Protecting your designs and copyright

[Illuminasty]

s-cat won't be replying i'm afraid. He was banned, as i can't help thinking he fully intended to be banned, after starting a 'make ££££'s working for s-cat' thread. I've got to draw the line somewhere and he'd been warned enough times.

That's a bit cheeky aint it. Did he even ask your permission???

[Circuitbenders]

No, not that i'd be about to let people post that kind of spam anyway.

What i find wierd is that despite his endless talk of protecting his designs and his circuitbending empire he would be completely unable to understand that i actually own this website and i decide what can be posted here and what can't. If Reed Ghazala came on here and starting posting 'make $$$$'s working for Reed' threads he'd get booted off pretty quick as well.

Surely in a perfect s-cat world this forum wouldn't even exist as somone might have the shocking bad manners  to try and compete with him! 

Now enough of this talk of Mr Cat. Time to move on.

[Circuitbenders]

If it turns out that the copyright-your-bend assumption is false, you could still continue selling bent stuff commercially if you kept your head down and not bring attention to yourself by attaching copyright claims to your gear or advertising that clause. It really makes you a red flag to a bull for the big companies.

I think just not drawing attention to yourself at all is the best way to go. Theres no reason i can see for any big company to take any interest in what any circuitbender is doing as long as nobody tries to claim anything along the lines of copyright. The second you try to claim any rights or even draw attention to yourself then a company like Roland or Casio will just stomp you flat.

I can't imagine that Roland would even look kindly on claims that you have 'improved' any of their machines. They are complete bastards after all. (he says while frantically seaching the internet for information on libel laws) 

[Illuminasty]

I think just not drawing attention to yourself at all is the best way to go. Theres no reason i can see for any big company to take any interest in what any circuitbender is doing as long as nobody tries to claim anything along the lines of copyright. The second you try to claim any rights or even draw attention to yourself then a company like Roland or Casio will just stomp you flat.

I can't imagine that Roland would even look kindly on claims that you have 'improved' any of their machines. They are complete bastards after all. (he says while frantically seaching the internet for information on libel laws) 

My thoughts exactly but say if people decided to bend the machines of a smaller company, wouldn't that make more sales for that smaller company? 

[Circuitbenders]

My thoughts exactly but say if people decided to bend the machines of a smaller company, wouldn't that make more sales for that smaller company? 

But unless people were buying machines specifically to bend then it would be secondhand machines that were being bought circuitbent which isn't much use to any manufacturer. If MAM stil existed then i wouldn't be buying brand new MB33 / Freebasses from them to mod and sell on unless the price came down a whole lot,  but i'd be quite happy to buy secondhand ones.

[Illuminasty]

But unless people were buying machines specifically to bend then it would be secondhand machines that were being bought circuitbent which isn't much use to any manufacturer. If MAM stil existed then i wouldn't be buying brand new MB33 / Freebasses from them to mod and sell on unless the price came down a whole lot,  but i'd be quite happy to buy secondhand ones.

You raise a valid point. I suppose I wouldn't buy something brand new unless it was like a cheap radio or something.

[sk-1]

Please excuse the lateness of this reply...

... but I just wanted to say that this thread seems to have been nothing but a blatant attempt at self-promotion by S-Cat, by using this forum as free advertising space.  He, (or any of his other cohorts under various names and guises), are not here to learn or share knowledge.  So far, I've read over half of S-Cat's posts and I've gained absolutely no practical know-how or guidance in anything circuit-bent beyond that of dealing with running and maintaining an online business. Nothing he has said is new.  Most of what he churns out, both machine-wise and information-wise, is already available for FREE in the public domain.  Now I might have stated the obvious by saying all of that, but I also wanted to say that S-Cat's views on copyright protection are also very flawed.

If S-Cat bothered to spend any time learning about copyright laws, he would implicitly know that copyright does not in any way protect the idea for a circuit-bent device, nor its name or title, nor the method or methods used for bending it and playing it.  Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material that is in any way involved in developing, merchandising, or playing any type of circuit-bent machine or device!

[jamiewoody]

though i would only borrow and not copy verbatum a bend from someone else...

how can one copyright or patent a bend? i mean, if something was manufactured by casio to begin with, and someone opens it up, voids the warranty, and twists it around, this could seem confusing in a court of law, especially to an "impartial" jury!

[Gordonjcp]

Isn't a bend more of a discovery than an invention?  That is to say, you are not creating something new but discovering an application of something already existing.  I'm not a legal professional, but it strikes me that patent law would be more appropriate here.

I could copyright a great new fuzzbox circuit I'd invented, and even patent it if it had some unique and clever trick not previously known in the state of the art.  I don't think I could copyright a particular combination of knob settings on my Behringer stompbox.

[jamiewoody]

i am not sure how far back distortion goes. some say it was in a marty robbins recording, a "tasty accident" if you will, they they went with.

i've also heard a story that keith richards got wasted, hated the tone he was  getting from his amp and stabbed the cone of the speaker with a pencil. the recorder was rolling. when he awoke from his drunken stupor, the riff for "satisfaction" along with that tone was born.

i also heard that robert johnson went down to the crossroads...but i digress. ;-) so, point being (wait, what was it...oh yeah! lol!) guitar distortion probably goes back further than these stories.

and i would assume that a patent for such would comprise of not only how the wires are crossed, switches are places and knobs are inserted. it would have to do with the package deal. all of these things along with the name of the product (jamie's buzz box!), how it is packaged (in a lime green box with pumpkin orange block logo), and so on.

if i am not mistaken, the design (how it is wired) would be the patent, the logo and name would be the registered trademark.

[Circuitbenders]

i think gordon is right, a new concept or way of doing things can be patented but the whole product itself can be copyrighted.

like you could patent a whole new method of creating light in a lighbulb, but you could only copyright a new shape of lighbulb.

[arron]

 Why is everyone so confused about the copyright issue here? There is a very easy to understand explination that has been posted, some of you are even agreeing with me but arguing my point back. I posted the info in order to help out anyone who is just starting a business based around circuit bending.

Here is the basics again, just so that I can make the point understood.

1. You come up with a new circuit design that fits inside an existing machine that is commercially available.

2. You then contact the company that designed and produced the original machine and apply for a licence to remanufacture their design with your additional circuit.

3. They agree, you manufacture and then pay them the licence fee.

Casio was used as an example, Roland was used as an example. The reality is that Any small electronic manufacturer would be interested in making money from their design, no matter how it was packaged.

Arron from S-CAT

[Circuitbenders]

i'm thinking the issue might be between number 2 and 3 there, when Roland or whoever refuse to give you any kind of licence to do anything with their existing design and then serve you a cease and desist order on claiming anything whatsoever to do with anything they have ever produced.

What are the chances that the people from Ladyada contacted Roland and applied for a licence to remanufacture the 303 when they released the x0xb0x?

[electoyd]

so S-cat are you gonna start knocking out Roland/Casio's with your design built into them, dont think so cant even begin to imagine the manufacture costs involved and i'm sure the profits would be minimal and in reality would not be worth the bother.  All this sounds total fantasy and would be really difficult to put into action without some serious financial clout, which if your still selling your noisy nik naks for 50 quid on ebay may take a while.......................to be honest why bother, circuit bending is meant to be fun and it is people like your self that rip the fun out of it and turn it into a joke, like you have already on this forum.  

so if i rip open one your machines and copy it, you gonna take me to court?   like to see you try..............Face facts nobody is really that interested in copying your mods, we share info here and your mods ain't worth copying i've seen the you tube vids.

ian

[Gordonjcp]

so S-cat are you gonna start knocking out Roland/Casio's with your design built into them

And yet that's exactly what the MAM MB33/Freebass et al are.  Funny that.