Legality of distributing sampled synths

[thecontrolcentre]

[izonin]

Well I was warned by Meffy that my point of view is against the forum rules, that's why I feel it would be safer not to add anything. I already said what I wanted to say.

[Meffy]

Again, no. You were warned that your actions in advising someone to violate copyright laws were against forum rules. That's the second time you're misrepresented what I told you in very clear terms. Don't make a third, 'kay?

[izonin]

But expressing my opinion will violate the rules. This is a catch 22.

[Meffy]

It's nothing of the sort. You're welcome to hold any opinion you want. But if your posts violate KVR's rules, you're no longer welcome to post here. It's a contract of behavior, and most people have little or no problem recognizing their value. Why, I'll bet you participate in similar agreements all the time, and they're not even explicit -- not poking bank tellers in the eye with the pen; keeping your voice low enough not to be disruptive in public; stuff like that. KVR's rules are just one more contract to which you may, if you want to post here, subscribe.

No mystery. No catch-22. Very simple.

Meanwhile, haven't you said several times now that you have nothing further to say?

[chj]

Samples don't have this problem. If you can prove a sound came from your sample, you win.

In the case of images, this is not always true.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality.

This is precisely analogous to the numerous examples presented earlier where someone samples a source not-subject to copyright, e.g. a 909 Kick, and then holds copyright on that sample. The court ruled, in the case of a photograph, that such a copy does not hold significant originality, and consequently, is not itself subject to copyright protection.

This is why laymen shouldn't try to be lawyers. That case has nothing to do with my quote, "If you can prove a sound came from your sample, you win"? The case you cited says, if it's in the public domain, you can't copy it and then claim you're the copyright holder of your copied version.

In that case, copyright law is exactly the same for images as it would be for audio. If you took one of the many free 909 samples on the internet (public domain) copied it, and tried to say you're the copyright holder of your new copy, you'd fail also.

You like the quotes about originality, but the case doesn't support what you're trying to say.

Plus, I'll say it a THIRD TIME. Audio sample law has nothing to do with creative "originality", it's for legal efficiency. Audio sample law is designed the way it is specifically because the Courts didn't want to bother arguing if a sample was creatively original. Audio sample law says, we don't care how original or creative you think you are, if you used the sample without permission it's a violation.

Good thing too, the law is absolutely cut and dry, yet this thread still manages to break off into a thousand tangents. Can you imagine how ridiculous this thread (and argument in Court) would be if "originality and creativity" were the criteria for deciding which samples were legal and which were not?

[sorohanro]

To my understanding it's all about WANNABE's.
Let me explain please.

Music:

Real - you take a bass player, write down a groove, get him a Fender Jazz bass, put through an amp, get the right sound. Take a drummer, write down a groove, get him playing right, get good drums, put new skins. Get the bass player to rehears with the bass player to get the groove tight together. Get a good sounding studio, put microphones so you don't have phase problems. Get a guitar player, brass section.... etc... = I AM MUSICIAN

Fake - Take an old soul/ funk recording, rip off some parts without voice, record your voice on top = I AM MUSICIAN

Sample packs:

Real - get a good piano, get a good sounding concert hall (pay a lot for using it?), get good microphones, LEARN how to use them, put those so you don't have phase problems. Get a good console, carry it to the concert hall. Get a good/ decent piano player to get good performance and good dynamics. Record for hours/ days. Stop for tuning from time to time. Pay the technician who do it.
Edit/ clean/ map/ make scripts/ design GUI = I HAS PIANO LIBRARY

Fake - get a rompler, put the piano sound, use an automated program to rip off the sound. Map/ make scripts/ design GUI(? really? maybe not) = I HAS PIANO
LIBRARY

Now, tell me, which one is right ?

[chj]

To my understanding it's all about WANNABE's.

No that has nothing to do with this thread. If you like real acoutic instruments fine, but a better musician will make better music with sampled instruments than a lesser musician will make with real instruments.

Plus, your example of the piano is just plain wrong. Get a piano/concert hall and sample it yourself? That's what a rompler is, except if it's from a good company, it's done better than you could ever hope to do yourself.

[sorohanro]

To my understanding it's all about WANNABE's.

No that has nothing to do with this thread. If you like real acoutic instruments fine, but a better musician will make better music with sampled instruments than a lesser musician will make with real instruments.

This was just one example out of thousands possible. The principle can be applied to many ideas. If you don't see the principle behind my both examples I will try to be more clear.
Real - You plant a apple tree, put water every day, care for it, at the right time you pick apples = I HAS APPLES

Fake - You see apple tree in a sample developer yard, go steal apples = I HAS APPLES

It has nothing to do with what sounds you like to use in your music, what music you like, what TV station you watch, what color of paintings fade faster, what they use on Eiffel tower (LED's or bulbs), what photos you like more (color or monochromatic) and what cake your grandma used to bake when you were a child... etc

[sorohanro]

To my understanding it's all about WANNABE's.

Plus, your example of the piano is just plain wrong. Get a piano/concert hall and sample it yourself? That's what a rompler is, except if it's from a good company, it's done better than you could ever hope to do yourself.

Too much effort ?
See, you made EXACTLY my point. Everybody stays in line when getting the praise for making a sound library but not everybody have the guts to make the necessary steps.
Too hard to be a real developer, but how many fake developers want to post a sample bank and have people to make a thread here on KVR and say thanks?
How many of those want to make the effort to make a real one?

How many banks in a rompler were made out of custom electronics to get that lushy pads ? how many hours were spent to get the real gear to sound like this and then sample it through high end preamps and consoles?
Then you have somebody using some "Autosampler" on the bank you took years to develop.


For some reason I feel like trying to explain to a 12 years old kid why shoplifting is wrong... "-But I really like that action figure, why they ask money for it?"

[fmr]

To my understanding it's all about WANNABE's.
Let me explain please.

Music:

Real - you take a bass player, write down a groove, get him a Fender Jazz bass, put through an amp, get the right sound. Take a drummer, write down a groove, get him playing right, get good drums, put new skins. Get the bass player to rehears with the bass player to get the groove tight together. Get a good sounding studio, put microphones so you don't have phase problems. Get a guitar player, brass section.... etc... = I AM MUSICIAN

Fake - Take an old soul/ funk recording, rip off some parts without voice, record your voice on top = I AM MUSICIAN

Sample packs:

Real - get a good piano, get a good sounding concert hall (pay a lot for using it?), get good microphones, LEARN how to use them, put those so you don't have phase problems. Get a good console, carry it to the concert hall. Get a good/ decent piano player to get good performance and good dynamics. Record for hours/ days. Stop for tuning from time to time. Pay the technician who do it.
Edit/ clean/ map/ make scripts/ design GUI = I HAS PIANO LIBRARY

Fake - get a rompler, put the piano sound, use an automated program to rip off the sound. Map/ make scripts/ design GUI(? really? maybe not) = I HAS PIANO
LIBRARY

Now, tell me, which one is right ?

You couldn't be more wrong, and you are confusing Cornerstreet with the corner of the street.

What you described is stealing, plçain and simple, and is not what has been discussed around here, as I will try to explain:

1. People tend to overrate sample libraries. Sure there are terrific sound libraries out there, specially when it comes to orchestral instruments, pianos, etc. But, no matter ho good they are, if do not have VERY GOOD MUSICAL SKILLS and a deep knowledge of the compositional tool you are using, otherwise you will end with mediocre results, no matter how good the libraries are. So, this is not a matter of wannabes - it's about musical tools and musical skills.

2. No matter how good a sample library is, it's DEAD. If the synthesis/sample engine of the instrument do not have the features to make it expressive, you will end (once again) with poor results. A sampled piano, no matter how good it was recorded, sampled, whatever, will always be a sampled piano. The best sampled Steinway Concert Grand will be easily overpassed by a medium vertical piano played by a skilled pianist and well recorded.

3. Back into the core of the subject. Have you ever saw the size and the raw quality of the ROM samples in a ROMpler? These are, at the best, average. The raw sampls are not what makes a top of the line Motif, Fantom or Korg whatever great synths. It's the synthesis engine, with all the processing and modulation tools built in, that contributes the most for the great sound they usually have. That, and skillfull patch programming. Now, I use my skills to come up with great sounds out of the intrument, and I am not entitled to take full advantage of them in whatever way I want because there is a tiny basis on them that's copyrighted - is this fair? Is this right?

4. Of course, I can ask copyright owners for permisson (that's what I would do, and what I defend should be done), and if they give it to me, I am good. But if they don't, I am constrained, and that would really p*** me off.

5. Regarding patch programming. I bet I could come with very similar sounds out of the top ROMplers from any of the big three, and Kurzweil, and others. And I am certain I could come out with sounds that anyone would have a hard time (not to say it would be nearly impossible) to tell which ROMpler they came from. Now - if I distribute those sounds, I would be violating copyright, but WHOM copyright? Only I could tell.

That's these constrainments of the copyright law over the users that are being discussed (at least by me and several others) not direct copies fo the sounds. So, if you want to argue, be my guest, but don't mix Cornerstreet with the corner of the street.

[sorohanro]

some good and clear points

I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge.
However, this is just my opinion as a musician and as a person who understand why people want to protect their work, it's not the ultimate truth, just an opinion.

1 - Sample libraries are instruments. From a composer's point of view it doesn't really matter if you play on a violin or on a midi keyboard as long as it sounds like violin (or whatever you have in mind).
However, there is a BIG difference between samples (one note samples, the stuff you can play on a keyboard like an instrument) and loops (what hip-hopers call samples but contains actually a full mixed bass, drums, synths, backing voices...etc) or construction kits (the Lego/ Duplo way of making music).
It's a big difference if you write your music note by note and you know every melody line or if you just toss together other's people music and call it your own.

2 -

The best sampled Steinway Concert Grand will be easily overpassed by a medium vertical piano played by a skilled pianist and well recorded.

Totally agree

3 - You can sell patches for that particular synth in that particular synth format. You can also try to get the rights.
It's similar with many music making programs that comes with pre-made loops, with the program you can make royalty free music but if you use the loops your track falls under their own licensing, or not, depending of the program/ loop pack license.
In any case, the original creator have the right to choose how his/ her work can be used.

4 - That's with almost everything in life.
I like a girl and ask her to dance with me. If she says "yes" I'm fine but if she don't, I am constrained, and that would really p*** me off.

5 - Well, that's up to you really. I can rob a bank and I would get in trouble only if they catch me (more or less, maybe I am exaggerating, I'm a drama queen sometimes).

[hollowsun]

Have you ever saw the size and the raw quality of the ROM samples in a ROMpler

Actually, it is a LOT harder and a LOT more work to squeeze carefully chosen, painstakingly edited and skillfully optimised samples into a limited and fixed constraint of ROM than it is to just take a pile of samples, do the minimum amount of work (essentially just trim the start points) and lob 'em into 2GB of computer RAM.

But that's not the point...

These are, at the best, average.

So if they are so "average", why do you want to sample them?

Many/most ROMplers allow you to load your own samples - why not make your own, superior samples and then use the synth engine to create a great sound library with those? That would be perfectly legal and you could have the satisfaction that the sounds really are all your own creative work.

4. Of course, I can ask copyright owners for permisson (that's what I would do, and what I defend should be done), and if they give it to me, I am good. But if they don't, I am constrained, and that would really p*** me off.

Constrained? In what way? Constrained from re-distributing someone else's (copyrighted) work?

[fmr]

Have you ever saw the size and the raw quality of the ROM samples in a ROMpler

Actually, it is a LOT harder and a LOT more work to squeeze carefully chosen, painstakingly edited and skillfully optimised samples into a limited and fixed constraint of ROM than it is to just take a pile of samples, do the minimum amount of work (essentially just trim the start points) and lob 'em into 2GB of computer RAM.

But that's not the point...

I may agree to some extent. Actualy, being someone who had worked with those limitations in the beginning of the samples (as you do), I understand perfectly what you are saying. But that's not the point.

These are, at the best, average.

So if they are so "average", why do you want to sample them?

Many/most ROMplers allow you to load your own samples - why not make your own, superior samples and then use the synth engine to create a great sound library with those? That would be perfectly legal and you could have the satisfaction that the sounds really are all your own creative work.

Point taken. I said the same previously. We both agree on that. But sometimes, it's pointless having to reinvent the wheel, just because...

4. Of course, I can ask copyright owners for permisson (that's what I would do, and what I defend should be done), and if they give it to me, I am good. But if they don't, I am constrained, and that would really p*** me off.

Constrained? In what way? Constrained from re-distributing someone else's (copyrighted) work?

And here we go again. The core of the subject is at what extent this can be fairly considered someone else's work. And we are not talking about what it is LEGALLY - that's established. We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.

Can you open your mind a litle and undress your developer coat for a few moments, trying to understand the other side? I am not saying you have to agree, but it's pointless to always end up with the LAW. The LAW, as you said it yourself, has some stupid protections, like forbidding the user ot make a copy of his own CD for his own purposes.

Now, please delete ALL the copies of your CDs you have spreaded around your house or in your car

[sorohanro]

We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.

A creator SHOULD BE able to choose how his/ her creation will be used.

That kind of put an end to the discussion