Originally posted by AFG Music:
Diki I'm not saying you are wrong.
but when you are sampling a harware music instrument, you still use the sound of a music instrument !!!!!
I give an example:
We have a painting and is copyrighted.
We have good scanner and we scan the painting. So here we infringe copyright if we do that without permission.
why for musical sound on analog synth and real instruments sounds, no copyright, but once they are digitaly sampled they are copyrighted?
In short, if you use real Intrument free sound source to make samples for your hardware instrument, and sell you're honest?????????
that's theft. why:
You make nothing new from the beginning. you do not make any new music instrument.
you scan something and make a copy (just like the painting)
I think you know that any real instrument or analog synth sound has a certain character which makes that instruments unique or not????
So if the law says this is better or not:
if a source has not a copyright then the copy can not be copyrighted too.
if the source has copyright you You must have permission from source holder to copy and copyright your works.
as a supporter of copyright,
I want that real Intrument and anlog synth makers are protected by copyright for their unique sound. because they are the source and not other companies who make samples for there hardware.
becouse:
sampling=scan somthing=digital copy of something.
copyrighted source=permission from source holder to copy and copyright your works
no copyrighted source=you can use or copy without permission, but you have no right to copyright your work.
digital hardware music instrument sound= the source real instument and analog synth sound
are you here agree?!?!
[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-07-2010).]
Finally some one sees that sampling affects Acoustic instruments. People don’t seem to realize that a lot of hard work and money went in to creating an acoustic instrument that has a particular sound.
Most people think that an acoustic instrument maker should not have any protection.
But the company that samples an acoustic instrument should get protection and not have to pay the acoustic instrument maker.
And the company that clones the samples should not have protection but should pay the instrument maker.
Where is the fairness and consistency in this?
Previous Topic
Index
