Roland D-50 Emulations???

[ghettosynth]

I guess it is all about "steal". I mean, if I buy a dress I can wear it, whatever brand it is. On the contrary, if I buy a stolen one, or even an illegal imitation of registered brands, I commit a crime, such as the dishonest seller/manufacter. Sort of this. So I doubt one can use stolen sounds, even for personal use. At least, as a criterion.

Your perception of right and wrong isn't necessarily what is legal and what isn't. The current ethos of sampling being wrong was not really widespread prior to the 90s. The D50 didn't come with a restrictive license agreement if any at all. Further, this isn't about "stealing", which copyright infringement is not in any case.

The idea here is to think about this intellectually. What legal restrictions are there for you to remix your own work for example? Suppose I make a track with a Kronos and then sell the Kronos. Can I remix my own work? Really? What's the license? Is there some restriction to this remix? I think that this all qualifies as fair use of those samples.

Again, consider the studio example without using loaded words like "steal." Who owns those recordings and under what license?

[beely]

Generally speaking, you can buy, lease, hire, rent, borrow, beg or steal a D50 and use it in your recordings. If you then give the keyboard back, sell it, gift it to someone, it doesn't mean all of a sudden songs you recorded with it can never be sold or heard anymore.

This is implicit in the nature of a musical instrument - ie, it's basically ok to make music with it, in all the forms that exists. You buy it make music.

However, common sense suggests that if you take the IP of a product, and repackage it for sale, so you are selling some companies' assets (in this case, the sound recordings which *are* under copyright) as your own (non-music) product to make money (eg a sample library), then the original company has every right to come after you and say "hey, that's not on and not what the intended use of our instruments is for" and slap a big legal punch in the face.

If you spent four weeks making a beautiful recording of you singing, spending five grand in terms of studio time, gear rental, engineers, editing and so on, and someone else took your recording of your voice singing your part, that cost you money to make, and without your permission or a fee, used that recording as the key vocal sample in a hit that went on to make millions for the other producer - pretty much most of you out there would be pissed off and probably feel it fair to receive some monetary compensation.

And I'm sure a few of you would be proud your stuff was used in a good way and is out there and successful and not want any comeback - but bear in mind that's the luxury of personal choice, whereas something like Roland is a corporation, that exists to make money, so the values are a bit different (to be fair, this is what Roland did when it essentially lost control of many sound recording rights of things like the TR drum machines, as it simply didn't go after unlawful sound recording rights infringement - probably something they are keen to not happen again).

It's not rocket science, just common sense - so lets stop some of the wacky conjecture here.

The reason this got a bit muddy was when sample libraries came along that, instead of just having one note samples from a synth, now had musical soundscapes, phrases, compositions and other more complex audio material, and the licensing terms changed from being "you are buying an instrument to use to make music with" to "you are licensing our audio content to use in your musical productions" which has, in legal terms, different meanings and implications.

[arkmabat]

Roland just put out a VST synth so let's keep out fingers crossed!

[ghettosynth]

Generally speaking, you can buy, lease, hire, rent, borrow, beg or steal a D50 and use it in your recordings. If you then give the keyboard back, sell it, gift it to someone, it doesn't mean all of a sudden songs you recorded with it can never be sold or heard anymore.

No, that's exactly what has been suggested many times before. That you must own, well, not true.

This is implicit in the nature of a musical instrument - ie, it's basically ok to make music with it, in all the forms that exists. You buy it make music.

Again, it's not as simple as all that. It's clear when it's a musical instrument with no internal recordings, and it's clear when it's a recording that isn't a musical instrument, it's actually quite a bit less clear when it's a musical instrument that contains recordings.

However, common sense suggests that if you take the IP of a product, and repackage it for sale, so you are selling some companies' assets (in this case, the sound recordings which *are* under copyright) as your own (non-music) product to make money (eg a sample library), then the original company has every right to come after you and say "hey, that's not on and not what the intended use of our instruments is for" and slap a big legal punch in the face.

Yes, again, as I stated above, there is precedent to support this. That said, you gloss the point that I'm making. Yes, it's clear that you can't distribute "My D50 Clone", and it might be illegal to buy it, but it's not clear to me that it's illegal to use it. That's what the word "conundrum" means.

Yes, Roland can come after the manufacturer of "My D50 Clone", they will probably win. But if you're Joe Blow and you purchased "My D50 Clone" and used it in your recordings, can Roland come after you? That's not so clear to me. It's even less clear to me if Joe Blow owns, rents, borrows, a D50.

The question that I was addressing was "can I use D50 samples." Roland may want you to believe that you can't. I'm not sure that is the case.

If you spent four weeks making a beautiful recording of you singing, spending five grand in terms of studio time, gear rental, engineers, editing and so on, and someone else took your recording of your voice singing your part, that cost you money to make, and without your permission or a fee, used that recording as the key vocal sample in a hit that went on to make millions for the other producer - pretty much most of you out there would be pissed off and probably feel it fair to receive some monetary compensation.

No doubt, but again, that's not what I'm talking about. If you put your recording into a rompler, you are granting an implicit license to everyone who has access to that rompler to use your voice in their tracks. The question is, what defines that license and subsequent rights on the derived works?

Roland can put whatever license agreement they want in the box, if I buy used, I may not get a copy of that license, does it even apply to me?

It's not rocket science, just common sense - so lets stop some of the wacky conjecture here.

Uh no, you haven't answered any of my well thought out questions, they are not "wacky conjecture" and I take offense at your attempt to diminish them, particularly since you don't seem to grock the fine detail. It is not just "common sense" as many have found out in court. In fact, the term common sense is nonsense and I suspect that most people who use it don't really understand what it implies. If I asked you to define common sense, could you? I suspect that I could quickly poke holes in your definition. This is why you'll seldom see me use the phrase, I know that it is a weak rejoinder.

[beely]

No doubt, but again, that's not what I'm talking about. If you put your recording into a rompler, you are granting an implicit license to everyone who has access to that rompler to use your voice in their tracks. The question is, what defines that license and subsequent rights on the derived works?

Indeed. And if this was the case, you would license your recording to the manufacturer of the device to cover fair compensation for the ability for any keyboard purchasers to use that recording in their works.

Uh no, you haven't answered any of my well thought out questions, they are not "wacky conjecture" and I take offense at your attempt to diminish them,

You assume I was referring specifically to you. I'm not sure you're *that* special
I wasn't referring to you at all. I was referring to the, well wacky conjecture from some folks on here. It is whacky, indeed.

particularly since you don't seem to grock the fine detail.

I grok it just fine, thanks.

It is not just "common sense" as many have found out in court. In fact, the term common sense is nonsense and I suspect that most people who use it don't really understand what it implies. If I asked you to define common sense, could you? I suspect that I could quickly poke holes in your definition. This is why you'll seldom see me use the phrase, I know that it is a weak rejoinder.

Yes. It's not a legal position *obviously* (sheesh!) but I'm just simplifying the state of these things as a generalism forum post to relate to *how these things are done and have been done for years*.

Yes, I could write a twelve page dissertation, but in simple terms, this is the broad picture of the legal landscape, and it is largely common sense. You can use the content on musical instruments you buy for the purpose of making music (professional or recreationally) but you can't use it to sell a non-music derivative work without the permission or a license from the owner of that copyrighted content. Unless some other license terms are clearly stated by the manufacturer, in which case the fine detail can be a litle more complex, but in practice, this doesn't really happen.

Simples.

[fmr]

Generally speaking, you can buy, lease, hire, rent, borrow, beg or steal a D50 and use it in your recordings. If you then give the keyboard back, sell it, gift it to someone, it doesn't mean all of a sudden songs you recorded with it can never be sold or heard anymore.

No, that's exactly what has been suggested many times before.

I don't know who and where suggested that if someone doesn't own a certain ROMpler anymore, he/she is no longer entitled to the recordings done with that ROMpler, but that's simply absurd. What if the mentioned ROMpler was in a studio? All of a sudden, the time spent (and paid) in the studio was worthless, because the recordings were not legal. I don't think there is any law that supports this, or that any company would open a case in such scenario.

Besides, we have exemples of this. Countless bands and artists did recordings with instruments they don't own anymore, or never did, including ROMplers. Enya, for exemple, has huge hits where the D-50 was prominently featured. But probably, neither her or any member of his band own the D-50 anymore (this, assuming they ever owned it). Still, she (or her publisher) owns the rights to the songs I am not aware that Roland did make any claim about copyright or license infringement, or claimed royalties on the songs.

[beely]

Exactly.

It's how it works, and *is* common sense, because nothing else would be legally enforcible anyway.

[ghettosynth]

Yes. It's not a legal position *obviously* (sheesh!) but I'm just simplifying the state of these things as a generalism forum post to relate to *how these things are done and have been done for years*.

How they've been done does not represent a legal state. Moreover, I disagree that's how things "have been done", in fact, I think that I'm describing "how things are done", that is, Roland wouldn't think of going after someone who uses D50 samples in a "music" recording, no matter the source, because there is some risk that they might lose that fight.

Yes, I could write a twelve page dissertation, but in simple terms, this is the broad picture of the legal landscape, and it is largely common sense.

No, it isn't "common sense" and I don't think that you can define the term.

You can use the content on musical instruments you buy for the purpose of making music (professional or recreationally) but you can't use it to sell a non-music derivative work without the permission or a license from the owner of that copyrighted content.

No, that's not true. There is no legal requirement that your work be of any form whatsoever. Please show me in copyright law where it states that a derived work of any "audio recording" must be a musical work? Again, I'm asking for the legal principles that drive this widespread belief.

As far as I know, there is no "default" license for such instruments. You can't must make one up now and claim that it applies.

Unless some other license terms are clearly stated by the manufacturer, in which case the fine detail can be a litle more complex, but in practice, this doesn't really happen.

Please show me this legally binding license agreement for musical instruments? All you are doing is regurgitating widespread belief and labeling it common sense in a weak attempt to give it legitimacy.

Here's an interesting conversation about Roland backing down on an MT-32 project based on not having documentation for copyright of the MT-32 Roms. Note that there are several comments in here regarding the need for copyright notices in the ROM. Again, this is not the outcome of a case, rather, it is simply the result of an exchange of positions outside of the legal system proper. However, if it were so clear as you describe, why would Roland back down?

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/12/14/ ... 2-emulator

Here's a relevant clip from that conversation, emphasis mine, Dean Beeler writes:

Jun, I am very disappointed with you. I contacted Roland first to prevent such legal harrassment. Roland did not even seem to care about my work until I brought to attention the fact that Roland had lost the copyright on the said material in question. Your lawyer cites 17 U.S.C. section 102(a). "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." As stated in a previous conversation, this law only applies to works fixed after 1989. The MT-32 ROM was fixed in 1987. I refer your attorney to 17 U.S.C. section 405 regarding audio fixed before 1989. Since Roland failed to satisfy any of the three requirements in 405(a), Roland lost the copyright on the said samples. Jun, you argued that there are duplicate samples between the SC-55 and the MT-32. This is not literally true. Only a single audio sample matches between the SC-55 and the MT-32, and even this sample is not an identical copy due to format differences. Finally, I will bring Roland's attention to the fact that they filed the copyright on the SC-55 samples with no claim to the underlying work. As such, since the copies are not exact, and no claim is made on the actual sound a "tibale" makes (since it occurs naturally is hence something uncopyrightable), there is nothing in common between the MT-32 and SC-55.

Basically, 17 405 states that your work must include a copyright notice and if it fails to do so, and you don't meet other requirements for filing, then you may lose your copyright.

Roland has been successful in their intimidation because they can afford lawyers, but when they face someone else who can also afford lawyers, e.g. the EFF, what appears to be cannon to some members here, all of a sudden is not so clear.

[ghettosynth]

Generally speaking, you can buy, lease, hire, rent, borrow, beg or steal a D50 and use it in your recordings. If you then give the keyboard back, sell it, gift it to someone, it doesn't mean all of a sudden songs you recorded with it can never be sold or heard anymore.

No, that's exactly what has been suggested many times before.

I don't know who and where suggested that if someone doesn't own a certain ROMpler anymore, he/she is no longer entitled to the recordings done with that ROMpler, but that's simply absurd.

I'm not sure what you think that I'm arguing here. That's my point, ownership, i.e. licensed usage, is much more fluid than people think. It's been argued on this board that if you have samples of an instrument and you sell that instrument that you must delete those samples.

My point is that if I have access to a D50, there is no legal requirement that I make a particular derived work and then later reuse that work. I can, in fact, make a sample library and reuse that later in my own works. You cannot claim that there is some implicit copyright license that is at work here, there is none. The copyright laws in effect are with respect to audio recordings. Hence, if I can make a derived recording, then I can make any derived recording unless you have limited my usage with a license agreement.

The status quo that some seem to think is enshrined in law isn't. Just because Roland states that you can make X,Y,and Z, simply means that they won't sue you if you only do those things, it doesn't mean that they'll win. They are not free to redefine a license after the fact.

[mhog]

Seems you forget that when one records a track in a studio, for a label, with whatever instruments, he owns rights for the music and arrangements, not for the singular sounds used. So, I don't think Enya, or Kitaro, or Jean Michel Jarre own some rights on the D-50 sounds they created for their songs. They just have royalties for the tracks ("music"). Maybe some smart musicians (Alan Wilder, Liam Howlett, Vince Clark, Richard Devine, Brian Eno and such) create particular original patches for their songs and put some royalties on them, I don't know. I doubt it, but everything is possible in this weird world. I guess the ones who "steal" from records, such as the rappers etc., actually steal part of the "music" (copyrighted), not the "Roland", "Gretsch", "Moog", "Fender" or whatever patches. But, again, everything is possible in America They put royalties and copyright on everything

The (serious) problem with this idiotic paranoid sample policy is that in most cases one is not even allowed to use original bought (factory) samples, put effects and filter, completely twist them (unrecognizable) and resell them. See Spectrasonics. A little bit... exaggerated?

[ghettosynth]

Seems you forget that when one records a track in a studio, for a label, with whatever instruments, he owns rights for the music and arrangements, not for the singular sounds used. So, I don't think Enya, or Kitaro, or Jean Michel Jarre own some rights on the D-50 sounds they created for their songs.

Owing is too strong a word here, the question is what limitations does Jarre face when resampling/remixing his own work? Roland can claim whatever the want with respect to a license agreement on the D50 sounds, that doesn't mean that it's the case. The courts have only supported their assertions of copyright on the roms in a sound canvas. Virtually everything else that we read about isn't the result of a court siding with Roland, rather, it's simply Roland flexing their muscle and the other party concedes.

Roland has, de-facto, granted every user of the D50 the right to use the instrument in their own recordings. The question is, what legal principles govern the limitation of that usage. Please don't say common sense, that is a nonsense answer, that, as we can see clearly above in the Roland MT-32 case, doesn't hold any water.

[mhog]

I guess "business". If it was for me "copyright" would not be applied to sounds, only to music. For instance, Moog synths have no "sound copyright", as far as I know. Only "trademark" royalties. Because they are all based on oscillators. As soon as something comes with "samples" the business starts. Rather ridicolous, but ok, I respect it. It's the "thumb" paradox (take your finger, push the button on the recorder and what you get becomes yours).

[Numanoid]

Maybe doing it in Germany?

As I understand, there was a court case in Germany, where they judged that you can't copyright soundsets.

[Lotuzia]

Every thread, is it one per quarter ?, about the *D50 vst* ends like this....

Déjà vu ........

As for me I'll never buy a product wich steals another companys work. Whatever the law subtleties are. Period.

[Numanoid]

Every thread, is it one per quarter ?, about the *D50 vst* ends like this....

Déjà vu ........

I think it is one per month now