Legality of distributing sampled synths

[ghettosynth]

...

[deastman]

This is precisely analogous to the numerous examples presented earlier where someone samples a source not-subject to copyright, e.g. a 909 Kick, and then holds copyright on that sample. The court ruled, in the case of a photograph, that such a copy does not hold significant originality, and consequently, is not itself subject to copyright protection.


Has Yamaha/Roland/Korg actually sued in a similar case? In fact, are there any interesting cases with respect to sampling in the last 5 years or so?

I can't answer for the past 5 years. However, a couple of my friends used to have a business back in the 1990's, selling sound sets for the Kurzweil K2000. Their sounds were based on classic analog synths and drum machines- some recreated from scratch, some sampled. Roland did send them a cease and desist notice over 909 samples. Needless to say, they didn't feel like testing it in court.

[trimph1]

Well...I think some here would like to test their theories in court...

As for the semantic arguments...well...when the going gets tough the tough turn to arguing about semantics....

Well...all I can suggest is that if you feel that strongly about your system then try it...and see if someone does not send you a cease and desist order....

[Acid Mitch]

As for the semantic arguments...well...when the going gets tough the tough turn to arguing about semantics....

No they dont, they only argue about the meaning of things

[hollowsun]

Has Yamaha/Roland/Korg actually sued in a similar case?

No (well... not to my knowledge)....

Because they never get past the many Cease & Desist orders they have issued.

Believe me, when you receive one of those from a powerful New York firm of lawyers representing them, you pull it a bit smartish!! You do NOT want to mess with them however strong your principles may be!!!

Cheers,


Stephen

[fmr]

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.

Sure sampling a sample is illegal. But sample something we came about using a sample is something that IMO, is subject to discussion. That's the grey area, and all the arguments against that came across in this discussion always go back the "sampling a sample is illegal". A kind of "perfect loop".

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?

That's what I would have proposed too. I concur that using a product that cost 20 bucks and trying to squeeze a few thousands out of it with just a few musical phrases sems unfair. Proposing some kind of contractual would be the fair thing to do.
Again, IMO all this would be a no problem if people were honest and fair in their procedures and propositions. The problem starts if someone feels like take advantage of the law proptection to claim unfair advantages, and/or someone simply doesn't care of the law and do whatever they do. Law should be the least common denominator. Agreement based on fairness and honesty should be what prevail. But this would happen only in a non-existant "brave new world" I suspect.

[izonin]

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

You're just over exaggerating things. Sharing copyrighted samples is the same as uploading copyrighted songs on Youtube. It is illegal, yes. There are hundreds of links to illegal videos on this forum.

The consequences would be the same, as with uploading on Youtube. That's why I'm saying that you're biased as a developer. You're taking something that is light pink and making it appear crimson.

[RandomWave]

Great topic! Many vadid points all around. While I understand the general usage of sampled material, I see contradictions to this everywhere. Even different countries have different specific laws when it comes to sampling usage. I've read a good many posts of this here likewise not all of though, so forgive me if this has been answered already.

"However...

YOU CANNOT SAMPLE THAT SOUND, MAP IT OUT IN, SAY, KONTAKT AND RE-DISTRIBUTE THAT FOR SALE OR GIVE AWAY ... for one simple reason - THOSE PROGRAMS WOULD CONTAIN (A COPY OF) THE ROMPLER'S MANUFACTURER'S COPYRIGHT... i.e. the 'samples'. Which is illegal."

Stephen @ Hollowsun, you sell sample libraries produced by many various sample based synths including M1, Vintage samplers, Mellotron (tape recordings) and even the FS1R contains format vocal recordings.

How are you are able to produced and distribute these sets for instance then?

Nice Bytes and a ton of other companies sell sample disks of all kinds of sample based instruments. Surly these all cant illegal?

Here's a good one:

"The following was emailed to MaxSynths by an official representative of Korg in response to his query concerning copyright."

"No one is allowed to sample the Factory preloaded or after-market sold sounds of our product. If a user creates a truly original sound using the synthesis engine they are free to use it as they choose, but our supplied sounds are our copy written works of art and not allowed to be sampled/resold/etc.

According to the above response as its written, one could easily understand this as being able to freely create a new sound program and use as you "choose" - including sample it and sell it.

The response doesnt specify if the synth in question is sample based or generate waveform ie. saw, square etc. and could be taken either way easily by a developer without further clarification.

With clear as mud replies like Korg's, its no wonder there are 16 pages and counting of discussion!

[hollowsun]

Stephen @ Hollowsun, you sell sample libraries produced by many various sample based synths including M1, Vintage samplers, Mellotron (tape recordings) and even the FS1R contains format vocal recordings.

How are you are able to produced and distribute these sets for instance then?

Nice Bytes and a ton of other companies sell sample disks of all kinds of sample based instruments. Surly these all cant illegal?

Permission is sought and obtained.

Here's a good one:

"The following was emailed to MaxSynths by an official representative of Korg in response to his query concerning copyright."

"No one is allowed to sample the Factory preloaded or after-market sold sounds of our product. If a user creates a truly original sound using the synthesis engine they are free to use it as they choose, but our supplied sounds are our copy written works of art and not allowed to be sampled/resold/etc.

According to the above response as its written, one could easily understand this as being able to freely create a new sound program and use as you "choose" - including sample it and sell it.

The response doesnt specify if the synth in question is sample based or generate waveform ie. saw, square etc. and could be taken either way easily by a developer without further clarification.

With clear as mud replies like this, its no wonder there are 16 pages and counting of discussion!

I remember that one. It does muddy the waters somewhat. What exactly does "free to use it as they choose" mean ... especially when followed immediately by "our supplied sounds are our copy written works of art and not allowed to be sampled/resold/etc."?

Cheers,


Stephen

[RandomWave]

Permission is sought and obtained.

Thanks for the response!

It goes without saying, the best way to determine if one can produce and distribute sample libraries, is to get authorization to do so in any case. This will settle any question or uncertainty definitively for each product and manufactures terms.

[fmr]

The following was emailed to MaxSynths by an official representative of Korg in response to his query concerning copyright:

"No one is allowed to sample the Factory preloaded or after-market sold sounds of our product. If a user creates a truly original sound using the synthesis engine they are free to use it as they choose, but our supplied sounds are our copy written works of art and not allowed to be sampled/resold/etc.
According to the above response as its written, one could easily understand this as being able to freely create a new sound program and use as you "choose" - including sample it and sell it.

The response doesnt specify if the synth in question is sample based or generate waveform ie. saw, square etc. and could be taken either way easily by a developer without further clarification.

With clear as mud replies like this, its no wonder there are 16 pages and counting of discussion!

I remember that one. It does muddy the waters somewhat. What exactly does "free to use it as they choose" mean ... especially when followed immediately by "our supplied sounds are our copy written works of art and not allowed to be sampled/resold/etc."?

Cheers,


Stephen

IMO, the key here is "truly original sound using the synthesis engine". This seems to imply that what has been called in this thread as "derivative work" is not considered by Korg as covered by their own copyright (which, again IMO, seems much more fair and balanced than the overly comprehensive interpretation that includes in the copyright "everything that was originated from that sample"). This is closer to my way of seeing things, and will still protect fairly copyright owners. One can work over others work if it comes out with "truly original sound using the synthesis engine", albeit one cannot "COPY" others work. But I would still try to obtain copyright owner a permission "just in case".

[hollowsun]

You're just over exaggerating things.

No I am not - I am describing the situation as it exists in law. That you don't like it or think it's unfair is hardly my problem.

I disagree with many aspects of copyright law as well, as it happens, because some it is idiotic. For example, in the UK, if you buy a CD of music, it is technically illegal to run off a copy to play in your car for your own use ... and technically illegal to run off a copy to play on your kitchen's ghetto blaster while you're cooking dinner. Which is a nonsense.

But when a manufacturer invests $millions in developing a sound library for their products or a developer remortgages their house to invest in the creation of a new sound library, I believe their rights take precedence over some user's flights of fancy to redistribute their IP at a whim. And the law agrees with that even if you don't.

Your 'creativity' is not hampered in the slightest by these laws and you are at liberty to sample your ROMpler with gay abandon ... for your own personal use and/or convenience. Technically (like it or not) it is illegal but practically, it's not worth worrying about because it is unenforcable. Anyone who buys my stuff is free to do what they want with it for their own personal use and they'll have no objection from me - in fact, I encourage it.

A problem only arises if you try to 'share' that in whatever way. Giving a copy to a mate in one thing - putting it on Rapidshare and announcing it here at KVR, etc., is an altogether different thing.

Unless permission is sought and obtained from the copyright holder.

That is all. I don't know what is so difficult to comprehend.

Cheers,


Stephen

[thecontrolcentre]

Unless permission is sought and obtained from the copyright holder.

That is all. I don't know what is so difficult to comprehend.

I agree. It seems to me that some are interpreting having an understanding of the law as unquestioning support of the law.

[izonin]

You're just over exaggerating things.

No I am not - I am describing the situation as it exists in law. That you don't like it or think it's unfair is hardly my problem.

I disagree with many aspects of copyright law as well, as it happens, because some it is idiotic. For example, in the UK, if you buy a CD of music, it is technically illegal to run off a copy to play in your car for your own use ... and technically illegal to run off a copy to play on your kitchen's ghetto blaster while you're cooking dinner. Which is a nonsense.

But when a manufacturer invests $millions in developing a sound library for their products or a developer remortgages their house to invest in the creation of a new sound library, I believe their rights take precedence over some user's flights of fancy to redistribute their IP at a whim. And the law agrees with that even if you don't.

Your 'creativity' is not hampered in the slightest by these laws and you are at liberty to sample your ROMpler with gay abandon ... for your own personal use and/or convenience. Technically (like it or not) it is illegal but practically, it's not worth worrying about because it is unenforcable. Anyone who buys my stuff is free to do what they want with it for their own personal use and they'll have no objection from me - in fact, I encourage it.

A problem only arises if you try to 'share' that in whatever way. Giving a copy to a mate in one thing - putting it on Rapidshare and announcing it here at KVR, etc., is an altogether different thing.

Unless permission is sought and obtained from the copyright holder.

That is all. I don't know what is so difficult to comprehend.

Cheers,


Stephen

We're just talking about different things. I'm not interested in discussing your sample libraries.

[sonicpowa]

Yes but no but yes but no but yes but no but...