spalding1968 I'm happy in your last post read something that makes everything more clear.

You've mentioned something good:

resampling.

answer this please:

can people resample a sample-based hardware music instrument sound from the instrument audio output?

if you say yes, it is exactly what what Lionstracs sound developer is doing with Extreme Sampler Editor.

Lionstracs does not cloning the wave data from the rom chip but they resample the sounds produced from a electric instruments output.

first you select some keys on extreme sampler Gui interface and you select the layers you like to have for the sound. extreme sampler editor send first midi message to instrument sound device and then record the produced sounds from instrument sound device audio output, the wave data you get is not the same as the Wave data on rom chip and also not edited. the wave data is not the same becouse you do not know which key is the main key used for wave data on romchip, You do not know how many layers the wave data on rom chip has,You do not know how many waves used for the sound on rom chip,you do not know the looppoints, you do not know the sample rate used for wave data on romchip, you do not know if the wave data on rom chip is stereo or mono..............many other things and Diki says this is not allowed to do.

read my last post please too, and answer.



[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-18-2010).]

no that is not exactly what liontracs is doing ! Liontracs is not doing this for 'normal use' as defined by the copyrightstatement i posted earlier. They are precisely doing what is illegal under the copyright information i posted .

Here is the relevant bit and i have typed in Capital letters the specific bits for you.

' Such internal content is provided for musical performance and/or recording by the user of the instrument, and this type of “NORMAL USE” is to be supported and encouraged. No restrictions should apply to “NORMAL USE” of the internal content of a legitimately acquired electronic musical instrument.
However, the recent growth of digital technology and the Internet in combination with the inclusion of convenient features that add to the value of electronic musical instruments, has led to unprecedented problems in the form of ILLEGITIMATE COPYING AND DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNAL CONTENT that is OUTSIDE the scope of “NORMAL USE”.
Not only does such illegitimate use of internal electronic musical instrument content result in substantial losses to the producers of electronic musical instruments, but it is also an impediment to the progress of musical culture in general.
AMEI proposes the following to eliminate illegitimate use of internal content provided with electronic musical instruments and promote the proper use of such instruments.

The following uses of internal electronics musical instrument content are illegitimate:

THE EXTRACTION OF INTERNAL ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENT CONTENT FROM AN ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENT AND , WHETHER IN ORIGINAL OR MODIFIED FORM …

RECORDING said content to a SEPARATE MEDIUM and OFFERING THAT MEDIUM ITSELF FOR SALE, or PRODUCING AN ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENT INTO WHICH THE EXTRACTED CONTENT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED AND OFFERING THAT INSTRUMENT FOR SALE.

Making said content available on, or TRANSMITTING SAID CONTENT OVER, A COMPUTER NETWORK.

A user may employ an electronic musical instrument for instrumental performance or the recording of such performances without restriction, but use that falls outside the scope of “NORMAL USE,” such as COPYING THE INSTRUMENTS'S BUILT IN CONTENT and/or DISTRIBUTING THE INSTRUMENTS BUILT IN CONTENT VIA A NETWORK (including making the INSTRUMENTS BUILT -IN CONTENT TRANSMISSABLE), may be in violation of copyright law. '

Can you see how copying the internal sounds wholesale AS DOM IS DOING and then selling or distributing that content in another keyboard is directly breaching the 'Normal use' exemption ?

It really cannot be any more clear than that.....or at least i cannot make it any more clear. As i have said i am sure some one will argue that its 'normal use' to copy a keyboards entire internal sounds and then sell them on but i would not bet on that case winning in court and i am really interested to see what will happen in the following months or years as this kind of theft becomes more widespread.

also AFG sampling from the outs of the keyboard may be permitted under ' the normal use ' clause but how can recording all the sounds from lets say the tyros 2 through the outputs of the keyboard, and packaging them for sale or to be given away be considered normal use under any stretch of the term 'normal use' ?????????

here is the relevant axtract from the copyright information i posted.

'Electronic musical instruments are provided with “internal content” such as sound waveform data and performance data with the intention that said internal content is to be used for MUSICAL EXPRESSION. Such internal content is provided for MUSICAL PERFORMANCE and/or RECORDING BY THE USER OF THE INSTRUMENT, and this type of “normal use” is to be supported and encouraged. No restrictions should apply to “normal use” of the internal content of a LEGITIMATELY ACQUIRED ELECTRONIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENT

Now look at what Liontracs is doing and tell me where the musical expression is in simply copying another keyboards sounds and then selling them in their own keyboard ???? This is precisiely the opposite of what is allowed under the copyright information i have gleaned !!!

The big question would be what is “normal use”.
And, remember that the prier post by Spalding is information given by Yamaha.

It is amazing to me how people can not see whether it is an acoustic instrument of electronic instrument the effect is the same.

Try this: replace the term “electronic music instrument” with Acoustic instrument in Yamaha’s double talk and see what happens.


I guess people are saying it is OK for some one to take a sound that is on a keyboard (Yamaha Roland Korg) , sample it by recording the audio outs, and giving away or selling or selling that new sample. You just can not say it is a sound from Yamaha Roland or Korg.
After all, that is the same thing Yamaha, Roland and Korg are doing with acoustic instruments and the same thing Lionstracks is doing with the T3.
They are not copying data they are just sampling and selling the samples.

What is so hard to understand with that.

you just dont get it Genesys.
AMEI stands for

Association of Musical Electronics Industry. It is not yamahas view on copyright. It is the industry's view !!!

Next answer this question Genesys and then it will all fall into place.

1. Who is the author/owner of a piano sound ?
2. How can you tell ? Think back to what i said about the original creator ?
3. what is the content or intellectual property being protected ?
4. Now who is the author/owner of a sample created by yamaha/korg/roland of a piano sound ?
5. how can you tell ?
6. What is the intellectual property being protected ?

Some things can be copyrighted because you can identify the owner/author and you can clearly identify the intellectual property being protected. If you cant clearly identify the Author such as the creator of the piano (the original piano like 300 years ago) or the property being protected ( what is being protected with the piano, or what is the content) it is incapable of falling under the shadow of copyright law.

Sure i cant use trademark names like Rhodes or Steinway but i can certainly use the sampled sounds.



[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 06-18-2010).]

now i ask you who is the author/owner of fist sample based music instrument sound?


answer:

Chamberlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlin

who is first original creator of of fist sample based music instrument.


answer:

Chamberlin


did Chamberlin protect his samples?

answer:

......................


did Chamberlin copyright the sound prodused by his sample based music instrument?

answer:

......................

did one from big 3 ever sampled or redampled sounds from Chamberlins sample based music instruments or Mellotron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellotron

answer:

.......................


So this discussion is not as easy as you think.

other example:

if you use one style from your arranger on stage and you have this instruments sounds inside your style Drumkit-Guitar-Bass

then this damage is caused by your sample-based hardware music instrument sounds

1- 3 less players
2- 3 fewer instruments sold by real instrument makers.


now if they are 1000 users round the world that use the same style like you did what impact will it have for the real instrument makers and analog synth makers and their players only for one day?

is that fair?

is not better if big 3 say we copyright our wave data on romchip, but the final sound from output is not copyrighted becouse we also sample sounds from other sources freely?



[This message has been edited by AFG Music (edited 06-18-2010).]

i have absolutely no idea what points you are raising AFG and no idea what relevance the links you have posted mean.

Do you accept/understand any of the points i made about identifying the author /creator and the intellectual property that is being protected by copyright ?

your question about who is the author of sample based equipment is completely irrelevant.In 1949 did copyright law exist in the way it does today AFG ?????????????????. Is the mellodrome protected by copyright or Patent AFG. Do you even understand the difference between the two ???? ! Chamberlain may have patented his invention but he did not copyright it ! they are completly different concepts. Im am not going to explain the difference to you , i just dont have the patience.

And i honestly dont have any idea what points you are making towards the end about reducing numbers of musicians and fairness.

I cant see any point in your line of reasoning. Perhaps if you made your points first then refered to your links and explained the relevance of them i could make more sense of what you are saying.

Sorry if i am misunderstanding you.

Like you said, you can not copyright a sound.
So under your version, it would be ok if some one samples Yamaha, Roland or Korg keyboard as long as they don’t say the accurate name of the original sample.
Same thing when you sample a name brand piano that has a distinct sound.

And, for those who don’t know, acoustic instruments have Intellectual property protection.

I give up. i dont have Dikkis tenacity ha ha :-)



[This message has been edited by spalding1968 (edited 06-18-2010).]

spalding1968 here's another example from itlay, maybe nothing to do with this topic. but you can see how a lawsuit may end in different places:
http://ipjustice.org/media/release20040112_en.shtml

and can you please explain what you mean by resampling.



How long does a copyright last?
Copyrights in works created since 1978 will last for 70 years after the death of the work's author. If the work is what the copyright law calls a "work made for hire," created by employees within the scope of their employment, the work will last for 95 years from the work's first publication or 120 years from its creation, whichever is shorter. The provisions on copyrights in works created and published before 1978 are complicated, but, as a general rule, the copyright in those works will last 95 years. Anything first published in 1923 or earlier, though, is in the public domain.

How do I get a copyright?
You probably already have one. Copyright protection is automatic. As soon as you create a work and fix it in tangible form, copyright law protects it. You don't need to register your copyright or apply to a government office for approval. At one time, U.S. law required authors to affix a copyright notice to their works, but Congress eliminated that requirement in 1989.

article:
http://www.csusa.org/info_faq.htm




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