Nice Schematics Link

[jessej]

Does Finland have copyright laws like US?

I mostly only buy/collect vinyl records use the library/buy books and enjoy going to the movies with my better half, instead of downloading stuff, so I don't really know or think much about the copyright topic. I think Finland is quite strict with copyrights, but our lawsuits never go into ridiculous sums like in the USA. If someone is sentenced to pay, the sum will be realistic, not astronomical.

As a musician I am for copyright more than against it, even though I sometimes find some copyright claims ass-backward and wrong, like that school teachers can't photocopy excerpts from books for their students or that if some song is playing in the background (from the radio) in an youtube video, EMI has the right to have the whole audio track be removed rendering the whole video useless for everybody. We also have a law in Finland that makes it illegal for me as a musician to copy my own published song from a CD to an mp3 player. I don't find it very smart... but in all, I am for copyrights.

I wasn't really thinking when making the pdf more than archiving a webpage, because it has happened to me many times that the url/webpage behind my bookmark has vanished... It didn't ever cross my mind that the content would be copyrighted somehow. However it made sense as soon as it was pointed out. Rapidshare logs said it was downloaded 0 times so no harm done. I must say I haven't thought about copyrights at all when building DIY stuff, except when mentioned in the "degoop" section... and perhaps even then it's been more a inside dialog about moral than copyright. Is it right to degoop? Is it right to goop?

But yeah, back to the topic....

[jessej]

For instance, my PCB layout book.

Hi!

As I am new to this forum and also pretty new to pedal DIY, I unfortunately don't know who's behind the initials R.G. but I am probably interested in buying the book. Do you have the ISBN number and I can check it out. Please PM me!  

Also I don't really get people who want to read books onscreen. I like a paperback and a sunny beach. I do agree that pdf datasheets are a blessing and that it is very fast to search in a pdf, so the best would be to buy a book and have the same book as a pdf for reference. But for reading, I still rather cut down some forest...

[oldschoolanalog]

...I unfortunately don't know who's behind the initials R.G. ...

http://www.geofex.com/
And much, much more.

[jessej]

...I unfortunately don't know who's behind the initials R.G. ...

http://www.geofex.com/
And much, much more.

Aha! R.G. Keen. I've spent a lot of time on that site. Must get the book, I didn't know there was one.

[Celadine]

Whats so special about that archive?  Kinda sick of puretube's nonsense.   

[Taylor]

Just as a bit of commentary: lack of respect for copyright has two effects. One is that the owners with a lot of money convince governments to do truly oppressive things like making a *first*, *non-commercial* infringement punishible by civil penalties starting at $100,000 if the owner has gone through the necessary registration. Governments *like* control and criminalizing behavior, so this is agreeable for everybody, excepting of course we, the people.

The second is that creators of copyrighted material decide, upon reflection, that if they can't effectively have the fruits of their creations, they have much less incentive to put them where they can be infringed. For instance, my PCB layout book. I have received literally hundreds of requests to sell a version on CD or a downloadable version. I explain to each one that a "free" online downloadable copy would appear within a few days of doing that; I firmly believe that would happen based on the sheer number of times that everything I have put on line in almost fifteen years has been pirated. The result is that those are only in hard copy, inconvenient as it is. It's clumsy for me, reduces the number I'd sell, and hacks off some part of the buyers. But it's better than sales dropping to zero, as they would when the "free" version on line appeared.

Actually, sales have slowed down quite a bit so I suspect someone may have scanned it and put it on the usual "secret" filesharing places. I'd actually had requests for and been working a bit on a followon "pro lessons" volume two. Guess how motivated it makes me for the first version to be pirated.

It's all well and good to self-rationalize by saying that it's OK to infringe the robber corporations like Sony who have a choke hold on music, and how they don't deserve their dirty millions. The problem is that Sony is going to get their dirty millions one way or another. I don't have the funds to pay off governments, so I have to consider how much I want to feed to the pirating system.

I have a question here, and first I feel it necessary to say that I think copyright holders have the right to protect their property. I'm not going to roll my eyes at someone because they don't want their property stolen, just because I grew up in a time where the respect for IP is vanishing.

I'm curious why you don't like your schematics to be published on third-party sites like that. In Puretube's case, I get it, since he didn't put the schems for his EH pedals out there in the first place. But since you've allowed anyone to see your stuff at geofex.com, why don't you want it seen elsewhere? Again, I ask this out of innocent curiosity.

[R.G.]

Whats so special about that archive?  Kinda sick of puretube's nonsense.  

You go ahead feeling ill.   What's so special about that archive? Absolutely nothing. It's one of many, many places where the attitude is that if you've seen it or can swipe it anywhere, it's yours. There are so many places like that, it's numbing.

Before you make any comments about what should and should not be tossed around the internet, *you* create a body of work worth being copied, let *someone else* try to take credit for it, then talk to us about how it ought to belong to everyone else for whatever they want to use it for, including putting their names on it as their own creation. Then we'll have something to talk about. You may not like the way puretube says things, but like it or not, there are laws, and his comments are pretty much on the right side of that line. You don't respect laws? Kewl. Tell me what we would be doing without them. You don't agree with specific laws? Kewl, get them changed.

Have you really thought through this any more than "Kewl, we can copy more stuff!"?

I'm curious why you don't like your schematics to be published on third-party sites like that. In Puretube's case, I get it, since he didn't put the schems for his EH pedals out there in the first place. But since you've allowed anyone to see your stuff at geofex.com, why don't you want it seen elsewhere? Again, I ask this out of innocent curiosity.

Obviously, it's not because they're secrets...   Things I want to be secret never appear on the web, period. I figured that out about the web early.

There are a couple of reasons not to want my stuff presented from other places. One is that one too many of these places have presented the stuff as their work, not mine. That kinda hacked me off.

Another is that the stuff from my site can be linked to freely. There is no need whatsoever for other copies. And there's a good reason NOT to make other copies. I can never correct mistakes or make up dates if that happens. The bum or outdated copies never die. It was a real PITA to me in the early days when I put up the univibe stuff. There are still copies of my first univibe stuff out there that are erroneous in some details. I can't fix them.

Then after a whole slew of nit-picking, there's the issue of copy... right. If it is my right, as the creator (however small the creation) of something, then I ought to get the choice of what to do with it. That could be donating it to space aliens, tossing it into the nearest pond, burning the metaphorical it, or letting other people see it and use it on my terms. That was the whole point of copyright before the corporations and lawyers moved in, to allow an artist some control of their creations, right? So if we believe that a creator ( I won't class my stuff as art, just creations with a small "c") is not to have whatever he/she creates pulled out of his hands and tossed to whomever to to whatever they like with it, including presenting it as the second/third/one-hundred-ninety-seventh party's own work, then the creator should get to say how it's used.

If you believe that creations *should* be taken from the creators, that's cool too. But when that becomes the way the rules really work, the web has seen the last of anything I create. I know how to *not* create.   I suspect that there are others too. There's a concept in economics that bad money drives good money out of circulation. I think that applies here too. When whatever appears on the net is public property, you'll see a lot less, and certainly a lot less worth anything put on the net.

If that seems like I'm being a dog in a manger, so be it. Other people can create stuff to be taken away from them if they like. I won't. Especially when the payments I demand are so low - zero, just don't copy it unless I tell you that you can, and point to it on my web site, not making local copies.

I don't make a dime on my web site stuff. I don't skim off nickels from advertisers, and never have. Sony doesn't own any of my "artwork" and demand a dollar per download. I once sold PCBs and parts, and decided I didn't like it. That was long before anyone else decided to set up shop. The schematics and commentary are there free for everyone to see, on the condition they not copy it and ship it around, but instead point to it where I *pay out of my own pocket* for showing it to everyone. That's apparently too high a price for some people, who think that if it's on the internet, it's *theirs*.

I don't mind that people see the schematics, read the how-tos, get educated, make their own pedals from the info there. I've provided the technical info to start literally thousands of pedal building businesses, either directly or indirectly. The laws say that if I put up a schematic or layout, the "picture" itself is protected. A circuit built from it is not, and I've never represented that it is. I have in fact called down other people who would have you believe that you cannot build from their schematics on the net. Those are the laws as I understand them.

People are free to make what they want from them, except that the law says that I get to call what happens to copies or derivative works/modifications of copies. What's the harm in humoring me when I want to be able to update my stuff when I want to? Is it really that much adolescent excitement for someone to have their own "archive" and get away with it? It's not for longevity, for certain. Geofex is older than many of these "archive" sites. So what's the kick? Why isn't a link to my stuff as good as a local copy?

I had a hard time coming up with a reason for the collections which consist only of everyone else's work, until I realized that there are two possible explanations. One is monetary. Some of the archive sites get money from advertising. So the more people looking there, the better, because some small fraction will click on the advertising links. More traffic of any kind is better. A somewhat sadder reason crossed my mind. That may be the highest level of creativity the collectors can do.

There may be holes in my reasoning. I welcome debate on it.

[yeeshkul]

Just to open the site in my firefox takes all my RAM . One million pictures on one page hahaha, i am truly amused.

[Renegadrian]

I made so little in the schem world, just a couple of my inventions (the Electradrian and the Tube Star) while I made lots of layouts of other's work (always writing who invented it...) - I put that signature at the bottom of the layout (which actually is a part of my tattoo) but I found one of my layouts with that part cut away...Should I put a watermark?! Maybe it would help...

[anchovie]

A somewhat sadder reason crossed my mind. That may be the highest level of creativity the collectors can do.

...and possibly they get an ego-boost from having their hoard linked to on forums and suchlike. I suspect that people who stumble across such a site would be more likely to say "Look at this awesome huge collection of schematics!" than "Props to all the awesome guys who created the schematics in this huge collection!".

[R.G.]

I made so little in the schem world, just a couple of my inventions (the Electradrian and the Tube Star) while I made lots of layouts of other's work (always writing who invented it...) - I put that signature at the bottom of the layout (which actually is a part of my tattoo) but I found one of my layouts with that part cut away...Should I put a watermark?! Maybe it would help...

You may think it's little - but it's so much more than just stealing other people's work. Since you found your layout with your signature cut away, you understand the issue in a way that is impossible for someone who hasn't "enjoyed" that situation.

[ibodog]

I know this is maybe a little out of left field, but here goes...   So why claim ownership to something you *intended* to give away on the net?  I'm a relative noob to circuits and pedals and have just started doing some vero layouts.  I've tried to *not* put any identifying info about me on the layouts. 

[Renegadrian]

I believe it's good to share, so it's also good if someone uses your works and find them good.
Sometimes you have some good words in return, and that's enough.
A lot of times you got nothing, but that's ok. I Know for sure a lot of people used my layouts for the Valvecaster, so I am happy about it...
It's not good if someone steals it and pretend it's their work.

[yeeshkul]

Not for money not for real glory, just a little bit of appreciation makes one happy. Nothing against watermarks.

[oldschoolanalog]

It's all about:
Giving credit where it is due.
IIRC, this is otherwise known as...
RESPECT!

Obviously something long forgotten by some.

[ibodog]

So if one puts their moniker on something set out for free on the net are they seeking respect or praise?  Like a painter signing a painting? 

[Renegadrian]

M, so you'd take a Van Gogh, take off his signature and add yours, and tell all your friends about your latest paint?!

[ibodog]

Ok, so it's not like signing a painting?    Van Gogh was quite original but even he had to learn things from others and build on that knowledge.  I suppose there's not enough room to fit credits for everyone on the painting.

So many circuits are just snippets of long ago written app notes for components.  Do those guys get credit?  Or does the moniker just represent the mechanicals of the particular drawing?  Even if much of it is copied from app notes or other circuits.  I don't put my name on stuff because I feel like what I've done with it is such a small part of everything that led up to it that signing it feels like claiming everything.  I don't mind crediting my sources if they can be known.  But so many can't be known so it seems more like an exercise in just tracing lineage.

[Renegadrian]

mmm I don't know...Personally I don't agree, as you understood...

[ibodog]

M, so you'd take a Van Gogh, take off his signature and add yours, and tell all your friends about your latest paint?!

Ah, after re-reading I think we've misunderstood each other.  I was speaking in terms of someone making a layout or schematic, etc (actually doing/adding some "work" on their part) and intending to give it away on the internet in the first place.  Not taking someone else's work and strip off their name from it and present it as yours - ie not much work added besides the stripping off part.

Why claim things that you are giving away freely?  To build a reputation I suppose.  That could be leveraged into a career  or "expert status" so it may be worth while from that perspective, I guess.   Build a "brand" so to speak.