So, your main problem with me is with the photo incident? Maybe you should have asked ST how he feels I handled the situation, and whether or not I was unreasonable in my reply, or in my reasons for my response, before using that as the crux of your argument. I think you'll find not everything is as it might appear. Which is a huge problem online, but C'est la Vie.
As for the sound of the amp suits, yes they would be complicated, but I'd be very interested in seeing not only the arguments but the results. I think we stop short in defending artists (and yes, I behold amp makers as artists) and hold ludicrous this idea that claims of ownership are really so hard to defend. We almost dismiss their rights to what they create like a reflex . As if art has no real value, and cannot be quantified or qualified - re: the defunding of art and music programs in public schools, the entire streaming model for both movies, TV, and music. And in everything I've already said regarding amps ad naseum.
For the record: Fender would have a great case that the designs for nearly every high gain amp ever built was stolen from them. I mean every time we cover a published song we gotta fork over 10 percent. Shouldn't we all be forking over 10% to them. And before you ask, I'm more than happy to fork over 10% to Marshall for the parts of their design that I used.
You're absolutely right. If you look at it, if things keep going like this, eventually all of us creatives are going to have to work at canneries and produce white goods, because those can't be digitised. It is legalised theft, in my opinion, because the scale is so large, it is impossible to tackle without draconian measures like DRM. And it's only things that can be digitised, like art and music, where this kind of pilferage is permitted.
We could also have patented the engine, the television, the radio and yes, amplifiers, if lawyers were as onerous a century ago as they are now. The flip side is that this would have killed innovation.
As far as the picture issue, I believe ST was making a point rather than being averse to the picture being usef. Kudos to you for resolving things with him, but he had to call you out for the discussion to take place.
Again, my issue is not with your stance on the need for proactive measures to protect creators of art, or on your stance about not releasing your hard work for free.