Legality of distributing sampled synths

[ZenPunkHippy]

What is this? Why is it so hard for you to distinguish between copying a sample one-to-one and make a whole new patch of it by virtue of synths engine?

One of the main issues here is that without the hard work and financial input from Yamaha, there would not be a brass* sample on which to base your new super-modified version.

It's that original hard work that copyright is supposed to protect and reward.

It may seem absurd that it's illegal to mangle a simple sound beyond recognition and call it your own, but if brass samples are really easy to create, why not make your own in the first place?

"No time for that" you say, and here is the problem ... someone else did have the time, and they don't want other people profiting from it without their permission.

Peace,
Andy.

* brass sample used as a simple example here ...

[IncarnateX]

It may be a bad surprise, but this is the law. Period.

..said the nazi-commander to the jew...

That would be a lot funnier if I wasn't Jewish.

If that is the case, then the flaws of your argument should be obvious. But sorry if you took offence.

[deastman]

Look, you're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Copyright law says that you can copyright a sound recording, aka a sample. An electro-mechanical object cannot have a copyright registered. If a software developer who owns the copyright to a sound recording allows you to use their recorded material in certain ways but not in other ways, that is within their rights. They own the copyright, and they set the license terms for what you may and may not do with it.

[IncarnateX]

Look, you're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Copyright law says that you can copyright a sound recording, aka a sample. An electro-mechanical object cannot have a copyright registered. If a software developer who owns the copyright to a sound recording allows you to use their recorded material in certain ways but not in other ways, that is within their rights. They own the copyright, and they set the license terms for what you may and may not do with it.

All these "the laws says" arguments are really invalid in this case because I challenge the premises of these laws. So if you keep arguing by reffering to the "fact" that the law says this and that, you are just begging the question.

[deastman]

Okay, so you aren't questioning whether or not this is the law. You are questioning whether or not it is a good law?

In that case, I would say YES, it is a good law. It protects the interests of people who create original works, so they cannot be taken advantage of by others who want to repackage and resell their hard work.

I understand that in your case you feel there is a substantial transformative nature to your own creative effort. The problem is, where do you draw the line? How different is different enough? When does it stop being stealing and start being a new creative product? If you and the original creator disagree, that would have to be settled in court. Therefore, laws are required to delineate acceptable use from unacceptable use. Otherwise, its just a free-for-all.

Or are you the type who doesn't believe in the rule of law in general?

[trimph1]

Look, you're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Copyright law says that you can copyright a sound recording, aka a sample. An electro-mechanical object cannot have a copyright registered. If a software developer who owns the copyright to a sound recording allows you to use their recorded material in certain ways but not in other ways, that is within their rights. They own the copyright, and they set the license terms for what you may and may not do with it.

All these "the laws says" arguments are really invalid in this case because I challenge the premises of these laws. So if you keep arguing by reffering to the "fact" that the law says this and that, you are just begging the question.

This all ends up sounding like a bad case of "I WANNA DO WHAT I WANNA DO!!!!"

So...to create a potential strawman argument here...

Are you suggesting then that your rights should trump the rights of the copyright holder? That the copyright holder does not, nor should not, have the right to tell you what you can/not do with his property?

[Meffy]

It may be a bad surprise, but this is the law. Period.

..said the nazi-commander to the jew... :roll:

That would be a lot funnier if I wasn't Jewish. :roll:

No, it wouldn't. Not even if I weren't Jewish too. IncarnateX has earned some "Child's Time Out" and will not be able to reply.

[sauli]

Never thought it before, but various sample libraries might be illegal if samples have been processed with convolution fx. IR's are samples after all.

[izonin]

This thread should be kept alive. IncarnateX has a valid point here. Hardware manufacturers shouldn't be "surprising" their customers like that. If a keyboard which uses samples is sold at a price close to its electro-mechanical analog, it should be clearly stated that it's useless as a source of samples.

Now that I'm aware of the limitations of sample based synths, I'll think twice before buying one.

[hollowsun]

"No time for that" you say, and here is the problem ... someone else did have the time, and they don't want other people profiting from it without their permission.

Indeed.

But not just the time ... the money, skills and expertise invested in making those samples.

ROMpler manufacturers and sound library developers spend an absolute fortune creating high quality, professional samples, the 'Big Three's' investments running to $millions. They employ top musicians as the source, top recording engineers to capture it on top of the range gear either in top studios or their own excellent facilities and then employ teams of sample editors, sound designers and programmers across the world to edit, trim, loop and otherwise optimise sometimes thousands of samples over a period of months and months, often over a year or more (I've been involved in sampling and sound design projects that took over two years from inception to completion). And this is before you even begin to factor in the development costs of the synth engine those samples will be used with.

And yet it is felt by some here that it's acceptable to take the line out of that ROMpler, plug it into their PC and sample all that HUGE investment in a few hours and give it away for free or sell it as their own?! Errmmmm ...

Manufacturers and developers are naturally very protective of that colossal investment (wouldn't anyone be?) and the law protects them and their IP and copyright as it should - the copyright owner calls the shots as to how their property is used and exploited. As is right and proper.

[thecontrolcentre]

If a keyboard which uses samples is sold at a price close to its electro-mechanical analog, it should be clearly stated that it's useless as a source of samples.

If you buy a car that is capable of 150 mph, does that mean it's OK to drive it on public roads at 150mph despite speed limits set in the country you're driving in? Is it up to the manufacturer to point this out when you make the purchase? When you get caught speeding, will you say it's the manufacturer of the car's fault for making it capable of speeds beyond the legal speed limit?

[whyterabbyt]

So, does that mean that every sound which has ever been designed on a Korg M1 does not belong to the sounddesigners but actually to Korg?

By 'sound' do you mean 'preset which doesnt include the sample data' or 'recording of the sound, making it derived from the original sample data'.

What is this? Why is it so hard for you to distinguish between copying a sample one-to-one and make a whole new patch of it by virtue of synths engine?

Its not hard for me to distnguish; one is a derived recording, and the other, if made into a sample, is also a derived recording.

I think its you that's having a problem distinguishing things, to be honest. You're now talking about 'sounds', 'samples', and 'patches' as though they're all interchangeable.

Whereas Im only talking about redistributing work which includes original or derived recordings.

This too primitive to me.

That's entirely your problem, then.

How does sound design from sampled waveforms compare to stealing from someones house?

Well imagine you mader a sculpture with what you stole. Your argument says that makes the theft okay.

And while we are at it: Why isn't it stealing if the wave had been produced electro-mechanically?

Because you'd have created that yourself. Is this really that hard?

You do really surprise me Since my premise is that what the law says is not mine (a patch designed from scratch from a sampled waveform), actually IS MINE then my message can never be that people should be allowed to restribute something that isn't theirs.

(a) its not designed from scratch (b) its NOT YOURS (c) yes it is.

And since I also said that one-to-one copying is not OK, then I actually did suggest a limit. What's up?

so if i add a one-sample silence at the end of my version of your patch, that's okay?

And here you go again

well, yes. you think the argument is going to change?

To me, a sound that I have designed on a samplebased synth is mine

And yet, legally, its not.

so it all falls back to what is be defined as mine, isn't it?

no, its what is defined as someone else's that you reused.

And that is from an artistic point of view and not from the view of the present law, which premises you seem to recognize as the truth.

'artistic' doesnt have any relevance here.

What I do is to claim my rights to my own sound design.

which is based on someone else's sound design and recordings.

If you really want to convince me otherwise, then please explain the logics in the fact that 1) a sound designed on basis on an electromechanical saw is mine but 2) the same sound based on a sampled saw is not and shouldn't be either.

that's already been done. copyright covers derived works which directly include that recording as raw material. end of subject. the fact that you refuse to accept to accept an explanation doesnt make the logic invalid.

[whyterabbyt]

All these "the laws says" arguments are really invalid in this case because I challenge the premises of these laws.

well that's utter bullshit.

So if you keep arguing by reffering to the "fact" that the law says this and that, you are just begging the question.

No, there's no question to be begged, and the fact really is a fact.

Your argument has devolved to that of a spoiled child saying 'but mummy I want it, so you have to give me it, because i say so.'

[izonin]

If a keyboard which uses samples is sold at a price close to its electro-mechanical analog, it should be clearly stated that it's useless as a source of samples.

If you buy a car that is capable of 150 mph, does that mean it's OK to drive it on public roads at 150mph despite speed limits set in the country you're driving in? Is it up to the manufacturer to point this out when you make the purchase? When you get caught speeding, will you say it's the manufacturer of the car's fault for making it capable of speeds beyond the legal speed limit?

The keyboard manufacturer can give me the right to sample the synth, but refuses to. The car manufacturer can't give me the right to drive at 150mph. So yes, I feel that I should be informed if the music instrument I'm buying has certain limitations, not present in acoustic and electro-mechanical ones.

[whyterabbyt]

IncarnateX has a valid point here. Hardware manufacturers shouldn't be "surprising" their customers like that. If a keyboard which uses samples is sold at a price close to its electro-mechanical analog, it should be clearly stated that it's useless as a source of samples.

what's the price got to do with it?

Now that I'm aware of the limitations of sample based synths, I'll think twice before buying one.

because its more important to you to be able to re-sample it and distribute those samples, than to use it for making music? then in that case your decision would be sensible...