Cheap + Cheap = Experiment

[FretRiff]

This statement appears to condone IT infringement

Nope. You're misreading a simple statement of microeconomics. It is a classic moral framing trap: trying to shift the debate away from economics and enforcement reality into an emotional “good vs. evil” binary to argue a position I never took and I even stated above I wasn't taking. If you read my earlier reply this borders on bad faith.

Saying that IP infringement can have the effect of increasing supply and lowering prices is a description of economic reality, not a statement of moral approval. Describing how markets behave under imperfect enforcement is not the same as endorsing infringement, just as describing how theft insurance works doesn’t mean I approve of shoplifting.

Sorry, I'm not going to feed fake moral outrage.

 

[Al Kraft]

The shoplifting analogy is emotional, but misleading and wrong. Shoplifting removes physical goods, which must be replaced at cost. IP infringement creates more supply in the market, which, in economic terms, lowers consumer prices, even if it cuts into one company’s profits. This is why enforcement is complicated: the harm is about competition rather than physical loss. Shoplifting is simply a bad analogy.

More than a tad. That’s a misrepresentation.

I wouldn’t say IP infringement is “in the public interest”. That’s a slanted paraphrase, not my position. My point is simply that more market supply, from any source, tends to lower prices. That’s basic microeconomics any college student learns in Econ 101, not an endorsement of infringement. Please don’t misstate what I clearly wrote.

The two posts above are exactly what you wrote and I used the "reply function" to include them...no paraphrasing.

Here is what I'm trying to reconcile. The first quote, "IP infringement creates more supply in the market, which, in economic terms, lowers consumer prices, even if it cuts into one company’s profits" seems to imply to me a "public good" resulting from IP infringement (even if it makes a company less profitable). Perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote. My econ profs taught that "more market supply and lower prices" were generally a good thing for consumers (i.e., in the public's best interest). However, I think they meant that in general and not necessarily a blanket statement that applied of unethical business practices provided the "more suppl and lower prices". Although admittedly, my profs were not advocates of "the ends justifies the means" thinking or business models.

While I am an engineer, I also have Master's degree from the George Washington University School of Business, completed an executive program at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, and am a graduate of the Defense Acquisition University curriculum for Program Managers given at the the Defense Systems Management College. I feel pretty comfortable in a business or economics discussion on supply and demand.

Just as a point of reference, black markets are a wonderful example of supply and demand. I just don't think they are exemplars of ethical business behaviors that are in the public interest. And yes I know you didn't suggest that...I just wanted to point out that just because something fits an economic model taught in higher education , doesn't make it a good thing, an ethical thing, or even a smart thing.

 

[FretRiff]

Al, you have been wrongly conflating describing an effect with condoning a cause. I was being descriptive, observing how markets behave when supply increases, whether that supply comes from (1) new entrants, (2) technological advances, or yes, (3) even from infringing products. It’s elementary microeconomics, not a value judgment.

I feel pretty comfortable in a business or economics discussion on supply and demand.

You shouldn't feel that comfortable if you repeatedly fail to consider these basic microeconomic concepts. Let’s be clear: more supply → lower prices is an observation about how markets behave, not an ethical green light for IP infringement. It’s the same kind of statement an economist might make about how black markets affect pricing — describing the effect is not condoning the cause.

I am not saying “therefore it’s good” or “therefore we should encourage it” -- please stop implying I am -- because I’m not making a blanket moral endorsement of infringement, but pointing out that in the real world, its effect on pricing can be similar to other forms of increased supply.

It is essential to acknowledge these dynamics even when the cause is unethical, because policymakers and companies have to operate in the actual global enforcement environment, not just an ideal one where American IP law is the law of the world. The question isn’t “is it good?” so much as “what strategies work in a world where it happens?”

The reality is global IP enforcement is inconsistent, and infringement happens. Industries like open-source software, consumer electronics, and fashion thrive in that environment because they have other ways to recoup R&D costs like speed, branding, and ecosystems, instead of relying solely on airtight legal exclusivity.

That’s why I keep coming back to the example of thriving industries with weak IP enforcement: they show that innovation can and does survive without perfect protection, which challenges the idea that universal strong IP rights are the only sustainable model, as opposed to your earlier naive assumptions which ignore history and current reality. Innovation still flourishes in industries and regions with weak IP protection, which undermines your model.

 

[Al Kraft]

You can always tell in these discussions who makes their living by the creation of IP and who doesn't.

Agreed! And for some reason these IP discussions always seem for me to highlight the fallacy inherent in one dimensional thinking. Almost anything can be justified or even convincing or enticing if you only look at it from one perspective.

My graduate econ prof shared a thought about the model of "economic man" and how easily we can possibly use the economic man construct to predict outcomes. Here is the short version: Our economic man has two choices of where to buy bread. One store is 2 blocks from his house, on the same side of the road with ample parking and always has the freshest bread at the lowest prices.

The other store is 2 miles down the road on the other side from his house and requires crossing a busy intersection. Parking is a nightmare, their bread is usually on the last day of the "sell by" date and prices are easily 20% more than anyone else in town.

So where does "economic man" buy his bread?

Turns out he goes to the second store because the young girls at the register are really nice and they flirt with him. So much for economic man and his consistency of purpose and dedication to making his hard earned money go farther for the best products.

One dimensional thinking can get you into trouble very quickly.

 

[FretRiff]

I actually agree that one-dimensional thinking is dangerous which is why I’ve repeatedly said that IP protection is only one of several ways companies can protect and recoup R&D investments, especially in markets with weak enforcement. Speed-to-market, brand value, ecosystem lock-in, and customer relationships (your “bread store” example) are all factors.

That’s exactly why innovation can still thrive in industries and regions without airtight IP enforcement: because businesses use multiple strategies, not just legal monopolies. My argument is about recognizing all of those levers, not just the (narrow, one-dimensional) legal one. So yes, “economic man” is a simplification, but so is treating strong, universal IP protection as the sole path to sustainable innovation.

The world is more complex than that, and the data from thriving weak-IP industries bears that out. Don't be one-dimensional about it.

 

[Al Kraft]

I actually agree that one-dimensional thinking is dangerous which is why I’ve repeatedly said that IP protection is only one of several ways companies can protect and recoup R&D investments, especially in markets with weak enforcement. Speed-to-market, brand value, ecosystem lock-in, and customer relationships (your “bread store” example) are all factors.

That’s exactly why innovation can still thrive in industries and regions without airtight IP enforcement: because businesses use multiple strategies, not just legal monopolies. My argument is about recognizing all of those levers, not just the (narrow, one-dimensional) legal one. So yes, “economic man” is a simplification, but so is treating strong, universal IP protection as the sole path to sustainable innovation.

The world is more complex than that, and the data from thriving weak-IP industries bears that out. Don't be one-dimensional about it.

It's hard to tell where we agree or disagree as many of the things you say make sense to me. Warren Buffet liked to apply one of the "levers" in his investment strategy that you mentioned which was invest in industries that had a natural "moat" or exceptionally high barrier to entry. In my world we maintain a technological edge over adversaries by restricting access to technologies through things like security classification and handling caveats on data. We also apply anti-tamper techniques that make reverse engineering often very difficult and sometimes even dangerous.

I don't disagree that increased supply and multiple competing sources for the supply (assuming relatively equal quality) should ensure prices are most favorable in the marketplace for buyers. Of course clever suppliers may decide to enter into an "informal and undocumented agreement to fix prices" (it happens all the time and is no more legal or illegal than patent infringement) and much of the anticipated price advantage to the consumer will vanish.

I'm a strong advocate for fairness for all (inventors, sellers, and buyers) in commerce and feel very strongly that innovators who take on risk to push boundaries deserve some protection for their IP at least for some period of time. If we don't offer monetary rewards and some preferential treatment for taking risks to create new tech, we probably won't have a lot of new tech. As an financial investor myself , I'd simply put my money in safer places that were consistent with my growth goals and risk tolerance...and there are plenty of those opportunities.

IP is a company crown jewel to investors and not protecting it aggressively is like abandoning a baby in a dumpster and hoping it will grow up to become the CEO of Apple.

 

[FretRiff]

I’m not disputing the need to reward innovators. My point is simple: IP enforcement in the real world is uneven, copying happens, yet industries still thrive so the “IP or no innovation” claim doesn’t hold up.

You started off in this thread naively wondering how 'innovators' could survive, and followed up with several poor or overly simplistic analogies, and prided yourself on your ability to understand basic economic concepts while misunderstanding ones I clearly laid out, wrongly attributing my statement of economic fact as favoring infringement.

 

[agedhorse]

I’m not disputing the need to reward innovators. My point is simple: IP enforcement in the real world is uneven, copying happens, yet industries still thrive so the “IP or no innovation” claim doesn’t hold up.

You started off in this thread naively wondering how 'innovators' could survive, and followed up with several poor or overly simplistic analogies, and prided yourself on your ability to understand basic economic concepts while misunderstanding ones I clearly laid out, wrongly attributing my statement of economic fact as favoring infringement.

Really?

 

[Al Kraft]

I’m not disputing the need to reward innovators. My point is simple: IP enforcement in the real world is uneven, copying happens, yet industries still thrive so the “IP or no innovation” claim doesn’t hold up.

You started off in this thread naively wondering how 'innovators' could survive, and followed up with several poor or overly simplistic analogies, and prided yourself on your ability to understand basic economic concepts while misunderstanding ones I clearly laid out, wrongly attributing my statement of economic fact as favoring infringement.

Our life experiences and educational backgrounds clearly have us in different places relative to topic so I will simply let your conclusion stand. Perhaps the the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences committee will see the logic and decide to recognize this "unique way of stimulating innovation".

FWIW, at no time did I ever state that absolute IP protection or the total loss of innovation was an all or nothing proposition. Disincentives, depending on their severity have differing effects on behaviors.

I suspect you will also find this analogy irrelevant, but I would simply offer that plagiarism (arguably a "theft" of an intellectual product of another) is considered a serious (in many cases with a zero tolerance policy) honor system violation by most universities I am familiar with. Plagiarism is arguably a victimless crime since no one is physically harmed or financially any worse off than they were due to the "theft of their intellectual product". WIth those thoughts in mind, it's interesting to note that we still have students committing plagiarism, and yet universities and students in general seem none the worse for it whether it's caught and punished or not. The plagiarist would probably say that lots of people do it, no one is harmed, and it makes their life easier...it's all a game anyway.

My plagiarism comparison is purely an observation of how something is not an all or nothing proposition (e.g., universities and students don't burst into flames unless all plagiarism is eradicated). But please note that at no point do I advocate for plagiarism or suggest that there are any positive aspects of plagiarism for universities or society in general.

Thanks for an interesting exchange.

 

[FretRiff]

Funny stuff. The “Nobel Prize” crack is just a jab, and the plagiarism analogy is a weak bid for moral high ground that sidesteps the actual gaps in your argument. I’m not here to cheerlead infringement any more than you’re here to advocate price-fixing; I’m pointing out that in the real world, innovation ecosystems survive, adapt, and often thrive despite imperfect enforcement. That’s not some sentimental cotton-candy-world bromide; it’s a documented reality across multiple industries you’d rather ignore, while you advance poor, and even self-admittedly weak analogies that don't do what you hope.

The irony is that your own analogy reinforces my point: plagiarism persists even under strict rules and zero-tolerance policies, yet universities keep functioning, research keeps happening, knowledge keeps advancing, and innovators keep innovating. (Even though you wondered, wide-eyed, how it could possibly happen -- despite the fact it’s been happening for centuries.) The world is messy, rules are unevenly enforced, they differ from country to country, and yet systems keep running, progress keeps happening, and companies keep moving forward. That’s the reality I’ve been describing, regardless of your neat-but-flawed moral framework that imagines the business world is perpetually one infringement away from collapse.

"Interesting" is an interesting word.

 

[Al Kraft]

The world is messy, rules are unevenly enforced, they differ from country to country, and yet systems keep running, progress keeps happening, and companies keep moving forward. That’s the reality I’ve been describing, regardless of your neat-but-flawed moral framework that imagines the business world is perpetually one infringement away from collapse.

I had to respond to this and then I'm going to let it go.

I'm not sure what you do in your work/professional life, but I'd be willing to bet if we were in a SCIF I could share stories with you that make you realize that the world is a lot messier than anyone imagines. If you have worked in my field since the 1970's, you know precisely what I am talking about.

And as a final thought, many things are only one "fill in the blank" away from a "bad thing is going to happen" outcome.

My career and the careers of those I have worked with have been focussed on being sure our country is never caught short in a very messy, dynamic, and unpredictable world. The day, hour, or minute before something really bad happens is the slippery slope many of us try to foresee and prevent.

My moral framework is situationally flexible based on circumstances and anything but neat. I have no problem with helping create outcomes that result in unthinkable devastation if it serves the needs of our country and greater good.

Please don't mistake my observation that questionable business ethics costs us all in the long run (plenty of great HBR and Wharton articles on the subject, so don't take my word) for thinking the world is a kind and gentle place. My life's work is based on the premise that the world is a dangerous place, filled with bad people who occasionally need a punctuation mark on the U.S. State Department's messages.

Read some HBR and Wharton (or pick your own business school) articles on the cost to our economy of IP theft. And yes we're still here, but paying a lot more than we should.

 

[FretRiff]

I respect experience, but invoking classified settings and moral flexibility won’t cover for the weak analogies and misrepresentations you’ve repeatedly leaned on. Claiming economic expertise while missing basic economic points, then falsely accusing me of endorsing infringement, is a no-go.

You have repeatedly relied on weak or limited analogies (shoplifting, plagiarism, “economic man”) that oversimplify complex realities and fail to engage with the nuances I presented. All at the same time grasping for moral authority by brandishing credentials, while overlooking actual market realities and historical examples. You’ve asserted a strong grasp of economics but misunderstood basic microeconomic principles (clear to any intro Econ student) I clearly laid out, then wrongly accused me of favoring infringement.

The world is messy and unpredictable, which is why simplistic, absolutist claims about IP protection don’t hold up. Innovation thrives despite imperfect enforcement, not because of rigid pie-in-the-sky ideals. If the costs of IP theft are as catastrophic as you imply, I’d welcome clear, data-driven analyses showing that strict enforcement consistently leads to better innovation outcomes globally. Until then, I stand by the nuanced, real-world complexity so often ignored by people applying simplistic one-dimensional morality to global business.

 

[Al Kraft]

I respect experience, but invoking classified settings and moral flexibility won’t cover for the weak analogies and misrepresentations you’ve repeatedly leaned on. Claiming economic expertise while missing basic economic points, then falsely accusing me of endorsing infringement, is a no-go.

You have repeatedly relied on weak or limited analogies (shoplifting, plagiarism, “economic man”) that oversimplify complex realities and fail to engage with the nuances I presented. All at the same time grasping for moral authority by brandishing credentials, while overlooking actual market realities and historical examples. You’ve asserted a strong grasp of economics but misunderstood basic microeconomic principles (clear to any intro Econ student) I clearly laid out, then wrongly accused me of favoring infringement.

The world is messy and unpredictable, which is why simplistic, absolutist claims about IP protection don’t hold up. Innovation thrives despite imperfect enforcement, not because of rigid pie-in-the-sky ideals. If the costs of IP theft are as catastrophic as you imply, I’d welcome clear, data-driven analyses showing that strict enforcement consistently leads to better innovation outcomes globally. Until then, I stand by the nuanced, real-world complexity so often ignored by people applying simplistic one-dimensional morality to global business.

....one last thought to consider...your tagline, "The invention of the ship was also the invention of the shipwreck." while clever suffers from a fallacy in thinking. Wrecks existed before ships and once ships were invented they, like all modes of transportation, are subject to being in an accident or wreck. Having worked with some of the world's top naval architects I can assure you that no ship designer or shipbuilder invented "the shipwreck".

I don't grasp for authority of brandish false credentials. I simply offer insight into where my thoughts come from and appreciate that others with different experiences and backgrounds my see things differently. I try to learn for those encounters, especially if someone has relevant experiences and credentials and has travelled roads I have not.

I apologize if you feel wrongly accused of something as that was not my intent. Since my last graduate Econ class was almost 50 years ago it's entirely possible that I may have expressed my thoughts in a way that is inconsistent with what they teach as "current economic theory". I know from working on provisional patent applications a few weeks ago (in comparison to work decades ago) that IP laws and practices have evolved over time.

 

[FretRiff]

Thanks for engaging on the tagline. Just for clarity, it’s a quote from Paul Virilio, a French philosopher who highlighted how every technological advance inevitably brings new risks alongside progress: “When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck; when you invent the plane, you also invent the plane crash; and when you invent electricity, you invent electrocution.”

It’s not meant as a literal statement on shipbuilding but rather a reflection on the dual nature of innovation: progress always carries unintended consequences. After your previous logical missteps, I’m not surprised you took it literally.

I appreciate your willingness to share your background and acknowledge evolving perspectives. That complexity is exactly why simplistic claims about IP enforcement fall short.

Thanks again for the thoughtful exchange — wishing you the best going forward.

 

[fdeck]

When you invent the bass, you also invent the bass solo.

 

[dabis]

When you invent the bass, you also invent the bass solo.

...and basswrecks...

Hey TALKBASS!

Hope You are all right!



I love those elitarists talks about the gear. If You don't have bass for 1000 bucks/EUR You can't eeven start playing instrument.


WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PLAY BASSS AND NOT SPEND "minimum a grand as a beginner on bass" ???

******************************************************************************

Check this out.



********************************************************************************

20EUR - combo (preowned (!) Harley Benton Jamster BASS - it was dirty)

45EUR - 666demonfx666 - DarkGlass - Harmonic Booster ripoff

50EUR - BASS - the MIGHTY Harley Benton! CHEAP pre-owned

********************************************************************************

115EUR together...



*** and this combo is on batteries - can play for 4 hours MAXED (!!!)

It is loud to the point with demonfx it can't go 50% at home. (!!!!!!!!!!)


*****************************************************************************

TEST is on batteries.


BREATHE-IN/ OUT - Sorry Talkbass - I growl and I was just getting ready myself before the gig. Sorry for that This small rig helped me to improve breathing and getting ready to GROWL before the gig - hope you will understand. PEACE!@



View attachment 7288455

When I went to buy my first bass, in one of the stores the seller told me that with my budget I have a copy of an Ibanez (don’t remember the brand) or a legal copy of a P (Squier), but that the decision I should take had to be based on inspirational things, so I would be more motivated to play again and again. Good advice.

Since then, my decisions on buying one piece or other always have this advice in mind.

Tends to happen that I like good quality + inspirational stuff, but haven’t enough budget to get this, so I tend to buy used, and or dissapeared models/brands.

There’s some people that do not like Alembics for exemple, because of them particular ergonomy and/or morphology. This same people can be ultrahappy with an Squier or HB “P” bass that costs a fraction.

Music is our mind, soul and ears, not in the money we spend.

 

[dabis]

The only issue I have with this is the DemonFX knock-off of a Darkglass product. It's a lot easier to be cheaper when you let other companies do the yearsdevelopment of a product for you and not pay them for their effort.

I'm guilty to have bought a "copy" of a Darkglass pedal, based in not spending too much money in something that I would not like, but It's in my pedalboard 9 years after. It is not named the same, the controls are slightly changed and has some differences in other things. Even it was only offered as a DIY kit, so not the same product. Based on the benefits I take from it, maybe it's fair to get the original.

Music gear is full of copies, inspirations, "based ons", homages, knock-offs, ripps, but some of you are true creators I think. Darkglass is among these innovators that not only parted from almost zero prior products, but created a sound itself with their pedals.

After Straocasters, "P's" and "J's", the pedal market is the second camp in copies or based products in (Muffs, Tubescreamers, Rats, Bosses, Klons, and a few more). But the majority of them have improvements and variations in the circuitery, box, name, interfacing... the line that separates the legit or not is not easy to see.

This particular knock-off here pointed, shares name, appearance, and even the manual with the original. Clearly is not legit to mee.

 

[TTA]

Hey TALKBASS!

Hope You are all right!



I love those elitarists talks about the gear. If You don't have bass for 1000 bucks/EUR You can't eeven start playing instrument.


WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PLAY BASSS AND NOT SPEND "minimum a grand as a beginner on bass" ???

******************************************************************************

Check this out.



********************************************************************************

20EUR - combo (preowned (!) Harley Benton Jamster BASS - it was dirty)

45EUR - 666demonfx666 - DarkGlass - Harmonic Booster ripoff

50EUR - BASS - the MIGHTY Harley Benton! CHEAP pre-owned

********************************************************************************

115EUR together...



*** and this combo is on batteries - can play for 4 hours MAXED (!!!)

It is loud to the point with demonfx it can't go 50% at home. (!!!!!!!!!!)


*****************************************************************************

TEST is on batteries.


BREATHE-IN/ OUT - Sorry Talkbass - I growl and I was just getting ready myself before the gig. Sorry for that This small rig helped me to improve breathing and getting ready to GROWL before the gig - hope you will understand. PEACE!@



View attachment 7288455

i think we all understand that money = better music

and cheap = your playing will suck.

Nothing to do with the player, or what/how they play, and everything to do with your gear and what others think of it, and how much it costs.

remember… nothing is any good if other people like it!

I still have my first bass ever… a damaged floor model fender mexican jazz bass. it is such a terrible bass i still own it and play it frequently and it sounds and plays like absolute trash and this is a 100% serious post to be taken literally.

 

[agedhorse]

I'm guilty to have bought a "copy" of a Darkglass pedal, based in not spending too much money in something that I would not like, but It's in my pedalboard 9 years after. It is not named the same, the controls are slightly changed and has some differences in other things. Even it was only offered as a DIY kit, so not the same product. Based on the benefits I take from it, maybe it's fair to get the original.

Music gear is full of copies, inspirations, "based ons", homages, knock-offs, ripps, but some of you are true creators I think. Darkglass is among these innovators that not only parted from almost zero prior products, but created a sound itself with their pedals.

After Straocasters, "P's" and "J's", the pedal market is the second camp in copies or based products in (Muffs, Tubescreamers, Rats, Bosses, Klons, and a few more). But the majority of them have improvements and variations in the circuitery, box, name, interfacing... the line that separates the legit or not is not easy to see.

This particular knock-off here pointed, shares name, appearance, and even the manual with the original. Clearly is not legit to mee.

I don’t have problems with being inspired by a previous product, it’s where the inspiration is designed to confuse or mislead or hoodwinked a buyer into thinking they are getting something different that what they really are.

There is a saying in engineering… regarding knocking off products, once you accept that you are a hooker, all that’s left is to negotiate your moral price.

Most older engineers will recognize this saying.

 

[Al Kraft]

IME good engineers get inspired by competitor's products, think about what they can do to take technology a step further, do the hard work of innovating and inventing, and then bring something new and/or better to the market. If they can do that at a lower price point, so much the better.

In capitalism done right and with everyone playing fairly and ethically, the combination of competition and market demand incentivizes and rewards timely innovation. I believe that what is good for a country's industrial capabilities is generally good for its citizens. Competition helps keep that capability strong and innovating while also helping keep prices as low as possible for consumers.