Poll: Are New Dumbles Considered Clones?

[Smitty]

In the thread 'Ethics of Cloning'

https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=39076

I reference a post here:

https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 40#p327840

Where Martin Manning provides what I consider to be an excellent definition of 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.

I have intentionally posed the question in the poll above as a dichotomy and encourage discussion and refinement of the topic in the 'Ethics of Cloning' thread (linked above) rather than adding more discussion below in this thread.

Thanks for participating in this poll.

[martin manning]

I think they are more copies than clones (strictly speaking), and I don't see that option in the poll.

[Smitty]

Thanks, Martin. The dichotomy is intentional.

[didit]

Thanks, Martin. The dichotomy is intentional.

Regardless of any intentionality it is authentically sloppy philosophical framing -- Dolly was an ewe.

..

[Charlie Wilson]

Is a new Fender a clone?
CW

[Smitty]

Thanks, Martin. The dichotomy is intentional.

Regardless of any intentionality it is authentically sloppy philosophical framing -- Dolly was an ewe.

..

Clever. Are you suggesting that the ethical differences between copying and cloning are so vast that we require a third category to consider the ethical implications? And that this audience would have consensus regarding those nuances, and make valuable ethical distinctions and resultant contributions to the discussion?

Really what I’m trying to get at is if one builds a convincing replica and applies the by Dumble attribute to the front panel, what are the morally good and bad behaviors between what Drew has done and what Andy has done? Please see the thread on ethics of cloning.

While I appreciate the differences and do sacrifice a Twin Reverb to build my Dumble clones, my intent was not to have the discussion devolve into differences between vintage and current production resistors, per se.

All build dimensions considered along a continuum gets messy. Where does one draw the distinction between an original, a clone, a copy, a replica, etc., …?

Hoping the community can accommodate my simplification.

[Gertrude]

The appeal of a Dumble (vs the numerous clones) would have been working with the man on refinements that would suit my playing. Taking that away, it is hard to distinguish what they are now doing vs any of the others.

[nuke]

Neither and the poll is broken.

They're copies at best.

You can't clone the Mona Lisa, because the artist has left this world long ago and the materials used then are not readily available today.

You can't clone a Dumble because the artist has left this world, and the places where he got most of his parts are all gone, and were discontinued from manufacturing decades ago. I used to haunt all those electronics surplus warehouses he shopped, at least the ones near the Santa Cruz and the south bay. They're all gone now, all closed and turned into apartments and $2M townhouses and data centers.

Copy isn't a bad thing, they could really be great. They could use better quality modern parts and construction techniques.

But it isn't a Dumble unless Dumble used his ears and judgment to build a particular amp for a particular person.

It isn't a clone unless it duplicates one-for-one, part-for-part, wire by wire, of the original it is cloned from. That's not possible, nor is it necessary.

[Smitty]

The thrust of the question isn't based upon technical exactness...I think. I'm trying to understand what are the ethical considerations between what Andy did with his 'by Dumble' badged clone/copy/replica and what Drew is doing with his 'by Dumble' badged clone/copy/replica. Is one morally right behavior and the other not? If so then why?

If Dumble did not want his legacy preserved then why is it OK for Drew to make a clone/copy/replica and badge it 'by Dumble' but not OK for others? Ethically, not legally. Why?

Taking the other side now. Hypothetically, if I could build an exact clone of a given Dumble, would I have an ethical standing to badge it 'by Dumble'? Why or why not? Ethically.

[nuke]

No, because it would be "by Smitty"

DPS has the legal rights (as far as I know) to do that. I don't know if HAD trademarked his name, trade dress and or anything else.

[didit]

Thanks, Martin. The dichotomy is intentional.

Regardless of any intentionality it is authentically sloppy philosophical framing -- Dolly was an ewe.

..

Clever. Are you suggesting that the ethical differences between copying and cloning are so vast [...]

sloppy terminology drafts a false conclusiveness ::

original(n.)
late 14c., "that from which anything is derived;" also "original text," from Old French original and directly from Medieval Latin originale (see original (adj.)). Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918.

versus

clone(n.)
1903, in botany, "group of cultivated plants each of which is a transplanted part of one original," from Latinized form of Greek klōn "a twig, spray," related to klados "sprout, young branch, offshoot of a plant," possibly from PIE root *kel- (1) "to strike, cut" (see holt). Meaning "person or animal replicated from a single cell of another and genetically identical to it" is by 1970 (theoretical). Figurative use, "one who slavishly imitates another," is by 1978.


..

[martin manning]

Clone is a term that deviates from the strict biological definition in popular usage. I would say an amp with an identical circuit, original appearance and materials, and NOS parts is the only true clone. Anything else, with similar cosmetics built using new parts might be more accurately called a replica.

[didit]

Clone is a term that deviates from the strict biological definition in popular usage. I would say an amp with an identical circuit, original appearance and materials, and NOS parts is the only true clone. Anything else, with similar cosmetics built using new parts might be more accurately called a replica.

Hmmm --

The term "replica" is most appropriate::

replica(n.)
1824, "a work of art made in exact likeness of another and by the same artist," from Italian replica "copy, repetition, reply," from replicare "to duplicate," from Latin replicare "to repeat," in classical Latin "fold back, fold over, bend back," from re- "back, again" (see re-) + plicare "to fold" (from PIE root *plek- "to plait").

Properly, a duplicate work made by the same artist and thus considered as an original, not a copy. General sense of "any copy, reproduction, or facsimile" is by 1865.

Earlier in 18c. it was a term in sheet music that directed a singer or musician to repeat a passage, also taken from the Italian.

Replicas can vary in accuracy dependent on one's objectives. The term "forgery" does a perfect job describing works that are intended to deceive or even defraud.

The term "clone", especially in the very recent deviating use within technology arenas, carries pejorative imputations.

Best ..

[Smitty]

I'm a fan of articulation. Thank you for these refinements to my language.

[jfs955]

I would say an amp with an identical circuit, original appearance and materials, and NOS parts is the only true clone.

Why stop there? Parts have tolerances; wouldn't a true clone be identical circuit, original appearance and materials, and NOS parts, whereby on a location-by-location basis, each part in the circuit measures the same value as the part Dumble used in that particular location?