Poll: Does the Behringer Model D cross an ethical line?

[Tom Williams]

One reason I started this thread was to see where everyone stood on this issue, not just a vociferous few.

Hey -- them's fightin' words where I come from. If I knew what it meant. Sounds like some kinda dinosaur....

[ElmerJFudd]

If patent protection etc is over since long, how can this even be a topic.......would someone start a thread if someone made a copy of cazio cz101. Or for example the new vv rhodes pianos are they ethical:..........

 

VV E Piano is ethical because it's a unique design aesthetically, mechanically and electrically. They also aren't calling it a Rhodes - it's a tine piano surely, but not more in common with a Rhodes than say - a Kawai and a Steinway. A Gibson and a Strat.

 

Behringer doesn't have to call this a Model D and they could easily have nodded to the Minimoog and come up with a few ideas of their own - maybe better it or innovate in some aspect. The pricing is brutal to other synth developers, that's for sure. Only time will tell if these instruments yield some music or get crushed and recycled - maybe come back in a second life as a revolutionary synth.

[Markay]

So now we have established that, in the Music Industry it is not "unethical" to copy the look, feel, functionality and sound of another instrument, the question remains regarding the "ethics" of using "Model D" or truncated version "D" in the name.

 

So was it legal - but unethical - of Moog to use Steinway's "Model D" name - first introduced in 1886 and still in production??

 

Compare and contrast in less than 50 words.

[Synthoid]

Is that today's homework assignment?

[ElmerJFudd]

So now we have established that, in the Music Industry it is not "unethical" to copy the look, feel, functionality and sound of another instrument, the question remains regarding the "ethics" of using "Model D" or truncated version "D" in the name.

 

So was it legal - but unethical - of Moog to use Steinway's "Model D" name - first introduced in 1886 and still in production??

 

Compare and contrast in less than 50 words.

 

Is there an ethics issue using Model D for an acoustic grand piano and an analogue synthesizer? Both musical instruments perhaps but not really in danger of being confused by the customer. Can't have been an issue or perhaps there would have already been some legal shenanigans between the companies. On the other hand here we have two synthesizers the latter of which has taken not only the name but the UI and circuitry - at least to the extent it is supposed to suggest to the customer you can have theirs at $3749 or ours at $399. It's murky for me, but I'm sure the legal hats at Behringer checked this all with magnifying glass.

[WesG]

Was it unethical for AMD to release a CPU called the 80486, when Intel already had one named that?

 

 

[burningbusch]

I really don't see this as an ethical question. It's rather if the original company is OK with it or not; and whether they've actually trademarked the specific model name. There are Bechstein model Bs just as there are Steinway model Bs. I guess Steinway wasn't concerned. I thought Hammond told Nord that couldn't use B in the name of their organ clone, hence C2 (evidently Hammond didn't care about the letter C). Ford told Tesla they could not use E as they had already trademark model E for their upcoming electric car. Disappointingly, Tesla's model line will not spell S E X but rather S 3 X (backwards E). On the other hand, there are many car models with S, X, L and various combinations.

 

Then, of course, there is the case of Monster chasing anyone using the name Monster in any fashion.

 

The ball is 100% in Moog's court, IMO.

 

Busch.

[TommyRude]

Ford told Tesla they could not use E as they had already trademark model E for their upcoming electric car. Disappointingly, Tesla's model line will not spell S E X but rather S 3 X (backwards E).

Interestingly, Tesla has a Model D

 

[fjzingo]

You're of course right, at the same time it depends where you draw the line between the two.

 

Interesting is that this kind of discussion only occurs due to Behringers history of copying stuff, building they're industry. Does anyone bash film for starting up on the westcoast of the US to avoid patent laws of filmtechnology only valid on the east coast....what was it called again, Hollywood. Perhaps another thread to start.

 

If patent protection etc is over since long, how can this even be a topic.......would someone start a thread if someone made a copy of cazio cz101. Or for example the new vv rhodes pianos are they ethical:..........

Just because something is legal or not illegal doesn't mean it's ethical.

[Markay]

Is that today's homework assignment?

It's a joke, Joyce in keeping with the spirit of the whole debate, (Sorry for the Aussie reference)

[jimkost2002]

Is there an ethics issue using Model D for an acoustic grand piano and an analogue synthesizer? Both musical instruments perhaps but not really in danger of being confused by the customer. Can't have been an issue or perhaps there would have already been some legal shenanigans between the companies. On the other hand here we have two synthesizers the latter of which has taken not only the name but the UI and circuitry - at least to the extent it is supposed to suggest to the customer you can have theirs at $3749 or ours at $399]It's murky for me, but I'm sure the legal hats at Behringer checked this all with magnifying glass.

 

I'm with Senor Fudd here. Also adding the fact that the Model D reissue is still in production.... which is one of the main reasons I am adamant at Behinger's release

[Legatoboy]

no no no

[Desert Rat]

Since the onus of the ethic (in the question as worded) is on the manufacturer, it would be hard not to say "yes".

If the question was reworded to, "Would you be violating an ethical principal in purchasing the product?" the answer would reflect your true feelings.

[CowboyNQ]

I voted no.

 

Reed Richards, on the other hand...

 

 

 

[SeaGtGruff]

I don't think "Model D" is recognizable to the average person as having anything to do with Moog.

 

When I hear "B3," I instantly think of a Hammond organ. When I hear "Model T," I instantly think of a Ford automobile. When I hear "MiniMoog," I instantly think of a certain well-known synthesizer.

 

But when I hear "Model D," I want to ask, "Model D of what?"

 

I'd bet that the percentage of people who can correctly pair the name "Model D" with a picture of a MiniMoog is considerably less than the percentage of people who can correctly pair the name "MiniMoog" with a picture of a MiniMoog (with the name on the instrument not being visible in the picture).

 

[Donsta]

I don't think "Model D" is recognizable to the average person as having anything to do with Moog.

 

I owned a Minimoog Model D back in the 70's. I don't remember referring it to anything other than a Minimoog.

[Ulf]

I don't think "Model D" is recognizable to the average person as having anything to do with Moog.

 

I owned a Minimoog Model D back in the 70's. I don't remember referring it to anything other than a Minimoog.

 

Exactly. After all these years I'm perfectly fine with copying the electronics design, and I frankly didn't even recognize the name...

 

[Bill H.]

If you Wiki Model D, Wikipedia directs you to aircraft, cars, firearms, and computers (anyone else remember the Leading Edge Model D?) - but not the Minimoog.

 

When I Googled Model D, the first responses are about housing in Detroit, and an online publication about the subject.

 

Google does also list the Minimoog Model D - along with the Steinway Model D Concert Grand, indoor exercise equipment, and various other things.

 

It does seem to be a rather generic term.

[TommyRude]

 

Here are a few stories for your reading pleasure. The ShamWow showdown is pretty entertaining, infomercial huckster wars.

 

DISCLOSURE: I don't know the veracity of these stories, but if true they look to have crossed the ethical line, and maybe pissed on it while they crossed over.

 

The Most Blatent Ripoffs of All Time

 

http://www.asseenontvstuffoffers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/shamwow-doubleoffer-300x250.gif

 

 

[ElmerJFudd]

Model D is a fairly generic name... Like releasing a car and calling it the Model 3 or 3 series. BMW could argue that another auto manufacturer should lay off the designation because their's has been around awhile and people equate it with their Brand. But the more generic sounding the name, the harder it is to show this. For example Chevy wouldn't release an entry level sports car designated Mustang.

 

Again, the issue here is that circuitry, layout/UI/design aesthetic and designation have all been tapped here in a product that's intended to be the Moog Model D clone. The ball's in Moog's court on wether they want to tap their resources to debate wether this is fair play or crosses a line for them. However the wording of the law in US courts is interpreted will clarify wether there's a case here. Should they win in here, next step EU and or Britain. How did BOSS, Electro Harmonix, Mackie etc. fair in this pursuit? Hammond-Suzuki makes their own Hammond B3 clones... as do quite a few other companies not named Hammond.

 

Regardless as mentioned above often... winning or losing court battles doesn't necessarily equate to proving ethics. And of course different countries have their own laws and interpretations and amount of time that needs to pass etc.

[jimkost2002]

from12tone at

gearslutz:

 

 

The main thrust why people objected to Behringer and their MM clone is how reminiscent it was of their past unethical practices, of which there were numerous documented cases of litigation and settlements. It's a bad look for a company with a reputation built from a legacy of knockoffs.

 

I don't think there's been the same vehemence of the DM12, which has been very favorably received. That perhaps has something to do with that fact that Behringer didn't cast aspersions at Roland as they did to Moog regarding their pricing and whatnot, nor copy the Juno line in the same manner that they did the Model D.

 

If Behringer took a similar tact as they did with the DM12, I don't think many of their detractors would have much to stand on.

 

I would add: AND if Behringer did this when the current Moog Model D reisuue was NOT IN PRODUCTION

[SeaGtGruff]

I look at it in terms of buying a piece of hand-crafted furniture that has a high price tag, versus buying a piece of mass-produced furniture with a low price tag. I daresay that most people would love to furnish their homes with hand-crafted furniture and other items (artistic hand-made ceramic plates and bowls, etc.) if they could afford to do that. But most of us can't afford it-- we must buy pictures of the Mona Lisa printed on cheap poster paper, not the real Mona Lisa. And we don't usually call our friends, or jump on Facebook or Twitter, to excitedly tell everybody that we just bought a $10 knockoff of a $40,000 Chopard watch.

 

That's not to say that inexpensive mass-produced items aren't any good, because certainly they can be very good-- although if something is being mass-produced then there's always the chance you'll end up with one that contains faulty components or was produced on a day that the wrong person on the assembly line was having a lousy day due to one reason or another.

 

I don't think Behringer's clone is going to take money out of Moog's pocket-- at least, not money that would have been spent on a MiniMoog. People who can afford to buy a MiniMoog will still buy one if they want one. And if they can't afford one, they'll probably buy something else anyway.

 

[hurricane hugo]

How many people make Strat/Les Paul copies?

 

Yeah, I voted no.

[TommyRude]

 

I guess there is a price for everything. What should Behringer pay Moog? Perhaps....

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/1m.gif

[jimkost2002]

you don't make music with furniture.

(unless you're John Cage)

 

my issue with all this equivocating is really twofold:

 

1) I wouldn't really have an issue if the Model D was out of production and/or if was a company that didn't have a history of shoddy knock-offs

 

2) "Good Enough" ---- the whole idea of creating an emulation of something as opposed to the Orginial Instrument is a really slippery slope.

There's a whole generation of folks who grew up knowing the copy (Virtual Instruments, Nords, etc) before the REAL instrument these products were meant to emulate.

UNLESS one puts some time in on the real thing somewhere in one's development, this creates a deficit in understanding tactile and inner ear co-ordination and the quality of music making suffers, either to an almost imperceptible degree or to a degree large enough to impede the finished product.

Before the evocators indignantly jump all over these statements, let me add that PLENTY of great musicians make great music on virtual instruments or emulators, but the majority would prefer the actulal instrument as opposed to the emulator.

 

It's one thing if you're a kid in East Asia or Africa who doesn't have access to the real instruments, but.....

[El Lobo]

For sax players: what would you think if I sold a line of Chinese-made saxophones and branded them Mark VI?

Depending on your answers, I'll consider a business opportunity ...

[burningbusch]

I don't think "Model D" is recognizable to the average person as having anything to do with Moog.

 

I owned a Minimoog Model D back in the 70's. I don't remember referring it to anything other than a Minimoog.

 

Exactly. After all these years I'm perfectly fine with copying the electronics design, and I frankly didn't even recognize the name...

 

In the 70s it was just known as the Minimoog. In fact, Moog Minimoog contains the brand name twice, so Minimoog gives you all you need. "Model D" was only of historical importance relative to the prototypes. That changed with Moog Music's rebirth and the Minimoog Voyager, followed by the Voyager XL and other variants. If you look at the Moog website you'll see them in a class of synthesizers known as Minimoogs, of which the new "Model D" is one of them. NOW, the Model D name has a significance it simply didn't have in the past.

 

Moog filed and received trademark registration for the name. You will notice this is fairly recent with a status update of March 2017. I don't think the name was trademarked by Moog prior to this otherwise they would have just done an update.

 

https://trademarks.justia.com/863/92/minimoog-model-86392929.html

 

Moog is definitely using the name to distinguish the new Minimoog Model D from other Minimoogs and the name is trademarked. Seems to me if Moog objects, Behringer will have to back away from the "Behringer D" name.

 

Busch.

 

 

[burningbusch]

Ford told Tesla they could not use E as they had already trademark model E for their upcoming electric car. Disappointingly, Tesla's model line will not spell S E X but rather S 3 X (backwards E).

Interestingly, Tesla has a Model D

 

 

If you look at Tesla's website, they just have the three models: S 3 X, plus their energy concern. The above car might be a Tesla Model S P90D of which the P = performance, 90 = battery capacity and D = AWD. So the D is a designator of a feature/capability rather than a different model.

 

Busch.

[TommyRude]

If you look at Tesla's website, they just have the three models: S 3 X, plus their energy concern. The above car might be a Tesla Model S P90D of which the P = performance, 90 = battery capacity and D = AWD. So the D is a designator of a feature/capability rather than a different model.

 

Busch.

 

I took a few liberties with this. Back in 2014 Elon tweeted about a Model D, which was essentially the Model S with dual engines, and the journalists ran with the Model D moniker for a bit. Tesla Model D

 

 

[Bill H.]

 

Moog is definitely using the name to distinguish the new Minimoog Model D from other Minimoogs and the name is trademarked. Seems to me if Moog objects, Behringer will have to back away from the "Behringer D" name.

 

Busch.

 

 

This actually makes a lot of sense. If the term Model D is officially in the name now, it's a different situation than the original.

 

And honestly Behringer can't legitimately lay claim to the term D, since they just copied old Moog schematics and didn't work up a Model A, B, or C.

 

They could call it a Model E for Eurorack. Everyone would understand the inference, and I don't think they would lose a single sale.