Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 Thread)

Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 ...

Ron Kimball said:
Are folks really seeing "No A&H" on riders these days? I thought the iLive desks were pretty well regarded?
Click to expand...

Yepper.

We had a BE come through a few years ago who asked me if I'd heard or used the iLive. "Nope, haven't seen one but the US distributor has promised to ship a demo unit, what do you think of it" I said.

"The only thing wrong with the iLive is that it says 'Allen & Heath' on it", he replied. "So not may regional providers carry them..."

To this day I've never had an iLive driving one of our systems and the only one I've seen in the wild was a rack mount unit in a band's IEM rig. I understand one of our local dinner theaters has an iLive and the operator isn't too keen on it for musical theater (scene automation), but otherwise likes it.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Charlie McGee said:
It would appear that lines are being drawn here, but I'd argue that there should be no lines. On one side there is the law, the facts, an independent judge, independent witnesses, and long established patent processes and laws that have been relied upon by industry for over 100 years. On the other side, there is the notion that ethical standards are being breached.


There has always been a convergence and conflict between law and ethics. What is legal may not always be ethical and vice versa - but law is based on justice. A need to be fair, objective and apply a set of rules and standards that meet a rational and balanced notion of what is right. Everyone is entitled to use their own judgement and can apply their own standard of ethics to any situation. But that is random and based an individual’s own motives. This is often of little use in solving disputes.


The legal standard has to be the operative standard in providing companies and individuals a framework in which they can operate. If businesses are ran based on a personal sense of ethics, it would lead to chaos. That's why law is the standard.


I'd also argue that many laws are also grounded on society’s understanding of ethics. Thus, the convergence.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.
Maybe that's how it was intended to work, but "the system" has become so corrupted and twisted, it comes down to who's got the dough to hire the better lawyers.
The team that does the better job of pushing the "truth" to their own ends ends up winning.
It doesn't matter what's right, it only matters what you can prove.
What the fuck does a judge or jury know about circuit design ?? NADA. It's the lawer that makes his client "look right" (or at least, less wrong) that wins.

In JR's case, I would put forward the notion that Peavey's legal team wasn't quite up to the challenge, and Berry had deeper pockets.
Sometimes life sucks. That's all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

The law is kind of like the guard wall going around the outside of a race track. Racers may get a short term advantage from getting very close to the wall (law) without touching it, there are consequences from actually hitting the wall hard.

Since all (most?) companies obey the law, this sets a pretty low standard to brag about. Some successful racers have less paint left on the side of their car facing the wall than others.

JR
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

John Roberts said:
The law is kind of like the guard wall going around the outside of a race track. Racers may get a short term advantage from getting very close to the wall (law) without touching it, there are consequences from actually hitting the wall hard.

Since all (most?) companies obey the law, this sets a pretty low standard to brag about. Some successful racers have less paint left on the side of their car facing the wall than others.

JR
Click to expand...
To continue the analogy - and no one notices just how much paint is missing if they stay really close to the wall.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Back on topic a bit, there's a chance I might end up leaving a group I've been working with. It was all volunteer work, and what I was doing was scenic design. Finishes, construction, structure, everything. I still have all of the files and drawings, and if I leave, it's not going to be too pretty. Regardless of if I should take my work back or not, my work is still my own IP, right? Since I didn't do it for hire or anything.

I don't know. Just wondering if I have any leverage there.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Not enough data... and why lawyers are cheaper before there is a dispute.

What do you think is fair? What will they think is fair?

When you ask about leverage, do you anticipate some conflict?

When in doubt do what is right.

JR
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

John Roberts said:
Not enough data... and why lawyers are cheaper before there is a dispute.

What do you think is fair? What will they think is fair?

When you ask about leverage, do you anticipate some conflict?

When in doubt do what is right.

JR
Click to expand...

There's a lot of internal conflict within the group, most of which is not directly related to me since I'm someone who got dragged into the group because it was something fun to spend my spare time on at first, rather than an integral member of the "inner circle," which is the source of the fighting right now. I'll probably end up leaving of my own accord, but if I end up getting dragged into the ring, there's a chance I might get thrown to the wind.

The main question is whether or not I've forfeited my IP rights by giving them the plans so far, even though I don't do it for hire.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Max Warasila said:
There's a lot of internal conflict within the group, most of which is not directly related to me since I'm someone who got dragged into the group because it was something fun to spend my spare time on at first, rather than an integral member of the "inner circle," which is the source of the fighting right now. I'll probably end up leaving of my own accord, but if I end up getting dragged into the ring, there's a chance I might get thrown to the wind.

The main question is whether or not I've forfeited my IP rights by giving them the plans so far, even though I don't do it for hire.
Click to expand...

If you have been giving away the milk for free, it will be easier to charge for future milk, than expect compensation for previous free milk.

I do not have a feel for the value of your IP. Is it worth paying a lawyer hundreds of dollars to secure your rights?

IP like any other property is only worth what somebody will pay for it.

The reason for written contracts is not just about proving what the deal was, but the fact that both sides had the same understanding of what the deal is/was when signed. When operating without a clear well defined understanding, misunderstandings are all too common.

JR
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

John Roberts said:
The law is kind of like the guard wall going around the outside of a race track. Racers may get a short term advantage from getting very close to the wall (law) without touching it, there are consequences from actually hitting the wall hard.

Since all (most?) companies obey the law, this sets a pretty low standard to brag about. Some successful racers have less paint left on the side of their car facing the wall than others.

JR
Click to expand...

Since you brought up the Nascar analogy, in a way I'd say that Dale Earnhardt sr. IMO illustrated the difference between what you can get away with under a judicial system and what is right, fair, within the spirit of the rules etc. "The Intimidator" put a lot of drivers in the wall during his carreer, using moves that were deliberate, mean in my opinion and not really within the spirit of the rules. Allthough what he did was considered by many to be wrong, he got away with it most of the time. Of course Karma sorted him out in a big way in the end, but that is beside the point.
However, those who were victims of his rough tactics would still feel wronged and hold some resentment even if he was cleared by the race stewards, and most other drivers would not rise to his level of intimidation in their driving even if the rules and the judicial system seemingly allowed them to do so. Why, because they believed it was wrong and dangerous.

I believe, and am strongly opposed to Charlie McGee in this respect, that most sportspeople, business people and private persons should observe ethics in what they choose to do, and not win or profit at all costs "as long as you can get away with it". This is why companies state that they will conduct business in an ethical manner, sports people have fair play, and us private people are brought up being taught ethical guidelines and most of use never read a single page in a law book.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Chris Hindle said:
Bullshit.
Maybe that's how it was intended to work, but "the system" has become so corrupted and twisted, it comes down to who's got the dough to hire the better lawyers.
The team that does the better job of pushing the "truth" to their own ends ends up winning.
It doesn't matter what's right, it only matters what you can prove.
Click to expand...

Perfect summary, Chris!
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

John Roberts said:
If you have been giving away the milk for free, it will be easier to charge for future milk, than expect compensation for previous free milk.

I do not have a feel for the value of your IP. Is it worth paying a lawyer hundreds of dollars to secure your rights?

IP like any other property is only worth what somebody will pay for it.

The reason for written contracts is not just about proving what the deal was, but the fact that both sides had the same understanding of what the deal is/was when signed. When operating without a clear well defined understanding, misunderstandings are all too common.

JR
Click to expand...

Well the only good thing about my situation in terms of that analogy is that I've handed them free milk, but it's still sitting in their fridge unused as of yet. It hasn't been executed.

It's not worth paying a lawyer, but these people are so scared of having to pay for anything that they may very well fold if I even mention my IP.

As I said before, I'm likely going to leave of my own accord, and I won't take my IP with me unless they force me into leaving because they felt like it that day (it's that bad).
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Max Warasila said:
Well the only good thing about my situation in terms of that analogy is that I've handed them free milk, but it's still sitting in their fridge unused as of yet. It hasn't been executed.

It's not worth paying a lawyer, but these people are so scared of having to pay for anything that they may very well fold if I even mention my IP.

As I said before, I'm likely going to leave of my own accord, and I won't take my IP with me unless they force me into leaving because they felt like it that day (it's that bad).
Click to expand...

But the key is, if you leave with your IP, are they likely to pay you to get it? is it useful enough to anyone else that THEY would pay you for it?
if the answer is no to both of those questions then it really doesn't matter whether you give it up to them or put it in the shredder, you still get $0
the only difference is how many more people in the world dislike you and will spread stories about you.

If everyone thinks it's worth something then you're best off trying to work out a fair price for it. though as JR points out after the fact is never a good time to negotiate, so expect to get a fraction of what you would get paid straight up for consulting work that was negotiated and contracted ahead of time.

Jason
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Max Warasila said:
Well the only good thing about my situation in terms of that analogy is that I've handed them free milk, but it's still sitting in their fridge unused as of yet. It hasn't been executed.

It's not worth paying a lawyer, but these people are so scared of having to pay for anything that they may very well fold if I even mention my IP.

As I said before, I'm likely going to leave of my own accord, and I won't take my IP with me unless they force me into leaving because they felt like it that day (it's that bad).
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer... /disclaimer

If you were not compensated for the creation of IP; if there is no agreement stipulating that the results of your voluntary work become the exclusive property of the theater group, then it is *unlikely* that a court would rule that your IP was "work done for hire". Before you leave, regardless of circumstances, I think a memorandum of understanding would be in order to establish what you have provided and whatever rights transfer to the theater. You could charge them $1.00 as compensation for the design work, require credit in programs as designer, and walk away. You'd have something for your resume and they could do their show without fearing legal retribution from you.

Sounds like real mess. While it's hard to do theater work in an environment devoid of psychos and alcoholics, you'd probably be better off finding another group until this one settles down or goes out of business.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Max Warasila said:
Regardless of if I should take my work back or not, my work is still my own IP, right? Since I didn't do it for hire or anything.

I don't know. Just wondering if I have any leverage there.
Click to expand...

Since you are not an employee, but a volunteer, there is no employer right to claim "work for hire." You are the author of the creation and therefore the copyright holder. Some things that will be problematic for you are if - (1) you signed anything transferring your rights, or (2) the work is based on shared ideas and work to the degree that it is a joint work and you are not the sole owner.

Please see more here:
Who Owns Copyright in Works by Volunteers? | copyrightlaws.com
 
Last edited:
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

The only thing I know for sure is - NEVER hand over any work (unless it's crippled) to a client until you are sure to get what was agreed upon.

I've been screwed too many times already :-((
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Robert Lofgren said:
The only thing I know for sure is - NEVER hand over any work (unless it's crippled) to a client until you are sure to get what was agreed upon.

I've been screwed too many times already :-((
Click to expand...

It is difficult to work from the assumption that you are likely to get screwed, and even though experience tells us that we are going to get screwed, talking precautions at the outset kind of puts us at the wrong foot and is really bad for motivation.


I think that for volunteer work, you can't take back what you have done, that is already donated, but the fact that something is donated doesn't give anyone any right to exploit it for any other purpose than what it was donated for.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

This is a spirited debate, and both sides have merit. But you all should know that "Charlie McGee" is actually Uli Behringer's "friend" (and in this case legal mouthpiece) Cheree McAlpine. It's not clear in her LinkedIn that there is a connection to Uli or Behringer, but I can give you that. In this picture from the 2014 Music Group China Partner Event on the MIDAS Facebook page, you can see her standing with Paul Wright (who heads up EMEA sales for Music Group). I've blown the picture up for better detail here. Only a handful of people are invited to this yearly event (the bulk of the people you see filling out the crowd are actually the factory workers), and she's right there up front.

So now you know.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Mike Post said:
This is a spirited debate, and both sides have merit. But you all should know that "Charlie McGee" is actually Uli Behringer's "friend" (and in this case legal mouthpiece) Cheree McAlpine. It's not clear in her LinkedIn that there is a connection to Uli or Behringer, but I can give you that. In this picture from the 2014 Music Group China Partner Event on the MIDAS Facebook page, you can see her standing with Paul Wright (who heads up EMEA sales for Music Group). I've blown the picture up for better detail here. Only a handful of people are invited to this yearly event (the bulk of the people you see filling out the crowd are actually the factory workers), and she's right there up front.

So now you know.
Click to expand...

I'm actually quite interested in how we jumped from "Charlie McGee" to "Cheree McAlpine." Here's why I have such concern:

First, this would violate the real name policy and they would either need to change their name on these forums or… well actually I don't quite know what Bennett would do.
and
Second, if they are NOT in fact the same person, this seems like it could fall under libel. Considering Cheree's status, this could create problems for both you and the forums.

I really hope I'm not out of line in saying so, but you need to back that up.
 
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion

Use your first post to accuse someone of using a sock puppet account and not registering with their real name?

Bold move.

No way to prove it, sadly.
 
Top Bottom