Re: [microsound] copyright...

[earphone <earphone@xxxxxxx>]

aleks,

and i was fearing that thought was lost in the resonation of ownership and
commodity making. :)

most sense, it not common, it is distorted by a projected image or meaning.

marc


On 6/20/02 8:50 PM, "aleks" <bvasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
>> for everyone's edification:
>> 
>>     http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/
>> 
>> does a copyright still serve a function when referring to 'microsound,
>> lowercase, etc.', because it could be stated that the recordings are
>> artifacts of copyrighted, patented, and trademarked hardware, software,
>> and/or design processes?
>> 
>> is the manipulator of these deigns and processes actually a creator (as
>> stated in common copyright law)?
>> 
>> best,
>> marc
>> 
> 
> 
> Couldnt you apply this line of thought to any creative process?  From film
> making to the creation of traditional music.  They all use patented tools or
> technologies.
> 
> Whats the difference between the patent on Reaktor and that of a patent on a
> certain film camera used in making a movie?
> 
> Its all a moot point IMO.  A company like Native Instruments earns its
> living off of other people using their software for their creative needs and
> purposes.   These technologies were created for a large user base.  The
> public.  It would be different if it was a propietary piece of software
> implemented only by the conmpany that created it, for a specialized use
> within said coorporation.
> 
> Once you buy a program, hardware whtever, it is your property.  A tool to be
> used as you please.  This seems pretty common sense to me.
> 
> 
> aLEKs
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 

--
earphone music
http://earphone.org
mail: earphone@xxxxxxx