KVR Audio

Equilibrium · Post by **Equilibrium** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:17 am

I posted this on DOA, but I'd be interested to hear what people have to say about it here considering there are so many developers on this forum...

What's the deal with Intellectual Property and synths? What got me thinking about this is that a lot of the really cool envelopes on NI's products (i.e., FM8's envelope, Massive's performer) don't seem to be on other products; they haven't - it seems - been copied. Either that's because it would be a total headache to do so, or because people aren't allowed.

Anyone know what the deal is with this? Is anyone making synths and aware of restrictions on what they are allowed to do and not do?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:30 am

Angelina and Rhino have had complex envelopes for years. Rob Papen Blue has complex envelopes, as do Dimension and Rapture.

Apart from Absynth, which has always been slightly unique, am I missing something that makes NI's complex envelopes more complex than other people's complex envelopes, as it were?

Equilibrium · Post by **Equilibrium** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:40 am

OK, maybe my knowledge of other synths is lacking and there are people who have created similar stuff. I'd still be interested to know if there are any patents that restrict the creation of certain things.

justin3am · Post by **justin3am** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:51 am

No, I don't believe you can "copyright" the implementation of an envelope. I suppose they could trademark a specific block of code but I'm not well versed in these things.

Emerald Tablet · Post by **Emerald Tablet** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:54 am

Who owns "brains" anyway

Wouldn't "Intellect" in general be better off without brains.
I believe the brain is like creativity, chaotic and uncontrollable.

I think art is about control - the encounter between control and the uncontrollable.

I'm almost a digital comunist, dissbelieving in "intellectual property"
That is why i only use free synths

Just kidding guys. I think people who make patches should receive royalties when people make money out of their patches and they should be named on the sleeves of products if that is what they agreed with.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:56 am

IANAL, but patents are a funny thing, as far as software goes. Nothing (seemingly) stops companies from patenting the most obvious software concepts, and user interface elements are no exception to that. However prior art often does exist which should nullify a lot of these, and 'obvious' ideas are supposed to be exempt.

Is something like a complex envelope the kind of thing someone could patent? One would hope not, but the answer is, unfortunately 'yes', but its unlikely they'd get very far enforcing that patent in reality.

The one exception might be design copyrights rather than patents, whereby some visual features of a UI are copyrighted. That wouldnt stop someone reimplementing the same features with a different design, though.

Complex modulation envelopes, as data structures, can be seen as early as the Unit Generators of the Music-N series of audio programming languages of the 50's. As UI elements, they're pretty much a trivial extension of ADSR envelopes. Individual implementations of things like draggable nodes and all sorts of mouse controls might conceivably be covered by design copyright, but the core functionality wouldnt be.

In general, then, I'd say no, except for possible individual cases of company pigheadedness and rapacity, which wouldnt necessarily be supported in court anyways.

D-Fusion · Post by **D-Fusion** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:58 am

Emerald Tablet wrote:Who owns "brains" anyway

Wouldn't "Intellect" in general be better off without brains.
I believe the brain is like creativity, chaotic and uncontrollable.

I think art is about control - the encounter between control and the uncontrollable.

I'm almost a digital comunist, dissbelieving in "intellectual property"
That is why i only use free synths

Just kidding guys. I think people who make patches should receive royalties when people make money out of their patches and they should be named on the sleeves of products if that is what they agreed with.

That could be a problem since i make my own presets and if i then create something similar to a preset that is sold should i then pay royalties for that preset?

Emerald Tablet · Post by **Emerald Tablet** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:02 am

D-Fusion · Post by **D-Fusion** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:08 am

Emerald Tablet wrote:yes

Nope

Coz that system forces you to buy all the presets that is sold out there to be able to use the synth.

It would simply kill all the joy and creativity during the music making process.

Not to mention how many royalties you will have to pay to use a Piano or drum sounds

Emerald Tablet · Post by **Emerald Tablet** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:13 am

D-Fusion wrote:
Emerald Tablet wrote:yes
Nope
Coz that system forces you to buy all the presets that is sold out there to be able to use the synth.

It would simply kill all the joy and creativity during the music making process.

::cynicle mode off:: And you just summed up perfectly why intellectual property doesn't exist

copying is part of creative processes that aren't owned by any minds out there (being patches being / building blocks in software / components in songs etc) ...eventualy nobody owns anything.

Now who is nobody

Emerald Tablet · Post by **Emerald Tablet** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:15 am

Just kidding guys. I think people who make patches should receive royalties when people make money out of their patches and they should be named on the sleeves of products if that is what they agreed with.

D-Fusion · Post by **D-Fusion** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:19 am

Emerald Tablet wrote:
D-Fusion wrote:
Emerald Tablet wrote:yes
Nope
Coz that system forces you to buy all the presets that is sold out there to be able to use the synth.

It would simply kill all the joy and creativity during the music making process.

::cynicle mode off:: And you just summed up perfectly why intellectual property doesn't exist copying is part of creative processes that aren't owned by any minds out there (being patches being / building blocks in software / components in songs etc) ...eventualy nobody owns anything.

Now who is nobody

I agree

I just thought it was a interesting point of view so i had to answer it (Even if it was just a joke)

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:21 am

Emerald Tablet wrote: copying is part of creative processes

i disagree. there's distincy differences between copy-as-in-repurposing, copy-as-in-reimplementation and copy-as-in-reproduction. copying in itself isnt creative.

ckatrun411 · Post by **ckatrun411** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:22 am

Human beings are copies...

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:44 am

ckatrun411 wrote:Human beings are copies...

incorrect. human DNA is the result of (an often imperfect) fusion of two different chromosome half-sets. The resultant human is not a copy of anything, it is the organism defined by that DNA fusion, and may contain physical traits not present in either of the parents contributing chromosome sets.

Intellectual Property and Synths.