Legality of distributing sampled synths

[Cyforce]

Why such a long topic? The case is more than easy....

The sounds inside a synth/rompler, are designed/produced by the developer of this product(including also their sounddesign team etc) so in short - the sounds are designed by them - if you record them, it's the sample like a copy, so illegal!

If you design on a synth or rompler OWN sounds, which are defintiv programmed by you, than you can sell them as soundset or sample-bank.

But sampling factory sounds(which are saved with copyright) is LOGICAL illegal....... Also if in the depths of the www surely many selling sampled factories, it's 100% illegal.



See this comparision, imagine, you would design a soundset for the access virus, so for example, and someone would take this, record it as sample-set and would sell it - this would be same illegal, but this is exactly the same as sampling a factory

[fmr]

Why such a long topic? The case is more than easy....

The sounds inside a synth/rompler, are designed/produced by the developer of this product(including also their sounddesign team etc) so in short - the sounds are designed by them - if you record them, it's the sample like a copy, so illegal!

If you design on a synth or rompler OWN sounds, which are defintiv programmed by you, than you can sell them as soundset or sample-bank.

But sampling factory sounds(which are saved with copyright) is LOGICAL illegal....... Also if in the depths of the www surely many selling sampled factories, it's 100% illegal.



See this comparision, imagine, you would design a soundset for the access virus, so for example, and someone would take this, record it as sample-set and would sell it - this would be same illegal, but this is exactly the same as sampling a factory

Everything you say is true, but there's a grey area I don't see covered anywhere. As all of us know, the final sound in a synth like the Motif or the Kronos isn't just the result of a sample map, but rather a heavily processed sample map, through the synthesis engine. Otherwise, it would be plainly stupid to pay what they charge it it was just a bunch of samples. Besides, in the Kronos, the synthesis engine is even more than just sample base.
Now let's say I spend a whole yar programming heavily such synth (because they are synths, and marketed as such), and decide that, instead of release the patches as a library for THAT snth, I record the result and sell it as a sample library. This is the grey area I think is not covered by the EULA. I agree that just sample the ROM content would be a copyright violation plain and simple. The same goes for the factory patches, or any commercial third party patch library.
But what about MY OWN patches? I don't think it's fair to consider their distribution as a copyright violation (of course, it depend what patches they are - a simple blank patch that allows the sound of the ROM samples to pass without any process would be a copyright infringement much in the same way).
However, common interpretation of the law seems to consider EVEN THIS likewise. This is a grey area, IMO, and something I think should be addressed.

[Meffy]

Why such a long topic?

Because instead of consulting a lawyer qualified in copyright issues, the OP asked a bunch of computer music enthusiasts for opinions. Might as well ask about racing yacht hull designs on a professional arborists' forum. You might get good answers (there've been some good ones in this thread) but if you don't know already you're not going to be able to tell which ones are valid.

[izonin]

Why such a long topic?

Because instead of consulting a lawyer qualified in copyright issues, the OP asked a bunch of computer music enthusiasts for opinions. Might as well ask about racing yacht hull designs on a professional arborists' forum. You might get good answers (there've been some good ones in this thread) but if you don't know already you're not going to be able to tell which ones are valid.

Lets don't forget that without these 'music enthusiasts' companies like Yamaha and Roland wouldn't exist (half of my gear is from those two brands). If people have doubts about the fairness of the law, it should be discussed on forums.

[Meffy]

If people have doubts about the fairness of the law, it should be discussed on forums.

Because that has such a good chance of influencing music hardware makers to change their ways. Makes sense.

[izonin]

If people have doubts about the fairness of the law, it should be discussed on forums.

Because that has such a good chance of influencing music hardware makers to change their ways. Makes sense.

At least they will know their customers' opinion. I'm sure that they periodically scan these pages.

[whyterabbyt]

At least they will know their customers' opinion. I'm sure that they periodically scan these pages.

[Rock Hardbuns]

Why such a long topic?

Because instead of consulting a lawyer qualified in copyright issues, the OP asked a bunch of computer music enthusiasts for opinions. Might as well ask about racing yacht hull designs on a professional arborists' forum. You might get good answers (there've been some good ones in this thread) but if you don't know already you're not going to be able to tell which ones are valid.

Which is why it would be really nice if one of the people who think this is easy and straight forward could provide legal cases or actual law text demonstrating how it works.

The simple fact is: Romplers are not described by the copyright convention, therefor no universal assumptions can be made.

Even when the synth comes with a license text, because post-sale contracts are not valid in many parts of the world.

In fact, I'd very much like to see any legal case involving a rompler ROM. The only one I know of is the MT32 case, but that was with regards to the ROM as a whole which gets collection protection under the Berne Convention. And Roland gave that up before it even got going.

Well meaning but unsourced forum posts aside, we know f**k all.

[izonin]

At least they will know their customers' opinion. I'm sure that they periodically scan these pages.

Well they've forced synth developers to change their layouts. Nothing goes unnoticed

[Meffy]

Well meaning but unsourced forum posts aside, we know f**k all.

Yup. I'm sure there's some valid advice in the thread, but I won't pretend I can tell the valid from the hopeful without error. My advice on this is no better than anyone else's who isn't qualified in copyright law.

[whyterabbyt]

The simple fact is: Romplers are not described by the copyright convention, therefor no universal assumptions can be made.

lets just correct that.

Romplers are not described by the copyright convention, therefore no specific assumptions can be made.

OTOH 'recordings' are described by the copyright convention, therefore universal assumptions about recordings can be made. And romplers rely on recordings.

What you're trying to assert is that copyright becomes a special case for any the medium isn't specified in the pertaining laws. Please support that with reference to legal cases where the medium for storage or playback in a copyright case somehow 'trumped' the copyrighted material itself on account of not specifically being named in the laws.

[Rock Hardbuns]

What you're trying to assert is that copyright becomes a special case for any the medium isn't specified in the pertaining laws. Please support that with reference to legal cases where the medium for storage or playback in a copyright case somehow 'trumped' the copyrighted material itself on account of not specifically being named in the laws.

Ah, but see that's what I am not doing. My position is that using a rompler to make music is a breach of copyright unless you have an actual contract giving you permission to do that.
I.e there is no basis in law/convention to treat sampling and music production differently.

Edit > Or rather, my point is that "all use is prohibited" must be the default position, as opposed to the conventional wisdom of you "may make music but not sample".

[trimph1]

I somehow doubt that even if a copyrights specialist in law was to show up on this thread that many would heed what he says...it almost would seem to run counter to what is found on any forum.

[thecontrolcentre]

Why such a long topic?

Because instead of consulting a lawyer qualified in copyright issues, the OP asked a bunch of computer music enthusiasts for opinions. Might as well ask about racing yacht hull designs on a professional arborists' forum. You might get good answers (there've been some good ones in this thread) but if you don't know already you're not going to be able to tell which ones are valid.

Lets don't forget that without these 'music enthusiasts' companies like Yamaha and Roland wouldn't exist (half of my gear is from those two brands). If people have doubts about the fairness of the law, it should be discussed on forums.

The fairness of the law has f**k all to do with Yamaha or Roland. They don't make the law. Write to your MP if you think the law should change.

[sonicpowa]

It would be easier if Yamaha and Korg would just start producing soft synths again.

Agreed. Why these big companies (especially Roland) make such a boring synths nowadays, when re-issues of older popular analog/digital synths would be a goldmine..?