So much for styles-exchange. Your thoughts on the following sent to a PSR group:


Dear Yamaha Keyboard Users:

Yamaha Corporation appreciates your interest in the use of our
keyboards. We also value your active involvement in the creative use
of our products in this Yahoo! Group Site called Yamaha-PSR-Styles.

While we are pleased with your use of our products, we wish to
express concerns about the ongoing exchange of Style Files owned by
Yamaha. In this Group Site, some Style Files taken directly from
Yamaha keyboards have been posted without any modifications, or in
some cases, with only minimal modifications. Yamaha has spent
considerable time (over 20 years), money and effort in creating its
collection of Style Files, and those Style Files are Yamaha's
valuable assets. As the owner of rights in these Style Files, Yamaha
has the sole and exclusive right to reproduce and distribute them.
While Yamaha welcomes playing your music on our styles, it only
permits reproduction within the scope of personal use. Accordingly,
making Style Files available over the Internet to an indefinite
number of people is clearly outside of Yamaha's contemplation and
consent. Such activities on this Group Site constitute an
infringement of Yamaha's intellectual property rights.

Although certain Yamaha keyboards contain a "copy" feature
that enables users to copy Style Files, this feature has been
developed in order to allow users to save user-developed files and/or
to save original files for backup, both in connection with personal
use. Please note that the owner's manuals to Yamaha keyboard
products expressly state that "unauthorized copying of copyrighted
software for purposes other than the purchaser's personal use is
prohibited." Furthermore, each Style File is embedded with a
copyright notice, e.g., "Yamaha Corp. 2001."

Upon review of this message, please cease (i) copying any Styles
Files from Yamaha's keyboards unless it is for your personal use,
and (ii) posting and downloading any Style Files to and from this or
any other Internet sites, including the archive site named
Spectromagic.com. In addition, we ask that you delete on or before
February 28, 2002 any Style Files you have posted on this or any
other Internet sites, including Spectromagic.com.

Yamaha appreciates your loyalty to our products. Accordingly, we are
considering several methods of making more Style Files available for
use on your Yamaha keyboards such as by permitting you to download
certain popular Style Files for free from the Yamaha's official
website and/or making commercially available reasonably priced Style
Files that will upgrade the styles library on your current Yamaha
keyboards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We appreciate your
understanding and hope that you continue to enjoy our keyboards. We
will continue to do what we can to enrich your musical experience
with our products.

Very truly yours,

Yamaha Corporation

yamahastyles@yamahacorp.com



[This message has been edited by cam8neel (edited 01-28-2002).]

I just read this on the Styles group. I responded with some questions I will post it here too. I am curious about the implications Yamaha is making in this letter. There were several sections that bothered me but his area stuck out very loudly and I quote:

> collection of Style Files, and those Style Files are Yamaha's
> valuable assets. As the owner of rights in these Style Files, Yamaha
> has the sole and exclusive right to reproduce and distribute them.
> While Yamaha welcomes playing your music on our styles, it only
> permits reproduction within the scope of personal use.

I understand the copyright issue here. However, have I read this quote from the letter correctly? This seems to say that if you use your keyboard styles for anything other than personal use your are violating the copyright? Does this mean the professional musicians may be violating a copyright law if they use the original (even slightly altered) styles to make money? Or, worse, they record music with these styles and make money off the recording? Just wondering.

While the original styles in their original state are indeed copyright, I can not see how an altered style would be. The sole purpose of the keyboard is to create music using these styles. Why would you buy one if you have limitations? Makes no sense if a company can pick apart a peice of your music and claim copyright infringement. Are ALL Yamaha keyboard styles for personal use only? Not professional? What other manufacturers have restrictions like this? Maybe someone reads this differently than I have. Anyone?

-Linda

Linda, if I am not mistaken, it seems that there is a clear difference between copying/downloading/etc. the actual styles themselves, which are nothing more than 0's and 1's (bits) arranged in a particular sequence to form a style file, and performing/recording/etc. the SOUND (music) produced by USING the style files on a keyboard. Yamaha is discouraging the former activity, but I don't think they are referring to any USE of the styles. Reading the wording carefully,
> While Yamaha welcomes playing your music on our styles, it only
> permits reproduction within the scope of personal use.
it would seem that this is their intent. I sure hope it is . I hope this clears the issue up.

I read Don Masons post on the PSR group forum on Yahoo.........

<<<<<<< forwarded to me and posted on the
Yahoo Groups forum:
I have been a professional user of
Yamaha arranger keyboards since
they were first introduced.
I buy at least one every year, and
currently own three. I also
influence quite a few other buyers. If
this policy is carried out,
please be assured you have received the
last dollar you will ever get
from me and anyone else I can
influence.
It is my belief that the exchange of
styles has sold countless
keyboards for you BECAUSE this exchange
of styles has been available.
Yamaha styles are far from being the best available. I do like the
operating system, but I shall immediately begin researching for my
next purchase from one of the competing companies. (General Music,
Ketron, Roland, Korg--there is much competition for the high-end
keyboard dollar). Some of these companies even make new styles
available for download from their own sites at no charge.
As a last word, I'm sure your efforts will be completely to no avail
anyway. It will be very simple for someone to set up a Napster-
Morpheus like swap situation that would be impossible or impractical
to police. Personally, I'll just buy something else.
Sincerely,
Don Mason>>>>>>>

My feelings excactly, I own and perform
with 2 Yamaha units, but if
needed I will go elsewhere in future
equipment purchases for sure.. I
wonder what started all this? Hmmmmm?



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 01-28-2002).]

My question is, being a songwriter, does that mean I can't submit one of my compositions, recorded on my PSR? I am not selling the sounds or styles! Arghhhh!

I agree 100% with Don Mason and I have a new question:
I am a Yamaha B50 owner,keyboard dedicated for brasilian market.The B50 demos songs contains :Corcovado (Antonio Carlos Jobim) and Aquarela do Brasil(Ary Barroso) WITHOUT copyrigt notice...
And Now??????
ChicoBrasil

You tell 'em, Don! What really confuses me is, why would Yamaha do this? It is generally accepted that Yamaha's built-in keyboard styles are not the best styles available in the arranger keyboard universe (which, like are own universe, is continuously expanding). So it follows that people who purchase Yamaha arrangers are not buying them for the strength of the styles. In other words, the styles are NOT the big draw of the keyboards. The only reason I could see for a company to restrict style trading is to encourage people to buy the keyboards rather than obtaining the styles via other venues. Well, if people were looking to buy keyboards for the styles, they'd go to different companies. Yamaha is basically getting tough about what may be their "weakest link". In truth, Yamaha is better off allowing (perhaps encouraging!) style trading, because if people know that they can get any styles they need, they will go ahead and buy the Yamaha keyboards for their many other strengths, knowing that they can use any styles that they want. Just my two cents.

What concerns me is the following:

I own several keyboards including Yamaha keyboards.

Since I am an owner of a Yamaha keyboard, I believe it is very reasonable that:

1) I use yamaha factory styles that were shipped with my keyboard in any public performance or even use it in my own recording and call that recording mine.

2) I transfer some of these styles to another non-yamaha keyboard that I own and perform that style from that keyboard.

3) I create my own styles that are based on the factory styles but with SUFFICIENT modifications to merit an original work of mine. Then I can do with it whatever I want.

As long as Yamaha and all other companies respect the above and do not implement any functionalities that will prevent me from doing the above, I will have no problem with what they say.

I agree that Yamaha factory styles are for those who own the keyboard that has these styles or those who have purchased these styles. But as long as they do not prevent me from copying these styles that I purchased and change them to fit my needs, or port them to another non-yamaha keyboards, I will be happy.

Music is a patrimony of humanity. Yamaha did not invent Cha-cha, nor waltz, nor tango, nor blues, nor, jazz.

What can they mean by only for personal use only? That means you guys are illegal as professionals?

By downloading styles, anyway, I would give them personal use, anyway. No body is selling them or making money.

Too bad if it took them over 20 years due to ineptitude. They should fix their own problems. The money they spent? Where does it come from? Did they invent music? Did they invent the white and black keyboard layout? They use those designs too with permission from no one.

All that is patrimony of humanity. They should be thankful that people likes SOME of the styles that they produce.

Now do they sell individual styles? NOPE. So people are just circunventing that. Yamaha copies the styles from real world musicians too withut their permission.

Any one thinks that they do not 'study' the styles of independent developers too or of their competition?

They are just lookin for free publicity ...

By the way, they are hereby NOT AUTHORIZED to quote me.

Marck,

Your right it does refer to the copying, download etc.

I am not sure the styles are even a seperate entity here. I look at the styles on the keyboard as I do an MS Word Template. I use MS Word Templets to create all kinds of documents. Microsoft doesn't restrict us from copying them or downlaoding them! Its part of the program! I can even convert other documents from other software companies to use with MS Word.

The files are only good if you have the proper OS software to run them. The OS is on the keyboard. Its not something that is copied to play or use on anything other than a keyboard. Its not like the average Joe would want them unless they had an appropriate keyboard to use them on. They won't work in my portable CD player! NO !wait, we could record them as MP3's!!

So I ask...why is Yamaha restricting copying and downloading them? They already give you permission to play them however you want and manipuate them so what is the purpose of copy restrictions? This has no damages involved in it that I can see? Or are they trying to tell us something else?

This really puzzles me as you can see ha-ha

-Linda

On the surface it would appear that one of the things that most attracted me to Yamaha in the first place is about to be outlawed. Bob Gelman's Style Forum is very active with members who share EVERYTHING YAMAHA. This forum is also comprised of members willing to share operating and performance tips that might be considered "trade secrets"...but the end result is that none of us gets hurt by sharing...and, in fact, makes our presence and our performing abilities even stronger. I find it hard to believe Yamaha has lost keyboard sales to style swappers.

Perhaps Yamaha Corp will provide a more detailed explanation which will prevent some kind of public relations disaster for them.

Just one more thought: This particular forum with its ingenious and generous members has picked up a lot of slack left by Yamaha manuals that are lacking.

Eddie

What ARE the other companies' position on downloading styles? I know Korg makes some available on their website.
DonM

Hi All,
One or two years ago we had the same discussion on this forum.
Styles contain small fragments of songs and are NO songs themselves.
As stated before : Yamaha did NOT invent SAMBA, CHA, R&R, Blues or any other kind of music.
YAMAHA wrote the OS (= software) in which styles can be created or converted ..... sure, this OS has copyrights but styles are just input-data or output-data of the OS.

Roel

I think Yamaha is a BIG company and is flexing their muscle's .
I believe that it is OK to record a song using a style .
I think the only problem is the fact that another person could identify "how" your song was created . "Oh they must have used style such and such on the yamaha psr-whatever " .
Which musically isn't creating the style from scratch and there fore not being totally original !
BTW ......I believe that it's players who never owned an arranger keyboard ( and understund the functions)that give arrangers a bad rap ! If I record using a style , I make sure to edit or add to the styles ! Just like someone would edit a sample or edit a beat ! dano
my 2 cents worth .........

DonO,

I think what everyone here is saying is the style bossa nova or Samba or Rock is 'public domain' They may be trying to protect their styles from becoming 'common' which would make the styles not unique enough to be copyrighted, but I believe, they already are 'commonly' used names and styles that appear on every keyboard.

They did not create the bossa nova! Yamaha also stated that just changing a voice would not make the style different. How do you make a bossa nova different if not to change the voices etc? Still a bossa nova isn't it?

Interesting topic. I bought the keyboard cause of all the styles that were available for it. What a shame the company puts a cloud over their own products and causes hard feelings for their customers. Not very smart business.

Maybe they think they are fighting Napster ha-ha

-Linda

Whats next?.........

"Style Spies" in the audience just waiting to pounce on performers after a song, issuing a Subpoena to appear in court to answer charges of Style Copyright infringment? :>)

I heard that Al Gore may start making new styles for Yamaha !

[This message has been edited by DanO1 (edited 01-28-2002).]

This is an unfortunate, but inevitable step that Yamaha is taking. However, some members appear to be overreacting.

As I read the letter, Yamaha gives consent to the use of their styles in songmaking, whether in audio or SMF format. In addition, Yamaha gives consent to the use of their styles in original stylemaking--as long as the modifications are significant. Presumably, the songs and original styles can be posted on the Internet. What is prohibited is the posting of Yamaha factory styles and factory styles modified only to the extent to make them more compatible with target arranger keyboards.

If Yamaha wants to prevent posting of Yamaha factory styles, they can do so in a variety of ways. They can close sites almost at will and they can start to employ technological means to prevent saving of factory styles to disk. It does not even matter whether Yamaha has the legal right to prevent distribution of styles--hosting sites will not look that deeply into the issue before closing their customer's sites. I think Yamaha is currently acting in its own enlightened self-interest, but I would not push it.

For those who remember the slaughter of the SMF sites, it is likely that some sharing of factory styles will continue. I bet you can post requests and have your friends respond by email. I think that it is the full-scale free-for-all posting that companies like Yamaha see as a threat.


In my mind, the style sharing community has only itself to blame for the restrictions being imposed. If style conversion were limited to out-of-production keyboards, Yamaha might never have acted. However, what was Yamaha supposed to tell its CVP-209 customers when they found their $7k styles freely available on their friends PSR-2000?

The bad news is not over. Technics (I think) has already acted on the issue by requesting that EMC StyleWorks not provide for conversion from their keyboards. (I certainly think this is a less desirable approach than Yamaha's.) Eventually all arranger companies will assert rights over their factory styles and prevent posting in original and factory form.

There may be a silver lining here. Maybe more custom styles will start appearing. Simon Phillips has made original styles available on the web, both for-free and for $. Maybe efforts like his will blossom once the free styles are removed from the arena.

All I can say is, if Technics really did this, they have an awful lot of nerve because they INCLUDED style conversion software with the KN5000. As I recall, Yamaha was about the only brand you couldn't convert.
DonM

dnj,
thanks for posting Don Mason's entry to the styles forum. I want to put my two cents in as a "prospective" buyer, should Yamaha ever get to this growing thread.
I have been leaning heavily towards the PSR2000 for some time. In the event Yamaha prevents me from getting the most of my instrument, without actually selling styles, then I will look elsewhere.
As of now, I will be looking to Korg and hope this thread reaches out to the other vendors so we can determine who is going to be standing in the end as far as trade and exchange of exciting and useful styles. My guess is Roland will open the flood gates and let musicians do their thing.
With the incredible turnover of models, I dont see why we should be restricted, does anyone here actually sell the styles for profit? Can someone identify why this puts a hurt on Yamaha? That was a pretty stern message give their customers (duh, just who makes yamaha anyway?). Strong enough to make a rebel out of me, break out the bell bottoms!
thanks
tgalf

Ok, here's 'my' 2 cents worth regarding the Yamaha styles issue: Many (most?) of Yamaha's styles did not orginate from Yamaha at all, but are copies of famous artist's styles. I really doubt that Yamaha paid the original artists (Beatles,Jobim, etc) for using these highly recognizable styles in their keyboard. In fact, this is the reason why Yamaha gave the song names in their 'Music Finder' cryptic names instead of the actual 'real' song titles names: ei "Sixty Four Years Old" for the Beatles classic "When I'm Sixty Four" or "All Shaken Up" for Elvis' hit tune "All Shook Up". Hmmm, Is Yamaha now applying a 'double standard' with us on this issue?

It was my understanding (from what I learned in the music writing class I took back in college) that typically a copyrighted song consists of more than just the style (rhythm) alone. Afterall, a song consists of an all essential melody & chord progression too. In fact this is one of the ways a number of classic jazz tunes got around the copyright laws; many jazz tunes (like "Donna Lee", which has the same chord progression as "Back Home in Indiana", or "Ornithology", which is based on the changes of "How High The Moon") used the same chord progression as a well known established copyrighted standard; jazz musicians would then improvise over the same changes creating a new melody and a new song.

- Scott

I've owned 5 Yamaha boards, I've always liked them. I now own a 2000. I love the board. I bought this board because I could play a wide varity of styles. you see when you play a style of music, in my case it's country, you can only find so many on a KB.
Many of the styls you never use. But when I can get Country styles from other sources.
You can custumize your KB.
If they go thru with this! THIS WILL BE My
LAST YAMAHA!!!


------------------


[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited 01-28-2002).]

Scott,good point about Yamaha styles being copies of famous songs.
The copyright at question here is IMO a software copyright instead of a song copyright.

Bill E

Download the styles while they're hot. Share them when they're not.

Outside of the styles immediately available, from the CVP209, 9000 Pro, PSR9000, PSR2000, PSR740, PSR8000, there really isn't anything infringible worth downloading. The PSR10000 will come out in close to a year. Great. We'll share these through emails when someone gets their hands on them. If Yamaha makes it impossible to copy a style to a disk (and thereby edit them through a computer sequencer) then I will definitely skip Yamaha. In the meantime, this is an annoyance, but it doesn't mean I'll never buy Yamaha again. I will be a little more open to other keyboard brands, however.
Right now, I have hundreds of styles I downloaded from Spectromagic, and I'm having fun.

Larry

You're right Larry, but it's almost more the principal than the actual functionality that's involved.
There will always be a way to exchange styles unless they do something to "lock" them into the keyboard.
DonM

My opinion... what a idiotic move on Yamaha's part. Not only will they lose a few customers here, but word of mouth will cost them many others. I'll be the first to warn friends considering a Yamaha purchase about the company's new tactics.
And, to think, the availability and sharing of style files WAS a selling point for Yamaha. Now gone!
Tom

A few posts back Don Mason mentioned that Korg makes styles available on their own website. This is true. In fact : Korg, on it's own PA80 website posts links to sites that include it's styles from the I series. In addition, Korg has made freely available style conversion software for the PA80 and all of their styles from the PA80 remain freely available for anyone to download as part of the basic OS package. Ok, they don't tell you at the website specifically that their factory styles are part of a package for the OS that is easily separated, and then played and / or modified on the style conversion software, but one does not have to be a brain surgeon to figure it out and I'm betting that Korg is smart enough to
realize that anyone can easily figure out that they could get their styles in this way and convert them to midifiles and then from there convert them for use in other boards. Hey, even I figured it out, whichin itself is proof that anyone else could too.

Will Yamaha's actions prevent me from EVER buying one of their products? I'm pretty emotionally charged after reading all of this, so if I was to base my response on that alone my answer would be YES,
it will prevent me from buying ANY future product from them. Experience however, tells me that after I think the whole thing through, at some point MAYBE that will no longer be the case. It will ALWAYS, however, be one of the things I remember and take into account when considering a future purchase. Considering I never thought that Yamaha's styles or sounds were the best of the lot to begin with, in light of this development it certainly doesn't look like I'll be considering or recommending another Yamaha arranger again.

"Korg" AJ




[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 01-29-2002).]

"Technics (I think) has already acted on the issue by requesting that EMC StyleWorks not provide for conversion from their keyboards"

Well, you do not need EMC StyleWOrks to copy a style from one keyboard to another. You can use midi and then do reviocing. So I do not see the big deal, especially styleworks are very expensive in my own humble opinion.

However, this is a sign that companies will try to implement features to protect their styles. For example, they may prevent factory styles from being transmitted via Midi or being copied to user-style. If they do something like this, they will lose buisness big time. No serious musician will buy a keyboard without the above two features.

I think companies should be content that if somebody purchased some disks of styles, that those disks will not be copied or given to another user. They can win this fight, but they will lose and be hurt with other fights.

Personally, for me, not being able to access other styles isn't the end of the world, because I pretty much make up my own anyway, but as Don said, it's the principle of the whole thing. As far as other manufacturers following suit.. Who knows...? There has never been any indication that Korg will take this stance, but hey you never know do you ? The way their site is currently set up actually seems to HELP people to get access to their styles. Could that change ? Sure it could...I guess we'll see if it ever does.
You're right too SK..I don't need EMC to convert either for Yamaha or Korg styles. In fact , with the proper sysex codes, markers, and Casm information a style can be made manually on a sequencer if desired ( what a royal pain that is though ). I wonder though, will Yamaha next ask people like Michael P Bedesem who are making freeware style conversion software and related stuff to cease and desist as well?? Hmmmm if so... where does it all end ?


Cliff.. In response to your comment about what Yamaha should tell its CVP customers about the " $7K styles " being freely available to 2000 users, let me turn this thing around for just a second if I may.. What does Yamaha tell it's 9000 PRO customers when it is already been noted by several people here that some of the styles available on the much cheaper 2000 appear to be improved over the ones on the 9000 series ?? I'm only guessing here, but I really gotta doubt that too many folks will buy the 2000 instead of the 9000 pro because of a difference in styles. I'm guessing that the decision comes down to type of use and the many extra features and capabilities of a 9k Pro", measured against the price differences of the boards.


"Korg" AJ



[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 01-29-2002).]

corrections:
technics have a style conversion facility included free with the top keyboards, for various Roland, Solton, Korg, Gem format styles.
I believe I saw an upgrade disk for the keyboard which includes Yamaha available in Germany.

EMC software has enabled Yamaha conversions for many years now.

The EMC software does not support 6500 format yet. This is because Technics use a proprietry compression format, which makes the floppy 3 to 5 times faster than previous generations. It is this algorithm that I understand Technics has not licensed to them yet. I suspect it may appear after the next keyboard is released.

The point about a style obviously being based upon a song is the most pertinent here.

Do we know for sure that Yamaha has not paid some kind of royalty for this popular style?

Sure, as with technics, the names are cryptic in the database - maybe this is to avoid a royalty?

Likewise intros and endings do not follow the same notes/chords for more than 4 or 5 notes to avoid copyright infringement?

I think this move is purely based on a global downturn in sales, and their worry of losing sales due to the latest styles being available in existing keyboards...

[This message has been edited by technicsplayer (edited 01-29-2002).]

Ohhhh my God!Yamaha has gone mad and
going to put an end to the sale of their
so called PSR toys.I simply wonder about
future of Yamaha.Alas!!

technicsplayer,

In other words, they are supporting conversion other styles to their keyboard but preventing others from converting from their keyboard styles. I think what can EMC style works do is continue conversion but change the first 5 notes in the intro and ending exactly what those people are doing.

no, not preventing at all, just 6500 format. The keyboard will load the previous 3 generations of technics formats, and the EMC allows conversion to and from between about 5 generations of technics formats.

Likewise you can convert these 5 or 6 previous generations of technics formats into Yamaha, Solton or others with the Universal or their own respective individual EMC programs, so no limitations there.

If EMC can't work out how to do 6500 format yet, maybe that's their problem? The style conversion that comes with the 6500 is just an extra included in the price that most others don't have.

The first 4 or 5 notes, I meant the actual intro\ending programmed into a keyboard. The conversion programs will convert exactly the notes given as input.
With the intros I thought that if you followed the exact melody of a song for more than X (4,5?) notes, you had to pay a royalty?
That's why the intros and endings of styles obviously based on a real song mostly have a few different notes in the intro and ending, to avoid paying this fee?

[This message has been edited by technicsplayer (edited 01-29-2002).]

So, that means you cannot sell pizza but using someone else pepperoni. I thought that once you bought the equipment it's all yours and the property rights should be exclusively yours. And you can do anything about it. Styles are just an ingredient of music. The entire music is the main thing and this creation is yours. Nice discussion. Just a thought.

I do not believe this message came from
Yamaha.

It absolutely did come from Yamaha. In fact, Bob Gelman, the adminisrator of the PSR styles group, states that he met personally with Yamaha's attorneys concerning this matter.


"Korg" AJ

I wonder if we are allowed to put yamaha saddlebags on a Honda motorcycle.

Nope - copywrites are clearly defined and written in the instructions of any thing pertinant. Yell and scream if it makes you feel better, but the owner of the copywrite is ALWAYS right in cases where unauthorized duplication has been made. It's stated very plainly that you are NOT to distribute the material. Sure, it's tough to enforce, like "holding" in football or "traveling" in basketball, but the fact remains - you are NOT allowed to copy and/or distribute copywritten material without permission.
Do what you want, but I suggest you don't complain out loud when you are clearly breaking the law.

I fired off a letter to Yamaha expressing my dismay at their decision. I drove 90 miles round trip and spent 2 hours looking at the 9000 and 2000 last Saturday. Why would I spend 2500 dollars for a 9000 when the $1100 2000 has better sounding styles? Because I could download the better sounding styles from the internet. I have many Yamaha instruments in my house but now all Yamaha purchases are on hold.

Apple computer tried the propriatary track with their computers and where did it get them? 5% of the market at best that's where.

As Scott said the whole issue of whether you can copyright a plagerized rhythm track is probably legally questionable anyway.

Tom

Scott wrote :

" In fact, this is the reason why Yamaha gave the song names in their 'Music Finder' cryptic names instead of the actual 'real' song titles names: ei "Sixty Four Years Old" for the Beatles classic "When I'm Sixty Four" or "All Shaken Up" for Elvis' hit tune "All Shook Up". Hmmm, Is Yamaha now applying a 'double standard' with us on this issue".

Good point Scott...Hmm I guess when we want to share style files publicly we could change CVP209 to PVC902. For added measure we could change a note here or there in each variation. In retrospect, maybe that is how we should have uploaded the files to the styles group. Then we would be playing the game on Yamaha's terms.

I don't know Uncle Dave ... you may be right on this but then again, I bet many 'laws' had to be challenged and / or broken in order for us to gain the freedoms we enjoy today in this country. Please don't misinterpret what I mean here. I'm not saying that we should willingly violate the copyright law or that it is unfair at all ( it protects all of us in so many ways ). I'm only questioning its application in this case, and I believe that application of law is always open to debate and challenge. ( God help us the day it isn't anymore ). I also know that just because something is law or is perceived ( correctly or incorrectly ) to be law doesn't always mean it's right. Law is opinion, nothing more. That's why laws are constantly challenged and often changed. Yamaha absolutely reserves the right to say anything they want about their product, and to claim copywrite of their styles, but how the law applies is not up to them. A court would have to weigh in the factors and decide that. Just because it is in black and white doesn't always make it so. Ask the FCC when they fine a 'pirate' radio station that is clearly in violation of existing federal law... and yet a judge overturns it on a variety of grounds...including something to the effect of being an unconstitutional application of the law.

More than question the application of the law itself in this case, I question the spirit of what the company has decided to do.
Who is really being hurt when we share the styles ? Does anyone really believe that someone is going to use the availability of CVP styles in order to save money and buy the 2000 instead of the CVP ? Or maybe we are actually going to believe that the 9000 PRO is now a less desirable board than the 2000 because through the magic of style sharing we discovered that the 2000 happens to have a couple of styles that we generally think are better ? Sure they can ( or try to )apply the letter of the law in this case, but who is really served by it ? Yamaha itself likely won't be served well if all it does is upset many of their customers. Are they upset because maybe someone took some of their styles and has now converted them for use on a PA80 or a Roland VA7 ? NEWS FLASH Yamaha...Your styles don't sound particularly good on a PA80..
Guess what ? PA80 styles don't sound particularly good on your boards either. Besides...even if they did...I can record a midifile on my 2000 using your styles and play it back on my PA80...so what gives ? Will that become an issue too if someday I'm playing a gig and a Yamaha employee in the crowd happens to hear something identifiable made from a 2000 style playing through my PA80? I don't think so....
What do they really want to do here? Sell me CVP209 styles for my 2000 ? Many are almost identical. Gimme a break. Make some fresh styles and I'll gladly buy them if I decide that I need more styles. Or do they just want to flex their muscles and show us little guys who's boss ?

"Korg" AJ



[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 01-30-2002).]

Yeah, it's a gray area, for sure. I'd hate to be a writer or software developer in these times of "fine lines".
I miss the days when I believed that things were either right or wrong - period. Too many questions today ..... or maybe not?
Maybe it really IS as simple as it seems.
We all cheat alot - admit it. From copying cassette tapes to selling CD's of "cover" tunes at performances. If you want to split hairs - there are PLENTY to split.
In the end ...... only YOU have to deal with your actions. Be prepared to accept the consequences.... no matter what you do.
I just think it's silly to complain about something that we all KNOW is wrong.

In the past, copyright holders have shut down sites without warning. If I remember right, they had the computers of a lyrics server confiscated. In this case, Yamaha is giving us time to download all existing styles before removing them from the web.

Clearly Yamaha invests time and money in creating and compiling styles. Even a phone book can be copyrighted, so no matter how derivative Yamaha styles are, they "might" be copyrightable. Certainly, 3rd parties who make and sell custom styles would support the copyrightability of styles in general.

Posting Yamaha styles on a Yahoo site means that Yahoo is making money (in advertising revenue) off of Yamaha styles, while Yamaha makes nothing. I don't think this is fair.

I think a good solution would be to redirect the energy now spent on a losing cause toward urging Yamaha to post on its own site styles of discontinued models. This would be in everyone's interest. Yamaha would get more site traffic and good will, while customers would be able to transfer their favorite styles to their new Yamaha keyboards.

I would totally agree with this. The fact is that Yamaha has not done this, and if they plan to, they have kept it a secret.
They should have a solution in mind before creating such a problem.
I am totally disenchanted with Yamaha because of this, but more because of the upgrade situation, on which I have started a new thread.
DonM

Someone stated that this move was generated because of "downward sales" of Yamaha poroducts . There os some truth to this matter . Having sold Yamaha products on a retail level for the last 10 years . The last 2 to 3 years has to be Yamaha 's worst for new product line .
#1. In professional keyboards Yamaha just introduced the Motif keyboards 6 months ago . Yamaha was and still is losing to Korg triton type keyboards over the past 3 years . Now that Korg has introduced the Triton LE version , Yamaha will have to adjust the price points ( IMO) on the Motif keyboards . Yamaha currently does not have a $1100.00 workstation to offer . Korg does .
The PSR9000 and 9000pro did not generate the turn over Yamaha had hoped . The PSR740 + 640 did not do well . PSRGX76 has been Yamaha's best selling consumer product .
Yamaha is just not getting it right IMO .
THE PSR2000 + 1000 are a good start for Yamaha to get an edge . dano

I respect your opinions Dave and always have, but I will end my participation in this discussion by saying that for ME, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that this is doing something that " we all know is wrong" . I don't see it that way AT ALL.. period !! Think about it for a second.. I NEVER recall being asked to
pay a royalty fee for performing ( NOT recording or selling a CD copy of a cover tune ..just performing ) a copywritten " cover " tune when I was performing in a band, or being told that I cannot perform so and so's song ... has anyone else had this experience ? I made good money doing it too. Was it wrong ? hmmmm.. Songs are copywritten too...or is that different ? I've never made a dime on any of these styles by the way.
Naturally, many people will say " oh that's different "...Ok is it really ? Maybe it is since once I play the song it's gone ...vanished into the air...not recorded..while the copied styles are perpetually there. Then again..maybe not. But why is it really different? because Yamaha says so ?

Maybe we would like things to be black and white and we'd like the "days" to return when they were, but I'm not so sure that is possible. I think black and white fades a bit into grey and maybe it has always been this way for thinking people, as part of the process of our minds expanding and contemplating more and more complex thoughts as we go through life. Besides, when we were younger, the pressure of setting the standard wasn't really upon us as much as it is later in life, was it? I don't think the times we live in have much to do with it at all, but hey that's just my opinion on it.

I know from copywrite issues in the music business that are supposedly designed to protect the artists but really always seem to instead serve the interests of the big record labels. I don't wanna even go there.. That's fodder for another forum.

I will end my participation in this discussion Uncle Dave and all by saying that I'll respect your opinions always, but please don't tell me that I KNOW I'm wrong ..If you think that is the case..that is fine, you're entitled to that opinion, and I'll respect your opinion as always..but that doesn't make it my reality.

Dano..

I think that maybe..just maybe.. Yamaha has just given that "edge " away.

Cliff,

Yahoo tells us that they are an advertising supported service. You'll see that quite often when you read a message posted on their site. Is yahoo getting any revenue from Yamaha as a direct result of the groups that discuss and in many cases promote and advertise their products ? I am curious. I wonder how much they pay Nigel for being mentioned on this forum ? " Fair " can be a subjective term I think.


"Korg" AJ




[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 01-30-2002).]

Just a note to Don Mason and Blueszplayer:
I believe Yamaha owns Korg. And if this is
still so, Korg may soon follow Yamaha in this
new crappy policy.
My two cents: I was very close to buying a
Yamaha PSR-550, and one of it's best attributes was the wealth of free PSR styles available on the web. Yamaha has now changed
my mind.

Would like to see an attorneys view on this subject. What kind of legal actions could yamaha actually take to enforce this issue.

I understand that you could copyright the original styles. I doubt though that those websites/newsgroups distribute the original yamaha styles, since most people allready have those in their keyboards. Who is going to decide how much a style must be modified to call it your own?

Do all people that play yamaha boards professional have to pay a portion of their fee to yamaha? Does a carpenter do that with the manufacturer of his hammer? If styles are copyrighted and can not be distributed, what about sounds and samples?

Just thinking out loud.


In my opinion this is a bad mistake from yamaha. Do they realy think they improve their market doing this? I know GEM sells dedicated disks with sounds and styles, but i never have seen anything like that form yamaha. They inly effect will be that more and more people will not buy yamaha anymore.
(I personally have never liked them anyhow, to "plastic")

[This message has been edited by arnothijssen (edited 01-30-2002).]

Actually, what they are objecting to is the posting for public download of original, unedited Yamaha styles.
I can almost see their point IF they make them available on their own site, either free or for a nominal fee.
DonM

Short response: SCREW YAMAHA.
Every yammer I've ever encountered has been a pain to navigate, and the generally cheesy intros, outros and boring 4-bar patterns turn me off.

I have a mixed set of feelings on this subject, and, hence, I was trying to stay quiet. However, after reading two pages of postings, I feel compelled to put in my two cents' worth.

I own a Roland G1000, which came with a ZIP disk with some 400 styles in addition to the 128 in the ROM of the keyboard. Although most are regurgitated styles from older Roland instruments, some are quite useful. When Roland had sold me the instrument, it has also implicitely granted me the right to use their styles.

Like most people in this forum, I am always interested in hearing and trying other styles. However, at the end of the day, there is only 4 or 5 non-roland styles which I use in my preformances (call me unimaginative). Although I happened to obtain these from friends, I would be happy to pay a reasonable amount to their creator. While I can see the rationale for paying for the styles used in paid performances, it is important to me to be able to try styles (not just listen to them) before deciding to use them in performances or not.

I would have no problem purchasing useful styles from Yamaha or anyone else, provided I could try them before buying. What bother me more is the possibility of music publishers coming after all of us who perform (for money) for a piece of it.

Regards

AJ,
There is NO where that you play comercial music that is not paying royalties for the opportunity. It is the responsibility of the venue to pay ASCAP and BMI fees, so even if you never pay it - the house HAS to because they employ YOU to help promote business.
This is a fact of life - pay as you go. Thankfully, the performer does not have to pay the fee, but trust me ..... someone is paying for the rights to all those cover songs. It's not a perfect system, but it IS a system. It's OK for us to disagree, but this is not an opinion - it's a fact. Use of copywrited material REQUIRES a liscence, and someone has to pay to use it. I can't say it any simpler, but thanx for your tact anyway!
(This one's not MY ideas - it's the law.)

What about "Happy Birthday" ? It's still copyrighted!

I was remotely aware that there was a system in place to send "fees" to BMI and the like, but I was never involved in that part of the process. How do they distribute the monies fairly or keep track of what you guys play ? ( I'm naive to this stuff, not being a wiseguy ). My experience performing in a live setting is limited mostly to playing original material. My guitarist and partner at the time, Marty, handled money and business ( as well as his Strat ), very
well, I might add, considering he got us work even though we usually insisted on playing nothing but original music.I know it's been ages since I performed live,( more like 18 or 19 years ), save for a local party or two, but I still don't recall being asked to pay any royalties for the few occasions we did play a cover tune. ( Usually via a request from a pretty lady..lol ) Maybe Marty was asked to or the house handled it ( or ignored it ) ?
I'm guilty of being wrong and very naive on the business aspect of music. This is why I always try to defend the position of those of you who do make a business and living out of it. I know that is a totally separate and sometimes taxing skill, and one that I'm frankly not very good at.

None of this changes my stance on what Yamaha is trying to do here. Instead of showing a bit of appreciation for the multitude of free advertising and promotion provided by Nigel here and by Yahoo Groups and administrators, they choose to admonish us for sharing their materials, when they themselves play the charade of renaming copywritten songs to use on their boards. Then they advertise one thing ( upgradeable OS via Flash Rom ) and fail to deliver on it when it comes down to crunch time. Worst of all is what Don M described perfectly as the deafening silence on these issues both here and in private. I have contacted them several times on these and other issues and have always been as diplomatic as possible. I have never gotten a meaningful response from them

After all of that I am still in disagreement with you on telling us that we KNOW this is wrong Dave. In fact, to be honest, I take exception to it. I am in no position to tell everyone here what they know is right or wrong. Are you ?

I need to go make music for a while and give this stuff a rest. I find that I'm feeling increasingly aggravated and for me music is supposed to be about fun, enjoyment, and creativity. I'm going to sign off for a while and focus on those things a little more. I'm always around though if I can ever be a help to explain anything I will be happy to answer any email. I am bad at the music business, but I will share what I can and know a thing or two about playing keys, and about navigating these boards, midi, and the electronics involved.

"Korg" AJ




[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 02-01-2002).]

AJ,
I'm not judging anyone here, and I too, am guilty of copying many things - including video tapes and CD's. The fact remains that I know it's wrong to willfully take something that is NOT mine. Being nieve is one thing - turning your back on the truth is another. Now that you are aware that copywrites carry some legal weight, it's no longer a case of aggree or disaggree - it's a simple case of right and wrong...... but lets let this die here. We all know how we are going to handle our own situations, so we'll just get on with it in our own way.

As far as the collection and distribution of fees - it is far from a perfect system, but it tries to compensate the artists that are most often on the charts, and based on sales of recorded media as well. Club owners pay a fee based on the ammount of seats and the time open during entertainment. A few years back, there was talk of making DJ's pay their own royalties, but nothing ever materialized. At least in the state of Pennsylvania - the publishers have an iron fist on the entertainment business, and they can close a room down for not paying the fees. Original venues don't have to pay, but even a radio or TV in a place of business requires a liscense fee to the publishers. That's why MUZAK was invented (elavator music)- it was "royalty free music" that you bought by the month as a service to enhance your business. It was cheaper than paying the full fare for having a broadcast program on. Believe me AJ, NOTHING is free. Nothing.

Uncle Dave,

I recall way back in High School(35 years ago) When putting a concert on, in the music department and using a copyrighted piece, the school had to write to the publisher and ask permission to use the music. I recall writing one such letter. Don't know if that has changed. So even non-profit orgainizations are held to honesty I guess.

-Linda

You are supposed to pay anytime you use "Happy Birthday to You" song commercially." The story of how the song "Happy Birthday to You" came to be, began as a sweet one, that later soured. Two sisters, Mildred Hill, a teacher at the Louisville, Kentucky Experimental Kindergarten, and Dr. Patty Hill, the principal of the same school, together wrote a song for the children, entitled "Good Morning to All." When Mildred combined her musical talents, as the resident expert on spiritual songs, and as the organist for her church, with her sister's expertise in the area of Kindergarten Education, "Good Morning to All" was sure to be a success.

The sisters published the song in a collection entitled "Song Stories of the Kindergarten" in 1893. Thirty-one years later, after Dr. Patty Hill became the head of the Department of Kindergarten Education at Columbia University's Teacher College, a gentleman by the name of Robert H. Coleman published the song, without the sisters' permission. To add insult to injury, he added a second verse, the familiar "Happy Birthday to You."

Mr. Coleman's addition of the second verse popularized the song and, eventually, the sisters' original first verse disappeared. "Happy Birthday to You," the one and only birthday song, had altogether replaced the sisters' original title, "Good Morning to All."

After Mildred died in 1916, Patty, together with a third sister named Jessica, sprang into action and took Mr. Coleman to court. In court, they proved that they, indeed, owned the melody. Because the family legally owns the song, it is entitled to royalties from it, whenever it is sung for commercial purposes."


Let's see the hands go up for who has paid and is in compliance with the law.

Interesting history JCS. One addendum here, and I don't know for sure that this is fact, but I read that Michael Jackson acquired the rights (ownership) of "Happy Birthday To You" a few years back and charges no royalties for its use. It just another collectible for him
Eddie

I would doubt that "Happy Birthday" has ownership options. Even at Jakko's prices, I don't think the song is available for purchace. He DOES own the Beatles library, though. Makes me sick. Talk about "collectables"!

In 1988, Warner Communications bought the rights to "Happy Birthday to You" for $25 million. The song earns about $1 million a year in royalties. The song is expected to enter the public domain when the copyright expires in 2010.

Careful restaurants eager to avoid the legal confrontation with the likes of ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which polices the use of "Happy Birthday To You") have come up with alternative birthday songs.

Intellectual property law is like taxes and is dependent on voluntary compliance. We all know how forgiving the IRS is for those that don't volunteer to comply.

Well - that one is NEWS to me. I stand corrected. I had always heard that the "birthday song" (afraid to say the name, now !) was public domain. Either way - I believe that the only way to enforce a royalty should be in a profit situation. No one can tell you what to hum, or whistle or sing on your own time. It's only when profit enters the picture that requires more serious attention. This is all sounding too much like poitics to me. I stay in show biz because I can't STAND politics. I hate to think about how the "other half" lives .... I just wanna sing.