[Ty Ford]

I google myself periodically to check this stuff out. I did it about
four days ago and son of a gun, Mikrofonen.se has my review of the
Gefell m294, m295, m296 that I wrote a few years back. I have no idea
how long they have been using my copyrighted material illegally on
their site.

So I reach out to them with my usual response. Nothing rude. Just the
facts. Just business. "Hello, You are using my copyrighted review of
the Gefell Mics on your site. License fees for use are $250USD for one
year and $350USD in perpetuity. Which do you prefer. Regards, Ty Ford"

What do I get? Someone at the email address of :
says he/she will remove it immediately. I
tell him you can't unring the bell. He has illegally used my
intellectual property on his web site. He needs to pay my nominal fee.

He says, "It was a mistake to put on my website. I will remove it as
soon as I can. However I have no funds to make any payment."

I tell him it's too late. He owes me for the use of my copyrighted
material.

Having admitted it was a mistake, he tries to put it off on MicroTech
Gefell.

I have no gripe with MicroTech Gefell, but I do have a gripe against a
distributor who steals from me.

I told him that if he did not pay my nominal fee by 12 noon EST, that
I would out him.

I don't know anything about Mikrofonen.se, but based on the way they
choose to do business, the only thing I want from them is payment for
use of my article.

Our last email back and forth went like this:

Him: Dear Ty
I am not used to be approached in this harsh manner, there is for sure
a cultural difference. This makes it more difficult to find an
agreement suitable for both of us. My advice is to focus your energy
on the music and writing good articles, you already proved you can do
this very well. I was mislead by MG and I apologise for my mistake. I
hope we can look each other in the eyes when we meet at some future
AES meeting, we live in a civilised world ?
Kind regards
H Lindberg

Me: I am not used to being stolen from. Perhaps theft is condoned in
your culture, but we take a very dim view of it. Your career advice is
not welcome here. Your apology rings hollow. You are now blaming MG
for your OWN lack of discretion.

Unless I receive payment by this coming tuesday at noon Eastern
Standard Time, I will assume that you are not concerned about your
theft or your reputation. I will then extract what I believe is a just
amount by making your theft known to the Internet-at-large.
Ty Ford

Him: Dear Ty
Business is all about establishing good human relations, I hope you
agree. I was approached about this problem in a very hostile way and
that is not a good start for business. This makes it very difficult
for me to pay you anything.
You are welcome to spread bad information, however, doing so will also
affect you in a negative way as well. I could also spread bad
information about you but I will not do that, never. I will inform MG
and they will take care about this matter.
Kind regards
Håkan Lindberg

Me: That is not correct. My approach to you was a simple request for
payment for use of my intellectual property. It was your denial that
prompted me to make you aware of your transgression.

If you choose not to accept my offer, I will spread the simple truth.
It won't hurt me at all.
Ty Ford

-----------------

So there you have it. I really dislike having to do this, but I
dislike even more being victimized. I first invoiced them via PayPal.
Then I proposed that they give me a mic to cover the cost; a simple
trade. That request has not been answered.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Mike Rivers]

Ty Ford wrote:

So there you have it. I really dislike having to do this, but I
dislike even more being victimized. I first invoiced them via PayPal.
Then I proposed that they give me a mic to cover the cost; a simple
trade. That request has not been answered.

Welcome to the Internet. Is this the first time you've ever seen your
work some place where you didn't post it? And have you ever collected
money from anyone who had it on a web site that you didn't authorize?
People ain't got no respek nowadays.

I get e-mail frequently from people who say "I saw your review on
" and I realize that they're talking about one of my show
report posts or a post that I've made here. At the NAMM show last week,
I mentioned to an exhibitor that I had reviewed one of his products (I
think it was in Recording) and he said "Yes, I know. We have that review
on our web site." I didn't ask Recording if they gave permission to
publish it, but I didn't. Nor, really, do I care. I believe my Recording
article about compression basics is still on Manley's web site, but they
asked, and I said it was OK with me if it was OK with Recording (which
it was). Like they say, any publicity for us writers is good.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"Ty Ford" wrote ...
Him: Dear Ty
Business is all about establishing good human relations,

Ha! And all along I thought it was about making a profit in
order to continue to stay in business. I can think of dozens of
business that have nothing to do with "establishing good human
relations". And even several that are about establishing BAD
human relations. :-)

I was approached about this problem

So he admits that he caused a problem. It's a start.

in a very hostile way

You could increase your rates and hire a culturally-sensitive
agent in Sweden who would talk nice and extract an extra 10%

and that is not a good start for business.

It appears to me that HE unethically "started" the business by
posting your property on his website without payment or notice.

This makes it very difficult for me to pay you anything.

Is that how they do business in Sweden? They only pay the
people they feel good about? I wonder if this is a real
business, or some guy with a website and a basement studio.

I will inform MG and they will take care about this matter.

Does MG know that they've been sucked into the fray?

You could ask for payment in trade (a microphone :-)
if they don't want to pony up the cash.

[[email protected]]

As an academician who publishes a fair amount as part of my career, I
am certainly loathe to the reproducing of copywritten material without
proper consent. However, I'm also not sure what the laws are in this
case regarding appropriate recompense. I can understand when a clear
profit can be attributed to the stolen material, such as if someone
dubs an LP onto CD and sells the copies. But in cases where it isn't
at all clear what if any profit can be attributed to the transgression,
isn't the usual first step a cease-and-desist? And what if you had said
that your usual fee was $1 million? Would Mikrofonen.se be legally
bound to pay that amount? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I'm
actually just curious.

Ty Ford wrote:
: I google myself periodically to check this stuff out. I did it about
: four days ago and son of a gun, Mikrofonen.se has my review of the
: Gefell m294, m295, m296 that I wrote a few years back. I have no idea
: how long they have been using my copyrighted material illegally on
: their site.

: So I reach out to them with my usual response. Nothing rude. Just the
: facts. Just business. "Hello, You are using my copyrighted review of
: the Gefell Mics on your site. License fees for use are $250USD for one
: year and $350USD in perpetuity. Which do you prefer. Regards, Ty Ford"

: What do I get? Someone at the email address of :
: says he/she will remove it immediately. I
: tell him you can't unring the bell. He has illegally used my
: intellectual property on his web site. He needs to pay my nominal fee.

: He says, "It was a mistake to put on my website. I will remove it as
: soon as I can. However I have no funds to make any payment."

: I tell him it's too late. He owes me for the use of my copyrighted
: material.

: Having admitted it was a mistake, he tries to put it off on MicroTech
: Gefell.

: I have no gripe with MicroTech Gefell, but I do have a gripe against a
: distributor who steals from me.

: I told him that if he did not pay my nominal fee by 12 noon EST, that
: I would out him.

: I don't know anything about Mikrofonen.se, but based on the way they
: choose to do business, the only thing I want from them is payment for
: use of my article.

: Our last email back and forth went like this:

: Him: Dear Ty
: I am not used to be approached in this harsh manner, there is for sure
: a cultural difference. This makes it more difficult to find an
: agreement suitable for both of us. My advice is to focus your energy
: on the music and writing good articles, you already proved you can do
: this very well. I was mislead by MG and I apologise for my mistake. I
: hope we can look each other in the eyes when we meet at some future
: AES meeting, we live in a civilised world ?
: Kind regards
: H Lindberg

: Me: I am not used to being stolen from. Perhaps theft is condoned in
: your culture, but we take a very dim view of it. Your career advice is
: not welcome here. Your apology rings hollow. You are now blaming MG
: for your OWN lack of discretion.

: Unless I receive payment by this coming tuesday at noon Eastern
: Standard Time, I will assume that you are not concerned about your
: theft or your reputation. I will then extract what I believe is a just
: amount by making your theft known to the Internet-at-large.
: Ty Ford

: Him: Dear Ty
: Business is all about establishing good human relations, I hope you
: agree. I was approached about this problem in a very hostile way and
: that is not a good start for business. This makes it very difficult
: for me to pay you anything.
: You are welcome to spread bad information, however, doing so will also
: affect you in a negative way as well. I could also spread bad
: information about you but I will not do that, never. I will inform MG
: and they will take care about this matter.
: Kind regards
: H?kan Lindberg

: Me: That is not correct. My approach to you was a simple request for
: payment for use of my intellectual property. It was your denial that
: prompted me to make you aware of your transgression.

: If you choose not to accept my offer, I will spread the simple truth.
: It won't hurt me at all.
: Ty Ford

: -----------------

: So there you have it. I really dislike having to do this, but I
: dislike even more being victimized. I first invoiced them via PayPal.
: Then I proposed that they give me a mic to cover the cost; a simple
: trade. That request has not been answered.

: Regards,

: Ty Ford

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:
As an academician who publishes a fair amount as part of my career, I
am certainly loathe to the reproducing of copywritten material without
proper consent. However, I'm also not sure what the laws are in this
case regarding appropriate recompense. I can understand when a clear
profit can be attributed to the stolen material, such as if someone
dubs an LP onto CD and sells the copies. But in cases where it isn't
at all clear what if any profit can be attributed to the transgression,
isn't the usual first step a cease-and-desist?

Usually. But in the case where the person you're asking to
cease-and-desist should
have known better, some punitive action may be appropriate. It's kind of
like letting
the kid who stole a candy bar pay for it and move on rather than calling
the police.

As a writer, I don't care if someone else makes a profit from my
writing. After all, that's
exactly why I write - so the magazine that commissioned the article can
make enough
money to pay me for it. But it's pre-arranged. What I'm concerned about
is potential
loss of profit. If the magazine that pays me for my writing is not
selling magazines because
people can download my articles for free, then they may stop paying me
for writing.

I don't sell the same article to multiple publications. I don't think
that's ethical. Occasionally
someone will ask if they can quote part of a review on their web site. I
don't mind that. Nor
do I mind if they post a link to an existing on-line article or magazine
that has published
the article. It used to be that occasionally a manufacturer would buy a
reprint of a magazine
article from the magazine publisher to use as marketing material, but
that was usually
arranged through the publisher, who would pay me for the use of the
reprint. Since
people get that sort of information almost exclusively on line today, I
don't see much of
this going on. Unfortunately, morals and common decency business
practice seems to
have gone by the wayside with young Internet-based companies who never
did business
any other way.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

Ty Ford wrote:

So there you have it. I really dislike having to do
this, but I dislike even more being victimized. I first
invoiced them via PayPal. Then I proposed that they give
me a mic to cover the cost; a simple trade. That request
has not been answered.

Welcome to the Internet. Is this the first time you've
ever seen your work some place where you didn't post it?
And have you ever collected money from anyone who had it
on a web site that you didn't authorize? People ain't got
no respek nowadays.

The most egregious example of this that I'm aware of is the site in China
that ripped off my entire www.pcavtech.com web site, lock, stock, and
barrel. Same pages, except some were badly translated into Chinese. I
don't know if it is still around or not.

[William Sommerwerck]

You are morally in the right, but what are you going to do about it? How do
you expect to sue and recover?

Of course, businesses /should/ be aware that it is very easy to copyright
material in the US (you /did/ put a copyright notice on the documents, did
you not?), and that they should check before posting material they didn't
create.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 21, 4:22*am, wrote:
As an academician who publishes a fair amount as part of my career, I
am certainly loathe to the reproducing of copywritten material without
proper consent.

Hehe. I know it's off topic, but that sentence
cracks me up on so many different leveks.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
: On Jan 21, 4:22?am, wrote:
: As an academician who publishes a fair amount as part of my career, I
: am certainly loathe to the reproducing of copywritten material without
: proper consent.
:
: Hehe. I know it's off topic, but that sentence
: cracks me up on so many different leveks.

Hmm, I detect a swipe. While there are transgressions everywhere,
the conferences and journals I target maintain blacklists of
authors caught plagiarizing. I've seen lack of citation in
course lecture material grounds for denying promotion or tenure.
I have failed dozens of students for as much (students these days
seem to think that cutting-and-pasting from the web is a perfectly
acceptable composition technique). Still, I've had my own published
ideas lifted and claimed by someone else. But at least we're fighting
it at both individual and institutional levels.

[coreybenson]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
You are morally in the right, but what are you going to do about it? How
do
you expect to sue and recover?

Of course, businesses /should/ be aware that it is very easy to copyright
material in the US (you /did/ put a copyright notice on the documents, did
you not?), and that they should check before posting material they didn't
create.

Uh... he doesn't. Instead, he's taking the time to make Usenet users aware
of a business with poor ethical practices. Works for me. Kind of along the
lines of "or I'll take it out of your hide!"
--
Corey Benson

Radio by dogs, for dogs:
http://www.HenryAndBuster.com/

http://www.curbsideproductions.com/

[Richard Crowley]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote...
You are morally in the right, but what are you going to do about it? How
do
you expect to sue and recover?

Of course, businesses /should/ be aware that it is very easy to copyright
material in the US (you /did/ put a copyright notice on the documents, did
you not?), and that they should check before posting material they didn't
create.

Since the Berne Convention 123 years ago, copyright exists automatically
without explititly placing a notice on the publication. In fact the Berne
Convention prohibits requiring formal registration.

OTOH, including an explicit copyright notice allows the owner to sue for
damages and expenses in US cases. This would appear to NOT apply
in the case Mr. Ford described. Ty was asking only for fees and not for
damages or expenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:59:38 -0500, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article ):

"William Sommerwerck" wrote...
You are morally in the right, but what are you going to do about it? How
do
you expect to sue and recover?

Of course, businesses /should/ be aware that it is very easy to copyright
material in the US (you /did/ put a copyright notice on the documents, did
you not?), and that they should check before posting material they didn't
create.

Since the Berne Convention 123 years ago, copyright exists automatically
without explititly placing a notice on the publication. In fact the Berne
Convention prohibits requiring formal registration.

OTOH, including an explicit copyright notice allows the owner to sue for
damages and expenses in US cases. This would appear to NOT apply
in the case Mr. Ford described. Ty was asking only for fees and not for
damages or expenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention


Anyone know anybody in Sweden who can drop by to say "Hi" to these guys?

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Chris Whealy]

Ty Ford wrote:
Anyone know anybody in Sweden who can drop by to say "Hi" to these guys?
Regards,

Ty Ford

Well I know a couple of guys in Stockholm, but Mikrofonen is based in
Molkom - which is about 200 miles west, or a 4 hour drive.
Not sure I'm good enough friends with them to ask for an eight hour
round trip...

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Ty Ford wrote:

Anyone know anybody in Sweden who can drop by to say "Hi" to these guys?

Enough already. Either you're serious about the copyright aspect, so
hire a lawyer, or this is just an ego problem then please take your
vendetta elsewhere, preferably private.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[D.M. Procida]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Of course, businesses /should/ be aware that it is very easy to copyright
material in the US

The USA signed up to the Berne Convention about 20 years ago (only 100
years late to the party, guys!) so even in the US copyright inheres
automatically in created works.

So there is no need to "copyright material"; in fact, I don't think it's
possible to.

Daniele

[rakmanenuff]

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

Anyone know anybody in Sweden who can drop by to say "Hi" to these guys?

Enough already. Either you're serious about the copyright aspect, so
hire a lawyer, or this is just an ego problem then please take your
vendetta elsewhere, preferably private.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

What's with all this smugness and arrogance
towards the OP? Isn't he the one being wronged
here?

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:47:46 -0500, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

Anyone know anybody in Sweden who can drop by to say "Hi" to these guys?

Enough already. Either you're serious about the copyright aspect, so
hire a lawyer, or this is just an ego problem then please take your
vendetta elsewhere, preferably private.

Ralf



Hey Ralf,

Any ego issues are your projection. It's a matter of principle and a warning
for others. If you don't like it, avoid the thread.

Best,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:10:20 -0500, rakmanenuff wrote
(in article
):

Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

Anyone know anybody in Sweden who can drop by to say "Hi" to these guys?

Enough already. Either you're serious about the copyright aspect, so
hire a lawyer, or this is just an ego problem then please take your
vendetta elsewhere, preferably private.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

What's with all this smugness and arrogance
towards the OP? Isn't he the one being wronged
here?

Rak,

I'm guessing it's the same guys who rpiied me off with a different email
address. Either that or one of their friends.

Thanks for your support.

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

He says, "It was a mistake to put on my website. I will remove it as
soon as I can. However I have no funds to make any payment."

The gamble is "he can't reach me". I found an excerpt from my website on
some australian site and sent a cease and desist email. Months later I got a
"sorry mate" .... he was obviously surprised and worried that I'd go after
him via is ISP. Also I had some music on mp3.com. The entire mp3.com web
site was cloned by someone in South Korea and ran for considerable time.
Eventually my music found its way to be used as the foundation for playing
on top of, root track or whatever, by an american avantgarde band. They had
gotten a permission if they had asked, but I'm not happy with not being
credited.

I tell him it's too late. He owes me for the use of my copyrighted
material.

Yes.

Having admitted it was a mistake, he tries to put it off on MicroTech
Gefell.

Your first "non legal" recourse is to very politely and correctly ask them
about that, I'm surprised that you didn't. But some of the time public
laundry is the only recourse ....

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Ty Ford wrote:

I'm guessing it's the same guys who rpiied me off with a different email
address. Either that or one of their friends.

Neither one nor the other. But you're welcome to sink as low as you
think suits your purpose.

I'll gladly admit, here and now, that you're obviously much better at
mudslinging than I'll ever be, so I won't even try to compete.

Have a nice life.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

[Geoff]

Ty Ford wrote:



Anyone know anybody in Sweden who can drop by to say "Hi" to these
guys?

And while they are there, they can pop over to Denmark and get my $$$ or
Class-D 1KW amp module back off Mr Karsten Madsen of www.cad-audio.com .

geoff

[gunnar]

A small note on the company mikrofonen here. I believe it to be a one
man home based business. It might be that Håkan is retired or semi-
retired and I would not expect turnover to be very large, more
something out of interest to keep in touch. I have bought MicroTech
Gefell M296 mics from him, could be that I have the only ones in
Sweden. Seen Håkan once, nice enough man. Not that this changes any of
the issues.

// Gunnar Hellquist

[WillStG]

On Jan 20, 10:31 pm, Ty Ford wrote:
I google myself periodically to check this stuff out. I did it about
four days ago and son of a gun, Mikrofonen.se has my review of the
Gefell m294, m295, m296 that I wrote a few years back. I have no idea
how long they have been using my copyrighted material illegally on
their site.

So I reach out to them with my usual response. Nothing rude. Just the
facts. Just business. "Hello, You are using my copyrighted review of
the Gefell Mics on your site. License fees for use are $250USD for one
year and $350USD in perpetuity. Which do you prefer. Regards, Ty Ford"

What do I get? Someone at the email address of :
says he/she will remove it immediately. I
tell him you can't unring the bell. He has illegally used my
intellectual property on his web site. He needs to pay my nominal fee.

He says, "It was a mistake to put on my website. I will remove it as
soon as I can. However I have no funds to make any payment."

I tell him it's too late. He owes me for the use of my copyrighted
material.

Having admitted it was a mistake, he tries to put it off on MicroTech
Gefell.

I have no gripe with MicroTech Gefell, but I do have a gripe against a
distributor who steals from me.

I told him that if he did not pay my nominal fee by 12 noon EST, that
I would out him.

I don't know anything about Mikrofonen.se, but based on the way they
choose to do business, the only thing I want from them is payment for
use of my article.

Our last email back and forth went like this:

Him: Dear Ty
I am not used to be approached in this harsh manner, there is for sure
a cultural difference. This makes it more difficult to find an
agreement suitable for both of us. My advice is to focus your energy
on the music and writing good articles, you already proved you can do
this very well. I was mislead by MG and I apologise for my mistake. I
hope we can look each other in the eyes when we meet at some future
AES meeting, we live in a civilised world ?
Kind regards
H Lindberg

Me: I am not used to being stolen from. Perhaps theft is condoned in
your culture, but we take a very dim view of it. Your career advice is
not welcome here. Your apology rings hollow. You are now blaming MG
for your OWN lack of discretion.

Unless I receive payment by this coming tuesday at noon Eastern
Standard Time, I will assume that you are not concerned about your
theft or your reputation. I will then extract what I believe is a just
amount by making your theft known to the Internet-at-large.
Ty Ford

Him: Dear Ty
Business is all about establishing good human relations, I hope you
agree. I was approached about this problem in a very hostile way and
that is not a good start for business. This makes it very difficult
for me to pay you anything.
You are welcome to spread bad information, however, doing so will also
affect you in a negative way as well. I could also spread bad
information about you but I will not do that, never. I will inform MG
and they will take care about this matter.
Kind regards
Håkan Lindberg

Me: That is not correct. My approach to you was a simple request for
payment for use of my intellectual property. It was your denial that
prompted me to make you aware of your transgression.

If you choose not to accept my offer, I will spread the simple truth.
It won't hurt me at all.
Ty Ford

-----------------

So there you have it. I really dislike having to do this, but I
dislike even more being victimized. I first invoiced them via PayPal.
Then I proposed that they give me a mic to cover the cost; a simple
trade. That request has not been answered.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Your problem Ty, is your requested license fee is way too
reasonable and low. You can set it to be whatever you want it to be,
so for a real response you should maybe have requested at least a
$10,000 a year payment and let them negotiate it down. And this is
tradition in the music business after all, exploit as best as you can
and if someone else owns the rights let them sue if they want to
collect. At $10,000 a year, they might be afraid you might actually do
such a thing.

I like to follow Robert Fripp's blog, your situation reminds me
of some of his adventures in the music business. In the past he has
written about such excesses as Wives of Major Label Executives (Ladies
Who lunch) who would be charging their meals at Englands finest
establishments to King Crimson's Record label expenses account. Now
just a couple of days ago he wrote that there is a major Label selling
King Crimson's catalog through iTunes that does not own the rights to
do so. And when the Label's lawyers were asked to cease and desist,
didn't they check before doing so, the response was "do you expect us
to check every contract before we put a recording up on iTunes?"
while continuing on as before.

Or imagine a label with your CD's left over after the record
contract has expired, who sell your catalog at the dumping price of $5
a CD, when the contract says the leftover CD's should all be destroyed
upon the contract's expiration? Talk about being unable to unring the
bell. The real challenge could be just to get Quasimodo to stop
jumping up and down while holding the bell rope.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

On Jan 23, 3:00 pm, gunnar wrote:
A small note on the company mikrofonen here. I believe it to be a one
man home based business. It might be that Håkan is retired or semi-
retired and I would not expect turnover to be very large, more
something out of interest to keep in touch. I have bought MicroTech
Gefell M296 mics from him, could be that I have the only ones in
Sweden. Seen Håkan once, nice enough man. Not that this changes any of
the issues.

// Gunnar Hellquist

Well according to their website (bottom of the "historia" page),
he's a Pro Audio guy, Swedish Film School grad and veteran AES member,
has worked on 15 Feature films and in radio for 12 years, and who
teaches audio and works for Pro Audio companies and has a lot of
industry "contacts". So sounds to me like he really does know better
than to publish reviews without permission, he is the kind of guy who
would know people make a living that way.

Now if MicroTech Gefell did get him into trouble here, maybe they
should be the ones to make good to Ty, and Håkan should complain to
them and ask for some promo goods. Ty did seem open to a mic as
payment, and then Mikrofonen.se does have those new "Håkan"
popfilters....

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/LIve Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

On Jan 20, 10:31 pm, Ty Ford wrote:
I google myself periodically to check this stuff out. I did it about
four days ago and son of a gun, Mikrofonen.se has my review of the
Gefell m294, m295, m296 that I wrote a few years back. I have no idea
how long they have been using my copyrighted material illegally on
their site.

So I reach out to them with my usual response. Nothing rude. Just the
facts. Just business. "Hello, You are using my copyrighted review of
the Gefell Mics on your site. License fees for use are $250USD for one
year and $350USD in perpetuity. Which do you prefer. Regards,Ty Ford"

What do I get? Someone at the email address of :
says he/she will remove it immediately. I
tell him you can't unring the bell. He has illegally used my
intellectual property on his web site. He needs to pay my nominal fee.

He says, "It was a mistake to put on my website. I will remove it as
soon as I can. However I have no funds to make any payment."

I tell him it's too late. He owes me for the use of my copyrighted
material.

Having admitted it was a mistake, he tries to put it off on MicroTech
Gefell.

I have no gripe with MicroTech Gefell, but I do have a gripe against a
distributor who steals from me.

I told him that if he did not pay my nominal fee by 12 noon EST, that
I would out him.

I don't know anything about Mikrofonen.se, but based on the way they
choose to do business, the only thing I want from them is payment for
use of my article.

Our last email back and forth went like this:

Him: Dear Ty
I am not used to be approached in this harsh manner, there is for sure
a cultural difference. This makes it more difficult to find an
agreement suitable for both of us. My advice is to focus your energy
on the music and writing good articles, you already proved you can do
this very well. I was mislead by MG and I apologise for my mistake. I
hope we can look each other in the eyes when we meet at some future
AES meeting, we live in a civilised world ?
Kind regards
H Lindberg

Me: I am not used to being stolen from. Perhaps theft is condoned in
your culture, but we take a very dim view of it. Your career advice is
not welcome here. Your apology rings hollow. You are now blaming MG
for your OWN lack of discretion.

Unless I receive payment by this coming tuesday at noon Eastern
Standard Time, I will assume that you are not concerned about your
theft or your reputation. I will then extract what I believe is a just
amount by making your theft known to the Internet-at-large.Ty Ford

Him: Dear Ty
Business is all about establishing good human relations, I hope you
agree. I was approached about this problem in a very hostile way and
that is not a good start for business. This makes it very difficult
for me to pay you anything.
You are welcome to spread bad information, however, doing so will also
affect you in a negative way as well. I could also spread bad
information about you but I will not do that, never. I will inform MG
and they will take care about this matter.
Kind regardsHåkanLindberg

Me: That is not correct. My approach to you was a simple request for
payment for use of my intellectual property. It was your denial that
prompted me to make you aware of your transgression.

If you choose not to accept my offer, I will spread the simple truth.
It won't hurt me at all.Ty Ford

-----------------

So there you have it. I really dislike having to do this, but I
dislike even more being victimized. I first invoiced them via PayPal.
Then I proposed that they give me a mic to cover the cost; a simple
trade. That request has not been answered.

Regards,

Ty Ford

BTW Ty - Håkan is a Gefell distributor, and Gefell says they
have permission from Mix Magazine - who paid you for the review I
guess - to reprint the text of your review, And Microtech Gefell has
your Mix reviews on their website too, aren't we talking about the
same reviews? Does not this permission to the parent company apply to
their distributors? Is MikroTech Gefell ripping you off publishing
the same work under the Mix permission, or is Mix Magazine ripping you
off giving Gefell permissions they do not own?

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:29:13 -0500, WillStG wrote
(in article
):


BTW Ty - Håkan is a Gefell distributor, and Gefell says they
have permission from Mix Magazine - who paid you for the review I
guess - to reprint the text of your review, And Microtech Gefell has
your Mix reviews on their website too, aren't we talking about the
same reviews? Does not this permission to the parent company apply to
their distributors? Is MikroTech Gefell ripping you off publishing
the same work under the Mix permission, or is Mix Magazine ripping you
off giving Gefell permissions they do not own?

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

My deal with MIX (agreed on a long time ago) was very specific. They could
use the material for THEIR other uses, but if it went outside, all rights
were mine.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:49:31 -0500, WillStG wrote
(in article
):

Your problem Ty, is your requested license fee is way too
reasonable and low. You can set it to be whatever you want it to be,
so for a real response you should maybe have requested at least a
$10,000 a year payment and let them negotiate it down. And this is
tradition in the music business after all, exploit as best as you can
and if someone else owns the rights let them sue if they want to
collect. At $10,000 a year, they might be afraid you might actually do
such a thing.

I did offer to sign off on the deal if he sent me an m296. There was no
reply. As far As I'm concerned that deal is still on the table.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:29:13 -0500, WillStG wrote
(in article
):


BTW Ty - Håkan is a Gefell distributor, and Gefell says they
have permission from Mix Magazine - who paid you for the review I
guess - to reprint the text of your review, And Microtech Gefell has
your Mix reviews on their website too, aren't we talking about the
same reviews? Does not this permission to the parent company apply to
their distributors? Is MikroTech Gefell ripping you off publishing
the same work under the Mix permission, or is Mix Magazine ripping you
off giving Gefell permissions they do not own?

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

My deal with MIX (agreed on a long time ago) was very specific. They could
use the material for THEIR other uses, but if it went outside, all rights
were mine.

So it now appears your problem is actually with _Mix_ magazine. At least
you won't need a foreign lawyer. g

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:44:43 -0500, hank alrich wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:29:13 -0500, WillStG wrote
(in article
):


BTW Ty - Håkan is a Gefell distributor, and Gefell says they
have permission from Mix Magazine - who paid you for the review I
guess - to reprint the text of your review, And Microtech Gefell has
your Mix reviews on their website too, aren't we talking about the
same reviews? Does not this permission to the parent company apply to
their distributors? Is MikroTech Gefell ripping you off publishing
the same work under the Mix permission, or is Mix Magazine ripping you
off giving Gefell permissions they do not own?

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

My deal with MIX (agreed on a long time ago) was very specific. They could
use the material for THEIR other uses, but if it went outside, all rights
were mine.

So it now appears your problem is actually with _Mix_ magazine. At least
you won't need a foreign lawyer. g

No, the action was taken by committed by mikrofonen.se. Mix may have been an
unwitting contributor, but that's like saying your brother-in-law is on the
hook for your speeding ticket because he told you the speed limit was greater
than it really was.

Regards,

Ty Ford





--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[[email protected]]

On 2009-01-24 said:
they have permission from Mix Magazine - who paid you for the
review I guess - to reprint the text of your review, And
Microtech Gefell has your Mix reviews on their website too,
aren't we talking about the same reviews? Does not this
permission to the parent company apply to their distributors?
Is MikroTech Gefell ripping you off publishing the same work
under the Mix permission, or is Mix Magazine ripping you off
giving Gefell permissions they do not own?
My deal with MIX (agreed on a long time ago) was very specific.
They could use the material for THEIR other uses, but if it went
outside, all rights were mine.
SOunds to me like a serious consultation with your attorney
is in order here Ty. sOmebody obviously violated the terms
of your agreement as you perceive them. A consultation with
the pros, especially the pro that works for you will help
clear this up.


Regards,



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:44:43 -0500, hank alrich wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:29:13 -0500, WillStG wrote
(in article
):


BTW Ty - Håkan is a Gefell distributor, and Gefell says they
have permission from Mix Magazine - who paid you for the review I
guess - to reprint the text of your review, And Microtech Gefell has
your Mix reviews on their website too, aren't we talking about the
same reviews? Does not this permission to the parent company apply to
their distributors? Is MikroTech Gefell ripping you off publishing
the same work under the Mix permission, or is Mix Magazine ripping you
off giving Gefell permissions they do not own?

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

My deal with MIX (agreed on a long time ago) was very specific. They could
use the material for THEIR other uses, but if it went outside, all rights
were mine.

So it now appears your problem is actually with _Mix_ magazine. At least
you won't need a foreign lawyer. g

No, the action was taken by committed by mikrofonen.se.

Are you thinking clearly now?

Mix may have been an unwitting contributor,

If the perp-in-your-view was operating under a license assumed issued by
_Mix_, would not a next step be to determine whether or not _Mix_ issued
such license, in alleged violation of an agreement with you? The
question revolves around determining if _Mix_ was a witting contributor.

but that's like saying your brother-in-law is on the
hook for your speeding ticket because he told you the speed limit was greater
than it really was.

??? You're just making up **** there - has nothing serious to do getting
at the root of the transgression and either getting money or getting
terminated.


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

Ty Ford wrote:

No, the action was taken by committed by mikrofonen.se. Mix may have been an
unwitting contributor

Have you asked Mix if:
(1) They were asked permission to post the review and granted it (maybe
your agreement for third-party usage got lost or forgotten)
or
(2) They didn't give permission to use the review and would they like to
join you in some strongarm action (or maybe Sarah needs a new mic herself)


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[WillStG]

On Jan 24, 8:46 am, Ty Ford wrote:
My deal with MIX (agreed on a long time ago) was very specific. They could
use the material for THEIR other uses, but if it went outside, all rights
were mine.

Well the same review is also posted on the MicroTech Gefell
website, and attributed to a permission granted from Mix Magazine. So
is Mix in breach of agreement here, is MicroTech Gefell operating
under a permission that was not Mix's to grant?

Either Gefell has permission or they don't, if not you have an
issue with George.

(Remind me not quote any Mix reviews here if I have a mic for
sale, like everyone else does...)

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[hank alrich]

buzzardnews.com wrote:

It's this kind of timewasting that has crippled

the cloacal sphincter of a buzzard
leaving his ****e spewing out of control

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Greg Boboski]

Might be a case of , Oh ......
and wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds of Mix

No one mentioned settling for a mic reminds me of a second city sketch
where the guys goes " i'm sueing for a Million dollars , but i'll settle
out of court for 1,100 " so you've brought the value down to the mic ,
but like with kids if they get away with it once [ the price drop ] they'll
try again , I want 10 K , I'll give you an apology
where's the bargining power now ?

Doesn't right the wrong , but in order to make some effect [ affect his
business ]
now you have to convince people





"WillStG" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 8:46 am, Ty Ford wrote:
My deal with MIX (agreed on a long time ago) was very specific. They
could
use the material for THEIR other uses, but if it went outside, all rights
were mine.

Well the same review is also posted on the MicroTech Gefell
website, and attributed to a permission granted from Mix Magazine. So
is Mix in breach of agreement here, is MicroTech Gefell operating
under a permission that was not Mix's to grant?

Either Gefell has permission or they don't, if not you have an
issue with George.

(Remind me not quote any Mix reviews here if I have a mic for
sale, like everyone else does...)

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[hank alrich]

Greg Boboski wrote:

Might be a case of , Oh ......
and wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds of Mix

No one mentioned settling for a mic reminds me of a second city sketch
where the guys goes " i'm sueing for a Million dollars , but i'll settle
out of court for 1,100 " so you've brought the value down to the mic ,
but like with kids if they get away with it once [ the price drop ] they'll
try again , I want 10 K , I'll give you an apology
where's the bargining power now ?

Doesn't right the wrong , but in order to make some effect [ affect his
business ]
now you have to convince people

Assemble a logical trail determining who is (most likely) at fault, and
in what order. Regardless of Ty's dismissive attitude toward my comments
regarding determining, insofar as possible, _Mix_'s culpability in this,
that is where he or anyone will have to start in order to understand why
the operator of the offending site would suggest he felt he had a
license from _Mix_ to repub.

Show me the license.

Fine print is a pain in the head and eyeballs, jointly and severally,
but one must wade through the **** to get to the garden of eatin'.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[5016]

On Jan 20, 10:31*pm, Ty Ford wrote:

Our last email back and forth went like this:

Him: Dear Ty
I am not used to be approached in this harsh manner, there is for sure
a cultural difference. This makes it more difficult to find an
agreement suitable for both of us. My advice is to focus your energy
on the music and writing good articles, you already proved you can do
this very well. I was mislead by MG and I apologise for my mistake. I
hope we can look each other in the eyes when we meet at some future
AES meeting, we live in a civilised world ?
Kind regards
H Lindberg

Me: I am not used to being stolen from. Perhaps theft is condoned in
your culture, but we take a very dim view of it. Your career advice is
not welcome here. Your apology rings hollow. You are now blaming MG
for your OWN lack of discretion.

Unless I receive payment by this coming tuesday at noon Eastern
Standard Time, I will assume that you are not concerned about your
theft or your reputation. I will then extract what I believe is a just
amount by making your theft known to the Internet-at-large.
Ty Ford

Him: Dear Ty
Business is all about establishing good human relations, I hope you
agree. I was approached about this problem in a very hostile way and
that is not a good start for business. This makes it very difficult
for me to pay you anything.
You are welcome to spread bad information, however, doing so will also
affect you in a negative way as well. I could also spread bad
information about you but I will not do that, never. I will inform MG
and they will take care about this matter.
Kind regards
Håkan Lindberg

Me: That is not correct. My approach to you was a simple request for
payment for use of my intellectual property. It was your denial that
prompted me to make you aware of your transgression.

If you choose not to accept my offer, I will spread the simple truth.
It won't hurt me at all.
Ty Ford

-----------------

So there you have it. I really dislike having to do this, but I
dislike even more being victimized. I first invoiced them via PayPal.
Then I proposed that they give me a mic to cover the cost; a simple
trade. That request has not been answered.

Regards,

Ty Ford

One question: The first email you quote is from him, and it's very
politely complaining about how rude you are. I'd be interested in
reading the exchange that led up to this to see why you decided not to
reprint any of the previous notes.

The fact that your next note to him suggests that all Swedes are
theives gives credibility to his (polite) complaint of your rudeness.

You come across as a total dickweed in this, I'm afraid. Sitting
around googling yourself doesn't help.

Also, you don't get to make up any charge you want for someone who has
already used your stuff. You have to sue. And given that your own
valuation of your work is three-fifty, and his is zero, sueing is
unlikely to pay for itself. Any court is likely to tell him to take
the thing down and that will be the end of it. And that's something
he's already done.

If I was him, I would sue you. You have posted his copyrighted emails
on a public space. And you've libeled him and attempted to harm his
business. Your emails to him come across as so intemperate and bigoted
that I'm pretty sure he would win.

Thank you for bringing Mikrofonen.se to my attention. I will give them
my business in future. I am impressed with the highly professional way
that they deal with wackos.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:31:33 -0500, 5016 wrote
(in article
):


Thank you for bringing Mikrofonen.se to my attention. I will give them my
business in future. I am impressed with the highly professional way that they

deal with wackos.

Say "Hi" to your brother for me.

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:31:33 -0500, 5016 wrote
(in article
):

Thank you for bringing Mikrofonen.se to my attention. I will give
them my business in future. I am impressed with the highly
professional way that they

deal with wackos.

Say "Hi" to your brother for me.

Ty, it appears credible that the guy was in good faith because he re-used
the factory marketing, a less confrontational approach might (have) work(ed)
better by. However as it is you really need to take it to Microtech-Gefell
(that was the brand it was about, right?) for a comment from them, they
might well find it in their interest to obtain a solution.

Ty Ford

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:40:25 -0500, Peter Larsen wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:31:33 -0500, 5016 wrote
(in article
):

Thank you for bringing Mikrofonen.se to my attention. I will give
them my business in future. I am impressed with the highly
professional way that they

deal with wackos.

Say "Hi" to your brother for me.

Ty, it appears credible that the guy was in good faith because he re-used
the factory marketing, a less confrontational approach might (have) work(ed)
better by. However as it is you really need to take it to Microtech-Gefell
(that was the brand it was about, right?) for a comment from them, they
might well find it in their interest to obtain a solution.

Ty Ford

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter,

That may be the way to go. I have always had good relations with the home
office since the first Gefell hit the US after the wall came down.

He or someone copied and pasted the page and added it to his site. In doing
so he violated the copyright.

At times I've taken a one of my own published reviews to Kinko's or Office
Depot to get a color photocopy. Each time I do, I am told by the person
behind the counter that copying the page is a violation of copyright. When I
prove to them that I am the author, they say we'll they'll make one copy for
me.

I do take issue with your characterization that I was confrontational. I
simply asked for payment one way or the other. It was when he started
back-pedaling and trying to not take responsibility for his action that I
moved.

Many people think it's just fine to use others intellectual property without
any thought to the consequences. It's not OK.

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS: My offer for an m296 in trade is still on the table, but as of today, I
have heard nothing from him.





--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA