Legality of distributing sampled synths

[thecontrolcentre]

When you're buying a synth you don't know if it uses pure synthesis or hybrid or pure samples.

Maybe you don't ...

[izonin]

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?

That people should know what they are buying. How much of the instrument they own. What the hidden limitations are. This thread is an excellent beginning.

[whyterabbyt]

That people should know what they are buying. How much of the instrument they own. What the hidden limitations are.

Yes, they should. And these days, that research is easier than its ever been.

[Genetic_Junk]

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?

In the US it even goes further than redistributing. Just the act of reproducing the work of an author with a copyright is infringement. See Section 106 and Section 501. Clearly though, the right to reproduce won't usually be enforced unless is it accompanies the right to redistribute.

[izonin]

That people should know what they are buying. How much of the instrument they own. What the hidden limitations are.

Yes, they should. And these days, that research is easier than its ever been.

Ok, tell me if it's legal to distribute samples of Access Music's Virus TI, which wavetables are copyrighted. Some people say it is, some it's not.

[whyterabbyt]

That people should know what they are buying. How much of the instrument they own. What the hidden limitations are.

Yes, they should. And these days, that research is easier than its ever been.

Ok, tell me if it's legal to distribute samples of Access Music's Virus TI, which wavetables are copyrighted. Some people say it is, some it's not.

Better than that, I'll tell you how you could ensure it was legal.


Ask them for permission.

(also : 'research' isnt just asking the first person you speak to if they know.)

[thecontrolcentre]

Ok, tell me if it's legal to distribute samples of Access Music's Virus TI, which wavetables are copyrighted. Some people say it is, some it's not.

Couldn't find any for sale with google ... can you point some out?

[chj]

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 ...

I'll say it again, even though the thread will eventually include ANOTHER person saying "why is it any different if I sample a synthesized instrument"

Stop looking for ideological reasons why it doesn't make sense to treat sampled instruments differently than synthesized/acoustic ones. The reasons have more to do with legal efficiency than musical principles or creativity. It's so the courts don't have to judge 'creativity' in an endless line of sampling cases. You think the courts or juries want to listen to hundreds of thousands of tweaked rompler patches and judge whether you tweaked them enough to consider it a "new sound"? You really think the courts or juries are equipped to judge what sounds are "original"? Every saw lead will sound the same to some people. (But your honor, listen to that sweet resonance I added in there! )

You originally recorded it? You own it. DONE. Next case. It's from a synthesizer and you recorded it? Case dismissed, DONE.

[cron]

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.

It'd have been a lot less funny for me if I wasn't a Nazi.

Seriously though, (I didn't get right through the thread so sorry if this has already been opined) I think the law is a bit of an ass here. Imagine this - A company creates an instrument in which the sound is electronically generated, then later releases the next generation of that product, the sole difference being that the sounds are stored as samples in memory solely to save on building costs.

The law considers that it's harmful to that company to sample one of its instruments, but not the other, despite the resulting soundsets being identical. Ludicrous. Either the company is being harmed in both instances or it's being harmed in neither.

I really would like someone to manufacture the above situation and let the legal ball roll to see what we get. Well, the law already states what the outcome will be: ludicrous, of course!

The only conclusion I can reach is that judges are lunatic audiophiles who think the samples sound 'warmer' or something.

In the case stated earlier where Roland (rightly!) sued a manufacturer for copying their samples verbatim into a soundcard, I'm left wondering if the only watertight way to go was to invoke copyright law in the same manner in which it's invoked to protect musical composition. I think manufacturers and musicians deserve something better than this which actually takes into account the harm caused, regardless of sourcing. Surely that would be easy... err...

Hopefully we'll see the law mature in this area as, right now, it seems a bit 'libel-touristy' loopholey.

[Genetic_Junk]

That people should know what they are buying. How much of the instrument they own. What the hidden limitations are.

Yes, they should. And these days, that research is easier than its ever been.

Ok, tell me if it's legal to distribute samples of Access Music's Virus TI, which wavetables are copyrighted. Some people say it is, some it's not.

As Meffy says, for best results, consult a lawyer who specializes in copyright for copyright questions.

[chj]

The law considers that it's harmful to that company to sample one of its instruments, but not the other, despite the resulting soundsets being identical. Ludicrous.

Sure enough, right after my post, another one. It's not ludicrous, there are very good legal reasons for it.

[thecontrolcentre]

Imagine this - A company creates an instrument in which the sound is electronically generated, then later releases the next generation of that product, the sole difference being that the sounds are stored as samples in memory solely to save on building costs.

Can you name one time this has actually happened?

[izonin]

That people should know what they are buying. How much of the instrument they own. What the hidden limitations are.

Yes, they should. And these days, that research is easier than its ever been.

Ok, tell me if it's legal to distribute samples of Access Music's Virus TI, which wavetables are copyrighted. Some people say it is, some it's not.

As Meffy says, for best results, consult a lawyer who specializes in copyright for copyright questions.

In a perfect world the manufacturer should be providing this information, so that the buyer knows before the purchase. You can't consult a lawer every time you go shopping for a new synth.

[chj]

You can't consult a lawer every time you go shoping for a new synth.

and you don't need to, you only need to if you're going to distribute sampled instruments.

[thecontrolcentre]

You can't consult a lawer every time you go shoping for a new synth.

Buy something analog ...