Maybe Roland has a entered into a contract with a new law firm - and they are now collecting rewards of merit.mcatalao wrote:There are dozens of roland hardware copies around. I wonder if these guys are getting a call from Roland... :/
Rebirth for iOS going bye bye
- kuhliloach
- Posts: 880
- Joined: 09 Dec 2015
New rule for all guitars: no more playing notes.
The playing of notes infringes on the intellectual property rights on the guitar inventor. Oh well... I'm sure I can sell this guitar on the used market.
The playing of notes infringes on the intellectual property rights on the guitar inventor. Oh well... I'm sure I can sell this guitar on the used market.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 17 Mar 2017
I wonder how long until a sawtooth or sine waveform will be copyright protected, or maybe are they already?
It is a well known fact that musicians want everything anyways and spend too much money on gear all the time. It's not like somebody having ReBirth won't get something from Roland if he or she can remotely afford to do so and really wants it. On the other hand, if someone doesn't really want it, they're not going to buy it anyways. Having ReBirth makes no difference.
Sometimes I'm baffled at the marketing decisions of big companies, who could afford someone who actually understands their consumer base.
It is a well known fact that musicians want everything anyways and spend too much money on gear all the time. It's not like somebody having ReBirth won't get something from Roland if he or she can remotely afford to do so and really wants it. On the other hand, if someone doesn't really want it, they're not going to buy it anyways. Having ReBirth makes no difference.
Sometimes I'm baffled at the marketing decisions of big companies, who could afford someone who actually understands their consumer base.
Metallica Sue Canadian Band over E, F Chords
07.15.2003 1:55 PM EDT
MONTREAL — Metallica are taking legal action against independant Canadian rock band Unfaith over what they feel is unsanctioned usage of two chords the band has been using since 1982 : E and F.
"People are going to get on our case again for this, but try to see it from our point of view just once," stated Metallica's Lars Ulrich. "We're not saying we own those two chords, individually - that would be ridiculous. We're just saying that in that specific order, people have grown to associate E, F with our music."
Metallica filed a trademark infringement suit against the indie group at the US district court for central California on Monday. According to the drummer, the continued use of the two chords causes "confusion, deception and mistake in the minds of the public".
Metallica's lawyer, Jill Pietrini, told us that the band decided to take legal action only after first sending a letter of complaint to the Canadian band's singer/songwriter, Erik Ashley.
"We sent a demand letter and haven't reached a resolution, so we had to sue," she said. "They continue to shamelessly feature the two chords on their website song samples and we just can't have that."
Ashley, in the meantime, is still shocked by the entire story, and hasn't yet decided how the band will respond.
"I thought it was a prank at first," he told us. "Now I'm not sure what to think."
Ulrich states that he's not trying to prevent Unfaith from using the two chords, only that he feels Metallica should be credited for them whenever used, and is calling for 50% of all revenue generated from any song using them.
"It's nothing personal against them," he added. "We intend to enforce our rights with any band intending to use Metallica-branded chords in the future."
This marks the first time anything of this kind has ever been tried in court, and it will be interesting to see how things develop.
Metallica's website has issued an official statement on the suit here.
07.15.2003 1:55 PM EDT
MONTREAL — Metallica are taking legal action against independant Canadian rock band Unfaith over what they feel is unsanctioned usage of two chords the band has been using since 1982 : E and F.
"People are going to get on our case again for this, but try to see it from our point of view just once," stated Metallica's Lars Ulrich. "We're not saying we own those two chords, individually - that would be ridiculous. We're just saying that in that specific order, people have grown to associate E, F with our music."
Metallica filed a trademark infringement suit against the indie group at the US district court for central California on Monday. According to the drummer, the continued use of the two chords causes "confusion, deception and mistake in the minds of the public".
Metallica's lawyer, Jill Pietrini, told us that the band decided to take legal action only after first sending a letter of complaint to the Canadian band's singer/songwriter, Erik Ashley.
"We sent a demand letter and haven't reached a resolution, so we had to sue," she said. "They continue to shamelessly feature the two chords on their website song samples and we just can't have that."
Ashley, in the meantime, is still shocked by the entire story, and hasn't yet decided how the band will respond.
"I thought it was a prank at first," he told us. "Now I'm not sure what to think."
Ulrich states that he's not trying to prevent Unfaith from using the two chords, only that he feels Metallica should be credited for them whenever used, and is calling for 50% of all revenue generated from any song using them.
"It's nothing personal against them," he added. "We intend to enforce our rights with any band intending to use Metallica-branded chords in the future."
This marks the first time anything of this kind has ever been tried in court, and it will be interesting to see how things develop.
Metallica's website has issued an official statement on the suit here.
"This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit."
I was looking in the app store to Rebirth and was contemplating to buy it.
Glad I didn't! Or it would be Original Rebirth all over again!
I purchased the original Rebirth 2.0 back in the day only to find out Props where dropping it 2 months later!
Glad I didn't! Or it would be Original Rebirth all over again!
I purchased the original Rebirth 2.0 back in the day only to find out Props where dropping it 2 months later!
Follow me on twitter! http://www.twitter.com/realfatcheese
And remember, blessed are the cheesemakers, and any manufacturers of dairy-based music !
Hell yeah E., you're a "cheesius".
And remember, blessed are the cheesemakers, and any manufacturers of dairy-based music !
Hell yeah E., you're a "cheesius".
- CharlyCharlzz
- Posts: 906
- Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Hey Props you should have make it free for a few days
It does not die , it multiplies !
7.101 and I will upgrade maybe this summer .
7.101 and I will upgrade maybe this summer .
- CharlyCharlzz
- Posts: 906
- Joined: 15 Jan 2015
how do you back it up on PC ?
It does not die , it multiplies !
7.101 and I will upgrade maybe this summer .
7.101 and I will upgrade maybe this summer .
If your going to pick at the quoted parts then do so in the context I gave when I replied.
I repeat Rebirth isn't a licensing isssue, how can it be, it wasn't licensed from Roland in the first place, neither is ABL3, although both may be subject to a claim from Roland for the infringement of intellectual property rights that they'd have to make a case for.
If you made a widget that somebody else already had a patent for and they challenged you it wouldn't be a 'licensing issue' you were having now would it?
But do, by all means, carry on as you seem to enjoy your own circular arguments from what I can tell.
You may however have been right about Line6 being a licensing deal but I didn't care enough to check the detail. My bad. It happens though and not just to Propellerhead, Cakewalk Sonar once owned by Roland can no longer use some of Roland's licensed technology 'VVocal' for example which was the vocal correction technology buit into Sonar before the now bundled Melodyne Essentials solution appeared.
But so what? Does it mean that Reason is suddenly going to fall apart at the seams at some unknown point in the future because of outstanding 'licensing issues' which seemed to be what you were trying to imply.
I repeat Rebirth isn't a licensing isssue, how can it be, it wasn't licensed from Roland in the first place, neither is ABL3, although both may be subject to a claim from Roland for the infringement of intellectual property rights that they'd have to make a case for.
If you made a widget that somebody else already had a patent for and they challenged you it wouldn't be a 'licensing issue' you were having now would it?
But do, by all means, carry on as you seem to enjoy your own circular arguments from what I can tell.
You may however have been right about Line6 being a licensing deal but I didn't care enough to check the detail. My bad. It happens though and not just to Propellerhead, Cakewalk Sonar once owned by Roland can no longer use some of Roland's licensed technology 'VVocal' for example which was the vocal correction technology buit into Sonar before the now bundled Melodyne Essentials solution appeared.
But so what? Does it mean that Reason is suddenly going to fall apart at the seams at some unknown point in the future because of outstanding 'licensing issues' which seemed to be what you were trying to imply.
Last edited by Ostermilk on 14 Jun 2017, edited 1 time in total.
Errm, yeah, OK!Kombucha wrote:If the licensing of the IP was not granted in the first place, this is very much a licensing issue.. namely that Propellerhead don't have it !Ostermilk wrote:
I repeat Rebirth isn't a licensing isssue, how can it be, it wasn't licensed from Roland in the first place
You just won the internet again, well done.
BLOCKED.
- fieldframe
- RE Developer
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: 19 Apr 2016
That would be an interesting case, if Solid State Logic (or an acquirer) sent PH a cease and desist letter about the mixer. There are two ways they could claim IP infringement, one more likely and one less so.Kombucha wrote:No need to be snippy because I'm accurately invalidating your statements. . IP and licensing are as intrinsically tied together as crust on bread. Roland have claimed IP infringement, because Propellerhead are not licensed to use their IP. I don't know how much more this can be a licensing issue ! To say over and over 'This is not a licensing issue' is completely the opposite to what this is... a licensing issue.
Thus my earluer statement stands. What about the SSL styled console? What if Roland take over Solid State Logic ? They would be well within their rights to claim IP over the design, forcing Propellerhead to scrap the whole thing.
Most likely is a trademark claim. If this were the case, all PH would have to do is change the visual appearance of the mixer so it didn't look like an SSL, probably by changing some colors to avoid confusion with SSL's trade dress.
Much less likely would be a patent claim. In this case, SSL would have to actually have a still-valid design patent on the way the SSL mixer is laid out (as well as perhaps the blue/green/red knob color scheme in conjunction with it). This is a lot trickier all around, so I highly doubt this would ever happen.
- Marco Raaphorst
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: 22 Jan 2015
- Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
- Contact:
The internet has proven that open source wins. I am a avid believer that we should respect authors, give credit, but copyights and patents can be OWNED which is totally nuts. It's a problem in the medical industry too.
I admit that going from one system into another one is difficult though.
I admit that going from one system into another one is difficult though.
- Electric-Metal
- Posts: 667
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015
- Location: Landstuhl, Germany
A good example of how different all of us percieve things. Those "relics" remind me of a time, when modern music was top notch.Kombucha wrote:I don't like any of these old relics, as they represent a time when modern music was at it's lowest point ever.
The question is - Who cares
- fieldframe
- RE Developer
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: 19 Apr 2016
Not sure what you mean here - why would it be nuts that copyrights and patents can be owned? They don't exist if they aren't owned.Marco Raaphorst wrote:The internet has proven that open source wins. I am a avid believer that we should respect authors, give credit, but copyights and patents can be OWNED which is totally nuts. It's a problem in the medical industry too.
Also, this has nothing to do with copyright, only trademark and maybe patent. People tend to confuse these a lot, so I actually made a website that details the differences between them: http://iplaws.info
(The only way something like this could ever be about copyright is if the 303 and 808 had ROMs and Roland was accusing Propellerhead of pirating the ROMs for Rebirth.)
- Marco Raaphorst
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: 22 Jan 2015
- Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
- Contact:
What I meant to say is that copyright and patents are often owned not by the people creating it but simply buy owners.fieldframe wrote:Not sure what you mean here - why would it be nuts that copyrights and patents can be owned? They don't exist if they aren't owned.Marco Raaphorst wrote:The internet has proven that open source wins. I am a avid believer that we should respect authors, give credit, but copyights and patents can be OWNED which is totally nuts. It's a problem in the medical industry too.
Also, this has nothing to do with copyright, only trademark and maybe patent. People tend to confuse these a lot, so I actually made a website that details the differences between them: http://iplaws.info
(The only way something like this could ever be about copyright is if the 303 and 808 had ROMs and Roland was accusing Propellerhead of pirating the ROMs for Rebirth.)
I would love to see more stuff getting open sourced. Art needs that. We're way to capitalistic it's insane. See how much money is being made with open source tools. The music world should do more with that. It's more sustainable.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests