Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Behringer made a budget Maths

13

Comments

  • GavinskiGavinski

    It all does open up a huge can of worms. I'm certainly happy that we have ios apps that are heavily influenced by certain hardware devices, or by desktop software. That seems fine. Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @Gavinski said:
    It all does open up a huge can of worms. I'm certainly happy that we have ios apps that are heavily influenced by certain hardware devices, or by desktop software. That seems fine. Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    Let hope those ‘Aliens’ don’t sue our asses off, for copyright, that could be a very ‘grey’ Area 51. :D

  • GavinskiGavinski

    @knewspeak said:

    @Gavinski said:
    It all does open up a huge can of worms. I'm certainly happy that we have ios apps that are heavily influenced by certain hardware devices, or by desktop software. That seems fine. Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    Let hope those ‘Aliens’ don’t sue our asses off, for copyright, that could be a very ‘grey’ Area 51. :D

    Hey, you're 'crossing the streams' ghostbusters style. Careful now!

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    edited June 2023
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • dendydendy

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

  • KrupaKrupa

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    They tend to have limits though, and the converse argument is that no one would develop anything if it was a free for all. I love open source best of all for many things, but I think it’s just not always a viable model…

  • GavinskiGavinski
    edited June 2023

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I’m not sure I agree, this sounds like a very ‘free market’ type argument. The market is far from free. Without copyright law, any small inventor without the funds to produce at scale gets replaced by big fish who do. That is a huge disincentive for small fish to even bother trying to innovate.

  • bygjohnbygjohn
    edited June 2023

    @dendy said:

    @bygjohn
    Maths is very much a current product

    hm, don’t think so:

    Maths is a Make Noise product, not MI.

    @bygjohn
    are the Moog semi-modulars which Behringer have cloned (or announced, in the case of their Subharmonicon clone).

    it’s debatable if Crave, Edge (and Fire) are really clones, or better if they steal market share from Moog.. they have some significant disadvantages when compared to moog “originals” (for example incompatible with eurorack format, and many people are buying Moog originals exactly for that purpose) and i think most of people who buy crave/edge would never buy moog alternative anyway ..

    That’s what I meant by them being just different enough to avoid legal action.

    Funny fact - current Moog comoany has basically nothing to do with original Bob Moog and they just use his name because they simply can. Good marketing move. .. So they are a kinda “behringer like” just in much smaller scale.

    Current Moog company is employee owned as that what Bob Moog wanted to happen after he died. He got the name back before that and renamed the company to Moog from Big Briar, which he started to make theremins, so it has a great deal to do with Bob Moog.

    Except of few cases (crave/edge - which is debatable, then that keyboard where they cloned Artutia keystep - that was very nasty, totally agree in this point) - vast majority of their products aren’t direct ripoff of any existing product which is still activelly produced. Including whole Roland system xxx series, which is really great that they made it - cause Roland is totally incspable of build on upon their past successfull products something great, and rather just recycle same VA engine just in new and new HW cases.

    I don’t have a huge problem with cloning non-current products.

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @knewspeak said:
    If Behringer are > @H34rtc0r3 said:

    @knewspeak said:
    Yes they also are releasing a Four LFO module soon and another M.I. module copy if memory serves me, for anyone looking into Modular on a budget these are good value, my only worry is the durability over time of the in-outputs, which I believe are PCB mounts, but that’s the same on all Behringer synths.

    Uh? What MI clone is that? They are releasing a XAOC Batumi clone but I don’t remember another MI clone then Brains (Plaits)

    Marbles I believe, Behringer version is named Chaos.

    MI Stages is six lfos.

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @dendy said:

    Funny fact - current Moog comoany has basically nothing to do with original Bob Moog and they just use his name because they simply can. Good marketing move. .. So they are a kinda “behringer like” just in much smaller scale.

    I think Bob sold it to his employees. But same designs, factory, employees. They’re not just ripping off another firm’s designs like Behringer is. They created it and own it.

  • brambosbrambos

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @dendy said:

    Funny fact - current Moog comoany has basically nothing to do with original Bob Moog and they just use his name because they simply can. Good marketing move. .. So they are a kinda “behringer like” just in much smaller scale.

    I think Bob sold it to his employees. But same designs, factory, employees. They’re not just ripping off another firm’s designs like Behringer is. They created it and own it.

    Indeed, just because Bob Moog passed away doesn’t make the Moog company any less related to his original company.

    They make high quality original products, locally produced for a large part. So they’re exactly nothing like Behringer.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited June 2023

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

  • suboptimalsuboptimal

    The issue here isn't legal. The law is a terrible reference point for whether something is ethical or positive.

    The problem is Behringer's utter disregard for the modular community other than as a revenue source. Folks like Tony at Make Noise have put many years and many hours of hard work into making the thing a success, only for Behringer to glom on.

    On the one hand, this trend is inevitable due to Eurorack growing just popular enough to draw the attention of larger capital interests. If not Behringer it would be someone else. On the other, it signals a permanent change in the kinds of risks small builders can take on.

    Still, many will. The fact that people will carry on doing the exhausting and expensive work of developing modules as small builders is a sure indication that patents aren't the sole driver of innovation in the field. Unfortunately, a big copycat with no personal involvement in the scene coming in to steal the best ideas is going to put a damper on that.

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited June 2023

    @suboptimal said:
    The issue here isn't legal. The law is a terrible reference point for whether something is ethical or positive.

    The problem is Behringer's utter disregard for the modular community other than as a revenue source. Folks like Tony at Make Noise have put many years and many hours of hard work into making the thing a success, only for Behringer to glom on.

    On the one hand, this trend is inevitable due to Eurorack growing just popular enough to draw the attention of larger capital interests. If not Behringer it would be someone else. On the other, it signals a permanent change in the kinds of risks small builders can take on.

    Still, many will. The fact that people will carry on doing the exhausting and expensive work of developing modules as small builders is a sure indication that patents aren't the sole driver of innovation in the field. Unfortunately, a big copycat with no personal involvement in the scene coming in to steal the best ideas is going to put a damper on that.

    Behringer makes unique hardware more affordable. Nothing prevents the individual small manufacturers from forming a manufacturing consortium, pooling their money and having their own hardware manufactured in China. If they squeezed out the inefficiencies and high costs from their own production processes, Behringer would have no incentive to rip off and repackage for sale the work of these people. If there’s no margin for Behringer to exploit then they won’t make a competing product.

  • dendydendy
    edited June 2023

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

  • dendydendy
    edited June 2023

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:
    I think Bob sold it to his employees. But same designs, factory, employees. They’re not just ripping off another firm’s designs like Behringer is. They created it and own it.

    @brambos said:
    Indeed, just because Bob Moog passed away doesn’t make the Moog company any less related to his original company.

    Uhm 🥶, sorry. I was wrong, i wasn’t aware of that particular detail with Moog himself repurchading back the company name and restoring the company. Sorry my bad and ignorance of historic facts, shame on me.

    Thanks for correcting me.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    The term your looking for is lawfare - sadly isn’t used solely in regards to the music industry.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    As I'm sure we both know, copyrights and patents are time-limited. Once their "time is up" they revert to the public domain. The legal wrangling which surrounds particularly valuable IP is far better than simply having a competitors knock each other off with abandon, as is common in countries with few or no private property rights.

  • dendydendy
    edited June 2023

    @knewspeak said:

    The term your looking for is lawfare - sadly isn’t used solely in regards to the music industry.

    yes, exactly… i mentioned it that way, in general context, not related just to music industry…

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    As I'm sure we both know, copyrights and patents are time-limited. Once their "time is up" they revert to the public domain. The legal wrangling which surrounds particularly valuable IP is far better than simply having a competitors knock each other off with abandon, as is common in countries with few or no private property rights.

    Those countries you mention, still manage to innovate, so I’d argue it’s not quite as simple as it appears.

  • brambosbrambos

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    As I'm sure we both know, copyrights and patents are time-limited. Once their "time is up" they revert to the public domain. The legal wrangling which surrounds particularly valuable IP is far better than simply having a competitors knock each other off with abandon, as is common in countries with few or no private property rights.

    Those countries you mention, still manage to innovate, so I’d argue it’s not quite as simple as it appears.

    I think in "those countries" it has more to do with ultra brute force government funding than an innovative mindset.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @brambos said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    As I'm sure we both know, copyrights and patents are time-limited. Once their "time is up" they revert to the public domain. The legal wrangling which surrounds particularly valuable IP is far better than simply having a competitors knock each other off with abandon, as is common in countries with few or no private property rights.

    Those countries you mention, still manage to innovate, so I’d argue it’s not quite as simple as it appears.

    I think in "those countries" it has more to do with ultra brute force government funding than an innovative mindset.

    When put like that, well it puts a whole new meaning to all the household appliances manufactured in China.

  • brambosbrambos

    @knewspeak said:

    @brambos said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    As I'm sure we both know, copyrights and patents are time-limited. Once their "time is up" they revert to the public domain. The legal wrangling which surrounds particularly valuable IP is far better than simply having a competitors knock each other off with abandon, as is common in countries with few or no private property rights.

    Those countries you mention, still manage to innovate, so I’d argue it’s not quite as simple as it appears.

    I think in "those countries" it has more to do with ultra brute force government funding than an innovative mindset.

    When put like that, well it puts a whole new meaning to all the household appliances manufactured in China.

    I thought the discussion was about innovation and not outsourced manufacturing 🙂

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @brambos said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @brambos said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    As I'm sure we both know, copyrights and patents are time-limited. Once their "time is up" they revert to the public domain. The legal wrangling which surrounds particularly valuable IP is far better than simply having a competitors knock each other off with abandon, as is common in countries with few or no private property rights.

    Those countries you mention, still manage to innovate, so I’d argue it’s not quite as simple as it appears.

    I think in "those countries" it has more to do with ultra brute force government funding than an innovative mindset.

    When put like that, well it puts a whole new meaning to all the household appliances manufactured in China.

    I thought the discussion was about innovation and not outsourced manufacturing 🙂

    It is but the adoption of wider principles do seem to apply in regards to the subject matter discussed directly here, I’d say a large amount of tech in regards to music production is either sourced or outsourced from or to other countries.

  • dendydendy
    edited June 2023

    @knewspeak said:

    @brambos said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @brambos said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    As I'm sure we both know, copyrights and patents are time-limited. Once their "time is up" they revert to the public domain. The legal wrangling which surrounds particularly valuable IP is far better than simply having a competitors knock each other off with abandon, as is common in countries with few or no private property rights.

    Those countries you mention, still manage to innovate, so I’d argue it’s not quite as simple as it appears.

    I think in "those countries" it has more to do with ultra brute force government funding than an innovative mindset.

    When put like that, well it puts a whole new meaning to all the household appliances manufactured in China.

    I thought the discussion was about innovation and not outsourced manufacturing 🙂

    It is but the adoption of wider principles do seem to apply in regards to the subject matter discussed directly here, I’d say a large amount of tech in regards to music production is either sourced or outsourced from or to other countries.

    But that’s not the innovative part, that’s just end of whole chain - old good boring production/ supply chain / distribution.

    Innovation is on beginnin of all, like somebody developing prototype, testing it and when it works only then outsourcing production to minimalise production costs

    Big companies with multi-national supplz chain (often outsourcing production to china like Uli) just rately do any innovation. Even Apple does almost no innovation after Jobs died - even Vision Pro isn’t even remotely innovative - they just took what other competitors already have and just packed it all into one shining package.
    Basically biggest “innovation” that display on front which shows eyes, which is imho pretty much practically uselles 😂

    Innovation is in most cases happening in small indie companies and startups cause they can afford the risk of failure.

  • knewspeakknewspeak

    @dendy said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @brambos said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @brambos said:

    @knewspeak said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @NeuM said:

    @dendy said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Most creation involves copying to some extent, whether conscious or otherwise. Where to draw the line exactly? Unless copyright law covers it, patents etc, you're in a very grey area.

    controversial opinion but: copyrights and patents are biggest obstacles to innovation .. one of worst things lawyers invented ..

    I do not agree.

    Copyrights and patents afford individuals protection for their original works and inventions, giving creators the exclusive right to use, sell, or license their works and inventions. This provides an economic incentive for all people to innovate. And because in the process of applying for IP protections the original invention/creation must be divulged, it provides inspiration for others to further innovate in the attempt to improve on or work around the initial patent or copyright.

    Despite high-profile court cases drawing attention to some aspects of disagreement over IP rights, on the whole it has enabled greater wealth creation and individual reward for their work than any other system in history. Rampant theft was the norm before these protections existed and who wants to create or invest in the creation of things with no immediate payoff without these protections?

    (Full disclosure, I used Google Bard to help focus my response. It assisted. And Bard itself is the product of competition and capitalism... imagine that!)

    Reality is copyright and IP law is used mostly by BIG comopanies who can afford expensive lawyers to prevent small guy to use things “owned” by them .. which is often not invented by them, just they were first (because they have enough money) who registered that …

    It is even uset as tool for mirigating competitive technology - big comoanies often buy small comoany which has new potentially disruptive tech which may be risk for their own business, then register patent on that tech and then close it to boxand continue wirh their old business ..

    Seriously.. this law is in theory good in reallity in most cases it just block innivation and progress ..

    As I'm sure we both know, copyrights and patents are time-limited. Once their "time is up" they revert to the public domain. The legal wrangling which surrounds particularly valuable IP is far better than simply having a competitors knock each other off with abandon, as is common in countries with few or no private property rights.

    Those countries you mention, still manage to innovate, so I’d argue it’s not quite as simple as it appears.

    I think in "those countries" it has more to do with ultra brute force government funding than an innovative mindset.

    When put like that, well it puts a whole new meaning to all the household appliances manufactured in China.

    I thought the discussion was about innovation and not outsourced manufacturing 🙂

    It is but the adoption of wider principles do seem to apply in regards to the subject matter discussed directly here, I’d say a large amount of tech in regards to music production is either sourced or outsourced from or to other countries.

    But that’s not the innovative part, that’s just end of whole chain - old good boring production/ supply chain / distribution.

    Innovation is on beginnin of all, like somebody developing prototype, testing it and when it works only then outsourcing production to minimalise production costs

    I’d disagree recall ‘chip shortages’ the cause of much woe at present, this technology has been ‘outsourced’ for a long time and innovated upon, it’s all intertwined within music technological production and beyond this field.

  • SimonSimon

    @knewspeak said:
    Let hope those ‘Aliens’ don’t sue our asses off, for copyright, that could be a very ‘grey’ Area 51. :D

    That's after they've taken all our women... opps, another "forum stream" crossed. End of the world any second now...

  • dendydendy
    edited June 2023

    This is actually interesring .. For Brains they not just used higher sample rate than Plaits (Plaits: 48, Brains: 96khz - that is quite big improvement especially for higer pitch tones) but also added 4 new oscillator algos ..

    So.. hwre they really not just cloned but also a little bit innovated

  • knewspeakknewspeak
    edited June 2023

    @dendy said:
    This is actually interesring .. For Brains they not just used higher sample rate than Plaits (96khz) but also added 4 new oscillator algos ..

    So.. hwre they really not just cloned but also a little bit innovated

    It’s got quite a few differences including a mono DX7, the two outputs can be different too, not a stereo pair, they are in the latest firmware upgrade btw, Starsky’s video is an earlier firmware.

  • dendydendy

    very cool … i think this is no brainer … great improvements buils on upon original Plaits code !

Sign In or Register to comment.