Letters

CCRMA and Intellectual Property

When I read the review of the 1999 Beijing International Computer Music Conference in Computer Music Journal 24:2 (pp. 77-83), two things jumped out at me. In addressing the topic of open-source software, the reviewers stated that Common Lisp Music (CLM) is by Fernando Lopez-Lezcano and Juan Pampin. Although these two composers are very experienced users (and even developers of certain modules and unit generators) of the CLM software, the sole author is Bill Schottstaedt of the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA) at Stanford University, as Fernando and Juan would be the first to acknowledge.

Mistakes like that are easy to make when reviewing the ICMC, in which there are scores of developers present and it is therefore perhaps difficult to keep names straight. However, I was shocked by the reviewers' later remark that the trend towards more open-source software is a welcome development away from the "protectionism begun in the Chowning years"! In context, the implication is that John Chowning was somehow responsible for creating a closed and secretive environment in the computer music world. I assume that the reviewers are referring to John's FM work, and in particular the FM patent. Now, I was still busy playing with Lego when all of that was going on, but I was later fortunate to benefit from the legacy of the FM patent, which brought enough money to CCRMA (where I was a student) to fund fruitful research and compositional activity that otherwise would have been impossible. I think it would be fair to say that, to a large extent, FM patent money made CCRMA what it is. And everyone in the computer music world knows the impact CCRMA has made.

It is my understanding that during the time that the FM patent was in effect, no one was stopped from using the FM algorithm, or charged a fee for doing so. (FM was always a core part of the above-mentioned CLM software and its predecessors, which is, and was, free to download, and with which many composers created pieces, modifying the algorithm at will and all without cost--except for a few gray hairs perhaps.) I wanted to point out this wholly unwarranted and unsubstantiated slight against John Chowning, which I believe should be either explained or excused.

Michael Edwards
Universität Mozarteum Salzburg
Salzburg, Austria

I would like to add to Michael Edwards's remarks by emphasizing that FM as software was never restricted by any patent quarrels (and, if I remember correctly, even hardware infringements occurred without strict follow-ups in some cases). As a matter of fact, FM was used heavily in many software pieces before it found its way into hardware, and this is one of the main reasons why it was successful in the academic environment (which was the only environment for computer music up to the early 1980s). Actually, FM and the policy of its use was always a good example for how one should and could go about spreading the use of innovative technology. There are quite a few examples in the computer music world where people were (and still are!) protecting their algorithms or programs so rigidly that their accomplishments basically disappeared.

Furthermore, one should not forget that open-source is not a development of the 1980s and 1990s but stems from the 1960s and 1970s. When I started at CCRMA in the second half of the 1970s, the discussion about "public domain" (including source code) versus strictly controlled software was already on.

One last historic remark: If I remember correctly, when FM was patented, it was not possible to patent software; only hardware implementations could be protected (and so hardware schematics for FM had to be drawn up after the software application was found). In retrospect, one might also say that only a big "company" like Stanford was capable of pushing the patent through and paying fees for years until a licensee (Yamaha) was found--which, as Michael Edwards points out, resulted in an upramping of support...