Like everything it depends a bit on the specific situation, but overall, I have no problem with this. There are only so many ways to spin an LFO.
1 Like
Yeah…but…it’s exactly these sorts of constraints in the solution space have had significant impact in case the only or the most obvious or feasible options are protected by legal restrictions.
It’s a balancing act between rewarding/protecting the original idea and hindering any further progress in a certain direction…
The concepts of patents and copyrights and such were originally created with the best intentions in mind. But…the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Soon enough these legal concepts proved to become the source of major drawbacks, overreach and misuse. Hindering further creativity and progress. Even prohibiting many to take advantage of major new and better solutions, for the sake of the benefits of few.
Sometimes not even about new discoveries or inventions…but about existing previously unpatented/copyrighted/trademarked stuff.
In the domain of synthesizers/synthesis, the Stanford/Yamaha FM/PM (and later the physical modeling) patents/licensing, comes to mind. Where FM synthesis already existed in e.g. Buchla, Moog and ARP, before John Chowning did his research and got the concept patented. Forcing others to either pay up or find workarounds (like Casio Phase Distortion).
This has happened (and still happens) in many other domains…
E.g. all sorts of traditional products based on the Neem tree are now patented…and suddenly off limits for common folk.
And what to think of trademarking a color… https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27396/9-trademarked-colors
There’s even whole industries exploiting these legal concepts without ever contributing anything original…
Currently there is much to do about (re)defining the fine line between originality/creativity and derivative work and copy in the world of (generative) AI. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/lawsuits-accuse-ai-content-creators-misusing-copyrighted-work-2023-01-17/
I guess this will forever be a struggle. Personallly I think most of what is classified as ‘creativity’ and ‘originality’ is generally based upon what came before. So, where to draw the line? It’s seems to be all about etymology and semantics and determining the amount of likeliness and/or difference, as it appears over time, that categorizes stuff in the spectrum of original, derivative or copy. I guess that point in the spectrum then determines whether and how much something should be legally protected and/or shielded from others?
What a weird world we live in…
1 Like
Sure, it’s well know that software patents and such are questionable, and for sure there have been mistakes, like the yamaha FM you cite.
They key thing, as you and others are saying, is that there is sort of a continuum between “an exact copy” and “derived from” or “inspired by”. hard to define, but “you know it when you see it”.
In the hardware world - are the arp odysey and the minimoog similar? sure. Did one influence the other? probably. is one a copy of the other? no. Is the behringer odyssey a copy of the arp? Of course it is.
Seems like some ppl think behringer clones are sleazy - some ppl don’t. that disagreement is ok with me.
1 Like
Should have no brake for innovation
Should have no brake for thankfulness
1 Like
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Without being inspired by, or copying ideas or elements of things that went before, all development of anything would soon grind to a halt. It’s the very essence of iterative development.
A straight up clone of something else, especially if it includes its appearence, is different, because it adds very little and usually takes little effort.
I will say though, that if it crosses into a different arena, say between physical and emulation, that’s a greatly mitigating circumstance. I personally don’t have an issue with someone making a clone of, say, Maths in VCV Rack, as long as it doesn’t say Maths or Make Noise on the faceplate. I think claiming ownership or stewardship in that case is overreach and somewhat hysterical, and not supported by law.
I think they’re sleazy if they make a straight up clone of a product that is still being produced and sold, merely to undercut the price. That’s scavenger behaviour. But if it’s a dead product, or something that adds something quite new, or is a completely new product, it’s totally fine by me. So Behringer does all of these and therefor has a somewhat mixed reputation shall we say, which is deserved.
3 Likes
For me personally it’s not okay to break the law. At least not in most cases. And not all methods of law-breaking are equal.
In an environment where ruling organizations (the government, the RIAA) have created artificial scarcity and an expectation of outsized material gain, you run into the moral dilemma of depriving an innocent party (an artist or recording engineer) of a gain which they planned to receive. Planning your life around a future gain which is then not realized can result in substantial harm, especially in a society where healthcare, food, and housing are treated as privileges rather than rights.
While the size or nature of that gain in this case might be unwarranted and even harmful to innovation and creativity (i.e. the spoils of a crime against the public), I do believe that the artists and recording engineers generally ought to be considered innocent bystanders to that crime which is in actuality being perpetrated by the government and other ruling entities. And I don’t advocate for harming innocent people.
But if we are starting from scratch in terms of governance, and if all individuals involved in the creation of the art have a full understanding of the hypothetical society in which they are living, then yes: I believe that there wouldn’t be anything wrong with redistributing artwork without limitation, nor is there anything scornful about the creation of derivative artwork by way of minimal change. If Puff Daddy puts his “unh” in just the right place, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that he could actually improve a song in that way. 
And such an improvement ought to be celebrated.
2 Likes