KVR Audio

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 9:48 pm

What's the legality of stripping a sample from a demo of a sample based synth? If the sound is a preset from an actual classic keyboard, how would they even be able to claim it?

And, if one made money using the sample and decided to contact the company to give them a little, what's to stop them from suing?

"I am not a crook" Nixon

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:39 pm

I noticed that a famous site is providing samples lifted from a demo VSTi. These are generated sounds and not sample based. The site says it can't figure out anything wrong with using the sounds since the company gave away the demo. There was no mention of legality, only their opinion..

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:46 pm

This is quite the popular topic around here. Sample based synths are protected under copyright. Claiming ignorance or trying to re-write the law to suit your own needs ain't exactly the best idea in the world. Most VST's use sample based oscillators, so the copyright would apply. Ultra Analog is one of the few that does not.

In short, if it uses samples, it's copyrighted. If it doesn't, like an analog, it's not copyrightable.

Devon

learjeff · Post by **learjeff** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:57 pm

DevonB is correct.

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:03 pm

Thanks Devon

What if the sample is of a hardware synth like a Roland? How could anyone tell I didn't make the sample? And how could the software people copyright it? Do they have to get permission from Roland first? How does that big vintage sample site get away with it? Are the samples clear because the original machine is analog?

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:41 pm

As for the "How would they know?" question, have you considered the possibility that the samples might be watermarked? Some companies claim to be able to encode a "signature" into an audio sample which can be read by a suitable computer program, and prove the origin of the audio sample.

Does anyone here at KVR know more about watermark technology being applied to audio files? What software do you use to read the watermark, how durable and reliable is the watermark, etc?

take care,
McLilith

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:45 pm

My opinion on this is that the law is f**ked up. They shouldn't be able to copyright a sound. Sure, they SHOULD be able to copyright demo songs, presets, hardware design, internal design, and component architecture ... but RAW samples ?!!

Anyone ever hear about the Cage estate filing a lawsuit against someone because they claimed he sampled SILENCE!! YES... SILENCE!!

I hate this world.

fishbowl.tucson.az · Post by **fishbowl.tucson.az** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:58 pm

Acolmiztli wrote:My opinion on this is that the law is f**ked up.

Nobody in the thread has mentioned anything about location. The world is a very big place, and different countries have different laws.

Anyone ever hear about the Cage estate filing a lawsuit against someone because they claimed he sampled SILENCE!! YES... SILENCE!!

Well, the UK legal system might be pretty messed up, but that case never made it to the inside of a court room, and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. But The Planets *did* publish their silent piece with an attribution to Cage.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:02 pm

Acolmiztli wrote:Anyone ever hear about the Cage estate filing a lawsuit against someone because they claimed he sampled SILENCE!! YES... SILENCE!!

Okay, that truly is screwed up! If it's possible to sue for a lack of sound, I should get a patent on "lack of innovation" in a product, and start suing everyone making dull, uninspired "me too" products. I should have enough money to buy the world by the time I'm done.

McLilith

learjeff · Post by **learjeff** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:29 pm

OK this is only true for about 200 countries, those that are part of various international copyright treaties. Copyright laws are pretty well harmonized in most countries. For more info, see http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-g ... #countries.

The Cage issue is unrelated, because it concerns a Performing Arts copyright, not a Sound Recording copyright. You can't copyright a "sound" per se, but you can copyright any recording you make. (Actually, it's automatically covered by copyright protection.)

Hammond can't protect the sound of their organs. Steinway can't protect the sound of their pianos. But, mostly as a side effect of copyright laws that exist for other purposes, synthesizers that are based on samples have the benefit of copyright protection of those samples.

Interestingly, those rights would allow them to preclude anyone from using their instruments to record music without paying royalties! Of course, that would be commercial suicide.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:34 pm

No, he didnt 'sample silence' he (Mike Batt, formerly of the Wombles!) specifically credited the silent track in question as having been co-written with Cage.

That's why he got sued.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 276621.stm

learjeff · Post by **learjeff** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:41 pm

Since the Cage case came up, let me clarify a couple points.

Cage doesn't have a copyright on silence. You can use silence without infringing on him. Cage's piece was a section of silence, named something like 3:16, and it was 3 minutes and 16 seconds in length. It was a "concept piece" -- Cage was always getting folks to think about art and music and what it means on higher levels. The infringers in this case were definitely copying Cage. They named the piece based on the length of the track, and they even mentioned him as an inspiration in the album notes. The judge in the case said that had they not done that, it would have been impossible to prove copying.

So, they intentionally copied Cage, and without obtaining his permission. Other than the fact that it's pure silence, it's a pretty cut-and-dried case of infringement. First, who needs a "cover" of such a piece? Second, they should have asked permission in the first place. Failing that, they should have settled out of court. Three strikes ...

learjeff · Post by **learjeff** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:42 pm

I see you beat me to it, Rabbit!

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:49 pm

learjeff wrote:Interestingly, those rights would allow them to preclude anyone from using their instruments to record music without paying royalties! Of course, that would be commercial suicide.

Similar things have happened in the past. Early condenser microphones required royalty payments for their use.

I am slightly surprised that at least one sampler/synth builder didn't try something like this, perhaps copying the Panavision business model and only renting their gear, never actually selling it. I personally feel they would need a very unique and desirable product to get away with such a plan.

take care,
McLilith

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 8:03 pm

Maybe I'm missing the answer in all of this. Would I have to sample the Roland myself in order to legally use the sound? And if I used their sample that sounds just like the one I made, would I be breaking the law?

Stolen samples of real world synths