New article in Premier Guitar ponders © implications of modelers & profilers

I really don't see a specific sound as patentable as there are just some things you can't claim ownership to. You can copywrite a song because you're copywriting the organization of those sounds, not the actual sounds themselves. A song is a series of notes, in rhythm, which qualifies, but I can't copywrite a single chord out of it. An amplifier isn't just the sound that's produced, you patent the machine that's creating the sound and there are advantages to using an amp as opposed to software (no need for outboard amplification, easily serviceable, etc...). You can't patent the output; only the process.

Imagine if painters started laying claim to their colors. Almost every company in the world that makes a physical product would have to start paying royalties to whoever mixed up that shade/hue that they were applying to their pages. Magazines, websites, etc... would all have to be held accountable to this. Again, you can protect the organization of the colors, but not the actual colors themselves.

Did you know that Cereal is not protected by patent law? That's how the "generic" brands get away with it. They can take a piece of cereal, analyze the crap out of it, and then re-create that exact product and there's nothing Kellog can do about it. If you can't protect a physical product that you can touch, taste, see, and smell, you can't possibly protect the change a sound goes through when it passes through your circuitry.
 
svl said:
Written by Jol Dantzig, formerly of Hamer Guitars.

Private Domain: The Sound Ethics Laboratory - Premier Guitar
Click to expand...

Interesting article. There's a lot of talk similar to this when discussing software plugins emulation of hardware units like compressors and EQs. I do believe collectively we owe a debt to the makers of the great gear from the past. But it's a lot easier to trademark the shape of a Strat headstock, than to patent the "Strat sound".
 
Interesting - Agreed current laws don't seem to offer 'tonal' protection but laws change based on what's occuring in the world. I've often wondered what will happen as modelling gets better and better to the point where it is unarguably indistinguishable from the original (maybe we're already there). I could see this threatening to put traditional amp manufacturers out of business. One thing you can be sure of is that they won't go down without using any / all means available to stay afloat including attempted legal manouvers.
 
Harley Davidson tried to have the sound of their motorcycles trademarked but a court ruled against them.
 
I commented on the piece, but for some reason, the words came up garbled, oh well. Hopefully it made sense. If it didn't I'm ok with that too.
 
I've read similar arguments, but don't think it is valid concern.

Tone of a guitar or amp or effect can't be trademarked or copyrighted.

If Jol is concerned about people stealing his ideas, he can use the patent system.
 
sprint said:
I I could see this threatening to put traditional amp manufacturers out of business. One thing you can be sure of is that they won't go down without using any / all means available to stay afloat including attempted legal manouvers.
Click to expand...

Boohoo. It's called evolution. The big and cumbersome always die off in the face of the lean and versatile. A few niche, traditional amp makers will survive while the rest go the way of the dinosaur. It's inevitable, and no amount of trumped up lawsuits will stop it.
 
Further reading if anyone is interested. This is an important case to understand if you want to be knowledgeable about this topic.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/foia/ttab/other/2001/75513342.pdf

To summarize, Gibson tries to trademark the AJ body shape. Trademark is not awarded because Gibson claimed (in a magazine ad) that the tone of the AJ is due to the unique body shape, and no other body shape will provide that desirable tone. The USPTO finds that desirable tone is a functional feature of the guitar, and therefore Gibson is not able to trademark the body shape because it would not allow competition in the marketplace.
 
You can copyright the way that something works and creates something (i.e., circuit design and component values), but the final product (in this case sound) doesn't appear to be something I think that could be protected. Unless you use the same method and a similar enough design to infringe upon patented and protected material I don't think that there is much of an argument here.

And let's not forget that we're talking about amps....I mean has anyone really had an original idea in decades in the amp world? I mean a few extra circuits and tweaked values here and there, but they almost all start with the same exact concept. Preamp, tone stack, power amp, and transformer.
 
Analogue vs digital vs schematics vs circuit designs vs software/binary coding vs hardware vs cap/resister values ...

images
 
For the same reasons, you can't copyright IRs either, unfortunately for RedWirez, Ownhammer etc. Selling the original files to other people would of course be illegal, but capturing IR mixes with the Axe II IR capture utility, for example, probably won't. But as the IRs are their main business, of course it won't be ethical ;)
 
Even if you could come up with an irrefutable, non-subjective method to describe the sound of, say, a Marshall 1959 Super Lead, it will be impossible to apply when units coming off the manufacturing line (with sequential serial numbers!) sound different from each other.
 
I hear that abacus manufacturers are planning a class action suit against Apple and Microsoft.

The same calculations they made with their beads are now being digitally replicated!
 
The first guitar amps were modified tube radios with an input so did it start there? So Mr. X sees what Mr Y done with his radio and incorporates his idea of a 1/4" removable plug but wait... Tesla invented radio so it all really started with him?
I think if you copy something exactly there's an issue, but if you take it farther than you found it, doesn't that make it unique?
All tube amps plagiarize the first tube amplification device created just as all electric guitars do the same or acoustic or a gourd strung with cat gut.. A string that vibrates and a device that makes it louder? The human element is what sets it all apart. ;)
 
The more Cliff gets better at cloning the sound (and he is every day) the more this could become an issue, especially if amp sales drop drastically in favor of something like the Axe. Only then manufacturers may try a stunt like that to preserve their sales. For now I think we are OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom