Don’t worry. When I had mine, I’m sure I sounded far worse than you.
But I was really good at making it sound cold and sterile. That’s all I could get outta it.
As I said, analog design is not protected in these more-strict but large markets.
Not the only pusher of software/digital IP, but an entertaining coverage of one of the IP baddies that has spawned a lot of patent trolls- Part One: The Ballad of Bill Gates - Behind the Bastards | iHeart
Apologies if any of these seem like fussy rebuttals, i’m in the software field and have plenty of conflicts in who IP benefits, who it punishes, and who gets protected. I thankfully do not deal with protection of commercial code but use unofficial projects and reverse engineered FOSS regularly.
That’s kinda what I was getting at. He could def make clones that are less offensive by making his take of them instead of making it look the same as well, save for a knob placement.
A bunch of people make tires, you can’t claim copyright on that, but you can on tread design or construction. So like the keys on a piano, that make it usable, or chips in a synth make it usable…that is part of it makeup. If you package it the same way, your kind of taking someone else’s IP.
Code…it’s kinda black and white. BUT at a company I was at, we were developing a game for a larger company that was publishing us. Some shit happened and they shut down the project and took it to make it for themselves. They dropped the ball and couldn’t finish. We made the same game, diff look, diff name and we’re able to execute it. BUT the publisher went through the code to make sure we didn’t reuse any of it. Which kinda baffles me. We had to prove it was rewritten and we didn’t use any of “their” code. In the end they end up publishing our game and all bad blood when under the bridge. But the code thing blew my mind.
Anyways, ramble over.
[oh shit just noticed this is post 666 
]
1 Like
Behringer - good or bad?
Yes
4 Likes
That last part is not accurate. For example, I wish Joe kept the 2 year free community college in. Actually wish it was 4, because that helps everyone in the long run. But I don’t think it should be free with no strings. 2.8/3.0gpa required. It shouldn’t be free and allow people to fail out. Under 2.8, should have to pay it back.
I can think of two examples of Type (3) behavior off hand. Neither in the field of electronic music, but maybe we could find one there too.
Example One — This happened to me :
One was a company i worked for, for about a month. One thing they would do was make agreements to pay people for work and then cheat them out of that money. I caught them doing this behind my back to me, about a month in, and i took all the development equipment i was using, put it in my car, and carried that into their office and quit. That hurt because i considered this person a close friend for a long time.
They cheated others out of pay regularly too. They also lied about their products to get sales. They cheated vendors from whom they got development equipment. They lied about sales numbers and profits to inflate their stock, and much more. They were investigated by the SEC. They would work and exploit workers to exhaustion, and mental breakdowns, and then just fire them. They stole everything they could, including the stuff that was nailed down from trade shows. They stole code and trade secrets and employees from other companies. Needless to say internally the company was a zoo.
About a month after i told them good-bye, i was called into a meeting with a company they had stolen code and secrets from. The president of that company and i had a private meeting. He was very nice, offering me food and refreshments, as he asked me to do industrial espionage, and then testify as an expert witness in the lawsuit they had against the company. They offered to pay me well into the six figures for this small job, back when six figures was real money. There were all the reasons for me to want to get back at the company that cheated me. I thought about it for a few seconds, and decided i wanted to be able to keep working in my profession, and turned him down.
That’s a pretty good example of a Type (3) company not to buy from.
Example Two :
Came across this next one because up thread people were talking about Stradivarius instruments and business practices in Cremona Italy between 1680 -1720.
Industrial Espionage from the Time of Antonio Stradivari :
Couldn’t find much about Stradivari stealing trade secrets from Amati and Guarneri, but clearly each fed the success of the others. Stradivarius likely never would have been as great a success without the others.
So no Type (3) copying there, probably more Type (2).
But what I did find from the same time was industrial espionage conducted by a Jesuit missionary, to get trade secrets for the manufacture of “white gold”, porcelain ceramics, that was done by the Chinese in the city of Jingdezhen. Definitely Type (3), certainly by today’s standards.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/porcelain-corporate-espionage-china-missionary-dentrecolles
So instead of people stealing trade secrets from Antonio Stradivari, it was a Francois Xavier d’Entrecolle, doing the stealing from the Chinese.
Of course about a hundred years later there was some other sorts of Type (3) activity undertaken. Counterfeiting the Stradivarius Violin !
2 Likes
It would be nice if we could get Steve Carell + Stephen Colbert as “Even Stevphen” to debate this topic.
2 Likes
Yer right 
You are guilty of making me want a Megacommand
1 Like
“The result is as much the portrait of a milieu as of a family. At its heart is a tract of seventeen houses, on both sides of a street where Amatis, Stradivaris, Guarneris, Bergonzis, Rugeris, Storionis, and Cerutis coexisted. Among them, in midblock, is the Casa Amati, with several wings, a shop, and a courtyard, inherited from Nicolo’s father and grandfather…Over forty years, there seem to have been as many as seventeen [apprentices], mostly from other instrument-making centers like Padua, Bologna, Milan, and Venice. Those who could then went on to open their own shops, establish the Amati style and model in other towns, and transform it into a global standard.
Three apprentices stand out. One of the most notable is Andrea Guarneri, who opened Cremona’s second shop around 1650 and founded his own three-generational dynasty…The most tantalizing apprentice, if he was one, is Antonio Stradivari. Early instruments reflect Amati influence, but the Amati style left its marks on everyone. The Easter Monday census shows no sign of him. Coming from a local family, he had no reason to live in the master’s house, and Cremona was full of parishes other than San Faustino.
Hill colleagues and nineteenth-century biographers reported confirmations of an Amati apprenticeship. But the Hills never saw any evidence of them…Yet who can imagine that the greatest maker of them all taught himself or that, in a corporate order as hierarchical as the Church, he could have opened a shop if he had? Given Cremona’s options, if not the Amati shop, where would he have gone?” (Schoenbaum, The Violin p. 27-28)
My take (unrelated to Jukkas violin comments), Uli can be petty and unscrupulous which makes it easier to deride Behringer as a company, but there are only three reasons why competitive products should be curtailed.
- Fraud - e.g. Behringer copies Arturia’s Keystep and labels it “A genuine Arturia Keystep, get the original!”
- Plagiarism - e.g. Behringer copies the Keystep as the Swing and they claim to be the original creators of the world’s first portable, step-sequencer keyboard controller. They claim Arturia copied them.
- Monopoly creation - e.g. Behringer undercuts and then buys out all competing instrument companies with the goal of preventing any new companies from entering the market and controlling/gouging prices on customers who have no other options for purchasing gear.
Boutique companies are not affected by Behringer because their audience is buying them for their boutique design. A Behringer copy isn’t going to put a shop of 1-3 people handmaking eccentric pedals. People who would buy the Behringer weren’t going to buy the original, and people who wanted to buy the original will avoid the Behringer in search of status, value, quality, or genuinely wanting to support the small shop.
Larger businesses that sell to international retailers, whether they have 30 or 300 employees, all take advantage of mass production and outsourcing in the search for profit. Some treat their customers better or act a little more ethical in some situations, but they aren’t individuals trying to make a living by selling unique works of art/craft. It is their job to make their products more attractive if they want to make a profit, whether by making them cheaper, higher quality, more innovative, or improving their reputation (e.g. donate to charity, support artists, treat their workers ethically).
It isn’t all black and white and I am not making an argument in support of Uli’s business style, but every major company is in the same capitalist game as Behringer and their goal is to make money. These aren’t non-profits trying to get as many instruments into as many hands as cheaply as possible for the love of music and art. They don’t deserve consumer protection out of some strange idea of “justice” and they will succeed if they appeal to the market (again, doesn’t mean underpricing our outproducing Behringer, they can hold customers by reputation and community connection).
2 Likes
I would love to see more trust-busting today.
There are also practices that are mostly or debatably legal but harmful to competition.
You’ll find the majority of complaints based around wanting small companies to stick around for their new, innovative or at the very least interesting ideas without getting instantly undercut. Apologies if i’m misunderstanding your point here or conflating with some other post.
2 Likes
From my subjective, anecdotal perspective, most of the complaints I see fall into two categories.
- “Uli does slimy things (e.g. Peter Kirn), don’t give him money!”
- Fair point, there have been multiple events over the years to earn this reputation.
- “Behringer is making inferior clones of treasured synths and stealing the creators’ original ideas. This is an injustice to the creators, damaging to the industry, and cheapens the art.”
- This one seems misguided and lacking evidence. It also comes from an elitist position, regardless of whether a person wants to think of themselves as an elitist or wealthy. People attach part of their identity to a certain brand or object and their privileged access to it, whether due to cost or rarity, gives them a sense of prestige and uniqueness. It is the same in fashion, sports, cars, etc. They get pissed off when they feel their access has been devalued.
This attachment is even more fleeting in the modern world where the vast majority of these desirable objects are mass-produced and only exist through the disconnected work of hundreds or even millions of people. I adore instruments of all kinds, and I admire the work of people who bring their creative visions to the world, but few things epitomize “mundane replication” today like endless factory lines of electrical components across the world.
I am open to hearing other opinions, but I would say that no one “invents” or “discovers” any electronic consumer good. Cutting-edge electronics research occurs in labs. Businesses revise, reorganize, or combine well-established and widely available ideas and goods into new variations (with new marketing) that can be duplicated and sold within an ideal profit margin. The silliest idealization of this is easily the world of guitar pedals where 50-year-old designs and identical parts are praised for offering a nearly identical sound…but slightly different…and with a cooler logo.
In this case in particular, I think it is a little ironic that Behringer is not only copying mass-produced items, but their business tactic is to copy objects that are literally the most common/popular or to copy objects that the original companies stopped making.
Are they undercutting small companies? Are they damaging the industry and preventing innovation? Are they preventing original creators from pursuing their dreams by stealing their ideas?
If so, I think that is absolutely a reasonable argument against their products. I would also be open to accepting evidence of that if it could be presented, but I haven’t seen any.
What businesses are suffering because of Behringers products? Who is losing money because instruments that were never accessible to people with lower incomes now have similar versions that might be within reach? Are companies like Synthstrom, Chase Bliss, Meng Qi, or Critter and Guitari being chased out of business because Behringer makes cheap versions of famous pedals and synths?
The closest thing I have seen like this is with Robin Whittle’s Devilfish mod, but that doesn’t come off as a strong case to me for several reasons.
Again, I respect your point about Behringer undercutting small, innovative companies as something worth seriously considering from an ethical standpoint, but I rarely see this as a popular point being argued and I have yet to see evidence (please point me to it if you have it).
I also think that there is a lot of value in analyzing a massive company like Behringer on ethical concerns like employment treatment and wages, resource sourcing, environmental pollution and waste, etc. I rarely hear about these as issues of concern though, I mainly just hear privileged gear hoarders treating music like a social hierarchy and complaining about disrespecting the proud Moog/Korg/Roland legacy.
I will clarify that economically/politically I am opposed to many aspects of cutthroat capitalism and I think that corporations need far more government regulation and taxation. I don’t think Uli deserves to be rich or that a few large corporations should dominate all industries. But, in principal, I am opposed to the argument that businesses should be prevented/punished for making superior or inferior versions of popular goods at a cheaper price. Behringer might be the bad guys in some ways. If they were using slave labor or illegal mining to produce their clones, then the ends wouldn’t justify the means. But they aren’t the bad guys for the act of cloning itself.
Cloning rare and expensive objects to make them more accessible to a wider audience is good. It is a form of innovation and technological progress in a way. It makes the world more equitable. From bronze tools to cell phones, ideas and goods shouldn’t be privileged and protected.
4 Likes
For point 1, I do not know, I did not follow the case, I do not even understand it. In fairness, should someone link to an objective article?
For point 2, totally agree. I have been convinced for a long time that this is essentially a problem of snobbery and taking away the privilege of some, except for the cloning of current and affordable products (Arturia, Mackie …) which I find unfair.
I often hear it’ll never sound the same when
1- we criticize the cloning AND that it is not perfectly cloned, strange.
2- a vintage synth never sounds like another from the same series, we can surely say that some 303s do not “sound” 303!
Instrumental speculation prevents most musicians from using old nuggets (or recent ones, I saw a used Micromonsta 2 for € 350 yesterday … or € 100 just for a scalper).
Without B. I would never have had a “303” at home,
I only have that of them, I would definitely take a Vcs3 if it ever came out and I thank them for getting me out of my class and being able to pretend that they can have fun too without selling a kidney or a lung. Thanks to them.
People who buy Apple, order from Amazon use Spotify, or drive a Tesla, aren’t they losing their moral right to oversee the industry? Truly ?
In short, I am neither a fan nor a hater of B. and do not understand that he unleashes so many passions. So much more urgent fighting today.
2 Likes
Never said it was hurting the original designer. Just said it completely lacks any class or innovation.
Easy to get sales when you make a popular item someone else designed. You cut to the chase…profit without having put in any of the werk coming up with an idea or product.
Copying the sound re: an instrument…fine. But making it identical and stamping your name on it…gross.
4 Likes
Is there a difference between Arturia VST clones and Behringer ones? Other than the obvious software/hardware differences, both companies profiting off of pre existing designs, no?
2 Likes
When does an emulation become a clone? 
2 Likes
I think it’s somewhat different because Arturia isn’t making a Minilogue XD VST, for example. The DFAM is a pretty unique offering, and obviously a lot of thought went into designing it. Copying the design 1:1 feels a bit wrong to me.
That said this might be the first thing since the Neutron that actually looks pretty fun. Might pick one up once used prices hit 100 bucks.
1 Like
Yes
Well, at least they keep the names of the inovator and the maker and the product naming the same, they do not rename it or rebrand it, making it blue, red, green… and I am sure they do have the blessing and some for of licencing agreed from them too……its called etic, respect and innovation … none of these Behringer has. Thanks to China we are in doomed days and the price is the only point for decision making…no respect to the inovators, those who make a history. Behringer will not ever be on that list…should be on OliExpress sites onky.
3 Likes
I don’t mind Behringer existing as a company, stuff like the Deep Mind show they can offer stuff that is uniquely compelling, affordable, and innovative. what upsets me is how people champion them as some synth Robin Hood of sorts for outright stealing and undercutting the innovations of companies like Moog.
Moog is not large, at least compared to Behringer they’re not. They are a niche company operating out of a country that is very expensive to manufacture in, and are constantly developing new and unique products by continually investing in R&D. Estimated at about $30 Million per year in revenue. Music Tribe (Behringer) on the other hand, make an estimated $400 Million a year.
This is not some David and Goliath situation, Behringer is a much larger company than Moog and obviously have no issues with taking a competitors’ idea and manufacturing it for peanuts in a country without environmental regulations or proper compensation for the workers who make these products. The ethics ARE dubious.
I don’t want to go into a huge tangent about the environmental strain and human exploitation overseas electronics manufacturing has been built off of, it’s place in our daily lives is unavoidable and even a place like Moog benefits no doubt as I’m sure the electronics inside their synths are still sourced overseas so they reap the benefits there as well.
TL;DR:
I feel that some of Behringer’s more unique offerings like the Deep Mind or their recreations of old discontinued classics are cool, but copying and undercutting unique designs from employee-owned boutique manufacturers by leveraging overseas worker exploitation rubs me the wrong way.
7 Likes