Korg FISA SUPREMA

[dak]

On top of that, there is law and there is morality. Do you feel it is right someone share your "patches" that you spent 10's to 100's of hours on without your say, one way or another?

I seem to have problems expressing myself, so let me repeat what I wrote:

Ventura was going on about legality (how to "prove" uniqueness") and patents which is not really pertinent to whether to consider something "ok"

I have invested tens of thousands of hours myself into software licensed freely (and a good deal getting paid for that by people who particularly appreciate the aspect of supporting software that anybody is free to copy), so I am not really much into holier-than-thou arguments. And yes, even for software that people don't pay a dime for, some will feel entitled to tell you what they feel you should be morally obligated to do additionally for them. I am perfectly content with copyright owners setting terms of purchase. That is why I don't use Apple or Windows devices: I respect their terms of service which I consider completely unacceptable. So I don't use their devices.

You'll find a lot of people who will just ignore conditions they don't agree with instead of just not using the product in question. I prefer not entering that kind of quagmire.

And by the way: I doubt that the manner of marketing that Richard Noël does turns producing his sets into a sensible business, partly based on my own experiences. He might well be better off just putting them somewhere to download and prominently asking people for a sensible donation in return. It would drastically reduce the percentage of people actually going to the pain of paying anything, yes. It would also reduce the amounts of headaches when you have trouble fulfilling orders, or when people complain. And would make it much easier to say "no" when you are not in the mood. But it is absolutely his prerogative to make his own decisions in that regard.

 

[Ventura]

how do you propose to show they were "mine"
rather than the persons who shared them ?

 

[KeysFla]

Kong synths and the Fisa are not made in the same production line. Dexibell sounds are not Korg sounds, you cannot (I am told), use one on the other.

Best case? MIDI connection from your Fisa to the Korg synth lets you access those sounds... but you cannot "install" them on the Fisa

I understood that. There may be in the future sounds that will be specific to the FISA that can be installed. The 580 mb of space on the FISA is there for a reason.

 

[JerryPH]

I understood that. There may be in the future sounds that will be specific to the FISA that can be installed. The 580 mb of space on the FISA is there for a reason.

Yes, but for now, we don't see anything. It may also be that because of the limited numbers of FISAs out there, they may never think to add another sound ever.

In terms of things for the FISA people to really focus on, I would be paying attention to people like Uwe Steger, his ideas add useful functionality and address real world usage issues than concentrating on adding more sounds that in the end MAYBE 1% of people will use... but thats me.

 

[kep]

Sigh. Can we please please please not confuse all the established terms again? "Proprietary" means not redistributable and not modifiable by the recipient. It doesn't matter whether it is provided at zero cost or not. There is lot of software that companies offer at zero cost (like Roland's set editors and pretty much all downloadable manuals and firmware versions) that aren't free to redistribute.

Not sure what exactly terms I confused, but I didn't even touch the cost. By "Proprietary" I meant exactly what you said: sets/PGUs created by Richard, Cory, Dell are not redistributable and not modifiable by the recipient.

"Free", in contrast, means that the recipient is allowed to study, change, and pass on software. It does not at all mean that it is available at zero cost.

Fully agree and, again, I never mentioned cost, price, payments, etc. If you wish we can use the term "Open Source" to avoid double meaning.

 

[Thomas N]

If I take an entire bank of Richard Noel UPGs and change the volume on each one from 40 to 39 are they still his or are they modified customized UPGs of mine? If they aren't, how many tweaks do I need to make to then call them mine? I don't know.

I'm too old for all the technical details about copyrights and infringements. My kid's in Law School and I'll let him figure that all out.

I don't pirate anything - software, music, movies, games. I have Apple Music subscriptions for the stuff I listen to and watch. I'll rent a movie if I absolutely must see it now (rare). I don't know if it's some ethical or moral decision I made but it just doesn't feel right so I don't do it and that's all there is to it for me personally.

But if somebody gave me the 3D printing plans for a Fisa I might just take them up on it.

 

[kep]

And by the way: I doubt that the manner of marketing that Richard Noël does turns producing his sets into a sensible business, partly based on my own experiences. He might well be better off just putting them somewhere to download and prominently asking people for a sensible donation in return. It would drastically reduce the percentage of people actually going to the pain of paying anything, yes. It would also reduce the amounts of headaches when you have trouble fulfilling orders, or when people complain. And would make it much easier to say "no" when you are not in the mood. But it is absolutely his prerogative to make his own decisions in that regard.

IMHO, Richard has created a unique (for our little sandbox) model: he is personally supporting his every sell by contacting a customer, helping in installation, explaining how to optimally use it, etc. Considering that most of the accordionists are clueless about Roland's features, this support is well worth the money.

 

[Ventura]

IMHO, Richard has created a unique (for our little sandbox) model: he is personally supporting his every sell by contacting a customer, helping in installation, explaining how to optimally use it, etc. Considering that most of the accordionists are clueless about Roland's features, this support is well worth the money.

that's called "value added" and makes the equation entirely different..

loyalty is one result, which is helpful to keep the lid on things
in a practical sense, and even if someone gave identical presets
to someone else, you can't give away the extra mile he goes
for his customers

 

[dak]

If I take an entire bank of Richard Noel UPGs and change the volume on each one from 40 to 39 are they still his or are they modified customized UPGs of mine? If they aren't, how many tweaks do I need to make to then call them mine? I don't know.

Please don't play stupid. When you start out with copyrighted content from someone else, no amount of modifications will make it "yours". It is a derived work of the original author and of yourself, and nobody may distribute it without permission from all authors.

That is the way copyright has worked for hundreds of years. If you buy a book, you own the copy. You may write notes all over your copy and sell your copy to somebody else. But regardless of just how much you wrote in that book, you are not allowed to create and distribute additional copies without permission from the original copyright holder.

 

[Ventura]

oh my GOD

maybe don't play with pretending a synth patch that has ZERO
unique originality that could not also have been created
by a computer running random combinations on a finite
number of known variables is worthy of an enforceable copyright

 

[dak]

Not sure what exactly terms I confused, but I didn't even touch the cost. By "Proprietary" I meant exactly what you said: sets/PGUs created by Richard, Cory, Dell are not redistributable and not modifiable by the recipient.

You wrote explicitly:

Free - something explicitly distributed for free by creator. In the software world it is distributed under one of the licenses (Apache, GNU, etc.) Any of them suppose that if you use the open code (in our case, set/UPG, Scene settings), you share your code as well.

and that is wrong in several respects. The first three wrong points are "something explicitly distributed for free by creator". The creator does not to distribute free software at all: they can chose to let someone else do it. They don't need to do it for free but can demand an arbitrary fee. What makes it free is that the creator licenses the recipients to redistribute the software as long as they don't violate the terms of redistribution under the same conditions they received them.

And the recipient of free software is in no manner bound to "share their code" at all. Only when they redistribute the code with their modifications are they required to pass on the modified whole under the same license they received it. They can, if they want to, demand $1000 for any copy they pass on. What they cannot demand is that when somebody forks over the $1000 for their copy, is that the recipient may not at their leisure create additional copies and pass them to other people at whatever price point they like to.

Fully agree and, again, I never mentioned cost, price, payments, etc. If you wish we can use the term "Open Source" to avoid double meaning.

Please be advised that "for free" in English has a very specific connotation that very much means "at zero cost point".

 

[Thomas N]

Please don't play stupid. When you start out with copyrighted content from someone else, no amount of modifications will make it "yours". It is a derived work of the original author and of yourself, and nobody may distribute it without permission from all authors.

That is the way copyright has worked for hundreds of years. If you buy a book, you own the copy. You may write notes all over your copy and sell your copy to somebody else. But regardless of just how much you wrote in that book, you are not allowed to create and distribute additional copies without permission from the original copyright holder.

I'm not playing stupid, dak. I am stupid. Please don't confuse the two.

 

[dak]

I'm not playing stupid, dak. I am stupid. Please don't confuse the two.

Sorry, it would appear that I am too irritable right now. Part may be that I am setting up a new computer and things aren't going quite as I'd imagined. It would seem like a bad idea to interject forum participance while stuff is being ugly.

 

[Thomas N]

Sorry, it would appear that I am too irritable right now. Part may be that I am setting up a new computer and things aren't going quite as I'd imagined. It would seem like a bad idea to interject forum participance while stuff is being ugly.

No worries at all, dak! I'm not easily offended and my wife does tell me often that I say a lot of things that aren't too bright. But she does tell me I'm a marvelous accordionist so I'll take it!

 

[kep]

Part may be that I am setting up a new computer and things aren't going quite as I'd imagined.

Time to move to Mac?

 

[Alan Sharkis]

PeopleIMHO, Richard has created a unique (for our little sandbox) model: he is personally supporting his every sell by contacting a customer, helping in installation, explaining how to optimally use it, etc. Considering that most of the accordionists are clueless about Roland's features, this support is well worth the money..

I agree, and for that alone he should not only be compensated and his work should not be redistributed.

Time to move to Mac?

I did that a few years ago. It’s not a complicated process and there are guides all over the web that help. I have to keep my Windows chops alive, however, because my wife hasn’t switched

 

[KeysFla]

Yes, but for now, we don't see anything. It may also be that because of the limited numbers of FISAs out there, they may never think to add another sound ever.

In terms of things for the FISA people to really focus on, I would be paying attention to people like Uwe Steger, his ideas add useful functionality and address real world usage issues than concentrating on adding more sounds that in the end MAYBE 1% of people will use... but thats me.

I look at the specs at a product and the possible expansion is what I see in the FISA. As far as operation, I tend to use my own learning curve.

 

[dak]

IMHO, Richard has created a unique (for our little sandbox) model: he is personally supporting his every sell by contacting a customer, helping in installation, explaining how to optimally use it, etc. Considering that most of the accordionists are clueless about Roland's features, this support is well worth the money.

I agree, and for that alone he should not only be compensated and his work should not be redistributed.

As I said: it is his prerogative to pick his business and distribution model, but it would be perfectly feasible to offer his sets under a license allowing for redistribution while confining the sales support to customers actually having bought his sets from him and for a single installation (namely not letting a music teacher or multiinstrumentalist lean on him for a dozen instruments for the price of buying once). That tends to be workable as a business model. But it's his choice to make.

 

[JerryPH]

I agree, and for that alone he should not only be compensated and his work should not be redistributed.

That is where I sit too.

I did that a few years ago. It’s not a complicated process and there are guides all over the web that help. I have to keep my Windows chops alive, however, because my wife hasn’t switched

It's not that hard, especially if you come from a Windows PC background. I currently use a MAC upstairs and keep my Windows PCs downstairs. There are advantages to both sides and I now move back and forth without even thinking about it.

Anyways, I'm sorry that I went down that conversational path. I think that I will follow my own path and everyone else follows theirs.