A cover band these days? No way in hell! BMI sues bar...

[John Tisdale]

FAS' amp models are replicating amp manufacturer's products so accurately that I'm sure there will be some conflict in the future because FAS is essentially 'copying' their product. As a result, FAS is biting into the revenue of the amp manufacturers. It's only a matter of time before amp manufacturer's start to fight to 'get back' their piece of the pie. JMHO.

To your point - the same thing is happening here with live music at venues - and it is a double standard.

Where there's money, there will be conflict.

Actually, Line 6 and I believe Korg and a couple of others, already bit that bullet, and there are already legal standards in place that protect amp, and effect modeling. This is 100% why Cliff cannot simply call the JCM 800 a JCM 800, he uses code words.

I get what people are trying to say, but essentially, it all comes from a lack of truly understanding copyrights. It does not work the way most people think it does, most of the stuff you hear from people totally disregards what the laws actually say, and comes from "myths" created by the record industry (major labels) to scare people into not dealing with, so they can con you in some way. It works too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[s0c9]

FAS' amp models are replicating amp manufacturer's products so accurately that I'm sure there will be some conflict in the future because FAS is essentially 'copying' their product. As a result, FAS is biting into the revenue of the amp manufacturers. It's only a matter of time before amp manufacturer's start to fight to 'get back' their piece of the pie. JMHO.

I'm not a lawyer, but I disagree.
FAS is modeling those amps.. based on algorithm's, etc., CREATED by Cliff.
He's not "copying" the physical design, nor building replicas of them to sell, but emulating the sound they achieve.
In court, I believe this would fall under the old "look and feel" ruling from long ago (Lotus123 vs Borland) and nothing would come of it.

 

[bwanagary]

Well, at least forum participants could never be accused of indifference or lack of passion about any given subject ... :lol

 

[bwanagary]

I'm not a lawyer, but I disagree.
FAS is modeling those amps.. based on algorithm's, etc., CREATED by Cliff.
He's not "copying" the physical design, nor building replicas of them to sell, but emulating the sound they achieve.
In court, I believe this would fall under the old "look and feel" ruling from long ago (Lotus123 vs Borland) and nothing would come of it.

Dude - showing your "vintage" a little here

 

[NeoSound]

I'm not a lawyer, but I disagree.
FAS is modeling those amps.. based on algorithm's, etc., CREATED by Cliff.
He's not "copying" the physical design, nor building replicas of them to sell, but emulating the sound they achieve.
In court, I believe this would fall under the old "look and feel" ruling from long ago (Lotus123 vs Borland) and nothing would come of it.

Do you guys think most cover bands are providing an exact duplicate of a song or their rendition? Seems inspiration is being copyrighted?

If I take someone's album and put my name on it or an amp for that matter I'm stealing, or I hear it and provide my translation of what I hear - I'm adding me to the equation?

All the ingredients for these things already existed so do we blame the chef?

Like I said it is very complicated. Protect tangible things? sure. Put dollar value on someone's interpretation of something that they most likely loved and supported being the reason, and is only making it more known to the world! I'm not so sure about that one ?

Big organizations are about making money, they could care less that they made sure so & so rock star got enough royalties to O.D. themselves or buy jr and new toy. I really hate stereo typing things - it's ok here but not here...come on and think!?

 

[JRod4928]

I'm not a lawyer, but I disagree.
FAS is modeling those amps.. based on algorithm's, etc., CREATED by Cliff.
He's not "copying" the physical design, nor building replicas of them to sell, but emulating the sound they achieve.
In court, I believe this would fall under the old "look and feel" ruling from long ago (Lotus123 vs Borland) and nothing would come of it.

Actually, Line 6 and I believe Korg and a couple of others, already bit that bullet, and there are already legal standards in place that protect amp, and effect modeling. This is 100% why Cliff cannot simply call the JCM 800 a JCM 800, he uses code words.

I get what people are trying to say, but essentially, it all comes from a lack of truly understanding copyrights. It does not work the way most people think it does, most of the stuff you hear from people totally disregards what the laws actually say, and comes from "myths" created by the record industry (major labels) to scare people into not dealing with, so they can con you in some way. It works too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with some of the stuff you guys said, and the Lotus123 vs Borland case is interesting. In that case, it was software modeling software. In the FAS case, software is modeling hardware... so it'd make it less likely that an amp manufacturer would win in a court... So, I see your point. I don't feel like a parallel can be drawn between amp modeling and copyright infringement on songwriting... so I'm not going to do that... with that said - I'm definitely highjacking this thread, lol.

However, are you sure that FAS is simply modeling the 'sound' of an amp? I think that's the goal of L6 and Boss units, but I think that FAS is going further than that...based on my loose understanding of G3, If Cliff is measuring transistors, capacitors, internal signal chains, etc. etc. and writing an algorithm to model the behavior of the actual amp (making a digital model of an analog amp signal), and then making money on it by selling AXE 2's, AX8's, FX8's, etc. - at some point it's going to catch the attention of amp manufacturer's (because they're losing customers and artist endorsements, etc) and I'm sure they're going to investigate what they can do to get a piece of the pie. Especially since the foundation of many of the amp models in the AFX is some kind of real amplifier.

I'm not saying I know the answer, and maybe I'm off-base, but I'm just curious to see where it goes, because I see FAS exploding into the mainstream very soon with the release of the AX8.

 

[John Tisdale]

Do you guys think most cover bands are providing an exact duplicate of a song or their rendition? Seems inspiration is being copyrighted?

If I take someone's album and put my name on it or an amp for that matter I'm stealing, or I hear it and provide my translation of what I hear - I'm adding me to the equation?

All the ingredients for these things already existed so do we blame the chef?

Like I said it is very complicated. Protect tangible things? sure. Put dollar value on someone's interpretation of something that they most likely loved and supported being the reason, and is only making it more known to the world! I'm not so sure about that one ?

Big organizations are about making money, they could care less that they made sure so & so rock star got enough royalties to O.D. themselves or buy jr and new toy. I really hate stereo typing things - it's ok here but not here...come on and think!?

No, none of it works that way.

Your trying to apply one law on one subject to another subject that has totally different laws.

It's not complicated. Music copyright laws are very clear and concise laws protecting the copyright holder of the music that apply uniquely to music. Laws covering amps, amp models, and the like are totally different and apply only to those things.

It's like trying to compare apples to lawn chairs.

There is no stereotyping, again, this is a misunderstanding of these laws and what they do.

Also I'm not sure what "big organizations" you are talking about, unless you mean the PRO's, then, again, this is a total misunderstanding of how these things work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John Tisdale]

I agree with some of the stuff you guys said, and the Lotus123 vs Borland case is interesting. In that case, it was software modeling software. In the FAS case, software is modeling hardware... so it'd make it less likely that an amp manufacturer would win in a court... So, I see your point.

However, based on my loose understanding of G3, If Cliff is measuring transistors, capacitors, internal signal chains, etc. etc. and writing an algorithm to model the behavior of the actual amp (making a digital model of an analog amp signal), and then making money on it by selling AXE 2's, AX8's, FX8's, etc. - at some point it's going to catch the attention of amp manufacturer's (because they're losing customers and artist endorsements, etc) and I'm sure they're going to investigate what they can do to get a piece of the pie. Especially since the foundation of many of the amp models in the AFX is some kind of real amplifier.

I'm not saying I know the answer, and maybe I'm off-base, but I'm just curious to see where it goes, because I see FAS exploding into the mainstream very soon with the release of the AX8.

Trust me, if the amp companies haven't noticed by now (or more like 10 years ago) then they have way more problems than Cliff.

Like I said, this issue has already been addressed, and Cliff is just fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JRod4928]

I'm sure Cliff has covered his bases as much as he can - he's no dummy Like I said, this level of amp modeling is unprecedented. Just curious to see what happens, as we know 'precedents' have a big impact in the court... (or is that 'presidents'?) lol

 

[barhrecords]

I don't think playing covers or originals is this issue with the OP.

Venue fees are just one way music is monetized. If you were receiving royalty payments, I'm guessing you would have no issues with it?

Unfortunately, the music "business" has its share of corruption and graft. Anything involving large amounts of money inevitably introduces corruption.

I've got no problem with songwriters, musicians and other people in the arts getting paid for what they do. The downside is there are corrupt people along the way taking their (un-fair) share too as the money moves around.

 

[John Tisdale]

I'm sure Cliff has covered his bases as much as he can - he's no dummy Like I said, this level of amp modeling is unprecedented. Just curious to see what happens, as we know 'precedents' have a big impact in the court... (or is that 'presidents'?) lol

My prediction is that IF, and that's a very big if, anything happened, it would windup looking very badly on the amp manufactures.

First off, consider that most of the big amp companies that have the power, and money to pursue an issue like this don't make nearly as much money from selling amps as they do selling junk.

Second, the amp companies that do make their money off of amp sales know their main source of income wasn't going to be the guy who bought the modeler in the first place, it's the tube snob who believes that tubes will always be better, and as long as that guy exists, even pursuing this issue would make them look like they are admitting that a modeler could possibly be superior to a tube amp. It sounds petty, but that's business in a nutshell. When you work in a business based at least 50% on your customers ego, you are careful what you put your fingers into.

Third, it's hard to overturn any legal precedent that has already been set, and there is already legal precedent on the issue. It would have to be something so ground breaking it changed the entire face of the industry. I know it seems Cliff is well on his way there, but again, the reality is that ship sailed already. Cliff changed the face of the industry year ago. I mean, have a look at the artist page. If they were going to sue, they would have done so many firmwares back.

The truth is that Cliff will find even more and fascinating ways to improve his technology, and the amp companies will keep selling amps, and junk with their names plastered on them made in China. Cliff is no threat to them as long as kids keep buying "xxx GAS xxx" do-dad of the week, which is a never ending cycle. The only way he'd become a threat is if he started giving the Axe-FX away, and then, there'd be nothing they could really do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NeoSound]

 

[John Tisdale]

I don't think playing covers or originals is this issue with the OP.

Venue fees are just one way music is monetized. If you were receiving royalty payments, I'm guessing you would have no issues with it?

Unfortunately, the music "business" has its share of corruption and graft. Anything involving large amounts of money inevitably introduces corruption.

I've got no problem with songwriters, musicians and other people in the arts getting paid for what they do. The downside is there are corrupt people along the way taking their (un-fair) share too as the money moves around.

That's inevitable, and unavoidable, unfortunately. If you want to make a living at all, doing anything, from a cart pusher to anything you can dream to be, there will be someone there trying to make money, or take credit for the work you have done. The only way to keep from being the sucker is to educate yourself.

Which is why I keep saying the same thing over and over again. Learn everything you can about copyrighting, publishing, and all of that, if you're going to be a musician, it's imperative, even if it's not about the money. If for no other reason than to cover your ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GuitarDojo]

I found a stranded baby Bat this morning and I put him in a nearby cave.

 

[John Tisdale]

Another thing that bothers me is the, "oh I don't need to copyright, and publish my works, cause I'm just doing this for exposure."

Yeah, well all your really doing is exposing yourself to theft. It's not just about someone playing your music on the radio without permission, or making unauthorized copies of your MP3, it's also about that guy that takes your unauthorized MP3 down to the copyright office, then sues you for performing "his" work, and then starts making money off of a song you wrote, that you can no longer legally even perform, or record.

This happens a lot more than you would like to know, and it's hard to prove unless you have it properly copyrighted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jul]

"Imagine no possessions... I wonder if you can"

 

[John Tisdale]

"Imagine no possessions... I wonder if you can"

As long as I need to feed my family, as long as there are people who want to take advantage of other people, as long as there is need, as long as there are limited recourses, nope I cannot imagine no possessions.

A replicator machine would go a long way to helping that, though, but I'd still need to own a replicator machine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[solo-act]

License enforcers don't have the lawyers to win large suits like McDonald's etc (using pandora or others). So they're going after the small guys, sometimes 3X over, making them pay for jukebox, streaming and live music, 24/7 for each at full price as if bar owner is doing them simultaneously. They need to divide by 3! I'm for licensing, but don't kill the golden goose.

Between that and the never-ending DUI crackdown, it's no wonder live music has declined over the decades.

I can't wait for everyone to own self-driving cars, so we can have a resurgence of live music and partying in bars! :very_drunk:

 

[John Tisdale]

License enforcers don't have the lawyers to win large suits like McDonald's etc (using pandora or others). So they're going after the small guys, sometimes 3X over, making them pay for jukebox, streaming and live music, 24/7 for each at full price as if bar owner is doing them simultaneously. They need to divide by 3! I'm for licensing, but don't kill the golden goose.

Between that and the never-ending DUI crackdown, it's no wonder live music has declined over the decades.

I can't wait for everyone to own self-driving cars, so we can have a resurgence of live music and partying in bars! :very_drunk:

Is the live music scene sucking everywhere but Texas? I mean, clubs suck and don't pay, and mooch off of the bands Facebook audience rather than actually promoting their club, but there are a ton of live venues, (we just had two new live venues open within 20 miles of here) with a ton of bands playing in them. There's never a shortage of open mic's nights, cover bands, original bands, and plenty of DWIs to boot. I think the local cops would go broke without them.

The only problem I've seen locally is a lack of old fashioned club promotion, which is causing a drop in attendance. You can no longer rely on every band having a built in audience from social media, it just doesn't work like that anymore.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John Tisdale]

The only problem I've seen locally is a lack of old fashioned club promotion, which is causing a drop in attendance. You can no longer rely on every band having a built in audience from social media, it just doesn't work like that anymore.

Speaking of which, and totally getting off point, this is how we found out we get more "exposure" from doing open mic's instead of doing scheduled "paying" gigs.

There's no exposure when the club would be empty if we hadn't brought people with us. We stopped doing paid gigs after we did, what should have been, a decent show with 4 other bands, and the only people that showed were the people the bands brought, and they would filter in long enough to watch the band they came for, then go home. We made our fans stay all night. The headliner, who is a decently "popular" local band didn't bring that many more people than we did. It was annoying, and sad and got us 3 new Facebook likes, (all of which were band members of the other bands,) which really amounts to squat. However, when we started doing open mic's exclusively, our fan base doubled in a month, and we only did two shows that month.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk