Is that infringement?

[mcnoone]

Which is why I was wondering where MCnoone got those ideas from.

I got those ideas from common sense. What else would a lawyer use to make a case. Obviously they would have to use some form of scientific approach to make their case.
They wouldn't only have some "listen to these samples" approach. That wouldn't stand up in a court case.
It's not from some research, but just knowing what would be done to prove a case against someone stealing copy written material.
After all, if a company suspects someone of copying their samples. They would use software, to analyze those samples, to even know if they had a case.
Okay...Mr Hardbuns?

[synaesthesia]

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 didn't want to sound "cootish" (they're a really difficult bird to impersonate for a start and I know it wasn't you who used the term Yellowfever), but I think Ugo's post about poking people in the eye covers this. If someone had asked "Is it legal to murder my dentist?" would we be discussing whether they could get away with it or not?

If your main concern about breaking the law and using other people's work is whether you can get away with it or not, fine. It probably is tremendously easy to use someone else's samples, mess with them and get away with it. It's just that it's illegal if it breaks the licensing agreement, as the OP was asking.

We're very tough on warez users/seekers on this site... how is that different from making commercial gain from other people's samples?

*rubbish coot noises to fade*

[Rock Hardbuns]

I got those ideas from common sense. What else would a lawyer use to make a case. Obviously they would have to use some form of scientific approach to make their case.
They wouldn't only have some "listen to these samples" approach. That wouldn't stand up in a court case.
It's not from some research, but just knowing what would be done to prove a case against someone stealing copy written material.
After all, if a company suspects someone of copying their samples. They would use software, to analyze those samples, to even know if they had a case.
Okay...Mr Hardbuns?

Okay! I didn't mean to badger you. I just got the impression from your post that you knew something (as opposed to just speculating).

[Sascha Franck]

I'm pretty much aware of the legal issues of sampling (and re-sampling for the matter), also, Steve (hollowsun) already explained them rather carefully, yet, no matter how you put it, there's a lot of grey area coming with all this. Or let me better say "funny" area.
Ok, I do fully understand that it's a copyright infringement to re-supply stuff that is/was sample-based. Fine. But let's now assume you have a non sample-based synth, but this very synth is capable of creating absolutely unique sounds (note: We're not using any presets). How is it, that this unique sound is less protected than sample-based patches (that might be tweaked beyond recognition)?
I mean, it usually even takes *more* time to create, say, an OSC capable of putting out absolutely unique sounds than sampling whatever source sounds.
Then, there's a whole lot of unclear situations. For instance, Logics ES2 synth could perhaps be perceived as a non sample-based synth. But, in the end it relies on wavetables - which actually are samples. So, am I allowed to sample a (maybe rather complexed) patch based on those? Given the current law, the answer would be no. OTOH, there's so much else goig on in whatever ES2 patches... also, there's some options to use absolutely non sample-based sources inside the ES2.... the same probably goes for synths such as z3ta, it's capable of reading out wavetables but also has options to create 100% "native" patches.
Further, there's tools to sort of convert a sampled waveform into a "native" OSC format. An example would be Zebra2, for which there is a tool to convert single sampled waveforms into OSC presets. Now, if the single cycle (sampled) waveform played back by Zebras OSC sounds the same as the original, is sampling it causing a copyright issue? In the end, the waveform is "re-created" rather than literally being sampled.
Personally, I think that the sample copyright laws are due to an update. Whether this update should soften or strengthen the options for possible lawsuits - I wouldn't happen to know what I'd prefer. But as said, there's a lot of "grey" area to be found.

- Sascha

[whyterabbyt]

let's now assume you have a non sample-based synth, but this very synth is capable of creating absolutely unique sounds (note: We're not using any presets). How is it, that this unique sound is less protected than sample-based patches

the 'how' is as simple as 'its not what is covered by copyright.' copyright covers recordings, not the thing being recorded. an actor's voice might be similarly unique, but one could only hold copyright over one's recording of him making a speech, not the speech itself, nor his voice.

For instance, Logics ES2 synth could perhaps be perceived as a non sample-based synth. But, in the end it relies on wavetables - which actually are samples. So, am I allowed to sample a (maybe rather complexed) patch based on those? Given the current law, the answer would be no.

as to whether the live output of synthesisers which use wavetables of the simplest waveforms should have parity with recordings, I personally think anyone trying to make a case that they constituted 'recordings' rather than 'data for a process' would fail in court, given that the same data can be reproduced mathematically or algorithmically in the same code, and the existence of the table is basically an optimisation.
When the wavetables get more complex, say to the level of the PPG, Korg and Waldorf wavetable synths, then, sure that 'grey area' increases. The fact, though, that sample companies dont get sued regularly for 'the sound of the PPG' sample disks does, however, indicate that generally there's either an implicit permission to create samples of these things, or that the creators of the sample set have obtained permission first.
If one was to release one's own wavetable synth and sell it on the basis of having 'wavetables taken from the PPG', you might find yourself in slightly more bother, though, I suspect.

[Rock Hardbuns]

Then, there's a whole lot of unclear situations. For instance, Logics ES2 synth could perhaps be perceived as a non sample-based synth. But, in the end it relies on wavetables - which actually are samples. So, am I allowed to sample a (maybe rather complexed) patch based on those? Given the current law, the answer would be no. OTOH, there's so much else goig on in whatever ES2 patches... also, there's some options to use absolutely non sample-based sources inside the ES2.... the same probably goes for synths such as z3ta, it's capable of reading out wavetables but also has options to create 100% "native" patches.

You are assuming that the table in the oscillator warrants copyright protection to begin with, which may not be the case. It gets a bit paradoxical because it will probably have protection as source code, but as a "phono record" it might be below the threshold and not considered a work. It's hard to imagine anyone seeing a single cycle waveform as being an artistic expression.

This stuff varies a lot between countries though. So yes, gray areas all around.

[Sascha Franck]

You are assuming that the table in the oscillator warrants copyright protection to begin with, which may not be the case. It gets a bit paradoxical because it will probably have protection as source code, but as a "phono record" it might be below the threshold and not considered a work. It's hard to imagine anyone seeing a single cycle waveform as being an artistic expression.

As you mention it: When it comes to samples, copyrights have got absolutely nothing to do with "artistic expression". The only artistic value being copyrighted as all is covered with song copyrights - and those laws are almost abysmal.
As an example: If you, say, reprogram the "Amen break", nobody could sue you at all, even if you manage to rerecord/program it as close as it gets. The same would be true if you, say, rerecorded the guitar lick from "Black Or White".
OTOH, if you took just one chord of the latter (from the original recording) and re-used it, someone (probably Sony) could sue your ass big time.
So, the only thing that is protected here is whatever "productional value", it's got nothing to do with artists interests at all.

IMO, all this needs a major overhaul. I completely fail to see why even the lousiest recording of whatever kickdrum still enjoys a WAY better copyright protection than the most detailed programmed kick (coming from a non sample-based synth). There's absolutely no logic behind that.

- Sascha

[eduardo_b]

IMO, all this needs a major overhaul. I completely fail to see why even the lousiest recording of whatever kickdrum still enjoys a WAY better copyright protection than the most detailed programmed kick (coming from a non sample-based synth). There's absolutely no logic behind that.

I'd prefer the overhaul move toward a fair use paradigm. It gives both protection while offering artistic reuse for a number of reasons. In most cases, I believe it's the media corporations, not the artists, that want draconian copyright laws that also maximize the amount of time a copyright can be held. It doesn't do anything for the artistic community.

[Sascha Franck]

I'd prefer the overhaul move toward a fair use paradigm. It gives both protection while offering artistic reuse for a number of reasons. In most cases, I believe it's the media corporations, not the artists, that want draconian copyright laws that also maximize the amount of time a copyright can be held. It doesn't do anything for the artistic community.

I completely agree.
And well, regardless of what whichever new system would look like, to me it's absolutely obvious that the current laws aren't working well at all.

- Sascha

[eduardo_b]

I'd prefer the overhaul move toward a fair use paradigm. It gives both protection while offering artistic reuse for a number of reasons. In most cases, I believe it's the media corporations, not the artists, that want draconian copyright laws that also maximize the amount of time a copyright can be held. It doesn't do anything for the artistic community.

I completely agree.
And well, regardless of what whichever new system would look like, to me it's absolutely obvious that the current laws aren't working well at all.

If you're a media corporation the laws are doing quite nicely in terms of protection and legal extortion for licensing fees. Not to mention the lawsuits that keep overpaid corporate lawyers busy screwing any poor sod who attempts any artistic effort involving intellectual property, no matter how short or altered the final result is.

[Drillmouth]

If i use a synth to create, from scratch, some patches/samples that are quite like another synths presets and sell them am i in breach of copyright? It would, after all, be my own work that i was selling.

Also, if i love an old bass sound, sample a line and re-arrange that sample into a new line have i infringed on anything? Musically it would be my work, but it wouldn't be my production beyond EQing etc to make it sit in my track.

Further, it has always been my understanding that you can't copyright drums and when you pay for a sample cd of drum loops you're paying for the time and effort that went into creating that pack rather than the rights to use the loops. Is this correct?

I know these are a few different questions but this seems like the liveliest thread to put them.

[whyterabbyt]

If i use a synth to create, from scratch, some patches/samples that are quite like another synths presets and sell them am i in breach of copyright?

No; copyright pertains to recordings. Its your recording.

Also, if i love an old bass sound, sample a line and re-arrange that sample into a new line have i infringed on anything?

Yes, unless you have permission; its someone else's recording.

Further, it has always been my understanding that you can't copyright drums

False; copyright covers recordings not what's in the recording.

and when you pay for a sample cd of drum loops you're paying for the time and effort that went into creating that pack rather than the rights to use the loops. Is this correct?

Nope, its incorrect. You pay for whatever the creator is offering; ownership, restricted rights, full rights, whatever.

[breakmixer]

Further, it has always been my understanding that you can't copyright drums

Here you are getting copyright mixed up, I.e. you can't copyright a drum pattern, bassline or chord progression, but you can copyright a melody or song lyrics, this is in the case of replaying parts from a copyrighted peice of music, as in a cover version or mash up...

I.e. Bass, Drums, Chords can be used(replayed) from a copyrighted song(Patterns, Progressions - NOT SAMPLES)

Melody & Songs cannot!

This has nothing to do with sampling beats etc, you cannot 'legally'(without permission) take any part of another persons copyrighted recording to make a samplebank or use it in another track.



I'm not sure if fair useage(like in usa in the 80's still applies)

An example of the above would be Sugarbabes, where they replayed Gary Numan 'Cars' music but sang a new song on top, this would have to of been cleared, but if they only copied the drum pattern it would of not infringed on copyright, if the law made it illegal to copy drum patterns House & Trance could not exist, to copyright drum patterns would be silly, that's all!

[Drillmouth]

If i use a synth to create, from scratch, some patches/samples that are quite like another synths presets and sell them am i in breach of copyright?

No; copyright pertains to recordings. Its your recording.

Then surely the original poster can record the synths he wants to and re-package them. If copyright pertains to the recording. It's his recording of those sounds.

[whyterabbyt]

Then surely the original poster can record the synths he wants to and re-package them. If copyright pertains to the recording. It's his recording of those sounds.

not if those sounds are someone else's recordings. copyright pertains to the original recording, not one that's derived from an original recording.
like his example in his first post, BFD, where someone else recorded the tens of gigabytes of drum sounds. no, he doesnt get to record them and sell them as 'his'. but he could record some real drums of his own.