The Logic Off Topic list

Yoonchi,

this is an interesting topic, especially these days when storage is cheap
and soft samplers are all around. I'm afraid that I don't know the answer to
your question exactly, but I remember hearing about something a couple of
years ago. Apparently a new entrant on the PC soundcard field wanted to
start competing with the existing big ones. It wanted to compete with
pricing so it ripped the total sound set off of another manufacturer's
(Creative?) card. They ended up being sued big time, but I don't know how
the story finally ended.

Morale? I don't know, but the relevance of your question is at least
confirmed ;-).

cheers,

Bj\ufffdrn Elfstr\ufffdm

----- Original Message -----
From: <yoonchi@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: [L-OT] Are synth sounds protected by copyright?


> Hi,
> This OT has been bugging me.
> When you use samples from a sample disk, you pay a licence fee(included in
the price of the sample disk) to use samples.
> What happens if you have some synths and you sample the sounds of those
synths and you use them when recording a project?

<deleted>

I heard on MTV or VH1, that the Verve Pipe's only hit .... "(something) 
Symphony" used a sample .... not of a Rolling Stones record.... but of an 
orchestral version of a Stones song (one of these "Mantovani plays the 
Hits of the 60's with 50 piece string section"). The Stones were not too 
amused, and sued them, and the band only got like $500 TOTAL for having a 
#1 hit record. I guess the Stones were so poor they needed a few extra 
millions on a technicality to augment their existing millions.

>Generally, you can use any sample you like without concern for licensing
>provided the sample is not a musical *phrase*  from a pre-existing 
>composition
>a spoken phrase from a film or audio recording, or if it is a trademarked
>sound.
>(AFAIK Harley's  sound is trademarked for example, but this is mainly to
>prevent
>other motorcycle manufacturers from reproducing the Harley SoundA  in their
>bikes,
>not to prevent sampling...)
>
>I really would not worry about sampling synths you own. And if that ever 
>were
>a serious  issue I would say 'Fight the power... dakadakadakadakadakadaka
>da da da'

<GAmoore@...> wrote:
> The Stones were not too
> amused, and sued them, and the band only got like $500 TOTAL for having a
> #1 hit record. I guess the Stones were so poor they needed a few extra
> millions on a technicality to augment their existing millions.

Guess they needed some compensation for "Honky Tonk Women" which was written
by some french dude, who now, after decades, won the lawsuit.

Sascha

>
>
>Guess they needed some compensation for "Honky Tonk Women" which was written
>by some french dude, who now, after decades, won the lawsuit.
>

	Can you elaborate?  I haven't heard anything about this?  Big bucks?
-- 
Doug

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now I remember the name :  "Bittersweet Symphony" 

The thing that strikes me, is why not just play the same part on a synth 
- its a common string pad sound - why use a sample and lose millions.

>Now I remember the name :  "Bittersweet Symphony"
>
>The thing that strikes me, is why not just play the same part on a synth
>- its a common string pad sound - why use a sample and lose millions.

Devil's Advocate:
Well it would not have sounded quite the same for a start, Anyhow,
how do you know that it's not the 'phrase' (ie musical progression)
that wasn't the problem. Yes, using a performed sample of it does make
it more obvious, but I reckon that the process would legally have been as
much of a problem if the sound was a string pad,  but admittedlly perhaps
easier to get away with...

There would be no basis for the Stones to sue otherwise, if the
earlier information is correct and they didn't  actually perform on the
recording  (ie. if it is Mantovanni or whoever performed on the
recording from which the sample was made).

S.

At 11:13 PM +1000 7/4/01, Spectro wrote:
>
>There would be no basis for the Stones to sue otherwise, if the
>earlier information is correct and they didn't  actually perform on the
>recording  (ie. if it is Mantovanni or whoever performed on the
>recording from which the sample was made).
>
>S.

I know the Verve song but somehow can't place which stones song it 
was.  What song was it?
-- 


                                 Dennis Gunn
                                 Mightyjohn@...

                  check out  MIGHTY JOHN HENRY's album "hot air head"
                                                    info at
                        http://www.twics.com/~mightyjo/home.html

The other 10% are staging a protest of silence in an act of symbolic 
import. :-)

>Anyone notice how the S/N ratio has improved dramatically since Joeri 
>announced a stricter OT-policy?  I propose to give him the Moderator 
>of the Millenium Award.  Good work Joeri!  Thanks from me, and 
>probably from 90% of the rest of the group.

Tuesday, July 03, 2001, 4:37:16 PM, you wrote:

Gac> I heard on MTV or VH1, that the Verve Pipe's only hit .... "(something) 
Gac> Symphony" used a sample .... not of a Rolling Stones record.... but of an 
Gac> orchestral version of a Stones song (one of these "Mantovani plays the 
Gac> Hits of the 60's with 50 piece string section"). The Stones were not too 
Gac> amused, and sued them, and the band only got like $500 TOTAL for having a 
Gac> #1 hit record. I guess the Stones were so poor they needed a few extra 
Gac> millions on a technicality to augment their existing millions.

hmmm, the credits on the album are: _written_ by mick jagger and keith
richards, lyrics by r. ashcroft, performed by the andrew oldham
orchestra. so everyone should have earned the money he deserves. no
advocates needed.
[$500 for a #1 hit_single_ could be right, + >$1M for the #1 hit-album
+ tour + merchandising...:-)
]

-- 
Best regards,
 CaDu

I wrote:
> >Guess they needed some compensation for "Honky Tonk Women" which was
written
> >by some french dude, who now, after decades, won the lawsuit.

Doug Slick replied:
> Can you elaborate?  I haven't heard anything about this?  Big bucks?

Sorry, a friend (usually a well informed dude in such things) told me about
it, apparently it was in some news but it must have slipped through over
here... yes, big bucks, as it seems.
Maybe I should do a news search.

Sascha

>I wrote:
>>  >Guess they needed some compensation for "Honky Tonk Women" which was
>written
>>  >by some french dude, who now, after decades, won the lawsuit.
>
>Doug Slick replied:
>>  Can you elaborate?  I haven't heard anything about this?  Big bucks?
>
>Sorry, a friend (usually a well informed dude in such things) told me about
>it, apparently it was in some news but it must have slipped through over
>here... yes, big bucks, as it seems.
>Maybe I should do a news search.
>

	Hmm.  Interesting.  You'd think it would be headlines in the trades.
-- 
Doug

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Doug Slick wrote:
> Hmm.  Interesting.  You'd think it would be headlines in the trades.

Indeed - I searched the web a bit and found nothing yet.
Maybe someone was bullshitting my friend - he surely wasn't joking.

Hmhmhmmm..

Sascha.