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

[tropicalontour]

I propose reserving a special circle of hell for all those that own copyrights, but refuse to make their copyrighted materials available in any form, while pursuing anybody that does make them available.

I know Alesis have the right not to sell their samples, but I'm equally willing to suggest that, in all probability, they can offer no written and notarised documented guarantees of the original provenance of their samples. We only have their word for it, in all likelihood.

Copyright law protects both behaviours, regrettably. That's just the way it is.

[HenriAugusto]

I know Alesis have the right not to sell their samples, but I'm equally willing to suggest that, in all probability, they can offer no written and notarised documented guarantees of the original provenance of their samples. We only have their word for it, in all likelihood.

I'm not going on the merits of legality of that (or in this case, illegality), but...

Just happens they can offer it. Chokehold made very explicit on the web (including the mail he sent them) where he got the samples. But even if he re-released the same samples with a different name and said they were record by him with real drums on a studio, they would be able to match the sounds and conclude they are the same sounds.

The whole point of making free (as in $0 free) instruments is that they're also free (in license). If somebody is willing to use illegal samples they would probably download EZ Drummer, BFD or something like that instead of downloading semi-professional stuff.

[ghettosynth]

If the drum loops were only made with the Alesis samples, I guess it could be seen as illegal, too, because you could simply cut them and use them individually.

Therefore you would have to use other samples, too, to call it "musical composition"...

For the specific use suggested, I don't think that Alesis would view it as within the terms of the permission that they grant. I also think that the courts would agree. It is just a complicated way to distribute copies of the samples without license.

Nonetheless, whether it is legal has nothing to do with whether someone can cut the pieces up. You can use any piano sample library to record an Erik Satie piece which will leave at least a few notes out in the open. That fact doesn't make his works "off limits" owing to copyright concerns. It also has nothing to do with whether you use other samples as well. One is completely within the terms of the implied license from Alesis to record and release a track commercially that has nothing but D4 drums and one has no obligation to ensure that no drums are isolated.

Now, if one tried to use this to release a recording of all of the drums in sequence Alesis would probably prevail in court as the courts would likely view this as an attempt to circumvent copyright. On the other hand, if it were a legitimate percussion composition, it's not clear that Alesis would prevail, in fact, it's not even clear to me that they would want to sue.

[HenriAugusto]

Yeah, i guess the midi->server->render->download idea is totally legal. The responsibility to not cut the individual shots is up to the user, and not the service owner (in this case, Chokehold).

[ghettosynth]

Yeah, i guess the midi->server->render->download idea is totally legal. The responsibility to not cut the individual shots is up to the user, and not the service owner (in this case, Chokehold).

To be clear, I'm not saying that. I misread part of the post that I quoted. I don't think that changing distribution to a service will make what is "not allowed" be "allowed." In fact, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't fly. If it would, I could set up a service that played user compositions. My musical language is a playlist and your composition is an album of music recorded by other artists. Because I want to get popular fast, I'll call the service ComposeYourOwnBeatlesAlbum.com. I'm pretty sure that I'd get sued for the domain registration was complete. In fact, I think that some lawyers are trying to make sure that I'm joking as you read this.

[chokehold]

For the specific use suggested, I don't think that Alesis would view it as within the terms of the permission that they grant. I also think that the courts would agree. It is just a complicated way to distribute copies of the samples without license.

No.

They did NOT want me to DISTRIBUTE the samples, or the samples in a machine or plugin that resembles however closely the functionality of the original device.

I asked EXPLICITLY and UNMISTAKABLY whether or not I may use the D4 sounds THAT I HAVE ALREADY RECORDED to render MIDI tracks to audio tracks for clients and friends AND THEN PROVIDE these audio tracks to the clients and friends.

Alesis' answer to that question was a clear YES.

As soon as I offer a service and someone wishes to use my service, they have to agree to certain terms of use etc. which is a legal contract. So if YOU go to MY (potential) website and click "yes, I agree that there may be mistakes in the rendered file" or something - we have a contract and that makes me a service provider and you the client.

Being a provider who renders clients' MIDI tracks to audio with his (own recorded) D4 samples and provides these audio renders to his clients is what I was explicitly granted by Alesis.

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?

(...) Regarding your (...) 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 (...)

So I have their written consent and permission to theoretically do something like this.

I'm not trying to "outsmart Alesis" and I'm not forcefully investigating possible loopholes to find a gray area which would enable me to share their samples after all.

But if they tell me "sure, what you're proposing is legal, go ahead" -- then why shouldn't I do it? The perfect excuse to create a MIDI-to-Audio PHP script, something I've always wanted to do, not just for this one set of sounds.

That thing about people cutting up rendered tracks and creating their own samples is none of my business. Should I ever get something like what I'm thinking of up and running, I'll make it damn clear in the terms that they are not supposed to do so.

Cheers,
Rob

[HenriAugusto]

But they said it's okay to render songs for "clients and friends" using the samples. Whether he charge for it or not for the service i think we still would be clients. I'm not a law-expert. I'm just wondering. But i get your point. Maybe we should ask Alesis again :p

edit:Sorry for the redundancy, i posted almost at the same time as Chokehold. I guess he's right. Well, i'm up for a beta tester haha

[Tricky-Loops]

Being a provider who renders clients' MIDI tracks to audio with his (own recorded) D4 samples and provides these audio renders to his clients is what I was explicitly granted by Alesis.

This!

You own the Alesis D4, so you can use the - recorded - samples for any music composition as long as your purpose isn't obviously aimed at circumventing copyright (i. e. to distribute the individual samples)!

[Tricky-Loops]

*** DOUBLE POST DELETED ***

[ghettosynth]

Being a provider who renders clients' MIDI tracks to audio with his (own recorded) D4 samples and provides these audio renders to his clients is what I was explicitly granted by Alesis.

This!

You own the Alesis D4, so you can use the - recorded - samples for any music composition as long as your purpose isn't obviously aimed at circumventing copyright (i. e. to distribute the individual samples)!

No, you can use the D4 as Alesis stipulates by their license. Making a copy of the samples and then using those instead as a matter of convenience would probably be viewed by courts as something similar to time shifting which is considered fair use. Alesis recognizes this and of course states that they hvae no problem with it. Many companies expressly forbid this. NI, for example, does not allow it. Now, they really can't enforce it except through technical means so if you want to use the K3 library samples in Reason, I don't think it will amount to a hill of beans.

However, Alisis wasn't asked if they have a problem with a web service that can potentially multiply the use of the samples many times. You aren't using the "D4", you are using a shifted version of it. In essence, you are suggesting the creation of a "virtual D4" and distributing it as a service.

It's not clear to me that their response to you allowed for this. You aren't creating the music, and the clients aren't clients that you are creating music for, they are people who are creating music who are your clients for a virtual D4. In short, I don't believe that their response granted you the permission that you think that it does.

So, one could consider the possibility of renting instruments via a service. The D4 hangs off of a midi port and some audio ins. The service grabs the midi file, "plays" it to the D4, captures the wave in real time, and sends the wave back. I imagine that it could be argued that this is legit, but, at the same time, it still comes down to license. Technically, ANY use of ANY sample that isn't classified as "fair use" requires permission. It doesn't matter that those samples are in an instrument. If I own a video rental shop, I can't buy a DVD at walmart and rent it out. I have to pay a different license fee to rent DVDs.

Zevidia was doing something similar to what you're suggesting and the courts did not agree that it was legitimate.

Zediva argues that it is an ordinary DVD rental service that happens to allow customers to view their rented movies via the World Wide Web—imagine a tremendously long cord stretching from your home to the Zediva office. Like a video rental store, Zediva buys thousands of physical DVDs. Unlike a rental store, Zediva has also purchased numerous DVD players and hooked them up to the Internet. When the user wants to watch a movie, he "rents" a DVD player along with the DVD inside of it. The DVD player's output is streamed across the Internet to the user's browser.

Hollywood studios were not impressed with this perceived loophole in copyright law and sued in April, arguing that the service infringes their exclusive right to control the "public performance" of their movies. Legal experts agreed that the service was on shaky ground. "Zediva's supposed 'loophole' in copyright law doesn't exist," Grimmelmann said in a March blog post.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011 ... ce-zediva/

I wouldn't do anything like what you're suggesting without talking to an attorney first, and, I'd bet money that you'd be advised not to do it.

I would be genuinely interested in Alesis' response to further questions about your specific suggestion.

[chokehold]

Uhm, no.

You compare streaming the finished product, which Alesis have no licensing rights over, to the client with streaming a finished product who someone else holds rights over to a client.

The video service took copyrighted material which was not directly licensed for public performance and streamed that over the Internet.

If I offered a service that would download all the D4 samples to the clients' drives and then offered them a program to piece them all together, THAT would include distributing the samples and thereby the intellectual property of Alesis.

But if I offered a service, whereby people send me their MIDI tracks, I somehow turn the MIDI tracks into audio on a web server using the D4 samples, and then let the clients download their rendered, finished audio track, that would NOT include distributing the original samples but a musical performance that was created by someone else and "made audible" by "me" using the samples I recorded - which was what I asked and was granted.

Imagine someone going into a project studio with his drumkit MIDI file and the project studio owner running the MIDI file through Superior Drummer and rendering out the final stems.

And now imagine that person wasn't allowed to take his rendered stems back home to mix with his other stuff.

Because someone else (the project studio guy) was the one who Toontrack issued the license to.
EDIT: sorry, my fault, wrong perspective, forget that.
What I meant was: Because someone else (Toontrack) holds the IP over the samples in Superior Drummer, and only the project studio guy was free to render his own tracks with them.

THAT would be the perfect analogy in this case, and a scenario like it is definitely not illegal, because the project studio guy wouldn't be a) selling a device or program that simulates the one Toontrack are offering with the sounds Toontrack are offering and also not b) selling the samples on their own as plain samples.

[chokehold]

Maybe easier to follow:

I was allowed by Alesis to use (the sounds) EDIT: my recorded D4 samples to render clients' and friends' MIDI files into audio.

Now who gives a rat's a*se if I do the rendering with Reaper, Cubase or a script on my web server? Apart from you, seemingly?

[pc2000]

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.

This touches on what I said before about making simple drum loops which someone could then chop or slice into individual drums. No company can dictate to you in this regard. This idea was shot down by a legal expert in this thread that stated I would lose in a court case about this. In the case of drums, who says that hits have to be made simultaneously for it to be a performance or drum pattern as long as it's rhythmic!? Also, you can utilize any tempo you so choose or you can make fills however you want.

FYI: I had an D4 back when it came out and returned it after a week because it really didn't have the number of stated samples. I recalled they limited the number of tuning steps to +/- (7steps) instead of the full octave of the HR16 machines that I had. This is because they used tuning to create the illusion of more samples than it had and by limiting your ability to tune, you would remain clueless of their trick. Memory wasn't cheap like it is now, so they cheated!

Besides the samples, I think the biggest mistake was also making a plugin that simulated the hardware which made this a complete rip of the IP. I would suggest anyone that wants to be generous in the future, that you not identify your source of sounds or make GUI's that clearly violate IP.

In light of this ordeal about IP and copy right... I would like note that this debate shouldn't be limited to just samples from digital or analog musical devices but also Movies and music, otherwise people are being hypocrites!

If you have any movies or music CD comps you didn't purchase such as bootleg copies, please throw them in the trash. If you copied a CD for a wife, girlfriend, family, friends... please retrieve and destroy, for you- have violated copyright. Also, refrain from listening to or using any plugin in a browser that allows you to download music or videos from youtube or other sites even if it's porn, for a great deal of this stuff violates copyrights.

I also urge you to demand that companies like Native Instruments, identify or verify with proof, where their drum samples were acquired. If they can't assume the samples are ill-gotten and delete from your hard-drive immediately.

[Dewdman42]

it seems to me that if chokehold had not identified his box as anything remotely resembling a D4, by calling it something else and not uttering a word on any forum anywhere about the fact that its a D4, then most likely it would never have been a legal problem, even though very much an infringement by the law. Of course... then the nostalgic value of putting out a D4 clone would be gone and most likely people would just listen to it and go "eh....it sounds like old digital junk from the 80's who needs it".

Once the audio has gone through some processing, its no longer bit for bit. It doesn't have to be bit for bit in order to lose a copyright infringement case, but the original creator would have to prove somehow that yours is a re-sample of their original. In the case of musical material that is pretty easy. In the case of a single drum hit, it will have to be pretty darn distinct sounding to make a case and prove in court that it was resampled from them. Maybe it could be proven, maybe not, but its really not as clear cut as say a musical passage or something the evolves over time a certain way.

There might be some distinguishing signatures in the audio that would make it through the resample process and there might not be, but interestingly enough...as has been pointed out on this very thread....the DSP and electronics also imparted change to the sound such that the original PCM would not sound very similar at all to the samples chokehold tried to distribute. Copyright still protects that, I'm not disputing it, but the originator would also have to prove its a resample (if choke hold had not declared from the start that he had resampled it).

It would be a very interesting case, if Aleisis even tried to pursue it, but I don't think it would be that easy for them to prove, aside from the fact that chokehold did not try to sell their stuff as his or hide it in any way, he just tried to honor the original D4 and make a plugin version to give away for free. since he openly admitted it and even asked for their blessing which they denied, there is no chance whatever that chokehold can get away with anything now. In fact any attempt to do a website that produces final tracks with his samples, etc...now that the whole discussion has been on this site....could easily result in a successful copyright suit by Alesis. So just forget it.

The ironic thing is that more than likely Alesis is never ever going to do anything with those old samples. It would be nice if they would license chokehold's or put out a software version, but I suspect if they did put out a software version it would contain the original PCM samples and then software DSP to process the samples in real time the same way the box does. A true clone, like the Korg Legacy stuff. I doubt they're ever going to do that. Copyright laws exist to protect creators, but its really unfortunate when the laws basically move certain material into obscurity due to the protections blocking their access.

[Dewdman42]

I also suspect that this plugin is going to make its way into the torrent tracker universe.....maybe not, chokehold took it down mighty fast. But if it does, then he should be concerned.