Inside High End Equipment

[Ron Scubadiver]

27 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

So if I call in a contractor to work on my software (bug finding), do you think it is OK if he publishes the source code ?

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

[Ron Scubadiver]

4 hours ago, accwai said:

 

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

 

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.

 

A controversy exists as to whether a photograph of a 3 dimensional object comes under fair use or not.  Photographs of the Eiffel tower taken at night are said to violate the copyright of the one who designed the lighting.  It's the same situation regarding the Seattle Space Needle unless the tower is just part of the skyline.

 

If "part of the skyline" is the correct approach, then there might be a copyright issue with close ups of this gear.

 

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

 

 

[Ron Scubadiver]

2 hours ago, accwai said:

 

I

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

 

 

I used to have flickr photos copied on an almost weekly basis.  They were mostly photos of women with tattoos.  I have one on Wikipedia, but they asked for permission.  

[Ron Scubadiver]

14 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

 

This was done by own volition as I thought it would be useful for many other audiophiles to identify parts or finding alternatives replacement if necessary. 

I am looking at it from the consumers perspective. I once paid three times for a replacement pickup lens from a High End company which turned out to be a Sony’s pickup lens which was probably manufactured in my country and could be bought at 1/3 the price. It is common to see many of the parts number obliterated to prevent us from sourcing the part directly from the source. I don’t see such practice in other consumers product. I think that is seriously inappropriate and unethical.

 

Manufacturers can always protect the IP legally and usually would proudly expose their innovation for all to see. Example here where the show everything.

 

 

Actually, Crown shows nothing.  The amplifier is built around a proprietary chip designed in conjunction with Texas Instruments (Burr Brown).  However it was implemented is useless to anyone else.  I have an XLS 1502 hooked up to my LS50's.  These babies sing and make a lot of audiophile gear look overpriced.

 

Some manufacturers go to great lengths to conceal their "secrets" by pouring gunk over their chips.  Remember the Gain Card?  It must have been embarrassing for anyone who paid $3k for one of those, or the guys who wrote the reviews of an amplifier based on cheap widely available modules.