Legality of distributing sampled synths

[deastman]

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.

If you insist on testing the boundary cases, the answer will still be the same: you may get taken to court, and a judge will decide if you are within your rights or not. Laws cover the middle ground. Judges make the determination on the fringes.

So, I think copyright laws need to find a balance between what should be forbidden and what shouldn't.

Isn't that exactly what copyright law does? It promotes the free flow of ideas and expression in democratic society, while protecting the interests of creators. Fair and balanced.

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.

This is a pointless argument. What if all recorded music was subject to copyright? You wouldn't be able to steal any of it! Oh, wait...

[thecontrolcentre]

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.

Why would anyone release a record of an apprentice kid playing a C scale slowly over four octaves? It's a totally ridiculous argument.

The bottom line is ... no copyright = no sample based synths, no rom based synths, no presets and no sample packs, because there would be no benefit to the programmers/samplists.

[trimph1]

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.

Why would anyone release a record of an apprentice kid playing a C scale slowly over four octaves? It's a totally ridiculous argument.

The bottom line is ... no copyright = no sample based synths, no rom based synths, no presets and no sample packs, because there would be no benefit to the programmers/samplists.

+1...

The thing is then that you would have to become more involved in your
OWN musical abilities. You would need to learn a lot of synthesis to do what these devs have done on your own...like it or not...

[ghettosynth]

...

[hollowsun]

I don't believe that I've seen anyone here argue for "no" copyright.

Really?

There have been many posts here arguing that ROMpler manufacturers' copyright is unfair, claiming that their inability to sample the ROMpler's (copyrighted) samples restricts their 'creativity'. They appear to want to be free to sample anything from these ROMplers without restriction so whilst they might not have said it in so many words, they are effectively arguing for no copyright... or an abandonment of it in the case of ROMplers.

The discussion is about the limits of copyright protection.

Which (including some of its sillier moments) have, I think, been fairly clearly defined...

But still some people want to argue their way out of those definitions with 'what if' situations and extreme fringe attempts at specious exceptions.

Cheers,


Stephen

[ghettosynth]

...

[hollowsun]

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.

Exactly.

Not just that, but the TR77's patterns were fairly generic bossa novas and cha-chas and likely identical to (or at least so similar as to be almost indistinguishable from) the Keio 'Doncamatic' or Hammond AutoVari64, whatever.

Now, in the case of someone releasing a TR77 library, Roland wouldn't have a case with regard to the individual sounds (because they are all electronically generated) but they could, arguably, have a case regarding the patterns...

But they'd likely not pursue it because the patterns were generic and, as you say, the product is 40 years old and discontinued a LONG time ago. They may well lose that one and it wouldn't be worth their while getting arsey over that.

Which throws up another aspect to all this...

Technically, sampling a ROMpler is illegal, wrong, unkosher, ha'ram, whatever - it could land you in trouble (probably not a lot - just a C&D order probably). Or it might not depending on what the the copyright holder wants to do.

For example, Yamaha might come down on you like a ton of bricks if you sample their Motif or MO8 or Clavinova and try to 'share' that...

But they might not give a rat's arse if you sample their old and long discontinued SY85. Technically, it's still illegal but it may be of no concern to the copyright holder.

Similarly, Korg could get very cross with you if you were to sample their latest sample based product(s) (but can't object if anyone samples their Monotron) and 'share' it but will possibly turn a blind eye if you sample their old M1 (and besides, they're probably not too bothered because their M1 plug-in is likely to trounce some bedroom samplist's efforts).

I know for a fact that ROMpler manufacturers have pretty much given up chasing all those dreadful CDs you see for sale on eBay. You know the type... CDs for $9.99 that offer the sounds of every ROMpler ever made...

Because they are utter shite (and to be avoided) offering, for the most part, just one short, badly recorded, unlooped sample of each sound. Initially, the manufacturers were concerned that these awful things might bring their brand name into disrepute (that people who bought them might think that the actual products sounded that bad) but they gave up on it (eBay's tortuous complaints mechanism didn't help either). But whatever...

The fact remains that, like it or not and whether you think it's right or wrong or stifling your 'creativity' or whatever argument you might like to present to justify it, whatever, sampling a ROMpler's samples is illegal and you take your chances if you do it and try to 'share' it.

And if in doubt, ask for permission - you might be pleasantly surprised. Or you may not ... but at least you know where you stand.

Cheers,


Stephen

[hollowsun]

There are numerous possibilities between the position that ANY sample, no matter how small, is a violation and NO copyright protection whatsoever.

Pedantic semantics and sophistry.

I have more to say on this, but I'm a bit busy now.

Me too.

I have just finished scanning JK Rowling's literary canon in its entirety and am planning to release it for sale soon.

It's ok though, I've run it through an OCR process and changed the main character's name to to Barry Trotter so it's mine to do with as I want!

The principle is much the same!

Cheers,


Stephen

[thecontrolcentre]

Pedantic semantics and sophistry.

I'm gonna use that as the title of my next album.

[ghettosynth]

...

[thecontrolcentre]

[hollowsun]

No, not at all, there's no doubt that JK Rowling's literary canon is literature, what we are discussing is whether it's fair in the same breath to call individual Rompler samples "performances."

More pedantic semantic sophistry!

You yourself dismissed Roland's work as "generic", so it seems that even you have some bar below which you also dismiss the "artistic" work of others.

I don't "dismiss" it at all ... just being realistic that the TR77 and its patterns were of a different era and Roland would be unlikely to pursue anyone for sampling those patterns.

Cheers,



Stephen

[sosayweall]

Like hollowsun, I, too, feel that it seems like some discussions here are just trying to break the "you can't sample a sample and then use that to make your own sample" rule and justify one's other intentions. Sure there are some extremely fuzzy areas, but as long as we stick to the original intention, it's as clear as day and night. Actually, this seems to be a good analogy. One can argue whether the dusk and dawn belong to day or night, but we all know day and night are distinctively different. Arguing over dusk and dawn won't change the fact that day is not night.

I guess many of us sample developers have come across some funny cases. There's a guy contacted us a while back, and he actually tried to argue (using exactly the same argument we saw in this thread about "what is a musical context") with us about whether he could use some one-shot phrases of our new instrument as part of his "sound solution pack" (not his words, but something to that effect) that he sells to other post-production companies.

Of course we said no. On the one hand, I have to applaud his coming forward with this inquiry, but seriously, paying 20 bucks for a Rompler plugin and you think it'd be fair to use it to make your own sample-based product? Really? how about approaching us for licensing the samples to be used in your product? Doesn't that sound more, ugh, fair?

[hollowsun]

Pedantic semantics and sophistry.

I'm gonna use that as the title of my next album.

I own the copyright on that collection of words.

Please contact my lawyers for a usage licence!



Cheers,


Stephen

[ghettosynth]

...