For those who weren’t there at the coal face some of these posts were on another level altogether. I remember reading them with my hands on my face they were that cringeworthy.
I completely endorse stating an opinion, freedom of speech etc., however there is a difference between constructive criticism/ feedback and the outright abuse in this case which IMO was really quite slanderous.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t support the litigation but a bit of context goes along way.
It reminds me of Metallica & Napster TBH. This will have long lasting brand ramifications.
Behring suing forum users
-
- KVRAF
- 15135 posts since 7 Sep, 2008
"I was wondering if you'd like to try Magic Mushrooms"
"Oooh I dont know. Sounds a bit scary"
"It's not scary. You just lose a sense of who you are and all that sh!t"
"Oooh I dont know. Sounds a bit scary"
"It's not scary. You just lose a sense of who you are and all that sh!t"
-
- KVRAF
- 2945 posts since 23 Dec, 2002
I think Behringer should have fought the fight within the active gearslutz thread instead of pursuing a legal course. Vendors at KVR come under routine fire for all kinds of slights - some real some imagined. Those that are frivolous are usually called out by others with a different experience, those that are have merit are usually joined by others as a sign of support. Sometimes sparks fly but a reader can parse the comments and decide for themselves where the truth lies. In this forum it is easy to search comments from others and you can readily see if they have an agenda or not. That is one way to decide if a "hater has got to hate" or if their comment can stand on its own merits.
I don't know how hard our mods here have to fight to keep things on track here but by in large the KVR forum seems to self regulate despite a few vendors drawing more than their fair share of ire. Regardless, I wouldn't want to see this place become litigious and if a vendor made that move it would be upsetting for me no matter my appreciation level for them.
Behringer made a miscalculation. I belong to 4 facegroup forums that are discussing this now and most of the commentary is negative towards the company with all the old tropes about Behringer's quality and alleged theft of intellectual property being topics du jour. In a time when they are launching new synthesizers and mixers and enjoying critical success, product anticipation and very positive press this is an unnecessary step backward - a self inflicted wound.
My Model D comes today. I won't send it back but I don't appreciate ULI's mode of legal attack. Fight fire with fire if necessary... by aggressively defending your company using words and sound argument and let the rest of the community regulate the discussion within the forum. When it gets out of bounds with individual attack on character ask the moderators to step in and clean up the worst of it. Let's hope that is all that is needed.
I don't know how hard our mods here have to fight to keep things on track here but by in large the KVR forum seems to self regulate despite a few vendors drawing more than their fair share of ire. Regardless, I wouldn't want to see this place become litigious and if a vendor made that move it would be upsetting for me no matter my appreciation level for them.
Behringer made a miscalculation. I belong to 4 facegroup forums that are discussing this now and most of the commentary is negative towards the company with all the old tropes about Behringer's quality and alleged theft of intellectual property being topics du jour. In a time when they are launching new synthesizers and mixers and enjoying critical success, product anticipation and very positive press this is an unnecessary step backward - a self inflicted wound.
My Model D comes today. I won't send it back but I don't appreciate ULI's mode of legal attack. Fight fire with fire if necessary... by aggressively defending your company using words and sound argument and let the rest of the community regulate the discussion within the forum. When it gets out of bounds with individual attack on character ask the moderators to step in and clean up the worst of it. Let's hope that is all that is needed.
-
- KVRAF
- 35424 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
TBH, i probably would have ignored it, if i was in Uli's position. You can't win against internet mobs. There is no chance at all. Everything you do and say will be measured under a microscope. Just like, sorry, with Trump.
One also has to wonder about the importance of opinions on the internet at all anyway. People who frequently post on forum maybe make 1 % of the customer base, at best. The shame is just that so many take everything they read on forums for granted, without making up their own mind.
One also has to wonder about the importance of opinions on the internet at all anyway. People who frequently post on forum maybe make 1 % of the customer base, at best. The shame is just that so many take everything they read on forums for granted, without making up their own mind.
-
- KVRAF
- 6113 posts since 7 Jan, 2005 from Corporate States of America
In order for their defamation claim to be legit, they'd have to be able to demonstrate harm was done to their business as a result of said claimed "defamation".
What is more likely to do their business harm at this point is their attempt to arrogantly & aggressively censor, and attempt to litigate against, people talking about publicly observable facts (not hidden trade secrets) on a forum.
What is more likely to do their business harm at this point is their attempt to arrogantly & aggressively censor, and attempt to litigate against, people talking about publicly observable facts (not hidden trade secrets) on a forum.
- dysamoria.com
my music @ SoundCloud
my music @ SoundCloud
-
- KVRAF
- 2117 posts since 24 Feb, 2004 from Germany
Who is "Behring"?
A comment from Uli Behringer about these cases (from cdm):
Chinese Media Case
Allow me to first comment on the previous story related to the Chinese Media case.
Let me start by saying that we don’t have any problem with people criticizing us. In fact we appreciate constructive criticism as that’s the only way to learn. What we have a problem with is when our employees are being called highly offensive and insulting names by media outlets. Unfortunately your article did not properly reflect the full content and background of the language used, which in the Chinese culture has a highly different sensitivity and legality.
This was not only raised by our Chinese colleagues but also customers of this media site who felt compelled to contact us. Also publishing pictures of a cancer-fighting colleague in a hospital bed has caused deep concerns among our people.
We sent the owner of the publishing site a Cease-and-Desist letter, but he was never sued as wrongly reported. We have since spoken with the publisher and they have promised to remove the offensive language and refrain from posting such slur in the future. We consider this case to be resolved and he also has standing invitation to visit us.
Since our employee welfare and integrity has been severely questioned by this Chinese magazine and whose accusations have later been repeated by CDM and other publishers without fact checking, I like to post a link to a local job portal that may give you a different impression. We also invited you Peter (and everyone else) to visit us, both in Manchester and Zhongshan.
DSI Case
Some time ago an employee of DSI had posted incorrect and slanderous statements about our company on multiple forums. We put both the employee as well as DSI on notice and received a signed Cease-and-Desist letter from the employee where he assured us that he would refrain from such future comments. I have attached a copy of the undertaking of the employee to stop making such comments. In the reply of DSI, the company stated that it has instructed all employees to stop making any false or derogatory statements against us.
It is important to understand that this is not a legal action against a mere individual but a representative of a competitor. Any such false and disparaging comments made by DSI’s employee, are damaging and inappropriate in a highly competitive market such as ours. Unfortunately and despite the signed declaration, the individual working for DSI chose to continue to make such claims and hence we were forced to take legal action. If the employee had stopped his actions as agreed, the case would have never been field. While I am not a lawyer, I can only assume that including 20 “John Does” is part of a standard legal procedure to include other potential individuals related to the company. For clarity purposes, this case has nothing to with any particular forum or individuals other than those related to DSI.
I am a big believer in free speech and welcome any form of constructive criticism, as this is the only way for us to learn and improve. We also don’t mind any comments made or language used by individuals as this is a matter of personal choice.
It becomes sensitive when incorrect or defamatory statements are made by competitors and the media. While there is free speech, words do have consequences and since we are all bound by the law, the rules should be applied equally to everyone.
Once again, I understand that people have their opinions and preferences and I fully respect that. I also understand that some people don’t like me or our company, and chose not to buy our products which I respect, too.
A comment from Uli Behringer about these cases (from cdm):
Chinese Media Case
Allow me to first comment on the previous story related to the Chinese Media case.
Let me start by saying that we don’t have any problem with people criticizing us. In fact we appreciate constructive criticism as that’s the only way to learn. What we have a problem with is when our employees are being called highly offensive and insulting names by media outlets. Unfortunately your article did not properly reflect the full content and background of the language used, which in the Chinese culture has a highly different sensitivity and legality.
This was not only raised by our Chinese colleagues but also customers of this media site who felt compelled to contact us. Also publishing pictures of a cancer-fighting colleague in a hospital bed has caused deep concerns among our people.
We sent the owner of the publishing site a Cease-and-Desist letter, but he was never sued as wrongly reported. We have since spoken with the publisher and they have promised to remove the offensive language and refrain from posting such slur in the future. We consider this case to be resolved and he also has standing invitation to visit us.
Since our employee welfare and integrity has been severely questioned by this Chinese magazine and whose accusations have later been repeated by CDM and other publishers without fact checking, I like to post a link to a local job portal that may give you a different impression. We also invited you Peter (and everyone else) to visit us, both in Manchester and Zhongshan.
DSI Case
Some time ago an employee of DSI had posted incorrect and slanderous statements about our company on multiple forums. We put both the employee as well as DSI on notice and received a signed Cease-and-Desist letter from the employee where he assured us that he would refrain from such future comments. I have attached a copy of the undertaking of the employee to stop making such comments. In the reply of DSI, the company stated that it has instructed all employees to stop making any false or derogatory statements against us.
It is important to understand that this is not a legal action against a mere individual but a representative of a competitor. Any such false and disparaging comments made by DSI’s employee, are damaging and inappropriate in a highly competitive market such as ours. Unfortunately and despite the signed declaration, the individual working for DSI chose to continue to make such claims and hence we were forced to take legal action. If the employee had stopped his actions as agreed, the case would have never been field. While I am not a lawyer, I can only assume that including 20 “John Does” is part of a standard legal procedure to include other potential individuals related to the company. For clarity purposes, this case has nothing to with any particular forum or individuals other than those related to DSI.
I am a big believer in free speech and welcome any form of constructive criticism, as this is the only way for us to learn and improve. We also don’t mind any comments made or language used by individuals as this is a matter of personal choice.
It becomes sensitive when incorrect or defamatory statements are made by competitors and the media. While there is free speech, words do have consequences and since we are all bound by the law, the rules should be applied equally to everyone.
Once again, I understand that people have their opinions and preferences and I fully respect that. I also understand that some people don’t like me or our company, and chose not to buy our products which I respect, too.
-
- KVRAF
- 15135 posts since 7 Sep, 2008
In principle I agree with him however one needs to think of the long term ramifications.
For example, I’d love to key a car if I see it parked incorrectly but unfortunately I need to suck it up as I know doing so will bite me in the arse. Plus it’s illegal and I’m not a chav.
My point being, as much as we’d love to we can’t all be Liam Neeson.
For example, I’d love to key a car if I see it parked incorrectly but unfortunately I need to suck it up as I know doing so will bite me in the arse. Plus it’s illegal and I’m not a chav.
My point being, as much as we’d love to we can’t all be Liam Neeson.
"I was wondering if you'd like to try Magic Mushrooms"
"Oooh I dont know. Sounds a bit scary"
"It's not scary. You just lose a sense of who you are and all that sh!t"
"Oooh I dont know. Sounds a bit scary"
"It's not scary. You just lose a sense of who you are and all that sh!t"
-
- KVRAF
- 5678 posts since 25 Dec, 2004
he waffles on and on, like he's permanently in court.
surely if he just built some good clones and released them there would have been no problem.
even though he's a total vampire.
anyway, vote with my dollar.
surely if he just built some good clones and released them there would have been no problem.
even though he's a total vampire.
anyway, vote with my dollar.
sketches... http://soundcloud.com/onesnzeros
some artists i support... https://bandcamp.com/spectraselecta
some artists i support... https://bandcamp.com/spectraselecta
-
- KVRian
- 1092 posts since 1 Jul, 2008
-
- KVRAF
- 2396 posts since 28 Sep, 2012
I read all the pleadings - the complaint, answer, motion to strike, anti-SLAPP motions and replies. As a former attorney, I’m mildly surprised they went forward with the case. His attoenry’s should have known that they would have had a slim chance of surviving an anti-SLAPP motion.
The crux of their case hinges on the DSI engineer being an agent for DSI such that DSI could be vicariously liable, since DSI never made any statements themselves. But the law only considers executive and upper level management to be agents, in this case.
So, the engineer’s and all the forum members statements were privileged and protected because Gearslutz is a public forum and the subject matter is in the interests of consumers. Behringer argued that the consumer protection privilege didn’t apply because the engineer works for DSI, a competitor, but the exception is narrowly construed to apply to only those who directly sell the competing product.
Here, the engineer is not an executive and dowsnr directly sell the competing product. Since DSI didnt say anything themselves, the defamation suit is consider an affront to free speech.
The anti-SLAPP motion notwithstanding, the case was weak because the law looks at a totality of the circumstances to determine defamation, whether the statements were made with malice (a legal standard) as opposed to ill will, and of course whether the defamatory statement is false. The judge agree with the defense: the totality of the circumstances didn’t rise to the level of defamation, there was no malice, and the statements were opinions and not false. I don’t recall the issue of whether Behringer was harmed ever came into play in the decision.
I’m greatly paraphrasing here, so for real detail and precise law and how it was argued and applied, you’ll have to read the pleadings.
The letter is Uli’s non-legal explanation and emotional appeal. The case itself, the facts and arguments made in the complaint, seem substantially thinner to me. I can sympathize based on the letter, but it was pretty obvious to me that he had no case. I couldn’t imagine the judge going any other way.
The crux of their case hinges on the DSI engineer being an agent for DSI such that DSI could be vicariously liable, since DSI never made any statements themselves. But the law only considers executive and upper level management to be agents, in this case.
So, the engineer’s and all the forum members statements were privileged and protected because Gearslutz is a public forum and the subject matter is in the interests of consumers. Behringer argued that the consumer protection privilege didn’t apply because the engineer works for DSI, a competitor, but the exception is narrowly construed to apply to only those who directly sell the competing product.
Here, the engineer is not an executive and dowsnr directly sell the competing product. Since DSI didnt say anything themselves, the defamation suit is consider an affront to free speech.
The anti-SLAPP motion notwithstanding, the case was weak because the law looks at a totality of the circumstances to determine defamation, whether the statements were made with malice (a legal standard) as opposed to ill will, and of course whether the defamatory statement is false. The judge agree with the defense: the totality of the circumstances didn’t rise to the level of defamation, there was no malice, and the statements were opinions and not false. I don’t recall the issue of whether Behringer was harmed ever came into play in the decision.
I’m greatly paraphrasing here, so for real detail and precise law and how it was argued and applied, you’ll have to read the pleadings.
The letter is Uli’s non-legal explanation and emotional appeal. The case itself, the facts and arguments made in the complaint, seem substantially thinner to me. I can sympathize based on the letter, but it was pretty obvious to me that he had no case. I couldn’t imagine the judge going any other way.
-
- KVRAF
- 10598 posts since 31 Aug, 2013 from Somewhere near the Morgul Vale.
That's so wrong on a number of levels....
"My Billy's was rounder at the top...."
Tea at Fr. Ted's, last summer.....
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-Martin Luther King Jr.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
-
- KVRAF
- 7557 posts since 18 Apr, 2004
Anyway, this was most timely. I was on the market for a new audio interface, considered one of theirs but bought an M-Audio one instead.
KvR may not be as high-profile as GS, but I hope you're reading this Uli
KvR may not be as high-profile as GS, but I hope you're reading this Uli
:: .ogg for Media Player or iTunes/Quicktime | Why artists should be using Ogg Vorbis ::
-
fluffy_little_something fluffy_little_something https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=281847
- Banned
- 12880 posts since 5 Jun, 2012
I like the cheeky pseudo-apology of the Chinese website 
-
- KVRAF
- 1702 posts since 26 Feb, 2008
As someone who has worked extensively in consumer electronics product development for well known global brands...no-one f**king calls ripping off a design "benchmarking". Uli is a complete twat. Look at the f**king text positioning and bracket elements for god's sake. Their design is as "clone" as you can get without stepping afoul of copyright for printed/silkscreened elements.zerocrossing wrote: Second... reverse engineering someone else’s product is called “benchmarking?” I’ve... never heard that. To me, it seems more like, “We didn’t feel like spending money on R&D, so we’ll just use yours.”
Just got done with a contract for a douchebag that seems like a pretty similar analog to Uli's business style. Make shit up and pretend it's an industry standard. f**king hilarious.
Good point. At least in the U.S., "Stakeholders" are typically defined as people who are authorized signatories on legally binding documents that interface with external parties. You're not representing the company unless you can prove that you actually sign legally binding shit on the company's behalf (and make independent decisions in determining contract stipulation as part of the process)... otherwise how important are you really in the company's eyes?perpetual3 wrote: The crux of their case hinges on the DSI engineer being an agent for DSI such that DSI could be vicariously liable, since DSI never made any statements themselves. But the law only considers executive and upper
level management to be agents, in this case.
Last edited by rifftrax on Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Snare drums samples: the new and improved "dither algo"
