BJFE / BearFoot fx Guitar Effects Community

This is a v ery interesting idea Alex.

How would one define what a Dumble sounds like.............. to what percentage of possiblie sounds would one have to be able to link it........hmmmmmm

I have no idea how. It's much easier to distinguish voice of an Arnold impersonator from the real deal. Just ask him to say "I'll be back!" or "hasta la vista, baby!". I tried myself but it came out as "Hava Nagilla, bubele!"

VacuumVoodoo wrote:I have no idea how. It's much easier to distinguish voice of an Arnold impersonator from the real deal. Just ask him to say "I'll be back!" or "hasta la vista, baby!". I tried myself but it came out as "Hava Nagilla, bubele!"

Ill be Bach, you be Mozart ....

I guess this topic will never be setttled and it will never go 'away' in fact it seems to be gaining prevalence ....

Definitely a touchy topic!

I dont understand why unique pedal circuits are not patented to prevent others from profiting off of ones hard work. Time and money are invested to craft unique circuits, and they should be property of the designer.

I guess in todays market these clones can and do exist. I think given the fact that there are no patents it is more of an ethical issue than a legal issue. In my case, I personally steer clear of clones of current designs from small builders. I want the person who came up with the sound/idea/circuit to profit from his work.

Now if there is a clone from a pedal 30 years old that is no longer in production, thats different. You are not affecting the designers livelihood when you buy a cloned product-- clones in this case fill a void in the market.

But thats my opinion, and I know others will disagree.

hahahaha......saw a honeybee clone for sale on a spam thread, the owner said "yes, this is good, but my SHOD blew it away"

bsic wrote:Definitely a touchy topic!

I dont understand why unique pedal circuits are not patented to prevent others from profiting off of ones hard work. Time and money are invested to craft unique circuits, and they should be property of the designer.

I guess in todays market these clones can and do exist. I think given the fact that there are no patents it is more of an ethical issue than a legal issue. In my case, I personally steer clear of clones of current designs from small builders. I want the person who came up with the sound/idea/circuit to profit from his work.

Now if there is a clone from a pedal 30 years old that is no longer in production, thats different. You are not affecting the designers livelihood when you buy a cloned product-- clones in this case fill a void in the market.

But thats my opinion, and I know others will disagree.

I completely agree. BJ's and other maker's intellectual property should definitely be protected without question. I'm not sure where the law stands on this. Now the problem is the implementation. Everyone can make a clone, you can't sue someone for a small production, but if a maker starts mass producing it then yeah, you have a legitimate right to protect your intellectual property. So far, the clones i've seen are far and few. Probably don't sound as good as a real bee anyway

SteveA wrote:I completely agree. BJ's and other maker's intellectual property should definitely be protected without question. I'm not sure where the law stands on this. Now the problem is the implementation. Everyone can make a clone, you can't sue someone for a small production, but if a maker starts mass producing it then yeah, you have a legitimate right to protect your intellectual property. So far, the clones i've seen are far and few. Probably don't sound as good as a real bee anyway

I believe that as far as US law goes there is nothing to protect the circuit unless a patent is applied for and granted. So the circuits are really not anyone's "property" in the eyes of the Law without the patent. However, there are trademark laws that should curb marketing and sales of exact clones that appear to be from the original manufacturer but are in fact not.

Not so sure what can be done for someone making pedals on a small scale saying "this sounds just like xxx pedal and is the exact same circuit". Think of how Line 6, etc, market their guitar modelers. They use the names, put disclaimers, and seem to be not getting their pants sued off by larger companies. All that can really be done is to try to encourage a voluntary social norm that "frowns on" the activity of purchasing or making clones. But even that can be sticky because there can be (and is) a lot of the pot calling the kettle black once the pedal makers enter the fray. No "boutique" or small pedal maker got where they are without copying other designs and making (mostly) slight changes.

As far as protecting the "sound" or "sonic signature" something makes, well there would be a lot of pedal makers in trouble if they were taken to task for making pedals that "sound like" or "feel like" a Marshall, a Vox, a Fender, etc...

damnit....there is a "new cloner" upon TGP, Dan Zink, making the "Bit o HOney", which is a 'BJ eff E" pedal.....ahem....as well as clones of Hermida's Zendrive and Mosferatu.

the CIRCUIT is fair game. but i do not like to see people using other people's name and reputations to make money from

ALL you have in this business is your name and reputation, and in Bjorn's case, it took decades of HARD WORK to reach the top.

i posted a couple of posts in that thread, but i do not want to get "moderated" by the TGP staff regarding this.

BSIC from here also added some great posts as well.

i am sure Dan Zink is a fine builder. but why not name them yourself, and use your own name?

Actually the circuit is where its at. I guess builders would have to patent circuits to protect their intellectual property. But yeah, the circuit is everything (along with the tuning of course). So until patents become the norm in the industry, you'll always have leachers trying to make free money off of someone else's hard work.