Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

bails wrote:I get it...

"Hay Bales"

Too funny Evan.

Mark,
this is interesting because I'm on your side. I'm only saying that I have but one position to speak and act from, legal-wise speaking, and that is that of the consumer.

I'm still in confusion whether it is legal or not for a person to buy or own a rick copy. Should they all be turned in? Are the stores liable if they carry one? Will I be prosecuted if I play one in public? ...

What's a customer to do?

I think this is why the set up the market the way they do. Everyone acting in their capacity so that no one has to know everything at once.

I'm on your side, my friend. It's wrong to use someone else's idea if they don't want you to. The fakers offend me morally and that definitely throws a tangible craze over that new poly finish for me. But I don't understand some of the things you say to illustrate our shared concern:

bails wrote:
"until all the dealers are pulled from the streets, crack cocaine remains a viable consumer option"

I don't think this comparison holds water because hard drugs are expressly forbidden and pose an immediate threat to public safety.

bails wrote:If you buy or sell a Rickenbacker copy,

I think there's two different legal positions there. I'd want to see it in writing.

bails wrote:whether you know it or not,

Legally or morally, I don't think we'll get anywhere going down that road.

bails wrote:you are illegally infringing a number of RIC's trademark.

Have we established that as fact? Show me something, please.

You see how confusing it gets when I try to get in John Hall's head and second-guess how much he should spend on lawyers?

No I will leave my philosophy where it belongs and enter the store and play my part by the rules of the game. Of course my morality enters with me, but I have no legal obligation to RIC or any other maker. My sole function is to choose and to pay an agreed price to the owner of the guitar. And there my legal obligation ends, unless someone wants to come show me specifically how that may vary.

Morality is a big thing. It is my compass. But legality is something else. To me it means we all play by the same rules as they're presented to us in each of our differing positions.

I'm with you in essence, Mark, but I don't agree with some of the way you're explaining it.

all the best

Kira,

John Hall has previously explained his position on copyright and trademark infingment as well as the purchase and resale of fakers . Try this link for John's position on all of this.

http://rickresource.com/forum/viewtopic ... rk#p444993

Thank you, Brian.

I'm OK with putting this to bed because you've nicely pointed out that this has been discussed to death in previous topics. As a fairly new member I still have a lot to learn here. Sorry if I disturb.

Peace to all, Mark, JH and all, goodnight

It's just a pity there is no legal economical option for the little guy who will never be able to afford a topline Rickenbacker..
Eden.

bails wrote:

mikethemod1992 wrote:Bails's Prediction of the week: Someone on this very forum will post a response to my above statement justifying why they think it's okay to break the law. They will most likely produce some claim that they not being fraudulent nor ripping anybody off, and therefore they think it's OK. They will probably go further to make the false generalisation that everybody illegally downloads music from the internet, or that my actions are a result of snobbery rather than the common human decency of following the law.

oww my eyes!!

Well put Mark!

I have no idea where and when the idea came along that you can "buy a copy" and you will get the same quality and performance for a fraction of the cost. That doesn't even make sense. If it did, why on earth would thousands of people every year buy Rics (and wait years for them in many cases..) if the copies were remotely similar to the original item?

I always go back to the one solid thing my dad always drilled in me, " YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR" That simple. If it sounds too good to be true, then it is. Plus, it's illegal and morally wrong.

Say you put some cheesy body kit on a Pontiac Fiero, and made it look like a Ferrari. Do you think for half a second that it's anywhere on the same planet as a Ferrari, both in looks or performance? It's the same thing with guitars, especially Rics. A cheap guitar is a cheap guitar, and it will look and sound like a cheap guitar.

Plus, show me ONE Ric copy where you can add on the cost of all the "correct" parts and it's not only a few hundred dollars away from the real deal? Many 330's etc are creeping back towards >$1200, which shouldn't be too much more than a $400 copy with $500 worth of extra "correct" parts. Same with basses...

Ohhhkay...

Sorry if this is coming in late, but:

My name is Mark and I own a Faker.
I knew it was a fake and was sold as a fake BUT I have a valid and even noblereason for owning it, namely, it was sold with a genuine 'R' tailpiece and TRC for my REAL 360. For full story (if interested) READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE.
For the record It's not that bad, but definitely NOT A RIC. The body is an OK 330 shape but the scratchplates are ****. The neck is wide and flat and the sounds it makes are a bit brash, although I made some foam pick-up rings for it (#52 from '101 Things to do with Mouse Mats'), which has calmed it somewhat.
Anyway, there you go. Sue me, but I don't feel like a criminal, unless it's Robin Hood. Many years ago I had a Shaftesbury Ric 'copy' and that sucked as well so I sold it. Don't feel guilty about that either

collin wrote: Plus, show me ONE Ric copy where you can add on the cost of all the "correct" parts and it's not only a few hundred dollars away from the real deal? Many 330's etc are creeping back towards >$1200, which shouldn't be too much more than a $400 copy with $500 worth of extra "correct" parts. Same with basses...

I guess that's true, You just have to keep saving for a real one...

Eden.

I don't have any RIC copies because they suck.

Tim

The reason there are a lot of copies still floating around is not because people knowingly want to break the law, it's because they see a reasonably priced guitar they can afford that looks like the ones their heroes play or played. I don't think there's any malicious intent to hurt RIC in most cases...although the builders of these guitars have no excuse.

I would venture to guess that the majority of people who don't already own Rickenbackers have no idea that the designs are protected. In an ideal world, all the fakes would be turned in by their owners for destruction. But we live in a world that is far from ideal. Explain to the teenager who just payed $300 for a look-alike that he has to give up his guitar because RIC doesn't approve of it and will be out 300 bucks. He's gonna tell you to take a hike. Then when Johnny tires of his Rickenfaker and wants a Strat (or maybe a real Rick), he's going to sell it, because Strats and Ricks cost money, too. And so the circle goes unbroken.

Most of us in this forum are here because we own real Rickenbackers and we're conscious of RICs trademarks...and also respect them. It's easy to vilify people who own fakes, but I don't think it's necessarily fair. They're simply not educated. The ones I condemn are the companies producing the copies. But I'd have no sympathy for someone like a Forumite (who is well aware of the trademark issues) buying a fake. The original poster is a new member, so let's not gang up on him and get all preachy and "holier than thou", like the tone of a couple posts were. Let's Just educate him.

I'll go out on a limb here with my honesty and say that if I were 17 again, I can't say for sure that I wouldn't have bought a Rickenfaker if I were really into Rick guitars (When I was 17, I was more into Jacksons and Charvels...funny how things change). Worrying about damaging some guitar company probably wouldn't have been a factor in the decision simply because I wouldn't have been able to buy a real one anyway...so they didn't really lose a sale. That's how I probably would have rationalized it.

I just reread my last post which was more or less "off the cuff" and my last paragraph got me thinking...

You know, I actually don't think that these fakes actually hurt the sales of real Ricks at all. I mean, think about it. Anyone who wants to purchase a Rickenbacker guitar and can afford it, is not going to buy a fake. Why would they? I sure as hell wouldn't. Why buy a cheap knock-off when you can afford the quality, craftsmanship and playability of the real deal? And just look at the RIC order books...a two year backlog! Seems like sales have never been better.

Now I don't know Mr. Hall personally, but all indications are that he's an intelligent, astute businessman. I think he knows that the only people buying fakes right now are the ones that can't afford real Ricks anyway. He's no dummy. But the RIC legal department has an obligation to go after any and all infringers and to document each case. Only in this way can subsequent claims hold up in court and their trademarks kept secured. The cheap fakers aren't a threat to sales...but without RIC's vigorous pursuit of the violators, the door could be opened for other companies who are capable of producing much higher quality guitars (imagine FMIC, PRS or Gibson producing guitars with "Rick-styled" appointments). Now something like that could and would likely eat into RIC sales. IMO, that's the real reason why going after the fakers is important.

OK, I'll shut up now

We have, of course, crossed this bridge many times before on the RickResource Forum.

The topic is certainly worthy of discussion and I want to thank Brian for providing us with the link in which Mr. Hall outlines the position of RIC in this matter.

Many who may be new to the definition of trademark and its role in the manufacture of guitars in the marketplace may be surprised to learn that many of the classic features of Rickenbacker instruments have protection under the law. As has been pointed out here, others may know but for lack of finances or boundaries they choose to ignore the rules.

In the marketplace of bottom lines we sometimes lose sight of the fact that none of us would own a Rickenbacker instrument or be here talking about them the way we do had these trademarks not been filed and protected in the beginning and over the last 75 years.

Some may consider that holding this line is elitist and that copies can do little harm. To those who may share this view, I would argue that additional thought is required. Who among us would not want to receive credit for our original thoughts. Protecting intellectual property has a very slippery slope. Looking the other way for only a short time, one morning we may arise only to find that someone else has laid claim to our original work serving up their own version. Giving credit to original thought surely trumps passing off someone elses ideas as ones own.

admin wrote: Who among us would not want to receive credit for our original thoughts.

Like the multitude of original songs written on our Rickenbacker instruments, for instance.

I actually think the fakers have value and a real place in the world. They can (and should) all be used by people who want to be just like Pete Townshend, getting smashed to bits whenever possible...

cjj wrote:I actually think the fakers have value and a real place in the world. They can (and should) all be used by people who want to be just like Pete Townshend, getting smashed to bits whenever possible...