Thor Wavetables for Expanse 2.0

[tiker01]

Huh? If I sample a Minimoog I am harming someone's copyright?

Weird. They ask their own users to give up all their rigths on Allihopa. Not fair if I compare it to this (making a few samples using Reason's own synth)

It's not about sampling a Minimoog or about asking their users to give up their rights. It's not about YOU making a few samples using Reason's own synths either. It's about SHARING said samples/tables.

Many wavetables are licensed from a third party (this is not unique for propellerhead, many VST developers do this as well). In other words, they are not propellerhead's to "give away" in the first place.

But you can sample a Minimoog and share them, right? I don't understand why you can't sample a PPG, or any soft-synth. Why is copyright more restricted for wavetable synths?

If you sample Music, sure, there copyright law protecting you, but on sounds coming straight from an oscillator? I didn't know. Do you have any sources?

I can only think that the problem is you sample a sample. I am not sure if that is OK if you modulate it with LFO and sample that?

[Marco Raaphorst]

Huh? If I sample a Minimoog I am harming someone's copyright?

Weird. They ask their own users to give up all their rigths on Allihopa. Not fair if I compare it to this (making a few samples using Reason's own synth)

It's not about sampling a Minimoog or about asking their users to give up their rights. It's not about YOU making a few samples using Reason's own synths either. It's about SHARING said samples/tables.

Many wavetables are licensed from a third party (this is not unique for propellerhead, many VST developers do this as well). In other words, they are not propellerhead's to "give away" in the first place.

But you can sample a Minimoog and share them, right? I don't understand why you can't sample a PPG, or any soft-synth. Why is copyright more restricted for wavetable synths?

If you sample Music, sure, there copyright law protecting you, but on sounds coming straight from an oscillator? I didn't know. Do you have any sources?

I can only think that the problem is you sample a sample. I am not sure if that is OK if you modulate it with LFO and sample that?

I understand what you're saying. It is weird and evil.

It's weird. you should be able to sample a sample.

[JiggeryPokery]

I understand what you're saying. It is weird and evil.

It's weird. you should be able to sample a sample.

Copyright is "evil"? "You should be able to sample a sample"?

So that means you must therefore be granting permission to allow someone to resave all the patches from your own commercial ReFills and distribute them for free. Otherwise, why are you selling them if you're equally happy with redistributing other people's commercial work for free? You're obviously not a hypocrite so you won't want to have it both ways. So why not just give all your ReFills away for free and cut out the middleman and save him the hassle of resaving the patches for free redistribution?

Or are you not such granting permission as the fact that they are patches and not samples is somehow different to you and you do wish to retain copyright on your patches?

Yeah, thought so!

There's some serious and staggering naivete in some of your responses on this thread, which coming from such a long-standing member of the Reason community really surprises me. Marco, if I sample someone else's sample of the Amen break, it doesn't make my sample of their sample any less infringing of the original copyright recording. There's a lot of legal dubious status with drum samples from things like 707s etc, it's a legal grey area: but the likes of Roland, while probably loathing it privately, have tacitly accepted it, as those old machine are long out of production, and it perhaps maintains a useful level of brand awareness. It doesn't mean they don't still own the copyright, but they have waived it in those cases, at least to some extent.

If PPG were a defunct outfit, then redistribution of their samples might be considered fair game, after all, there is no longer a license owner so who's going to sue you, but the rights are actively held by the current owners of the brand (probably Waldorf, as they formed out of PPG), and still being licensed for use in both hardware and software. (Disclosure: I did some stuff with PPG waves from the Blofeld in Elements, but crucially I didn't simply resample the wavetables, they were used as modulated pads.)

[Shokstar]

Lol, who cares thors wavetable samples. Thor was released and you can sample this synth as much as you like without fearing any death sentences by law.

No one would use thors wavetables, if they are copyright protected for creating great new sounds!

The most Dubstep producers using the same sounds, should we pay now for this sounds because we recreated it with our own synths?

[Marco Raaphorst]

I understand what you're saying. It is weird and evil.

It's weird. you should be able to sample a sample.

Copyright is "evil"? "You should be able to sample a sample"?

So that means you must therefore be granting permission to allow someone to resave all the patches from your own commercial ReFills and distribute them for free. Otherwise, why are you selling them if you're equally happy with redistributing other people's commercial work for free? You're obviously not a hypocrite so you won't want to have it both ways. So why not just give all your ReFills away for free and cut out the middleman and save him the hassle of resaving the patches for free redistribution?

Or are you not such granting permission as the fact that they are patches and not samples is somehow different to you and you do wish to retain copyright on your patches?

Yeah, thought so!

There's some serious and staggering naivete in some of your responses on this thread, which coming from such a long-standing member of the Reason community really surprises me. Marco, if I sample someone else's sample of the Amen break, it doesn't make my sample of their sample any less infringing of the original copyright recording. There's a lot of legal dubious status with drum samples from things like 707s etc, it's a legal grey area: but the likes of Roland, while probably loathing it privately, have tacitly accepted it, as those old machine are long out of production, and it perhaps maintains a useful level of brand awareness. It doesn't mean they don't still own the copyright, but they have waived it in those cases, at least to some extent.

If PPG were a defunct outfit, then redistribution of their samples might be considered fair game, after all, there is no longer a license owner so who's going to sue you, but the rights are actively held by the current owners of the brand (probably Waldorf, as they formed out of PPG), and still being licensed for use in both hardware and software. (Disclosure: I did some stuff with PPG waves from the Blofeld in Elements, but crucially I didn't simply resample the wavetables, they were used as modulated pads.)

Your products contain samples right? So you paid for these samples and nobody else is allowed to use these samples right?

My patches are not samples. They are patches I have created. It was not a matter of recording a tiny bit of audio but took a lot of time to make. A sample of an oscilator or a sample of a Fender Strat is just a sample. It's very simple. Just a recording. Making a patch out of that takes time though.

Samples are not what makes the patch, it's a whole lot more than just using a sample an nothing else. And my patches contain the Softube Amp sim. I am sure they sampled a few guitar amps. Is that licensed in you opinion? Did they ask Marshall and Fender to do that? What if I re-sample these IRs?

[chimp_spanner]

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had as to the principles of copyright and ownership with regards to the most fundamental, irreducible "units" of music (like waveforms, single notes, etc.). Context, interpretation and transformation have a lot to do with it, IMHO. I guess I can see the issue here in that - technically - content from Reason is being distributed and could be used by people with Essentials to sidestep having to buy Thor? Buuuut I mean if they've got the money to burn on eXpanse, they probably have full Reason. And even if they don't, they're still paying PH...in a roundabout way!

Not undermining or questioning the admin's decision. Like I said I just think it's an interesting area for discussion. My personal feeling is that copyright law is severely behind the times and doesn't reflect the way music is made in the 21st century. Bit of a tangent, but there's a really interesting documentary on YT about the Amen break, and it basically concludes by saying that we probably won't ever see an entirely new genre spring up from the transformative re-interpretation of a sample like Drum & Bass again, because it's just too legally dangerous now. Course there are two sides to the argument but ya know, I can see it from both.

Specifically when it comes to content creation, I do find it to be a bit of a grey area. Like, when I'm making sample libraries, of course I steer clear of anything that isn't my own (unless it's public domain). But sometimes it feels a bit gratuitous. Like if I was to take a ride bell sample, for instance, and work on it for an hour or two until it's no longer recognisable...I'm not creating a competing product. I'm not redistributing. But it's technically and legally wrong. So if I go through the motions of recording my own sample to stay on the right side of the law, I have to pass that cost onto the customer (or just write off the cost of recording).

And then I'll probably get pirated anyway Plus I do wonder how many other libraries out there are made from scratch, vs recycling existing material. There's no way to know, really!

Semi related, I always wondered what the score is with the Drum & Bass REX files in Reason. Because I *totally* recognise some of them. Are they licensed? Or disguised enough to not be an issue?

[Shokstar]

The whole music Industrie is based on stolen samples xD who cares, if you haven't made with your sample a no. 1 hit?!?

[Kenni]

Well, I do for one. At least when it comes to having links to copyrighted material that we may or may not be allowed to serve.

On a personal note, I couldn't care less about people linking Thor or Serum wavetables. I just have to.

The whole music Industrie is based on stolen samples xD who cares, if you haven't made with your sample a no. 1 hit?!?

[chimp_spanner]

Oh totally better to play it safe, especially as this is the main port of call for Reason users and we're lucky enough to have the odd bit of help from Prop staff!

[scratchnsnifff]

Oh totally better to play it safe, especially as this is the main port of call for Reason users and we're lucky enough to have the odd bit of help from Prop staff!

Haha well said, I am not 100% sure but I think iv heard that If you do all of a sudden make a hit and get a record label behind you, they then give you a form to fill out asking about samples and such if there is a sample under some copyright they then do their legal magic and push the song out, id like to look into it, might be interesting