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

[tomtoo]

The discussion from yesterday makes me think.

1) Was it now about the actuall law in italia, germany, china, india, pakistan, usa ?

2) or was it about fair use ?

Ok sometimes emotions give the direction and imho thats ok couse we are humans.

As i remember all this digital CopyRight talks started with the posibillity to do a 1:1 copy in the digital domain.

Maybe i didnt realyse that it was going about actuall lets say USA/EU law.

For me it was more about fair use.

Is it fair to sample legaly a sonor but unfair to sample "the sampled parts" of a 909 ?

[whyterabbyt]

The discussion from yesterday makes me think.

1) Was it now about the actuall law in italia, germany, china, india, pakistan, usa ?

2) or was it about fair use ?

Fair use already has a specific, legal, meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Best not to confuse yourself by assuming that the term wasn't being used here in its legal sense.

Perhaps you could describe what you mean by 'fair'. Obviously existing copyright is unforgivably biased in favour of those terrible, nasty, downright selfish people who actually put effort and resources into the creation of brand new work, and you see any protection for them wanting that as being 'unfair' in some way, but perhaps you could explain why, and what would be 'the right thing to do'.

[Dewdman42]

Well coming full circle, is it fair use to sample an antiquated drum machine from the 1990's that is no longer in production by the creator? Whether it uses samples or not...is kind of a moot point from a fair use standpoint. It makes a certain kind of sound somehow. Should people be able to sample it and make a software instrument based on that? The fact that sample based instruments are subject to extra scrutiny then other instruments seems to be like a technicality based on the universe before sampling. Non sampled instruments can be re sampled, but sample based instruments cannot. There is nothing fair about that, looking at it either way. One group of people will say, yes its not fair that ANY instruments can be resampled, and another group will say, its fair game to resample anything.

What if they sample it and run all the sounds through a tube warmer first and call it something entirely new like "Mr T's ultra cool drum machine"?

[tomtoo]

...
Fair use already has a specific, legal, meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Best not to confuse yourself by assuming that the term wasn't being used here in its legal sense....

Uhhps i see USA law is the "LAW".

I just thought lets discuss. Didnt know that the "LAW" is already written in stone.

[Shy]

Is it fair to sample legaly a sonor but unfair to sample "the sampled parts" of a 909 ?

I'll answer not personally to you, just a general post: You sample Sonor drums? Great, do whatever you want with those samples, including making a sample library with them. It's potentially either a great thing if you did a great job, or a shitty thing if you did a shitty job. It can even be great or shitty for Sonor as well, since users unfamiliar with the actual drums may get a good or a bad (which in the case of Sonor drums, would be a wrong) impression.

People may get impressions from recordings of live performances in complete musical arrangements with those drums, which strongly depend on the quality of the performance, the tuning and the recording. Most people would never think for a second "ooh, I wonder what brand those drums are, I wonder how they would sound if I played them". A sample library is aimed at performers, not listeners. Any potential impression made on them by the sample library/kit/collection, is potentially much more influential to Sonor. Would the company be noticeably affected by a wonderful sample library, or a remarkably shitty sample library? Are people going to buy less, or more, Sonor drums because of some sample library? Yeah, think whatever you may. I say hardly if at all, but even so, what I or anyone thinks about this, doesn't even matter, because:

A real drum is a real drum and will stay a real drum, not a recording of a drum, not an "emulation" of one in digital sound domain, and not a sound at all, but a real instrument/object. That's it. Even if anyone tried to emulate the drum by building their own adaptation of it, it's still debatable whether it's "ethical"/"fair", but I say that even if they could manufacture a very similar drum (most likely not) at the same scale and eventually become more successful than the company that came up with the design (which itself is most likely largely "influenced"/"inspired" by previous designs), it would still be very "debatable". The original may remain widely known and even if it doesn't, it's STILL "debatable" whether it's unfair to attempt to, or succeed in "blatantly copying" it and perhaps gaining from it, perhaps preventing gain or causing loss to the originator by doing it.

But here we're not even talking about that, we're talking about some stupid shit like recording and distributing audio samples to be used by music makers. Do you start to realize how ridiculous it is? Whatever, anyone can go on with some excuse to why it still may be a bad thing, even though in practice and in your "heart" you know it isn't. Let's move on to a simpler thing now:

Recording recordings made by others and distributing them, either for use by music makers or plainly for listeners' pleasure, is such a simple matter. Why be so philosophical about it? Example: I recorded some shit, you take the shit I recorded and quite simply reuse it and maybe distribute it for use by others, in whatever whole - a library, a zip file, a what the f**k ever. You reuse it and enable reuse. Do you have permission to reuse it? Do you NEED permission? (it depends on license and laws, obviously) Do I care if you reuse it? (you may have no way of knowing, and you may never get an answer that I don't care, because I'm a company that for various reasons will never tell you that I don't care if you reuse it). Is it "fair" if you reuse it? Well, that depends on how you use it (credit? no credit? lame usage? "creative" usage? what?) and on personal feelings, obviously, a sweeping dumb answer if for righteous morons. So:

Personally, I say if you claim you made something which you didn't, you're either immature and lack experience, or you're just plain lame, especially if you have experience, or (depending on what kind of claim of ownership you make) you're a f**king douche whom I wish was dead, it really depends. Then there are people who don't even attempt to claim ownership, like those who just simply want to distribute samples associated with the original instrument they came from (either for free or for money, that's not the point). Are the recordings you recorded so f**king amazing that it even matters that someone reuses / enables reuse of them? Do you understand, Mr. Ohira? Now what about sampling analog or digital instruments that aren't "sample-based"? Do you think there's any freaking difference between them and a Sonor drum? Do I really need to expand on that? Will someone be "smart" and ask "what about wavetables" or some stupid shit? Does anyone really want to get into all these idiotic nuances for the sake of discussing philosophical crap? I think it's all way too simple as far as distinguishing what's fair and what isn't goes. Laws? f**k that, we all know that laws are diverse, incoherent, different between places, and not necessarily (to say the least) always about "what's fair" or even "what's sensible", only sometimes. Hey, I'm not even writing to anyone, I'm just writing in the style I think to myself, so if any f**ker here is offended by my style of thinking to myself, get a grip please. Well, carry on.

[ghettosynth]

Well coming full circle, is it fair use to sample an antiquated drum machine from the 1990's that is no longer in production by the creator?

No it is not, that is not what fair use means. As whyterabbit stated, fair use has a specific legal meaning and you can be sure that whenever I use the phrase, I am referring to the legal definition.

As I stated in a previous post, there are few "fair use" instances that would be interesting in this discussion.

[tomtoo]

Well coming full circle, is it fair use to sample an antiquated drum machine from the 1990's that is no longer in production by the creator?

No it is not, that is not what fair use means. As whyterabbit stated, fair use has a specific legal meaning and you can be sure that whenever I use the phrase, I am referring to the legal definition.

As I stated in a previous post, there are few "fair use" instances that would be interesting in this discussion.

Ok lets not start a bashing. But what means legal ? Legal in china ?

[hollowsun]

Well coming full circle, is it fair use to sample an antiquated drum machine from the 1990's that is no longer in production by the creator?

Technically, no - it is not fair use. The creator owns copyright for many years (typically life + 50-70 years). Now, whether the creator is going to pursue any contravention once production has ceased is another matter. They may even be pleased that you are reviving their antiquated drum machine (as I have found in seeking permission for such stuff ... "Oh - I'd be delighted")

Whether it uses samples or not...is kind of a moot point from a fair use standpoint.

Not quite. It is THE point!

And we have to get away from this "fair use" thing. As mentioned, fair use (which varies from country to country) is typically there for discussion, scrutiny, examination (for example, in an educational establishment) or satire. Thus you can, say, hand out a snippet of a Prince track in a music class for analysis and discussion and/or some comedian could do a piss take of it. But even the latter is fraught with possible complications. When Weird Al Jankovich did his piss takes, he sought permission ... and rightly so - he was essentially recreating the records (copyrighted) and adding his spoof lyrics.

'Fair use' most certainly does not extend to sampling a manufacturer's entire product and giving it away on the internet or selling it ... unless you get permission. The 'fair use' thing seems to be seen by some/many as a way to circumvent copyright laws (or to put it more bluntly, nick other peoples' hard work and expertise and pass it off as their own!).

The fact that sample based instruments are subject to extra scrutiny then other instruments seems to be like a technicality based on the universe before sampling.

It's based on the fact that the 'samples' are recordings and, as such, subject to copyright laws. Not just that but it's likely that teams of people worked on those recordings - editing, optimising, EQ-ing, getting everything just right to make a playable instrument, etc.. Maybe months of work and considerable expense. But that aside, the creator of those recordings (in this case, Alesis) own the copyright on those recordings/samples.

sampled instruments can be re sampled

No they can't. They are recordings. You think it's ok to re-sample, say, Garritan's orchestral samples or Sonic Couture's excellent Wurlitzer or, indeed, my own material and just give them away or sell them? No - probably not (well ... I'd hope you wouldn't). It's the same thing for an old drum machine.

but sample based instruments cannot.

Yup (see above)

There is nothing fair about that, looking at it either way.

There is nothing fair about that ... from the original creator's point of view. They have ploughed many £thousands, tens of £thousands or more, into the product. How is it 'fair' that someone should come along, sample all that work and expertise and experience and then give it away - how is that 'fair use'?

One group of people will say, yes its not fair that ANY instruments can be resampled, and another group will say, its fair game to resample anything.

Yes - the one group of people are those that put all the work and investment into the original sounds; the other group are those who just expect to have anything they want.

What if they sample it and run all the sounds through a tube warmer first and call it something entirely new like "Mr T's ultra cool drum machine"?

Nope. In the same way I couldn't run, say, a Genesis album through some EQ, tube warmer, phaser, whatever and call it "Hollow Sun's new prog rock album"! Unless, of course, I had permission from Messrs Gabriel, Banks, Rutherford, Hackett and Collins ... or paid them a license fee.

It's really not that difficult to understand - it's very simple, in fact.


Stephen

[Dewdman42]

Relax stephen. I was not meaning to endorse one side or the other. Just pointing out that the existing laws are not strictly speaking entirely fair. They are what they are, the letter of the law has to be followed, because its the law and court precedents have been set.

But actual "fairness" maybe not be there. it could easily be argued that an analog instrument should not be sampled either. There is absolutely nothing fair about the fact that Analog instruments can be sampled while pcm based instruments cannot. And it could be argued both ways.

I have made it clear in my earlier posts that I lean towards protecting the original creators, so relax.

[bftucker]

Wiser minds have prevailed. Ad4-instuments and Ad4-win-vst64 are deleted. If I really need Alexis D-Four sounds...there is always Craigslist and the pawn shops. But let me know if Alexis says, "Go Ahead."

[SODDI]

The drum machine may be "antiquated", but the PCM samples it uses are probably not - after all, you want to use them.

The D-4 is a drum sample player and it only uses those samples. There is very little in the way of user programmability, pitch, pan and audio port IIRC. There is no synthesis involved like in the 808 or Linn. It is strictly playback.

Sampling the SOUNDS and calling them your own would be akin to getting an Akai 1000 CD-ROM, pulling off the sounds and claiming them as your own because the Akai is an "antiquated" machine.

Here's an idea. Why don't you contact Alesis? Not just about the D-4, but the D-5, the SR-16 - all their drum rompler sounds. You could finagle your way into making some legal bucks.

[Acid Mitch]

it could easily be argued that an analog instrument should not be sampled either.

I can't imagine how you could possibly argue that. Give it your best shot.

There is absolutely nothing fair about the fact that Analog instruments can be sampled while pcm based instruments cannot.

You can't seriously still be missing the point , are you ?

[Tricky-Loops]

Just wondering why nobody has said anything when others have presented their sample libraries from old drum machines, synths etc.

Every few weeks there is another free sample library based on samples from drum machine/samplers by someone...

There is even someone who collects tons of samples from all drum machines, and he offers many GB of drum samples from all kind of drum machines/samplers (for a small donation). But nobody has said anything here against him...

How can I see if someone sells samples legally? How can I see if he/she has asked the manufacturer for permission? They don't write anything about it in their own license; they don't add a letter from Roland/Yamaha/Alesis/Akai etc. with the permission.

[Dewdman42]

This is my last post on this thread, its getting too testy in here, people starting to make it personal.

I have stated quite clearly and repeatedly....the laws protect samples due to historical reasons of mechanical reproductions which automatically gives protections to creators of musical instruments based on samples.... and as i said before...that SHOULD be the case. Creators of analog instruments meanwhile do not have any such protections, which doesn't seem fair at all. That laws are what they are, I agree.

Maybe you're missing my point?

I am drawing a distinction between musical instruments and musical works while it seems that the laws draw the distinction on sampled or not with no consideration for the fact that one is a resulting musical work and the other is an instrument to be used for the creation of musical works.

They are definitely different things, regardless of the technology being used. The laws, however, do currently protect musical instruments using samples, but not musical instruments that don't use samples..based on what really is a technicality about mechanical recordings which came out of a period of time before sampling instruments, when musical works started to be recorded.

The fact is that things like software and musical instruments do need some kind of protection, regardless of whether they are based on samples or not. The whole problem only exists at all, precisely because of sampling technology which makes it possible to easily copy those things. As someone stated earlier, Roland has the right idea by very explicitly stating what their instrument can and cannot be used for. The copyright law does not really spell out how musical instruments should be considered. People have just been relying on older laws about mechanical reproductions to protect their stuff (if they use samples), but if they don't use samples their SOL.

Software is a similar issue. Copyrights do not protect the software functionality, they only protect the actual source code or the mechanical reproduction and distribution of the final software. If someone can reverse engineer some software that does the exact same thing, there is nothing preventing them from doing so legally, unless there are patents, which is a separate issue. In a sense, software is also hampered by inadequate laws to protect creators. They instead have to rely on copyright law which was never intended to protect software or devices that function a certain way, it was intended to protect works of intellectual property. It is only by virtue of the fact that software is written in code that the code itself can be copyrighted as if it were a book and provide some protections, and as well the mechanical reproduction and distribution of the final EXE can also be copyrighted thanks to the recording industry...so that if anyone copies the same EXE they are breaking copyright....but the entire functionality of the software is simply not covered by copyright law. Only patents can protect that if you can prove you invented something unique.

[hollowsun]

Relax stephen.

Oh, I am quite relaxed 'Dewd'. I was just trying to clarify the situation.

I was not meaning to endorse one side or the other. Just pointing out that the existing laws are not strictly speaking entirely fair.

They are fair to the copyright holder.

But actual "fairness" maybe not be there.

Well, the law CAN be a ass in some cases. Just speak to any bloke who's divorced, lost their house and children to the ex-mrs!

it could easily be argued that an analog instrument should not be sampled either.

Well, yes and no.

I have no misgivings about sampling my Dotcom analogue modular...



And the owner of the company (with whom I am a good friend) has no objection either (I checked) and my Dotcom sample libraries help promote his excellent products ... and I am keen to help draw attention to synthesisers.com. It's a good mutual backscratching relationship.

But there's the thing...

I can sample what I like from the Dotcom but *I* own the copyright on those samples because they are *MY* recordings that *I* created ... that and the work that went into the creation of the sound, all the editing, the looping and then the creation of the Kontakt instrument. So, *I* did all the work, used all my skills and decades of expertise to make the sound. You should understand why I might be a bit pissed off if someone were to re-sample all that and give it away for free.

And so it is with this - I happen to know that (through my association with them) Alesis invested a chunkload of studio time, money, expertise and so on to make these drum sounds. How is it 'fair' that someone should 'steal' all that and just give it away?

But as much as I have free rein to sample analogue, I simply would not, for example, sample the presets from a Moog Voyager. Technically legal (you can't copyright a preset) but morally dubious and unscrupulous (in my mind at least).

There is absolutely nothing fair about the fact that Analog instruments can be sampled while pcm based instruments cannot.

There is a difference ... maybe a massive difference. It's not about the source material - it's about the fact that the samples are recordings and, as such, subject to IP and copyright law.

In terms of 'fair use', yes - it would be fine to sample/record some sounds from the D4 to discuss in an educational environment ... "And this is how drums sounded in the 90s - discuss" but 'fair use' does not extend to the wholesale sampling (stealing?) of a manufacturer's product to just give away for free.

Ok, in this case, it's an old drum module and maybe Alesis couldn't care less but the basic principles of copyright and IP still apply.

I have made it clear in my earlier posts that I lean towards protecting the original creators, so relax.

As mentioned, I am perfectly relaxed. But it IS important that the work of the original creator is acknowledged and respected (and ideally paid for) and that you can't just take whatever it is that grabs your fancy.

Stephen