The Roland hammer hath come down...

[jupiter8]

any sample with the number 8 in its name, will have to be cleared by Roland first.

so any sample c.d. I have bought that says royalty-free,still has to be cleared by Roland?isnt that the job of who made the sample c.d.?

It is my understanding that a sample CD of a 808 is kosher.
We had a big thread about this a while back but i'm not sure what the final consensus was.

why the 808 and not 909?please someone clear this up!

The 808 was an example given by the OP.That's why i replied the way i did. The 808 is analog which is why,if i understand it correctly,it is kosher. The 909 is mostly analog so the analog sounds should be fine but not the cymbals and hihats as those are digital.

And if you record that digital sounds via an analog out? I don't think that it really matters whether they're analog or digital, given you don't copy the digital signals digitally...

There's a lot of software that actually provides samples of "vintage synths" (also digital synths)... think of IK Sonik Synth... I don't think they have to clear anything recorded analogically... otherwise, no one could record a track with a (let's say) ppg wave and release it under a creative commons licenso or so...

Or am I totally wrong?

The thing is that if it is a digital sample someone has recorded that to begin with which would'nt be the case in an analog drummachine/synth. So you're basically ripping off the original recording. If you do it digitally or analog does'nt really matter.

But as i said i'm not 100 % sure about the whole thing but that is my understanding.

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

any sample with the number 8 in its name, will have to be cleared by Roland first.

so any sample c.d. I have bought that says royalty-free,still has to be cleared by Roland?isnt that the job of who made the sample c.d.?

It is my understanding that a sample CD of a 808 is kosher.
We had a big thread about this a while back but i'm not sure what the final consensus was.

why the 808 and not 909?please someone clear this up!

The 808 was an example given by the OP.That's why i replied the way i did. The 808 is analog which is why,if i understand it correctly,it is kosher. The 909 is mostly analog so the analog sounds should be fine but not the cymbals and hihats as those are digital.

And if you record that digital sounds via an analog out? I don't think that it really matters whether they're analog or digital, given you don't copy the digital signals digitally...

There's a lot of software that actually provides samples of "vintage synths" (also digital synths)... think of IK Sonik Synth... I don't think they have to clear anything recorded analogically... otherwise, no one could record a track with a (let's say) ppg wave and release it under a creative commons licenso or so...

Or am I totally wrong?

Yes, you are totally wrong. It does not matter for purposes of copyright law whether it's analog or digital, the standard is (oversimplifying) creativity. And, with regard to database protection law, which is more relevant for sample cd than copyright, it doesn't matter either whether analog or digital, but substantial investment.

And the purchase of a musical instrument implies (contract law) a right to use it, also in recordings etc.

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

actually the hats and cymbals are also analog in the 909, since i think the clock used is discrete. the envelopes and filtration are applied using analog circuits, and the trigger is an analog pulse which can have imperfections in timing.

they're just generated from noise/tone sourced from some pcm, rather than from analog oscillators. there really is no practical difference when you're talking about circuits like in the 909 though, they're definitely to be classified as analog in my opinion. if a majority of the sound's timbres were stored in the pcm that would be digital, but here that is not the case.

With all respect, this is nonsense. I also experience "imperfections in timing" when I play a copyrighted record, that does not undo the copyright. And if I play in on the radio thru "envelopes and filtration [...] applied using analog circuits" I still need permission from the copyright holder. Like I wrote above, the analog / digital distinction is irrelevant here, and obviously misleading.

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

Well the 1 on 1 copies are out there, namely hardware clones. This is a software emulation, NOT a one on one copy of Roland's products. WHICH THEY DO NOT SELL ANYMORE! So it's NOT a "commercial product" in the first place.

That is just so wrong on so many levels.

Well, name three? In case you feel that two is already "so many", I'll settle for two...

[james0tucson]

I'm sure both companies are weeping over the loss of your business.

I'm sure they are not. The purpose of withholding my business is to protect me, not to harm them.

On the other hand, the VW dealer was genuinely upset and spent a considerable amount of effort trying to persuade me to buy a car.
I'm sure he still lives indoors and his family eats at least two meals a day.

[james0tucson]

Roland bitching about d16's XOX emus being too close to the originals makes about as much sense as if Nintendo went after everyone w/ software emulations of shit off their old 8-bit system.

What evidence is there that "Roland" has actually done any "bitching" anyway?

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

What evidence is there that "Roland" has actually done any "b******g" anyway?

You are right, in that much of the discussion is speculative. But even if there would be no evidence of that, it still makes sense as a general remark (and very good practical advice to Roland, are you reading along?).

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

And of course it's difficult to have a discussion like this at all without resorting to some hypotheses. For example: what evidence is there of the validity of Roland's so-called trademarks to base any claim on in the first place? I have seen no registrations or registration numbers posted above, which should be the first step in the analysis if we are not to speculate and assume for the sake of argument. And also, if we couldn't discuss cases which have not been made public yet, what would be left of most discussions anyway?

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

BTW: it is not accurate to say D16 is clumsy because they should have asked Roland first before they put their stuff on the market, like Propellerheads: the Props did just that: NOT ask Roland, and then Roland approached them. See the Props' own statement about it: http://www.rebirthmuseum.com/history/part4.htm

On the quality of the products, a different treatment could not be explained. Sure, ReBirth may have been fun back then, but is definitely outdated by far now.

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

[aciddose]

RO0o+@+o0OR; i dont give a damn about the copyright issues, i was just mentioning that the circuit should really have to be classified as analog. that is a fact, but it has nothing to do with copyright, absolutely no implications here at all due to this fact.

as for the copyright on small samples though, if roland thinks in any way they they can protect those samples, they're dead wrong. who would actually bother to use them though? you can create exactly the same sample yourself by taking a similar cymbal sample and editing it. compared side to side as part of a sequence i'm sure it would be possible to tell the difference, but who would care really. the 909 samples are boring as hell anyway.

think of it like this, if it is possible to recreate a very similar or perceptibly exact copy of those samples, does roland have the right to assert copyrights on those new samples even if they're completely original?

think of this also, say i take a photograph of a landscape. the photograph belongs to me, i own it's copyright. if someone else takes a photograph of the same landscape, can i assert my copyright here to prevent them from using that photograph they've created themselves?

now, with that behind us, even if the case were that the exact sample data were dumped from the 909's roms and used without modification in a clone of the exact circuits as the 909, in a new product, could roland assert any form of copyright here?

to be honest i'm not sure, you'd better ask a lawyer. my gut says no, though. if it were up to me to decide such a case, it would be a no.

[james0tucson]

What evidence is there that "Roland" has actually done any "b******g" anyway?

You are right, in that much of the discussion is speculative.

"Much???" It is 100% speculative. I'm going to mark the whole thing as a publicity stunt now. (I expected to see a copy of the actual C&D letter, or better yet, the court order.)

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

[...] as for the copyright on small samples though, if roland thinks in any way they they can protect those samples, they're dead wrong.

We can not even assume that they have copyright in those samples, but even if so, I agree Ronald would have a snowball's chance in hell.

[RO0o+@+o0OR]

"Much???" It is 100% speculative. I'm going to mark the whole thing as a publicity stunt now. (I expected to see a copy of the actual C&D letter, or better yet, the court order.)

You have a great feeling for understatement.
Perhaps a good idea to post any C&D letter on http://www.chillingeffects.org/ and have it dissected. They also some maintain very informative FAQ's.

[subatomic]

not to offend in any way, but who needs a tr909/808/303 clone anyway?
the 303 was covered already vsti wise ...

really? by who? I'd like to know... (seriously i would)...
audiorealism bassline? too thin and wrong sounding
rubberduck? again...
rebirth? not a vst, and not perfect either
futureretro? well, hardware, and yes, again, didn't sound right...
muon tau? haven't tried it, is it any good?

even hardware has a hell of a time getting it right.

d16's phoscyon is as dead-on as i've heard (i've A/B'd it with a x0xb0x, which has been A/B'd with real 303s by other people and found to compare equal in sound)...

909/808 are easyly recreated by a lot of drumsynths out there ...

true, and in general the 909/808 samples on the net and p2p are all you need to do the standard stuff.
of course, having _knobs_ for each drum kicks a lot of ass and expands the field for strange creative stuff you can do. so for the tweakers, a real clone is much appreciated. very. and is needed. even for people with real 909/808 hardware, it kicks a lot of ass to take the laptop to the park or whatever and still have all your gear there.

and:
with those programming skills, come on ... do something original ...

well, they did, they made faithful reproductions when many many many people before them failed.
i can't wait to see what they do next. i'm waiting for a 202 clone.