Chinese lighting controls

[ImagineerTom]

Unfortunately Brian, that’s part of the problem- no one definitively KNOWS because the Chinese manufacturing infrastructure means these desks aren’t coming out of one company. Somewhere is a factory that’s churning out the housings, somewhere else is a factory churning out the circuit boards inside, somewhere else (probably several places) is a factory churning out keygens, cracked codes and even their own software codes. Then there’s a project buyer who’s spotting an opportunity and buying a few hundred bits from all these different suppliers and then selling the finished product to the rest of the world.

 

There have been reports in the past of these clone desks running cracked versions of original manufacturers software, there’s also plenty of reports of them running weird totally proprietary control software, ultimately no matter what we might think until you get one out of the box and play with it it’s impossible to know definitively. However there’s no doubt these desks are trying to steal the look of the original product and are charging a higher price BECAUSE they are being compare to the £0000 western product and not the £00 generic Chinese product.

[bigclive]

the Chinese factories are very good at taking a compiled binary file and making modifications to it.

 

My experience of many of those modifications is that they are done so haphazardly that they make the software unstable.

 

While the clone desks might be OK for a hobbyist who would otherwise never be able to afford the real thing, they would be a liability for a pro.

 

Sometimes I wonder who wrote the original software that is frequently butchered in the generic cheap Chinese lights with the classic four digit and four button interface.

[dosxuk]

Hmmm, I do wonder how many of those people berating Paul, for openly thinking about something that many of us will have considered, can honestly say that they have never installed any unlicensed software on their PC?

 

Be it cracked software, a keygen, installing a second copy on your laptop as well as the desktop, borrowing a mates serial number, using student editions when you're clearly not, or using software for a commercial end when such use is prohibited. Let's face it, none of us read the licence and really know what we're allowed to do under it, but that's no defence.

 

There is a world of difference between just doing that and posting on a professional forum asking questions about doing so. If anyone came on here asking about issues with using hacked versions of WYSIWYG, or ways to get around the feature limitations of chamsys when run on cheap hardware, I'd expect a similar reaction and very likely a mod closing the thread in short notice.

 

Add me to the list of people surprised by a member of forum staff advocating the use of knock off hardware on here (that said, it in no way affects my opinion of Paul's ability to moderate and he should reconsider leaving).

[timsabre]

Sometimes I wonder who wrote the original software that is frequently butchered in the generic cheap Chinese lights with the classic four digit and four button interface.

 

Well. Funny you should say that but I believe it was my software, though it is heavily modified by now, hence my interest in the current conversation.

 

Back in 1998 the Futurescan CE lights we designed for Abstract were reverse engineered out of a locked Atmel 89C52 micro by someone in China and began to be sold under the brand Acme. They had 2 unusual characteristics which made it recognisable as my software - they did automatic master/slave which was unusual at that time, and they had a fully randomized synced lightshow which used a non-standard protocol on the DMX. Both these features were present in the copies. Also, the PCB had a couple of errors on it which were copied exactly.

 

Fast forward to now, we have moved from dip switches to the 4 digit UI but the basic master/slave system is still in there. So I am fairly sure it is a modification of my original code. I also think the Scenesetter-style controllers are a modification of an original Abstract controller. It is all quite annoying but there is really nothing I can do about it.

 

 

[Brian]

...The fact that the ones pictured use Avo's personality library without permission is a strong indicator...

 

But writing code that reads a closed-licence but freely available file format is different to making hardware which will run proprietary binaries.

 

 

Unfortunately Brian, that’s part of the problem- no one definitively KNOWS...

 

I'd like to think that someone knows. If those Chinese desks aren't using the same family of processor chips and peripherals then they can't be running someone else's binaries.

 

 

However there’s no doubt these desks are trying to steal the look of the original product...

 

But in most cases that's not illegal.

 

[note: I have some experience in this field as a company I worked for was involved in a large ground-breaking patent infringement case which is still cited as case law in most any legal book on the subject that you pick up.]

 

 

There is a world of difference between just doing that and posting on a professional forum asking questions about doing so.

 

 

You're right. On the one hand it's actually doing something illegal and on the other it's thinking about it.

[sandall]

Hmmm, I do wonder how many of those people berating Paul, for openly thinking about something that many of us will have considered, can honestly say that they have never installed any unlicensed software on their PC?

 

Be it cracked software, a keygen, installing a second copy on your laptop as well as the desktop, borrowing a mates serial number, using student editions when you're clearly not, or using software for a commercial end when such use is prohibited. Let's face it, none of us read the licence and really know what we're allowed to do under it, but that's no defence.

Very good point. If Paul had enquired about a bit of software sold on an unlabelled CD would there have been quite the same reaction? From a purely ethical point of view there's really not much difference between a pirate copy of MS Word & a pirated copy of someone's OS.

[timsabre]

It isn't about running the exact binary code though. If they have reverse engineered the binary and modified it for different hardware, that is still illegal (at least it is in this country - less clear cut over there).

 

In any case, this argument is not really about legality but about morality. What is the right thing to do? If you were on the other side how would you feel about it?

 

[Brian]

In any case, this argument is not really about legality but about morality. What is the right thing to do? If you were on the other side how would you feel about it?

 

Absolutely. All this talk of 'illegal' seems to be based on second- or third-hand anecdotal 'evidence'. The moral question gets a lot more complicated.

[GaryNattrass]

I had a similar dilemma recently when looking at a HD video mixer set-up and whilst I could have got a cheaper Chinese copy of the ATEM or other vision mixers I took one look at the software screens on it and decided to go for a datavideo set-up as it gave me more support and confidence. Ok it is made in Korea but the warranty and support from the UK supplier is well worth the extra cost.

 

I did however buy a Chinese TBS streaming interface and whilst the software can be challenging to understand their support direct form China was superb even though I had bought it thru their Uk distributor: https://www.pciex.ne...=32571628060756

 

I have been looking at a similar lighting deck to Paul for my TV studio but as the requirements are pretty basic I would prefer to go for a more basic desk from Thomann rather than go for a copy that may have software that does not give me some sense of reliability.

 

I am a bit wary of some Chinese suppliers now as the recent 2tb SSD USB 3 high speed drives I bought cheap from a company called Novoder have ended up with me getting two very slow 2tb USB A memory sticks and a dispute to try and get my £39.99 back. There seems to be all sorts of people in the supply chain and that can be the problem with some of the so called UK based Chinese suppliers they use students and all sorts of smoke screens to hide their true identity.

Edited April 12, 2021 by GaryNattrass

[ImagineerTom]

I'd like to think that someone knows. If those Chinese desks aren't using the same family of processor chips and peripherals then they can't be running someone else's binaries.

Just to jump in on this point Brian - that's not how the manufacturing industry out there works; this isn't "a company" making "a desk" - somewhere is a factory (probably several factories) that are tooled up JUST making clone enclosures, then other people buy those enclosures, buy hardware (probably many different types of hardware from many different circuit board makers) and pay an assembly company to fit them together. There will also be many different software companies writing all manner of software (from a direct rip-off to their own made up system) that is then modified to work with whatever processors/circuit board this particular commissioning company currently has bought 200 of. If you see the "identical" product listed from 4 or 5 different sellers on ebay/alibaba they could have gotten them all from the same commissioning manufacturer or they could come from 4 different commissioning companies and thus all be completely different.

Just to make matters worse the commissioning companies rarely stick to specific sectors - there's one company we bought some LED lights from 10 years ago that won't take us off their mailing lists so about every18 months we get a random email from them to say that they have changed direction and now supply book printing service / White goods / Home Furniture / Interactive Touchscreen Panels and most recently changed into a company that manufactures PPE. They literally go where the money is and as a result it's very rare to speak with a someone there who actually understands the intricacies of what the products they sell involve. With generic items like furniture or printing that's less of an issue but with computerised / coded stuff it means that the people making the decision of which particular parts and software to commission will be guessing what is needed and trying to do it with the cheapest possible sub-contracted parts and suppliers.

Once you get used to how the system works it is possible to get some amazingly high quality / low price items manufactured but #1 rule is just because something /looks/ like it does something you cannot assume that is so. When we have things made there our purchase order isn't "200 flood lights" but instead a detailed breakdown of the specifications / models / dimensions / software we need so that there's no need for an inexperienced commissioning company to have to make (un) educated guesses.

[Brian]

There will also be many different software companies writing all manner of software (from a direct rip-off to their own made up system) that is then modified to work with whatever processors/circuit board this particular commissioning company currently has bought 200 of.

 

That's the point though isn't? The allegation here against those desks is that there are running Avo's software, not some software that looks and feels like Avo's but which has been written to behave like that, but the actual binaries owned by Avo. And to do that the chips inside would need to be connected up in exactly (or at least very closely) the same way.

 

Had I the spare cash then maybe I'd buy one to do a teardown. I'd hope Avolites have.

[timsabre]

Unless you want to spend all your money on lawyers, as a manufacturer the only pragmatic approach to this is to concentrate on bringing out newer and better products and that is what Avolites have done. I don't think they are analysing every clone desk out there because what would be the point? They do target some specific offenders.

As a professional end user, do the right thing and encourage others to do the same.

 

[ImagineerTom]

That some of them use a particular piece of software isn't the only/main point of people's concerns about cloned desks or any other electronic gadget

Reverse coding / hacking has managed to eliminate virtually every other copy protection system ever invented so I'd be very surprised if the same coders who routinely hack through multi billion dollar developed security systems would have too much trouble pulling out the checking / protective coding (or writing an emulator / cracker that spoofs physical elements) of a relatively cheaply protected lighting controller. They could also write their own code from scratch that copies the obvious visual elements and also which can import Avo personality files so that to an un-informed end user it would look, feel and operate in the same way as a "real" one. This stuff is happening all the time with other electronic devices so is undoubtedly what is happening with lighting desks on some level too.

[Junior8]

A quick search on Google using a couple of search terms is enough to show that Tom is as usual on the button, you can see exactly what is going on with these products. Even if they are not direct copies they are at least 'passing off' using claims about support and even using registered brand names in the product description and in one case in the product name. I notice nobody as far as I could see seems to be trying to sell them in the UK. At least these products probably won't kill you, might work and even if they don't you're only a few hundred quid down and you never know the nice man who sold it to you might send you another which looks similar and works as well. At the other end of the spectrum of course is the circuit breaker that isn't anything of the sort even if it looks and feels just like a circuit breaker and the fused plug that isn't fused. In other words ethically they are the start of the slope.... Edited April 12, 2021 by Junior8

[dje]

(or indeed, even just discussing)

 

I'd take slight issue with this, Paul essentially asked a question that might occur to anyone who spots one of these consoles and isn't aware of the underlying issues. Many of the replies in this thread, whilst forcefully made, have been quite enlightening. Plus there was some genuinely useful advice and alternatives offered. Hopefully anyone from Avo reading through will be heartened by the support and affection for their company.

 

I think it'd be counter-productive if any post that mentions less-than-genuine consoles is instantly nuked. This thread, imperfect as it is, stands as a pretty good example of how open discussion can work.

 

I absolutely agree with you. I was just pointing out that if abiding by the blue room rules to the most literal degree, then even discussing illegal practices is, theoretically, prohibited.