When you buy a hardware synth do you actually own all of it?

[whyterabbyt]

From a purely technical standpoint, there is no such thing as software.

'Purely technical' in which domain? Certainly not computer science. Software certainly isnt a physical object, but that's not quite the same as not being a thing at all.

What we call software is always just a particular configuration of hardware.

Hmmm. The use of 'just' renders that over-simplified and inadequately specified, IMO. If that was all there was to the definition, software and data would be the same thing, after all.

I'd suggest that software is also something which changes the 'particular configuration of hardware' (subject to that hardware actually being capable of being changeable by software).

So, if you don't own the "content" of ROM, you clearly cannot own the ROM.

The 'so' there would appear to be denoting this as the logical conclusion of software but I dont believe it is. Even if software was 'always just a particular configuration of hardware' the configuration of hardware is not the hardware itself; its a state of the hardware, and that is a rather different thing.
The ink on a page might be 'configured' as a poem, but you dont somehow not own the paper and ink because you cant own the poem.

[Seluvis]

I was born on a Planet where every square inch of the land mass was previously already sold for various reasons and beyond my control. I own nothing but the inner experience or illusion I get from Synthesizers transcends any of those nagging concerns.

[O7O]

'Purely technical' in which domain?

In the domain of empirical observation.

software and data would be the same thing, after all.

Your hand is a hand whether it's clenched, open, or with fingers pointing. So, yes, software and data are fundamentally the same thing. You know, exactly like pot and plate are but clay.

configuration of hardware is not the hardware itself

Show me a configuration without any hardware whatsoever.

The ink on a page might be 'configured' as a poem, but you dont somehow not own the paper and ink because you cant own the poem.

Even in this example the poem is a configuration of someone's brain, transferred through configuration of their hands to paper-ink configuration, and subsequently to configuration of recipient's brain The potential ownership is completely another can of worms.

[IvyBirds]

You might be misunderstanding the question. Ivybirds made a specific claim. He says they absolutely are being prosecuted yet I've not heard of a single case. It was a specific question for a specific company, not a general worldwide status.

You asked a generic question however and got a generic response

How many downloaded these things vs prosecuted?

Where is exactly is your specific mention of a specific company

Again intellectual property rights matter and should matter to everyone. If they don't as creators we are screwed and as consumers we will have less cool things hit the market

But since you asked
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... downloaded

https://ipmall.info/sites/default/files ... _Laney.asp

https://ipmall.info/sites/default/files ... terson.asp

[Matt67]

So when it comes to using ROMs in emulators, the matter is actually quite clear.

TUS writes on its website:
“Our emulators are intended for use only by legitimate owners of the hardware synth(s).”

DiscoDSP states on its website:
"The DSP-based hardware cores require the original ROM firmware from your own hardware to operate. "

And the information in the EULA from Roland, for example, or the general terms and conditions from Waldorf and other manufacturers should also be understandable to everyone. They are also publicly available.

The whole discussion seems to me to be an attempt to justify something that everyone knows is not allowed. Perhaps also to ease one's conscience when using the ROMs without owning the hardware.

However, if I have overshot the mark, I apologize.

[Touch The Universe]

Thanks for sharing. I'm glad you value the law for righteous reasons. The 6-7 firmware, has any of those companies prosecuted any uses who are using TUS software? That is obviously what I was refering to, obvious in my mind atleast. Or are they more or has any given EXPLICIT verbal permission to use them? Has no one simply sent them an email and asked? Maybe they just don't care or too lazy to update the agreement and would be glad to make a contract overriding it. They can literally right it on a napkin and sign it and it would be "legal". In some ways these things can be quite arbitrary, no need to take them so seriously - that it's too much to simply ask!

[IvyBirds]

If no harm or loss is caused whats the issue.

I had no intention of buying any of the hardware emulated. The closest I have is a Nord Lead 3.

However after using these emus I would now consider buting a physical JP 8080, i previously thought it was for lame tarnce

Do you think having a TUS Microwave plugin hurts sales of Waldorf's Microwave Plugin? I do and Waldorf owns the IP

But the law is the law and your desire to buy an old hardware synth isn't relevant to the law.

Beyond that anyone downloading and using firmware from a hardware synth in a TUS plugin obviously has a desire to use that synth in software form so you can't say you have no interest in a Nord Lead when you are running a Nord Lead Emulator

[whyterabbyt]

In the domain of empirical observation.

Ah, so its a subjective assertion. I thought when you said 'technical' you actually claimed something specifically scientific/engineering. Cheers.

Your hand is a hand whether it's clenched, open, or with fingers pointing.

Yes, we recognise that a hand can have more than one shape. Do you have some logic by which you can prove that that means the data [3, 7, october, taylor swift] is software?

So, yes, software and data are fundamentally the same thing.

Again with the 'so' where the logical conclusion doesnt seem to follow. Software and data are only fundamentally the same thing to the point where they're not fundamentally the same thing.

You know, exactly like pot and plate are but clay.

Well, except where they're not clay, of course. And that pots arent plates merely because they're clay.

configuration of hardware is not the hardware itself

Show me a configuration without any hardware whatsoever.

Any hardware or just the hardware its a confuguration of? Im not sure I understand your logic here. I can link to an image of a pointing hand without it being your hand pointing, if you want?

Even in this example the poem is a configuration of someone's brain, transferred through configuration of their hands to paper-ink configuration, and subsequently to configuration of recipient's brain

That's presumably another 'empirical observation', yeah?

[dellboy]

A 1970 Minimoog is a hardware synth, and is owned in its entirety by the purchaser. The intellectual property (IP) is owned by Moog Music.

[IvyBirds]

Secondly, they need to prove that there is harm. If you use the code personally in an emulator, you are not harming anyone (especially if the asset is no longer sold). If you redistribute it and gain from it then the harm can be proven.

Only you don't

You don't need to prove harm for copyright violations as Statutory Damages are written right into the law

https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/stat ... 0is%20made.

Beyond that damages and harm are civil matters not criminal and you can be criminally prosecuted for copyright violations even if there is no financial harm.

[O7O]

Any hardware or just the hardware its a confuguration of? Im not sure I understand your logic here.

Any hardware (in case of my pot example, any "substrate"). What I'm saying is that you cannot have form without that which is formed. Take that away and the form goes poof.

[Seluvis]

One thing I am learning real fast from this thread is there isn't any shortage of armchair copyright lawyers.

[IvyBirds]

Thanks for sharing. I'm glad you value the law for righteous reasons. The 6-7 firmware, has any of those companies prosecuted any uses who are using TUS software? That is obviously what I was refering to, obvious in my mind atleast. Or are they more or has any given EXPLICIT verbal permission to use them? Has no one simply sent them an email and asked? Maybe they just don't care or too lazy to update the agreement and would be glad to make a contract overriding it. They can literally right it on a napkin and sign it and it would be "legal". In some ways these things can be quite arbitrary, no need to take them so seriously - that it's too much to simply ask!

Why do you assume prosecutions matter as a rule of law? They don't something is either legal or it's not

What's amazing in this discussion is the amount of butthurt displayed towards DiscoDSP for 100% legally selling software they were entitled to by TUS themselves, by people who felt outraged that the IP of TUS and it's programmers was somehow being violated

Yet this same people are making the argument that the IP of Nord, Roland, and Waldorf doesn't matter at all.

Those people claim you can feel free to steal and use it as you see fit because there is no financial harm in synths no longer being made, yet can't articulate why they don't feel the same about TUS who doesn't sell anything and thus can't be financially harmed by their own definitions of what "harm" means

[whyterabbyt]

Any hardware (in case of my pot example, any "substrate"). What I'm saying is that you cannot have form without that which is formed. Take that away and the form goes poof.

Yes, you are, but you also seem to be saying that that which is formed is the form...

So, if you don't own the "content" of ROM, you clearly cannot own the ROM.

And yet a pot is still not a plate. Nor is the decorative message on the plate.

I think Im going to bow out here, if you dont mind. Its sorta interesting as a conversation in and of itself, but not compelling to continue with in this context. grazi.

[O7O]

you also seem to be saying that that which is formed is the form...

So, if you don't own the "content" of ROM, you clearly cannot own the ROM.

And yet a pot is still not a plate. Nor is the decorative message on the plate.

Yes, I do. The music on an LP is the grooves on the plate, the data/software on my PC is the physical state of myriads of tiny components, and the pot and plate are still fundamentally clay (or whatever material was shaped into those forms). Thus, I guess, what I'm also saying is that the companies that say that you own the synth's hardware just not the content are basically lying, because such ownership is physically not possible.