[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman /img/forum/go_quote.gif People in this group tend to believe it to be their legal right to download music in violation of the owner's copyrights, duplicate software that isn't licensed to them, and otherwise use anything they can get their hands on in the digital realm. Those in this group tend to be contemptuous of the idea of property rights and the concept of an individual's right to make a profit off his ideas. They criticize Larry for refusing to reveal some aspect of his proprietary knowledge, arguing that he has some responsibility to the head-fi community.

I find these statements and your attitude to be deeply offensive.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that Larry should tell us how he does what he does. A lot of people have mocked the concept that someone would ask, but nobody has actually said that he should.

The accumulation of knowledge is a cornerstone of civilization. If someone chooses to keep their own knowledge secret, they have that right. In the long run, it's a net loss, but they have that right.

What i have questioned is the assertion that some knowledge is somehow sacrosanct.

That it would be immoral for me to disassemble one of Larry's fine headphones and share my observations and theories.

This assertion is absurd and offensive.

 

[grawk]

It may or may not be moral, as morality is relative. It would be rude. If you want to teach people how to do something similar, put in the time, and figure it out for yourself without copying larry, since he's asked you to not do it. It's simple respect.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif It may or may not be moral, as morality is relative. It would be rude. If you want to teach people how to do something similar, put in the time, and figure it out for yourself without copying larry, since he's asked you to not do it. It's simple respect.

Respect for what though? Just because someone requests you to do or not do something, does not mean you should respect their request.

Especially when his mods are nothing new.

 

[ericj]

I'm not obliged to be any more respectful of Larry than he is of me. If i choose to be, that's just me being nice. It could be argued that the faq on his website has already crossed the boundaries of civility.

At any rate, although some of his products are visually stunning, I have no interest in them beyond the visual aesthetic, and no plans to own, immitate, or even hear them.

 

[oicdn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif It may or may not be moral, as morality is relative. It would be rude. If you want to teach people how to do something similar, put in the time, and figure it out for yourself without copying larry, since he's asked you to not do it. It's simple respect.

How do you think things are progressed? Surely, automobiles wouldn't be where they are today without people copying and then ADDING to what was already done.

A v8 motor is a v8 motor. You can have both the same cu and the Chevy one will be different from the Ford one. You could even use the same manufacturer for pistons, rings, rods, cams and everything else, but I bet you, performance will differ with different advantages and disadvantages for each.

It's called expanding market and competition. It's not copying if you change something, even if everything else is the same. Like said, people could use different cabling (copper, spc, silver) internally, choose different dampening material, use a wood Larry doesn't offer, and guess what, you don't have a Darth anymore, rather, you have a totally different beast.

Blatant copy, sure, disrespectful, but if it's not patented or copyrighted, when it comes down to it, it's a free commerce society, and more often than not, things will get changed and maybe for the better... Whether you choose to buy the imitation is up to you. And as evidenced by some of this forum, people are sucking up chinese copies like nobodies business, and you don't see anybody bitching. Also, like said "copying is the sincerest form of flattery..."

 

[grawk]

Respect for the time and effort he spent developing what he does, and the support he's given the community. If what he's doing is nothing new, you shouldn't have to copy what he's done. Figure out a different way. If you can't, then what he does IS new, and you shouldn't copy it anyway. Put in the time, learn to do your own thing, and appreciate the craftsmanship in what he's done. Or take his apart, learn to do it, but don't post detailed instructions, because that's all he's asked you not do.

It's not disrespectful for someone to not want to help teach others to do something he uses to support his family. It's not even disrespectful for him to not answer questions about the weather.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Respect for the time and effort he spent developing what he does, and the support he's given the community. If what he's doing is nothing new, you shouldn't have to copy what he's done.

When did i ever suggest copying his products? I'm dealing only in observations and theory - and all of mine are free.

 

[grawk]

Derivative works are still copies, as is demonstrated by copyright law, which prohibits derivative works without permission. This isn't a copyright issue, and since larry hasn't patented his work, it's not a legal issue. It's just simple respect. Why undercut someone's ability to feed his family, when you could go your own route, and break new ground.

 

[kpeezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Respect for the time and effort he spent developing what he does, and the support he's given the community. If what he's doing is nothing new, you shouldn't have to copy what he's done. Figure out a different way. If you can't, then what he does IS new, and you shouldn't copy it anyway. Put in the time, learn to do your own thing, and appreciate the craftsmanship in what he's done. Or take his apart, learn to do it, but don't post detailed instructions, because that's all he's asked you not do. It's not disrespectful for someone to not want to help teach others to do something he uses to support his family. It's not even disrespectful for him to not answer questions about the weather.

Other people's inability to innovate doesn't make his designs new. That's just dumb.

 

[bahamaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif That it would be immoral for me to disassemble one of Larry's fine headphones and share my observations and theories. This assertion is absurd and offensive.

Excuse me, but I never said that it was immoral for an individual to reverse engineer someone else's ideas! What I did say was that an owner of proprietary information has a legitimate interest in maintaining its secrecy (and would certainly be under no obligation to reveal it to others). If someone else has the ability to discover another's trade secret, by other than improper means, so much the better!

 

[kpeezy]

FYI - It's not proprietary information.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Derivative works are still copies, as is demonstrated by copyright law, which prohibits derivative works without permission. This isn't a copyright issue, and since larry hasn't patented his work, it's not a legal issue. It's just simple respect. Why undercut someone's ability to feed his family, when you could go your own route, and break new ground.

Once again - my only products are observation and theory. And they're free.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bahamaman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Excuse me, but I never said that it was immoral for an individual to reverse engineer someone else's ideas! What I did say was that an owner of proprietary information has a legitimate interest in maintaining its secrecy (and would certainly be under no obligation to reveal it to others). If someone else has the ability to discover another's trade secret, by other than improper means, so much the better!

Then why on earth did you resort to ad-hominem attacks?!

 

[holland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Respect for what though? Just because someone requests you to do or not do something, does not mean you should respect their request. Especially when his mods are nothing new.

There's 2 points being made. It's subtle, but significant. The OP basically asked for Larry to document his mods (to what degree is uncertain), with the implied intent of cloning. As Grawk said, that's rude when his client base has a high composition of Head-Fi'ers. However, it's not technically illegal, as you stated that his mods are nothing really new and groundbreaking. That's a different point.

The line, essentially, being drawn is that nobody should clone Larry (in this community) out of respect for his contributions, but anyone is free to compete against him in this open market. I don't think Larry is against that, he's stated in his post that there were others, but they just up and left for whatever reason.

My take from what I've read.

1) Larry is not against capitalism.
2) Larry is not against competition.
3) Larry is against documenting his precise mods so that someone else can start up and make his exact headphones at whatever price point.
4) Larry's ideas are nothing new (all done in speaker world and by various headphone manufacturers that use the same driver in different lines...like Beyer). It's his application of those ideas that should be protected and that application belongs to Larry. In other words, his architecture is nothing new and can probably be argued as a culmination of mods already pre-existing in some form or another. The implementation of that architecture by Larry belongs to Larry.

All companies take this stance. However, all companies realize that things do happen behind closed doors. These things aren't just brought out in documentation by the designer in an open forum.

Here's another example. Intel will document the Conroe architecture and give it to the public for consumption, understanding, and as a method of perceiving differences. Intel is not required to do so. Intel, under any circumstance, will not give the RTL for the Conroe to an open forum, which is copyrighted and intellectual property. Any instance of that happening will be dealt with harshly, resulting in the shutdown of the forum and lawsuits going out to all forum members and logged IPs.

 

[LawnGnome]

What he does is NOT new.

People can easily come across this stuff before he did it.

In reality, his ideas were most likely taken from others.

I mean come on, removing excess fabric from over a driver? Is that really that revolutionary?

He also likes to claim he invented woodies. I'm sure Grado, Audio Technica and many others would care to disagree.

What about a recable? Nope, nothing new there.

Resonant dampening? Done and done, many times before.


Also, according to the law where Larry resides, he has no legal right to these ideas. And I doubt he ever could, since they are well known, and not unique to him.

 

[holland]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk /img/forum/go_quote.gif If what he's doing is nothing new, you shouldn't have to copy what he's done. Figure out a different way. If you can't, then what he does IS new, and you shouldn't copy it anyway.

I disagree with the bolded. What should be done is a "clean room" effort, ground up design. If it turns out to be similar after the fact, determined by a third party, that's just what it is. There should be no examination of prior art to decide one's own effort. It's contamination, otherwise.

If it's identical, that'll raise some eyebrows, but who knows.