Sorry.... been busy a few days.

AFG, you cannot POSSIBLY be serious with your question... can you?

Actually, given the appalling state of knowledge about different copyright issues that this thread (and earlier spats, that you lost definitively) has shown, then yes, possibly you ARE serious.

For starters, AFG, you are opening a can of worms on a totally different area of copyright. Nothing to do with sampling at all. But let me indulge you...

For starters, is the song original, or is it a cover of a commercial song? There's a difference. If it is original, you are the sole holder of copyright on the work. And no-one can copy your song, whether by cloning the SMF, cloning the CD, or distributing the mp3 made from the CD... You can make a CD of the work, and if the original keyboard you made it on is sold, you are still the copyright holder (as you produced the work while you owned it), and anyway, you don't need to own the keyboard... the song is nothing to do with the tool used to make it.

Remember, making a song from a keyboard is NOT, in any sense of the word, sampling it... (unless your song consists of long notes at multiple velocity levels of every sound it contains! ).

Now, let's assume that the song you want to record is copyrighted. At least here in the US, you have to obtain permission from the Harry Fox Agency to cover the work (they handle most copyright issues) and pay a small fee. Once payed (and it is cued to the number of copies printed), you may then record the tune and make a CD of it in any format you want. All of which, at this point, is copyrighted to you.

I simply don't understand how you can confuse the recording of songs to cloning an arranger's entire soundset... Two utterly different things. And, while James has the 'Ignore' button mashed, don't do the same yourself. There are OBVIOUS differences between sampling an original creation on a synth and the total cloning of the sounds. Even if you discount arrangers like the Audya, where the basic ROM data IS 'copyable', and only limit yourself to keyboards where the ROM data is on a protected chip, the task of 'cloning' a keyboard's sounds involves trying to get as close to the basic sound as is possible. This isn't what Spectrasonics attempted with Atmosphere, etc..

When you sample acoustic instruments in a keyboard's ROM, you aren't merely trying to recreate basic synth patches, or trying to get the raw shape of a Minimoog triangle wave down, so your own voice programming can be added to it. You are attempting, as closely as is possible, to recreate the raw data of the instrument and its' programming AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. And here, I feel, is where any decent lawyer will be able to get a judgment in the favor of the manufacturer. It's all about INTENT...

And trying to clone the entire soundset of a current, competing manufacturer's product will doubtless be easily provable to cause economic damage to the plaintiff. Once there is a provable damage (and if this idea ever becomes a reality - which it isn't at this point - that will be easy to show), those lawyers will be all over this...

It's all too easy to look at the history of sampling, and see that, here and there, certain sounds were sampled off of one keyboard and used on another. But it's a whole different thing to scale that up to the wholesale cloning of an entire product. There's SURELY got to be at least one of you out there that can see the difference, here..?

The “wholesale cloning of an entire product” has been going on for years.
When you sample a piano, it is the same effect as cloning a keyboard. They both will cause economic damage to the original product.

An absurd comparison. And probably the root of much of the confusion on this site.

There is a complete difference between painstakingly recording a concert piano to make a sample set (which has LONG been allowed as legal) and the wholesale THEFT of those recordings to make your OWN sample set. Simply put, it's OK to sample a piano. It is NOT OK to copy someone ELSE'S samples. Not without permission.

It boils down to the WORK (as James likes to call it). Making the samples directly from the piano is a long, hard, complicated and expensive process. Copying the data is NOT. It's as easy as breaking into someone's house and stealing their stuff! Make your OWN sample set of a piano, all is good. Steal MINE, and I'll sick the dogs on ya!

Do the work yourself, or PAY for it. Do neither, and you are stealing. Period.

And there is the hypocrisy and injustice in the reasoning.
It is OK to cause economic damage to one product but not OK to cause damage to another.
Do you really expect any fair-minded person to adopt that view?

You can not say it is OK for the samplers of an acoustic instrument to rob the makers of an acoustic instrument of their hard work, but then turn around and say that those same samplers should be protected from the clones who will rob the samplers of their hard work.
The point is completely inconsistent and does not make any sense.
The persons who sample should do the work them selves and make their own original sounding instrument and stop robbing other people of their hard work.


[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 06-15-2010).]

James,

You stay out of this one, head down on MS, no rest for the wicked. This battle cannot be won, or the War, there are somethings in life that just cannot be fixed and this is one, the MS can.

Cheers James another Potcheen for me! Is that how you spell it???

[This message has been edited by Tony Hughes (edited 06-15-2010).]

Diki now My answers:

1 - a forum is not a battlefield, or a game where one wins and another loses.
stop using that language. because you reduce your self even more(especially imotaions you're using).

2-You do not know even the difference between the new recording and sampling,
becouse:

any song that you have made on your sample-based hardware music Intrument(Roland G-70) is nothing more than sampling(even when you used a Daw or Midi Sequencers but you use sounds from your Roland G-70), when you play on your keybed you triger the samples from rom( all recording from a sample-based hardware music instrument is sampling, becouse of the samples on rom chip).

3-a software like Extreme Sampler Editor works like a MIDI Sequencer(send first trigger midi message to midi Midi Device and record from audio output the sound), only difference, if you record 61 keys for example, you get a Chromatic and sliced Sequence.

4-You do not even know the difference between sampling and cloning,

becouse:

cloning sound=100% identical lossless copy of the sound.
sampling sound=try to get a sound as identical possible,to the source sound but it will be never 100% identical or lossless copy of the sound source.

again:

-the first recording from a realmusic instrument or analog synth to make a digital sample based harware music instrument is sampling.

-all recordings from a digital sample based hardware music instrument sound is sampling too(becouse you trigger the rom chip samples with your keybed).

Go now while talking to your self about winning and losing, becouse when you sell your CD with your Sequenced new song you are selling samples from a sample based hardware music instrument sound too, becouse your new Sequenced song is then sample based Sequence becouse of the rom chip samples(you have not hired guitarists or other musicians who plays real instruments or analog synths for you)..

morover i said in my post record a song, which means a new song.

I did not say record a existing song.


[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-16-2010).]

I am sorry, AFG, but you opened this door. You are an idiot, know NOTHING whatsoever about copyright, and are naive in the extreme if you think that, just because you HOPE there's no copyright to anything (other than, apparently, James's samples, which apparently, all I have to do to steal is take off the programming and use the digital outs of my keyboard to copy it, after all, it still won't be QUITE bit accurate), that makes it so.

I recall you being utterly CONVINCED that copying Ketron's styles was legal, too. Doesn't being wrong make even a tiny bit of difference to your future stances on copyright? You learned NOTHING during the last debate, and are demonstrating that proudly again...

I suggest you take your head out of that dark place, and go and ask Yamaha if cloning their keyboards is legal. Or keep pretending that you know anything at all...

1-that the word idiot you used on a public forum, proves what kind of person you are.

2-where did you read that I said there is totally no copyright on Ketron Styles?
and where did you read that i said nothing is copyrighted or copyright do not exists?

proves what you claim or............

3-I was the person who has post evidence about copyright on yamaha styles and evidence that you can not copyright extensions(formats) here on this forum twise, but where is your evidence?

4-you have certainly not learned how to talk to other people.

5-the worst behavior and personality disorder is when someone without reason accused others of something,
and this is exactly what you are always doing.

6-do you still remember the saying from my culture? certainly not, because you never learn, and you can not even change your behavior.

7-I know what made you so angry, certainly this:
all recordings from a digital sample based hardware music instrument sound is sampling too(becouse you trigger the rom chip samples with
your keybed).

Go now while talking to your self about winning and losing, becouse when you sell your CD with your Sequenced new song you are selling samples from a sample based hardware music instrument sound too, becouse your new Sequenced song is then sample based Sequence becouse of the rom chip samples(you have not hired guitarists or other musicians who plays real instruments or analog synths for you).

8-my last post was not about copyright. but the evidence that you and Lionstracs Sound developer are using the same way (you are both doing sampling with small differences).

-----------------
do not pretend you did not know this,or surely you did not knew this.




[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-16-2010).]

and Diki on Year 2008 when Yamaha won copyright lawsuit in China about PSR styles, you started here on 04-08-2008 08:30 PM a topic here on synthzone forum with this title:

Style conversion site needed

and this topic was about top line arranger rom style conversion.
topic link:
http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/017369.html


So in future do not accuse others with something you're doing your self and you are guilty and not others.




[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-16-2010).]

I think its time to take this discussion to court, only an unbiased judge can .....

But then where do we find a judge that has the knowledge about the topic, where do we find a judge that can even comprehend half of this discussion....

So this is and will allways be an openended discussion.

The only question we need to be answered is : What is the difference between sampling a rhodes and sampling a rhodes sample.