JP6K 1.7 update (64 bit)

[Cyforce]

If I've missed someone staying this earlier, forgive me, but why not do the most obvious thing; ask Roland directly if they care or not? If they say yes, they care, then ask them what they would want you to change so that they don't care. Give it a shot. Much easier than speculating all day long, or dealing with lawyers.

Devon

Did Korg send laywers to the developer of the mono/fury?

[synaesthesia]

Okay... we'll all settle down and agree to disagree about what is legal, what is illegal and what is legal but probably wouldn't actually get followed up/prosecuted.

However, am I the only person who is slightly perturbed by there being instances on this thread of people who sell commercial music-making software/products, showing scant regard for IPR and copyright infringment law? I don't wish to pick bones here and I am certainly not accusing anyone of anything, but to me it does seem a slightly odd and worrying aspect of this thread.

[AdmiralQuality]

However, am I the only person who is slightly perturbed by there being instances on this thread of people who sell commercial music-making software/products, showing scant regard for IPR and copyright infringment law?

No, it's just that you don't understand IPR issues. Cracking my software and distributing it is copyright infringement. Making your OWN software, entirely from your own creativity, that just happens to share the same features and maybe even the same look and feel as mine, isn't. Maybe it's trademark infringement... maybe. But if you created it, the copyright is yours. Ideas are a dime a dozen, implementation is EVERYTHING.

[trimph1]

KvR---the forum that can haz threadz that--even IF you are a lawyer specializing in copyright/intellectual property law---can keep on going and going and going---

[LXNDR1]

KvR---the forum that can haz threadz that--even IF you are a lawyer specializing in copyright/intellectual property law---can keep on going and going and going---

because it's not always clear cut, maybe it's just me

it's way easier to keep people from violating laws by intimidation and their own ignorance (not necessarily at their fault) than by laying them (the laws) out in a comprehensible and lucid manner
the complexer the law the more chances it won't be violated, because on one hand it's difficult to understand what is allowed and what is not, so people will prefer to stay away from the unknown, and on the other hand the more chances someone will be caught due to this very difficulty to understand it

but there's another proverb 'he that fears every bush must never go a-birding'

[jmh]

KvR---the forum that can haz threadz that--even IF you are a lawyer specializing in copyright/intellectual property law---can keep on going and going and going---

Yeah, it's REALLY FUNNY. Considering that this particular lawyer isn't really participating in the discussion.

If only that happened for once. Someone claiming to know about these things actually posted some solid information. Fat chance of that happening though, especially from a lawyer from USA

I'd say that you accidentally hit the nail on the head with your emphasis. IF. I'll go further than that: if this lawyer person is what he says he is, he won't lose a single cent of his possible income in the future by posting some simple advice in this matter. One sentence. "Don't do it". "Go ahead, they got no case".

Fat chance. Friggin' obese to the max, your momma so fat she has satellites orbiting her kinda chance. I dare him.

[AdInfinitum]

Unfortunately, with IP law, there are few clears cut cases of "do it, it's OK " or "don't do it, you are infringing." Most cases fall somewhere in between those extremes. The trick is to advise your client in a way that achieves their business ends with the least amount of risk of sufficiently pissing off the other side.

Everything is about "risk" - assessing the risk and then making a business determination of whether to take that risk.

You can do anything you want - crack software, download a song, create a VST instrument. - It is only when a judge tells you that you can't (enjoins your use), that the infringed can get the infringer to legally stop. Many companies send cease and desist letters, but unless the recipient of that letter stops of their own volition, the only way to get them to stop is for a judge to tell them to. Many companies send demand letters with no real intention to sue because that costs a lot of money. Most hope that the other side is rational and will make the rational biz decision to stop. Again, cost/benefit analysis goes into the decision to sue.

In general, unless the trademark infringement is willlful, the court will not award monetary damages only enjoin the infringing use. Thus, unless the mark has value, a company won't sue to merely enjoin the use.

Lots of game theory involved and gamesmanship.



Finally, at least in the US, you do not need a Federal registration to acquire trademark rights. Thus the fact that Roland doesn't own a registration for SUPERSAW does not mean that Roland doesn't have trademark rights in the term.

Most other countries do rely on registration to acquire TM rights though (EU for example).

Brad Pitt owns a right of publicity in his image, name and likeness. You generally cannot use his image for commercial purposes without his permission. There are First Amendment exceptions to this right. He can also own a trademark in various aspects of his name (for example, if he used his name on a product - think George Foreman and those electric cooking grills).

The product configuration of the JP-8000 would fall under trade dress law (similar to regular trademark law). However, Roland would have to demonstrate that the product configuration has acquired distinctiveness in order to enforce rights in the trade dress.

Fair use of a trademark is using the descriptive or nominative word in a non-trademark sense, I.e. Not to indicate the source of a product. Thus, it is generally Ok to say that XYZ is an emulation of the ABC vintage synth. It is always recommend not to use a logo when trying to claim fair use, since a logo is not a
nominative use of the mark.

[AdInfinitum]

I have no problem posting my legal opinion or giving advice for free. I have benefitted from the generosity of many developers and members from this forum over the years ( just wish their were more AU plugins than VST,), as well as several others, and like to "pay it forward.". If anyone has a question, just PM me. If non-confidential, you can post the response.

Adam's situation is confidential, so I don't want to jeopardize the attorney-client privilege by publicly posting my advice.

Yes, being a lawyer is my business, but I'm not a freaking ambulance chaser. I like helping my clients solve their problems and protect them from poor decisions. Most lawyer I know feel the same way. Just remember why lawyers are paid a lot. You are paying them to solve problems that (1) you have no idea how to solve; (2) don't have time to solve; (3) don't give a crap about but need to solve or (4) want to cause someone else a lot of grief. Of course the person doing that is going to charge a lot for such a service.

In all seriousness, it is not about the money, but client satisfaction. Nothing better than achieving a client's business goal and getting that thank you phone call. . . . . And the invoice payment 90 days later.

How else could I afford a real Jupiter 8, Jup 6, jp-8000' alpha 2, MkS-50' Prophet 5, obxa, minimoog, voyager, Hammond C-3, pianet N, arp Pro soloist, arp omni, arp quasar, Solina, rs-202 etc.

[Z3R0T0N1N]

thnx for posting
some of the least shrill and most sensible advice on the topic which I have seen on this forum.

[AdInfinitum]

I will also write "Super Saw" as the oscillator type because until someone shows me a document that "Super Saw" is copyrighted, I will use it (yes I did my homework, I searched but couldnt find anything).

Wrong - Roland does not need to Federally register SUPERSAW with the USPTO as a trademark to acquire trademark rights in the US. Mere use of the marks gives Roland "common law trademark rights in the geographic area of use.

Copyright doesn't apply here. You inherently own copyright on any piece of software you create (same with any piece of art, writing, photography -- anything made of information).

Almost right - Creation is only a part of copyright ownership. The work must be an "original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression to attain copyright in the US. You dont own software that includes third party software. You only own the the "your original expression" contained in the work. Certain works do not fall within the subject matter of copyright, such as recipes and de minims things, titles of works. Original doesn't mean novel (new) , just it contains original expression that came from you.

What you mean is "trademarked". "Roland" is a trademark, and using a look-alike name and font that says "Ronald" could easily be seen as infringement on that trademark.

TRUE - parody marks used for commercial products can be held to infringe and dilute a mark - although Poland has such a different commercial impression from Roland, not sure the marks would be deemed similar under the likelihood on confusion test

But "super saw" doesn't appear to be trademarked. Look in the JP-8000 manual ( http://media.rolandus.com/manuals/JP-8000_OM.pdf ) on page 21, they say "SUPER SAW" but there's no ® symbol next to it. Same thing on the specs page (p. 129) And a quick search on http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=s ... n2l01m.1.1 doesn't show any "super saw". So, "super saw" is not a trademark! You're good to go.

SUPERSAW could be an unregistered common law mark and just as lethal as a federal registered mark
A
They can't copyright the look of a piece of hardware (well, they can try but they're reaching).

AaNo, but the can trademark the product trade dress if the design has acquired distinctiveness as a mark

a

That would mean that, say, I couldn't paint a painting that had a car in it without being sued by the makers of that car. Yes, if I made a factory to make clone VW Bugs I might get sued (although there's loats of cases of companies that do exactly that, produce unofficial reproduction parts). But if I write a book with a VW Bug appearing in it, or draw a picture of a VW Bug, that's absolutely fair usage. (more First Amendment Right) You can't go filling the world with some item, then forbid people from depicting that item in other forms. ( you better tell every guitar player and amp owner that they are not allowed to mod their equipment). Apple tries, but courts have held that jail breaking is legal. If Brad Pitt walks down the street and I take a photo of him, I own that photo, not Brad. (But I can't use that photo to sell my salad dressing. As he's no doubt trademarked his own likeness.). No, he has a right of publicity in his name and likeness.

You are allowed to manufacture comparable replacement parts and use the name of the product to indicate your part is a replacement part - see the law of comparative advertising ( this is true as long as the part is not patented)

MAYBE if you were making hardware that stole their industrial design they'd have a case. But you're not, you've created an artistic work, that happens to be a representation of a real-world thing. But the GUI image is NOT the real thing, can't be confused with the real thing, so again I think there's no case here.

If I were you I'd put this out exactly as-is, just change "Ronald" to something else.

[VitaminD]

Just remember why lawyers are paid a lot. You are paying them to solve problems that (1) you have no idea how to solve; (2) don't have time to solve; (3) don't give a crap about but need to solve or (4) want to cause someone else a lot of grief. Of course the person doing that is going to charge a lot for such a service.

Which could equally describe a hitman..

[LXNDR1]

thank you AdInfinitum for some explanation, it was just an interesting reading in itself, but at the same time all this only makes me more convinced that as the proverb has it 'the farther into the forest, the thicker the trees' and even more sombrous 'the devil is in the detail'

i don't see why a lone hobbyist developer which produces free software (let's assume it's free) should care about this nonsense and be affected by it.
i agree that he should exhibit fairness and adhere to certain moral standards and ethics when it comes to allusions to and references about his peers and their work, but laws...

it's ironic and wrong that crooks stay in the shadow and do what they please unhindered, but a honest guy doesn't conceal his good intentions and shares them with everybody only to find himself under tight scrutiny (i'd spell it SCREWtiny) with the law hanging above him like the sword of Damocles

the easiness of becoming a law breaker in the IP area is disturbing and not normal

[risome]

I s this going to be Mac and PC or PC only

[kyodeejay]

Adam, you got my attention. I'm interested in your synth

[jmh]

AdInfinitum Thank you for replying. Even if it required a bit of nudge