I shall stop hijacking this thead but leave a complain at the management.
This is a non commercial category and i like it so. I think this is not according rule 12 of the forum rules. Signing a exclusive contract with a publisher is commercial business and reffering at it as contractant is advertising.
This is a non commercial category and i like it so. I think this is not according rule 12 of the forum rules. Signing a exclusive contract with a publisher is commercial business and reffering at it as contractant is advertising.
I'm actually with you here.
DIYaudio is no-cost access to information and participation.
AX is for-profit access to information with a price tag.
"There's always an excuse if you're creative enough. It's trivial to use throwaway Visa gift cards, PayPal, whatever. "
To someone who is financially strapped, you sound like Paris Hilton.
Bottom line, there is a dollar cost of admission to obtain the information to participate in this thread and I think that violates the spirit of DIY.
Last edited:
Strongly disagree. First, if you don't have $30 or whatever for a subscription, you aren't in a position to be building a tube power amp. That may not be "fair," but that's reality. Second, if it weren't for Ed Dell and the AX forerunners, there would not be this forum or most of diy audio in general- to somehow conclude that subscriptions to magazines or books is not in the "spirit" of diy is bizarre. OK, we shouldn't discuss things in books because books cost money and publishers are for-profit? Or music because CDs and downloads cost money? Third, the continuing existence of magazines like AX and the authors of the books we use is dependent on them getting paid for their efforts- they have to eat, too.
This forum uses a combination of member donations and ad revenue to keep the lights on, but that's not the only viable business model. It allows us to be "open source," which is one of the great strengths of this medium. But it's complementary to published for-pay media, not a substitute.
This forum uses a combination of member donations and ad revenue to keep the lights on, but that's not the only viable business model. It allows us to be "open source," which is one of the great strengths of this medium. But it's complementary to published for-pay media, not a substitute.
Pay for schematic not a problem, its just in the wrong category..
Vendor's Bazaar - diyAudio
If Audio Express wants to become a supporting vendor, so much the better.
They aren't a one man organization, with a single book, giving away spice
models and most of the information in that book... If there is some special
reason AX has earned leeway? I havn't seen it.
Yes, I used to collect every issue, but that was in better times...
And speaker builder, and glass audio...
Vendor's Bazaar - diyAudio
If Audio Express wants to become a supporting vendor, so much the better.
They aren't a one man organization, with a single book, giving away spice
models and most of the information in that book... If there is some special
reason AX has earned leeway? I havn't seen it.
Yes, I used to collect every issue, but that was in better times...
And speaker builder, and glass audio...
Last edited:
Well, then so are the discussions of Best Pentode, my LA cathodyne article, the ImPasse preamp, the T-Rex regulator, Wurcer's mike preamps...
Perhaps so... Though you would qualify some "Cordell"ish leeway.
You give away plenty, you don't have to give away everything...
Once you publish in AX, its not yours to discuss for free anymore.
If you have no outstanding DIY contributions (32 posts) , thats
quite a different thing to come here and take advantage of a free
resource to divert attention to your pay to see article in AX...
You give away plenty, you don't have to give away everything...
Once you publish in AX, its not yours to discuss for free anymore.
If you have no outstanding DIY contributions (32 posts) , thats
quite a different thing to come here and take advantage of a free
resource to divert attention to your pay to see article in AX...
Authors don't make any additional money if AX sells more magazines. This isn't a person from AX, he's just someone who wrote an interesting article and wants to talk about it, no profit (beyond the check he already got, which I assure you doesn't even cover parts cost) or selling involved. Same as Cordell, Didden, Blencowe, Simon, MacNeill, and other members here who have had articles run in AX, AA, GA, LA, or the other related magazines. Authors are absolutely free to discuss their work, they just can't reproduce copyrighted material. AX is particularly good about allowing reprinting once a few months have passed, so in my eyes, they're very much the Good Guys in this.
Besides, everyone should have the magazine so they can cherish the nice photo of me in that issue.
Besides, everyone should have the magazine so they can cherish the nice photo of me in that issue.
"First, if you don't have $30 or whatever for a subscription, you aren't in a position to be building a tube power amp. "
Says you I guess...
I have plenty of parts and spare time and I'm spending my $30 on moving my own projects ahead. But it's sad that that keeps me out of this discussion.
I guess I should have said "spirit of DIYaudio on the internet" which to me means open participation. I got pissed on here a few years ago for discussing an article in the AES journal, and I do understand the point.
Before the internet things moved a lot more slowly and the forum was letters to the editor etc. As a kid I didn't have money for more than one magazine subscription but there was the public library which was fine for the pace of the discussion then. Today we have the internet.
It seems from your comments that you're aware of the difficulties authors and publishers face today. It also seems that you believe the solution is to continue to extend the tired old mid-last-century business model. Well good luck with that.
I'm not saying don't discuss it because it's proprietary. I'm saying open it up. The days of hoarding, buying, selling, and trading of information as physical goods are numbered. This is just an example of the impedance mismatch between the old and the new.
Last edited:
That isn't particularly my belief, which is why the vast majority of what I write is in electronic format and free. That said, it's not how I make my living, it just gives me a few dollars (very few!) with which I can buy parts.
But I strongly believe that people who have a different business model are still entitled to their property rights.
So can we discuss the schematic if the author redraws it? Or does AX actually own the circuit (for a few months) ? Or does one have to subscribe to AX in order to participate in the discussion? If subscription is required, then this discussion belongs in the letters section of AX. IMO.
Right. I sure wouldn't give up my right to publish my own circuit just for the prestige (?) of having it put in a restrictive form that people have to pay for.
By the way, I wouldn't dream of taking away anyone's intellectual property rights. The more tight fisted they are the better. We'll just reinvent those bits out of the open knowledge base.
So, back to the earlier question. Can the designer of the subject amp publish the schematic here so we can all participate in the discussion without subscribing to AX?
Last edited:
In the Ed Dell days the author could make the entire document freely available as long as he waited 30 days from the distribution of the printed magazine. I don't know if that has changed.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.