Can't you tell me ?
I don't do free consulting for potential commercial products. It is a simple circuit and well within your ability to prototype. I actually do have all the Audio Amateur articles describing the evolution from the original Sultzer regulator to the final Jung regulator. but posting would be a copyright violation. I believe Andy (ALW) has read them as well. The AD797 is really not a good op amp for this circuit.
I don't do free consulting for potential commercial products. It is a simple circuit and well within your ability to prototype. I actually do have all the Audio Amateur articles describing the evolution from the original Sultzer regulator to the final Jung regulator. but posting would be a copyright violation. I believe Andy (ALW) has read them as well. The AD797 is really not a good op amp for this circuit.
There's no such thing as a free hunch
"I have no trouble at all to give free consulting for commercial interests as long as it costs me nothing."
You know what they say...... The problem with free advice is you get what you pay for.
I actually have offered free advice on the forum that has been used for financial profit. I now offer the real advice by Email to my DIY friends who show some gratitude and teach me things as well. I hope they will continue that dialog, that has been fun and educational for me. I really have no problem offering advice to those who are willing to do a little research and show some initiative to learn more. That's the reason for the many links references and articles. There many things that are just beyond the scope of a forum. I have seen many unpleasant insults and pointless arguments by people who don't understand the level of technical understanding of some of the topics under discussion. The person providing the most insight and knowledge often winds up receiving the most abuse.
"I have no trouble at all to give free consulting for commercial interests as long as it costs me nothing."
You know what they say...... The problem with free advice is you get what you pay for.
I actually have offered free advice on the forum that has been used for financial profit. I now offer the real advice by Email to my DIY friends who show some gratitude and teach me things as well. I hope they will continue that dialog, that has been fun and educational for me. I really have no problem offering advice to those who are willing to do a little research and show some initiative to learn more. That's the reason for the many links references and articles. There many things that are just beyond the scope of a forum. I have seen many unpleasant insults and pointless arguments by people who don't understand the level of technical understanding of some of the topics under discussion. The person providing the most insight and knowledge often winds up receiving the most abuse.
Re: Can't you tell me ?
It seems strange that suddenly you've changed your views on copyright violations. Unless not using a real name makes you feel better about it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5336&highlight=
Fred Dieckmann said:
It seems strange that suddenly you've changed your views on copyright violations. Unless not using a real name makes you feel better about it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5336&highlight=
Fred,
we now you don't like per-anders much...is this a warning for other people not to help?
I know you like to talk behind peoples back about them, you did that with me, not that I care.
I am happy that you got what you wanted out of this site: a circle of friends with which exchange ideas and suggestions.
You are probably right to be annoyed as a matter of principle however, discussion benefits everybody not only per-anders. Actually if more people acquired the knowhow there would be less need for the fringe commercial activities that you dislike so much.
There are much more serious issues to be ****ed about, bigger fish that are driving SL500 they bought with the money they stole from me (and you).
we now you don't like per-anders much...is this a warning for other people not to help?
I know you like to talk behind peoples back about them, you did that with me, not that I care.
I am happy that you got what you wanted out of this site: a circle of friends with which exchange ideas and suggestions.
You are probably right to be annoyed as a matter of principle however, discussion benefits everybody not only per-anders. Actually if more people acquired the knowhow there would be less need for the fringe commercial activities that you dislike so much.
There are much more serious issues to be ****ed about, bigger fish that are driving SL500 they bought with the money they stole from me (and you).
Copy rights and out right copies
Technically you are right, but the circuit is public domain and is out of a hobbyist magazine. A similar circuit has been published by Mr. Jung as a circuit, idea for free use, in another magazine. I believe that the circuit is pretty well established as public domain. I am fairly sure Mr. Jung is even aware of a commercial version or two of his regulators being sold and has no problem. I will try draw my own schematics of public domain circuits in the future rather than copy from a magazine. I think if you have problems with circuits from hobbyist magazines, you need to go back and pull at least a hundred schematics from the forum for the last year. If it was considered copyright violation, why did the moderators allow it to be posted? I would also remind people that what they post here of their own work and experience can and has been used for others financial gain. I don't think many who post here think about this, or would be pleased with the with the abuse of advice that was offered for the use of other hobbyist. I have offered advice to a few people selling things. But with the clear understanding that it's use was allowed in a commercial product. In return I have been privy to design details not intended for release to others and have respected that.
Peter, I must say a lecture on intellectual property, from you, is delightfully ironic.... I may have a little more to say later on the encroaching commercial abuse of the forum, to all the members detriment, later in another thread. Must obnoxious of all people that turn around a try to use the forum to sell products via the very forum where they got the knowledge to design it. All of us hate junk mail and unsolicited phone calls trying to sell us something. Is the forum going to become another place were someone is going to sell us something? The whole idea of do it yourself audio was to escape the BS claims of much commercial audio. Are now going to have to examine everything we read here to have commercial motivations behind it.
There are plenty who post here, who manage to sell audio products without abusing the forum to do it. A few of the real good guys bend over backwards not to, and have my greatest respect and willingness to discuss audio design. These discussions belong behind the scenes where motivation, possible commercial use, and discretion are understood up front.
Technically you are right, but the circuit is public domain and is out of a hobbyist magazine. A similar circuit has been published by Mr. Jung as a circuit, idea for free use, in another magazine. I believe that the circuit is pretty well established as public domain. I am fairly sure Mr. Jung is even aware of a commercial version or two of his regulators being sold and has no problem. I will try draw my own schematics of public domain circuits in the future rather than copy from a magazine. I think if you have problems with circuits from hobbyist magazines, you need to go back and pull at least a hundred schematics from the forum for the last year. If it was considered copyright violation, why did the moderators allow it to be posted? I would also remind people that what they post here of their own work and experience can and has been used for others financial gain. I don't think many who post here think about this, or would be pleased with the with the abuse of advice that was offered for the use of other hobbyist. I have offered advice to a few people selling things. But with the clear understanding that it's use was allowed in a commercial product. In return I have been privy to design details not intended for release to others and have respected that.
Peter, I must say a lecture on intellectual property, from you, is delightfully ironic.... I may have a little more to say later on the encroaching commercial abuse of the forum, to all the members detriment, later in another thread. Must obnoxious of all people that turn around a try to use the forum to sell products via the very forum where they got the knowledge to design it. All of us hate junk mail and unsolicited phone calls trying to sell us something. Is the forum going to become another place were someone is going to sell us something? The whole idea of do it yourself audio was to escape the BS claims of much commercial audio. Are now going to have to examine everything we read here to have commercial motivations behind it.
There are plenty who post here, who manage to sell audio products without abusing the forum to do it. A few of the real good guys bend over backwards not to, and have my greatest respect and willingness to discuss audio design. These discussions belong behind the scenes where motivation, possible commercial use, and discretion are understood up front.
Re: There's no such thing as a free hunch
About abusing and insulting, you seem to have forgotten your own talents in this area. Now Fred, cheer up and forget that some people here are at a lower level than yourself.
Searching can be real hard, but you seems to have skills in that department. We have all here different levels of information collection skills so a shortcut from somebody who knows is very welcome. I think everyone here prefer an answer plus maybe a link, not the other way around.Fred Dieckmann said:
About abusing and insulting, you seem to have forgotten your own talents in this area. Now Fred, cheer up and forget that some people here are at a lower level than yourself.
Not really
"I know you like to talk behind peoples back about them, you did that with me, not that I care. "
I believe I have been very clear of my feelings about most individuals right here in public in the light. After some of the things that have been said in public, I can't imagine that they held much back for private discussions. Are people calling me worse things than a terrorist (thanks Mr. G) behind the scenes? The Audio Antichrist seems to be about the only thing left for those of you who have run out of invectives. I am disappointed by the very small amount of hate mail I receive. Once again for those who would like to vent:
fdieck7800@aol.com
"I know you like to talk behind peoples back about them, you did that with me, not that I care. "
I believe I have been very clear of my feelings about most individuals right here in public in the light. After some of the things that have been said in public, I can't imagine that they held much back for private discussions. Are people calling me worse things than a terrorist (thanks Mr. G) behind the scenes? The Audio Antichrist seems to be about the only thing left for those of you who have run out of invectives. I am disappointed by the very small amount of hate mail I receive. Once again for those who would like to vent:
fdieck7800@aol.com
You can copyright a drawing of a circuit, but cannot copyright a circuit. If it's sufficiently novel and you want to take the trouble, you can patent it. If not, and you publish a drawing, the circuit is in the public domain (but not that specific drawing, which can be copyrighted).
Fuzzier issues concern fair use- can someone post a copyrighted schematic drawing for the purposes of analysis and discussion? Gray area.
Fuzzier issues concern fair use- can someone post a copyrighted schematic drawing for the purposes of analysis and discussion? Gray area.
Yeah, Per-anders. Maybe they should go back and rewrite all the copyright laws to suit your own personal idea of intellectual property.
But this has nothing to do with copyright laws, but more with netiquette, or today's flavor of it in Fred's mind.
The idea that he could contribute something that could be flat out transported out of here, copied and marketed as he would lay it out in a discussion is ridiculous.
If Fred ever feels like addressing one of my posts I would very much like to see what he contributed that was copied and used for profit.
Re: Copy rights and out right copies
Please, oh please, show me Fred one post where I try to sell a commercial product, that I learned to built here and try to gain on that. If you are unable to do that, whould you keep your peace from now on?
You just make noise about nothing, trying to stress your dubious importance.
The reason I made a link to your previous schematic posts, was not because I care about copyright issues, but because I wanted to show how manipulative you can be. I guess the members can judge the best.
Fred Dieckmann said:
Please, oh please, show me Fred one post where I try to sell a commercial product, that I learned to built here and try to gain on that. If you are unable to do that, whould you keep your peace from now on?
You just make noise about nothing, trying to stress your dubious importance.
The reason I made a link to your previous schematic posts, was not because I care about copyright issues, but because I wanted to show how manipulative you can be. I guess the members can judge the best.
I'll just come out and say it: I've never seen Fred/Harry/Art post an original design here. I've seen a lot of stuff taken off the web, copied, scanned, and photographed from common textbooks, and yanked from other people's threads. But I've never seen a design that appeared to be creditable to him/them/it. And while that's perfectly fine with me -- because there are rather few circuits that you can think of that someone else hasn't already drawn, tested, built, patented, and brought to market -- it does irk me when he/them/it gets on his/their/its high horse talking about copyrights, intellectual property, and courtesy.
Just get over it. Share and share alike. Etc.
Just get over it. Share and share alike. Etc.
Re: Copy rights and out right copies
Quote from AudioXxpress (follow-up of AE where the Jung/Didden/Galo designs appeared):
"Legal notice.
Each design published in AudioXpress is the
intellectual property of its authors and is offered to readers
for their personal use only (italics mine). Any commercial use of such ideas or designs without prior written permission is an infringement of the copyright protection of the work of each contributing author."
Don't BS me on "public domain" or "hobby magazine". Authors put in many months of work to get a design publish-ready. If you want to make money of other people's work, you're just a thief. Plain and simple.
Jan Didden
Fred: This is not aimed at you personally per se. Whoever fits the shoe...
Fred Dieckmann said:
Quote from AudioXxpress (follow-up of AE where the Jung/Didden/Galo designs appeared):
"Legal notice.
Each design published in AudioXpress is the
intellectual property of its authors and is offered to readers
for their personal use only (italics mine). Any commercial use of such ideas or designs without prior written permission is an infringement of the copyright protection of the work of each contributing author."
Don't BS me on "public domain" or "hobby magazine". Authors put in many months of work to get a design publish-ready. If you want to make money of other people's work, you're just a thief. Plain and simple.
Jan Didden
Fred: This is not aimed at you personally per se. Whoever fits the shoe...
Janneman,
I am not sure if the legal notice posted on Audioxpress, though somewhat intimidating, has any real legal value as stated. Unless the stuff is patented.
Patents are fought and nulled all the time if someone cares enough to do that.
So as far as printed docs on the net and in magazine, it may not be gentlemanly, it sure is upsetting for the author but their commercial use it's not illegal.
I am not sure if the legal notice posted on Audioxpress, though somewhat intimidating, has any real legal value as stated. Unless the stuff is patented.
Patents are fought and nulled all the time if someone cares enough to do that.
So as far as printed docs on the net and in magazine, it may not be gentlemanly, it sure is upsetting for the author but their commercial use it's not illegal.
Sorry Jan, but there is no intellectual property right to an electronic design, outside of patent protection. In the United States, you specifically cannot copyright a useful device. Please see USC Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 102. Only literature, music, dance, visual art, movies, recordings, and architectural are covered under copyright.
As a matter of actual fact, it would not even be possible to patent the Jung regulator, since the design has already been published. The design is not covered by copyright, and it is not patented, therefore it is effectively in the public domain.
Any attempt to restrict the rights of the reader of a magazine is completely ineffectual. You are not bound by random contract language that is just laying about in some periodical.
The only copyright in effect here is the exclusive right to reproduce the drawing of the Jung regulator. Anyone can make their own drawing and distribute that. In fact if this argument persists I intend to do that. That right is limited by USC 17.1.107, which allows me to use the drawing "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." The copyright does not extend to implementations of the design, because section 113, subsection b.
As for your argument about hard work spent designing etc. etc. etc., I'm sure this is true but the regulator is not so novel as to require special protection. It is similar in concept to previously published designs, as there is even a design appearing in Horowitz and Hill that is quite similar.
There seems to be very little recognition around here that all designs appearing on this site are standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were. It is hardly possible to produce a new design which is not 99% composed of previous design elements. To produce a new design, based on old designs, and then rabidly attempt to prevent derivative works is the pinnacle of arrogance.
As a matter of actual fact, it would not even be possible to patent the Jung regulator, since the design has already been published. The design is not covered by copyright, and it is not patented, therefore it is effectively in the public domain.
Any attempt to restrict the rights of the reader of a magazine is completely ineffectual. You are not bound by random contract language that is just laying about in some periodical.
The only copyright in effect here is the exclusive right to reproduce the drawing of the Jung regulator. Anyone can make their own drawing and distribute that. In fact if this argument persists I intend to do that. That right is limited by USC 17.1.107, which allows me to use the drawing "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." The copyright does not extend to implementations of the design, because section 113, subsection b.
As for your argument about hard work spent designing etc. etc. etc., I'm sure this is true but the regulator is not so novel as to require special protection. It is similar in concept to previously published designs, as there is even a design appearing in Horowitz and Hill that is quite similar.
There seems to be very little recognition around here that all designs appearing on this site are standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were. It is hardly possible to produce a new design which is not 99% composed of previous design elements. To produce a new design, based on old designs, and then rabidly attempt to prevent derivative works is the pinnacle of arrogance.
SY said:
Sort of missing the main thrust, aren't you? A design for a useful item is simply outside the scope of copyright. You can't copyright the design of the Jung regulator any more than you could copyright the suspension bridge or the crankshaft. You could patent them, certainly! You could even keep them secret. But you can't claim copyright on anything other than the drawing itself.
And as you correctly point out, fair use tends to limit even the copyright on the drawing.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.