[sdiy] Marketplace Question

[ColinMuirDorward]

Nice turn in the conversation :)
But Tom, what do you mean "kids with little money"?
Does that mean I'm still young?!

C

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:

> As I understand it, there’s nothing actually protected. Cloning might be
> frowned upon as derivative or unoriginal, but it’s not illegal in any way.
>
> You can own copyright in a specific schematic drawing or technical manual.
> Re-drawing the circuit yourself side-steps that copyright issue, since now
> you’re using a drawing that you drew. A cloned synth isn’t a schematic, and
> copyright only protects the documentation, not the actual thing.
>
> In the case of Electronotes, the whole thing is writing/drawings, so the
> whole thing is protected by copyright. That’s quite different to the synth
> case.
>
> You can trademark a name, but mostly this has not been done for synths,
> and anyway most of the clones use a name which is close but not identical,
> which would avoid infringing any trademark.
>
> You could patent certain aspects of your synth like Moog did with the
> ladder filter, but for that it has to be a genuine innovation, not another
> synth based on CEM chips, so most of the 1980’s polysynths can’t use this
> kind of protection.
>
> Beyond that, the only protection would be for firmware (copyright again)
> but the new Behringer Pro-One ( for example) doesn’t use the original
> processor or firmwarere, so they’ve written new code for a new chip and
> there’s no problem. The fact that the panel design is basically identical
> although scaled down is just a graphic design homage and doesn’t constitute
> doing anything illegal, just unoriginal!
>
>
> I have another take on the clones anyway. I think it’s great that
> Behringer and others are cloning instruments like the Sequential Pro One,
> MiniMoog, TB-303 etc. The prices and scarcity of original instruments had
> made them an impossible dream for most people, and Behringer have provided
> a way for kids with little money to get their hands on a bit of that sound.
> That’s a pretty good thing in my view. What they’ve done has been open to
> Dave Smith/Sequential, Moog, and Roland to do for years, and they chose not
> to.
>
>
>
> > On 6 Nov 2020, at 17:32, MTG <grant at musictechnologiesgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> > Stupid, potentially flammable question, how can companies make "xerox"
> copies of synths from the 70's and 80's but not these publications? Other
> than good will, is there something different my naive brain does not
> understand here?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Synth-diy mailing list
> > Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> > http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> > Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
>


-- 
https://www.instagram.com/colinmuirdorward/
-
<https://www.instagram.com/colinmuirdorward/>
https://www.instagram.com/ssdp_synthesis/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20201106/b6162238/attachment.htm>