Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

im probably gonna upset people here, but i must say this whole rick faker thing seems very unfair on rickenbackers behalf to stop people selling something that they have every right to. to go after them on ebay and, as mr hall says, get the seller's account flagged just doesnt seem right to me. i have to admit , my first guitar was a shaftsebury 330 copy, i still have it and it was, is , a great guitar. there was no way at 16 that i could have bought a rick even when that was all i wanted and longed for. ive since gone on to own a 1964 360/12 a 1975 340 and a 1980 360.
i know there are a lot of con men out there who would be very happy to take advantage of the situation, but surely if i want to sell my guitar without stating that its a rick copy, then surely thats my choice.

Paul, your opinion is valid, but the way RIC enforces the copyright is that they have to have that policy about all copies, no matter if they are in the hands of a person with a conscience, or someone who wants to pass it off as legit and scam someone. They don't have a choice.

Most of the comments here are made jokingly, including mine, I had a Univox copy myself once upon a time....somehow it got broken....hmmm.....

. . .surely if i want to sell my guitar without stating that its a rick copy, then surely thats my choice.

It's certainly your choice, just as any fraud is on the part of a criminal, but it's also a good way to learn about the court system, whether it be the buyer or the trademark holder that takes you there.

People do NOT have the right to sell counterfeit goods, no matter what you choose to believe.

"surely if i want to sell my guitar without stating that its a rick copy, then surely thats my choice."

just to make it clear,i meant by the above that if i did decide to sell then it would only be advertised as a shaftesbury and not as a rick.i for one would never dream of that.
surely a guitar made by shaftesbury and advertised as a shaftesbury is not a counterfeit

"surely a guitar made by Shaftesbury and advertised as a Shaftesbury is not a counterfeit"..

It is if it is a Rickenbacker design made by someone else, that is the definition of the word "counterfeit".

For the record, I don't agree with the stance on counterfeits, (it was made 30 years ago, what can I do about that now?) but I understand and respect RIC's need to enforce them to hold on to their property.

"surely a guitar made by Shaftesbury and advertised as a Shaftesbury is not a counterfeit"..

It is *absolutely* a counterfeit. We have no leeway on this; U.S. and to a lesser extent, E.U. law requires is to take action on any sale of such goods we become aware of or risk losing the trademark.

Sell 'em where we can't see them and there's no problem but the 'Net doesn't fit that description.

"For the record, I don't agree with the stance on counterfeits, (it was made 30 years ago, what can I do about that now?) but I understand and respect RIC's need to enforce them to hold on to their property."

steve,that is exactly my point , and i totally agree with you and respect mr hall for his decision,
my argument is in the fact that it wasnt me that copied or manufactured this guitar, i knowingly bought a copy in good faith and went on to purchase and promote the rickenbacker name far and wide .if i now choose to sell that said guitar in good faith, i have a problem.

if these guitars get removed from ebay, they will still go elsewhere.

John is actually being nice about this...if you read between the lines...basically the whole trademark/counterfeit thing is a big headache for him, and he's telling you, just don't let him hear about it.

Getting back to the bass at hand though...Just keep it. If nothing else it's a conversation piece, and not a horrible instrument. Just illegal to sell/resell.

Hey! Post pics

It is *absolutely* a counterfeit. We have no leeway on this; U.S. and to a lesser extent, E.U. law requires is to take action on any sale of such goods we become aware of or risk losing the trademark

Mr hall, if that is the case then i apologise and i see your point, i was not aware of that fact.

None of my business really, but I'll state it anyway.
No offense intended, Paul, but the point is that it's the decision of the courts, not RIC, or J.H., or anyone else.
RIC MUST follow these procedures or they lose the right to any copyright protection.

We've been through this many times, it's the law, not RIC's choice in any way.
Opinions won't change that fact.

It's not John or R.I.C. being a "bad guy", that's just what they have to do in the eyes of the law. I'm sure they would all rather not have to do this kind of policing at all!!

I can post some pics tonight, if people are interested. It seems way nicer than most of the other fakers I've seen posted. I wouldn't be too surprised to find it had been upgraded with a couple actual Ric parts given that the previous owner was a gear hound (but I'm not holding out hope for it, either).

Trademark- not copyright. And, yes, it is a royal pain, and an expensive one.

As far as the bass in question is concerned, I'd suggest keeping it for any number of reasons or giving it away to someone who could benefit from it. Just give us the courtesy, if you do that, of removing our logo if it has one and make sure the person understands it's not a Rick. Maybe make 'em promise to never sell it but only pass it along with the same condition.

John,

I'll definitely honor that request. For what it's worth, it doesn't have the Ric logo anywhere on it, nor will it as long as I have any say in the matter.

My suggestion, too late, would have been to keep the bass under your own watchful stewardship to ensure that it is never sold as a Ric. Who better to have one of these than someone who understands the nature of the beast. It's an instrument, so play it. It's a fake Ric, so keep it off the market.