From: kraig@biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: Copyright on patches
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:40:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

hjv@phil.ruu.nl (Hendrik Jan Veenstra) replies to my reply by saying:
>... if you're right, that
>would mean that I only had to change the name of a copyrighted patch (which
>of course is part of the byte-sequence) to be able to use it without legal
>troubles. And that can hardly be the case, can it?

No, I don't think that's what a copyright says.  The key phrase is "change the
name" -- which implies that you started from copyrighted material.  Making an
original patch with the same parameters under a different name is OK, but if
you start from someone else's material, you have to secure permission from the
author first.  As Phil G. says in his post, "'derivative works' are covered
under the original copyright."  Let me type in a common copyright notice:

  "No part of this ... may be reproduced, stored ..., or transmitted, in
   any form or by any means, ... without the prior written permission of ..."

So if you take a 200-byte patch and change the name, it's not like you've
somehow added your own material to invalidate the rights of the author.  You've
simply copied the substance of someone else's work without paying for it.

>And, if indeed the b-seq is copyrighted, then how can one *ever* prove
>that _my_ byte-sequence, which 'happens to be identical', was stolen/copied?

One can employ many expensive lawyers to convince a judge that the allegation
is true.  That's one reason the U.S. is nearly choking with them.

>O, on the copyright of ideas: there are even copyrighted programming
>algorithms...

As there should be.  If I take a year to figure out a better solution to a
complicated task, and the idea can be sold, it's the same sort of thing as
an invention.  I happen to believe that the world would be a better place if
people would just give this sort of thing away, so that's what I do; but that's
not how capitalism works.

>>This means that, yes, even a 200-byte patch is safe.  It doesn't mean that
>>you can't be seen with that same 200-byte sequence in one of your own
>>computer files, or that you can't come up with the same patch yourself and
>>use it; it means that if you see the 200-byte sequence somewhere and copy
>>it without paying for the right to do so, THAT'S where the lawyers step in.

>Again: how could one ever prove that I really stole it?

If you got it off an FTP archive of illicit patches, one could perhaps prove
that you had accessed the archive and downloaded such-and-such a file on
such-and-such a date.  The more money it's worth, the more effort they would
make to prove the point.


This is all very interesting because it gets into the area of intellectual
"property".  If you hear a patch on a friend's machine, and you like just a
PIECE of it, does the author deserve compensation?  Perhaps it's just a clever
way to manipulate a filter setting that achieves an effect that you like; can
you go back and freely apply the technique in your own work?

I recently played with the EP sound on a friend's K1200 Professional, and it
had a nice ambience that I'd never been able to get on a Korg M1 with detuning
and such like; when I went through the voice structure, it appeared that there
was a simple chorus effect in the processing section.  I came back and tried it
on my Wavestation, and sure enough, that's what I wanted.  Do I owe Kurzweil
anything for this revelation?  Would they sue me for using it without giving
them credit?  ("Before I start this next song, I really must say that the
Electric Piano you'll hear owes much of its pleasant timbral ambience to
Mr. Whosit at the Kurzweil corporation...")

It has been said by many that practically every creative thing we do is
plagiarized to some extent from other sources.  A lawyer's mentality would say
we're infringing on the rights of others to just compensation, and that the
only reason we haven't been prosecuted is because it isn't worth the effort.
I think we're all entitled to certain rights to protect others from getting
fame and profit that should be ours, but that once I've got enough to put
bread on the table, it's only fitting that I surrender my creations to the
greater good of those around me.  If I try to restrict the dissemination of
material just to service my own greed, I deserve every lawyer I have to deal
with, and more.

Kraig Eno, kraig@biostr.washington.edu
"True freedom involves first being aware of your boundaries, then enlarging
them.  It seldom results from pretending that there are no boundaries, IMO."
  (sherman@induce.enet.dec.com, on musical creativity)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth