New DIVA components

[Ch00rD]

one more for SQ80/ESQ1 - they are amazing and distinctive

A good deal of which will be down to the waveforms, the rights for which will be owned and protected by someone - which rather puts the kibosh on a faithful emu. I guess the same will be true for the DW8000 and the Prophet VS.

Anyway, supersaw reservations aside, this JP8K oscillator should be more than enough to go on with for now.

Rights to waveforms: in the typical case, that is nonsense. In a few exceptional cases, there may be *some* validity to an intellectual property claim over raw waveforms (e.g. a *collection* of waveforms may qualify for the purposes of EU database protection law), but even then it would typically be highly debatable. A really credible claim would probably have to rely on a patent, which is quite a high standard to meet (unlike copyright, for example). And patents run out after a term of 20 years in most jurisdictions as a matter of law. Ergo: they must have expired for whatever patents applied to synths from the 80s.

PS: FWIW, IAAL. And I will be glad to argue any legal debates in such matters in favor of developers that I like a lot, such as u-he, free of charge - and have some experience in doing so successfully in the past. I'll let you in on a secret: lawyers employed by synthesizer manufacturers typically suck. So bring on the 'proprietary' oscillator waveforms!

[News From The Sky]

one more for SQ80/ESQ1 - they are amazing and distinctive

A good deal of which will be down to the waveforms, the rights for which will be owned and protected by someone - which rather puts the kibosh on a faithful emu. I guess the same will be true for the DW8000 and the Prophet VS.

Not so sure about that. The DW might be protected by Korg, but the VS waves have shown up in a couple other places since the demise of Sequential (Wavestation, Evolver, Vector Sector, Solaris), as have the PPG waves (Wavestation and Solaris again, various Waldorf synths). I suppose it's possible that Dave Smith bought or licensed them off Korg, who bought or licensed them off Yamaha, who acquired them along with Sequential - but it's also possible they're just considered public domain now. It doesn't really matter though:

Worst case scenario is you either use similar-but-not-identical waves (they're distinctive but not unique - Galbanum might be able to help with this) or you allow the user to load their own single-cycle waves. Or both. And for the VS and PPG at least, a lot of the sound isn't just the digital waves (and related aliasing and clock noise) but the evolution of the waves via table sweep or vector.

It's been pointed out that this might make more sense in Zebra, and now that DZ has Diva-inspired filters, that's probably true. But Zebra doesn't have a vector envelope (or wavetables of more than 16 waves) or the idiosyncracies of the VS or PPG.

[News From The Sky]

In a few exceptional cases, there may be *some* validity to an intellectual property claim over raw waveforms (e.g. a *collection* of waveforms may qualify for the purposes of EU database protection law), but even then it would typically be highly debatable. A really credible claim would probably have to rely on a patent, which is quite a high standard to meet (unlike copyright, for example). And patents run out after a term of 20 years in most jurisdictions as a matter of law. Ergo: they must have expired for whatever patents applied to synths from the 80s.

Copyright would apply, not patent law (they're works of art, not inventions). But you have to enforce copyrights or you lose them, and there's been no enforcement I know of in the cases we're discussing. Be interesting to know if John Bowen paid any licensing for the Solaris waves.

IANAL, IANAMD, IANAPOTUS.

[Sendy]

I'm pretty sure in the case of the SQ80 it's the mechanism of playback rather than the actual single cycle waveforms themselves which give it's it's gritty, almost SID-like character. If the legality of the waves really was an issue, equivalents that sounded the same but looked different would be fine.

Which begs a question... how different does a single-cycle wave have to be from another single-cycle wave not to infringe copyright? You could flip the polarity of the fundamental or 3rd harmonic and get a completely different shape that sounds totally the same. If transformations of the copyrighted wave aren't permitted (such as running it through an effect and using that), then technically, as computing power increases, a computer could map any wave A onto any given wave B, making ALL CONCIEVABLE waves an infringement

[Ch00rD]

In a few exceptional cases, there may be *some* validity to an intellectual property claim over raw waveforms (e.g. a *collection* of waveforms may qualify for the purposes of EU database protection law), but even then it would typically be highly debatable. A really credible claim would probably have to rely on a patent, which is quite a high standard to meet (unlike copyright, for example). And patents run out after a term of 20 years in most jurisdictions as a matter of law. Ergo: they must have expired for whatever patents applied to synths from the 80s.

Copyright would apply, not patent law (they're works of art, not inventions). But you have to enforce copyrights or you lose them, and there's been no enforcement I know of in the cases we're discussing. Be interesting to know if John Bowen paid any licensing for the Solaris waves.

IANAL, IANAMD, IANAPOTUS.

That's just an example of the sort of typical nonsense I referred to.

Claiming that oscillator waveforms are works of art and as such protected against copying is nonsense. If it were true, any music made with these oscillators would infringe and need prior permission by the manufacturer of the instrument. That would go against the entire purpose of the contract in selling a musical instrument, even as a matter of common sense.

Also, there is no requirement *at all* to enforce a copyright in order not to lose it. That only goes for trademark rights, which are intended to protect the consumer from confusion, not to grant a monopoly on creations of art or inventions. In copyright and patent law, the right holder is typically allowed to act in completely arbitrary, discriminatory, and/or inconsistent manner.

In cases such as these, if people acquire licenses, the main argument to do so is simply legal butt-coverage to compensate for a lack of absolute certainty.

I'm pretty sure in the case of the SQ80 it's the mechanism of playback rather than the actual single cycle waveforms themselves which give it's it's gritty, almost SID-like character. If the legality of the waves really was an issue, equivalents that sounded the same but looked different would be fine.

Which begs a question... how different does a single-cycle wave have to be from another single-cycle wave not to infringe copyright? You could flip the polarity of the fundamental or 3rd harmonic and get a completely different shape that sounds totally the same. If transformations of the copyrighted wave aren't permitted (such as running it through an effect and using that), then technically, as computing power increases, a computer could map any wave A onto any given wave B, making ALL CONCIEVABLE waves an infringement

Even if the (highly questionable) assumption would hold that some waveform is subject to copyright law, then flipping it would only be a unauthorised modification, hence yet another, separate infringement.

Indeed, you can see how quickly this would pervert the most basic rule in intellectual property law: that information is free to copy, unless specifically protected by an intellectual property right.

PS: I only offered my free advice to *devs* - where do I send the bill for my consultancy fees?

[News From The Sky]

Claiming that oscillator waveforms are works of art and as such protected against copying is nonsense. If it were true, any music made with these oscillators would infringe and need prior permission by the manufacturer of the instrument. That would go against the entire purpose of the contract in selling a musical instrument, even as a matter of common sense.

Bullshit. The rights holder can grant limited license, for instance:

The provided samples, instruments and presets can be used for commercial or non-commercial music and audio productions without the prior permission from Native Instruments under the terms of this Sound License Agreement. The usage of this product (in particular samples, instruments and presets) for the creation of a sound library or as a sound library for any kind of synthesizer, virtual instrument, sample library, sample-based product or other musical instrument is strictly prohibited. Individual samples, sound sets or audio loops may not be distributed (commercially or otherwise) standalone. Furthermore these samples, sound sets or audio may not be repackaged in whole or in part as audio samples, sound libraries or sound effects.

Also, there is no requirement *at all* to enforce a copyright in order not to lose it.

That's correct, though a failure to enforce in other cases can diminish the damages the rights holder can claim.

PS: I only offered my free advice to *devs* - where do I send the bill for my consultancy fees?

Sorry dude, if you're a lawyer at all, you're either not familiar with IP law or really haven't done your research.

[hakey]

I haven't ever been keen on Prophet VS and PPG Wave. The SQ80 would rather be it.

Nevertheless, I believe that those waveforms are impossible to license. We would have to e.g. resample the SQ80 (or D-50 or...) wave by wave, and it would still sound different.

[Ch00rD]

Claiming that oscillator waveforms are works of art and as such protected against copying is nonsense. If it were true, any music made with these oscillators would infringe and need prior permission by the manufacturer of the instrument. That would go against the entire purpose of the contract in selling a musical instrument, even as a matter of common sense.

Bullshit. The rights holder can grant limited license, for instance:

The provided samples, instruments and presets can be used for commercial or non-commercial music and audio productions without the prior permission from Native Instruments under the terms of this Sound License Agreement. The usage of this product (in particular samples, instruments and presets) for the creation of a sound library or as a sound library for any kind of synthesizer, virtual instrument, sample library, sample-based product or other musical instrument is strictly prohibited. Individual samples, sound sets or audio loops may not be distributed (commercially or otherwise) standalone. Furthermore these samples, sound sets or audio may not be repackaged in whole or in part as audio samples, sound libraries or sound effects.

Also, there is no requirement *at all* to enforce a copyright in order not to lose it.

That's correct, though a failure to enforce in other cases can diminish the damages the rights holder can claim.

PS: I only offered my free advice to *devs* - where do I send the bill for my consultancy fees?

Sorry dude, if you're a lawyer at all, you're either not familiar with IP law or really haven't done your research.

Sorry, but your entire argument is nonsense, sir - or 'dude', if you prefer that.

The fact that a limited license can be granted by the holder of an intellectual property right, is exactly what I said: it's just a specific form of "prior permission". But that presumes that such a right exists to begin with. Your quote of some random snippet from some random license is completely irrelevant to that question, the fact that some vendor stipulates some restriction has nothing to do with the question whether there is a valid intellectual property right on the subject matter. And even if such a vendor explicitly claims to have some property right, that does not mean at all that there actually is one.

And while there may be many reasons to lower or raise the amount of damages, those differ vastly per jurisdiction; there is certainly no general rule that failure of consistent enforcement lowers the amount of damages at all. There is, however, such a general rule that there is no requirement for copyright renewal whatsoever. Are you seriously telling me that because I did not spell out all the possible legal consequences for you, free of charge, I did not do my research? You must be kidding.

Obviously, you're either not familiar with IP law or really haven't done your research yourself before attacking me on the matter. Perhaps one needs to be a lawyer to comprehend these basic matters of fact, so I won't blame you for not knowing them. And in any case, I have enough trust in my excellent academic qualifications and professional research and consultancy expertise on the subject, to not be bothered at all by your assessment of my legal skills. But that does not mean I'm willing to entertain insults or trolling. Since you have not even begun to disprove anything I said, I'm done with your argument, or rather, completely unfounded personal attack. Hence, I won't continue any discussion with you on such legal matters here. Indeed, sorry, 'dude'.

[Urs]

Gosh, this is over my head

Just sampling or reusing something really isn't what we're in it for - it lacks the challenge component. We would rather recreate each sample of e.g. a D-50 one by one in Zebra and use that. It would be tedious work though. So far I love all our non-sample-based ideas for future projects much more, hence I wouldn't even bother...

- Urs

[Ch00rD]

I haven't ever been keen on Prophet VS and PPG Wave. The SQ80 would rather be it.

Nevertheless, I believe that those waveforms are impossible to license. We would have to e.g. resample the SQ80 (or D-50 or...) wave by wave, and it would still sound different.

You mean, because Urs believes it, it is the law?

Well, around here, maybe so.

But seriously, if there would in fact be a valid copyright in those waveforms, sampling them would only be an additional infringement of that copyright, and not a viable workaround at all. So if the second sentence would hold true, any valid IPR on those waveforms must be based on another type of IPR. Patent law seems *very* doubtful, as waveforms would be exactly the type of information that is excluded from the domain of patent law protection. A more likely candidate for a *collection* of waveforms would be database protection law. But the SQ80 dates from 1988, which is from before the EU database protection directive, so that is not possible; outside the EU, at that time, similar protection did not exist either. One would have to rely on relatively weak claims (unfair competition, passing off), at best. Then it typically comes back to the fundamental principles of free competition and that information is not a subject matter of copyright or patent law.

In any case, as a legal assessment, Urs' statement there is not the definitive and authoritative answer to the question - nor is mine, for that matter.

[hakey]

You mean, because Urs believes it, it is the law?

No. I mean it's Urs who makes the decisions and I have a funny feeling that silly bickering (see above) isn't likely to bring him around.

[Ch00rD]

You mean, because Urs believes it, it is the law?

No. I mean it's Urs who makes the decisions and I have a funny feeling that silly bickering (see above) isn't likely to bring him around to your way of thinking.

Ah, ok. Without any context, you left me guessing there as to *your* meaning.

Well, I think you misunderstand my intent here completely. Believe me, I have no intent nor need to bring Urs around to my way of thinking at all, nor to (perhaps more importantly) the conclusions of my arguments related to intellectual property claims over any waveforms. The simple fact is that I personally have absolutely no desire whatsoever for such waveforms in Diva. If you perhaps would have presumed that my offer of legal assistance to Urs, would he consider using any waveforms while somewhat unsure about the legalities of doing so, can directly be traced back to my selfish interests to have such a feature included, you're mistaken. I simply want to support and help u-he wherever I can, because I think they're doing an absolutely awesome job at what they do, which is quite a different specialism than IP law. And the less distraction they have with issues where they're not specialists, the more coding they can do for us, something they obviously do excel at - that's as far as my selfish interests go here.

So far I love all our non-sample-based ideas for future projects much more, hence I wouldn't even bother...

Hey, that is my way of thinking exactly with regard to your past / current projects. Keep it up!

[whyterabbyt]

Claiming that oscillator waveforms are works of art and as such protected against copying is nonsense.

When talking about digital oscillator waveforms stored in a table, the usual expectation is that they would be covered as sound recordings, not works of art.
Obviously no given waveform need necessarily need been recorded from a real-world source, they could be computed, but Im sure it would be possible to argue that the act of storing a computed wavetable in a table is recording it.
Is it actually nonsense that they might be considred sound recordings, and as that such protected against copying?

If it were true, any music made with these oscillators would infringe

Really? I wasnt aware copyright actually covered making anything from something covered by copyright, I thought it speifically covered rights to redistribute copies of something. In this case, the context would surely be redistributing copies of the waveform, ie recording music made with them, and then redistributing it.

and need prior permission by the manufacturer of the instrument. That would go against the entire purpose of the contract in selling a musical instrument, even as a matter of common sense.

How would it go against the purpose of the contract if all it takes is the granting of said permission?

Isnt that a bit like saying that selling the right to reproduce your manuscript to someone goes 'against' their need to have permission to reproduce it.

[Howard]

enough already.

[Howard]

it gets *loud*.

I remember that being the key thing about it and the P5 when they first came out... they were both so loud and cutting .. they could compete with guitars right out of the box.

I think Urs means that the oscillator output level is highly dependent on Resonance, not that the resulting sound has a particularly "cutting" quality (like e.g. the Nord Lead). It might have, though - I haven't tried the latest version yet!