And there is the issue. Sound is not legally considered to be tangible. ie. it can't be defined in a way that would satisfy a court. It is that simple. There is not a single case of a sound ever being able to be protected by copyright.

Certainly recorded music CAN be defined because the notes can be written down on paper but though the sounds define the notes it is still not the sound that is tangible it but the music itself.


When it comes to a mechanical instrument, particular mechanics ( and electronics ) of the instrument can be defined and can be protected under copyright. The details can be documented if needed. Likewise the brand name is certainly protected. Now a sample of a sound can also be protected because it has
a tangible bit pattern and waveform. Every sample is different no two are alike even if they sound similar and the way 2 photos of the same scene are no identical. A digital sample CAN be identified in a court of law.

Although the original analog sound and a digital sample ( that can be used to make a sound ) may seem the same to some of you, legally they NOT.

( By the way that photo of a blueprint is simply the same as a scan of a photo as the blue print can be defined in a court of law so is always protected ).

Bottom line is an analog sound is NOT tangible so can't be defined in a court of law.

Unless someone can cite a SINGLE legal precadence where a court has defined an analog sound as being tangible and having copyright protection there is nothing more to argue about here as to the best of my knowledge that precadence doesn't exist.


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 06-19-2010).]

Nigel, but one question remains behind:

are raw samples on rom chip the same as the produced and synthesized final sound from a digital sample based music instrument outputs?

becouse when some one use for example Extreme Sampler Editor he has no information about how the raw samples are used and many many other things.

moreover copyright on ROM chip samples is good and well understood. You can read some posts back that i have said this already.

but produced and synthesized final sound from a digital sample based hardware music instrument outputs is tangible and having copyright protection?

or maybe they Watermarking the Raw wave data on rom chip?

[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-19-2010).]

No of course they aren't but the output of any of the factory patches would still have a fingerprint that would match significantly at the outputs as well.

If the patch was edited to significantly change the digital fingerprint of the waveform from that created by the original factory patch ... then that would not be subject to copyright because it would really become an original work at that point. And it would require work.

Note though it must be edited to significantly change the digital fingerprint so it really is a distinctly different waveform.

Now whether manufacturers would ever be that interested in comparing digital fingerprints of waveforms is doubtful. But if they thought their market was being threatened their sounds being carbon copied they would have legal grounds to do it.

None of this should really affect how musicians use sounds and styles in their own music anyway.

Besides, sampling any other synth doesn't come close to the original in terms of playing dynamics because it is just a snap shot. None of the realtime filter settings and after touch controls are active on the sample. That would require much more programming, and then it probably would be better to not print the original programming or effects. Personally I don't think the original manufacturers would feel that threatened by the result.

Creating a good sample based patch with layers and velocity switching is not something that is easily accomplished. Better off just using off the shelf solutions ... they will probably sound better.

I think we have discussed this topic adnauseam where there are differing views on this subject.

But just to leave you all with something’s to research regarding intellectual property protection for companies that develop instruments, research whether “colors” have intellectual property protection.


Also, think about this: if next month, fender releases an electric guitar that has certain physical and mechanical features that cause the instrument to produce a distinct and unique sound, and two weeks later someone samples the sound an makes it in to a keyboard patch, a VST, and includes it as a patch on a guitar pedal, would Fender have any rights?


No need to answer just think about it.

I think this is a good place to just close this thread.