Watch the video that came with the FB release. It talks about other ways to tune all the samples. Patch Dog has been working on this video for a while.
They better be careful as he may still sue and you can only push a man so far.
For what ?
For defamation of character. Since his statement he has been ridiculed and adding fuel to the fire by using his name to endorse the product is overstepping the mark.(thanks for the idea et al).
2 Likes
Roger Linn still owns the copyright to the sounds used on the LinnDrum. The original hardware patent has expired (after 20 years) and anyone can legally make an exact copy of that, but the trademark and copyright laws are different.
According to Behringer themselves they took the samples from the LM1, LM2 and LM9000 machines. Roger owns the copyright to these but doesn’t seem too bothered about enforcing his ownership rights, he explains it all in his essay here: lmdrum
Roger would still be within his rights (if he so chose) to enforce these rights and Behringer would have to licence the sounds from him, or if they did not come to an agreement they would have to remove the sounds/stop selling the machine.
We were having a discussion about this in the LMDrum thread and if Bruce Forat (who bought the Linn Electronics company assets) owned the copyright to the sounds, etc., but I emailed Roger to confirm.
See original comment below:
1 Like
He can bring that suit. I don’t see much of a case with that though.
These lawyers are very good.
I do think Behringer making lower cost devices good for the consumer. But the people and companies who put time and R&D into creating the original hardware do seem to get getting shafted.
I’m not sure people are aware that there’s multiple intellectual property laws at play, hardware and design patents, copyright on sounds and software and trademark law.
Behringer skirts around many of these in releasing clones of other manufacturers devices. Some of these it’s entirely 100% okay: a new device that completely replicates the analogue circuits and design of an over 20 year old device.
Others where it’s not entirely ethical: a blatant copy of a device currently in production by a manufacturer. Remember, Apple took Samsung to court in the US over the design of their phones before.
Then others still where copyright law comes in, i.e. the LinnDrum sounds. Roger owns the copyright to these sounds for the entirety of his life and then 70 years after his death (thanks Disney).
The fact that Roger has allowed many to use these sounds previously doesn’t take away from his rights. I’m not sure if anyone here is in the 3d printing community where in the last few days another company purchased the assets of 3dbenchy. The original licence was Creative Commons, but had a no derivatives clause. The new company is now enforcing their rights to get any and all derivatives of this design removed from being shared, all completely legal.
3 Likes
That’s a stretch, the real case would be in the copyright to the sounds on the LMDrum. See my lengthy comments.
Anyway, Roger have said himself he’s not interested in enforcing or restricting the use of these sounds and doesn’t want to get involved in legal stuff.
But there is nothing stopping him or his future estate from taking a case with Behringer specifically regarding the sounds he owns.
That would also mean taking same action vs others that have used those sounds including GForce, Aly James, Samples from Mars etc. Not going to happen.
1 Like
I do find all this stuff fascinating tbh. Behringer has also been taken to court around this before and has reached confidential settlements with companies previously and changed their designs.
Copyright law is clear, if you don’t enforce your copyright ( which is of long standing in this case ), and in particular when you have said you’re not interested in doing so, the copyright goes into public domain. The precedent is at least 100 years old. He can sue, but he’ll lose, or it gets settled for nuisance money.
You ever hear of Kleenex ? Kimberly Clark lost that case.
1 Like
Not necessarily, copyright isn’t like trademark law where if you don’t enforce your rights to the trademark you can lose it. He could selectively take cases if he chose. He has said he’s not going to do that, explained in his essay.
There’s nothing stopping his future estate doing this though. Who’s to say what will happen in the future. Never say never, stranger things have happened.
2 Likes
Kleenex was a trademark, different IP laws altogether.
This is why I find all this stuff so interesting. Same as calling all vacuum cleaners ‘Hoovers,’ etc.
1 Like
Yeah, i do too.
Having work in new product development for many years, i have sat with and learned from lawyers and other people with lots of experience in business and law, and have been surprised along the way… There is a lot to it, that most people don’t understand.
1 Like
goony has it exactly right.
Agreed. IANAL and I only learned about much of this in college.
I do think Behringer skirts around a lot of this, but it does leave them open to risk of litigation, not just on the LMDrum, but with other hardware designs.
I think as we’ve seen they can come up with great original designs too and many people love these. Devices like the LMDrum though, they are cashing in on other people’s work and the nostalgia factor associated with it.
Yeah that’s right. That’s marketing. Many here think Behringer makes similar products because the engineering is easier. It’s not, it’s at least as hard or harder. They do it because customers can easily understand a product and recognize it.
By the way, as i’ve talked about up thread, as an engineer you are always looking closely at other companies products, that you are in competition with. It’s stupid if you don’t. Roger Linn said this too, and how that’s what you do as an engineer making products to sell. ( No i am not spinning. )
Are you talking about trade dress issues ? If so that is a very narrow part of the law. What Behringer did along the way with the with the design of the Swing is a good example of this, and shows the attention they took with this. It also shows how narrow that law is, with this.
The comments i’ve read in this forum regarding look and feel shows a real misunderstanding too.
Repeating what i’ve already said upthread, i wish Behringer just did more fresh clean designs. It’s good to see that they are getting there now that they have established themselves in this end of the business.
Trademarks are copyrights BTW.
EDIT : Struck out duplicate “with the”.
2 Likes
Incorrect, they are different mechanisms of intellectual property law. See here for more information: https://henry.law/blog/difference-between-patent-trademark-copyright/
1 Like