KVR Audio

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:07 pm

sorohanro wrote:
fmr wrote:We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.
A creator SHOULD BE able to choose how his/ her creation will be used.

That kind of put an end to the discussion

Which creator? Are we talking about Animal Farm here? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than the others?

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:09 pm

sorohanro wrote:
fmr wrote:We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.
A creator SHOULD BE able to choose how his/ her creation will be used.

That kind of put an end to the discussion

Since it seems so hard for some to think OTHER than the "it's not fair!!" ideology here...

Since I CREATE--here a word denoting LABOUR as such--my own samples, may I be permitted to actually have the right to protect the FRUITS of my LABOUR?!?!?

Why SHOULDN'T they be permitted that right to protect what is in fact theirs?

sorohanro · Post by **sorohanro** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:29 pm

fmr wrote:
sorohanro wrote:
fmr wrote:We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.
A creator SHOULD BE able to choose how his/ her creation will be used.

That kind of put an end to the discussion
Which creator? Are we talking about Animal Farm here? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than the others?

Come on, how old are you ?
I'm talking of the original creators.

As a composer have the right to say "my religious anther may NOT be used in porn movies". What if a hip-hop producer sample his religious anthem, make a track and license it in a porn movie.
Now, the original creator have all the rights to be angry and sue them all.
So, same goes for sample producers. It's just simple common sense. Some understand it, some don't.

Or have it your way, people should be totally unable to protect their work. People should never ever have intellectual property rights. Whatever you do, if you want to make it into a commercial product TO SUPPORT YOUR LIFE, (translating from English to English, to make a living out of your work), should be taken from you and released as public domain.

Better now ?

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:38 pm

You know, what is really interesting is that there are scads of free samples all over the internet nowadays....

Why not use these? Fix them up and voila! done.

A couple of example organizations...

http://www.pdsounds.org/

http://freemusicsoftware.org/category/free-samples

If you can't find what you are looking for then sample the dang thing yourself..don't go mucking about with someone else's samples...then claim them as your own work..

sorohanro · Post by **sorohanro** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:56 pm

Let's put this into coding terms.

If I buy a, let's say reverb VST plugin, I reverse engineer/ decompile/ disassembly it and use some of the code to make another VST reverb, would it be right ?

Who can say if I change the GUI from what reverb I used the code from? Only I can tell. (Who can say 010100111 is my code?)
Is that legal ? Is that right ? Am I a creator or a thief ?
If you want to make a plugin, buy the tools to do it and spend the time to learn how to do it.

If you want to make a sample library take your time and effort to do it, don't rip off other people's work and then yell and complain that "it's not fair" when they protect their work.

In simpler words:
Stealing = BAD
(to whatever extent)

ZenPunkHippy · Post by **ZenPunkHippy** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:11 pm

Why stop at coding? We can step it up a notch, and counterfeit a whole company ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/techn ... irate.html

... or this ...

http://birdabroad.wordpress.com/2011/07 ... teve-jobs/

Peace,
Andy.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:13 pm

sorohanro wrote:
fmr wrote:
sorohanro wrote:
fmr wrote:We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.
A creator SHOULD BE able to choose how his/ her creation will be used.

That kind of put an end to the discussion
Which creator? Are we talking about Animal Farm here? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than the others?
Come on, how old are you ?
I'm talking of the original creators.

As a composer have the right to say "my religious anther may NOT be used in porn movies". What if a hip-hop producer sample his religious anthem, make a track and license it in a porn movie.
Now, the original creator have all the rights to be angry and sue them all.
So, same goes for sample producers. It's just simple common sense. Some understand it, some don't.

Or have it your way, people should be totally unable to protect their work. People should never ever have intellectual property rights. Whatever you do, if you want to make it into a commercial product TO SUPPORT YOUR LIFE, (translating from English to English, to make a living out of your work), should be taken from you and released as public domain.

Better now ?

Being God the original creator, then He is the owner of all the copyrights.

Following your thought, it's either black or white. Guess what? Very rarely it's that way. Usually is neither.

About the Anthem, have you heard about variations? Parodies? Paraphrases? Quotations? These used to be all around in music. Not anymore...

sorohanro · Post by **sorohanro** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 pm

ZenPunkHippy wrote:Why stop at coding? We can step it up a notch, and counterfeit a whole company ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/techn ... irate.html

... or this ...

http://birdabroad.wordpress.com/2011/07 ... teve-jobs/

Peace,
Andy.

Good finds

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:18 pm

fmr wrote:
sorohanro wrote:
fmr wrote:We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.
A creator SHOULD BE able to choose how his/ her creation will be used.

That kind of put an end to the discussion
Which creator?

The creator of the work being reused obviously. Is that that hard to follow?

Are we talking about Animal Farm here? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than the others?

It seems more like you're talking about Animal Farm here... All creative work is equal, except that which relies on someone else's creative work, which case it gets to be 'more' equal, and overrule the original creator's rights.

sorohanro · Post by **sorohanro** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:27 pm

fmr wrote:About the Anthem, have you heard about variations? Parodies? Paraphrases? Quotations? These used to be all around in music. Not anymore...

Well, I agree, those things exist and they are used and useful. Most of them are part of our cultural inheritance.
But you should agree, there is a big difference between Berlioz using "Dies Irae" in his "Fantastic Symphony" and ripping off a sample library from a rompler.

Anyway, this discussion is taking way too much of my time. I would rather make music than trying to educate some kids not to steal. After all, I pay taxes for police to do that

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:28 pm

fmr wrote:And we are not talking about what it is LEGALLY - that's established. We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.

Ah, so "Wishful Thinking" is the real topic? Easy mistake to make considering the thread's subject is "Legality of distributing sampled synths". Devilishly deceptive that.

thecontrolcentre · Post by **thecontrolcentre** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:32 pm

fmr wrote:
sorohanro wrote:
fmr wrote:We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.
A creator SHOULD BE able to choose how his/ her creation will be used.

That kind of put an end to the discussion
Which creator? Are we talking about Animal Farm here? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than the others?

I think you're talking about what YOU want the law to be, not what it SHOULD be. The law protects the copyright holder regardless of who they are. It does not protect those who want to copy (steal) a copyrighted product, regardless of who they are. Where's the in-equality ...

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:56 pm

When those who wanna do what they wanna do try to use reason to argue their point it always ends up being about their rights...

"It's so unfair!!! Waaaah!!"

Genetic_Junk · Post by **Genetic_Junk** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:57 pm

Meffy wrote:
fmr wrote:And we are not talking about what it is LEGALLY - that's established. We are talking about what it SHOULD BE.
Ah, so "Wishful Thinking" is the real topic? Easy mistake to make considering the thread's subject is "Legality of distributing sampled synths". Devilishly deceptive that.

I think there's more merit than wishful thinking in a normative discussion, even on a music forum, of what copyright law should be. But I guess you're right that this thread isn't the best place.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:07 pm

*nod* I could've predicted at the start where this thread would go. Not that it's difficult; these things seem to be created on rails, only one possible route. Them's the breaks -- long as nobody's advocating piracy it's okay to indulge in wishful thinking... bootless though.