The Clone War - Behringer. Good or Bad?

The Lounge Other Gear
#679

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
#680

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
#681

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.
Unknown

Screen Shot 2021-10-22 at 11.15.50 AM
Screen Shot 2021-10-22 at 11.15.50 AM1160×410 118 KB

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
#682

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.

#683

ya thats WAY different :man_facepalming:t6:

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.

#684

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.

#685

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.

#686

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
#687

Specifically to avoid a part of trademark law, that has to do with “trade dress” which is the specific look and layout of a design. It needs to be different enough so that consumers are not confused about two different products.

1 Like
#688

I’m sure people would be singing a different tune if they didn’t have to pay 4000$ for a monomachine……

#689

And you’ll note that they get much less flak when they’re not chasing the in production, new r&d of others.

Also, they’d never do anything that involves stealing copywritten digital code as that is better protected and enforced by law than board layouts.

2 Likes
#690

That’s why i created two categories for classification of copied products in my earlier post.

Type (1) being fair use copies.
Type (2) being infringements.
And of course their are completely original products, that is neither of these.

There are not complete bright lines between these two categories, it does take consideration. But the distinction isn’t completely obscure either.

Personally i’m alright owning Type (1) products, but will avoid Type (2) regardless the manufacturer.

To this i now add a Type (3) that are illegal products. Things that involve industrial espionage, bribery, counterfeiting, fraud, corrupt development and manufacturing practices, anything of that sort practiced on a corporate level.

So just for me. I am OK purchasing any Type (1) product, include those made by a company, that also makes Type (2) products.

But i have decided to not buy anything, including original products, from any company involved with Type (3) products and production. That would include a retail distributor of Type (3) products.

2 Likes
#691

Reverse engineering (circuits and code) is perfectly legal.

#692

The latter is not universally true. Behringer ended up settling with Mackie over one of their clone attempts that involved digital components , if I recall correctly.

Now, here we’re less talking black box “reverse engineering” anyway! Behringer would copy the code outright if offered the opportunity and US-based/influenced copyright law allowed for it.

#693

Someone better tell Justin.

#694

I don’t know every “Justin” the world over :slight_smile:

Who is protected depends on what you’re reverse engineering, from which industry, and for what purpose. Interop between proprietary signals? Security research? Reimplementation in commercial products?

#695

Do you have any examples of Type 3 products?

#696
#697

They do not sell this software, it is free. They have spoken with Elektron and have agreed to never release the source code. The MD was definitively discontinued 5 years ago in 2016. Manufacture and software updates had stopped long before that.

2 Likes
#698

Thanks for the clarification!

I don’t think the existence of noncommercial projects that happen to infringe on IP with the knowledge of the IP holder are really analogous to what’s being discussed. If the projects have the passive-to-active support of legal, whether someone can sue in a particular country’s courts (with justification) is irrelevant.

As mentioned earlier, they made an agreement with Elektron over source.

I was a user of a project that extended an old in-dash Linux-based MP3 player called the Empeg. Persons extended the firmware for some years, but while it was based on Linux, they could never release the FULL source for DSP code as hardware implementation of some chipsets relied on proprietary agreements.

What I’m saying is that it’s pretty complicated and what one is legally allowed to do and what actions a company can take against them can vary widely on context.

What is explicitly legal with cloning analog board design is not so clear with digital components. We’ve had some good rulings lately (Google v Oracle on API usage, yeesh.) But IP owners and predatory holders can make the lives of small companies and “the little person” miserable in a way that guitar pedal cloners will not encounter.