Save $

[Lars]

I think yes, we do have an ethical responsibility to do the right thing, even when the law is too lax about it.

Who decides what is "the right thing", what is ethical? As long as we stay within the legal framework that's a purely personal decision.

Given two equal products most consumers will buy the cheaper one. If the products are not equal then some kind of judgment call has to be made - is the price difference motivated or not. For some consumers ethics in the design and manufacturing process affect the decision process.

Manufacturers and distributors are very good at shielding consumers from information re questionable ethics in manufacturing or design. The list is too long to post here, but reast assured that all of us here unknowingly buy products witth what many of us would view as a far more unethical background than an Asian copy of a Swiss tripod head.

 

[carstenw]

Yes, it is a personal decision, since it isn't a legal one. That doesn't mean that morality doesn't enter the picture. Some people don't care much about morality in grey areas like whether you buy the Multiclam, which is a copy of the real thing. I like to think that the extra money paid for the real Cube goes into designing more neat products. I don't see much innovation on the copyist's website, just a slew of copies.

 

[Geoff]

Who decides what is "the right thing", what is ethical? As long as we stay within the legal framework that's a purely personal decision.

Given two equal products most consumers will buy the cheaper one. If the products are not equal then some kind of judgment call has to be made - is the price difference motivated or not. For some consumers ethics in the design and manufacturing process affect the decision process.

Manufacturers and distributors are very good at shielding consumers from information re questionable ethics in manufacturing or design. The list is too long to post here, but reast assured that all of us here unknowingly buy products witth what many of us would view as a far more unethical background than an Asian copy of a Swiss tripod head.

With all due respect, I don't agree that its a personal decision. there is an over-arching ethical issue - having to do with reverse engineering and intellectual property. All of us as photographers know the difference between original work based on years of work, and a mere copy. I'd be shocked if we didn't.

Defining this legally, across international boundaries (and even when in one country) is a rat's nest and ultimately is only a guideline,not the full extent of our responsibilities. Buying a copy should be compared to someone selling a scan of one of your photographs. Yes, its cheaper, faster and almost as good. How would you feel about it?

We all cheat, sometimes small and sometimes big. I'm not trying to suggest we should only do the ethical thing all the time - if that were the case, well, it would be a different world to be sure. Sometimes we buy copies, and shrug about the implication. Fine - but lets be clear what that is, and not disguise it for some self-serving reason. Its just a copy.

 

[Wayne Fox]

I just thought I would resurrect this thread, as I recently noticed that the Multiflex head is selling for $1270 on eBay, direct from the manufacturer. The original Cube is selling for $1600 now at B&H. The price gap has been minimized, for sure.

My AS Cube just shipped from Capture Integration, paid a little more than B&H. I don't think anyone is selling them for the $2400 anymore.

 

[dougpeterson]

My AS Cube just shipped from Capture Integration, paid a little more than B&H. I don't think anyone is selling them for the $2400 anymore.

Congrats Wayne. I know you'll love it.

As a bonus: you're halfway to the infamous cube-squared:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12056

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off

 

[Steve Hendrix]

My AS Cube just shipped from Capture Integration, paid a little more than B&H. I don't think anyone is selling them for the $2400 anymore.

Nope - we're the same price as B&H, though we should be higher (what is the world coming to?).

http://tinyurl.com/yb2gppz


You did well Wayne.


Steve Hendrix

 

[erick.boileau]

very interesting thread !

1359 without VAT for AS and 900 for the same or even better head ?

Do you know if they have resellers in Europe ? because if you buy from Korea you have to pay additional taxes

I shall maybe sell my RSS 55 and RSS 40

thanks

 

[carstenw]

Check with Multiclam if they will even ship to France. I don't think they will sell to Germany, probably due to intellectual property rights on the part of Arca. Once you add in VAT and customs fees, I am not sure that the difference in cost is even worth buying the Multiclam.

 

[erick.boileau]

yes it is also what I think , is it really interesting for us ?

 

[carstenw]

Personally, I won't be buying a Cube for a while (just bought a Manfrotto 405, which works well), but I will possibly be buying one day. I certainly love the design and think it could do well for what I use it for. At the current prices, I would not hesitate to buy the real Cube, in spite of the premium. To me it is important to support the original designer, not a company which merely copies. It only adds to it that I like to support original European camera manufacturers, for fear that they disappear due to price pressure, like the American camera manufacturers did.

 

[erick.boileau]

I agree and specially when the difference of price is not that big

 

[gogopix]

actually I am hearing real differences; the lever/knob on Clam seems easier to use, and at least one Cube had 'play'

Was that exchanged?

What do people think of these two, INDEPENDENT the legal issues?

Victor

PS I felt badly about ordering a Jobo, wondering about IP (I personnally hold 5 patents!) But I have a 300mm f2 SK that was too wide for Wemberley (over 7") , so I got the Jobo and the monster fits fine. actuallyfor Big lenses, I like a gimbal mount.

 

[carstenw]

Victor, in the case of the Jobo, if one fits and one doesn't, they aren't the same design, so I don't have a problem with it. The play on the Cube could probably happen to either company, and I presume Arca will fix it, although I will be watching. The knob isn't enough of an issue for me to swing, although if they had made a whole series of improvements, I might be swayed.

 

[gogopix]

Carsten,
Don't get me wrong, for many reasons, but starting with a strong belief in supporting the 'inventing company' I will likely buy a cube, when I need such a device. (I work in the Pharmaceutical industry; don't get me started on generics!)
I am assuming, if ARCA doesn't have IP protection (either trade secret or . patent) they will win on features or quality. If not, then the whole discussion is a red herring. If you create a product that is so obvious in its design or you do nothing to protect the IP or the quality, then it is "may the best product win".
I do NOT believe in brand for its own sake. However, I have rarelybeen disappointed in the long run by sticking to top quality and name brands. In the end quality is usually the cheapest, AND you get to use the best in the meantime. How many people have gone through three versions of canon lenses, as they try to get better, and here, we have Thomas saying the new S2 lenses are not quite up to his Contax. I believe it.
The big issue is really this; at the time of buying, do you have the cash to get the best - or - are you willing to wait till you do. The american culture seems not to appreciate that. Buy, use, toss; get another, use, toss...
In the meantime I have 30 year old tube amps that people have offered me thousands for Sorry, I still use them.
:ROTFL:
At the time, I bought the best and had to wait two years to get a second speaker. We all have our trade-offs. (and NO, I am NOT in a position to buy anything I want - I just wait.)

Victor

 

[Theresa]

The camera industry was built on stolen designs and may have been better for it. Minolta copied Leica so well that Leica used them as a supplier. I'm almost certain that the use of 35mm as still film was not started by Leica. I don't think consumers should have to forgo having equipment just because they cannot afford the most expensive brand. If Arca-Swiss does have a patent that is still in force then they can get an injunction, otherwise Arca has no right to complain. I could never afford an Arca-Swiss cube, I believe it costs more than my camera body. I will probably buy a cheaper version of a ball head which will still be expensive for me. Some might say that it is unethical to buy something from a cheaper source when it was introduced by another company, but so were SLRs and numerous lenses. So what?

 

[carstenw]

Well, that is your opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to it. I have a different opinion.

 

[gogopix]

The camera industry was built on stolen designs ........ Some might say that it is unethical to buy something from a cheaper source when it was introduced by another company, but so were SLRs and numerous lenses. So what?

Making a company go the injunction route? Well after spending a lot on R&D to develop, it seems patently unfair to then force a company to spend possibly millipons defending their intellectual property.

If Arca does NOT have a patent or trade secret involved, then, of course, the situation is different. Does anyone know which it is before this gets carried too much further? I think it is also unfair to Clam people to be painted as 'stealers' if in fact it is just simple reverse engineering. It is a little unsavory, but certainly not illegal, and is also a bit unfair to those who find, buy and enjoy a less expensive version of a product.

BTW, isn't RRS built on 'copies'?

Mostly, brands succeed on reputation, quality edge and service as much as innovation. If it is only advertising and financial muscle, well unfortunately that is for the free market governments to decide about. Maybe it just comes with the territory.

 

[Dale Allyn]

I find it interesting that many of us have certain areas about which we are passionate regarding intellectual property, but likely have other areas in our lives where our "standards" are relaxed for our convenience. And perhaps those "relaxed standards" in areas of lesser interest to us are not even noticed by us because we're not that passionate about what kind of jeans we wear, who made our MP3 player, or our barbecue tongs.

My daughter was raised during the time that music sharing was hitting a peak with peer-to-peer sharing sites, but was never allowed to even share a song with her best friends (pre-MP3 players, so it was easier to enforce at my home). The rule was that if she wanted a song that her friend had, she must buy the tape or CD. She's 26 now and still follows that, but iTunes makes it easier. It's likely that my passion for this IP protection was absent from other areas of consumption however.

Just a thought.

Edit to add: Jewelry design is an area where many people justify copying work without consideration for the original designer's position. It's common for people to see an ad in a magazine or website and show the image of a ring design to a jeweler to make it for them. Some designers register copyrights, others do not. Either way, they are almost never enforced except for large-volume copies of watches, handbags and the like with obvious branding. My point (if I had one) was that people often filter their ethics to suit their personal interests or needs. I'm sure that I do, but hope to be mindful of it and endeavor not to knowingly support any kind of IP infringement.

I don't know the status of the Clam vs. Cube, and I make no judgement of those buying either. I do find the topic interesting as one deals with the dilemma of such things.

 

[carstenw]

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, Dale, and also do not download music wholesale (I own over 500 CDs), nor movies (I own near 600 DVDs), I don't wear jewellery, and so on. I don't know that I do everything perfectly, but I strive to maintain a certain level of decency in my dealings.

To me, this issue isn't only about legality (of which we currently know not enough). I would not buy a Photoclam even if I knew that they were 100% legal copies. I simply wish to send my money to the company which invested the R&D and which innovated, not the company which looked for interesting, but expensive products to copy, for profit, at the expense of the company which innovated. If I cannot afford the real thing, I will buy something else, not a copy. The Manfrotto 405 is functionally similar, although not nearly as elegant, so that is my compromise for now.

 

[Dale Allyn]

I understand your point, Carsten, and accept it (not that my position matters). It's a bit tricky IMO, so one must simply satisfy his/her own preferences for whom they patronize and why.

I used to read posts on the boards of FredMiranda ranting and railing against those who were considering buying a Benro tripod. The complaint was that it was a direct copy of Gitzo (to me it is not, but certainly inspired there). The funny thing to me is that you could find posts by the same people elsewhere on the board extolling the virtues of the Markins ball head (to me a similarly copied/inspired design based on an A-S head). How about Kirk? Change a panning knob and it's not a copy? As I said, it's tricky. So that's why I feel it's wise for all of us to be careful not to be too judgmental of others, lest we have our own shortcomings pointed out. I appreciate the tone on this board.

As mentioned by others, there are legal IPR infringements, ethical IPR infringements, and perhaps there are examples of better execution of a concept which was inspired by an originator's design. I would say that a company has a certain responsibility to take steps to protect their IP as well, and that it should not be left solely up to the consumer to sort it out. Artistic design (music, photography, art, etc) pose a different issue IMO, as an artist shouldn't be held to the same responsibilities of a corporation in protecting IP. Interesting stuff, but the best approach is probably to try our best to do "the right thing". Now can someone define that?

(I should add that I do feel the some of the Benro heads and certain products or finishes are direct, unabashed copies. Less so about certain tripods.)