Clone or Knock off??

[WESTLOWER]

When is a 'Clone' build amplifier a complete 'Knock off'? :scratch:

It's interesting that identical clone products, copying the case work, design, electronics, badge and general look
are posted as clones for sale. When in fact they are cheaper Chinese made copies!

I had thought that a clone amp was something thats fundamentally a large nod to the electronic design but significantly changed
in it's appearance etc.

so the question is.... When is 'Clone' build amp a complete 'Knock off'
:scratch:

[Wakefield Turntables]

My definition of "clone" would agree with your own definition. I have the very popular EAR 834p "cloned" and intrinsically it's nothing like an original EAR 834, lots of mods and goodies from 3rd party providers. Clone from a science point of view is exactly that, a carbon copy of something. I hate semantics! I think a "knock-off" is something that is a poor copy of the original designed to look or emulate something much more expensive, a good example being a Rolex watch man from the looky-looky man! It's a good question,, get ready from some complex replies! :scratch:

[Macca]

It's one of those irregular verbs.

I have a clone
You have a 'tribute'
He's got a knock-off

[WESTLOWER]

It's one of those irregular verbs.

I have a clone
You have a 'tribute'
He's got a knock-off

Yes... but it's pretty clear when something is a complete 'Knock off' identical copy ?

I ask the question as there seem to be no rules of selling such things on the forum?

[Macca]

Okay well I'd say

Clone - as an exact a copy as possible built to the same - or very close- quality as the original

Tribute - looks similar and of a decent standard but not identical copy and not pretending to be.

Knock-off - looks to be the real thing on first glance but significantly different on inspection, lower quality parts and build, maybe not even the same topology.

[Haselsh1]

Forgive me as I am really not trying to derail this thread but I have noticed similar with kit cars. AC Cobra replicas that even have a fake AC badge on them. These things are almost an exact copy and you see people that have built them expecting to get £46k for them..! It is a knock off mate, nothing more nothing less. Getting back to the OP, I have noticed the amps on ebay too.

[Wakefield Turntables]

These things are almost an exact copy and you see people that have built them expecting to get £46k for them..!

Yep, steep prices. But I would imagine this includes and individuals time taken to build the thing. Quite often people conveniently forget this aspect and expect everything at stupidly low prices.

[Paul-H]

To me a clone would be a copy of something but sold as a copy

A knockoff is a copy of something but sold as the original

Problems often arise when you get a knockoff of a clone, as with most stuff coming out of China and sold on eBay, and not talking of Audio gear with that last bit

[WESTLOWER]

Getting back to the OP, I have noticed the amps on ebay too.

On eBay ?! I’ve noticed one in the classifieds on AOS !!

[Macca]

Selling a clone or a copy or a knock off and saying that it is a clone, copy or knock-off is fine. Selling a clone, copy or knock-off and trying to deceive people that it is the real thing is not.

The amp you mention - I'm assuming we are thinking of the same one - is described as a clone so no-one who buys it would be deceived into thinking it was anything other than that. That's the key point I think.

[paulf-2007]

Forgive me as I am really not trying to derail this thread but I have noticed similar with kit cars. AC Cobra replicas that even have a fake AC badge on them. These things are almost an exact copy and you see people that have built them expecting to get £46k for them..! It is a knock off mate, nothing more nothing less. Getting back to the OP, I have noticed the amps on ebay too.even Gibson guitars sell say a '59 reissue. It might look like a '59, it might have similar hardware but the timber will not compare, years ago the Japanese bought the best timber and were making better quality guitars than the Americans, it irritates me when I see a '59 les Paul for sale and then find out it's a reissue and not the genuine article even though it's made by a company with the name Gibson, ok the same company but not the same craftsmen and materials

Btw I just bought an amplifier reminiscent of a Linley hood design that looks very Dartzeel but is NOT labeled as one, 15w solid state, bought out of interest rather than expecting it to be anywhere near the quality of my Bakoon.

[WESTLOWER]

The amp you mention - I'm assuming we are thinking of the same one - is described as a clone so no-one who buys it would be deceived into thinking it was anything other than that. That's the key point I think.

Hmm, Interesting point...
so if one states it’s a fake, but still continues to try and sell the fake, even though to the eye it’s a complete facsimile of a product, which a company has invested a massive amount of R&D, money and commitment in.... its ok, because they stated it was a clone to begin with?

Imho that doesn’t sit right, and darn sure if any of us had the same commitment to a product we’d be very upset.

Not exactly endorsing the small business ethic that make up the hifi industry!

[Macca]

Hmm, Interesting point...
so if one states it’s a fake, but still continues to try and sell the fake, even though to the eye it’s a complete facsimile of a product, which a company has invested a massive amount of R&D, money and commitment in.... its ok, because they stated it was a clone to begin with?

Imho that doesn’t sit right, and darn sure if any of us had the same commitment to a product we’d be very upset.

Not exactly endorsing the small business ethic that make up the hifi industry!

Is there really an issue providing things like names/logos are not appropriated and there's no intent to deceive i.e it is not sold as being the real thing?

[WESTLOWER]

Is there really an issue providing things like names/logos are not appropriated and there's no intent to deceive i.e it is not sold as being the real thing?

So why not use a different aesthetic?
Of course it’s meant to deceive, it’s been put in the same VERY distinctive case

[fatmarley]

Here's an interesting one - What about a company that's name is known worldwide, and their old products still fetch good money on the second-hand market. Recently, they make new products with the same name and similar looks, but the original owners and designers are long gone, and although they look the same, they obviously don't perform the same.

Can you guess who I'm thinking of?

[Wakefield Turntables]

Here's an interesting one - What about a company that's name is known worldwide, and their old products still fetch good money on the second-hand market. Recently, they make new products with the same name and similar looks, but the original owners and designers are long gone, and although they look the same, they obviously don't perform the same.

Can you guess who I'm thinking of?

Some Might Explain this in a differing manner.

[walpurgis]

Quad clones have been around for years. I doubt they care much about 30 year out of date designs being copied.

[topoxforddoc]

I think that this whole aspect of hi fi electronics is a can of worms. It's just like copyright in many ways, except some people choose to turn a blind eye.

As in the computer world, some designs are open source with the circuits published. Anyone building one of these is perfectly entitled to do so, as that was what the designer originally intended. Something like the vintage Mullard 5-20 circuit or the modern Nelson Pass designs would fall into this category - effectively they're like freeware.

However, many designers invest a huge amount of effort, time and money into improving their designs. I don't think that there is any such thing as copyright in electronics and patents are hard and difficult to secure. Some designers, like Frank Schroeder, are willing to share their knowledge to private DIY individuals; Frank has helped many people to build clones of his tonearms, on the condition that they are for private use and not for profit.

Opening up a new piece of equipment and admiring the quality of workmanship is one thing. But reverse engineering someone else's design without the original designer's consent is effectively intellectual property theft. But many smaller designers and even some of the household names don't have the resources to litigate, particularly if the offender is overseas or an individual with few assets. It is much easier to copy a design with discrete components, as that is within the skillset of a skilled electronics engineer. But copying surface mounted boards requires a different level of investment.

Ultimately if the cohort of excellent small designers have their business undercut and their products ripped off without their consent, the hi-fi world would be a much poorer place.

[fatmarley]

Some Might Explain this in a differing manner.

I see what you did there, but that's not who I was thinking of. Thinking about it, I'm sure there are many examples where this has happened.

[walpurgis]

If you look on ebay for amplifiers and include 1969 or Hood in the search, you will get derivatives of John Linsley Hood Class A designs. I doubt anybody is likely to complain.

[WESTLOWER]

We are talking about original products that are still in production
And are being basically Bootlegged

[walpurgis]

We are talking about original products that are still in production
And are being basically Bootlegged

Are we? I don't recall seeing that as a requirement for joining in.

I can't actually think of a copied/cloned Hi-Fi product that is an imitation of a current model.

[WESTLOWER]

Are we? I don't recall seeing that as a requirement for joining in.

I can't actually think of a copied/cloned Hi-Fi product that is an imitation of a current model.

Ok, I started the thread because of this
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?68597-FS-Dartzeel-NHB-108-Clone-Power-Amplifier

But you are right it’s not a requirement of joining in.
But I was referring to (it may not have been clear !) current production equipment

[walpurgis]

Ok, I started the thread because of this
https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?68597-FS-Dartzeel-NHB-108-Clone-Power-Amplifier

That is not based on a current production model. The current NHB-108 Model 2, is itself a sort of clone of their original from around 2005.

[WESTLOWER]

That is not based on a current production model. The current NHB-108 Model 2, is itself a sort of clone of their original from around 2005.

Yes I understand, but can you see the point that’s attempting to be made?

[paulf-2007]

Hmm, Interesting point...
so if one states it’s a fake, but still continues to try and sell the fake, even though to the eye it’s a complete facsimile of a product, which a company has invested a massive amount of R&D, money and commitment in.... its ok, because they stated it was a clone to begin with?

Imho that doesn’t sit right, and darn sure if any of us had the same commitment to a product we’d be very upset.

Not exactly endorsing the small business ethic that make up the hifi industry!if any patent or copyright has expired then it's ok to copy the design. Sticking a badge from the original on it is not

[WESTLOWER]

if any patent or copyright has expired then it's ok to copy the design. Sticking a badge from the original on it is not

In the instance of the Dartzeel NHB-108, which I am referring too, it's clearly still in production, (ok, as Geoff so clearly pointed out the MK2 is still in production),

The case work has been totally copied, the logo badge has been put on the front of the case, the electronics inside the case have been copied, albeit with inferior parts no doubt!.

This thing is a complete KNOCK OFF, a Bootleg...

My point about stand alone Hifi manufactures stands.
Dartzeel have put all their investment into the said equipment, only to have it totally copied, even to the font on the case.

It's not an open source Free to use design. It's still in copyright.
So it's plainly not legal or right!

How can anyone defend the selling of such equipment.

[Macca]

It has the Dartzeel logo on it? I didn't realise that. As I said before I don't agree with using the name or logo. That makes the clone/copy a counterfeit so crosses the line for me.

[WESTLOWER]

It has the Dartzeel logo on it? I didn't realise that. As I said before I don't agree with using the name or logo. That makes the clone/copy a counterfeit so crosses the line for me.

https://i.imgur.com/4ftTLVy.png

[Macca]

That explains why I never saw it then. The real thing does have the Dartzeel name in black font at the top centre of the fascia and this doesn't. The little plate on the real one seems to say something about 'Sensi Masters' or something.

So you are saying that AoS shouldn't be hosting sale of counterfeits? Seems reasonable. I will consult.

[Haselsh1]

even Gibson guitars sell say a '59 reissue. It might look like a '59, it might have similar hardware but the timber will not compare, years ago the Japanese bought the best timber and were making better quality guitars than the Americans, it irritates me when I see a '59 les Paul for sale and then find out it's a reissue and not the genuine article even though it's made by a company with the name Gibson, ok the same company but not the same craftsmen and materials

Yes Paul, gotta agree with you.

[WESTLOWER]

That explains why I never saw it then. The real thing does have the Dartzeel name in black font at the top centre of the fascia and this doesn't. The little plate on the real one seems to say something about 'Sensi Masters' or something.

So you are saying that AoS shouldn't be hosting sale of counterfeits? Seems reasonable. I will consult.

I would have thought that not hosting the sale of counterfeits was page 1 ?

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do anything, i'm just a little surprised people have thrown up insignificant obstacles in detail
in justifying the existence of such an obviously dubious product..

[Macca]

I would have thought that not hosting the sale of counterfeits was page 1 ?

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do anything, i'm just a little surprised people have thrown up insignificant obstacles in detail
in justifying the existence of such an obviously dubious product..

Well it's a bad counterfeit and it isn't being sold as the real thing. And I didn't think it had the name on until you pointed it out. Anyway matter's been raised, it's not up to me.

[Pharos]

Surely the issue is whether or not there is an attempt to deceive.

[Joe]

It's a good idea for a daytime TV show: 'Clone or Knock-off: You Decide'. There's shedloads of out-or-work actors who'd jump at the chance of hosting that, and a captive audience of millions.

[antonio]

I don't think the seller has tried to deceive anyone, I'm sure many of us have seen the ad on ebay selling these from China.

[Macca]

It's a good idea for a daytime TV show: 'Clone or Knock-off: You Decide'. There's shedloads of out-or-work actors who'd jump at the chance of hosting that, and a captive audience of millions.

Needs a better title:

'Rip Off or Real?' 'Real or No Real?'. 'Kosher or Clone?' 'Ringer or Real?'

That's enough titles now.

[Joe]

'Fact, or foo?' Robert Kilroy-Silk invites his guest celebrities to decide whether putting spikes under hifi has any effect, or if it's all in the mind. This week, Vanessa Feltz isolates her conrad-johnson, with surprising results.

[Columbo]

Krell? Or fell off the back of a lorry?

Do you think it's something new? It's what the Japanese/Chinese do. The clone gene must be less recessive in them. They've been at it for decades. The only difference now is that once there was only their home market. The Japanese have always had a audiophile community which always regarded UK hi-fi. In the 60s they wanted Garrard 301s. They couldn't get them - so they made copies. The difference now is that the Chinese have a world market for copies.

And it's not necessarily a cheap option. Today I've been looking at amplifier cases. I was looking at a pair of McIntosh copies. $500 + $200 carriage.

It's hardly surprising it happens when the original item is getting made there. And they're not daft enough to put a genuine name on the front panel as that would be counterfeiting. An AC Cobre clone might have the name on it, but it's not going to be registered as a genuine AC in the logbook.

If the origins are stated when something is being sold, then people are free to make up their own mind. The problem arises when something is made out to be something it's not. That's fraud.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200523/5989180cc1d8e2390d5c523a54751b73.jpg

Sent from my K3 using Tapatalk

[Columbo]

Might add. There ARE some Chinese-made items that are counterfeit and sold to be genuine (I'm not talking about components). Line Magnetic (a genuine Chinese manufacturer of some quality hi-fi) products can be had on AliExpress and elsewhere. These are not genuine registered dealers, and as such, the products they offer aren't genuine Line Magnetic. When they fail, as quite often will be the case, and get sent to LM for repair, they get confiscated and scrapped and the buyer is out of pocket.

[WESTLOWER]

I think that this whole aspect of hi fi electronics is a can of worms. It's just like copyright in many ways, except some people choose to turn a blind eye.

Ultimately if the cohort of excellent small designers have their business undercut and their products ripped off without their consent, the hi-fi world would be a much poorer place.

couldn't agree more with you Charlie.
I still do not understand the stance, it's ok to rip off the working electronic design, case aesthetics etc. just as long as you are not trying to deceive!!! and you list it as a clone! :doh:

Just a Bonkers cop out.

[Gerry]

It is Intellectual Property (IP) unless the original owner releases it. There are time limits.
Nelson Pass is very kind in this respect.
Lesley Hood published designs in Practical Electronics.

Most people would be pretty pissed of if their designs/words/ songs were ripped off.

The EU ( of we are just about still with) has some pretty draconian legalisation in place courtesy of the big fashion houses.

A copy is a copy is a copy. Plagiarism. Just because you changed the odd word in an essay or song, or note in a tune doesn't excuse it, does it?





Sent from my moto g(8) plus using Tapatalk

[WESTLOWER]

It is Intellectual Property (IP) unless the original owner releases it. There are time limits.
Nelson Pass is very kind in this respect.
Lesley Hood published designs in Practical Electronics.

Most people would be pretty pissed of if their designs/words/ songs were ripped off.

The EU ( of we are just about still with) has some pretty draconian legalisation in place courtesy of the big fashion houses.

A copy is a copy is a copy. Plagiarism. Just because you changed the odd word in an essay or song, or note in a tune doesn't excuse it, does it?





Sent from my moto g(8) plus using Tapatalk

+1 with bells on !

[Wakefield Turntables]

Interesting discussion with lots of twists and turns.

[Columbo]

Do people think it's something unique to hi-fi? Years ago there was an item on the TV about counterfeit goods and it was said that if an item can be copied - it will be. It was said that counterfeit goods was flooding in. The Trading Standards could barely scratch the surface because of the scale, and the lack of resources. Fake drugs were even finding their way into the NHS's system.

You probably see it every day - clothing. (For some reason) people want designer labels. If they have the money - they buy them. If not - they buy a cheaper copy. Or they could buy what they think is the genuine article when it's not.

It can even be in the music you listen to.

[WESTLOWER]

Err... Yes we are all very aware that the practice exists where ever there are sellable high value goods. This thread is referring to the ‘clone or ‘knock off’ of high end hifi.

I don’t think anyone is Stupid enough to assume it only happened in the hifi industry.

There just seem to be enthusiasts in our community that think the practice is ok!!
Ok to steal designs from small companies, just so long as the premise isn’t to deceive.

The exception being the open source designs that some designers kindly allow the diy builders access to.

[Columbo]

My point was simply - where do you draw the line?

People are what they are, and the world is an imperfect place. Do you think Ivor T lost any sleep at night making his copy of the Thorens 150? How many have bought it and denied Thorens in the process?

If you were to ask Nelson Pass, John Curl, Joe Curccio for their opinion, how do you think they might respond? I think they would probably take a pragmatic view.

You say "High-End Knock-offs". Why the distinction, other than the value. A knock-off's a knock-off, surely? As I said previously the practice has been going on for decades. Ken Ishiwata used to make Marantz 7 preamp "Knock-offs" when he was at college. Did that make him a thief? Denying Saul Marantz income? I suppose the question of scale has a bearing. I wonder if Dan D'Agostino feels cheated with all those Krell diy copiests (and Chinese cloners)? No idea. Not a mind reader. But I can imagine him not giving it any thought. It's a 40-year-old design and I imagine he'll have other matters that take up his time.

Personally, it's not something I would buy myself, as I simply don't have any time for "High-End" hi-fi. "Knock-Offs" - or otherwise. If, somehow, I had such an item, and was selling it, I'd make it clear as to what it actually was, and that would be it. You know what they say: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

To answer your question "when is a 'Clone' build amp a complete 'Knock-Off'? You missed the question mark. IF, it was a clone in the truest sense, it would be indistinguishable from the original, and as such, it wouldn't be a knock-off, since a knock-off generally implies a cheap imitation. So, it would then follow that something other than a clone could be described as a "Knock-Off". That other could include not actually having the same circuit. The use of inferior components. Poorly finished and assembled.

What about those that take a product and actually improve it and sell it. Is that a 'Knock-Off'?

What about those manufacturers that take another manufacturers product and do little more than rebadge it as their own? Is that a "Knock-Off'?

[Pharos]

Plagiarism and copying have been going on forever; look at the pioneering work done by Campagnolo, and those who later copied but avoided breaching patents or copyrights.

[spendorman]

I remember about 60 years ago, my Grandmother coming back from a holiday abroad, showing me the wonderful Parker pen that she had bought cheaply whilst away.

The name on the pen was not Parker, it was P.arker

[struth]

Aldi do it all the time... products and adverts etc..

[Macca]

Lidl do a tinned soup that looks from a distance like it has the Heinz label but when you get up close it's a different story. Never chanced it myself.

I recall that Burberry had an issue back in the 1990s. Mostly these premium brands are not that bothered about knock-offs as the market for the knock offs and the market for the real thing are completely separate, so they don't lose sales. The problem Burberry had was that knock-off Burberry became the widespread style choice of the chav, so the customers for the real thing were put off by this and stopped buying it.

Don't think that effect could crossover to hifi though.

[Pharos]

Last Christmas, (Oh no its looming!), a friend said that he bought a stolen from a supermarket, Aldi I seem to recall, and he peeled a label off to find Lidl underneath.

[WESTLOWER]

Last Christmas, (Oh no its looming!), a friend said that he bought a stolen from a supermarket, Aldi I seem to recall, and he peeled a label off to find Lidl underneath.

I take you meant Stollen? :lol:

[Pharos]

Yes, it is not only that I make errors, (In typing not spelling), but I run a cleaner whilst I type, and this causes drop-outs.

[Joe]

I'm old enough to remember the Embassy cheapo cover versions singles that you bought from Woolies (well, I never did, because I'm too classy, but our kid did). If I remember correctly, some of them featured famous musicians (eg Elton John) 'moonlighting', and are now quite valuable.

[Pharos]

Personally I can see nothing valuable about Elton John.

[Columbo]

A rattling good read - Mr W, what I read of it. It's quite lengthy. And all views catered for:

https://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=amp&m=132787