Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 05:20 PM 10/19/2002, Stuart Wyatt wrote: >> don't think it is very correct to say the DJRND is not suited for live >> musicians, it seems to me live use is exactly what it was designed for. > >Ok, maybe I did not explain my views well enough.... > >I'm not knocking the DJRND, but I did have a few hours to test it out.... > >I was talking with regards to musicians who play instruments live... in >other words, both hands are tied up actually playing an instrument. There >is no way to actually control the DJRND via midi. Sure that's true. However, nearly the same complaint was made frequently about the Repeater. It doesn't very naturally lend itself to musicians whose hands are occupied either. The footpedal control it provides doesn't really do much. If you want to use it that way, you have to go out and buy a separate midi pedal and program it for the Repeater. That's also not very friendly to somebody who wants to play an instrument at the same time, although granted it is better than no possible way at all. But the fact is, Electrix didn't design the Repeater for traditional instrumentalists any more than Emmanuel designed the DJRND for them. They both targeted dance music producers and djs. If instrumentalists had been Electrix's goal, they would have designed the Repeater as a footpedal like the boomerang or digitech's GNX3, or at least they would have provided a complete means to control it with a simple footpedal like the EDP. Electrix designed it for dance producers and dj's, it just happened that instrumentalists found a way to use it as well. As I recall, Electrix was caught totally off guard by that, and then rather struggled to figure out how to target the instrumentalist market as well. In my opinion, that helped to bring them down. They would have been better off to stay focused on their original target market instead of trying to be everything to everybody. They just ended up confusing everybody. But it is pretty clear the Repeater was targeted at exactly the same market as the DJRND, and so it is no wonder that Emmanuel would employ his patent to protect his product and inventions. And good for him. He's a little guy trying to make his thing successful, and a bigger company came and tried to step all over it. He stuck up for himself. >Also, it has a midi clock sync output, but no input thus it does not take >into account that the performer might want to use another Midi source as >the master clock. sure, it's designed to fit a particular application where that isn't so necessary. Maybe he could add that improvement for the DJRND4, along with a footpedal control. >So I'll stand by what I said - the DJRND is geared very much for the >console DJ/electro musician, and in my opinion, the Repeater, should he >have allowed its sale in France, would have had negligable if any impact >on his product. You miss the point. The Repeater infringed the *patent*, not the product! You are confusing the concept of patents with copyrights, which a lot of people mix up. Patents are about technical innovations and inventions, not products or resulting works. They protect ideas. It doesn't matter what forms the inventor chose to productize his inventions. He was still the one who invented the idea first, and registered that, and anybody else who wants to use the same innovation in any other way has to respect it. Unlike copyrights, it doesn't matter if the inventor is even selling anything, or what form the product takes, or whether an infringing product affects any sales or not. That is not the point of patents, they exist to protect inventors from having their ideas taken without payment, and therefore encourage people to invent things. Nobody would bother doing all the perspiration and inspiration part if anybody with more resources could come along and steal their ideas. If Electrix had been on the ball, they would have known about the patent to begin with and either designed their product without infringing on it or taken care of any necessary licensing beforehand. It's especially surprising since IVL is an intellectual property company themselves, and live on their own patents. They ought to know how this works. kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com