EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Peter Ostry wrote:
> And what says Yamaha?

While the samples are pretty nice, I've allready been wondering as well.
Usually the verdict is: Sampling of non-samplebased synths = OK, sampling of sample based stuff (or extracting source samples such
as wavetables) = not OK.

- Sascha

>  I just wanted to let you know that I have uploaded the 496 samples from my RM50 
> drum module to my site. The samples are all categorized and zipped for easy 
> download. Please let me know if you have any problems.

>  http://www.millertone.com/samples.html

> Enjoy,
> Matt Miller

Many thanks for the samples !

JLM

On 19/2/05 1:35 AM, "Sascha Franck" <S.Franck@...> wrote:

> 
> Peter Ostry wrote:
>> And what says Yamaha?
> 
> While the samples are pretty nice, I've allready been wondering as well.
> Usually the verdict is: Sampling of non-samplebased synths = OK, sampling of
> sample based stuff (or extracting source samples such
> as wavetables) = not OK.

I can't see anything wrong with sampling a discontinued product and then
giving the samples away, it's not as if Yamaha is going to loose revenue
from Matt did.

--- In exs-users@yahoogroups.com, "Sascha Franck" <S.Franck@g...> 
wrote:
> Peter Ostry wrote:
> > And what says Yamaha?
> 
> While the samples are pretty nice, I've allready been wondering as 
well.
> Usually the verdict is: Sampling of non-samplebased synths = OK, 
sampling of sample based stuff (or extracting source samples such
> as wavetables) = not OK.
> 
> - Sascha

One of the reasons I posted these samples was to show my 
appreciation for all of the other great samples I have been able to 
download for free. As far as the ethics are concerned: there are 
dozens of commercially available sample libraries that have drum 
boxes and other synths represented, and I doubt that there are any 
royalties being paid to the original manufacturers for the use of 
those sounds. My next project, after programming the RM50 kits, is 
going to be a bunch of Casio VZ-1 presets. Is there any difference 
between a nonsample-based synth's presets vs. a sample player's 
presets? Plus, providing the samples of the RM50 does not replicate 
it's functionality - like the ability to have seperate envelopes, 
filters, etc... per voice. And yeah... The RM50 is long discontinued.

-Matt

mandcmiller wrote:
> One of the reasons I posted these samples was to show my
> appreciation for all of the other great samples I have been able to
> download for free.

Don't get me wrong, this is very much appreciated. And you've done a nice job on sampling and cutting them, judging from what I
listened to so far.

> As far as the ethics are concerned: there are
> dozens of commercially available sample libraries that have drum
> boxes and other synths represented, and I doubt that there are any
> royalties being paid to the original manufacturers for the use of
> those sounds.

I wouldn't be too sure about that point.
At least professional sampling companies, or people using samples for instruments (such as Spectrasonics) pay a fortune for their
licenses. At least that's what Eric (Person) once posted (not sure whether it was on this list or on KVR).

> My next project, after programming the RM50 kits, is
> going to be a bunch of Casio VZ-1 presets. Is there any difference
> between a nonsample-based synth's presets vs. a sample player's
> presets?

Legally, yes, there is.
Personally, I find this to be a bit weird too - but I can understand it nevertheless, at least partially.
Let's assume the following situation: There's a hardware unit with LOADS of RAM or diskspace - so there might be a whole lot of
(ROM) sounds on it, high quality samples, which the company doing said hardware unit had to license from the company distributing
the samples.
Now, let's just assume Mr. Garritan (or whomever) contributed a big set of symphonic strings to that unit's ROM content.
Would you think it'd be legal to resample those strings?
I'm sure Mr. Garritan and the hardware unit company would strongly disagree - and laws are disagreeing as well (at least from what I
know).

> Plus, providing the samples of the RM50 does not replicate
> it's functionality - like the ability to have seperate envelopes,
> filters, etc... per voice. And yeah... The RM50 is long discontinued.

Yes, I know. But just imagine Yamaha would've planned to re-use those samples in a, say, low level line VST synth of their own (you
may know that they're now teaming with Steinberg, so it's not even THAT unlikely). They might think about losing customers because
this very sampleset is allready available. Whether that's plausible or likely to happen is beyond the point... the samples are owned
(or licensed) by Yamaha.

As said, don't get me wrong, I truly appreciate your effort and I might use those samples too - they're wellsorted and good
sounding.
I was only pointing out the legal issues - and companies such as Roland and Yamaha are VERY sensitive (and aware) regarding such
matters. Just ask Eric (Person).

The bottomline being: Those companies protect whatever they can. With samples it's rather easy - with non-samplebased synths it
isn't. Maybe that's why they don't care as much about these.

Regards,
Sascha

--- In exs-users@yahoogroups.com, "Sascha Franck" <S.Franck@g...> 
wrote:
> mandcmiller wrote:
> > I doubt that there are any
> > royalties being paid to the original manufacturers for the use of
> > those sounds.
> 
> I wouldn't be too sure about that point.
> At least professional sampling companies, or people using samples 
for instruments (such as Spectrasonics) pay a fortune for their
> licenses. At least that's what Eric (Person) once posted (not sure 
whether it was on this list or on KVR.

I see that Hollow Sun has a number of sample-based synths available. 
Do you know how they deal with the legal issues? 

I don't think that there is a license agreement invlolved when you 
buy a synth or any other instrument. The RM50 I have is owned by me, 
not licensed. Even though the sounds are sample-based, they are each 
running through the RM50's synth engine, and each sampled is 
uniquely programmed with the engine - not unlike an analog synth. 
But I think that is even besides the point.

As far as Spectrasonics is concerned, Eric Persing may have been the 
original programmer for many of the samples that have been used in 
the Roland synths that he has since reissued in various 
Spectrasonics products. For that reason, as a former employee (or 
contract employee) he may very well be held to a different legal 
standard.

Thanks,

Matt

On 19. Feb 2005, at 23:02, mandcmiller wrote:

> ...there are
> dozens of commercially available sample libraries that have drum
> boxes and other synths represented, and I doubt that there are any
> royalties being paid to the original manufacturers for the use of
> those sounds...

In addition to Sascha's comments:

Serious commercial developers and distributors always ask for 
permission. Besides of the ethic aspect, reselling copyright protected 
names or sounds can become very expensive. And besides of that, imagine 
a letter from Yamaha addressed to you: "First, you did not have the 
permission to distribute a product whose name implies that it is a 
product of our company. Second - your samples do not sound like a real 
RM50. You injured our reputation." Oops.

Easy workaround: study the preset names of the Guitar Amp Pro. Apple 
did not avoid real names just for fun...


Peter Ostry

> I see that Hollow Sun has a number of sample-based synths available.
> Do you know how they deal with the legal issues?
By using common sense as best I can wherever possible.... by just trying to
be 'decent'!

I know that all the current major players know my site and know it well...
in fact, it recently got me some work with one of them!

I have emails from various personnel in these companies complimenting me on
the site, on the quality of the work, whatever and in the three and half
years Hollow Sun has been on-line I have have not received even ONE
complaint ever from any of the featured manufacturers.

I dunno.... maybe what I do *does* fly in the face of what is *technically*
legal with regards to copyright but I dunno... perhaps the spirit with which
I do it makes it (somehow) morally acceptable. For example:

* I do not feature current products, only discontinued ones, and if I do
  feature a current instrument, it is done with respect, understanding
  and/or prior agreement

* I provide the instrument's history (often with interesting anecdotes
  based on my long experience in this business). I am not, in other words,
  just 'ripping off' some sounds and putting them out there for all to
  grab... I am (maybe) offering an altogether different service

* I am not profiteering out of this venture. Ok... I have a few CDs on sale
  now but I think that the manufacturers know that they are not likely to
  impact on sales of their gear... in fact, they might even see them as
  good publicity - a 'taster' of the real thing (perhaps)

* The companies (perhaps) appreciate the respect the site shows towards
  them and their products and their products' designers/developers

* The companies represented at Hollow Sun realise that is is a labour of
  love and a valuable resource for the wider community in the long-term and
  that I am not out to rip anyone off

Whatever... as I say - I dunno.... but in three and a half years of being
on-line, Hollow Sun has received nothing but positive support from the
manufacturing community.

Frankly, I can't see Yamaha gearing up their legal staff to pounce on Matt
next week for this... it's just not worth their while. The RM50 is an old
drum module from 1993 that was discontinued many years ago - I doubt that
they even care. 

And if Yamaha really do want to revive some 10-yr-old sample set (which is
probably unlikely), their marketing power is gonna trample all over Matt's
efforts to make it available to the EXS community as a little freebie.




Best regards,


Steve
http://www.hollowsun.com

On 20. Feb 2005, at 02:38, Hollow Sun wrote:

> * I do not feature current products, only discontinued ones, and if I 
> do
>   feature a current instrument, it is done with respect, understanding
>   and/or prior agreement

Now the major players know you, but I am curious how you started your 
work. Did you just try to be quiet and do a good job or did you 
occasionally ask for (and get) permission in advance?

Actually I am astonished how that is handled in the music-related 
industry. According to my experience companies tend to ignore licensing 
questions from people they do not know.


Peter Ostry

> Actually I am astonished how that is handled in the music-related 
> industry. According to my experience companies tend to ignore licensing 
> questions from people they do not know.
> 
> 
> Peter Ostry
>
>  Hi..I don't understand what you are talking about.Can you expand what you 
mean Thanks..T

> I am curious how you started your
> work. Did you just try to be quiet and do a good job or did you
> occasionally ask for (and get) permission in advance?
Hollow Sun started with just some Mellotron samples and a few Roland,
Ensoniq and Korg samples (all products long out of production) and quite
frankly, I didn't even think about copyright. These were followed by other
suitably ancient instruments (Rhodes, Clav, Roland VP330, ARP String
Ensemble, etc.). Again, quite frankly, copyright didn't even cross my mind
(I genuinely thought it wasn't an issue)!

The first instrument I featured that was/is in production was the Novation
K-Station but that only came about through an informal chat with the guys at
Novation when I was working on the V-Station and was considered almost an
act of publicity.

Other times, I have just risked it. One such example was the Chapman Stick.
I wanted to feature that instrument not just for its fabulous sound but also
to bring this amazing instrument to the attention of the wider sampling
community. Three days after the page went up, I received an email from
Emmett Chapman himself thanking me for the page and asking if he could use
part of my description of the instrument on Chapman's own company website
(and offering some freebies in return!).

I have also been contacted by relatives of the deceased members of the
Mellotron/Chamberlin story thanking me for putting the whole story into
accurate perspective. And I was contacted by one of Chamberlin's relatives
to correct some info on that page.

I also know (again, from personal contact) that many key Korg and Roland
staff and personnel are using my stuff in the Triton and Fantom respectively
and have written to thank me for the sounds - ironic when you consider that
a fair chunk of it uses samples from Korg and Roland keyboards/synths!

And I was at Roland UK's head office for a meeting the other week and they
commented how fabulous my J/XV CD's audio demo sounded!!!

So, the whole thing at Hollow Sun has just evolved without one single issue
or complaint. *Technically* and in the strict eyes of the law, the site
might represent a field day for some lawyer but, in *practice*, Hollow Sun
seems to have attained the tacit approval of the industry to the point where
the work I present there has led to opportunities within the very companies
whose instruments I feature!

I can't say whether what I do at Hollow Sun is right or wrong... it was
certainly never *intended* as a rip-off, profiteering exercise and the whole
venture is done with everyone's best interests in mind. Whatever it is that
I have done, I seem to have got away with it to the point that Hollow Sun
now appears to be an accepted part of the sampling community, even by the
manufacturers themselves.


Best regards,


Steve
http://www.hollowsun.com

On 20. Feb 2005, at 14:42, taylormorgantaylor wrote:

>> Actually I am astonished how that is handled in the music-related
>> industry. According to my experience companies tend to ignore 
>> licensing
>> questions from people they do not know.
>>
>> Peter Ostry
>>
>  Hi..I don't understand what you are talking about.Can you expand what 
> you
> mean Thanks..T

Some time ago I built a large set of environment tools for Logic, 
especially for remote controllers. I wanted to name it "Logic Quick 
Tools" and a subset "Korg MC-1". So I asked Emagic and Korg and did not 
get answers. Later on I asked the people at VSL about using their 
samples in a studio which does not own the library. No answer. There 
was no unclearness in my questions - the mail to Korg was just two 
sentences, Emagic speaks German like me and VSL is just half an hour 
away from my home.

On the other hand you get immediate response from two software 
companies (one German, one American) about naming products built with 
their software. They tell exactly what you can do and how to put the 
name. And I am used to answer licensing questions myself. We had a 
web-based email system which could be licensed. And we have still a 
system for creditcard authorization which people want to license now 
and then. We do not give licenses for that but naturally people ask 
before they go in for something.

I am puzzled that companies who partly live on licenses do not talk 
about them. But they are very quick to sue each other. Stupid game, in 
my opinion.


Peter Ostry

Hi Pete.I don't see any legal issue in a third party developement of 
periphials.It is not an item that takes the program an mutates it.The third party 
would not exist without the original item(app.)..I think that Co.s can only 
welcome third party developers so that their product becomes not only 
more"mass friendly",but also the name gets around FREE.You can't write a 
book about say OSX without the title.Otherwise no one would know what the 
book was about or for that matter were to look for the book.
>>
>>Here's a sticky one..Say I have a CD and choose to,instead of numbers to 
specify tracks use..A sample from one of the samplers I use on the track to 
denote the song..So the third track would be called c1 and the sample from 
the verse keyboard is played til decay to zero..Say that is done 10 times for 
ten tracks..Were is that in regards to ownership..It's the sample used in the 
track but presented as a track marker..
>>
>>So the question is?Artistic freedom??I am doing an artistic thing in my 
mind.And I am using the sample in the song..So if one is copyright 
infringement then how could it be the other is not..I state them both to be 
liscenced under artistic freedom..Who's to say otherwise..Opens a wonderful 
can of worms..
>>
>> Actually I've been hoping for some time now that an Artist would have 
some patches stuck on the end of their CD or in a computer file as some discs 
have extras.Why not make it more of a total experience for your 
fans.Ecspecially when it comes to electronic music.It would be great to have a 
CD extra from the chemical bros that shows even a Quiktime snippet of them 
working something up..I can't see it breaking the bank with the technology as 
advanced and easy to use..Maybe someone will start..Then things will get 
interesting..Just a dream but I feel it more then valid..What do you think??And 
thanks for the reply.Hope this finds you well and inspired..T