I remember the pic. It was a nice job, the body shape was Rick, but it obviously wasn't meant to be a copy, just a design inspired by the 4000 series basses, much like the one posted here.
In both cases, it IS a nice bass, and it still is a copyright issue.
It's NOT a matter of opinion, it's a fact.
This does seem to have become the most prevalent topic in the last couple of months.
Interesting faker
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Yeah, and eventually at least it'll be clearer for Forumites.
The rest of the guitar world? It'll take a loooooonnnngggg time. Too bad Fender, Gibson, et. al., dropped the ball on this one.
The rest of the guitar world? It'll take a loooooonnnngggg time. Too bad Fender, Gibson, et. al., dropped the ball on this one.
“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
Interesting faker
How much of the new digital age of ripping songs, albums, cds, and movies contributes to today's attitudes about "borrowing" someone else's hard work?
This is really getting out of control. I just got an email from a BUSINESS listserve asking how someones daughter could download music and if Kazza is good. People think things are free for the taking. Sure thee record industry and the RIAA are a bit over the top and in fear of their lives, but still people should PAY for things.
I'm in the TV/video biz. I had a client that wanted to use a "hit" song in their program. I told then they would have to secure rights. They said "let them sue me." I told them I would not do it, and they replaced the song.
It seems like I'm alone trying to do the right thing. Sorry for the rant, but it just bugs me.
As for Rickenbacker borrowing other's ideas and applying them to their guitars: look at their accoustics. The X model bracing was invented by Chris Martin in the 1800's and the archtop models make good use of what Loyd Loar was pioneering in the 1930's with Gibson L series.
"The stronger one gets the stronger one smells." - Son Goku, Dragonball Z.
-
ethantheheathen
- New member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:34 pm
It seems to me that there are two separate issues being discussed here: the moral issue of taking the ideas of others, and the legal issues involved with trademarks and copyrights. Some people on these boards tend to mix the two. They say that if people use Ric designs that are illegal, they are somehow doing something morally reprehensible because those designs were thought up by somebody else and these makers should come up with their own ideas. Sure, it is illegal to copy and sell Rickenbacker's trademarked ideas, but I see inherently nothing wrong with adopting the ideas of others. When people make the arguments like the one I have described, it follows that they should not support Fender, Gibson, etc. copies, no matter what legal protection those companies have, because they are making the moral argument. My personal feeling is that while copying Rickenbackers is illegal, is there really any harm in borrowing their body style to make a bass otherwise completely different than anything they sell? I know Rickenbacker has the right to prevent people from selling such instruments, but I do not see anything wrong with the practice if it is done legally (for personal use). After all, where would we be if instrument makers never used the ideas of their predecessors?