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).]