Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

Comments interleaved below:

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "allenscheer" <dansgold@e...> wrote:
> Please see my comments interleaved below:
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@y...> 
wrote:
> ...
> > Ripping the samples out one by one, repackaging them, and
> > redistributing them is NOT customary use, and is NOT LEGAL.  
Period.
> 
> If you had been keeping up on this discussion, you'd know that I 
> agree with this point. You'd also know that it is clear that 
nobody 
> is talking about "ripping" the raw sample data from Emu ROMs.

Actually I think that was exactly what was implied earlier by 
someone here in regard to World ROM patches/samples.

> > Remember here that the copyrights are on the SAMPLES, not the 
> synthesis
> > engine.  You're getting confused between the synthesizer and the 
> source
> > material.  Under your argument, you'd be able to sample your CD 
> player
> > playing the newest CD, burn copies, and redistribute them.  
> Obviously
> > illegal.  "But I'm just sampling my CD player, not the music" 
you 
> cry. 
> 
> One important differnce is that the CDs in question all have a 
clear 
> copyright notice printed on them. The other important difference 
is 

A CD (nor any other work of art affixed in a medium) need not have 
any notices on them in order to be copyrighted. If the authors want 
to put on notices, that is fine, but it is unnecessary. Again, see 
www.uspto.gov for some faqs and pointers to the source laws.

> that - again - nobody is suggesting just ripping the samples and 
> selling them. I certainly don't do that, and I hope nobody else in 
> this forum does either.
> 
> The other important distinction - again - is that I am not 
suggesting 
> any such direct "ripping" of samples. Even if it were legal, it's 
> sure-as-hell unethical. 
> 
> > The reason you can sample a Moog synth and resell it is because 
> you're
> > not sampling source material.  You are creating something, then
> > capturing it.  Just the same, you couldn't copy the factory 
presets 
> of
> > that synth and redistribute them on a floppy.  Source material 
vs.
> > final product.
> 
> Well ... maybe. Yamaha (for instance) holds a patent (or an 
exclusive 
> license from Stanford, I forget which) on FM synthesis. This is 
why ( 
> I am told) NI pays a license fee for FM synthesis, and why FM7 
costs 
> as much as it does comapred to their other emulations.

This may be true, but has nothing to do with sampling a patch of 
your own made from a DX7 or a FM7 which is completely legal and for 
which Yamaha can do nothing about under any law I know of. The 
reason that Yamaha may have to be paid a license fee would be if NI 
were using Yamaha's *patented* method *or* Yamaha's copywritten 
code. Both things are or may be the case and while different from 
each other (patent and copyright I mean) essentially boid down to 
the concept that you can't use something that belongs to another. 
Same for samples. But not the same as an original patch made on a 
patented invention like a DX7. Again, you will have to resort to the 
actual laws for verification of this statement--I don't have time to 
quote you line and verse of the statutes.

> Also, where do you draw the line? If I open up the filter on a Emu 
> patch a bit, increase the filter attack a bit, decrease the amp 
> attack a bit ... I've "created" something?

I would argue that this is a new patch and your original. Another 
might argue that even if many of the parameters are different 
values, if it sounds the same, it is the same. There former applies 
a bright line which is generally good at the expense of a major 
loophole. The latter interpretation asks for fairness a the major 
cost of uncertainty, which is, in my opinion, worse thant the 
former's loophole. The law on this generally differs depending on 
whether you are talking about samples or patches. FOr a sample made 
by me and affixed on a medim by me, for which I therefor own the 
master recording of, you can process it anyway you want, but if I 
can *prove* that your result was lifted from my sample, I win. In 
the case of a patch, it is a different inquiry. A patch is more of a 
recipe, i.e., a formula that can be broken down in to a list of 
parameters and their respective values. Such a recipe either is or 
is not identical to another recipe (patch). More filter equals a 
different recipe, therefore not a copy, even if it sounds the same. 
The distinction is that patches are only fairly compared by looking 
at their recipes and not how they sound. To see why this makes 
sense, consider the opposite: If it was about how a patch sounded 
then one could be sued for making an identical sounding patch on one 
synth to a patch on another. That would make no sense. One can even 
make an identical sounding patch on the same synth often by using 
wildly different methods. An owner of one should not be able to sue 
the maker of the other, right? Anyway, as far as I know, the law on 
this is unsettled and there are lots of scenerious that have not 
been tested. For example, even if a patch is different from another 
if filter cuttof value has been changed from 125 to 126, and for one 
patch no court would rule any copyright infringement, what would 
happen if someone took a whole commercially released patch set for a 
synth and minorly modified each patch including the names and 
released the same set themselves. Extrapolating from the first 
example, one might argue that such a new set was not infringing. On 
the other hand, the extreme unfairness in this might be enough for a 
court to depart from the law and apply equity, under which almost 
anything can happen. Anyway, I don't think such a case has come up. 
Therefore the answers can only be reasonably guessed at with maybes 
or maybe nots.

> > There's nothing stopping you from creating new sounds, sampling 
> them,
> > and reselling them.  You cannot, however, sell the original 
> samples. 
> > Of course, this is where the fine line is.  At what point is 
it "new
> > material"?  Is putting an exciter on the raw samples enough?  
> Probably
> > not.  Is running it through the synthesis engine, applying 
effects,
> > etc?  Probably.
> 
> Well, fine ... that's exactly what I do, and what I think has been 
> suggested on this forum by others. Isn't irksome however, that the 
> most you feel comforatble saying is "probably" or "probably not"? 

That may be irksome, but it is a fact that it is likely (another 
qualifier) undecided in the way it is presented. See above 
discussion about patches v. samples.