SYNTH ZONE
Visit The Bar For Casual Discussion
Page 18 of 20 < 1 2 16 17 18 19 20 >
Topic Options
#288162 - 06/17/10 12:57 AM Re: OS 4.3...
AFG Music Offline
Member

Registered: 03/12/09
Posts: 513
Bachus:

did you read topic started by Diki on year 2008..................see the link in my last post..................

it is not about sampling but it is good to know......................



[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-17-2010).]

Top
#288163 - 06/17/10 03:30 PM Re: OS 4.3...
Nigel Offline
Admin

Registered: 06/01/98
Posts: 6482
Loc: Ventura CA USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Bachus:
The only question we need to be answered is : What is the difference between sampling a rhodes and sampling a rhodes sample.



Now that is very easy to answer. It is the difference between taking a photo of a particular scene versus taking a scan ( or photo ) of that same photo.

If you take a photo of that same scene it is still your own work even if it looks very similar, but if you take a scan of someone elses photo then that is still their property and you don't have the legal rights to it.


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 06-17-2010).]

Top
#288164 - 06/17/10 04:01 PM Re: OS 4.3...
AFG Music Offline
Member

Registered: 03/12/09
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Nigel:
Now that is very easy to answer. It is the difference between taking a photo of a particular scene versus taking a scan ( or photo ) of that same photo.

If you take a photo of that same scene it is still your own work even if it looks very similar, but if you take a scan of someone elses photo then that is still their property and you don't have the legal rights to it.


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 06-17-2010).]


Nigel, good example,

but can someone take from someone's house without permission a picture and then copyright that image as his property???????

in my example:

the real music instrument and analog synth= someone's house

photographer= sample company

[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-17-2010).]

Top
#288165 - 06/17/10 11:09 PM Re: OS 4.3...
Nigel Offline
Admin

Registered: 06/01/98
Posts: 6482
Loc: Ventura CA USA
Quote:
Originally posted by AFG Music:
Nigel, good example,

but can someone take from someone's house without permission a picture and then copyright that image as his property???????

in my example:

the real music instrument and analog synth= someone's house

photographer= sample company



No you have it wrong. In this analogy the synth is NOT a photo ... it is the actual scene which is being photographed. Every sample that is taken from it will be different and can not legally be definitavely identified as coming from that keyboard.

If the copyrighted brand name was used with the samples then some sort of compensation would most probably be required. However if the brand name is not used then there is no way to identify the sample is from a particular instrument. While it probably a grey area legally there is no possible way to identify where that sample was taken from. That is why all the major manufacturers use patch names that only hint at where the samples may be taken from.

However if samples are copied from sample ROMS then they certainly CAN be indentified and will be carbon copies of the original. So there is a legal case that can be made. That is what it comes down to, if a legal case can be established then it will be enforced if necessary.



[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 06-17-2010).]

Top
#288166 - 06/18/10 03:00 AM Re: OS 4.3...
AFG Music Offline
Member

Registered: 03/12/09
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Nigel:
No you have it wrong. In this analogy the synth is NOT a photo ... it is the actual scene which is being photographed. Every sample that is taken from it will be different and can not legally be definitavely identified as coming from that keyboard.

If the copyrighted brand name was used with the samples then some sort of compensation would most probably be required. However if the brand name is not used then there is no way to identify the sample is from a particular instrument. While it probably a grey area legally there is no possible way to identify where that sample was taken from. That is why all the major manufacturers use patch names that only hint at where the samples may be taken from.

However if samples are copied from sample ROMS then they certainly CAN be indentified and will be carbon copies of the original. So there is a legal case that can be made. That is what it comes down to, if a legal case can be established then it will be enforced if necessary.

[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 06-17-2010).]


I know what you mean. but that Actual scene sound is in this case some one's property.

any real acoustic instruments and analog synths has certain type of sound and character and i think you know this.

For example, if you have 10 acoustic guitar from 10 different companies, each guitar sound different.

one of the reasons why fewer people are learning to play acoustic instruments and analog synth is sample-based electric music instruments.

it's injustices against acoustic instrument builders and analog synth makers to say you work hard to build an instrument with specific sounds and sound character, but sample-based music harddware Intrument companies see your instrument specific sounds and sound character like a real scene so they can digitally copy your work(sampling) and sell as a basis on their hardware.


[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-18-2010).]

Top
#288167 - 06/18/10 04:12 AM Re: OS 4.3...
to the genesys Offline
Member

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 1155
Quote:
Originally posted by AFG Music:
I know what you mean. but that Actual scene sound is in this case some one's property.

any real acoustic instruments and analog synths has certain type of sound and character and i think you know this.

For example, if you have 10 acoustic guitar from 10 different companies, each guitar sound different.

one of the reasons why fewer people are learning to play acoustic instruments and analog synth is sample-based electric music instruments.

it's injustices against acoustic instrument builders and analog synth makers to say you work hard to build an instrument with specific sounds and sound character, but sample-based music harddware Intrument companies see your instrument specific sounds and sound character like a real scene so they can digitally copy your work(sampling) and sell as a basis on their hardware.


[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-18-2010).]


Well said. I think that is the point a lot of persons are missing.
They do not see the original acoustic instrument as an instrument the same way they see an electronic instrument.


Here is another analogy: If someone creates a blueprints for a house, then some one takes a picture of that blueprint, then someone interns scans an image of the picture of the blueprint, with this discussion, it seems as if most persons would think that only the person who took the picture should have any protection.
But what about the person who created and worked on the original blue print.

The person who created the blueprint is equivalent to the acoustic instrument maker. The person who took the picture is equivalent to the person who samples. And the person who scans the picture is equivalent to the person who clones.
_________________________
TTG

Top
#288168 - 06/18/10 10:26 AM Re: OS 4.3...
spalding1968 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/19/08
Posts: 1264
Loc: United Kingdom
you are so confused in your reasoning Genesys and AFG its just not even funny.

Copyright is about protecting an authors right to intellectual property. Bear that in mind in your examples.

The guy that made the guitar (lets call him Les Paul) has no copyright on the guitar unless he made and designed the original guitar (like a few hundred years earlier) Les Paul can only claim copyright if the guitar he made is so distinctive and unique that it can be claimed to have features that are original, unique and its author is easily identifyable as Les Paul. So for example it may have a distinctive shape or design that is unique to Les Paul's guitar. Thats the intellectual property he could protect. Not the sound the guitar makes. If that guitar design is unique and has features that distinguishes it from other guitars , the image of the guitar cpild be copyrighted and if someone took an unauthorised picture of it they could be breaching copyright but read the judgement below.

example http://www.mi-pro.co.uk/news/1092/Gibson-lawsuit-ends-with-PRS-victory

the guy who samples the guitar (lets call him James )has the copyright of the sample he made of the Guitar Les Paul made. The intellectual property is the recording and all the chopping and looping and stretching that James did to make his property sound the way it does. Note he does not have the copyright of the sounds the guitar makes just the sound he sampled and worked with ie 'the work he wishes to have protected' That electronic sample or data is his work and he has copyright over it. This is the intellectual property he wishes to protect. Not the sound of the guitar but the electronic data he has made. Copyright will not prevent anyone else who wishes to sample a guitar because the sound is not copyrighted , just the electronic sound data of the individual sample which has an identifiable owner !

The guy that clones the electronic sample (lets call him Dom )owns nothing. He illegally copies the electronic data of James and then sells or distributes pretty much virtually unaltered to whomever he chooses illegally. His work consists of a copy of James intellectual property . Remember it is not the sound that is copyrighted. It is the electronic data.

I hope that clears it up a little bit.

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 06-18-2010).]

Top
#288169 - 06/18/10 10:44 AM Re: OS 4.3...
to the genesys Offline
Member

Registered: 10/22/03
Posts: 1155
By that logic, then it would be OK to sample the sound of the sample?
I didnít think so.
You are saying that it is OK to deprive one creator of an instrument of money and not another?
The problem some people are not getting is that there is intellectual property involved with the original acoustic or electronic instrument.
_________________________
TTG

Top
#288170 - 06/18/10 10:58 AM Re: OS 4.3...
spalding1968 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/19/08
Posts: 1264
Loc: United Kingdom
of course you can sample the sound generated from a sample. Its called resampling and it is done completely legally all over the world ! What you cant do is take the electronic data and copy that electronic data.

Thats why people can sample a rhodes piano ,They can sample a steinway piano if they have access to one but they cant take my sample of a steinway or my sample of a rhodes without my permission because it is the sample (that specific recording or elctronic data ) that is my intellectual property.

What you are not getting is who the author is and what is the intellectual property that author owns and wishes to protect unfder copyright. I can protect the name Rhodes and Steinway and Lespaul and Gibson but through trade marks , but i cant protect the sound of a Lespaul Gibson etc.

Thats why copyright law uses language as described in the post i recieved from Yamaha relating to 'Internal content' and ' sound waveform data and performance data ' with the intention that said internal content is to be used for musical expression.

is that clearer ?

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 06-18-2010).]

Top
#288171 - 06/18/10 11:24 AM Re: OS 4.3...
AFG Music Offline
Member

Registered: 03/12/09
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally posted by spalding1968:
you are so confused in your reasoning Genesys and AFG its just not even funny.

Copyright is about protecting an authors right to intellectual property. Bear that in mind in your examples.

The guy that made the guitar (lets call him Les Paul) has no copyright on the guitar unless he made and designed the original guitar (like a few hundred years earlier) Les Paul can only claim copyright if the guitar he made is so distinctive and unique that it can be claimed to have features that are original, unique and its author is easily identifyable as Les Paul. So for example it may have a distinctive shape or design that is unique to Les Paul's guitar. Thats the intellectual property he could protect. Not the sound the guitar makes. If that guitar design is unique and has features that distinguishes it from other guitars , the image of the guitar cpild be copyrighted and if someone took an unauthorised picture of it they could be breaching copyright but read the judgement below.

example http://www.mi-pro.co.uk/news/1092/Gibson-lawsuit-ends-with-PRS-victory

the guy who samples the guitar (lets call him James )has the copyright of the sample he made of the Guitar Les Paul made. The intellectual property is the recording and all the chopping and looping and stretching that James did to make his property sound the way it does. Note he does not have the copyright of the sounds the guitar makes just the sound he sampled and worked with ie 'the work he wishes to have protected' That electronic sample or data is his work and he has copyright over it. This is the intellectual property he wishes to protect. Not the sound of the guitar but the electronic data he has made. Copyright will not prevent anyone else who wishes to sample a guitar because the sound is not copyrighted , just the electronic sound data of the individual sample which has an identifiable owner !

The guy that clones the electronic sample (lets call him Dom )owns nothing. He illegally copies the electronic data of James and then sells or distributes pretty much virtually unaltered to whomever he chooses illegally. His work consists of a copy of James intellectual property . Remember it is not the sound that is copyrighted. It is the electronic data.

I hope that clears it up a little bit.

[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 06-18-2010).]


now if they copyright sample waves on ROM chip against cloning, as their work there is no problem,it is also understandable and good to copyright their work.

but if they copyright the sound produced by an digital sample-based hardware music instrument that is wrong.

agian this question:

why on sound produced by a acoustic real instrument and analog synth sound no copyright but on digital copy (sampled version)produced by a Digital sample based hardware instrument copyright? (again the sound produced by sampler engine and processed to outputs, so not the raw wave samples on rom chip, but the sound).

so try not to compare the raw samples on rom chip with sounds that is produced, becouse the sound that is produced from output is a Digital copy from acoustic real instrument and analog synth sound.


[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-18-2010).]

Top
Page 18 of 20 < 1 2 16 17 18 19 20 >

Moderator:  Admin, Diki, Kerry 



Help keep Synth Zone Online