Inside High End Equipment

[accwai]

1 hour ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

Not the same thing by a long shot.  Publishing schematics would be different as it would involve copyright as would source code.  

 

A while ago, some guy reverse engineered the Coincident Technology M300B Frankenstein MK II monoblock amp and published the schematic on SET Asylum:

 

https://www.audioasylum.com/forums/set/messages/7/edit/7527820140325143853.html

 

He claimed that since the manufacturer never showed a schematic for the amp, he was the sole creator of the diagram. And as such, he is the actual copyright owner of the published diagram.

 

The strange things happening on the net these days... But if we follow through with this logic, I don't understand why the guy didn't sue the manufacturer for violating *his* copyrights

[accwai]

Ok, inside photos of older gear:

 

Esoteric P2 CD transport

 

 

 

The above are from an old CD transport tear-down article at lapizator.eu. The thing is literally built like a tank. I have the successor model P2S and inspected the inside when I first got it. The photos in the article, while impressive, doesn't quite show how awesomely hefty the real thing is.

 

Yamamoto A-09S

 

 

Single-ended stereo amp with 8W per channel. Photo above from review article at 6moons.com. Neat point-to-point wiring totally by hand. High quality components throughout, down to the inhouse wound transformers/choke and tube sockets manufactured inhouse. I used to have the predecessor model A-09. The inside has this Zen-like serenity to it 

[accwai]

6 hours ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

There have been numerous instances of one manufacturer copying another's design when the later was not patented, recall B & K.  Whether the person who produced a schematic actually owned the copyright is doubtful because a schematic already existed in the hands of Coincident.

[...]

Disclaimer:  This is not legal advice, if that is what you want, go find a lawyer.

 

If anybody is looking for legal advice here, it would be Coincident. Doesn't look like they did anything about this incident though. The company is based out of Toronto, Canada. Probably too much trouble for them to cross the border to chase down an American. But purely as a bystander, one would have to wonder about the moral value of somebody who asked a manufacturer for schematic of one of its product, and when that was declined, reverse engineered the product, post the schematic to the an enthusiast forum to have people there bash the product around.

 

Anyway, crazy things do happen on the net. Somebody once took a photo of mine on Flickr, posted it to Wikipedia, claimed to be the photo's owner and released it to public domain. I complained to Wikipedia, showed them where the photo was located on Flickr and pointed out to them the photo's Exif metadata, even the copy displaying on Wikipedia, says I'm the copyright owner. The photo was promptly taken down. In the chain of correspondence with Wikipedia, I was informed that this isn't the first time that the person had "contributed" somebody else's photos to Wikipedia. Amazing...

 

At the other extreme, I've received a few requests from people who want to use specific Flickr photos of mine in their school assignments. I also have a photo on Flickr of the 2011 RCM violin gold medalist performing at the RCM award ceremony. The lady contacted me and asked for the photo. I ended up giving her a full rez version and granted her full usage rights. I'm reasonable you know

 

[accwai]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

This doesn't need t be on the net per se. A colleague of mine makes photos (for a hobby). He shoots a nice event and sends the pictures of it to the local news paper (say the newspaper which only distributes in your local 20,000 people relative small city). He also puts the photo shoot on his private web site.

What happens next is that he has to take down the photos from his website or else he is sued. Remember, his own photos.

 

That depends on what the newspaper submission is for. If it's a job for the newspaper, the contract can force the ownership of the photos to go to the newspaper. This can happen even for something less serious. For example, a lot of photo competitions in magazines have a little clause in the rules that says the competition organization would own the copyrights to all submissions, whether they win anything at all. You're not entitled to post anything to your private website that don't belong to you right? These days, one has to remember to read the fine prints before one does anything...

 

9 hours ago, sandyk said:

S.N.A.F.U . ?

 

Oh yes

 

By the way, works derived from another work is copyrighted separately. If you somehow give somebody the rights to derive from your work, they can turn it into something that's out of your control. I recall non-business Gmail's Terms of Service had something that give Google full rights to use any attachments that passed through the Gmail system. My previous employer prohibit using personal Gmail for any work related communications exactly because of that. Did some looking up this morning and can't find the clause on Google anymore. Perhaps they have stopped doing that now.

[accwai]

2 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

Solid build on that Philips CD player! [...]

 

Philips single beam swing arm CD mechanism is the cat's meow, and CDM1 is the the grandfather of them all. Yummy The weak point in the CD304 is probably the tray loading gear. Early Krell's for example had pretty much gone to top loading, except really extreme tray loading solution like the DT-10 transport where the whole CD mechanism is inside the slide out tray. Esoteric VRDS type mechanism is much more optimized for tray loading. So that's probably a more thorough solution.