ilovefuzz.com

If you stick with one knob I was thinking a SHO would go nicely with such a dick move.

I don't have the time to dig into the backstory here, but in every instance where ILF has appeared on a pedal, the builder shot me a quick message and asked permission. That's a cool thing to do. I don't think I've ever said no (unless it looked bad or something).

At the risk of pointing out the obvious irony, you got cockblocked on Satellite, and also, hey, could you not put ILF on something without running it by me quick?

Especially when it's on something that's also calling someone a twat....that kind of ropes us/ILF into your battle, and also reflects on the other builders with forums here.

Hope I'm not coming across twatty here.

Sorry about that, I completely understand. It was meant to just be funny and I asked it to just stay in this thread...i just did it on an enclosure I wasn't using and I just added the ILF because the front and back are both from pics that other members posted in the thread. Feel free to delete the thread of you want man.

Okay, I took a minute.

dminner wrote:Can a company really own the word "Satellite"

Apple.

Tom Dalton wrote:Okay, I took a minute.

dminner wrote:Can a company really own the word "Satellite"

Apple.

dminner wrote: True but there is an "Apple Bagel" down the street from me...I always had "effects" after mine.

Okay, but start up Boss Amplification and see how that goes over.

Sometimes there is enough of a difference between products/names that there'd never be any confusion, but personally, I'd say pedals vs amps are too close.


It's possible to have a "simultaneous discovery," or accidentally choose a name already in-use. I named a pedal AB-Synth and later found out there was a synth plugin called ABSYNTH. The manufacturer never complained, but it bugged me after discovering that (and another builder, thinking he was my competitor, brought it up once to criticize me as unoriginal). I Google the shit out of possible pedal names since, check Effects Database, and try to use extreme caution to keep it original and use unchallengeable names. Partly just to avoid things like this.

A friend of mine once started Diamond Skeleton FX only to be shut down by Diamond Effects. Bummer, maybe debatable. But he ended up choosing a better name.
A similar thing happened to another builder friend of mine, and they too ended up with a better name.

So look at it as an opportunity to get a more unique name?

Yeah, when I made the FB page I just google satellite effects and nothing came up other than weather related stuff...that is the only digging I really did. So that was my bad. But then again I don't really sell anything (maybe like 3 pedals a year) so I didn't see the harm. And they told me I had to take down the page or rename it immediately, which I thought was a bit much...I would of thought they could have given me a day to come up with something.

But really Tom, feel free to just delete the thread (since it turned into a fair amount of bashing)...I mainly started the thread out of curiousity and all my questions were answered early on.

Tom Dalton wrote:

Tom Dalton wrote:Okay, I took a minute.

dminner wrote:Can a company really own the word "Satellite"

Apple.

dminner wrote: True but there is an "Apple Bagel" down the street from me...I always had "effects" after mine.

Okay, but start up Boss Amplification and see how that goes over.

Sometimes there is enough of a difference between products/names that there'd never be any confusion, but personally, I'd say pedals vs amps are too close.


It's possible to have a "simultaneous discovery," or accidentally choose a name already in-use. I named a pedal AB-Synth and later found out there was a synth plugin called ABSYNTH. The manufacturer never complained, but it bugged me after discovering that (and another builder, thinking we were competitor's, brought it up once to criticize me as unoriginal). I Google the shit out of possible pedal names since, check Effects Database, and try to use extreme caution to keep it original and use unchallengeable names. Partly just to avoid things like this.

A friend of mine once started Diamond Skeleton FX only to be shut down by Diamond Effects. Bummer, maybe debatable. But he ended up choosing a better name.
A similar thing happened to another builder friend of mine, and they too ended up with a better name.

So look at it as an opportunity to get a more unique name?

Didn't you use a pretty famous image for the enclosure of the first Absynths, though?

Tom Dalton wrote:
Okay, but start up Boss Amplification and see how that goes over.

What about "Who's The Boss? Amplification"?

#Danza'd

Chankgeez wrote:

Tom Dalton wrote:
Okay, but start up Boss Amplification and see how that goes over.

What about "Who's The Boss? Amplification"?

#Danza'd

The Boss v. Boss/Roland

Chankgeez wrote:

Tom Dalton wrote:
Okay, but start up Boss Amplification and see how that goes over.

What about "Who's The Boss? Amplification"?

#Danza'd

Oh yes -- I think people would buy the shit out of a Supa Mona or a Rangangela.

#danza'd

Tom do you still love fuzz?

D.o.S. wrote: Didn't you use a pretty famous image for the enclosure of the first Absynths, though?

Yes, famous and public domain (not protected by copyright, trademark, or prior use laws). So that's a different topic. On that topic, I am bothered when I see effects companies using copyrighted art, but see nothing wrong with using public domain art. Just my opinion. At the same time (under "don't be an asshole" rule), had Privat-Lamont risen from the grave and asked me not to use it, I'd have complied...I'm not a monster.

jwar wrote:Tom do you still love fuzz?

I checked, and, as it turns out, I do! I do love fuzz!

Tom Dalton wrote:

D.o.S. wrote: Didn't you use a pretty famous image for the enclosure of the first Absynths, though?

Yes, famous and public domain (not protected by copyright, trademark, or prior use laws). So that's a different topic. On that topic, I am bothered when I see effects companies using copyrighted art, but see nothing wrong with using public domain art. Just my opinion. At the same time (under "don't be an asshole" rule), had Privat-Lamont risen from the grave and asked me not to use it, I'd have complied...I'm not a monster.

I thought this was implied, but

Tom Dalton wrote:

D.o.S. wrote: Didn't you use a pretty famous image for the enclosure of the first Absynths, though?

Yes, famous and public domain (not protected by copyright, trademark, or prior use laws). So that's a different topic. On that topic, I am bothered when I see effects companies using copyrighted art...

That is unless they're paying royalties to the copyright holder.

I once knew this band who bought a painting from an artist. Then they thought because they owned the painting they could use its image for an album cover. They were sadly mistaken.