SRX sound sharing thread deleted - sorry

[anon_twist]

aren't you selling the "sounds" if you sell music made from the srx's or the fantom for that matter??

[Cloudschatze]

This is an interesting topic. I can understand copyright applying to sample waveforms, but I've certainly wondered how patch-data is protected by copyright.

We're talking settings on a synthesizer. If I take a non-MIDI, analog synth, and twist all the knobs a certain way, do I then have a "copyright" on the result? I wouldn't think so, right? Why is this any different with complex, digital synthesizers?

I'm not in the market for any free patches, mind you; just genuinely interested in the justification.

[howardS]

It is all in the licence agreement. They allow us to make sounds with it. They don't allow us to copy the patches themselves and share that with anyone else. Page 4 of the SRX12 manual states:

"All unauthorized giving, trading, lending, renting, re-issue, redistribution or re-sale of the sounds included in the SRX-12
are expressly prohibited."

This seems clear. There is no point arguing fairness or whether it makes sense. They own the intellectual property and they determine how it is to be licenced to us. Artemiy is asking that we respect the licence as it is printed in our manuals. Perhaps someone has some legal expertise in this area but I think that unless someone successfully challenges this copyright in a court of law then I think we really have no choice here. Even if there was a legal challenge here I think we would want to try to grow our relationship with Roland. Not following licence agreements is not the way to do that.

[RobJuno]

I'm in stitches over the Artemiy vs. Mr. Claudio exchanges. Best laugh I've had all day!

It is interesting, isn't it... copyrights on synth settings. I never even thought about such things when buying my patch upgrades for NI FM7, which ARE nothing more than settings on the softsytnth I already owned.

I can completely understand Artimey keeping anything detremental to Roland off this site. Yet I am now, more than ever, intrigued to know just how close to SRX sound one could get with onboard waveforms and SRX patch programming. Yet, I also appreciate the time and effort it would take to select the best choice of onboard waveforms would be so tedius I'd rather buy the expansion... see, finally come to my senses... not that I ever wanted something for nothing mind! And besides... how would you know if you were close to an SRX preset if you didn't actually have THE SRX expansion board for an A/B comparison?! LOL

I'll shut up on this topic now! LOL.

[Cloudschatze]

It's not a question of fairness, rather, it's a question of whether Roland is asserting a claim of copyright protection on patch-data, or whether this interpretation is being made by others.

When you purchase the SRX-12 expansion board from an
authorized Roland dealer, the included sounds and samples
are licensed, not sold, to you by Roland Corporation, for
commercial use in music production, public performance,
broadcast, etc.
You may use any of the included phrases and/or samples in
a commercial or non-commercial recording without paying
any additional license fees. However, you must strictly
adhere to the following crediting guidelines on any music
recording that utilize material from SRX-12.
Reproduction or duplication of this collection or any of the
sound recording contained in the SRX-12, either as they exist
on this expansion board or by any means of reformatting,
mixing, filtering, re-synthesizing, processing or otherwise
editing for use in another product or for re-sale, is strictly
prohibited without the express written consent of Roland. All
unauthorized giving, trading, lending, renting, re-issue, redistribution
or re-sale of the sounds included in the SRX-12
are expressly prohibited.
In Plain English: Be creative in your application of the SRX-
12 sounds, and keep this library for your use only. DO NOT
COPY IT.
Roland constantly monitors other Soundware releases to
check for copyright infringements, and will prosecute all
piracy and copyright violations to the fullest extent of the
law.

In one paragraph, "sounds" and "samples" are mentioned, then in the next, "phrases" and "samples." Patch-data isn't explicitly mentioned anywhere. Are we to interpret "sounds" to include patch-data? Seems rather vague, doesn't it?

Again, I'm not trying to advocate questionable activity - this just happens to be one of those needlessly gray areas. For example: I'd copied the patch-data from my SRX-11 board, and re-configured it for use with the SRX-02 board waveforms. I've since sold the SRX-11. Is it right, or wrong, that I still have that patch-data?

[Artemiy]

We already had this discussed not so long ago, please see here:
http://forums.rolandclan.info/index.php ... d=8&page=4

[Cloudschatze]

We already had this discussed not so long ago, please see here:
http://forums.rolandclan.info/index.php ... d=8&page=4

Hmm. This doesn't answer the question of whether patch-data is protected by copyright or not.

More food for thought:

Consider that most patches are comprised of hexadecimal, SysEx data. Since we're dealing with finite values, there is a finite number of possible combinations. This being the case, someone could conceivably create a program to generate every single patch combination, for a particular synth, and then claim copyright on everything that hasn't already been claimed.

Here's a litigious goldmine, right? So, why hasn't anyone done this? Perhaps because patch-data is not protected by copyright, nor would it make sense for it to be?

[Artemiy]

This doesn't answer the question of whether patch-data is protected by copyright or not.

Depends on how carefully you read

"You CAN NOT sample preset patches to sell them. "

This is because they are copyrighted by Roland. Same goes for distributing them, it is not allowed because they are not yours. You can do whatever you want with the sounds to make (and sell) your own music, though.

someone could conceivably create a program to generate every single patch combination, for a particular synth, and then claim copyright on everything that hasn't already been claimed.

Hmm... nice idea! But we have around 200-250 parameters in there, which totals some 500'000 sounds at least. I doubt any court will be looking into this

[Septimo]

Patch data isn't 'sampled'. only the result of that data is. So I don't think patch data is protected.. how can it? It can't. only the waves can and overall patch sound. That's why once you change the patches with internal waves their claim falls apart. And or move one single parameter by only one incrament and it's no longer theirs either. Putting a number or extra letter to the patch names also kills the claim.

Also, I would think they would mean that they don't want any people **selling** and making money off of their creations. not people who share them with others.

[RobJuno]

It's been a long time since my A-Levels, but Maths with Statistics was one of them. I'd suggest the possible combinations of settings must run well into the billions. Though I am quite sure that vast swathes of these potential setting would sound the same/awful/inaudible.

The well cited number of combinations for the British National Lottery (now Lotto) is almost 14,000,000 , based on the drawing of 6 balls numbered 1-49. This is also based on the fact that once a number is drawn, it isn't there to draw again. In the synth's case this would be like saying, if cutoff=127 then resonance cannot=127... which would be silly. It's also based on any six numbers being drawn in any order of sequence... if i recall correctly, specified orders become even smaller statistical posibilities.

So imagine the combinations and permutations of these 200-250 parameters as Artemiy estimates. OK, some only have a few settings, but others have 0-127, or -63 to +63.

I'm not sure the sound shaping tools feel quite this massively open-ended to my ears though!

[mr. claudio]

Its all good son, I can got every SRX board sound for free from a blogspot.com site. The person who posted the sounds used MIMIK SOFTWARE by open labs to literally clone the entire fantom. The best part about it is, the sounds are NOT wav samples. every sound keeps its original velocity realism. (EXTREMELY EXCLUSIVE) Roland (and affiliates) seem to be cutting corners lately. Excuses excuses.....They wont help us.....but when we try to help eachother out....its "ATTENTION, SITE IS UNDER LOCKDOWN....STOLEN ROLAND, I REPEAT STOLEN ROLAND!!!!"

[Cloudschatze]

Depends on how carefully you read

"You CAN NOT sample preset patches to sell them. "

I'm fine with this statement. The sampling of preset waveforms/patches for profit should absolutely be prohibited.

But...

Nothing I've mentioned has had anything to do with sampling.

I didn't see the original thread. What exactly was the issue - waveforms/samples, or SysEx patch-data?

[secret Roland agent]

Hi Everybody!

Don't mind me.
I'm just going to stand here and play with fire for a while!

[Artemiy]

Septimo:

once you change the patches with internal waves their claim falls apart. And or move one single parameter by only one incrament and it's no longer theirs either. Putting a number or extra letter to the patch names also kills the claim.

Yes, right... And if you rename all Britney's songs they will be yours too!

Seriously, please try modifying each patch by one parameter increment and then sell them. I'll watch how quick Roland gets at you. (Like I haven't ever seen this happening to somebody, I have!)

[Artemiy]

mr. claudio, what that guy did is illegal. And if you continue to post this information here, I will have to remove it.