Ethics of Cloning

[Smitty]

I happen to find ethics fascinating. I'm also ruthlessly curious--Father Wood's (former Dean of Boston College Evening College) words, not mine. I'm also retired and this post may be driven by boredom. Please forgive me in advance.

Now that it seems like one is able to purchase what is arguably nothing more than a Dumble Overdrive Special clone from Dumble.com, I'd like re-pose the ethical question of, "If you build a Dumble clone to exacting standards which will naturally include the Dumble trademark, but represent it as a replica and not an original, what are the ethical considerations of transferring ownership?"

A few years back, when Andy sold a copy of an ODS clone on Reverb, I attempted to open this topic for discussion. In posing the question, I was clumsy and poor old Andy suffered because of my carelessness. Sorry, again, Andy. I will try to be more careful this time.

I am not soliciting judgement (which seems to be as abundant as it is uninteresting) as much as I am looking for argument. Responses to the question of 'why'. Why is one behavior right and another wrong--from an ethical perspective rather than something like, let's say, a purely legal perspective? I'll save an obvious intersection of the two for later in the thread in hopes that someone beats me to it.

My suggestion is that the community as a whole is less interested in the legal arguments or in anyone's personal opinion/judgement and shares my curiosity of why a certain behavior is either right or wrong. Toward that end, I'd request that you grant me the indulgence of confining the discussion in this thread solely to the ethical considerations and arguments tangential to that. After this initial post, I will limit my involvement in this thread to encouragement of the discussion of the ethics of this question, rather than participating in it. What is right and what is wrong behavior and more importantly why?

We have, as a community, the opportunity to put a timely fine point on this question now that Drew Berlin is offering new Dumble Overdrive Specials. To help get us started:

According to Robben Ford on this very topic, “His wish was that once he was gone there would be no more Dumble amplifiers,” says Ford. “Most people want to leave behind a legacy, but he didn’t want that."

See https://www.premierguitar.com/artists/g ... e-obituary

Given that the ethical foundation of Drew's effort seems to be based in legacy preservation and Robben says that's not what Howard wanted, how are Drew's copies any more (or less) ethical than Andy's? Sorry, yet again, Andy, but it's such a perfect example. Perhaps you'll find redemption in this thread.

Is Drew ignoring Dumble's wishes and creating clones to serve some greater good? A greater good more important than the creator's own wishes?? Why or how does 'greater good' trump Dumble's wishes?

It seems as a community we have established that building an exact clone for strictly personal use--to include the Dumble trademark--might be acceptable to many of us. However, selling it as an original seems to be well established as unethical. Selling it as a replica remains an ethically gray area and context seems to be important (e.g. all funds from the sale go to St. Helen of the Blessed Shroud orphanage). Building an exacting replica in all aspects except placing 'by Dumble' in silkscreen on the front panel has gained acceptance by this community over the past two decades. Why? How does all that play into the larger question?

Please excuse in advance any clumsiness on my part in my efforts at introducing and moderating this discussion. I am a student of ethics, not a teacher of it. I assure you that my interest is driven purely by curiosity is not in any way an attempt to steer what--if we are successful--will be a healthy debate.

For their own safety and the safety of others, those who suffer human frailty when their ideas are challenged may wish to refrain from active participation.

This Tall.JPG

Let the fun begin.

[dbharris]

Hi Smitty,

That is very interesting. I think we all have our own biases as to where our personal ethical line of no return is regarding "cloning".

To address your question about Mr. Berlin and the "DPS" I would offer my personal speculations, being just that. We all can talk ourselves into doing things that we know are wrong (unethical) by a death of a million justification cuts and a slippery slope of small actions/decisions compounding. I believe Robbin Ford's account of his conversation with HAD. I also believe that Drew Berlin was entrusted in some way or other with HAD's amp estate by the man himself. It can be true that HAD wanted the Dumble brand to die with him and he also wanted "amp pirates" to be thwarted from profiting from his life's work and name. Perhaps in consultation with lawyers, Mr. Berlin discovered that in order to achieve a goal he was entrusted with (stop 3rd parties from profiting unethically), he had to violate a different wish (doing that very thing himself). Perhaps he determined this was the lesser of two evils and if it happens to turn a profit to keep the "preservation" in place going forward, that is a silver lining.

We will never know the full truth. We don't presently know where the profits will flow from new amp sales. If it goes to HAD's family, is it acceptable then?

The only thing I know, is that my opinion is that there can never be a new Dumble amp. What made it a "Dumble" was being built and tuned by HAD.

If someone were to send an amp, built and sold by HAD originally, to the DPS for service and they determined the preamp board (being gooped) needed to be replaced whole cloth and rewired. Is the amp that returns still a proper Dumble? What if it was the power amp board instead, or just the filter caps? The ship of Theseus comes to mind.

It is an interesting thought experiment.

-Dan

[Fischerman]

The only thing I know, is that my opinion is that there can never be a new Dumble amp. What made it a "Dumble" was being built and tuned by HAD.

I agree with this. If someone wants to copy the amp after he's gone then HAD doesn't get to decide that, it's not his decision. If they identify and badge it as an actual HAD-built Dumble then that is fraud. But if they just built a very Dumble-inspired amp and sell it as a Dumble-inspired amp I don't see a problem. HAD might not like it but that's too bad. Competition happens, deal with it. Every other desirable product does. HAD borrowed from those before him just like guys like Andy borrowed from those before him.

If anything the fact that he allegedly tuned each amp and each one is a prototype works against him. Anyone can tweek values here and there to make it technically different yet have a negligible tone difference.

[Smitty]

Dan,

A wonderful post! You came to the 'intersection' of legal and ethical I alluded to my original post. I suspect, as well, that the small volume of production will be enough to stave off pirates and this was DPS's rationalization. Competing imperatives and lesser of evils! Nice!!

Fischerman,

You have done a nice job of bounding behaviors by their logical extremes:

"If they idientify and badge it as an actual HAD-built Dumble then that is fraud. But if they just built a very Dumble-inspired amp and sell it as a Dumble-inspired amp I don't see a problem."

Where does that leave the DPS-built ODSs as well as Andy's? Both are enjoying the benefits of the badging while being clear on authenticity. Is this wrong or right behavior and why?

We're off to a fantastic start!!

[nuke]

It's not a Dumble, unless it was built by HAD and built for YOU.

Although there were certain things that were in-common among the things he built, they were all individual works of art. They're just not the same, and without his ears, eyes and hands and most of all his mind involved, then it just isn't a Dumble.

I don't know what estate and heirs HAD left behind. I think the DPS is trying to do the right thing. They have the rights to the name and brand, and no one else does.

The clones are not "clones" which implies identical to the original. They can't be identical. I live in the same area as HAD did for much of his time. I know where he got at least some of his parts, and those places are gone. We're basically down to just one electronics parts and supplies shop in Silicon Valley. They're nice folks, I visit often.

The big warehouses full of surplus electronic parts and equipment and junk are all gone. 30 years ago, one could wander around and find all kinds of high quality industrial, mil-spec and aerospace components for pennies on the dollar. I'm not as familiar with the LA area, but with all the cold-war defense contractors back in the day, I'm sure there was a wide swath of similar surplus for the browsing there too.

The Dumble amps were a product of a particular person, in a particular situation and moment in time, that simply doesn't exist anymore.

They're copies, not clones. And they don't have his particular talent of aligning the circuits to the player. That went with him.

I'm not knocking DPS, or any of the other makers of copies. The original amps are out of reach of everyone except collectors, so i see no problem in selling purported copy of a particular example, but it will always be a copy of ODS #xyz or whatever. The DPS group have the advantage of knowing the man personally, so they probably have more insight into his thinking.

On my part, I look to them not as something I want to clone so much, as they are something to learn from. It is a lot of work doing all the circuit analysis and comparing different serials, and listening to the particular artist they were built for, with or without the Dumble. Hearing the before they met HAD sound and maybe the after, gives some idea perhaps what HAD was trying to accomplish in his builds.

[martin manning]

I'm in agreement with what has been said above. This is not a new topic of debate. See: https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 40#p327840 That's where I jumped in, but the first post in that thread was 20 years ago. It's still an interesting read.

[Smitty]

Thanks, Martin. I've lifted your post from that thread. Hope you don't mind.

I'm with those who define a clone as something that copies the circuit, layout, and appearance exactly. An extreme example would use identical parts, and might easily be mistaken for an original. IMO it is unethical to build and sell such things unless they are clearly identifiable as copies, and do not violate any current copyright or patent protection.

In reality knowledge of the schematic and nominal component values may not be enough to reproduce the sound of an amp made by a talented boutique builder, as no two will be identical. If this last few percent of performance or just the cachet associated with the builder is important to a buyer, then he will be willing to pay for that builder's services. A DIY version should not be any threat to that market, unless it is misrepresented as or easily mistaken for an original. As someone said earlier, most builds here are more "in the style of" as opposed to true clones.

The real problem is that this is a public forum, and there will be those who will be ready to mass-produce kits as soon as the details are available. The relatively small numbers and nature of rj's packages should not be a big deal for the boutique builder, but a Ceriatone might be if the kit gains acceptance as a close approximation of the original. That is all the more likely if the circuit is really nothing special and easily assembled from off-the-shelf parts.

You provide an excellent definition of the term 'clone' for the purposes of this discussion. Thank you. Is the flip side of your ethical argument that if 'they are clearly identifiable as copies' then it would be ethical to transfer ownership? The manner or context of the transfer might be a separate ethical consideration.

You also broach the subject of harm. In the example of Ceriatone 'as a close approximation of the original' are you inferring that although 'they are clearly identifiable as copies' that by offering them in a higher volume some level of harm is crested and thus becomes unethical where a lesser degree of harm would not? Please correct any misunderstanding.

[martin manning]

I agree. C-tone is in a grey area, as are some boutique pedal copy and kit sellers of copies with altered cosmetics and cute names. If they are producing enough functionally equivalent articles to impact the sales of the original, then there is definitely some harm being done. However, if there is no copyright, trademark, or patent infringement then it would be hard to say that any laws have been broken. IMO DIY for personal use is fine, and transferring ownership of a small number of such would not substantially impact the originator's sales or the market price ("investment/collector value") of originals. I would think, though, that if it becomes widely known that a functional equivalent can be built from off the shelf parts (i.e. there is no magic), then the value of an original is reduced. I believe this is the reason that few owners are willing to let anyone with technical knowledge examine the insides closely enough to produce a copy.

[Smitty]

I would think, though, that if it becomes widely known that a functional equivalent can be built from off the shelf parts (i.e. there is no magic), then the value of an original is reduced. I believe this is the reason that few owners are willing to let anyone with technical knowledge examine the insides closely enough to produce a copy.

Ahh. Interesting point. The ethical self-interest of original owners. Extremely valid. I wouldn't have thought of that on my own. Thanks.

[nuke]

There's really nothing "magic" in the parts. He was using best stuff he could put hands upon, that's clear. But he was also using what he could get. Back in the day, there were lots of surplus electronic scrap and unused inventory from the cold war and space programs. So, lots of great mil-spec resistors and so on.

And he used 12V transformers and coax from Radio Shack and relays from NTE, maybe even bought at Fry's.

The goop hides the exact values from prying eyes.

And I've worked on enough amps in the bay area to know the region was teaming with wanna-be amp gurus who imagined themselves as Randall Smith or Dumble, with any number of half-ass mods. I could see why HAD gooped things over, to thwart the peanut gallery.

[martin manning]

Not just the exact component values but the circuit as well. The ODS tone stack is not the same as a Fender. Keeping both under wraps (or silicone goop) thwarts copying and also maintains the mystique. Maybe that’s a better word than magic. A similar situation exists around the Klon Centaur. EH sells a Klon copy made using modern automated assembly with SMT components, and it retails for under $100. Originals are still selling for $1000+. One can pay several times that figure depending upon the vintage and which graphics are on the enclosure. This is reflecting value to a collector rather than functionality, two different markets.

[Smitty]

Adhering to the definition above of a clone as:

...a clone as something that copies the circuit, layout, and appearance exactly. An extreme example would use identical parts, and might easily be mistaken for an original.

Are the amps being offered by Drew considered clones or originals? I have created a poll here:

https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=39082

[martin manning]

I don’t think we know, but I recall reading or hearing in a YouTube that the DPS boys were relieved when the first couple of new ODS sounded like the originals. I’d guess original cosmetics and circuit, using all modern components. Exact component values is another question, and are they replicating specific examples/SN's? Per the strict clone definition, not clones but copies. In the amps I have built and in the drawings I have posted here, I’m not above making some changes to the circuits if there is room for improvement.

[martin manning]

...

[dbharris]

Good point Martin. For the MegaPlx it appears they are cloning one specific example, #003, even though they also own #005 and say it is the last amp HAD built entirely. I guess they like the earlier example better.

I would speculate they are building a set circuit for the ODS, but for VIPs may build them a version based on a diff serial number.

I also speculate that the ODS amps are going to be sold to a very selective group. The tweedle dees will probably be the easiest to get. MegaPlx was an interesting choice imo.

Smitty, I understand why you have a limited choice for clone or not for rhetorical purposes. Do you think Trainwreck amps available for purchase new today are clones? If Ford started selling the model T again, would that be a clone? I think the real answer is some third option.

-Dan