#89

Yes, they should. Having and stating a negative opinion of someone/thing is perfectly acceptable. Even moreso when said opinion is factually based.

From a few local shop sources, they’re also built like shit, have an astonishingly high return rate, and one shop’s own, repeated, experience with behringer service was exceptionally negative, as well. Unsurprising, from a company who makes mostly lower-quality knockoffs of other designs and builds them with substandard wages and questionable materials sourcing.

4 Likes
#90

I will just end here by saying that companies don’t have free speech in the same way that individuals do (and yes, I know about Citizens United). DSI as a company should have done something, and they didn’t, and it reflects more poorly on Dave Smith than it does on Uli Behringer. I think the judge erred in the SLAPP decision by considering the statute on an individual basis rather than from a tortious interference standpoint, but that’s the breaks (and if you are going to point to the sanctity of the courts I will refer you back to SCOTUS completely blowing Citizens United). Behringer should have found a different venue than California.

If the person talking smack had been some random joe, then I’d say that as long as they stayed reasonably within the realm of fact or opinion then they can say whatever they want.

Happy 2020! :partying_face:

1 Like
#91

Teenage Engineering would not be a company I’d use as a positive example. Their stuff is poorly constructed and very expensive, and they behaved abominably re the OP1 hiatus.

#92

This thread feels like an interesting representation of the dialog between leftist and centrist politics.

16 Likes
#93

I love and use massively the Pocket Operators, which in my opinion have a very fair and accessible price.

#94

Behringer has also taken several designs from the DIY community without any sort of attribution or acknowledgment. For example compare their Wasp clone to the original Wasp Deluxe, vs the recent DIY Jasper Wasp clone - the Behringer Wasp is closer to a copy of the Jasper than a copy of the original Wasp.

2 Likes
#95

Altough I do not have a strong opinion or whether cloning is right or wrong ( I can see the merits on both stands), I feel that If cloning is seen as ethically wrong, which I feel is the main argument brought up by people bashing Behringer, it should really not matter who you are or who clones who.

Out of curiosity, look up the AION eurorack line: Do you feel that is acceptable, considering Moog Model10 and Model 15 are on sale? And if you think it is acceptable, could you explain to me what is it that makes it ok? Thank you for engaging and Happy new year :slight_smile:

1 Like
#96

One way that circuits are very different from code is the scale on which human labor stands between the finished design and shipping the product. One reason that vertically-integrated companies like Behringer (although surely others do as well) embrace this kind of framing—ideas should be freely available—for their work, is that it effaces the fact that this is their competitive advantage.

Developers working with code are able to implement other’s open source ideas and contribute their own with roughly equal footing, even if Alice is at Google and Bob runs his own software shop. This is not the case for hardware: Monome literally cannot implement an MS-20 clone that stands a chance of competing with Korg. Instead Monome brings unique ideas to the table.

It would be a loss for all of us, including Uli, if Behringer drove Make Noise out of business, say. Something like this doesn’t seem very likely to happen, but I guess it’s what my gut has me concerned about.

23 Likes
#97

While the code in this case must be physically manufactured, it is still code pieces that have a shelf life being so long as they are able to or willing to reproduce them:

Monome is a good example as well. They produced the Norns, but also a Norns shield and the community has sprung up Fates. Are these open source natures killing Monome? Are they growing the community? Is Behringer/Cool Audio not enabling creators access to these building blocks to build? Is this not the circle we had envisioned and if so do you want to blame Behringer for greedy practices? Do you also want to hold the patent system accountable for being less contemplated?

I want to add this. I remember a NOVA special on artificial diamonds. Debeers (Diamond company/family who intentionally hordes raw gems to drive up prices) was essentially unhappy about being undercut in the market. A diamond made in a lab is just as forever as one you take from the Earth. One day there will be a last MS 20. Will it matter who made it or if it has any Behringer parts in it keeping it alive?

#98

you can choose to view them that way, but it’s a framing choice that you are making that others may have good reason not to share. i agree that it’s a kind of hall of fame. but it’s also an enormous privately owned manufacturing business. and this is maybe more relevant. it seems like you are taking a series of distinct examples from various industries that you view positively and attributing the positivity to this specific debate without enough consideration to the ways in which they are different. as you note,

the code in this case must be physically manufactured

to me, this is really the whole issue. i am no fan of intellectual property (if you ask me intellectual property is theft). but to me, the issue isn’t really the intellectual property, it’s the use of that property to convert raw materials into products that are sold for the enrichment of the behringers.

if we frame your examples in material terms, the contradiction between the support of open source projects here and the pushback to behringer starts to make more sense. setting aside the open source thing (since the subjects of the behringer clones are not open source), a community of individuals independently assembling cheap hardware ala fates is still very different from what behringer does. on the other hand, diamond mines are famously not the best place to work! so it’s pretty great that they are no longer needed. etc. is it not possible to support the total decommodification of knowledge without supporting the enrichment of a swiss dude who sold his company to holding corp in the philippines which he also owns for totally legit and above board reasons?

1 Like
#99

25725_photo_20171104_10_48_23_pm_1
25725_photo_20171104_10_48_23_pm_1614×768 58.3 KB

I built a Jasper in 2017, it was a beautiful and rewarding project. I’ve since upgraded it with JasperMIDI and the official jasper lasercut/3d Printed enclosure (it works quite well!) It’s also very limited in ways, which I find delightful but maybe would be kind of off-putting to some.

I am curious if we could compile some DIY options to Behringer clones just as a point of comparison/reference. I also know of the TTSH which I’ve wanted to build for some time, but after working on THC’s Serge kit I’m hesitant to take a chance (It’s also a very expensive project!) There is also the Din-Sync Gilbert which is a SH-101 inspired mono-synth that sounds fantastic. There are numerous DIY versions of the MS-20 filter, but not a full/semi recreation as far as I can remember.

For the 303 there is the x0xb0x from Lady Ada. There is also a kit for a Pro-One clone the Weston Pro2021 although, I’ve only read about it online and haven’t found too many reviews.

Really curious if folks are aware of any more? I’m building an Ambika right now, especially poly-synth designs interest me. I don’t have a strong opinion on the Behringer debate, but I think it’s good to present some alternatives that originate from the community.

8 Likes
#100

This thread made me examine my own buying habits. In retrospect, I can honestly say that I don’t believe I own a single outright clone of anything that is/was being currently produced at the time or an improvement/iteration of an existing design… other than a slew of DIY projects I’ve completed myself.

Whether good/bad, ethical/unethical, I guess it just seems like an outright clone lacks mojo… maybe that’s an entirely different thread. I guess they just don’t inspire me. Sure, some of the things I own and software I’ve used were inspired by something that already existed, but everything else seems new. While I don’t feel very steadfast in this view, I guess my purchase history says otherwise. I’m sure that I would buy a clone for the right reasons, but something tells me it wouldn’t be a Behringer.

EDIT: I’m now recounting some software plugins I use from UAD that are obviously direct clones with some licensing and that would contradict my above statement in some ways. Still, I think there is something missing for me when I know a piece of gear was ripped off. If its unobtanium, then that might be different. I personally would have no issue with a Synthi clone but would still feel “ick” about purchasing from Behringer.

3 Likes
#101

I don’t much mind cloning vintage gear but it’s an entirely different thing to make a clone out of love than for hyperprofitable gain. And anyway I haven’t heard a convincing clone yet from Behringer.

And it’s just a complete lack of principal when those clones are of current gear, whether implicitly (Crave) or explicitly (TipTop). (I swear Uli is trolling with those two units.)

1 Like
#102

Yah that would be hard. I justify those types of purchases buying used :wink:

1 Like
#103

Coming from guitar land myself (I’ve been playing guitar for 25 years, but am only recently a synth player/buyer), pedals/guitars are a place where copying designs is nothing new. Think about how many mid-size pedal companies who have revolutionized the effects industry also at one time sold (or still do) an outright TS-9 rip. Sometimes the circuit gets improved. Sometimes it doesn’t. But it’s a great point that Keeley, JHS or Wampler (or whoever, I love those guys and am not using their name except that I pulled it out of a hat) didn’t then go and sue Ibanez. Probably because they are decent human beings. In fact I know this to be the case.

Or take the revered Klon Centaur. It’s a three knob overdrive that is out of production and sells for about $4000 on Reverb. That’s dumb. Hence the numerous Klon clones. This equates directly to the Minimoog/Model D thing.

As far as instruments in production today.I mentioned the strat/tele earlier. Find me a more prolifically stolen musical IP anywhere. And yet, I doubt that anyone who can afford an American Elite Telecaster and who understands the difference is going to buy an Indonesian knockoff. They’re two different market segments. I owned and cut my teeth on a ton of shitty electric guitars until, one day, I could tell the difference. That day, I moved from market segment A to market segment B, and now I buy quality instruments.

That’s something we really haven’t touched on thus far (market segmentation). I, like @alanza, think it’s unlikely that

because, if you even know what a Morphagene is, you are already part of a market segment that is unlikely to purchase cheap ripoffs. Given the choice between a Behringer clone and the real thing, you’re probably going to choose the real thing. You respect the craftsmanship involved in making the real thing, as well as the human beings involved in dreaming it up.

I agree, and this is very much a Segment B position. The cheap stuff lacks a certain poetry, which becomes more and more important as one gets more and more serious about making music. Or that has been my experience anyway. There are guys and gals out there banging tin cans together making better music than I could ever hope to make :smile:

This has been a fun thread! Very stimulating.

4 Likes
#104

In a direct confirmation of his practice of copying modern open source clones, Uli straight-up denies the existence of open source hardware.

2 Likes
#105

I think most people see cloning as a grey area, and bash Behringer because of behaviour that people find to be on the unacceptable end of the spectrum, like copying products that are readily available from other manufacturers. The fact that they are a large corporation who has a history of such behaviour doesn’t help either.

5 Likes
#106

I guess I’m not quite done.

A lot of well-meaning people have a poor understanding of intellectual property law and seem to conflate a schematic with an oil painting. It’s nice to give credit, sure, but Uli is 100% correct in both the legality and the reality that credit is seldom given. In this particular case, it’s hard to get worked up about the “theft” of a design that is itself a reverse engineered clone of a Roland design.

If it was “my” design, I’d drop Uli a line and ask for a freebie signed by the engineers who designed it. Yes, I’m someone who actually creates stuff for a living and yes, I actually have a dog in the intellectual property fight.

1 Like
#107

I wonder how the large companies mass manufacturing and driving down component cost has helped the smaller more unique companies to thrive? Would Raspberry Pi exist without such practices?

Maybe this is just another circle.

2 Likes
#108

I hear you, but shifting values conveniently as we go is not something valuable to me.And you are leaving part of my post out of the equation:

I listed a few “smaller” companies that do exactly that!
Nobody seem to be willing to chime in on that, fine, but the lack of response is suspicious to me and only re-enforce the sense of hypocrisy that I perceive surrounding this topic.

The fact they are a large corporation should not matter: from a social, ethic and legislative standpoint that is a dangerous path to go with.
If exceptions are granted then who is to say when and what exception should be made next?

3 Likes