[sdiy] cloning, copying, copyrights

Wed Jul 30 16:15:15 CEST 2008

>
> [*]there were interesting lawsuits regarding the level of creativity of
> early techno tracks, which finally the authors could win.
>

Are you talking about the Jaguar lawsuits? (See some comments at
http://www.discogs.com/reviews?release=4080 and the story at
http://www.techno.de/cgi-bin/tool/artists?show_id=1471&page=1420 )

Cheers

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Florian Anwander
<Florian.Anwander at consol.de> wrote:
> Hi Harry
>
>> Copyright (in the USA) only protects the physical expression of the
>> design... ie it covers the actual drawing of the schematic and printed
>> circuit board as if they were 'works of art'.
>>
>> Only a Patent protects the idea.
>
> This is the anglosaxon approach of copy right. The roman-based copyright
>  Is quite different.
>
> There core is an "authors right" which protects the idea. It basically
> says: noone is allowed to do anything with this idea, if the author
> insists. This authors right is very similar to a basic human right(!),
> as you are not allowed to harm the body of any person, you are not
> allowed to harm the ideas and thoughts of a person. This right has not
> to be claimed. It is related unsharable with the author. The author
> cannot sell his idea (remember: it is a basic human right - like you
> cannot sell your body in slavery)
>
> Based on this there is a copyright and an exploitation right.
>
> The copyright says: the author can decide, whether his idea may be
> copied or not. A copy is from one person to another person. Singing a
> song on a stage is a "copy" (from singer to many listeners).
>
> The exploitation right says: the author can charge for the use of his
> idea. "Use" includes copy or interpretation (until a certain degree).
>
> Copyright and exploitation right can be shared with others (e.g.
> editors, record companies,...), but can also been drawn back by the
> author based on the authors right (but the author would have to refund
> investiments done by the partner).
>
> These three rights are only valid for ideas in the sens of which show a
> certain level of creativity or individuality [*]. These three rights
> NEVER can be applied to technical inventions!!!! So all discussion we do
> about artwork of pcb are not valid for the roman based tradition of law
> (means all lot of african countries, most south american countries,
> european countries beside UK and Ireland).
>
>
> For technical inventions there are:
> - patent right (very similar to the US).
> - competition regulations, including protection of utility pattern.
>
> The basic principle here is similar to the publishing right, but without
> the restriction of the authors right and without most restrictions of
> copyright.
> The intersting part is not(!) the patent, but the competition regulations:
> You also can be accused (under private law), if someone can earn money
> with some knowledge (his own knowledge or foreign knowledge he paid for)
> and either you earn additional money with this knowledge (without taking
> some from his earnings) or you act the way that he looses earnings,
> though you do not have any financial advantage.
>
> In the US only very appearent (most times optical) similarties are
> matter of legal fact. But in Europe also similarities in function can be
> of matter. Eg: The moog ladder with transistors assumingly would have
> been protected also against imitations like diode based ladder filter.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards, Florian
>
>
> [*]there were interesting lawsuits regarding the level of creativity of
> early techno tracks, which finally the authors could win.
>
>
>
>
>
> If they do not have a patent, you could
>>
>> sell them. Best would be if you had one of their units that you legally
>> acquired and could show that you had hand traced the sechmatic that YOU
>> have
>> from the actual unit, now you have 'reverse engineered' the unit and it is
>> yours to do as you please (if no patents...).
>> OTOH a big company could ruin you by throwing money to their lawyers which
>> you
>> could not match. They say "America has the best Justice system money can
>> buy..."   :^P
>>
>> Also watch out that you do not infringe a Trademark by calling it a R*land
>> clone or whatever. Or that you do not copy 'signature' artistic features
>> like size, color, position of knobs, etc...  That may get you in legal
>> trouble
>> (B*ringer lost a court battle with R*oland over that one... their clones
>> were
>> said to be intended to confuse the customer into buying the wrong product)
>>
>>
>>> Abstracting from that, I understood that if you want to copy a
>>> patented circuit for personal use you could do so at your own
>>> discretion? Can you confirm or deny that?
>>
>>
>> For the USA, correct. The disclosure of the patent is intended to
>> educate those 'reasonably skilled in the art' and you can duplicate the
>> circuit from the ideas presented.
>>
>> Another item that has NOT been discussed is "Trade Secret" protection...
>> where
>> if you have their schematic it is because you illegally obtained it, and
>> they
>> have taken precautions to prevent you from getting it.  The fact that you
>> have
>> it makes you (prima facia) a thief...
>>
>> For personal use, how would anyone KNOW you had  copied anything ???
>> (unless you try to sell it commercially)
>>
>> H^) harry
>>
>>
>>  Which part of the US law or
>>
>>> the German law would treat on this?
>>> We're unfortunately stepping on weird ground, which changes from
>>> country to country...
>>> Is the EU regulating this? Does the EU say you can or can't copy
>>> copyrighted circuits for personal use?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Florian Anwander
>>> <Florian.Anwander at consol.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Cheater
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> even if the circuit is patented, a pcb that isn't stuffed is not that
>>>>> circuit. It's merely a collection of conductors. So you're free to
>>>>> sell it, and actually sell a whole kit, to other people.
>>>>> Now whether people are free to put it together?
>>>>> I might be wrong, because I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that any
>>>>> patents still do allow personal use.
>>>>
>>>> Lets say: if you were a lawyer, how would you talk about analogue
>>>> synths?
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> cloning a circuit for your own use if you own the original will not be
>>>> accusable. But cloning a pcb which is patent pending and sell this pcb,
>>>> is
>>>> definitely liable to prosecution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, even if you're a wholesale entity, and you're making the pcb/kit,
>>>>> that's perfectly legal... and as long as the person who buys the kit
>>>>> isn't building it for profit, but for personal use, that's perfect.  I
>>>>> think this even includes selling it on via ebay/craigslist once you're
>>>>> bored with it (why shouldn't you be able to sell your own property?)
>>>>
>>>> NO that is definitley wrong. It is the person who sells the pcb who has
>>>> the
>>>> commercial profit (no matter whether there is a real profit or not). The
>>>> word "sell" includes the word "profit"  ;-)
>>>>
>>>> And the patent is intended to assure its owner that he can participate
>>>> all
>>>> profits which are made with the content of his patent.
>>>>
>>>> Florian
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Synth-diy mailing list
>>> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
>>> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>>
>>
>>
>> Harry Bissell & Nora Abdullah 4eva
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Synth-diy mailing list
>> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
>> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
> --
> Florian Anwander                  |ConSol*
> Tel.   +49(89)45841-133           |Consulting&Solutions Software GmbH
> Fax    +49(89)45841-111           |Franziskanerstr. 38, D-81669 München
> email: florian.anwander at consol.de |http://www.consol.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>