New Dillion Rick copies

[chai-man]

I appreciate everyone's differing thoughts and perspectives and have no desire to raise temperatures by creating some sort of "Ground-hog Day" thread on copies.

In a nutshell, my primary point was simply that quality of copies is an issue because a higher quality copy causes more damage to the manufacturer than a lower quality copy - degrees of theft, if you will. Thus the quality of dillion and other copies relative to originals is worth discussing on this forum.

As for the binary black-white approach to the law that has been advanced by Paul above, I would venture to say most of us have broken the law at one point or other in our lives for various reasons, one prominent one being because sometimes the law can be an a**. The best example of a law most of us frequently break are speed limits on the highway, even if often only marginally. Who here has not broken the speed limit when in a hurry or when road conditions seemed to warrant? I certainly have.

Did we harm anyone? Well, yes, we did raise the chance that someone else would be maimed or killed as a consequence of our illegal action. Either we suffer cognitive dissonance ("I'd never harm anyone and am an excellent driver and judge of road conditions") about the consequences of our speeding (a common human condition), we judge our interests in getting where we want to go early as more important than the consequences for others (selfishness), or we accurately view the elevation in third party harm as a consequence of breaking the law as infinitismally small (the analogue to a low quality copy which does not harm the Rick market).

Does everyone here who condemns all Rick copying on the basis of theft regardless of implications and consequences equally condemn all those who also break the law by speeding, regardless of circumstances such as extent & duration of speeding, road conditions etc? Plausibly, indeed, speeding is a priori the worse crime as the conceivable human consequences of speeding (death, maiming of innocent parties) are considerably greater than those arising from sale or purchase of a copy guitar.

Let he who never speeds cast the first stone....

[turninggrey]

I appreciate everyone's differing thoughts and perspectives and have no desire to raise temperatures by creating some sort of "Ground-hog Day" thread on copies.

In a nutshell, my primary point was simply that quality of copies is an issue because a higher quality copy causes more damage to the manufacturer than a lower quality copy - degrees of theft, if you will. Thus the quality of dillion and other copies relative to originals is worth discussing on this forum.

As for the binary black-white approach to the law that has been advanced by Paul above, I would venture to say most of us have broken the law at one point or other in our lives for various reasons, one prominent one being because sometimes the law can be an a**. The best example of a law most of us frequently break are speed limits on the highway, even if often only marginally. Who here has not broken the speed limit when in a hurry or when road conditions seemed to warrant? I certainly have.

Did we harm anyone? Well, yes, we did raise the chance that someone else would be maimed or killed as a consequence of our illegal action. Either we suffer cognitive dissonance ("I'd never harm anyone and am an excellent driver and judge of road conditions") about the consequences of our speeding (a common human condition), we judge our interests in getting where we want to go early as more important than the consequences for others (selfishness), or we accurately view the elevation in third party harm as a consequence of breaking the law as infinitismally small (the analogue to a low quality copy which does not harm the Rick market).

Does everyone here who condemns all Rick copying on the basis of theft regardless of implications and consequences equally condemn all those who also break the law by speeding, regardless of circumstances such as extent & duration of speeding, road conditions etc? Plausibly, indeed, speeding is a priori the worse crime as the conceivable human consequences of speeding (death, maiming of innocent parties) are considerably greater than those arising from sale or purchase of a copy guitar.

Let he who never speeds cast the first stone....

Good Post. How about smoking reefer? Hell, we play guitar! How many of us have winked at that law? (I think that if you can show an government offical that you can play "Breakfast in the field" by Michael Hedges you should be able to get a card that allows you to smoke all the pot you want WHILE playing a knock off Rick)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KWWAeXDCCw
Anyhow, I am not mad at my brother for picking up a Rick copy for 1/4 of what I paid for a real one, AND he is a better player than me so that copy sounds way better with him playing than me on my 320 due to his technical ability. (I guess it goes without saying that he makes the real Rick scream) I do think John Hall should pursue his trademark quest to the fullest extent of the law. I think we pay more for the guitars, because the legal fees are built into the price. Its like living in a gated community. (And......we get to look down on the others ) We do have a better guitar, and the resale value is high. I do sort of get a kick out of the copys......it just must be that spirit of rebellion in me. Its wrong, but I am not going to call 911 just like I don't when I see a guy speeding a little or when I see someone smoking pot.

[jingle_jangle]

Now we're getting absurd...reasoning's getting cloudy, and down the rabbit-hole we go...there's too much nonsense in these last two posts.

Simon, you think you're a sly one--first apologizing for "Groundhog Day" and then bringing it on once again. The intellectual property/speeding metaphor is so weak as to be laughable.

Anyone who's made a living from his/her intellectual property and has half a brain would see these people for what they are--thieves. Others might have to work a bit harder to put themselves into the victims' situations.

Tim: too much "reefer" can cloud thought processes...

[collin]

The intellectual property/speeding metaphor is so weak as to be laughable.

Gotta agree there.

Relating theft-for-profit and speeding is not only hilarious, but completely absurd.

I don't see the big deal here---why is it so hard to understand, people? One company owns designs and intellectual property----any other company that builds and or sells items that use those designs or intellectual property without authorization is ILLEGAL.

Anybody who is arguing otherwise, or stating that it isn't fair....or there is some grey area etc etc etc etc......is trying to justify it because they own one and don't want to feel guilty (or someone they know owns one).

Nobody (especially JH) is hell-bent on pursuing copies for the fun of it.....it's just a simple case of protecting what is theirs.

Isn't this the most tired topic on this whole board?

[cjj]

As has been said, we're a bunch of musicians here. I wonder how many of us, after writing a great song, would decide it's perfectly OK if someone else took it, recorded it and started making money from our work without giving us a single cent...

[collin]

As has been said, we're a bunch of musicians here. I wonder how many of us, after writing a great song, would decide it's perfectly OK if someone else took it, recorded it and started making money from our work without giving us a single cent...

Yeah, ask Chuck Berry how he feels about that.

...or Little Richard for that matter...

[jingle_jangle]

Consider also, that in general, product development is a riskier proposition than song-writing, from the standpoint of investment. A song can be written for free, literally, although of course there's always a financial burden of some sort. But even the simplest product development cycle requires a substantial cash layout in order to achieve a workable solution.

The most basic categories of product development costs (as in the case of a single inventor going at it) are about the same as the costs to write and self-record a demo tape--there's the money your time itself is worth, and the "burden"; i.e., what it takes to put a roof over your head and food "on your family", to quote a vanished sage from another, earlier, era.

A more complex product/song cycle requires technology and the participation of specialists in the interest of efficiency, and costs begin to rise dramatically. Virtually all of the outlay is "risk capital", and a major function of intellectual property protection is to help to secure that risk capital against thieves.

The intended effect of providing this protection under the law, is to make the idea marketplace a safe place to function, thus encouraging more creativity and investment of time, money, and effort in developing better and more efficient and imaginative products.

When entire cities earn their keep by illegally copying existing products, most of which are protected in their home country, the illegal becomes the accepted norm, and those who would seek to protect their risk capital and investment, are seen as the villains. This is a topsy-turvy situation, where honesty does not exist, ethics are ignored, and theft is an accepted way of life.

In another thread,one of our members is justifiably angry and sad because his personal property--a treasured Rickenbacker bass--was stolen from his vehicle, and members have rallied around him to express their disgust, displeasure, and solidarity.

That's one man and one instrument. Now consider the company that made that instrument, which owns the rights to its unique appearance and thus its character, having those rights compromised as the very identity of the instrument (and of the hundreds of thousands of its brethren) is ripped off and openly sold in the marketplace.

There are no shades of gray in this case; no middle ground.

And, once again, this issue has been dragged out and aired, and now I hope it will be put back into the box. I've got to devote some time to a sticky on intellectual property protection as it applies to Rick instruments.

[ken_j]

... I've got to devote some time to a sticky on intellectual property protection as it applies to Rick instruments.

Great idea.

[jimk]

... I've got to devote some time to a sticky on intellectual property protection as it applies to Rick instruments.

Great idea.

I agree.
JimK

[Bighouse]

I've always had a problem with people taking things that aren't theirs to take. When Napster was all the rage (before they became legit) EVERYONE was using it and friends even encouraged me to do it...I refused to as I just felt it was wrong to not compensate artists for their work.
I once had a friend who told me a proverb that went something like this: "He who can be trusted with little, can be trusted with much"...I could buy some RIC illegal copy no more than I could steal a real one from a bassist's vehicle...or the picks he may have left on his dashboard...

[soundmasterg]

I think maybe the reason that some people go on and on about RIC protecting their trademarks and try to spin a negative light on that is because they've gotten used to Fender and Gibson losing their trademarks over the years due to not policing them or filing them in the first place, and having so many companies make copies and parts and what not. RIC was smart from the beginning and protected what was theirs within the rights of the law, and any copies that companies make and try to sell then violate those trademarks. RIC enforces the protection of their trademarks because in order to keep them, that is what they must do legally. Its pretty simple and straightforward really.

Greg

[turninggrey]

Now we're getting absurd...reasoning's getting cloudy, and down the rabbit-hole we go...there's too much nonsense in these last two posts.

Simon, you think you're a sly one--first apologizing for "Groundhog Day" and then bringing it on once again. The intellectual property/speeding metaphor is so weak as to be laughable.

Anyone who's made a living from his/her intellectual property and has half a brain would see these people for what they are--thieves. Others might have to work a bit harder to put themselves into the victims' situations.

Tim: too much "reefer" can cloud thought processes...

Nonsense? JH needs to keep the pressure on? Thats nonsense? I really believe Rickenbacker has to keep the pressure on. The difference between us is that I am not going to put on some kind of artificial outrage on this one issue. It needs to be enforced by Rickenbacker. I am just not going to be on the enforcement team. It is funny to listen to the moralists here. I know you guys are in love with these guitars, but the F holes are for music to come out.


P.S. I am glad you are able to crack yourself up like that over the reefer comment. I know it was crazy of me to associate guitar players with smoking reefer. I am not sure how I could have made that connection. Certainly no Rickenbacker players of any real fame ever used such a narcotic!

[JRicoC]

There are copyright laws and lawyers to address these matters. If a party is wronged it is the job of their legal team to make the party whole. If someone "steals" $10M in total value (including damages and legal fees, etc.) from an entity then the legal remedy is an award of at least $10M. Copyright protection is not free, nor is it passive.

[admin]

This issue has run its course in my view. I can only see it heating up in the event that it is allowed to go forward. A reminder to new members and old, harsh comments accomplish little in resolving arguments save eroding friendships. This thread is now closed. Edits have been made.