|
Post by aorphia on Dec 7, 2006 0:35:22 GMT
Not at all. They get clearance to use that sample first. If they don't, they can expect to be sued by the copyright holder (and if their record was a hit and made $millions, they can expect to hand over a good proportion of that to the copyright holder!!). The way sounds are created in the first place is, through a Synth, wheather it be a module or an actual keyboard, unless I am clearly missing something and I'd appreciate it, if this is true, that you explain how sounds are created or what platform is used, besides real world instruments. It's a huge grey area. * You can make up sounds on an old analogue synth and sample those without problems but sample presets from a current VA synth and you may have trouble. * You used to be able to sample sounds from sample-based synths (especially if the synth was long out of production) but not these days (even more so now now that old synths are being re-cycled in software - e.g. D50, M1 and Wavestation). * You simply cannot sample from a current sample-based product. You can go some way to disguising them by layering as you describe but if the copyright holder can detect their samples/sounds, the same conditions apply. A lot depends on how you present the sounds as well. For example, if in the process of explaing S+S synthesis, you include a handful sample examples, chances are that the manufacturer will take a pragmatic approach. If, however, you release a CD called 'Ultimate Roland Fantom', expect to get your collar felt! And a lot depends on whether you use the copyright holder's trade mark. All sorts of variables. The problem is not so much sampling other products - if a few samples of a few Tritons or Fantoms were floating around, I doubt the manufacturers would bother. The problem is the widespread abuse of the practice with people making whole rafts of samples from these products widely available to tens of thousands of people - that is hurting manufacturers' business and so they are taking a much harder line on the practice purely out of self preservation. Steve That is very true. You know what is very strange tho... It sure seemed like that alot of the preset GM banks were practically the same in "most" all Keyboards, regardless of the Keyboard Manufacture. And... there are a couple of pro keyboard manufactures, such as Yamaha and Roland, that had me scratching my and asking why, in the world do there more expensive keyboards still seem to have the cheaper sounding preset GM banks on there pro keyboards? Respectfully, AorphiA
|
|
|
Post by gwenhwyfaer on Dec 7, 2006 7:54:20 GMT
You know what is very strange tho... It sure seemed like that alot of the preset GM banks were practically the same in "most" all Keyboards, regardless of the Keyboard Manufacture. Not very strange at all, really, considering that the whole point of GM is to provide a standard "generic" set of sounds that composers can use to guarantee that their MIDI files can be played back on anything and sound more or less the same. Diverging too far from the established sound palette would make a supposedly GM instrument unusable in a GM setting. Because by and large, users of professional synths don't care so much about GM, so it's not worth spending the money. E-Mu eschewed the GM standard altogether for years on their pro gear. Don't get me wrong, GM has its place - but in general pro gear is created with the expectation that the users will set the highest store on originality, with GM a relative afterthought. So, not that surprising really.
|
|
sjames
Junior Member
Posts: 203
|
Post by sjames on Dec 7, 2006 11:18:25 GMT
That is sooooo true! MIDI Files . . . erghhhhh! Surely nothing more than the domain of cheesy pub/club pop duos? And please . . . save us all from another awful MIDI File guitar solo . . .
|
|
|
Post by gwenhwyfaer on Dec 7, 2006 11:42:36 GMT
Well, I was trying to be a bit more diplomatic than that... Also, as digital technology has rocketed in price:performance ratio, the technology gap between home keyboards and pro synths has diminished accordingly; Roland, in particular, use more or less the same engines on their "arranger" keyboards and the low end of their pro range (for example, I'll bet the Juno-D and the GW-7 are based on the same chip). In that situation, their presets are going to sound the same, and it's not because the pro gear is "cheap" - it's because the cheap gear turned pro.
|
|
dana
Full Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by dana on Dec 15, 2006 12:39:42 GMT
Anyone out there old enough to remember this, please back me up... I seem to remember the manufacturer of an L.A. synth not being to happy at its NAMM premiere of said synth because a certain manufacturer of the DSS-1 sampler had samples of that L.A. synth's partials & patches in their machine... Maybe that was a couple of years before copyright laws got real funky...
|
|
|
Post by Hollow Sun on Dec 15, 2006 14:48:31 GMT
Anyone out there old enough to remember this, please back me up... I seem to remember the manufacturer of an L.A. synth not being to happy at its NAMM premiere of said synth because a certain manufacturer of the DSS-1 sampler had samples of that L.A. synth's partials & patches in their machine... Maybe that was a couple of years before copyright laws got real funky... I don't remember that particular occasion but yes - back then (1988?), manufacturers weren't too bothered if someone sampled their product. The only way of distributing those sounds would have been on expensive floppy disk (a few quid each for an HD disk!!!!) and so there was little incentive. Also, with just a few hundred KB of memory, you could not really sample some big LA sound that effectively. Even when memory got bigger, you'd need a good few expensive HD floppies to save the sound to. So someone samples a few sounds off the D50 ... so what? It would hardly impact on Roland's sales especially with expensive storage and dog slow load times. However, that all began to change with the advent of the internet and the widespread usage of it my musos. But even back then, distributing samples was difficult because of slow dial-up modem (128k made it impractical and expensive to distribute samples) so even then the manufacturers were still fairly pragmatic. Also, back then, sample and disk formats were invariably proprietary and difficult to post (and this also meant that they were only suitable for users of any given sampler) so, again, the manufacturers still weren't that bothered. However, more recently, with the advent of new technologies, things changed. * The adoption of WAV as the standard sample format meant that anyone with any sampler could use them * The creation of the SoundFont format opened up samples to PC users even if they don't have a sampler * The widespread adoption of broadband All these have factored together to make the concept of sampling products potentially very damaging for manufacturers and someone could buy a Fantom/Motif/Triton, sample the shit out of it, make those samples available as SoundFonts at some site somewhere and potentially do some serious damage to those products' sales. One can argue that samples (however well done) are not the same as having the real thing but you try telling that to some numbnuts 14-yr-old downloading everything he can to use with his cracked copy of Kontakt!!! What sparked off the tightening up of copyright, however, was when a manufacturer (French I think) sampled the raw waveforms from a Roland MT32 GM module and shoved 'em in their own chip to sell as soundcards for PCs. Roland took them to court (quite rightly) and won (quite rightly). After that, they adopted a zero-tolerance attitude to people sampling their sample-based products in ANY capacity and whilst other manufacturers aren't quite as stringent in their copyright control, they too are now far more on the ball now - if you sample a Triton and make it available, you CAN expect a communication from their attorneys!!! Of course, one can argue that there's no harm in sampling some old sample-based synth that's long been out of production and indeed, some manufacturers will take a pragmatic approach to that depending on circumstances. However, that too is changing as certain 'classic' old synths such as the Korg M1 and Wavestation and Roland D50 are enjoying a new lease of life as software products released by the originals' manufacturers - in fact, I am now not sure what the legal position would be regarding sampling an old Korg PolySix or MS20 now given that these are also available in Korg's 'Legacy' collection. Buy yes - sampling other products was not a big issue in the early days but that has changed now. Some may think that this is just big corporations being greedy and spiteful but when you've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars - maybe even millions!! - recording instruments and paying teams of highly skilled engineers and programmers to create finely honed samples, you might be a bit tetchy too when hundreds of thousands of people are downloading them for free!! For the independent sample library developer who might have remortgaged his house or whatever to fund a project, the effect of internet piracy can be particularly ruinous. Steve
|
|
|
Post by mps on Dec 15, 2006 15:24:10 GMT
There was a posting on Sonicstate last week announcing a sample CD of Wavestation sounds was now available from some company. When I went to the website, they had already had to take it down and had a posting up that the CD was "unavailable" at this time.
|
|
|
Post by gwenhwyfaer on Dec 15, 2006 15:54:09 GMT
... in fact, I am now not sure what the legal position would be regarding sampling an old Korg PolySix or MS20 now given that these are also available in Korg's 'Legacy' collection. A fair bit safer than sampling a Wavestation, I'd have thought, for a couple of reasons. Firstly (and legally*), Korg's IP in the Polysix or MS20 lies in the design and implementation of the oscillators - not in their sound (I suspect anyone who tried to assert a claim on a square wave - even one as divergent from the mathematical ideal as the TB303's, for example - would find themselves laughed out of court; some things are just too generic to copyright) - in contrast, a substantial chunk of the IP of the M1 lies in its sample library. Secondly (and practically), no matter how good a sample is, you just can't capture the expression or nonlinearities of pure synthesis - if you record the MS20 (or Virus, for that matter) filter, you can't then take it and apply that filter to your own sounds; all you have is a recording of one MS20 sound. On the other hand, if you record the raw samples of a Wavestation or a D50, you can get a lot closer to capturing the essence of their sounds. (Particularly as those synths had weak or non-existent filters.) Put it this way, if someone could be prosecuted for selling a library of samples taken from an MS20, Alesis would almost certainly have found themselves looking down the wrong end of a lawsuit from Arturia for the Ion's 'mg' filter, which they stated themselves was designed by aural comparison with a Moog. What Korg have done in cloning their old synths is exactly the same as Arturia did in cloning the Minimoog; the fact that Korg made the synths in question in the first place is irrelevant. And I suspect both Korg and Arturia would have their own reasons for not claiming they could distinguish between real and virtual. ____ * IANAL, this isn't legal advice, 'To Serve Man' is a cookbook, keep away from children, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Hollow Sun on Dec 15, 2006 16:41:13 GMT
A fair bit safer than sampling a Wavestation, I'd have thought, for a couple of reasons. Depends on how it's 'marketed'. If I were to sample a 'real' Polysix and sell a CD of those as "Definitive PolySix", Korg could approach me with a 'cease and desist' order on the basis that *my* $50 product is unfair compettion (and that - maybe - it exploits their trademark/professional reputation). But I guess I could sample a real Polysix or the 'soft' version as just generic analogue synth samples within legal boundaries (though without the Polysix 'association', I wouldn't anticipate many sales) Secondly (and practically), no matter how good a sample is, you just can't capture the expression or nonlinearities of pure synthesis You know that and I know that and so do many others but there are tens of thousands - or more - people/kids who couldnt give a toss .... "GIMME FREE SAMPLES!!!!" You should visit some other forums where the most popular FAQ is "Where can I get FREE xyz samples?"! I wouldn't mind so much if it was for the occasional glockenspiel or door slam sound effect but no - they want entire orchestras and a Steinway concert grand Put it this way, if someone could be prosecuted for selling a library of samples taken from an MS20, Alesis would almost certainly have found themselves looking down the wrong end of a lawsuit from Arturia for the Ion's 'mg' filter, which they stated themselves was designed by aural comparison with a Moog. Errrmmmm ... that filter design's patent expired a while back so is legally fair game for modelling (and many have). The difference with Arturia is that they got into bed with Dr Bob and was able to exploit the Moog trademark - others have to be euphemistic. Steve
|
|
|
Post by gwenhwyfaer on Dec 15, 2006 20:47:57 GMT
If I were to sample a 'real' Polysix and sell a CD of those as "Definitive PolySix", Korg could approach me with a 'cease and desist' order on the basis that *my* $50 product is unfair compettion (and that - maybe - it exploits their trademark/professional reputation). I don't think the law recognises a concept such as "unfair competition" outside of monopolistic practices. However, Korg would have two grounds for action - misuse of their trademark (if Polysix is indeed their trademark) and "passing off", the implication that the product has Korg's support or endorsement in any way. Nonetheless, trademark violation and passing off are very different questions from the intellectual property question, although they're commonly confused. Their loss - at some point we do just have to accept that the vast majority of humanity are thieving bastards given the chance, and get on with doing something interesting without them. After all, if people can't even come up with their own sounds given the flood of freebie softsynths on the market - are they going to be making music worth anyone's time...? Actually I was unaware of Arturia's licensing of the Moog trademark; I was just using them as an example of someone who has modelled the Moog filter. (Given that the PPG Realizer demonstrated a model of a Moog filter 20 years ago, perhaps I should have used Waldorf as an example?) As you say, the filter can be modelled for free - and that modelling process will produce something that's sonically much closer to a Minimoog than a bunch of samples of a Minimoog would. My argument is that samples of sounds originated by those circuits is at one more remove still. They may not be commercially exploitable given the state of the market, but legally - and artistically too! - they'd seem to be in the same position as samples of a Strat through a Vox AC30, which I doubt anyone would seriously propose were Fender's or Korg's intellectual property in any way. (Having said that, I fully expect the USA to bring in a copyright bill within the next decade that declares any form, description or representation of mouse ears to be the IP of the Disney corporation, so that may well change...)
|
|
jiffy
Junior Member
Posts: 253
|
Post by jiffy on Dec 16, 2006 9:48:13 GMT
OK then, take this hypothetical case.
I've sampled some patches (with no alterations) of Gforce's Mini Monsta softsynth, and want to share them with other Fusion users (for free).
I've (hypothetically) emailed Gforce to ask if it would be alright for me to share, and have not had any sort of reply back from them.
How would I stand with sharing these patches?
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Failed Muso on Dec 16, 2006 13:20:08 GMT
OK then, take this hypothetical case. I've sampled some patches (with no alterations) of Gforce's Mini Monsta softsynth, and want to share them with other Fusion users (for free). I've (hypothetically) emailed Gforce to ask if it would be alright for me to share, and have not had any sort of reply back from them. How would I stand with sharing these patches? Paul IMO, if you've sampled presets from an existing instrument and then distribute them (for free or profit) you are infringing on the copyright of the original synth manufacturer. However, if you created new sounds from scratch and sampled those, or took a preset and modified it beyond all recognition, you would probably be ok, but it would probably be unwise to bill them as "taken from "XYZ" synth". Hope that clarifies
|
|
|
Post by aorphia on Dec 18, 2006 4:43:48 GMT
LOL... ;D What's that... they sell there version of Polo fragrance and label it as a number or off brand name and then in small print, they say it smells like Polo fragrance. People share things all the time, so... I don't see where sharing sounds with friends or other users is such a bad thing after all. Thing is... how can anyone prove anything anyway. If I craft or write a song or tune with sounds from some other type of keyboard, all that would need be said, if.... it was to ever come down to it, would be to say, it was someone that you giged with who had that type of keyboard that let you play on or... go a step further and say, you rented that keyboard from a music store... now that would shuts some mouths up. To put sounds on a CD that you did not create and then you, market them to sell, that is not really a good idea. Well... it's like the fragrance thing perhaps... By the way... is there anywhere in the owners manual or on the keyboard itself, that states... you can't market or sell the sounds that are on the keyboard? I have not seen it anywhere. Respectfully, AorphiA
|
|
|
Post by mps on Dec 18, 2006 4:57:52 GMT
Does anyone know where I can get free professional sounds, so that I can load them into my Alesis Fusion? I am already aware of the Free Hollow Sun Sounds and I have them already. So what have we learned? "Free professional sounds" is normally a contradiction in terms. Free most often means "stolen" or total crap. The Hollow Sun freepacks are a rare exception in that they are both free and professional. Sharing sounds that you have created with friends is fine. Using someones else's presets and distributing it is basically theft. This is wrong. People that make a living (or try to) as sound designers should be given our respect and support for the effort.
|
|
|
Post by aorphia on Dec 18, 2006 5:14:05 GMT
Explain the expense and how Hollow Sounds was able to obtain those Professional Sounds, and who were they obtained from?
As I had mentioned... "By the way... is there anywhere in the owners manual or on the keyboard itself, that states... you can't market or sell the sounds that are on the keyboard? I have not seen it anywhere."
Just curious, since there is suppose to be legal issues.
Respectfully,
AorphiA
|
|