quote:Originally posted by richard_shiflet:
I don't like be the one to change the topic of a thread, but I have no problem adding to one that's already strayed. LOL
DIKI wrote:
I actually contacted Nigel, and asked him if he could split this section off and start a new thread, as I consider this a VERY significant topic, but he said the software can't do this, but he wanted to leave Dom's posts up for all to see.

Well...after Doctor Fran suggest to take a pill or two, seem that this pills had really a good effects! I take the same and I have opened one new thread how you have request.

This thread is the continue discussion from this topic: http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/015709-2.html

and now here we can continue fight about copyright sampling issue.
I will continue posting here ONLY if you there continue RESPECT the all others people too.
Here we can sharing under nice posting our ideas and opinion without Attack and offence other people, ok?
Who will attack will get automatically back the attack, so..try to be a civil person or is better that Niglel close this Topic.

Let's start...

If you were showing any respect for Yamaha, or Roland, or Korg, or any of the other keyboard manufacturers you intend to clone and profit from their labors, you would deserve to be shown some here.

Unfortunately, you are not...

Nigel, please don't close this thread. The sooner this guy digs his own grave, the sooner we will be rid of him.

Well, I'm the first that give the full respect to this 3 big brands, because someone there are my friends too.

In second way, untill another 200-300 and famous sound company continue developing and cloning LEGALLY instruments too, we are allowed to sampling what the all we like and nobody can do nothing.

IF there someone like proceed legally, first the have to try to close web server like: http://vstclub.com/
where now more than 1 milion dowload cracked/copied software was done.
Another nice FREE CRAKED server is the: http://audio(xxxxxx).com, where you can register and dowload the ALL possible craked audio software, including all the sounds library too. ( they have already my soundbank copied too, but I really don't care at all)

Give TON of this craked server, just look around in the web...
Is this legally?? Why the big brands company don't try to close this web server, looking the IP's and vitis they at home?? Maybe they can not or is not legally??

Do you think that some sounbank "cloned" legally under ONLY GIGA format for some MS and PC gigastudio system they care??

another example:
Apple years ago invested milions of dollars for make the Ipod, how many company then try to copy and offer in every angle this products?
It's leggally??
Apple OS X use the linux kernel from many years and they SELL the software with the Linux resource kernel and dont pay the license to the linux kernel developers, it's is legally?

Send TON of Mail SPAM is legally? Is NOT, butthey continue and nobody can stopping.

So DIKI, you are the last one that can judge what is right or not, legally or not and untill all is not legally, all the others will continue anyway, because the know that nothing is possible to do for stopping this Illegal issue.

Generation, mentality, marketing and competiotion is totally changed from many years.

Me and others do NOT care how much yamaha have invested for develope his propietary sounds, this was yamaha marketing decision, because they will continue sell embedded instruments, closed system, closed and SLOW CPU of 10-20 years ago.
This is ONLY numerical marketing untill you all guy will continue buy toys, they will continue offer closed system toys.

So..do not fight then IF you need the USB 2.0, more RAM and fast HD, because you know that you will NEVER have this features, UNTILL the 3 big one will CHANGE the totally system under the PC.

Korg with the Oasys was the first one too, BUT still closed system and NOT expandable how you like.

Continue marketing closed embedded system, give they the warranty that nobody can cloning the full RAW, source OS data and hardware, because is about Impossible.

For sure oneday when the all this embedded market is full and they can not continue offer toys, USB 1.0, HD 2Gb, Internet and more, they will start to open the new PC field and copy OUR Mediastation ideas and linux source.

This is FULL legally, because nobody can stopping the new technology and competition marketing.

IF they wil continue, they have to pass under PC system and then thy are able too to offer FREE software and soundsbank, with the possibility to loading GIGA of Mb data in realtime.

I think the Big Three will eventually switch over and start making keyboards based on either Linux or MS OS. In fact the new Motif XS has a Linux based OS now. Of course it is relatively primitive compared to what Lionstracs (with full Linux OS) and OpenLabs (with MS OS) offers. You cannot load or use VSTi's in the Motif XS. But since Yamaha owns Steinberg I think eventually Yamaha will offer a Keyboard that will be able to load and use VSTi's just like Mediastation and Neko can. I think it is the wave of the future and Lionstracs and Openlabs are the frontrunners in the race, but maybe not for long.

Kudos though to Lionstracs and Openlabs for taking the initiative and getting this technology into keyboards. I also think Wersi offers something similar too but I'm not sure if you can use VSTi's in a Wersi, but I know it uses a Windows OS.

Competition is good no matter how you look at it. I am glad there is Lionstracs and Openlabs to counter what the established and much larger Big Three offer. And I hope Lionstracs and Openlabs continue to expand and gain marketshare with the products they offer. You want the future? You have it now with the Lionstracs Mediastation and OpenLabs Neko. My main concern is being able to keep the prices affordable for the masses. That is one of the big reasons people are presently cautious of buying into this new technology. Not only is it unconventional and relatively unknown but the prices are much higher than comparable Sample based keyboards that are currently on the market.

Best,
Mike

Hi Mike
Wersi has been making instruments using the Microsoft OS for more then 7 years, and have been able to use VSTs for over 6 years, Lionstracs and Openlabs are newbie�s by comparison.
The first OAS instruments made are still in production, and so they can be updated to the latest version without trading in the board; this is why in the long term they work out cheaper.
Another point to note is that they are as easy to use as most Hardware Arrangers and Organs, whereas Openlabs and Lionstracs still require a fair amount of input and knowledge from the user.
Finally, Wersi have been making Organs and Keyboards since 1969 and so have a wealth of experience.
Enjoy whatever you play

Bill

Firstly, Dom, those warez sites exist because they operate in countries that DO NOT abide by international copyright law. You, on the other hand are based in Italy, correct?

Secondly, whether they avoid prosecution or not, even YOU acknowledge that they ARE breaking the law (at least of civilized countries).

As to not caring that your own soundbank has been sampled, well, perhaps you would care a lot more if you had actually payed a LOT of money to have it developed. But from the sound of it, you didn't... Do you honestly expect us to believe that if you had spent the millions that the Big 3 have on sound development (they didn't get their sounds by going out and cloning YOUR keyboard, for sure!) that you would be happy about it? LOL

And just because someone ELSE is a thief does NOT make it OK for everyone to be one... If someone murders you, should we forgive them because other murderers sometimes get away with it? Wrong is wrong, whether it is 'legal' or protected by rogue nations that do not respect international law.

If the chinese copied all your chips, hardware and software, and started manufacturing a hardware Mediastation at a fraction of the price of your keyboard, would you THEN still be in favor of 'cloning'? Or do you think that protection of intellectual property (your design for the hardware of the MS) is important? This is a very different issue if YOU are the one being copied, eh, Dom?

Me, I see NO difference between the DESIGN of an arranger, and the sounds and styles it contains, especially if you had payed a fortune for BOTH to be developed. Sadly, you have nothing emotionally or financially invested in your own soundbank (understandably, from listening to it!) and seem to think that you have 'friends' at Yamaha Remember, the soundset for the T2 was NOT developed by your 'friends' in Italy, at least in the most part. Perhaps you would like to contact the team that DID develop the drum kits, or the piano samples, or the orchestral voices, or ANY of the included ROM (primarily, Yamaha Japan), and ask them if THEY consider themselves your 'friends'? LOL

And you completely misstate and misunderstand my position. I have NO opposition to an 'open' keyboard. I have said many times that when the soundset and styles finally become competitive, I would be interested in one. But I have also posted MANY times that I think you ought to (LEGALLY) license some of the better VSTi's and GIGA soundbanks (developed by skilled programmers, not cloners!) and have a coherent, 'better than T2' soundset that styles could be developed for.

But rather than deal with that, and the expense and time of it (which all the hardware manufacturers HAVE to), your response is to give up on a 'better than T2' soundset, and just resort to piracy. And piracy of a product you claim is 'inferior' to your arranger! It's hard to justify that when the only way your MS is competitive with a hardware arranger is to clone it!!

Sadly, all your arguments have holes in them big enough to drive a bus through, Dom. All you are saying to justify your actions is, basically, 'THAT thief got away with burglary, so it MUST be OK..! O.J. got away with murdering his wife, why shouldn't I?'. Ethics go hand in hand with a successful company, and unfortunately, yours don't inspire ANY confidence. If you are willing to steal from your competition, why not your customers?

Free updates FOREVER doesn't sound so promising, now, do they..? If you decide 'well, THIS company promised it, and afterwards changed their minds and got away with it, so why can't I?'. Or 'this company no longer respects it's warranty, and got away with it, so why shouldn't I?'... You see where this leads, Dom?

Me, I may just be a 'beach musician of older generation', but I don't have to steal ANYTHING to make a living...

Diki, didn't you steal Bob Marley's picture, and use it as your identity?

Now every time I see a pic of Marley, I want to smack him beside the head...thanks to you..

Boy this is an interesting subject! I listened to those Tyros 2 sounds, and for MP's I thought they sounded pretty good. Dom nailed the saxes!

As far as it being legal.. Man, that's a good question. It would vary from country to country I guess.

I've always supported Dom and the MS, but to be honest, even though I thought the sampled sounds were good, I can't see how it's legal really. You do have to consider Yamaha spent a good deal of time and money on their sound engineering over the years. It's one thing to sample them for personal use, but to sample them and "profit" from sounds created by another--that's a little iffy if you ask me.

Hell, you can drive a car with your feet if you want to.., but that still doesn't make it a good idea, ya know. Maybe selling this GIGA CD isn't such a good idea, but again I can only assume Dom has had someone who understands their legal system there and again can only assume he has consulted with someone regarding this before releasing the CD.

Now the Mediastation has T2 sounds in it and is half Yamaha, will Fran be selling his or waiting for a G70 sample sound set so he can say it's a Roland hehe

All Dom needs now is to get some good styles in there, they're more than overdue.

Craig, the MS is not mine to sell..Domenik supplied it to me..

Perk for being in his camp

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.

diki,
i must say i appreciate your position. i was expecting more of us to stand with it, but to my surprise... not that many.
without being too familiar with the concept of open-source keyboard, i do understand that these types of instruments really rely exclusively (or mainly) on other sound and styles banks, not their own, and on other people's work and that really sounds wrong to me.
i think what i red before it is just a lame excuse to justify stealing.
i have to say, i did sometimes use software or mp3 that i did not pay for, but for my own use at most... and never really feel ok with it.
how on earth would i sell to you something i stolen (sampled) from my neighbour?! and be happy with it, and making it my strategy for future...
so, there is some ethic issues going on!...

[This message has been edited by adimatis (edited 07-03-2007).]

I would hope that it has at least got people thinking. I don't wish to bring a $$$ value on anything here, but it's obvious, no true sound designer could ever compete with LIONSTRACS.

Sound designers have high development costs, hire and everything else that goes into making sounds. LIONSTRACS does not have this cost at all. This allows them to offer sounds far cheaper.

Everything a sound designer creates is their original work, where LIONSTRACS sample factory sounds and other keyboard. This allows them to create large volumes of sounds for a low price as there is no development time involved in this.

This, no sound designer can complete with, nor will they even bother trying to.

Speaking as a sound designer here right now on behalf of everyone else I know in the business. We would not even do what LIONSTRACS are doing even if the law was on our side. Even the biggest names in the business that are now rich and famous from their sound design still create everything the way they have always done. They create, not copy.

They / we have always stayed true to what we are. Anything less and we are only cheating ourselves. We create new sounds.

Nothing new is created from copying someone else work.

Kind Regards.
James.

This is very different from sampling for many reason. I will try explain a few in the hopes you can see where I'm coming from on this.

If you recreate a Yamaha Style on a KORG keyboard, you still won't sound like a Yamaha keyboard unlike sampling. Your not actually taking the sound of the Yamaha to the KORG. All your doing is converting the note data of the style from one format to another.

So, the end result will still sound like a KORG that will sound very different from the Yamaha, even though it's playing a Yamaha style.

The actual copyright on a style is then another complicated issue. While KORG own FULL rights to the note data as they paid either a third party programmer to create it, or they used one of their own internal employees. The actual use of the style in your music is copyright free.

The conversion of the styles then hits two issues.

1: The tool you used to convert the style with.
This is NOT illegal. Just like Nero can sell a program that copies CD's, EMC can sell a progarm that can convert styles. It's the usage of this program or any conversion program that can be questioned.

2: To actually convert a style from a Keyboard you own, to another format is legal. To convert a style from one format to another from a source that you do not own, is illegal. However, this is a very grey area of the Law that the manufactures can and will ignore because it benefits them.

For example, as you have seen on this forum, someone converted the G70 styles within only a few weeks of the keyboard being released, and Roland flipped out and got them removed from a number of websites. But yet they allow people to freely distribute the styles from discontinued keyboards freely, even though this is illegal.

The reason for this is very simple. If you like a Roland, your going to buy one anyway. The availability of illegally converted styles is not going to make you change your mind on this.

Added to that, knowing that you can have these converted styles from a previous KORG, and other keyboards running on your Roland gives you an added bonus.

Now... how that benefits everyone else is, a person who loves KORG, Yamaha, or another make will do the exact same. They will run the old Roland styles on their KORG, or whatever.

So, while this is a breach of copyright law, it benefits the manufactures to just look the other way and let this happen, so long as you don't convert a flagship arranger the second it's out.

Hope that makes sense to you ?.

Kind Regards.
James.

[This message has been edited by Irishacts (edited 07-03-2007).]

Question : if you sample a super articulation voice do you get the same controllers and all the things that make it super articulation? Another words do you get exactly the same voice that will behave exactly the same way it will on it's native instrument?
And another question how come no one is up in arms about the B4 software doesn't that rip off(steal) the hammond and leslie features and sounds for profit?
I don't think Hammond has given them permission, Do they pay a fee?
And one more that we have discussed alot here but what about when you perform someone elses song live or when you steal a lick you heard on a record. Why is that not stealing?

The short answer is Yes.
So long as the PCM data is sampled, then all the controllers can be assigned. The specific tools that LIONSTRACS are using to sample offered all the features needed to extract the different elements across all layers.

I use the same program myself to extract sounds I've design on software that's not even compatible with the system I'm designing the sounds for.

This program can also connect to keyboards and extract sounds automatically.



No because they have not in anyway copied the B4. It's a computer program generating the sounds in real-time.

To add to this, a real B4 falls into the same class as a Piano. It's a real instrument that produces its sound without the aid of any recordings of an organ or anything like that. If you look at my post above when talking about Modelling, this is the same thing.



Public performances are covered by organisations backed by the government that require entertainment licences to be paid. So, no it's not illegal to play songs out live because the place your playing in will have to pay a yearly fee to allow them to hire bands.

For example, here in Ireland this organisation is called IMRO. In the UK, its called MCPS.

Stealing a lick is nothing more that being inspired by a song. The end result is still an entirely new song. Unless, your actually stealing an entire rift that makes it obvious of what your doing.

Regards.
James.

Hi Adimatis
You misunderstand what an open keyboard is designed for, so here is a brief description.
1. If you have hardware arranger and you want to add sounds they have to be for that specific board. (Roland require Roland voices, Yamaha require Yamaha voices etc)
2. If you have a computer you can use all different types of formats of sounds, you just buy the appropriate software to play them.
3. If you have an open keyboard then it has its own sounds, just like any hardware board, but it also allows you to use other types of sounds if you so wish. (However other types of sounds should not be used as a substitute for poor internal sounds, but purely to enhance what is already available)
4. As open keyboards are software based you do not need to change them, but can simply upgrade the software to give you all the latest sounds and features. (Due to the advancement in technology you do sometimes also have upgrade the computer hardware, but as it is a standard PC this is quite cheap to do)
5. This is and always has been the Wersi philosophy since they first introduced the open keyboard over 7 years ago. (Wersi do not supply any other sounds then their own, if you wish to use others then you will need to purchase them separately)
Hope this clarifies matters

Bill

If the chinese copied all your chips, hardware and software, and started manufacturing a hardware Mediastation at a fraction of the price of your keyboard, would you THEN still be in favor of 'cloning'?

Why always drag in the Chinese? Copying goes on right in your own backyard. Alas, no one likes to point the accusing finger at themselves.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_software) Take a look...

Diki, why not send a letter of protest to the government agencies that have spies all over the world and steal technology they haven't paid for. Then again, spying is a two-edged sword so there are neither saints nor sinners.

Diki, you've NEVER done anything illegal EVER? You've NEVER downloaded styles from any website without questioning their legality? And why have you never spoken out against the sharing of styles on this forum and the Roland forum or all the other fora you frequent? Isn't this just about your personal crusade against Lionstracs?

You know what's worse? When companies like Nike use child labor or pay adults barely enough for them or their families to survive on and then sell their products at a price that would feed such a family for a year. Oh right, it's not happening at home so why care.

Chas, thanks for being the voice of reason and making us all look and feel human.

Taike

Wow what a discussion.
Just a few observations.
Its amazing that some of the people who did not like Dom and the mediastation from the start and who could not understand the concept of the mediastation and felt the mediastation is a nothing in the keyboard industry, now feel that with this old-new feature (sampling of existing sounds) that the meadiastation could give the big keyboard manufacturers a run for their money.
Which leads me to believe that the concerns voiced were not really genuine but a smoke screen for their dislike for Dom and the mediastation.

Also, the �moral� argument that it is OK to sample freely an acoustic instrument (piano sax �) but not an electronic one (T2 G70 keyboard �) is absurd and contradictory when the desired effect is the same.

1. When a keyboard company samples a piano and put that sound in the keyboard what they are telling you is �don�t buy a real piano, sax � buy our keyboard that has the sound of a piano, sax � and the keyboard can do many more things than just having a piano or sax � by them self�. I am sure that had an effect on sales of acoustic instruments but they are still making them.

2. When the mediastation samples a T2 G70 � and put it in their keyboard, they are saying �don�t by a T2, G70 � buy our sampled sound-set of the T2 G70 that can play in our mediastation which can do more things than what a T2 G70 � can do by themselves�. This could lead to reduction in sales of T2 G70 �.

They, 1 and 2, are both the same concept and on the surface it looks like the result would be the same. However, I do believe that sound designers have an advantage over makers of acoustic instruments in that sound designers� work is ubiquitous.


If you are still unsure about the concept, it is the same concept that persons who gig with acoustic instruments make against electronic musicians and arranger players.

They argue that electronic musicians and arranger players are using samples of acoustic instruments and gigging with them and cutting out the acoustic instrument players from gigs.

So before we go on our �moral� high-horse, lets think about how we are doing the same thing. It is only because some people are on the receiving end of the stick they see the bad side to what they have been doing.

I don't think you understand the difference at all between sampling VS re-sampling.

SAMPLING
To sample a real piano requires a rather large investment of time and money. Sound engineers, studio time, large setups, and expensive hardware to do the recording and mastering.

All this time and effort costs money, and so recordings made on the day are copyrighted. They are NOT made free though public domain.

RESAMPLING
Resamping happens here when someone takes a Tyros 2 and tries to extract Yamaha recordings out of the instrument. The very same samples that Yamaha spent all the time and money recording, and which they also copyrighted.

All the other issues you mentioned don't have any grounds if you understand what is being said here.

Kind Regards.
James.

Actually I very much understand the difference between �sampling� and �resampling�.
But your response only goes to prove my point that it is not a �moral� issue that is what is right or wrong. But it is an issue of money disguised in arguments of right and wrong, steeling and the likes.

To make a real piano takes a large investment of time, money, materials and so on. Now here comes Yamaha Roland, Gem, Ketron, Giga sampler �. Samples that piano for a fraction of the cost it took to R and D and manufacturer that piano. Then they include that piano in their own instrument which gives the users more capabilities and thus more users buy the electronic instrument rather than the original piano.

Sound familiar? The concept is the same when we apply it to 2007 technology.

If you think in terms of concept rather than money and technology, you would see the relationship.


When Yamaha samples the sounds of a piano it is a watered down version of an acoustic piano. When mediastation samples (or as the industry wants to call it resamples) the sounds of a T2, it is a watered down version of a T2.

And the fact still remains that when you buy an electronic keyboard with a piano sound you are not getting an actual piano. Likewise, when you buy mediastation�s library of a T2, you are not getting an actual T2.

Yamaha have still taken alot of time and spent alot of money to sample the sounds from an acoustic instrument.

They have created a digital sample of this instrument to sell in their keyboards...

Lionstracs have gone and sampled Yamahas work and basically cut out all the labor and legal crap that Yamaha have had to do.

I believe they should do what Yamaha have done and create the samples themselves... not wait for a manufacturer like Yamaha or Roland to do all the work and then just take it from them.

Genesys, OK, let's take the money out of it, like you want. Yeah right, how can you do that? IF you created a sample set, hired a drummer with a fantastic kit, expensive mikes, preamps, digital recording equipment, and created a sample set of drums to sell, wouldn't you hope to sell a few copies of it? Well, let's say you sell it for $200. I am one of your first customers, and I just take it and decide I'm going to copy it and sell it for $50. Actually, why copy it? Why not just frickin sell it as is for $50, I mean, if I can pirate the sounds, I surely should be able to pirate the programming without you having a fit. Right? So now I sell it at $50 on my site, and it's your work. Great idea eh?

soundwaves are as free as the sun!!

i think what you will find IS copyrighted is the rom chips (which are proprietary) not the sound waves coming out the speaker

yeh no worries... so you can go and record 20 songs - Michael jackson, Elvis presely etc etc from your speaker output, put them into a nice looking CD and sell thousands of copies and make a shit load of profit...

and thats not illegal?? just because u recorded 'sound waves' ?? what a load of absolute CRAP



[This message has been edited by Nick G (edited 07-03-2007).]

@abacus,
thank you bill for pointing out some things for me. i DO like the concept, and i believe this might be the future way to go (i say might, because if roland for instance - a closed system - comes up with huge rom memory, great sounds and great tools to edit and save user's sounds, style, etc. i don't see why i would absolutelly need more and more and more new sounds or features as an open-system would offer me.)

@discussion,
i wonder doesn't yamaha, korg, roland etc. pay some money to the right companies/people/manufacturers in order to sample their sounds/instruments? do they?
and about the particular case in discussion, why doesn't roland or yamaha do anything about it? maybe they DO benefit somehow...?

Uh, Nick...you might want to reread this. ;p



[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 07-04-2007).]

keep your shirt on nick, i was only making a comment re the sound of a single instrument not a complete song recording, in the same way i made a comment ages ago on this topic, about the recording of a gibson guitar sound, others have made similar comparisons with a steinway piano, and NO they are not ALL modelled as others have claimed some are samples too, so should someone using a sample of a steinway pay a fee to the steinway company in new york for using it???..man you gotta chill...i am all for the protection of copyright, but some of this thread including your comments are just going way over...

to the genesys .

I feel like slapping my head off a wall after reading your reply. I mentioned you didn't understand the difference, and you couldn't have proven my point better.

Your unable to see the difference completely from sampling a real instrument VS sampling someone else's recordings.

One is wrong. But to you they are both the same.

Regards.
James.

exactly james...and this is my position as well..anyone is quite entitled to use a sample of any instrument made by themselves..BUT if someone else has sampled the sound, be it the twang of an elastic band or a full grand piano, then that person is entitled to compensation, and at the very least the person using the sample should ask for permission...using a third party sample is akin to using a third party song file.
dennis

further, imo, when you buy a synth, all you "own" is the hardware...all the software, including rom chips, sound samples, drum rhythms etc etc, are really only under licence, to be used in the creation of your OWN projects...and i believe the likes of yamaha, korg, roland et al, are granting this "tacit" licence with the purchase of their hardware.
dennis

Miden fair enough you are on the same kind of opinion of what i am about all this but... I should have re written that comment i posted because it does sound harsh lol but i was more or less kinda laughing at it because it sounded so fundamental...

seriously - its ok to copy it because it comes out of speakers as 'sound waves'... thats what really made me laugh

And there is another aspect of resampling keyboard sounds that no-one has mentioned.

Simply sampling the final output of a complex multisampled instrument consisting of layered samples most of the time will never compare with the original hardware. Sure it may sound ok but it will never have the same dynamics. Layered sampled sets eg consisting of attack samples, resonant samples and maybe even multiple sustain samples plus samples that switch based on velocity can have independant ADSR, filters and velocity response so the sound responds to your playing style can't be captured accurately by simply sampling the overall output.

If I like the way a keyboard sounds and responds to my playing style then I'd always choose the original hardware. Any sampled copy will always be a second rate imitation.

And there is another aspect of resampling keyboard sounds that no-one has mentioned.

Simply sampling the final output of a complex multisampled instrument consisting of layered samples most of the time will never compare with the original hardware. Sure it may sound ok but it will never have the same dynamics. Layered sampled sets eg consisting of attack samples, resonant samples and maybe even multiple sustain samples plus samples that switch based on velocity can have independant ADSR, filters and velocity response so the sound responds to your playing style can't be captured accurately by simply sampling the overall output.

If I like the way a keyboard sounds and responds to my playing style then I'd always choose the original hardware. Any sampled copy will always be a second rate imitation.


RIGHT, this is the basic aspect of the resampling that I had try to explain.

After you "resampling" one Musical instruments ( keyboards too) you can NEVER reproduce autentically the original sounds, this just because WE sampling the sounds BUT we can NOT then reproduce the all realtime filters, SA articulation, modelling that the original instrument have implemented.

Gigastudio have a lot of this features BUT try to insert this all features, same layer velocity, switch, SA articulation need a LOT of time and at the end will be never CLONED identical like the original.

The BIG problem of this 3 big brands is the ROM/FLASH soundbank, some are limited to 32Mb, others to 64Mb, 128Mb and some up to 300-400Mb ROM set.
For developing 800-1000 sounds ( like the E-80) and store it inside 128Mb flash, you can understand how much work they must have, reduce the sampe less as possible, mono version, 16 or 32Khz bandwich.. ( i get the same problem when we try to fit the all GM sounds under the Dream chip and you can not believe how many shitty trick we have to use for reduce the sounds in some Kb...)

Maybe is this the BIG work that James try to explain here and for that they try to protect.

After you connect the line OUT to the PC Line IN and record the sounds, the new sound created will be totally different from the original.

Under Gigastudio/Extreme sample converter , we DO NOT care what is the output file size, because under Mediastation with the Linuxsampler, we can loading one giga sounds of 100-150Mb in less than 0.5 second.
Giga sounds with about 30-50Mb in less than 0.2 seconds.
Sometime you lose more time to press the key and return to play the keyboard that the giga sounds is already loaded!

How James sayd, sample system is available from 80'..
Tyros 2 have now 1Gb ram, you can also load the 886Mb of the Piano offered..BUT how many hours do you have waitng untill the sounds is ready to play?
Seem happen to others embedded keyboards too, dont worry.
This is the BASIC embedded SAMPLER problem for the all others keyboards, including the Wersi, because they still use the AKAI format and they have to load in RAM first.

Streaming system is a totally new generation Sampling, where Untill under Windows ( Kontact/Gigastudio) for loading 100-200Mb chace layering sample you still need 10-20 seconds, under Mediastation, Linux OS we make the same in just 1-2 seconds and latency fixed to 2.9ms!

For this now for the MS is available about 22Gb of giga library...where the other can store this all sounds??
When they will start to streaming samples, they have to start to use PC system, after they have to value what to do, BUY windows license and Streaming sampler engine OR devepoe again from scratch the streaming engine? ( this mean YEARS of work)


Ok..we return back to the copy issue...

At the end, we are allowed to sampling the all what we like, because IF 8 but only IF) the big 3 will try to make a TRUE comparation legally, they will find ONLY a second Hand sampled sounds and NEVER the original.
If you will proceed legally, you have to PROBE " 1 to 1" that the RAW sample is the same, BUT, where the original RAW sample is about 1-2Mb max, why then under GIGA format we have 100-200Mb for the same sounds?
Are they then TOTALLY the same to compare legally?
You will LOSE all before you start..
Maybe for that, that untill today ( in this last 4 years ) we do NOT get 1 call, Email, Fax, letter?
Maybe they know that they can do really nothing??
We will see when the all others GIGA library are ready to download and when our custumers can FREE choose what to download for reproduce ( partially of course) the all other keyboards/synths available, without PAY nothing.
Of course IF you feel that is not legally to download for FREE this all sounds, just dont download it and play the only sounds that you like.

If i hire a video tape from the video store...

make copies of it onto other blank videos and sell it for profit...

these copies technically are not the same quality as the original because of all the dubbing... does this make it legal??

perhaps there are different laws for 'dubbing' keyboard samples and selling them because they are technically not the same quality as the original samples...

please excuse my ignorance.. i dont mean to make it sound so silly but the concept of my story does flow with what is being debated here...

i think the big three didn't do anything because either:
1. they benefit from the situation... (how? - i don't know, or let you think)
2. they know their systems are (still) better.
3. you are too small for them to care.

I think that slowly people are coming to understand the point I am making.
People are beginning to see I am talking about a concept not just the narrow point of sampling v. resampling.
It is really not a question of sampling v, resampling as some people would have you believe or right v. wrong, or good v. bad but a question of money.

The keyboard manufacturers probably are not doing anything right now because like Nigel and I were trying to explain to every one, a sampling (industry talk resampling) of a T2 is not a T2. The result of the sound is not the same as the actual sounds on the T2 (all the nuances). The features on the instrument that is playing the sampled sounds of the T2 is not the same as the actual T2. It is the same CONCEPT with a real piano and a sample on a keyboard.

To those of you who are not quite understanding the CONCEPT I am talking about, take for example some one who is a true piano player and fanatic. They may like the idea of having a sampled piano on a keyboard, but they know that it doesn�t even come close to playing a real piano.

When you play a keyboard that just have a sampled piano, you are just playing selected parts of the sound of a real piano (that is just what the keyboard manufacturer could capture). Now, when you play a real piano, it is a totally different experience. The actual sound and all its nuances, physical construction and just the experience of playing such an instrument can not be captured in a sample of that piano.


Likewise, when you play a mediastation that just have samples sounds of a T2, you are just playing selected parts of the sounds of a real T2 (that is just what the mediastation could capture). Now, when you play a real T2, it is a totally different experience. The actual sounds and all their nuances, the integration of sounds and styles, physical construction and just the experience of playing such an instrument can not be captured in a sample of that T2.

I would be very surprised if Yamaha takes a stand based on a �moral� position that it is wrong to sample (industry name resample) their T2 since CONCEPTUALLY they have been doing the same thing with sample original acoustic instruments. They would assess the situation and see if it hurts them financially now and in the future.

Maybe Lionstracs have run out of ideas themselves for the Mediastation and this is why they are sampling other manufacturers sounds?

I suppose if we don't see Yamaha complaining or filing a copyright case against Lionstracs then what Dom is doing is certainly all above board and if it manages to sell him some instruments then you can't blame him for going down this route.

Hi Lionstracs
1. Disc streaming and Giga sampler is not new technology, it came out in the late 90s early 2000s.
2. Wersi has had the option to use Gigasamples since OAS 4, (2002) however it only came standard with the Giga Piano, as most customers preferred to use the disc streaming technology of Steinberg and Native Instruments.
3. Sample loading time in a PC is not determined by the OS, but by the speed at which the hard disk can transfer the data.
4. Disc streaming does not play the whole sound off the hard disk, part of it is loaded into ram so that when you press a key it plays the part in ram first, giving the hard disk time to supply the rest of the sample.
5. If you look at the music software industry you will find that it is slowly moving away from sampling and moving towards sound modelling. (Due to increasing computer power)

Hi Adimatis
1. All the Rom, Ram and hard disks included with hardware instruments come from the computer industry, (Keyboard manufactures do not make any of their own) however as it takes between 2 � 3 yrs to develop a new board (The hardware is finalised first) the technology used in them will always be old. (This is the reason the T2 only has USB 1 and uses PC100 Ram, as this was the most common at the time)
2. Try playing a Graded Hammer Action Keyboard controlling a sampled piano VST like Ivory, NI Acoustic Piano etc, and then say samples cannot produce the interactions of a genuine piano. (The reason the samples are large (2-3 GB) is because the nuances you mention are also sampled.
3. Sound modelled pianos are now starting to become available, which means that instead of actually recording the sound in a sample, the sound is produced in the same way as a real piano, the main difference being that in a real piano the sound is produced by strings, whereas in a computer it is produced by virtual strings. (Therefore a large amount of memory is not required, just a fast CPU)
Hope the above clarifies a few things
Enjoy whatever you play

Bill

And, once again, everyone ignores the quantum leap of OK, it MIGHT be OK to sample a FEW Roland sounds (as long as you edit them to be different from the presets), but what is happening here is the EXACT cloning (or as close as they can make it) of the ENTIRE ROM sounds of an instrument...

This isn't the minor pilfering of a few sounds, this is the outright theft of the ENTIRE keyboard's soundset.

And the motive for this? Profit...

Dom is not offering to pay Yamaha or Roland a licensing fee for the use of those sounds, as any business operator is obliged. He wants free and unfettered access to ALL of Yamaha's work and intellectual property because he is unable to compete on a level playing field. His own, self-developed sounds and styles have proven hugely inadequate in the marketplace, and to avoid costly R&D, he proposes stealing the work of his legitimate competitor.

I am utterly amazed not one of you gets this...

This isn't Robin Hood, this is one corporation stealing from another.

Just a few other points we may be overlooking.

What Dom is doing is not any thing new conceptually. It has being going on in the industry for at least the past 40 years.

Also, remember Dom is not taking out all the sounds from the mediastation and replacing them with just the T2 sounds it is only an optional addition to what is already on the mediastation.

Yes, totally right!
We will only ADD more new sounds inside the Gigalibrary folder. Now we have about 22.000 Mb of giga sounds.

Just for make DIKI happy, in the next day continue looking our webpage, because there you will find another new GIGA T2, Volume 2, with another 230 sounds, for a total of 391 T2 sounds.
We dont need to sample the all remain sounds because are not interesting, to much old.

Then slow slow we start to make ( always one part) the all new library of the others keyboards, just for expanding the field...

Maybe the MS is not complete for the styles set, but seem now more interesting like a Sampling keyboards...

Maybe under this view you will be not so jerks and leave us working more in quite.

Enjoy what you play.

sorry, maybe it's just me, but i feel quite alot of arrogance and almost impudence in your aproach.
nothing personal, but... poor attitude.
i'll leave you now with your... work.

Wow, what a discussion in such short time. I think we had this discussion years ago already on this BBS

In my opinion music copyright and software copyright are mixed here.

Due to the discussion we had years ago I asked that time our dutch organisation (BUMA/STEMRA)their opinion. Don't forget they work worldwide with the other countries organisations and usually have more or less the same laws and regulations.

Their answer that time was basicly very clear.

Music copyright:
A combination of tones which are unique for a song and recognizable as that particular song exceeding 16 measures or 16 seconds.
If shorter but still very recognizable as f.i. a unique tune in an commercial it also is copyright.
So sampled loops can fall in this category!
Sampled sounds of instruments do not fall in this category.
You are not copying a tune but you are copying software.
Same with styles. There's no music copyright on standard styles. There can only be music copyright on a style if it contains a recognizable tune from a particular song.
Now why do you think styles are usually not longer as 16 measures?
Styles are protected by software laws if the raw data is exactly the same.
Same applies to samples.
This is also the reason the styleconverter software can exist.

That basicly answers most, but!
In my opinion you are not allowed to use or advertise with the name of another brand like yamaha,roland without their permission and even more call your changed sample or other changed raw data this is a T2 sample or this is a Roland sample.
In my opinion this is the same as copying a levi jean and put the brand name levi on it, while it is not a levi jean!

My 0,0002 cents
Fred

hey nick
....i guess when you put the line out by itself like that, it is kinda funny , but i was just trying to simplify what i was trying to say...i think that on the issue of this thread, we are pretty much on the same page though..
cheers
dennis

hey diki, i do...and nick does, and there a few others as well!!
dennis

Sorry, yes, I should acknowledge those of you that DO have a sense of ethics, honesty and decency.

To the rest of you, I wish all you the greatest success in the world. I hope that each and every one of you has a chart hit, or writes a tune that is covered by a very popular band. For those of you more technically minded, I hope you write one of the most popular software music programs ever, or invent the most stable keyboard stand ever, or a PA system that fits in a small suitcase.

Then I hope someone steals it, copies it and distributes it for free...

Then FINALLY, you might 'get it'....

Well, finally some one sees the point I am making. I think we are on the same page at last.


Now that we have agreed that we don�t like one person taking another person�s work or part of a work and including it in the copier�s work.

I guess we will all stop playing our arrangers and return them because they have styles that include recognizable parts of some one else�s copyrighted work. And because they have the music finder feature that set-ups the keyboard with sounds, styles and name the files that sound like some one else�s copyrighted work.

So being the �moral and ethical� people we are, I guess we will be rushing to return all our arrangers, workstations and softsynths because we would not participate in an activity that has been going on in the music instrument industry for over 40 years.

I love it! Talk about 'Anarchy in the UK'...!

So basically, you are saying there are NO possessions, NO-ONE owns ANYTHING, NO-ONE should be able to profit from their own labors, EVERYTHING should be for free...?

I'm sorry, which utopian communist country are you from?

I bet you have ALL of Marx's and Engel's books (but didn't pay for them!)

Would everybody PLEASE go back and read James' post from 7/03, 7:58 pm on this thread.

He spells out EXACTLY what is legal and illegal, under current US and international law, about sampling AND converting styles.

It's a good read, and MIGHT make some of you realize what is right and wrong. You all might also Google the 'fair use' policies of the RIAA, and copyright law in general. If you DON'T know the law, you really are not in a position to comment here on what is right and wrong, only on what you would LIKE to see (of course, NONE of you HAS any copyrighted material, so what do you care?).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I still think the closest analogy I have been able to come up with was of a club owner, restaurant manager, of old folks home director TAPING your show (maybe he videos it, to get your onstage look and show), and then using it INSTEAD of hiring YOU.

'But that would never happen', you said. 'People will ALWAYS want to hear live music' you said.

BUT WHAT IF THEY DIDN'T...?

What if they were JUST...... LIKE....... YOU?

What if they didn't care WHERE their music came from, as long as it SOUNDED the same? What if they didn't care whether the club owner had payed you for that recording, and had taken it without your permission? What if the club owner BRAGGED about video-ing your show, and said he would soon do it to ALL the acts that came to his club?

And everybody said 'What a GREAT IDEA!'

WOULD YOU CARE THEN....?

Question: Is posting songs by artists other than yourself but played by you a copyright infringement eventhough it's for non-commerical reasons?

Taike

technological advance is always a double-edged sword. it is a plain and simple fact that the development of modern
recording, starting in the 1920's, has inexorably reduced
the working opportunities for the masses of live musicians
who used to enjoy, if not social standing, at least a very
good income compared to the average person. many musicians worked tons of gigs and earned well during the great depression. there are so few jobs today compared to then, and the pay for most is sparse by comparison. on the other hand, radio and tv created lucrative jobs for many for a while, recordings provided exposure never before possible, and the ranks of mega-stars has increased dramatically and their income and status is beyond any musicians of the past's wildest dreams.

there was a man who bravely fought for the rights of the
musicians who were falling victim to technology. the name
of this moral hero was James Petrillo, head of the AFM union. In the early 40's, he instituted a "recording ban" that lasted for years. the result of this well-intentioned policy was quite the opposite of its intent--it was one of the major tragedies of our time and did more to destroy
the music business for musicians than the technological
enemy ever had.

what's my point and how does this relate to the sampling
issues raised here? just this..there seem to be clear moral issues here that are inarguable by anyone who knows right from wrong. .yet they are also clouded by the advance of technology that changes the ground rules
ever faster, and, that technology is inexorable and creates
its own standards. the Fender Rhodes didn't start out to be "that great vintage rhodes sound" It started out to be
a portable ersatz piano. then the "subsitute" became its own musical genre. The arranger kb and those that play it
started out as a way to have a portable ersatz band. Yet
all of us who really are skilled and years into it know we
can do things with it that bands can't do, it has become
a way of making music that has its own standards.

so that's how the double-edge works, and that's why
what seems to be a clear moral issue on resampling has
ramifications that are unclear, and unpredictable, and why
there are so many different points of view being expressed on this subject. we are hypocrites playing
sampled arranger keyboards, and at the same time we are
not. I don't have the answer, and neither do any of you.


------------------
Miami Mo

Technically, Taike, yes, you are supposed to get permission for ANY 'posting' of a copyrighted tune, but in practice, it only becomes a problem if it generates income, or the artist or copyright holder doesn't WANT you to post it (for whatever reason they see fit). They, as copyright holder, have certain rights, but because of the nature of the internet, unless there is a profit motive, or it does damage in some way to the copyright holder, it is seldom enforced.

A lot of the confusion on this thread comes from the fact that some companies (in fact, most) don't bother prosecuting small, private individuals for converting styles, or sampling a few keyboard sounds, because, for one thing, the litigation would cost FAR more than they could recoup, and also, as James pointed out, as long as it is an out of production arranger style, or a sound from a discontinued keyboard (no longer in a current one), the company does not stand to lose revenue from the copying (in fact, they may benefit from the publicity of it - witness the move towards Roland G70's after some of their styles got converted to Tyros!). But they are also, to varying degrees, pretty quick to insist that converted styles from their LATEST, current, in-production arranger be removed from public sites.

They rely on the exclusivity of those styles to help generate sales of the arranger that has them. Loss of that exclusivity would diminish sales.

The same goes with the SOUNDS in an arranger (or any keyboard, for that matter). As long as those sounds are exclusive to an in-production keyboard, the manufacturer relies on that exclusivity to generate sales, and by extension, the money to develop the NEXT generation of keyboards and sounds for it.

Seems pretty fair, doesn't it..?

But when a new technology comes along, that automates the tedious task of sampling EVERY single sound in a complex keyboard (THAT is what all this is about... Yes you COULD sample an entire keyboard when GIGA first came out, but it was an ENORMOUS undertaking. There are new tools now that do this automatically, at least to the point that it IS feasible, now), this interrupts that exclusivity, breaks the chain of income, and ultimately stagnates NEW sound development.

And we will ALL be the poorer for that.

Mo, that's a great post... One of the first that doesn't take a 'I want this, no matter the cost', but approaches it differently.

The thing I think is changing here, though, is not so much a change in technology, but a mere acceleration of it, and the lagging of the legal system to legislate it. It takes YEARS for the legal system, especially world-wide, to respond to new technologies, Witness how long it took to shut down Napster, and to make the free distributed work of legitimate musicians and record companies, with devastating consequences to the industry, and it's employees (including us!) illegal.

And THAT was a fairly simple, easy to understand violation of copyright!

Sampling has been around for quite a while now, and there ARE laws on the books that prevent a wholesale copying of the base ROM of a commercial keyboard (even out of production ones). But the technology to sample an entire soundset has only been around for a few years, and as I said, this was a huge undertaking, well beyond the abilities of someone that could not profit from it (it would take months of doing nothing else!), so it's occurrence went un-litigated, as no-one in their right minds would attempt such a task.!

But, within the last year or so, new automatic tools have arrived on the market that make this task not only feasible, but almost easy..! At least to the point where some shmo in Italy can CLAIM he is doing this not-for-profit (a claim I seriously doubt, considering how closely he claims he works with Dom).

But the truth of the matter is, all he is doing is something that already exists as a VERY close to illegal undertaking (you are not allowed to clone the actual ROM, but you are also supposed to 'recognizably' change the sound from the factory presets, too). But the REAL thing that has changed, the thing that legislation, if not already en point, should be RAPIDLY changed to account for, is the speed and scale of the piracy.

The music industry never worried about MP3's. They were around for a LONG time before Napster, along with simple file-sharing networks. But Napster changed the scale of distribution (and ease) by many orders of magnitude. And overnight, the music industry was faced with a challenge to respond quick enough to prevent damage. Unfortunately, the legal system took too long, the cat got out of the bag, and now the damage is done.

The keyboard industry needs to take this FAR more seriously than most of the members of THIS forum are , and jump all over this before this gets out of hand. If not, well, better get used to what you have now, because there may be a long wait for a new batch of sounds coming from Yamaha, or Roland when they know they will be cloned the day they release them...
-------------------------------------------------

Many of you have taken me to task for being so adamant about this issue. "what's on YOUR laptop?' they say.

You know, boys and girls... There MIGHT be some mp3's of songs I didn't pay for, on there.... There MIGHT even be some software that arrived from a file-sharing network.

BUT... there is no way I will ever say that it ISN'T stealing, or piracy. There is no way that I would start a business that HAD to steal to survive. There is no way that I would say, well, I have done it, so everybody should. I KNOW when I have done something wrong (and illegal). I am not proud of it. And if I thought for one minute that I, by myself, could damage an entire industry (that I claim I have friends in), I would stop immediately, say mea culpa, and never do it again.

Unlike Dom....

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 07-04-2007).]

Thank you, Diki. But, now take that they do go after the "little" guys. Take, e.g., that the artists or copyright holders find out that you've been posting songs by them on the Roland Arranger Forum or Synthzone without their permission, sue you and demand compensation. Compensation in these cases is enough to ruin most individuals as we all know. Now, you'll have two choices: pay up or fight them. But wouldn't balking at paying the fine mean that you think you had the right to post their material?

Taike

This discussion is coming full circle back to the original point that it is not a question of right v. wrong, steeling, sampling or resampling, or however one chooses to characterize what is taking place.
It is a question of MONEY.

As we all know the basic utopian legal principle that one should not take another person�s work in whole or in part and include it in one�s work with out the permission of that other person.
However, unfortunately, that is not how the world works in reality. We don�t live in a utopian world. Individual and businesses have through out the years always try to use and benefit from other persons hard labor and copyright with paying little or no compensation. That is just how the music industry is.

From a company sampling a real acoustic instrument, to another company making styles that sounds like a familiar song, and now we have some one sampling some sounds from an electronic keyboard.

To take an alarmist view that this idea of sampling (or sorry resampling) of an electronic keyboard would lead to the death of sound creation as we know it is a bit too much. People have always tried to use new technology and techniques to re invent themselves and to benefit from it.

And I still think that Yamaha is assessing all the areas of this issue and not being one sided like some of us are being. This could actually cause to increase the sales of hardware keyboards. You see
1. when you get the sounds from the sampled T2, you are not getting the real full sound you are only getting what the sampler could have captured.
2. Then how are you going to use that sound. If you don�t have the actual hardware board in the T2, and the styles of the T2 then you are not even going to come close to playing a T2. Remember these T2 sounds are going to be played on the same keyboard that most people on synth zone think is trash and is worthless.
3. It could be viewed that these sampled sounds are good demos and that the sampled sounds could encourage persons to go and get the actual hardware with the actual and ideal hardware configuration to use the sounds.

P.S If some of you are wondering why I sometimes have �resampling� in prentices, there is a difference but that is for another topic as it is not relevant for this discussion.

It is incredibly arrogant to think that on a board of seemingly intelligent, mature, and life-experienced individuals, that no one "GETS IT" but you; that there is no room for dissent or even a variation of the SAME point of view; that there is no truth other than "mine"; that if you are not 100% in lock-step with me, you're a dullard or an idiot (or at least a person of low moral character).

We all know the futility of trying to reason with a religious fanatic or trying to use logic in an argument with our wives . Once a person has decided that they are standing firmly on the moral high ground, there is scant room for any other point of view.

We all know people who are much more enamoured of the process of debate than the substance of the debate. Sometimes we call these people "devil's advocates" or something similar. I, myself, am sometimes guilty of this, but hopefully not to the point of becoming a bore (or boor).




We all know that this is horsesh.t. No way is a small operation like Dom's going to "bring down" the likes of Roland, Yamaha, and Korg. In fact, it is almost always the inovations of small companies that push the technology we see in subsequent offering by the industry giants. What we should be doing is applauding Dom (and other foward-thinking small companies) for pushing the boundaries of arranger technology and forcing the "big three" to rethink their current philosopy of built-in obsolesence and rehashing and re-releasing the same old garbage with a new model number and one or two (dated) extra features. Who gives a crap about stealing from a keyboard still utilizing USB 1.1. JMHO.

chas

Amen to that!

very interesting points there Chas...

at this stage the MS really wouldn't be a threat for the big 3 to be going out of business as Diki has stated so it doesn't seem that bad BUT we cant say "its okay" just because its one small company.

who knows - maybe in 6 months time there might be another 4 companies that are producing keyboards like the MS that rip all the sounds onto their hardware. this is where we could have a big problem...

Nick, if what Dom's doing is illegal than so is posting someone else's work online...for profit or not. Or are some above the law?

Taike



[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 07-05-2007).]

I am not saying its illegal or legal (Diki can probably tell you that .

I am just talking about an issue of morality and what seems to be labeled as right or wrong and its impacts on the industry...

How can you applaud anyone small or large for stealing someone elses work ????????????? What in the world is going on here ????

Yes there are plenty of grey issues but lets not go to the nth degree to find them !! Literally taking someone elses sounds , replicating them in virtually every detail and then selling them as your own without permission is theft . Can anyone tell me if this is a grey area ????

If you dont think that piracy isnt damaging to the music industry or any industry please research for yourselves the impact upon the loss in company profits , loss of jobs within that company, loss of suppliers to that company and therefore their jobs, reduced product developement because of the risk of piracy, increased costs in product developement etc.

IP theft doesnt just affect the creator of the work. It affects everyone that the creator supplies and supports and every industry that relies upon their work.

The onlything innovative that i can tell that has been brought to the table is the technology used to steal someone elses work.

Sorry Chas. Most times i can get where you are coming from but i cant applaud this.

No problem. At least you're a gentleman in you dissent and present a reasonable argument.

I don't applaud piracy either. I just think the enormity of this issue might be just a teensy weensy bit overhyped (and mostly for the sake of argument rather than genuine outrage). There are thousands of similar offenses in the music industry that have equal or greater (negative) impact but I don't hear any hue and cry about those. Could it be because they serve our own individual interest?

This has been an interesting thread dealing with something that has probably already been done to death on countless other threads. In the end, everyone goes home with their own take on it anyway. But it does give those super intelligent, highly articulate, persons of impeccable character, among us, a platform...and I guess that's a good thing.

chas

Not one single comment about my analogy of the pirated performance of YOUR work (playing an arranger in front of a PAYING crowd)

Little harder to defend when it's either yourself, or a friend, who would ACTUALLY suffers from it....

Some of you spend FAR more time attacking my TONE, rather than the content of my posts. Maybe I should turn off my inline spell checker, forget about grammar, and write as if I were talking..?

Somehow, magically, you don't seem to have a problem when the law IS spelled out and beyond a doubt. A man breaks into YOUR house, and takes your arranger... it's theft, isn't it? A man breaks into your place of work, and steals the tools you work with, it's theft, isn't it? A man rips your hit CD, and posts those tunes for anyone to get for free, that's theft, isn't it? (copyright infringement is a form of theft of intellectual property - YOU wrote those songs, YOU payed tens of thousands to have them recorded, YOU spent millions pressing them, getting distribution, and promoting them).

This is no different. Somebody just broke into a T2, and stole Yamaha's intellectual property. And though the law may lag a little the technology to commit the crime, the INTENT of the law is already clear... You are not supposed to sample a keyboard's ROM sounds or presets (not just SUPPOSED, it IS illegal). You are supposed to make it unique and your OWN work (distinguishable from the factory sounds) before it is legitimate.

Saying that it is not a PERFECT copy of a T2 makes it OK is absurd. MP3's are not a PERFECT copy of a CD, yet publicly posting MP3's of a copyrighted work is still illegal.

This is all so childish. A kid you know just broke into the candy store, stole everything, and now he is handing out lollipops. And most of you don't see anything wrong with it...

I don't know, chas. I am right now reading the posts of those very people (that think this is OK). What part of 'getting it' have they got? (And I DID apologize for my no-one' comment. I should have said 'virtually no-one'. Happy now? Am I less arrogant?)

The folk that post that this is wrong 'get it'. And, IMO, the people that don't, DON'T.

There really isn't much grey area here. Either theft of intellectual property is wrong, or it isn't. The law seems firmly on the side of it being wrong, but slow, as always, to respond to rapid changes of technology.

And anyone here that DOES have any intellectual property, when faced with it's theft will tell you it's wrong. What kind of empathy are we showing to those?

'As long as I can get away with it (even for a short time) it's OK'??

A closer analogy would be "a kid broke into WALMART, stole some candy, and now the entire chain has gone belly-up".

Is it wrong for the kid to steal a few lollipops from Walmart? Of course. Is it going to bring Walmart to it's knees? Doubtful. Now if you want to know if the kid is gonna go to heaven after doing such a dastardly deed, it's hard to say.

chas

Extend the analogy Chas. That kid steals a lollipop and boast about the fact that he can get away with it to his friends.His petty theft is ignored by the store manager as it is negligble in relation to the stores weekly takings. Pretty soon more errant kids go to walmart and steal lollipops, candy and chocolate. They dont get punished either and realise that they can get away with other stuff too and are almost encouraged to get bigger and bigger ticket price goods by the lack of resistance by the store management.The store manager sees the stores takings going down when his bosses sales targets are going up. In order to stem the tide,he employs security and installs security cameras. The cost is covered by the increase in price of goods legitimately bought and sold. The theft stops because of the security measures but the costs of ongoing security continues to prevent the threat of more theft.

What was the price for ignoring a few stollen lolipops and who paid it and will continue to pay for it long after the kids move on to yet another store ........

[This message has been edited by Spalding1 (edited 07-05-2007).]

Diki, did you get permission from the copyright holders for posting the following songs (there may be more):

-Friend of the Devil (The Grateful Dead)
-I Can See Clearly Now

So haven't you done what you're now so vehemently condoning? You took someone else's work without permission and made it yours. And yet here you and others are on a witch hunt, a personal crusade against Dom (Lionstracs).

Just like Chas I'm getting tired of "GET IT?" It's demeaning. Maybe I should start posting in Chinese or a couple of other languages and see if you get it. Diki, I remember you having posted several times that we should use the kind of language we'd use with our mothers. Well, I'm sure glad I am not yours. But once again, you don't seem to follow your own advice. I just don't GET IT.

Taike

What part of this wasn't clear...? My posting of these tunes generated NO income, and barely damaged anything (other than my vocal chords!).

However, my duo DOES have a CD for sale of us playing live, we sell it on the gig. Each and every tune on that CD is cleared with the copyright holders, and we pay a fee to the rights societies for the use of those tunes....

That is the law.

Whether they generate income or not...it's not permissible. That's the law! Barely damaged anything...?

Taike
T

if that really is the law then we are living in a sad little world...

how can making a cover song and posting it on the internet for others to see be illegal?

I posted my Tyros 2 rendition of Cavatina which was written by John Williams on the Internet. made ZERO profit out of it (didn't intend to)and you are saying thats "not permissible?".

are you getting these facts from a rule book or you are assuming?

Nick

Has anyone been reading these posts...?

It has already been stated that clubs and restaurants pay a fee to the rights holders (a blanket fee that is shared amongst all copyright holders on a sliding scale) for live music to be played in their establishments. So you can perform a cover tune out in public without breaking any laws.

Secondly, there are different laws and rights concerning LIVE performance, and recorded works.

And thirdly, as I said, the degree of enforcement is up to the rights societies, and copyright holders. It is a fact that they don't usually restrict people from doing what I and many (including you?) here at SZ do every day. Posting a recording of a cover of a tune on an obscure little forum for arranger users, for no other reason than to show each other their style or work, is of no concern to the copyright holder. But as I said, they DO haver the right to request it be removed if they so choose. And if they did, I would have no problem with compliance.

And once again, everybody (sorry, I should say just the few of you left with some kind of mission to find Dom's actions defensible by any means necessary) are still ignoring the scale of what is happening. Me posting a cover of an obscure Grateful Dead tune on an obscure forum has NOTHING in common with a keyboard manufacturer colluding with another individual to steal the legally copyrighted soundset IN IT'S ENTIRETY (or close enough that it doesn't matter) and the styles of a competitor's product, because his are not competitive.

Putting up the entire Grateful Dead catalog on MP3's for free is FAR closer to the equivalent. And that is illegal.

Period.

I am now done with this topic. Those of you that remain firmly unconvinced that Dom's actions are wrong (and quite possibly illegal) have past the point of any reasoning. Many of us have pointed out the absurdities of your positions, yet you remain adamant. So be it.

As I said earlier, I can only pray that you have sufficient success that when this happens to you, you remember this thread, and your comments. How could you be angry at a thief of YOUR property, when you condoned his theft of another's?

Taike you edited out Diki's statement


Was there a reason you did that because I think it answers the stament you make.

Originally posted by Taike:
Whether they generate income or not...it's not permissible. That's the law! Barely damaged anything...?
Taike

It wasn't posted as a quote nor meant as one, Nigel. I merely repeated what Diki wrote in my own words. Posting songs without permission from the copyright holder and bringing out a CD where dues have been paid are two entirely different matters.

I thought that I'd posted the following but perhaps it didn't go through or the post had been deleted:

Excerpt from: http://www.mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/faq

Do I need permission to make an arrangement or transcription?
If an arrangement is made of a copyrighted work without the authorization of the copyright owner, the arrangement would be an unauthorized derivative work and therefore an infringement of the copyright and the exclusive right of the copyright owner. The first thing to do when you want to make an arrangement is check if the work is in the public domain or if it is protected by copyright. If the work is protected by copyright, you cannot make an arangement without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html

Excerpt from: http://www.hinshawmusic.com/copyright.html#anchor27487 (

""We do not need a performance license because this performance is sponsored by a non-profit group." Even non-profits need to obtain a license for certain "non-exempt" performances. "

This is for Nick: http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/copyright.shtml



[This message has been edited by Taike (edited 07-06-2007).]

I am always amazed at how some people try to legitimize their illegal actions. While mischaracterizing the issue at hand.

Diki posted: �Posting a recording of a cover of a tune on an obscure little forum for arranger users, for no other reason than to show each other their style or work, is of no concern to the copyright holder. But as I said, they DO haver the right to request
it be removed if they so choose. And if they did, I would have no problem with compliance.�
Notice in that post in describing his actions, we did not see the words �steeling�, �legally copyrighted� or �colluding�. We saw words aimed at softening and legitimizing the action by using �obscure little forum�.

Then he describes Dom�s actions as: �keyboard manufacturer colluding with another individual to steal the legally copyrighted soundset IN IT'S ENTIRETY (or close enough that it doesn't matter)
and the styles of a competitor's product, because his are not competitive.�

In that excerpt, We can see the change of tone by the words used and the mischaracterization of what Dom is doing and what the mediastation is.

I am not saying whether what Dom is doing is right or wrong legal or illegal, but I think it would be wise of us, in order to have this discussion to understand what is being done and not being done.

1. Dom is taking only selected sounds (not all of the sounds from the T2) from the T2 and making them playable in the mediastation.
2. All the nuances and the specific articulations of each sound are not going to be there when you play them in the mediastation.
3. The sounds are not replacing the onboard sounds of the mediastation.

I think that some of the misconceptions stem from the fact that some people on the forum still don�t understand the concept of the mediastation. They are still thinking in terms of a closed keyboard system like the BIG 3 and their business model.
A statement like �his are not competitive� demonstrates this.

I think it is disingenuous when copyright holders conveniently characterize a new and cutting edge technology technique or business venture as �steeling� �illegal� and �wrong� when they are not the ones doing the actions. But when they are the ones doing the actions i.e. the original samplers of acoustic instruments, it was right, legal and not steeling.

Lets face it the music industry is such that most persons are trying to benefit as much as they can from other�s work. We are always trying to push the envelope to see how much we can do with out going through a lot of expenses.

I don�t think any of us as arranger players can get on our moral high-horse and make it sound like we do everything to be just to everyone else in the industry. By playing arrangers, we are intentionally cutting out lots of other persons from working. Why because we want to make more money. Instead of playing in a band with other instrumentalist, we use and arranger that has samples of those instruments, technology that causes those instruments to play by them selves by us pressing a chords (styles) and some of you all don�t make your own styles. And I could have used harsh words (like how some people use the word steel) to describe what I just said I could have said we cheat by using arrangers and that you all are too lazy and incompetent to make your own styles (but I am not going to say it like that).

Big companies in the music industry are usually adverse to new technology if they are not the ones controlling it. They make the little people argue their points using the �moral� argument but they know they are only concerned with one thing, MONEY. As long as they are making all the MONEY, they are really not concerns who they have to hurt to do so. I would not be surprised if Yamaha or some other company would be trying to buy out the person or persons that have the technology to get the T2 sounds to another format. We will just have to wait and see how this all plays out because we don�t know where Yamaha or other keyboard companies are going with their newer keyboard technology.

SONGRAMP (the largest song-posting site) doesn't allow it, so SOMEBODY must be concerned about it.



As soon as you use the word "scale", you seem to imply that a "little" theft is ok (especially if you're the one doing it) but a "big" one is not. So I guess size DOES matter .



Whoops, there's that arrogance again. I guess any position that differs from yours is absurd.



In light of the above, sounds a little hypocritical to me. I say "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" .

chas (who, so far, has never been in a position to "cast the first stone")

We are not cutting out other people from working unless we are going into a place that has bands and saying: hey
why pay all those guys when I can make the same music
for the price of one. in my experience that is not what is
happening, and if a place hires an omb to replace a band,
that means the band had little impact, because no way
an omb will have the same kind of impact or be as strong
an attraction as a good band would. It's just that today's
economics and musical tastes increasingly preclude the hiring of bands as a viable option, so the deejay, the
kjay, the omb have filled the gap. we are able to work
as live entertainers because we are economic for smaller
venues and events. what does amaze me, however, is the
number of you that say they work as omb's to 100-250
people. I don't really understand that at all, unless the
venue or sponsor finds the omb, for some reason musically preferable to a band. But we can hardly blame
the practioner of what technology has provided for the
fallout that comes from technological advance. A couple
of years ago i hired a pianist to work duo with me on a
gig..i played sax , sang, and used my kb for vibes solos..
i hit the bossa rhythm bass/drum backing on one tune
and the pianist got up in a huff and said.." i know too many good drummers out of work for me to consent to
play with a machine" I thought he was misguided. Do You?

------------------
Miami Mo

Mo, answering in any meaningful way would send this thread in yet another direction. Would this be a hijack of a hijack? In any case, in answer to your question, who knows, let's ask Diki .

chas

right you are,chas, so nobody else answer this here..
i started it as a new thread.."moral q...etc



------------------
Miami Mo

Before we forget totally this topic, some update here: http://www.spectrasonics.net/instruments/atmos_gear.html

Found this from Korgforums: http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=180498&sid=2232bb2689e528b0f30103ad3774cecc

Regards