I'll explain clearer.....If I take a photo of a car or of a logo I own the copyright of the photo...NOT the copyright of the car design nor the logo...
Mark owns the copyright of his drawing, nothing else.....unfortunately his drawing shows the design of the circuits & component values etc,...which does not belong to Mark...By him showing them to the world on Youtube he has not made those drawings/info "only for his private usage"....
And the defending attorney, who could show 20, 30, maybe 40 year old app notes with those exact circuits on them.
In the computer biz we know security through obscurity is guaranteed to fail sooner rather than later. Compare that with Pass Labs, where you can build your own Aleph J from schematics, as a few have here. Will they make more for friends? Not likely, their item was already a load of work. However, would friends buy theirs from Pass resellers after hearing the clone? Quite possibly.
The components of this image looks very similar images on the website:
https://audiodesign.co.uk/styled-23/styled/index.html
This may be the only copyright infringement I see, nothing to do with any circuit diagrams.
As to grinding off component markings, that is only to hinder repairs....
Time for a popcorn & soda refill - or perhaps refresh of that glass of bourbon?
I get the feeling that this soap opera has a few more chapters.
I get the feeling that this soap opera has a few more chapters.
Not at all. Nobody has a right to the circuit, unless it is protected by a patent.
You may 'feel' that it should be that way, but it isn't.
These circuits have been in thye public domain for decades.
Jan
Looking at the "Repair Manual" pictures in the video, it´s not reverse engineered bu Mark. I am quite certain it is the actual repair manual from Tom Evans. But what is the problem by showing that? Nothing of course. I guess Tom Evans is deeply hurt by how the video exposes an overpriced DIY product.
@jan.didden ...Again you are assuming all the circuits & components of the TE's item are 100% old & standard....& out there in the public domain. I've already stated in a previous comment that it would be up to Marks defence to prove that side of the case, i.e. "the secret sauce is that there is no secret sauce".
As I side note, but relevant re legalities/semantics:- I also sell photos....Now if I take a photo of a car, logo, or person, I can do what I want with it so long as its "for my own personal private usage".....If I decided to sell that photo on the web (or in a shop etc.) I would have to get permission from the car brand, logo designer & the person. (that is if they are all identifiable in the photo)...in fact there are certain landscapes/viewpoints/buildings that many photo resellers will not accept as they are "copyrighted", including natural landscapes!
TE's defence should ask:- Does Mark earn money (no matter how small) from his Youtube videos??
Mark's counter defence would be:- The videos are for educational purposes.
Now in photography when you sell photos that include people, cars, logo, etc, that you do NOT have permission from, those photos have to be sold as "reportage". Basically the photo is sold & can only be used as a photo of that object, it cannot be altered & used for other uses in an advert etc.
Example:- say you take a photo of a car which is easily identifiable as a Jag e-type. You would not be able to sell that photo for the buyer to use in the advert for anything, but lets say car polish. However you would be able to sell it for the buyer to use it in a book on classic car design where the photo is used as "this is a Jag e-type from the 1960's & is a classic British car". However if the photo only contains a small section of the car & it is not easily identifiable, you would be able to sell for use in an advert etc..
However, TE's defence should ask about Mark setting up the courses & training videos that he is doing, & how much money he intends to earn & if he's using that "service manual" he showed. Basically is he earning money from showing the world all the circuit details of the TE item? This considering TE doesn't publish any service manuals circuit diagrams & removes ID marks, this to keep any repairs/servicing all "secret" & in house (as far as I can tell). Mark has "revealed" the whole build details & to some extend it doesn't matter "if" its "old common circuits", that whole item is the IP of TE, irrespective of anything else!
If TE had already placed that "service manual" on the web, Mark could claim "fair usage" in the public sphere for "educational purposes". However, as Mark reverse engineered it, has shown the detailed drawings with component values to world, & is creating other how-technical courses & could be earning money from it & his videos...none of this comes under "for personal/private usage"....as its now "commercial"...no matter how little money he may or may not be making from it.
Both parties are based in the UK, & both have made mistakes. If it goes to Court (this will be the civil courts) it will cost both parties money, & damage (defamation) can be claimed to have been done to a business's reputation. Personally speaking, Mark should not have shown that nice fancy service manual he created, IMHO he should remove that short section of the video, & then he would be totally clear legally.
I am only speaking from having studied various aspects of UK civil law at Uni, & direct first hand experience of UK civil courts & the semantics & details that can win or lose a case. What you "think" will work outside of a Court environment is totally different to what will work inside a Court, & what a Judge will side on.
As I side note, but relevant re legalities/semantics:- I also sell photos....Now if I take a photo of a car, logo, or person, I can do what I want with it so long as its "for my own personal private usage".....If I decided to sell that photo on the web (or in a shop etc.) I would have to get permission from the car brand, logo designer & the person. (that is if they are all identifiable in the photo)...in fact there are certain landscapes/viewpoints/buildings that many photo resellers will not accept as they are "copyrighted", including natural landscapes!
TE's defence should ask:- Does Mark earn money (no matter how small) from his Youtube videos??
Mark's counter defence would be:- The videos are for educational purposes.
Now in photography when you sell photos that include people, cars, logo, etc, that you do NOT have permission from, those photos have to be sold as "reportage". Basically the photo is sold & can only be used as a photo of that object, it cannot be altered & used for other uses in an advert etc.
Example:- say you take a photo of a car which is easily identifiable as a Jag e-type. You would not be able to sell that photo for the buyer to use in the advert for anything, but lets say car polish. However you would be able to sell it for the buyer to use it in a book on classic car design where the photo is used as "this is a Jag e-type from the 1960's & is a classic British car". However if the photo only contains a small section of the car & it is not easily identifiable, you would be able to sell for use in an advert etc..
However, TE's defence should ask about Mark setting up the courses & training videos that he is doing, & how much money he intends to earn & if he's using that "service manual" he showed. Basically is he earning money from showing the world all the circuit details of the TE item? This considering TE doesn't publish any service manuals circuit diagrams & removes ID marks, this to keep any repairs/servicing all "secret" & in house (as far as I can tell). Mark has "revealed" the whole build details & to some extend it doesn't matter "if" its "old common circuits", that whole item is the IP of TE, irrespective of anything else!
If TE had already placed that "service manual" on the web, Mark could claim "fair usage" in the public sphere for "educational purposes". However, as Mark reverse engineered it, has shown the detailed drawings with component values to world, & is creating other how-technical courses & could be earning money from it & his videos...none of this comes under "for personal/private usage"....as its now "commercial"...no matter how little money he may or may not be making from it.
Both parties are based in the UK, & both have made mistakes. If it goes to Court (this will be the civil courts) it will cost both parties money, & damage (defamation) can be claimed to have been done to a business's reputation. Personally speaking, Mark should not have shown that nice fancy service manual he created, IMHO he should remove that short section of the video, & then he would be totally clear legally.
I am only speaking from having studied various aspects of UK civil law at Uni, & direct first hand experience of UK civil courts & the semantics & details that can win or lose a case. What you "think" will work outside of a Court environment is totally different to what will work inside a Court, & what a Judge will side on.
Last edited:
That "service manual" is created by Mark, he has his logo on them in the bottom left corner, were his fingers are..
Last edited:
Of course one could skip Tom Evans seeming "junk in a box" and move up to a Tenor phono stage at $94,000 US(?) today or £74,000(?) with unfortunately no offerings of any "lesser" models to choose from.
http://tenoraudio.com/high-end-audio/phono-1-ultimate-reference/specifications.html
I don't know if Jim Fairhead (the president of Tenor audio) minds me talking about this, but I did visit him at his home (actually just tagging along with a friend of mine and his) being directed to his separately heated 3 car garage. His formidable audio system took up center stage, being flanked by a vintage Ferrari sports car on one side and a vintage Porsche sports car on the other. My friend also has high end audio equipment and a car buff, owning a couple of Mercedes, one an AMG sports model and an old beater Camry he uses in the winter. The point is that Tenor equipment is as finely detailed mechanically, electrically and sonically as driven by Jim Fairheads' consciousness as also keeping his property and vintage cars flawlessly maintained.
At that time Jim didn't demonstrate his phono stage, rather just his pre-amp and dual mono block power amplifiers at perhaps $350K or so, a dCS DAC (which my friend now owns) and a pair of tall speakers I can't remember the name of, all retailing (of the stuff being played) for well over $500,000. This visit came after hearing Tenor electronics in an outlet store running MBL Omni's. Notwithstanding that his equipment has its own sound character, being sonically comparable to the very best in the Toronto Audio show in 2023 (~ $700,000 system), there isn't the belief in the least possibility that Tom Evans phono stage would find favor as integrating to maintain the dynamic resolution and refinement in these two high end systems or many others that were shown there. This doesn't mean Tom Evans gear isn't sonically decent as is my own.
Nothing integrates sonically everywhere with everything, something Tom Evans seems to suggest in his website. Advanced sound reproduction is a synergistic integration of a vast number of elements making up the whole of a sonic experience, one that necessarily includes cabling if the audio system becomes sufficiently advanced. And most high end manufacturers don't make amateurish mistakes in the usual commonplace hyperbole that describes their equipment. Like the "50% less distortion" claims by Tom Evans. It seems that no one proof reads his hyperbole for obvious errors of its implications.
I don't have anything against Tom Evans. I don't care what equipment costs once it extends above what I can afford, then I just like to experience the extent of it whenever the opportunity arises. I am glad the high end exists. So it is that I've attended numerous Chicago shows many years ago now and many Toronto shows in the recent past, having met Andrew Jones and numerous other "celebrities" that attend such events. There are so many high end pieces of gear that are just gorgeous. Tom Evans needs to look carefully at his before he sticks a price tag on it.
http://tenoraudio.com/high-end-audio/phono-1-ultimate-reference/specifications.html
I don't know if Jim Fairhead (the president of Tenor audio) minds me talking about this, but I did visit him at his home (actually just tagging along with a friend of mine and his) being directed to his separately heated 3 car garage. His formidable audio system took up center stage, being flanked by a vintage Ferrari sports car on one side and a vintage Porsche sports car on the other. My friend also has high end audio equipment and a car buff, owning a couple of Mercedes, one an AMG sports model and an old beater Camry he uses in the winter. The point is that Tenor equipment is as finely detailed mechanically, electrically and sonically as driven by Jim Fairheads' consciousness as also keeping his property and vintage cars flawlessly maintained.
At that time Jim didn't demonstrate his phono stage, rather just his pre-amp and dual mono block power amplifiers at perhaps $350K or so, a dCS DAC (which my friend now owns) and a pair of tall speakers I can't remember the name of, all retailing (of the stuff being played) for well over $500,000. This visit came after hearing Tenor electronics in an outlet store running MBL Omni's. Notwithstanding that his equipment has its own sound character, being sonically comparable to the very best in the Toronto Audio show in 2023 (~ $700,000 system), there isn't the belief in the least possibility that Tom Evans phono stage would find favor as integrating to maintain the dynamic resolution and refinement in these two high end systems or many others that were shown there. This doesn't mean Tom Evans gear isn't sonically decent as is my own.
Nothing integrates sonically everywhere with everything, something Tom Evans seems to suggest in his website. Advanced sound reproduction is a synergistic integration of a vast number of elements making up the whole of a sonic experience, one that necessarily includes cabling if the audio system becomes sufficiently advanced. And most high end manufacturers don't make amateurish mistakes in the usual commonplace hyperbole that describes their equipment. Like the "50% less distortion" claims by Tom Evans. It seems that no one proof reads his hyperbole for obvious errors of its implications.
I don't have anything against Tom Evans. I don't care what equipment costs once it extends above what I can afford, then I just like to experience the extent of it whenever the opportunity arises. I am glad the high end exists. So it is that I've attended numerous Chicago shows many years ago now and many Toronto shows in the recent past, having met Andrew Jones and numerous other "celebrities" that attend such events. There are so many high end pieces of gear that are just gorgeous. Tom Evans needs to look carefully at his before he sticks a price tag on it.
Simply put Hiefi if one is asking for big bucks on his or her product, putting aside ciruit designs or compoents used, it has to look the part be it exterior packaging or internal build quality. I recalled a cd transport from Barclay, yep internal parts were run of the mill but it was packaged in a beautiful high
quality exterior look.
quality exterior look.
It is reverse engineered by Mark. He drew the diagrams and put it in a nice binder. It is his (c).
Jan
I have seen enough of these circuits, as documented by Mark, that I feel confident to say they are all bog-simple circuits.
I've seen them already last century. I bought books with these circuits before internet. I have the full collection of AudioAmateur since 1970 and I learned about those circuits from smart engineers that are no longer among us.
And what about the parts - you think a circuit can be 'protected' because it uses a boutique cap that is overpriced and gold plated but still just a cap?
I cannot escape the feeling that some here try desperately to find something that could justify a 25k price. I wish them luck, but I don't hold my breath.
Jan
@jan.didden .....
I note you quote just one very small bit of my comment & ignore all the other legal arguments & counter arguments (semantics/details) that I made, which would be brought into any claim & counterclaim in a UK civil Court for a Judge to make a decision on. Both parties are UK based, so UK law applies.
I'll repeat:- "I am only speaking from having studied various aspects of UK civil law at Uni, & direct first hand experience of UK civil courts & the semantics & details that can win or lose a case. What you "think" will work outside of a Court environment is totally different to what will work inside a Court, & what a Judge will side on."
N.B.:- I am not 100% defending TE, nor am I 100% defending Mark, as both parties have made mistakes, & the whole situation has been "blown-up" by the internet due to Youtube's knee jerk reactions in removing the original video, & with people speculating without knowing UK law & UK civil courts.
I note you quote just one very small bit of my comment & ignore all the other legal arguments & counter arguments (semantics/details) that I made, which would be brought into any claim & counterclaim in a UK civil Court for a Judge to make a decision on. Both parties are UK based, so UK law applies.
I'll repeat:- "I am only speaking from having studied various aspects of UK civil law at Uni, & direct first hand experience of UK civil courts & the semantics & details that can win or lose a case. What you "think" will work outside of a Court environment is totally different to what will work inside a Court, & what a Judge will side on."
N.B.:- I am not 100% defending TE, nor am I 100% defending Mark, as both parties have made mistakes, & the whole situation has been "blown-up" by the internet due to Youtube's knee jerk reactions in removing the original video, & with people speculating without knowing UK law & UK civil courts.
Don't forget the time shaving off the ID's of the IC's
OK, I recognize that soemtimes things happen in courts that are totally at odds with common sense.
I have no experience with that - thank Ohm!
BTW Which mistakes were made by Mark in your view?
Jan
I have no experience with that - thank Ohm!
BTW Which mistakes were made by Mark in your view?
Jan
@jan.didden ...I've already stated numerous times what I think were Mark's "mistakes" (that leaves him open to legal challenge).
I'm not repeating them ad nauseum, so please re-read my previous comments.
I'm not repeating them ad nauseum, so please re-read my previous comments.
$94,000?
Well, there goes Boulder Amplifier’s bragging rights for their $62,000 phono stage. 😩
@Hierfi
Thanks for pointing us to Tenor. Interesting reading.
http://tenoraudio.com/pedigree/genius-of-michel-vanden.html (it appears there is more than one genius in audio)
http://tenoraudio.com/technical/design--build.html
Two things occurred:
Aside from the idea that the choice of nylon standoffs in the Mastergroove quite likely saved the cracking of a PCB or two, after reading about Tenor's concern for microphony (albeit with tubes) and the penetrating investigation of the characteristics of washers and screws perhaps Tom Evans' choice of nylon was made along those lines? I do recall that earlier versions of his components had a mix of standoff materials.
Looking at photos of these Tenors I wonder...
How much would their genius charge to fix a caved in corner of metal and wood
and what would Mark Maher do with such a unit if a customer sent it to him? Maybe break out the Plastic Wood??
Thanks for pointing us to Tenor. Interesting reading.
http://tenoraudio.com/pedigree/genius-of-michel-vanden.html (it appears there is more than one genius in audio)
http://tenoraudio.com/technical/design--build.html
Two things occurred:
Aside from the idea that the choice of nylon standoffs in the Mastergroove quite likely saved the cracking of a PCB or two, after reading about Tenor's concern for microphony (albeit with tubes) and the penetrating investigation of the characteristics of washers and screws perhaps Tom Evans' choice of nylon was made along those lines? I do recall that earlier versions of his components had a mix of standoff materials.
Looking at photos of these Tenors I wonder...
How much would their genius charge to fix a caved in corner of metal and wood
and what would Mark Maher do with such a unit if a customer sent it to him? Maybe break out the Plastic Wood??
- Status
- Not open for further replies.