ilovefuzz.com

UglyCasanova wrote:I'm wondering why you feel like it's okay for personal use? Can I download videogames too? I'm not going to play in tournaments. What about music? I'm just going to listen to it through headphones. I think I fail to see the logic. A shitload (the majority?) of people play music by themselves, for their own amusement. Does that justify stealing other people's ideas and work? I don't mind people having different opinions on this. I'm just trying to understand the justification behind it, especially when we're talking about reeeeaally small builders. Doesn't their ingenuity deserve your money for the time spent figuring it all out simply because you're not going to make money off of using it for recordings/at gigs? The logic ends up being; they don't deserve money unless you're making money from it as well.

I mean, I just admitted to adhering to an ideal of a world without money at all. Yes, capitalism is here to stay, and as long as it is, people need to make money. There is no good answer to this conundrum, i am expressing what I am comfortable with and how i feel. The beauty of an anti-authoritarian ethic is that no one is required to feel the way i do. But yes, I would download a game or music if I owned a computer. I will give a better answer later, in a rush.

Chankgeez wrote:I'm not saying I don't at least partially agree with UC. I think it's interpretation that leaves room for attacking his position.

I'm not saying I'm right or that I'm on top of some moral highground here, but it's how I've thought about it. I'm all for being enlightened and changing my mind on things, so please do feel free to attack my position. I've always considered CBs to be similar to remixed songs. The artist pays a sum of money to the original artist (read; Rhys pays NUX for their pedal) and uses their creativity and tools (read; ideas/knowledge/parts/artistry) to create something new (ICW/DW). If I were to copy that song's composition and its extra components in its entirety to make the same song to call my own, I would basically be stealing from the person responsible for making that remixed track, who have already paid the original artist and put their own work into it.

but the people who pay royalties for their remixes are the people who stand to make money with them i don't think that analogy really sticks with what you've been saying.
nor with game/music piracy, really. for that analogy to be accurate here you wouldn't be downloading them, you'd be recreating them.
not saying i disagree with your sentiment, but i don't think those comparisons are very useful or accurate.
if i were to suggest a more accurate one, i'd say that bending my own IC water for personal use is just like stealing a recipe for a product at the supermarket because it's way cheaper to make it myself. if i'm not selling it would you call that a morally questionable act?

I just bought a red pina colada slurped from 7eleven. Red???? I think they fucked with the mix.

Hypnodrone wrote:

Confuzzled wrote:That Time core housing is ridiculously small and it's pretty damn impressive that he pulled off what he did in that tight-as-fuck enclosure.

This! I bend stuff sometimes and bought a NUX to see if I could do the IC trick. Realized I would probably need 2 or 3 units to make one that actually works. It's tight, hardware breaks upon disassembly and reassembly, solder joints crack when handling the pcb, footswitch self destructs. I didn't bother bending it, just spent the rest of the afternoon trying to save that sweet reverse delay and box it back up. Maybe I could have done it if I would have been willing to spend hours and hours on it but I didn't.

I had an engineer friend try to bend one and come up with his own sounds and he said "reclocking it doesn't work and while there are some sample RAM glitching effects available, theres not really enough space on the casing to mount enough switches to do those kind of mods properly." then I showed him a pic of Rhys work, and after scoffing at the sloppiness he admitted how impressive it was to be able to fit what he did in the enclosure. On a side note, he did get a couple of bends to work but after re-assembling the fucker the unit fried and he gave up.

backwardsvoyager wrote:but the people who pay royalties for their remixes are the people who stand to make money with them i don't think that analogy really sticks with what you've been saying.
nor with game/music piracy, really. for that analogy to be accurate here you wouldn't be downloading them, you'd be recreating them.
not saying i disagree with your sentiment, but i don't think those comparisons are very useful or accurate.
if i were to suggest a more accurate one, i'd say that bending my own IC water for personal use is just like stealing a recipe for a product at the supermarket because it's way cheaper to make it myself. if i'm not selling it would you call that a morally questionable act?

Fair point. But, I don't think the ingredients or the way to make the IC Water is printed on the tin, if you catch my drift. Not sure I follow you on the remix thing though. Don't both parties make money? Each time the remixed song plays or is bought, the original creator makes a cut, right? For each ICW/DW sold, NUX sells a pedal. It's not in the same order, of course, but it's not like NUX doesn't get what they ask for.

If I buy something and decide to alter it isn't it within my rights to do so? I did pay for it and if I resell it down the road and make a profit, who cares? As long as I'm not selling it as an original and declare it's been altered I don't see the issue. With Rhys, from what I've seen on his website he's not laying claim to it being a time core and covers up their markings, no?

Confuzzled wrote:If I buy something and decide to alter it isn't it within my rights to do so? I did pay for it and if I resell it down the road and make a profit, who cares? As long as I'm not selling it as an original and declare it's been altered I don't see the issue. With Rhys, from what I've seen on his website he's not laying claim to it being a time core and covers up their markings, no?

Of course it's your right. If you figure out your own bend, cool! If you copy someone else's bend without their authority, not so cool (in my book). And yes, the site says "Circuit bent digital delay". It's not like it's a hammond enclosure either. It's pretty obvious what pedal it is.

UglyCasanova wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:I'm not saying I don't at least partially agree with UC. I think it's interpretation that leaves room for attacking his position.

I'm not saying I'm right or that I'm on top of some moral highground here, but it's how I've thought about it. I'm all for being enlightened and changing my mind on things, so please do feel free to attack my position. I've always considered CBs to be similar to remixed songs. The artist pays a sum of money to the original artist (read; Rhys pays NUX for their pedal) and uses their creativity and tools (read; ideas/knowledge/parts/artistry) to create something new (ICW/DW). If I were to copy that song's composition and its extra components in its entirety to make the same song to call my own, I would basically be stealing from the person responsible for making that remixed track, who have already paid the original artist and put their own work into it.

I would fist ask what then about covers? I would second ask what about the large historical context of folk music traditions not relying upon concepts of authorship and intellectual or creative property?

It is easily arguable that my attempt at recreating a IC Water would result in something different than what Rhys makes, but there is an even larger point beyond that: practically all of the innovations (and less innovative products as well, obvz) in pedal land are the result of building off of prior people's research and achievements. How many PT2399-abuse pedals start with someone looking at a Mid-Fi circuit or the Echo Bender schematic and just moving forward? I want Doug to get paid for his work, he seems like a nice, genuine guy, and people need to make ends meet in hellworld, but i also think fostering conversation and moving musical ideas forward has its place. When i started circuit bending in 2005, the idea was very much about expanding the ideas and possibilities around music, and i liked that. I would not just copy a gutshot of an IC Water and slap my name on it and sell it, if i wanted to pursue that business model there are much worthier targets of my wrath than basically any pedal builders. But maybe seeing where someone else went before me will encourage ideas of my own. Or maybe I'll just copy one for myself, play the circuit for a minute, and scrap it/hate it/change it/build off of it, or even love it enough to buy the real thing.

For me right now, i could not justify the cost of a real thing, and I would garner more enjoyment and knowledge from working throuch the circuit myself.

Again this is a deep subject, tough to discuss on the internet without seeing the person face to face, and not one i have any expectation that people will agree with me over. I do not like capitalism. I actively want to reach a point where making musical devices could contribute to my financial stability, but even then i anticipate that I would share schematics. Maybe I will change my opinion.

People are responding to this faster than i can write ideas. A lot of people's favorite pedals on here started with something. I know there have been some huge recent innovations w/r/t DSP and digital control of analog effects and people rediscovering some weird forgotten ideas, but even those people almost certainly started of with someone else's idea. Rhys should, by all means charge what he likes, and i am glad he can avoid having bosses by doing so. I just don't feel bad about wanting to tinker around with someone else's ideas for my own enjoyment. If i had the kind of life where $300 was shitting around money, i'd consider buying an ICW off the bought, but that is like, more than my disposable income for a month, and I can't swing that on something i am going to purposely break.

psychic vampire. wrote:

UglyCasanova wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:I'm not saying I don't at least partially agree with UC. I think it's interpretation that leaves room for attacking his position.

I'm not saying I'm right or that I'm on top of some moral highground here, but it's how I've thought about it. I'm all for being enlightened and changing my mind on things, so please do feel free to attack my position. I've always considered CBs to be similar to remixed songs. The artist pays a sum of money to the original artist (read; Rhys pays NUX for their pedal) and uses their creativity and tools (read; ideas/knowledge/parts/artistry) to create something new (ICW/DW). If I were to copy that song's composition and its extra components in its entirety to make the same song to call my own, I would basically be stealing from the person responsible for making that remixed track, who have already paid the original artist and put their own work into it.

I would fist ask what then about covers? I would second ask what about the large historical context of folk music traditions not relying upon concepts of authorship and intellectual or creative property?

It is easily arguable that my attempt at recreating a IC Water would result in something different than what Rhys makes, but there is an even larger point beyond that: practically all of the innovations (and less innovative products as well, obvz) in pedal land are the result of building off of prior people's research and achievements. How many PT2399-abuse pedals start with someone looking at a Mid-Fi circuit or the Echo Bender schematic and just moving forward? I want Doug to get paid for his work, he seems like a nice, genuine guy, and people need to make ends meet in hellworld, but i also think fostering conversation and moving musical ideas forward has its place. When i started circuit bending in 2005, the idea was very much about expanding the ideas and possibilities around music, and i liked that. I would not just copy a gutshot of an IC Water and slap my name on it and sell it, if i wanted to pursue that business model there are much worthier targets of my wrath than basically any pedal builders. But maybe seeing where someone else went before me will encourage ideas of my own. Or maybe I'll just copy one for myself, play the circuit for a minute, and scrap it/hate it/change it/build off of it, or even love it enough to buy the real thing.

For me right now, i could not justify the cost of a real thing, and I would garner more enjoyment and knowledge from working throuch the circuit myself.

Again this is a deep subject, tough to discuss on the internet without seeing the person face to face, and not one i have any expectation that people will agree with me over. I do not like capitalism. I actively want to reach a point where making musical devices could contribute to my financial stability, but even then i anticipate that I would share schematics. Maybe I will change my opinion.

I don't know how it works in the US, but if you play a cover song at, say, a bar here, the original artist is supposed to be paid. Folk music is not a product though, but something that has been passed down culturally, orally, usually starting as a tribe/family tradition. You are unable to locate the origin of said songs and the family/tribe it originated with.

If your bend would result in something different from what Rhys has made, why do you need the guy shots? Why not just buy a NUX and start messing about in there?

Regarding capitalism, living in a socialist country, I'm not a fan of it either. But that doesn't mean that I don't consider artistry and imgination to be something that should be stolen. It's not like Rhys is the frontman of captialism. He's like one of those small shops you would find if you took out huge corporations. I don't see how stealing his ideas would be the same as fighting capitalism. Quite the contrary.

UglyCasanova wrote:the guy shots

TWHS

UglyCasanova wrote:

backwardsvoyager wrote:but the people who pay royalties for their remixes are the people who stand to make money with them i don't think that analogy really sticks with what you've been saying.
nor with game/music piracy, really. for that analogy to be accurate here you wouldn't be downloading them, you'd be recreating them.
not saying i disagree with your sentiment, but i don't think those comparisons are very useful or accurate.
if i were to suggest a more accurate one, i'd say that bending my own IC water for personal use is just like stealing a recipe for a product at the supermarket because it's way cheaper to make it myself. if i'm not selling it would you call that a morally questionable act?

Fair point. But, I don't think the ingredients or the way to make the IC Water is printed on the tin, if you catch my drift. Not sure I follow you on the remix thing though. Don't both parties make money? Each time the remixed song plays or is bought, the original creator makes a cut, right? For each ICW/DW sold, NUX sells a pedal. It's not in the same order, of course, but it's not like NUX doesn't get what they ask for.

well i mean if you wanna go into the 'recipe' then your food has an ingredients list (much like how you can evidently see what's inside a pedal if you open it up and the builder hasn't gooped or sanded anything) but it doesn't tell you how to make it, somebody has to figure that out. figuring out a bend by looking at a PCB is probably gonna be much easier for somebody who knows electronics than figuring out how to recreate a specific food from just an ingredients list for a cook.
w/r/t the remix thing, an enormous number of people remix songs for purposes other than putting them up on spotify or whatever. if their remix gets chucked on a CD as a B-side then yeah, both parties are making money, but for people who DJ live venues, upload soundcloud sets, all kinds of musical endeavors that involve playing for people and gaining a following without 'releasing' songs officially, it's quite often a different story. remix culture is enormous and it has moved far outside the strict restraints of copyright and intellectual property laws, whether people like it or not.

UglyCasanova wrote:I don't know how it works in the US, but if you play a cover song at, say, a bar here, the original artist is supposed to be paid.

seriously? do your musicians get paid enough at small bar gigs that that's even a viable option?
there's obviously a lot of cultural contrast here so it's not surprising we all have different views on the subject.

No, they don't pay or make enough money, which is why venues REALLY don't want you to play cover songs

edit: the venues are responsible for paying the original artist. That might not have been clear.

I suppose this would depend on differences in how we define stealing. Gut shots provide an interesting look into how someone else approached an idea. If i was almost certsinly never going to purchase an ICW, is using gut shots to provide myself with a starting point for an idea stealing? I don't know. I could be wrong.

backwardsvoyager wrote:

UglyCasanova wrote:I don't know how it works in the US, but if you play a cover song at, say, a bar here, the original artist is supposed to be paid.

seriously? do your musicians get paid enough at small bar gigs that that's even a viable option?
there's obviously a lot of cultural contrast here so it's not surprising we all have different views on the subject.

This too. There is a real possiblity that if i was living in a socialist country that my reactions to things would be different. Cultural relativism etc. etc.