D-i-k-i

why Yamaha does not do anything against this.....................?

Why Yamaha will not warning Lionstracs???
are they crazy to remain calm and do nothing if is illegal what Lionstracs sound Developers are doing??????????

do you think that Domenico risk the existence of his company to start with this without knowing anything about Law about this?????????

he's much smarter than you think.

sure he thought about everything.

So why are you glowing more then Light Bulb(Yamaha) itself???????????

declaration against copyright infringement is not expensive for Yamaha or else?????


[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-09-2010).]

Couple of things...

1.these were from me, and not James.
They were questions, NOT points!! (and not absurd at all, quite simple and straightforward I thought.)

2. So on principle you are railing strongly against the sharing of stuff, but your reply (honest too ) shows that in real life you are just the same as everyone else.

3. Neither am I, neither is James or anyone else for that matter, what YOU are missing are subtle distinctions. You keep painting with broad stokes.

4.Agree!

Ummmm are you saying Rhodes isn't a brand name? I think it most definately is ... there is no question about that. It was owned by CBS and now is owned again by Rhodes Piano who are making the current generation of Rhodes electric pianos.

Though I must admit companies like Yamaha have been careful not to mention the "Rhodes" brand name though I don't think for a second their suitcase electric pianos didn't use Rhodes samples.

Maybe they should be confronted regarding this .... I dunno about the rest of you but this argument is getting very tiring not to mention quite hypocritical. How bout we leave this to the corporate lawyers cos whatever we decide doesn't matter a damn
Let's just get back to playing music with whatever samples we have at our disposal.


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 06-09-2010).]

Well, certain words, after long enough popular usage, become part of the language. In the UK we write with a biro... children playing with plastic blocks are playing Lego, whether they made them or not. And so on. Once upon a time, the saxophone was patented... now it's what we use for all instruments like that...

Look, here's the point I think I have been trying to make all along. So far, any attempt to clone an entire instrument has been a pathetic joke at best. But let's just say, for argument's sake, that sooner or later someone is going to get it RIGHT... Now let's posit that eventually, ALL new keyboards will be cloned. Now let's think about the consequences of that...

If open keyboards become more popular, as is inevitable, and most other keyboard's soundsets are cloned, what does that do to the bottom line of the cloned keyboard? Yep, that's right. They go out of business. Now, where do you get any new sounds from? Who is left to steal from? Each other?

I believe that so far we haven't seen litigation from the majors about this issue because, at this point, it IS a joke... but, if it ever becomes a reality... If there's one thing the whole Napster thing should have taught any intellectual property industry, it's that you can't afford to wait until it IS a major problem. Because by then, it's too late.

You know, there's one thing I haven't heard James chime in on... And I'd REALLY like an answer to this. You make COMMERCIAL sample libraries, don't you James? You have samples that you have painstakingly created, lovingly edited, carefully assembled, and think that they might be of commercial value... (I hope I am not misremembering this). So let's say you offer up a carefully crafted set of samples for sale.

Can ANYONE copy them for free? Is it OK with you that they don't pay you..? Oh, and give copies away to everyone on the planet that wants them? Please answer this one...

Seriously, James, have you ever considered what this means? Let us just assume that everyone BUT me is right on this issue. There is NO SUCH THING as copyright. Styles, sounds, software, music, none of it has any protection at all... I mean, if everyone's OK with copying every sound out of an Audya, why not every sound off a Madonna CD? (it's all just waveforms, ain't it? )

Is it just me, or doesn't anyone see any serious consequences to rampant piracy? Honestly, are you ALL amateurs, or is there someone on this thread that makes a living recording music? Producing samples? Creating music software..?

Because, if you DO, this thread should scare the sh*t out of you.

nobody has said that copyright does not exist. but some things are not copyrighted, that is what is being said Diki.

remember I was first one who have all noted that Yamaha has won a copyright lawsuit in 2008:
http://www.global.yamaha.com/news/2008/20080508.html

so if Yamaha has claimed that Yamaha is first company which proposed copyright to rom styles,

what they mean?
that it is first time, and Yamaha is first company?
and why in 2008?
and why The Court’s judgment was the first in the world ?
and why only in China?

and read this part of Article:

The Court’s judgment was the first in the world to recognize that “Style Data is intellectual property that is subject to protection under copyright laws” and that “unauthorized copying of such Style Data is an infringement of copyrights.” Yamaha believes this judgment is an epoch-making legal development and holds the content of the settlement arbitrated by the Court in high regard since it recognizes virtually all of Yamaha’s assertions. Looking ahead, Yamaha will continue to work to respect and protect intellectual property and to take a resolute stand against the infringement of intellectual property rights.

----What does this mean?--------

-----------------------------
--------------------------------
-------------------------
and if Yamaha do not do anything, it means that something more is going on, with law on sampling sample based hardware music instrument sound.


[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-10-2010).]

this means quite clearly that the copying of styles is illegal and yamaha have successfully used the copywrite laws to protect them from piracy.

It doesnt say anything about the sounds...

I wonder if Yamaha are aware of Liontracs business model ?

Hi Diki
If you look in the terms and conditions of the large sample sets, you will find they are protected by law, and you can neither copy nor clone them, so I cannot see the point in your post, when the answer to your question has been in black and white for years.

Hi Spalding
Yamaha are well aware of what other companies are doing

Comparison suggestions
Compare the same name styles of the big 3 and you will find they all sound very similar in makeup, so who copied who, and why there is no litigation between them.
Regards

Bill

read the article better:

The court was first one world wide who recognize copyright on rom styles and only in China and Yamaha is first companhy claim this.

such as the article claims


-----------------------------
for sure they know Lionstracs, and also what Lionstracs doing.

There was even one of Big 3 ready to take over Lionstracs.................but Domenico did not sell Lionstracs Italy.



[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-10-2010).]

Hi Diki.



I haven't really bothered because I've had this discussion on KORG Forums for 10 years. I've also seen this discussed on every other forum and the end result is always the same.

Look... I'll roll all this into one and answer every question at the same time.

I cannot copyright my sounds. I can only copyright my work. When you buy a copy of one of my sample libraries you are buying the right to download a copy of my work for your personal use and to use it royalty free in your work. This means you get all my hard work in a state that requires no effort on your behalf to use, and you can use that material to write music with without any fear of having to pay me royalties.

However.... If you create a copy of my sample library and sell it, then yes you have just broken the law because you have just created a copy of my finished product, and my work. To create this copy you did not have to sample it or use any special tools. You copied my data in whole and therefore you are now in possession of two identical copies.

Now lets apply some of this to a keyboard so you can see the difference between the ability to copyright, steal and create copies of it and so on....

1: Lets say you buy a KORG Pa2X. You cannot create a copy of a keyboard because it's a physical object and therefore cannot be stolen and resold as a copy.

2: You cannot copyright the sound it produces for all the same reason KORG would have been allowed to sample the instruments they did to create the PCM data in the first place.

3:However, KORG can copyright their work and this is the only thing you guys should be trying to break down and discuss. This is where the argument comes in and the questions of what you can and cannot do.

Here are some ways I could break the law by creating a copy of KORG's work.

It would be illegal for me to create a computer program that converts a KORG PCG file from one format to another as this file gives me direct access to KORG's work in such a way that I can steal it.

It would be illegal for me to take a factory sound and to strip back the sound engine in order to sample the raw PCM data unprocessed by the engine. This is illegal because now I'm sampling KORG's work. Again, the sound is not copyrighted, it's their work that being copied only in this case.

So now lets flip that last one around and make good of it. If I take a KORG and use the data within the keyboard and the sound engine to modify that data (someone elses recordings), then it's new work and my property to sample and sell. That's why I posted the link to Spectrasonic above. You can see all the keyboards they sampled. Many of which are even PCM based so spectrasonic have taken someone else's recordings and used the keyboard to shape them into recording they claimed as their own.

This is done the world over and exactly how all PCM based libraries and keyboards are made.

I'll leave it at that. There's much to discuss on all this but you must focus on the only issue that matters which is the ability for one to copyright their work.

Regards
James