Two points.
If someone wants to make copies of the record how are they going to do it? Play the record to use that as a master ? Umm not going to work. Try to make a stamper from a record? Not exactly a perfect copy and who is going to do it?
Recreate the files and go through the mastering process?
So a copyright is not really needed.
Profit is made by reselling the product at more than cost. So if it is a bit difficult to make a copy then the best way is to purchase multiple copies during the group buy and resell them. This involves risk. The test record may not get pressed well, folks might not want to buy them or even one of those end of the world predictions might come true.
So the issue of profit comes in if there is a second pressing as the first will be by subscription. Not yet an issue. What is an issue is who owns the master. The answer is most likely Pano. Who holds the rights to the content most likely whoever produces the files involved. What rights do the folks who suggested options probably none as this is a public free will forum.
So if folks here want to profit they can risk money and buy extras for resale or they can make material contributions and then participate in a for sale pressing. Normally rights contributors get 5-10% of the sale price.
Now if there is a second for profit pressing and the folks who produce files and the coordinator want to donate profits I suggest selling it on Amazon and assigning the profits to an actual charity of their choice. A properly registered charity eliminates the tax issues.
If someone wants to make copies of the record how are they going to do it? Play the record to use that as a master ? Umm not going to work. Try to make a stamper from a record? Not exactly a perfect copy and who is going to do it?
Recreate the files and go through the mastering process?
So a copyright is not really needed.
Profit is made by reselling the product at more than cost. So if it is a bit difficult to make a copy then the best way is to purchase multiple copies during the group buy and resell them. This involves risk. The test record may not get pressed well, folks might not want to buy them or even one of those end of the world predictions might come true.
So the issue of profit comes in if there is a second pressing as the first will be by subscription. Not yet an issue. What is an issue is who owns the master. The answer is most likely Pano. Who holds the rights to the content most likely whoever produces the files involved. What rights do the folks who suggested options probably none as this is a public free will forum.
So if folks here want to profit they can risk money and buy extras for resale or they can make material contributions and then participate in a for sale pressing. Normally rights contributors get 5-10% of the sale price.
Now if there is a second for profit pressing and the folks who produce files and the coordinator want to donate profits I suggest selling it on Amazon and assigning the profits to an actual charity of their choice. A properly registered charity eliminates the tax issues.
Last edited:
I really doubt that is going to happen, but they'd use the documentation we are going to provide and re-create it. It's not that the tracks are complex to build if one knows what one is doing.
Copyright will be automatic. The issue is permissions and control over any run after the initial 250, which I think one would sensibly retain.
I think that's right, we can park it for now and achieve the aims of the original post, so long as permissions are conserved.
Why would that be ? And will it fit under his bed...........
?I think it could be by agreement that anyone who has contributed or developed ideas toward the test concerned should own permission rights to the content? But with permission for members only use with a constraint for the initial production run of 250. And take it from there.
Seem reasonable...............?
LD
Last edited:
jumping very very late here .. and only have skimmed some 10s of the pages of posts .. but like to ask if two things have been considered
1) test of impact of stylus drag (when week motors or platter momentum/record 'slippage' on platter etc) = step response in modulation level for same signal??
2) test of eccentricity of the center hole vs grove pattern (to calibrate out this effect wrt platter/motor speed stability test) = one 'closed loop' 'perfectly circular' groove, with a signal that has a fundamental pattern exactly equal to one revolution (on that specific closed loop grove) = was thinking if the inner 'exit' groove could be modulated for some use here?.
1) Yes - there's an explicit test defined and proposed. It was upped, but is currently down pending sorting out a few contentious things.
2) AFAIK that's an original suggestion, and seems a good one to me, worthy of further discussion. It might be already covered from a test track pov by the fixed time markers defined within the 3150Hz tone test, but worth discussing IMO.
LD
This seems to me to be the path of least resistance. And I very much doubt we would not saturate the world requirement for this with a run of this size
Regarding the eccentricity test I have been putting what spare few cpu cycles I have to thinking about this, but with little progress so far. But a locked groove as far out as feasible (noting the outer bands are in demand) would help in this. I'll write up notes once I have had a chance to think through. I fear we will end up with a hand cal process to get to ultimate precision...
well haven't thought so much through it yet .. but can you induce some 'determinism' in the signal vs the physical position on record (eitehr relative or absolute), you would have something to work with
just very fast off the top of my head.. 'co-side' signal processing seems difficult/'impossible' even with some sort of differential signal. However 'opposing-side' processing should work .. i.e. know exactly 1 revolution..can also bring you to exactly ½ revolution (opposing side) = and working differential on this wrt 'instant' center frequency, should reveal de-centering. To get to absolute position on the record if needed, some sort of supplentary signal modulated sya 2 to 4 cycles on the revolution coudl help (but then needs marking on inner sticker to be of any help = maybe for people to do by hand after calibration)
A supplementary low freq signal can be used to check 'spline' quality of the track signal (imperfect spline and/or the click in the exit groove.. will induce noise to broaden the BIM peak). Also some motor constellations may by accident be 'harmonic' to the revolution of this track - this can of course be bluring the de-centering estimation.
So what I expect is possibility to have decorrelated motor/platter speed effects separated to some degree from record excentricity (and at least an estimate of how much I can trust the BIM output form this particular record/spindle combination)
But needs thorough thinking and assessment of the mastering technology limitations to create closed loop track with good quality spline of the signal
I agree and I am in it. We have to make sure nobody "steals" our work or part of it for profit, and if any profit happens to generated from our work, I want to be in and decide where it should go (most likely donated to the DIY community).
pano and myself have been playing around with the numbers, and $10 or €8.50 sound a good number.
yes that is more than what itwill cost most likely, howeverthere are always risks, unforeseen cost, people pulling outin the eleventh hour etcetc. i have done multiple group buys and pretend to have a little experience
happy to open the books after the fact and give the rest to diyaudio orany other non-profit organisation that supports DIYers, but discussing all the commercial terms endlessly with everybodywill nothelp.
as much as most herei would like this to be a nonprofitthingfor membersonly and will gladly contribute my time and support free of charge
(guess my spacebar is broken....)
yes that is more than what itwill cost most likely, howeverthere are always risks, unforeseen cost, people pulling outin the eleventh hour etcetc. i have done multiple group buys and pretend to have a little experience
happy to open the books after the fact and give the rest to diyaudio orany other non-profit organisation that supports DIYers, but discussing all the commercial terms endlessly with everybodywill nothelp.
as much as most herei would like this to be a nonprofitthingfor membersonly and will gladly contribute my time and support free of charge
(guess my spacebar is broken....)
Lucky in the US your have to put the copyright circled c on it with the date to copyright last I paid attention. Then if needed to enforce you have to register the copyright which is where expense comes in. I do know a fellow who did go after an infringer. He collected what he said was the standard amount for such lawsuits of $20,000.00.
If someone makes their own files and produces a record I suspect that then comes under performance royalties. Perhaps you have never heard a recording of "Happy Birthday." That one a few years back was in court.
Whoever sends the files and money to the record plant will most likely be considered the owner of the physical material.
I believe one of my audio articles was republished last year. It was oringinally printed under a single use understanding. Not worth the effort of a formal agreement. Should I envorce it? Nah not worth the effort and it does not do me any harm. On the other hand Linear Audio sells downloads of past articles without paying royalties. Hmmm what to do!
If someone makes their own files and produces a record I suspect that then comes under performance royalties. Perhaps you have never heard a recording of "Happy Birthday." That one a few years back was in court.
Whoever sends the files and money to the record plant will most likely be considered the owner of the physical material.
I believe one of my audio articles was republished last year. It was oringinally printed under a single use understanding. Not worth the effort of a formal agreement. Should I envorce it? Nah not worth the effort and it does not do me any harm. On the other hand Linear Audio sells downloads of past articles without paying royalties. Hmmm what to do!
Last edited:
I have used REW, Audacity and Goldwave for the examples I made and posted. All were done in 32 bit 96K sample rate, edited in 32 bit float, then saved to 24 bit 96K 2 channel FLAC. No dither was used.
There are other good ways of generating all this, I just used what I know works.
I just checked carefully there is no notice of copyright that I can find on any of the CBS labs disks or the jacket. Trademarks only are duly noted, this is not unusual for purely utilitarian works.
I repeat my practice as I have stated since 1998 (in print) is that contributions like on line posted schematics, software, etc. are placed in the public domain. Virtually everyone here abuses IP law by claiming copyright on circuits (only the exact drawing of the schematic as shown can be) and placing personal use only on ideas that are not patented. I insist that any of my contributions follow my practice. All copies of the LP should be at cost, don't worry no one will be able to take this and and charge as little as we are discussing.
As for the waveforms I don't see copyrighting any of them as having any value. Patenting a new method for optimising LP playback, yes, (that exists and we already have seen that) but that is not going to happen here.
Last edited:
As for 1, I'd prefer all tracks end with closed groove. So the user needs to lift the arm, move to the next track when the analyzer (SW/instrument) is ready. Leave as much spacing between tracks as possible, so that tracks are easily identifyable.
In general, I don't think fade in/out is necessary.
3. I am for 60s sweeps, bottom to top. If there is space limit, we can reconsider it. Let's have all tests as long as space permits (but understand that inner grooves aproaching 60 mm radius are not very usable).
Sorry to jump in here and detour a fascinating technical discussion, but while you are experts on the engineering and technology (and I am most definitely not), I do have some expertise in copyrights and open source licensing. I hope my comments provide some useful background information for all of you. If not, please ignore them.
I am not permitted to provide legal advice to others (other than to my employer) but I can offer up some education, which I have done many, many times on these subjects (including to engineers) over the last two decades. In that spirit, the following is offered for educational purposes only.
- Copyright is pretty much automatic. It is said to inhere when the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
- There is no requirement to mark your copyrighted work with a c in a circle, or otherwise, in the US. The Berne Convention, of which the US and most other countries are adherents, specifically prohibits having such a requirement. There are advantages to doing so, but you don't lose your copyright if you don't provide such a notice.
- Similarly, it is correct that there is no longer a requirement to register your work, unless, and until, you decide to sue someone for infringement of it.
- Damages awarded can vary widely. In the US we have "statutory" damages which can vary from as little as $250 up to $150,000 per work infringed. Actual damages can be more, or less.
- Copyright only protects expression. Protection of the underlying ideas are the province of other forms of intellectual property protection. If the expression can't be separated from the underlying idea then there is no enforceable copyright in the expression. Put in other words, if there is only one way to express a particular idea, then the expression is said to have "merged" with the idea and it is not protectable under the copyright law (in the US at least).
- FOSS (free and open source software) licensing is an option but it does not prevent commercialization. The FSF, for example, has made it abundantly clear that you can charge whatever you want for the executables just not for the source. In fact, if you adhere to the OSI (The Open Source Definition (Annotated) | Open Source Initiative) definition, you can't discriminate against commercial use.
- In any event, you may wish to consider the Creative CommonsWhen we share, everyone wins - Creative Commons licenses to protect this particular work. The CC licenses are well suited for copyrightable works that are not software. (in fact the CC recommends against use of their licenses for software, similarly, the FSF recommends against use of the GPL family of licenses for works that are not software. The FSF has created another license, the GFDL for this purpose). The CC licenses come in a variety of flavors, including a BY (attribution), SA (share a like), ND (no derivatives) and NC (no commercial use). The licenses come in various combinations of these attributes. If your primary concern is that someone else will come along and sell a commercial version of the Test LP you may wish to consider one of the NC variants.
- The question of who is the copyright owner in the work is really a tough one. Many FOSS projects have settled on the contributors owning whatever it is that they have contributed. In other words, they are not what is known as "joint owners." The full ramifications of joint ownership vary around the world, but essentially allows each joint owner to have an undivided part interest in the full work -meaning that the individual-often subject to accounting and in some countries consent-can do what they wish with it. There are drawbacks to joint ownership that many FOSS projects have recognized. Nonetheless, this is not a completely settled area. In non FOSS projects, the courts have traditionally looked to the intents of the parties. So, for example, an editor is almost never considered a joint author of the work he or she edits since the parties almost never intend that.
I apologize for the length of this post, but copyright has been called the "metaphysics of the law." I can't really explain this (not that anyone has asked) in 25 words or less.
All this legal stuff aside, this is a really exciting project and I hope to purchase an LP when they become available. It is time for me to upgrade my ancient CBS test record.
Thank you for the input. Personally I find quitting all claims to the random things I post on the web works for me and I think it is the best path for this project. I suspect I have spent more time on this recently than most and an occasional simple expression of gratitude is enough.
Hadn't thought of that, but I can see the utility for older test equipment. Wonder what we would get charged for 20 lock groves per side?
Agree.
Just one of my preferences.
I don't understand the need for the long sweeps, but I think we have room for 2 or 3, so why not? We can also keep the short sweeps for people who prefer them.
No, I've stated my requirements for involvement as have some others.
They will not change. I'll pursue a separate, clear as day Public Domain option if this kind of thing continues to drag on.
End of story. I'm unwilling to debate it further.
That's not reasonable, spaceistheplace. IIRC, you haven't actually contributed content to the test record? Then in my reckoning, your interest can only be as a buyer. And surely permissions for the 1st run makes no difference to you other than perhaps an acknowledgement that you are a knowledgeable user ?
No-one is going to get any fees or rake any profit and the run is limited to 250 records. Retaining permissions guarantees that, so where exactly is the problem ?
LD