It Sho Ain`t Funky...

[TELEFUNKON]

Uli B. is a German, his products are made in China, and he appears to live in the Phillipines:


http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/mar/13/yehey/business/20060313bus14.html

[Traintrack]

"Let your neighbors remove away, when you connect and use it!"

[trevize]

talking about the china guy: the pedals seems just prototipes. I think it's an individual that copied
some great designs (with ugly enclosures) and he's trying to sell them. The fact that there are no
price in hiw webpage confirms that he probably didn't sell any pedal cause he doesn't know how much
they would cost in large scale production.

[reverberation66]

        man, using bestiality as product hype, that's some "outside of the box" marketing for sure...I wrote to the company, curious to see what kind of response I get...looks like they ripped off the names for most of their products, the 'heated tube' (not to be confused with 'hot' tube...) might be original....

[puretube]

I don`t think the boxes are that ugly...
(except the scripting)

but this whole thing looks more and more like an april fools gimmick to me...
(check out the visitors counters on that site...)

[johngreene]

There is a phone number on the contact page.......

--john

[burnt fingers]

I guess the internet is the devils playground.  Everything is public and anyone can see it. 

Something to think about.  How many of us have built a comercial pedal based on a schem we found on the internet.  I know we are not making them for profit but  haven't we  effecivly ripped off one of the big pedal makers?  Just food for thougt.  I'm not saying what is going on with this company is right, I'm just saying we shouldn't get too worked up over it.  Would anyone have felt better about it if they changed the name of the Shaka HV to the Rocka Rola HV overdirve or something?  We would probably never know at that point what the circuit even was.  We may have even been posting at that point,  " hey anyone have a schem for the Mras Rocka Rola distortion."



Scott

[Connoisseur of Distortion]

april fool's joke? are you kidding me? crazy worlds of bestiality and exciting sounds aside, it's a damn fine example.

and i am still cracking up. these pedals sound like they might have certain elements of an endangered rhino...

[dyrodium]

That is really twisted... they didn't even attempt to change the pedal names... There is one thing you could do, legaly...
Every one of the schematics in the gallary say on them "NOT for commercial use" as well as "permission to post on other sites REFUSED"... you could legaly screw them over, send them a descrete email...
This sort of thing is seen constantly in electronic diagrams and such... it's a shame that just a few people can ruin the opertunities of so many others.

[R.G.]

Every one of the schematics in the gallary say on them "NOT for commercial use"

That notation is not legally enforceable anywhere if patent, copyright, or trademark infringement is not involved. And it's not, under the conditions. Go to the US Gov Patent and Copyright site and read. I'm tired of typing in polemics about it.

as well as "permission to post on other sites REFUSED"...

That one is - except, they didn't post the schematics that I can tell, which might have been covered by copyright as names and titles are not, and even so, they're in China, where the idea of copyright infringement is foreign.

you could legaly screw them over, send them a descrete email...

As I say, read the laws involved. I think that they're relatively free from legal recourse - if that site is on the up and up.

[amz-fx]

Every one of the schematics in the gallary say on them "NOT for commercial use"

That notation is not legally enforceable anywhere if patent, copyright, or trademark infringement is not involved. And it's not, under the conditions. Go to the US Gov Patent and Copyright site and read. I'm tired of typing in polemics about it.

Do you really want to encourage ripoff artists by saying it's not a crime?  If you limit it to just the three IP areas you mention it may be acceptable, however,  there's always a gray area, just like shrinkwrap license agreements, and a web notation of non-commercial use and licensing requirements could very well be enforceable...  especially if you find a sympathetic court and jury... stranger verdicts have been passed down.  It would be foolish for a builder to rip schemetics from the web and use them because someone with money might decide to make an example of them... in particular, US courts are quite tough on foreign companies treading on rights and privileges.

-Jack

[puretube]

that "eb*g china" site seems to be kind of a manufacturer`s trade-eb*y over there...
according to this page:
http://www.ebigchina.com/ebcps/4/pl/0-1.html?qs=musical+instrument&qc=com&ns=1
that "Mars" company has last been active 2 years ago...

I guess they just tried to establish something, that went down the drain (?)

Good chance, that M.M. has discovered them at the Shanghai ProLight & Sound
musicfair long time ago, and has talked to them/taken measures...

their own website might just be a case of: "still floating around".

So it might be a false alarm (and a late one...)

I haven`t called there, due to the time-shift.

[R.G.]

Jack, I know why you want to not even whisper that copying might not be preventable. And it's probably comforting that we might find a sympathetic jury that would be mean to those dirty guys who hurt our feelings.

But the facts is the facts, at least as closely as what passes for law in the USA works - and don't get me started on that topic. They didn't violate patent law that I can see; they didn't produce copyrighted material that I know of; they did not infringe a trademark that I can tell. There could be some dark horse speculation that they violated an implied-consent contract by using material that was freely presented to them and they did not have the opportunity to not know when the saw the "contract" such as it was. A good IP lawyer would have them out of the courtroom on the contracts issue in about ten minutes given the way it happens and the situations.

If you ever got them to a courthouse.

The chances for sympathetic juries aside, I did not find what looks like a legal violation there. The old saw about web notations of "not for commercial use" are pleasant, but a clear-headed judge with his eye on the law would dismiss that in a South Texas minute ( that means he'd read the papers involved for about ten minutes, then bang the gavel.).

Laws is laws, such as they are, and "not for commercial use" is a toothless monster, which embodies the creator's wishes, nothing more. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and I have these silly ideas that if you make a law, that constitutes a boundary - stay inside, you're good; step over, the law is enforced. That's what drawing lines is for. Drawing lines in the sand is not about "if you get too close I'll yell at you, and right at the line you're a real dirty guy."

It is of course true that in the USA one can sue another for ***anything*** at any time and find some court that will listen to it. But that's civil law, not criminal, and these guys are in China. They can't be tried in absentia, and you'd have to find a statute that they're violating to get a prosecutor to spend the time and energy.

And frankly, I don't view knowing the law as encouragement. That's what laws are for - these are the boundaries. Anywhere inside is OK. Anything outside is not. If that's not the way it works, what the devil do we spend all that money on legislators, police, courts, juries, prisons, and so on for? Do you really want a system where someone can tell you "Here's this information, but you can only know it, you can't use it." where that use is not restricted by law? Where people can make add-on laws by telling you "Not for use on Thursdays." or "Not for use by companies with over $5000.00 yearly gross revenue." which amounts to the same thing?

But I realize I'm just shouting into the wind. I think that if we have laws we should enforce them equally, and that we should not make laws that we do not or can not enforce. Not observing those two things leads to a general disregard for law in general and yet more frayed edge of the social contract, another opportunity for the lawyers to make the law say whatever they want it to in court. The whole point of a government of laws, not a government of men is that there are edges which can be counted on, not a lot of wishy-washy gray areas. Lawyers LOVE gray areas, and spend their whole time trying to make everything grayer.

As you recognize by now, you touched a hot button.

[Mark Hammer]

Very nice summary that touches on points germane to many sorts of disputes.

Ultimately, you know, this company are the ones arranging for:
* the PCBs and their stuffing
* the chassis and their machining and silkscreening
* the distribution and marketing

In other words, they are not just sitting in a chaise longue and collecting cheques, but are doing an awful lot of work, and sinking in lots of money, which is THEIR risk, and not anyone else's.  That's nothing to sneeze at.

At the same time, the person whose thinking even led them to produce such a product is justifiably sitting there thinking "Hey, what am I, chopped liver?" (for our international crowd, this colloquial expression is used when a person feels undervalued).

You know, in many ways, it is a bit like deciding who deserves the larger share of sales royalities for a recording, Sam & Dave for singing "Soul Man", Belushi and Ackroyd for popularizing it again to a wider audience, Dave Porter and Isaac Hayes for writing it, Jim Stewart for taking a chance and producing/releasing it, Steve Cropper for the signature guitar lick without which the song is nothing, regardless of who performs it, or Al Jackson for the little cymbal pings behind Cropper that lets the solo sound more powerful.  Who is the most deserving?  Who ought to get the most money from the sales?

Were the company to have sent all the aggrieved parties a note saying "Hi, we found your design on the web, and we feel it deserves wider distribution.  So, we're going to produce it, and with your permission send you 5% of all retail sales.", I think many would be much less upset.  Part of the upset is the loss of revenue, but I understand that a larger part is the feeling that one's ideas have been falsely creditted to another, and that stings and stinks.  It'd be nice if there were something like fair trade practices, where manufacturers like these and many others in China, made their profits but did so fairly, and with suitable benefit to the little folks who made it possible.

Oops, there goes another monkey flying out my butt.

[puretube]

Jack, I know why you want to not even whisper...

pssst, hush...


boys, don`t worry!

looks like diplomacy once again proved to be faster/better than war and the neccessity of actual law enforcement...

[Brian Marshall]

looks like the site is down now... I was so looking forward to reading about animals taking advantage of my tone.

oh well

[hairyandy]

Oops, there goes another monkey flying out my butt.

Nice one Mark!  I've got to go clean up the Diet Coke streaming from my nose now...

[puretube]

looks like the site is down now... I was so looking forward to reading about animals taking advantage of my tone.

oh well

the waybackmachine is your friend, Brian... 
(strictly for educational purposes, of course  ).

[Peter Snowberg]

I tried the wayback machine but the Shaka description promising "bestiality and metallic convulsion" seems to be gone.   

[Jay Doyle]

You know, in many ways, it is a bit like deciding who deserves the larger share of sales royalities for a recording, Sam & Dave for singing "Soul Man", Belushi and Ackroyd for popularizing it again to a wider audience, Dave Porter and Isaac Hayes for writing it, Jim Stewart for taking a chance and producing/releasing it, Steve Cropper for the signature guitar lick without which the song is nothing, regardless of who performs it, or Al Jackson for the little cymbal pings behind Cropper that lets the solo sound more powerful.  Who is the most deserving?  Who ought to get the most money from the sales?

A current analogy that is winding, or may have already wound, its way through the American, and other, court systems is the case of who ultimately gets the royalties for "A Lion Sleeps Tonight", the guy who originally wrote it? Pete Seeger? Ladysmith Black Mambazo? At what point does it become a traditional folk song or standard and stops being an original work?

Back to the topic at hand, laws is laws and in our case, if you are going to feel uncomfortable, upset, angry, paranoid, or in any way bad if someone uses your design they found on the internet to make a product and earn a buck without any acknowledgement to you, DON'T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET. Whatever the laws actually are, that is the question we here have to ask ourselves because it always boils down to just that.