Legality of distributing sampled synths

[thecontrolcentre]

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.'

It actually devolved into him suggesting someone who didn't agree with his view was like a "nazi-commander" ... which has got him banned.

[whyterabbyt]

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.

I really do wonder why there's this notion that the 'substantial transformation' is seen as inherently more 'valuable' in terms of ascribing ownership, than the effort of creating the work that was transformed in the first place.

Its basically a simultaneous claim that (1) the original sound is so crucial to the transformed result that no non-derived, newly original substitute would be acceptable, and that (2) the original sound is so irrelevent to the transformed result that the transformation process is what creates the 'new' sound.

It doesnt make sense. The original sound cant be both vital and unimportant to the derived sound. It resolves to a disingenuous attempt to have one's cake and eat it.

[izonin]

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...

Because when I'm buying an instrument I expect to have full rights over it and its sound, without limitations. Play it, sample it, take it apart, etc.

[whyterabbyt]

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.'

It actually devolved into him suggesting someone who didn't agree with his view was like a "nazi-commander" ... which has got him banned.

yeah, i got to that bit eventually. :sigh:

what's most confusing to me is that there's a shitload of creative commons and freely licensable stuff out there, its easy to just ask for permission to reuse a sample, and field recorders like the Zooms are so much cheaper than a rompler... there are so many ways to get legitimate source material.

And yet some people fight tooth and nail to insist its their 'artistic' right to redistribute their reuse of someone else's work without permission because they're fiddling with it a bit.

Is it me, or is that just a bit f**ked up?


edit : made it clear that its redistribution thats the issue, not sampling.

[thecontrolcentre]

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...

Because when I'm buying an instrument I expect to have full rights over it and its sound, without limitations. Play it, sample it, take it apart, etc.

You can do exactly what you suggest, but if you re-distribute the samples (of a sample based synth), then you're breaking the law. What is so hard to understand about that? If you want to sample synths and legally re-distribute the samples, then buy some analog synths, and make your own sounds. It's not rocket science

[whyterabbyt]

Because when I'm buying an instrument I expect to have full rights over it and its sound, without limitations. Play it, sample it, take it apart, etc.

Well, now you can consider yourself educated as to the difference between your expectations and reality. Its all part of growing up.

[izonin]

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...

Because when I'm buying an instrument I expect to have full rights over it and its sound, without limitations. Play it, sample it, take it apart, etc.

You can do exactly what you suggest, but if you re-distribute the samples (of a sample based synth), then you're breaking the law. What is so hard to understand about that?

People don't know that they are breaking the law, until they ask on forums. The manufacturer should be warning the customer about such potential illegal actions before the purchase. And not on the last page of the manual.

[fmr]

"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.

OK, first a statement. Stephen, I respect and admire your work, and I am even a client.
Now, back to the subject. You and others are always implying that our hard laured patches worht nothing when they are created ona ROMpler, however, they worth every penny if we create them using a REAL synth (since the others, form now onm, cannot be considered synths, in face of the copyright law, but just a store media for samples).
You have used the "hard recorded and perfected brass sample". But what if I use the very common and not so hard recorded simple saw that is also present in the ROM. If that saw res from a Jupiter-8, it's OK if the fantastic pad I created is sampled and distributed. But if the same saw happened to be in a Jupiter-80, sampling and distributing the very same pad is violating the copyright law.
Now, answering the question "Why don'ty you sample your own", I answer - and how do I do to include it in the synth engine? As you know, lots of ROMpler synths don't have the possibility of adding our own samples, therefore, even if I think I could manage a better sample than the one present in the ROM, I am forced to use that one.
And now, let's talk abount the ones that allow samples to be used. If I create an original sample set, load it in a Motif, and create sounds using it, they are mine. But if I use a sample of mine and a saw from the ROM, now I am violating copyright.
And even if I use just my own samples, nothing prevents Yamaha of filing a lwasuit against me for copyright violation, and I have to go to court to prove I used my own sounds (which, if we are talking of single cycle waves, would be a tought thing to do).
Now is this or is this not a grey area? And let's keep focus on the basis of the subject and not calling absurdity to the discussion - we are not talking hard recorded sample libraries, stealing records and all the rubbish that's been argued. We are talking, mostly, of ROMs that include many single cycle waves that could even been produced by a freeware app using a computer. But since they are stored inside a ROM, they are copyrighed. Is it just me that find this absurd?

[whyterabbyt]

People don't know that they are breaking the law, until they ask on forums. The manufacturer should be warning the customer about such potential illegal actions before the purchase. And not on the last page of the manual.

you mean like knife manufacturers should warn their customers that its illegal to stab people before they purchase one?

[thecontrolcentre]

People don't know that they are breaking the law, until they ask on forums. The manufacturer should be warning the customer about such potential illegal actions before the purchase. And not on the last page of the manual.

This is complete bullshit. You don't expect a car manufacturer to inform you about speed limits, and the fact you need a license, MOT and insurance before driving ... or do you?

[Meffy]

Rationalizing doesn't trump the law no matter how long and loud you rationalize. Wishing to have rights that you don't have -- that won't work either.

People: If you want legal advice don't rely on wishful thinking, and don't consult a random bunch of musicians. Consult someone with actual legal qualifications. By sheer luck we've heard from one such person in this thread. Anyone still in doubt, consider going back and reading Whizz's posts. If those don't convince you, retain the services of a practicing copyright lawyer.

Or rely on unqualified opinions, and see where that gets you. *thumbs up*

[thecontrolcentre]

We are talking, mostly, of ROMs that include many single cycle waves that could even been produced by a freeware app using a computer. But since they are stored inside a ROM, they are copyrighed. Is it just me that find this absurd?

The point is that these waveforms were created by someone else, and therefore they belong to someone else. You are (legally) allowed to use them to create music, and samples (for your own use). You are not allowed (legally) to re-distribute (or sell) these samples, or samples derived from them, without permission from the owner of said copyrighted waveforms. If you don't like it, don't buy synths that use ROM chips or samples.

[izonin]

People don't know that they are breaking the law, until they ask on forums. The manufacturer should be warning the customer about such potential illegal actions before the purchase. And not on the last page of the manual.

you mean like knife manufacturers should warn their customers that its illegal to stab people before they purchase one?

Sampling an instrument isn't illegal. When you're buying a synth you don't know if it uses pure synthesis or hybrid or pure samples. It should be clearly stated.
Also, some manufacturers can give you the right to re-sample their synths.

[whyterabbyt]

Now, answering the question "Why don'ty you sample your own", I answer - and how do I do to include it in the synth engine? As you know, lots of ROMpler synths don't have the possibility of adding our own samples, therefore, even if I think I could manage a better sample than the one present in the ROM, I am forced to use that one.

erm, if im reading you right, how is this relevant? if you're making a patch for a rompler, then its not affected by what's being talked about. you're not redistributing any content, even if you give the patch to someone else with the same rompler.

if you're talking about recording a patch from that rompler (yours or someone else's) and redistributing the recording in some way, then, yes, you should have started with your own samples processed in some other device in the first place.

And now, let's talk abount the ones that allow samples to be used. If I create an original sample set, load it in a Motif, and create sounds using it, they are mine. But if I use a sample of mine and a saw from the ROM, now I am violating copyright.

Technically, you probably are. If you want to be completely safe, use your own saw, too.

And even if I use just my own samples, nothing prevents Yamaha of filing a lwasuit against me for copyright violation, and I have to go to court to prove I used my own sounds (which, if we are talking of single cycle waves, would be a tought thing to do).

Nothing 'prevents' Yamaha from filing a lawsuit against every person on the planet either.
Are you making some sort of argument that because you could be sued wrongly when you've not done anything illegal, then its okay to do the stuff that isnt legal?

Now is this or is this not a grey area?

Legally, probably not. What's grey is whether a company would bring a case over a naive waveform, and also whether they'd succeed.

And let's keep focus on the basis of the subject and not calling absurdity to the discussion - we are not talking hard recorded sample libraries, stealing records and all the rubbish that's been argued.

Is it me, or is the stuff you're referring to as 'absurdity' and 'rubbish' basically just other similar applications of the same copyright laws?

Why are they absurd?

We are talking, mostly, of ROMs that include many single cycle waves that could even been produced by a freeware app using a computer. But since they are stored inside a ROM, they are copyrighed. Is it just me that find this absurd?

Well, when you say 'we are talking mostly' you really mean 'i just made the subject a lot more specific than it was.'

But it sounds as though you want specific limits enshrined in the law that allow specific cases (ie single-cycle waveforms) to be allowed. So far, just about everyone on one particular side of this fence wants specific cases to be allowed.
So what exceptions are you suggesting? That dont become entire loopholes in the purpose of the law; protecting the creator of a work.

[whyterabbyt]

Sampling an instrument isn't illegal.

We know. However redistributing recordings derived from someone else's recordings, without their permission, is. So what's your point?