Sample libraries for multiple users - Nick and Gary? [Archive]

midphase

09-25-2002, 04:06 PM

Well, hold on...

Let\'s make the comparison to say...Office v.X I buy 1 copy and istall it on one of my computers. As far as I know, my friend can come by and use Office on my computer and not have to pay for the license right?

So, if I have a post house, I own 1 copy of VOTA which is installed on one of the machines. If multiple users are accessing that machine (one at a time) shouldn\'t they be allowed to use those particular sounds as long as they are my employees and no additional copies are distributed and no two people are using the software at once?

If you compare software to sample libraries and apply the same rules then the law would probably side with me. I am not illegally copying the software, nor am I distributing it.

Here is another example, I am the owner of a post-house and I purchase VOTA for Jon, my in-house composer. Months later Jon moves on and I hire Sam. Shouldn\'t Sam now be allowed to use the sounds that I own? He is afterall my employee!

How about this scenario....let\'s say Jon, Sam and Andy form their own scoring company....Ping Pong Musika ™....Jon buys VOTA, SAM buys GOS and Andy buys Stylus. Now Andy is working on a commercial and he needs VOTA....can\'t he just \"hire\" Jon to compose the vocal parts and for all intents and purposes utilize VOTA on his gig? If Nick were to audit Ping Pong Musika™ Andy would just tell him that Jon is the legal owner of VOTA and Jon (and only Jon) composed the part of the music that utilizes the VOTA samples. How could Nick prove otherwise? Once again I would think the law would side with Ping Pong Musika™.

Sorry....I\'m just getting carried away here, but my point is that as long as no copies are distributed or installed on multiple machines, a corporation should be allowed to give access to the libraries that it owns to its employees and/or partners....right?

midphase

09-25-2002, 04:11 PM

Just another quick note....sound effects libraries are used in post production house by multiple sound editors with no additional copies sold to the actual house.

Soundelux which manufactures the Hollywood Edge series would essentially break its own rules since all of their employees have access to the same library. The guys at Skywalker Ranch apply the same practices there too.

Are sample libraries following a different set of rules and why?

Vertigo50

09-25-2002, 07:52 PM

This is turning into quite a debate. I\'m still hoping to hear from some of the developers on this.

Also, since the topic of piracy was brought up, I want to make it clear that I am NOT advocating piracy. I am also not looking for a way to \"work around\" the rules. I just want a straight answer because I need to know how much investment we need to make into sample libraries.

Definitely some good points made so far, though.

Nick Phoenix

09-25-2002, 09:08 PM

I actually mention this in my newer license agreements. If you guys work together exclusively, and the person that purchased the license is directly involved in every single piece of music that is produced with the library, then you only need one license (this is a rare situation, but not unheard of). When the partner that does not own a license uses the library on his own, he needs to purchase a license. Inevitabally, that situation will occur. But, you could buy one license in the interim, as long as you follow these rules. This is the case with Quantum Leap libraries.

SteveHanlon

09-25-2002, 09:21 PM

So, Vertigo50, all you have to do is punch in a couple of notes/licks/rhythm tracks on your fellow composer\'s composition and your good with one license.

What a deal!!

midphase

09-25-2002, 09:29 PM

Nick,

That is indeed a pretty fair deal!

Unfortunately I\'m not sure other developers abide by the same rules.

spectrum

09-25-2002, 10:45 PM

It\'s not that hard to understand the spirit of the law here. If someone else creates or contributes a musical part...then fine...they are a musician contributing a part.

A lot of music houses abuse sample libraries horribly, and this is a major reason for the restrictions and copy protection. It is insane to have 5 people working on different projects, all making separate money, but using the same library that was puchased as a single license. These music production houses are using our samples to make seriously big money on major network shows and films (often times not even adding any other elements to cues). That\'s the real problem that developers want to deal with.

The whole idea is to come up with an agreement that works for all individual composer\'s needs. Once you get into mulitple users...it\'s a rat\'s nest pandora\'s box of different situations. One license per user just keeps it simple. I contend that this arrangement is incredibly generous already.

spectrum

Vertigo50

09-26-2002, 12:59 AM

I appreciate the reply Nick. We will have to seriously consider this when purchasing. Since we probably won\'t have the capital to be purchasing extra licenses at first, we may have to just stick to our own libraries for a while. You\'ve definitely shed some light.

I\'m still looking very forward to ordering from you.

One more question. Is it possible to just purchase an extra license in this situation, and not a whole set of discs? Perhaps at a discount? I know that Microsoft does this a lot. I was just wondering.

shawn

09-26-2002, 08:53 AM

This just occurred to me: what happens if these three composers form a corporation? In most respects a corporation is treated as a separate legal entity, with the same rights and responsibilities attendant to an individual person. Would the courts treat the case of a sample library license agreement in a different manner?

Bruce A. Richardson

09-26-2002, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by shawn:
This just occurred to me: what happens if these three composers form a corporation? In most respects a corporation is treated as a separate legal entity, with the same rights and responsibilities attendant to an individual person. Would the courts treat the case of a sample library license agreement in a different manner?Very unlikely. Would members of your corporation score films under the credit of \"Filmscore Corporation?\" Probably not. I think this was the heart of Nick\'s reference to the \"extremely unlikely\" situation where two composers team up to work as one.

Some issues are confused here, I think, because of the liberal \"multi-machine\" necessity with sample libraries. However, this still means \"one person.\" Are you composing music for yourself with the samples? You\'re cool. Are you performing other people\'s work for hire? You\'re cool.

You cross the line when two or more people are getting composing credits from your single license. You cross the line when you don\'t musically contribute to someone else\'s production, but allow them to use the sounds licensed to you (for free or for hire).

I think the single case where you wouldn\'t cross the line is if someone is ghosting for you in your facility. At that point, the other composer is a for-hire employee of yours, working on music that would be credited to you, and therefore you\'re not in the situation of \"two composers/one license.\"

This is why Eric\'s cardinal rule of \"one person/one license\" makes the most sense. You can depend upon it in almost every situation. The exceptions are extremely rare.

J. Whaley

09-26-2002, 12:37 PM

Well my question is this, why is a sample library not treated like any other tool? Let\'s say a studio buys a Piano for $30k, that\'s now a tool for this studio. If onwer A wants to play the piano, he can, and he can record it, and he can do whatever he wants with it cause he bought it... But if Owner B wants to lease the studio and his client wants to play the piano and record... He TOO can. Because they\'ve bought this piano.

Now, let\'s say this studio buys a Korg Triton... again, the same situation as above, anybody who wants to use it can. However with either of these situations only one person can use it because there\'s only one keyboard.

Now, let\'s say they buy a Giga sampler machine, not for Sampling, but for SAMPLE PLAYBACK. Which is the most common application. Giga Sampler TOO can be passed around the studio without breaking any agreements.... there\'s one machine, user A can loan it to user B and there\'s still one machine. One CPU, keyboard mouse, monitor, and only one copy (paid for) of the software. This Giga machine was an investment just like the piano and the Triton. The company paid between 3-4k for this investment. But in and of it self this machine can\'t run without sounds. HOWEVER, based on the arguments presented on this page, those sounds must be purchased by each performer. Even if there\'s only one copy, user A and User B can\'t use it. Only User A. And client C can\'t use it either, cause client C has to buy his own.

Now, if Billy bob plays the $30k piano, he gets credit.... if Sally Joe plays the same piano she gets credit, and Jimmy Johnson can play it too... they can all take credit... they can take credit for the triton if they play it... but they can\'t even use the Giga set up because they dont all have individual licenses? So how many does a studio have to buy? One for each owner? One for each possible client that might use it?

I\'m just throwing this out cause it doesn\'t seem logical. I\'ve always viewed Sample libraries like any other instrument or tool I use. It so happens I work alone so I don\'t have this problem, but it seems like it would be a very common problem. Samples are the sounds for the hardware I bought. That would be like saying I purchased a JV expansion board for my Roland XP synth, but I\'m the only one who can use the sounds in a studio situation.

I do however see the problem of let\'s say a user buys a library, and installs it on his giga machine. Then Joe from the production complex says \"hey let me borrow that vocal collection you got\" and then he installs it in his giga machine. That would be like having 2 people using the Triton or Piano at the same time... that\'s not right. But it seems my situation above with one machine could be passed around.

That\'s just what I observe.

Austin

09-26-2002, 01:26 PM

I had a similar thought, but along the lines of:

What if a studio is built primarily for MIDI/sequencing/composing, and then rents out that room? Would the studio then have to have rates that said: \"$x per hour, but to turn on the Giga rig, you have to pay license for each library you use.\" Nah, can\'t work like that.

I DO understand the difference between buying a PIANO and purchasing a license for a piano sample. However, in a situation like the above...

Does this also apply in soft synths, a la Stylus? That would seem to be a one install-one machine situation, and if you are renting the room you are also given access to the software on the computer(s).

It seems that the MIDI studio for rent scenario would be difficult/impossible under the current typical license arrangement, right?

J. Whaley

09-26-2002, 01:34 PM

I agree with you Austin, and I bet most logical people would as well. But I\'m afraid what has happened is the people we work with are often not honest, and consequently copy libraries that are not theirs. I\'m sure the current license agreement is a result of people not being honest.

I\'ve actually heard about people forming a group of people and they all chip into sound libraries so it\'s not as expensive, then give each other the rights to use it. Their reasoning was \"we\'re a company and we bought this library\". It struck me as dishonest and when I heard about it I asked a buddy what he thought. He agreed with me. But after I\'ve thought about it some more, it strikes me as that\'s probably the reason they\'ve instituted the agreement like they have. If people would just be honest I\'m sure the agreement would be much easier and more clear to understand and companies wouldn\'t be so caught up on saying it the way they do. But NO, looser musican\'s who want people to buy their music so they can get royalties, don\'t want to pay for the tools to create that music... royalty free tools at that!

Vertigo50

09-26-2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by J. Whaley:

I\'ve actually heard about people forming a group of people and they all chip into sound libraries so it\'s not as expensive, then give each other the rights to use it. Their reasoning was \"we\'re a company and we bought this library\". Very good point, and frankly I was afraid of being called a pirate when I brought this up. I thought people might accuse me of doing just what you said. I assure you, however, that we\'re uniting in a way that we think will be more beneficial to all 3 of us. There are plans of making a recording studio as well, and the possibility of renting it out, which, as was said before, opens up a whole other can of worms as far as letting people use the samples goes.

This is getting real complicated, real fast!

spectrum

09-26-2002, 04:46 PM

Yes....our sample-based virtual instruments like Stylus are based on the same agreement as sample libraries. We are really clear about this on our site, and on the OUTSIDE of the package....if this doesn\'t work for someone, they can return the product and get a full refund. Our sample libraries even explain all this in a voice over on the disc. Here\'s the Stylus info, which is written as plainly as we can make it:

http://www.spectrasonics.net/instruments/stylus_faq.html (\"http://www.spectrasonics.net/instruments/stylus_faq.html\")

Sample Library license agreements were born out of sound recording licensing practice as much as trying to protect abuse. The trade off of single user is balanced by nearly unlimited lifetime usage.

Sample libraries are a very good deal when you consider what commercial sound recordings cost to license for sampling ($10,000 to upwards of $100,000 or more per usage!) Of course that\'s for a single use and you can\'t transfer those licenses to other people either.

When I tell music licensing and sample clearance people what companies like Spectrasonics, East West and others charge as a low-price, one-time lifetime license...they usually are speechless at how ridiculously cheap it is and tell you that we are all insane (which of course we are!)

Obviously, the reason we all do this type of simple, one-price fits all agreement, is to find a kind of fair middle ground that will appeal to pros, semi-pros and serious hobbyists alike. But for anyone making money in music, what we do is incredibly reasonable. For hobbyists, it\'s a stretch....and for semi-pros, it\'s just about right.

Hope that helps explain where the soundware business has come from. Hardware is usually less restrictive on ususage (but remember that they also have nearly flawless copy protection too...so their sales numbers are close to ten times that of soundware. We\'ve done it both ways, and there\'s a major difference.)

best,

spectrum

dougrogers

09-26-2002, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Austin:
It seems that the MIDI studio for rent scenario would be difficult/impossible under the current typical license arrangement, right?They can purchase a \'site license\' from EASTWEST for this purpose.

Originally posted by J. Whaley:
Well my question is this, why is a sample library not treated like any other tool? Let\'s say a studio buys a Piano for $30k, that\'s now a tool for this studio.Because it would cost you 30K to take the piano home! However, you can make a copy of a sample library for the cost of a CDR - that is the MAJOR difference.

You have to look it in this context - how much would you have to spend to \'purchase\' that Steinway you are playing now that you got (recorded) for less than a couple of hundred bucks - $100,000?

Even the upcoming orchestral libraries are an absolute bargain when you consider it costs $10K to hire an orchestra for \'half a day\' (with a ten minute break every hour), and you can license a \'recorded\' orchestra for less than this, for a lifetime of use.

We often spend a year or more developing some libraries. All we ask in return is, respect the cost and effort we put into creating these inexpensive production tools, which often contribute to multi-million dollar recordings, and don\'t share them, or copy them.

Take care,

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST

shadowbox

09-26-2002, 06:01 PM

This whole issue of multiple use license, and site license can definitely get confusing and complicated. I think the basic thing to remember is that the sample library companies are reasonable people, and they\'re not going to use gestapo tactics to hunt people down. But if you use their sounds, they should be paid. These companies get ripped off all the time. I don\'t see how many of them make any money to be honest. I have become fairly militant over the years with my sample libraries. As I have with all my software. It amazes me how many \"pros\" in the business use cracked software or stolen samples.

That said--if one person in a three person company owned a sample library, and one of the composers that didn\'t own the samples wanted to use them for his/her composition. Couldn\'t the composer hire that person that owns the samples to play or arrange on the session using those sounds? If the person legitimately played/arranged the parts and got paid for the session as a musician/arranger, wouldn\'t that be legal?

What I think the sample library companies should do is form a group or association like the Library of Congress for sample libraries. Anytime you buy a sample library, you have to register it with the company. From that point on: every commerical, trailer, soundtrack, record, etc., that you use the library on has to be registered with the company. Even demos. That way if a \"demo\" becomes a \"final\" it is taken care of. Every sample library you use has to be noted and accounted for. If you own the library and you played on someone\'s session; that recording would have to be registered. This way, every use of the library is noted and registered officially. If at anytime the sound library company thinks its license has been violated it would be very easy to check. For example: let\'s say Nick Phoenix recognizes one of his company\'s samples in a commercial on TV. He looks up the commercial in the database by Brand/Product Name and sees if it is registered. If it\'s not, then he can follow up and see what the deal is. It\'s possible the person forgot to register--they can then remedy that situation. Or perhaps someone used the samples illegally and Nick can get compensated.

The registration could be online or even by phone and would be a free and simple process. There would be no reason not to register.

Seems like it could work.

09-26-2002, 07:02 PM

[QUOTE]Because it would cost you 30K to take the piano home! However, you can make a copy of a sample library for the cost of a CDR - that is the MAJOR difference.[QUOTE]

And you can make a copy of the sounds from original piano, then sell them for the next trillion years without paying anything at all to the people who actually built the piano. And, for some reason beyond my simple ken, you are apparently not only allowed to sell it to kingdom come, you are allowed to use the NAME of the piano and the model (name) of that piano and sell it as if the user were buying everything important about that particular $100,000 piece of hardware from you for a paltry sum. No, you\'re really selling the thing itself, are you not?

[QUOTE]You have to look it in this context - how much would you have to spend to \'purchase\' that Steinway you are playing now that you got (recorded) for less than a couple of hundred bucks - $100,000? [QUOTE]

Well, there you go. So you are selling \'me\' THAT Steinway then? How is that? How come you are allowed to do that? I understand that the law \'currently\' allows this, but I have to assume that this is only because the law has not been fully tested. A Steinway may be more than its \'sounds\' (you can put family photos on it, and it\'s just the right height to lean against at parties) but surely its sounds are what \'makes\' a Steinway a Steinway? Do the sounds not constitute virtually ALL that is important about a Steinway; it\'s very essence? Otherwise you\'d call it the East-West Joanna? If you built the piano, then recorded it, you would be fully justified in making every assertion you make; then it would just be a very clever way to lever your manufacturing process into the digital age.

[QUOTE]Even the upcoming orchestral libraries are an absolute bargain when you consider it costs $10K to hire an orchestra for \'half a day\' (with a ten minute break every hour), and you can license a \'recorded\' orchestra for less than this, for a lifetime of use. [QUOTE]

These libraries stand on the shoulders of a whole lot of technology; including the original instruments and the players thereof - who often do a session because it\'s a session. If you\'re saying that your \'recorded\' orchestra is such a huge bargain because it actually replaces a real orchestra, tell me how much of each sale do you plan to donate to the \'Fund for Obsolete Musicians\'? Libraries do not \'replace\' orchestras (not quite yet) and $10,000 is looney. You are begging to be pirated at that price.

[QUOTE]We often spend a year or more developing some libraries. All we ask in return is, respect the cost and effort we put into creating these inexpensive production tools, which often contribute to multi-million dollar recordings, and don\'t share them, or copy them.[QUOTE]

How much do you pay Steinway or Bosendorfer to plaster their names on your products? How much \'respect\' are they afforded? Are you not the original pirate? Is it not the developer who makes the \'original\' copy? Just because the people at Steinway and Bosendorfer are too dumb to see what\'s happening doesn\'t necessarily give you the high moral ground here.

The reason why this copyright issue is so touchy is because no matter how much work you put into a library, its sole purpose is to \'copy\' the original.

I love all of my libraries, but you cannot have it every way you wish. You can ask whatever you think we are willing to pay but please don\'t try to pander to our \'better nature\' on this. I use libraries because they are fun. Professionals often use them to \'replace\' humans (whether they \'can\' or not is only moot for now). Your strongest selling point is how \'cheap\' they are compared to the \'real thing\'.

This is complex all right. And you\'d better put away a few pennies each week just in case some judge somewhere should actually decide twenty years from now that all of your arguments as to why you are allowed such \'generous\' copyright protection might be extended to the people who built/own/played the originals from which you used cheap, abundant, technologies to produce many thousands of copies of things that were unique and surely worthy of protection (no matter how \'complex\' the unravelling of which might be).

Charging $10,000 is the best copy protection you could possibly implement. If nobody buys it, nobody can copy it (or will you be selling \'bootlegs\' to cover costs; you\'ve already shown by selling \'Steinways\' or \'Bosendorfers\' that you\'re not averseve to a bit of copying yourself)?

dougrogers

09-26-2002, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Z6:
Well, there you go. So you are selling \'me\' THAT Steinway then? How is that? How come you are allowed to do that? I understand that the law \'currently\' allows this, but I have to assume that this is only because the law has not been fully tested. A Steinway may be more than its \'sounds\' (you can put family photos on it, and it\'s just the right height to lean against at parties) but surely its sounds are what \'makes\' a Steinway a Steinway? Do the sounds not constitute virtually ALL that is important about a Steinway; it\'s very essence? Otherwise you\'d call it the East-West Joanna? If you built the piano, then recorded it, you would be fully justified in making every assertion you make; then it would just be a very clever way to lever your manufacturing process into the digital age.[/QB]This is a sampling forum, is it not? How many sample libraries were created \"out of thin air\"??

The real art of \"recording\", \"sampling\" any real instrument is a combination of how the instrument is played (struck), and the recording technique used by the engineer/producer/developer. There are many Steinway sample libraries available. All have been sampled with varying degrees of success. Our Steinway has stood the test of time for five years, in fact it was the very first piano library created for Giga, and it\'s still regarded by many people in this forum as one of the best sounding Steinways.

So why is this? If it\'s just a matter of \"copying\" a Steinway, why would you need to ask which Steinway sample library sounds the best, or why wouldn\'t you just hire a studio and record it yourself? Because some developers know how to capture the sound of the instrument, and some don\'t - that \"art\" is what we are licensing.

You could say the same thing about any instrument. Who owns an appealing drum sound - the artist, the drum manufacturer, the person that recorded it, the producer? When a drummer hits that drum, even once, why does the record company own the sound recording of the drum? They didn\'t make the instrument. The reason they own the copyright is due to the fact an \'artist\' made something out of the instrument that was commercially appealing to someone else. That artist wasn\'t selling drums!

It\'s not a matter of who owns an instrument. The instrument was built in the first place to be played and/or recorded. It\'s the way the instrument is \"captured\" that either has commercial appeal or not - and proudly, that\'s why we have over 40 international awards for our sound design.

With regards to the Orchestra - we have no intention of charging $10K for our upcoming orchestral collection (that\'s someone else) - but if we did, you would be getting it cheap in my opinion, considering the talent that was pulled together, the time we are investing in it, and the money it has cost to create. By the way, we don\'t own those instruments either, nor do any of the other developers on this site. Unless developers are creating synthesized sounds, they are \"recording\", \"sampling\" real instruments.

An instrument of any quality can sound good or bad, depending on who is in charge. Capturing every nuance of those instruments so users can create the kind of demos we often hear on this site is what we are licensing, and it\'s an art that very few have accomplished consistently.

Have a good day.

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST

09-26-2002, 09:45 PM

Doug,

I don\'t entirely disagree with anything you\'ve said. But you realy, really don\'t think that selling a \'Steinway\', labelled as a Steinway should owe more than a simple nod to the company that built the instrument that samplists so lovingly capture (although I don\'t even detect a nod)?

I know the law is currently on your side on this. But that\'s it? You absolutely don\'t feel you owe any fee to Steinway? Even for using their name? The Steinway name IS worth a lot. How much do you pay to use it? Nothing, of course. The victims don\'t even know they\'re being burgled. If you steal the village idiot\'s lunch from under his nose, has a crime not taken place just because he doesn\'t \'get it\'?

Nobody is arguing with the quality of anyone\'s library. On the contrary, you make such strong arguments that we really don\'t need the \'original\' any more.

Let\'s not go into instruments that require a lifetime of experience to play (a note). Let\'s keep it simple. A piano. That way we can almost eliminate the player.

How can it be so clear cut that you shouldn\'t be \'copied\' when you copy a piano? Regardless of the skill involved, it is a copy of the sounds of that instrument. It\'s not exactly easy to build the world\'s best piano, but you have no trouble at all copying it, and then defending your right to copy and sell it, and still no apparent \'conscience\' at all about copying the original, which took many, many years to perfect by many people - many more people than it takes to sample a piano.

Please don\'t slide my comments into some kind of anti-sample movement. I love my libraries. I am awed by the skill of samplists. But I am just as awed by the skill of piano makers. You cannot \'ask\' people to respect all the skills and hard work you employ if you just crap all over over the hard work of others.

Your Steinway? Your Steinway? Mmm. Interesting. Of course, it\'s not a Steinway, is it? It\'s a copy of a Steinway isn\'t it? It is a copy. The best copy of a Steinway is the definition of the best Steinway library.

It\'s not a matter of whether yours is better than someone else\'s, is it? As I said, we pay for whatever we want to pay for. If I made a crappy copy of one of your libraries (by copying - recording - the \'sounds\'; changing a few features of the waveforms - perhaps more velocity layers, or less, is that enough to call it art?) and tried to sell it, but someone else made a better copy that took two years to do with great skill. Which would you believe is worth more? Or would we both be theives?

You say: \"The reason they own the copyright is due to the fact an \'artist\' made something out of the instrument that was commercially appealing to someone else. That artist wasn\'t selling drums.\"

How is that different to what I just described? Because you OWN the waveforms? Well I think Steinway OWNS the waveforms of a Steinway. Not you or anyone who copies its sounds, whether artistically or otherwise. And I certainly think Steinway OWNS the name Steinway (at least when applied to pianos or facsimiles thereof), but you have no trouble at all using the word as if it were generic. It is not. You could use the word \'piano\' but you use the word Steinway. Hello! Hello! Earth calling Steinway! Earth calling Steinway! Come in Steinway!

You say: \"It\'s not a matter of who owns an instrument.\" Really? Well, maybe not but you do have to get some kind of permission to use someone else\'s property don\'t you? Except it seems, when you copy all that is important about a piano, then sell that essence a thousand times more cheaply than the original, and even use the name of the company that built it and the model that you copied.

What I find sad that nowhere in your post do you even mention at all that you sell a thing with \'Steinway\' in the title, and that they \'created\' the sounds; whether you blonk on the keys or not; the possibility of those sounds exists within the instrument, and I can produce those sounds as easily as you? Do you own the name Steinway; am I missing something? You make no apology whatsoever. Does a judge have to roll you over the coals before you\'ll admit that perhaps you do indeed owe something to the people who created the instrument from which you copied?

Your argument is no different in structure from a hacker who takes umbrage at people decrying his pastime. It takes a lot of skill to hack software. Many of these hackers give it away. They do it for free. Often they do it for free and they ask users to buy the software. But then the people who actually built it in the first place go and get miffed about it. You don\'t give your libraries away, do you?

I tell you why I posted these rants. Because when you produce something and I want to buy, I\'ll buy it. Don\'t go \'asking\' for \'respect\' when you do not afford even the faintest acknowledgement that you ARE, IN FACT, SELLING \'COPIES\' OF THE ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT.

I know it\'s not easy to disentangle all of the possible ownership claims here, but that doesn\'t alter the fact that, in principle, you are stealing something very precious, selling it to us, and claiming both legal and moral ownership.

If it took a hundred years to \'sample\' a Steinway, it would still be theft. I am already guilty myself of accepting stolen goods because I cannot resist buying them. I\'d feel better about it if you and others weren\'t distributing the booty between yourselves without a single thought for the \'ARTISTS\' who created it.

Man, I get tired of hearing about how we\'re all supposed to respect this or that ridiculous \'license\' agreement.

But I wish someone would wake Mr. Steinway up before all of the blood gets sucked out of him.

midphase

09-26-2002, 10:28 PM

I hope this will not get misinterpreted but...

All you guys need to realize that when you ask a legal/license question on a public board you will be given an answer that reflects the strictest interpretation of the law.

It has to be this way because the developer or any of its representatives can not go on record as making exceptions, they would be opening a can of worms that would seriously harm them.

My advice is be judicious and fair in the usage of a sample library and chances are you won\'t get into trouble....even if you\'re threading in a potentially grey area.

As Eric has pointed out several times, he has better things to do with his time than become the sample police. I think that if you don\'t abuse the trust that developers unequivocally place on you when they sell you their products, you will be allright.

Now...back to the music making so you can make more money and this won\'t be an issue!

Garritan

09-26-2002, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Vertigo50:
A question for Nick, Gary, and the other developers here. Two of my friends and I are going to start working together in a music production company. We\'re setting up a combined studio and sharing equipment. What I\'m wondering is, if I were to buy GOS or VOTA for example, would we have to buy 3 licenses to cover that?

Vertigo50,

It really depends upon the circumstances of each case. I consider licensing an issue of control. If the library remains under the owner\'s control, then there\'s no problem. If the owner is an individual, a partnership or a corporation makes little difference. In the eyes of the law, a corporation is considered a \"person\". If the exclusive control of the library no longer rests with the owner, then separate licenses should be negotiated. For instance, if there are multiple copies of the library spread across many workstations and many users are using the same library simultaneously, then a site license is in order. If you and two of your friends have a common enterprise and are using GOS in furtherance of this enterprise, I don\'t have a problem with that.

Gary Garritan

shadowbox

09-26-2002, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Z6:
[QUOTE]Because it would cost you 30K to take the piano home! However, you can make a copy of a sample library for the cost of a CDR - that is the MAJOR difference.[QUOTE]

And you can make a copy of the sounds from original piano, then sell them for the next trillion years without paying anything at all to the people who actually built the piano. And, for some reason beyond my simple ken, you are apparently not only allowed to sell it to kingdom come, you are allowed to use the NAME of the piano and the model (name) of that piano and sell it as if the user were buying everything important about that particular $100,000 piece of hardware from you for a paltry sum. No, you\'re really selling the thing itself, are you not?I would guess the the \"sound\" of a Piano may fall under Public Domain. But you may have a point about using the brand name of particular pianos. I wonder if any sample library developer has looked into the legalites of this or if they\'ve gotten the rights.

[QUOTE]Even the upcoming orchestral libraries are an absolute bargain when you consider it costs $10K to hire an orchestra for \'half a day\' (with a ten minute break every hour), and you can license a \'recorded\' orchestra for less than this, for a lifetime of use. [QUOTE]

These libraries stand on the shoulders of a whole lot of technology; including the original instruments and the players thereof - who often do a session because it\'s a session. If you\'re saying that your \'recorded\' orchestra is such a huge bargain because it actually replaces a real orchestra, tell me how much of each sale do you plan to donate to the \'Fund for Obsolete Musicians\'? Libraries do not \'replace\' orchestras (not quite yet) and $10,000 is looney. You are begging to be pirated at that price.

First off--you can get more bees with honey than vinegar. However, I have wondered about how much the musicians get paid for big sample libraries. I know they are usually recorded in Europe because they can\'t afford union wages. But if the musicians agree to a buyout price then so be it. You can\'t fault the sample companies for that. They create a product legally, they can sell it on their terms. You can buy it, or not.

Vertigo50

09-26-2002, 11:34 PM

Gary,

Thank you for giving an honest, direct answer. It seems this topic has taken a turn in a new direction. There are some decent points made on both sites, but I wasn\'t trying to bring out the debate over who owns the sounds. I just simply wanted to know how the developers felt about using their libraries in non-standard ways.

Again, thank you Gary for answering my question, and as I said before, I look forward to purchasing your library soon. Perhaps I will talk privately with you about the details when we\'re closer to making the purchase.

dougrogers

09-26-2002, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Vertigo50:
Is it possible to just purchase an extra license in this situation, and not a whole set of discs? Perhaps at a discount? I know that Microsoft does this a lot. I was just wondering.Yes it is. We offer a \'site license\', as opposed to the \'individual license\' you purchase normally. Each \'site license\' is negotiated depending on the circumstances. Contact jennifer@eastwestsounds.com if you are interested.

Take care.

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST

peter269

09-27-2002, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by dougrogers:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Austin:
[qb] Because it would cost you 30K to take the piano home! I believe it is equally fair to point out that it is far more difficult to swap a piano than a sample.

peter269

09-27-2002, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Z6:
[QUOTE] A Steinway may be more than its \'sounds\' ...There are multiple issues here.

1. The name \"Steinway\" is a trademark. Years ago, our ad agency did a campaign for Husqvarna chain saws. The headline read, \"The BMW of chainsaws.\" At the ad\'s bottom we noted that BMW was registered trademark of Bavarian Motor Works. In this sense, it was not our intention to say that this piece of equipment was a BMW. That would be trademark infrigement. But as a comparison, that fell under fair use provided the correct acknowledgement was given.

In sampling however, we have much a different issue. If you\'re saying that the CD is a sampled Steinway piano, then rights and permissions may technically need to be discussed.

This is far different than the artistry represented by a drummer on an album. The recorded artisty is an integral part of the sound composition and falls under a copyright. But in such a sound recording, it is not the drums that are promoted, but the artists. There may be liner credits that state that Joe Blow is an artist for Sonor drums. But people aren\'t buying the CD because of the Sonor drums, but the aggregate sound of the musicians, of which the drums are an aural part.

When Peter Erskine does a sampling CD, we are getting not a set of drums, we\'re getting the sampled Peter Erskine. In this case, that\'s artistry.

But to sample a set of drums and offer them for sale with the manufacturers name and representative sound is a different matter. We now have a trademark issue, a potential copyright issue, and since sounds can be trademarked, potential trademark issues.

Why hasn\'t an acoustic manufacturer done something yet? Difficult to say. What can be predicted is that a time will come.

Vertigo50

09-27-2002, 01:56 PM

Ok, while this has gone quite far from the original topic, I do have one point to make on the issue of the Steinway, etc.

Although I tend to agree with many of you that there may be a copyright issue here, have you considered the implications if these companies sue and then start charging to use their names and instruments? Namely, HIGHER PRICES, and I mean MUCH HIGHER!!

I just can\'t quite see the point of pushing this issue when it\'s going to end up biting you in the face eventually.

Maybe it\'s just me.

Deimos

09-27-2002, 02:39 PM

\"The BMW of Chainsaws\" fell under fair use provided the correct acknowledgement was given.

In sampling however, we have much a different issue. If you\'re saying that the CD is a sampled Steinway piano, then rights and permissions may technically need to be discussed.By the same logic, all the samplist would have to do is acknowledge on his website and manual that the trademarks/brand names belong to each respective company/owner. That would be the exact same acknowledgement, which thus creates fair use: or, at least, an argument strong enough to match the precedent in court.

I realize that in a way the two cases may seem different, but what makes them the same here is that in both cases, the company is making money through a direct reference to another brand name, and not paying the brand holder for that privilege. The context of said reference should not be considered relevant, because each company is different (obviously).

Therefore, the status quo is not unfair. Without the artist the instrument is useless, and without the samplist there is no library... everyone is providing clear, unique value to the equation.

Finally, we should note that the instrument manufacturer was the first party to get paid, thanks again to the artist. Then the artist gets paid. The samplist is the last person to make money, which seems appropriate.

When Peter Erskine does a sampling CD, we are getting not a set of drums, we\'re getting the sampled Peter Erskine. In this case, that\'s artistry.Moreover, since at least one artist always plays on all libraries, the emphasis must always return to what you said: the performance quality of the artist (though in itself it is not \"music\", it is the \"art\" of production tools).

Deimos

09-27-2002, 02:59 PM

\"The BMW of Chainsaws\" fell under fair use provided the correct acknowledgement was given.

In sampling however, we have much a different issue. If you\'re saying that the CD is a sampled Steinway piano, then rights and permissions may technically need to be discussed.By the same logic, all the samplist would have to do is acknowledge on his website and manual that the trademarks/brand names belong to each respective company/owner. That would be the exact same acknowledgement, which thus creates fair use: or, at least, an argument strong enough to match the precedent in court.

Even more so in that the entire sampling industry has been alive and well for years. Clearly there was a peace made some time ago...

I realize that in a way the two cases may seem different, but what makes them the same here is that in both cases, the company is making money through a direct reference to another brand name, and not paying the brand holder for that privilege. The context of said reference should not be considered relevant, because each company is different (obviously).

Therefore, the status quo is not unfair. Without the artist the instrument is useless, and without the samplist there is no library... everyone is providing clear, unique value to the equation.

Finally, we should note that the instrument manufacturer was the first party to get paid, thanks again to the artist. Then the artist gets paid. The samplist is the last person to make money, which seems appropriate.

When Peter Erskine does a sampling CD, we are getting not a set of drums, we\'re getting the sampled Peter Erskine. In this case, that\'s artistry.Moreover, since at least one artist always plays on all libraries, the emphasis must always return to what you said: the performance quality of the artist (though in itself it is not \"music\", it is the \"art\" of production tools).

dougrogers

09-27-2002, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Z6:
Doug,

How is that different to what I just described? Because you OWN the waveforms? Well I think Steinway OWNS the waveforms of a Steinway. Not you or anyone who copies its sounds, whether artistically or otherwise. And I certainly think Steinway OWNS the name Steinway (at least when applied to pianos or facsimiles thereof), but you have no trouble at all using the word as if it were generic. It is not. You could use the word \'piano\' but you use the word Steinway. Hello! Hello! Earth calling Steinway! Earth calling Steinway! Come in Steinway!First of all, we haven\'t \"copied\" a Steinway - we have \"recorded\" a Steinway, and recordings belong to the person that made the recording. Steinway does not \"own\" our digital recordings (waveforms).

Steinway pianos are recorded everyday in studios and concert halls. This is perfectly legal, and there wouldn\'t be too many piano recordings if it wasn\'t. Pianist do not have to seek the permission of Steinway to record their piano. Steinway\'s compensation is the sale of the piano.

The Steinway brand name is owned by Steinway, and I couldn\'t make another piano and call it a Steinway, but the law allows you to state a fact. For example, if I went to Disneyland, I could state that fact in print - even though Disney owns the trademark. If we record a Steinway piano, we are allowed to state it is a Steinway piano. How do I know this? Because I hired an expensive Attorney to research this prior to the release of both piano libraries. In fact, Bosendorfer supplied the photo that we used on the cover . They were fully informed as to what we were doing, and had no problem with it.

I have tremendous respect for Steinway pianos. Along with Bosendorfer, Fazioli and some other brands, they are the best sounding pianos in the world. We only choose to sample them because they are the very best pianos available. However, if I had a choice between owning a Steinway and a Steinway sample library - I would definitely choose the piano.

Must get back to the orchestra library.

Later - Doug

09-27-2002, 03:43 PM

By the same logic, all the samplist would have to do is acknowledge on his website and manual that the trademarks/brand names belong to each respective company/owner. That would be the exact same acknowledgement, which thus creates fair use: or, at least, an argument strong enough to match the precedent in court.

What precedent? There is a precedent on this? In this sector? This isn\'t just about \'acknowledging\' a trademark? The product itself is a copy of the original. The \'art\' of the samplist in the case of these pianos is to produce a product indistinguishable from the original: an EXACT copy is the holy grail here.

The closer the copy is to the original, the better the product. And the product sells itself, not as a \'product\' of the artist, but as the instrument itself. This isn\'t the \"William Coakley Good Attempt at Squeezing Any Old Piano Into a Module\". This is a \"Steinway Model X\". \"My Steinway...,\" \"his Steinway...\", as they say.

No. The law hasn\'t caught up with this. If \'acoustic waveforms\' are not protected by copyright, or patent (expired?) or some other intellectual property law, it is not necessarily because acoustic waveforms, should, as a matter of course, remain in the \'public domain\', it may be because these companies just don\'t \'get it\' (like the erstwhile village idiot I\'m so fond of citing).

There is something very wrong here.

I realize that in a way the two cases may seem different, but what makes them the same here is that in both cases, the company is making money through a direct reference to another brand name, and not paying the brand holder for that privilege.

Not quite. As I keep stating, this is a whole lot more than a reference. The piano (to all intents and purposes) is being copied. The name is not being \'referenced\' by the artist. We are being sold a \'Steinway\'; plain and simple. I know this analogy isn\'t accurate because there are no real analogies for this yet, but:

If I could copy a Porche in such a way as to make it usable in every way as long as the end user added a keyboard and a stereo system (?fill in any object you like here?), then I made thousands of copies and sold them as Porsches (I\'d use a classic model, of course, just like a samplist), THEN I had the cheek to \'deplore\' any and all attempts to copy my copy (after all, it\'s not easy to copy a Porsche well; mine took a huge amount of work, I\'m known for my digital copies of fine cars), I doubt anyone would be on my side for very long. But the nature of music allows this very thing to happen to Steinway and other piano makers. These (copied) pianos are so good as to auger the end of these companies. People who really need a Steinway they can touch could just buy the new MDF version (now in production in my tiny mind) and plug their systems in.

The status quo is not unfair, because without the artist the instrument is useless,

No. Not at all. You do not have to be an artist to coax from a piano the necessary notes required to fashion a functioning digital library. Maybe I don\'t understand you here? Any inanimate object is useless without something to animate it.

and without the samplist there is no library... everyone is providing clear, unique value to the equation. Instrument manufacturer was the first party to get paid, thanks again to the artist.

But, regardless of how \'difficult\' it is, or how much of an artists one has to be to produce such a thing. The thing is still a digital knock-off. The instrument manufacturer got paid for ONE \'copy\' of his instrument. I doubt he envisaged the customer re-selling the instrument hundreds or thousands of times (and often extolling the ADVANTAGES of the sample library over the real thing. \"How convenient\". \"How cheap.\" \"Better for \'recordings\' than the original.\")

I believe there is probably un unconscious scale that we all understand. At one end is an \'artist\' playing a very difficult instrument. There are still issues here, but horribly complex and more to do with the end of such artistry than the sidelined subjects here discussed. At the other end is a skilled engineer in a room with a piano. Let\'s not kid ourselves here.

The great piano makers are most probably in a coma. Even if they were made aware of what was going on they\'d probably do a sterling impersonation of the British motorcycle industry when the Japanese came knocking at the door. I\'m sure they\'d believe that they could co-exist (maybe like Sting and the people who sample him?). I doubt it\'s ocurred to them that I can, quite literally go out and not only buy a Steinway for a couple of hundred dollars. I can go out and buy the BEST STEINWAY THEY EVER BUILT for a couple hundred dollars.

Perhaps some may say there\'s nothing like a real Steinway. That samples can never match....blah..blah.

But they\'re wrong. There are already a number of pianos that could fool most (perhaps all, if they are not given any kind of heads-up) pianists. The fact that Pianos have passed the Samplists\' Turing Test, may mean it is time to re-evaluate what should and should not be \'public domain\'.

Personally, I\'d like to jab a long spike up Steinway\'s arse and hope that they land somewhere within this century.

Now, any takers for my Porsche?

falcon1

09-27-2002, 05:49 PM

Z6,

you are missing one important variable!

And that is \"Human expression\".

Yes, that\'s true that you can go out and buy a digital version of a Steinway etc. but you can\'t buy the human expression and feeling of a human touch when the real thing is played by a human.

Digital instruments/samples will NEVER match real instruments played by musician!

Sincerely,
Falcon1

Ps. Just my own oppinion.

midphase

09-27-2002, 05:53 PM

My take on this issue is that Steinway, Fazioli, and the other guys have no idea of what the implications of sampling their instruments can lead to. Those companies are so deeply rooted in tradition that I am sure the top executives would laugh at the notion that a sample library could ever replicate the real thing, nor that their sales are being affected by it.
The moment that less orders are coming in (particularly from recording studios) I am sure that they will start limiting the recording of their pianos for sampling purposes and start requiring licenses and possibly points on the sales.
I can say that I went to Disney but if I put an image of Mickey on my packaging their lawyers will be on my back faster than I can say \"M.I.C....\"

It seems to me that it\'s just a matter of time before instrument manufacturers start imposing limitations on the commercial sampling of their products just like the electronic instrument manufacturers are.

I can tell you that session musicians are already pretty hard to come by that will allow you to record them for sampling purposes. I had quite a hard time convincing a guitar player to play me some chords that I could sample.

I guess get it while the getting is good, \'cause I predict it won\'t last.

peter269

09-27-2002, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Deimos:
[QUOTE] By the same logic, all the samplist would have to do is acknowledge on his website and manual that the trademarks/brand names belong to each respective company/owner. That would be the exact same acknowledgement, which thus creates fair use: or, at least, an argument strong enough to match the precedent in court.
That\'s incorrect. If you promote a sampling CD and specifically say this is a recorded version of Brand X (meaning a specific piano, harp, vibes, etc.), you then have a situation that doesn\'t fall under Fair Use. That\'s because you\'re clearly using the product\'s name, image and substance to create the sale. In this case, the trademark owner, of which a sound can be part of a trademark, technically has a right to licensing income. If they waive that right, as Doug Rogers pointed out in the above post some did, then there\'s no problem.

However, observe that before simply using the name, Doug wisely undertook the legal research to find the answer.

Deimos

09-28-2002, 02:04 AM

I don\'t know. It seems those with an opinion are only thinking about those aspects of the situation that support their argument. Doug\'s lawyer has proven that this practice is legal.

And Z6, if you made libraries you\'d know that it takes a trained hand and ear to coax a pro sound from an instrument, both as a player and a producer. You\'re obviously too smart to pin your entire argument on piano instruments exclusively; for example, an electric guitar requires a very specific touch, and it is one of the most versatile instruments in the world. Impossible to \"copy\" in library form; lucky if there\'s a usable impression of a particular style. Any library is a pale ghost of the real deal. Ain\'t nothing like the real thing. And the precedent is the fact that Doug and Eric are alive and well, and have been selling branded samples for years. They didn\'t have to clear it, and as Doug said he hired the lawyer just to make sure he didn\'t have to clear it. He went out of his way to get Steinway\'s blessing, which was unnecessary. He only mentioned it to reinforce his point against you, who like to argue regardless of the facts.

09-28-2002, 02:44 AM

If I\'d taken a minute to actually think about it instead of just ranting, I would have seen it.

Of course, Steinway and Bosendorfer have nothing to fear. There is no \'competition\' for them from sample libraries. It is totally different market altogether.

It\'s all the little piano makers who\'re going to die off, isn\'t it? All those little uprights and baby grands for a few thousand dollars are the ones who may be crushed by these wonderful sample libraries. Those \'Steinways\' and \'Bosendorfers\'.

The fact though, that a lawyer says it\'s OK to do this still doesn\'t impress though. People used to own slaves, legally. Prisons are full of people who did nothing more than indulge in the drug of their choice, illegally.

A copy is a copy is a copy. The original poster surely knew what he had to do. He had to do what was right. If the law said that he and his friends could use as many copies of a single license as they pleased, that wouldn\'t make it right. But the letter of the law seems somehow a little overboard, a little draconian. Having to buy three copies of everything doesn\'t seem right in that situation.

Sample developers deserve to be treated reasonably. Piano makers deserve the same, whatever the law says about it.

dougrogers

09-28-2002, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Z6:
A copy is a copy is a copy.Once again -

We are not \"copying\" a Steinway - and we wouldn\'t know how to. We don\'t have woodworkers and metalworkers as employees, we have recording engineers, producers, and programmers.

The important distinction is the difference between \"copying\" a physical object - in this case a piano (which would be a trademark violation if you called it a Steinway) - and \"recording\" (sampling) that piano (which is completely legal, and is done thousands of times every day all over the world).

That\'s it!

The rest of your comments are more to do with the demise of the physical instrument business, which you claim is partially caused by developers sampling these instruments. Frankly, we\'ve heard this argument since the British Musicians Union tried to ban the \"Mellotron\" in the \'60s.

Native Instruments, and others, are now emulating synthesizers in software because it is cheaper and more convenient for most users (it\'s time to sell your synths!). Sample library developers provide a similar service, and the fact you are in this forum indicates you appreciate this service. I\'m sure if you had $100,000 to drop you would own a real Steinway - I would - but that\'s not a practical reality for most musicians. The next best choice is a well recorded sample library. Most users in this forum have improved their music as a result of these inexpensive tools being available. That benefits the musician and the listening public.

The appeal of the products we, and other developers, create, is they are accessible to a lot more musicians due to cost (which actually \"creates\" opportunities for musicians that may not exist otherwise), PLUS they are already recorded.

I doubt anyone could ever pass a law prohibiting us or anyone else from recording an instrument, no matter how little of the sound we use. It\'s never going to happen.

Let\'s get back to the topic.

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST

midphase

09-28-2002, 01:58 PM

I doubt anyone could ever pass a law prohibiting us or anyone else from recording an instrument, no matter how little of the sound we use. It\'s never going to happen. I dunno....stranger laws are being passed right now as we speak. The Millennium Copyright Act is one of them.

Just you wait until some of those manufacturers catch on to what is going on.

Personally I would be amazed if Yamaha and the unfortunately defunct Sequential Circuits are not grabbing a piece of the action ($$$) from NI\'s sales.

PS,

I am assuming of course Doug, that you are referring to recording with the intent to sample and recreate and then sell.

Bruce A. Richardson

09-28-2002, 03:43 PM

Guys...

Why does this ridiculous notion keep popping up?

Doug is 100% right, here. You argue as if sampler sales are somehow cutting into acoustic instrument sales, and that is laughable. People don\'t buy pianos for the sound of pianos. They buy pianos because they want a PIANO.

Go stand in a piano store sometime, and watch. I did this two weeks ago, while visiting a friend who manages such a store. People come in, they look at the cabinet, they tinkle keys, they ask the salesperson about financing. But NOT ONE customer even so much as looked at the section of digital pianos in the room.

The piano market is about families. It is about furniture. It is about purchasing an heirloom. It is about making a statement, and investing in a cultural centerpiece for a home or a facility.

The number of recording/music production sales compared to the grand total of piano sales is miniscule.

Your confusion is one of misunderstanding the market. The piano sample market has nothing whatsoever to do with the piano market. It\'s a teeny, tiny, sliver of a different tiny market--that which serves the MI needs of music producers.

These arguments (Native Instruments, by the way, pays no royalties on B4, Pro-53, or FM-7) are based in pure speculation. People are starting sentences with \"I\'d be surprised if...\" and \"I\'d assume that...\"

I have had several conversations with Doug Rogers over the years, and I can tell you that he is no one\'s fool when it comes to protecting the interest of his business, and in doing his homework. These legal conflicts you\'re arguing just do not exist.

Bruce A. Richardson

09-29-2002, 01:52 AM

But a piano sample still isn\'t a piano.

Trademark issues aside, just think about the numbers. The people in this world who even know or care that sample based piano sounds exist is far less than 1% of the population. A tiny fraction of it.

Imagine yourself in a shopping mall, asking every person you encounter what they think of GigaStudio. Sampled pianos. Think you\'d get one in one hundred? One in two or even five hundred? It would be WAY down there.

OK, there\'s your potential sampler/sampled piano market (at best). Sliver of a sliver.

Now walk that mall and ask how many people grew up with a piano in their home. How many have bought one to have around for their children...

Bosendorfer and Steinway are not threatened by sample sales. Someone looking to spend $200 on a sample library is not Steinway\'s market. It\'s not even Yamaha, Baldwin, or Young Chang\'s market.

If you\'re looking to buy a sample library, you buy one. If you\'re looking to buy a piano, you buy one. People don\'t leave their houses intending to bring back a piano, and bring back a sample library.

thesoundsmith

09-30-2002, 02:53 PM

If you\'re looking to buy a sample library, you buy one. If you\'re looking to buy a piano, you buy one. People don\'t leave their houses intending to bring back a piano, and bring back a sample library No,, but I left home to buy a sample libary (pre-Giga, this was for an Emu) and brought back a Yamaha G3! images/icons/grin.gif

Now I have a piano to record on, but I ALWAYS reach for Giga - so much faster and easier to record, right in the heart of my composition set-up...

Dasher

Munsie

09-30-2002, 05:29 PM

\"It seems to me that it\'s just a matter of time before instrument manufacturers start imposing limitations on the commercial sampling of their products just like the electronic instrument manufacturers are.\"

I agree 100%. Sample developers, enjoy it while you can. images/icons/smile.gif

Bruce A. Richardson

09-30-2002, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Munsie:
\"It seems to me that it\'s just a matter of time before instrument manufacturers start imposing limitations on the commercial sampling of their products just like the electronic instrument manufacturers are.\"

I agree 100%. Sample developers, enjoy it while you can. images/icons/smile.gif There are no restrictions on sampling electronic instruments. There are only copyright violations based on copying recordings. If an electronic instrument isn\'t \"playing recordings\" there is no copyright violation. No recording? No copyright.

Think about this for a minute. Pianos are totally unique from instrument to instrument. Even if a piano manufacturer wanted to eliminate sampling of its pianos, there would be absolutely no way to prove a particular sample came from a particular brand of piano. In fact, simply moving the microphones would result in a completely different waveform.

Jake Johnson

10-01-2002, 12:24 AM

From a legal perspective, I think it\'s important to recall that the instrument makers are not exactly unaware of what\'s going on: Yamaha, after all, markets its own samples in its many keyboards. (Doesn\'t one of their electric pianos have a Steinway sample, too, by the way?)

And a sample is just a recording of the notes on a piano. Could it be argued that, if a piano manufacturer were to copyright the sound, any reproduction of it, such as on albums, would require a payment to the manufacturer of the instrument?)

On the other hand, I understand the argument. I\'m surprised that there aren\'t some attempts by manufacturers to intervene. A sampled Steinway can\'t sound like a Steinway sitting in one\'s living room, but I certainly understand that Steinway could be reasonably upset by companies marketing their product with the Steinway name on it and samples of one of their beautiful instruments.

The solution might be for Steinway to follow in Yamaha\'s footsteps and make their own samples,which they would then license to developers. For a small fee... (Forgive me.)

Bruce A. Richardson

10-01-2002, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Jake Johnson:
Could it be argued that, if a piano manufacturer were to copyright the sound, any reproduction of it, such as on albums, would require a payment to the manufacturer of the instrument?

On the other hand, I understand the argument. I\'m surprised that there aren\'t some attempts by manufacturers to intervene. A sampled Steinway can\'t sound like a Steinway sitting in one\'s living room, but I certainly understand that Steinway could be reasonably upset by companies marketing their product with the Steinway name on it and samples of one of their beautiful instruments.

The solution might be for Steinway to follow in Yamaha\'s footsteps and make their own samples,which they would then license to developers. For a small fee... (Forgive me.)I give up. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

10-01-2002, 01:18 PM

You guys keep arguing the letter of the law as it presently stands.

Nobody here is arguing that you\'re breaking the law. Cool down. Apparently, you are not breaking the law. We are also led to believe that you are allowed to call your libraries \'Steinway\', if you like. As you say Bruce, Doug is a smart guy. You both try to make it sound as if it is self-evident that this is not copyright violation, so self-evident that a smart guy made sure that lawers confirmed it. Who knows? It\'s so \'obvious\' that recording a Steinway, then selling it as a Steinway simply couldn\'t be a violation, could it? How ridiculous? But best to make sure though, no?

The reason I took issue was this (Doug): \"We often spend a year or more developing some libraries. All we ask in return is, respect the cost and effort we put into creating these inexpensive production tools..\"

You can ask (tell) people to obey the law, but you can\'t ask people to do what you ask in that sentence. At least not if you keep arguing what you are arguing here. Bruce, you think this is ridiculous? How ridiculous? I see not one single shred of \'respect\' in any of these posts regarding the \'use\' of either the sounds of Steinway or their name. And it\'s not a just a \'reference\'; Doug (and others) actually call the libraries \"Steinway\".

If I lived in a country where there were \'different\' copyright laws, I could copy Doug\'s library... but hell, let\'s do a good job, let\'s \'record\' the sound (because a recording is not a copy, is it Doug?) in an environment which puts a \'special\' imprint on it (what was it? Room acoustics, Humidity...) Blah, blah blah. Now I\'m selling it, and I\'d like everyone to respect all my hard work. (Yes, yes, yes, I know that this is different. I know it\'s not the same thing. I know that you OWN the recordings. Yeah, right.)

Listen Guys, you can call this ridiculous if you like, but as others have also pointed out, you are trying to get it from both ends. You can\'t go selling a Steinway because it\'s such a great Steinway and then say you\'re not selling a Steinway.

You can certainly ask us not to \'copy\' your library, but not because we \'should \'respect\' your hard work. Doug, telling us that you \'like\' Steinways would sound respectful were you not engaged in profiting from their hard work and defending your right to do so as if anyone who disagreed just didn\'t \'get it\'.

I get it already. Okay? I get it. I know you\'re allowed to copy a Steinway and sell it. You seem to believe you\'re allowed to plaster the name of the company that built the instrument on it while telling us, in this argument, that it isn\'t a Steinway.

You can scream it from the rooftops if you like.

We all get it. But some of us, perhaps, are skeptical. Some of us would like to hear that Doug didn\'t go to a lawyer to \'make sure he wasn\'t breaking the law\' (i.e. stealing sounds). Some of us would like to hear that he went to a lawyer to get that lawyer to \'convince\' Steinway (against all of their \'opposition\' to such) that perhaps selling a virtual Steinway, called a Steinway, might entitle Steinway to a little piece of the \'little\' pie.

It doesn\'t matter how big or small the market is, or what the eventual upshot of all of this is.

I remember Michiel, in a similar thread, at least said he was a little suprised that Baldwin seemed tickled that he might \'sample\' their piano.

Poor Olivier spent a lot of time sampling an instrument and was attacked furiously for offering his \'hard work\' for free. There is more to this issue than \'knowing\' what is and what is not permissable under current US law. To label as \'ridiculous\' arguments that acknowledge the moral rights of excluded or injured parties is hardly more than the blind application of rules.

Rules change. We cannot know how these markets will develop or what the consequences of near \'perfect\' emulations will be over the longer term. To liken this issue to the \'mellotron\' is ridiculous.

I can only assume that Doug will not bend because somwehere inside he fears that Steinway might one day come a knocking (unless they forever consider it \'ridiculous\' themselves) and make it known that they believe their hard work is being appropriated, unjustly and without compensation.

Anyway, I have had a little time to think and I have to retract my earlier musings where it seemed to me that only \'small\' builders might suffer from the \'competition\'.

Small builders will suffer first. Over the long haul, Steinway and others in this position, must almost certainly suffer from competition which turns their products into \'furniture\' costing a thousand times more than the \'actual product\' that can be bought in virtual form (not owned by them, of course - what the hell do they have to do with it; cheeky monkeys?).

Please, no more about how hard this is, or how long it takes. Please, for the love of god, spare me the \'hard work\' stories.

And no more please about how tiny the market is.

No, Doug, I do not want to \'extrapolate\' your figures. Would that argument change if the sample/real piano market changes to 50/50? Would you ask us to extrapolate that?

Ultra-realistic libraries are very, very new in the greater scheme of things. Here\'s an extrapolation: if the sample library market increases a thousand fold (as it will, but I have no idea how long that will take, or in what form samples will then exist; but, for the sake of argument, let\'s assume sample libraries or their descendants) and there is a huge, verifiable impact on piano sales, will you then offer compensation to Steinway? Is it because of this that you don\'t do that now? Is it because you\'re market is so small and you perceive no correlation between falling piano sales and rising sample sales?

Doug: \"Bruce is also right about copyrighting the sound of their pianos. The sound changes depending on room acoustics, humidity, who is playing it etc. etc. etc. - plus, in our search to find a great sounding Steinway, we found they all sound different to each other! On top of which you have different models, lengths, the list goes on!\"

And they are all built by? Sorry to be flippant, but there is a slight commonality here, regardless of how \'different\' they all sound (can\'t quite put my finger on it though).

Al the best,

Z6

dougrogers

10-01-2002, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Z6:
You guys keep arguing the letter of the law as it presently stands.
Z6Z6,

You\'re like a dog with a bone, you never give up!

Current law governs our activities, the rest is paranoia.

If you have a problem with the concept of sampling, which you obviously do, why are you here?

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST

Vertigo50

10-01-2002, 06:08 PM

To Z6: It\'s obvious that your opinion is not making a dent in anyone\'s thinking, and you\'re talking about events that \"might\" happen in the future. Well, I \"might\" become Superman, but I don\'t think it\'ll happen very soon. If it does everyone will say that I was right. If the laws change, everyone will say that you were right. But we all know your views by now. You don\'t need to keep writing 2-page essays repeating the same points over and over.

If you want to write a 2-page essay to someone on this topic, why not write to Steinway? As you said, they\'d probably laugh at the idea that it would cut into their market.

Xerox laughed at Microsoft when they suggested that people would ever want to use a \"personal computer\". They learned from their mistake. So will Steinway, if it cuts into their market, which I don\'t think it will, but I\'ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

My point is, I have nothing against you, but you\'re barking up the wrong tree here. The sample developers are not going to beg Steinway to take their money. The sample users are not going to beg Steinway to take more of their money. So either complain to someone who will make a difference, or drop the issue.

To Doug and others:

You must have figured out by now that you\'re not going to change Z6\'s opinion, and the more you argue, the more he will repeat his claims. Frankly, I think most people agree with you here. I think you feel like you have to defend yourself against every claim people make, and that\'s not so. The people who use your samples, which is basically everyone here, respect you and your work. Don\'t feel like that is going to be shattered by a few attacks. The less you respond, the sooner this post will go away.

...or maybe it will get back on topic...

P.S. I respect Z6, and I respect Doug and the others. I\'m not scolding any of you. I\'m just suggesting that you move on.

10-01-2002, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by dougrogers:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Z6:
You guys keep arguing the letter of the law as it presently stands.
Z6Z6,

You\'re like a dog with a bone, you never give up!

Current law governs our activities, the rest is paranoia.

If you have a problem with the concept of sampling, which you obviously do, why are you here?

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST<hr /></blockquote>Woof!.

Why am I where? Anyway, never mind. It\'s Steinway\'s own stupid fault. If they\'re too lazy or arrogant to get off their arses and investigate these technologies, perhaps they deserve to end up as furniture makers. You are right. Why should you chase them?

dougrogers

10-01-2002, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Bruce A. Richardson:
But a piano sample still isn\'t a piano.

Bosendorfer and Steinway are not threatened by sample sales. Someone looking to spend $200 on a sample library is not Steinway\'s market. It\'s not even Yamaha, Baldwin, or Young Chang\'s market.

If you\'re looking to buy a sample library, you buy one. If you\'re looking to buy a piano, you buy one. People don\'t leave their houses intending to bring back a piano, and bring back a sample library.100% correct.

In fact there are statistics to support this available from \"NAMM\" and \"Music Trades Magazine\". The entire sampling market represents less than 1% of the entire piano market. Now, if you extrapolate these figures to the impact a Steinway sample library would have on piano sales, we are probably talking less than .01%.

Bruce is also right about copyrighting the sound of their pianos. The sound changes depending on room acoustics, humidity, who is playing it etc. etc. etc. - plus, in our search to find a great sounding Steinway, we found they all sound different to each other! On top of which you have different models, lengths, the list goes on!

Al the best,

Doug Rogers
EASTWEST

Bruce A. Richardson

10-02-2002, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Z6:
[QUOTE]It\'s Steinway\'s own stupid fault. If they\'re too lazy or arrogant to get off their arses and investigate these technologies, perhaps they deserve to end up as furniture makers. You are right. Why should you chase them?Or perhaps no one is stupid. Perhaps no one is arrogant. Maybe it\'s just a different market.

Reality seems to indicate it. It\'s possible to conjure up any number of fantasy scenarios. That doesn\'t make them true.

Since I\'ve invested time and knowledge (seemingly in vain) in this discussion, I\'d like to ask a question.

What do YOU want? What\'s the goal here?

10-02-2002, 05:47 PM

Everyone except Bruce ignore this. (Unless you really suffer from insomnia; cause it is a big snore)

Or perhaps no one is stupid.

Perhaps.

Perhaps no one is arrogant.

Perhaps.

Maybe it\'s just a different market.

Maybe.

Reality seems to indicate it.

Reality? Whose reality? In Russia the reality is that you can copy whatever you want and sell it. In China it\'s probably the same. Why, right here in the good old US of A, you can sample a Steinway, call it a Steinway. You can tell people how cheap it is compared to the wooden varieties, and you can say it\'s not a Steinway when it suits you. Reality, as we all know is a slippery wee buggar.

It\'s possible to conjure up any number of fantasy scenarios.

Extrapolating (hee, hee) the current situation into a situation where a judge decides that recording a Steinway note by note, velocity by velocity, then selling it as a Steinway is not on, is only \'fantasy\' until it happens. I think calling it fantasy is again, sidestepping the issue, and overstating the objection. It really isn\'t as far-fetched as you and Doug keep professing. Someone (interestingly) pointed out that Harley-Davidson \'protected\' the sound of their engines for goodness sake. I would have thought that the issues here were a lot more clear-cut than that.

Since I\'ve invested time and knowledge (seemingly in vain) in this discussion,

As have I.

I suppose reading pleads for \'respect\' did it. If we\'re all supposed to do the \'right thing\', then let\'s take it all the way. The fact that neither you nor Doug seem to see any problem at all about copying a Steinway then selling the copy of that instrument kind of frustrates me (and you and Doug would no doubt be amazed at my blinding stupidity for \'maintaining\' that it is \'a copy\').

I simply cannot believe that you really believe the relationship between the sampled product and the product itself is so spurious as to afford no \'respect\'. I can hardly believe I\'m even having to argue that something might be \'amiss\' here. We don\'t have to turn into armchair lawyers to \'get\' any of this. A piano is \'easy\' to sample (god, please, please, no flames about \'difficulty; it is not the issue), in the sense that you only need the piano, all the skills to record and program, and all the velocities that Tascam will allow. There are not endless variations that ensure you will almost certanly fail. Indeed, the current crop of pianos is probably already peferred in many studios over \'real pianos\' that cost a lot more (or will be very soon). Imagine not having to pretnd that Glenn Gould mumbling away is \'cute\', or that the sound of Oscar Peterson growling quietly over the low parts doesn\'t annoy, even on the fiftieth hearing? As \'recording instruments\', these things are just about there already. They are tremendous and a credit to their creators (both the samplists, and crew, and the builders of the original piano). Yes, they are Steinways and Bosendorfers all right.

What\'s the goal here?

No goal. Not a goal-oriented type of guy. Nothing I say will change anything. But this is still just the start of it all. Things change. Small piano makers will feel the heat first, but it may hurt the big guys eventually (it may help them?)

All of this stuff hurts my brain. Calling your product a Steinway is.....

Well, it hurts my brain because it all looks so self-evident to me. I don\'t give a monkey\'s whether samplists ever pay piano makers to use their sounds or their names, but when copyright issues are afoot, I see agruments flitting about all over the place. It\'s like trying to talk to bloody poltiicians sometimes. If one theory doesn\'t fit, let\'s try the next.

Doug and you both took the time to \'explain\' things to me. I really do appreciate that - I\'m not being flippant at all. It\'s good to know where the law stands and where experienced \'users\' stand. It just seems looney to me. If my great Grandad was called Steinway, and I wasn\'t sipping a cocktail on a beach, being massaged by three sixteen-year old blonds, I\'d probably sue all the samplists who used my company\'s name and its sounds.

But I\'m not.

There you are.

Bruce A. Richardson

10-03-2002, 10:01 AM

Z..

You\'re still operating from the assumption that the sampled piano market has an impact on the acoustic piano market. It doesn\'t, and it\'s not going to suddenly change. Sampling has been around a long time, and people inclined to use samplers have been using them.

The music production market as a whole is a teeny tiny nothing niche of the overall acoustic piano market. The Glen Gould scenario is not about to happen. I had a session late last night, and played an acoustic Steinway. There is no way that a sampled piano is a piano, on many levels. In fact, it was the first time in a while I\'d spent a lot of time on an acoustic, and what became obvious to me is just how little a sampled piano actually resembles THE PLAYING of the genuine article.

In short, if someone\'s looking to play A PIANO, they have no interest whatsoever in a sample. Therefore studios will always accommodate that preference, unless they just cannot afford it--and in that case you have exactly the scenario Doug and I have stated over and over again...that a person in the market for a piano sample is not in the acoustic piano market anyway.

Nobody markets a piano library as a piano. Yes, the CD cover may indicate the sampled instrument, but sample producers are not selling pianos--no more than they\'d be selling sandwiches if they titled their CDs peanut butter and jelly. No one buys a sample library and assumes it is an acoustic instrument.

pantonality

10-03-2002, 10:50 AM

I don\'t know if I dare jump between Bruce and Z6 on this one, but maybe I have a death wish. Either that or I think it\'s time to end this discussion.

I\'m on a number of lists and this discussion reminds me of the organ lists when the subject of electronic substitutes comes up. Some refer to them as electrodigitoids, others refer to them as a reasonably priced alternative. The fact is a recording of an organ or a piano will never replace the sound of the live instrument. It can come close, but the technology doesn\'t exist to capture how the instrument interacts with the room. The biggest threat to pipe organs is not electronic organs, but the trend toward contemporary christian music and the association of the organ with old fashioned religion.

A MIDI controller and piano sample will never be the same experience as a real piano. There is feedback through the piano action that the midi controller can never emulate. It just doesn\'t feel the same. The sound of the instrument is different from even Micheil\'s Bosendorfer (which I recently acquired). Don\'t get me wrong PMI\'s Bosendorfer is about as good a piano sample as I can imagine, but it\'s not the same as a real instrument in a real room. It\'s great for recording because it\'s a recording, but it\'ll never replace a concert grand on a stage for a live concert. Heck it\'s not even as good as the nice Samick upright in my living room. I have both, but the real one is the one I practice on.

Having said all that I understand Z6\'s concerns regarding trademarks. I am surprised that no one at Steinway or Bosendorfer has objected to this. The reality is if they don\'t object it\'s their problem. The fact is lawyers are expensive and they just don\'t think a sample library will replace the real thing. Having played both I\'m inclined to agree.

Steve Chandler
http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler (\"http://www.mp3.com/stevechandler\")
aka Ettienne
http://www.mp3.com/ettienne (\"http://www.mp3.com/ettienne\")