Remix.run Logo
7oi 19 hours ago

These news are of course good, but they sure bring up conflicting feelings in me. I mean, they should open source just about anything, seeing how they have unapologetically used other peoples designs as “inspiration” for their gear for decades for their own benefit. Sure, it has resulted in a lot of more affordable gear (I mean, super savings on development costs) and I really appreciate that, but it’s also at a cost. Innovators in the business get less business when there are cheaper devices “inspired” by theirs on the market, resulting in less funding for future innovations to inspire future Behringer gear. Then, of course, the whole Behringer vs Peter Kirn thing was just something that has left a permanent distaste in my mouth whenever I hear or see the name Behringer.

But I get it. Like someone commented here, the do seem like a sort of Robin Hood in the music gear world (although its not always just products from big companies that “inspire” Behringer products), making these expensive pieces of gear much more approachable for enthusiasts on a budget. Approachability is good and I love the idea of it. I just really wish it didn’t have to be at someone else's expense.

mrob 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Companies like Behringer are necessary for patents to be ethically justified. The deal with patents is a temporary monopoly in exchange for greater competition once the monopoly expires. Cheap re-implementations of expired patents is the patent system working as intended.

7oi 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agreed. I have no gripe with companies reviving extinct hardware, such as multiple companies have with the TB-303 (Behringer included). Patents should even have a shorter lifespan IMO (although I admit I don’t know how long they last now). Sitting comfortably on a patent just encourages stagnation.

Jolter 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The product designs Behringer are often accused of plagiarizing are generally not patented.

mrob 17 hours ago | parent [-]

If it was never patented then whoever produced it clearly didn't care about preventing competition. And Behringer products all have a Behringer logo clearly printed on them, so there is no attempt to deceive anybody.

otherme123 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I like Behringer products, but the story of the Centaur clone is a joke. By all means they attempt to deceive: no "Behringer" clearly visible, the centaur drawing is almost a copy, the colour, the knobs and switch distribution...

And half their pedals look exactly like Boss gear.

mrob 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The version without a prominent Behringer logo is no longer sold (possibly there was legal action; I don't know the details). I agree that the old version was potentially misleading. The current version has a prominent Behringer logo. Knob and switch distribution is a functional part of the user interface.

otherme123 10 hours ago | parent [-]

AFAIK, Behringer received some threats, and they redesigned the case. But if you order the new redesign "Centara" they will mix your order somehow and send you the first almost exact copy they made.

The functional distribution of knobs are the one that use Boss pedals and others: common case size, knobs at top, switch under a big cover. The wide format with a naked switch offset that the Centaurs have (both original Klon and Behringer clone) is functionally pointless.

Jolter 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A lot of products have new ideas to them which are not patentable.