Legality of distributing sampled synths

[whyterabbyt]

Agreed. Why these big companies (especially Roland) make such a boring synths nowadays, just because a few punters who actually know nothing about their business think re-issues of older popular analog/digital synths would be a goldmine..?

ftfy.

[izonin]

17,000 posts! Do you get paid?

[whyterabbyt]

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".

sorry, my mistake.

However, I'd suggest the default position should really be expressed as 'all use(*) without permission is prohibited'.

(*) where 'use' actually means 'redistribution'.

Trying again, it reads as what you're saying is that a manufacturer could get away with selling a musical instrument (which the customer would rightfully expect to be able to use for amateur and professional music making), and would be able to successfully sue their customers for carrying out one set of activities (ie recording) that are normally intrinsically associated with professional and amateur music.
Im not sure that would fly under consumer law. I also think it would fail in a copyright case (ie implicit permission could be reasonably assumed). It would also be an exceptionally dumb business move, IMO.

These instruments, as a class, like almost all others, are consistently advertised and sold based on their suitability for playing, and for using in making recording. Its clear that the permission to do both is provided. Ive never seen an instrument sold on their suitability for resampliing the sounds for redistribution, or repackaging for a different product...

[sonicpowa]

Agreed. Why these big companies (especially Roland) make such a boring synths nowadays, just because a few punters who actually know nothing about their business think re-issues of older popular analog/digital synths would be a goldmine..?

ftfy.

Sure, I don't know anything about their business, but I know several musicians who have said (including me) that they would instantly buy such re-issues, but are not interested in their current product line (including the new Jupiter), so I'm just wondering it..

[whyterabbyt]

Sure, I don't know anything about their business, but I know several musicians who have said (including me) that they would instantly buy such re-issues, but are not interested in their current product line (including the new Jupiter), so I'm just wondering it..

Its a sad fact of life, but we (for some sort of consensus of what KVR might reflect) are just not the actual main audience for these companies... And the audience that is, doesnt care...

TBH I think its a minor miracle seeing Korg consistently produce all sorts of niche 'outsider' stuff. I think of all the 'big' manufacturers they're the only ones who genuinely have an experimental aspect to their agenda...

[sonicpowa]

Yes it's really sad.

AFAIK there's also some technical problems with such re-issues; component's used back then was poor, but perfect for the instrument (for instance TB-303), now similar components are cheap but too good.

[whyterabbyt]

Yes it's really sad.

AFAIK there's also some technical problems with such re-issues; component's used back then was poor, but perfect for the instrument (for instance TB-303), now similar components are cheap but too good.

Yup. Some of the parts can't even be made now, as the fabrication processes are obsolete (eg most of the Curtis CEM range)

[robogone]

It's interesting that there are a lot of industry standards for manufacturing electronic components that drive the standards. Military and telecommunications are much more demanding than other industries, and as they are probably by far the largest customers for components I can't see any manufacturers going back to more lax standards of production.

I can't imagine what it would cost to product a small run of less exacting components. Probably prohibitive cost for a smaller industry.

[trimph1]

It isn't just those standards that make it harder though...we also have now environmental concerns that have stiffened up the process as well.

Couple that with the various counterfeit and piracy issues abounding and it can be rather dicey.

You want to make your own modules you literally have to stick with certified suppliers and hope that those pieces and bits you were/are(?) looking for are still available...

http://www.ept.ca/news/product-shortage ... 000374426/

http://www.ept.ca/issues/search.aspx?qt ... l%20design

[Rock Hardbuns]

Trying again, it reads as what you're saying is that a manufacturer could get away with selling a musical instrument (which the customer would rightfully expect to be able to use for amateur and professional music making), and would be able to successfully sue their customers for carrying out one set of activities (ie recording) that are normally intrinsically associated with professional and amateur music.

Yes. As far as the letter of the law goes, that's how it looks to me. (I'd be glad to be shown wrong though. The lack of solid information on this topic is frustrating.)

I agree suing the customers would be suicidal, which is why they don't do it. This is not strictly a legal point though. It just market mechanics.

Of course, it's up to judges to clarify and figure out the special cases. And you're basically betting on a judge reasoning like you do.

I bet they would look at the closest well established analog, the typewriter font. The same problem existed there, where typewrite manufacturers could claim copyrights to texts produced on their machines, and it was resolved by saying that copyright only covers the complete font, not the letters in themselves.

Either way, it's speculation though.

[jonahs]

What if it's resampled in say Alchemy? (BTW what other tools can resample?)

Or what if you drew the waveform yourself? Unlikely, but possible(?).

Sorry, if this has been asked. Lotsa text in this thread.

[Rock Hardbuns]

What if it's resampled in say Alchemy? (BTW what other tools can resample?)

Or what if you drew the waveform yourself? Unlikely, but possible(?).

Sorry, if this has been asked. Lotsa text in this thread.

Copyright is about the right to make copies, so the basic question you need to ask is whether you are copying or creating.

Could you do it without access to some kind of specific source data?

[george]

(BTW what other tools can resample?)

Vertigo can re-synthesize and HighLife can sample VSTs.

[chj]

For distribution purposes (i.e. giving away, 'sharing', selling, donorware, whatever)...

Hollowsun's post says it all. If you want to know the LAW and not opinions just read it and understand it.

Why are instruments that use samples treated differently? Because of the copyright that attaches immediately once you record any audio. Stop looking for ideological reasons why it doesn't make sense to treat sampled instruments differently than synthesized/acoustic ones. The reasons are LEGAL and have nothing to do with musical principles or creativity. It's so the courts don't have to judge 'creativity' in an endless line of sampling cases. You recorded it? You own it. DONE.

As hollowsun also pointed out, the EULA's for samples/romplers give you permission to use AND distribute creative works made with them. Without this permission, yes, even distributing an original creative work that used the samples/romplers would violate copyright laws.

[hollowsun]

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.

So you're saying that you think it's ok to make some program variation of the strings in, say, Garritan or VSL and re-sample them to re-distribute as your own.

Wrong! The source material being used in your programs are the copyrighted recordings/samples and IP of the developer and so in contravention (and the EULA will probably include such clauses preventing the re-distribution of 'derivative works' or somesuch). You can create your own program variations and re-distribute those but NOT if they include the source samples (i.e. copyrighted recordings/IP).

A ROMpler is no different. You can argue all you like that the filter/env/LFO/FX settings are your creation but the fact remains that your program(s) wouldn't sound as they do without the quality of the source samples the manufacturer spent $squillions in developing which you have included and are re-distrubuting!

Taken to a logical extreme, it's not that far removed/different from taking, say, an Elvis Presley record, EQ'ing it, maybe slowing it down or or speeding it up, adding some flanging and reverb and selling/giving it away as your own. Undisputably, what you have done to the track could be considered 'creative' but without permission from the Presley estate and/or the record company who owns the masters, the writers of the song, etc., you cannot re-distribute it. Fine if you want to listen to it yourself at home but you're not allowed to 'share' it with others ... even if it's not for commercial gain.

And why would any copyright holder complain if the contravener is not benefitting financially? They simply might not like what you've done with it and/or feel it brings their copyright into disrepute, whatever. And it's their call - they own the copyright. They - rightly - are in a position to control how their copyright is exploited.

This is why Roland have a zero-tolerance policy towards all this - they are protecting their copyright/IP, their brand name and their reputation.

Cheers,


Stephen