Kronos Sample banks website

[Dniss]

Here's my rules:

You could be in trouble if people stops buying the "source" because they can get the samples from you.

I'd have no problem sampling a sound I've created myself with any workstation, because I doubt it would stop anyone from buying that workstation! If you sample a real flute, peps aren't gonna stop playing and buying flutes for that! Simple as that. People have to proove you caused them prejudice.

There are greyer area though. For sake of argument: I have this organ emulator (vst) for which I have created very unique b3 sounds. Now those I'd have no problem sampling and giving them out.

It would be very difficult for anyone to claim I've caused them prejudice if it's a unique sound for which no one can identify the source for sure. You see what I mean? How can it be anyone's sound if it's unique?

I'm not telling anyone what to do, just giving people some pointers for your own introspection.

But how far do you take it?

[apex]

Are all the Sounds in the universe
copyrighted by God?

Can you prove God exists?

Billy

Yes.

[Stevesan]

When the sounds are produced by a digital unit (be it a synthesizer or something else), the source of the sound is digital information. Bits. Duplicating these bits would be software piracy, whereas trying to exactly duplicate the sound in manners by not copying it would not be.

Using someone elses samples as a sound source in sound design boils down to whether the result is still a traceable and reasonably accurate replica of the original sound where anyone can hear that, or if it's a completely new sound with its own creative height.
:

It's still open to vast interpretation though

What about if I don't copy the actual samples, but use a digital to analogue converter, then sample the analogue sound? Then I'm not duplicating the original bits at all, I'm creating my own from an analogue source?

What about if I buy the Choir set for $500 and make a load of long song tracks featuring two of the samples heavily. Then upload my songs to soundcloud and tell people they can sample as much of my songs as they like and are free to share the samples if they do so?

I do understand what your saying but lawyers earn thousands using much less likely loopholes to get their clients off

Yes, it's a matter of judgement and interpretation. If you sample from an analogue source, I'd say they can't reach you at all. Becuase trying to replicate sounds cannot be illegal. And even if you come close, it won't be the same.

You can never tell anyone it's free to sample. They have to use the same judgement as you do. Sampling is tricky stuff. But I think you have to be pretty clumsy to get into any real problem. Because there is no way for anyone to be certain to win a legal battle unless - bit for bit - you've copied samples. Thus making it software piracy. Most companies in this business are more afraid of the potential damage of losing such a battle (legal costs, brand damage) than they are of the small cost of lost business for you doing something based on their stuff.

[MRedZac]

I don´t care at all. If somebody blames somebody for something, it is up to him first, to proof without any doubt, that he is the originator. Let him try to do so... Don´t be afraid... A big s**t on copyright laws !!! Things here are hotter cooked than eaten...

[QuiRobinez]

More cans of worms opening:

In my opinion IT IS COMPLETELY MORAL AND LEGAL to take Quis Sounds,
resample it, distord the hell out of it, tweak it e tc and then share or sell.
Why? I got nothing out of his sound, the WHOLE work was mine except the
few second of wave files i took.

Well, that's what i ment, in that case you needed a source from somebody else to create the sound you want. Without that source (the sample) your sound wouldn't exist.

So it would definitly not be your whole work, as a sounddesigner you should know that about 70 percent of the sound of the endresult is determined by the source that you are using to sculp that sound. A guitar sample from a sample cd is a perfect example for this.

For instance: try to use a bad sounding guitar sample through a guitar AMP IFX and then a good sounding guitar sample through a guitar AMP IFX. The difference is stunning, this has nothing to do with your own skills by assigning an IFX to the sound and then claiming that the endresult is completely your own work. It shows how important the source is where you sculpt your sounds with.

The legal discussion is a non discussion which i don't find interesting, of course nobody would know that you did it that way (unless they are going to analyse your samples), but that's should not be the discussion. Obviously you needed the work of someone else to create something, so it would be good common business sense to arrange the proper licenses with those fellow musicians / sound designers.

Again, why? Are all the Sounds in the universe
copyrighted by God? If Qui created a Sound and i can totally change the same
with ours of work, why would it be immoral to sale or share?
His sound comes from somewhere too, be it a wave or a sample.
Did nature put copyrights on all the Sounds? No.

well nobody is talking about copyrights in this case, it's about acknowledging the work of other musicians / sound designers.

People spent a lot of time creating things (it doesn't matter if it are akai sample cds or sounds in synths), by using parts of those things without arranging the proper licenses you are using their work for your own commercial soundsets. It doesn't matter that you spent hours to create something by sculpting that sound (substractive) to a new sound. You needed the original materials to create that new sound. Then claiming that the sound is 100 procent yours is something i don't really understand.

It's the same with other things, let's say you want to create a painting, for that you need brushes and paint (the source material). Now if you follow your own moral guidelines comparing to samples, you could go to a store and demand they would supply the brushes and paint for free so that you can use your creativity to create that painting.

Using samples is not a different process. The fact that you can do what every you want by using a cloning device (the sampler) doesn't make things automaticly right.

To be clear, i'm not judging you, we simply have a very strong different opinion about this matter.

[Stevesan]

I am bound to agree. It's simply time to do something about copyright law globally. It makes it impossible to do things, since whatever you do there's a risk you infringe on someone's copyrights or patents. And there's really no way of knowing for sure until you find out the hard way.

The only immaterial property that should be left is the brand. This would give us the same rules as in the design industry. If you find a garment you like from say Calvin Klein, it's not illegal to copy the garment into its finest detail and sell it. But it would be harshly punished if you copied the brand name, rightfully so.

I can't help thinking of the ongoing Apple/Samsung debacle. It would gain them both and their customers if they stopped the legal process and went on doing better stuff for us all, positioning them with new functions and strong branding.

I strongly object piracy, but mankind has always evolved where people stood on their predecessors' shoulders and added new things and ideas. We all benefit from that. Where things are heading now is simply disasterous...

[Ojustaboo]

I am bound to agree. It's simply time to do something about copyright law globally. It makes it impossible to do things, since whatever you do there's a risk you infringe on someone's copyrights or patents. And there's really no way of knowing for sure until you find out the hard way.

The only immaterial property that should be left is the brand. This would give us the same rules as in the design industry. If you find a garment you like from say Calvin Klein, it's not illegal to copy the garment into its finest detail and sell it. But it would be harshly punished if you copied the brand name, rightfully so.

I can't help thinking of the ongoing Apple/Samsung debacle. It would gain them both and their customers if they stopped the legal process and went on doing better stuff for us all, positioning them with new functions and strong branding.

I strongly object piracy, but mankind has always evolved where people stood on their predecessors' shoulders and added new things and ideas. We all benefit from that. Where things are heading now is simply disasterous...

Agree 100%

[BasariStudios]

We got our selfs in a big mess...LOL...

[mathieumaes]

Funny how the legal discussion has taken over this thread, which really hasn't anything to do with that discussion.

[Stevesan]

Sorry for the OT rant, but I guess that's where things got headed after the removal of several (very fine!) sample packs. Too bad.

[lotty1]

I have copy samples to the kronos hard drive and when I load them they work but if I switch the kronos off and on the samples had to be reloaded.
I have created a preload file and save every where I can but every time I had to reload the samples.

I must be doing something wrong but I am unable to find answers in the manual.
Please help

DanKorg Sent me this so I hope it helps others

Here's the part of the manual that I think will be particularly helpful:

Automatically loading sample data

Using the KSC Auto-Load list to select which samples to load

What’s a KSC?
KSC stands for Korg Sample Collection. KSC files contain links to Sampling Mode, EXs, and/or User Sample Bank data, including Multisamples, Samples, and Drum Samples. Loading a KSC file loads all of the linked data.
You can load KSC files in Disk mode, and the KRONOS can also automatically load one or more KSC files at startup. The Global KSC Auto‐Load page lets you keep a list of your favorite KSC files, and select which ones from the list are loaded automatically at startup. You can also load KSC files immediately, without re‐starting, directly from this page.
Note that you can keep files in the list without loading them. For instance, you might have one KSC file for a recording project, and a different KSC file for a live band. The list lets you keep them at hand for easy loading when desired, and may often be more convenient than using Disk mode.
Note: The KSC Auto‐Load settings are saved automatically, and are not part of the Global PCG file.
Do not turn off the power for at least 10 seconds after making any changes to the Auto‐Load settings. This allows the system time to complete the process, which includes saving the settings to the internal disk.

Adding a KSC to the list
To add a KSC to the list:
1. Go to the Global Basic—KSC Auto‐Load page.
2. Press the Add KSC button.
The Add KSC file dialog appears, allowing you to select KSC files from disk.
3. Select the desired KSC files.
You can use Multiple select to choose more than one file, if desired.
4. Press Add.
The selected KSC files will be added to the list.

Selecting which KSC will be loaded
To select whether or not a KSC will be loaded:
1. Check or un‐check the Auto‐load box next to the KSC name in the list.
That’s it! The next time that the system powers on, the checked KSC files will be loaded. You can also load them immediately, as described below.

- Dan

_________________
Dan Phillips
Product Manager, Korg R&D
Personal website: www.danphillips.com
For tech support, contact your Korg Distributor: http://www.korg.co.jp/English/Distributors/

[billysynth1]

Why dont you sue God then...he created us to copy each other and now you're telling us we cant copy each other...use that in a court of law when you have to swear under God's oath lol

And what happens when robots become androids...human duplicates, well, somebody has copied a human being...so who is going sue whom.

I dont think the legal fraternity itself has answers for some of the issues discussed here.

billy

[BasariStudios]

Lol Billy, whit this issue i dont think anyone can help us.

[MarPabl]

People spent a lot of time creating things (it doesn't matter if it are akai sample cds or sounds in synths), by using parts of those things without arranging the proper licenses you are using their work for your own commercial soundsets. It doesn't matter that you spent hours to create something by sculpting that sound (substractive) to a new sound. You needed the original materials to create that new sound. Then claiming that the sound is 100 procent yours is something i don't really understand.

But by following this criteria, it's illegal to create a sampleset of any Piano or any other instrument. Because you didn't built the piano from scratch. You "just" bought the Piano (or even worse you just rented it) and then sampled. In this case, you also saved many many hours for building it.

Therefore, you can't say the piano sampleset is 100% yours.

And even Korg isn't recognizing the work of Steinway (AKA German), Yamaha (AKA Japan) and Bösendorfer (AKA Australian)

So are we breaking the law by using those Programs?

[QuiRobinez]

People spent a lot of time creating things (it doesn't matter if it are akai sample cds or sounds in synths), by using parts of those things without arranging the proper licenses you are using their work for your own commercial soundsets. It doesn't matter that you spent hours to create something by sculpting that sound (substractive) to a new sound. You needed the original materials to create that new sound. Then claiming that the sound is 100 procent yours is something i don't really understand.

But by following this criteria, it's illegal to create a sampleset of any Piano or any other instrument. Because you didn't built the piano from scratch. You "just" bought the Piano (or even worse you just rented it), sampled it but you also saved yourself hours for building it.

Therefore, you can't say the piano sampleset is 100% yours.

And even Korg isn't recognizing the work of Steinway (AKA German), Yamaha (AKA Japan) and Bösendorfer (AKA Australian)

So are we breaking the law by using those Programs?

Good point