Return-Path: X-Processed-By: Virex 7 on prxy.net X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.6) with PIPE id 11352447; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:01:11 -0800 X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.6 List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Message-ID: From: "Stagecraft" Sender: "Stagecraft" To: "Stagecraft" Precedence: list Subject: Stagecraft Digest #243 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:00:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on prxy.net X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4f2 X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see --------------------------------------------------- Stagecraft Digest, Issue #243 1. Re: Intellectual property rights by "Paul Guncheon" 2. Re: Intelectual Property Rights by Al Fitch 3. Re: Intellectual property rights by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" 4. Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers by "Phil Johnson" 5. Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers by "Ehrenberg, Steven" 6. Re: Interlectural property rights by murr rhame 7. Re: Interlectual [sic] property -- Sweeney Todd by "Karl G. Ruling" 8. Re: Intellectual property rights by "Delbert Hall" 9. intellectual property - long post by "RICHARD FINKELSTEIN" 10. Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers by IAEG [at] aol.com 11. Re: intellectual property - long post by Mike Brubaker 12. Re: intellectual property - long post by "CATHERINE BRUMM" 13. Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester by 14. Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester by IAEG [at] aol.com 15. Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester by andy [at] ducksechosound.com 16. Behringe (WAS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester) by Michael Feinberg 17. Re: behringer et al continued..... by IAEG [at] aol.com 18. Re: behringer et al continued..... by andy [at] ducksechosound.com 19. Re: behringer et al continued..... by IAEG [at] aol.com 20. Re: behringer et al continued..... by andy [at] ducksechosound.com 21. Re: behringer et al continued..... by Dale Farmer 22. Re: Triscuit Studwall ?? by usctd [at] columbia.sc 23. Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers by Jerry Durand 24. Re: behringer et al continued..... by Jerry Durand 25. Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers by "Joe Meils" 26. Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester by David Duffy 27. Re: behringer et al continued..... by Michael Feinberg 28. Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester by IAEG [at] aol.com 29. Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester by David Duffy 30. Re: behringer et al continued..... by andy [at] ducksechosound.com 31. Re: Intellectual property rights by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" 32. Re: Interlectural property rights by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" *** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject *** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to *** one message subject in each reply. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <02cb01c4edaa$1c654a80$0202a8c0 [at] MyLastPC> From: "Paul Guncheon" References: Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 03:27:13 -1000 > > If there's one thing I can't stand, it's them damn interlecturals! > > Personally, I wish more folks would turn on their spell checkers...:( Where's the fun in that? As far as original ideas, one of my teachers said, "There's nothing new under the sun... only different ways of doing it." Although he was speaking mostly in terms of photography, seems he was more right and in more areas than he knew. I and another designer (the boss in this case) once did a concept/bid on a design for an electric company's exhibit in a prominent Chicago museum featuring science and industry. While we did not get the job, the electric company used all of our ideas for the design, which they gave to another company to build. The boss took it in some kind of stride and said "Ideas are cheap". That I didn't and still don't believe. while in general in may be true, actual good ideas quite valuable. Laters, Paul "What's the capitol of North Vietnam?" Tom asked annoyingly. Laters, Paul ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20041229135611.52471.qmail [at] web51410.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:56:11 -0800 (PST) From: Al Fitch Subject: Re: Intelectual Property Rights In-Reply-To: This is my first post since re-joining the list after several years. Regarding using someone's ideas or designs: In another life (running parallel with my current life) if I alter a recipe for a contest, I have to change at least three ingredients or other aspects of the original recipe to "create" an original recipe. I'm not sure how this falls in line with stage design though. Al Fitch ===== Be Kind, Smile and Have Fun. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:03:30 GMT Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights Message-Id: <20041229.060410.23644.97261 [at] webmail22.lax.untd.com> Ideas are NOT protectable under the Copyright Act (Federal Law). Neither are titles or character names. Unfair Competition statutes (State Law) may cover some of the more egregious situations. /s/ Richard The boss took it in some kind of stride and said "Ideas are cheap". That I didn't and still don't believe. while in general in may be true, actual good ideas quite valuable. Laters, Paul ________________________________________________________________ Juno Gift Certificates Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season. http://www.juno.com/give ------------------------------ Message-Id: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 08:44:19 -0600 From: "Phil Johnson" Subject: Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers If you have access to a large format printer you can check the manufacturers specs to see what types of fabric you can print on. Many people I know use fabric instead of paper for banners and other types of signs. Commercial sign makers can make banners and outdoor billboards, you can check with them to see what they can do for you as well. Many billboards today are really large format printer output types of signs. As for fireproofing paper, the problem may be with the inks on the paper. If you FP paper before hand the inks may not adhere properly, you might get a watermark or imperfection or the paper may not go through the printer. Afterwards, the fp solution may interact with the ink. The same may happen with fabric. That is why a sign maker may be able to give you a better idea about doing suck a thing. Also, check out how much resolution you may want. The resolution or dot pitch on large format printer output is not as close as regular printers. If you think about the distance you will be seeing the image from as a function of the design, you will be able to see pixels and other printer artifacts from close up which will not be noticiable from a distance. The Big image folks used to talk about this info on their literature and website. Perhaps they still can. Let us know what you are working on the rest of us would like to know what you come up with Philip Johnson Designer/Technical Director Texas A & M University - Corpus Christi ------------------------------ Subject: RE: Scenic printing on wide format printers Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:00:15 -0600 Message-ID: <95E1F758C14A0248B42D6FC9D67C7C32011507B5 [at] CCUMAIL14.usa.ccu.clearchannel.com> From: "Ehrenberg, Steven" On 12 28 John Ares wrote: Just mulling my options... I was finding that the rolls of this fabric, 33 feet long, is running over=20 $250 each. Each banner I'd make would be at least 20' long... this might be=20 a really expensive route, after all! (I am looking at perhaps a dozen=20 banners.) But I can't imagine Rose Brand would do this cheaper than I=20 could..... John - Don't imagine... call Peter Monahan at Rose Brand and discuss the least expensive options he can provide, then decide. Peter runs the whole computer printing on Large format thing at RB, check with him after the holidays if he is not in this week. Rose brand in NYC 800 222 1624 Happy, Merry, Steven Steven Ehrenberg=20 Director of Technical Supervision=20 Clear Channel Entertainment - Theatrical=20 220 W 42nd St. 14th floor NY, NY 10036=20 Office 917 421 5461=20 Mobile 917 331 0207 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:03:25 -0500 (EST) From: murr rhame Subject: Re: Interlectural property rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, John McKernon wrote: >> Dillbert Hall Wrote: >> In many instances it is illegal to use someone else's >> interlectual property (scenic design, lighting design, music, >> images from a web site, artwork, design for a performer flying >> system, written or spoken words, video images, architectural >> design, etc.) without their permission. > In EVERY case it is illegal. All of our work is protected by > copyright, whether explicit or implied, and cannot be copied > without permission. Only if the work has specifically been > released into the public domain by the author can it be copied. All ARTWORK is protected by copyright, automatically. This would include scripts, sculptures, paintings, photos, set designs, light designs, recordings, films, etc. To the best of my knowledge, mechanisms, devices and processes are NOT copyrightable nor are they protected by default. If you come up with a clever design for a gadget or a process and you want it formally protected, you must apply for a patent. When you apply for the patent, you must reveal your new design with sufficient detail that someone else who is proficient in the field could reproduce your work. If awarded a patent, it's up to you to enforce your claim through the civil courts (or threats of lawsuits). Patents only run a couple of decades. There are some exceptions to both of these rules. In the arts, "fair use" is given pretty wide latitude, particularly for parodies and cites in an educational or critical review context. Items that could be patented are often kept as proprietary secrets. You don't have to reveal your clever new idea, but it's up to you to keep it secret. - murr - ------------------------------ From: "Karl G. Ruling" Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:10:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Interlectual [sic] property -- Sweeney Todd Reply-to: kruling [at] esta.org Message-ID: <41D28288.12467.3DD4FA [at] localhost> In-reply-to: > > Well, partly the question will have to do with the script. > Doing Sweeney Todd without a tricked out barber chair would > be less than the script demands. Let me change the subject from "Interlectual" property: I saw a great production of Sweeney Todd at the Trafalgar Studios in London, a production that didn't use a tricked out chair. It used simply a chair, a red light, and an actor-blown whistle. The production was all very low-tech, but I enjoyed the simple scenography, the performances, the music, and the story. The show was entertaining, but it struck me that Sweeney Todd is a chilling tale about the dangers of trying to solve all your problems, salve all your injuries, by killing all your enemies. I'm not certain that would have been so clear or chilling if I were thinking about how they rigged the chair and trapped the stage. BTW, the show has transferred to the New Ambassadors Theatre, where it will run until 15 January 2005. ------------------------------ Message-ID: From: "Delbert Hall" Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:22:27 -0500 Maybe Richard can help here but from what I understand, intellectual property rights law does not have the legal teeth of copyright law, but it is much easier to win an intellectual property right case. Here is a true story (at least what I know of it) that you may find interesting. An architect designed a building for a major airline, but the airline filled for bankruptcy before paying the architect any money for his work. When the architect tried to get paid, he was told that he would have to wait in line with all the other people the airline owed money. The architect had been in this position before and knew that it would take years to get "pennies on the dollar" for his work. So, the architect had his lawyer send the airline a letter stating that the construction drawings were the architect's "intellectual property" and he was denying the airlines any use of these drawings. He also demanded that the airline return his property immediatately and stated that he would contact the bank handling the construction loan and the city building department to retrieve those copies of his drawings. Without these drawings on file, the construction loan application and the building permit applications would be halted immediately, and would result in at least a two year delay in the construction of the building. The airline had a big check delivered to the architect that very day. -Delbert Delbert L. Hall 423-773-HALL (4255) ------------------------------ Message-ID: From: "RICHARD FINKELSTEIN" Subject: intellectual property - long post Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:23:00 -0500 For an excellent article in the then easy to save/archive days of Theatre Crafts find the May, 1985 edition and look at the article, "Poetic License". First, theft of intellectual property in theatre is rampant and at all levels up thru the pro. I was recently at a university workshop on scene painting and hanging proudly behind the workshop presenter was a full drop (designed by another designer). The drop's rendering was also displayed. Being one who likes to be familiar with a wide range of designer's work, I immediately recognized the drop as being from Tony Walton's "Busker Alley". I was so excited to be able to see up close the work of this astonishing designer but in a break in the session I went up to look at the rendering and lo and behold there was another name on it and it was NOT that of Tony Walton. Indeed I too have had folks find one of my designs on the net and then write to me that they are copying my work and asking how they can better do this! At other times though, I must say that folks write to me to see if they can arrange proper sharing of ideas. I am always happy to work with these honest folk! While designers can be pretty bad I personally find directors are worse! Only two summers ago I worked with a supposedly pro director (who is really only pro as a playwright) who insisted on doing "Sunday in the Park With George" EXACTLY as it was done on Broadway. Besides the copyright issues this was absurd because we were staging the show at a camp, with a 22' wide proscenium, 11' high ceiling. and a budget of less than $1,000. I thought we were pretty clever in the choices and in the end achieved a pretty good look that did have the spirit of the original but I knew we were in trouble when unannounced, the director had to fly off to another gig for a week and on his exit, announced to the cast and crew that in his absence if we have any questions we should "just watch the video because it is perfect, and why mess with perfection!?" In the end the director threw temper tantrum after temper tantrum and even walked out at one point, with the music director (his best friend) screaming out to the cast "You must understand, the scenery is KILLING [the director]". I kow of one other instance of a director who has their cast watch videotapes of shows and then immitate them (and this is in a supposedly "pro" theatre) Then at the other side of the equasion there are those who violate copyright by butchering the coyright holder's work. At one university I worked on a production of You Can't Take it With You and the director decided that the ending as written was poor; to her it was missing a scene...so she went ahead and wrote and inserted the scene that "was missing". The examples of this type of abuse that I could cite are numerous and I would get into lots of trouble just mentionning them. One issue is for those of us who still do not have tenure trying to bring up these matters when the offenders are often the tenured faculty members at our own institution. It is amazing how many of these issues we get into in both areas of sound/music and in student production. The myths of 40-50 years ago are still with us there! Here are a few examples of what I hear almost daily....... "Of course I can video tape this, it's just for my personal use" "We don't have to arrange for the music recording because we are an educational production"...or substitute "there is no admission" or "nonprofit" "Yes we changed the characters in Godot to women but that's ok because we didn't change the lines" " Our musical royalties are set due to our marching band's ASCAP license" For those not already in the know, all of the above rationalizations are totally wrong. Someone in this thread raised the issue of degrees and this is indeed a legitamate issue that does bring up all sorts of nuance. Without taking excessive time to discuss the full range here are a few points in outline form: 1. There are the legal issues which overlap but are different from the moral issues. For instance, one could use a 100 year old design without violating copyright BUT the issue still remains as to claiming the work as one's own when it is not. 2. Especially when the "borrowing" does NOT violate copyright, there is indeed a tradition of such borrowing in the visual and performing arts. 3. Copyright and intellectual property law is not like other branches of the law. Much is set through decisions in the cases. For instance the law does not offer too many particulars as to what constitutes "fair use" in classroom work. So rather excepted practice in such areas evolves especially as each case is decided in the law. The laws do not have specific minimums as "you can use ____ notes of music before...." "or you can copy ___ pages of a script before". Sometimes in scripts such terms are actually written into the script's preamble. At other times the unions have made a clearer case as in Actor's Equity's rules on videotape fair use (for publicity and news purposes). 4. You cannot copyright "an idea". Many other things are not copyrightable for instance listings (the phonebook for instance can't be copyrighted though specific artwork in yellow pages COULD be copyrighted). Some of the examples in the questions of a previous poster involved copying someone's "ideas". This is allowed by copyright as copyright only covers art "set in tangeable form". 5. Keep in mind that copyright is but one of a host of legally protected intellectual materials. I learned this the hard way when in a production of "Baby" I used a giant Gerber Baby Food jar painting. The Gerber folks had a problem with this and it involved their Trade Mark. The baby face was thus registered as a TM. 6. Another area without distinct boundaries is in the arena of derivative art. In satire, for instance, one often borrows so as to lampoon. Some/much of this is protected as in the case of Al Frankin' book lampooning Fox News' Trademarked "fair and balanced" (as though Fox also has a patent on "truth", no?) The Fox folks roundly lost their suit with Frankin. 7. Even things you THINK might be in public domain may not be. While Chekhov's plays are in public domain, the copyright starts ticking on the TRANSLATIONS generally at the moment they are created. There may be other fascinating nuances. For instance, many folks do not realize but the song "Happy Birthday to You" is STILL protected after what would seem to be 1,000 years. I have researched why this is so and have found some interesting things to show how complex this stuff can be. The music was written long before the words we know. Many of you will also know the more original title/words, "Good morning to all". But because the words "happy birthday to you" came later, the words render a more recent copyright date. Also every 10-20 years the laws change so the way the clock ticks today is not the way it ticks for earlier work. As I understand it, in the case of Happy Birthday, the authors never enforced their copyright until the song appeared in a successful Broadway play. In those days actual registration with the Copyright office was important so that is when the women submitted their registration. This being much later than when the song was written, explains why the song is still protected! The current copyright act is much simpler. A work does not have to have a posted copyright notice or registration (although doing so has certain advantages) and the date is set at the moment the work is set in tangeable form. There are also no renewals any more. 8. For those who do not already know, in a "Dramatic context" ie shows....music is NOT licensed by ASCAP, BMI, etc for stage use but is rather covered by "Grand Rights" which come directly from the copyright holder. Here there are some questions/nuances, for instance music playing in the lobby may/may not be covered thus. I asked an expert about hints on music rights and they offered some great advise. It is easier in a show if all of the music were to come from the same collection. Then it is easier to work with the single publisher. 9. For those who attempt to do things the RIGHT way, especially in music there can be rewards, and such groups should be lauded. I have worked since 1990, every 4 years, with The USA International Ballet Competition where we work with dancers performing from about 26 countries. Since 1998 in particular the IBC has gotten quite specific on requiring dancers presenting to secure in writing and in advance multiple copyright permissions: From the choreographer, from the music publisher, from the music artist. This is a pain but the IBC does help facilitate. Most dancers realize this means starting their research early and lo and behold it usually means they get FREE use (publishers love people who attempt doing things the legal way!). Once in a while we have gotten nasty dancers and this is a pain! There are also those dancers from countries that do not have a tradition of honoring intellectual property. In 1998 we actually got this one at registration "We don't need permission to use this Danny Elfman music because it comes from a movie" (huh????) Even under this strict system there is all sorts of nuance. One of my painful jobs had been as the program copy writer. This means that in addition to the IBC's own legal tracking of copyrights, I also had to track them because for each of the 400 or so proposed dances, the letters of agreement on music licensing would often impose specific requirements on crediting. Some of these would actually be painful requiring, for instance, the listing of every specific musician on the track. Since this is a competition the order of performance is not set much in advance, so I had to develop quite a database to be able to associate each required licensing notice with the specific dance pieces and to then be able to get it all in limited program space once or twice each day! It was quite a challenge but I was o happy to be supporting the doing of things right! Believe it or not, a number of the licencees required the dancers to send back copies of the program as proof that the terms were filled. And it got even more complicated. The dancers asked for permission to use the pieces twice in the competition forgetting that if they won an award there were to be two galla performances. Worse, these are traditionally taped and some have been broadcast worldwide. Having the rights to music and dance for a live performance is very different to securing the rights for broadcast which is a HUGE can of worms. At the IBC though both classical and modern repertoire is featured and the Gala has an orchestra. This does give us options. The dancers whose music in modern forbids broadcast, then are asked to dance a classical piece with the orchestra. Hey folks, it gets complicated, but that's the way it is! 9. And for those who do not know as well.... since Hanya Holm's copyrighting of the dances in Kiss Me Kate, theatrical movement now is a part of the copyright fold. This means that the blocking done by a director falls under this purview. The playwright's blocking is also copyrighted but that would likely be covered in the script licensing. Here too though READ YOUR LICENSE! While we have all been decrying copying, the license for Fiddler on the Roof actually MANDATES the copying of the dances by Jerome Robbins! I believe there are parallel requirements in the design arena in the musical "Little Shop" for Audrey. 10. Stage photography opens all sorts of additional cans of worms. One thing the orgs I work with on that front routinely do is to require up front those associated to sign photo release/waivers. Of course in a union situation there are other processes and rights. Then there is the question of photo credit. I guess in parallel with other areas I have had no problem at all with the true pro players. Whether Dance Magazine, or Stage Directions, or The Washington Post the addition of my photo credit has been honored 100% of the time. But then again at that camp mentionned above, while their web now offers a photo credit, 3 years of season brochures do not, and as the photos came to them with the written requirement to include a credit I could sue if I so desired. So to sum up the above random thoughts: There are a lot of myths and misunderstandings. And the issues do have complexity and nuance BUT complexity and nuance are not excuses to ignore the issues. There are issues of copyright but also parallel are the issues of legal borrowing and attribution. Rather than view all of these as a "pain" I have had more fun looking at them as a challenge and fun to research and to learn more about. It is especially rewarding as these issues are a true dance between the known, the unknown, the set, and the evolving. Sorry for the length, but this is one of my pet issues. Like Dr. Doom does with safety issues, I have about a 20 year collection of news clippings on these issues. It gets really interesting. Richard Finkelstein ------------------------------ From: IAEG [at] aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:27:17 EST Subject: Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers In a message dated 12/29/04 10:01:02 AM, StevenEhrenberg [at] clearchannel.com writes: >John - Don't imagine... call Peter Monahan at Rose Brand and discuss the >least expensive options he can provide, then decide. Peter runs the >whole computer printing on Large format thing at RB, check with him >after the holidays if he is not in this week. >Rose brand in NYC 800 222 1624 Peter's extension is 246 very best, Keith Arsenault IAEG - International Arts & Entertainment Group Tampa, Florida 813 831 3465 Mr. Arsenault's Office 813 205 0893 Mr. Arsenault's Cellular www.iaeginc.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20041229104308.01daf188 [at] mail.insightbb.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:47:34 -0500 From: Mike Brubaker Subject: Re: intellectual property - long post In-Reply-To: References: Richard, Thank you for a very well-written and informative post. May we share this information with others? Such as performing arts groups that we're involved with? Mike At 10:23 AM 12/29/2004, RICHARD FINKELSTEIN wrote: ------------------------------ Message-Id: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:11:52 -0500 From: "CATHERINE BRUMM" Subject: Re: intellectual property - long post There is a website that the media center of a local school has linked to = thier sight that is a very good resource for such issues www.copyright.com = . When issues arrise I use it as a resource to show the potential = infringer why somehting is not leagal. Catherine K. Brumm, General Manager Minnie Evans Arts Center Wilmington, NC P910-)790-2360 x821 F)910-790-2356 cbrumm [at] nhcs.k12.nc.us www.geocities.com/nhcscbrumm/index.html >>> mdbrubaker [at] insightbb.com 12/29/04 10:47AM >>> Richard, Thank you for a very well-written and informative post. May we share this information with others? Such as performing arts = groups=20 that we're involved with? Mike At 10:23 AM 12/29/2004, RICHARD FINKELSTEIN wrote: ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:29:53 -0500 Message-Id: <20041229172955.DRCP1664.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net [at] smtp.west.cox.net> >Most people would buy the Behringer >EXACT knockoff for MSRP of $59.99. How they stay in business when they >are obviously ripping off others so blatantly, I'll never know. Asked and answered. Or, answered and asked, if you prefer. Don't crap where you eat. Whatever you say about WalMart, Behringer, GM, Nike, whatever, a bit of your neighborhood goes away everytime you buy based on the bottom line where they meet that bottom line by less than ethical means. ------------------------------ From: IAEG [at] aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:47:31 EST Subject: Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester In a message dated 12/29/04 12:30:34 PM, psyd [at] cox.net writes: >>Most people would buy the Behringer > >>EXACT knockoff for MSRP of $59.99. How they stay in business when they > > >>are obviously ripping off others so blatantly, I'll never know. > > > >Asked and answered. Or, answered and asked, if you prefer. Don't crap >where you eat. Whatever you say about WalMart, Behringer, GM, Nike, whatever, >a bit of your neighborhood goes away everytime you buy based on the bottom >line where they meet that bottom line by less than ethical means. of course there is another possibility, , , i did some research a while back and there is a single Chinese company that makes the Behringer gear, much of the Samson gear and a few other brands, ( if you wonder why a bunch of those smaller mixers of different brands look the same they pretty much are!) if you see their own catalog ( I don't recall what the name is, , it's been a while ) you will see that products that are for all practical purposes are identical to the brand names they churn out are also available at some dealers under their own name for significantly less, , makes you wonder who is copying whom ? very best, Keith Arsenault ------------------------------ Message-ID: <4959.67.85.231.27.1104343048.spork [at] webmail.ducksechosound.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:57:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester From: andy [at] ducksechosound.com Keith Arsenault wrote: > of course there is another possibility, , , > > i did some research a while back and there is a single > Chinese company that > makes the Behringer gear, much of the Samson gear and a few > other brands, --snip-- > you will see that products > that are for all > practical purposes are identical to the brand names they > churn out are also > available at some dealers under their own name for > significantly less, , makes > you wonder who is copying whom ? Could be. Of course, when a Behringer processor has circuit boards in it that are silk-screened with "Aphex", their manuals give Aphex's number for tech support, and they're sued by Aphex, or when they're sued and settle out of court with Mackie, it's pretty clear who's copying who :o) --Andy ------------------------------ Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:06:23 -0500 From: Michael Feinberg Subject: Behringe (WAS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester) >i did some research a while back and there is a single Chinese company that >makes the Behringer gear, much of the Samson gear and a few other >brands, ( if >you wonder why a bunch of those smaller mixers of different brands look the >same they pretty much are!) if you see their own catalog ( I don't recall what >the name is, , it's been a while ) you will see that products that are for all >practical purposes are identical to the brand names they churn out are also >available at some dealers under their own name for significantly less, , makes >you wonder who is copying whom ? But on this particularly issue I asked Ebtech and was told that the Swizz Army Tester was their original design and had not been licensed to Behringer. They were not pursuing legal action due to the prohibitive cost for a company of their size. Take a look at the webpage I put together a while back: http://joyce.eng.yale.edu/~michaelf/behringer.html (of course my webserver is currently down, but hopefully it will be back up soon.) I haven't updated it in a long time and there was more research I meant to do, but it was an attempt to see how much of Behringer's product line was actually copied. The results were interesting in that most of Behringer's products do NOT seem to be copies, but there are a few blatant examples such as the Swizz Army Tester. If you have info on that Chinese company, please let me know and I will add it to the webpage. -- -Michael Feinberg, CTS ------------------------------ From: IAEG [at] aol.com Message-ID: <8e.1d85690e.2f045338 [at] aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:36:40 EST Subject: Re:behringer et al continued..... In a message dated 12/29/04 12:58:18 PM, andy [at] ducksechosound.com writes: >Could be. Of course, when a Behringer processor has circuit boards in it > >that are silk-screened with "Aphex", their manuals give Aphex's number >for > >tech support, and they're sued by Aphex, or when they're sued and settle > >out of court with Mackie, it's pretty clear who's copying who :o) > > > >--Andy Yep, , Mackie was the other company I was thinking of as well, the stuff in this chinese company catalog looked just like Mackie as well as Behringer and a few Samson products as well, , , I was at a Sam Ash when I saw the catalog, , I don't really remember the brand but Sam Ash did carry a few products that were branded with this label, , are you speculating about what you are saying ? or are you referring to actual incidents and litigation ? very best, Keith Arsenault ------------------------------ Message-ID: <1126.67.85.231.27.1104345868.spork [at] webmail.ducksechosound.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:44:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: behringer et al continued..... From: andy [at] ducksechosound.com Re: my notes about the specific Aphex and Mackie incidents with Behringer, Keith asked: > are you speculating about what you are saying ? or are you > referring to > actual incidents and litigation ? Actual incidents. I don't speculate about such things. One of Behringer's early products was a knockoff of an Aphex product so direct that they even copied the brandname silk screen on the circuit boards and copied the manual so directly that Aphex got tech support calls for the Behringer product. Aphex sued and won. Mackie sued over their products being knocked off, as well, but settled out of court, with the settlement terms beind undisclosed. Do a Google search, you'll find lots of info including an interview with the president of Aphex about the suit. --Andy ------------------------------ From: IAEG [at] aol.com Message-ID: <12a.5399fdae.2f0459e6 [at] aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:05:10 EST Subject: Re: behringer et al continued..... In a message dated 12/29/04 1:45:41 PM, andy [at] ducksechosound.com writes: > > >Re: my notes about the specific Aphex and Mackie incidents with Behringer, > >Keith asked: > > > >> are you speculating about what you are saying ? or are you > >> referring to > >> actual incidents and litigation ? > > > >Actual incidents. I don't speculate about such things. One of Behringer's > >early products was a knockoff of an Aphex product so direct that they even > >copied the brandname silk screen on the circuit boards and copied the > >manual so directly that Aphex got tech support calls for the Behringer > >product. Aphex sued and won. > > > >Mackie sued over their products being knocked off, as well, but settled > >out of court, with the settlement terms beind undisclosed. > > > >Do a Google search, you'll find lots of info including an interview with > >the president of Aphex about the suit. > > > >--Andy f y i , , the person at Sam Ash who showed me this Chinese catalog told me that this was the same company that built most of the Behringer and Mackie gear, he implied that they were basically catalog items under the Chinese name that Behringer and Mackie "branded" for distribution, wish I could remember the name of the Chinese manufacturer, , , , Some of you will probably recall the MOOG vs ARP lawsuit. ARP took big chunks of their circuitry and enclosed them in "large" integrated circuit encased in epoxy. MOOG charged that what was inside one of these was a violation of their low pass filter. ARP said what was inside was proprietary. MOOG sliced one apart micro layer by micro layer to document the infringement, and won the suit. ARP disappeared from the market not too long after that. very best, Keith Arsenault ------------------------------ Message-ID: <1389.67.85.231.27.1104348099.spork [at] webmail.ducksechosound.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:21:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: behringer et al continued..... From: andy [at] ducksechosound.com Keith wrote: > f y i , , the person at Sam Ash who showed me this Chinese > catalog told me > that this was the same company that built most of the > Behringer and Mackie > gear, he implied that they were basically catalog items under > the Chinese name > that Behringer and Mackie "branded" for distribution, FYI, Sam Ash was one of about 100 others named as part of the Mackie lawsuit against Behringer. To quote from an old Sweetwater InSync posting about it when it first happened back in June of '97: "Today Mackie filed a major suit against Ulrich Behringer and his company, Sam Ash Music Corporation and their distribution arm Samson, as well as over 100 others. "Mackie alleges that Behringer, with the active assistance and support of Richard Ash and company, directly copied Mackie's 24/8 console in addition to later copying other Mackie products including the MS1202vlz, MS1402vlz, CR1604vlz, SR24/4 and SR32/4. These Mackie products are all protected under a variety of patents, trademarks, and intellectual property rights. "Ash and company are named in the suit both as substantial contributors in making the knockoff copies, as well as for direct violation of their dealer agreement with Mackie." So take what you get from Sam Ash about Behringer and Mackie with a few grains of salt. To the best of my knowlege, Mackie gear is and always has been made in the USA. --Andy --Andy ------------------------------ Message-ID: <41D30A52.5BEE6041 [at] cybercom.net> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:49:38 -0500 From: Dale Farmer Subject: Re: behringer et al continued..... References: andy [at] ducksechosound.com wrote: > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > Keith wrote: > > f y i , , the person at Sam Ash who showed me this Chinese > > catalog told me > > that this was the same company that built most of the > > Behringer and Mackie > > gear, he implied that they were basically catalog items under > > the Chinese name > > that Behringer and Mackie "branded" for distribution, > > FYI, Sam Ash was one of about 100 others named as part of the Mackie > lawsuit against Behringer. To quote from an old Sweetwater InSync posting > about it when it first happened back in June of '97: > > "Today Mackie filed a major suit against Ulrich Behringer and his company, > Sam Ash Music Corporation and their distribution arm Samson, as well as > over 100 others. > > "Mackie alleges that Behringer, with the active assistance and support of > Richard Ash and company, directly copied Mackie's 24/8 console in addition > to later copying other Mackie products including the MS1202vlz, MS1402vlz, > CR1604vlz, SR24/4 and SR32/4. These Mackie products are all protected > under a variety of patents, trademarks, and intellectual property rights. > > "Ash and company are named in the suit both as substantial contributors in > making the knockoff copies, as well as for direct violation of their > dealer agreement with Mackie." > > So take what you get from Sam Ash about Behringer and Mackie with a few > grains of salt. > > To the best of my knowlege, Mackie gear is and always has been made in the > USA. > > --Andy > > --Andy Mackie moved their mfg operations to a chinese contractor a couple years ago, don't remember exactly when offhand. It's hard to beat slave labor costs and no EPA regulation cost savings. --Dale ------------------------------ Message-ID: <2424.24.168.209.168.1104350296.squirrel [at] webmail.columbia.sc> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:58:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Triscuit Studwall ?? From: usctd [at] columbia.sc I dont have the brief here, but it is my understanding, and the way I use them, that if they are built and installed properly they can be set on 4' centers. -- Eric Rouse TD-University of SC, Columbia Freelance Foyboy > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- Is this a misprint, or are > studwalls needed in the middle of a triscuit that the triscuit is not > bolted to? > > Josh Wirtz > ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20041229121829.038d4cb0 [at] localhost> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:18:52 -0800 From: Jerry Durand Subject: Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers In-Reply-To: References: At 10:21 AM 12/28/2004, you wrote: >>Getting a knife for most plotters for cutting vinyl lettering is pretty easy. > > >Yeah, except this is an inkjet, not a 'real' pen plotter from the day. :) Use acid ink? ---------- Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. 219 Oak Wood Way Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA tel: +1 408 356-3886 fax: +1 408 356-4659 web: www.interstellar.com ------------------------------ Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.0.20041229123937.038eeb10 [at] localhost> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:43:15 -0800 From: Jerry Durand Subject: Re: behringer et al continued..... In-Reply-To: References: At 11:05 AM 12/29/2004, you wrote: >Some of you will probably recall the MOOG vs ARP lawsuit. ARP took big >chunks of their circuitry and enclosed them in "large" integrated circuit >encased >in epoxy. MOOG charged that what was inside one of these was a violation of >their low pass filter. ARP said what was inside was proprietary. MOOG sliced >one apart micro layer by micro layer to document the infringement, and >won the >suit. ARP disappeared from the market not too long after that. A couple of decades ago I worked for [big electronics company] in the semiconductor division. One task I had was to take a paperweight with a chip from [other big company] cast into it and strip it down, layer by layer (acid etch/electron microscope) so we could copy the chip. Of course, the chips we made had fake connections all through them. Looking at them while stripping layers would give you all sorts of wrong connections (you wouldn't know the connections weren't real). ---------- Jerry Durand Durand Interstellar, Inc. 219 Oak Wood Way Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA tel: +1 408 356-3886 fax: +1 408 356-4659 web: www.interstellar.com ------------------------------ Message-ID: <000901c4edf9$cfbb1340$2eedbed0 [at] hppav> From: "Joe Meils" References: Subject: Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:57:44 -0600 Use a laser engraver... available through most upscale trophy shops. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Durand" To: "Stagecraft" Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:18 PM Subject: Re: Scenic printing on wide format printers > For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see > --------------------------------------------------- > > At 10:21 AM 12/28/2004, you wrote: > >>Getting a knife for most plotters for cutting vinyl lettering is pretty easy. > > > > > >Yeah, except this is an inkjet, not a 'real' pen plotter from the day. :) > > > Use acid ink? > > > > ---------- > Jerry Durand > Durand Interstellar, Inc. > 219 Oak Wood Way > Los Gatos, California 95032-2523 USA > tel: +1 408 356-3886 > fax: +1 408 356-4659 > web: www.interstellar.com > > > ------------------------------ Message-ID: <41D33B67.9080007 [at] audiovisualdevices.com.au> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:19:03 +1000 From: David Duffy Subject: Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester References: In-Reply-To: Keith Arsenault wrote: >i did some research a while back and there is a single Chinese company that >makes the Behringer gear, much of the Samson gear and a few other brands, ( if >you wonder why a bunch of those smaller mixers of different brands look the >same they pretty much are!) if you see their own catalog ( I don't recall what >the name is, , it's been a while ) you will see that products that are for all >practical purposes are identical to the brand names they churn out are also >available at some dealers under their own name for significantly less, , makes >you wonder who is copying whom ? > > I think that used to be the case some years ago. AFAIK, Behringer makes almost everything of thiers in their own factories these days. They even make the cheap guitars themselves now! The situation now is different from a few years ago. David... ------------------------------ Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:26:23 -0500 From: Michael Feinberg Subject: Re: behringer et al continued..... >Yep, , Mackie was the other company I was thinking of as well, the stuff in >this chinese company catalog looked just like Mackie as well as Behringer and >a few Samson products as well, , , I was at a Sam Ash when I saw the catalog, >, I don't really remember the brand but Sam Ash did carry a few products that >were branded with this label, , I find this hard to believe. Mackie has outsourced their construction, but to the best of my knowledge all of their designs are still their own. One of the easy ways to disprove the claim that behringer took mackie circuit boards and put them in their own cases is the fact that there aren't any mackie and behringer products whose feature sets are actually identical. There are different numbers of aux sends/eq/master knobs/etc on all of their boards. The closest thing I've heard to an accurate claim about mackie circuit boards fitting into a behringer case is that the 8-bus output connectors have the same layout as the MX8000 output connectors (though this claim is third hand and I haven't verified it.) In any case though, an XLR in and then three 1/4" for line in, direct out, insert is pretty standard and they are both most likely simply using the minimum mechanical spacing possible. The out-of-court settlement of the Mackie/Behringer is closed, but it is interesting to note that the MX8000 is no longer for sale in the US. My web server is still down, so I've relocated my page to a different server: http://home.earthlink.net/~mfweb/behringer.html Again, I'm very interested in any verifiable information anyone has either against or in support of Behringer. -- -Michael Feinberg, CTS ------------------------------ From: IAEG [at] aol.com Message-ID: <12a.539e7f86.2f049978 [at] aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:36:24 EST Subject: Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester In a message dated 12/29/04 6:19:13 PM, david [at] audiovisualdevices.com.au writes: >Keith Arsenault wrote: > > > >>i did some research a while back and there is a single Chinese company >that > >>makes the Behringer gear, much of the Samson gear and a few other brands, > ( if > >>you wonder why a bunch of those smaller mixers of different brands look >the > >>same they pretty much are!) if you see their own catalog ( I don't recall >what > >>the name is, , it's been a while ) you will see that products that are >for all > >>practical purposes are identical to the brand names they churn out are >also > >>available at some dealers under their own name for significantly less, >, makes > >>you wonder who is copying whom ? > >> > >> > > > >I think that used to be the case some years ago. AFAIK, Behringer makes > > >almost > >everything of thiers in their own factories these days. They even make > > >the cheap > >guitars themselves now! The situation now is different from a few years >ago. > >David... this was only about 14 months ago that I was shown this catalog at a Sam Ash very best, Keith Arsenault ------------------------------ Message-ID: <41D341D9.4020206 [at] audiovisualdevices.com.au> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:46:33 +1000 From: David Duffy Subject: Re: FS: Whirlwind Qbox | Lead on Swizz Army Tester References: In-Reply-To: IAEG [at] aol.com wrote: >>I think that used to be the case some years ago. AFAIK, Behringer makes >>almost everything of thiers in their own factories these days. They even make >>the cheap guitars themselves now! The situation now is different from a few years >>ago. >> >>David... >> >> > > >this was only about 14 months ago that I was shown this catalog at a Sam Ash > > Hmmm..... I'll ask the Behringer rep when they get back. David... ------------------------------ Message-ID: <1920.67.85.231.27.1104364812.spork [at] webmail.ducksechosound.com> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:00:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: behringer et al continued..... From: andy [at] ducksechosound.com Michael Feinberg said: > Again, I'm very interested in any verifiable information anyone has > either against or in support of Behringer. Here's some right from the horse's mouth, as posted to homerecording.com (http://tinyurl.com/6l7xv) back in April, 2002. ============= My name is Bill Wenzloff. I work in the Engineering Department of Ebtech (owned and operated by Sound Enhancements, Inc. Just wanted to clarify a few things: 1) Our Swizz Army cable tester design was not licensed to Behringer 2) We did not give Behringer permission to copy our Swizz Army Cable Tester 3) Behringer did produce and is currently selling a cheap knock-off of our product 4) How Behringer can live with the fact that they knowingly copied someone else's design is beyond our comprehension. We can only tell people the truth and hope they make a purchase decision based on the facts. 5) If you have questions or wish to voice your support, please feel free to call me at 1-800-284-5172 ext 12 or email me at swizzarmy [at] hotmail.com 6) By all means, let Behringer know of your dissatisfaction with thier practices via thier website http://www.behringer.com 7) As corny as this sounds, we can only hope that hard work, honesty and quality reign supreme. Best Regards, Bill Wenzloff Special Projects Coordinator Ebtech =================== Also, if you go to http://tinyurl.com/4joc6 you'll find a letter posted to rec.audio.pro by Marvin Caesar, the president of Aphex, responding to a post by Behringer's customer srevice manager detailing Aphex's issues with Behringer. The case of the direct circuit board copy was with some of the Aphex gear that Behringer ripped off, not Mackie. (I'd paste this one, too, but it's on the long side, so figured I'm better off just linking :o) You'll find little on the record from Mackie, since their settlement was sealed and everybody seems to be staying tight-lipped accordingly. --Andy ------------------------------ From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:07:31 GMT Subject: Re: Intellectual property rights Message-Id: <20041229.200811.21986.112307 [at] webmail17.lax.untd.com> Intellectual Property Rights Law INCLUDES Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Rights law on the federal level, as well Unfair Competition Law on the State level. Also, there are 'Moral Rights' (a French concept whereas the new owner does NOT enjoy the right to modify the art, even if they have the right to copy it) court decisions favorable to artists that are becoming more widespread all the time in various jurisdictions. In California, artists' rights are protected in another unique way: The California Resale Royalty Act, which provides that if a piece of art is resold in California, OR there is a California buyer OR a California seller, OR if the art is physically located in California, the artist receives a 5% royalty on any artwork that is resold for $1000 or more, each time it is resold. Surprisingly, it does not have to be 'Fine' Art. I have assisted clients in obtaining royalties from the sale of shopping centers and office buildings that happen to contain a decorative fountain, neon sculpture, or other architectural feature, based upon the pro-rata value of the art in relationship to the total selling price of the shopping center or office building. I have found that the buyers and sellers of these multimillion dollar properties will pay the artist, rather than have their sale delayed by a 'lis pendens' filing at the County Recorder's Office. Many clients consider these royalties to be 'Pennies From Heaven', because the royalties are significant and they had to create no further art for me to obtain the payments for them, which is good, because many of them have 'moved on' in their careers and no longer create art in the discipline that was utilized in making the art that was created when they were originally commissioned. /s/ Richard Maybe Richard can help here but from what I understand, intellectual property rights law does not have the legal teeth of copyright law, but it is much easier to win an intellectual property right case. -Delbert ________________________________________________________________ Juno Gift Certificates Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season. http://www.juno.com/give ------------------------------ From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:10:35 GMT Subject: Re: Interlectural property rights Message-Id: <20041229.201114.21986.112341 [at] webmail17.lax.untd.com> Patents run 17 years. /s/ Richard Patents only run a couple of decades. - murr - ________________________________________________________________ Juno Gift Certificates Give the gift of Internet access this holiday season. http://www.juno.com/give ------------------------------ End of Stagecraft Digest #243 *****************************