Is that infringement?

[breakmixer]

what escapes me is how come i pay money for a product and cannot use it as i please
say someone sells or just gives away for free processed samples of a sample based instrument or sampled soft synth presets, this is not reselling the unique product he bought and thus cannot harm anyone's business
so what it looks like is that software instruments manufacturers kinda try to eat the cake and keep it, restricting the rights of the end user, which isn't exactly fair

Because someone could 'theorectically' have the same library as you for free, maybe in a different format, basically when you buy a 'sampled' instrument, you are mainly paying for the rights to use the sounds in your compositions and the engine that runs them, if you sampled every single sound/velocity layer of a sampled instrument, and then sold it in another format mapped to a different sampler, so basically it's now the same sounds in a different format....because taken to the extreme, sampling a sampled instrument could be as detailed sampling as this, in which you are completely stealing somebodys studio work/real recordings/sound design/money spent to make a library.

Disclaimer-

This is all theoretical! I'm not implying anthing about anything or anyone, just a response and explanation to your question!

[synaesthesia]

Oh, not this thread again. At least the original poster's actually had his specific question answered.

If there's any doubt, why not just contact whoever owns the copyright to the material you want to use? It really is that simple. If they say "yes" then hooray, if they say "no" nobody dies.

[Meffy]

what escapes me is how come i pay money for a product and cannot use it as i please

If you'd ask a lawyer, it wouldn't escape you. But if you'd rather fuss and fret than know the answer, you won't ask.

Oh, not this thread again.

Yuppers. That is the meaning of my *picardfacepalm* earlier.

[synaesthesia]

Oh, not this thread again.

Yuppers. That is the meaning of my *picardfacepalm* earlier.

To be fair, it almost worked as a Q&A thread, before the usual "but how can they prove it?" distraction wandered into view, dragging its arse behind it.

[LXNDR1]

what escapes me is how come i pay money for a product and cannot use it as i please

If you'd ask a lawyer, it wouldn't escape you. But if you'd rather fuss and fret than know the answer, you won't ask.

man i made an appointment and to come panoplied to the meeting i want to clear up some things so i don't waste his precious time with trivial questions

[Meffy]

@synaesthesia: *nod* Agreed.

@LXNDR1: Well, I can't argue with being considerate. :-} Not even to a lawyer. (I don't dislike 'em all, just the bad ones, and they're not the majority. They just seem that way thanks to confirmation bias.)

[ugo]

say someone sells or just gives away for free processed samples of a sample based instrument or sampled soft synth presets, this is not reselling the unique product he bought and thus cannot harm anyone's business

Lets say instead that *you* made a sample library of sounds you created/recorded yourself and you decide to sell it. Someone buys it, resamples it, and gives it away for free. Now people don't necessarily have to buy your product anymore to get "sounds like that" because they can have something based directly on it that sounds similar, and they can get it for free. You don't think that might harm your business?

By the way, this line of thought also applies when dealing with products that were originally free. Direct monetary value is not the only way to measure worth. Some people do it to further their reputation, or as indirect advertising towards commercial projects, or they just want to receive a little thanks and respect in exchange for letting people have the fruits of their labor for free. If someone else takes that work, claims it as their own, and re-releases it, it takes away from what the original person was rightfully trying to gain.

It's illegal but I ask again, did anybody sue anybody because of this? People get away with really blatant sampling for their libraries from commercial tracks but they get away with it.

I could arguably walk around town and randomly poke a few people in the eye and I might get away with it, but that wouldn't make it the right thing to do. Legal ramifications only become part of the equation when someone has already decided to cast aside any moral issues in exchange for personal gain.

[yellowfever]

Oh, not this thread again.

Yuppers. That is the meaning of my *picardfacepalm* earlier.

To be fair, it almost worked as a Q&A thread, before the usual "but how can they prove it?" distraction wandered into view, dragging its arse behind it.

...but how on earth can you discuss the question 'Is this infringement?' without the proof issue and how difficult it would be to prove?

I say again, it would be extremely difficult to proove a sample, which is then heavily processed with external effects, as 'belonging' to someone; it could in fact be an entirely different sound when finished! For this reason, it IS relevant. Don't be so pompous.

[mcnoone]

I say again, it would be extremely difficult to proove a sample, which is then heavily processed with external effects, as 'belonging' to someone; it could in fact be an entirely different sound when finished! For this reason, it IS relevant. Don't be so pompous.

They use certain instruments like wave editors, and oscilloscopes, and sound-frequency analyzers to determine that. The use of FX can be reduced with certain software. If it is changed beyond recognition, then you have a chance at getting away with it.
As Ugo said in an earlier post already. It must be changed significantly, in order to pass any judgment.

As far as the "pompous" thing...well I'm sure you've either misunderstood, or you've only gotten back as to what you've given.

[zvon]

...but how on earth can you discuss the question 'Is this infringement?' without the proof issue and how difficult it would be to prove?

Easy, you stick to the question which is: 'Is this infringement?' There can be only 3 answers to that question, either "yes", "no" or "read the license".

The question is not 'Can it be proven that this is infringement?' or 'Can I get away with it?'

[Rock Hardbuns]

They use certain instruments like wave editors, and oscilloscopes, and sound-frequency analyzers to determine that. The use of FX can be reduced with certain software. If it is changed beyond recognition, then you have a chance at getting away with it.
As Ugo said in an earlier post already. It must be changed significantly, in order to pass any judgment.

Please provide some kind of source for these statements. Who is using this equipment, and in what court does it constitute proof. Where did you learn about this process?

Like I said earlier, I've been searching in vain for court cases relating to this question. If you have something substantial, cough it up!

[hollowsun]

Please provide some kind of source for these statements. Who is using this equipment, and in what court does it constitute proof. Where did you learn about this process?

Like I said earlier, I've been searching in vain for court cases relating to this question. If you have something substantial, cough it up!

There may not be court cases - incidents of infringement are usually/often closed and settled with a simple 'cease and desist' order from the manufacturer/developer/copyright holder's legal eagles who have analysed material substansively enough to warrant suspicion of infringement enough to stop it.

I myself have issued 'cease and desist' orders without using lawyers when the infringement has been relatively obvious (waveform, keymapping, file size and other analyses) and I have succeeded without resorting to courts, etc..

It should be pointed out that developers and manufacturers are always (wasting their time and resources which could be better spent developing new products) scouring for possible infringements because it is so potentially damaging to our livelihoods.

But it doesn't always get to the courts - it's nipped in the bud at source - which is why you might not find legal precedents.


Steve

[glokraw]

what escapes me is how come i pay money for a product and cannot use it as i please

If you'd ask a lawyer, it wouldn't escape you. But if you'd rather fuss and fret than know the answer, you won't ask.

Oh, not this thread again.

Yuppers. That is the meaning of my *picardfacepalm* earlier.

A forum that is made up solely of boring, opinionated old coots, with perfect english,
won't attract a lot of new 'members'. A constant flow of redundant questions from people
who are new at 'something', is actually a sign that kvr still has a pulse, and is not just sipping its last brandy before turning off the lights.

[yellowfever]

...but how on earth can you discuss the question 'Is this infringement?' without the proof issue and how difficult it would be to prove?

Easy, you stick to the question which is: 'Is this infringement?' There can be only 3 answers to that question, either "yes", "no" or "read the license".

The question is not 'Can it be proven that this is infringement?' or 'Can I get away with it?'

Ah shut up. So every topic posted here asking a question can be answered yes, no, maybe? Try to expand your vocabulary and school of thought rather than sucking up to the pros.

[Rock Hardbuns]

There may not be court cases - incidents of infringement are usually/often closed and settled with a simple 'cease and desist' order from the manufacturer/developer/copyright holder's legal eagles who have analysed material substansively enough to warrant suspicion of infringement enough to stop it.

I am aware of this, and it is unfortunate because it doesn't create any legal precedents. Which in turn means that evidence is never tested. Which is why I was wondering where MCnoone got those ideas from.