i've got a hat and a rabbit: ovalprocess/intellectual property

[andrew <1a@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hello,
i was interested in  the ovalprocess software as a fan and thought it was part of
the album package.
i thought i'd be fun to try a 'd.i.y. - oval' for myself with my own source
music...
but if he doesn't want to release the software who can argue?
i think his decision is  fair enough - i have just completed a Masters degree in
which i created a piece of performance software with the intention of selling it
to make some money (i knew i'd end up unemployed..!).  i decided against it in the
end 'cos it's my 'magic' and it took my time and effort to produce (although
anyone with max-msp could make it... however nobody else on the course had a clue
what i was doing!), i feel i can implement it to my advantage at some stage,
giving it away, i feel, wont do me any favors (plus no one's asked for it
anyway!).

i like the 'magician' thing. - i've got a hat and a rabbit and i'm saying no more.

if someone is using 'x' software that's enough information for me, maybe too much,
if no more info is forthcoming then so be it.

this topic has kind of gone into a question i asked a while ago about visual's
with electronic music performances.  i don't know how interested i'd be in
watching some one fiddling around with their max patches, but if they were
chopping bits out of one and copying them into another that was live that could be
fun...
anyway, i think after my experiences of 'visuals' i'd rather they were hardly
there, i think some performances i have seen have been let down by their visual
accompaniment's lack of sync and relevance... - and i don't think i want to see
the performers interface, that's getting too technical.

 - i fell asleep at a merzbow powerbook gig (not out of boredom), when i woke up i
was quite chuffed!

andrew