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.