Exactly.

It also extends out to styles and song books on keyboards. Keyboard manufactures product styles based on very popular songs and pay no royalties. They then even arrange them into Song Books on the keyboards and give them a name extremely close to the song they are intended to sound like so there are no royalties to pay or any legal issues.

This even extends to actual product lines and the names the keyboards are called. They give them very generic names or model numbers because in the past there have been lawsuits over the names given to keyboards. Not just keyboards either, Apple for example have even sued supermarkets for using an Apple in their logo.

It's all about trademarks and using existing named products to help promote your own. So long as you stay away form that, then there's quite a lot you can do that's legally sound.

As I said above, every keyboard manufacture on the face of the planet samples other keyboards and real world instruments. None of them have to pay any royalties either because they don't use the names of the products they are sampling, or there's a generic name. Silver Flute, Golden Trumpet, 80's Synth, Take Me On, and so on...

A musical instrument, as in a keyboard is a physical object. The sound it produces is it's function and cannot be copyrighted. If it could then Ketron and everyone else would not be allowed to sample the instruments they did to create the sounds their products produce. This is also not something a keyboard manufacture can just change their mind on when it suites them either. They sample their sounds from other instruments to product their products, then they have no right to protect the sound their instrument produces, just as the manufacture they took their sounds from had no rights to protect their sound.

James.

I don't see where the moral confusion comes from...

If you go out and sample a Fender Rhodes, and do a good job, it will take you WEEKS. You have to
meticulously record every note, at multiple velocities, carefully loop them (unless you are doing a GIGA thing
where you have enough memory to not need loops (that is NOT the case with arranger soundsets!)
and then carefully lay them out on the keyboard. A LOT of work. You expect to get PAID for that work...
Now someone comes along and samples YOUR samples. No weeks of work. No meticulous editing.
No hiring or buying the source instrument. No needing expensive mikes or pre's. Just copy the data.

If you can't make the connection between that and simple theft, you are lost, my friends... I simply hope no-one does what I posted in jest.
But if they were, what is the difference? You worked long and hard for what you own.
I hope that no-one does to you what you are saying it is alright to do to someone else. Ketron didn't sample
a T3 for their samples. They'd be in court right now if they did. And so will you, if you take this nonsense seriously.

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 06-05-2010).]

In the example above, how do you think the maker of the Fender Rhodes feels about all the hard work and money they put in to making the instrument in developing that instrument and now some one goes and samples the sound?

This is getting ridiculous!!

Following that, how about how Stradivarius would feel, or whoever it was that created the first piano, or Adolph Sax...I could go on and on...

Soundwaves can be freely sampled. Where DO you think Yamaha, Roland Korg et al, got THEIR rhodes samples??

And you can bet your bottom dollar they paid not one cent to Leo Fender, either before he died or to his descendants. Nor to messrs Sax and Stradivarius.

I repeat, a ridiculous argument.

What I DO agree with is that if I sold or gave away say, a full sample set CREATED by East West, then THAT is a breach of the licence of use. The samples THEY created. But their source sounds for sampling in the first place are not covered by any copyright.

A good analogy I think, could be sidewalk artists...They would own a copyright of whatever they paint on the sidewalk, BUT they have no copyright over either the paints they used, nor the sidewalk itself.

Of course!
Everyone knows that there is no legal copyright of the source sound.
But what we are discussing is the financial effect it has on the source instrument.

If I have the Fender Rhodes sound on my Korg, Yamaha or Roland keyboard I get the benefit of having and using that sound with out Fender Rhodes getting any money.

They (Fender Rhodes) had put in all the RD and money in developing that instrument and being able to get that sound. Now someone comes and samples the sound of that instrument and includes it on their instruments. As a result, people do not buy the Fender Rhodes but buy the instrument that sampled the Fender Rhodes sounds. So the user gets the benefit of having a Fender Rhodes sound with out paying Fender Rhodes.


If I have the T3sounds on my MS keyboard I get the benefit of having and using the T3 sound with out Yamaha getting any money.

They (Yamaha) had put in all the RD and money in developing that instrument and being able to get that sound. Now someone comes and samples the sound of that instrument and includes it on their instruments. As a result, people do not buy the T3 but buy the instrument that sampled the T3 sounds. So the user gets the benefit of having a T3 sound with out paying Yamaha.

The concept of someone taking other’s work with out paying for it has been going on for many many years in the music business.
Its just that the law protects some and not others.
But it happens all in the name of development and progress.

The point is, there are no T3 sounds, there are just sounds..

Because Tough Yamaha spend a lot of time creating those sounds, All they did in the end was copy those sounds from another source.

Same goes for the open systems but instead of a company copying and improving sounds... now there is the community copying and improving sounds..


And the same goes for Styles...

Did Yamaha ever pay a penny to the Strauss fammilly for adding those Waltz styles. Or even pay a penny for that "hardrockstyle7" that just happens to be exactly the same as a big hit from KISS, but beleive me, KISS or the record company have never seen a penny from that style.


I agree that Midi files and MP3's are of a different measure... but thats about it.


Overhere in the world of Open systems and community, its the community(ideally) creating the content, best excample is : James new string gigasamples created by James and shared with the community. If the Community grows and people start to share everyone becomes a happier person, tough noboddy will get rich from it, but everyone will be a happier person in the end.

Is this the 'open' community that believes that ALL software should be free, or that ALL music, movies,
e-books etc., should be free? You know, the ones that are STEALING it and ruining the industries that produce that content?

This is unbelievable... that none of you can make the differentiation between sampling an ACOUSTIC instrument,
one of the most difficult processes in music, and sampling a sample... obviously, one of the easiest.
You are getting outraged at the wrong thing. No-one is saying it's any crime to go out and sample a violin, or a piano
or even a Rhodes. It's possibly a crime to market those as 'Fender Rhodes' or 'Steinway' without permission from the maker
(if he's still in business), but it's a long held accepted practice that sampling acoustic instruments (and out of
production synths, too) is legal. But it is NOT clear that you can sample for commercial use the samples contained
in a production, current keyboard. The operative word is 'commercial' use, and free distribution. In other words, yes
it's perfectly OK for you to sample a T3 for your own use ONLY, but it is illegal to distribute it. Just like a CD,
for instance. You can copy it legally for your own use, but you can't sell or share it.

But that some of you can't make the difference between sampling a Stradivarius and sampling an Audya
is baffling. It's the difference between writing a song, and someone copying that song... What's even more
disturbing is the complete lack of empathy (or guilt!) about your espoused theft of intellectual property. Can't
ANYONE put themselves in the position of someone who just spent a fortune making a TOTL soundset for
an arranger (you can't buy them at 'Samples-are-Us'!)
and someone says it's OK to copy your samples for free and distribute them to EVERYONE..?

Would you be happy if they did that? And if you wouldn't, you've answered your own question...

What amazes me is that James, who makes COMMERCIAL sample sets, isn't jumping in here and trying
to clear the issue up. Honestly, what you are saying is, it's OK to STEAL James' work... Just copy his data,
don't pay him a penny. Now, what do you think are the chances of him making another high quality set
for you to steal? Slim to none...

I am not saying it's wrong to sample a T3. All I am saying is it is illegal to distribute it. As is obvious from
your comments, the T2 set for the MS is so bad, it isn't a factor, but can you imagine Yamaha staying silent
should anyone do a GOOD job and clone their very expensively produced product to the point of indistinguishability..?
The samples that they MADE are theirs. Not yours, unless you buy their product, and then they are for your use only.

It's simple, when you think about it...

BTW, James CHOSE to make his string samples 'open'. But has he made his entire sample library 'open'?
The creator of a sample set MUST have the right to say whether they are 'open' or NOT. Or those that create
those great commercial sample sets will STOP making them. Does anyone REALLY want that?

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

mmmmm...again with this old story now...
Now IF I listen Diki start to be really a big problem..
I just dowloaded the new Giga Yammy soundbank, 1003 new, edited and mapped sounds: http://lionstracs.com/download/soundbank1.lscp
This all sounds I will include on the all new Groove that we shipping now from here..,
But for the all others old MS/Groove custumers what we make??
Do I have to DELETE this all sounds from my server OR someone there will have it for FREE??
IF someone there is interested on this new GIGA Yammy soundbank, have to write here: I WANT IT then I allow for the FREE download.
( I have only to see where to move this folder because is aroung 8.7Gb data..)
Now is really a morality, but I really want to see who is interested to have it and do not care about RESAMPLING cloning legallity.

Note also that I have started to download the new GIGA-AUDY soundbank and then the new GIGA-FantoG
IF you there are NOT interested of this new FREE giga sounds...no problems...

I just love it, free high quallity giga sounds, i'd say Yummy


And to Diki.... there is no difference between Yammaha sampling a fender rhodes and the open source community sampling the yamaha sample of a Fender Rhodes.

And the open source community is not about copying software for free, its all about creating software and sharing it for free.. But then you seem to have no clue at all that some people in this world still love to help others for free and share their experiences with them for free.

Dom I want them. I already have most of those T2 samples in my Psr s900 but I want them in my MsS too. And I'm also very interested in the Audya and FanoG Giga.