Legality of distributing sampled synths

[izonin]

Not that it's necessary, but I feel like saying some things:

Together with my wife we sell stock audio and photos. Most of the market places (actually all I've seen so far)forbid selling photos of historical buildings or monuments. Eiffel tower is just one of the most popular examples of what you should NOT upload there.

Anyway, somehow this all discussion seems useless.
People who understand law and who actually worked in the field and had to deal with this aspect try to pour some reason. On the other side you have trolls cutting in four every word, fighting over grammar and generally speaking, trolling without actually knowing any law or regulation.

(Fighting over LEDs or incandescent bulbs when the regulation says clear "DO NOT!". What part is unclear in "DO NOT" ?
If you sample a instrument = ok,
if you sample a recording = not ok, you need permission.
Doesn't matter if the recording is on a vinyl disk, CD, radio show or a rompler bank, it is a recording.)

This is a discussion. That's what forums are for, discussions. Developers are free to express their own biased opinion. Musicians, or trolls as you call them, are free to defend their point of view.

[sorohanro]

This is a discussion. That's what forums are for, discussions.

Well, discussions should lead to conclusions. This particular discussion doesn't lead to anything.
To the original question, how relevant is if there are LEDs or light bulbs on Eiffel tower ? How relevant it's how the color fade in a painting ?
Really, if you sample a record of Edith Piaf, it's not a fixed thing. If you sample it from a vinyl you might get slightly different crackles and dust hiss, if you sample from tape, you might get each time a different wobble and speed alterations but THIS DOESN'T MAKE IT NOT TO BE an Edith Piaf recording.

Developers are free to express their own biased opinion. Musicians, or trolls as you call them, are free to defend their point of view.

I don't think developers have biased opinions. They just had to deal with the legal issues and because of that they know what they are talking about.
Also I don't call musicians trolls. I'm a musician too and so are many developers.
Protecting your music or your samples gets under very similar legislation.
I advice everyone to get informed and even if the forum is a place of discussions, I advice people to get informed before start speaking/ posting.

[izonin]

I don't think developers have biased opinions. They just had to deal with the legal issues and because of that they know what they are talking about.
Also I don't call musicians trolls. I'm a musician too and so are many developers.
Protecting your music or your samples gets under very similar legislation.
I advice everyone to get informed and even if the forum is a place of discussions, I advice people to get informed before start speaking/ posting.

Ha. Well I'm glad that my uninformed opinions don't require your approval.

[sorohanro]

Ha. Well I'm glad that my uninformed opinions don't require your approval.

You don't need my approval for anything, you're a free person. You can stick your fingers into a power socket if you want and think is part of your freedom. All I can do is to say "this is wrong".
An uninformed attitude can get you and other people into legal troubles. Giving advice on legal issues without knowing the law isn't really leaving a good and smart impression.
For now many pose as smart Equus africanus asinus, but if a lawyer gets on you and make you sell your house, kidneys and whatever you can sell to pay damages, you'll be more of a

instead of
.

Guess it's your choice, your freedom...

[izonin]

but if a lawyer gets on you and make you sell your house, kidneys and whatever you can sell to pay damages

This is exactly why I post on this thread, to oppose the developers who create paranoia. Hardware manufacturers never have, and never would do anything like that. Their legal battles are with other companies, or they may act if you use their trademarks without permission.

[ghettosynth]

...

[ghettosynth]

...

[trimph1]

This is a discussion. That's what forums are for, discussions.

Well, discussions should lead to conclusions.

Poppycock. We've been talking about p=np, the Riemann hypothesis, and global warming for sometime now, no conclusion in sight.

I hate to say it but this 'discussion' seems more like a p***ing contest over who can out argue the other side.

Alright..let us suppose that it is OK to sample then redistribute the ROMplers sound banks...then it should be fair for me to do the same to your samples and redistribute as mine those samples as well...so the original samples that those guys worked on are now basically fodder for someone else...they have all become toys that we as grown children can go WHEEEE!! Let's Play!! with...

Sounds more like some want to smash the system.....

[thecontrolcentre]

smash the system.....

Now that would be worth discussing.

[deastman]

So, IMNSHO, the sound from a TR909 Kick is a work of art.

The TR-909 kick drum is generated by analog circuitry. It is not a sample. It is the output of a utilitarian machine, rather than a sound recording, and not subject to copyright law.

The TR-909 hihat is a sample, and subject to copyright.

It doesn't matter if you consider one note to be a song or not. The law doesn't distinguish between original works of music and original works of one note. Either way, it is a sound recording. You can't redistribute it.

Now, from the perspective of a user of a ROMpler, if you want to argue that your one note composition is a legitimate song, go right ahead. You are simply testing an edge case, and you may end up in court because of it. The judge will then evaluate the licensing terms of the product you used, the "artistic merit" of your "composition", and whether your "song" was distributed as the latest hit single on iTunes or as part of a package of samples for musicians to use.

[Genetic_Junk]

There are two separate discussions. One is how to apply current copyright law. The other is what copyright law should be. It is important to clarify which is being discussed.

It would also be more productive if those who discuss what the law should (as opposed to what it is) clearly define what they believe copyright should achieve. What objective goals should copyright law achieve?

[chj]

Let's reconsider the aforementioned Roland TR-77. The TR-77 creates fixed, prerecorded if you will, patterns of drum sounds.

The TR-77 is a good example of where it's hard to see any difference between samples and a 'synth'. But the law can't base itself on the exceptional situations. Besides, if Roland bothered to go to court for the TR-77, in certain cases they'd probably win. The general sound of a synth can't be copyrighted, but there is law that can stop someone from distributing sampled factory presets. Distributing the full patterns of the TR-77 should fall under this category. If Roland hasn't stopped anyone from distributing TR-77 patterns for many years, it could work against them under different legal principles. But basically, it's a 40 year old product, so Roland doesn't care.

But for most instruments, acoustic or electronic, the range of expression and variety is infinite. There are good reasons why you shouldn't be able to copyright the 'sound' of a Moog or a Harley Davidson motorcyle or a Stradivarius. Can you imagine if the 'Moog' sound was copyrighted? Virtually any sounds coming out of any synth today could arguably be covered. Even if the Courts wanted to protect synth sounds, in practice it would be nearly impossible.

Samples don't have this problem. If you can prove a sound came from your sample, you win.

[ghettosynth]

...

[fmr]

But for most instruments, acoustic or electronic, the range of expression and variety is infinite. There are good reasons why you shouldn't be able to copyright the 'sound' of a Moog or a Harley Davidson motorcyle or a Stradivarius. Can you imagine if the 'Moog' sound was copyrighted? Virtually any sounds coming out of any synth today could arguably be covered. Even if the Courts wanted to protect synth sounds, in practice it would be nearly impossible.

Samples don't have this problem. If you can prove a sound came from your sample, you win.

You touched exactly the point I raised when I told this was a grey area. And your arguments mey be turned over you. Almost any electronic sample based instrument has a theoretically infinite range of expressions. Although, they are sample based, therefore, we can just use them to play music.
The point is: What can be considered as music? If I play a chromatic scale slowly over five octaves, can this be consider as music? Or not? Can someone say I am attempting to sell samples? Indeed.
But if I play the same scale faster, then they will probably not care, because it will be harder to use it as samples (although, ripping the track digitally out of a CD and trimming every single note, they could be used nonetheless).
The music business was severely hurted by the greed of the big music labels. Let's hope the copyright laws do not punch the last nail on the coffin. A law can only serve it's purpose as long as people feel it to be just and fair. When a law is felt as abusive and injust, it no longer serves its purpose.
So, I think copyright laws need to find a balance between what should be forbidden and what shouldn't.
Now, ending with a variation of your last question: Can you imagine if there were only ROMpler synths (a few years ago they were almost the only ones available) and having their sound copyrighted? Any sounds coming out of any synth would arguably be covered. Even if the Courts wanted to free the users, in practice it would be nearly impossible. Imagine I release a record of an apprentice kid playing a C scale slowly over four octaves. I could very well being infringing copyright. What a wonderful world.

[hollowsun]

Developers are free to express their own biased opinion.

Instead of "their own biased opinion", I think the words you were looking for were "trying to explain the law and facts while some people are sticking their fingers in their ears going 'la la la la la' and crying "mummy, it's just not fair"".

Many contributors here have explained the situation regarding copyright law (even some of its sillier moments ... like the illuminated night time Eiffel Tower). If you don't like it, fine - try and get it changed by writing to your MP, whatever (good luck with that).

Or you can ignore the law and do what you want anyway but be prepared to take the consequences if you are found out.

I sometimes park illegally or exceed the speed limit. We all do at some point. I take those risks but I have to take the consequences if I am caught.

And yes, I object to some parking restrictions round here which are often idiotic and I think it's a nonsense that you can be done for speeding for doing 80mph on a 70mph motorway that is empty and you're the only car around (and I object to speed cameras which appear mostly to be roadside tax gatherers rather than serving any real purpose with regard to road safety) but those are the laws. I can either campaign to have them changed or take the hit if I am caught breaking those laws.

Or I can abide by those laws if I want to avoid prosecution ... even if I disagree with them.

But what I don't do is go round saying that it's my right to park where I want or drive at any speed I want with no respect to anyone else, making up all sorts of specious special case arguments about my 'rights' to justify my sense of entitlement to be exempt from the law.

Cheers,


Stephen