The ethics of Kemper profiling amps

[pravus]

Amp modelers like the Axe-Fx units use a mathematical (and programmatic) method of generating virtually the exact same tone characteristics of the amps they model. They do this because amplifiers are basically just large math equations. Ask any electrical engineer. We've been simulating signals on computers in ever more-complex circuits since at least the 70s and within the past few years the technology has progressed to the point where we can simulate guitar amplifiers in a little black box. The personal opinions of people that say they don't work well are fine. I'm seeing more and more bands use them both in the studio and for touring. All with rave reviews, too. *Shrug*

As far as ethics go, if a return policy is guaranteed by law and the law is supposed to encode moral justice, isn't it ethical to buy and return items regardless of intent? We have tax laws that are meant to offset these retail penalties along with theft, damage of goods, etc. There's also things like insurance or the right to say "no" to a customer if you don't want the potential of a return. I mean, yes, it would be nice if there were no scumbags in life. Those people breaking the law in the left lane on the highway are really atrocious.

And the argument that you are stealing someone's work doesn't hold for me either. Are you really saying that even if a Kemper amp repeats exactly the same sound as another amp that the original amp has *nothing* to offer the consumer market? I mean, what did it offer in the first place? I buy amplifiers for more than just the sound they produce. They also have to be reliable with a company that I feel pays a certain level of detail to things I care about. Will the Kemper always offer this? Does it have all the features and aesthetics I want? More importantly, will Kemper be able to produce products that are as good or better than the competitors they copy in the future? Well, maybe. I mean, the technology is here and I'm not rushing out to buy it myself right now though. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

I am pretty sold on the Axe-Fx units, though. I'm probably going to add one of those this year. That's mostly because Meshuggah uses them for all their guitar work and I would need it to duplicate their stack. I don't really want a guitar amp other than a Peavey 6505 and I'd get one those with the Axe-Fx unit. Is it ethical to play cover songs (someone else's IP)? Is it ethical if you use their same technology stack? Is it ethical to use the same words as someone? I mean, humans have been copying for a very long time. Next time you hum a tune in your head make sure to pay the artist what you think you owe them.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Again, the issue is not whether the technology works, but whether people use it to sample amps they don't own, and whether the company encourages this.

 

[EastCoastThump]

As far as ethics go, if a return policy is guaranteed by law and the law is supposed to encode moral justice, isn't it ethical to buy and return items regardless of intent?

The way you ask this question confuses "legal" with "ethical." Law doesn't "encode moral justice"; it encodes the state's power to restrain or compel behavior, usually in service of propertied interests. That often differs from both justice and morality.

 

[pravus]

The way you ask this question confuses "legal" with "ethical." Law doesn't "encode moral justice"; it encodes the state's power to restrain or compel behavior, usually in service of propertied interests. That often differs from both justice and morality.

In principle I agree. However, I am constantly reminded that laws are good and should be followed for their own sake. Ergo copyright and patent law. I'm of course not saying that you defend these ideas necessarily but I'm told by strident IP enthusiasts that copying information is morally wrong due to ... words on paper (law). Well if the argument is that law can be used as an arbiter for morals, then we should apply that standard evenly. It's really something to think about when you consider that law only begets justice through coercion and force.

 

[EastCoastThump]

In principle I agree. However, ... I'm constantly reminded by strident IP enthusiasts that copying information is morally wrong due to ... words on paper (law). Well if the argument is that law can be used as an arbiter for morals, then we should apply that standard evenly. It's really something to think about when you consider that law only begets justice through coercion and force.

That's a fair-minded way of putting it. I get the feeling, though, that you don't believe (any more than I do) that the law *is* an arbiter for morality, even if it can be used that way. Otherwise, does ethical behavior change every time statutes change? Does it change for the international traveller? Were the Wall Street gangs that broke the economy morally blameless because the legal system declined to charge them? Etc. If so, we arrive quickly at purely situational ethics.

To be sure, our languge encourages the confusion when, for example, we use "the legal system" and "the justice system" interchangeably. But if you respond to a dispute with a neighbor either by calling the police or by getting the courts involved, too often the results clearly illustrate the gap between law and justice. The law is not a tool of precise justice but of power—not a scalpel, but a cudgel.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

In principle I agree. However, I am constantly reminded that laws are good and should be followed for their own sake. Ergo copyright and patent law.

In a legal system system predicated on natural law or even Dworkian concepts of law, I would agree. In a legal system predicated on legal positivism/formalism, as most Western common law systems are, I'd argue no. The law is not necessarily a reflection of morality. In the words of Justice Oliver Holmes: "This is a court of law, not a court of justice."

 

[danosix]

I have no problem with the ethics of Kemper profiling, in and of itself. I have a very large problem with the ethics of ordering an amp, using it for this purpose, and then returning it. I think that is completely bogus and I have a very low regard for anyone who does that. I find the practice of buying things with the intention of returning them shortly thereafter to be equally bogus, unethical, and repulsive.

Exactly - I don't think the idea of the "profiling" is unethical -no more so than a keyboardist sampling an acoustic instrument.
Getting a store to bring something in so you can borrow it for free and return it - regardless of what you d with it in between in HIGHLY unethical.
In regards to "stealing" the boutique amp - that amp is about the sound, performance and prestige (sorry, but true) of higher quality components, hand-build and exclusivity. I'd e willing to be that the boutique companies are unconcerned. Moreover - as was said above their "designs" for the most part are recreations of designs that are modifications of designs that were taken from designs that were adapted from the RCA tuber book - no secrets or magic here - just superior components made with care an attention - there's literally nothing to "steal". And if the people "profiling" these amps thing they're going to get the extremely subtle differences that these amps give through any model - they're deluding themselves.
For the record, I am not a boutique proponent - but I do agree that quality stuff does sound and respond better than cheapo stuff - but those differences, once you've gotten past the level of good enough, I don't think most of these guys would be able to tell the difference between a sample of a Victoria (for the record, the best sounding amp I even played to my ears, followed closely by a Vibro-King) and an decent Fender Tweed model - in person there's a difference between a boutique and a decent amp and a decent amp and a model - on a loud stage or more importantly in the audience or on a recording I would defy anyone to tell which amps are vintage, boutique or virtual.

 

[JimmyM]

As far as ethics go, if a return policy is guaranteed by law and the law is supposed to encode moral justice, isn't it ethical to buy and return items regardless of intent? We have tax laws that are meant to offset these retail penalties along with theft, damage of goods, etc. There's also things like insurance or the right to say "no" to a customer if you don't want the potential of a return. I mean, yes, it would be nice if there were no scumbags in life. Those people breaking the law in the left lane on the highway are really atrocious.

Do certain companies set themselves up for it? Yes. But it costs these companies money to allow such liberal return policies where you can buy a $5000 rig only to return it in a few days when you're done with it. But actually, it doesn't cost the companies all that much...it costs consumers that much when the cost of khazers doing stuff like that is built into their prices to offset those who view the music store as a lending library. It's one thing to buy something and return it if you don't like it. It's another to buy stuff with the full intention of returning it when you're done with it. It may be legal but that doesn't make it right.

 

[eigentone]

And the argument that you are stealing someone's work doesn't hold for me either. Are you really saying that even if a Kemper amp repeats exactly the same sound as another amp that the original amp has *nothing* to offer the consumer market? I mean, what did it offer in the first place? I buy amplifiers for more than just the sound they produce. They also have to be reliable with a company that I feel pays a certain level of detail to things I care about. Will the Kemper always offer this? Does it have all the features and aesthetics I want? More importantly, will Kemper be able to produce products that are as good or better than the competitors they copy in the future? Well, maybe. I mean, the technology is here and I'm not rushing out to buy it myself right now though. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

The music technology world would not be as interesting without Engineering, Research, and Development. Maybe you are saying these efforts have no value to you and that an amp's value is reduced to its market/material/aesthetic value, but I appreciate technological advancements and improvements and I don't mind paying for that work. That's much more important than, say, an old model being offered new color (IMO).

Is it ethical to play cover songs (someone else's IP)? Is it ethical if you use their same technology stack? Is it ethical to use the same words as someone? I mean, humans have been copying for a very long time. Next time you hum a tune in your head make sure to pay the artist what you think you owe them.

Unlike original amp circuitry, there are laws to protect the authors/artists and see that they get paid: Royalties for Cover Songs

 

[eigentone]

Do certain companies set themselves up for it? Yes. But it costs these companies money to allow such liberal return policies where you can buy a $5000 rig only to return it in a few days when you're done with it. But actually, it doesn't cost the companies all that much...it costs consumers that much when the cost of khazers doing stuff like that is built into their prices to offset those who view the music store as a lending library. It's one thing to buy something and return it if you don't like it. It's another to buy stuff with the full intention of returning it when you're done with it. It may be legal but that doesn't make it right.

I think it will/does cost a lot in lost sales for (physical) amp manufacturers. Profiling/modeling invalidates the needs in many people's minds for real amps. It does cost consumers but amp makers will either have to make sacrifices to their product or charge more per amp to recoup their costs.

 

[pravus]

That's a fair-minded way of putting it. I get the feeling, though, that you don't believe (any more than I do) that the law *is* an arbiter for morality, even if it can be used that way. Otherwise, does ethical behavior change every time statutes change? Does it change for the international traveller? Were the Wall Street gangs that broke the economy morally blameless because the legal system declined to charge them? Etc. If so, we arrive quickly at purely situational ethics.

My way of thinking is that you apply the same standards to all human beings equally. Doing so implies no change in behavior so long as cultural/situational standards don't transgress basic human principles of freedom. That's precisely why I dislike law. It carves niches for every label you want to apply. And no I don't believe it arbitrates morality. Nor defines it or executes it. Law to me is actually a perversion of morality because it automatically assumes a level of concentrated force that is not true to nature and not in the nature of the principle of human freedom.

 

[pravus]

Do certain companies set themselves up for it? Yes. But it costs these companies money to allow such liberal return policies where you can buy a $5000 rig only to return it in a few days when you're done with it. But actually, it doesn't cost the companies all that much...it costs consumers that much when the cost of khazers doing stuff like that is built into their prices to offset those who view the music store as a lending library. It's one thing to buy something and return it if you don't like it. It's another to buy stuff with the full intention of returning it when you're done with it. It may be legal but that doesn't make it right.

I certainly agree that it hurts consumers. I'm also not an advocate of the behavior. I'm just saying it's not a moral or ethical issue since it doesn't seem to be different from other actions that are deemed moral. It's at best ambiguous and should certainly be discouraged for its externalities. We should also be able to specifically quantify the amount of harm done by these activities and encode that in the tax law. Not my first option but it's a common one.

 

[pravus]

The music technology world would not be as interesting without Engineering, Research, and Development. Maybe you are saying these efforts have no value to you and that an amp's value is reduced to its market/material/aesthetic value, but I appreciate technological advancements and improvements and I don't mind paying for that work. That's much more important than, say, an old model being offered new color (IMO).

I'm saying that the value of these things does not reside in the copyrights and patents issued to protect them. In fact, quite the opposite. There are many cases in history (and even in modern day) where copyrights and patents impede progress rather than promote it. This is exactly contrary to its stated purpose. Although unpopular, my view is that if we weren't constrained by such archaic, mercantalistic ideas we might be making even more progress than current. I dislike the implication that without these protections progress would halt or diminish greatly. It gets proven otherwise every day in the tech industry.

Unlike original amp circuitry, there are laws to protect the authors/artists and see that they get paid: Royalties for Cover Songs

And this is the exact argument that someone else was asking me about. This is called law positivism. We didn't have a law before. Now we have a law. Things are good because laws are good. How do you feel about the fact that royalties are different in every country? Is that fair or ethical? Why did ethics change? Can technology change morality? Do you agree with the current copyright limits of the life of the artist plus 70 years? In the US only? Worldwide too? Why not 100 years? It used to be less than the life of the artist. And you used to have to apply for copyright. Why did the rules change? Is Disney a better arbiter of morality than you or I? Patents last 24 years... why not 2,000? I mean this literally brings up so many more questions than it answers.

 

[pravus]

I think it will/does cost a lot in lost sales for (physical) amp manufacturers. Profiling/modeling invalidates the needs in many people's minds for real amps. It does cost consumers but amp makers will either have to make sacrifices to their product or charge more per amp to recoup their costs.

Kodak is a defunct company because they refused to convert their knowledge of color into a technologically superior format. Now all their patents are scattered all over the wind. Yes modeling might be a danger for amp companies. It's up to amp companies to respond. My decision to buy an Axe-FX hasn't affected my desire for the next Aguilar rig, more Glockenklang gear and a few other pieces though. I'm keeping Dingwall pretty busy too even though Ibanez has a fanned-fret competitor that's cheaper.

 

[JimmyM]

Kodak is a defunct company because they refused to convert their knowledge of color into a technologically superior format. Now all their patents are scattered all over the wind. Yes modeling might be a danger for amp companies. It's up to amp companies to respond. My decision to buy an Axe-FX hasn't affected my desire for the next Aguilar rig, more Glockenklang gear and a few other pieces though. I'm keeping Dingwall pretty busy too even though Ibanez has a fanned-fret competitor that's cheaper.

Kodak isn't defunct. The went into bankrputcy and reorganized and changed their focus somewhat, pardon the pun.

Kodak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eigentone]

And the argument that you are stealing someone's work doesn't hold for me either. Are you really saying that even if a Kemper amp repeats exactly the same sound as another amp that the original amp has *nothing* to offer the consumer market? I mean, what did it offer in the first place?

…

I'm saying that the value of these things does not reside in the copyrights and patents issued to protect them. In fact, quite the opposite. There are many cases in history (and even in modern day) where copyrights and patents impede progress rather than promote it. This is exactly contrary to its stated purpose. Although unpopular, my view is that if we weren't constrained by such archaic, mercantalistic ideas we might be making even more progress than current. I dislike the implication that without these protections progress would halt or diminish greatly. It gets proven otherwise every day in the tech industry.

More goes in to the amp than materials and labour. It is worth something (IMO), but quite difficult to quantify. After all, there are entire positions and departments that go into Engineering, Research, and Development. My belief is that these original, proprietary developments should have some protection and that a profiler/modeler should have to license content which came from such a design if they are to resell that design.

Summarily: The ethics of Kemper profiling amps I'm just saying that amp designs which are profiled/modeled should result in compensation getting back to the original circuit designers -- right, easier said than done. I.e. a manufacturer's amp model/profile should be licensed from the developer, not copied/profiled and sold. Axe-Fx boasts over 180 amp models included. How many of these amp models did Fractal Audio design? Of the ones they did not design (if any), how were the original designers compensated and did they approve of this usage of their design? I don't mean to pick on Axe-Fx; Most models/simulations are not licensed. Some are, as the video points out.

That said, I'm a software engineer. I do agree that the software industry in the US has taken this "protection" to ridiculous extents. But I see your examples as two extremes. Original amp designs have zero protection on this issue (AFAIK) while some tech companies would patent addition if they could get away with it. In many cases, the tech patents are often not because a company wants to prevent a competing company from using a technology it developed. The patent only adds to the value of a patent profile and/or adds legal muscle. In fact, there are companies that exist not for the purpose of developing anything but (essentially) patent the obvious so that they may sue another company that implements something similar (eg Patent Sharks). This is abusing the system, IMO, and the settlement amounts are just absurd. I don't believe that because some software companies (and non-developers) over-patent that amp developers should be offered zero protection of their works. I.e. that because software companies took it too far that that should ruin protection for other industries. Of course, this is entirely subjective.

And this is the exact argument that someone else was asking me about. This is called law positivism. We didn't have a law before. Now we have a law. Things are good because laws are good. How do you feel about the fact that royalties are different in every country? Is that fair or ethical? Why did ethics change? Can technology change morality? Do you agree with the current copyright limits of the life of the artist plus 70 years? In the US only? Worldwide too? Why not 100 years? It used to be less than the life of the artist. And you used to have to apply for copyright. Why did the rules change? Is Disney a better arbiter of morality than you or I? Patents last 24 years... why not 2,000? I mean this literally brings up so many more questions than it answers.

When an artist/musician/writer publishes a work today, they have rights and laws which protect their works. They were established before the work is published. Amp manus don't currently have such protection (to my knowledge); profilers/modelers take advantage of that and a big part of their sales is based on what they can recreate. Maybe you do believe that those designs are profiler/modeler developers' right to use as much as the original developers'. I don't. Some companies invest a ton of time honing their designs to make the next awesome tool for musicians -- only to have it approximated at a price the amp manus cannot compete with.

 

[seamonkey]

So I'm no expert on the plethora of different molders out there, but I do know that the molders I have tried really don't come close to the real deal.

Case in point: When playing tube amps, if I set the amp with some gain to get distortion when my instrument is turned on full, I will get distortion. When I back off the volume on my instrument, it doesn't drive the tubes as hard, and the result is a cleaner tone, and little to no distortion. Modelers don't understand how to do that.

So to say that a modeler mfg is stealing IP.....I don't completely buy that

Kemper profiling takes the amp through dynamic ranges.

Most all software modelers do this to perfection. It's top on the list for guitar players and many guitarist on into modeling.

IK Multimedia Mesa Boogie on an iPhone nails the Mesa Boogie response. IK is different than some software modelers. They start with schematics and model the components. Other modelers take a black box approach and take the whole amp a a single component, a "black box", but they do still take it through all the dynamic ranges.

Many players claim modeling isn't ready yet. They mistake that the modeled amps totally sound like their own amp. The Kemper has the huge advantage that it can allow a player to model their own amp, and tweak it to perfection, or better like a little more or less dynamic distortion.

 

[chadds]

My way of thinking is that you apply the same standards to all human beings equally. Doing so implies no change in behavior so long as cultural/situational standards don't transgress basic human principles of freedom. That's precisely why I dislike law. It carves niches for every label you want to apply. And no I don't believe it arbitrates morality. Nor defines it or executes it. Law to me is actually a perversion of morality because it automatically assumes a level of concentrated force that is not true to nature and not in the nature of the principle of human freedom.

Assuming people will behave at their best all the time is naive.
Supporting moral development is under the purview of parents, supportive adults, the extended community, religious elders etc. and finally ourselves.
Legislating morality doesn't work. We mutually agree to stop at stop signs. The law is to help us live with those agreements. It brings consequences and carrots. The problems begin when we decide that we know what's correct for others. When we have difficulty adhering to our own religious or moral tenants and attempt to force them on others we go against the very foundations of human freedom and the guiding virtues that our country was built upon. When we see that the sun shines on others who don't have our particular world religious view or creed we doubt. Rather then question ourselves and learn we run from the fear and wage war with words or swords.

 

[seamonkey]

Kodak is a defunct company because they refused to convert their knowledge of color into a technologically superior format. Now all their patents are scattered all over the wind. Yes modeling might be a danger for amp companies. It's up to amp companies to respond. My decision to buy an Axe-FX hasn't affected my desire for the next Aguilar rig, more Glockenklang gear and a few other pieces though. I'm keeping Dingwall pretty busy too even though Ibanez has a fanned-fret competitor that's cheaper.

Kodachrome film is long gone, but you can get your Kodachrome software presets It was never the "film" nor the "camera" it was always and still is about the photographers. Photographers know how to use their gear and now editing software. And now digital photography is everywhere and artistic. There are no movie film camera makers anymore. And the digital film industry is huge. A startup can afford a digital camera that is fully capable of doing more than any film camera of the past. Some of this is in the post filming software editing.

Some amp makers are getting on board and working with the modeling companies and lending their actual names for digital products. It took some a while, but they're getting there. Others are just going to fade away.

 

[chadds]

It was said above.
Does the modeler pay royalties?

My engineer friends say it is quicker to pull up a model of an AC30 than to close and distance mic choose where on the cone etc. It sounds really good.

As a musician a model can't respond like the real thing. The math may be the same but if I use a Weber speaker than have I changed the sound of the model? If I go from a maple tongue and groove cab that resonates to a pressboard one have I changed the sound? It can't be accurate in the purest sense. If it's good enough for some folks it is good enough for them. As it responds differently then you have a new and distinct amp.