KORG ARP Odyssey - Hardware v Software Question

[SamDi]

I don‘t get the point of the „moral“ understanding of some guys here. Which moral should be violated to clone a synth, which was launched almost 50 years ago and was not produced for decades either? Just the moral that Korg has a kind of „official“ licence to use the ARP brand? It has a reason, why patents run out after a certain time in all industry countries, because if not, innovation would be blocked by these companies, which business model is just to hold these rights.

With this argument all SW-synth emulations, not officially licensed by the original manufactors would be immoral. And how far should it go? Are all 3 OSC subtractive synths immoral, because stolen from MOOG? Or all 4 OSC FM approaches illegal because to near to a DX7?

I mean for a new product it‘s clear. It needs some protection to honor the R&D effort and the risk to bring it on the market and protecting it getting copied from cheap copy cats.

But for stuff older than 10, 20 years, the return of invest should be secured and then just the market decides, which quality standard in relation to which price will persist.

JMHO

[chk071]

There is no moral to violate. And, I'm sure lots of people will be happy to be able to finally afford something which is very similar so the classic synths many people still lust after.

If there was a moral to violate, then it would be similarly violated by every soft synth developer making a virtual emulation of one of those synths, because that's the same kind of reverse engineering.

[Stefken]

And there is a real world reason why the KORG version costs more than $300 US than the Behringer version: Behringer uses substandard parts. I can almost guarantee that a good deal of the buttons, switches and sliders on the Behringer version will fail within a year’s worth of daily use, as opposed to the KORG.

You gets what you pays for.

The Behringer Odyssey is build like a tank, with a very nice keybed. The Korg's I personally have are substandard in comparison: the keybeds are a toy and depending on the model, the knobs are pretty filmsy. I'm not saying that all Korgs are like that but the statement that current Behringer synths are substandard is just not true. The Poly D is also quality work.

As for what Uli is doing, I'm personally OK with it. If the technology is older than 50 years, there is no discussion whatsoever. And I'm all for this mission to bring affordable synths to the masses. Imo the discussion around the Devilfish shows that he is not into it for the money, but is foremost a synth enthousiast, that wants to make the technology widely available.

Also infringements have been all around. The ARP Odyssey had an infringement on the Moog filter. The Pro3 also has 3 filters, among then again a Moog filter. Etc etc.
As for software emulations, the technlogy and know how involved is so far apart, that I don't see this as cloning.

This is off course all my personal opinion. If people don't like what Behringer is doing, I'm Ok with that too. I can understand their reasoning.

But it's not like Behringer is putting firms out of business.
People do buy a Moog One at a whopping 8000 euro's. Behringer is not affecting that marketshare.
Roland has decided not to go the analog route to revive old classics, but has gone the emulation route. So people that like analogs can get the Behringer one's.

And he's not all about copying either. The Deepmind and Neutron are interesting and original designs; The Poly D adds paraphony to a Minimoog which makes it more interesting than the original imo at a very affordable price. (Also, Moog is pretty much just cloning the designs of Bob Moog for decades now anyway). The TD-3 has a distortion included which wasn't there on the original etc etc.

[chk071]

Xiaomi phones aren't substandard either. It's just that big companies which produce in low wage countries and which can produce and sell bigger amounts of their products are able to offer much more inexpensively.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Do you suppose Uli Behringer clones his pets?

[Stefken]

You can't utilize mass production benefits with pets. So no.
But Barbara Streisand does.

[chk071]

Do I miss something or does KORG still not offer a demo version of the Odyssey plugin?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Do I miss something or does KORG still not offer a demo version of the Odyssey plugin?

I guess they don't. That's so weird...

The KORG Collection series (*Expect for ARP ODYSSEY) is available as a free demo version through KORG Software Pass*. That offers all synthesis functions for free as a trial. Get a glimpse of the possibilities before buying.

https://id.korg.com/static_pages/3

[chk071]

Meh... I'm interested in it, but, won't buy blindly. Thanks anyway.

[BONES]

I don‘t get the point of the „moral“ understanding of some guys here. Which moral should be violated to clone a synth, which was launched almost 50 years ago and was not produced for decades either? Just the moral that Korg has a kind of „official“ licence to use the ARP brand? It has a reason, why patents run out after a certain time in all industry countries, because if not, innovation would be blocked by these companies, which business model is just to hold these rights.

It's the same moral right that Elvis Presley's estate might assert if you recorded a song Elvis wrote and had a no. 1 hit with it. Elvis died 50 years ago, why should it matter? It matters because it was his song, not yours. The difference, of course, is that Elvis's estate would also have the legal right to challenge you in court, where changing the song's name to "Heartbreak Motel" wouldn't save you, but because patent law is different, that legal recourse doesn't exist and changing the synth's name to UB-Xa will keep you out of court. But that doesn't make it right.

With this argument all SW-synth emulations, not officially licensed by the original manufactors would be immoral.

Not necessarily, as you can't patent a sound. That said, if it were me I would probably want to share any money I made from it with the original creator of that sound, just because it would be the right thing to do.

And how far should it go? Are all 3 OSC subtractive synths immoral, because stolen from MOOG? Or all 4 OSC FM approaches illegal because to near to a DX7?

Are all piston engined cars? Umbrellas? It's up to you to draw the line. Inevitable discovery is a factor here, too. Just because Bob Moog put 3 oscillators into a synth before anyone else doesn't mean that other wouldn't have done the same with him. Of course, nobody else did at the time and maybe that was to avoid looking like too close a copy?

I mean for a new product it‘s clear. It needs some protection to honor the R&D effort and the risk to bring it on the market and protecting it getting copied from cheap copy cats.

But when should that end? Would it be OK for some other company to build and sell the previous model Ford Focus without paying any royalties to Ford, just because Ford has a new model out? Of course it wouldn't. Even though Ford will never make another penny on that car, they still own all it's intellectual property.

Remember, Korg are selling their own MS-20 but that didn't stop Behringer from cloning it, too. Do you honestly think that's OK?

But for stuff older than 10, 20 years, the return of invest should be secured and then just the market decides, which quality standard in relation to which price will persist.

Except Moog, Oberheim, ARP and Sequential Circuits all went broke, so they never got to recoup their R&D and now Behringer are happy to trample on their graves to make a quick buck off a trend.

[Teksonik]

Should someone be able take one of Bones' songs, change a letter in the title and call it their own ?

It always amazes me that on a website dedicated to the creation of intellectual property so many people don't understand the concept of intellectual property rights.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Is Behringer using any designs where patents haven't expired and entered the public domain? Patents expire after 20 years and were explicitly designed to do so in order to benefit the broader public. You were never supposed to be able to design a circuit and own it forever. The idea was if you do it first, it's yours, you can sell it, profit off it, license it, sit on it, whatever. After 20 years of protection, then it's made public.

Copyright laws are different but also eventually expire with songs and movies eventually entering the public domain. Disney has been super effective in getting the timeframe extended to prevent Mickey Mouse from entering public domain, but if anything, those efforts are against the spirit of the original desire to get content into the public domain. Trademark's generally don't expire as long as they're used, but can if nothing's being done with them.

If Behringer is violating any laws around this, then they can be sued. But if you're mad they're stealing 20+ year old designs, then I don't think you fully appreciate why patents were implicitly designed to expire. It's supposed to benefit the public, supposed to result in this designs being repurposed into cheaper products. Look at generic drugs. Same set of laws.

[BONES]

Again, you are confusing legal rights with moral rights. If what Behringer was doing was morally right, they wouldn't need to change the name from OB-Xa to UB-Xa, but they still have to find ways around those legal rights still in place. And where have those legal rights come from? They have come from the moral principle that it is not right to copy someone else's work and profit from it.

Patents were deigned to expire so that Government run patent offices can earn even more money renewing them. Do you have any idea how much it costs to have a patent granted? Here in Australia it is a minimum of $250,000. It's a business like any other and makes a tidy profit for governments around the world. Even the excuse they use about not wanting to stifle progress and innovation is bollocks, especially in this case where the only reason this devices are being ripped off is to profit from a recent market trend. To even suggest that what Behringer is doing is in the same spirit is so absurd as to be offensive. ALmost as offensive as the complete lack of morality on display in this thread.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

When you get a script from your doctor, and you go the pharmacy to get it fulfilled, do you say, "please pharmacist, please give me the name brand version that costs 20x as much! On moral grounds, I refuse to use the generics! Gilead pharmaceuticals (or whoever) spent millions of dollars making this medication and should be entitled to the fruits of their labor in perpetuity regardless of the cheap generic versions of the exact same drugs! I believe in non-expiring patents and will happily pay for the privilege to support these poor pharmaceutical companies who are being abused by a patent system that is designed to make the government rich." Is that a thing you do in your own life?

Also patents expire to make government run patent offices rich? The tinfoil hat must be on too tight.

It's ok to say you you revere folks like Bob Moog, Tom Oberheim, and just don't like Uli Behringer. But you're bending yourself into pretzels with this "moral grounds" argument.

[zerocrossing]

When you get a script from your doctor, and you go the pharmacy to get it fulfilled, do you say, "please pharmacist, please give me the name brand version that costs 20x as much! On moral grounds, I refuse to use the generics! Gilead pharmaceuticals (or whoever) spent millions of dollars making this medication and should be entitled to the fruits of their labor in perpetuity regardless of the cheap generic versions of the exact same drugs! I believe in non-expiring patents and will happily pay for the privilege to support these poor pharmaceutical companies who are being abused by a patent system that is designed to make the government rich." Is that a thing you do in your own life?

Also patents expire to make government run patent offices rich? The tinfoil hat must be on too tight.

It's ok to say you you revere folks like Bob Moog, Tom Oberheim, and just don't like Uli Behringer. But you're bending yourself into pretzels with this "moral grounds" argument.

OT, but here in the US, our government pours a ton of our tax money into the development of new drugs and the public doesn’t see a single benefit from it if they personally can’t afford it or have insurance that covers it.