>Der folgende Artikel mag für jene interessant sein, die mit Computern
>künstlerisch arbeiten. Microsoft hat nun ein Patent, daß jede interaktiv
>algorithmische Computermusik, die auch "Multimedia" einbezieht, ohne
>Genehmigung von Microsoft illegal machen kann. (Eine interessante Perspektive:
>verletzt das ZKM Patenrechte von Microsoft, indem es Künstler einlädt, die
>interaktive Kunstwerke schaffen, in die auch Musik einbezogen wird? Eine
>interessante andere Perspektive: das ZKM muß sich anscheinend auf solche Werke
>beschränken, deren Umsatz für Microsoft nicht interessant ist. Damit wäre
>endlich durch die Wirtschaft eine klare Linie für die ästhetische Position des
>ZKM vorgegeben... eine interessante politisch Diskussion mag sich anschließen)
>                                                         - Johannes
>Goebel, ZKM
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Subject:     Microsoft Patent
>> Sent:        7/28/98 12:43
>> Received:    7/28/98 19:06
>> From:        ICMA, msimoni@xxxxxxxxx
>> To:          icma@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>> From: Doug Keislar <doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Microsoft was recently (May 19, 1998) granted a United States patent
>> (#5,753,843) for a "System and Process for Composing Musical Sections"
>> (including 47 claims), this patent clearly pertaining to the algorithmic
>> generation of music.  Computer Music Journal invited Laurie Spiegel to
>> write a guest editorial (below) about the implications of such patents.
>> We
>> also invite follow-up letters to the editor in response to this editorial.
>> The best of these letters will be published, along with the editorial, in
>> the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal.
>>
>> To submit a letter to the editor, please send email to cmj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> with a subject line of "Patenting Compositional Algorithms".  As requested
>> by the administrator of the ICMA mailing list, please do not post replies
>> to the ICMA mailing list, as it is not a discussion group.  I will serve
>> as
>> a moderator, collecting the replies and posting the more interesting ones
>> in a message to the ICMA mailing list.
>>
>> The abstract of the Microsoft patent describes:
>>
>>  "A system and process for comprising [sic] a musical section in response
>> to a user's interaction with a multimedia presentation.  The system
>> includes a composition engine, performance engine, and arbitrator.  The
>> arbitrator provides an interface with an application program running a
>> multimedia presentation.  The arbitrator receives parameters from the
>> application program indicative of a user's interaction and the type of
>> music the application program requests in response to the interaction. The
>> parameters are passed to the composition engine which composes a musical
>> section having a chord progression and other data therein. The musical
>> section and a style provided by the arbitrator are used by the performance
>> engine to generate music sequence data for driving a musical instrument.
>> The performance of the musical sequence data by the musical instrument
>> occurs substantially contemporaneously with the user's interaction which
>> caused the musical section composition. Because the composition engine
>> uses
>> processes which vary the composition of musical sections, the user events
>> which initiate composition of a musical section and which occur at the
>> same
>> place within a multimedia presentation, still vary the performance at each
>> user event."
>>
>> The claims includes the following text:
>>
>> "A system for composing music in response to a user's interaction with a
>> multimedia presentation comprising: an application program interface for
>> receiving parameters identifying a style, a shape, and a personality for
>> music that conform to said user's interaction with said multimedia
>> presentation; and a composition engine for composing a musical section
>> corresponding to said parameters so that a user perceives the performance
>> of the musical section to be related to said user's interaction with said
>> multimedia presentation."
>>
>> Copies of this patent can be obtained for US$ 13 from MicroPatent;
>> telephone
>> (800)648-6787; World Wide Web http://www.micropat.com.
>>
>> --Doug Keislar
>>
>> ==========================================================================
>>
>> Editorial by Laurie Spiegel
>>
>> There have been patents for musical inventions, such as piano action
>> parts,
>> for many years without apparent detriment. However, throughout the 20th
>> century, the designing of artistic processes and creative techniques has
>> increasingly come to be considered an integral part of an artist's
>> creative
>> work, rather than being seen as the province of a separate tool-building
>> specialist. Entire fields such as algorithmic composition, interactive
>> multimedia, and literary "process art" have become established in recent
>> decades, based on the premise that the designing and implementation of
>> specific creative processes and artistic techniques constitute artistic
>> creation, every bit as much as do the data that such processes generate.
>>
>> If specific compositional techniques are now to be privately owned, must
>> each composer, especially composers of computer-based interactive process
>> pieces, now stop to do patent searches routinely as part of their work or
>> else risk being taken to court? With the floodgates now open for a gold
>> rush of corporate claims to very specific compositional techniques, how
>> are
>> we composers supposed to preserve our sense of freedom, our exhilaration
>> at
>> exploring, and our deep psychological immersion in following musical ideas
>> wherever they may lead us, while knowing that we cannot ever be sure
>> anymore of the simple legality of any new refinement we may make in our
>> own
>> process-based works?
>>
>> Are we composers going to end up having to pay a royalty to the owner of
>> each technique we use, when the royalties we receive from the music we
>> compose using these techniques typically would not even pay for the
>> paperwork of just keeping track of them? Must the education of every
>> composer who wants to make process-based music now include courses in what
>> techniques are exclusively owned by whom and for how long, what fees or
>> methods will decriminalize their use, and the penalties to expect for
>> unauthorized use? Will process-based composing or composer construction of
>> interactive algorithmic tools now become so legally complex (and possibly
>> dangerous) that such approaches will simply die out?  When we want to use
>> a
>> specific compositional technique, how do we keep the question of who owns
>> it from interfering with our personal sense of creative freedom?
>>
>> As a method of motivating new development for compositional techniques,
>> how
>> would the use of patents have worked in historical contexts? To
>> hypothesize
>> an instance, what if someone had patented the replaying of a musical theme
>> at a time delay to itself, early in what was probably the last great era
>> of
>> process-based composing: the era of Bach? Would Bach have been able to
>> afford,
>> and also willing to pay, royalties (or--perish the thought--legal defense
>> fees) to use or build new techniques based on the patented imitative
>> contrapuntal processes his works required?  Or would composing the way he
>> did have made him a criminal, as Galileo and others came to be considered
>> criminals for their scientific work?  And could any patent-holding tool
>> designer ever possess sufficient understanding of the working requirements
>> of composers of Bach's artistic caliber to be able to create procedural
>> tools that were adequately fine-tuned for every possible such composer's
>> unique musical approach? Or, in another hypothetical example, could any
>> tool builder whose products had been fine tuned for Haydn's methods have
>> anticipated the ways in which Beethoven would need to break out beyond
>> their scope, or why this would be important, or how to accommodate the
>> change in advance?
>>
>> Then why does our own society assume that the definition, implementation,
>> and provision of any such creative technique should be done
>> non-competitively, non-pluralistically, under the complete control of any
>> single corporate monopoly? Why should the monopoly we call "patent"
>> include
>> artistic methods, tools, or techniques within its domain?  Simply because
>> these can now be constructed within the medium of computer software, and
>> because the law now allows the patenting of such processes if implemented
>> as computer software?
>>
>> The only arguably successful scenario I can envision that takes as a
>> premise the existence of an 18th-century patent on time-delayed repetition
>> techniques, and that would still allow us the Well Tempered Clavier, the
>> Musical Offering, and the Art of the Fugue, is one in which Bach got
>> himself hired as Company X's official court (well, company) composer in a
>> corporate reprise of the aristocratic private patronage system. But in all
>> likelihood Telemann would have gotten the job instead.
>>
>> We specialists created the field of computer music collectively but from
>> the intersections of our very own personal visions and desires. This
>> field,
>> our lifework, is increasingly influenced by differently motivated
>> entities.
>> The legal departments of large corporations, or those concerned with the
>> price of corporate shares trading in international markets, might govern
>> whether or not the next Art of the Fugue will ever be made. The current
>> situation is neither without precedent nor easily resolved, but we do want
>> to preserve what we value in our art and its potential to evolve.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Douglas Keislar
>> Editor, Computer Music Journal (MIT Press)
>>
>> email: cmj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx      tel: 1-510-486-0174
>> fax: (510) 486-0868 http://mitpress.mit.edu/Computer-Music-Journal/
>> Computer Music Journal, 2550 9th Street #207 B, Berkeley, CA 94710, USA
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Content-Type: message/rfc822
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Received: from ccrma.stanford.edu (ccrma.Stanford.EDU [36.49.0.84])
>        by mailer.zkm.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09833;
>        Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:12:45 +0200 (MET DST)
>Received: from cmn36.stanford.edu (cmn36 [36.49.0.115])
>        by ccrma.stanford.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA16815
>        for <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: (from harv23@localhost)
>        by cmn36.stanford.edu (8.8.7/8.8.8) id AAA01818
>        for users; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:09:46 -0700
>From: Harvey Thornburg <harv23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-Id: <199807290709.AAA01818@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Patent (fwd)
>To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
>Content-Type: text
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>Forwarded message:
>>From harv23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tue Jul 28 23:57:19 1998
>From: Harvey Devoe Thornburg <harv23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-Id: <199807290657.XAA28144@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Patent (fwd)
>To: harv23@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Forwarded message:
>>From owner-k2000@xxxxxxxxxxxx Tue Jul 28 23:15:48 1998
>x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Message-ID:  <199807282335.TAA10415@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:35:10 -0000
>Reply-To: "K2000 user's group" <K2000@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sender: "K2000 user's group" <K2000@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: Michael Rees <mrees@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject:      Fwd: Microsoft Patent
>Comments: To: emusic-L <emusic-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Comments: cc: Wind <wind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>          soundhack-l <soundhack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: K2000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>X-UIDL: fead46e86a412b41e40df94a079ca5c2
>
>forwarded herewith, some s*** you oughta read and think about........
>
>Subject:     Microsoft Patent
>Sent:        7/28/98 12:43
>Received:    7/28/98 19:06
>From:        ICMA, msimoni@xxxxxxxxx
>To:          icma@xxxxxxxxx
>
>From: Doug Keislar <doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Microsoft was recently (May 19, 1998) granted a United States patent
>(#5,753,843) for a "System and Process for Composing Musical Sections"
>(including 47 claims), this patent clearly pertaining to the algorithmic
>generation of music.  Computer Music Journal invited Laurie Spiegel to
>write a guest editorial (below) about the implications of such patents.
>We
>also invite follow-up letters to the editor in response to this editorial.
>The best of these letters will be published, along with the editorial, in
>the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal.
>
>To submit a letter to the editor, please send email to cmj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>with a subject line of "Patenting Compositional Algorithms".  As requested
>by the administrator of the ICMA mailing list, please do not post replies
>to the ICMA mailing list, as it is not a discussion group.  I will serve
>as
>a moderator, collecting the replies and posting the more interesting ones
>in a message to the ICMA mailing list.
>
>The abstract of the Microsoft patent describes:
>
> "A system and process for comprising [sic] a musical section in response
>to a user's interaction with a multimedia presentation.  The system
>includes a composition engine, performance engine, and arbitrator.  The
>arbitrator provides an interface with an application program running a
>multimedia presentation.  The arbitrator receives parameters from the
>application program indicative of a user's interaction and the type of
>music the application program requests in response to the interaction. The
>parameters are passed to the composition engine which composes a musical
>section having a chord progression and other data therein. The musical
>section and a style provided by the arbitrator are used by the performance
>engine to generate music sequence data for driving a musical instrument.
>The performance of the musical sequence data by the musical instrument
>occurs substantially contemporaneously with the user's interaction which
>caused the musical section composition. Because the composition engine
>uses
>processes which vary the composition of musical sections, the user events
>which initiate composition of a musical section and which occur at the
>same
>place within a multimedia presentation, still vary the performance at each
>user event."
>
>The claims includes the following text:
>
>"A system for composing music in response to a user's interaction with a
>multimedia presentation comprising: an application program interface for
>receiving parameters identifying a style, a shape, and a personality for
>music that conform to said user's interaction with said multimedia
>presentation; and a composition engine for composing a musical section
>corresponding to said parameters so that a user perceives the performance
>of the musical section to be related to said user's interaction with said
>multimedia presentation."
>
>Copies of this patent can be obtained for US$ 13 from MicroPatent;
>telephone
>(800)648-6787; World Wide Web http://www.micropat.com.
>
>--Doug Keislar
>
>
>==========================================================================
>
>Editorial by Laurie Spiegel
>
>There have been patents for musical inventions, such as piano action
>parts,
>for many years without apparent detriment. However, throughout the 20th
>century, the designing of artistic processes and creative techniques has
>increasingly come to be considered an integral part of an artist's
>creative
>work, rather than being seen as the province of a separate tool-building
>specialist. Entire fields such as algorithmic composition, interactive
>multimedia, and literary "process art" have become established in recent
>decades, based on the premise that the designing and implementation of
>specific creative processes and artistic techniques constitute artistic
>creation, every bit as much as do the data that such processes generate.
>
>If specific compositional techniques are now to be privately owned, must
>each composer, especially composers of computer-based interactive process
>pieces, now stop to do patent searches routinely as part of their work or
>else risk being taken to court? With the floodgates now open for a gold
>rush of corporate claims to very specific compositional techniques, how
>are
>we composers supposed to preserve our sense of freedom, our exhilaration
>at
>exploring, and our deep psychological immersion in following musical ideas
>wherever they may lead us, while knowing that we cannot ever be sure
>anymore of the simple legality of any new refinement we may make in our
>own
>process-based works?
>
>Are we composers going to end up having to pay a royalty to the owner of
>each technique we use, when the royalties we receive from the music we
>compose using these techniques typically would not even pay for the
>paperwork of just keeping track of them? Must the education of every
>composer who wants to make process-based music now include courses in what
>techniques are exclusively owned by whom and for how long, what fees or
>methods will decriminalize their use, and the penalties to expect for
>unauthorized use? Will process-based composing or composer construction of
>interactive algorithmic tools now become so legally complex (and possibly
>dangerous) that such approaches will simply die out?  When we want to use
>a
>specific compositional technique, how do we keep the question of who owns
>it from interfering with our personal sense of creative freedom?
>
>As a method of motivating new development for compositional techniques,
>how
>would the use of patents have worked in historical contexts? To
>hypothesize
>an instance, what if someone had patented the replaying of a musical theme
>at a time delay to itself, early in what was probably the last great era
>of
>process-based composing: the era of Bach? Would Bach have been able to
>afford,
>and also willing to pay, royalties (or--perish the thought--legal defense
>fees) to use or build new techniques based on the patented imitative
>contrapuntal processes his works required?  Or would composing the way he
>did have made him a criminal, as Galileo and others came to be considered
>criminals for their scientific work?  And could any patent-holding tool
>designer ever possess sufficient understanding of the working requirements
>of composers of Bach's artistic caliber to be able to create procedural
>tools that were adequately fine-tuned for every possible such composer's
>unique musical approach? Or, in another hypothetical example, could any
>tool builder whose products had been fine tuned for Haydn's methods have
>anticipated the ways in which Beethoven would need to break out beyond
>their scope, or why this would be important, or how to accommodate the
>change in advance?
>
>Then why does our own society assume that the definition, implementation,
>and provision of any such creative technique should be done
>non-competitively, non-pluralistically, under the complete control of any
>single corporate monopoly? Why should the monopoly we call "patent"
>include
>artistic methods, tools, or techniques within its domain?  Simply because
>these can now be constructed within the medium of computer software, and
>because the law now allows the patenting of such processes if implemented
>as computer software?
>
>The only arguably successful scenario I can envision that takes as a
>premise the existence of an 18th-century patent on time-delayed repetition
>techniques, and that would still allow us the Well Tempered Clavier, the
>Musical Offering, and the Art of the Fugue, is one in which Bach got
>himself hired as Company X's official court (well, company) composer in a
>corporate reprise of the aristocratic private patronage system. But in all
>likelihood Telemann would have gotten the job instead.
>
>We specialists created the field of computer music collectively but from
>the intersections of our very own personal visions and desires. This
>field,
>our lifework, is increasingly influenced by differently motivated
>entities.
>The legal departments of large corporations, or those concerned with the
>price of corporate shares trading in international markets, might govern
>whether or not the next Art of the Fugue will ever be made. The current
>situation is neither without precedent nor easily resolved, but we do want
>to preserve what we value in our art and its potential to evolve.
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Douglas Keislar
>Editor, Computer Music Journal (MIT Press)
>
>email: cmj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or doug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx      tel: 1-510-486-0174
>fax: (510) 486-0868 http://mitpress.mit.edu/Computer-Music-Journal/
>Computer Music Journal, 2550 9th Street #207 B, Berkeley, CA 94710, USA
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Michael Rees
>Composer &c.
>                         He really doesn't have that much to say,
>                         she told me, so don't get him started.
>


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Knowbotic Research, Bruesseler Strasse 28, 50674 Koeln, Germany
phone +49 221 779191 cellular +49 172 2524116 fax +49 221 7326695
http://www.khm.de/people/krcf/
-----------------------------------------------------------------



 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
(a) (c) (o) (u) (s) (t) (i) (c) ( ) (s) (p) (a) (c) (e)
 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
information&comunication channel | for net.broadcasters
http://xchange.re-lab.net  (Xchange)  net.audio network
xchange search/webarchive: http://xchange.re-lab.net/a/