Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info
[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Behringer

>Designing a mixing console is a creative work.But at least it is also a
>patchwork.Or does Mackie
>produces the Faders with a special patent ? Not like that,they buy maybe 
>ALP
>Faders or an equalizer
>unit from Phillips.Just and example.....And at least the resistors inside
>will come from all over
>the world.
>Form this ingredients they develop their own receipt and assemble the
>console.

That is true of ANY device, computer program, even song that
you create, but it doesn't render your intellectual property
valueless.

>Behringer does it the same.But both companies do not start from Zero to
>reinvent the Mixing Console.
>Behringer looks how Mackie designed the Console.Like Mackie inverstigated
>from other companies
>products how to make a good design.I call this more Influencing and
>inspiration.But not ripping.

Let me explain this in terms of a song.

If I were a guitar player and I sounded like Jimi Hendrix,
that's perfect acceptable.  BUT, if I try to release a
recording of "Purple Haze", I need to get a license from
Hendrix' estate.

In the same way, making a mixer that "works like" a Mackie
is perfectly OK, ethically and legally.  That's how innovation
occurs, you copy the *features* that other people introduce
and improve on them.

But copying the specific *design* of the mixer is totally different.
That's theft!  That's like reprinting Purple Haze as your song!

In the Behringer case, they not only copied the design in every
point, they even copied mistakes and unnecessary parts, so they
didn't even bothed to figure out HOW it worked properly.

It's like covering a Hendrix tune and coughing when he did
because you have no idea that the cough isn't part of the song
because you just stole it.




>Mackie also ripped a lot of other companies products.But this is no reason
>to damm them.

It sure is if they did.  Do tell us details?



>They got inspired and influenced by those companies.There is nothing wrong
>in such practice.

Right, there is nothing wrong with being inspired and being
influenced by some other product.

Behringer is essentially photocopying the works of others.
A totally different issue!


>And at least,to offer more low cost products,Mackie could go the same or
>similiar way like
>Behringer.

The point is that since Mackie has to pay a LOT of money
to get the designs made, if Behringer does NOT, then
Behringer will ALWAYS be able to sell their products
a lot cheaper than Mackie.

For example, suppose you released a CD and someone else
released the same CD just by copying yours!  Since
their only costs are the reproduction, whereas you have
to pay the studio costs, musicians, gear, and your own
time, they can certainly sell your CD a lot cheaper than
you can.  So, why shouldn't I just get the CD from them?

-----

For some reason this argument has broken down into US vs rest of the world
and I can't quite see why.  I'm not an American myself, and there are
plenty of foreign musical companies that are beacons of creativity
to us all (Yamaha, TC, Waldorf without even thinking).

But it's clear to me and should have nothing to do with
country boundaries:

   it's perfectly OK to be inspired by the work of others.
   to make a perfect, mindless copy of the work of others is theft.

        /t


                                  that was fast

.......all legal games of chess 
<http://solveChess.com/chess?refresh=0>......
.....programmer's documentation 
<http://solveChess.com/doc>..................