> That's all assuming Roland or whoever actually cared, of course. It seems to me that synths were invented before the current conception of 'intellectual property'. I doubt Robert Moog was thinking - 'hey, every time someone makes a Bach record on this thing, I can claim a 10% royalty'. Selling the synth itself was the business model. The problem as I see it is that there are now a whole load of business models based on non-tangible property, usually delivered in a digital form. You can sell or licence the sound of a piano, even though you didn't invent or even build the piano. It's clear that some things aren't physical property, and yet we are being told that than can be bought and sold in exactly the same way. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who put it like this: "We each have an apple. I give you my apple - you have two, and I have none. We each have an idea. I give you my idea, you give me yours, and then we have two ideas each." Intellectual property just doesn't respect maths... Laws (and interpretations of very old laws) are being changed to prop up these intangible businesses, and the fundamentally unsound nature of the proposition means there are bound to be problems. It's a bit like selling air in a can - only now there is no can. Cheers Daniel
