Members derek_32999 Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 Originally posted by puretube sorry for the disturbance:just for clearing my standpoint/role in this, allow me to quote my own PM (on the DIYstompboxforum) I sent to ElectricTabs on april 29, after ET asked me for advice in a PM late on april 28.(see the "quote"-block on bottom of this reply). He sent me this quest for advice, after he had read the "Dr Boogey Kit" thread, which he only became aware of,after you had contacted himas a follow up to my 2 posts in that thread.and in his PM he thanked me for "noting to the internet community the schem/circuit was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members puretube Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 Mark/OLC: Danke for your mail inspite of the fact that this reply (wrongly) might be interpreted by innocent bystanders as "stirring", I want You to see for goodness sakes, what I wrote to ET "behind your back" ( ) in my 2nd PM (early on may 2nd) to him regarding the "issue": ...But the use of the schematic, for example the redrawing like Gringo did, and in the end making a kit or a pedal product from it like OLC did, is not illegal. But it is unfair, as long as they don`t ask you beforehand, and/or don`t offer you something for it. OLC seems to have thought that he got the circuit and the "OK" from Gringo, without ever having visited Aron`s forum himself, and knowing the history of that pedal. So it is fair of him, that he apologised, and put your name to his files, and offers you something for it. (I think he would have asked you beforehand, if he had known the facts). ... as one can clearly see: no hard feelings expressed at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members derek_32999 Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 Originally posted by puretube Mark/OLC: Danke for your mail inspite of the fact that this reply (wrongly) might be interpreted by innocent bystanders as "stirring", I want You to see for goodness sakes, what I wrote to ET "behind your back" ( ) in my 2nd PM (early on may 2nd) to him regarding the "issue": as one can clearly see: no hard feelings expressed at all... Cool, so maybe we can put this dead horse 6 feet in the ground now? And the next time someone does something like this tell them in a PM how to fix what they did and why it is wrong to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members puretube Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 concerning the actual first IP-issue here: as can be seen on page 5 of this thread, I clearly winked in my first reply on 05-03-2006 11:59 AM (timestamp on my screen, which is GMT+1hour...), whithout dropping person`s names. (except noting the term "Dr. Boogey"). The person who responded to the wink (having correctly felt being addressed) in turn replied with a (in fact self-accusing) statement pointing towards/outing himself (incorrectly assuming he hadn`t done anything wrong), which in turn was replied by me explaining what was wrong with the post in question. When the IMG in question was still appearing in this forum by the end of the day (i.e.: not removed by the poster himself inspite of having been "informed"), I explained the post and the IP-problems related to that IMG to Phil, the moderator, who removed the IMG. This has to be seen in front of the background, what just had happened on a different "stage", with exactly that IMG being involved... (Thank you again, Phil, for having correctly judged the situation in favour of the forum, and the author of the IMG). (it has to be said clearly here too, that the forum from which the IMG had been "borrowed", repeatedly and continually keeps educating the members in various copyright/trademark/patent-related topics about those problems that can arise with uncareful posting, and this especially in the last 2 or 3 weeks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hempathy Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 I say again, the image was hosted on the authors website. I never "borrowed" it from anywhere. There was no Intellectual Property issue.Plus, I will add this in response to your holier than thou attitude.Thanks for really annoying me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members puretube Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 in case of the "2nd IP" issue, as started to appear on page 6, 2nd post, the author quotes me, and points to his (beautiful, btw.) diy-homepage, pointing out himself, that he posted that IMG too on his site (which I hadn`t been aware of at that time...). In that post he publicly asked me (as opposed of a PM or email, so I replied publicly too), if and what might be wrong with that posting the IMG on his site. I responded that with my view of the situation, unflamingly, and maybe I should have better inserted a smiley in that reply. (Since that IMG wasn`t posted viewable in this forum, there was no need in my eyes, to inform the "local authority"). Later I informed the poster about a few other mistakes on his site, which he even was thankful about. Before I could answer his next question about "unbeneficiary for the author", and explaining the "damage done", (which I did on may4th, midday in the reply where I`ve "chosen my consequences", and which I addressed at the two IMG-posters...), first unneccessary arrows were thrown at me from a different direction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members puretube Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 those unneccessary arrows was the statement, that the schematic has never been posted in the relevant thread that I had linked to before (and which somebody had removed in the meantime), while it was right there in front of me on my screen. So I immediately swapped my browsers internet-options to non-auto-refresh, and grabbed my cam to make some pix, since I cannot do screenshots on this PC, and a link to a changed page is worthless, when I have to defend myself against accusations that are false. (namely the incorrect statement that I made false accusations). Obviously, the moderator in the meantime had seen the schematics too, and also regarded them being not welcome on the surface of this forum... (Which is highly appreciated by any original authors that are willing to benefit from copyrights/IP-rules). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members puretube Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 YES, it was me, who posted the 1st LINK towards the new HCDIY-forum over at "the other" forum, and I asked 4 questions of concern, after I thumbed through the new forum, and under the impression of the things happening here... The topic-title was intended to be changed, later, however before this was possible, the thread was moved to the so-called "OT-Lounge", where only registered members can view/post, and where the replies cannot be edited. It can be seen there, that later I expressed my relief about the added IP-sticky thread on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members puretube Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 Originally posted by RoboPimp is there really someone being a "bad apple" ? As far as I can tell there's just a few people who made a mistake. Why are you being so defensive? Seems there's something else that is feeding your little tantrum? Robo:there recently have been several hot multi-$ IP-issues in the real stompboxworld out there in which I have been passively involved,(which are not to be dragged in to this forum)and this issue smelled like a little flame too,that easily could grow into a bigger fire.So I tried to help, when having been asked for advice.to get back on topic:by now I think it`s good for HC having its own HCDIY-forum for the fresh generation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hempathy Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 Originally posted by puretube by now I think it`s good for HC having its own HCDIY-forum for the fresh generation! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members olcircuits Posted May 5, 2006 Members Share Posted May 5, 2006 Hello, There are no hard feelings on this end of the IP issue. I did not intend for my previous post to come across as directed toward any one person. Please accept my apologies for this. There a few words written by people (not Puretube) that "stung" me a little. I don't believe those people even directed the comments at me, but I felt them because OLC was included around the words. OLC was being used as an example and I understand that. I do not have any hard feelings toward the people who used my name as an example. I also understand, for the most part, where Puretube's (and others') frustration is coming from. For example, there is an overseas company that has blatantly and unapologetically gone into full production of knock-offs of various Puretube pedals. With that sort of thing happening, the contributing community can become cynical and may assume the worst of an IP situation, including the one involving myself and ET. It's become easier to assume that someone is stealing circuits than to assume that person is innocent of malice. I look after the ROG guys' IP interests as well and have done so long before I partnered with them to produce kits. I named my little company "Officially Licensed Circuits" because that's the entire basis of my operation - if I can't license a circuit, I won't sell it. However, not everyone sees the full name; it's usually mentioned casually as OLC or OLCircuits. I would like to thank you all for your support and patience with me regarding the IP issue. It has, and always will be, my intent to honor and respect others' IP rights. If I fail to do so, and become "marked" as unscrupulous, people will stop licensing their circuits to me. ----- Puretube, There are no hard feelings. Thank you for explaining and clearing my name. ----- Thank you all very much for your support, understanding, and patience with me as I work through a difficult learning curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DrWoo Posted May 7, 2006 Members Share Posted May 7, 2006 Well said. I feel the same way as you do. This seems so similar to the Apple / Microsoft GUI argumeent where Steve Jobs accused Microsoft of stealing there design when Apple stold the design from Xerox.Love the drama.Originally posted by edster Puretube:I fully understand where you're coming from. I myself go to great lengths to protect my circuits. That being said, I don't see the problem here.Mesa ripped this preamp from Soldano 10+ years ago. Since then it has been used and abused by several manufacturers. Many of which Mesa have openly criticized for stealing "their" idea.I don't see how simply changing the tubes to fets, in an already stolen, publicly available circuit makes it his "baby". Granted, OLC and others probably should have used their own drawings, but it doesn't seem that the intent was malicious here.I'm sure you are aware that recreating amp circuits w/fets, 201s as well as others, is nothing new. I can think of a handful of guys (including myself) that ripped the recto/slo circuit into a pedal years ago. It's hard to be discrete when you are proud of a circuit. If he intended do something fruitful with it he shouldn't have posted it on the internet. Somebody copies and posts that circuit and soon people who don't even know where it came from are sharing it freely.Bottom line is; this circuit was taken by a guy, who took it from a guy, who took it from a guy, who took it from a guy....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members puretube Posted May 8, 2006 Members Share Posted May 8, 2006 OLC (Mark):it would be great to see you doing the distribution for ET (Chris`s)Doctor Boogey pedals (be it prebuilt or which way ever) in your state or country, soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.