More than a year ago on May1, 2007, I placed an order with Chris Found for a full set of 28 tubes for my M70's. I paid 350 UK pounds which I paid via a bank transfer to his wifes account. I have the paperwork. I ordered from Canada.
I have not yet received the tubes.
After not receiving replies to my email last October, I posted on Audio Asyslum. Chris says his server was down and he didn't get the emails. He says his supplier shipped the tubes but I did not receive any notification of shipping.
Until March, I sent Chris an email a month requesting status. He always said thanks for the reminder and then nothing until I sent another email.
Finally, I filed a claim with UK Consumer Direct and cc'ed Chris.
This is an extract of his last email to me in March, ten months after my order.
"I have kept you informed of the issue of your valves, it is not my fault that you have not received them and an agreement has been made between the valve supplier and myself to issue a second set at our cost.
We are still in discussion with the carrier about this and this issue has been passed to my solicitor for action as they are insisting they have delivered the goods.
This email and your advertising of the problems has now caused me to have second thoughts about spending my own personal funds to remove your problem.
It is up to you what you do with forums and my reputation stands for the past 8 years of providing support."
I find it disturbing that Chris profits from this transaction and blames the nameless tubes supplier. Then he offers to pay me back from his own funds. He first made this offer in December but three months later he had not yet done so. I don't think he was serious.
I'm doubtful I'll get anything. I'm posting here for two reasons. One is a warning to international buyers and the other is to ask for advice on my best legal recourse. Of course, I don't want to spend more on legal fees than I've lost already.
I have not yet received the tubes.
After not receiving replies to my email last October, I posted on Audio Asyslum. Chris says his server was down and he didn't get the emails. He says his supplier shipped the tubes but I did not receive any notification of shipping.
Until March, I sent Chris an email a month requesting status. He always said thanks for the reminder and then nothing until I sent another email.
Finally, I filed a claim with UK Consumer Direct and cc'ed Chris.
This is an extract of his last email to me in March, ten months after my order.
"I have kept you informed of the issue of your valves, it is not my fault that you have not received them and an agreement has been made between the valve supplier and myself to issue a second set at our cost.
We are still in discussion with the carrier about this and this issue has been passed to my solicitor for action as they are insisting they have delivered the goods.
This email and your advertising of the problems has now caused me to have second thoughts about spending my own personal funds to remove your problem.
It is up to you what you do with forums and my reputation stands for the past 8 years of providing support."
I find it disturbing that Chris profits from this transaction and blames the nameless tubes supplier. Then he offers to pay me back from his own funds. He first made this offer in December but three months later he had not yet done so. I don't think he was serious.
I'm doubtful I'll get anything. I'm posting here for two reasons. One is a warning to international buyers and the other is to ask for advice on my best legal recourse. Of course, I don't want to spend more on legal fees than I've lost already.
I'm not a legal person in any sense, but in the UK we have various online sites which may give you more information.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/index.htm
This outines what a "small claim" is and how to go about it. As you can see it covers "goods not supplied".
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp
The above site seems to offer an online service - may be easier to use.
Since you have had no resolution and it has been some time now, I should go ahead and look at these options. Common sense suggests that if no attempt has been made by this person to resolve the situation, he needs to realise that you are serious about getting your money back and that you are not prepared to wait an indefinite time.
Good Luck!
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/index.htm
This outines what a "small claim" is and how to go about it. As you can see it covers "goods not supplied".
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp
The above site seems to offer an online service - may be easier to use.
Since you have had no resolution and it has been some time now, I should go ahead and look at these options. Common sense suggests that if no attempt has been made by this person to resolve the situation, he needs to realise that you are serious about getting your money back and that you are not prepared to wait an indefinite time.
Good Luck!
Beard Audio
Hi
I recently bought a pair of Beard M70s - I am currently driving a pair of ESL57s and they sound great - I have an idea of rebuilding a second set of ESL57s and having stacked QUADS - as the M70 is basically a P35 with what looks like a simple wire bridge at the input and output sockets (not even a good piece of wire) - I would like to seek advice that by simply removing the bridge at the two pairs of speaker terminals I can effectively turn them into P35s with a shared input.
Can any of you advise or does any of you have a P35 wiring diagram so that I can check for circuit changes.
A second smaller question - I would like to get 6p14p-er tubes - any advice on whether the transformers will cope with 12 tubes with a slightly higher filament current (0.47- 0.86 instead of o.7 - 0.82)
Cheers
Jerry
Hi
I recently bought a pair of Beard M70s - I am currently driving a pair of ESL57s and they sound great - I have an idea of rebuilding a second set of ESL57s and having stacked QUADS - as the M70 is basically a P35 with what looks like a simple wire bridge at the input and output sockets (not even a good piece of wire) - I would like to seek advice that by simply removing the bridge at the two pairs of speaker terminals I can effectively turn them into P35s with a shared input.
Can any of you advise or does any of you have a P35 wiring diagram so that I can check for circuit changes.
A second smaller question - I would like to get 6p14p-er tubes - any advice on whether the transformers will cope with 12 tubes with a slightly higher filament current (0.47- 0.86 instead of o.7 - 0.82)
Cheers
Jerry
This is appalling service and been dragging on for far too long.
I recon his marriage is on the rocks and his/was wife profitted from you.
I've never experienced order slackness from the UK, however ordering by CC would have reclaimed your dosh.
richy
for richwalters
Sir.
you have had all the necessary information, yet you still moan.
I told you we had put a claim with the couriers who returned that they had delivered your valves, we tried on several attempts to discuss this or trace the loss but you seemed persistent in complaining to the forums instead of discussing this direct.
The email address has not changed, nor the address and although I had a small problem with my server provider this was resolved quickly.
If you want to discuss this, take it off the board, if not I will ask the moderator to ban you.
Chris Found
Sir.
you have had all the necessary information, yet you still moan.
I told you we had put a claim with the couriers who returned that they had delivered your valves, we tried on several attempts to discuss this or trace the loss but you seemed persistent in complaining to the forums instead of discussing this direct.
The email address has not changed, nor the address and although I had a small problem with my server provider this was resolved quickly.
If you want to discuss this, take it off the board, if not I will ask the moderator to ban you.
Chris Found
Iconserv.
all service information is chargeable but I can tell you that it is more than just paralleling of the input and output terminals that make a M70, the output transformer has a different impedance ratio.
I will also remind you that the amplifier works best when the valves are matched as close a possible.
all service information is chargeable but I can tell you that it is more than just paralleling of the input and output terminals that make a M70, the output transformer has a different impedance ratio.
I will also remind you that the amplifier works best when the valves are matched as close a possible.
There's chargeable and ridiculously overpriced - But being threatened with legal action for sketching out a schematic rather than pay "the owner" 100GBP for a copy! — See email from Chris Found below (sent to my business address although initially I was communicating via my personal email address)
To: 'Keith Snook' <keith@dc-daylight.ltd.uk>
Subject: RE: copyright
Sir.
Why are you fighting...
Copyright law dictate the ownership of the product design, the circuit and
layout arrangement there in, it protects the copying, part or full, in any
form or purpose, namely the Beard Audio CA35.
This copyright is controlled wholly by the board and its contents inside and
the marking of the company name on the outside, a secondary protection is by
the release of a serial number which is logged against records outside my
premises.
When this unit was designed, the circuit design was unique, several
manufacturers acquired licences to make copies of specific parts of the
circuit but not the full or original unit.
When I took over the servicing of the Beard products in 2001, I updated any
copyrights that had passed and they are in force till 2025
Irrespective of whether you think the law does not apply to you, this is
still an area where the court would side with the originator (Beard Audio)
rather than the defendant.
I hold all the product information on every Beard made from start of the
company till closure, these include designs from myself for the company and
feel most strongly about allowing people to reverse the circuit for whatever
means they would initially use it for and as you have a schematic page on
your website it seems logical that if I had not forced this issue the
circuit would have ended up your website or passed between members of a
forum for which would require action to remove.
Beard audio service is not a charity and when it comes to rebuilding
modified boards, it is easier for the owner to bring it to us for reversion
where updates can be advised to improve the performance.
We also know the products more than anyone else and I have seen too many of
our designs through my service department from non valve qualified engineers
or people that think they can do the repair themselves.
You decided to not go this route and insult me with a childish reply and I
am sure if this was returned in the opposite direction you would be annoyed
too.
I would seriously recommend reviewing your actions in regards to this
product otherwise I will pass this to legal.
I trust you will make the best decision.
Chris Found
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Snook [mailto:keith@dc-daylight.ltd.uk]
Sent: 02 March 2012 20:25
To: service
Subject: Re: copyright
Chris
The point you are missing is that somebody else modified a CA35 in the past
and I simply wish to put it back as original - One would think you would
appreciate that
Unless I make or intend to make commercial gain from this there is no law -
UK or other - that has been broken
The person who sent the information simply sketched out component values
against the silk screen references - I have gone further and started
sketching a schematic which may appear on the web soon
The "design" is nothing special - straight out of the "boys own book of
electronics" - If anyone has any patents on such vanilla designs I would be
very surprised
There is nothing on the CA35 product to indicate it is a protected design
but if you could demonstrate otherwise I will of course comply with any
relevant legislation
If your legal agents wish to write to me they should send mail to this
address: . . . . .
Anyone not afraid of the big bad wolf got some Beard Schematics to share ?
Keith
Copyright protection automatically exists for a circuit diagram (under UK law). This is quite separate from any protection via patent or registered design. The circuit does not have to be innovative, provided that it is not so extremely trivial that no work at all was needed to produce it. Just as a book is copyright (even though the author invented none of the words in it) so a circuit is copyright (even though all the sub-circuits in it may be 'standard textbook' stuff). Many companies are quite happy for people to see their circuits.
Others are not. Various reasons include:
1. want to hide a clever idea from competitors (but they may buy and reverse engineer one anyway).
2. want to hide lack of clever ideas from customers (but the truth may eventually leak out anyway)
3. want to make some profit on repairs and upgrades.
All of these are perfectly legal. There is a specific exemption under EU law for reverse engineering for the purpose of interfacing another item - you could make a widget to plug in to it and in order to do this you can reverse engineer the device. I'm not sure if this would also cover repair and modification of the device itself. If you are making no money from it then it is not worth sueing you, but the law has still been broken. If you publish the circuit without permission then the owner can sue for his subsequential losses (e.g. loss of repairs income) or apply to a court for an injunction. You would then be in contempt of court if you persisted.
You might think he is being heavy-handed. You might wish you had bought something for which a circuit diagram was available. The law is on his side.
I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice, just my opinion.
Others are not. Various reasons include:
1. want to hide a clever idea from competitors (but they may buy and reverse engineer one anyway).
2. want to hide lack of clever ideas from customers (but the truth may eventually leak out anyway)
3. want to make some profit on repairs and upgrades.
All of these are perfectly legal. There is a specific exemption under EU law for reverse engineering for the purpose of interfacing another item - you could make a widget to plug in to it and in order to do this you can reverse engineer the device. I'm not sure if this would also cover repair and modification of the device itself. If you are making no money from it then it is not worth sueing you, but the law has still been broken. If you publish the circuit without permission then the owner can sue for his subsequential losses (e.g. loss of repairs income) or apply to a court for an injunction. You would then be in contempt of court if you persisted.
You might think he is being heavy-handed. You might wish you had bought something for which a circuit diagram was available. The law is on his side.
I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice, just my opinion.
Properly 'founded' businesses do NOT use the wife's bank account.
Has the company provided any hard detail as to tracking information, name of shipping company etc? Further, no responsible company would send such a shipment without adequate insurance. Have you asked for fullest shipping details and associated paperwork?
To bring a UK Court action from abroad is difficult and would need a UK based lawyer to act on your behalf as it is required that such a case is heard in a Court geographically close to where the offence was committed. To do so from Canada would be nigh on impossible. I would advise googling 'trading standards office'. You can then enter the town used in the company's address. That should give you the identity of the office concerned. You can email them with copy of the information you have available. They will probably intervene on your behalf and may well get you your money returned.....who knows but they may already have received similar complaints from other customers.
For the record, I knew Bill Beard, the original owner and designer... (he was extremely helpful to me in solving a problem I had with a Precision Fidelity pre-amp.)...; I imagine that he would be somewhat concerned that his name has been brought into question by the present owner of that 'brand'.
For Mr Found to bring an action based on breach of copyright in this instance may, I suspect, be beyond his sensible use of financial resources, but it could nonetheless be awkward if he attempted to do so. Whatever his reasons he certainly is doing his cause no good whatsoever in his handling of this matter. However DF96 has handled this side of the problems in a very practical way above.
Has the company provided any hard detail as to tracking information, name of shipping company etc? Further, no responsible company would send such a shipment without adequate insurance. Have you asked for fullest shipping details and associated paperwork?
To bring a UK Court action from abroad is difficult and would need a UK based lawyer to act on your behalf as it is required that such a case is heard in a Court geographically close to where the offence was committed. To do so from Canada would be nigh on impossible. I would advise googling 'trading standards office'. You can then enter the town used in the company's address. That should give you the identity of the office concerned. You can email them with copy of the information you have available. They will probably intervene on your behalf and may well get you your money returned.....who knows but they may already have received similar complaints from other customers.
For the record, I knew Bill Beard, the original owner and designer... (he was extremely helpful to me in solving a problem I had with a Precision Fidelity pre-amp.)...; I imagine that he would be somewhat concerned that his name has been brought into question by the present owner of that 'brand'.
For Mr Found to bring an action based on breach of copyright in this instance may, I suspect, be beyond his sensible use of financial resources, but it could nonetheless be awkward if he attempted to do so. Whatever his reasons he certainly is doing his cause no good whatsoever in his handling of this matter. However DF96 has handled this side of the problems in a very practical way above.
This is not about copyright it's about selling information and trying to prevent people drawing their own conclusion as to how a thing works — I have only posted the last 2 emails (the earlier ones are similar) but I hope you can see that I am not out to copy or reproduce anything — rather I wish to restore the item as the originator intended — call it homage if you wish
What is amazing is that in only a few hours an old thread has burst back to life and so many have sent me useful information for free — I post information (hopefully useful) for free and give people an option to contribute to my web site if it helped them but if they don't I don't sulk and cry
Chris Found tells me I cannot sketch out a plan of my CA-35 with or without help from other diyAudio friends — but I am "allowed" to buy a schematic from him for 100GBP but I now have to question if I am "allowed" to use it or even if it would be useful !!
The CA-35 has a number of features — The loose decoupled +B to each valve with 1uF and 100nF "Beard" branded capacitors is a sound signature changing feature but it's not unique
Regards to all fair minded diyers - Keith
From a pragmatic point of view I don't see how anyone can prevent you from determining how your own property works. You own a particular CA35; you can do whatever you wish with that. I think anyone who tried to prevent you from sketching out a diagram of an amplifier which you own, for your own private purposes, would not get far in court. It is an established repair technique. As your amp has been modified, then the modification is not subject to the original Beard copyright anyway but is 'owned' by whoever modded it.
To restore it to its original state in the absence of cooperation from the current copyright holder you need to find someone with an unmodified amp - again a standard repair technique. As long as you make no attempt to publish the circuit I can't see any problem.
To restore it to its original state in the absence of cooperation from the current copyright holder you need to find someone with an unmodified amp - again a standard repair technique. As long as you make no attempt to publish the circuit I can't see any problem.
That's exactly what I have done thanks to friends forums and image searches — The topology of the circuit is dictated by the tracks on the PCB which on my CA35 is cheap SRBP material — I now see other CA35s with FR4 PCBs and with different component styles and values so what is original ?
As Mr Found states - the item should be sent back for restoration so that it can be built to the latest "spec." by people who understand valves — It looks like several improvements could be made but the fact that we are writing on a DiY forum . . .
Regards Keith
US LAW:
What Works Are Protected?
Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are
fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not
be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated
with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works
include the following categories:
1 literary works
2 musical works, including any accompanying words
3 dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4 pantomimes and choreographic works
5 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6 motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7 sound recordings
8 architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example,
computer programs and most “compilations” may be regis*
tered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may
be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for
federal copyright protection. These include among others:
• works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of
expression (for example, choreographic works that have
not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches
or performances that have not been written or recorded)
• titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols
or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation,
lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
• ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a
description, explanation, or illustration
• works consisting entirely of information that is common
property and containing no original authorship (for
example: standard calendars, height and weight charts,
tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from
public documents or other common sources)
I hold 3 patents, more than 3 were denied due to "pre-existing art" that was found similar to illustrated but not "claimed" in earlier patents.
I do understand how they can claim intellectual ownership if in fact their design is based on "pre-existing art" has been used or published by anyone else anywhere in the world. I can understand that they are trying to protect their inking of the schematic as in a "map".
What Works Are Protected?
Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are
fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not
be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated
with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works
include the following categories:
1 literary works
2 musical works, including any accompanying words
3 dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4 pantomimes and choreographic works
5 pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6 motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7 sound recordings
8 architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example,
computer programs and most “compilations” may be regis*
tered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may
be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for
federal copyright protection. These include among others:
• works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of
expression (for example, choreographic works that have
not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches
or performances that have not been written or recorded)
• titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols
or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation,
lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
• ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a
description, explanation, or illustration
• works consisting entirely of information that is common
property and containing no original authorship (for
example: standard calendars, height and weight charts,
tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from
public documents or other common sources)
I hold 3 patents, more than 3 were denied due to "pre-existing art" that was found similar to illustrated but not "claimed" in earlier patents.
I do understand how they can claim intellectual ownership if in fact their design is based on "pre-existing art" has been used or published by anyone else anywhere in the world. I can understand that they are trying to protect their inking of the schematic as in a "map".
Thread closed.- Status
- Not open for further replies.