Not their ip dummy! 
So the designs you say they used the Yakuza to steal weren’t other people’s intellectual property then?
Pffft doent matter what i said, im nobody. I just hope i didnt disrespect u or anyone else, personally or culturally.
You’re not nobody, you’re someone posting pretty serious accusations on a public forum, which is pretty ironic, given the way Behringer tried to sue people doing similar things on gearslutz or wherever it was.
I get your wider point about big business and getting their hands dirty, but you can get yourself in real trouble posting shit like that. Unlikely, of course, but not impossible.
Thanks for your concern. Yes you got the point. I meant not just B, them all do shit like this probably. Even if its just low pay, bad working conditions, steal other peeps ideas, silence through underground or a bunch of superlawyers, zaibatsu shit like that.
1 Like
Meanwhile we take our electrical energy for our studios from Russia. Yet we find time to discuss a Synth manufacturers ethics. Hmmm🙄
punchy one liners with veiled insults as responses to a discussion made in good faith…Uli, is that you? 
1 Like
I don’t, I pay extra for renewable sources. 
But I hear your point, in terms of consistency and a more holistic point of view.
But I find it difficult to relativise what Behringer do with other people’s IP by pointing out all the other shit we accept on a daily basis.
Rather than using that to normalise Behringer’s IP exploitation, I’d suggest doing it the other way around, ie “wow I don’t dig that IP exploitation…also, why the hell am I still buying energy from oil companies?!”
it’s also not like Behringer have been kind about this stuff…they’ve tried suing regular users on the basis of forum commentary and blog posts before. They’ve outright tried to secure IP rights through legal means away from their rightful owners.
Aaaaand, they’re not known for their great own product lines…IP exploitation is becoming their main line of work.
How many of you that own a Boog or a Bro-1 also own a Deepmind? I’m genuinely interested.
I reckon not many. Reason being: Behringers own designs aren’t exactly great.
They had a hit on their hands with the X32 and had much improved their quality control compared to back in the 90s / early 2000s…could have just continued on that path, but then they would have had to pay designers, do the R&D…all of that. The money you save on their iterations is not just based on economies of scale, it’s based on the shameless hijack of other people’s creative and innovative work. It’s cool if one doesn’t mind that or doesn’t care about that, but it’s silly to try to rationalise this away and label people who call them out on it as snowflakes or “brand fetishists” as one rude and uninformed individual on here has implied.
Case in point: how much is a Behringer Wing? Cheap as chips? Hardly. How come? Isn’t their competitive advantage in pricing due to their “hyper efficient production line” and “democratised pricing”? Why aren’t those at work with the Wing? I tell you why, because they had to do their own creative work on those, and that shit’s expensive.
7 Likes
The Neutron and the various Deepminds are extremely popular synths which have sold well!
1 Like
The imbalance is quite startling though. And two wrongs don’t make a right. And fair play to you going the extra with renewable energy.
Yep. I do. Running at times into an x32. The deepmind actually the best thing they did so far in the synth area. They ran with an idea and advanced it far enough to make it it’s own thing. Had the boog running next to our subsequent 37 and it holds its own sound wise.
imho there are some babies in their bath water.
The largest plant in the world is a clone.
2 Likes
If you’re asking seriously, it’s because the law doesn’t work like that. Arturia wouldn’t have a case. Not in trademark law, nor copyright law, nowhere. They’d get countersued, and would end up paying all the legal fees, and likely damages.
Not to say Behringer hasn’t pushed things before, the Swing is one where if they’d followed their original design, they would likely have had trouble. They changed the design enough, to get by.
In this case these are so different it’s not even a question legally.
By the way, what Behringer is presenting here is a Synth/Controller, so it isn’t even in the same classification of product.
Thank you alechko for putting these pictures together, it was good to be able to easily compare these two.
1 Like
Hadn’t Behringer gone bankrupt?
Bumpin’ this thread to the top, to remind people it exists.
This is a better place for complaining about Behringer business practices etc.
If you don’t like their “inspired by” products, mute the announcement and in-progress threads and come here to say “bad” instead. Let the other threads stay on-topic.
6 Likes
Prompted specifically by the SPICE SubH copy. ( Clone is a good word too. )
Behringer is a top notch engineering company – EXCEPT – they choose to not spend the R&D time to innovate into the unknown. That is part of engineering. They certainly have the capital for that investment. There is a risk with the unknown of misjudging market demand.
Now with the CRAVE, EDGE, and soon SPICE, are they done with this line ? Or perhaps they actually do make an “unknown original is bright colors” ?
1 Like
a point was made in another thread about ethics shaming which I think is perfectly valid thing here, a good analogy imo can be what if someone rips off another artist’s song, should they not be shamed alongside with copyright claim war? or if someone steals your sample pack?
so why shouldn’t a company that rips off other companies designs for profit be ethically shamed, and yeah I don’t buy the whole “robin hood - give people affordable synths so everyone can play” agenda, they make profit from these synths, if they didn’t they wouldn’t exist, so they rip off other companies designs and sell them cheap, they deserve to be ethically shamed.
especially for synths or other products that currently in production and not something non existent.
9 Likes
I don’t think Behringer deserves any kudos for cloning in-production gear. Whether or not they should be supported by buying their products is a different question; there are other sources of cheap gear, though; the s-1 from Roland is $200, and the Microkorg is still sold.
I don’t see how making direct clones of best-selling products of small companies is good for the market or industry. Thus, probably not good for the consumers, either, in the long run.
Behringer could release an affordable VCO poly that isn’t a clone, but they don’t. Whether or not they could release a usable groovebox is a different question - they seem to have steered well clear of anything with a complex UI.
6 Likes
Sure. To the extent shaming modifies behavior.
The thing is except for a few very narrow restrictions that they avoid, the specific things that Behringer is doing is legally permissible. ( At least it is most industrial countries. ) I could go into specifics on this, already have in various posts.
Behringer also creates plenty of products that while functional copies are in demand products no longer in production. This ( to me ) doesn’t cause me any concern. Plenty of other companies do something similar. ( For instance the Pearl Syncussion. Michigan Synth Works already makes a copy. )
1 Like