Roland D-50 Waverom. Anyone care to donate wav samples?

[W23]

Maybe this has already been discussed somewhere else in the previous 6 pages of threads but, the D50 waveforms are the intellectual property of Eric Persing (Mr Omnisphere himself). He licensed the waveforms to Roland for their exclusive use in the D50, which he had some hand in development. He has been known sue sample set and VST developers in the past over using his waveforms without permission. I don't think he would get messed up about an individual using his waveforms but hell, why don't you ask him personally? He's up at the gearslutz.com forum sometimes. He might even be up here at KVR but, he probably would have given his 2 cents already, If so.

[ghettosynth]

Maybe this has already been discussed somewhere else in the previous 6 pages I threads but, the D50 waveforms are the intellectual property of Eric Persing (Mr Omnisphere himself). He licensed the waveforms to Rolan for their exclusive use in the D50, which he had some hand in development. He has been known sue sample set and VST developers in the past over using his waveforms without permission. I don't think he would get messed up about an individual using his waveforms but hell, why don't you ask him personally? He's up at the gearslutz.com forumsometimes. He might even be up here at KVR but, he probably would have given his 2 cents already, If so.

You can use his waveforms all you want. You can't distribute his waveforms, huge difference. If someone wants to explore all of them, listen to them, and use them to inspire the creation of an original synth patch that does not include those RECORDINGS then they are free to do so. I don't think that there is any grey area here whatsoever.

As far as derived works from those waveforms. I still think that this is one of those areas that once, if ever, challenged, people might not be happy with the results. I think that it's going to be very difficult to assert that you sold an instrument with the intention to use it in music production and then claim after the fact that you intended to limit which kinds of music production. I think that the choice to sell a musical instrument without an explicit license may be viewed as granting the broadest implicit license. I don't see how you're going to argue what is essentially a contract law point, namely, that there are specific restrictions on the use of your product, from the perspective of copyright.

That said, IANAL, so ignore everything that I say. An alternative interpretation, and a reasonable one, is that in the absence of a license that you have no license and you can't do anything with it without permission. That is, everyone who's ever used a D50 in a recording is in violation of copyright law but Roland simply chooses not to sue them. I really would be interested in reading any cases that people know of that address this point carefully.

So, I don't think that pure redistribution will ever be a grey area. They aren't your recordings so you can't include them as content in a plugin without permission. But, recording a D50 or a JD800 to make a sample library of your original patches? I'm not sure that I'd be all that concerned about getting sued over that. I think that most of the "cases" are not cases at all, they are simply small players releasing something and then getting a threat from Roland that they are not prepared to deal with financially. Also, most seem to be those cases where someone is trying to use Roland's brand in some way or another to sell their product.

I have a copy of a bunch of short samples that are supposed to be the D50. However, they are not 29MB, they are only about 4MB uncompressed. So it might be incomplete. I can't remember where they came from, they were out on the web for the longest while.

I'm not going to share them though, please don't ask.

They aren't all that interesting really. I think that one of the most surprising aspects of them, for me, is how some of the waveforms are used in interesting ways. There are some complex waveforms, for example, that are used to create some of the piano sounds. They aren't piano sounds though. One of the most useful things to study is the original sysex/patch data where you can see which waveforms were used in what way to create the various sounds.

[W23]

That sounds about right to me, and I kind of meant that as well when I said personal use. But, Eric's available to ask, so I'd feel like a real dope if I ran off willy nilly granting permission that ain't mine to give. I followed one of his threads on the subject at GS, and he was pretty goddamn sensitive about it. It was kind of funny because the GS guys were trolling him a little

[ghettosynth]

That sounds about right to me, and I kind of meant that as well when I said personal use. But, Eric's available to ask, so I'd feel like a real dope if I ran off willy nilly granting permission that ain't mine to give. I followed one of his threads on the subject at GS, and he was pretty goddamn sensitive about it. It was kind of funny because the GS guys were trolling him a little

He is overly sensitive about it and so are some other sample library vendors here. I'm not concerned about that. You have the rights that the law grants you and it is not in his or any other vendors purview to change that without an explicit license agreement.

So while I think that it's important to respect the copyrights of others, it's also important to exercise the rights that we have and, in particular, the right to use old works to create new works as defined within the constraints of, and is the explicit purpose of, copyright law.

I guess part of what I'm saying is that not only do I think that it's not necessary or even desirable to ask, I think that it's important NOT to ask to do things that the law grants us permission to do. I think that by promoting the idea of seeking unnecessary permission that you prop up this sometimes false authority that we see some vendors exercising.

If you have the files, and you want to study them and release patches that are inspired by the D50 then there is absolutely nothing in copyright law that says you can't do that, ergo, there is no reason to ask Eric or Roland for anything.

[fmr]

So, I don't think that pure redistribution will ever be a grey area. They aren't your recordings so you can't include them as content in a plugin without permission. But, recording a D50 or a JD800 to make a sample library of your original patches? I'm not sure that I'd be all that concerned about getting sued over that. I think that most of the "cases" are not cases at all, they are simply small players releasing something and then getting a threat from Roland that they are not prepared to deal with financially. Also, most seem to be those cases where someone is trying to use Roland's brand in some way or another to sell their product.

Exactly my vision of the problem. 100% agreed. Besides, when I see companies like Roland menacing small developers because they sampled original patches using their ROMplers, I can't help but feel revolted against what I see as an abuse of dominant position.
However, using the ROM data, as is, or using the Roland brand, is illegal without permission, of course.

[sergiofrias]

[aciddose]

However, using the ROM data, as is, or using the Roland brand, is illegal without permission, of course.

Even just sampling a sample results in the same issue. Case-law in the United States has defined it by "if it sounds notably similar to an average person, it's infringing."

So even if you work to re-create something "similar" to the original samples? Still infringing. If they are similar enough to be notably related. Since you didn't do the "creative work" coming up with the abstract idea. You only copied the idea from the concrete realization of that original abstract and produced a new concrete realization.

That's considered derived.

[ghettosynth]

...

[fmr]

As always, I'm genuinely interested in relevant cases.

There will hardly ever be one, since, as you pointed yourself, little guys can't afford the expense of a litigation with the big guys. I remember once having a talk with a guy from OSC about a new version of Deck, when they dropped the Digidesign plug-in format and went for the Premiere format. IMO, that was inferior, but they explained to me that Digidesign felt menaced by the product, and told them that, if they would carry on with the intention of launching a product with Digi plug-in format supported they would be sued.

OSC collaborated with Digi in the beginning of Pro Tools (Pro Deck was done by OSC) and they had access to the plug-in format, but there was nothing in the contract that prevented them from supporting the same plug-in format in their own product (they were not copying technology, and later this became common with the advent of VST - this was before VST technology existed).

OSC felt they were legal, and there was no chance to have a decision against. Yet, if they were sued, they would be prevented to launch the product while there was no legal decision, and by the time there would be one, they would be long gone, due to bankruptcy, because they not be able to sell the product, and the costs of a legal action would ruin them.

This is how things work in the "free market" world. Sometimes, it's not a matter of legality, it's just a matter of power.

[aciddose]

It has been tested with a single instrument sample, famously. Unfortunately I'm not interested in looking up which case that was since the last time I tried I wasted several hours. I believe it is on the list of notable United States copyright caselaw on wikipedia though.

The thing about "ordinary instruments" like pianos is that it is very difficult to identify any creative element in such samples since the instruments themselves are so generic. Therefore no copyright applies to the abstract concept "a sampled piano", but instead the rights to the recording itself are present. It is important to remember there are many distinct rights lumped together and that the song writer, composer, performers and record all have individual rights that can be owned by separate parties.

When you do get very distinct however such as "Digital Native Dance", this carries a significant creative element. To duplicate this in any way which resembled the original would be considered derivation.

There is a wide and continuous range of creativity involved in such works. The case-law in the United States says that if the work is distinct enough (notably) and the two works resemble one another enough (notably) that can be considered derivation so long as evidence is presented demonstrating a familiarity with the work from which another was derived.

I'm not up-to-date on this stuff and it changes radically quite fast, but last I checked it was actually possible to re-invent the same song or sound if there is no evidence to support the suspicion that the author was familiar with the original work.

In the case I'm recalling the proof was a letter requesting permission to use the work, if I recall correctly. They decided to re-create the sample from scratch, but due to the demonstrated familiarity with the original work, the new work was derived!

[fmr]

So even if you work to re-create something "similar" to the original samples? Still infringing. If they are similar enough to be notably related. Since you didn't do the "creative work" coming up with the abstract idea. You only copied the idea from the concrete realization of that original abstract and produced a new concrete realization. That's considered derived.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. What you say is absurd, and contrary to any common sense. Following your logic, anyone sampling a Steinway piano would be infring the law, because there are previous sampled Steinways, and it will, almost for certain, sound "similar" to those original samples.

EDIT: I was writing when you wrote your previous post. I may agree with what you say regarding "Native Dance", but not the "loops" that are in the ROM, nor the vast majority of sounds. I remember that the Fantasia patch was replicated in almost any other synth that came after in the next years. The same foir the "Soundtrack", etc. And noone was sued for that.

[aciddose]

What you are saying is absurd because you are ignorant, please rectify that.

As much as I enjoy all the butt-hurt everyone shows when this topic comes up, believe it or not YES THEY THOUGHT OF THAT.

There are far more intelligent people with far more knowledge involved in the legal profession and working in this field in a position of responsibility who are more than capable of handling their work properly.

An arm-chair lawyer isn't going to win the case by pointing out how clearly stupid everyone else must be.

[fmr]

What you are saying is absurd because you are ignorant, please rectify that.

No need to be offensive. I am not ignorant (probably, I know a little more than you do on this subject). Is it possible to keep the conversation in a civilized tone?

[aciddose]

No.

Thinking that would be really a demonstration of the utmost ignorance

[fmr]

No.

Thinking that would be really a demonstration of the utmost ignorance

Well, you are behaving as arrogant and stupid as usual. Good night.