A big profiles theft!

Quote from Nemo13

Very comparable. When you are saying that a physical object like an amp that creates a unique sound or characteristic does not own it, then you have to mean all. That means I can record Robert Plant, use his voice on a keyboard, make music and sell it. It's just a profile. Just like I could take a certain year Marshall, profile it, and sell it as MadShell. They both create a unique sound, but they don't own it. Maybe. They law treds lightly on many things until it becomes a huge issue to many. Or hell, let's just profile guitarists. You can steal their style of playing, use parts of the profile for your music. I mean, all sound is just waves, what the hell, you can't claim that. You didn't build that. Haha... Man, you could go on forever. The truth is, there are dreamers and builders and there are leeches. The end.
Let me expound by saying this: The Kemper is like a real world pirate site. Pirates can't afford software that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars, so since the early 90's, lifted the progs they wanted, even though they were edited or adjusted or maybe not work as good. But it was the same software and such. Kemper basically grabs Robert Plants souls and puts them in a magic box so you can sound like Robert Plant or anyone else. They didn't create the 'tones' they just 'profile' them to use.

What's the diff?

I see amp makers as in the dark. The law is not there, because no one is really complaining. I see amp makers and singers and whatever as big old IBM when they were dealing with Bill Gates. You see, IBM thought the computer was the hardware, not the software. They didn't see its value. But Bill Gates did. Perhaps amp companies need to be Bill Gates. License their unique tome generated by their machines the same as a singer's vocal chords create their unique call in the wild to companies who wish to use their 'profile'.

I am happy to have all my favorite boutique amps! And like a young kid who couldn't afford to buy bands albums, I happily bought cassette tapes to record them off the radio. I don't feel I owe them, especially now, since its all just waves and such, not physically real.

Display More

Recording songs off the radio - Illegal.

Copping the tone from a song - Perfectly legal.

Well said, Sam.

You can't put a mic in front of Robert Plant and run that to the kemper and run the kemper's output into the other end of Robert to profile his "sound"; but that would be the proper comparison in this case.

An amp doesn't produce sound on its own. It needs a guitar and a player.

You both are right and wrong. Profiling, or sampling, or anything coping is stealing. You didn't originate it. You are mimicking it, or any other way you want to try to justify it, it is the same. Legal terms can change at any time, again, it depends on who makes a big stink about it. The Kemper differs from something like a Axe Fx in that the ax is duplicating individual real world things, so not 'lifting' a sample of an original. I'm sure it would be a helluva battle in court if it ever got there.

michael-dk, I could make the argument vocal cords do not make any sound without lungs. An amp circuit and speakers are designed specifically to make a signature sound, especially boutique amps.

The problem lies with the equation of a person to an object. An amplifier will be performing its function as long as it is powered on, it doesn't require any external input to perform.

Vocals on the other hand require the singer to exert themselves and provide the function. Therefore they require compensation.

The guitarist playing through the amplifier exerts himself to set the amplifier how he likes and provide the guitar playing. Had the guitarist not been there, then the amplifier would still be working providing it was switched on.

You need to ask "what is making the noise?"

The amplifier is just making the noise louder. Quite often in a pleasing way, but the noise originates at the guitarist.

Not exactly a view on the whole topic, just a point of view over your analogy of vocals vs amplifiers

Evo, all you are doing is complicating the simplicity of the debate. All vocal cords are unique. Amps are unique. It is the end result which we hear. The end result is what is being captured and copied, or profiled.

The rest, is debate for lawyers, haha...

All a play of words, Imcould say steal, borrow, sample, profile, whichever sounds good. Just like undocumented immigrant sounds more legal and nicer than illegal alien.

I'm glad it is ok currently, I do enjoy all my fav amps

It is simple really

It's the difference between tone and music.

Profile - A OK!
Sample - Whole lotta nope.

If you didn't play/sing/create the notes, then you need permission from whoever did.

Vocal chords are creating the music as well as the tone. That's where the problem lies with your analogy. If somebody created some software that allowed you to take your vocal track and EQ it into an identical tonal match to Robert Plant, then that would absolutely be legally tickety boo.

Taking his original track is a no no.

Drawing a picture of a sunflower is absolutely fine, but printing off your own copy of Van Gogh's is sketchy.

Quote from Evo

It is simple really

It's the difference between tone and music.

Profile - A OK!
Sample - Whole lotta nope.

If you didn't play/sing/create the notes, then you need permission from whoever did.

Vocal chords are creating the music as well as the tone. That's where the problem lies with your analogy. If somebody created some software that allowed you to take your vocal track and EQ it into an identical tonal match to Robert Plant, then that would absolutely be legally tickety boo.

Taking his original track is a no no.

Drawing a picture of a sunflower is absolutely fine, but printing off your own copy of Van Gogh's is sketchy.

Display More

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Not talking about sheet music. A 'profile' and 'sample' can be / are the same thing. The tonal inflection of an amp or voice is characteristic in one basic sustained note or many. It is not the playing of one or many notes, it is the ~~~~> Characteristic of the tone TOO the note/notes that defines it to an amp or voice. In other words, whatever comes out of the vocal chords or an amp, be it a grunt or a fart or a singing sustained tone/note will have its unique character to it alone. This is in fact what boutique amps SELL YOU ON. If they just simply built custom amps to 'raise the volume' you could have any amp. They sell you on the character and voicing of the amp. If you 'profile' (i.e. copy/take) a snapshot of that character/voicing, you are basically stealing what the amp was created to produce. You have samples for sale everywhere by women selling ooohs and ahhhs and whatever, so I guess they should give them away for free? Since they are not singing anything? They are not selling a song with sheet music. They are selling their defined unique voice TONE. That is why you have more than one. This is so easy..

Like I said, you can argue all you want, but a good lawyer could really make a case here. Not that I care, I love all the free amps. The Axe FX differs in that it is recreated all the parts of the amp to create unique guitar sounds ( I believe ) the Kemper is more like a synth in a way. Amp makers don't seem to give a shit, so this convo doesn't go anywhere anyway so it is all moot, just interesting.

Quote from Nemo13

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Not talking about sheet music. A 'profile' and 'sample' can be / are the same thing. The tonal inflection of an amp or voice is characteristic in one basic sustained note or many. It is not the playing of one or many notes, it is the ~~~~> Characteristic of the tone TOO the note/notes that defines it to an amp or voice. In other words, whatever comes out of the vocal chords or an amp, be it a grunt or a fart or a singing sustained tone/note will have its unique character to it alone. This is in fact what boutique amps SELL YOU ON. If they just simply built custom amps to 'raise the volume' you could have any amp. They sell you on the character and voicing of the amp. If you 'profile' (i.e. copy/take) a snapshot of that character/voicing, you are basically stealing what the amp was created to produce. You have samples for sale everywhere by women selling ooohs and ahhhs and whatever, so I guess they should give them away for free? Since they are not singing anything? They are not selling a song with sheet music. They are selling their defined unique voice TONE. That is why you have more than one. This is so easy..
Like I said, you can argue all you want, but a good lawyer could really make a case here. Not that I care, I love all the free amps. The Axe FX differs in that it is recreated all the parts of the amp to create unique guitar sounds ( I believe ) the Kemper is more like a synth in a way. Amp makers don't seem to give a shit, so this convo doesn't go anywhere anyway so it is all moot, just interesting.

Well, since your comments imply that you in fact know the intricacies of product trademark and copyright law, would you kindly cite some case law precedent which shows that the raw signal output of a guitar amplifier can be protected intellectual property.

Quote from Nemo13

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Not talking about sheet music. A 'profile' and 'sample' can be / are the same thing. The tonal inflection of an amp or voice is characteristic in one basic sustained note or many. It is not the playing of one or many notes, it is the ~~~~> Characteristic of the tone TOO the note/notes that defines it to an amp or voice. In other words, whatever comes out of the vocal chords or an amp, be it a grunt or a fart or a singing sustained tone/note will have its unique character to it alone. This is in fact what boutique amps SELL YOU ON. If they just simply built custom amps to 'raise the volume' you could have any amp. They sell you on the character and voicing of the amp. If you 'profile' (i.e. copy/take) a snapshot of that character/voicing, you are basically stealing what the amp was created to produce. You have samples for sale everywhere by women selling ooohs and ahhhs and whatever, so I guess they should give them away for free? Since they are not singing anything? They are not selling a song with sheet music. They are selling their defined unique voice TONE. That is why you have more than one. This is so easy..
Like I said, you can argue all you want, but a good lawyer could really make a case here. Not that I care, I love all the free amps. The Axe FX differs in that it is recreated all the parts of the amp to create unique guitar sounds ( I believe ) the Kemper is more like a synth in a way. Amp makers don't seem to give a shit, so this convo doesn't go anywhere anyway so it is all moot, just interesting.

Recreation of a sound is not covered under copyright law anymore than making a square shape object. The Kemper is profiling the sound of the amp, not stealing the circuitry to make the sound. A sample is also not illegal, but using the sample to reproduce something that's copyrighted is.

Trust me, if the amp companies had a case against Kemper, it would have been filed at the time the device was first released. Nothing illegal here.

Quote from nightlight

Recreation of a sound is not covered under copyright law anymore than making a square shape object. The Kemper is profiling the sound of the amp, not stealing the circuitry to make the sound. A sample is also not illegal, but using the sample to reproduce something that's copyrighted is.

Trust me, if the amp companies had a case against Kemper, it would have been filed at the time the device was first released. Nothing illegal here.

OMG, really dude? hahaha... I will just leave you in your private little world. Also, as far as legal, laws change all the time. You do know how/why that happnes, right? Some of you guys are really like an argument circle, around and around and around, and you end up right where it began. No thanks! Your comprehension level is too low, I leave you to yourselves.

Quote from Nemo13

I leave you to yourselves.

Thank you.

Was I talking to you? With your response I gather you accept your lesser status of reason and intelligence. My condolences.

Quote from Nemo13

OMG, really dude? hahaha... I will just leave you in your private little world. Also, as far as legal, laws change all the time. You do know how/why that happnes, right? Some of you guys are really like an argument circle, around and around and around, and you end up right where it began. No thanks! Your comprehension level is too low, I leave you to yourselves.

Gee, I thought this was a discussion, not a pissing contest. Basically, you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument other than "laws change". That's actually pretty fucking hilarious, but I admire your tenacity in the crushing grip of reason.

By all means, go play with yourself.

when i use the looper i play with my self
LETS JUST USE THE KEMPER AND BE KIND TO EACH OTHER

Ash

Quote from Nemo13

OMG, really dude? hahaha... I will just leave you in your private little world. Also, as far as legal, laws change all the time. You do know how/why that happnes, right? Some of you guys are really like an argument circle, around and around and around, and you end up right where it began. No thanks! Your comprehension level is too low, I leave you to yourselves.

The thing is, the Kemper DOES NOT sample the source amp, otherwise the profiles themselves would be way larger than a few kilobytes. If you know a bit of code, you can actually open them and take a look; there's nothing but pointers and parameters and a truncated IR that approximates the EQ curve of the speaker and mic. The Kemper reverse engineers the gain characteristics, response and EQ of the amp through analysis and measurement, it doesn't lift the lid of the amp and look at the schematics. Schematics are copyrightable. Audio samples are copyrightable. Tone isn't, and reverse engineering is perfectly legal. IF the Kemper used actual samples of the source amp and triggered them in accordance to the notes you played on the guitar, then you'd have a valid argument. It doesn't.

Layman's terms :
A burger joint has a special Secret Sauce. I taste the Secret Sauce and determine that it must be made up of a combination of three ingredients. I then go home, make a batch of my own sauce using similar ingredients and sell it. LEGAL (reverse engineering).
My mate works for the burger joint and steals the recipe for the Secret Sauce. He goes home and makes a batch using the recipe and sells it. ILLEGAL (copyright infringement).
My other mate also works for the burger joint. He swipes a batch of Secret Sauce and sells it to his mates. ILLEGAL (theft).

Hey that is an interesting opinion (not) and glosses over a lot, but what would one expect from the manufacturers forum? Haha... These type of topics get dull because of the blah that ensues.

Anyway, I can't go on right now, I am buying a few boutique amps and cabs that I can profile then send back within 30 days! Woohoo!

Quote from Nemo13

Hey that is an interesting opinion (not) and glosses over a lot, but what would one expect from the manufacturers forum? Haha... These type of topics get dull because of the blah that ensues.

Anyway, I can't go on right now, I am buying a few boutique amps and cabs that I can profile then send back within 30 days! Woohoo!

It isn't an opinion, but fact...
Anyway, I give up. Sure, you can argue whether it is ethically wrong to profile amps and such, but not legally. There are clear distinctions that you seem to not want to accept. I agree that "buying" an amp to profile it before sending it back within 30 days is totally out of order, but that isn't what I got my Kemper for anyway. It is the rare, vintage amps that I'm interested in. Anyone can get that modern sound, by expensive or modest means (just check out those "Sound like xxx without busting the bank" vids on youtube), but older, vintage amps are rare, are getting rarer, and they are out of most people's price range, if you're lucky enough to know someone that will even consider selling.

PS a little hint : you can always tell when someone's argument doesn't hold water when they resort to sarcasm...

Quote from sambrox

Layman's terms :
A burger joint has a special Secret Sauce. I taste the Secret Sauce and determine that it must be made up of a combination of three ingredients. I then go home, make a batch of my own sauce using similar ingredients and sell it. LEGAL (reverse engineering).
My mate works for the burger joint and steals the recipe for the Secret Sauce. He goes home and makes a batch using the recipe and sells it. ILLEGAL (copyright infringement).
My other mate also works for the burger joint. He swipes a batch of Secret Sauce and sells it to his mates. ILLEGAL (theft).

But if you reverse engineer the secret sauce and then market it using the name of the original -- or some comical derivative like "Chender Famp" -- then you are still exploiting the protected intellectual or other property.

At least some people in this forum are old enough to remember "McDowells" from "Coming to America". Here is a quote from a legal blog that speaks to what I am talking about:

"In the famous movie “Coming to America” starring Eddie Murphy, John Amos played the role of Cleo McDowell, an entrepreneur who owned McDowell restaurants which eerily resembles McDonalds. In the film, he’s quoted as saying “… me and the McDonald’s people got this little misunderstanding. See, they’re McDonald’s… I’m McDowell’s. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.” Great fodder for film but in real life this would hardly fly. Specifically, under 15 U.S.C §§ 1051 et seq., also known as the Lanham Act that governs consumer confusion cases, a specific set of guidelines “protects the owner of a federally registered mark against the use of similar marks if such use is likely to result in consumer confusion, or if the dilution of a famous mark is likely to occur.”"

One way or another this all passes legal muster, and like the OP I am thrilled to get to work with sounds I could never access otherwise. But it does come with misgivings and uncertainty about the propriety of it, if not the legality.

[Blocked Image: http://www.thecadillaclawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/tumblr_looxbh32WG1qdvqkoo1_500.jpg]

Quote from Strider

But if you reverse engineer the secret sauce and then market it using the name of the original -- or some comical derivative like "Chender Famp" -- then you are still exploiting the protected intellectual or other property.

Indeed.