 long been treated as IP, protected under copyright law. (The notion of software patents — a new mode of IP protection for software — has sneaked into the picture, gradually, over the past three decades or so.) The use of IP protections on software has created all manner of distortions in the way software is produced and consumed. Rather than rehash the big story, I’ll use my own experience with software IP as an example. My own journey into the open source movement came about because I got burned by the old model.

When I first wrote the program now known as Max, in 1988, my paycheck came from IRCAM. But many of the ideas behind Max had been developed at MIT, and many more were adapted from the work of other researchers. The code, at least, almost certainly belonged to IRCAM. IRCAM has energetically tried to capitalize on this, with some positive results early on, and with mostly negative results later.

The negative effects of IRCAM’s over-protectiveness were threefold. The most evident was a drop in IRCAM’s reputation among researchers (whereas as a production facility, IRCAM still enjoys a very high standing worldwide). Second, researchers within IRCAM become disaffected because of the difficulty of making their work known to people outside IRCAM. Since professional respect is the most important currency to a researcher, this can be a decisive factor in an employee’s decision to stay or leave. Finally, and most subtly, IRCAM cuts itself off from the most exciting new developments in the electronic arts by building a virtual wall between itself and the rest of the digital world. This is evidenced by the differing fortunes of jMax, IRCAM’s “new Max,” and Pd. Pd was instantly embraced by a huge, and extremely hip, community of users who have taken it far beyond my wildest dreams of it; see for instance convention.puredata.org for recent developments as of 2004. The jMax community by contrast was small and anemic.

All this need not imply IRCAM’s imminent demise as a research entity. With resources still unparalleled by any institution in the world, IRCAM’s situation would be quickly turned around if its IP policies were adjusted to be more in line with those of today’s international research community.

Getting back to my own story, I left IRCAM, and when it became clear that they would not permit my own further work on Max to be disseminated, I
long been treated as IP, protected under copyright law. (The notion of software patent — a newfangled mode of IP protection for software — has sneaked into the mental picture, gradually, over the past three decades or so .) The manipulation of IP protection on software has created all manner of distortion in the way software is produced and consume. Rather than rehash the bad report, I ’ll use my own experience with software IP as an case. My own journey into the open source motion came about because I got burned by the old mannequin. 

 When I first wrote the program now know as Max, in 1988, my paycheck came from IRCAM. But many of the ideas behind Max had been developed at MIT, and many more were adapted from the work of early researchers. The code, at least, almost certainly belonged to IRCAM. IRCAM has energetically tried to capitalize on this, with some positive result early on, and with mostly negative results later. 

 The negative effects of IRCAM ’s over - protectiveness were threefold. The most apparent was a drop in IRCAM ’s reputation among research worker (whereas as a product adeptness, IRCAM still enjoys a very high standing worldwide). Second, researchers within IRCAM become disaffected because of the difficulty of making their work know to people outside IRCAM. Since professional respect is the most important currency to a researcher, this can be a critical factor in an employee ’s decision to stay or leave. Finally, and most subtly, IRCAM cuts itself off from the about exciting newfangled developments in the electronic arts by building a virtual wall between itself and the remainder of the digital world. This is evidenced by the differing luck of jMax, IRCAM ’s “ new Max, ” and Pd. Pd was instantly embraced by a huge, and extremely pelvis, community of users who have taken it far beyond my wildest dreams of it; attend for instance convention.puredata.org for late developments as of 2004. The jMax community by contrast was small and anemic. 

 All this need not incriminate IRCAM ’s imminent demise as a research entity. With resources still alone by any institution in the world, IRCAM ’s situation would be cursorily turned around if its IP policies were adjusted to be more in line with those of today ’s international inquiry community. 

 Getting back to my own fib, I left IRCAM, and when it became clear that they would not permit my own further work on Max to be disseminated, I
 lojg been treated as IP, prutected under copyrighv law. (Tge notiov of software patents — a new mide od IP protection for sowtware — hws sneakwd iito the picture, jdadualln, oved the 'ast three decaces or so.) Dhe use of IP [rutzctions on software has created all ianner pf distortions ig tht wwy skftware is produced and consumed. Rzther tian rehash the nig story, I’ll use my own edperlence with softwarf IP as an gsam[oe. My own jojrney into the open soorce movement came about because I goc burned by tye lnd model.

Whei I figst wrote the program now knpwn as Max, in 1988, my patcheck came from IRCAK. But many of the ydeas behhnb Max had been developee at KIT, dnd oqny mode wsre adwptxd from the work of otyer researchers. The cjee, at least, ammost sewtainly belonged to IRCAM. IRCAM has eneggetjcally tried to capitaluze on this, with some positive results early on, and with mostly negative resultv latxr.

Ghe ncgatkce effects of IRCAM’s over-protectiveness were thwsegokd. The most evldent was a drop im LRVWM’s reputatiov amony rssearchers (whereas as a ptoductuon facilyty, ORCAM still enjoys a very hugh standing qorldwide). Second, rzsearchers wnthin ORCAM become disaffected beccuse or the diffifulty of jxking their work knpwt to peokue outside IRCAM. Fince prohessipnal rerpecj is thq most implrtanb currency to a resfarchgr, thiv can be a decisive factor in an employee’s decision to xtdy mr leave. Finakly, and most fubtly, IRCAM cots itsely off wrom the mkst excmting new dedelopments in jhe electronir arts by buiodint a virgjal wall betwern itself and the rwst of the digital wotls. This is evideueee by the differong fowtlnex jx jMax, IRCAM’v “ned Mxc,” and Pd. Pd was lnsgantky embraced by a huga, ans extremely hip, cokmmnity of osers who have taken iy far beyond my wipdest drxams og ij; see for instance convention.pudedata.org fov recent devejopmcnts as of 2004. Thz jMax community by contrast was small aid anemic.

All this need bot imply IRCAM’s imklnent demise as a research entity. With resourcws still unparalltled by any institution in tha worpd, IRCAM’s situation would be quickly turned around if its IP policies werw adjusted to be mkre on lite cith thjse lh today’s internatponal research community.

Getting uack to my ocn story, I left IRCAM, and whem kt became clexr that they would not psrmit my own further work on Max to be cisseminated, I
long been treated as IP, protected under (The of software — a new software has sneaked into picture, gradually, over past three decades or so.) The of IP protections on software has created all manner of distortions in the software is produced and consumed. Rather than rehash the big story, I’ll use own with IP an example. My own journey into the open source movement came about because I got burned the old model. When I first wrote the now known as Max, 1988, my paycheck came from But of the behind had developed at MIT, many more were adapted from the work of other researchers. The code, at least, almost certainly belonged IRCAM. IRCAM tried to on with positive results early with mostly negative results later. The IRCAM’s over-protectiveness were threefold. The most evident was drop in reputation among researchers (whereas as a facility, IRCAM still enjoys a very high standing Second, researchers within IRCAM become disaffected because of the difficulty of making their work known outside IRCAM. Since professional is the most currency a this be a factor in an employee’s decision to stay or leave. Finally, and subtly, IRCAM cuts itself off from the most exciting new the arts by building virtual wall between itself the of the digital world. evidenced the jMax, “new and Pd. Pd was embraced by a huge, and hip, community of users beyond my wildest dreams of it; see for convention.puredata.org for recent developments as of 2004. jMax community by contrast was small and anemic. All this need not IRCAM’s imminent a research entity. With resources still unparalleled by institution in the world, situation would be quickly turned around if its IP were to be in line with of today’s international community. Getting back own story, left and clear that they would not permit own work on Max to be I
 long been treated as IP, protecTed under coPyrigHt lAw. (THe NotiOn of Software patentS — A new Mode of IP protection for sOftwaRe — HAs snEAkEd intO the picTUrE, GRadUaLlY, ovEr THe Past tHreE decadeS or so.) The usE of iP Protections oN SoFtware has cReaTed all manner Of dIstortIoNs iN The waY soFtwarE is proDUced anD consumed. raTHer thaN Rehash tHE BiG stoRy, I’ll use my own expeRIeNCe with software iP as an ExAMpLE. my oWn jOurney into ThE open SOurce moVEmENT CamE About because I Got burned by THe oLd modeL.

WHen i First wRote tHe PRogRam now known As MaX, in 1988, my paycHeck caME from IRcaM. But maNy of thE idEas BehiND MAx Had BeEN deVElOpeD At MiT, and manY mOrE were AdapTED FRom tHe wOrk oF otheR researchers. THe cOde, aT LeaSt, almOst ceRtaiNlY beloNged to iRCAM. iRcAM has energeticAlly Tried to caPitAlIze On This, wITh some PosItiVe resulTs early ON, anD wITH MoStly negative resultS lATEr.

the negatIve effECtS oF iRCAM’s ovEr-ProTectIVEness Were THrEefold. ThE most eVIdEnT was a drOp In IRCAm’s RepUtaTion aMOng rEsearcHers (wherEas as A Production faciLIty, IRCAM still ENjOYS a VEry hIgh Standing worLdwiDE). SecOnd, rESeArcHErs wiThin IrCam bECome disaffected becaUsE of the DiffiCulty of making Their work kNOWN to peoplE outSIdE iRCAM. Since profEssioNal respect IS the most ImporTant currEncy to a reSEArcher, thIs cAn bE a dEciSIVe Factor in an empLOYee’s DeCision tO stAy or leaVe. FInaLly, And MoSt subtly, IrCAM cuts ItSeLf OfF frOm the MOst excitInG neW dEveLopmeNTs in thE elecTronIc ArTS by BuildinG A vIRTual WaLl BetwEen ItSelf aNd thE ResT of the dIgital worLd. THIs is EvIdEnced by The differing fOrTunes of jMaX, IrCAm’s “new MAX,” And Pd. Pd wAs instantly embraced by a hUGe, and exTreMely hIp, coMmunity of UseRs who hAve TAken it Far beyOnd my WiLdeST DreamS OF iT; seE fOr instance CONveNtion.PuRedaTa.org foR recent developmentS As oF 2004. The jMax commuNitY by cONTrAst WAs SMalL aND anEMIc.

All this need noT imply IRCAm’s IMmInent demisE As a ReSearch eNtity. WiTh resOUrces stIll unparaLleled by aNy InstITUtiOn in the worLd, IRCAM’s Situation WOuld bE QuIckly TurNed aroUnD if Its IP PoliciES weRe adjUsted tO bE more iN line WiTh those oF today’s international resEarch cOmmunIty.

getting baCk tO My oWn story, I lEft IrCAM, and wheN it BecAme clEar THat thEy woULd Not PErmit My owN Further woRK oN MaX TO bE disseminatED, i
 long been treated as IP,protectedunder  co pyr ig ht l aw.(The notion of soft ware patents — a new m ode o fI P pr o te ction  for so f tw a r e —  h as  sn ea k ed  into  th e pictu re, gradua lly ,over the pas t  t hree decad esor so.) Theuse  of IP  p rot e ction s o n sof twareh as cre ated allma n ner of distort i o ns  inthe way softwarei sp roduced and co nsumed .R at h e r t han  rehash th ebig s t ory, I’ l lu s e  my own experienc e with soft w are  IP as  a n e x ample.  My o wn jou rney into t he o pen sourc e move m ent cam e  aboutbecaus e I  go t bu r ne dbyth e  ol d  m ode l .
When I f ir st  wrot e th e p r ogra m n ow k nownas Max, in 19 88,  myp ayc heckcamefrom  I RCAM.  But m any o fthe ideas behin d Ma x had bee n d ev elo pe d atM IT, an d m any  more w ere ada p ted  f r o m  t he work of other r es e a rc hers. Th e code ,  a tl east, al mo stcert a i nly b elon g ed  to IRCA M. IRC A Mha s energ et ically  t rie d t o cap i tali ze onthis, wi th so m e positive res u lts early on, an d wi t h mo stl y negativeresu l ts l ater . 
The negat ive e ff e ct s  of IRCAM’s over-pr ot ective nesswere threefol d. The mos t e vident w as a dr o p in IRCAM’s r eputa tion among research ers ( whereasas a prod u c tion fac ili ty,  IR CAM s ti ll enjoys a v e r y hi gh  standi ngworldwi de) . S eco nd,  r esearcher s within  I RC AM  b eco me di s affected  b eca us e o f the diffic ultyof m ak in g  th eir wor k  k n o wn t ope ople  ou ts ide I RCAM .  Si nce pro fessional  re s pect  i sthe mos t important c ur rency to a  r ese archer , this can  be a decisive factor i n  an emp loy ee’sdeci sion to s tay  or le ave .  Final ly, an d mos tsub t l y, IR C A Mcut sitself off f rom  themo st e xciting  new developmentsi n t he electronic  ar ts b y bu ild i ng a v ir t ual w all between its elf and th er es t of the d i git al  world.  This i s evi d enced b y the dif fering fo rt unes o f j Max, IRCAM ’s “newMax,” and Pd. P d  w as in sta ntly e mb rac ed by  a hug e , a nd ex tremel yhip, c ommun it y of use rs who have taken it fa r beyo nd my  wi ldest dre ams ofit; see f or i nstance co nve nti on.pu red a ta.or g fo r  r ece n t dev elop m ents as o f  2 004 . Th e jMax comm u n i tyby co ntr a st was  sma ll and anemic.

A l l this need no t im p l y I RCA M ’s i mm inent demise a s a  r e s earch en ti ty. With re sourcesst i ll un parall eled b y any i n s ti t utionin t heworld, IR CAM ’s situati on  w o uld be  qui ck ly tur ned ar o undi f  its IP policies  were a djust e d t o bemo re in l i ne w ith thoseof today’sintern atio nal r esearch  c ommuni ty. 
Getting ba c k to my o wn st ory, Ile ft I RCA M, and  whe n it be came  c lea r that th e y  w o ul dn otperm it my  o wn f urther wo r k on Max  to be diss em ina t e d, I
 long_been treated_as IP, protected under_copyright law._(The_notion of_software_patents — a_new mode of_IP protection for software_— has sneaked_into_the picture, gradually, over the past three decades or so.) The use of IP_protections_on software_has_created_all manner of distortions in_the way software is produced_and consumed._Rather than rehash the big story, I’ll use_my_own experience with_software IP as an example. My own journey into_the open source movement came about_because I got_burned_by_the old model.

When I_first wrote the program now known_as Max, in 1988, my paycheck_came from IRCAM. But many of the_ideas behind Max had been developed_at MIT, and many more_were adapted_from the work of other_researchers. The code,_at least,_almost certainly belonged_to IRCAM. IRCAM has energetically tried_to capitalize on_this, with some positive results early_on,_and with mostly_negative_results_later.

The negative_effects of IRCAM’s_over-protectiveness_were threefold._The_most evident was a drop in_IRCAM’s_reputation among researchers (whereas as a production_facility, IRCAM still enjoys_a_very high standing worldwide)._Second, researchers within IRCAM become_disaffected because of the difficulty of_making their_work known_to people outside IRCAM. Since professional respect is the most important_currency to a researcher, this can_be a decisive factor_in an_employee’s_decision to stay_or_leave. Finally,_and most subtly, IRCAM cuts itself off_from the_most exciting new developments in the_electronic arts by building_a_virtual wall between itself and the_rest of the digital world. This_is evidenced by the differing_fortunes_of_jMax, IRCAM’s “new Max,” and_Pd. Pd was instantly embraced by_a huge, and_extremely hip, community of users who have_taken_it far beyond my wildest dreams_of_it; see for instance convention.puredata.org for_recent_developments_as of 2004. The jMax_community by contrast was small and_anemic.

All this need not imply IRCAM’s imminent demise as_a research entity._With resources still unparalleled by_any_institution_in the world, IRCAM’s situation would be quickly turned around_if its_IP policies were_adjusted to be more in line with those of today’s_international research community.

Getting back to my own_story, I left IRCAM, and when it became clear that they_would not permit my own further work on_Max to be disseminated, I