Nice Schematics Link

[jacobyjd]

M, so you'd take a Van Gogh, take off his signature and add yours, and tell all your friends about your latest paint?!

Why claim things that you are giving away freely? 

Reputation and brand-building are both part of it.

However, the main issue is that if someone takes the original creator's work and passes it off as their own, that is irritating to the original creator--profit doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, and legality aside, it's simply unethical.

Going back to your question related to application notes of various devices being the original source for many schematics that are out there--sure, most schematics eventually trace back to the application the manufacturer of a component releases. However, this credit is assumed. If I use a 741 opamp in a circuit I design, it's assumed that I'm going to be applying it as the manufacturer of said opamp intended. If the manufacturer didn't release a document explaining how the device is to be used, then they wouldn't sell any devices. The manufacturer actually GAINS profit based on how many applications of their product are put into practice.

The work for the individual designing a circuit relates to how those various components (with their various applications) work together. This is a field of learning unto itself (hence the existence of EEs), and the work that goes into it should be credited, whether to an organization with which the individual circuit designer is affiliated, or to the individual himself.

The line between further distributing someone's freely distributed circuit design--while retaining credit to them in the process--and ripping the designer's name from it and distributing it as your own is pretty clear.

Now, as to why someone would do this...unless potential profit is involved (i.e. I'm going to rip off RG's circuit and use it in a product I will manufacture and sell)...or status. Everyone wants to be cool. Some people want it so badly that they'll steal someone else's work, free or not, then pass it off as their own. Both scenarios are pretty lame.

[Taylor]

I think if I understand RG, it's maybe not about any material gain, but just recognition. RG's already got a career and is among the foremost experts in the field of effects electronics, so I don't think that's what he's after.

[ibodog]

How can we know for sure that the app note guys aren't as miffed as anyone here seems to be?    Many who invent useful stuff don't get recognition nor do they equitably share in the financial gain derived from their work.  But their work sits on the back of others' work, too.

I'm not sure how (or where) people are trying to pass of the work of people here as their own.    Surely they know they'll be caught since this stuff is already freely available.  Maybe difficult to find sometimes, for sure, but mostly easily Googled.    So where's their payoff?  (A few cents in ad page revenue, per R.G.'s musings.) And what's the harm of having this freely given info repeated somewhere else? Unless that info is wrong, of course.  But I also don't see guys freely releasing this stuff on the net taking a lot of care about mistakes or tracking versions in a very visible way.  In fact this work often contains mistakes that need to be corrected by anyone who is serious enough to really look at it and even try to build something with the info.  I've ran into bad schematics and layouts all over.  Should the originators get demerits, too, to offset their credits?   "Hey! Great layout!" and then later "A pox on you and your kin for the bad layout!"  

I think people here (and on other similar boards) are often wanting more credit than they really deserve.  Gee, I guess I'm not stroking any egos or making myself poplular here, huh? 

[Taylor]

Honestly, as someone who has not really contributed much of value to the world of electronics, I would be really unhappy if the producers of knowledge stopped sharing their ideas with us. And you would be, too, you just don't realize it yet.   Let's disregard whether it's reasonable for these guys to be annoyed at people posting their work on other websites. In fact, for the sake of argument, let's say they're being big babies about it.

Even if that were the case, it is in our best interest to appease the big babies, because without them, DIY electronics would be much worse off. I don't think it's asking much to leave their name on it. If people want to collect all these schematics in one place, why not have links to the original hosting spot? Or, for future-proofing, the web archive of these pages, so if RG gets locked up for selling poisonous plastic toys at a garage sale, we can still access his work at his site with his name on it.

App note guys create app notes with the specific intent of having their work used by anybody anywhere without design credit.

[R.G.]

How can we know for sure that the app note guys aren't as miffed as anyone here seems to be?

I can answer that one. The app note guys do "work for hire", where they are paid a salary by their employers to produce stuff. They assign the copyright to their employers by prior agreement. They may be miffed, but they are both paid money, and previously signed up for it.

Many who invent useful stuff don't get recognition nor do they equitably share in the financial gain derived from their work.  But their work sits on the back of others' work, too.

Of course there are unsung inventors, and their work rests on that of others right down to Ogg the caveman, who figured out that that fire stuff was useful.

But that's beside the point. We're not talking invention. Invention is protected by patents, if it is protected at all. Production of expressions, in the sense of paintings, drawings, songs, literature and the like, are protected by copyright. A singer may sing a song written by someone else. Both the writer's work, and the singer's expression of that work are protected by copyright.

I'm not sure how (or where) people are trying to pass of the work of people here as their own.    Surely they know they'll be caught since this stuff is already freely available.  Maybe difficult to find sometimes, for sure, but mostly easily Googled.    So where's their payoff?  (A few cents in ad page revenue, per R.G.'s musings.) And what's the harm of having this freely given info repeated somewhere else? Unless that info is wrong, of course.  But I also don't see guys freely releasing this stuff on the net taking a lot of care about mistakes or tracking versions in a very visible way.  In fact this work often contains mistakes that need to be corrected by anyone who is serious enough to really look at it and even try to build something with the info.  I've ran into bad schematics and layouts all over.  Should the originators get demerits, too, to offset their credits?   "Hey! Great layout!" and then later "A pox on you and your kin for the bad layout!"  

I'm not trying to be argumentative, so please don't take this the wrong way. You have reproduced almost exactly for the several thousandth time the arguments against copyright. This has all been hashed out here and in other places many times. It would help save some time if you'd read some of those discussions in the archives, and not make us type them in again.

The arguments against copyright are many. And they all amount to rationalization about why it shouldn't be the way it is, and how it's OK to ignore both the ethical arguments for it and the laws because it shouldn't be that way. I don't necessarily say that the way it is is perfect in any way. But it is what it is.

It would help your understanding to go read the background. This is not a new question, and your responses are not new ones.

I think people here (and on other similar boards) are often wanting more credit than they really deserve.  Gee, I guess I'm not stroking any egos or making myself poplular here, huh? 

Stroking egos is not the issue. 

The issue, at the bottom, is how the human mind is plumbed. We as thinking (more or less!  ) creatures have set up some rules for How It's Supposed To Work. You may not like the rules, may have better ideas about them and how they ought to work. That's fine. I encourage you to press for getting those rules to be the way you like them. But they do exist, and a forever of talking about them here will have no effect on them. You may even live in a place where the rules are not enforced locally. That happens. You only have a few choices. You can learn them as they exist (always a good idea, even if you disagree with them), and either follow them or not. It's about that simple. There are consequences either way. Lengthy arguments here will not change the rules. Even if we all agreed that copyright laws are really, really bad, they would still be enforced - or not, some places - just the same as if we all made lengthy poems about frogs. 

[burdt]

A medium like the internet is a hotbed for derivative and blatantly ripped off work. its the nature of the monster, everyone is trying to make a buck (whether it be literally money or symbolic bucks like reputation/exposure.)

I can use google to find pretty much anything i can imagine legal or illegal. For a while I had the wild west mentality of "if its there take it" and didn't really think about the consequences of my actions. But time (and working in a huge library) has a way of ironing that mentality out.

Even if by some magic accident we were able to crowdsource scans of every page ever printed in the history of mankind the issue, much like in the library, isn't whether the data you're searching for is available, its all about how the data is organized so that it's most useful to the user.

Copyright is beside the point more and more. Making order out of disorder is what's worth its weight in gold. Forums like these (and the hard working people that nurture them) are the beating hearts of living information webs that radiate with both original and copy-pasta material, blatant misinformation and holy grail bits of knowldege, etc...

[ibodog]

I've followed the copyright laws since music school 20 years ago.  Copyright is very important in music and I believe in copyright generally speaking.  However, as someone who reads Lessig and Litman I don't like to see copyright abused.

Did you know, even to see geofex on your own browser it has to be copied and hosted on several different computers on the internet?  That's the raw mechanics of it and some try to use it to their advantage.  I suspect R.G. objects more to the re-contextualization of his schematics from the way he has presented them.  Most of the time I've seen the schematics and diagrams rehosted it has been to give a better explanation to a different audience about what they mean and how to apply that knowledge.  I think this adds a lot of value, personally.  I guess it's mostly just lazyness on these people's part because they could just as well redraw and post everything without mentioning geofex at all.  Then they would be giving their own expression - just of the same ideas - for which R.G. need not be granted a monopoly on just because he has a popular internet site that's old as the hills.  He's not putting that site up purely out of the goodness of his heart - he derives real economic benefit from it albeit maybe not directly like "cents for clicks".

Let me tell you a poem about an old frog who feels under-appreciated and is done listening to any ideas outside of those he has fixed in his head long ago...

This post is © 2009, Ibodog.  Permission to quote from it in subsequent discussions is prohibited without prior consent.  Please do not quote from it.  Instead just link back to the original posting.

[R.G.]

In a posting which ibodog requested not be quoted, ibodog said that he wanted to tell us a poem about a frog, alluding oh so faintly to the frog having fixed ideas and having some self pity. Ibo - tell us that story. I can tell stories about people who simply disagree with something for whatever reason, and gently cast aspersions on anyone who disagrees with them. Sideways aspersions are not covered by copyright law.  We can all begin painting each other with ad hominem attacks if you like.

You may not be the only one who has followed copyright laws for years, either as an amateur or in a professional capacity. Who or what you read has little bearing on the law. And no one likes to copyright abused - it's not a privileged position to comment on that, nor does the oh-so-faint aspersion seem all that clever.

Yep, I'm quite aware of how the internet works.

Oh, my! Did you know? All living things need water to survive! Amazing isn't it? Oh, please.

I think I outlined the options pretty well. If you've followed the copyright law for 20 years, then you should have some understanding of it. You may not *agree* with it, but it's there. Any suspicions you may harbor about what I do or do not want about my stuff is immaterial, isn't it? You either know or do not know the law, and either do or do not follow it.

So, let's see some particulars. Post us a link to an infringing copy of my copyrighted material which gives either (a) a better explanation of what it means, or (b) how to apply it. And maybe include a short run down on what the "better" is and how much value it adds. I think it adds value when the bluebonnets bloom. This has about the same effect on copyright issues, pretty as they are or as filled with fire ants as they may be. 

I have no monopoly on the ideas; never claimed that. Could not in fact : if, as you say, you have followed copyright law for two decades, you well know that it does not work that way. Copyright protects expression, not operation.

However, a politician playing to a crowd will do his or her best to besmirch the other side with indirect accusation. The sidelong aspersion in that description of yours is to try to garner sympathy from an audience by painting me as marking off whole areas of knowledge as mine only.  It's as I sometimes tell the infringers - if you want to present this stuff on your own, draw your own pictures and write your own text, and do it in a way that's not obvious to a jury is a directly transcription of my pictures and text. I think you're absolutely correct in one thing - the infringers are too lazy to do their own work.

So on this issue, tell me - do you not understand copyright, or do you not agree with it?

And on the issue of economic gain for me; it sure looks to me like I pay for the hosting every month, and I'm very hard put to find any money in my pocket from the web page. If you'll tell me how that web page is making me money, I'd appreciate it.

This post is © 2009, R.G. Keen.  The owner refuses permission for quotation, excerpting, or other uses in any form whatsoever, except as allowed by fair use statute. Fair use only with this notice attached. Permission granted for linking to it 

Or you *could* try to come up with your own description of the ideas in it.

[ibodog]

I was always taught that if you are going to give something, give it freely with no strings attached.  So when I see people giving nice, useful information to the DIY community, but attaching the strings of copyright it rubs me the wrong way.   Especially when they grumble about not getting their proper "respect". 

R.G., do you really not understand the benefit you gain from being seen as a subject matter expert?  Your web site is one of the primary ways you've established that.  And it is reputation that is well deserved.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  But are you really unaware of it?

[R.G.]

I was always taught that if you are going to give something, give it freely with no strings attached.  So when I see people giving nice, useful information to the DIY community, but attaching the strings of copyright it rubs me the wrong way.   

Yeah, we're all both the beneficiaries and victims of our upbringing, aren't we? 

I was given an extra added dose of knowing and respecting the law when I was young. I struggle against it, as it's clear that this is not a survival tactic in a time where situational ethics rules the day. (And yes, I know; ethics is not the same as law.) People who try to remain within the bounds of the law are hopelessly behind the curve.

It is unfortunate that strings of copyright rub you the wrong way.  Since the topic seems to have evolved or devolved into the philosophy of the existence of copyright in certain situations, let's explore that a little bit. I'm quite serious about wanting to hear the ideas you have behind these.
- Do you agree with the concept of copyright - that being the "right" of an artist, writer, singer, sculptor, musician, etc. to own and have some control of their work - at all?  For example, in an ideal world as you see it, should a singer who is merely singing someone else's words to someone else's music, adding only their own expression, have any "ownership" of the resulting performance? Should they have the "right" to set terms for reproduction and sales of that recording?
- Should a painter have any control of copies of his/her paintings? If Leonardo da Vinci were alive and painted the Mona Lisa today, should he get the "right" to control copies of it? How about an artist like Scott Adams and "Dilbert"?
- If the singer qualifies for some kind of control of their recorded performance, does a songwriter? The guy who wrote the words to the song, like the immortal "Do wa diddy diddy dum diddy do..."? Should he get to say how his "immortal" work gets used?
- How about the guy who writes the music? Something as pervasive as the everlasting refrain to "Louie, Louie", is the "originator" of that due any measure of control of his work?
- Even a writer reporting only facts, not ground shaking new inventions? Or a writer simply making stuff up out of thin air (we call these "novelists" sometimes) should these folks get to set their terms?
- Is it perhaps the use to which any expression (I won't insist it's artistic  ) that I've made is put which bothers you? Is DIY information by nature less worthy of being covered by copyright? If Jackson Pollak had written "How to paint" books, should he, ethically, have had copyright protection? How about Craig Anderton and his effects DIYs?
- Is it only effects DIY information that you believe should not be covered by copyright? Is it your belief that anything on the topic of effects and/or DIY should, in an ideal world,  either not be covered by copyright or that the 'creator', however much or little creation is involved, should as a moral imperative donate it to the public domain because it's DIY information?

Beyond that, 'splain to me how crushing a load of chains it is to link to something on the web instead of copying it. I can see that right-click/save-as is quick, but right-click/save-link is almost as quick as that. Tell me how much it restricts people from doing their own effects from schematics and text on my site versus in drive-by collections of schematics in former Soviet bloc countries.

I think that in fact "rubs me the wrong way" is an exact description of what's really happening.

I did quite a bit of copyright-free schematics and advice early on, when the idea of a web page at all was new. It was pretty cool, until the stuff I drew up started appearing at second and third generation web sites with someone else's name on them. That kinda rubbed me the wrong way. It's an educational experience. I suggest you try it.

Especially when they grumble about not getting their proper "respect". 

I didn't remember using the word "respect" in any of my posts here. So I did a text search. It doesn't appear in anything I wrote here on the topic. Can  you give me a pointer to where I grumbled about respect for myself? Maybe I'm subliminally leaking ideas that I didn't notice. Could happen. The mind is a terrible thing to leak. 

R.G., do you really not understand the benefit you gain from being seen as a subject matter expert?  Your web site is one of the primary ways you've established that.  And it is reputation that is well deserved.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  But are you really unaware of it?

And wanting control of updates and copying of that information reduces the benefit how? I very well could be missing something. It happens all the time. I have a mind like a steel trap - a few hard, springy places and lots of big gaps between them where stuff flows freely through. 

[cloudscapes]

the pseudo-stereo circuit with the tda3810 is really interesting! I've ordered a few chips to experiment with. I'm always looking for compact ways to split a mono signal into stereo with an actual widening effect! there's also a tda-based delay a bit lower down. I've never heard oif these chips before!

[puretube]

the pseudo-stereo circuit with the tda3810 is really interesting! I've ordered a few chips to experiment with. I'm always looking for compact ways to split a mono signal into stereo with an actual widening effect! there's also a tda-based delay a bit lower down. I've never heard oif these chips before!

Without looking into that "Gallery of Effekty",
when I just see the term: "TDA3810", I immediately think: "Elektor"... 

be aware that it bears the noise-figures of the `70s... 


Such things is what people are missing when not reading popular (electronics) -paperwork regularly.

[BAARON]

The strings of copyright rub you the wrong way?
Is is really so wrong to say "Here, I will share this with you, via the marvelous medium that is the internet.  Take this work I have created.  Use it.  Enjoy it.  Play with it.  Tell other people about it.  Tell them where you got it, because I will share it with them too and all they have to do is come and get it.  BUT DON'T START MAKING COPIES, PRETENDING IT IS YOUR OWN WORK, AND RESELLING IT.  Because it's not YOUR work to share with the world - it's mine.  I made the choice to share it.  It is My choice to make because it is My work - not yours.  I don't have to share this at all if I don't want to, and if you're just going to abuse my creative output, I'm not going to share it with you.  If you want me to continue sharing new work with the world, you need to remember that it's mine instead of removing my name from it and passing it off as somebody else's."  That's copyright.  Is that really so wrong?

In the end, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, because regardless of whether it's legal or ethical or not, some asshole on the internet is going to steal it and put it up on their own website (cough ebaum etc cough).  They don't give a crap about copyright law, either because they don't understand it or they don't agree with it or they just don't think it applies to them and/or the work in question.  These are the people who ruin the internet for the creators who want to show off the work they have done but don't want other people to steal it and take credit for it.  It's not just an issue of other people spreading your own work around without your permission.  It's also an issue of people taking your work, relabeling it as their own, and Then spreading it around.

An analogy: it's one thing for an art history textbook to contain a reproduction of the Mona Lisa and attribute it to da Vinci.  It's another thing entirely if the book's author claims it as their own work.

Want another example that uses current work (instead of ancient) and the internet (instead of books)?  I used to show my own artwork over the internet, back when I was studying art in university.  I didn't think I was popular enough for people so steal my work, so I didn't worry about it.  Before long though, I was finding my better pieces being hosted on ad-laden wallpaper sites with their website logo hiding my signature.  They never asked me if they could host it on their own site and brand it as their own.  There is nothing I can do to stop those sites from stealing my artwork, hosting it on their on servers, and rebranding it.  There are no "internet police" to protect me from assholes like them.  There is nothing I can do to make them take it down, either, so the work is still up on their site to this day, despite my requests for them to remove it.

The result?  I stopped sharing my artwork, because there's no way to stop assholes from taking it.  I'd be willing to share it, as long as people didn't steal my stuff and take credit for it (and sometimes try to make money off it), but because there are assholes out there, it will be stolen sooner or later.  And so I don't share any more, because there's a kid in the sandbox with me who doesn't respect the open attitude I would otherwise have about sharing.  Sharing has to be a two-way street.  It can't be one kid building the sand castle, then the other kid taking the credit.

"Oh look, this kind, naive person has shared something with us for free.  Let us steal it, relabel it, and profit from work we did not do!"

P.S. I'm not going to check back for responses, because obviously this thread is not going to solve the copyright issue once and for all.  I don't have a problem with sharing with others, but I don't like others walking into my house and "sharing" my things without my permission.

[MoltenVoltage]

I was always taught that if you are going to give something, give it freely with no strings attached.

Larry Lessig didn't teach you that.  His Creative Commons allows creators (not critics, collectors, and crooks) determine the extent of the copyright protection for their works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

I don't see anything in there that says "once you post it on the net, you have given it freely with no strings attached"

Attitudes like yours are what will prevent the next generation of RG's from posting anything creative/original on the net.

[Skruffyhound]

       It's clearly wrong to pass off somebody else's work as your own, but it's also a bit sad, and can only really rebound on the intellectual loser who pretends to be the author. Lies always return to roost.
       What is interesting here is that, as I understand it (and please set me straight if I am wrong) it's very difficult/impossible to copyright a circuit, especially if it's a small circuit. So what we are talking about is artwork is it?
       If these schematic collections/individuals took the time to redraw the schematic would they still be infringing copyright?
       However, on the upside, if they don't redraw, since all roads lead to Geofex eventually (also GGG, ROG, DIYstomp. etc) then anyone who is remotely serious in the effects world will eventually return to source, recognize the graphics and see through the fraud. This works for the "big boys" at least and "lesser mortals" know the risks of putting anything out on the net. They still have the respect of the forum at least.
       My company was run into the ground by chinese copies of my products, so I appreciate how irritating the situation is, I couldn't copyright my designs, only my logo.
       I don't know what R.G. does for money, and it's none of my business, but perhaps he is also inspired by the exchange of information between the nearly 15000 members of the forum and on balance these irritations are just a price contributors have to pay.
       Unless I suddenly grow another lobe on my brain I doubt I'm going to become a genius E.E., so I'm reliant on the contributors for designs that make my hobby interesting, and thereby obliged IMO to respect any conditions they impose.
       At the other end of this scale I am both furious and reduced to laughter by companies trying to copyright parts of the human genome.
How can that be possible, a fact cannot be copyrighted, or so I thought

[Celadine]

Kewl.  Whatever.    

When I put my hand in a fire, I expect to get burned.  When I post a schematic on the internet, I expect someone to take it and do whatever with it.  Thats how it is, if you don't like it, don't post things.  Simple.

[R.G.]

       What is interesting here is that, as I understand it (and please set me straight if I am wrong) it's very difficult/impossible to copyright a circuit, especially if it's a small circuit. So what we are talking about is artwork is it?

The circuit, as distinct from the schematic drawing or PCB artwork cannot be protected by copyright. It could only be protected by patent. You may patent an operation. You may own copyright in the expression of an idea or concept, not the idea itself. A sunset is an idea or concept. A photograph of a sunset or a painting of a sunset is the subject of copyright.

If these schematic collections/individuals took the time to redraw the schematic would they still be infringing copyright?

If they redrew them in a form which was not clearly an almost-tracing of the original schematic, no. If they only used fatter lines, subbed in squiggles for block resistors, and left all the parts in a similar relationship, then a jury might conclude that it was an infringement. Part of copyright is the right to control "derivative works".

Lest anyone think this is a horrible constriction, consider George Harrison's experience with "My Sweet Lord". http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm

At the other end of this scale I am both furious and reduced to laughter by companies trying to copyright parts of the human genome.
How can that be possible, a fact cannot be copyrighted, or so I thought

Yes. This is a true travesty, just like allowing pharma companies to "patent" chemicals which occur naturally in various plant remedies in tropical jungles.

Notice: I am not a lawyer, and my statements here reflect my beliefs from my experience and reading. Do not rely on my narrative if you are about to do something which could be legally interesting. Obtain counsel of your own.

[R.G.]

When I put my hand in a fire, I expect to get burned.  When I post a schematic on the internet, I expect someone to take it and do whatever with it.  Thats how it is, if you don't like it, don't post things.  Simple.

That may be what you believe and expect, which is in itself a little sad. But to the best of my understanding, it's not what the law says.

So kewl - when have you posted a schematic on the internet that you personally drew from the start, and where can we find those?   

[Brymus]

I am curious R.G.
I rightclicked and printed out lots of your articles so I could study them properly as this laptop is ancient and the monitor is awful I'm half blind.And I cant keep my wife from getting so much malware that surfing the web is more like LA traffic.
SO have I offended you by doing so?
I would NEVER repost your work but have often linked to your posts and Geo,as I thought that was your meaning.
So do you want me to shred your work?Or can I continue to study it?
I have great respect for you sharing your knowledge and I thought your intent was to keep other people from making money by reposting your work in order to draw more visits and thus more "pennies per click" on thier DIY sites and blogs whatever.
Anyway I hope I didnt offend you by making use of your web site,I thought that was your reason for having it so people like me could learn from it.

[jacobyjd]

I am curious R.G.
I rightclicked and printed out lots of your articles so I could study them properly as this laptop is ancient and the monitor is awful I'm half blind.And I cant keep my wife from getting so much malware that surfing the web is more like LA traffic.
SO have I offended you by doing so?
I would NEVER repost your work but have often linked to your posts and Geo,as I thought that was your meaning.
So do you want me to shred your work?Or can I continue to study it?
I have great respect for you sharing your knowledge and I thought your intent was to keep other people from making money by reposting your work in order to draw more visits and thus more "pennies per click" on thier DIY sites and blogs whatever.
Anyway I hope I didnt offend you by making use of your web site,I thought that was your reason for having it so people like me could learn from it.

I think there needs to be a distinction made between linking to/printing for personal use and redistribution/republishing without credit.

They're two very different things.