Why are amp sims legal?

[Ziphoblat]

It functions as a way for the company to get their name and there and such a lot of the time. People might not necessarily be incentivised to look into their amps or try them out, but if you have a bash on it through your amp simulator and discover the sound you've always been after then you're quite possibly going to go pick one up so you can get that sound in a live setting and such. Plus the more obvious mimics (Amplitube for example) will be paying royalties to these companies... they're getting paid to advertise their products. Can't complain about that. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone not buying a particular type of amp because they can just get a simulator for it.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Ziphoblat

[ahpook]

[quote name='spinynorman' timestamp='1347889218' post='1806165']
So, if I want to create a shape to sell as a Rackenbicker, how much does it have to deviate from the original spec to avoid infringing the trademark? Is that why all the effort goes into taking individual sales off eBay, when there doesn't seem to have been as much effort to stop the production at source?
[/quote]

how close ? i think that would up to their lawyers to decide.

i suppose the rykeinbarquah body shape could be protected by both a trademark and copyright as it's so distinctive...

Edited September 17, 2012 by ahpook

[GarethFlatlands]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1347739154' post='1804568']
how can you trademark a sound? You can patent the circuit that makes that sound if it's special enough - but a specfic tone? sure I can deconstruct that and remake it digitally to make a look-a-like, cos it's not the real thing- it's a digital copy.
[/quote]

This I'd imagine. You can trademark a fancy rectifier or any number of factors that make up your circuit and open up a competitors amp to see if they're using it, but you can't prove someone's making an digital amp model based on it. As long as they don't use the name directly, they can presumably get away with saying modelled on... amp name here.

[BassTractor]

I've seen numbers here that something has to deviate 15% for it to be legal. Silly question: how the feck are you gonna calculate that then?

Company names here, however, are legal already if they deviate with one letter or an apostrophe, so the company Coca/Cola is already legal in that respect. Guess three times who is gonna win the lawsuit though...

best'
bert'

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='MacDaddy' timestamp='1347721141' post='1804349']
So it's illegal to copy music, copyright infringement applies to instruments, but it's okay to copy an amp sound - say which amp it's meant to sound like - then sell it?

Confused?
[/quote]

Do you know that the companies doing so aren't paying royalties or a licence fee to use the names?

Who are you talking about?

[tauzero]

[quote name='andydye' timestamp='1347727796' post='1804409']
Maybe someone should do some bass tone sims too, obviously not ricken#@$&er though cos that would be naughty!
[/quote]

Line 6's Variax bass had Rick sims, and the manual states:

[quote]
CLANG

The Rickenbacker 4001 was first offered in 1961. While the “cresting wave” body certainly stands out on stage, it’s the sustain from the neck-through construction and biting attack from the unique pickups that have made the 4001 a favorite of such diverse artists as Chris Squire, Geddy Lee, and Lemmy. We’ve modeled both the classic 60’s version (Paul McCartney’s “other sound”), with the “horseshoe” pickup and flatwounds, and the hardrockin’ 70’s version, with its brighter bridge pickup and roundwounds.

GREEN based on 1971 Rickenbacker 4001.

RED based on 1963 Rickenbacker 4001 with flatwound strings.

Rickenbacker is a registered trademark of Rickenbacker International Corporation.
All product names are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with Line 6. These product names, descriptions and images are provided for the sole purpose of identifying the specific products that were studied during Line 6’s sound model development.
[/quote]

For that matter, they've done it with Rickenbacker guitars (my Variax 300 has assorted Ricks in it). It would be very difficult to trademark a guitar or bass sound, especially when you have tone controls on them.

[tauzero]

[quote name='spinynorman' timestamp='1347889218' post='1806165']
So, if I want to create a shape to sell as a Rackenbicker, how much does it have to deviate from the original spec to avoid infringing the trademark? Is that why all the effort goes into taking individual sales off eBay, when there doesn't seem to have been as much effort to stop the production at source?
[/quote]

The notices that RIC sent to Basschat about the Rick trademarks show only the headstock and TRC as being trademarks that they insisted on protecting. Presumably a Rick copy that only had the body the same as a real Rick and where no reference was made to the "R" word wouldn't infringe those trademarks.

[spinynorman]

[quote]All product names are trademarks of their respective owners, which are in no way associated or affiliated with Line 6. These product names, descriptions and images are provided for the sole purpose of identifying the specific products that were studied during Line 6’s sound model development.[/quote]

That's an interesting disclaimer. I'm surprised that stands up.

[mike257]

[quote name='spinynorman' timestamp='1347983794' post='1807671']
That's an interesting disclaimer. I'm surprised that stands up.
[/quote]

I imagine most companies find it more valuable to have their products effectively advertised for nowt ("The real one must be ace if they've gone to all this trouble to model it!") on thousands of units worldwide, rather than kick up a stink over it and not have that extra visibility to a massive audience of potential customers.

Except Backenricker. They don't want you to even know they exist.

[spinynorman]

I've never really understood the argument about defending trademarks. The classic example being Hoover. How much damage did becoming the generic term for vacuum cleaner do to Hoover, compared to Dyson coming out with a superior product and marketing it better?

[charic]

[quote name='mike257' timestamp='1348002333' post='1808068']
Except Backenricker. They don't want you to even know they exist.
[/quote]



[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGYztu1YVZ8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGYztu1YVZ8[/url]

[MacDaddy]

[quote name='dave_bass5' timestamp='1347960196' post='1807076']
Do you know that the companies doing so aren't paying royalties or a licence fee to use the names?

Who are you talking about?
[/quote]

Good point, no I don't know. But having seen the disclaimer spinynorman posted - and similar ones from other companies - I'd hazzard a guess there are no royalties. Could be wrong though.

[MacDaddy]

Does intelluctual property rights not apply?

[uncle psychosis]

All a sound is is a superposition of periodic waves. Patenting or copywriting such a thing would be insane (you'd be patenting entire fields of maths and physics). Sounds have been around for so long that it would probably fall foul of the "obviousness" criteria for starters. Its also nigh-on impossible to define the "tone" of an amp. How would you do it? Some of them have dozens of controls and thats even before you consider the effect of the input signal (what you plug in has a massive effect) or the output path (whats it being plugged in to?), or the non-linear nature of sound. There are, essentially, an infinite number of sounds available from any amplifier.

What you *can* patent is a unique way of making such a sound. So you can try and protect the IP of your circuitry or your bass design. But if someone else can make the same sound by completely different means then thats completely fair game.

Edited September 23, 2012 by uncle psychosis

[spinynorman]

I wonder if Orange have a trademark on the colour of their amps. I wouldn't be surprised.

[flyfisher]

I think the issue is something about 'passing off' a product in such a way as it would confuse the average public (whatever that means).

So, if I built, say, an "Ampog" combo and made it physically look very similar to an Ampeg combo then I could reasonably be challenged as 'passing off' my combo for an Ampeg one - i.e. confusing the public. But if I built an amp sim in, say, a pedal box and it sounded EXACTLY like an Ampeg combo then it would be hard for Ampeg to claim the product would cause confusion, even if the two things sounded the same.

[spinynorman]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1348695913' post='1817180']
I think the issue is something about 'passing off' a product in such a way as it would confuse the average public (whatever that means).

So, if I built, say, an "Ampog" combo and made it physically look very similar to an Ampeg combo then I could reasonably be challenged as 'passing off' my combo for an Ampeg one - i.e. confusing the public. But if I built an amp sim in, say, a pedal box and it sounded EXACTLY like an Ampeg combo then it would be hard for Ampeg to claim the product would cause confusion, even if the two things sounded the same.
[/quote]

Where they seem to be doing a very good job of confusing the general public is the application of IP law.