Slashdot Mirror
The Place Of Modern MIDI Music?
-1-Lone_Eagle writes "With the free availability of literally thousands of MIDI files on the Internet, and increasingly powerful home desktop systems and software, virtually anyone can take a MIDI file and using a program such as GarageBand or Reason create a near-studio-quality rendition of their favorite song. This opens up an interesting discussion, is a remixed MIDI file an original creation? Or is it simply a copied work with the rights belonging to the original author? Is it piracy? What do you think?"
Have you heard the synthetic wave tables on my Dell laptop!? Welcome to plinky plonky land.
AT&ROFLMAO
Is it remixed when I move from a shitty old OPL3 synth to a wavetable midiplayer? Is it a remix when playing a midi file on a midi player piano?
More importantly, who cares?
But if they DO belong to the original owner, who would the rights for the song my 56k modem plays belong to?
Grammar Nazi
"What do the you think?"
Apparently, you don't think.
GarageBand and/or Reason for Windows or GNU/Linux?
It would be nice to know of equivalents that you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
It's not like these midi files are going to take away sales from the artists. "Oh, no, I'm not going to buy that cd. I've already got the midi." But, if I heard a really good midi song, it might get me to buy the cd.
Let's sue those american idol's too while we are at it...
... create a near studio quality rendition of their favorite song.
Maybe I've missed something big, but I didn't know such amazing vocal support was built into MIDI formats. I guess I could always put the lyrics in and let Microsoft Sam (tm) sing it for me, but I'd rather die a horrible, horrible death.
Well, legally it is probably both. It is probably a copy of the original work, meaning that you're not allowed to distribute your remix. It is also probable that you will have a copyright in the remixed version. I.e. no one will dare distribute anything. ;-)
IAAAL - I am actually a lawyer
What about vocals? I remember seeing something about synthesized vocals a while back, but until your average person can make lifelike vocals on their PC, all you have is instrumentals. So what's the point?
As far as I remmember (but I could remmember false) there is copyright on all part of the song (tunes, voice, lyrics etc...). Reproducing the tune as MIDI and distributing on internet would be infrigement. Now on the other hand if you keep it for yourself (family/friends) you are safe.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think this issue is ambiguous enough that it will be in the best interests of studios to sue independent "midi remixers". Who would be willing to risk losing enough money to retire on and a jail sentence by actually taking it to trial? No... settlements from this will just be one more revenue stream for the bad guys.
I'm a gnu world man.
Even if the original work is out of copyright, for example Beethoven's works, the rights to the "notation or manuscript" is owned by whoever printed or published it, since classical music can be notated in different ways according to different interpretations. This goes for any piece of music. Also, the midi file, even of an out of copyright piece of music is the intellectual property of the author. I've created my own versions of several pieces of classical music, made them available on the internet and I've noticed in the years since I've come across those files under different names. It's the same midi I made, just someone has put their own name as author\tracker in the file. It's not cool.
1. MIDI files are often not produced by the copyright owner. Therefore, the underlying song composition is owned by the copyright owner(s) (i.e. publisher and composer); 2. The arrangement *might* be copyrightable by the MIDI programmer. 3. The US Copyright Office equates MIDI files with audio media(!); 4. If anyone remembers the Negativland / U2 debacle - one of the versions Negativland produced and was sued for was in fact running from a MIDI file; 5. Copyright owners were pretty strict about people distributing MIDI files: One webmaster states she received a letter from the Harry Fox Agency in December 1999 demanding the removal of offending MIDI files. The HFA also contacted the ISP which temporarily suspended the website until the files were removed. Web Thumper's MIDI Site, a popular source for MIDI files was permanently shut down following a copyright dispute.
In music you have copyright on a particular recording of a song, which is what you get sued for infringing upon when filesharing. In addition you have copyright on the song itself - the lyrics, melody, composition, etc. If you look at the liner notes for a CD you will see something like "Copyright CrooksR'US Records. All rights reserved". This is the copyright notice for the recording. You often see names listed by each song, or a note to the effect of "All songs written by Your Favorite Band". This is attributing who wrote the song. This person (people) get royalties on all performances (including bar cover-bands), and recordings of the song, not just this specific recording.
This would clearly be infringing on the second copyright (on the song), but not the first (on the recording).
MIDI, the Musical Instrumant Digital Interface, merely sends instructions for an instrument (could be a synthesizer or a sampler or any number of other devices) to then create sound. There is no actual audio. MIDI data can be represented in many different forms, be it a list of instruction in hexadecimal, a matrix of controller values, or even as printed sheet music. Asking whether or not a MIDI "remix" or re-writing is an original creation is similar to asking whether or not someone who takes previously written sheet music and transcribes it and changes it is creating a new work.
It all depends on the level of art and interpretation in the work (think about Cage, for instance, and his work in creating scores from astronomical maps) and the legalities. I cannot comment on the legalities of rewriting music, as I am just a musician and an engineer, not a lawyer.
As far as I know, it is not illegal to transcribe audio into sheet music, which is basically what one does when creating a MIDI file from digital (or analog) audio.
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
There are free sequencers and samplers. However that's only half the battle, I mean if you get a Creative X-Fi you have a reasonable sampler right there. The real problem is in samples. I can take a MIDI and do two renderings for you using the same software. One will sound damn near real, the other will sound cheesy. The only difference will be the samples used.
Free samples that are any good are much harder to come by. There are plenty of free soundfounts, but many are quite bad and non I've seen are near what you get with good ample packs. Also, a large number out there that are free did no checking on the legality of what they are using. So you may get a free sample you like, but it may actually be ripped off from somewhere else and not legit.
Unfortunately in the good sample arena, I'm not aware of any non arm n' leg solutions. You just seem to get what you pay for. If you pay $200 for an orchestral set, it'll be pretty good. If you pay $2000 for one, it'll sound almost perfect. If you pay nothing for it, it'll sound fake and may not even be legit.
Greetings, Mr. Noculture. There's a such thing as music without vocals.
Just FYI.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Maybe I've missed something big, but I didn't know such amazing vocal support was built into MIDI formats. I guess I could always put the lyrics in and let Microsoft Sam (tm) sing it for me, but I'd then die a horrible, horrible death.
If I have a laser printer and a computer, and manually copy a book by typing it into my favorite word processor, i'll be able to print a nearly equal quality rendition of the book - but that doesn't make me the author. In the case of a MIDI it's the same, the author rights of the original composition still lie with the composer.
[v]irtually anyone can take a midi file and using a program such as Garage Band or Reason create a near studio quality rendition of their favorite song
Technically, that's true. If it's going to be any good, however, *still* depends on talent, sensitivity and hard work. Never mind great soundfonts, and great software, if you don't know how to use them or lack the patience to endlessly tweak things until they sound just right, it's never going to sound as good as the original.
The people at (formerly) Media Ventures do some absolutely stunning stuff with MIDI, software and synthesizers. Ever listened to the soundtrack of "The Thin Red Line"? Some parts are MIDI/synthesizers. Some are real orchestra. Can you tell the difference? Hint: no. Can you reproduce it in equal quality? Sure, if you have the correct soundfonts, enough sensitivity, stacks of equipment and a lot of time on your hands. But it won't make you the composer of the work.
That said, unless planning to unjustly rip off the hard work of other people, I don't see why one would want to call a MIDI rendition of an original work "their own composition". Why not simply give credit where credit is due?
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
This is not a complete list, but Reason and GarageBand are not free nor open source, so these links might be useful:
:-)
- ardour, Digital Audio workstation / http://ardour.org/
- Rosegarden, audio and MIDI sequencer, score editor, and general-purpose music composition and editing environment / http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/
- LilyPond, music notation / http://lilypond.org/web/
- MusE MIDI/Audio sequencer / http://muse.serverkommune.de/
- Audacity, music editing station / http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
- Music Theory (free, not oss): http://www.musictheory.net/ and http://andyvn.ath.cx/Software-Aquallegro.php
- general link: http://linux-sound.org/
Cheers
Animoog.org
I couldn't, for example, pick a Radiohead track then release my smash-hit ukulele'n'kazoo remix without expecting Radiohead's label to come knocking on the door*. It's just an arrangement of someone else's idea.
(*or hordes of music fans to come baying for my blood...)
Cheers,
Ian
< You have a MIDI. May I add the lyrics? >
/
\ ____
\ / __ \
\ O| |O|
|| | |
|| | |
|| |
|___/
% Y
/ There she was just a-shouting to the street \
| Singing: I want Word from Office from Microsoft |
| Snapping her keyboard and shuffling her mouse |
| Singing: I want Word from Office from Microsoft |
| |
\ Want more?
\ ____
\ / __ \
\ O| |O|
|| | |
|| | |
|| |
|___/
% No, kthx.
...or restricted to midi files. Plagiarism is the thing called. Romeo and Juliet is not an original work, its argument is closely based on awell-known (then) Italian medieval story, using even the same names. However, we can agreee that the good old Bard polished it a bit, adding value, not just translated from the italian. Every work must be so judged to determine if the added value is big enough. Midi files are no exception. The fact that the mixing is done with programs makes almost no difference. After all, a human operator is needed to use it, select the incoming files and judge and adjust the result. You are not considered less of an artist if you use a CNC lathe for you sculpting; the same reasoning should apply. Nothing new to see here, sorry, walk along.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
There are two proudcts for singing that I'm aware of that are pretty good. One is Yamaha's Vocaloid. That's for solo vocals http://www.vocaloid.com/en/index.html for info and demos. It's pretty good, generally needs to be masked behind some kind of effects to not sound too synthesized, but still pretty impressive. The other is the EastWest Symphonic Choirs. As the name implies, it's choir samples and is geared for classical, but damn, when properly programmed I challenge you to tell them apart from the real deal. http://www.soundsonline.com/sophtml/details.phtml? sku=EW-165 for info and demos.
it's not what I think, it's just a fact about copyrights. This is something for a forum not for /. ... what's going on ? have I been too long away from /. ?
for your new website mate. Well done!
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
The real test comes when someone asks these MIDI "remixing" folk to play live. Most of them will have no idea how to play their songs on the keyboard (or true musical talent at that!), and the end result will be a rather shitty performance...
If you are doing an orignal composition and you compose for your samples then it works well. I mean hell, the SNES songs were 64kb all said and done between music and (compressed) samples.
However it's one thing to be doing an orignal work, it's another to try and do a "studio quality" rendition of an existing peice. No matter how good a composer you are, a little 1MB piano sample is going to sound, well, fake. You aren't going to fool anyone for the real thing. without a couple hundred MB sample at least.
Both are laudable goals. I am a huge fan of music done on older technologies (espically game music, hence the remasters I do) and I have a big collection of MOD (and derivitive) files. However it's a real different challenge to try and make a rendition of a MIDI that sounds like it was done with real isntruments than to compose an orignal MIDI to sound cool using a given sample set.
It's a different kind of MIDI programming even. I find that often, some of the best sounding MIDIs on my SoundCanvas translate the worst when played with higher grade samples. They are designed with certian assumptions in mind that just aren't valid and would need ot be redone. However some of the ones that come of as cheesy end up sound pretty damn good when you throw a few GB of samples at them.
A lot of it depends how close your samples are to the ones the composer used. For example the Edirol songs sound the very best on my SoundCanvas. No supprise, that was the hardware they were composed on.
If creating your own midi files/ringtones was illegal then companies such as handy.de, musiwave and WES would not have been able to start out.
(probably worth pointing out for the pedants that handy.de was bought by one of the big producers a couple of years ago and renamed to Arvato)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Shittest. Article. Ever.
This may be a little off topic but certainly related :) I'm looking for a way to use custom samples with my keyboard, and I basically have two options. I either need a software sampler, or a way to make Akai S-1000/S-3000 programs, on Linux. Has anyone here faced a similar situation? Any help would be greatly appreciated :)
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Whenever I think of MIDI music, I immediatly think of a horrible(redundant?) MIDI system used as a car alarm with Divo dancing around it. I don't think I'm "old", yet. This is an accurate portrayal of what I think of MIDI music.
without prejudice
midi is dead.
I've been buggin slash editors on several karaoke / tech related stories for a while now (yes I know, grousing about rejected submissions, blah blah) Still sort of ontopic, but the karaoke twist makes it more fun.
Our bar pays Ascap/BMI/Sesac for the right to use backing tracks in a public/business enviroment. It's not just backing tracks we're paying for, we're paying for the rights to the composition.
These 3 licensing agencies started years and years ago during the advent of the player piano. A player piano was sort of the "midi" file of it's time. You could faithfully reproduce any artists rendition of their compilation if you had the reels. Artists started feeling robbed when player piano companies started basically, selling their compilations without their permission.
Back then, artists got paid to play, but if someone could just buy a player piano reel, what was the point?
Fast forward to today and my problems with karaoke.
I stream video live from the bar I work at. If you have winamp, or mplayer windows running under wine on linux you can check it out here.
http://205.188.215.229:8014/listen.pls
My problem is this. If someone sings over the original artists compilation, is it still the original? Why should I have to pay a licensing agency for something that is totally different from the original (once someone has sung over it)
The closest I can find to why I shouldn't is a special section of the US copyright law that deals with parody and derivitave works.
http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
So summarizing, I don't think the license agencies will see it any different for midi files. They don't see it any different for karaoke, despite some of the singers being so far off tempo and key, that it could be considered a parody.
You need to pay the publisher (ASCAP, BMI, etc.), for performance rights. Costs are based on the number of copies you'll sell, and is negligable if you're small-fry.
About 15 years ago when my band did a cover of a popular eighties song, we contacted ASCAP and was told that if we didn't think we were going to sell more than 10,000 copies of our album, then not to waste their time with it -- kinda don't-ask-don't-tell.
Labels have become much greedier recently -- especially with things such as ring-tones (which are basically midi files), so attitudes may have changed.
I am afraid on future of this DRM situation and everything related to this. Will next question be "Is listening to music illeagal or not ?". Are sound cards legal ? Should music instruments be used ONLY for composing one`s own songs, rather then playing other`s songs.
IANAL, and hardly anyone else here is either. So maybe slashdot isn't the place to ask questions about rights ownership and the legal nuances of piracy?
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
Midi is definately copyrighted because its the same as sheet music. Whatever laws apply to sheet music apply to midi files because they are interchangable. Just because windows midi players suck and most people ignore these music files doesn't mean they can't be made to sound righteous and that they shouldn't be subject to the same copyright laws as written music. Thats all it is is sheet music and your midi synth is the orchestra that is playing the music for you. The better your synth the better the overall result.
Clickety Click
If you have the ability to create studio quality versions of published music, why waste your time on that when you can write your own music?
Publishers have sapped a large chunk of enjoyment from commercial works. Rather than a question of how good a song is you have to wonder how legal it is to posess it, or what kind of spyware they're dropping on your drive. You have to wonder how badly the original artist is getting screwed.
Or you can take your mad MIDI skillz and roll your own. It'll kill more time than browsing so-and-so's latest catalog, take money from the RIAA's clutches and ultimately, if done correctly and widely, force musicians to seek better means of distribution.
Entertain yourself. Self sufficiency is a noble cause.
Unless you have the exact same samples/instruments that the original artist used, chances are your midi file playback will sound as much like the original as me whistling the tune... Not to mention vocals.
Creative sort of tried to work around this limitation of MIDI with their sound font idea but how may professional musicians are using sound fonts?
That said, I don't see why a midi file wouldn't fall under the same protection that a piece of sheet music would. Practically the same thing, no?
are you seriously asking the slashdot community for legal advice?
"using a program such as Garage Band or Reason create a near studio quality rendition of their favorite song"
It's probably important to point out that while this holds true for songs that use 'real' instrument sounds - such as piano, strings, brass etc. - that are found in the General MIDI (GM) music set, it can't be said of music that primarily uses synthesized sounds as it's basis. So while you can churn out a reasonably passable rendition of Coldplay's 'Yellow', something like The Prodigy's 'Girls' ends up sounding like jazz-fusion lift music gone wrong.
Regarding the legal aspects of it, people have been sued successfully in the past for both borrowing the sounds (sampling) and the arrangements from songs, so recreating/remixing and distributing it whether MIDI or audio would almost certainly be infringment of somekind if permission wasn't granted.
That said, I have met people in the music industry who have taken classical track elements and slowed them down to use as the basis of songs, and people who have taken well known songs and either reversed or verticaly flipped music passages on the scale to disguise them. As the relationship between notes is mathematical, you still retain the musicality of the passage whilst hearing something new. Likewise, there are artists out there who rather than sampling a portion of record they hear, will attempt to recreate the original sounds, then in effect sample a portion of themselves.
All in all, there are some very creative ways of getting around copyright issues in the music industry, and a lot of them go unnoticed.
Repeal Prohibition! No IP!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I'm surprised that no one else has yet mentioned Nine Inch Nails release of The Hand That Feeds in Garage Band format.
"There are some copyright issues involved, so read the notice that pops up. Giving this away is an experiment. I'm interested to see what comes of it, what issues are raised and what the results are."
Can't remember what the copyright notice said - I only tried it a couple of times. My mac was not really powerful enough for it to be much use but it was certainly an interesting idea.
Relevant book on exactly the post's topic: "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig. See http://www.free-culture.cc/ for more info, and http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf for a free PDF download of the book.
Trace: Someone plays a song created by other people. Someone's brain interprets these sound signals. Someone's brain outputs approximations in the pitch and duration dimension, and assigns the particular sequence to some generic sound. The brain output becomes factual data/information based on the interpretations of a song, much like remembering the pitch, rhythm and duration in your head. Factual data/information is not copyrightable. (Yet.)
Normally you would have to contact copyright holder Zod, ask for permission, and then work out a license agreement (royalties for the most part). But normally you would also profit from the work, because you are not only using the work of copyright holder Zod, but you are also using the name and fame that often comes with it, for your benefit. This is not what happens on the Internet, except for taking credit for transcribing it, the interpretation is free. If you start taking money for it without some form of license agreement, you're in trouble.
There is a symbiotic relationship lost in the profit mayhem; why do musicians publish music? For other people to listen to, appreciate and enjoy, perhaps? That's why the record industry is so aggressive; they do little to nothing in the music making, but they want the most from it. They're living in the profit dimension.
RaySorry to crush your joke, but the Yamaha Vocaloid synthetic singer does exactly that.
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
As usual, we have people running away scared just because a computer is involved in a situation. Just stop panicking, temporarily forget computers exist at all, and look for parallels in the non-computer world that might give some sort of a clue as to how to handle the situation.
..... But as I see it, cutting a book would seem to be such a per-organ variable, that a book to play the same tune as an existing book but on a different organ might be considered different enough from the original for it to count as a new work in its own right. And I'm not even sure if travelling showmen are all that bothered about respecting copyright.
MIDI files contain machine-readable information about what pitch note to play, how long to play it for, how loud, with what instrument sound and what special effects to apply.
Sheet music contains human-readable information about what pitch note to play, how long to play it for, how loud, with what instrument and what special effects to apply.
Fairground-organ books contain machine-readable information about what pitch note to play, how long to play it for, how loud, with what instrument sound and what special effects to apply.
So it seems to me that MIDI files are the electronic equivalent of sheet music {which has a copyright of its own, belonging to the person who transcribed it as opposed to the composer; and which would not be infringed by performing it or recording the performance, only by copying the paper onto some tangible medium}; or maybe just a more up-to-date version of fairground-organ books. I really don't know what the score is with these and copyright: can someone enlighten me? Somebody round here must have an enormous organ that they are particularly proud of
On the surface, it seems that GarageBand is a nice application for recording and editing digital music. However, there is one gaping feature hole: although GarageBand can import MIDI files, it cannot export MIDI files ! This is vendor lock-in of the worst form. Once you work on something in GarageBand, all you can do is export it to AIFF format. It is impossible to turn it your recording into a MIDI cell-phone ringtone or process it further with other software. At least with Microsoft Word, the data format has been mostly reverse engineered. But GarageBand is as worthless as a crippled shareware trial because it can't save MIDI files. What a shame.
Some 4 or 5 years ago I was into this midi making thing a lot. Basicaly, I took a song and rewriten it in notes to a midi file by listening to it (since there's no other way to do so). It requires A LOT of work, since there is no software that could do that automaticaly. There was a huge community and lots of websites where we shared those midi files with other people and everything was very lovely until those websites started closing down... I had a website as well. I DID NOT SELL those midi files or profit from them in any way, and people who downloaded them were absolute enthusiasts who just wanted to have the notes of their favorite song or sing a karaoke with friends at some party and I could't see how this violates any law or something. But anyhow, I got this angry letter and had to close down. This letter said that apparently you can only sell those midis and pay some part of the profit to the copyright owner, which is in my oppinion plain wrong. People don't download midis instead of buying a CD, artists DO NOT lose any profit (they may even gain), you just get some extra stuff (like notes, lyrics, ability to play this song on your midikeyboard...), which, in fact, you make yourself and just share with others. It's like using a plot from a movie in your school play, you don't get charged for that do you? Anyway, if you're interested in buying full length midi files, here's a link http://www.midimusic.de/index.php?&lng=eng . These guys are fast...
A Mac Mini is a cheap way to get full access to GarageBand and all the other iLife products...
For muscians, the Mac Mini is easy to carry between gigs, and it's a mac, so it is user friendly, no problem there...
You can get the cheapest one under $500 to play with GarageBand.
Another $100 can double your storage, speed up the CPU,
and be more useful for music production..
http://store.apple.com/
Sounds like an infringment to me. How do I get started?
yo, .mid might just be a creative-labs driver away from chinky-chonky to you, but to countless musicians, MIDI is way, way more.
.mid files' got namespace, yo. NRPN, baby.
calling for such questions about MIDI as "is it just an old chiptune format" or "is it old and crufty" is pretty weak, imho.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Basically a MIDI file (rendered or otherwise) is a cover version or adaption of the original. Generally permission needs to be sought and granted by the original copyright owner before the adaption can be published or publicly perfformed (unless the original owner has made some kind of public allocation or usage statement). Furthermore there may be a matter of coming to a mutually agreed form of compensation to the original copyright owner for the adaption.
once the owner of a recorded work has had a go, anyone is allowed to cover it - but the owner (that's the creative person who had the idea, not someone who can write midi files) is entitled to their share of the proceeds. the record companies don't care if anyone remixes or covers or records/writes a midi file or writes up the dots for one of their hits - but if you make any money at it, you have to pay up. if your reworked version wakes up interest in an old hit, they are laughing too. tribute bands survive on this basis (regrettably?); the record companies just let it happen - it's free advertising for them. also! if you sit up late in your office working up a midi file on reason with a view to taking over the scene from teenage DJs, Propellerhead (and owners of the samples you downloaded) will come down on you before Sony do on the other hand, I just did Birdland for banjo, bouzouki and sitar (and acoordion of course) over a few d&b beats - had a ball - and how long would I have to wait for Joe to do that? have fun, forget the consequences of the unlikely event that you get famous doing it! besides, it's better not to do something you love doing for money - you'll soon get to hate it
I'm the founder of the Videogame Music Archive, one of the largest online midi archives. We have a FAQ page which has an entry addressing this issue. For your reading pleasure:
"What is a remix? What is this site's policy on them?"
A remix is any song that is intentionally altered to sound dramatically different than the original. An example of a remix would be the theme to Super Mario Bros. redone into a Death Metal/Techno song. Usually a remix involves changing notes, inserting new music in the middle (Or music from another game), or a major change in style. Music redone to take advantage of the MIDI format, such as a song from the original Final Fantasy sequenced to be played by a full orchestra, probably wouldn't be considered a remix, as long as the song itself remains intact (But rather would be considered an "Arrangement").
We'll accept well done remixes. It is entirely up to us to decide what is a well done remix. It must be musically coherent and flow well, and it must be more than a simple changing of instruments and addition of a drum beat. The ZHQ Zelda Dance Remix is a good example of the type of file we're likely to accept (Although that particular song is one we will not accept, so please, STOP UPLOADING IT!).
To reiterate, since people don't seem to grasp the concept, adding a drum beat, changing an instrument, and slapping a lame title (As in "TiWanaKu TapF00t Remix") on it DOES NOT MAKE A REMIX. Don't send us garbage like that. Got it? Furthermore, the word "Intentional" in the first sentence is an important one. The dramatically different sound cannot be a result of your musical incompetence. If you have to call a song a "Remix" to justify the criminal action you've taken against the melody, then your file is not welcome here. Come back when you can tell the difference between a C# and a G.
If you care to discuss this topic further, check out the VGMusic Forum.
It's a derivative work, but unless you have permission from the copyright holders saying otherwise, full rights go to them.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
This topic is just a stealth advertisement for the poster's crappy own "musichax" website. I'm not particularly opposed to someone trying to drum up some enthusiasm for their own project, whether it be a program or an interesting site, but for cripes' sake, show some honesty and integrity while doing so. Instead of just saying, "This opens up an interesting discussion" and trying to secretly lure us with one of your links, be up front about it and say, "I'm starting a new website with remixed midi tunes. What do you think of the legality or ethics of this?" Or put a disclaimer in, such as [NOTE: I am the webmaster of the site in question].
But as things stand, you're an ass for trying to slip one in on us, and Zonk should be beaten with a wet ethernet cable for not doing the slightest bit of investigation regarding the links you submitted.
I have some thoughts about your site but I won't elaborate since I don't think you should be rewarded for your sneaky behavior.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
The law on MIDI files directly draws on Piano Roll legislation. In particular the Compulsary Mechanical License.
The original composer of the music holds all rights to the music until he signs it away to a music publisher. The original composer is important because copyright lasts for the entire life of the composer plus an additional 70 years. (Thanks to Disney and Sonny Bono)
At this stage the Piano Roll maker is not allowed to transcribe it into mechanical (digital) form until he gets permission from the publisher - or - someone else performs it first.
Once the copyright owner of a musical composition records and distributes the work to the public, or allows someone else to do so, anyone that wishes to record and distribute that same work may do so without permission (subject to certain limitations) by issuing the copyright owner a notice of intention to obtain a compulsory license. After that the only legal requirement is to pay a compulsory mechanical reproduction fee of 6.95 cents per copy to the publisher or their agent (Harry Fox - who license from 1,000 copies upwards).
So, how does this apply to MIDI? Those "free" MIDI files you can download off the internet are only legal if someone else performed them first and if the creator of the MIDI file pays 6.95 cents for every download made.
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
In both cases, you're releasing a different recording of an existing piece of music. So although you wouldn't come up against the copyright in the recording, distribution would contravene the copyright inherent in the music itself. So unless you have permission from the publishers (or the music is out of copyright), you're leaving yourself open to All Sorts Of Trouble.
Just like any other cover version.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
How about an open source music site in which anyone can create a basic composition, upload the midi and samples, and let other people improve it?
No, it's certainly a derivative work (you derived your composition from someone else's). But you don't necessarily owe the original recording artist anything -- you may owe the writer though. And it also depends on whether you're distributing your derivative work. Two notes: 1) IANAL and 2) this is intended for a US audience.
The original composer owns the copyright in the notes he wrote. The original lyricist owns the copyright on the words. Compulsory licensing (meaning Congress "compels" copyright owners to license their musical works in certain ways) means tha you can pretty much do what you want -- as long as you pay the original authors the necesary fees, typically by filing a form with and sending a check (often a small amount) to ASCAP or BMI. For example, the kids bop commercials everyone has seen selling kids recordings of pop songs-- the producers of that product find the talent to rerecord the exact same songs you hear on the radio. They don't have to pay Gwen Stefani (unless she wrote the song), they have to pay the writers, probably on a per-sale basis according to the rules Congress set up.
Now, with the MIDI files, unless you're rerecording these songs and selling them, it's doubtful you would owe anything to anyone, but don't try to widely distribute your derivative work (gratis or for a fee) unless you contact ASCAP and ask them what fees you may owe.
Of course, you can always spend your hard earned $$$ on a lawyer to get specifics. But it's generally easier to contact the licensing companies I mentioned.
When I made my living as a photographer, clients would gripe about the cost. "I could have my cousin Freddy shoot my wedding for free!" Well, when cousin Freddy did so, no surprise, he knew nothing about selecting the right gear for the job, even if he could afford it, and nothing about composition, lighting, etc. Recording is the same - you may have a great quality MIDI file. You may, as I do, rip mp3s of your favorite songs, import them to garage band and then replicate the drum track to the song a measure at a time, so you can then play your bass and guitar(s) over the beat and get a 'real' recorded version of the song. You could, like me, sound nothing like Metallica at all. Even if you did sound good, and there are Metallica tribute albums released by major studios that suck, your version would not be a threat to Metallicas.
Besides, an artist, as I recall from a IP class I took (IANAL), has first recording rights to whatever they write. I write a song, I have all rights to it. As I recall, Bob Dylan once used this to deny himself permission to record a song of his. He was in a dispute with his record company, and this was the only way he could get around their demands legally - they could make him produce a record, but not one with content he did not have permission to use, and the songs had not yet been recorded by him or anyone else. Once recorded, however, anyone can cover the song - you can sell tickets to a performance by your band, "Metallica-Lite" and play all Metallicas songs, and sell CDs of your band doing so, but you can't represent yourselves to be Metallica.
If you distribute commercially, you may have to pay royalties, and that seems kinda crappy, but I would think it would be 'a piece of the action' rather than a fixed amount - so if your Metallica tribute album sells 4 copies, you owe a percent of those four sales. I'd get a lawyer if you go that route...
Short answer - replicate/remix/reproduce all you like - derivative works are just that - the property of the creator, unless they are so close to the original that they are identical, in which case, it is a replica and (as of now) illegal to sell/distribute without permission.
My $.025 (inflation, y'know...)
an idea that nobody has been able to implement yet. Decompose the channels using AI and signal processing and sample them to provide a midi-like file in the output. I know it's possible because the human ear can recognize the different instruments in a song. Just by paying attention you are able to differenciate the signals.
After the samples are played, the difference is stored, possibly in different levels to attain lossy compression.
Human voice treatment would add some complexity: Besides frequency, you need to change the phonemes, but as we've seen in text-to-speech software, it's also possible to do this.
Unfortunately i doubt anyone is working on it, so this wonderful compression technique may not appear in 10 years or more.
Make that modern synth sounds, or samples. Midi is just the on/off instructions, roughly, like a piano roll. Check out this new product from MOTU of sampled sounds you can use with a sequencer:
l /en
http://www.motu.com/products/software/msi/mp3.htm
This sounds pretty real, and I think is sort of what this article was after.
is a remixed midi file an original creation?
No. Unless you wrote the song in the first place, you are simply doing a cover version.
There's also something known as "arrangements". "Jazzman" made a very nice arrangement of the Final Fantasy theme (google for "Jazzman Originals"). There's a dance remix version of Pachelbel's Canon in D somewhere in P2P. Just because you have the "source" doesn't mean you can't add your own taste to it.
Usually in these cases, the credits cover the original author, and add: "Arrangement (c) NNNN by Author". Some authors however, forbid to make derivative works of their songs without their permission.
And this is the REAL meaning of "copy-right", not that RIAA crap.
A midi file is much like a score. It contains instructions on what instrument in the midi synthesizer plays what note, for how long, and when.
Distributing a midi file is like distributing a music score, and so likely an infringement if distributed without permission.
Playing a midi file is like performing the music in that score, and so also likely an infringement depending on the circumstances.
In this case, however, it would not be the RIAA to whom money is owed, because a midi is not a recording by a RIAA artist. Rather the money would be owed to the music publisher and their collection agents, ASCAP and BMI in most cases.
That's my non-lawyer opinion based on some experience with both MIDI and the publishing industry in general.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
BTW we've seen this question arise many years before in the golden age of MODs. You gotta love 'em, but almost none of them have vocals.
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
It seems like MIDI discussion come up every so often on Slashdot.
First, a couple things to get cleared up:
MIDI is just a serial protocol, nothing more. It's been around since the early 80's. The protocol defines 128 MIDI notes, on 16 channels, and 128 controllers that have values of 0 - 127. That's basically it, along with a few other things like channel change and bank change messages. MIDI itself does not define any instruments, because MIDI is used to control non-instrument devices like effects boxes too.
Now, when most normal computer people think of MIDI, what they are actually thinking of is GM or "General MIDI." GM defines a standard set of instruments, for example instrument 1 is always a piano, instrument 74 is always a flute, etc.
It's up to the hardware or software to actually implement these instruments, usually done with wavetable samples. The idea is that a MIDI file played through any "GM compatible" device will sound roughly the same on any other GM device, although the quality of the samples varies widely. Roland's GS is an extension of GM.
GM used to be used for games primarily (think Doom1 and Doom2!) but has fallen by the wayside now that everybody is using full audio tracks for music.
But most of the music created for video games these stays was still created using MIDI! The file format is specific to the studio application, but MIDI is still used internally to communicate with various synthesizers and samplers including virtual synths that run on the local machine.
So if you were to get the original data files, you would need to also have the sample libraries-- which are VERY high quality, and can cost several thousand dollars. And you need to be using software that works with these libraries, which rules out free/OSS software-- you're gonna NEED something like Sonar, Logic Audio, etc.
Almost all video games and most TV shows that have symphonic music are actually MIDI based, but use enormous sample libraries like EastWest symphony orchestra. In fact I believe that the Return to Castle Wolfenstein soundtrack was created mostly with that sample library.
Other examples, the "fire baby" sequence in The Incredibles is created with Voices of the Apocalypse so even realistic choirs can be created using MIDI.
You don't have to spend THAT much though-- the libraries I use the most are Storm Drum and Garritan Personal Orchestra, both of which are very affordable but good enough that they are often used in hollywood. All of these are plugins that can be used in many different software packages on both OSX and Windows, but not linux that I'm aware of.
So, nowadays MIDI is still an integral part of even the most modern studios, but General MIDI is nowhere in sight. GM still has a place in cell phone ringers.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
> virtually anyone can take a midi file and using a program such as Garage Band or
Well, no, the autor forgotten to mention that you as a casual computer user first have to purchase a completely new computer system and a completely different OS which he would have to learn first, just to run garage band.
Sorry its blunt but that's what it is. It's the music that's copyrighted not the ink you use to transcribe it or the magnetic pulse or the dc voltage, it's the music, whatever the form of retention, production distribution or propagation you use, it's the end result that count.
Music is copyrighted and reproduction is copyrighted, the first copyright means that however you reproduce said song, melody or musical work you have to obtain the rights for it. The second make sure that the recording, the effects used on the instruments, the instruments chosen and so on and so forth cannot be copied without prior approval. Do you have to obtain copyright for the song yes, that is obvious, MIDI, digital audio, airwaves, farts, who cares if the song is the same its the same, you can change the instruments the reverb type, anything if the song is the same its copyrighted, do you have to obtain the second type of rights (often refered to has mechanical rights, even though the process could be something else than mechanical) no, because you don't copy a recording, just the material found on it. Therefore if you want to play back a Beattle song reproduced in MIDI you first have to obtainn the copyright to the song but once you get those rights you can record it, broadcast it anyway you like because the recording is different and therefore you have no mechanical rights to obtain.
If I mutilate your child can I call it my own?
grim way to put it but that's exactly what it is, the mutilation is done by me not you, the child, however, even if he looks very different, is still your child.
No matter how good a composer you are, a little 1MB piano sample is going to sound, well, fake.
But some composers embrace the fakeness of a 12 KB toy piano sample and make something like this.
Of course, all it takes is a few modifications to sheet music and it's no longer the same song
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's a wrong reading of music plagiarism case law. The real case law is worrisome.
Professional quality sound is simple when you're working with digital audio, but making a MIDI composition that doesn't sound cheesy or artificial is actually quite difficult. Most artists wouldn't care if MIDI composers did call their songs "original" because they sound so robotic. A great MIDI song is one that fools you into thinking it's not.
"Song" is a colloquial term; the legal term is "musical work". But if "song" is defined in a document (either explicitly or implicitly) to refer to any musical work, then for purposes of that document, a "song" can have no lyrics.
MIDI data - at its most basic - records that a note is played (note on) the note location (pitch), the duration of said note, and the volume (often expressed in terms of note velocity) and that the note has stopped playing (note off). However, there are other pieces of data that can be transmitted, such as patch change up, patch change down, pitchbend, and data generated from continuous controllers such as modulation wheels.
If you take a typical and ordinary piece of MIDI data, it only has detectible relation to a given piece of music if the note data is matched to tones produced by a synthesizer or sampler (or a computer program that functions as such) that permit the possibility of melody and harmony. If the tones are, for instance, Latin Percussion, and their is a different non-pitched tone for each note on the keyboard, one would be extremely hard pressed to detect that the MIDI data making it happen was derived of a particular song.
MIDI note data, in point of fact, has NOTHING to do with the timbres generated by the end device, be it synth, sampler, and computer. Also, MIDI note data is easily dislodged from time, and it can be cut up, pasted, and used to trigger other MIDI generators (such as arpeggiators), and can also be subjected to randomisation and processing schemes.
So, one could easily take some drippy POS tune from the likes of Celine Dion, delete entire ranges of its data, take a section that might be too slow but is interesting, loop it and play it at 400 beats per minute, and then have the remainder trigger an arpeggiator that then triggers some Big Beat Drum machine sounds or a selection of machine . I seriously doubt anyone would be able to tell whether it was pulled from Celine Dion or Britney Spears or Claude Debussey, because:
Data that is used for pitch is not inherently tied to a pitched tone.
MIDI can functionally resemble a piano roll, but only if a player piano plays it. If you remove the pitched instrument (the player piano) the data of the "piano roll" can be used to trigger other kinds of nonpitched events (a drum, an explosion, a "thwip", a car engine, a generator, or whatever sample you assign to a given key position, etc. etc. etc.) and thusly make a lot of interesting sounds. Also, the piano roll can be played backwards (i.e., MIDI data is easily processed.)
Hence: the relationship between MIDI data and a given stream of MIDI data's copyright is actually rather problematic. Recreating a track by Celine Dion (or any other pointless musical product puked out by the music industry's star system) is an interesting academic exercise in MIDI programming, but it's not terribly creative. It would be much more interesting to mulch her MIDI data and make something interesting out of it.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Unless you wrote the song in the first place, you are simply doing a cover version.
Even if you did write the song in the first place, it's still a cover version. If I write a song, how can I tell whether it's actually original?
I want some peanuts
"Jazzman" made a very nice arrangement of the Final Fantasy theme (google for "Jazzman Originals").
Unless Square Enix has given a blanket remix license, "Jazzman" has to follow the "compulsory license" rules in US copyright law and pay Square Enix an 8.5 cent per track royalty through the Copyright Office whenever anybody buys or downloads the recording.
There's a dance remix version of Pachelbel's Canon in D somewhere in P2P.
You're probably thinking of "Yatta!" performed by Happatai. It's legal only because the original author died three centuries ago.
Some authors however, forbid to make derivative works of their songs without their permission.
According to the way U.S. copyright law has been worded since 1976, you mean "All authors however, forbid to make derivative works of their works of authorship without their permission." Blanket licenses such as those of Creative Commons are permission.
No midi comes with samples attached - the whole idea is that a midi file has only the note information, not the sample information.
So, these programs that give better samples are just a natural progression of technology. The note information still is the same. The note information is key, that is where you get a quality midi file from, not the insturments you plug in.
I've listened to some gawd-awful midi's before (using the default General Midi (GM) sound patches) that come with the sound blaster, but as soon as I 'connected' better insturments, or patch the stream into my synthesizers, it sounds great! - Some suck large, like a 2nd year piano student recorded them---yuck!
although GarageBand can import MIDI files, it cannot export MIDI files !
A multitrack audio editor isn't supposed to export MIDI files. The real missing feature is exporting multitrack audio in a standard format such as S3M.
will someone with mod points please mod this parent up?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I've worked with many free online midi files to create backing tracks for myself - usually using the bassline & maybe the main chords to work from. For the most part, they are horrible: terrible horrible arrangements, very bad timing, and often layers and layers of general midi information that has to be stripped out to be able to use the song at all. In any case, a tremendous amount of work is required to get anything decent, much less "studio quality" sound. This applies to pop music, and is often worse in the classical realm, especially in the matter of tempo. I usually ended up hiring a musician to create the needed files for me. Or buying a version from a reputable online midi store (who pay royalties I'm fairly certain). Now mostly doing originals, so point is moot.
Go here.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Anyone who thinks MIDI can be used to produce a 'studio quality rendition' of their favorite song must listen to really shitty songs, or simply has no business dealing with music on any level.
MIDI = suck
Speaking as a classical musician, I find the MIDI standard grossly limited in terms of subtle articulation, phrasing, and dynamics. On glaring problem is the miniscule 128 levels of velocity, which is too small for the dynamic range necessary in classical music. (Yes, there are ways to cheat this in MIDI, but they're rather lackluster and cumbersome.)
I don't care how big your samples are, classical will never sound "real" with MIDI. Unfamiliar ears may be tricked for a while, but the standard is too old, remains unchanged, and was really only created with "popular" music in mind.
On an aside, Super Conductor software has some nifty solutions to computerized classical music (non-MIDI), but even still...
When a cover band in a bar plays Free Bird, is that an original work? Same difference. Duh.
A shell-enabled Clippy!
Seriously though, this is the funniest thing I have seen today.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
The only real advantage of MIDI over audio files like MP3 or OGG is that the actual notes being played can be learned when viewing the MIDI file through a notation program. The best notation software that I've used is MIDIsoft Studio4 even though it's ten years old.
Notation software takes the MIDI file and displays it as sheet music. If you can read music (and anyone who can learn C can learn to read music) then you can learn how to play really complicated songs this way. Guitar Tab text files usually only give you simple and often wrong chord changes. Anything beyond G-Em-C-D (I-VIm-IV-V - the progression used in thousands of 1950s-1970s songs) is going to be hard to figure out for non-professionals just sitting down with a guitar and a recording. Almost all older songs have their most complicated chord structures and arpeggios mapped out into MIDI by musically-proficient fans. All the songs played on 'classic rock' FM stations can be learned this way. This is also a great way to learn big-band era stuff from the 1940s and even how older European classical music works. Mozart and Tchaikovsky (the Nutcracker Suite, etc...) can be learned even if you don't have access to the sheet music scores from a library or music store.
MIDI files played into synthesizers, even newer GM synths, don't sound very good even when they have been expertly constructed. It's a fact. There are too many nuances to the playing technique that don't get encoded into the MIDI file. The synths aren't really all that great either. Purely electronic ambient music works like Brian Eno and Steve Roach have a much better chance of being recreated from MIDI files fed into advanced synths. But the idea that a modern pop song can be recreated by MIDI should not be taken seriously. Synths can't reproduce standard instruments like electric guitars and saxophones realistically.
A number of sheet music publishers are trying to get all MIDI files removed from the web. This is short-sighted and cruel on their part. MIDI files encourage people to learn to read and play music far more better than anything that the music publishers could do to develop this market. With music classes being dropped extensively from American public schools, anything that teaches people to interact with printed music scores is a positive thing.
It just sucks that music classes are being dropped by stupid uncultured brain-dead public school administrators (is there any other type?). And to drop music classes for more algebra? Insane. Most people listen to music every single day; very few people ever use algebra after high school. The priorities of the public schools are completely wrong. It's a tragedy.
i wrote (the first time ever) a journal entry about some nice MIDI sounds back in march...
basically it's a complete record with 1h 13m music but thanks to MIDI it comes on a floppy disk.
check it out for yourself - the sound is great and not at all the "wtf - turn this down" you are accustomized from MIDI.
I think you're looking at the wrong technology. Some of those linked sites to the hacked up MIDIs are cool and everything, but MIDIs have their limitations and they seem like a particularly clumsy technology to me.
What MIDIs these days do is work with a set of digital samples then apply fancy transformations to the PCM data to give you instruments with different pitches, frequencies, etc. My first big problem with this is that MIDI is pretty much stuck with a single set of samples for the instruments unless you use something like Creative's SoundFont where you can change the sound of every instrument in the set. The problem being is that now you can't distribute the original MIDI and expect a consistent listening experience from all of your users. You're forced to record the audio to an MP3 or something on your machine before distributing it.
Which leads me to my next point. Incase you were not aware, a new type of music has existed since the days of the Amiga that fixes the problems of the gimped MIDI standard. I'm talking about digital modules (MOD, S3M, IT, XM, 669, etc.) These modules work on the same priniciples as MIDI but they have some distinct advantages:
My second largest problem with MIDI back in the day was that by comparison, the software MIDI emulators drained the computer of most of its resources.
So there you have it. I recommend diving into this world instead and stay clear of those icky MIDIs. Here are some resources if you don't know where to get started:
Also, if you're interested, there has been some development relatively recently with "Buzz trakcers"(?) I don't have as much knowledge with these but from what I saw with Jeskola Buzz, it's really very
My subject line actually is derived from an interesting article I read ages ago on a legal website. (I wish I could remember now where it was.) Viewed in a utilitarian way, a file/stream/CD/DVD or any other digital rendering of a work is essentially a set of instructions to a device to reproduce the work. Taking this even further, one can consider the entire file/stream/CD/DVD to be a single integer. While I'm not suggesting there isn't a great deal of skill and artistry to "find the integer" that creates the work and that copyright holders are entitled to protection, the fact that copyright law forbids unauthorized copying of digital works in essence means that you can't make a copy of an integer.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Believe me, I'm all for sampling and sequencing. However, I think they can only take you so far when it comes to artistic expression.
As you said, they can sound very convincing "when properly programmed" and let's face it, few composers have the dough to hire a choir (or whatever) every time they need one. But, to use a dramatic analogy, you can record Meryl Streep reading every word in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, but that doesn't mean it's easy to put the samples together into a convincing performance.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
A song as a MIDI file is a cover, and simply that. Asking Is it piracy? is a ridiculous question, since piracy is a dumb word the entertainment industries use to refer to the infringement of their works' copyrights. Is it copyright infringement? is a valid question. That, of course, depends on whether or not you have the original artist's (or record company's) permission to sell or perform the song in question.
Of course, MIDI files are hardly realistic. It's doubtful that any record company would consider a MIDI file a threat to a song's sales. What would really concern them would be a MP3 of a MIDI: a MIDI fed through a Virtual Studio Technology plugin (VST plugin) - audio plugins that can be used in conjunction with MIDI sequencers to give MIDI tracks a whole new sound. VST plugins can make a MIDI track infinitely better, since VST plugins use actual audio samples. It's possible to make a song that sounds just like the original though VST technology, and I'm sure record label executives would take notice if they found songs like that floating around on the p2p networks.
If you're reading this, stop it.
The combination of 'notes' and 'words' are copyrighted, along with the actual performance of the 'music'.
Ever seen a book with sheet music in it?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You only have to pay BMI/ASCAP/SESAC when you perform the copyrighted material live. If you are making a mechanical reproduction (recording) of the song, then you do not need to deal with them. For that you deal with the Harry Fox Agency who deals with the publisher/author.
Libertas in infinitum
Exactly... these are designated as Circle P and Circle C. P stands for phonorecording and C stands for copyright which is the lyrics/composition.
Libertas in infinitum
You might know this, but it didn't come across in your post...
Recording a song someone else has writtend and has already been recorded by another artist is NOT called a cover. It is called a mechanical repdocution. Money is owed to the songwriter via the publisher and the Harry Fox Agency.
Performing a song someone else has written in a live performace requires a license from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC one of the Performing Rights Orgs.
The person responsible for obtaining the PRO rights is the venue owner or the producer/promoter for that specifc show.
Libertas in infinitum
I think you might be confused. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC - the 3 PROs handle covers or live performances of songs that you have not written yourself. Usually the venue owner or the producer/promoter is responsible for paying these fees to the Performing Rights Org.
To actually RECORD a song that you have not written is called a mechanical license. You get this from the songwriter, puiblisher, and Harry Fox Agency.
Libertas in infinitum
Well... I wouldn't call it piracy... It would really be more of an infringment in its purest form.
Also, recording a song someone else has written is not called a cover - its called a mechanical reproduction. This is handled through the Harry Fox Agency with the pubs and the original author.
Performing a song someone else has written in public as a live performance is called a cover. Those rights are handled by either ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC.
Libertas in infinitum
Is a remixed midi an original creation? The way the law has gone in the United Kingdom I think that the answer is yes.
s sRelease.html press release by the law firm representing an editor who edited 18th century manuscripts (and was paid by the publisher for his time). He won his case claiming sole rights to the work In the words of the press release:
This is a http://www.carter-ruck.com/recentwork/Sawkins_Pre
The case made new law, laying down what is required in order to establish copyright in an edition of a musical work, such as a performing edition of an 18th Century composition.
And who said that the law is an ass!
Music Theory (free, not oss): http://www.musictheory.net/
musictheory.net is a good one; I'd also like to toss my site out there, emusictheory.com -- also pretty popular for free (non-OSS) interactive music theory drills.
BTW -- musictheory.net uses Flash; emusictheory.com uses Java applets.
[wow; so rare I get to actually make a plug somewhat on topic!]
midi files regardless of how nice a sample bank you have to choose from sound like fake instruments......................
remixed songs are the property of the remixer... original songs are the property of the original song writer. A remix (& im not talking about something stupid minor tweek like only changing the drums track, as most remixes seems to be these days) is another persons interpretation of an idea. all music that is made @ this point is just taking what has been heard before & reworking it (theres only seven notes in a the basic western scale & theres only so much you can do with those scales). all music has been borrowed from past sources & saying a remix is the original songwriters property is like saying that the first person to do a I ii vi V I should have the rights to that progression cause everything else is just an interpretation of his chord progression. remixing is just a more honest way of doing what all music is doing in the first place... reinterpreting whats already been done....
Send that first one, "HEY magnetophone (5:10)", to Nintendo.
That was the best and only midi track that I had time to hear. I thought it excellent; not in likeness of a DDR or aerobics or Techno theme, but one that need earn attachment to a strange title. May I be pardoned that I compare to a past-played entertainment title; I thought it blended the ambience of a Science Fiction and Action title; those open-source media developers would eat that up. I've a software MIDI -- regardless, that didn't compare with the crud that squeeks through on the typical eMail and websites I've stumbled across. Thankyou!
without prejudice
And it's been around for a few decades. LPC was specifically designed for speech, and can compress intelligible (for low expectations intelligible - it's not very nice sounding) speech to a speed of 1200bps. I have no doubt it can be applied to musical sounds, but the quality will likely not be as good as mp3. Many people get upset at the claim that MP3 is anywhere near "CD quality" and its artifacts are easily demonstrated.
I could see this technique used in high-volume, low-margin, low-quality applications such as toys, but even then the cost of ROM is low enough that one would likely use a lower bitrate mp3 rather than spend the time/money to develop LPC for the product.
Tag lost or not installed.
The link to the site where the downloads are gets you to a track called "Stupify". I can tell you that has to be the most horrible rendition of the song I've ever heard.
If you're trying to 'sell' the idea of MIDI being an accurate copy of the original, it might be better to link to somewhere that has songs that at least sound like the original.
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
That's a thought-provoking point of view, but it's a bit like saying that a book is really just one long word (pun intended) if you include spaces and punctuation as letters!
From VH-1's Todd Rundgren biography:
[Rundgren] kicked off the year with Faithful, an album that split into original pop material and re-creations of '60s chestnuts from the Yardbirds, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and the Beach Boys. His resurrection of "Good Vibrations" brought him his first Top 40 hit in three years.
How does that (the cover half) compare with the hypothetical situation?
Said situation doesn't say anything about whether you pay the appropriate royalties for your recreation. If you do, what's the difference between this and Faithful?
Fer chrissakes just pick up a guitar, plug it into a big ol' amp and get with your friends on bass and drums. Then crank it to the max. Downloading a MIDI file and poking around with it in Gargeband is boooooring as hell. The real fun comes with you get your mates together and do the song on *real* instruments. *That* is fun. Rock on people. Frikkin' computers have no place in the making of great music. Cheers
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
"Fer chrissakes just pick up a guitar software module, plug it into Logic or ProTools and play around with multitracking bass and drums. Then crank it to the max. Plugging a guitar into an amp and repeating the same 3 chords in a garage is boooooring as hell. The real fun comes with you get a huge library of sounds and have full control over the composition. *That* is fun. Rock on people. Frikkin' wannabe guitar heros have no place in the making of great music. Cheers"
Different strokes for different folks!
It seems to me absurd that you need permission to record a song from a giant beaurocracy who more often than not will not grant permission. What a great way to entice artists to record new and better songs.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I discovered yesterday that I could search for a midi file of any song on the internet and e-mail it to my cell phone. Then I could have that ring tone for free. In some cases the file size was too big and would not play but I found a free midi editor so I cut out some of it and it was ok. Sure beats paying $0.99 - $1.99 for a ring tone. I am curious to see how copyright law does apply to midis and ringtones.
freak3dot
Not having the means to afford a Mac, I was reasoning based on some other things I've read about GarageBand as capable of doing. Thank you for the correction.
Anyway, you can pull out your MIDI files through the "MIDI Stream Hole", similar in scope to the analog hole: Feed MIDI playback into a MIDI sequencer capable of recording to a .mid file.
Well.... If you have "Metallica-Lite" and they play live in a bar, then the bar owner is responsible for obtaining the licenses from the Performing Rights Orgs ASCAP or BMI or SESAC. The PROs then pay Metallica a few cents for that.
Instead of tracking nickels and dimes, the PROs generally issue blanket licenses for venues which covers a given amount of audience members for a given amount of time. For example, your local stadium might have a license from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC which says they can play any music from their catalogs in front of 7 million people for the next 365 days. Your local bar might have a blanket license from these groups that says they can play anything from their catalogs to 75,000 people over the next 365 days.
Every venue that plays music has these blanket licenses - universities, resturaunts, clubs, (theaters - both grand and film are excluded), coffee shops, department stores, etc etc. And these PROs even have secret agents that go around to these venues and write down what they hear over a few hours and then check to see their blanket license is current. If it isn't they had better pay their license plus a fee or they get sued in court.
I can't call you a dumbass (or anyone else for that reason) for not understanding this because it is not a clear issue. Anytime you have attorneys and accountants involved epsecially in creating legislation, things tend to get complicated and illogical quickly. Hell, I have a degree in this stuff and I often times get confused and have to consult some of my textbooks.
Libertas in infinitum
Real Book is the name of one brand of fake book. They are still in production, and are now "legit" and wholly above-board. In addition to The New Real Book, which is all new selections in new transcriptions, Hal Leonard has recently re-published all of the Real Book series, with minor corrections. Publishers get their cut, the books are cheaper now than back then, and everybody is happy.
"Fake book" is a generic term for any book of simplified musical scores (not necessarily simplified in the sense of being easy to play, as a lot of the songs in jazz fake books are definitely for advanced musicians) that includes the melody, chord symbols, and usually a pretty good representation of the overall structure of the song. The majority of fake book scores fit on one or two facing pages, so that turning pages is minimized. Fake books predate Real Books by many years, but the Real Book folks did a fantastic job of getting good transcriptions onto paper and getting them distributed very widely. The music industry turned a blind eye to this thriving publishing business (mostly) because it was good for their business to have their artists songs being played reasonably accurately all over the world. And, of course, the musicians themselves were using these books on a daily basis and so certainly wouldn't raise a stink about not getting royalties when their own songs appeared in these bibles of Jazz.
The Real Books are still the best of the lot, by far, and I certainly recommend any musician pick up copies of at least the first Real Book. The quality of The New Real Book series is superior, and the supplemental material (like a page of chord spellings and notation conventions) and arrangements are more complete, but the song selection is less exciting to me. The first Real Book has everything you need to be able to fake your way through a whole career as a working musician (which, I guess was the point).
Here's the link:
The Real Book at Amazon
You can, of course, find all of the old ones online in one form or another...they're just too damned useful, and they have such a long history of ignoring copyright law, that copies seem to grow in any cool dark place. I consider $16.50 a small price to pay to get the corrected versions in a nicely bound volume, but there have been times when I didn't have my books and needed a song and I've downloaded and printed it out...and I don't feel even a little guilty about it.
A look at the Rosegarden tutorial should make it clear that Linux has a long way to go as far as useability is concerned when it comes to advanced audio work! And I like Linux, mind you.