Better Waveforms

[Nu Audio Science]

Single cycles are all copyright free to be honest
They fall within the 1.6 second sample legislation

OK if you were to dump cycles from a synth and use those you are on very shakey ground because that isn't recording

NAS

[Acrobat]

Single cycles are all copyright free to be honest
They fall within the 1.6 second sample legislation

OK if you were to dump cycles from a synth and use those you are on very shakey ground because that isn't recording

NAS

1.6 seconds? Never heard of this rule but sounds interesting..!

[Nu Audio Science]

Yes samples of less than 1.6 seconds that contain no melody or driving influence to any given piece of music they where taken from are fully legal to use

It's a hazy situation to say the least made even worse when one of the major labels threatened to take a certain party to court for having used some samples from a major pop artist
It turns out that said pop artists producers had used samples from a sample CD that where in fact made by the people they where trying to take to court and that they hadn't sampled the pop artist at all hahahahahah

Anyway from that day it seems unless you are going out of your way to completly base you compositions on another recording then you are fine
There is no point labels getting involved

However like i said if you dump (Rip) wavetables out of another synth this is not recording and reuse but blatant stealing and would be against the law
To this date i havent seen a company pursue a case but that isn't really the point


Having said all that if you are unable to find or create single cycle samples you really should spend a little time working on your technique
It is one of the easiest things to achieve with even the cheapest wave editor and a collection of music and synths and in no way would you be infringing anyones rights

NAS

[angstrom]

Yes samples of less than 1.6 seconds that contain no melody or driving influence to any given piece of music they where taken from are fully legal to use

do you have an attribution for that?
it sounds very much like an urban myth. I've certainly never heard of it before.

[Acrobat]

...it's so strange, for example at KVR, this winter, lots of people were asking for a Roland D-50 emulation and many came out with the usual saids that Roland is very jealous of his waves, but com'on D-50 had nearly 100 PCMs that are terribly common: bell, glocken, marimba, short hits that are very very very common even inside other machines, it's ridiculous to claim they are property of anyone...

Aside, their basic waves (saw, pulses) for linear vector synthesis are slightly distorted waves as well, very easy to recreate with any pro audio editor...

In short, instead of ripping them from the original machines, what a programmer must do is just reconstruct with a plain saw and apply a 20% drive on it, that's all... why do they claim to have "invented" anything? Are they Balthorizing? And even if someone wants to "break the law", I don't think they can demonstrate anyway that his waves are theirs.

[Osseous]

It would be impossible to prove if you just embedded your wavetables/pcm/wave files inside your synth wouldn't it? How could they extract them?

This is certainly a grey area for legislation i think. And i've never heard of that 1.6 second rule either. As far as i can remember from college, it's OK to take single hits from songs, anything more leaves you open to copyright liabilities but i think thats probably partly to do with the fact that it's very rare you actually hear a unique sound these days and a sample could have come from so many different places or actually been created by yourself.

Kinda of topic here, but if you listen to a song called Uranium from the Uranium EP by Radioactive Man, you'll hear a truly unique sound. It gets my synthesis juices flowing every time i hear it.

Oss

[Nu Audio Science]

OK fine i'm making it all up hahahahaha
Never mind

I have been using samples a very very long time and i have actually been involved in a sample copyright case and a couple of other copyright legislations too
But hey it must be an urban myth


NAS

[angstrom]

OK fine i'm making it all up hahahahaha
Never mind

I have been using samples a very very long time and i have actually been involved in a sample copyright case and a couple of other copyright legislations too
But hey it must be an urban myth


NAS

OK, weird response - but nevermind.

can you actually provide a link?
because info like that isn't too much use on hearsay.
As far as I know from my time working at EMI, Warner and VirginMusic any infringement is an infringement.

the Sixth Circuit has held that the de minimis defense is not available for the sampling of sound recordings because of their intrinsic value in saving the sampler time and costs in hiring musicians to perform the music however short.

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

[Nu Audio Science]

OK so you are gonna argue by showing something in Wikipedia
Oh yes Wikipedia is just the pinnacle of honesty and factuality isn't it hahahahahahahaha
Very funny

Dude i don't have to show any precedent for saying what i have said when i have been through a court preceding that did exactly what i said
If you do'nt believe me that is your choice
I don't care


NAS

[angstrom]

Frankly I don't.

You have a very odd and aggressive way of behaving, if you really had been through a process like this it would be easier for you to reply with a few simple facts, rather than some spurious claims of authority and an odd 'flying off the handle' response.

A simple answer would be:
I was involved in a case a few years back, and our defense was upheld under European Copyright Law that our usage of 1.6 seconds was fair use, this is fair use policy is documented here and here.

I mean, do you really think that talking about how much of a big shot is more convincing than a simple reference?

I made a simple request for more information on an important topic, yet you acted like I just insulted your mother. That's just weird.


Q: can I enter Europe without a passport?
A: yes, you can as long as you are there for less than 2 weeks
Q: are you sure? that doesn't seem right to me, can you provide a link?
A: I used to be the king of Europe and if you don't believe me then you are an IDIOT!"!! I KNOW!!!

hmmm

If you are going to make bald statements as facts, please at least make some attempt to back them up. Your insulting and bizarre behaviour does not advance your case any.

[angstrom]

Kevin S. Brady, Esq.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Attorney at Law - Practicing in Intellectual Property and Technology Law

There are many misconceptions surrounding copyright and related technology and Internet law issues. It's often difficult to separate fact from fallacy. While it is not the goal of this article to provide a comprehensive discussion on this area of law, it is my hope that this article will help put to rest some of the common myths, fallacies and urban legends.

----
Myth #18:
It's OK to sample a small piece of someone's sound recording, as such a small amount is sure to be fair use.

Fact: Unlike the case of musical compositions, there is no "de minimus" exception in the case of sound recordings. Thus, the taking of even a tiny snippet of a recording can be considered infringement. If you want to sample someone else's sound recording, obtain the proper permission (read: a license) first.

yep, sure sounds like an Urban Myth to me.

[Nu Audio Science]

Edited my reply cause there just isn't any point to this anymore
Think what you want

NAS

[Acrobat]

Oh yes Wikipedia is just the pinnacle of honesty and factuality isn't it hahahahahahahaha
Very funny

If you don't like WP, we here surely prefer to see a national legislation reference: obviously we all must refer to USA, Japan and UK laws since they're the biggest music markets for both music and samples.

Anyway, I don't want to enter the diatribe w/Angstrom, but having doubts about "Wikipedia" is quite the same root behaviour of having doubts about your "original statement", IMO.. so you're 1-1...

[angstrom]

Just because something is on Wikipedia doesn't make invalid.
the wikipedia article reference was a sourced item

This is not my unsubstantiated 'opinion', but a link to a defining case regarding the issue we are talking about - namely whether a sample shorter than 1.6 seconds is legal.

The wikipedia article talks about a defining judgement for 'short' samples of any length.
[38] Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films 410 F.3d 792, 802 (6th Cir. 2005)

that the 'de minima' defence is not applicable to sampling.

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ... ruled that the sampling was in violation of copyright law. Their argument was that with a sound recording, an owner of the copyright on a work had exclusive right to duplicate the work. Under this interpretation of the copyright law, usage of any section of a work, regardless of length, would be in violation of copyright unless the copyright owner gave permission. In its decision, the court wrote: "Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way." This decision effectively eliminates the de minimis doctrine for recorded music in the Sixth Circuit, and has affected industry practice.

If you would like a less readable, but more legal link you can try this
http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/6th/04a0297p.html

or this PDF of the court ruling
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pd ... 43a-06.pdf


So, I recommend that nobody try the "some guy on the internet told me" copyright infringement defence.

[Acrobat]

thx AngS , now it leaves up to the question about single cycle waveforms...but they fall in the "regardless of length", I guess.