Roland D-50 Emulations???

[mhog]

D-50 "digital native dance" They want royalties for that crap?!

By the way, what about real instruments and sounds? I mean, let's say I record a Fender guitar and make an anonimous library called "my guitar". Will Fender claim copyrights? Let's say one samples a cow in the field while bellowing. Will the farmer ask for copyrights ("the cow is mine")? And what about the factory that produced the recorder? ("you recorded the cow with my recorder"). What if I record my old FIAT 500 motor "wroom wrooom" and make an anonimous library called "jalopy"? Will FIAT ask for royalties? No, of course (well, never say never). But if one of my "wroom wrooom" sounds gets used in some published song, I can ask for royalties, because of "the recording of the copyrighted car made with the copyrighted gear (pushing "rec") and put on a copyrighted sampler": because I pushed the button. All this is recognizable as "mine" when published somewhere.

Is it true in America every sound is copyrighted? for instance: "1000 broken glass samples" all copyrighted, and such?! Stupidity at its best, IMO. Time for copyleft.

[zvenx]

I think it has been written countless times elsewhere.
Its really simple, its the recording that is protected.
So you sampling a fender guitar and calling it my guitar, fender can't claim royalties. If you sample a cd that fender recorded of their guitar they can.
If you record the fiat 500 motor, fiat can't claim royalties, but if you then sample a recording of a fiat 500 motor, whomever made that recording can.

its pretty simple, to me at least.
rsp

[mhog]

I think it has been written countless times elsewhere.
Its really simple, its the recording that is protected.
So you sampling a fender guitar and calling it my guitar, fender can't claim royalties. If you sample a cd that fender recorded of their guitar they can.
If you record the fiat 500 motor, fiat can't claim royalties, but if you then sample a recording of a fiat 500 motor, whomever made that recording can.

its pretty simple, to me at least.
rsp

I would call it "the protected thumb" (the "push the button" copyright). What a nonsense

[Numanoid]

So to be able to use D50 sounds in a recording, you need to own an actual D50 yourself.

If it is not allowed to sell samples of D50 sounds, then you can't buy such samples legally either?

[zvenx]

Exactly.
rsp

[mhog]

So to be able to use D50 sounds in a recording, you need to own an actual D50 yourself.

If it is not allowed to sell samples of D50 sounds, then you can't buy such samples legally either?

I start suspecting Roland does not allow distribution of D50 sounds because... they suck
All this "recording rights" matter is rather ridicolous, just a consequence of "copyright business". I've noticed this paradox expecially happens with Kontakt derivative samples (example: one samples an old Juno and puts out the "Jena library" or whatever, but wants credits for his thumb "because of the hard work while recording and sampling"). Such as "I recorded my grandma singing" and now "her voice is mine" because I recorded it, "not because I speak with my grandma's voice, of course". What if the grandma starts pissing off and claims royalties for her trembling voice?

[zvenx]

I am starting to think mhog you aren't a professional musician?
For those of us who are, it is this copyright business that helps us to earn an income.

rsp

[mhog]

I am starting to think mhog you aren't a professional musician?
For those of us who are, it is this copyright business that helps us to earn an income.

rsp

Well, music is protected by royalties (author's rights), like literature or whatever. One could argue that is ridicolous, too, but ok, it is rather clear and obvious that if I publish a song and the day after another author claims "this is mine" I can react like "what an idiot thief". What I don't get (but of course respect) is the "thumb royalties" mania, such as "I record my turds splashing into water", "this is my turd recording nr. 54387, see license and agreement" etc. Sounds stinky

[zvenx]

so the royalty/copyrights should be granted based on the importance or quality of the performance recorded?
rsp

[K-Bee]

I start suspecting Roland does not allow distribution of D50 sounds because... they suck

Or maybe because they love laughing of all the people NOT owning a d-50/550 wanting to use the sounds anyway. That's power for ya Let's kill the fun, simply because we can! I sincerely doubt that it would hurt Roland much if they just put the sample out there or made a d50 VST. It's not that they earn any money from people selling/buying the hardware synths as it is.

[mhog]

so the royalty/copyrights should be granted based on the importance or quality of the performance recorded?
rsp

In my opinion, royalty/copyrights for recorded sounds should not even exist, since they are like air, colours or water. But of course this is my very personal point of view. Music and elaborated patches, on the contrary, imply some work. The "Roland D-50 taboo" is in the "copyright" for those microseconds long pcm attacks that someone recorded in the eighties (taken from real instruments), otherwise it is very easy to emulate a D50. You can find "fantasia" and the like patches everywhere. On the contrary, every analog or waveforms based synth patch can be sampled, mixed and reselled "because waveforms, filters and oscillators have no copyright". This is the paradox, IMO. The "thumb" paradox.

[UltraJv]

Roland are not stupid, they will make what sells. If you go to Roland with a promise of 10,000+ guaranteed sales - they will make it. Despite the frequent appearance of D50 requests on KVR - it wont sell as much as you think. Youll be hard pushed to find 1000 people who really want it enough. Plugins are a niche market. Korg tried all this with the Legacy collection, its no longer in development due to not enough money coming in.

[ghettosynth]

So to be able to use D50 sounds in a recording, you need to own an actual D50 yourself.

If it is not allowed to sell samples of D50 sounds, then you can't buy such samples legally either?

No, you don't, you only need access to one. How long you need access to one isn't exactly clear. If I go into a studio and record a part with a D50, can I reuse that part later, even though I no longer have access to the D50? It's not clear to me that Roland has any right to say that you can't. The often asserted claim that if you don't own the D50 any longer then you can't use the sample is simply belief, not law. What license applies to that "derived recording?" You can't just claim that it's the license that Roland believes, that isn't in writing anywhere. It's also not clear to me that Roland would prevail in any attempt at a copyright lawsuit. As I said, this kind of use case has never been tested in the courts. The notion that the "recordings" in instruments are universally protected is something claimed by belief of application of the status quo only. It is clear that you cannot manufacture a product with these recordings, but it's not clear that any use as intended by the manufacturer wouldn't be viewed as fair use by the courts.

That is, there may be something of a conundrum as is often the case with certain types of goods. It's clear that you can't legally sell an instrument with recordings of a D50, and buying them may also not be legal, but once in your possession, you might legally be able to use such recordings. That is, selling is copyright violation, buying may fall under other legal concerns, but using may be fair use.

As another example, suppose I sample my RS7000 and use those samples in battery. I own one, well, I believe that I do; I haven't actually seen it in a while. What if it were stolen and I didn't know that it was missing? What legal principle guides my usage of those samples? Am I obligated to determine when it was stolen and somehow stop distributing any music made after that date? Do I get some "stolen instrument" license? What exactly is the license guiding this usage? I don't think that Yamaha will get very far by claiming that I couldn't record the sounds into Battery but I could record the sounds into my tracks. This is very much like time shifting of TV programs and the courts have ruled that is fair use.

Roland can claim that all tracks with D50 samples are derived works all they like, that doesn't mean that the courts will necessarily see it that way when challenged. Like I said, I doubt that this will ever get pushed, it's just too risky.

Can anyone think of any other product that has the properties of a sampled music instrument with respect to copyright? That is, is there anything else that contains copyrighted works that are specifically intended by the manufacturer to be copied to another copyrighted work as part of normal usage?

[mhog]

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.

[ghettosynth]

FIlters are designed differently between SH-2 and SH-101.

SH-2: four OTA-stages with selected BA662 with FET transistors as buffers
SH-101: four OTA-stages integrated in Roland IR3109 chip

SH-2 has a discrete filter. It does make it sound different from the IC variant.

Maybe, but it's like having two kinds of red hot chillies to use. I would rather have other spices added than another variant of the same red hot chilly. But I'm not their target market, anyway, I guess.

Besides, the Jupiter-4 was made with different filters, and I never saw that mentioned as an important difference anywhere (up to today I didn't even know). According to this site: http://fa.utfs.org/diy/roland_filters/ "up to Serial number 800800: four OTA-stages with selected BA662 with FET transistors as Buffers. Serial number higher than 800800: four OTA-stages integrated in a Roland IR3109". And those are the same two configurations listed above, by coincidence. Seems like the second is an upgrade of the first design, with all transistors in a chip, nothing else.

And the chip filter is the same one included in the Juno-60 and the Jupiter-8, among others, so, it must be a good filter.

Everyone knows that the IR3109 is essentially a collection of BA662s on a chip, right? Further that the BA662 is itself an IC, so to call it discrete is a bit misleading.