TubeNet

harold wrote:This is called "theft" and isn't condoned on this board.

Monette spent thousands of dollars to develop a product that is protected by either copyright - for the design, or patent law.

Making a replica without their permission is a violation of the law and blatant theft of their intellectual property.

Is there a patent number (US or other) on the product?

Copyright does not cover a physical design. Only a design patent would do that. Common examples would be automobiles and watches.

Reverse engineering is lawful. I can measure all the parts, determine tolerances, and manufacture whatever I want, so long as the product itself is not covered by a valid patent.

If someone wants protection against copying of their physical product containing a new, patentable invention, they need a valid patent.

harold wrote:This is called "theft" and isn't condoned on this board

So... even if it is, all it means is that you'd have to do it in a PM

Dimensions? I think I'd ask for a plaster casting.

Dean E wrote:Reverse engineering is lawful. I can measure all the parts, determine tolerances, and manufacture whatever I want, so long as the product itself is not covered by a valid patent.

Except in the case of computer software--re: The Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

The spirit of copyright is to stop people from reproducing another product for personal gain and the resulting losses in market share held by the copyright holder.

I think we should be less harsh with someone who plans on copying for personal reasons, instead of for personal financial gain.

quinterbourne wrote:The spirit of copyright is to stop people from reproducing another product for personal gain and the resulting losses in market share held by the copyright holder.

I think we should be less harsh with someone who plans on copying for personal reasons, instead of for personal financial gain.

Copyright law is there to assign all rights (not just commercial rights) to the owner for a period of time to give him an opportunity to gain from it exclusively for a reasonable period, after which it falls into the public domain for the general betterment of society. It was designed to provide an incentive to express ideas that was linked to the work-for-pay ethic of this country.

Patent law is just the same except that it applies to designs and products rather than to the expressions of ideas.

By copying a protected item for personal use, the copier is avoiding the purchase of the item, which is a loss of opportunity on the part of the right holder. So, even copying for personal or charitable use is a violation of the spirit of the law.

But Dean is right that copyrights only protect the tangible expression of ideas and it takes a patent to protect the dimensions of a mouthpiece. I doubt that mouthpieces would be easy to patent at this point because it would be quite difficult to identify the unique aspect of any given design. It's also expensive to get patent protection, though copyright protection is automatic.

Rick "who agrees with Chuck that copyright terms and meanings have been distorted away from the original intent in recent years mostly at the influence of Disney, Microsoft, and Sony" Denney

My argument is not to justify an individual copying an item for personal use, just to make the argument that one person copying an item for their own use is a much "lesser evil" than copying the item and selling it to a bunch of people (as a fabrication of the original product - thus piggy-backing on the brand name).

In my opinion, the original poster was treated in a way that was much too harsh for a person wanting to experiment in producing a similar product for his own personal use.

People copy musical instruments and mouthpieces all the time, and people recognize that the copy is not the same as the original thing. A mouthpiece is not just about dimensions.

quinterbourne wrote:In my opinion, the original poster was treated in a way that was much too harsh for a person wanting to experiment in producing a similar product for his own personal use

Unless I recall incorrectly, the original postperson wanted this not for themselves, but for their teacher.

Also not having seen the original post, I will say that I buy a mouthpiece based on the manufacturer's rep for producing mpcs that are all the same. That is, I try so-and-so's Hellburger mpc, I like it, and I can go buy my own Hellburger mpc and it is the SAME as the one I tried.

This is amazingly difficult to come by; I bought a screw rim for my horn mpc; a high level pro friend of mine tried it, loved it (I could HEAR the difference, and he could TELL the difference between it and his long-used rim) and he ordered.....two. One of them would not screw on, and the other would. These are custom-made rims; not cheap. The non-screwer went back.

The cup that I use is also custom-made; I got mine used. Different maker from the rim....but two "identical" cups from this most excellent custom maker, will play differently.

Of course I have given examples in opposition to what I said I would buy, above, but....what I use is so much better than whatever else I have found out there, that I bought them anyway. I'd much druther, that if I lose/ break / whatever, one or the other, that I could get an identical copy, but that is a bleak prospect.

So I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over someone copying something; it is just too damn hard to do. And that is from someone who used to make tools on a surface grinder, that were within 1/10,000 inch specification, as viewed on an optical device.

MA

quinterbourne wrote: A mouthpiece is not just about dimensions.

Really? I'm paying for a hunk of metal of specific size and shape. How is it not about dimensions?

windshieldbug wrote:

quinterbourne wrote:In my opinion, the original poster was treated in a way that was much too harsh for a person wanting to experiment in producing a similar product for his own personal use

Unless I recall incorrectly, the original postperson wanted this not for themselves, but for their teacher.

Well, I wouldn't know, because I didn't see the original post. All I saw was his follow-up post where he seemed to imply that he wanted it for himself.

UncleBeer wrote:

quinterbourne wrote: A mouthpiece is not just about dimensions.

Really? I'm paying for a hunk of metal of specific size and shape. How is it not about dimensions?

I didn't say that a mouthpiece is "not about dimensions" - I said that is is not just about dimenstions. I put the word "just" in there for a very specific reason, please don't pretend as though I didn't. There is more to a mouthpiece than just the dimensions (although, yes, the dimensions do play a very large role in the characteristics). I could take a $130 mouthpiece and copy the dimensions exactly on a metal lathe in a machine shop - and the $130 mouthpiece would still sound better.

quinterbourne wrote: I put the word "just" in there for a very specific reason, please don't pretend as though I didn't. There is more to a mouthpiece than just the dimensions

F'rinstance... (please be specific).

[quite sure I quoted you accurately, using Sean's little "quote" thingy]

UncleBeer wrote:

quinterbourne wrote: A mouthpiece is not just about dimensions.

Really? I'm paying for a hunk of metal of specific size and shape. How is it not about dimensions?

Whoops, I read that one wrong. I though he said "not just about dementia"...

its gotta have a COOL CAMPY NAME

Each night, before bedtime, I pray for my own Buffy Summers mouthpiece -- complete with wooden stake backbore cleaner.

UncleBeer wrote:

quinterbourne wrote: I put the word "just" in there for a very specific reason, please don't pretend as though I didn't. There is more to a mouthpiece than just the dimensions

F'rinstance... (please be specific).

People and companies frequently attempt to make copies of various equipment (horns and mouthpieces) all the time. Even with "exact" duplication, it still isn't as good as the original and doesn't "measure up" to the original in practical application. Others agree with this and here is an example:

TubaView wrote:Having the same dimensions doesn't make two items the "same". Otherwise we'd just measure up the CSO York and have a CNC machine cut us up a bunch of clones.

Most people don't know why copies don't work exactly as well as the original - only that they don't. Many people figure it has to do with machining, craftsmanship and materials used. I'm sure this applies to mouthpieces as well. The type and density of metal used must play a factor, as well as the techniques they use to create their product. There are many copies of many different models, and it seems like the originals are, for the most part, still considered to be the best. I do agree that dimensions are a HUGE factor in determining the characteristics and qualities of mouthpieces, but just not the ONLY factor.

If I was to take a scientific device and figure out exactly what the materials were in a Coca-Cola soft drink, and I was to attempt to recreate the product, my creation would, in most likelihood, not be up to the quality of the product they make. I'm sure they use specific types of ingredients as well as special techniques that make their product what it is.

UncleBeer wrote:[quite sure I quoted you accurately, using Sean's little "quote" thingy]

Yes, you did quote me accurately. However, your response to my statement let me to believe that you ignored a key word in my sentence, to strengthen your argument and weaken my credibility. You made it appear as though I thought that dimensions have nothing to do with the qualities of a mouthpiece. Nothing could be further from the truth.

quinterbourne wrote: Even with "exact" duplication, it still isn't as good as the original and doesn't "measure up" to the original in practical application.

That's equally true for instruments (and mouthpieces) of the same model, and made by the same manufacturer though! There's enormous variance. Tools wear, the care with which said instrument is assembled varies greatly, etc.

The argument that a copy wouldn't be any good simply because a layman did the copying is specious IMHO.

Good points for the most part, but...

UncleBeer wrote:The argument that a copy wouldn't be any good simply because a layman did the copying is specious IMHO.

I never said the the instrument copy "wouldn't be any good." Just not as good as the original.

quinterbourne wrote: Even with "exact" duplication, it still isn't as good as the original and doesn't "measure up" to the original in practical application.

Are you going for the brushed & whipped finish or just the plain oven-baked look?

CB

chiltern wrote:I'm making my own Besson 968 out of milk jugs, paper mache and egg cartons 'cause I'm too cheap and the company is going belly up anyhow...

Having some experience with "milk jug" construction - reccommend that you go with "buttermilk" jugs over standard plastic milk jugs. They are thicker and tend to flow solder more evently.