Circuitbenders Forum
Circuitbenders Forum => Banter => Topic started by: S-CAT on April 03, 2009, 02:21:32 AM
-
It has been a sore point on this forum but this should clear things up for some of you........
This post includes information from Everyday Practical Electronics DEC 2007. It was written by Sara Ludlam of Ludlams Solicitors who is a specialist Intellectual Property lawyer. In this article, specially written for EPE readers, Sara explains how best to protect your design ideas from copyright infringement or theft.
" Budding ideas
Many budding inventors have ideas that they think might be patentable or worth protecting in some way. Electronics manufacturers and designers these days are involved not only with hardware design (eg circuitry and printed circut board layouts etc.) but also the associated software, often involving the develpment of microcontroller source codes that are embedded into controller chips (creating firmware). So what sort of protection is available to individuals or companies seeking to prevent their idea from being pirated by anyone else?
The first thing that I should say, since this is a magazine about electronics, is that most software programs in the UK cannot be protected by patents. It is a contraversial issue in the UK. It is not the case in all countries, as some do allow patent law to protect software programs. This article will only deal with the rights available in the UK.
A patently good idea
Patents give you a 20 year monopoly right in an invention, but it can only be obtained if your invention falls within what is acceptable as an 'invention'. There is a list of what cannot be protected by patent law in the UK in the Patentss Act 1976.
Most new software does not contribute what has been described as a 'technical effect' to the body of knowledge already in the world. It cannot therefore be patented. If you are unsure, you should ask your local patent attorney, but do not tell anyone else about your new software or invention. If you tell people without requiring them to sign a confidentiality or Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) first, it is considered to be 'public' knowledge and patent law will not protect it.
Copyright
Copyright is the main form of protection for software in the UK. Unlike patent rights, though, copyright is an automatic right in the UK. It exists automatically on the creation of a new work, without the need for registration(This is not the case in all countries and it is recomended that in the USA you should register and copyright works at the Copyright Registry.) The lack of registration can cause a problem if there is an argument about when you wrote the software and if you really are the first author or creator of the work. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that you always post yourself a copy of the original work(or the earliest copy you have) and date and sign it. Do not then open the envelope, but keep it somewhere safe in case your authorship or the date of the creation is ever questioned.
If someone designs a circuit and draws it out by hand, or with a computer-aided package that work is protected by copyright if it is a novel circuit. If someone else takes the same circuit diagram and redraws it so it looks different then that constitutes copyright infringement. But you may need to have evidence that your copyright work had been copied. If the electrical circuit looks different then you would need to show that the infringer had worked from your original.
Who owns copyright?
So, who owns the copyright in the work? Copyright cannot be transfered to another without a written document assingning such rights, and such a document must refer to consideration having been given for the transfer, and the document must be signed by the assignor. This means that even if you have been paid for your design work, the copyright does not belong to the party that commissioned the workunless you have said so in writting and signed such a document.
This point is a common misconception. It would seem logical that if you paid a third party to, say, write some bespoke software for you, or design a new machine, then once you had paid that software programmer or designer, you would own the copyrigh of that work. This is not the case.
You own the copy of the work you may have been given further to payment or as otherwise agreed. You may also have certain rights to reproduce that work and use it in various situations. But such reproduction rights and right to use the work is limited in scope unless you are the copyright owner in that work, having taken a written asignment of copyright from the creaor of the work. If you have not, then you are using a work under licence. You do not own the copyright of that work.
The licence might be express, if you have agreed terms. for example, the licence might state that that you can only reproduce the work for your emloyees' use, and use it in the UK. Or the licence may be implied where there is no formal agreement, and the law would have to infer terms of that licence from the way in which the parties have behaved. For example, how much would be paid for the work, and has the copyright owner controlled further uses of the work?
Remember that copyright does not need to be registered, as I have explained above, but it does need to be protected if you are to maintain it. So the reader would need to prove that he is the author/ creator of the work and show that he is the first person to design that particular circuit board.If there are no records of creation, this can be a difficult process, so do bear in mind that you should keep rough drafts and prototypes when developing new work, as evidence of your creativity and originality.
Also , be aware that the first owner of a copyright work will be the creator/ author unless the work is created in the course of employment. In such an instannce the work and copyright in the work is automatically the property of the employer.
Damages and notices
You are normally entitled to recover damages for unauthorised use by a third party of your copyright or design right work. (This ai subject to the caveat covered below re. use of notices). 'Damages' is the value placed on the harm done to you by the unauthorised third party use of your work. It is assessed either by an account of the profits made by the third party having used your work, or by the amount you have lost by such unauthorised activity.
It is important if you are the owner of IP rights in a work that you tell the world about it by using 'notices'. In relation to copyright, the notice is the well known symbol (a circled letter 'C' followed by a full stop). Next to this symbol you should put the name of the copyright owner, either an individual or a company, and the date.
If your work has design right protection available to it then a further notice should be published on the work or its packaging: 'Design rights owned by [...].[Date]'
The reason why I say you should always tell the world that the work they are looking at is a copyright or design right protected work is because of'damages'. If a third party uses your work without your authority, and there is no copyright or design notice on it, they may be able to successfully argue that damages are not appropriate because their use of your work was 'innocent'.
If it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know and had no reason to believe that the design right or copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the claimant is not entitled to damages aginst the defendant. So, by using notices you are removing any opportunity for an infringer to avoid paying you damages."
-
This post includes information from Everyday Practical Electronics DEC 2007. It was written by Sara Ludlam of Ludlams Solicitors who is a specialist Intellectual Property lawyer. In this article, specially written for EPE readers, Sara explains how best to protect your design ideas from copyright infringement or theft.
hmmm, and ironically i could probably get taken to court for you reproducing that on this forum ::)
-
This post includes information from Everyday Practical Electronics DEC 2007. It was written by Sara Ludlam of Ludlams Solicitors who is a specialist Intellectual Property lawyer. In this article, specially written for EPE readers, Sara explains how best to protect your design ideas from copyright infringement or theft.
hmmm, and ironically i could probably get taken to court for you reproducing that on this forum ::)
Because I have given the name of the publication and of the author then you are fine.
-
So what are we saying? We take an already existing piece of hardware and effectively modify it.
I can understand if we create hardware from the ground up including it's exterior design and create hardware that is completely different to existing hardware's then yeah, you would want to copyright it and protect it from copyright infringement. But then if someone took your hardware and modified it wouldn't that be what we are doing as circuit benders?
I know that in order to protect my music I need to be able to prove that I have a copy of it before anyone else and I do this by posting a CD with the track on it to myself via recorded delivery (and not to open it when it arrives). This proves that I have a copy of the CD, with a recorded date, before anyone else.
I'm not sure, maybe you'd send the design of the schematics and exterior designs in an envelope to yourself in the same way... If this is hardware created by yourself.
Maybe you can copyright an image design applied to the exterior...
How does this work with the circuit-bent hardware itself?
-
Seems to me that s-cat's idea that he could modify a VL1 and then contact Casio and try to get them to agree to let him file a copyright on the mod or have some kind of dual copyright arrangement, would be rather like me adding an extra song to the Sgt Pepper album and then contactling Paul McCartney and telling him i've modified his album so now i want him to agree that i was in the beatles and we should have a dual copyright. :D
or maybe not.............
-
Wow, I mean I'd be happy just to modify something and get credit for it.
The only thing I'd be worried about is if I done some really cool design on the exterior with a colour-scheme that was signature to my work, for example, and then someone done the exact same design on theirs...
But then these days, aint we just modifying someone elses idea? I mean pretty much everything has either been done or thought of (by which I mean futuristic movies for example).
So the only way to get around this would be to custom paint a detailed design on the exterior. Now I aint going on much about the interior or mods to the circuitry or choice of controls ect. because I should imagine it'd be quite hard to copy someones idea of wiring if, say, the hardware was sealed up for a demo video and it'd be pathetic if someone got fired up because "They stole my idea of having a switch there!".
For example, y'know that video on youtube of the circuitbent keyboard with the baby head on it? Well if I came up with that 1st then someone done exactly the same thing after and was going round like he was the 1st, I'd be p***ed off. Equally this is the same reason why I don't cat other peoples ideas because I wouldn't want people say "Uh he stole that idea for what'shisname". The whole copyright and law issue dosn't matter to me because there are so many loopholes to exploit.
I would love to hear other peoples views on this matter ;D
-
I know that in order to protect my music I need to be able to prove that I have a copy of it before anyone else and I do this by posting a CD with the track on it to myself via recorded delivery
And aint it a fucker that even if you could prove that it was your original idea first - who would listen anyhow? You'd need a lot of money for the best lawyers to prove anything. Even proper contracts & licensing deals are pretty useless to a powerless individual. A well connected operator in the shady music biz can do whatever with little chance of any comeback. I don't know how shady casio are???
I aint just sticking up for the poor impoverished righteous artists either!! Likewise they can just welsh on contracts & agreements & a small label could do nowt to enforce anything.
I like the idea of anti-copyright & price ceilings etc. to get round this to some extent. I creates a little space for things to grow before they eventually get exploited somehow & recuperated. I 'm thinking about the Crass logo used by DKNY for example.
-
I know that in order to protect my music I need to be able to prove that I have a copy of it before anyone else and I do this by posting a CD with the track on it to myself via recorded delivery
And aint it a fucker that even if you could prove that it was your original idea first - who would listen anyhow? You'd need a lot of money for the best lawyers to prove anything. Even proper contracts & licensing deals are pretty useless to a powerless individual. A well connected operator in the shady music biz can do whatever with little chance of any comeback. I don't know how shady casio are???
I aint just sticking up for the poor impoverished righteous artists either!! Likewise they can just welsh on contracts & agreements & a small label could do nowt to enforce anything.
I like the idea of anti-copyright & price ceilings etc. to get round this to some extent. I creates a little space for things to grow before they eventually get exploited somehow & recuperated. I 'm thinking about the Crass logo used by DKNY for example.
It is unavoidable but at least it scares off the people that aint in the know ;)
-
I'm not into making money off my software and weird noises, but if I could pull down 30 quid a month it would cover my hosting...
-
I'm not into making money off my software and weird noises, but if I could pull down 30 quid a month it would cover my hosting...
It dosn't come to a surprise that the majority of today's artists have a day job as their main source of income and simply have the music (whatever they do) as a hobby. If you're interested in making money out of this hobby, here's a few tips:
1.) Adverts on your website. Check out similar sites to yours to find worthy/willing sponsors.
2.) Donations. This is a little tricky but some good Samaritans will donate if they like what your site has to offer.
3.) (for performers) Merchandise. Like T-Shirts, Toys, Sticker packs and even... CD's!
-
would be rather like me adding an extra song to the Sgt Pepper album and then contactling Paul McCartney and telling him i've modified his album so now i want him to agree that i was in the beatles and we should have a dual copyright. :D
or maybe not.............
That is a silly comment. Think of it this way... When DJ's decided that they were musicians and started to record two tracks in the studio that belonged to two different artist and release it as a remix, then royalties would be collected by the original artists via the MCPS and PRS, the profit from sales of the records would then be given to the DJ after record label expenses. Or to make it easier to understand, I could rework one of your recordings and release it as a remix, you would not get paid for the sale of records but you would be able to claim royalties from the MCPS/PRS.
I hope that helps.
-
I'm not into making money off my software and weird noises, but if I could pull down 30 quid a month it would cover my hosting...
It dosn't come to a surprise that the majority of today's artists have a day job as their main source of income and simply have the music (whatever they do) as a hobby. If you're interested in making money out of this hobby, here's a few tips:
We started to sell circuit bent machines in order to fuel our first love, which is recording music. We did not expect to have sold over 300 machines in the first two years. The money that we have made has now been invested back into our studio and there is no need for a dayjob.
-
I'm not into making money off my software and weird noises, but if I could pull down 30 quid a month it would cover my hosting...
It dosn't come to a surprise that the majority of today's artists have a day job as their main source of income and simply have the music (whatever they do) as a hobby. If you're interested in making money out of this hobby, here's a few tips:
We started to sell circuit bent machines in order to fuel our first love, which is recording music. We did not expect to have sold over 300 machines in the first two years. The money that we have made has now been invested back into our studio and there is no need for a dayjob.
I take my hat off to you my friend 8)
Your comment re: MCPS/PRS. That's something I've barely touched on but I'll be looking into it deeper soon. I'll Need to register myself sooner or later and I'll need to look up what I can/can't do music wise...
-
We started to sell circuit bent machines in order to fuel our first love, which is recording music. We did not expect to have sold over 300 machines in the first two years. The money that we have made has now been invested back into our studio and there is no need for a dayjob.
That's a good move & pleased to hear about it. I've misunderstood your motives in the past just coz you semed to be selling so much at high prices. Do you issue certificates of authenticity along with the individual numbering? So people are happy to get hold of a limited edition hand-made thing? I'm so crap at business/ legal things as it just gets in the way of doing what I reallly want coz I'm thinking about what others demand. You might not have the same predicament- but watch out before it turns everything shit.
I think you are trying to get recognition by posting so many replies on this board & it's bugging some people. The best form of promotion is to get a recognized artist using your stuff & then their followers(?) will all want one too - like those weevil circuit things with body contacts on. Have you seen them things?
-
We started to sell circuit bent machines in order to fuel our first love, which is recording music. We did not expect to have sold over 300 machines in the first two years. The money that we have made has now been invested back into our studio and there is no need for a dayjob.
That's a good move & pleased to hear about it. I've misunderstood your motives in the past just coz you semed to be selling so much at high prices.
We do sign and date each machine inside and of course add the copyright notice, we are now going to start issuing certificates with the machines. We post stuff on this site because we can and since it is about UK circuit bending it seems the place to do it, most of the post replies from us are due to people not understanding what we do and we feel that we have to set things straight.
We probably do sell to some well known artist but we do not ask who we are selling to and feel that our products are shifting at a nice steady rate and do not need to be endorsed to improve sales, but some people do like to name drop in order to get recognition.
Are you talking about the Delfy units? We have seen the listings but not listened to them yet.
-
I'm still not entirely sure what you would ever gain from putting a copyright notice inside each machine though. :-\
Firstly theres the extremely dubious legality or validity of doing such a thing anyway, but if we ignore that for the moment and say for the sake of argument that it means anything, what exactly would you do if someone bought one of your machines, copied what you'd done and then started selling the exact same thing?
I'm thinking theres really not a lot you are in a position to do. IF you could actually prove that they had copied your design and IF you could prove that nobody had ever done those mods before you anyway, which would seem very unlikely, then what are you actually going to do about it? Take them to court for copyright infringement?
No offence but you are not Roland or Yamaha and you don't have those kind of resources behind you. I suspect that given the open source nature of 99% of the circuitbending community a lot of whom have probably reproduced most of your mods in the past, you'd probably be laughed out of court. I'm not a lawyer and i don't have any real knowledge of copyright law so obviously this is all conjecture, but i'd be astounded if it worked out in your favour.
Anyone who has been in circuitbending a while probably remembers the bizarre antics of Jesse Tablebeast who seemed to have much the same ideas on copyright and even went to the extent of sending emails to anyone who had ever put a patchbay on an SK1 claiming that he had invented the idea and if they didn't stop doing it then he would take 'further action'. Oddly enough nothing ever came of it but he did end up being one of the most hated people in circuitbending. :D
-
I'm still not entirely sure what you would ever gain from putting a copyright notice inside each machine though. :-\
The copyright symbol just denotes that we are aware of copyright laws, if in the future we do find that we can claim copyright on something then we are covered. Roland and Yamaha started from the bottom, just as we have and then grew their business into the company that we see today. We are in this for the long run and will be using our experience to eventualy design and build machines from scratch.
We do own the copyright of the drawings that we have made from our findings and could publish a book with details on how to build the modified units. The book it's self would have a copyright symbol on it and we could then take action if any of it was published without permission.
At the moment we seem to have a good name for ourselves, except with you.
-
At the moment we seem to have a good name for ourselves, except with you.
Ok i'll rise to the bait. You've made a good name for yourselves with the people you sell your stuff too, i wouldn't deny that.
A lot of other circuitbenders on the other hand seem to see it a little differently, maybe because of your apparent desire to not LET anyone sell anything that includes any mods that apparently infringe on your supposed copyrights. You're not going to give people any real information on your mods, we've been through that already, but a wish to actually STOP people from using any mods that you've done is really not what i thought the circuitbending community was all about, if it was then i wouldn't have started this forum in the first place. Correct me if i've misunderstood here as i'd really like to think that i have.
I've also done a few mods on a VL1 and i'd be willing to bet that most of them are similar to yours as theres not that much you can really do in there. Are you suggesting that i shouldn't be allowed to sell a modded VL1 without checking out your designs first to make sure they aren't similar and paying you a licence fee because some of the mods might be identical to yours? Are you suggesting that because i might have been the first person to put a patchbay on a certain drum machine that nobody else should be allowed to do the same thing and sell it without asking me first, because personally i think that would be complete bullshit.
Or are you now changing direction so that now you only want copyright on your drawings of your mods and would only 'take action' if someone reproduced the drawings rather than the mods themselves?
Big companies like Roland & Yamaha are very different as they didn't spring from a movement of like minded people getting together to share ideas and have fun making noise as a community. They came solely from a desire to make money and so they had a need to protect and copyright their designs from each other. That is not what i'd want to see the circuitbending community ever turning into and thats never what it should be, but thats just my opinion. So whats it to be, are you going to be part of the community or are you going to try to copyright your mods in the hope of becoming Roland?
I'm not having a go at you personally, i'm having a go at the whole idea of copyrighting circuitbent designs and you seem to be the only person who thinks its reasonable. Having said that, i could be wrong but i don't think a desire to copyright a circuitbent design is going to make anyone any friends around here. :-\
-
Roland and Yamaha started from the bottom, just as we have and then grew their business into the company that we see today. We are in this for the long run and will be using our experience to eventualy design and build machines from scratch.
There is a tiny difference between you and Roland or Yamaha:
Before the founders even started their business, they were already engineers and educated technicians. Also they designed and thus, created electronics from scratch. Disturbing an existing circuit so it malfunctions and produces bizarre sounds BY CHANCE that again BY CHANCE might be liked by some people doesn't qualify as a creation in the technical sense. And that's exactly what circuit bending is. Ask an experienced lawyer.
Further, if you want to design and build your own stuff some time, I strongly suggest you to get a proper education in electronics. It helps, believe me.
-
The real skill lies in creating new circuits that create bizarre "circuit-bent" sounds *by design*, not by accident. This takes time, a bit of skill and a bit of inspiration. I won't be producing any kits until 2nd quarter 2010. 'Nuff said.
-
Are you talking about the Delfy units?
No - there's this little company selling small noise making gizmo's called postcard weevil's that are selliing like hot cakes since 2 guys from TG have been using them. Built & manufactured from there own design - just thought you'd appreciate their business approach as it seems to work for them OK.
Anyhow, I agree with CrustyPaul's post - v. well put. Why have such grand ideas if you're already doing what you set out to do & people like it?? Why would you wanna be like Roland ? Is'nt it satisfying enough to be part of an active community & small scene where your ideas & input is appreciated? I can't see why you'd burden yourself with business & legal stuff unless it stops you doing what you like.
-
At the moment we seem to have a good name for ourselves, except with you.
Ok i'll rise to the bait. You've made a good name for yourselves with the people you sell your stuff too, i wouldn't deny that.
A lot of other circuitbenders on the other hand seem to see it a little differently, maybe because of your apparent desire to not LET anyone sell anything that includes any mods that apparently infringe on your supposed copyrights.
Can you tell me why we are being miss-quoted here, we have not in any post said that we wouldn't let anyone sell anything that included our mods, we are being cautious because we are now starting to take on commission work with the mods that we have shown on youtube and it would not make good business sense to make those mods public knowledge at the moment, hence the idea of a "How to book" in the future. And after all that has been said t us about leaching ideas from this site and making money, why should we fuel this proccess? We have given info on DD-Drum machines, DR-55 and now R-8 mods, which is a good starting point. If someone was to have the plans for our VL-1 then they could advertise that they could do the mods, but would it be known as the S-CAT 10-mod VL-1? Probably not.
[/quote]
-
There is a tiny difference between you and Roland or Yamaha:
Before the founders even started their business, they were already engineers and educated technicians. Also they designed and thus, created electronics from scratch.
Further, if you want to design and build your own stuff some time, I strongly suggest you to get a proper education in electronics. It helps, believe me.
To make things a little easier, we would be looking to employ technicians and designers. We would be concentrating on the business side of the project and paying good wages. Are you interested in a job?
-
Are you talking about the Delfy units?
Anyhow, I agree with CrustyPaul's post - v. well put. Why have such grand ideas if you're already doing what you set out to do & people like it?? Why would you wanna be like Roland ?
Roland were once part of a small community, just as the weevil makers are now. It is good to know that people are getting involved on the discussion of business here and I hope that we can all get our ideas aired.
-
STILL posting multiple replies with one new post for each quote i see.
I've had enough of this.
-
I'm thinking theres really not a lot you are in a position to do. IF you could actually prove that they had copied your design and IF you could prove that nobody had ever done those mods before you anyway, which would seem very unlikely, then what are you actually going to do about it? Take them to court for copyright infringement?
Exactly :D
Why would anyone think of copyrighting particular bend points or even complete sets of bend points???
I would only be mad if I used something unique to decorate the product and then someone done exactly the same...
-
I would only be mad if I used something unique to decorate the product and then someone done exactly the same...
And even this is a reason to be proud in some way... you wouldn't get copied if what you did was crap!
-
And even this is a reason to be proud in some way... you wouldn't get copied if what you did was crap!
I wish everyone thought the same way, then there wouldn't be any need for copyrighting.
-
I still think this whole copyright-my-bend thing is fraught with litigation danger from the manufacturers of the equipment you bend - especially if you draw and cpyright a schematic and show part of the manufacturers device's circuitry in it, or how to hook it up to a diagram of the device without their permission. I know for sure that Roland are vigilant at sending out cease and desist warnings to people that design things that even look vaguely cosmetically like some aspect of their equipment, let alone functionally attached to a part of their circuit.
SCAT: the safest thing for you to do, in your situation, while you are still a small outfit, is to write to Roland Inc. (or whatever brand of device) and ask their authorised permission to use their circuits to add your own bends to theirs for the purpose of selling their machines modified, explaining exactly what you are intending to do. Then see what they say. After all, wouldn't you expect that from someone wanting to copy/modify one of your designs? Then you will know for sure, and not be taking guesses about whether you are in the legal right or not about coyrighting an attached circuit.
One of 2 things will happen:
1. They will give you written permission, with certain limitations and obligations
2. They will send out a cease and desist letter and threaten legal action
If they send you a cease and desist letter, stating the legal action they will take against you if you continue, it will then mean that your copyright-my-R8-bend circuit idea is invalid. The only way to know for sure is to ask them what they think of it. I'm betting circumstance 2) will be what you get.
If you DO get that warning, you can still gain comfort from the fact that you did the right thing by asking them, and that you know exactly what you can and can't do, and that the business model you are working on should be changed while you are small enough to not suffer significant losses. Ditto for any other manufacturer you alter the circuit of. This is how bona-fide real businesses go about these things. They cover their legal asses by communicating with the party concerned. So if you consider yourself a business, not just a hobbyist making a few bucks on the side, you should dot your legal i's and cross your t's early on in your commercial history.
If it turns out that the copyright-your-bend assumption is false, you could still continue selling bent stuff commercially if you kept your head down and not bring attention to yourself by attaching copyright claims to your gear or advertising that clause. It really makes you a red flag to a bull for the big companies. And just because the UK has certain copyright laws doesn't mean Japan has those same laws or opinions, even in a different country, and that they will respect them and not go overseas to fight a legal battle.
Cheers, Graham
-
s-cat won't be replying i'm afraid. He was banned, as i can't help thinking he fully intended to be banned, after starting a 'make ££££'s working for s-cat' thread. I've got to draw the line somewhere and he'd been warned enough times.
-
s-cat won't be replying i'm afraid. He was banned, as i can't help thinking he fully intended to be banned, after starting a 'make ££££'s working for s-cat' thread. I've got to draw the line somewhere and he'd been warned enough times.
:o :o :o
That's a bit cheeky aint it. Did he even ask your permission???
-
No, not that i'd be about to let people post that kind of spam anyway.
What i find wierd is that despite his endless talk of protecting his designs and his circuitbending empire he would be completely unable to understand that i actually own this website and i decide what can be posted here and what can't. If Reed Ghazala came on here and starting posting 'make $$$$'s working for Reed' threads he'd get booted off pretty quick as well.
Surely in a perfect s-cat world this forum wouldn't even exist as somone might have the shocking bad manners to try and compete with him! :o
Now enough of this talk of Mr Cat. Time to move on.
-
If it turns out that the copyright-your-bend assumption is false, you could still continue selling bent stuff commercially if you kept your head down and not bring attention to yourself by attaching copyright claims to your gear or advertising that clause. It really makes you a red flag to a bull for the big companies.
I think just not drawing attention to yourself at all is the best way to go. Theres no reason i can see for any big company to take any interest in what any circuitbender is doing as long as nobody tries to claim anything along the lines of copyright. The second you try to claim any rights or even draw attention to yourself then a company like Roland or Casio will just stomp you flat.
I can't imagine that Roland would even look kindly on claims that you have 'improved' any of their machines. They are complete bastards after all. (he says while frantically seaching the internet for information on libel laws) ;)
-
I think just not drawing attention to yourself at all is the best way to go. Theres no reason i can see for any big company to take any interest in what any circuitbender is doing as long as nobody tries to claim anything along the lines of copyright. The second you try to claim any rights or even draw attention to yourself then a company like Roland or Casio will just stomp you flat.
I can't imagine that Roland would even look kindly on claims that you have 'improved' any of their machines. They are complete bastards after all. (he says while frantically seaching the internet for information on libel laws) ;)
My thoughts exactly but say if people decided to bend the machines of a smaller company, wouldn't that make more sales for that smaller company?
-
My thoughts exactly but say if people decided to bend the machines of a smaller company, wouldn't that make more sales for that smaller company?
But unless people were buying machines specifically to bend then it would be secondhand machines that were being bought circuitbent which isn't much use to any manufacturer. If MAM stil existed then i wouldn't be buying brand new MB33 / Freebasses from them to mod and sell on unless the price came down a whole lot, but i'd be quite happy to buy secondhand ones.
-
But unless people were buying machines specifically to bend then it would be secondhand machines that were being bought circuitbent which isn't much use to any manufacturer. If MAM stil existed then i wouldn't be buying brand new MB33 / Freebasses from them to mod and sell on unless the price came down a whole lot, but i'd be quite happy to buy secondhand ones.
You raise a valid point. I suppose I wouldn't buy something brand new unless it was like a cheap radio or something.
-
Please excuse the lateness of this reply...
... but I just wanted to say that this thread seems to have been nothing but a blatant attempt at self-promotion by S-Cat, by using this forum as free advertising space. He, (or any of his other cohorts under various names and guises), are not here to learn or share knowledge. So far, I've read over half of S-Cat's posts and I've gained absolutely no practical know-how or guidance in anything circuit-bent beyond that of dealing with running and maintaining an online business. Nothing he has said is new. Most of what he churns out, both machine-wise and information-wise, is already available for FREE in the public domain. Now I might have stated the obvious by saying all of that, but I also wanted to say that S-Cat's views on copyright protection are also very flawed.
If S-Cat bothered to spend any time learning about copyright laws, he would implicitly know that copyright does not in any way protect the idea for a circuit-bent device, nor its name or title, nor the method or methods used for bending it and playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material that is in any way involved in developing, merchandising, or playing any type of circuit-bent machine or device!
-
though i would only borrow and not copy verbatum a bend from someone else...
how can one copyright or patent a bend? i mean, if something was manufactured by casio to begin with, and someone opens it up, voids the warranty, and twists it around, this could seem confusing in a court of law, especially to an "impartial" jury!
-
Isn't a bend more of a discovery than an invention? That is to say, you are not creating something new but discovering an application of something already existing. I'm not a legal professional, but it strikes me that patent law would be more appropriate here.
I could copyright a great new fuzzbox circuit I'd invented, and even patent it if it had some unique and clever trick not previously known in the state of the art. I don't think I could copyright a particular combination of knob settings on my Behringer stompbox.
-
i am not sure how far back distortion goes. some say it was in a marty robbins recording, a "tasty accident" if you will, they they went with.
i've also heard a story that keith richards got wasted, hated the tone he was getting from his amp and stabbed the cone of the speaker with a pencil. the recorder was rolling. when he awoke from his drunken stupor, the riff for "satisfaction" along with that tone was born.
i also heard that robert johnson went down to the crossroads...but i digress. ;-) so, point being (wait, what was it...oh yeah! lol!) guitar distortion probably goes back further than these stories.
and i would assume that a patent for such would comprise of not only how the wires are crossed, switches are places and knobs are inserted. it would have to do with the package deal. all of these things along with the name of the product (jamie's buzz box!), how it is packaged (in a lime green box with pumpkin orange block logo), and so on.
if i am not mistaken, the design (how it is wired) would be the patent, the logo and name would be the registered trademark.
-
i think gordon is right, a new concept or way of doing things can be patented but the whole product itself can be copyrighted.
like you could patent a whole new method of creating light in a lighbulb, but you could only copyright a new shape of lighbulb.
-
Why is everyone so confused about the copyright issue here? There is a very easy to understand explination that has been posted, some of you are even agreeing with me but arguing my point back. I posted the info in order to help out anyone who is just starting a business based around circuit bending.
Here is the basics again, just so that I can make the point understood.
1. You come up with a new circuit design that fits inside an existing machine that is commercially available.
2. You then contact the company that designed and produced the original machine and apply for a licence to remanufacture their design with your additional circuit.
3. They agree, you manufacture and then pay them the licence fee.
Casio was used as an example, Roland was used as an example. The reality is that Any small electronic manufacturer would be interested in making money from their design, no matter how it was packaged.
Arron from S-CAT
-
i'm thinking the issue might be between number 2 and 3 there, when Roland or whoever refuse to give you any kind of licence to do anything with their existing design and then serve you a cease and desist order on claiming anything whatsoever to do with anything they have ever produced.
What are the chances that the people from Ladyada contacted Roland and applied for a licence to remanufacture the 303 when they released the x0xb0x?
-
so S-cat are you gonna start knocking out Roland/Casio's with your design built into them, dont think so cant even begin to imagine the manufacture costs involved and i'm sure the profits would be minimal and in reality would not be worth the bother. All this sounds total fantasy and would be really difficult to put into action without some serious financial clout, which if your still selling your noisy nik naks for 50 quid on ebay may take a while.......................to be honest why bother, circuit bending is meant to be fun and it is people like your self that rip the fun out of it and turn it into a joke, like you have already on this forum.
so if i rip open one your machines and copy it, you gonna take me to court? like to see you try..............Face facts nobody is really that interested in copying your mods, we share info here and your mods ain't worth copying i've seen the you tube vids.
ian
-
so S-cat are you gonna start knocking out Roland/Casio's with your design built into them
And yet that's exactly what the MAM MB33/Freebass et al are. Funny that.
-
I would say MAM's/FAT are direct copies, rather than someone putting a mod in an existing machine as scat states, it would take alot of financial input to get the project up and running with no guarantee of it working out, the MAM's were made in the 90's when it was probably more worth while to fund a project like that. I just dont think copyright really stands up these days, who has money to take people to court, unless you are Roland or one of the biggie's? and beside's that who wants the hassle...............
People rip each others idea's off all the time, but also collaborate and that is how new things are found, and i have certainly seen you help alot of people Gordon on this and other forums your knowledge goes far and wide and the help you give to people is second to none. That is my idea of circuit bending/mod's to collaborate and help i just havn't seen scat help anyone apart from himself financially, all this copyright stuff just drag's it to a corporate level and certainly isn't why i'm into music or why i come on this forum.
-
so S-cat are you gonna start knocking out Roland/Casio's with your design built into them
And yet that's exactly what the MAM MB33/Freebass et al are. Funny that.
I used Roland as an example of what could be done, not as something that I was going to do. You may have taken the replies to the statement about copyright into consideration, rather than read the statement that I made. I included the information for the benefit of other users and did not in any way try to provoke an argument.
Perhaps if I explained it this way then people would understand what my aim was and value the advice that was given....
We use the 6 tone siren to bend and then re-market it as a dub siren, we could then approach them and ask to licence the original design, which we would then re-house and add our modifications. Does this now make more sense?
Arron from S-CAT
-
I understood perfectly well what you were saying, i was only replying to your reply. Your angle on trying to get everyone to copyright things and keep information secret SUCKS. Go and copyright your bike horn see where it gets you, i was doin that shit with the bike horn 6 years ago when i started circuit bending, it's so lame now.
if you wanna start some corporate circuit bending empire, great but you might find your lonely here (again). I have read many of your posts and i have to say they were an eyeopener! and not in a good way...................seems to me like you have provoked many arguments.
ian
-
Perhaps if I explained it this way then people would understand what my aim was and value the advice that was given....
I'm still not totally clear what you're trying to advise people to do...
-
he's advising people to make genius equipment like this and copyright it, wow amazing mods and keyboard skills. I cant wait to see these in the shops ;D!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PHONICPOTION#p/u/7/x3d3IHzhkMw (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PHONICPOTION#p/u/7/x3d3IHzhkMw)
-
Well, I'm in the UK. So, my designs, audio clips, samples and everything else are inherently protected by copyright. This is why I have the exclusive right to say "take this stuff and do what the hell you want with it, as long as you leave my name in somewhere". Trying to make a living off it seems like a silly and pointless idea.
-
Copying Is Not Theft -- remixed (jazz) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU7axyrHWDQ#normal) ;)
-
like that copying video, yeah gordon i think your right to want to keep your name on things and if someone can use what you've done and further whats there then maybe more can be learned from both sides. Some people are only motivated by money. Not that i'm against people selling something they have made but it is nice to keep the info and help flowing.
-
There's nothing wrong with making money, quite the opposite, but the way to deal with competition is offering a better service and better, cheaper products, not using dirty tricks.
-
I understood perfectly well what you were saying, i was only replying to your reply. Your angle on trying to get everyone to copyright things and keep information secret SUCKS. Go and copyright your bike horn see where it gets you, i was doin that shit with the bike horn 6 years ago when i started circuit bending, it's so lame now.
if you wanna start some corporate circuit bending empire, great but you might find your lonely here (again). I have read many of your posts and i have to say they were an eyeopener! and not in a good way...................seems to me like you have provoked many arguments.
ian
It may be lame but it pays the bills, Provocation or discussion? What do you build now and are they selling well? You still do not understand what is being said about copyright. I spend most of my time here trying to explain a simple thing, but again another person gets it wrong, gets on their high horse and makes it into somrthing that it is not. Wake up people.
-
Perhaps if I explained it this way then people would understand what my aim was and value the advice that was given....
I'm still not totally clear what you're trying to advise people to do...
What I am advising is this...
If you can come up with an additional circuit for a commercial product and then contact the original designer then you can apply for joint copyright ownership on the new product. This could then be sold and the two designers could reap the benefits.
If you take time to read the initial post and look at the artical tghat I have quoted then it is ther in full details.
-
he's advising people to make genius equipment like this and copyright it, wow amazing mods and keyboard skills. I cant wait to see these in the shops ;D!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PHONICPOTION#p/u/7/x3d3IHzhkMw (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PHONICPOTION#p/u/7/x3d3IHzhkMw)
Here we go again, another smart arse who takes things out of context. Take a look at this... Circuit bending paid for it all... ROLAND JAM (The Transition) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anJhLXRn_Pc#normal)
-
There's nothing wrong with making money, quite the opposite, but the way to deal with competition is offering a better service and better, cheaper products, not using dirty tricks.
I am not using dirty tricks, I do not copy any circuits and list on ebay with a demo video for all to see and judge before parting with their money.
-
Right, i'm locking this topic as it'll just turn into squabbling again otherwise.