You will likely want to form a legal entity with the contributors and perhaps begin to file patents should you choose.
So, this will mean some will contribute their content for free while others do not depending on its novelty? Who determines what is worthy?
This to me is problematic on many levels and will likely make this project heavily compromised or totally stillborn. Judging by present discourse the likelihood of success of the legal hurdles being surmounted in a way acceptable to all seems low.
I feel it also undermines the ethos which has driven the free contributions of others, who are now in the awkward position of providing free advice, inspiration or other contribution for someone else’s future copyright works?
Would not then all those who have provided any insight at all deserve inclusion?
It would seem backwards to me to contribute high quality work for free to serve as a springboard for someone else’s future business proposition?
Then you are both wrong, and moreover that's contradicted by what you now accept is a need to nail down a license limiting liability and terms of sale and use..........without perseverance on my part would never have happened
You created the need, so it’s now being addressed. I’m addressing things to push forward toward a finished project despite my feeling.
My acceptance is for you, not the need.
Now this is for profit on all runs? That’s not a group buy this is now a commercial project.
I would suggest all those who’ve given freely of their time and energy to consider what this means.
You guys are misunderstanding copyright and patent. You need to file patents if you want protections on this content. The costs of filing a patent are well known and I won’t rehash here.
Maybe this will make things more clear:
This reply, right here is copyrighted to me, automatically.
A process can't be copyrighted, but my description of it can be, take for example a knitting pattern for a basic hat, the hat itself and it's design can't be copyrighted (that's the idea, and the process) but the written instructions someone writes to allow others to make the hat, that is copyrighted. Two people writing instructions for the same hat, independently of each other can't claim copyright infringement, but if I take someone elses instructions and re-publish them, that is copyright infringement.
If I have a great idea, for lets say a spaceship to go to the sun, I can't copyright that idea (feel free to take it if you wish) I can't copyright the plan I have for making it, but all of my technical drawings, and notes are copyrighted, and no one can use them without my permission.
So yes, everything written in a forum post is copyrighted, but only in terms of the words they use to describe it, not in terms of the concept behind those words.
To put it another way, the process can't be copyrighted, but the description of that process can be / is.
Maybe this will make things more clear:
This reply, right here is copyrighted to me, automatically.
A process can't be copyrighted, but my description of it can be, take for example a knitting pattern for a basic hat, the hat itself and it's design can't be copyrighted (that's the idea, and the process) but the written instructions someone writes to allow others to make the hat, that is copyrighted. Two people writing instructions for the same hat, independently of each other can't claim copyright infringement, but if I take someone elses instructions and re-publish them, that is copyright infringement.
If I have a great idea, for lets say a spaceship to go to the sun, I can't copyright that idea (feel free to take it if you wish) I can't copyright the plan I have for making it, but all of my technical drawings, and notes are copyrighted, and no one can use them without my permission.
So yes, everything written in a forum post is copyrighted, but only in terms of the words they use to describe it, not in terms of the concept behind those words.
To put it another way, the process can't be copyrighted, but the description of that process can be / is.
Is there really anything copyright- or patent-worthy on this LP? I might be wrong, but I didn't see anything like that. If there is, maybe that person or persons should consider a separate endeavor. The unique thing about the LP is the coming together of people knowledgeable about this stuff and putting together useful tracks that are not found elsewhere and then getting it produced. Why get bogged down with copyrights and liabilities? Seems to me like a simple disclaimer (use at your own risk) is enough. As mentioned earlier, there are plenty of diy examples in the store and elsewhere of much more lethal stuff. Also, if someone wants to copy and profit off it, let them do it. The number of people who would be able to make sense of this stuff is pretty small (I'd guess). We're far down the rabbit hole here. This is not the pot of gold some are making it out to be.
Edit: I cross-posted with the three posts above. Seems like I have the answer to the first question above.
Edit: I cross-posted with the three posts above. Seems like I have the answer to the first question above.
Last edited:
I don't see a problem with an open license nor distribution and sale. If someone thinks they can make a profit selling test records I would like to watch.
Some contributors have already said that they think the content should be public domain. I'm not sure what "rights" can be forfeited to a sine wave or a mathematical abstraction. I can see placing limits on the entire package so someone can't pretend it is their work product, but if someone else wants to use a rotating vector track on their next test record, I don't see how you can stop them.
What would "took off" look like? Are you imagining monthly royalties from Stereophile because they used your test record?
As far as I can tell, Pano is just making a valiant effort to keep the ball rolling in the direction of a positive outcome before the issues are discussed into an amorphous mush and everybody shrugs and wanders off to the next hot topic - something that happens in the diy audiophile community on a continual basis.
Doesn't it mean that the forum gets a new source of support?
One first run quantity mentioned earlier was 275. Just playing with that for roughly $1500 IIRC. . . . . then jackets and mastering costs. Should we ballpark total at 5K ? 5000/275 = $18.18/LP
Maybe we should divide this into two threads. Technical and finances. That way the interest in the technical can move forward unimpeded and dollar brainstorming can do likewise without causing mutual irritation.
BTW, currently with over 37,000 views, it looks like there's enough interest to make it fly.
Doesn't it mean that the forum gets a new source of support?
One first run quantity mentioned earlier was 275. Just playing with that for roughly $1500 IIRC. . . . . then jackets and mastering costs. Should we ballpark total at 5K ? 5000/275 = $18.18/LP
Maybe we should divide this into two threads. Technical and finances. That way the interest in the technical can move forward unimpeded and dollar brainstorming can do likewise without causing mutual irritation.
BTW, currently with over 37,000 views, it looks like there's enough interest to make it fly.
Personally, I’d like to make any further contributions of my own to a Test LP contingent upon it being public license.
I am not willing to aid a for-profit endeavor here- with compensation or without. This is where I go to enjoy myself. I will not compromise that.
If for profit is the desires of some contributors then this I’d like to spin off to create a test LP which will reside in the public domain, created using the group buy format most common to this forum, with the standard contribution to the forum maintainers, and to provide to them the means to reproduce in the future should they so choose to maintain availability.
I’m not here to line someone else’s pockets because they think they have a copyright on a test tone- that’s laughable. I’m not even willing to continue to debate the issue because i feel it’s much too removed from reality. Moreover, I think pursuing that false assumption is going to go down like the Hindenburg.
Any competent lawyer would call us all fools for even continuing to consider this issue. This is a waste of time and against my moral code.
Any who have similar feelings and are interested in a more viable solution can reach out to me.
I am not willing to aid a for-profit endeavor here- with compensation or without. This is where I go to enjoy myself. I will not compromise that.
If for profit is the desires of some contributors then this I’d like to spin off to create a test LP which will reside in the public domain, created using the group buy format most common to this forum, with the standard contribution to the forum maintainers, and to provide to them the means to reproduce in the future should they so choose to maintain availability.
I’m not here to line someone else’s pockets because they think they have a copyright on a test tone- that’s laughable. I’m not even willing to continue to debate the issue because i feel it’s much too removed from reality. Moreover, I think pursuing that false assumption is going to go down like the Hindenburg.
Any competent lawyer would call us all fools for even continuing to consider this issue. This is a waste of time and against my moral code.
Any who have similar feelings and are interested in a more viable solution can reach out to me.
Some newbie queries.
Wouldn't 1 second be too small. If there are some extreme tests tracks side by side and all testing equipments are running there would be some risk, isn't it ?
What about Moving coil cartridge. I presume they are very very delicate would they handle some extreme tests ?
No, if this does not remain an open source no IP project I won't participate. Be realistic there is no serious return to be made on something like this at this day and age.
Last edited:
Not much on the LP is unique, except the rotating vector track which is just two sine tones of slightly different frequencies. And the still non-existent acceleration tests. To be included on the LP those would have to exist and be given over to the public domain.
There are bigger fish to fry, let's not let the oil get cold.
There are bigger fish to fry, let's not let the oil get cold.
I agree the latest distractions simply bafle me no end, I suggest we ignore them completely and move on.
On the matter of Copyright, maybe you guys should also check out Copyleft and Creative Commons?
Copyleft - Wikipedia
Creative Commons - Wikipedia
edit: or maybe even GPL.
GNU General Public License - Wikipedia
BTW, may I ask what kind of SW is used to produce the wave forms that are going into the test LP?
Copyleft - Wikipedia
Creative Commons - Wikipedia
edit: or maybe even GPL.
GNU General Public License - Wikipedia
BTW, may I ask what kind of SW is used to produce the wave forms that are going into the test LP?
Last edited:
No, you're mistaken. Quite a lot of content is new and not previously done. Not just originating from me. What I had upped into the list before taking it down again was a collation of ideas put forward and developed on the thread which comprised several novel ways of analysing cart/arm stability, cartridge/generator mechanical linearity, stylus and record wear, trackability and tracing performance. Once it's settled that I'm not going to be excluded or marginalised, I'm happy to re-up it.
But as I said some whilst back, I don't see the point in a basic test record beyond making a a 3150Hz tone available for polar plot SW. For which there already is a relatively cheap product available. And unless the centring issue is solvable, which it should be but isn't yet, I don't see why one wouldn't just buy that.
No, perhaps 6 or 8 tests are unique. Or can be. And are very worthwhile.
And not worth doing per se. Might as well include them, but a record that just repeats previous elementary tests and historic analytical mistakes would be a hugely sad missed opportunity and a waste of time IMO. I really don't understood why there seems a rush to do this, rather than get content defined properly?Tones and sweeps would be hard to claim as IP.
LD
Last edited:
Exactly.
I think there's reasonable chance it could be very popular, if we chose, especially in the context of polar plot SW.
My angle is I'm happy to be philanthropic and give away my stuff for Diyaudio members for their own use. But if anyone other than the forum is going to profit from it, that might as well include me. So I would like to see the venture contained to a limited volume non-profit venture, with permission of the contributors. At least in the first instance. If any profit is made, donating to the forum in the 1st instance seems good to me.
LD
But IIRC you haven't contributed to the original content, Scott, so you've no skin in the game this time.......? Same with Pano, and a few other open IP protagonists, I think?
Then why is it so important that you'd 'or else' withdraw...........?
I disagree, and think there can be a perfectly acceptable arrangement/wording that keeps disclosure open, and retains permissions with contributors who do care. And if anyone can explain why discussion of this seems so heated, I'd appreciate that?
LD
Is this OK with everyone as a working principle for the project ?
I think it is in line with the original aims, and convergent with recent discussions. A run of 250, members only.
LD