FREE: Alexis D-Four ... 90s drum sounds

[chokehold]

Quick question:

Unless you are the intended recipient (...), you may not read, print, retain, use, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.

Does this mean that as I am the intended recipient, I may disclose the contents of the eMail Alesis sent me to all of you here?

[whyterabbyt]

Quick question:

Unless you are the intended recipient (...), you may not read, print, retain, use, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.

Does this mean that as I am the intended recipient, I may disclose the contents of the eMail Alesis sent me to all of you here?

I reckon you can disclose it, but we cant read it when you do.

[chokehold]

I reckon you can disclose it, but we cant read it when you do.

Huh? Isn't that clause just there to prevent wrongly-sent eMails from reaching an unintended audience?
Or does it really mean I may not quote their words to you?

Cheers

[Acid Mitch]

Or does it really mean I may not quote their words to you?

Why not ask Alesis ?

[whyterabbyt]

I reckon you can disclose it, but we cant read it when you do.

Huh? Isn't that clause just there to prevent wrongly-sent eMails from reaching an unintended audience?
Or does it really mean I may not quote their words to you?

Cheers

I actually dont know, its was levity.

[chokehold]

Why not ask Alesis ?

Because it would take them ages to reply again, I guess.

[thisplace]

Um I think that's for wrong recipient. Ps I actually have a d4 and would rather use the plugin cuz I'm lazy like that... so I'd love to hear the official response....

[chokehold]

Well, I wrote to them again and am awaiting their reply.

FWIW: "it wasn't me."
(no, srsly, it really wasn't!)

[thisplace]

This whole thing is kinda silly.. legal or not... to think the difference would be the hardware being based on samples or not.... geez... maybe alesis should license your plugin and offer it up themselves.... maybe that's the 3rd email if their response is negative to number 2... they get to please customers and you get your dev name out there... blablabla...

[chokehold]

Would be cool if they let me "officially" start over and make something better with their blessing, sure. But I really don't see that happening. "Who am I".

[whyterabbyt]

This whole thing is kinda silly.. legal or not... to think the difference would be the hardware being based on samples or not....

Again you have to consider what it is that this 'difference' applies to. As has been said repeatedly in this thread, the context of the law which is an issue here pertains to recordings. 'Hardware which is based on samples' intrinsically has recordings; samples are recordings. Therefore 'hardware which is based on samples' is affected by the laws which pertain to recordings.
'Hardware which isnt based on samples' intrinsically doesn have recordings, so the laws which pertain to recordings dont apply.

Its like saying its silly that maritime law treats trains 'differently' from boats There isnt a difference in the law for non-sampled instruments, the law just has absolutely no relevance for them.

[chokehold]

Then why is it such a big deal when it comes to sampling synthesizers that don't use stored samples but create the sound you hear completely from scratch?

Oh, right, the only trouble is sampling the presets - because THEY are the intellectual property of the creator.

So it should be rightful to load a preset, turn all the knobs + or - 0.01, thereby modify the preset and make it legally acceptable to sample it then -- correct?

I, being a musician featured on an album available on iTunes myself, have nothing against the ideas of copyright and intellectual property. But there is a point at which all of this gets ridiculous.

'Hardware which is based on samples' intrinsically has recordings; samples are recordings. Therefore 'hardware which is based on samples' is affected by the laws which pertain to recordings.

As I pointed out before, there DEFINITELY IS a distinguishable and definable difference between identically cloning the source without any loss of quality and merely copying it and degrading the source's quality in that copying process.

A recorded CD can be digitally reduplicated 1:1, Bit by Bit, so there definitely is the possibility to gain access to the unfalsified, copyrighted and intellectually property-fied source material, enabling you to create bit-identical clones of the source of what's pressed onto that CD.

Triggering and recording the samples in a drum machine does NOT give access to the unfalsified original samples. Because once the samples have been read from the EEPROMS, they are from then on constantly being falsified and modified by being sent through a Digital-to-Analog converter, the circuitry of the machine itself and any other connected cabling or device after it.

This introduces digital noises and humming and hissing and aliasing and rounding errors and maybe picks up some interference from a computer fan or a fridge compressor, so if I record what comes out of that machine -- it is NOT an exact bit-identical clone of the original source data.

What it in fact is, is a severely degraded copy that is falsified in an irrational (as in non-predictable) way and will NEVER be bit-identical if I repeatedly trigger the eaxact same sample in the exact same way over and over, because the externally (including the circuitry in the machine) introduced noises are irrational and will vary from recording to recording.

Even if the idea of "intellectual property" may prohibit distributing not just the bit-identical clones but also the severely degraded copies -- please do NOT mix those two things up, or suggest they are the same, especially not if you're partaking in a discussion like this.

Why it may or may not be prohibited to distribute the one has completely different reasons and perspectives behind it as against why it may or may not be prohibited to distribute the other.

[Acid Mitch]

Then why is it such a big deal when it comes to sampling synthesizers that don't use stored samples but create the sound you hear completely from scratch?

It's not even an issue, never mind a big deal.

Oh, right, the only trouble is sampling the presets - because THEY are the intellectual property of the creator.
.

Redistributing the presets might be an issue but samples of the presets ? Really ?

[whyterabbyt]

As I pointed out before, there DEFINITELY IS a distinguishable and definable difference between identically cloning the source without any loss of quality and merely copying it and degrading the source's quality in that copying process.

There may be a technical difference, but there is not a legal one. Copyright pertains to the recorded material, not the recording media, or a subsequent recording's fidelity to the original.

In essence it is the action of making a recording which is covered, not some qualitive assesment of the recording itself.

A recorded CD can be digitally reduplicated 1:1, Bit by Bit, so there definitely is the possibility to gain access to the unfalsified, copyrighted and intellectually property-fied source material, enabling you to create bit-identical clones of the source of what's pressed onto that CD.

Given that copyright law clearly still applies to 'derived works' which in reality might be entirely unidentifiable in relationship to the source material, any issue of 'bit for bit accuracy' as a yardstick is missing the point, Im afraid.

Even if the idea of "intellectual property" may prohibit distributing not just the bit-identical clones but also the severely degraded copies -- please do NOT mix those two things up, or suggest they are the same, especially not if you're partaking in a discussion like this.

Why it may or may not be prohibited to distribute the one has completely different reasons and perspectives behind it as against why it may or may not be prohibited to distribute the other.

Im afraid its you who's mixing things up, by introducing a false dichotomy which ignores something which is explicitly covered in the relevant laws. The relevant laws relate specifically covers the case of derived copies, and any 'derivation' process includes all accidental and deliberate processes which might alter the material from the state of the original recording. However, if an original recording was used (note : not 'duplicated exactly') as source material for another recording, that is the specific point at which copyright law applies.

[chokehold]

Wow, that was fast... Unexpected Thank You to Alesis.

Robert,

The confidentiality notice exists to prevent someone other than the intended recipient from reading or sharing information that was not sent to them. As you are the intended recipient, you are free to disseminate the information therein as you see fit.

Regarding your second question, that's fine. Again, the sounds in the D4 can absolutely be used to produce music that is to be shared (commercially or otherwise), so as long as that's what you're doing, we've got no issue with that.

Best regards,

Adam
--
Adam Cohen
Vice President, Business Development
inMusic
AIR | Akai Professional | Alesis | ▲lto Professional | ION Audio | M-Audio | MixMeister | Numark | Sonivox*

So as I now have their blessing to inseminate you or something, here's the original answer about the samples:

Robert,

Thanks for your thorough request. While we can appreciate your thinking regarding the current status of the D4, unfortunately, we cannot approve your request.

You are free to use the D4 sounds in a commercially released recording project. However, it is not OK to produce a product using our IP as its basis when the product's core functionality is similar to the product from which the IP originated, and similar to other products that we currently produce and may produce in the future. The fact that the product you're intending to produce is proposed as a free-of-charge offering doesn't change our position on this.

We wish you the best of luck in your endeavors, provided that they do not infringe our IP.

Best regards,

Adam Cohen
Vice President, Business Development
inMusic
AIR | Akai Professional | Alesis | ▲lto Professional | ION Audio | M-Audio | MixMeister | Numark | Sonivox*

So as much as it pains me sentimentally for all my sampling efforts, I may not distribute the Alexis and the samples.

However, that second paragraph in his second reply (quoted at the beginning of this post) is the answer to this question I sent:

As I may not distribute my recorded samples of the D4 a) on their own and b) in a way that even slightly resembles the functionality of the D4, all of which I respect -- may I use the samples I have recorded from the D4 to freely render customers' and friends' MIDI tracks and issue them the final audio tracks? Not one-shot by one-shot, but as actual renders of their drum grooves?

The answer he sent (see top quote) gives me consent to use the sounds I recorded from the D4 to render "clients' and friends'" MIDI tracks to audio for personal or commercial further use, as long as they aren't one-shots.
Let's see what good can come from that.