Finally some one sees that sampling affects Acoustic instruments. People don�t seem to realize that a lot of hard work and money went in to creating an acoustic instrument that has a particular sound.
Most people think that an acoustic instrument maker should not have any protection.


But the company that samples an acoustic instrument should get protection and not have to pay the acoustic instrument maker.

And the company that clones the samples should not have protection but should pay the instrument maker.

Where is the fairness and consistency in this?

I disagree. I think we ALL know that it takes years (still does) to make a decent acoustic instrument. And that people DO benefit from re-creating that sound via sampling.

And I knew what you were alluding to in your post re no-one raising the "counter-point".

And who knows MAYBE all the companies that have sampled these keyboards HAVE paid some sort of fee, maybe they bought the instrument. (Although in the case of Yamaha, they actually make the acoustic pianos in the first place )

So does buying the actual instrument give one a licence to then freely sample the sound of that instrument, to distribute or do with as they will?

And if you agree with that, you MUST ergo agree that it is acceptable should one buy a Motif keyboard, for example. Sample the sound it produces and then sell or give away that sampling.

Because I know industry people out here that DO sample acoustic instruments and then use the samples in projects, that they then sell.

Look, there is no clear answer here on this issue. You get the self-righteous, and then you get the pragmatists. Idealists and realists are at opposite ends and usually never meet.

And I would hazard a guess that NO-ONE on this forum has not received some benefit from, or been given, shared software, music, styles, samples, whatever.

So in principle, no-one here is truly qualified to take any high ground moral superiority over anyone else.

Dennis,

but who first made the piano is the one that should be protected by copyright and not yamaha that make a copy from first piano.
but you can copyright the songs you made with yamaha piano.

I have explained in my post,

Other examples:

You can copyright what you write or draw with a pencil, but you Can not copyright the pencil itself.

so hardware music instruments sounds are just like a pencil.

hardware music instruments sound=real music instruments sound, analog synths sound, digital music instumrnts sound(digital is simple a copy from real instruments and analog synth but not a new music intrument).




[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-07-2010).]

Yes I agree AFG, up to a point, but I tend to be in the pragmatic, or realists camp when it comes to this issue.

Going on that principle, whoever first came up with the recipe for scones, should also get a fee from anyone in the world who follows that recipe for making them.

And a personal recipe is a creation of one person, much the same as software, or a sample is.

I could go on with many more examples, silly? ABSOLUTELY!!! yes I know, but that is the underlying principle of the argument.

Further, again following the principle espoused by a few here, anything, anywhere, created by a human should be protected, and the creator and their descendants receive ongoing royalty payments.

That is why I call this a ridiculous argument. But people only want to see their own self-righteous views.

I can TOTALLY understand, again up to a point, where TTG, and Diki and others are coming from with their arguments on this.
And they do argue their views with passion, but its a totally impractical position to take in my view, for reasons I have already mentioned in other posts.

But hey, if it makes them feel better about themselves to think they believe (and PRACTICE!! this philosophy) in this, who am I to say different

Dennis

I WANT IT!

on the spectronic site it says :

"The company innovated right from the beginning: In 1994, Spectrasonics was the first sample developer to guarantee its products as 100% "Copyright Clean."

Perhaps thats why they were abe to use the instruments in the above list. just an idea
http://www.spectrasonics.net/companyinfo/about-spectra.php

http://www.alankorn.com/articles/sampling.html
http://www.alankorn.com/articles.html
http://www.musicbizadvice.com/What%20siz...a%20license.htm

------------------
Bo pen nyang.

All articles are about song sampling, but not about instruments sounds sampling.

Sampling of a song you break copyright if you do not have permession from source, because you scan someone else's creation.

but with sound sampling from sample based hardware music instument, the sound is not creation of sample company, but a scan from real instruments or analog synth sound,

so the source is not sample company but real instruments and analog synth makers.

These are the sounds and not songs.

I give an example,

I'm going to record English alphabet letters and characters on a tape, or better i make a sample based instrument with English alphabet letters and characters as a sound,

then you have no right to using the letters and characters any more becouse as you begin to speak you are using my sound!?!?!?!?

is better or not to see instruments sounds like alphabet which you can use to make words and sentences(songs).

harware music instrument sounds= scan of a realinstruments sounds,analog synth sounds,other hardware music instument sounds

so sample based hardware music instumrnt sounds is not a new music instrument but a digital copy of other sounds.

why on source(realinstruments sounds,analog synth sounds) not copyright but on digital instruments sound copyright????????????

music instrumnts sounds are, like a pencil that you used to draw or write.

so then you most have copyright on a pincel too??????????

if we have copyright on a pincel, then every sample company has broken copyright too by using a scan(sampler) to make digital copy from real instuments and analog synth sounds.......(they make a scan without permession from source holder)

so if you say that real instruments and analog synth sounds are open source, then every sample company has broken GPL license when they copyright the sampled sounds.

GPL license says you can change and modify or copy the source but share the source you have made from first source.

a digital music instruments sound sample is a change and modify or copy from source(real instrument and analog synth)

GPL license says also you can sell or distribute the source you have made, but others have right to see copy or change and modify your source and sell or distribute too.............

[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-08-2010).]

The discussion needs to be clear what copywrite is. It is legal protection to prevent anyone from using or altering or claiming authorship your work without your permission to do it whether that be commercially or for no monetary gain. It has nothing to do with what effort or money or creativity was put in to creat the work.

The simple question is :

Has the work been registered under copywrite ?

If it has thenthe copywrite laws apply. If it hasnt then anyone can use it at will without any fear of the law.

So if yamaha's or korgs or whoever have not copywrited the sounds from their instruments ( i dont even know if this is practically possible) then its all fair game.

Just so I don't get accused of ignoring yet another absurd point...

No, I can't say I don't have any translated styles, or even some mp3's...

But I am NOT trying to excuse it or say that it is legal...

It may indeed be a common practice. Doesn't make it legal or ethical, though.

The point I think you are missing, James, is the degree of scale. Spectrasonics didn't set out to clone each and every factory preset in a current commercial product. In fact, the reason their products are so popular is that they made BETTER sounds than the originals, by combining stacks of synths, and the amazing sound design of Eric Persing. But what you are proposing is the outright cloning of an entire instrument, for the sole purpose of not having to buy it in the first place (but you SURE want to use their sounds) to be able to play its' styles...

If you can't see that as a paradigm shift from what synth samplers were doing, I honestly believe you are not trying.