Dealer in Motown selling Ric clones

[mikeyjc]

Are these legal??

http://detroit.craigslist.org/msg/953221626.html

Certainly not moral or ethical ... ?

[1965]

those look pretty expensive for POSs

PS. "beautiful" Rick copy? They look like a Rick that has started to melt

[jimk]

Are these legal??

Probably not.

JimK

[bails]

Probably not.

Definitely not!

[jingle_jangle]

Absolutely not. Please, everybody, flag as "prohibited".

[1965]

Oh wow, check out their site. Probably one of the worst websites I've seen in the history of the internet

[1965]

Report this!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Galveston-Electric- ... m153.l1262

[collin]

Oh wow, check out their site. Probably one of the worst websites I've seen in the history of the internet

Picture 1.png

But Wes, it's the Rock and Roll Toystore from Hell, why wouldn't I want to shop there! ?


I flagged the craigslist and Ebay listing, both cos it's illegal and UGLY....and they are a dealer, that's way worse than some private party sale, IMO.

[jimk]

This listing (220326784398) has been removed, or this item is not available.

And another Rickenfaker bites the dust. (I hope.)

JimK

[mikeyjc]

RRF ... keeping America and the rest of the world safe from POS clones LOL. Glad I could help stop the madness.

[Ric O'Sound]

You guys freakin' crack me up...POS this and POS that.

Now, before everybody gets in a huff, I understand and support RIC's policies concerning trademark infringement. No question. Getting the ad and listing removed was the correct thing to do.

But I just think it's hilarious how a lot of people here will praise certain Asian-built guitars that are copies of a Fender or a Gibson (be they authorized Squiers or Epis or something else) as being "great quality" or "best bang for the buck", but as soon as a guitar has the shape of a Rickenbacker (some of which are built in the same factories as the other copies) these same people will automatically brand it as a POS or firewood or whatever. Have any of you ever played one of these guitars? I admit that I've tried out many a Rick copy in my day and a lot of them were pretty damn nice guitars for the money...especially the older Greco and Tokai examples. Like most of you, I've never owned a Rick copy nor would I buy one, but you people remind me of a bunch of religious zealots sometimes with these types of remarks. I know we're all passionate about Ricks around here, but jeez Louise. Sure, trademark infringement is wrong, but the legality or the shape of a guitar has no bearing on its quality or sound. At least the last time I checked it didn't.

(donning the asbestos suit now as we speak...)

[jingle_jangle]

You guys freakin' crack me up...POS this and POS that.

Now, before everybody gets in a huff, I understand and support RIC's policies concerning trademark infringement. No question. Getting the ad and listing removed was the correct thing to do.

But I just think it's hilarious how a lot of people here will praise certain Asian-built guitars that are copies of a Fender or a Gibson (be they authorized Squiers or Epis or something else) as being "great quality" or "best bang for the buck", but as soon as a guitar has the shape of a Rickenbacker (some of which are built in the same factories as the other copies) these same people will automatically brand it as a POS or firewood or whatever. Have any of you ever played one of these guitars? I admit that I've tried out many a Rick copy in my day and a lot of them were pretty damn nice guitars for the money...especially the older Greco and Tokai examples. Like most of you, I've never owned a Rick copy nor would I buy one, but you people remind me of a bunch of religious zealots sometimes with these types of remarks. I know we're all passionate about Ricks around here, but jeez Louise. Sure, trademark infringement is wrong, but the legality or the shape of a guitar has no bearing on its quality or sound. At least the last time I checked it didn't.

(donning the asbestos suit now as we speak...)

You've got your priorities confused, Daniel, with all due respect.

Don't dismiss trademark infringement by merely stating it's "wrong" on the way to making a point about quality.

The real point is--trademark infringement is illegal. What's more, every Rick copy I've ever seen is of lower quality and/or sound quality than the real item, and thus dilutes the brand and compromises a long-time reputation for excellent quality.

Furthermore, your statement about authorized Squier and Epi copies doesn't wash, as there is no such thing. Fender and Gibson neither sought, nor received, protection back in the early 1950s, when it mattered, and Rick did, although they're trying to close the barn door these days.

If the shape of a Rickenbacker (among numerous other features) is a protected item of "trade dress" under the Lanham Act, then a deliberate copy is illegal. The Japanese gave up on this a couple of decades ago or more, but the Chinese have not yet gotten the message.

This point of distinction has been discussed on this forum and others, to death, and it still persists in resurfacing.

Here's the text of the Act; it's the usual dense legal stuff, but there are several subchapters that are immediately applicable to what we're discussing here:

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/

[Ric O'Sound]

Absolutely no argument from me, Paul. I'm perfectly clear on the legalities. I'm looking simply at the guitar, in its physical form, for what it is, disregarding any legal or proprietary issues.

Now, I know you have ties to Rickenbacker, but let's assume for a minute that you don't. If you were to build a convincing copy of say, a 330/12, I think anyone would be hard pressed to call the result a "POS" or "firewood", knowing what I know about your abilities. It certainly wouldn't be legal, but it wouldn't automatically make that physical piece of wood with wires on it a ****** instrument. I'm sure if it came from your hands, it would be a great player. That's the crux of my comments...I'm looking at the guitar in a vacuum, so to speak...devoid of any trade dress issues. Of course the fakers are wrong and shouldn't be made. And I'm not trying to defend it or encourage it. I thought I made that clear. Those Tokai 100% Strat copies are also "illegal"...i.e. they cannot be made anymore, but that doesn't make those that are still in existence POS guitars. That's what I was trying to say.

[collin]

Have any of you ever played one of these guitars? I admit that I've tried out many a Rick copy in my day and a lot of them were pretty damn nice guitars for the money...especially the older Greco and Tokai examples.

I certainly have.....and I thought they were rubbish, too.

I've played a number of them, including some old Grecobackers. Those did play nice, but only if I hadn't owned/played the real McCoy before....IMO there is no substitute.

As far as defending certain Fender/Gibson copies, it's kind of a different ballgame.

What Paul said about diluting the brand name is absolutely correct. These cheesy chinese copies do dilute the Rickenbacker name. Even the older Grecos do, to a lesser extent. With Fender/Gibson, at least back in the initial heyday of the copy guitar, maintained the brand name, if anything.

Gibson (and to a lesser extent Fender) weren't exactly producing their best material in the late 70's/early 80's. Their argument and fear over copies in that time period is that the copies made back then (Tokais and Grecos specifically) were better than what Gibson etc. were producing. At a time when people were fed up with the cheap quality and high price of Gibsons, IMO these copies kept many people buying/playing Gibson style guitars until Gibson quality went up, and they went back to the real deal. It doesn't excuse the copying, but back then the copying was neither illegal (due to relaxed reinforcement of trademarks), or of a lesser quality than the real guitar.

Due to that era, Fender Japan and the Japanese/Korean Epiphone (and even Japanese Gretsch !) line started up, so it certainly says something about how "copies" were only a threat to Fender/Gibson because they weren't making a buck off it, and not because their brand name was being diluted OR because any trademark infringements were made.

Just my .02

Cheers,
-Collin

[Ric O'Sound]

I've played a number of them, including some old Grecobackers. Those did play nice, but only if I hadn't owned/played the real McCoy before....IMO there is no substitute.

To recyle the phrase: Absolutely no argument from me on that point, Collin.
None of the copies I've played could stand up to the real thing. But notice I qualified my statement with: "for the money". You are not going to get the quality of a $1500 to $2000 guitar for 399 bucks. But some of those that I played would certainly have been worth the money. Not $1500 worth...but certainly $400 worth.

You're all preaching to the choir here, folks. I agree with your points. But the silly comments like "another POS eliminated" is, to me, just that. Silly. You're slamming on the quality because the guitar was made in a certain shape without the permission of the owner of that shape. Not because it's a bad guitar.

Look, if those 300 buck Chinese Squier "Classic Vibe" Strats that everyone's been raving about lately were being made exactly the same way but without Fender's consent, would the resulting guitars be any less of an instrument for 300 bucks? Of course not. That's my point. If this doesn't clarify my viewpoint sufficiently enough, then I guess nothing will. So let's just leave it at that. Thanks for listening.