@olafmol Yes, the original performer or the company they worked for owns the copyright. Just like people own the copyright to the recordings of their performances of classical music. They don’t own the music, but do own thr rights to their specific recordings of them performing it.
I think there’s a grey area type thing there the original copyright owners like Roger Linn don’t look to enforce their ownership rights as the samples are everywhere, but they would be well within their rights to if they so wished. Same with all the Roland stuff, but im sure some companies like Ableton, etc. actually license the sounds from the original owner. I haven’t looked into Mars, etc., but they might well be licencing the sounds from the copyright owner.
The samples are not in the public domain and are far from it. The fact that they can be found everywhere doesn’t mean that they’re in the public domain.
I think on this specific case Roger is giving his opinion which, whether you agree with or not, is his standpoint.
I don’t think Roger is saying anywhere folk should or shouldn’t do (or buy), he’s just outlining his thoughts on a machine he designed that has been bought back to life to some degree by another company, some 40 years on.
I’ve certainly no skin in this game, I thought it was worth mentioning that he’s a very talented musician as you mentioned him in that list earlier of tech types that weren’t.
The issue with permission can be seen from the other point of view as well - why does Linn make a big deal about it. As he said, samples everywhere, GForce didn’t ask permission, and has mentioned elsewhere, Samples from Mars didn’t ask permission and I got the impression Luma didn’t ask permission either.
There is just something about Behringer where everything they do is taken in a context that doesn’t seem to apply to anybody else.
Tnx for your insights. Can you copyright a single hit or note though? How can you prove it was you hitting the C Note on a Steinway piano, and not someone else? And in that case, isn’t it Steinway that “owns” the particular sound?
I don’t really understand why there is so much indignation when Behringer releases exactly the instruments that other companies refuse to release. Against this background, it would be interesting to see someone re-release the monomachine.
The company would own the samples on the device, but grant a royalty free license to people using the device so they can make music with it and not have any issues with copyright.
When it comes to a musical instrument like a piano or guitar, etc. no, the company doesn’t own the sound.
I don’t think it’s that clear cut. My understanding is that Linn does not even own the copyright, as when Linn Electronics went out of business Forat Electronics bought all the remaining assets. Forat Electronics was owned by one of the technicians who worked at Linn. No idea what happened to the rights after that.
A lot of older designers and musicians don’t understand that they stumbled upon musically significant designs with staying power beyond nostalgia. They only think in terms of new tech being better. They don’t think about the separation and clarity on the old machines, the auditory impact of the sound imparted by the machine. This kind of progress is not linear in my view… I have to imagine that part of the motivation for the design of these machines was to compete with real drums. It did that in its own way, which would be lost if future machine designers only cared about clear sample playback and not competing with a solid existing invention like acoustic drums
The copyright may have not been sold with the rest of the company assets. I agree it’s not clear cut, but Roger does say “my old drum sounds” several times and does refer to controlling the copying and legal stuff. My reading of this is that he owns the copyright, but unless he states this we will never know.
"my old drum sounds are all over the web, controlling copying is difficult, and I don’t enjoy legal stuff so I’ve generally ignored the issue so far. "
Back to the LMDrum itself, I do think it’s a cool looking device. Maybe a bit big for the space I have here, but the price is right.
The reason I think the rights were sold to Forat, is because I recall reading on some Linndrum forum that a website had a takedown request from Forat for the samples that people were using to create Linn EPROMS. And in the request Forat stated they had the rights.
I was reading up on the whole LinnDrum EEPROM stuff there and Forat owning the IP rights to the code for the chips. I know Forat are going around ensuring that any unauthorised distribution of the EEPROM bin files is removed, so I’ve a feeling that Forat may own a lot of the old Linn Electronics company IP, but maybe not the copyright to the sounds.
I might email Roger just to ask him out of interest.
I know this discussion is getting a little off topic, but I do think that talking about patents, copyright and trademarks is actually quite relevant in the context of the LMDrum.
I emailed Roger asking him about the copyright to the sounds and he responded with the below. I did ask if I could quote his response in this forum and he agreed too.
"Yes, I still own the sounds but may never do anything about it for the reasons given in the essay.
Bruce Forat doesn’t own the sounds and made an honest mistake in claiming that he did. He never owned the intellectual property rights to the sounds, but rather bought a master copy of the sound chips from the auction of my former company’s assets, mistakenly thinking that this gave him ownership of the intellectual property. And I’ve turned a blind to his claims because I appreciate his having provided repair to my old customers, and because I don’t really care so much."
So that clears it up more anyway. I find this stuff fascinating tbh.
Roger Lynn is a unique and very talented engineer, but these intonations look dubious. All this nonsense with author’s proofs on one shots is extreme trash. Cheaper, faster, and most importantly easier to do it all yourself than some old man will come and make claims one fine day. LinnDrum is frankly outdated and there is nothing unique in this instrument, yes, it fulfilled its task at the time of its release, but as a full-fledged drum machine based on samples, which opened a new page in music production, but in general it is just a well-made instrument after which much more advanced and more accessible instruments appeared quite quickly. Just seeing how these people arrange lawsuits because of every song where their fragment ended up, I would not get involved with this.
This is why obtaining patents, copyright, trademark etc. is one thing. But enforcing it is the real deal. Sometimes People get angry at large corporations “why do you go after this poor guy’s small business”. etc. Because in the eyes of the law, if you willingly don’t back up your “product” and don’t enforce your rights, you almost publicly acknowledge you don’t care. When you set a precedent, good luck reversing it or enforcing it years later.
Look at his response to the related question. He knows it’s too late.