Sorry to all I did not give editing privileges to that file for some reason. It was an accident. Everything else in there seems editable as many have been contributing.
Edit: now it is editable
I figured email would be useful in case some don’t reply to PM, but I guess this is a privacy concern.
I wasn’t trying to data mine in the forum lol.
Is the problem the email field or the spreadsheet itself?
Either way- Yes, please let’s begin that thread. It seems that’s the wish of the majority.
Last edited:
I would suggest one way to limit the concerns about liability is to limit sales to members of the GB, participants here I think are less likely to represent that sort of legal risk.
The usual disclaimers should of course apply and can be printed on the jacket and any flyer provided with the recording.
I would suggest production under the GNU license which further signals intent. No one needs to have specific rights to the contents, providing a place to download the files for free, maybe source forge (?) other people can produce the disk in the future.
I think we run the very real danger of this thing being stillborn if we become obsessed with hypothetical what if scenarios.
No GB would ever get off the ground if most of the organizers worried about such issues. (I am not suggesting heads in the sand either, but....)
It is not a commercial venture, it is intended for the benefit of members here. If desired the rights to this recording could be then be assigned to the diyA store and the store as owner of the rights would also be legally liable if it were to make the disk available to the general public.
I would suggest not mentioning individual members in the production notes.
The usual disclaimers should of course apply and can be printed on the jacket and any flyer provided with the recording.
I would suggest production under the GNU license which further signals intent. No one needs to have specific rights to the contents, providing a place to download the files for free, maybe source forge (?) other people can produce the disk in the future.
I think we run the very real danger of this thing being stillborn if we become obsessed with hypothetical what if scenarios.
No GB would ever get off the ground if most of the organizers worried about such issues. (I am not suggesting heads in the sand either, but....)
It is not a commercial venture, it is intended for the benefit of members here. If desired the rights to this recording could be then be assigned to the diyA store and the store as owner of the rights would also be legally liable if it were to make the disk available to the general public.
I would suggest not mentioning individual members in the production notes.
No it's not, virtually every IC maker has a simple medical use disclaimer and I have never ever seen a liability case for chips failing in a life support application. This test LP is designed for setting up a TT/arm/cart system and not intended to be played through speakers, a simple disclaimer to that effect holds the project harmless for deliberate misuse. I don't know where this came from, any record played loud enough will destroy speakers. If someone connects an Agilent signal generator up to a stereo and wrecks havoc Agilent is not liable.
I would eschew both copyright and Gnu license on the tracks and leave everything in the public domain. The software might have to be under Gnu because Python is, but that does not matter.
It's also worth pointing out that copyright issues in completely non-artistic works like service manuals, data sheets, etc. are extremely rare (or non-existent).
Last edited:
Scott,
We almost agree. But the elephant in the room issue is venue. Where do you sue a Brit and American? Toss in a few others and it not only becomes costly but quite tricky. Next up is who has the deep pockets to attack?
A simple disclaimer is not perfect, as any jerk can file a lawsuit. Have done so a few times myself. It has always cost a few hundred thousand to do so.
Small claims are handled differently but they can only be for a few thousand. Still the legal costs can run above that.
Yes a simple disclaimer is quite sufficient. But anyone can sue about anything. So I always promptly shovel the snow off my sidewalk. Also have video cameras on the building's exterior.
We almost agree. But the elephant in the room issue is venue. Where do you sue a Brit and American? Toss in a few others and it not only becomes costly but quite tricky. Next up is who has the deep pockets to attack?
A simple disclaimer is not perfect, as any jerk can file a lawsuit. Have done so a few times myself. It has always cost a few hundred thousand to do so.
Small claims are handled differently but they can only be for a few thousand. Still the legal costs can run above that.
Yes a simple disclaimer is quite sufficient. But anyone can sue about anything. So I always promptly shovel the snow off my sidewalk. Also have video cameras on the building's exterior.
But this is not the reality, anyone can drink Drano or Clorox the simple disclaimers are enough. This is a waste of time and an unnecessary distraction.
Never underestimate stupidity. The girl who sprayed cologne around as an air-freshener with lit candles in the room collected money. Now cologne comes with a label warning it is flammable.
We could talk about spilling hot coffee but that story has been really warpped. The restaurant deliberately served the coffee so hot no one could drink it fast enough to get a refill. They then refused to pay the initial claim for cost of care for the injuries from a cup with the wrong size lid.
Any idiot can sue. Very rare for them to win. Contingency lawyers want to collect money. They ain't gonna go after shallow pockets on a damage claim without injury. What is the maximum someone could claim the damages are from a test record? Pain and suffering doesn't come into play and that is typically two or three times damages.
Yes there are hundred thousand dollar loudspeakers. A simple caution about qualified personnel and running at a safe volume or disconnected will do. But if somebody wants to go to court, they can but their is no money in it. No insurance policy to provide a target.
I also suspect if somebody really was stupid enough to blow up an expensive loudspeaker from the test, the manufacturer would fix it rather than face the publicity. The second big issue would be proof it was the test record and not some other misuse.
Not a nonexistent risk, but just buy a lottery ticket I think those odds are better and all in your favor. 300 copies sold from this thread to DIYers!
What is the intersection of DIYers on this thread and folks who could misuse a test record and do serious damage? Hint zero would be a good answer. So only sell by subscription with notice and waver to buy. Not an issue.
Last edited:
So far, that has been the process. We have not chosen on the basis of price, but on technical ability and willingness to undertake the project. If anyone knows of a mastering house to recommend, please do so..
I asked a friend who follows that part of the industry. He gave me two names : Bernie Grundman and Ryan Smith
I agree with you: this is the crux of the issue. It's not whether 'we' win any claim, it's about the cost and mechanism of having to defend any claim, even if apparently ridiculous or superfluous. Whoever 'we' might be.
And this is obviously different from a group buy PCB because a record can be played by anybody at anytime in the future, and it seems unreasonable to assume and rely on the sleevenotes and disclaimer being read first.
And yes, the record as it's proposed can damage equipment, and perhaps hearing, in principle. Through misuse or inexpert use. For example, there are high levels of ultrasound which are inaudible, so the first thing one notices is smoke from the hf units - I've done this more than once...............
Perhaps the issue can be mitigated by the diyaudio store taking on rights and liabilities as suggested? In conjunction with other measures proposed here. But it seems negligent to ignore or pretend its a non-issue methinks. Diyaudio store can control quantity and sell only to members, and might already be insured for liabilities?
The issue of how the project is funded, and who has financial risk and opportunity, probably is tied up in the matter of legal rights and responsibilities? How is the project funded, and who has fiscal risk/gain ?
LD
That's a very different scenario. Not least because IC makers have super-deep pockets, aren't directly selling finished medical products, and care passionately about high reliability applications and designs for those who companies who do sell such products.
Nevertheless, people will do so. Besides, that's just one of the 1.43 million ingenious ways mankind in full glory might come up with.........
LD
Folks here have been selling valve amp kits, valve amp mod kits, electrostatic speaker kits, etc. for decades all of which are potentially lethal. In fact gross miswiring of any PA kit could kill you. The manuals all have a warning, this is just not a problem and never has been.
I should note I have also blown up a tweeter with HF tones! Given the number of test records out there and no history of any litigation it's a risk I am willing to take.
The other thing I should note. If this is a single run as per original plan 'by fanatics for fanatics' then only DIYaudio members can sign for it and each can be asked to tick a disclaimer before their money is taken. Sticker on front saying 'not for resale' and boiler plate on the back and we can say to have made best efforts to protect from idiots. Originally I think there we reckoned only about 20 people would want something quite so eclectic as new test tracks?
The other thing I should note. If this is a single run as per original plan 'by fanatics for fanatics' then only DIYaudio members can sign for it and each can be asked to tick a disclaimer before their money is taken. Sticker on front saying 'not for resale' and boiler plate on the back and we can say to have made best efforts to protect from idiots. Originally I think there we reckoned only about 20 people would want something quite so eclectic as new test tracks?
Getting back to the heart of the matter - test signals. Has anyone glanced at the examples I posted?
I have some questions about the signals and spacing.
I have some questions about the signals and spacing.
- How much space between tracks? 1 second? There's a lot of tracks, we need to be able to visually find them on the LP.
- Levels - what will be the maximum level above 1K @ 5cm/s?
- Sweeps. The original track list had sweeps at 60 seconds. Is that needed? The softwares I use default to 6 secs or 10 secs sweeps, and have no problem with analyzing that. Is 15 secs more than enough for a sweep?
- Does the 3150 Hz track need a marker every 1.8 secs (one turn)?
- Does the rotating vector track need a marker? What would it be?
- Bursts. If using a 4K or 10K burst, how many cycles are wanted? I used 10 plus a 1 cycle fade in and fade out. Too much?
When a moderator advises that, I learn it pays to listen. And in which case, I'd appreciate it in return if none of my many contributions to this thread or other significant stuff is used or included, and I point out whatever you guys elect to do going forward has nothing to do with me.
I've politely made my points and think they are valid and need resolving, both technical and otherwise. YVMV. I don't think you're on course to produce a very good test record without embracing those points or involving people who know what they are talking about, and I don't understand why they aren't even being discussed. But hey, I'm used to exclusion by now.
PS: I thought we had converged on something workable as far as a reasonable use disclaimer is concerned. It's only by discussing such things that the right balance can be found. Bill's post seemed to sum it up.
LD
Last edited: