For those of you who rail incessantly on Behringer...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ironklad Audio
  • Start date Start date
The best part to me is that their copies don't even sound as good. Take a look at the Behringer DI for example. Looks an awful lot like a BSS AR133 DI. Certainly sounds nowhere near the quality of the BSS though.
 
SonicAlbert said:
Oh come on! All you have to do is open your eyes and look at the original product and the Behringer copy to see who and what they ripped off. It's perfectly obvious, and you don't need a court of law to arrive at the correct conclusions.
Click to expand...

Hey, who needs a court of law! What's the purpose? We can all just go around convicting whoever we want just on hearsay, news reports and blurbs on the internet! After all, why have a court system at all!

Using your brilliant take we might as well start convicting every guitar maker after Fender as we can all see with our own eyes every maker builds a "Strat" that looks, plays, sounds just like the original. In fact, lets convict Fender as Leo did not invent the electric guitar at all! Wait, we're on to something here, lets convict all the auto makers for making SUV's that look the same! What about all those companies making look-a-like, work-a-like toasters! Hey, Frisbie makers are next on the list as are microphone makers, TV makers and Mattress makers! Oh, no, I'm on a roll!
 
littledog said:
I have to say, my statements were not based on any personal knowledge of any lawsuit or government action. Most of the smaller manufacturers they rip off probably can't endure the cost of long drawn out legal fights, and I'm sure Behringer figures as much.

I based my statements on the personal experience of being flabbergasted by the audacity of Behringer putting out lines of products that are not only direct rip-offs of another company, but they don't even have the decency to change even one iota of the external cosmetics. I challenge you to look up 's Swizzarmy Cable tester and then take a look at Behringer's product. Every jack, every switch, every indicator light is in exactly the same configuration. And they sell it for $20 less, of course, because they didn't have to invest any money in the design.

It 's not just an ethical question. It's a practical one. If anyone can just come in and slap their own label on top of a product that you spent time and money developing, where is the incentive for anyone to come up with new and improved designs? Then we all suffer.
Click to expand...

Who invented the cable tester? Shouldnt' EVERY BRAND that came after be guilty of the same thing you accuse Behringer of? So it looks just like it? So what, there are hundreds of guitars that look like a strat, every acoustic guitar in the world looks the same, who invented the acoustic guitar? Let's boycott Taylor, Blueridge and Gibson too!!!!!
 
EDAN said:
Who invented the cable tester? Shouldnt' EVERY BRAND that came after be guilty of the same thing you accuse Behringer of? So it looks just like it? So what, there are hundreds of guitars that look like a strat, every acoustic guitar in the world looks the same, who invented the acoustic guitar? Let's boycott Taylor, Blueridge and Gibson too!!!!!
Click to expand...

In every business, designs of competitors influence eachother, and innovations are coopted (sometimes stolen), sometimes improved upon (or sometimes not) and repackaged. But at least there is the usual decency to attempt to give the appearance of some uniqueness. If not, there is the danger of lawsuits for those who have deep enough pockets to go that route.

All I ask is that you look at the two products you mention. It is way beyond the similarity of two competing mattresses or acoustic guitars. It is the EXACT copy, with a new name plastered over the top. It doesn't take a lawyer or a judge to see that is the case. Why don't you take a look for yourself?

Let's say you wrote a pop song. If I took that song you wrote, and put my name on it and sold it, would you object? After all, all songs are basically alike. They use the same twelve notes, the same types of chord progressions, they are all sung by human voices, played by the same sorts of instruments, recorded onto the same shiny round disks.

Of course my argument is silly and without merit. Kind of like saying all cars, mattresses, microphones, cable testers, pianos, novels, and guitars are exactly alike, so no one should be able to claim any sort of ownership of design or technical innovation.

It is fairly obvious from the reviews of your work that you take great pleasure in advocating a contrarian position - sort of a "see how many people I can upset just for the sheer joy of it" mode. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. But you should probably try and do a better job of hiding your intelligence (check out Walters posts for a good example), because otherwise no one will fooled into thinking you actually believe the things you write.
 
I'm not "debating" for the sake of it, nor am I trying to get under anyone's skin. Fact is it takes two to tango and more to have an orgy. I believe what I believe. I gave plenty of examples for feeling the way I do. You claim other manufacturers "influence" eachother, but Behringer just steals, lol. You just seem to pretend my rock solid examples aren't valid. I have several acoustic guitars sitting in the other room which aside from finish (Behringers C-tester is a different finish/color) look just about the exact same. I have had many strat and tele copies over the years that all looked the same. I just bought an electric frying pan that looks and works just like every other one in the store, give it a rest.
 
EDAN, did it occur to you that what you believe may be incorrect? Just because you believe something doesn't mean it is true.

Also, have you ever actually seen a cable tester? There are many models out there, and each looks different from the other. Of course, they all have common features like jacks for the various cables, etc., but no two are *exactly* alike except the Ebtech and the Behringer ripoff.

I say it again, all you have to do is open your eyes, and open your mind a just a wee bit, and you will see that Behringer blatantly produces some products that are direct ripoffs of products created by other companies.

Just in case you weren't aware, a couple years ago Roland put out a cease and desist order against Behringer in regards to Behringer's new line of guitar pedals. Behringer even had that balls to claim (at the NAMM show) that they had licensed the pedal design from Boss. That allowed them to get in a week or so of sales before they got shut down.

You also may not be aware that Behringer ripped off the Aphex gate so bad that when Behringer first shipped their version they included a copy of the Aphex manual as the manual for their own gate.

The list goes on and on. There's a difference between producing original work that is similar to other original work, and then there's simple bare ripping off the hard work of others. I'm pretty sure you are not aware of the difference between the two.
 
I never said Behringer is the only dishonest company in the world. Just one of the more blatant ones that I've ever run into in my limited experience. Since you think is naive and laughable to prefer dealing with companies that have some ethical standards, what would be your solution to preserve any incentive to come up with innovative products?
 
EDAN said:
Who invented the cable tester? Shouldnt' EVERY BRAND that came after be guilty of the same thing you accuse Behringer of?
Click to expand...

And why should every brand of cable tester that uses a different design be included in this argument?

I think it is this kind of statement that makes you so "well-liked". There's a kind of intellectual dishonesty in using such reductio ad absurdem "logic", which appears throughout many of your posts. It implies a a lack of respect and disdain not only for the merits of the debate, but for the debater as well.

Assuming there are exact copies of patented guitar designs being sold, (and I admittedly know nothing about guitars, so I'll take your word for it) then it only reinforces my point that the more prevalent this behavior becomes in the marketplace, the worse off we will all be when innovators will no longer have any incentive to bring their products to market. Especially if we reinforce this behavior by patronizing the rip-off artists.


EDIT: I hadn't seen sonicalbert's post which came in as I wrote this. He makes the case against Behringer much better than I ever could.
 
i'd just like to say that i hardly ever use my rack
which would include all of the behringer stuff

in fact

lately, ive only used one of my behringer preamps for the snare

it has two channels, with phase reverse.

top mic and bottom mic, good to go

but as far as using any external gear of poorman's quality, count me out

i have it, but i hardly use it
===============

finally, you want my opinion. i think im proof. its all about the person you work with, not about the gear.

give ross robinson a radio shack microphone, and he'll make use of it

a simple metaphor
 
SonicAlbert said:
EDAN, did it occur to you that what you believe may be incorrect? Just because you believe something doesn't mean it is true.

Also, have you ever actually seen a cable tester? There are many models out there, and each looks different from the other. Of course, they all have common features like jacks for the various cables, etc., but no two are *exactly* alike except the Ebtech and the Behringer ripoff.

I say it again, all you have to do is open your eyes, and open your mind a just a wee bit, and you will see that Behringer blatantly produces some products that are direct ripoffs of products created by other companies.

Just in case you weren't aware, a couple years ago Roland put out a cease and desist order against Behringer in regards to Behringer's new line of guitar pedals. Behringer even had that balls to claim (at the NAMM show) that they had licensed the pedal design from Boss. That allowed them to get in a week or so of sales before they got shut down.

You also may not be aware that Behringer ripped off the Aphex gate so bad that when Behringer first shipped their version they included a copy of the Aphex manual as the manual for their own gate.

The list goes on and on. There's a difference between producing original work that is similar to other original work, and then there's simple bare ripping off the hard work of others. I'm pretty sure you are not aware of the difference between the two.
Click to expand...


I've heard such things via the web. Mostly from Behringer bashers. Behringer from my research has never lost a lawsuit and have never been convicted of a crime. I can't go by hearsay and speculation.

For about the fourth or fifth time, why do you hold Behringer accountable but make no mention of the fact I brought up, the fact that just about every guitar maker makes look-a-like and sound-a-like strats teles, Jumbos, dreadnots and the like? What's the difference in making a cable tester that works and looks "almost" exactly like another brand and dozens of guitars makers making guitars that work and look "almost" exactly like the Fenders and Gibsons and so fourth? I don't see a difference, there is no difference. Most all electric guitars work the same way, there are copycat pickups, tuners, bridges etc that look and work "almost" exactly like all the famous ones they copied. Why do you only have a problem with Berhinger? Plus, you yourself said you own some Behringer gear, that doesn't do much for your position on the matter.
 
littledog said:
I never said Behringer is the only dishonest company in the world. Just one of the more blatant ones that I've ever run into in my limited experience. Since you think is naive and laughable to prefer dealing with companies that have some ethical standards, what would be your solution to preserve any incentive to come up with innovative products?
Click to expand...

You can't stop the world from turning. You can't monopolize everything. You pick any highly successful well known company and I'll give you an example where they were accused of ripping someone off or breaking Gov laws or manufacturing in sweatshops, etc., etc., etc. They all have full time legal teams for a reason. I'm serious, you pick the company and I'll do the research.
 
EDAN said:
You can't stop the world from turning. You can't monopolize everything. You pick any highly successful well known company and I'll give you an example where they were accused of ripping someone off or breaking Gov laws or manufacturing in sweatshops, etc., etc., etc. They all have full time legal teams for a reason. I'm serious, you pick the company and I'll do the research.
Click to expand...

You accuse Sonic Albert of avoiding one of your points, but you pick and chose who and what to respond to in a far more blatant manner.

But you want some companies to research?

Here are some companies I wouldn't mind doing business with:

Pendulum Audio, David Royer, Cranesong, Massenburg Labs, Gordon Audio, David Josephson, Earthworks, Empirical Labs, ADAM, API, AEA, D.W. Fearn, DPA, Schoeps, TAB-Funkenwerk... let me know if you want some more.
 
littledog said:
You accuse Sonic Albert of avoiding one of your points, but you pick and chose who and what to respond to in a far more blatant manner.

But you want some companies to research?

Here are some companies I wouldn't mind doing business with:

Pendulum Audio, David Royer, Cranesong, Massenburg Labs, Gordon Audio, David Josephson, Earthworks, Empirical Labs, ADAM, API, AEA, D.W. Fearn, DPA, Schoeps, TAB-Funkenwerk... let me know if you want some more.
Click to expand...

Pick and choose? I've addressed the two main issues in this thread. The quality/performance of Behringer gear and the ethics issue. The type companies you named are not what we are talking about here and you know it. We are talking about BIG business, the Behringers, the Fenders, the Sonys, the Yamahas, the world dominating companies that 90% of musicians/home producers buy from, not the "company" that makes a few pieces (in comparison) of gear a year.
 
My strategy is to try not to patronize companies that act in a blatantly unethical fashion, although obviously I am not so naive as to think that any big business is "pure of heart". Yes, I do buy some products from Sony and Yamaha, but if most things are equal, I would lean towards supporting the boutique companies, where if necessary, it could actually happen that Geoff Daking will personally call me on the phone to work things out. The president of Sony? I'm not holding my breath. So there are even more practical reasons (than ethics) for supporting the smaller companies.

So I will ask you for the fourth time, since you say you are not avoiding questions: how does one maintain the incentive for innovation if there is no protection to the innovator from being ripped off? If we all take your attitude of "so what, everyone is doing it" where are we in the long run?
 
EDAN said:
I've heard such things via the web. Mostly from Behringer bashers. Behringer from my research has never lost a lawsuit and have never been convicted of a crime. I can't go by hearsay and speculation.
Click to expand...

Again, just open your eyes and look for yourself. You don't have to go by hearsay or speculation. Just open your eyes and look, it's sooooo obvious.

And what's this obsession with convictions? Do things have to be proven in a court of law for you to believe them?

EDAN said:
For about the fourth or fifth time, why do you hold Behringer accountable but make no mention of the fact I brought up, the fact that just about every guitar maker makes look-a-like and sound-a-like strats teles, Jumbos, dreadnots and the like? What's the difference in making a cable tester that works and looks "almost" exactly like another brand and dozens of guitars makers making guitars that work and look "almost" exactly like the Fenders and Gibsons and so fourth? I don't see a difference, there is no difference. Most all electric guitars work the same way, there are copycat pickups, tuners, bridges etc that look and work "almost" exactly like all the famous ones they copied. Why do you only have a problem with Berhinger? Plus, you yourself said you own some Behringer gear, that doesn't do much for your position on the matter.
Click to expand...

In the first place, the Behringer cable tester is not "almost identical" it is *identical*. This point has been made before and you are just not getting it. It's identical, a ripoff of the design down to the last screw. It's not similar, it's identical.

In the second place, I don't have a problem just with Behringer, I have a problem with any company or any person that steals the work of others and profits from it. The couple of Behringer pieces I own are not ripoff designs, at least that I have been able to determine. I own a lot of gear, so having a couple units by them is really just a drop in the bucket, and certainly not an endorsement.

If you read this thread you'll see that I have brought up many points which you have chosen to ignore, yet you accuse me of doing the same.

So as far as the guitars go, I don't think anyone would ever think that a non-Fender guitar is going to "be" a Fender. That's like saying a Hundai that looks sort of like a Mercedes is "almost" a Mercedes. Everyone understands that guitars are musical instruments, and that the quality of the instrument depends very much on who makes it.

In addition, Guitars are very old instruments and I don't think the general shape can be copyrighted at this point. In essence, I think that you have chosen a very bad example to hold up as somehow justifying Behringer copying the designs and inventions of other companies.

Also, you asked for a list of companies to research, and when presented with a number of companies you rejected them. Every time someone nails you, you just try to redefine the argument to suit yourself. Now all of a sudden we are talking about huge multinationals that some mythical "90%" of musicians buy from.

The list that littledog gave you is *very* representative of the gear that will be in a lot of recording studios. That is indeed a list of highly successful and well known companies that make studio gear. You reject the facts because they don't fit your argument, rather than reject your own argument because it doesn't fit the facts.
 
EDAN said:
You can't stop the world from turning. You can't monopolize everything. You pick any highly successful well known company and I'll give you an example where they were accused of ripping someone off or breaking Gov laws or manufacturing in sweatshops, etc., etc., etc. They all have full time legal teams for a reason. I'm serious, you pick the company and I'll do the research.
Click to expand...

Have you read this?

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-13A1.html

In
proposing the $1,000,000 forfeiture, we recognize
that it is substantially higher than the base
forfeiture amount of $350,000. We also recognize
that the proposed forfeiture amount substantially
exceeds the forfeiture amounts proposed in recent
equipment cases. Specifically, we recently
proposed a $75,000 forfeiture against a
manufacturer for advertising one model of an
unauthorized device in various venues,51 and
proposed a $125,000 forfeiture against a retailer
for selling several models of unauthorized devices
on thirteen occasions.52 We believe, however, that
because Behringer marketed a significantly larger
number of models and units of unauthorized devices,
and given the other factors discussed above,
particularly Berhinger's failure to live up to the
representations made in its response to the
Bureau's First LOI, the substantial upward
adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is fully
warranted.
Click to expand...

So the FCC apparently believes that Behringer is the worst violator of that regulation, pretty much ever.

If you can find a $1M fine imposed on any other pro audio manufacturer by any US government agency, I will concede your position.
 
SonicAlbert said:
Again, just open your eyes and look for yourself. You don't have to go by hearsay or speculation. Just open your eyes and look, it's sooooo obvious.

And what's this obsession with convictions? Do things have to be proven in a court of law for you to believe them?



In the first place, the Behringer cable tester is not "almost identical" it is *identical*. This point has been made before and you are just not getting it. It's identical, a ripoff of the design down to the last screw. It's not similar, it's identical.

In the second place, I don't have a problem just with Behringer, I have a problem with any company or any person that steals the work of others and profits from it. The couple of Behringer pieces I own are not ripoff designs, at least that I have been able to determine. I own a lot of gear, so having a couple units by them is really just a drop in the bucket, and certainly not an endorsement.

If you read this thread you'll see that I have brought up many points which you have chosen to ignore, yet you accuse me of doing the same.

So as far as the guitars go, I don't think anyone would ever think that a non-Fender guitar is going to "be" a Fender. That's like saying a Hundai that looks sort of like a Mercedes is "almost" a Mercedes. Everyone understands that guitars are musical instruments, and that the quality of the instrument depends very much on who makes it.

In addition, Guitars are very old instruments and I don't think the general shape can be copyrighted at this point. In essence, I think that you have chosen a very bad example to hold up as somehow justifying Behringer copying the designs and inventions of other companies.

Also, you asked for a list of companies to research, and when presented with a number of companies you rejected them. Every time someone nails you, you just try to redefine the argument to suit yourself. Now all of a sudden we are talking about huge multinationals that some mythical "90%" of musicians buy from.

The list that littledog gave you is *very* representative of the gear that will be in a lot of recording studios. That is indeed a list of highly successful and well known companies that make studio gear. You reject the facts because they don't fit your argument, rather than reject your own argument because it doesn't fit the facts.
Click to expand...


Your spewing nonsense and spin. The Behringer cable tester is NOT, I repeat NOT exactly the same. Compare the two pics side by side and you'll pick out a few key differences, plus it clearly says in bold print BEHRINGER across the front, no one with half a brain will confuse it with any other brand. You state because the guitar is old it's ok to copy it, that's pure insanity. The original tele design came from Fender, it shouldn't matter when! So if Behringer waited ten years to "copy" a design, then it's ok with you? I'm not concerned with a shape, you can look into just about any company deep enough and find a reason not to support them, you can drive yourself nuts. You must pick your battles, this one is not important on the grand scale of things and obviously it isn't that important to you either or you wouldn't use/buy Behringer gear. If Behringer is breaking the law then prove it and boycott them and toss your B-gear in the trash, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

So just because the specific pieces of Behringer gear you own aren't "copies" of other brands you have no problem supporting the company as a whole with your hard earned cash, yet you still bash them for "stealing"? Makes perfect sense to me .. in Bazarro world that it. Forget it, no ifs about it, you ARE a hypocrite,

First of all I invited littledog to pick -A- company, not fifty! and by highly successful and well known, you know exactly what I meant and I still mean it. Your posturing is beneath your intelligence, but it seems you like a good debate so onward!
 
mshilarious said:
Have you read this?

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-13A1.html



So the FCC apparently believes that Behringer is the worst violator of that regulation, pretty much ever.

If you can find a $1M fine imposed on any other pro audio manufacturer by any US government agency, I will concede your position.
Click to expand...

First of all I didn't say only audio companies. I'm talking about ANY company we all buy from daily. And why does the fine have to be $1M? If so-and-so was only fined $200,000 it doesn't count? lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top