ilovefuzz.com

hbombgraphics wrote:In most other industries copying someone elses design would be complete bullshit and the products would be litigated into submission

Fix'd...

fever606 wrote:

hbombgraphics wrote:In most other industries copying someone elses design would be complete bullshit and the products would be litigated into submission

Fix'd...

nice fix

I've started to see entire amps being cloned on Reverb. What the fuck.

Inconuucl wrote:I've started to see entire amps being cloned on Reverb. What the fuck.

Link?? That's fucked.

It's not that fucked. It's nothing new either.

Companies have been cloning amp designs from the very beginning. A lot of early amp designs were just copied from sample circuits provided by manufacturers in tube manuals. It just went from there.

Yeah, I don't know that a "Tweed champ clone" is anything new. That's been happening for years and years with all the Fender, Marshall, and other amp circuits

Marshall JTM..

goroth wrote:Marshall JTM..

Yeah...Jim Marshall "cloned" a late 50s tweed Bassman, which itself was a modified public domain "example circuit" included in old RCA tubes manuals. But it wasn't a 1:1 clone. It was a British recreation of the American design, with crucial differences. Chassis was aluminum (not steel) and the transformers, caps, diodes, tubes & speakers used were all made in England (or Europe). Different applications of feedback and some internal values were adjusted for the new equipment etc. The result is 2 quite different amps, between the JTM45 and Bassman...even though they're basically close cousins.
That's the kind of "cloner" I can support without bad conscience feels/juju.

Chankgeez wrote:It's not that fucked. It's nothing new either.

Companies have been cloning amp designs from the very beginning. A lot of early amp designs were just copied from sample circuits provided by manufacturers in tube manuals. It just went from there.

Something Something Sunn something Dynaco something something.

rustywire wrote:

goroth wrote:Marshall JTM..

Yeah...Jim Marshall "cloned" a late 50s tweed Bassman, which itself was a modified public domain "example circuit" included in old RCA tubes manuals. But it wasn't a 1:1 clone. It was a British recreation of the American design, with crucial differences. Chassis was aluminum (not steel) and the transformers, caps, diodes, tubes & speakers used were all made in England (or Europe). Different applications of feedback and some internal values were adjusted for the new equipment etc. The result is 2 quite different amps, between the JTM45 and Bassman...even though they're basically close cousins.
That's the kind of "cloner" I can support without bad conscience feels/juju.

Yeah, but where did the design come from? The changes were the result of not having the ability to produce a 1:1 clone even if they wanted.

This is where it gets so tricky with cloning. If I take an existing design and change a couple of values, is it a unique product? Or am I still deriving my work from someone else's R&D, which they aren't getting a dime of from the sale of my product?

That's why I'm pretty much open for any and all cloning, because you cannot with any certainty define where a clone starts and stops (with the usual legal caveats I've already mentioned). If the intention is to give the original designer the credit/remuneration he or she is due then it's an impossible proposition.

I guess I was thinking of guys that are cloning exact replicas? Amps is a really big grey area for me anyway, so I don't anything. hah

goroth wrote:

rustywire wrote:

goroth wrote:Marshall JTM..

Yeah...Jim Marshall "cloned" a late 50s tweed Bassman, which itself was a modified public domain "example circuit" included in old RCA tubes manuals. But it wasn't a 1:1 clone. It was a British recreation of the American design, with crucial differences. Chassis was aluminum (not steel) and the transformers, caps, diodes, tubes & speakers used were all made in England (or Europe). Different applications of feedback and some internal values were adjusted for the new equipment etc. The result is 2 quite different amps, between the JTM45 and Bassman...even though they're basically close cousins.
That's the kind of "cloner" I can support without bad conscience feels/juju.

Yeah, but where did the design come from? The changes were the result of not having the ability to produce a 1:1 clone even if they wanted.

This is where it gets so tricky with cloning. If I take an existing design and change a couple of values, is it a unique product? Or am I still deriving my work from someone else's R&D, which they aren't getting a dime of from the sale of my product?

That's why I'm pretty much open for any and all cloning, because you cannot with any certainty define where a clone starts and stops (with the usual legal caveats I've already mentioned). If the intention is to give the original designer the credit/remuneration he or she is due then it's an impossible proposition.

Remember that sound/manufacturing was quite different in the mid 20th century. IIRC it was tax money that funded the Bell Labs research. Grants and such. In the "Fender case" and later the "Marshall case" the design ancestry is from RCA. It was their R&D from the development of the tubes, themselves where the circuits were released to the public to expand marketshare for their tubes. They wanted to sell more tubes and saw useful circuits as a prime marketing pitch, in a time when most people turned to DIY kits when they wanted everything from HAM to HiFi. They came with suggested values to "observably make it work" kind of like turning all the knobs to noon, in a new pedal.

So if someone uses THOSE existing designs as foundation, then applies their own R&D to come up with a new recipe of values, thus creating a new, specific take on a circuit...then I think that's good form. If someone else then takes liberty to reverse engineer or otherwise without permission, obtain and use the new recipe to begin selling direct clones...then it's unmistakable poor form*
For me there's too much grey area for a single "all cloning or no cloning" prerogative w/r/t circuits, but in the given example I think there's a clear distinction between them. 50% of them break ILF rule 1

TL;DR Is a business being an asshole? It's satisfying to spite them & not buy their shit.

Edit: Unmistakable poor form* presuming the cloner is attempting to compete with or undercut the new recipe's chef, who is still in business.

as i understand it from time well-spent at fsb, about a minimum 95% of so-called ‘boutique’ analog pedal circuits (circuits, not the artwork or the pcb layout) would never get any sort of meaningful patent accepted on their design at all, as so much of what they are trying to claim as their own design is actually based to a greater extent on other designs or relies on already in the public domain prior knowledge.

patent agent: “so mister zvex, tell us about this octane pedal of yours”
zvex: “well it’s basically an old superfuzz circuit with a few values changed”
pa: “and have you sought to acquire any legal rights to reproduce the superfuzz circuit on which your tweaks depend?”
z: “er, hadn’t really thought about it, but no. but i did think of a cool name and made a nice box for it”
pa: “no it is then. anything else?”
z “my fuzz factory. it’s basically a fuzz face with a few resistors swapped for pots and taken outside of the box”
pa: “and the fuzz face is one of your designs?”
z: “not really. not at all. no.”
pa: next...

patent agent: “mister seppuku, tell us about this ic water pedals of yours. sounds intriguing...”
seppuku: “well it’s a nux time core with a few mods and bends”
p: “and you have sorted things out with nux with regard to selling their pcbs with your tweaks as seppuku pedals?”
s: “er no. not exactly. not at all in fact. but, like zvex, i thought of a cool name and made a nice box for it.”
pa: “anything else?”
s: “there’s my repeater. it’s a tweaked vox repeat percussion clone”
pa: “and you’ve squared things with vox re reselling their work?”
s: “no. not at all. but i thought of an original name. well kinda...””
pa: “no means no, i’m afraid.”
s: “how about my spacefuzz, based on the rambler circuit?”
pa: “your rambler?”
s: “er no, tim escobedo’s.”
pa: “next...”

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

i could show a schematic of a superfuzz to a chimpanzee and wait until he/she points to a component, then replace that capacitor for a different value, or swap that biasing resistor for an external pot, or jumper that connection to another, etc, and the finished result would sound different. some may even agree that it sounded ‘better’. but don’t fool yourself for a minute into believing that the chimpanzee, in doing so, is some kind of stompbox guru, or is making an addition or subtraction to that circuit so great that means the credit for its entire design should transfer to him/her as a result of that intervention.
and a lot of so-called boutique makers are not doing much more than this; a little knowledge, a little luck, but in truth not much art or innovation at all. no matter how cool the name, no matter how cool the box, no matter how cool it makes the buyer of the pedal feel to be able to wave that pedal around in certain quarters.

in general, box artwork is easily copyrighted. that's straightforward graphics copyright law.
particular pcb layouts (placement of components on a branded pcb, though not necessarily the actual circuit design itself) can be copyrighted, though boutique level makers rarely bother with the trouble or expense.
code for digital effects can be copyrighted (i think, but as some is based on open source tech, maybe not always).
but circuit designs for ‘new’ analog effects are rarely copyrighted because they invariably lean so heavily on other older designs and a priori science.

hence the boutiquers bemoaning cloners can't be too upset when someone reproduces a design that they themselves have 'borrowed heavily' from somone else to begin with. or they can be upset and reveal themselves to be completely lacking in perspective and humility.

Thanks tabby.

this is an interesting topic. i have bought a clone of a ring stinger and a klone of a klon off a beloved ilf member.

there are lots of good dudes that make killer muffs and rats that are better than ehx and proco stocks...

back when devi owned devi she really didnt care if people built up and modded out her circuits. i bought the devi never proto off dwarfcraft years ago and the tp/ae and sm that are in that are way more violent and bass happy than the models she was building at the time. however that was done with her blessing.

in the example of TAFM clones, fuck that!

i would never knowingly buy a clone of a pedal that was "ripped off" of someone.