Modular Synth Panels

Hi all,

I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
but obviously I have to.
I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.

General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
flaming please!!!"
: )

Cheers,
Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@...
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com

I'm happy to support E-M and add this royalty charge!

Thanks Scott

From: Scott Deyo
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:15:54 -0500
To: <ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty

I, for one, am more than happy to pay a bit extra to support the Electro-Music.  It is, after all, the source of Klee PCB's in the first place.
 
I'll still take two.
 
James
 
PS.  Speaking of EM, what about MPS panels?
 
To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
From: contact@...
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:15:54 -0500
Subject: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty

Yeah, I would, though I think they should return the favor by recommending the use of your panels.

Cheers,
Eric

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

On Apr 6, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:

> I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M

i thought it was Scott Stites who designed it.
---
Suit & Tie Guy
suitandtieguy.com
stgsoundlabs.com

i have no problem supporting e-m through this royalty.  im still in for one panel in any incarnation.

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:

From: Scott Deyo <contact@...>
Subject: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty
To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 11:15 AM

Hi all,

I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
but obviously I have to.
I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.

General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
flaming please!!!"
: )

Cheers,
Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@bridechambe r.com
http://www.bridecha mber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealouse dison.com

Yeah, I would, though I think they should return the favor by recommending the use of your panels.

Cheers,
Eric

Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

Scott - All - what is the relationship between E-M and Thomas White? Isn't Mr. White the originator of the panel design? Bill

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
> add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> but obviously I have to.
> I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
>
> General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> flaming please!!!"
> : )
>
> Cheers,
> Scott Deyo
> The Bridechamber
> contact@...
> http://www.bridechamber.com
> Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> http://www.jealousedison.com
>

On Apr 6, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Scott Deyo wrote:

> General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> will be more than happy to support E-M

E-M deserves support, no doubt, but a 20% surcharge on a panel is a
bit steep, IMO. Licensing fees are rarely this high in the "real world."

- C

Chris Muir
cbm@...
http://www.xfade.com

btw, the rights are on the circuit, schematic, etc, ie the design.

i can produce panels for any design in the world i choose without
paying a cent in royalties.

note people making cases and stuff for ipods/iphones etc. same thing IMHO.

That's what I was thinking too.  Haven't others made panels for their Klees?  Are they expected to pay EM as well?

-=john




--

-=john

On 6 apr 2009, at 21:29, Chris Muir wrote:

> On Apr 6, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Scott Deyo wrote:
>
>> General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably
>> everyone
>> will be more than happy to support E-M
>
>
> E-M deserves support, no doubt, but a 20% surcharge on a panel is a
> bit steep, IMO. Licensing fees are rarely this high in the "real
> world."

I agree. I'm all for supporting E-M but 20% seems a tad high. And
isn't the design done by Thomas White? Shouldn't he share in the
royalties too?

Anyway, if this is the deal, then I'm still in. Need panel.

Ben

IMHO, the royalties for the Klee are paid when you buy the PCB.
that's where the bottleneck is and should be.

however, if people are willing to include a little extra for
electro-music, then fair enough, but that should be an optional extra
when you buy your panel. a little like funding campaign stuff from
your taxes (ooh, topical).

>That's what I was thinking too. Haven't others made panels for
>their Klees? Are they expected to pay EM as well?
>
>-=john

Ha! I knew all this modular synthesizer stuff was a bate and switch scam!!

Just kidding :)

I'm still committed to a Klee, a TW-MFOS and a CVS whenever they're finished. Well worth the price IMHO.

Again, thank you for your effort.

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
> add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> but obviously I have to.
> I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
>
> General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> flaming please!!!"
> : )
>
> Cheers,
> Scott Deyo
> The Bridechamber
> contact@...
> http://www.bridechamber.com
> Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> http://www.jealousedison.com
>

That's absolutely ridiculous and I am vehemently opposed to it. I paid
royalties when I bought the PCBs. Are they also going to ask for a
royalty on all the pots and switches needed to build it too? Besides,
didn't Thomas White design the panel? Shouldn't he get the royalties
instead? I suppose I should ask for a 20% royalty on all those Neural
Agonizer and Doomsday Machine panels that Bridechamber also sells,
even though I didn't design them either. Where does this nonsense end?

Of course, Bridechamber could have silently included a royalty in the
panel sale from the onset and we'd never have known. Kudos to Scott
for being up front. Shame on E-M.

On 6-Apr-09, at 12:15 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed
> to
> add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> but obviously I have to.
> I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
>
> General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> flaming please!!!"
> : )

I'm still committed to a Klee panel for 1/8 inch jacks.

Bill Ganger

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:

From: Scott Deyo <contact@...>
Subject: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty
To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 11:15 AM

Hi all,

I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
but obviously I have to.
I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.

General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
flaming please!!!"
: )

Cheers,
Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@bridechambe r.com
http://www.bridecha mber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealouse dison.com

Precisely.

Scott Deyo, if you want to donate an additional 20% to E-M I'm happy to pay the extra, but the terms "royalty" and even "surcharge" and "licensing fee" have specific meaning in relation to copyright and patent law. And the law is very clear.

From what I understand, Thomas White is the designer of the elliptical panel and as such, only he has claim to royalties for use of the panel design. I have assumed Mr. White was making his excellent design available through the goodness of his heart and in light of a sense of community. But if he wanted a royalty, I'd be happy to pay - he deserves it.

As Jason said and Scott Juskiw re-iterated, when we bought the circuit board, we bought the right to build it and use it. Plain and simple. Again, the law is crystal clear.

Any one of us can make a panel for the circuit and even sell copies to our friends and profit by their sale and not owe any "royalties" to anyone else on our own panel design. The suggestion is ridiculous.

As a songwriter, copyright law is near and dear to my heart after all, but I'm very puzzled by this. It's almost as if someone is implying I'd owe a payment to Chris Martin for using one of his company's guitars in the process of writing a song. The guitar and the song are two separate entities entirely - not unlike the PCB and the front panel. I mean really!

And the weird thing is that the PCB is virtually useless without a Front Panel and so what possible good could come to E-M from anything that might stifle panel production? It severely diminishes the usefulness and therefore the value of the PCB.

I think E-M's great but this has no legal basis and is wrong-headed besides.

But again, if you want to make the donation to E-M, that's your business and I'm happy to support your decision to do so. Let's just be clear about it.

Bill

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Jason Proctor <jason@...> wrote:
>
> btw, the rights are on the circuit, schematic, etc, ie the design.
>
> i can produce panels for any design in the world i choose without
> paying a cent in royalties.
>
> note people making cases and stuff for ipods/iphones etc. same thing IMHO.
>

Please feel free to correct me if I am incorrect in any of the following.
 
Anyone can make a panel for their own use without royalty.
 
T. White's rotary design is an FPD file that can be found in the files section of this group and is for purchasing a professional quality panel from Front Panel Express - Schafer.
 
T. White has given permission to Bridechamber for use of this design for a run of panels.  These will presumably be painted and screened and therefore somewhat different in appearance from the FPD panels.  There may be some other tweaks too.
 
S. Stites did the actual design of the Klee circuitry and I assume that he (or E-M) own the rights to the Klee name and that E-M dot com is the only authorized source for the PCB's.
 
It is my understanding that the panel royalty kicks in due to the fact that Bridechamber is a for profit business which takes him outside of the personal use arena.  Therefore Mr. Deyo needs and deserves to get something in return for his time and trouble beyond all of the thanks and praise that we heap upon him.  As a result, since Scott D. will make (a tiny amount of) money off of this effort, it follows that Scott S. (aka E-M) who is the owner of the source intellectual property should reap some benefit too.
 
Just my thoughts, which could be wrong.
 
James
 
 
 

 
To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
From: jason@...
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:04:58 -0700
Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty

James, royalties don't automagically "kick in" due to someone's use in a for-profit business.  A royalty obligation arises only if the owner of the intellectual property requires it in his terms of use, and of course only the owner could so require.

OK - here's my dissection FWIW

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, JAMES GALLANT <middlearthling@...> wrote:
>
>
> Please feel free to correct me if I am incorrect in any of the
> following.
>
> Anyone can make a panel for their own use without royalty.

Yup - absolutely right.


> T. White's rotary design is an FPD file that can be found in the
> files section of this group and is for purchasing a professional
> quality panel from Front Panel Express - Schafer.
>
> T. White has given permission to Bridechamber for use of this
> design for a run of panels. These will presumably be painted and
> screened and therefore somewhat different in appearance from the
> FPD panels. There may be some other tweaks too.

This has been my assumption.


> S. Stites did the actual design of the Klee circuitry and I assume > that he (or E-M) own the rights to the Klee name and that E-M dot
> com is the only authorized source for the PCB's.

This is also to my understanding


> It is my understanding that the panel royalty kicks in due to the
> fact that Bridechamber is a for profit business which takes him
> outside of the personal use arena.

No - this is wrong. No "royalty" is applicable because, presumably, the originator of the panel design, Thomas White, has given Scott Deyo permission to use the design.

There is a possible exception to do with the trademark of the term "KLEE" but trademark is a whole other can of worms and would require Mr. Stites to register the term, or so I understand.

> Therefore Mr. Deyo needs and deserves to get something in return
> for his time and trouble beyond all of the thanks and praise that
> we heap upon him.

This is the nature of American Capitalism.


> As a result, since Scott D. will make (a tiny amount of) money off
> of this effort, it follows that Scott S. (aka E-M) who is the owner
> of the source intellectual property should reap some benefit too.

No - this is not correct. Whereas Mr. Stites completely deserves whatever he can get for the PCB, and deserves our praise and support for E-M, we paid for that already when we bought the PCB. That's the only point here.

If Mr. Stites had made an agreement with every buyer of the PCB such that, for instance, any panel made would mention the name KLEE and therefore owe him for the use of the name, then that separate agreement might take precedence over other aspects of the law - here I'm not really sure. I'd have to get my music/copyright/patent attorney on the phone.

Yes - and as Scott Warren just said, "A royalty obligation arises only if the owner of the intellectual property requires it in his terms of use, and of course only the owner could so require." Mr. White is the owner of the panel design.

So it's still conceivable that Scott Stites has some ownership of the name "KLEE." But, we're picking nits here.

I really want to make it clear that I'm in no way opposed to the support of E-M and Mr. Stites. Scott Stites has my deep admiration and support. A 20% donation to E-M is fine by me - in fact, it's great. And if Mr. Stites had needed more money for the PCB, I would have paid it in the first place.

As someone who makes a good deal of his living from real "royalties," I feel it's important to be clear about our terms here. There are no "royalties" owed - none at all - the law is crystal clear - so the term rankles. See what I mean?

It's not the money - it's the reasoning behind it that's essential.

Bill



>
>
> To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
> From: jason@...
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:04:58 -0700
> Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty
>
>
>
>
>
> IMHO, the royalties for the Klee are paid when you buy the PCB.
> that's where the bottleneck is and should be.
>
> however, if people are willing to include a little extra for
> electro-music, then fair enough, but that should be an optional extra
> when you buy your panel. a little like funding campaign stuff from
> your taxes (ooh, topical).
>
> >That's what I was thinking too. Haven't others made panels for
> >their Klees? Are they expected to pay EM as well?
> >
> >-=john
>

One correction to the analysis from Bill

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM, wjhall11 <wjhall@...> wrote:
> There is a possible exception to do with the trademark of the term "KLEE"
> but trademark is a whole other can of worms and would require Mr. Stites to
> register the term, or so I understand.

Proof of prior commercial use (that's the "trade" part) is usually
sufficient for a trademark claim. Registration provides additional
protections. It is exactly analogous to copyrights, which exist upon
creation of the work but which have much smaller teeth until
registered.

Paul
--
who is also going to buy one however this works out and whatever it costs...

Please understand that this is not my decision. Any issue of trademarks, royalties, etc., does not involve me. I did design the Klee, but donated the design and all rights thereof to electro-music as a fund raiser for electro-music.com to cover operating and show expenses. Scott contacted me to review the panel, which I did, but to be honest, the issue of royalties never even broached my feeble brain. I just didn't anticipate that as being an issue, and feel - wish, if you will - in retrospect, I would have mentioned it to Scott.

I've never made a dime, nor ever intended to make a dime, off of this design. I do think the electro-music forum is a good cause, but I have absolutely no financial stake in it, one way or the other.

-----Original Message-----

>From: Paul Lord <plord@...>
>Sent: Apr 6, 2009 7:28 PM
>To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] Re: Klee panel E-M royalty
>
>One correction to the analysis from Bill
>
>On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM, wjhall11 <wjhall@...> wrote:
>> There is a possible exception to do with the trademark of the term "KLEE"
>> but trademark is a whole other can of worms and would require Mr. Stites to
>> register the term, or so I understand.
>
>Proof of prior commercial use (that's the "trade" part) is usually
>sufficient for a trademark claim. Registration provides additional
>protections. It is exactly analogous to copyrights, which exist upon
>creation of the work but which have much smaller teeth until
>registered.
>
>Paul
>--
>who is also going to buy one however this works out and whatever it costs...

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Thank you, Mr. Lord. I stand corrected. That is, of course, the case and I should have know it. Issues of trade mark have always confused me where it has to do with names and terms. (shaking head) There's a long, ridiculous story behind it concerning a challenge to my right to use my own name in public representations, bla bla bla. Thanks again Paul.

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Paul Lord <plord@...> wrote:
>
> One correction to the analysis from Bill
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM, wjhall11 <wjhall@...> wrote:
> > There is a possible exception to do with the trademark of the term "KLEE"
> > but trademark is a whole other can of worms and would require Mr. Stites to
> > register the term, or so I understand.
>
> Proof of prior commercial use (that's the "trade" part) is usually
> sufficient for a trademark claim. Registration provides additional
> protections. It is exactly analogous to copyrights, which exist upon
> creation of the work but which have much smaller teeth until
> registered.
>
> Paul
> --
> who is also going to buy one however this works out and whatever it costs...
>

Thank you very much. That answers my first question, then - "What the relationship between Scott Stites and E-M?" And, frankly, Scott, I admire you all the more for it. It's the kind of generosity I've often found in this community. The kind that makes me proud to be associated with it in some way.

But now - as for E-M

- - - - -

- - - - -

I'm stunned.

Bill

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Stites <scottnoanh@...> wrote:
>
>
> Please understand that this is not my decision. Any issue of trademarks, royalties, etc., does not involve me. I did design the Klee, but donated the design and all rights thereof to electro-music as a fund raiser for electro-music.com to cover operating and show expenses. Scott contacted me to review the panel, which I did, but to be honest, the issue of royalties never even broached my feeble brain. I just didn't anticipate that as being an issue, and feel - wish, if you will - in retrospect, I would have mentioned it to Scott.
>
> I've never made a dime, nor ever intended to make a dime, off of this design. I do think the electro-music forum is a good cause, but I have absolutely no financial stake in it, one way or the other.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Paul Lord <plord@...>
> >Sent: Apr 6, 2009 7:28 PM
> >To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] Re: Klee panel E-M royalty
> >
> >One correction to the analysis from Bill
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM, wjhall11 <wjhall@...> wrote:
> >> There is a possible exception to do with the trademark of the term "KLEE"
> >> but trademark is a whole other can of worms and would require Mr. Stites to
> >> register the term, or so I understand.
> >
> >Proof of prior commercial use (that's the "trade" part) is usually
> >sufficient for a trademark claim. Registration provides additional
> >protections. It is exactly analogous to copyrights, which exist upon
> >creation of the work but which have much smaller teeth until
> >registered.
> >
> >Paul
> >--
> >who is also going to buy one however this works out and whatever it costs...
>
>
> ________________________________________
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>

this is uncalled for. The designer made royalties from "limited run" pcb sales. Parts kits were sold separately by a different end user with no mention of royalties. there is no trademark on the KLEE name also unless I am missing something? Panels sales = more pcb sales right? No one else has done or requested this. Kind of bogus.

The panel is my layout, and I expect no royalties. Scott Deyo is not making kits or assembled units. He is only selling metalwork. IMHO leave the names Klee and e-m off and just put "sequencer" on the panel. You go and try to give someone props by buying and building a nice unit with the named of the designer, website and this is what happens? I hope there has been some misunderstanding. I know times are tough but this is nutso.

Has anyone else been asked for royalties before like this? It's kind of like synth_diy*** with the *** meaning see the small print for the extra fees. Where does the royalty request come from directly?

Man, I hope this all gets worked out somehow...

Scott Deyo wrote:

> Hi all,
> I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
> add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> but obviously I have to.
> I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
> General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> flaming please!!!"
> : )
> Cheers,
> Scott Deyo
> The Bridechamber
> contact@bridechambe r.com
> http://www.bridecha mber.com
> Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> http://www.jealouse dison.com
>

This is like saying every aftermarket car part company pays Toyota royalties when coming out with a different body kit (laughs). That just doesn't happen!

All this is comes down to a drilled and screened metal piece with holes per my touch and feel layout. If Scott Stites provides permission to use his name it could be the S3 for Scott Stites Sequencer and drop the KLEE name altogether.

Why does feel like getting milk money lifted by a bully (oh memories)?

Thomas

Scott Stites wrote:

> Please understand that this is not my decision. Any issue of trademarks, royalties, etc., does not involve me. I did design the Klee, but donated the design and all rights thereof to electro-music as a fund raiser for electro-music. com to cover operating and show expenses. Scott contacted me to review the panel, which I did, but to be honest, the issue of royalties never even broached my feeble brain. I just didn't anticipate that as being an issue, and feel - wish, if you will - in retrospect, I would have mentioned it to Scott.
> I've never made a dime, nor ever intended to make a dime, off of this design. I do think the electro-music forum is a good cause, but I have absolutely no financial stake in it, one way or the other.
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Paul Lord < plord@there. org >
>>Sent: Apr 6, 2009 7:28 PM
>>To: ModularSynthPanels@ yahoogroups. com
>>Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels ] Re: Klee panel E-M royalty
>>
>>One correction to the analysis from Bill
>>
>>On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:22 PM, wjhall11 < wjhall@.... com > wrote:
>>> There is a possible exception to do with the trademark of the term "KLEE"
>>> but trademark is a whole other can of worms and would require Mr. Stites to
>>> register the term, or so I understand.
>>
>>Proof of prior commercial use (that's the "trade" part) is usually
>>sufficient for a trademark claim. Registration provides additional
>>protections. It is exactly analogous to copyrights, which exist upon
>>creation of the work but which have much smaller teeth until
>>registered.
>>
>>Paul
>>--
>>who is also going to buy one however this works out and whatever it costs...
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc .com
>

Royalties should be for anything involving the design of the pcb only, not metalwork that could apply to any pcb.

However its a few extra dollar to support a worthy cause, so I don't have a problem with it.

But they should be required to prominently put an ad for Bridechamber on their site if this is going to happen.

Otherwise, remove the "klee" term from the panel, call it Seequencer or Klay or something and no royalties.

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
> add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> but obviously I have to.
> I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
>
> General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> flaming please!!!"
> : )
>
> Cheers,
> Scott Deyo
> The Bridechamber
> contact@...
> http://www.bridechamber.com
> Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> http://www.jealousedison.com
>

Well, between this and Scott's msg (the 2 owners of the intellectual property rights in question), seems like the question of "royalties" is settled: no-one w/ any rights to do so has asked for them, and none should be paid.

Scott, if you want to tithe some amount to EM, for whatever reason, that's your call. You could even pass on the amount to us (still cheaper than FPD). I appreciate your transparency for asking in the first place, and for continuing to let us know what you decide. FWIW, i think 20% is _way_ too high. And FWIW, whoever asked for "royalty" payment (you don't mention a name, only "I have been told...") has slightly tarnished th otherwise respectable reputation of E-M, at least in my eyes.

thanks as always for all the hard work, and likewise to both Scott and Thomas.


bbob

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, thomas white <djthomaswhite@...> wrote:
>
>
> this is uncalled for. The designer made royalties from "limited run" pcb sales. Parts kits were sold separately by a different end user with no mention of royalties. there is no trademark on the KLEE name also unless I am missing something? Panels sales = more pcb sales right? No one else has done or requested this. Kind of bogus.
>
> The panel is my layout, and I expect no royalties. Scott Deyo is not making kits or assembled units. He is only selling metalwork. IMHO leave the names Klee and e-m off and just put "sequencer" on the panel. You go and try to give someone props by buying and building a nice unit with the named of the designer, website and this is what happens? I hope there has been some misunderstanding. I know times are tough but this is nutso.
>
> Has anyone else been asked for royalties before like this? It's kind of like synth_diy*** with the *** meaning see the small print for the extra fees. Where does the royalty request come from directly?
>
> Man, I hope this all gets worked out somehow...
>
> Scott Deyo wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
> > add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> > but obviously I have to.
> > I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> > panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
> > General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> > will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> > flaming please!!!"
> > : )
> > Cheers,
> > Scott Deyo
> > The Bridechamber
> > contact@bridechambe r.com
> > http://www.bridecha mber.com
> > Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> > http://www.jealouse dison.com
> >
>

I was quiet up until now because I felt like an asshole after the initial few comments, but now since quite a few non-assholes have spoken out against the royalty it gives me the courage. I have no problem about supporting E-M as they have created an absolutely invaluable community without which I never could have dreamed of building my own synth, but a 20% royalty on a third party panel is just too much IMO. Im already trying to get over the fact that the switch to the newer, more competant metal guys puts the price at almost twice what it would have been when we started discussing this project plus the floundering Canadian dollar. If this had come out last year with the old pricing scheme, I would have had to pay about $60 Canadian for it. Now, with the royalty and exchange im looking at $150. Still cheaper than Schaeffer, yes, but I am used to paying $10 each to make my DIY panels and these tough times have me reconsidering whether this hobby is financially feesable at all. Guh, sorry for the rant.

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:22 AM, data2action <fluxmonk@...> wrote:

Well, between this and Scott's msg (the 2 owners of the intellectual property rights in question), seems like the question of "royalties" is settled: no-one w/ any rights to do so has asked for them, and none should be paid.

Scott, if you want to tithe some amount to EM, for whatever reason, that's your call. You could even pass on the amount to us (still cheaper than FPD). I appreciate your transparency for asking in the first place, and for continuing to let us know what you decide. FWIW, i think 20% is _way_ too high. And FWIW, whoever asked for "royalty" payment (you don't mention a name, only "I have been told...") has slightly tarnished th otherwise respectable reputation of E-M, at least in my eyes.

thanks as always for all the hard work, and likewise to both Scott and Thomas.

bbob

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, thomas white <djthomaswhite@...> wrote:
>
>
> this is uncalled for. The designer made royalties from &quot;limited run&quot; pcb sales. Parts kits were sold separately by a different end user with no mention of royalties. there is no trademark on the KLEE name also unless I am missing something? Panels sales = more pcb sales right? No one else has done or requested this. Kind of bogus.
>
> The panel is my layout, and I expect no royalties. Scott Deyo is not making kits or assembled units. He is only selling metalwork. IMHO leave the names Klee and e-m off and just put &quot;sequencer&quot; on the panel. You go and try to give someone props by buying and building a nice unit with the named of the designer, website and this is what happens? I hope there has been some misunderstanding. I know times are tough but this is nutso.
>
> Has anyone else been asked for royalties before like this? It&#39;s kind of like synth_diy*** with the *** meaning see the small print for the extra fees. Where does the royalty request come from directly?
>
> Man, I hope this all gets worked out somehow...
>
> Scott Deyo wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
> > add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> > but obviously I have to.
> > I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> > panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
> > General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> > will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> > flaming please!!!"
> > : )
> > Cheers,
> > Scott Deyo
> > The Bridechamber
> > contact@bridechambe r.com
> > http://www.bridecha mber.com
> > Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> > http://www.jealouse dison.com
> >
>

I forgot to add that I'll still buy a panel, whatever happens as I don't have the time/energy to design/fabricate my own at the moment.

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Andrew Listmayer <andrewlistmayer@...> wrote:

I was quiet up until now because I felt like an asshole after the initial few comments, but now since quite a few non-assholes have spoken out against the royalty it gives me the courage. I have no problem about supporting E-M as they have created an absolutely invaluable community without which I never could have dreamed of building my own synth, but a 20% royalty on a third party panel is just too much IMO. Im already trying to get over the fact that the switch to the newer, more competant metal guys puts the price at almost twice what it would have been when we started discussing this project plus the floundering Canadian dollar. If this had come out last year with the old pricing scheme, I would have had to pay about $60 Canadian for it. Now, with the royalty and exchange im looking at $150. Still cheaper than Schaeffer, yes, but I am used to paying $10 each to make my DIY panels and these tough times have me reconsidering whether this hobby is financially feesable at all. Guh, sorry for the rant.

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:22 AM, data2action <fluxmonk@...> wrote:

Well, between this and Scott's msg (the 2 owners of the intellectual property rights in question), seems like the question of "royalties" is settled: no-one w/ any rights to do so has asked for them, and none should be paid.

Scott, if you want to tithe some amount to EM, for whatever reason, that's your call. You could even pass on the amount to us (still cheaper than FPD). I appreciate your transparency for asking in the first place, and for continuing to let us know what you decide. FWIW, i think 20% is _way_ too high. And FWIW, whoever asked for "royalty" payment (you don't mention a name, only "I have been told...") has slightly tarnished th otherwise respectable reputation of E-M, at least in my eyes.

thanks as always for all the hard work, and likewise to both Scott and Thomas.

bbob

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, thomas white <djthomaswhite@...> wrote:
>
>
> this is uncalled for. The designer made royalties from &quot;limited run&quot; pcb sales. Parts kits were sold separately by a different end user with no mention of royalties. there is no trademark on the KLEE name also unless I am missing something? Panels sales = more pcb sales right? No one else has done or requested this. Kind of bogus.
>
> The panel is my layout, and I expect no royalties. Scott Deyo is not making kits or assembled units. He is only selling metalwork. IMHO leave the names Klee and e-m off and just put &quot;sequencer&quot; on the panel. You go and try to give someone props by buying and building a nice unit with the named of the designer, website and this is what happens? I hope there has been some misunderstanding. I know times are tough but this is nutso.
>
> Has anyone else been asked for royalties before like this? It&#39;s kind of like synth_diy*** with the *** meaning see the small print for the extra fees. Where does the royalty request come from directly?
>
> Man, I hope this all gets worked out somehow...
>
> Scott Deyo wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed to
> > add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> > but obviously I have to.
> > I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> > panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
> > General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably everyone
> > will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> > flaming please!!!"
> > : )
> > Cheers,
> > Scott Deyo
> > The Bridechamber
> > contact@bridechambe r.com
> > http://www.bridecha mber.com
> > Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> > http://www.jealouse dison.com
> >
>

I see the point that I'm making a profit on the panels, but it's just
odd that someone could order the FPE panel at nearly $300 and E-M would
get nothing. And like others have said, a cheaper panel leads to more
PCB sales.
To me, the spirit of DIY is manifest in folks like Thomas, who just
gave me the product of all his work, and to everyone who helps me. And
in Scott Stites, who donated such a huge, cool design to E-M.
All of the "businesses" juggle the passion and business sides of
modulars. We all have the passion, and most of us are not so good at
the business end. Sometimes the ball lands a bit on the business/ money
end, and that sours it a bit for me. It has to remain fun, or it really
doesn't make sense to continue, business-wise.
But Mosc and I will work something out. E-M is a great forum, and I'm
sure it takes a bit of money and a lot of time to do, and it benefits
all of us, especially the Bridechamber.

Now I just hope that Ian, Scott, Paul, Jurgen, Ken, Paul, Ray, Yves,
Grant, John and Tim, Thomas, Richard, Ryan, the 'ill's, Mr. Mike, and
everyone else don't get any ideas...
: )

To me the biggest bummer is just that I've been answering emails all
day. Another day, further behind!

And as far as royalties on parts... I guess State Machine gives a cut
on kits he sells. So I'm out on the kit end of it.

But I hope everything I said doesn't sound negative. We'll have these
panels soon!!!!
Ze Klee is on de Vay!

Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@...
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com

On Apr 6, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Scott Juskiw wrote:

> That's absolutely ridiculous and I am vehemently opposed to it. I paid
> royalties when I bought the PCBs. Are they also going to ask for a
> royalty on all the pots and switches needed to build it too? Besides,
> didn't Thomas White design the panel? Shouldn't he get the royalties
> instead? I suppose I should ask for a 20% royalty on all those Neural
> Agonizer and Doomsday Machine panels that Bridechamber also sells,
> even though I didn't design them either. Where does this nonsense end?
>
> Of course, Bridechamber could have silently included a royalty in the
> panel sale from the onset and we'd never have known. Kudos to Scott
> for being up front. Shame on E-M.
>
> On 6-Apr-09, at 12:15 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed
> > to
> > add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> > but obviously I have to.
> > I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> > panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
> >
> > General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably
> everyone
> > will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> > flaming please!!!"
> > : )
>
>

I, like Will have been earning royalties all of my adult life and the idea that I would ask for 20% of someone's list price would set of a litigation bomb.

To push this charge onto us is inappropriate and a bummer for all of us. Somebody is trying to commoditize what we share and give away without our specific consent. This is legally specious and morally ambiguous. What next ? Does EM own your ideas because they provided space for a post about one?

I don't believe that Tom White or Scott Stites would be party to this attempt at usury and that Scott Deyo would even associate with someone with this "Mustache Pete", Morris Levy sense of ownership. What % is the estate of Paul Klee getting ? Don't doubt Scott that if you make that 20% payment that they will show up asking why you did not make it to them.

I won't pay it and nobody else should either. I already bought my boards and they are the Klee, everything else just finishes it. If that is not the case then I have a civil AG complaint against EM.

best

gw


I suggest once again that Scott do a generic sequencer panel and maybe Toe White will donate a design.

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>
> I see the point that I'm making a profit on the panels, but it's just
> odd that someone could order the FPE panel at nearly $300 and E-M would
> get nothing. And like others have said, a cheaper panel leads to more
> PCB sales.
> To me, the spirit of DIY is manifest in folks like Thomas, who just
> gave me the product of all his work, and to everyone who helps me. And
> in Scott Stites, who donated such a huge, cool design to E-M.
> All of the "businesses" juggle the passion and business sides of
> modulars. We all have the passion, and most of us are not so good at
> the business end. Sometimes the ball lands a bit on the business/ money
> end, and that sours it a bit for me. It has to remain fun, or it really
> doesn't make sense to continue, business-wise.
> But Mosc and I will work something out. E-M is a great forum, and I'm
> sure it takes a bit of money and a lot of time to do, and it benefits
> all of us, especially the Bridechamber.
>
> Now I just hope that Ian, Scott, Paul, Jurgen, Ken, Paul, Ray, Yves,
> Grant, John and Tim, Thomas, Richard, Ryan, the 'ill's, Mr. Mike, and
> everyone else don't get any ideas...
> : )
>
> To me the biggest bummer is just that I've been answering emails all
> day. Another day, further behind!
>
> And as far as royalties on parts... I guess State Machine gives a cut
> on kits he sells. So I'm out on the kit end of it.
>
> But I hope everything I said doesn't sound negative. We'll have these
> panels soon!!!!
> Ze Klee is on de Vay!
>
> Scott Deyo
> The Bridechamber
> contact@...
> http://www.bridechamber.com
> Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> http://www.jealousedison.com
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Scott Juskiw wrote:
>
> > That's absolutely ridiculous and I am vehemently opposed to it. I paid
> > royalties when I bought the PCBs. Are they also going to ask for a
> > royalty on all the pots and switches needed to build it too? Besides,
> > didn't Thomas White design the panel? Shouldn't he get the royalties
> > instead? I suppose I should ask for a 20% royalty on all those Neural
> > Agonizer and Doomsday Machine panels that Bridechamber also sells,
> > even though I didn't design them either. Where does this nonsense end?
> >
> > Of course, Bridechamber could have silently included a royalty in the
> > panel sale from the onset and we'd never have known. Kudos to Scott
> > for being up front. Shame on E-M.
> >
> > On 6-Apr-09, at 12:15 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed
> > > to
> > > add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> > > but obviously I have to.
> > > I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> > > panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
> > >
> > > General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably
> > everyone
> > > will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> > > flaming please!!!"
> > > : )
> >
> >
>

On Apr 7, 2009, at 8:22 AM, data2action wrote:

> i think 20% is _way_ too high. And FWIW, whoever asked for
> "royalty" payment (you don't mention a name, only "I have been
> told...") has slightly tarnished th otherwise respectable
> reputation of E-M, at least in my eyes.

i bought a 3-day ticket to the Electro-Music festival last year at
day-of price, and drove to the VA/TN border from Chillicothe to do
so, and spent at least a thousand or more total on the trip.

i was planning on doing the same thing this year. however, this makes
me think about wether that's a good idea. please keep us posted, i'd
still like to go.

> thanks as always for all the hard work, and likewise to both Scott
> and Thomas.

yeah i wanted to echo this sentiment.
---
Suit & Tie Guy
suitandtieguy.com
stgsoundlabs.com

OK - I promise I'll shut up soon. One last long rant...

Scott Deyo, the only relevant point here is that the term "royalty" is completely inapplicable. And Gino just eloquently stated the consequence of that - along with what, I'll warrant, is an appropriate level of outrage.

I don't belong to E-M. I heard about the circuit and panel through my friends and MOSP - your (Scott Deyo's) own list. It had nothing to do with E-M. So in my case, E-M benefited from you (Scott Deyo) - not the other way around.

It doesn't matter how much money you make on the panel. That's between you and Thomas White and God. E-M has nothing to do with it at all and therefore E-M has no right to anything whatever.

Again, my loud objection has nothing to do with the money - it has everything to do with the principle. And that makes it sound like a merely intellectual issue - it's not. What we call things is important because they represent truth. (yes, I know I'm veering dangerously here). But no - really - it has to do with truth and honesty.

E-M deserves support. Goes without saying.

If, indeed, E-M is sending business to anybody - JH, Paul Schrieber, Yves, Bridechamber, etc, etc - it's reasonable for E-M to expect something in return. But there're names for that - "agency" or "brokerage." In this kind of relationship, E-M represents someone and has a reasonable expectation of compensation. Or perhaps E-M could allow advertisements from vendors.

Any of these things would be true, up-front, and honest to begin with. These terms represent the truth - that wheras E-M has no claim on the panel design, it wants support for providing the service of helping to make the sale. I'd have no objection whatever.

But my reasonable expectation has been that E-M is not the agent on my purchase of the Bridechamber-produced version of Thomas White's panel (which has no legal relation to E-M and therefore cannot possibly warrant a fee of any kind) If I take a walk, will you tax my feet? (Thanks, John Lennon)

Like so many have said already - I have no objection to supporting E-M, but the terms "Usury" (Gino), "Thievery" (what a bully does to you when he/she steals your lunch money, Thomas White), and "Extortion" (what a bully does what they realize you've got a good thing going and requires you to pay a fee to stay in their good graces, me) spring to mind when completely baseless claims are laid and couched in terms like "royalties." The words matter.

I can't help but think that there's been some misunderstanding here.

I'm not going to withdraw psychic support for E-M. Although my only relationship to E-M is that I bought the Klee PCBs there, it's obvious to me that E-M performs a great service and deserves support. I hope folks still drive to the E-M festival <G>.

But there's nothing fair about trying to levy a baseless fee after the fact. And I won't gladly pay it either. It's just wrong.

(I'll end up unhappily paying it if you (Scott Deyo) still end up sending E-M a fee - I mean - I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.)

So saying, anytime E-M wants to solicit a donation from me, E-M is welcome to do so. And then I'll gladly shell out on the principle of wanting to contribute to our community which is small and needs all the support we can get.

But in reality - legally, morally, ethically - for the KLEE - I already paid. We all did. It's that simple.

Is this horse dead yet? Oh - come on - let's whip it some more <G>.

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>
> I see the point that I'm making a profit on the panels, but it's just
> odd that someone could order the FPE panel at nearly $300 and E-M would
> get nothing. And like others have said, a cheaper panel leads to more
> PCB sales.
> To me, the spirit of DIY is manifest in folks like Thomas, who just
> gave me the product of all his work, and to everyone who helps me. And
> in Scott Stites, who donated such a huge, cool design to E-M.
> All of the "businesses" juggle the passion and business sides of
> modulars. We all have the passion, and most of us are not so good at
> the business end. Sometimes the ball lands a bit on the business/ money
> end, and that sours it a bit for me. It has to remain fun, or it really
> doesn't make sense to continue, business-wise.
> But Mosc and I will work something out. E-M is a great forum, and I'm
> sure it takes a bit of money and a lot of time to do, and it benefits
> all of us, especially the Bridechamber.
>
> Now I just hope that Ian, Scott, Paul, Jurgen, Ken, Paul, Ray, Yves,
> Grant, John and Tim, Thomas, Richard, Ryan, the 'ill's, Mr. Mike, and
> everyone else don't get any ideas...
> : )
>
> To me the biggest bummer is just that I've been answering emails all
> day. Another day, further behind!
>
> And as far as royalties on parts... I guess State Machine gives a cut
> on kits he sells. So I'm out on the kit end of it.
>
> But I hope everything I said doesn't sound negative. We'll have these
> panels soon!!!!
> Ze Klee is on de Vay!
>
> Scott Deyo
> The Bridechamber
> contact@...
> http://www.bridechamber.com
> Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> http://www.jealousedison.com
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Scott Juskiw wrote:
>
> > That's absolutely ridiculous and I am vehemently opposed to it. I paid
> > royalties when I bought the PCBs. Are they also going to ask for a
> > royalty on all the pots and switches needed to build it too? Besides,
> > didn't Thomas White design the panel? Shouldn't he get the royalties
> > instead? I suppose I should ask for a 20% royalty on all those Neural
> > Agonizer and Doomsday Machine panels that Bridechamber also sells,
> > even though I didn't design them either. Where does this nonsense end?
> >
> > Of course, Bridechamber could have silently included a royalty in the
> > panel sale from the onset and we'd never have known. Kudos to Scott
> > for being up front. Shame on E-M.
> >
> > On 6-Apr-09, at 12:15 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am supposed
> > > to
> > > add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this up,
> > > but obviously I have to.
> > > I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
> > > panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
> > >
> > > General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably
> > everyone
> > > will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say "No
> > > flaming please!!!"
> > > : )
> >
> >
>

Scott (Deyo),

You should not pay EM. I fully support them and have much respect for them save this request they (MOSC) has come up with. Here's why...


1. Nobody at EM asked you to make panels for a freely available kit you don't have to be a member of a club to buy
2. Nobody at EM is paying you or arranging with you to produce ANY panels for freely available pcb projects
3. Nobody at EM has shared the risk and cost of production of the pcbs with you

It is for these reasons I find the late asking for royalties, on what will be the single most expensive manufactured diy panel outside of FPE directly, to be abuse, a shame, and all around disrespectful to the service YOU are offering in the same fashion EM is offering to the community in many ways (They offer a pcb for guys who can't/won't make them on their own, you offer panels for the same reason). Rotary Klee Layout? Yes, it is my design. Yes I posted it for free for everyone to enjoy in the hopes someone as kind as you would produce it for the "small" diy masses. BUT, this discussion just makes me sour on it.

I am a person that feels posting something like this is my *tiny* contribution to the community from which I have learned/taken so much from. EM did in fact produce the pcb's and did in fact make money from them over the cost of production, which is THEIR royalty. Ask any lawyer. They don't own the name of the artist, not are they paying to use it. Scott only gave them rights to the ocb design, not subsequent panels made by third party vendors to support it. If they are asking you for a percentage, there should be the same request of every pcb seller on EM as a standard instead of a last minute request of a high dollar items ($20 plus $20 plus $20... = $$$$) Wide eyes and profit lust it sounds like to me. I sure hope it gets worked out for future stuff, if at all, and in advance of production to avoid cheap surprises like this.

I don't feel good about buying my own panel due to this royalty issue. If it stays with EM getting royalties through this method I will have to withdraw my order and stick with my FPE file. TO BE CLEAR, EM does deserve something for what they do, but they got it already with every PCB sale. I gave them a percentage from my own pcb sales (LPG) but it was no where near %20. In the Klee case, there was no agreement that panels would have to be purchased from a licensed EM authorized sales location when I bought the pcb (like it soundssomeone is trying to turn Deyo into?) Scott Deyo, Scott Stites, and I are the ONLY ones who have any right to stand in line for a piece of this panel. Scott Stites and myself both humbly decline to make any money from this. Deyo takes the risk, plans it, invests in it and thus deserves his turn to make royalties.

I support you 150% Scott, but I will not buy a panel if EM gets any royalties from it, not like this. I will not support anything like this. Having made and released music which involves my own history of BS royalty issues it comes down to a matter of personal principles. Take my panel, run with it. I submit to no further claim or future claim of royalties whatsoever for it, same as it has always been intended. If we all start asking Peter to rob Paul to pay Frank there will be no more synth_diy, or at least a whole lot less of it which is a means to an end I would like to stay out of. Keep it free and easy folks! Pay the deserving and don't ask for a piece of someone elses pie. My own example for this can be found in the LPG boards. I have orders for approximately 200 more boards, but I will not make them without Don's permission. Why? Simple. It is what I told Don I would do. No more, no less. You have to stand for something sometimes, even when it means you tell some people no, or don't make 10% off of additional board sales.

Feel free to contact me offline (anyone) to avoid unecessary list bandwidth. We need to support each other. Scott will go out of business is the crew of designers start asking for royalties on panels (sheesh, it is SO silly to even write that). Stooge panels never had to pay royalties eh? I'll go back to FPE and burning my own pcb's before starting a new precident that will negatively effect everyone after a downward spiral into profit mongering. All my own opinion of course. I hope this has a happy resolution for all of our sakes. Keep us posted S.D.!

Thomas

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:

From: Scott Deyo <contact@...>
Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty
To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:05 AM

I see the point that I'm making a profit on the panels, but it's just
odd that someone could order the FPE panel at nearly $300 and E-M would get
nothing. And like others have said, a cheaper panel leads to more PCB sales.
To me, the spirit of DIY is manifest in folks like Thomas, who just gave me the
product of all his work, and to everyone who helps me. And in Scott Stites, who
donated such a
 huge, cool design to E-M.
All of the "businesses" juggle the passion and business sides of
modulars. We all have the passion, and most of us are not so good at the
business end. Sometimes the ball lands a bit on the business/ money end, and
that sours it a bit for me. It has to remain fun, or it really doesn't make
sense to continue, business-wise.
But Mosc and I will work something out. E-M is a great forum, and I'm sure
it takes a bit of money and a lot of time to do, and it benefits all of us,
especially the Bridechamber.

Now I just hope that Ian, Scott, Paul, Jurgen, Ken, Paul, Ray, Yves, Grant,
John and Tim, Thomas, Richard, Ryan, the 'ill's, Mr. Mike, and everyone
else don't get any ideas...
 : )

To me the biggest bummer is just that I've been answering emails all day.
Another day, further behind!

And as far as royalties on parts... I guess State Machine gives a cut on kits
he sells. So
 I'm out on the kit end of it.

But I hope everything I said doesn't sound negative. We'll have these
panels soon!!!!
Ze Klee is on de Vay!

Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@...
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com


On Apr 6, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Scott Juskiw wrote:

> That's absolutely ridiculous and I am vehemently opposed to it. I paid
>  royalties when I bought the PCBs. Are they also going to ask for a
>  royalty on all the pots and switches needed to build it too? Besides,
>  didn't Thomas White design the panel? Shouldn't he get the
royalties
>  instead? I suppose I should ask for a 20% royalty on all those Neural
>  Agonizer and Doomsday Machine panels that Bridechamber also sells,
>  even though I didn't design them either. Where does this nonsense
end?
> 
>  Of course,
 Bridechamber could have silently included a royalty in the
>  panel sale from the onset and we'd never have known. Kudos to Scott
>  for being up front. Shame on E-M.
> 
>  On 6-Apr-09, at 12:15 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:
> 
>  > Hi all,
>  >
>  > I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am
supposed
>  > to
>  > add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this
up,
>  > but obviously I have to.
>  > I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to the
>  > panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
>  >
>  > General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably
everyone
>  > will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say
"No
>  > flaming please!!!"
>  > : )
> 
> 

Mosc says it was never a royalty, and though there were never the words
"voluntary" or "contribution" in his initial messages, I think we
should assume the best intentions.

To be clear now, this is how it stands (I think): You don't have to pay
any contribution to E-M on Bridechamber Klee panels unless you want to.
I will set up a link or something so people can contribute, but I no
longer plan on directly sending money to E-M. My bookwork sucks anyway.
: )

Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@...
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com

On Apr 7, 2009, at 10:14 PM, thomas white wrote:

> Scott (Deyo),
>
> You should not pay EM. I fully support them and have much respect for
> them save this request they (MOSC) has come up with. Here's why...
>
>
> 1. Nobody at EM asked you to make panels for a freely available kit
> you don't have to be a member of a club to buy
> 2. Nobody at EM is paying you or arranging with you to produce ANY
> panels for freely available pcb projects
> 3. Nobody at EM has shared the risk and cost of production of the pcbs
> with you
>
> It is for these reasons I find the late asking for royalties, on what
> will be the single most expensive manufactured diy panel outside of
> FPE directly, to be abuse, a shame, and all around disrespectful to
> the service YOU are offering in the same fashion EM is offering to the
> community in many ways (They offer a pcb for guys who can't/won't make
> them on their own, you offer panels for the same reason). Rotary Klee
> Layout? Yes, it is my design. Yes I posted it for free for everyone to
> enjoy in the hopes someone as kind as you would produce it for the
> "small" diy masses. BUT, this discussion just makes me sour on it.
>
> I am a person that feels posting something like this is my *tiny*
> contribution to the community from which I have learned/taken so much
> from. EM did in fact produce the pcb's and did in fact make money from
> them over the cost of production, which is THEIR royalty. Ask any
> lawyer. They don't own the name of the artist, not are they paying to
> use it. Scott only gave them rights to the ocb design, not subsequent
> panels made by third party vendors to support it. If they are asking
> you for a percentage, there should be the same request of every pcb
> seller on EM as a standard instead of a last minute request of a high
> dollar items ($20 plus $20 plus $20... = $$$$) Wide eyes and profit
> lust it sounds like to me. I sure hope it gets worked out for future
> stuff, if at all, and in advance of production to avoid cheap
> surprises like this.
>
> I don't feel good about buying my own panel due to this royalty issue.
> If it stays with EM getting royalties through this method I will have
> to withdraw my order and stick with my FPE file. TO BE CLEAR, EM does
> deserve something for what they do, but they got it already with every
> PCB sale. I gave them a percentage from my own pcb sales (LPG) but it
> was no where near %20. In the Klee case, there was no agreement that
> panels would have to be purchased from a licensed EM authorized sales
> location when I bought the pcb (like it soundssomeone is trying to
> turn Deyo into?) Scott Deyo, Scott Stites, and I are the ONLY ones who
> have any right to stand in line for a piece of this panel. Scott
> Stites and myself both humbly decline to make any money from this.
> Deyo takes the risk, plans it, invests in it and thus deserves his
> turn to make royalties.
>
> I support you 150% Scott, but I will not buy a panel if EM gets any
> royalties from it, not like this. I will not support anything like
> this. Having made and released music which involves my own history of
> BS royalty issues it comes down to a matter of personal principles.
> Take my panel, run with it. I submit to no further claim or future
> claim of royalties whatsoever for it, same as it has always been
> intended. If we all start asking Peter to rob Paul to pay Frank there
> will be no more synth_diy, or at least a whole lot less of it which is
> a means to an end I would like to stay out of. Keep it free and easy
> folks! Pay the deserving and don't ask for a piece of someone elses
> pie. My own example for this can be found in the LPG boards. I have
> orders for approximately 200 more boards, but I will not make them
> without Don's permission. Why? Simple. It is what I told Don I would
> do. No more, no less. You have to stand for something sometimes, even
> when it means you tell some people no, or don't make 10% off of
> additional board sales.
>
> Feel free to contact me offline (anyone) to avoid unecessary list
> bandwidth. We need to support each other. Scott will go out of
> business is the crew of designers start asking for royalties on panels
> (sheesh, it is SO silly to even write that). Stooge panels never had
> to pay royalties eh? I'll go back to FPE and burning my own pcb's
> before starting a new precident that will negatively effect everyone
> after a downward spiral into profit mongering. All my own opinion of
> course. I hope this has a happy resolution for all of our sakes. Keep
> us posted S.D.!
>
> Thomas
>
> Thomas White
> Natural Rhythm
> www.naturalrhythmmusic.com
>
>
> --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>> From: Scott Deyo <contact@...>
>> Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] Klee panel E-M royalty
>> To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 9:05 AM
>>
>> I see the point that I'm making a profit on the panels, but it's just
>> odd that someone could order the FPE panel at nearly $300 and E-M
>> would get
>> nothing. And like others have said, a cheaper panel leads to more PCB
>> sales.
>> To me, the spirit of DIY is manifest in folks like Thomas, who just
>> gave me the
>> product of all his work, and to everyone who helps me. And in Scott
>> Stites, who
>> donated such a
>> huge, cool design to E-M.
>> All of the "businesses" juggle the passion and business sides of
>> modulars. We all have the passion, and most of us are not so good at
>> the
>> business end. Sometimes the ball lands a bit on the business/ money
>> end, and
>> that sours it a bit for me. It has to remain fun, or it really
>> doesn't make
>> sense to continue, business-wise.
>> But Mosc and I will work something out. E-M is a great forum, and I'm
>> sure
>> it takes a bit of money and a lot of time to do, and it benefits all
>> of us,
>> especially the Bridechamber.
>>
>> Now I just hope that Ian, Scott, Paul, Jurgen, Ken, Paul, Ray, Yves,
>> Grant,
>> John and Tim, Thomas, Richard, Ryan, the 'ill's, Mr. Mike, and
>> everyone
>> else don't get any ideas...
>> : )
>>
>> To me the biggest bummer is just that I've been answering emails all
>> day.
>> Another day, further behind!
>>
>> And as far as royalties on parts... I guess State Machine gives a cut
>> on kits
>> he sells. So
>> I'm out on the kit end of it.
>>
>> But I hope everything I said doesn't sound negative. We'll have these
>> panels soon!!!!
>> Ze Klee is on de Vay!
>>
>> Scott Deyo
>> The Bridechamber
>> contact@...
>> http://www.bridechamber.com
>> Jealous Edison Record Kompany
>> http://www.jealousedison.com
>>
>>
>> On Apr 6, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Scott Juskiw wrote:
>>
>> > That's absolutely ridiculous and I am vehemently opposed to it. I
>> paid
>> > royalties when I bought the PCBs. Are they also going to ask for a
>> > royalty on all the pots and switches needed to build it too?
>> Besides,
>> > didn't Thomas White design the panel? Shouldn't he get the
>> royalties
>> > instead? I suppose I should ask for a 20% royalty on all those
>> Neural
>> > Agonizer and Doomsday Machine panels that Bridechamber also sells,
>> > even though I didn't design them either. Where does this nonsense
>> end?
>> >
>> > Of course, Bridechamber could have silently included a royalty in
>> the
>> > panel sale from the onset and we'd never have known. Kudos to Scott
>> > for being up front. Shame on E-M.
>> >
>> > On 6-Apr-09, at 12:15 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I've been told that since the Klee is property of E-M, I am
>> supposed
>> > > to
>> > > add 20% royalty on panel sales. It's tricky for me to bring this
>> up,
>> > > but obviously I have to.
>> > > I need to know if everyone who committed, is still committed to
>> the
>> > > panels @ ~$120 instead of ~$100.
>> > >
>> > > General discussion of the royalty is OK, too, but... Probably
>> everyone
>> > > will be more than happy to support E-M, but I just had to say
>> "No
>> > > flaming please!!!"
>> > > : )
>> >
>> >
>
>

I think this is a BAD can of worms to open. If you allow EM to add a royalty to THIS project, wont that just set a precedent? What is to stop them from asking for a royalty on any DIY Project that resides on their forum? This will drive panel prices up and as a result, REDUCE pcb sales.

AS someone else said about this great panel, this can ONLY increase visibility for The Klee. If they want to make money from a panel, why dont they design one and sell it on EM? They have a store.

I love that forum and frequent it daily but this really gives me a sour taste. And beyond that, 20 percent is SO HIGH. I really hope you reconsider this.

I have been loosely following this thread. I say loosely because I never intended on buying a panel from Scott or getting one made with FPE. I will make my own just like I did with my other big boy modules (Neural Agonizer and Doomsday Machine). So, from a mostly unbiased opinion, here's some thoughts and ideas:

1.- Bridechamber owes NOTHING to EM. EM took no risk in the manufacture of the panel. EM contributed nothing to the initial panel design, therefore they deserve $0 in return. Zero dollars seems fair since this is what I am getting. :)

2.- EM may feel they should get a cut because they host all the info (pics, docs, samples, etc.). If this is their feeling, then that puts Scott in a tough place. Bridechamber is a small company and we all love it. If Scott was to say "to hell with EM" this could hurt his business. I would guess some of his customers found him through EM so he may feel he owes them somewhat. Plus, as a small business, you have to be obliging to some even if it is an unjustified request on their part. Stepping on toes is usually a bad idea and I think Scott has been put in a tricky situation here. I feel for you, Scott.

3.- Future pcb / module designs should be hosted on the persons own site. Just use EM for links and discussion and have the docs, samples, etc. on your own site. This is not underhanded. If there was not a lot being discussed on EM they couldn't get the same money from advertisers.

4.- Scott, could you sell panels to EM at a discount? Let EM sell the panels with the pcbs. This would probably be more convenient from a buyers perspective anyway. Let's say EM would order 20 panels for $1800. They tack on $20 and the final price for each panel would be $100. Now builders could buy the panel for the projected price, EM would get their $20 per panel, and you would only have to make one shipment in exchange for the $200 discount.
I don't know what the profit margin on these panels is (nor is it mine or anybody's business) so maybe it wouldn't work. Also, EM might not want to take ANY risk since, as it stands, they will get their $20 for doing nothing!

I also hope that the buyers of the panel and pcb who are upset about this arrangement will contact the relevant person/persons at EM and voice your opinion to them directly. Maybe then a remedy can be found. Don't put this responsibility on Scott. He was good enough to clarify what this extra $20 is for. So...well...read between the lines and voice your complaint to those directly responsible.

I hope I have given some useful suggestions.

phil

I just wrote KLEE in red crayon giant letters all over my modular. Check's in the mail.
-Dave
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, thomas white <djthomaswhite@...> wrote:
Has anyone else been asked for royalties before like this? It's kind of like synth_diy*** with the *** meaning see the small print for the extra fees. Where does the royalty request come from directly?
>
> Man, I hope this all gets worked out somehow...