PipeChat Digest #3601 - Friday, April 11, 2003
 
Photos of rare Kilgen theatre organ destined for dump
  by <Wuxuzusu@aol.com>
Digital Organs
  by "Daryl Robinson" <drobinson@houston.rr.com>
Re:Copyright protection of sampled sounds
  by "Larry Wheelock" <llwheels@mac.com>
Re: Copyright protection of sampled sounds
  by "Vern Jones" <soundres@foothill.net>
 

(back) Subject: Photos of rare Kilgen theatre organ destined for dump From: <Wuxuzusu@aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:55:53 -0400   Greetings all,   Follow this website for two photos of the rare 4/14 Kilgen theatre organ = that is threatened with a trip to the dumpster.   http://members.fortunecity.com/broadcastpioneers/wfil/38organ.html   http://members.fortunecity.com/broadcastpioneers/wfil/47organ.html   To purchase this organ call Kevin Collopy in Loveland, OH. 513/697-7407, = or fax him at 513/697-7201.   Musically,   Stan Krider  
(back) Subject: Digital Organs From: "Daryl Robinson" <drobinson@houston.rr.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:09:56 -0500   Just wanted to throw this out there............   If for no other reason, although not a pipe organ, the digital organ IS helping keep in organ in worship in many churches. The digital organ has opened the door to some smaller congregations being able to buy something other than a hammond or another organ of that type of breed. It also = allows larger churches that are "contemporary" in worship styles to have an organ involved in worship that offers the sound of the organ for a church that might not have that at all for whatever reason. Yes, I would PREFER a pipe organ, and I think most would......but the reality of the current = situation at my church (which I have made several posts on) is that a digital organ = is just more suitable. The current sanctuary seats 450 and we have a WIDELY diverse music program and a small 12 rank pipe organ really would NOT = work. We own the 70 rank pipe organ and will be installing it in the future building. If your interested in taking a look at the church, the building, or the organ visit www.friendswoodumc.com. The digital organ is also a = nice substitute for pipe organs that are being restored, hopefully they wont become replacements in that situation. I have seen several tests where non organ playing music students at universities have been asked to tell the difference between a digital organ and a pipe organ. About half said they could which was the pipe, and about the other half said they thought the digital was the pipe organ. One such test can be seen on Howard Goodall's ORGAN WORKS.   - Daryl Robinson          
(back) Subject: Re:Copyright protection of sampled sounds From: "Larry Wheelock" <llwheels@mac.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:46:18 -0500   Gee -- $150,000 plus injunction relief! I SERIOUSLY doubt that Rodgers or anybody else in the digital-reproduction-instrument field paid anywhere near that much to the owners of the real organs or to the voicers of those pipes which were sampled. Seems to me that pipe voicers better begin to find a way to copyright their own intellectual property i.e., their personal voicing style and tricks, etc, or one of the digital copying folks can take their intellectualproperty and copyright it.   IMHO - this is just ridiculous; copyrighting a copy.   Of course, perhaps digital-reproduction-instrument builders own and accomplished in-house voicing of all the ranks which were sampled, which would, of course, mean that their instruments would each pretty much have the same Hautbois, the same Trompette de Hades, the same 8' diapason, etc., limited by the number of actual ranks in their warehouse. Or, maybe they are producing and voicing different ranks of pipes so that they are appropriate for each installation --   OH!--WAIT -- that would be a Pipe Organ Builder, wouldn't it?   Well, forgive me, but to paraphrase Alice B. Tolkas -- a copy is a copy is a copy.       > > DMillerRodgers@aol.com wrote: > >> Dear List members, > >> The following is a response from Rodgers Instruments to the recent >> discussion >> regarding copyrights and organ samples, and specifically addresses >> the issue >> of sampling any of Rodgers' sounds. > > <snip> > >> Any recording or sample of these sounds would constitute copyright >> infringement, for which Rodgers would be entitled to damages >> (including >> statutory damages of up to $150,000.00), as well as an injunction >> relief. >    
(back) Subject: Re: Copyright protection of sampled sounds From: "Vern Jones" <soundres@foothill.net> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:56:04 -0700   My thoughts on this are an analog or digital recording using microphones cannot replicate the original samples. To replicate the samples one would have to have digital access to the organs sample data banks. Anything other than that is not a replication of the original samples as they have been altered via the recording process.       Larry Wheelock wrote: > > Gee -- $150,000 plus injunction relief! I SERIOUSLY doubt that Rodgers > or anybody else in the digital-reproduction-instrument field paid > anywhere near that much to the owners of the real organs or to the > voicers of those pipes which were sampled. Seems to me that pipe > voicers better begin to find a way to copyright their own intellectual > property i.e., their personal voicing style and tricks, etc, or one of > the digital copying folks can take their intellectualproperty and > copyright it. > > IMHO - this is just ridiculous; copyrighting a copy. > > Of course, perhaps digital-reproduction-instrument builders own and > accomplished in-house voicing of all the ranks which were sampled, > which would, of course, mean that their instruments would each pretty > much have the same Hautbois, the same Trompette de Hades, the same 8' > diapason, etc., limited by the number of actual ranks in their > warehouse. Or, maybe they are producing and voicing different ranks > of pipes so that they are appropriate for each installation -- > > OH!--WAIT -- that would be a Pipe Organ Builder, wouldn't it? > > Well, forgive me, but to paraphrase Alice B. Tolkas -- a copy is a copy > is a copy. > > > > > DMillerRodgers@aol.com wrote: > > > >> Dear List members, > > > >> The following is a response from Rodgers Instruments to the recent > >> discussion > >> regarding copyrights and organ samples, and specifically addresses > >> the issue > >> of sampling any of Rodgers' sounds. > > > > <snip> > > > >> Any recording or sample of these sounds would constitute copyright > >> infringement, for which Rodgers would be entitled to damages > >> (including > >> statutory damages of up to $150,000.00), as well as an injunction > >> relief. > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org