The guitar seller is trying to use Rickenbacker to sell it's guitar by refering to the brand so IMO the advert is not 100% honest!
Why can't these people use their own designs instead of copying others anyway?
Nice new Ric for under $400.00
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
trancedental
- Junior Member
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:42 am
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Mark, I'm glad you're off the soapbox, because it's my brief turn.
This has been dealt with so very many times on this and other Forums, and over the span of all these posts, opinions have had to take a back seat to jurisprudence and precedent.
Both Fender and Gibson, each for reasons of its own, either did not seek trademark or design protection for many of the classic shapes, features, and details of guitars that have, over the course of a half-century of existence, have become considered classic examples of each manufacturer's output, not to mention style.
These types of protection are granted by the Patent Office, as a way for an inventor, creator, or designer to protect his time (and often monetary) investment in creating an original work. If a company has such intellectual property (not to mention if it stakes its identity and often its reputation on the appearance of its products and collateral materials), it is the company's responsibility to determine how valuable this work is to them, and to protect their interest in it.
Fender and Gibson never did. There are Les Pauls, Teles and Strats everywhere. The image is diluted, and both companies have lost out yet still prevail in the marketplace.
Rickenbacker's position? They have always been very aggressive in pursuing any copycats and have prosecuted theft of company assets to the full extent of the law.
This guitar is obviously a blatant knockoff of a traditional Rickenbacker design. It has the shape of a 330 and most of the details are close enough to get the seller into trouble. The manufacturer is Chinese and is obviously taking advantage of the nonexistent trademark protection in that country. The seller is obviously ignorant of Rickenbacker's position on this sort of thing, but they won't be so for long.
It is legal to knock off Fender. Gibson chooses to litigate and have won a decision against PRS. Rickenbacker pursues these issues much more aggressively that either of the Big Guys.
And for good cause--if there were tons of cheap Rick knockoffs out there, would Rick be able to operate at a profit in this day of Walmart mentality?
If younger kids can't afford a Rickenbacker price tag, let them play something else until they can. RIC is doing fine.
There's no excuse for theft. And that's what you are suggesting condoning.
This has been dealt with so very many times on this and other Forums, and over the span of all these posts, opinions have had to take a back seat to jurisprudence and precedent.
Both Fender and Gibson, each for reasons of its own, either did not seek trademark or design protection for many of the classic shapes, features, and details of guitars that have, over the course of a half-century of existence, have become considered classic examples of each manufacturer's output, not to mention style.
These types of protection are granted by the Patent Office, as a way for an inventor, creator, or designer to protect his time (and often monetary) investment in creating an original work. If a company has such intellectual property (not to mention if it stakes its identity and often its reputation on the appearance of its products and collateral materials), it is the company's responsibility to determine how valuable this work is to them, and to protect their interest in it.
Fender and Gibson never did. There are Les Pauls, Teles and Strats everywhere. The image is diluted, and both companies have lost out yet still prevail in the marketplace.
Rickenbacker's position? They have always been very aggressive in pursuing any copycats and have prosecuted theft of company assets to the full extent of the law.
This guitar is obviously a blatant knockoff of a traditional Rickenbacker design. It has the shape of a 330 and most of the details are close enough to get the seller into trouble. The manufacturer is Chinese and is obviously taking advantage of the nonexistent trademark protection in that country. The seller is obviously ignorant of Rickenbacker's position on this sort of thing, but they won't be so for long.
It is legal to knock off Fender. Gibson chooses to litigate and have won a decision against PRS. Rickenbacker pursues these issues much more aggressively that either of the Big Guys.
And for good cause--if there were tons of cheap Rick knockoffs out there, would Rick be able to operate at a profit in this day of Walmart mentality?
If younger kids can't afford a Rickenbacker price tag, let them play something else until they can. RIC is doing fine.
There's no excuse for theft. And that's what you are suggesting condoning.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
firstbassman
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1573
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:00 am
Richard, Paul,
Thanks for your input and insight into this issue.
Whether Fender, Gibson or anyone else loses market share against a lower tier manufacturer is debatable. One could argue that it increases brand identity over a wider area (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery) and that in the long run it actually increases profits. And guess what. Not only am I not a layer, I’m not a MBA either. But I have seen several cases where the “direct response” is not always the “correct” one.
Obviously Rickenbacker can do whatever it wants. It’s their company. And they are a lot richer than I am.
Let’s also be VERY clear. I am not condoning that anyone break any laws. I AM NOT CONDONING THEFT. I was proposing a position that others have followed for whatever reasons. “Trading up” is a known viable concept. If R. chooses NOT to follow that philosophy, that’s fine. I was saying that if they did, there would certainly be a market out there. And as I just mentioned, possibly to everyone’s benefit.
Thanks for your input and insight into this issue.
Whether Fender, Gibson or anyone else loses market share against a lower tier manufacturer is debatable. One could argue that it increases brand identity over a wider area (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery) and that in the long run it actually increases profits. And guess what. Not only am I not a layer, I’m not a MBA either. But I have seen several cases where the “direct response” is not always the “correct” one.
Obviously Rickenbacker can do whatever it wants. It’s their company. And they are a lot richer than I am.
Let’s also be VERY clear. I am not condoning that anyone break any laws. I AM NOT CONDONING THEFT. I was proposing a position that others have followed for whatever reasons. “Trading up” is a known viable concept. If R. chooses NOT to follow that philosophy, that’s fine. I was saying that if they did, there would certainly be a market out there. And as I just mentioned, possibly to everyone’s benefit.
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>It is legal to knock off Fender<<
They certainly took Tokai to task in the early 80s, which was also around the time they started to protect and promote their brand names in ways they had not before, ala the "there's only one Eric Clapton, there's only one Fender" ads. Since then I think they protect all their brand names where they can.
They certainly took Tokai to task in the early 80s, which was also around the time they started to protect and promote their brand names in ways they had not before, ala the "there's only one Eric Clapton, there's only one Fender" ads. Since then I think they protect all their brand names where they can.
This is off the record
-
craviola990
- Junior Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:52 am
- Contact:
What cracks me up is the fact that nobody at the Rick forum can stand these Ricky knock-off's, yet they show up here almost daily to be castrated!! LOL. I wonder where the line is drawn; how different does it have to be so you won't get sued? Like "My Sweet Lord" was one bar too long in similarity to "He's so fine", etc. Notice this guitar kind of resembles the 330, with different lines here and there, especially on the horns. Myself personally, I would never own a copy; that's not a boast at all, quite the contrary. Played the real thing for too many years for one, and B-There is a much shorter distance in playability and sound with Gibson & Epiphone Les Pauls, Fender & Other's Strats, etc, than there is with Rickenbacker. There just are'nt really any "Middle end" Ricky copies. These instruments really do stand alone, and it's a real tribute to their uniqueness. Christian
Gibson chooses to litigate and have won a decision against PRS.
...since overturned: http://www.prsguitars.com/news/stories/011806_victory.html
PRS is making Singlecuts again.
...since overturned: http://www.prsguitars.com/news/stories/011806_victory.html
PRS is making Singlecuts again.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
To me, this is another bunch of music hardware profiteers buying from a trade show catalog and having the manufacturer silk screen their name onto the headstocks.
When you look at these Chinese catalogs, they have a couple of PRS-style knock offs, a few Fender things, a few Gibson, maybe a few Gretsches or even Benedettos (if they have archtop capability). The marketing guys in the States (in this case, OSP) pick one from column "A" and one from column "B" to put together their minimum order/container load.
In this case, the guys didn't know their instruments very well, or they would have avoided Rickenbacker. Who needs extra litigation?
When you look at these Chinese catalogs, they have a couple of PRS-style knock offs, a few Fender things, a few Gibson, maybe a few Gretsches or even Benedettos (if they have archtop capability). The marketing guys in the States (in this case, OSP) pick one from column "A" and one from column "B" to put together their minimum order/container load.
In this case, the guys didn't know their instruments very well, or they would have avoided Rickenbacker. Who needs extra litigation?
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
David, if anything, this speaks to my point about, once abandoned, a design cannot be properly protected.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
You know, I was interested in that post about how copies are made for young kids that can't afford RICs. Although there is some truth to that, I can't really believe in it. I almost bought a Tokai Rick copy, but the people here convinced me that it wasn't the same and to set my mind towards getting a real RIC. So, I'm now happy to say that, over the course of a year and a half, I've managed to save up $1000 (which is a lot for a sixteen year old). My goal: A C58 or a V63. My point is that if you want something badly enough, you can afford it, regardless of the price - if you work hard enough for it.
As far as I'm concerned, the people at RIC aren't losing on copies - the buyers are, because they are purchasing something that doesn't even come close in terms of quality. One of my appeals to Rickenbacker is that I feel that they're the only guitar company that haven't sold out their dignity. Nearly every guitar company have stepped down to produce a cheaper model built on foreign shores. Those that haven't have stolen other's designs to build themselves. In my opinion, Rickenbacker is the only guitar maker in my eyes that have designed all of their guitars from scratch and still build them with the same hand-made quality they did half a century ago. When I play a Fender, it's nice. When I play a RIC, it's like coming back to the home I never knew. I think, "This is how a guitar is supposed to be." American made, hand-made, quality built. That's a RIC, not a cheap Japanese copy.
~Nick
As far as I'm concerned, the people at RIC aren't losing on copies - the buyers are, because they are purchasing something that doesn't even come close in terms of quality. One of my appeals to Rickenbacker is that I feel that they're the only guitar company that haven't sold out their dignity. Nearly every guitar company have stepped down to produce a cheaper model built on foreign shores. Those that haven't have stolen other's designs to build themselves. In my opinion, Rickenbacker is the only guitar maker in my eyes that have designed all of their guitars from scratch and still build them with the same hand-made quality they did half a century ago. When I play a Fender, it's nice. When I play a RIC, it's like coming back to the home I never knew. I think, "This is how a guitar is supposed to be." American made, hand-made, quality built. That's a RIC, not a cheap Japanese copy.
~Nick
-
craviola990
- Junior Member
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:52 am
- Contact:
Nicely said Nick! And your taste in guitars is truly cultured and exquisite for someone at the age of 16!! These guitars will last the rest of your life, they get better with age, etc, They are a one time buy, something to remember. In 1980, I paid $471 for a '67 366/12 Convertible, and when it was lost in the house fire three years ago, the insurance company gave me $3,500 for it. That won't happen with a Tokai, etc! Thanks, Christian
Nick,
You are a very well rounded and eloquent young man. You make us proud that you are a member of this forum.
You are a very well rounded and eloquent young man. You make us proud that you are a member of this forum.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" - Albert Einstein