' .... there is a sequence around half way which on listening, to me, sounded exactly like 'Secret love' by Doris Day. This was unintentional, but comfortable as I was with how the notes fitted with the track, I changed the part slightly in order to take it away from being a breach of copyright. To me, it still sounds like bloody 'secret love' and I nearly took it out ... but satisfied that I had not deliberately 'stolen' the sequence, and actually put more effort into making it different from 'SL', I let it go.

But still, if I had a bit of wealth worth having, a lawyer as ruthless and determined as the guy who stitched up Men at Work ( research this and learn!! ) over 3 notes could probably have my arse in a sling!

So I dont have a problem with guys who perhaps want to do a part, or track 'based on' or 'influenced by' a cover ... provided it is not obviously a cover... and if it is not obviously a cover, then FFS dont tell anyone that it is!
At the end of the day, folks can take our featured synth and copy/cover what they like ... but we dont have to agree that it can appear in the comp - there are plenty other ways to air covers without asking OSC to stick it on a flagpole ... and if anyone recognises an entry as an obvious cover, then they should mention it ... because to do otherwise is allowing the will of a minority to threaten the future a facility enjoyed by us all.

[V'ger]

Youtube is not responsible for what people upload to their site, and in our case not even to the site, but to people's own accounts at SoundCloud. It would be the same as if we had a dropbox where people linked their Youtube videos. If anything, YT or SC in this case would be more responsible, but they are not. It is the one who did it obviously.

It is anyway a mute point as the site rule state that copyrighted material can't be used.

But I think that wraps up the rule discussion for now. Not something all agreed on obviously, but I think the best compromise so will launch OSC 23 with those in place. Like I said, the current rules are not fixed forever, but will be revised at a later date. Feel free to say here at any time if you want something changed or added.

[olikana]

Sorry to be a killjoy, but I do think it is risky.

For sure you see stuff on Youtube etc which gets away with it, but at the same time, we all know that there is the occasional crackdown on these same sites .. and it's the guys who cant pay the lawyers who get hammered, or have to quickly pull their material and hide.....

...So I dont have a problem with guys who perhaps want to do a part, or track 'based on' or 'influenced by' a cover ... provided it is not obviously a cover... and if it is not obviously a cover, then FFS dont tell anyone that it is!...

music gets pulled down from youtube all the time ...but i've never ever seen a cover being pulled down (unless the cover was published/protected material itself).

u r breaking the law in case u are making a cover and claiming it as your own composition...which is called plagiarism! or using samples from the original without permission (copyright infrigment).
u r calling scarecrows for uploadig covers....but turning a blind eye on plagiarism? which imo is the only real crime u can commit.
..if an OSC entry is in any way a cover it should be declared clearly as such in the info file imo!

broadcasting or publishing issues with covers -if any- can be dealt by soundcloud.
and soundcloud seems to accept covers (they even feature them!).
infact personally i wish for OSC compositions to just stay on soundcloud and not be moved anywhere else (no arhcive and no ep-albums).
i would not even host any of the songs on the OSC site. just external links or widgets to sites which have their broadcasting and publishing rights sorted is fine.

but seriously i'd really like to know of even one case of someone posting a cover on the net and getting into trouble for it or even having it removed?. but i'm sure there's never been one.
the only time i ever read of record companies getting in touch with someone uploading covers of their songs was to actually sign them = Bieber, esmer etc etc .

* I think an OSC where we all work on covering the same song would be an interesting experiment.

+++++++111111111

an OSC with everyone covering something like Enjoy the Silence would be epic.

[tattiemannie]

Hi folks, I am in no way trying to scare anyone re. covers, nor do i have any principled stance against this practice.

I realise that the download/listen links on the KVROSC site are merely links to Soundcloud, but I still think caution is required.

Youtube tend to pull stuff only if the copyright owner objects, and the have an agreement with PRS to pay royalties as a broadcaster. Soundcloud bodyswerve the responsiblity via a disclaimer.

.....

Don'ts
Upload things that aren't yours to upload
This of course means music but also texts & images that you might have found around the web. Uploading and sharing means you should always be certain that you are the creator of what you're uploading OR THEIR AGENT has given you permission TO share.
Share music without the consent of the proper right holders
Any user sharing music illegally runs the risk of having their SoundCloud account deleted and being reported to the relevant authorities. SoundCloud makes it easy for people to share & receive music, please help us in making sure it's all legal music.

......

So, if anyone wants to upload a cover to their own account, they are liable for infringement.
If KVROSC is seen to endorse the uploading of covers, then the account holder is liable.
Furthermore, if the KVR site includes the rule that says it's OK to include covers, then the liability increases ( If anyone can be bothered to read the rules, they will find a clause somewhere which, though badly worded, suggests a responsibilty that account owners report illegal uploads to their dropbox )

Unfortunately, the different parts of Soundcloud's rules, terms and conditions etc, are very messy, and difficult to navigate, and are therefore not immediately clear ..... but they do NOT accept responsibility for material uploaded by individuals which breaches copyright.

[Mac of BIOnighT]

I'm on Tattie's side on this one. However, if the rules have been changed to "no copyrighted material is accepted," that should settle it, right? I mean, I can make a cover of, say, Amazing Grace with no legal problem, I think. But then again, copyrights are such horrible mess that most of the time it's hard to tell if something is copyrighted or not (I know from experience).
I don't know, in general I think it'd be better to go with "better safe than sorry," or, alternatively, be very accurate with wording

[dwsel]

I can't read post well and don't have time too. Just I can see this.

** One-Synth-Challenge 23: Any Synth **

Good news!! great step.

but If I add one, How about add song preset(like fxp) If composer want it. because I had listen very good songs at last synth1 contest. and I had wished to get that presets.

I think, if some people do it, at least, more many people will listen contest songs.

If I understood your post well, you're suggesting obligatory sharing of the patches used in OSC entries? (Correct me if I'm wrong). In past we were encouraged to post our patches. As far as I (probably don't) remember somewhere around OSC 15, there was a special folder for that on 4shared.com. Some people were putting there whole banks, some only drums - to help other contestants to build their own drum patches when the synth was not very 'drum-friendly'.

Personally I don't see a problem with having such a rule. I think it might be discouraging though, because of time needed to organize, categorize such a number of presets. For example: lets say I've created and saved as *.fxp 10 instruments, 4 of them got in the meantime 3 different versions. In the final mix I used 7 instruments - 5 from my library (I can't remember which version I used ) and 2 are just tweaked initial presets. At the mixing stage I tweak them even more. My final bank would have to have 20-30+ patches with 70% of them highly redundant (all of them requiring name, version etc.)...

I was thinking yesterday about posting my latest patches as *.fxb bank for SmallQoo - synth I had made entry with for current OSC - in KVR area dedicated for that task: http://www.kvraudio.com/banks.php I haven't done it yet, because I see very little (or any) interest on this synth. Why bother when probably no one will ever make use of these patches?

[MaxSynths]

I think it might be discouraging though

Wow, I think it would be a great thing; this will add an educational vein to the OSC, a lot of people will have the opportunity to learn more about synth programming

[Mac of BIOnighT]

this will add an educational vein to the OSC, a lot of people will have the opportunity to learn more about synth programming

Or, as I'm sure will happen, a lot of people will just use other people's presets and learn even less... (sorry, I'm famously against presets...)

[MaxSynths]

this will add an educational vein to the OSC, a lot of people will have the opportunity to learn more about synth programming

Or, as I'm sure will happen, a lot of people will just use other people's presets and learn even less... (sorry, I'm famously against presets...)

Nah... people which use only presets are too lazy to put together a bank or pick single fxp files

[james0tucson]

I'm on Tattie's side on this one. However, if the rules have been changed to "no copyrighted material is accepted," that should settle it, right?

Sure... then you're failing to consider copyrighted material that is released under say Creative Commons licensing. Oops, suddenly your blanket prohibition against copyrighted material abridges the wishes of a contributor.

[Mac of BIOnighT]

This just confirms that the whole thing is a mess and it'd be better to avoid covers altogether...

[dwsel]

This just confirms that the whole thing is a mess and it'd be better to avoid covers altogether...

As I read more about it - I agree with Tattie's and Mac's statements that covers should be avoided.

[V'ger]

We need to sort out the synth selection for the coming year. This because last 2 votes for synths produced a handful or less responses and no winner, and RMXL got only 2 votes to win with 1 vote before that.

So please come with some suggestions to get more votes in and for a backup solution should normal vote fail to produce a winner synth.

Admins choice? Previous winner? Second place? Or return to last place choice? (but note that last place is often shared).

[Mac of BIOnighT]

I think that letting everybody suggest a synth will always result in scattered votes, so the solution might be to have a limited choice of (like three) synths and people vote one among those. The three synths could be chosen by you, V'ger (considering all the work you do, I guess a few privileges are in order).