KVR Audio

sinister1 · Post by **sinister1** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:16 pm

Like i said i dont want to sample just make songs.so using SAMPLE based royalty-free c.d.'s is okay?even with kits like a 909 or 808?using all vst synths is okay ?original like (absynth )or emulations like (arturias prophet)?and all there original presets in a song?not to sample .

jens · Post by **jens** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:20 pm

sinister1 wrote:Like i said i dont want to sample just make songs.so using SAMPLE based royalty-free c.d.'s is okay?even with kits like a 909 or 808?using all vst synths is okay ?original like (absynth )or emulations like (arturias prophet)?and all there original presets in a song?not to sample .

sure, it's all o.k. - really: don't worry.... (and how could they tell and prove what you used anyway? And who gives a shit?)

I wouldn't even think about such bullshit - copyrights were introduced to secure intellectual property, not to kill creativity.

sinister1 · Post by **sinister1** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:22 am

thanks Jen .im just curious about this.Anyone I ask doesn't seem to have a good response,or no one can direct me to someone who does.kind of confusing .

any suggestions on that?

Hewitt Huntwork · Post by **Hewitt Huntwork** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:49 am

jens wrote: I've got another question as well:

If Eric Persing told everyone it ain't a big deal to sample hardware which has got a sample-based sound generation, would that mean it also wasn't a big deal to sample his own products which are all sample-based as well?

In other words:

wouldn't the business-man in him have a lot of interest in generating as much fear as possible, regardless of what the real situation might be?

So is Eric Persing really the ideal expert to consult in regards to this?

Just a thought...

edit: typo

I don't think Eric has done anything to deserve these suggestions. Maybe you're just thinking out loud, but you may not be aware of how you sound.

zvon · Post by **zvon** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:47 am

sinister1 wrote:Like i said i dont want to sample just make songs.so using SAMPLE based royalty-free c.d.'s is okay?...

Royalty-free means that you can use the samples in your music without having to pay any other money than the purchase price of the samples or samples CDs. If you are sure that the samples you want to use are indeed royalty-free there's no problem. You have to read the license and if in doubt you can contact the publisher of the samples that you want to use.

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:36 pm

Hewitt Huntwork wrote:
I don't think Eric has done anything to deserve these suggestions. Maybe you're just thinking out loud, but you may not be aware of how you sound.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm only saying that if you want some objective opinion then asking a person who might indirectly benefit from some certain advice it could give you probably isn't the smartest of ideas.

Either way I don't really care how that sounds.

hollowsun · Post by **hollowsun** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:04 pm

SampleScience wrote:Is advertising sample cds with famous manifacturers models numbers is fair use?

Fair use of model names & brands?

Well... not that I have to state my business but there is the tiny detail, perhaps, of permission and allowance and the fact that the instruments involved are long discontinued and not considered 'unfair competition' (plus the M1000 is totally analogue and falls out of 'samples-of-samples' category). Those combinations of letters and numbers aren't copyrightable either as 'trademarks' (witness the fact that many other products use the model number M1000).

And so on.

Steve

Ben H · Post by **Ben H** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:18 pm

jens wrote:sure, it's all o.k. - really: don't worry.... (and how could they tell and prove what you used anyway? And who gives a shit?)

I wouldn't even think about such bullshit - copyrights were introduced to secure intellectual property, not to kill creativity.

Are you sure Jen's an expert?

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:33 pm

ben_horwood wrote:
jens wrote:sure, it's all o.k. - really: don't worry.... (and how could they tell and prove what you used anyway? And who gives a shit?)

I wouldn't even think about such bullshit - copyrights were introduced to secure intellectual property, not to kill creativity.
Are you sure Jen's an expert?

I'm not - no way - but that riddle can easily be solved by applying a bit of good old common sense...

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:38 pm

hollowsun wrote:
.....and the fact that the instruments involved are long discontinued and not considered 'unfair competition'

Steve

It appears that the XP-30 has been discontinued as well.

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:44 pm

What makes this:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=

Any different than sampling the XP-30?

pschelfh · Post by **pschelfh** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:04 pm

Also :

How can anyone tell the difference if you sampled eg. a 909 drumkit from the real thing (=legal?) or from eg. an XP30 (=illegal?).

Peter.

Kermit Jagger · Post by **Kermit Jagger** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:23 pm

Fact, we're still waiting for the court of a major legal system to render a verdict on this matter of sampling instruments.

In the meantime, it is considered illegal to sample factory banks because you're sampling somebody's work, but there is nothing wrong sampling your own patches.

We'll know more when the case against Nice Bytes has been settled.

DarkStar · Post by **DarkStar** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:46 pm

which must lead to the question:
"how much tweaking of a factory bank is needed to make it your own?"

Or "in that case, aren't all my own patches derived from the VSTi's initial patch settings (init or default or whatever)?"

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:43 pm

Kermit Jagger wrote:We'll know more when the case against Nice Bytes has been settled.

Case against Nice Bytes? Could you point me to more information on this case?

RolandSessionSet for Wusikstation