RolandSessionSet for Wusikstation

[Sam@Megablastic]

I've got to agree with Hollow Sun.... people gotta make their own breaks. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

[sinister1]

I'm still confused!maybe worse off.If I buy a sample c.d. that is royalty-free and has drum hits of a Roland 808 0r 909,or a bassline or oneshot from an
analogue synth,is this legal to use commercially?

[Sam@Megablastic]

Well no one will ever know/hear that the 909 kick drum you used in your track came from a sample cd where someone hasn't got the explicit permission from Roland to use.

Analog I am 100% sure you are in ok territory (I hope so or else my product is up the creek lol). Sampling presets 1 to 1 copy from sample synths is not cool. It's cheeky and not fair to the person who made the presets.

With analog synths like say a Yamaha CS-30, the amount of work that goes into sampling just 1 preset on that synth is huge. And the main thing is that YOU created it and not copied it

[pw]

I'm still confused!maybe worse off.If I buy a sample c.d. that is royalty-free and has drum hits of a Roland 808 0r 909,or a bassline or oneshot from an
analogue synth,is this legal to use commercially?

Of course it is (presuming the the sample vendor allows this in their license, but that has nought to do with Roland)!!

And that is what is misleading about some of the diatribe in this thread - it is an analog source, and sampling it is fully legit. The grey area, or the downright illegality, relates only to ROM, or sample based, synths.

Whether the sample cd breaks *trademarks* or something may be another issue (like if they splash !!Roland 909!! all over the cover and their promotional material), but has nought to do with you using the *samples*.

I am totally happy to be wrong on this, too, if someone wants to tidy up my 'claims', but I think it is inline with what spectrum has said here and in other threads, and he works closely with the 'big boys'.

[hollowsun]

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

Roland sued Atmel Corp., Dream S.A. and Crystal Semiconductor Co., in 1996 for sampling their MT32....

And won! Big time!


Steve

No.

So it would appear - I didn't hear about the follow up/appeal/whatever.

But that was then and this is now and I know that Roland are a LOT tighter about any possible infringements. Normally, they don't get to court because the product is withdrawn when their lawyers issue a 'cease and desist' order.


Steve

[hollowsun]

Of course it is (presuming the the sample vendor allows this in their license, but that has nought to do with Roland)!!

Correct - if Roland object, any action they pursue will/should be with the CD vendor.

And that is what is misleading about some of the diatribe in this thread - it is an analog source, and sampling it is fully legit.

Not quite - the kick and snare are analogue but the toms, etc., are samples!!!

The grey area, or the downright illegality, relates only to ROM, or sample based, synths.

Correct.

Whether the sample cd breaks *trademarks* or something may be another issue (like if they splash !!Roland 909!! all over the cover and their promotional material), but has nought to do with you using the *samples*.

Correct on both counts.

Steve

[pw]

Thanks Steve - I think these are important things to clarify in a thread like this. I brought it up because I started a thread about an upcoming project of mine (RetroTone), which is just based on analog sources, and will not use the names to market the product, and someone immediately questioned the legality of what I was doing (I mentioned in the thread I would be using PortaSounds ) !

It is absurd, but, I think from these type of posts, and people such as yourself talking about legality etc *all the time* in these posts in a general way, many lay readers take away the wrong understanding, in a way that can only hurt smaller soundware developers who are still going by the book.

I hope you understand what I mean, as I mean no disrespect and am in fact a customer of your products (Tron samples and CP70 samples, in the DASH Signature players).

And of course, I know that only the kick and snare are analogue on the 909, but the guy just mentioned the kick.

I would also be interested in your perspective on Melltron/Optigan samples (as I mentioned in an earlier post), even via pm if you prefer (or not at all, it is at your discretion).

[SampleScience]

in facts, I can hear many uncleared samples in commercials products by big names who don't get sued & I'd like to know why...

How do you know they haven't been cleared? Litigation is a HUGE concern these days and no-one in their right mind would release anything without clearance and/or permission.

In a perfect worl yes... but when I can spot the "break the levee" breakbeat from Led Zeppelin on a Magix Dance sample CD all chop, re-mixed & re-arranged... I seriously doubt it have been cleared. Why? because there's like 100 others snares/kicks from breaks re-mixed, re-arranged, effected, etc... on the same disc that I doubt they could make any money at the end.
A perfect example is the Kleptomania sample cd from Coldcut (AMG), if you do a research on google you will see that the cd is 90-99% consisted of samples from old records, Coldcut even claims in a article (a SOS one you can find on the internet) that basslines aren't copyrightable!!!

Is it possible to make a sample cd consisting of almost only re-sampled material lifted from records, cleared everything & still make money? Check the "Skip to My Loops" sample cd from FatBoy Slim, it's another good example.

(PS: thanks for the detailed reply! )

[sinister1]

help!doesn't anyone have Roland's phone number?lol.i'm clueless.

[hollowsun]

In a perfect worl yes... but when I can spot the "break the levee" breakbeat from Led Zeppelin on a Magix Dance sample CD all chop, re-mixed & re-arranged... I seriously doubt it have been cleared. Why? because there's like 100 others snares/kicks from breaks re-mixed, re-arranged, effected, etc... on the same disc that I doubt they could make any money at the end.

I don't know. But....

There's 'clearance' and 'clearance'

Clearance to use some sample from a record on another record that could potentially sells squillions and get worldwide airplay and earn gazillions in royalties is one thing - you may pay handsomely for that. On the other hand, getting clearance/permission to use 'em on a CD-ROM that might sell a few hundred copies to some schmucks that will never have a hit record is another matter ... you might just need 'permission' for that. I dunno.

But just one thing to throw into the murky pot of sample copyright.....

There was a time in the early days of sampling when sampling other people's stuff wasn't such an issue. The only currency for distributing them was expensive floppy disks or even more expensive CD-ROMs (if you had the very expensive means to make CD-ROMs) and so it wasn't much of a threat. Also, sample editing tools to extract individual samples were rare and expensive (no ReCycle) and sampling just wasn't really a threat. Also, most samplers had small memory (750kb in S900 or 2MB in Akai S1000) so you couldn't really do a lot in terms of sampling things like D50, M1, DX7, whatever. Also, I don't think many understood the possible commercial implications sampling could have on their products ... because it was a pretty poor substitute for 'the real thing'. Also, I don't think many 'samplists' understood the concept of copyright either and just sampled stuff without a second thought... and it was always compromised anyway and no competition for 'the real thing'. And nobody really cared and a whole pile of library was released back then without thought or question or challenge.

But then samplers got more memory and sounded better but it still wasn't a major problem because distribution of library was still difficult and expensive. So still no-one really cared too much (although the record labels were on the case for samples lifted from their records, especially when they were entire riffs).

Even with the acceptance of the internet, people still weren't too concerned - samples were too big to download with dial-up modems (and samplers still had limitations).

But then suddenly, memory got cheaper, samplers got better, software samplers got cheap (or free on the pirate networks) and then broadband was upon us and all of a sudden, all those manufacturers and copyright holders who weren't too bothered a few years previously had to sit up and take notice because now it was quite feasible for someone to do quite accurate representations of their instruments and make 'em available for free download.... or could sell a CD-ROM (or DVD) that effectively meant that someone could get those and not buy their gear, the gear the samples were taken from. Now sampling has become a major threat to their livelihood and they have to revise their policies and the 'not too bothered' pragmatism of the '80s and '90s has become a zero-tolerance survival tactic!

Record companies were always a bit more on the case quite early on but manufacturers were slower to react for a variety of reasons.

Now - and I can't speak with certainty - it could be that the older 'Kleptomania' and other such CDs kind of fall under the radar now because they were made at a time when the copyright holders were less switched on and their presence on the market went unchallenged for so long (a court of law would - I think - throw the case out on the grounds that if you have a grievance, it can't be done in hindsight 10 years after the event). But I don't know. Yet another grey area.

The fact is that NOW, right now, if you are going to sample anything that holds any copyright (be it phonographic, a sample of a sample, a trademark or product name/number), you'd better be damned careful to get clearance, permission, whatever if you plan to release it commercially or make it available for free download.

I will stick my neck out here and say that you can pretty much sample anything for your own private use - sample your Fantom or Triton and use it in Kontakt (whatever) but don't think of sharing it on the net - you're asking for trouble.

I am, however, at odds with other aspects to this - for example, borrow a friend's Fantom and sample it and use it your music (commercial or otherwise). Technically, that is now wrong and Roland *could* hit you (if they found out) - they would certainly come after you if you made those samples available on the net. But Gibson are unlikely to come after you if you borrow a friend's Les Paul and sample that on your next big hit or make the samples available on the net. The reason? The ROMpler's samples are copyrightable but the sound of an electric guitar isn't. More copyright greyness!

The fact is (as I see it) is that the sampling phenomenon has caught a lot of people unawares and only now are things tightening up. Whatever, the facts are:

* You cannot sample a sample-based synth or drum machine (whatever) and re-distribute those without permission

* You cannot use another manufacturer's trademark to identify the samples/sounds/product without permission

* You cannot make a commercial sound library available on a P2P network or bit-torrent ... that is is simply illegal

* You cannot convert (or sample) a commercial library and make it available in another format (for example, SoundFont) - that is out and out piracy in much the same way as buying a hit CD, recording it into your PC, converting it to MP3 and making that available. Claiming that you did all the clever conversion work in a court of law just won't stand up

* You can sample *true* old analogue synths and do what you like with them with impunity.

* You *could* sample VA synth factory presets from a Nord, Virus, whatever and make them available but it's a bit unethical and could impact on those manufacturers' sales which could ultimately impact on these small companies' ability to trade and develop new products. You could also sample your own sounds but the impact on sales could be as great - better to make those patches available for Nord, Virus, whatever users ... that would possibly encourage sales and hence R+D and hence innovation and new exciting products!

* You could sample sounds from Dave Smith's 'Evolvers' but that too would be somewhat unfair on him (see above). But you could make the patches available for fellow Evolver users.

* You could sample sounds from a Moog Voyager (a true analogue) but that too could impact on their sales and bring a small company down (see above). But you could make the patches available for fellow Voyager users.

(PS: thanks for the detailed reply! )

No problem.

I don't witter on here about copyright for fun - I do it to protect anyone from getting nobbled with a C&D order from a manufacturers' legal department (it's not nice, believe me!). I also do it to protect this industry... the big manufacturers and smaller developers who make the very products we all rely and depend upon. It's easy to think that we're all earning a fortune out of this (I wish!!!) but what is often forgotten is the investment needed to make the products available ... in my case (and others), not just the time to make/edit/loop and program the samples and the equipment and recording costs to make that library but all the legal shenanigans and negotiations we have to go through. It's not easy believe me!


Steve

[abi]

thanks for the answers steve. but do you really think that someone who is a potential buyer of an evolver or virus or voyager would be "tricked" by samples? i mean even carefully crafted samples sound close to the originals, the quality of hardware isn't restricted to its sound is it? besides the sound, the surface feel (do you really say that in english?) represents the a great portion of the appeal of hardware v.a. synths. and i think many people would even argue that samples couldn't get close to the sound performance of a virus or evolver, taken into account effects and real time control. i understand very well the matter with sample-based synths, but hardware v.a. synths suffering from samples seems a bit far fetched to me, but then, you are the pro...ok here i'm semi-serious but no offense intended.

[SampleScience]

There's 'clearance' and 'clearance'
Clearance to use some sample from a record on another record that could potentially sells squillions and get worldwide airplay and earn gazillions in royalties is one thing - you may pay handsomely for that. On the other hand, getting clearance/permission to use 'em on a CD-ROM that might sell a few hundred copies to some schmucks that will never have a hit record is another matter ... you might just need 'permission' for that. I dunno.

So did you get 'permission' or did you pay high sums of money for your products?

Thanks for all the usefull informations. I copied/pasted the whole text to keep as a reference. Cheers!

[sloworm]

phew, i own the xp-30....i can still use the drums.

[hollowsun]

thanks for the answers steve. but do you really think that someone who is a potential buyer of an evolver or virus or voyager would be "tricked" by samples?

Not at all but actually, I think you'd be surprised!!!! Every week, I am hit with loads of emails from people who want this stuff. Only recently.... "u reveiwed the evolver in sos. do u have any samples u can send me pls i love that"!! Normally I delete 'em all but that was a classic I kept! But that's just one of many "Do you have samples of [insert VA synth here] you can send me?" emails I get all the time! Many (most?) just don't care - they just want to own (for free) samples of these things.

Sure, the discerning muso is not going to be 'tricked' and they know that there's a big difference between having some samples (snapshots) of these synths and owning 'the real thing' in all their knob-tweakable glory but there are a LOT of people out there (kids) who wouldn't know an Evolver from a revolver and would be quite happy to scour everywhere on the net looking for samples without a single thought about ethics or copyright infringement or - sadly - quality ... just so long as they have them. It's enough for many (most?) just to have a facsimile soundfont... for them, it's the same as owning the actual product!!

Of course, one can argue that these people would not buy any of the synths you mention anyway but that's not the point really - maybe I wouldn't want to buy a particular magazine or book but it doesn't make it right or entitle me to photocopy just those pages I am interested in and return the magazine to the shelf ... if you see what I mean (maybe not the best analogy!).

but no offense intended.

None taken at all Abi. You make some good points.


Steve

[hollowsun]

So did you get 'permission' or did you pay high sums of money for your products?

None of your business

A bit of both... some long discussions.... some favours returned and some mutual 'backscratching' here and there ... and some negotiation.... some mutual respect and understanding ... and so on. Dunno but maybe it helps that I speak Japanese... go figure

Thanks for all the usefull informations. I copied/pasted the whole text to keep as a reference. Cheers!

No problem Mr Science. I sincerely hope it helps.


Steve