Copyright on user created patches.

[jxnWHITE]

Just thinking a "recipe" might be a relevant comparable, which might use a unique combination of "ingredients".

Recipes cannot be copyrighted.

They can be protected as "trade secrets" if it is possible to wrap the deets in a brand without disclosing what the specifics are, which does not sound possible or practical in this case.

[Folderol]

I tend to regard these sort of things as code. A set of instructions sent to the 'machine'.
Dunno if that helps at all.

[muzines]

I tend to regard these sort of things as code. A set of instructions sent to the 'machine'.

Not really, code (as in source code, not "encoded" data) is a created work and is copyritable.

A synth patch is more like, for example, you having 50 knobs on the wall. Your patch is a combination of settings of those existing knobs. You didn't make the knobs, or what the knobs represent, you just turned them to a set of positions you liked. That in itself is not a copyritable* created work.

* Copyrightable Work means anything which constitutes an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression and includes scholarly, professional and creative works.

[tea for two]

a certain person created many user patches on various guitar effects units Alesis,Yamaha etc and sold them to members of the public ...
refused to sell any more.
But others feel if he wont sell, then those who have them will, right or wrong.

The way I see it is similar to when say microsoft sells windows installation cds dvds.

Microsoft are selling only the license to individual or licenses to business, corporation, education, oem.
Microsoft still owns windows. And the license is only granted solely to those purchasing the license.
That's it. Nothing beyond this.

This is how software is.

I would include user created patches as software.
It's only a license granted solely to the person that purchased the patches.
That's it. Nothing beyond this.

**

(Hardware ofcourse we own we can sell on as we wish and we do).

[N i g e l]

Looking at it from the user perspective, if I buy a synth & come up with a nice patch, I dont see why I should owe anyone any money !

There is a more detailed issue with serious programming of for example the Korg 'logues - an SDK is availble to program synth engines in C computer code & insert it into the synth.

These synth engines can available for free and some paid. I dont think there is a mechanisim to prevent one paid for file being uploaded into many synths [ie an internets worth of synths aka piracey]

Its a very niche market, synths/synthesis/specific machine/particular synth engine/method , not exactly a money spinner.

Im not sure the original intent was for programmers to make money.
More like the internet ethos of Develope & distribute for all to enjoy [and for Korg to sell more synths of course]

Just to make it clear Nice inovation Korg

[ajay_m]

The closest analogy here would be reproducing a recipe. UK copyright law generally holds that recipes are not copyrightable. Were someone to take a civil action over patches being copied, you could expect a smart lawyer to draw the analogy and probably the only possible way such a case might be decided for the plaintiff would be if the defendant had signed an agreement not to redistribute the patches and if the plaintiff could prove the defendant violated that agreement.
This is somewhat distinct from sampling copyrighted works, where there is now a fairly solid set of precedents. But a defendent sampling the plaintiffs patches on their own synth and reselling them wouldn't fall into that area of case law either.

[Folderol]

The closest analogy here would be reproducing a recipe. UK copyright law generally holds that recipes are not copyrightable. Were someone to take a civil action over patches being copied, you could expect a smart lawyer to draw the analogy and probably the only possible way such a case might be decided for the plaintiff would be if the defendant had signed an agreement not to redistribute the patches and if the plaintiff could prove the defendant violated that agreement.
This is somewhat distinct from sampling copyrighted works, where there is now a fairly solid set of precedents. But a defendent sampling the plaintiffs patches on their own synth and reselling them wouldn't fall into that area of case law either.

I don't think a recipe is a valid comparison - it tells you how to organise various ingredients.
A music software patch tells you how to make the ingredients. A MIDI file then tells you how to organise them - interestingly I'm pretty sure a MIDI file can be copyrighted

[MarkOne]

The closest analogy here would be reproducing a recipe. UK copyright law generally holds that recipes are not copyrightable. Were someone to take a civil action over patches being copied, you could expect a smart lawyer to draw the analogy and probably the only possible way such a case might be decided for the plaintiff would be if the defendant had signed an agreement not to redistribute the patches and if the plaintiff could prove the defendant violated that agreement.
This is somewhat distinct from sampling copyrighted works, where there is now a fairly solid set of precedents. But a defendent sampling the plaintiffs patches on their own synth and reselling them wouldn't fall into that area of case law either.

I don't think a recipe is a valid comparison - it tells you how to organise various ingredients.
A music software patch tells you how to make the ingredients. A MIDI file then tells you how to organise them - interestingly I'm pretty sure a MIDI file can be copyrighted

This is where it gets blurry. A patch in the classic sense is really just a recipe.

It told you where to adjust the knobs and (In modular terms where to ‘patch’ each cable) to replicate a sound.

No MIDI, no organisation. Just knobs and patch cords.

Hence the name