Ethics of Cloning

[Smitty]

As a moderator of my own thread, I’m going to refrain from comments that would steer the discussion toward what would be perceived as my own opinion. I would rather act as someone bounding the discussion to the ethics of cloning. That’s not to say that at some point someone will call me on inserting my opinion, and if they do, I will be accepting…

I’m wondering if we can develop consensus more around what are the ethics, than spend our efforts splitting hairs on what is a clone. I suspect nobody has an ethical argument against Dumble badging his work ‘by Dumble’. I also think that most of us understand the basics of trademark law. I suppose this is my attempt to narrow down the discussion to why is it morally right for Drew to use ‘by Dumble’ and morally wrong for Andy to do the same? Both are like very convincing from a technical perspective to folks outside of this community. I’m trying to get to the morally right and wrong part (ethics) rather than the legal or technical part.

By way of example, if the buyer understands that it is a clone, but uses it to fool people into thinking they are playing through an original during a performance, does the seller have any moral culpability? Similar to knock-off lady’s handbags. The ethical questions are many. Let’s explore those.

[Roe]

as consequentialists, we may be required to maximize the value of amps by cloning and building maximally?

[Smitty]

as consequentialists, we may be required to maximize the value of amps by cloning and building maximally?

Right on! Why get hung up on deontology? Let’s blow this thing wide open!!

So let’s say the goal for DPS is to produce a small number of clones at a very high price and prevent others from cloning— hypothetically. Consequentialism would suggest that we as a community would be ethically bound to build more clones, in turn creating more macro market volume and, hence, drive down price (elasticity of demand) so that more end users could enjoy the benefit of these wonderful circuits.

Have I stated your position correctly?

[nuke]

DPS has the rights to the name and the trade dress.

They can't "clone" the originals. They can make copies or good reproductions. They could even make really, really good new amps, with some philosophical lineage, since they were apparently in close contact with Mr. Dumble in his later years and worked with him. I don't know much else about the whole deal, that's just what I understand

I have a Gibson Custom Shop 60th Anniversary 1960 v2 Les Paul Standard (aka 'burst). It is a reproduction and it is a very nice guitar.

It isn't a clone of a 1960 'burst.

I found some disagreement with the Custom Bucker III pickups, which weren't bad, but seemed to be aimed at emulating a 60-year old version of a PAF, with a magnet that was rarely used in PAF production, to emulate their estimation of an alnico magnet that had "aged". They weren't horrible.

I put in a pair of ThroBak PAF replicas that are much more original in appearance and construction, and use magnets actually used most often in PAF's, from the foundries they bought them from, and they used soft magnetic steels in the pole pieces and screws and wound the bobbins on the same machine that wound the originals at Gibson, using wire that is a dead-on match for the original materials.

I would call them very faithful reproductions, more so than the Gibson product. They are very remarkable sounding as well.

The guitar is very, very nice to play and sounds great. A lot like the sound of a "real" one. I played a few real examples long ago when they only fetching in the several 10's of thousands of dollars. Not the several 100's of thousands as they are today.

It's the best I can do for less (lot less) than a real one. That's ok.

I look at the Dumble amps we have information about as an opportunity to learn. I want to build amps that I like, and I try to get into the thinking he might have had when he did specific things for specific artists. I making them for me and that's it.

[Roe]

as consequentialists, we may be required to maximize the value of amps by cloning and building maximally?

Right on! Why get hung up on deontology? Let’s blow this thing wide open!!

So let’s say the goal for DPS is to produce a small number of clones at a very high price and prevent others from cloning— hypothetically. Consequentialism would suggest that we as a community would be ethically bound to build more clones, in turn creating more macro market volume and, hence, drive down price (elasticity of demand) so that more end users could enjoy the benefit of these wonderful circuits.

Have I stated your position correctly?

It is even worse, since requirements are deontic terms. So in this respect consequentialism is an deontic theory requiring that we maximize value. Similarly, Kantian deontology is often based on value, even if the values differ.

[martin manning]

So let’s say the goal for DPS is to produce a small number of clones at a very high price and prevent others from cloning— hypothetically.

FWIW, I'd say this is indeed the plan. Somebody mentioned designer handbags, which is a good analogy. Artificial scarcity, pricing far above manufacturing costs and narratives to generate and maintain cachet. All aimed at driving profit margin up.

[Smitty]

It is even worse, since requirements are deontic terms. So in this respect consequentialism is an deontic theory requiring that we maximize value. Similarly, Kantian deontology is often based on value, even if the values differ.

Thanks, Roe!

Seems to me that Kantian deontology is at the root of how I formed my question. What is the maxim (rule) and can it be universalized (does it apply to everyone)? As a moral relativist, I'm not wedded to my initial premise that there is a rule. I am simply asking if this community believes there is a rule and does it apply to everyone, including Drew Berlin and Matt Swanson and Andy Fuchs in the same way? And, more importantly, what are the ethical concepts that underpin such an assertion?

Back when Andy sold a 'by Dumble' badged 'clone/copy/replica/imitation/fake/homage/tribute' ODS on Reverb, I spun up a similar question and attempted to limit the hating. In the end I was blamed for invoking the hate by merely asking the ethics question and Andy was successful in getting the thread locked. We did, however, get to some 'dos and don'ts' that I summarized here:

https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 2&start=24

I am thankful that this thread has not been infected with a similar level of judgment and vitriol, and that it seems like were finally getting down to some ethical concepts. Discussion around such things as, "What is the maxim and can it be universalized?"

[nuke]

FWIW, I'd say this is indeed the plan. Somebody mentioned designer handbags, which is a good analogy. Artificial scarcity, pricing far above manufacturing costs and narratives to generate and maintain cachet. All aimed at driving profit margin up.

Curiously, my wife and I just strolled through a very luxurious shopping area in a posh casino/resort. She opined, "I don't know how these places stay in business. There are 6 visible employees on the floor, the rent must be ludicrously enormous and there's no one shopping."

Indeed, mostly quiet stores, of very haute luxury brands you've heard of and not even heard of before, lots of employees, gorgeous fixtures, prime locations, lots of square footage.

I said, "It is simple, they sell a dress or two and there's so much margin in the sale that it pays the employees, rent, taxes, fixtures and the enormous marketing costs". Make sale, call the manager, everyone is happy.

Dig into the these brand empires and you'll find that they aren't as fabulously profitable and flush with money as people think (and are led to believe). Curiously, they make a lot of their money from brands they quietly own, working at more reasonable price ranges. Just like the Titanic, first class passengers get all the attention, while steerage pays the bills.

In electronics, scale is everything. If you ever look at military/aerospace or even industrial electronics and what it cost, vs. the complexity of a consumer electronic product and what it cost, the gap is unbelievable. A relatively simple device, built to demanding standards, in small numbers, is usually very costly. Even more so if you have to abide by 458 pages of US Government standards, go through the government's process to be a vendor, do RFQ/RFP over and over until you get a contract, borrow the working capital to design and manufacture the order, deliver all 250 of them anyone will ever need, and then wait the usual extended time for Uncle Sam to send you a check, you too can manufacture $2800 dual channel panel light dimmers.