[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: EDP+ in France
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