When you buy a hardware synth do you actually own all of it?

[Touch The Universe]

So if they allowed it, you still wouldn't do it because it's "illegal", even though they would never prosecute?

[IvyBirds]

So if they allowed it, you still wouldn't do it because it's "illegal", even though they would never prosecute?

As a musician I always respect IP and copyrights everyone should

And IP and copyright claims absolutely are enforced and prosecuted

And if someone allows me to use their copyrighted materials and it's clearly spelled out in their EULA or other license it wouldn't be illegal as they can do what they want with their own Intellectual Property

[Touch The Universe]

How many downloaded these things vs prosecuted?

[IvyBirds]

How many downloaded these things vs prosecuted?

Does it matter? How many people break into house and steal things and don't get prosecuted

As musicians we should care about IP rights and honor and respect the rights of others IP

What's amazing is you admit it's illegal and wrong, just that you don't fear getting caught

[Touch The Universe]

And IP and copyright claims absolutely are enforced and prosecuted

How many?

[Matt67]

That's funny. Is it really a question of whether something is illegal just because there has been no criminal prosecution so far? Does that mean we always wait until the law is at our doorstep before we stop doing something? And does that mean that a law only applies once there has been a prosecution and conviction? Crazy world.

[Touch The Universe]

You might be misunderstanding the question. Ivybirds made a specific claim. He says they absolutely are being prosecuted yet I've not heard of a single case. It was a specific question for a specific company, not a general worldwide status. This is a grey zone. The hypothetical scenario is the company agrees its okay to use, even though technically the contract says it's illegal to share or what not, it says they have the ability take action and still retain there rights. Legal potential is impotent if not enforced, even with a blessing given. What if they were giving it away themselves but legally the contract says you need to own the hardware?

The point is more subtler. Just because something is illegal, DOES NOT make it wrong. Context is involved. Some laws are downright illegal and contradict other laws, jurisdiction and order are themes. Laws, change, there are loop holes for taxes. Let's not be naive here. Laws are intended to protect and do good, but what happens when the system that enforces it is above the law, corruption - that one company stole 100s of millions of dollars recently "legally" without prosecution from small time veds. What about not paying taxes. You go to jail. Legal slavery, threats, are these things called "law" as well. They are craft for force, deception, and enslavement when not yielded rightesouly. It's better to want to do good where there is no law. Like you are free to download, no possibility of penalty or contract that legally prevents it, but the dev requests not to "download" his work, its up publically for past owners or something, simple human decency where there is no law.

[whyterabbyt]

You own the ROMs. You dont own the code on the ROMs.

So then is the conclusion that even if someone owns one of the hardware synths in the TUS collection they can't legally use the ROM samples in the software emulation?

Not quite. If the owner of the code grants that permission then its perfectly legal.
Its also the case that ownership of copyrighted material expires.

Wouldn't it mean that no one could use any of the TUS emulations and make the whole concept rather pointless (unless one is so desperate for a synth they would be willing to break the law or compromise their morals)?

Again, not necessarily, same reason.

Does "fair use" not come into play? I don't know, I'm asking. It's way above my pay grade.

Ive got the feeling 'fair use' gets mispresented a bit in the software context. Most stated fair use exemptions in law relate to quoting excerpts of work, and some other things (like time-shifting of broadcasts).

https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions- ... ir-dealing

Im not aware of anything relating to 'keeping old devices usable' as it were, but its a relatively established take on what should be considered fair use, by some.
Personally, I think there might be changes if there is impact from the 'stop killing games' campaign, and the notion of emulators as a means of historic preservation but the outcome remains to be seen.

[Tubeman]

The only exception would be if the EULA was trying to take rights you are legally allowed to have in the country your legally purchased it from. For example in the USA consumers have a legal right to make backup copies of digital files. This includes software or things like DVDs. Sometimes EULAs attempted to take that right away but the courts didn't allow it

That doesn't however give me the right to give my backup copy to others for their use

In Finland you have the right for example to make a copy of any music cd/dvd even if you don't own the original, for your own and your family's use.

[Tubeman]

There isn't one answer to this question. It depends on what country you are in and what the EULA says. Be default, you do not have any rights to somebody else's copyrighted material. When you buy the synth, there will be some EULA that gives you some rights to the copyrighted code / sounds. It probably says something like you are restricted to using it with the original hardware. If there is any form of copy protection, then it is illegal to dump the roms in USA/Canada, even for personal use.

Did you sign an EULA when you bought a hardware device? I sure didn't. I don't think EULAs are universally legally valid anyway in every situation and country. They need to refer to the copyright etc. law in the specific country they are selling their product. Ofc you can write about anything there but it doesn't mean it's legally valid.

Did you sign anything when you bought a CD?
It's still copyrighted in most countries and there are restrictions on what you can do with the contents.

Yes that is correct with CDs but I think some people are confusing copyright laws with EULAs which are two different things. It is the copyright law of your country/state that binds you. I also don't think your comparison of a CD to a hardware synth is entirely valid. With a CD people buy it for the music it contains, with a hardware synth people buy it as a tool to make music.

[VariKusBrainZ]

If no harm or loss is caused whats the issue.

I had no intention of buying any of the hardware emulated. The closest I have is a Nord Lead 3.

However after using these emus I would now consider buting a physical JP 8080, i previously thought it was for lame tarnce

[Teksonik]

You own the ROMs. You dont own the code on the ROMs.

So then is the conclusion that even if someone owns one of the hardware synths in the TUS collection they can't legally use the ROM samples in the software emulation?

Not quite. If the owner of the code grants that permission then its perfectly legal.
Its also the case that ownership of copyrighted material expires.

Of course if the copyright holder gives permission or if the copyright has expired then it's a whole different story.

But in the case of the TUS emultions are we aware that either of those conditions exist? I was operating under the assumption that neither case exists until proven otherwise which might be a difficult and time consuming thing to do.

[mambo888]

There is a difference between personal use and redistribution. If you use the code personally in an emulator, it is allowed (no matter what the company says), if you redistribute it, that is illegal.

Secondly, they need to prove that there is harm. If you use the code personally in an emulator, you are not harming anyone (especially if the asset is no longer sold). If you redistribute it and gain from it then the harm can be proven.

Thirdly, just because something is illegal in law does not mean it’s practical to prosecute it. They can make it illegal to sneeze in public, but if you have to sneeze there is nothing you can do to stop it.

I’m so surprised that musicians are so fearful about this topic, especially now when music is freely available and everybody is downloading songs left and right. We should be experts or semi-experts in this area by now.

[Teksonik]

If no harm or loss is caused whats the issue.

The harm is to your morals. If you place value in them then the loss is great. This sums it up nicely:

Musicians should care deeply about IP and copyright law, sadly they don't

I will append that to say "many don't" or perhaps "some don't" is more accurate.

I had no intention of buying any of the hardware emulated. The closest I have is a Nord Lead 3.
However after using these emus I would now consider buting a physical JP 8080, i previously thought it was for lame tarnce

The thing is that the JP8080 is no longer sold new so your purchase would only benefit the current owner from whom you purchased the unit so I think your position doesn't hold much water.

I'll ask everyone this....do we already have enough synths at our disposal now either commercial or freeware that the TUS emulations aren't really needed? Wanted perhaps but really needed?

I know I already have enough high quality synths that I don't have any desire to break the law and/or compromise my morals to get the TUS emulations.

Full disclosure I did download and install the Virtual JV plugin because I own the hardware. I asked at the time if fair use applied to the JV880 ROM and someone here who I will not name said yes it did so I went ahead and installed which I now regret.

However I have long since uninstalled everything because even when I was running the VirtualJV alongside the hardware JV880 it just felt wrong. So mea culpa but I have since seen the error of my ways I feel much better being "clean".

I think the bottom line is I'm not aware of anyone here who is a practicing copyright attorney so there may well be more speculation than confirmation in this thread. All we can do is go by what our conscience tells us is right. My conscience tells me that avoiding the TUS emulations is the right thing to do.

[O7O]

From a purely technical standpoint, there is no such thing as software. What we call software is always just a particular configuration of hardware. So, if you don't own the "content" of ROM, you clearly cannot own the ROM.

As for IP laws and such, I get the extreme feelings, but IP protection is a thing only because of transactional nature of our social contracts. If people freely and indiscriminately shared as a default MO, there would be no need for any IP protection as there would be no walled gardens.

Well, I eagerly await the day when trees start to knock on people's doors asking remuneration for oxygen they produced