Becoming a Behringer fan because of cheap clones is 100% justified… In my book…
Here is a nice Ferrari to go with the Behringer 808
Not quite. The Behringer would be an actual Ferrari minus the horse logo for the price of that car you posted.
And the Roland is the same car except double the price with a free Roland sticker.
Yeah just like a fake rolex that shows the time
Can the Rolex tell time better than another watch?
A Rolex have exquisite clockwork
Behringer, will own you… Just wait…
At an exquisite price
Isn’t there another thread for people that just wanna endlessly bash behringer? It’s a really tedious back and forth… behringer is super cheap. Not as high quality as the original. Everyone knows this stuff. People really need to state the obvious all the time? Like they think that their single opinion will suddenly make the people that aren’t offended by behringer decide they don’t want the gear? Yawn…
FWIW, I don’t expect Behringer to sell more 808 and 909 clones than Roland is selling their TR-08/09 remakes.
The Behringers are great if you have a setup with a big mixer and a lot of outboard gear so that you can take advantage of all those individual outputs.
The majority of buyers however will not have such a setup and is likely to prefer gear that streams all channels over USB straight into their DAW.
That’s probably not true for the majority of people on this forum, but keep in mind that we’re just a small subsection of the market.
Lol… In all fairness, these are just tools… In the end it’s all about the music and the creation there of… The tools don’t make the artist… Wait! Who said that?!
True, but there will always be ‘artists’ that are complete tools.
Roland should have done this years ago. But again, few companies have the foresight to predict a products cult success…there will always be people attempting to profit/capatalise on others designs, art, hard work, etc, etc, etc.
I’m obviously not a lawyer and just making an observation which I don’t think anyone has mentioned. Rolands “iconic” 808 colors (their gradient) goes left to right starting with darkest (orange) and ending up with white. Behringer is doing the exact opposite. So is this not a different thing? Can you trademark a set of colors used in any combination or reversed order?
Yes, I understand what Behringer is doing and the intent is clearly to make consumers think “Roland 808”, but it’s in fact not the same thing. I just don’t know the legalities and specifics of how it works. What defines “inspired” vs. “copied” with designs must have a good amount of judgement and interpretation involved.
I can’t imagine Behringer and their legal team didn’t think of this first and that’s why it’s reversed which is probably enough to be “inspired” in their eyes and maybe by legal definition too.
Interesting… shape vs. color. But I can see how trademarking an obvious shape like a cube could cause all sorts of overreaching implications.
The topic has slightly meandered from its interesting beginnings - let’s remember the focus was trademark/copyright, we have the cloning discussion covered on a number of threads
There has been some flags which hint that things are drifting o-t
less flags = a good thing, just sayin’ (both ways !)
Behringer = obvious troll is obvious
I think if you want to make a tribute to something as Behringer are implying in their videos, then you have to show a certain amount of respect, promoting your own 808 clone on 08/08 knowing it is associated with Rolands marketing is riding on the coat tails, rather than anything related to a tribute.
The problem with such tactics is it might land you in hot water, and it might alienate you from potential customers who just see you as a skanky knock off merchant, it definitely won’t add any prestige or long term brand loyalty because your brand has no identity.
Before all the Behringer fans jump in saying I’m bashing Behringer (again), I’m not I’m just stating things how I see them. I personally care just as much about Behringer or Roland as they care about me, zero.
I find it interesting though. What one company can do with a specific set of colors and how that applies outside of that specific design. Ones eye can see that same set of colors, but used in a different physical capacity, yet still instantly “see” (in your minds eye) something else (the original design). The arrangement of colors is different, but your brain is making the connection and association. You’re “seeing” something that isn’t actually there. How do you interpret that individual mental association in a legal capacity?
Or… as usual, I could just be completely wrong.
I guess (and it is just a guess) that a court might take into consideration the whole thing, copying the sound circuits, copying the colour scheme and basic layout, and using almost the same model number. For example the acidlab miami might not be subject to the same legal scutiny because they did not do all of that.