Hard to do, seeing as how he is DEAD!

What do we have to do to get a serious discussion going, here?

I explain my position carefully, try to point out the absurdity of Dom's actions, and the ramifications of what could happen if he gets away with it, and what do you post? Jokes...

Every day you switch on your G70, Fran, you take for granted all the amazing sounds in it that you make your living off of (I would be VERY surprised if you ever went out and earned a living from using the MS as your primary arranger ). How will you feel after Roland have to stop development of a new G-series (with the return of the Chord Sequencer we both love and miss!) because the ENORMOUS cost of developing the soundset and styles for it is lost the minute it appears on the market?

Look a little further ahead than you own private gain, and you realize this has vast implications for the entire sound development industry, just as Napster and MP3's did to the music industry. And, just like that case, after some initial confusion about the legality of it, saner heads prevailed, and the law now prosecutes those that steal music from legitimate rights holders.

Once again, the law trails technology. It wasn't possible, in the past, to create a soundbank that could clone an entire keyboard (samplers had WAY too little RAM to make this practical). But GIGA cloning is an entirely new way to copy a ROM set, capable of a fair degree of accuracy in copying the complete soundset of any keyboard. Obviously, not perfectly, but definitely well enough to use. No doubt you'll be getting YOUR copy soon, Fran, but don't start whining when the industry moves to make what is ethically wrong also legally wrong (if it isn't now...).
Have you considered that, although Dom MIGHT be protected by Italian (or EU) law from prosecution, YOU are not...? Plenty of little old ladies and housewives (and college students and musicians!) have been fined by the RIAA for possessing downloaded, pirated MP3's in the US, that NEVER thought it could happen to them...

squeak, thanks for having the courage to step up and take this unpopular position! Everyone wants something for nothing, and few will admit it's wrong if they can justify theft by convoluted and short-sighted logic...

And Bob Marley, bless his soul, was ALL about 'freedom'... The freedom to profit from your OWN labors, and not have them stolen by governments (even by inaction), robbed by thieves, or taken by corporations, large and small. I am proud to use his legal, public domain image as an avatar.

Yea right, and then they'll only have to complaine about the weight

Dom's already got all the T2 styles (and G70 and PA1X, etc. they are all widely available), but because they sound very inferior translated to most other keyboards, this is the very reason he wants to clone the T2.

He (or his style makers) never COULD figure out how to make a decent style, so why NOT go out and steal all the competition's styles AND sounds..?

BTW, I encourage anyone that has PAYED for any of Dom's pirated soundsets to immediately upload them to those warez sites he so graciously provided the links for... Perhaps if HIS profit motive (or at least, Trosha's) is removed, he might start to see the absurdity of his position.

Diki, thou doth protest too much. Whatcha hidin' in that lil ol' laptop of yours .

Seriously though, I think that there are too many shades of grey to this issue and what people are reacting (negatively) to is the matter-of-factness of your pronouncements (not to mention the self-righteous tone). I think the reality is that even if you are 100% right (nobody ever is), the effect of what Dom is doing on the industry is like a pin prick in a bedsheet. In fact, it might possibly even serve to stimulate the industry by accellerating what is most likely the future of the industry anyway. When all arrangers become "open source" (and one day they will), there will be no shortage of developers clamoring to supply this new market with new styles and soundsets. Think ying and yang. For every downside there's an upside. Perhaps a whole new software industry will emerge developing and providing "cloneproof" software. Maybe arrangers will go away and musicians will learn to play again (it could happen).

The question is, if someone were able to "clone" the software for the chord sequencer, adapt it to run on the G70, and then made it available free of charge, would you take it? Well we know that you wouldn't; after all, it would be unethical and "just plain wrong".

While we all admire your passion (once you take a stand on an issue - I, myself, tend to be very wishy-washy ), it may be better served on something that actually matters or that someone gives a sh-t about. But then again, who am I to say what is and is not important. Soldier on, my friend.

chas

I had to go away for a day on business, so I'm just catching up on all this again.

Considering what's currently available, and what's underdevelopment. I'm honestly speechless. I don't know what to say at all to be honest.

I think I understand LIONSTRACS angle of approach here on all this, but I can't how a view like this would stand up in any court of law, or how you could even convince yourselves that this is sound argument for the right to do what is being done here.

Why. ?. Because at a basic level, what your NOT doing here is just sampling an instrument.
You can sample the sound produced by a real guitar, but if you sample a keyboard. Your not sampling the real guitar, your just re-recording someone else's recordings and calling them your own.

Here's my understanding of sound design and copyright law.

1: It is ok for you to sample any real instrument as the manufacture cannot copyright the sound produced, since this is a natural thing based on the laws of the universe and so on. In this case, the only thing the manufacture can protect is their design. In other words, Steinway could sue Yamaha if Yamaha bought a Steinway Piano and started to measure it, and clone it or parts of it's design based on what they see in the Steinway.

2: The only point where it is considered ok to sample a Keyboard that produces its sound based on PCM, is when you use the Engine of that keyboard to warp the original PCM data at a extreme level in order to create something truly new that sounds nothing like the unprocessed PCM data. For exampling, making a deep evolving Pad sound out of a Piano.

3: Modelling technology is not covered by the same laws as PCM. Modelling technology falls into the same class as a real instrument because it's not based on recordings of instruments to produce it's sound. So while you can sampling this technology freely, you cannot sample the factory sounds. The programming behind them would be the property of either the sound designer who worked for the company, or the company itself. It depends on the contract signed.

Regards.
James.

Finally... posts from some people that do have something to say...

Chas, I only speak my mind when it is made up (mostly). Yes, you are right, I MIGHT be tempted to use a free, copied Chord Sequencer add-on to my G70. But ONLY because Roland no longer make one themselves, and don't offer the update themselves (and I would pay almost any money for that legal update!)... BUT... it would still be theft, and I wouldn't defend it, just hide my shame (and keep petitioning Roland to make a LEGAL update )

I also think you have got it VERY wrong if you think there will be a long line of developers clamoring to make multi-million dollar sample libraries for the future generation of open arrangers and keyboards, when anyone with a computer can go out and clone those sounds for free and post them on the internet for all. There hasn't been a copy protection scheme that can protect SOUNDS. You can protect the base ROM library from wholesale copying (although most copy protection schemes eventually fail), but as the instrument is designed to make a sound, what stops anyone from hooking up a recorder, instead of a PA to any keyboard?

The only thing that can be done is to embed a digital watermark, and this is only of any value if the device is sampled digitally (and doesn't prevent the theft, only makes it easier to prove in court that the sound IS from the disputed sound set).

The truth is, this technology, if unchecked, will spell the end of sound development as we know it. Who in their right mind will spend any money on an expensive sampling project, if he stands to have it pirated before he recoups his investment?

And to be perfectly honest, I don't see ANYTHING on this forum that anyone gives a sh*t about, except perhaps how THEIR arranger is better than all the others! Perhaps it would be better if we DID care...

And James, thank you for so succinctly and informatively explaining the legal definitions to those here who either didn't know them, or chose to ignore it...

But does anyone feel any differently about it now they KNOW...?

Sadly, probably few. Let us just pray no-one's car or house is broken into, and all their expensive keyboards and PA's get stolen. Hard to expect any sympathy, once you have condoned someone else going out and doing the same thing to Yamaha, or Korg, Or Roland, OR JAMES...

James, with all due respect (and I most certainly do respect you), what is the moral or ethical difference between sampling the T2's soundset and converting it's styles to run on say, the PA1x or G70. Both are products developed (and paid for) by the original keyboard manufaturer. Both contribute equally to the desireability of the keyboard (the styles maybe even more so). I think we all need to agree that it's not quite so cut and dried, and that there is indeed a legal grey area there. In any case, these things always tend to sort themselves out (mostly by market forces).

Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about the issue but if I figure out how to port that SA Sax from my T2 over to my PA1x Pro, well.......I might have to beg for forgiveness later .

chas

Sorry to break in here, but a quick answer... It is not illegal to convert a style FOR YOUR OWN USE on another arranger, but it IS illegal to post those converted styles publicly (and several sites have had to remove these conversions at the request of the manufacturer).

Secondly, it is a different matter to clone the sounds themselves, so that they work of conversion is avoided...

That what you wanted to hear...?

Not really. The moral distinction is still fuzzy in my mind.

What makes me laugh is that Dom and all of the Mediastation owners were always going on about how closed systems such as the T2 and G70 were rubbish in comparison to their wonderful open system a year or so ago and now Dom is putting T2 sampled sounds inside this thing.

Why T2? can't they come up with something more original, or as he finally realised that no matter how closed a system the T2 is, the sounds are certainly quality.