ya…I kinda have a bit of an advantage…in Canada, amazon SUCKS!. no next or same day. prime doesnt really do much and its WAY more expensive. the only convenience is not having to go to the store.
but id rather do that.
1 Like
How another large company goes about protecting a smaller company’s trademark:
Or how to tell when a “clone” is not a clone.
( I like that my hometown gets a mention here, in a positive nostalgic way. )
So the copying done by Behringer could be split into two categories.
(1) Copying products that are no longer in regular production. These may already be copied by other companies, or they may be lost and forgotten synths.
(2) Copying products that are currently in production. These would include the Moog M32 (Crave) and DFAM (Edge), the Arturia Keystep (Swing), Roland TD-06 (RD-6), and others.
Most often products in both categories have improvements that can be reasons beyond price to want that replacement.
I also think that beyond the improvements, that producing products in gradations across these two categories helps to soften the demarcations. If you take note of and feel an interest for an unusual historic recreation, you then may feel less antagonism to products in between, or even the harder edged copy.
( I’m not saying Behringer has an intentional strategy to do this, but the effect is still there. )
I recently responded to someone, opposed to Behringer copying a modular product, and complaining that they made changes. The classic double bind; which is when someone makes two or more demands that cannot all be reconciled.
Copying whether authorized or not certainly goes way back, long before Behringer.
Reactions ?
EDIT: Given acidhouserorall’s observation following this post, i have removed Mutable Instruments Braids (Brains), from my list of Type (2) products.
2 Likes
Braids is in a third category as it’s open source and already cloned by many small companies.
4 Likes
Good point acidhouseforall. Perhaps category (1) is for products that are no longer in regular production, or are available to be copied.
ADDED: I have changed my post in this regard.
2 Likes
Competition. The facts.
I genuinely wonder how long it will take for copies of Behringer copies to emerge from China, I mean it has happened already with guitar pedals, mixers, midi interfaces, midi controllers etc, and most of these products will be pretty easy to copy and undercut. Could be seeing midi analog synths for $50-$75 in a few years.
13 Likes
I think thats a good thing. Electronics are way overpriced anyway.
1 Like
I think it is true to say some electronics are overpriced, definitely this Behringer stuff and other brands which cut corners, but I don’t mind paying more for well built and well designed products, I’d rather have a few decent things than a load of cheap inferior things, but I also like a bargain too, if it warrants owning because it serves a purpose and performs well.
I think it is a shame when Behringer with all their power and honestly at times (things like the BCR/BCF midi controllers) great products, just go for low hanging fruit with the primary motivation being cheapness and copying. I think that they could do a lot better, and still hit attractive pricing, with original ideas, they almost did it with the Neutron, and a few other things they have done.
6 Likes
Like £4,000 for a TR909 on eBay v £269.99 for an RD-9 from Behringer 
Give me Behringer gear all day long mate 
2 Likes
yea totally agree.
they’ve made a couple of cool synths, wish they’d go that route.
I don’t mind them re-making vintage stuff either. Still wish they’d further em a bit tho, like they did with the deepmind (juno on steroids kinda thing).
going after moogs current line for example tho, that’s pretty bad taste imo.
There are copyright laws.
exactly.
it’s simple really: I wouldn’t want someone copying my or my company’s work, and selling it for way less. so why would I support a company that does this? just because they’re cheaper doesn’t negate this.
I pay for music for the same reason.
4 Likes
You need to be clear on exactly what a copyright can do.
From this US government website.
What does copyright protect ?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.
Apple fought Microsoft long and hard on this copyright “way things are expressed” part, and you can judge for yourself how well they did, looking at a Mac and at a Windows or various Linux GUIs. BTW: Apple borrowed the ideas for the original Mac, i know because i was there. That’s why they had a nearly impossible case.
( Apple also fought Samsung much later, and did better with that on some technical grounds, but let’s avoid an iPhone / Android debate. )
Arturia could try this with Behringer on the Keystep / Swing issue, but the simple fact that Behringer reversed the order of the controls, likely on the instructions of their lawyers, would make copyright enforcement on this, at least in the USA, impossible. Notice with the DFAM / Edge Behringer’s controls while largely the same are scrambled in relative position, and the wording is changed around. “Play/Stop” instead of “Run/Stop”. That would all help derail a copyright infringement suit.
BTW: “Computer Software” above often means the text of the source code, as if it were the text in a book, not the functional result.
1 Like
When I go to big guitar store, I will marvel at the fit and finish of a top of the line Gibson or Fender. High quality components, bodies made from premium woods, paints and finishes that would look equally at home on any Ferrari or Bentley.
Then I look down the wall and see an endless row of other guitars by other manufacturers. Same curves to the body, same six strings, same overall form.
There is a range of options from the $5000 Gibson to the $99 Chibson knock off. For some reason this is acceptable to people.
3 Likes
I think a different case can be made when two people start on a project and split up to make their own versions of…than when a third party just flat out clones.
moving a button placement is just insulting
adding: I think its pretty lame when one party from the initial project tried to sue the other for the rights when they started on it together. that’s just bush league
additional addition: I’m not sure why the clone has to be cloned to the look as well. B would probably face a lot less heat if it had its own unique look. I know that is just superficial, but it feels like less of a slap in the face
1 Like
That is the old prototype image of the Swing. They changed it as i believe on a lawyer’s advice. It delayed the release of the Swing to make that change.
Here’s the Swing that Behringer sells:
As to the case between Apple and Microsoft, i think you may have confused it with the Microsoft IBM case. IBM and Microsoft had worked together, and went their separate ways. Apple and Microsoft did not work together on a GUI OS. It’s been a lot of years so i’ve got that stuff confused too.
Copyright law enforcements can be tried, but it’s a pretty blunt tool. One can certainly argue the law should be different, but that’s separate. And i do also want to make very clear just because something is legal, does not make it ethical or something that is OK to do.
EDIT: Fixed image link. Fixed a typo.
ya thats WAY different 
I hear you man…not arguing. just my feelings on the subject. I just think they could handle it better.
there is the same issue with “fan art”. It could be cracked down on. no one wants to be the bad guy. but I look forward to the day one of them gets the stones to stop the stealing of the art. go to comicon and look at all the art thats being ripped off. its disheartening. it almost stifles new ideas. easier to imitate than innovate I guess.
It’s really not that different, except in the eyes of the law. Probably not to how it is used.
( Maybe i like the knobs a tiny bit better in the middle like on the Swing. It’s up to opinion. )
We’re not in disagreement, i am only pointing up the facts in a legal sense. I as well think Behringer could have handled many things in this regard far better. ( Perhaps and hopefully they realize this too. )
It’s going to be a long road, and we likely will see more, ( as i point to in this post ), some done well
by Behringer and some not.
Instruments like that are a very different situation I feel.
Stradivarius never sued anyone for making knock off violins. The idea with that was that you paid for a name because that name meant that the instrument was handmade by a skilled builder and was high quality.
The shape of a guitar in my eyes should not be something someone can own or trademark at all, just like you can’t trademark having white and black keys in blocks of 12.
What if I build a percussion based analog synth with these features…
- 100% analog drum/percussion synth with dynamic 8-step sequencer
- Semi-modular format — no patching required
- 24 patch points for extensive sound design potential
- 2 oscillators plus a noise generator for creating deep kicks, snappy snares, crisp hi-hats and much more
- Step sequencer features dedicated pitch and velocity controls for real-time manipulation
- Selectable LP/HP filter for sound sculpting
- External audio input for processing other synths or Eurorack modules
- Eurorack compatible — can be mounted in a Eurorack case (requires 10-pin to 16-pin Eurorack cable, not included)
… and then, let’s say, added in some midi capabilities. Should I not be allowed to build and sell it because someone else has already built one with these same features? What would be the necessary changes, additions, or subtractions to get me over the line of ethical?
I understand I may not get the synth award for creativity, but neither would those that copied the Stradivarius.
4 Likes