Roger Linn on the ethics of gear remakes: “Asking my permission would be appreciated”In light of his essay about Behringer’s reinterpretation of his LinnDrum, Roger Linn has further spoken out about the importance of consent when it comes to gear emulations.
Roger Linn’s LinnDrum launched in 1982 via his Linn Electronics brand following its predecessor, the Linn LM-1, and marked the first drum machine to use samples of real drums. Behringer’s LM Drum landed back in December for $399, and was branded as a modern reinterpretation with extra features including MIDI support.

READ MORE: “No other company delivers as many innovative and affordable products as we do”: Behringer hits back at “vapourware” critics following NAMM 2025 announcement

Following Behringer’s emulation of the iconic drum machine, Linn penned an essay which he shared on his official website. Within it, Linn claimed that CEO Uli Behringer “never asked permission” to “copy my visual design or my drum sounds”, and went on to add, “I’d have preferred for Uli to ask my permission. Even if he thinks it is legal, I question whether it is ethical.”
Now, speaking to Attack Magazine, Linn says that getting involved with legal battles “doesn’t interest” him, and he’d rather put his passion into making instruments. He later adds, “One issue is whether it’s legal to copy any digital information that is copyrighted. The other issue is whether I have any interest in chasing down people who copy my sounds, which I haven’t so far because it’s not fun. My essay explains my thoughts on this.”
Asked what would be an ethical way for a company to remake another company’s product in his opinion, he simply responds, “Asking my permission would be appreciated.”

Back in September 2023, Linn’s LM-1 was revived as the Luma1 by Joe Britt, CEO of Afero in Silicon Valley. It was built with the approval of Linn himself, and fully recreates the original design of the LM-1. Speaking about this recreation with Attack, Linn says Britt “makes no money on it but rather created it just for fun” and that he is “happy to let them use the sounds.”
Behringer has run into similar predicament before in regards to its UB-Xa synth, which took inspiration from Oberheim’s OB-Xa. Tom Oberheim himself also released a response to the synth (similar to that of Linn), in which he clarified there was “no collaboration” between himself and the brand after Behringer alleged it had gotten consent from him. Behringer then stated the UB-Xa was “not a clone” and said it “clearly shared the plan for the UB-Xa synthesiser and received consent to use the trademark”.
In a Facebook post made four days ago (11 January), Behringer, without mentioning any of the synth makers it’s had recent disputes with, commented on the “misunderstanding about intellectual property and what it means”.
“IP refers to legally protected rights over creations, such as trademarks or patents,” the company wrote. “Unless these protections are registered, the content is typically in the public domain and free to use.
“This system is intentional. Society thrives on progress, and limiting rights to a few individuals or companies would stifle creativity. Imagine if only one company could produce cars or guitars – innovation would stall, and access would be restricted.
“If companies want to protect their IP, they must file for trademarks, patents, or other legal measures. At Music Tribe, we’ve done this with around 100 patents to safeguard our innovations.”
The post Roger Linn on the ethics of gear remakes: “Asking my permission would be appreciated” appeared first on MusicTech.