Would You Pay 15% More for Behringer Gear So They Could Cover a Licensing Fee?

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, BluMunk said:

Without wading into the specific Behringer question, and just considering the brand licensing question in general... as a consumer, it all just feels like marketing.

 

I think it's more nuanced than that. Manley did the heavy lifting to create the Massive Passive hardware. They paid the engineers, did the testing, sourced the parts, paid for the marketing that made people realize it was a desirable piece of gear, demoed it at trade shows, etc. 

 

If a company just reverse-engineers the frequency response curves (probably from a DSP cookbook) and creates a plugin based on the free VST spec, they're making money off something with a much smaller investment. When UA pays a licensing fee, that acknowledges the creator. I think it's fair for the consumer to cover UA's licensing fee to make sure the person who is responsible for the product in the first place gets some kind of compensation.

 

Essentially, Manley wrote the song. UA did a cover version. Current law recognizes that the songwriter gets paid for being the source of the creation. The person doing the cover version gets paid as well for the work they put into creating the cover version.

 

A lot of companies basically make money off of selling cover songs without paying the songwriter anything.

 

 

[ElmerJFudd]

Behringer has little to no  competition in the mass produced affordable analogue synth market.   Uli can charge what he likes but he leverages his low manufacturing costs to sell these instruments cheaply in quantity. It’s an interesting approach as most successful western brands leverage cheap labor costs and charge a premium no matter where they make their goods. 
 

$199 for a CAT vs  $228 for a licensed model with the difference going to the original or current owner of the hardware instrument regardless of the 15 year patent awarded by the US.  It’s an interesting thought. 
 

Keep in mind that Carmine Bonanno developed the Octave CAT himself and offered it at half the price of competitors.  It’s been 47 years since the release of the Octave CAT.  
 

IK Multimedia and Cherry Audio replicate the Octave CAT in software.  Carmine Bonanno is still with us and Cherry Audio conferred with him on their design.  We aren’t privy to what monetary agreement they have if any but it would have to be modest.   It’s a $49-69 dollar plug-in and software developers sample and model hardware all the time without paying a dime. 
 

All of these sorts of things are dependent on the laws of the land we live in and those agreed upon between nations that play by common rules. What one might feel is “right” or fair is also dependent upon beliefs we may or may not share with others. In some areas of the world respecting IP is non existent. 

[o0Ampy0o]

14 hours ago, Anderton said:

…a discussion can provide data points that may cause people to change their minds. But the discussion itself cannot change someone's mind. Only they can do it.

I suspect you agree:

 

Activity / the activity of participating / participation itself can change a person’s mood, perspective, move them emotionally, introduce different physiological conditions and experiences which alter the person, etc. all potentially shifting that person without their conscious or unconscious intent to change their stance on a topic. Specifically participating in a discussion is not required of you in order for a discussion to take place as long as others are participating. You can observe passively or passionately. Participation in a discussion can also provide a sense of involvement, recognition, value, which can effect how you experience your stance on a topic and in turn influence your stance on that topic. Whether only observed or participated in, the discussion itself absolutely can be the catalyst for changing one’s mind. This is not to say that people do not sometimes choose to change their mind upon consideration of data points resulting from a discussion.

[The Real MC]

I would never pay a dime for any B******* product.

[zeronyne]

I think there is a corrolary to the question that also needs to be considered. 

 

Licensing comes with a risk when you are talking about BRAND licensing. Moog or any marquee brand would partially assume Behringer's reputation doing so. It's not like Disney, where people don't associate the horrible quality of some of the crap that has Mickey on it with the quality of the overall Disney experience. 

 

Licensing, and charging a premium, conflicts with the mission of both Behringer AND the "target" brand. Behringer's main mission is reduce cost to get as close to IP theft as possible without crossing the line (and admittedly, they fail on occasion, but so do many large companies), and up until recently, Moog and others banked partially on their name to charge a massive premium over time and materials.

And for a brand like Arturia, there is NO advantage to licensing to Behringer.

[zeronyne]

15 hours ago, ElmerJFudd said:

All of these sorts of things are dependent on the laws of the land we live in and those agreed upon between nations that play by common rules. What one might feel is “right” or fair is also dependent upon beliefs we may or may not share with others. In some areas of the world respecting IP is non existent. 

And this is the crux of it. Every discussion I've seen about this has been from a decidedly American point of view, even in the discussions that have heavy European involvement

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, zeronyne said:

And for a brand like Arturia, there is NO advantage to licensing to Behringer.

 

The power to license is with the company doing the licensing. For example, Abbey Road allowed Waves to do plugins of their chambers, their processors, and the Beatles' main tape deck. But, they had right of approval. If they didn't think the plugins reflected well on the Abbey Road name, they could back out. There were other conditions, like Waves not being able to include Abbey Road plugins in bundles. I can understand that. So whether a company would want to license to Behringer is certainly an open question.

 

Of course, one reason for licensing is to collect a fee. But it's not all. When a company decides to give their name to a product, and has approval over that product, then the company knows the product will uphold the reputation they want upheld.

 

The only licensing deal I've done was with Steinberg for the Quadrafuzz. I provided them with the hardware that I felt was the "golden" unit where all the component tolerances came together, and was involved in the process of evaluating the software builds. Ultimately, I decided that the plugin not only did everything the Quadrafuzz did, it was an improvement in several respects thanks to its virtual nature. I was more than happy to have my name associated with it, and be able to say to people who didn't have the hardware chops to build a Quadrafuzz that the plugin would do everything they wanted it to do. Beyond that, it also legitimized multiband distortion, where I had kind of been a voice in the wilderness. The commercial acceptance led to iZotope asking for my approval to base Trash on the Quadrafuzz, and MOTU doing a Quadrafuzz emulation in Digital Performer. Basically, Steinberg helped me put multiband distortion on the map to where over four decades later, it's now commonplace. 

 

Another consideration is creating a legacy. Let's face it, the engineers who made the iconic gear in the 60s and 70s are getting on in years. If the characteristics of that gear aren't quantified now and preserved in digital form, there may not be another opportunity. The Abbey Road Chambers plugin is amazing. If Abbey Road gets torn down to put in a shopping center and parking lot, we'll still have access to that sound. 

[Jeff Leites]

I'm just a hobbyist, but I bought a piece of Behringer gear once and would never do it again.  It was a small mixer that wobbled on a flat surface.  I got my money back.

[NewImprov]

I was in the Never-Behringer camp for years, for all the reasons discussed above. But my attitude has changed, a bit, over time. First, when they acquired Midas, whose mixers I've used for years, and released the X-series mixers that actually sound decent. Then, I played a Deepmind, and, while I ultimately decided it wasn't to my taste synth-wise, it was a good sounding and very playable instrument, at a very decent price.

 

Then, when they announced the 2600, I pre-ordered one as soon as I could. I played an ARP 2600 in my college electronic music lab, and it has been a bucket-list synth for me ever since. I almost sprung for the Korg re-issue, but it was out of my price range. The B 2600 is outrageously affordable, and I absolutely love mine. No issues with build quality, and it sounds and behaves pretty much like the one I played 35 years ago. I would definitely pay 15% more if I knew it was going to Mr. Pearlman's heirs, and I'd feel even better about owning it.

[Anderton]

3 hours ago, NewImprov said:

First, when they acquired Midas, whose mixers I've used for years, and released the X-series mixers that actually sound decent.

 

Many people have told me that the products that had the Midas team behind them are quite good.