Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

gearhed289 wrote:Anybody have a link to a picture of one of those Sandberg pseudo-Ricks? I've found some Sandbergs, but none of them look anything like a Ric.

It would appear that it was a custom one off, as Sandberg wisely does not show that model anywhere. Don't worry, it may be a great bass, but it was ugly.

rickenbrother wrote:

deargdoom wrote:but it's not the law everywhere.

Okay then come up with an idea for a product and post it here. Then I'll go to where it's an an exception to the law and make copies. Let's see how much you like it.

Go ahead be my guest, don't know what it would prove though, it's like calling someone big nose.

qwezirider wrote:I'm sure I'll whack a couple toes here on this one. But the thing I find ironic here is that many of us are protective of the Rick package and understand where the company is coming from. Yet in another section of this forum, we're conducting compilation CDs of our favorite music. We point a finger at infringement in one direction yet look the other way when it takes place (albeit in a tremendously small scale) in another manner.

I thought about that when the call for 10 members went out. Actually, this hits closer to home for all of us, especially those who compose and record.

gshadoan wrote:

gearhed289 wrote:Anybody have a link to a picture of one of those Sandberg pseudo-Ricks? I've found some Sandbergs, but none of them look anything like a Ric.

It would appear that it was a custom one off, as Sandberg wisely does not show that model anywhere. Don't worry, it may be a great bass, but it was ugly.

They used to offer the Ric copy in 4 and 5 string versions but I think Ric persuaded them to cease.

qwezirider wrote:I'm sure I'll whack a couple toes here on this one. But the thing I find ironic here is that many of us are protective of the Rick package and understand where the company is coming from. Yet in another section of this forum, we're conducting compilation CDs of our favorite music. We point a finger at infringement in one direction yet look the other way when it takes place (albeit in a tremendously small scale) in another manner.

Yes ... it seems most of us straddle the line between right and wrong ... we will copy some things but not others ...

jwr2 wrote:

qwezirider wrote:I'm sure I'll whack a couple toes here on this one. But the thing I find ironic here is that many of us are protective of the Rick package and understand where the company is coming from. Yet in another section of this forum, we're conducting compilation CDs of our favorite music. We point a finger at infringement in one direction yet look the other way when it takes place (albeit in a tremendously small scale) in another manner.

Yes ... it seems most of us straddle the line between right and wrong ... we will copy some things but not others ...

Hypocritical, isn't it.

deargdoom wrote:

jwr2 wrote:

qwezirider wrote:I'm sure I'll whack a couple toes here on this one. But the thing I find ironic here is that many of us are protective of the Rick package and understand where the company is coming from. Yet in another section of this forum, we're conducting compilation CDs of our favorite music. We point a finger at infringement in one direction yet look the other way when it takes place (albeit in a tremendously small scale) in another manner.

Yes ... it seems most of us straddle the line between right and wrong ... we will copy some things but not others ...

Hypocritical, isn't it.

Nope. Two different situations. If I were to, say, re-record 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and sell copies under my own name, then we'd have a comparable situation.

Hereeee we go again!!

My opinion on this.....what you get is a possible interest in someone you haven't heard before which may make you compelled to buy something by an artist that you normally wouldn't give a second thought to. I have downloaded music before without paying and if it's worth listening to I go out and buy the cd or get individual songs from iTunes. If it's a waste it goes in the trash. Is it "right".....probably not but there is a bigger picture. I can say that I wouldn't have bought anywhere near the amount of music that I have if it was not for getting samples of artists from friends or from "testing the waters". I hate taking a chance on something new only to find out it is unlistenable for whatever reason....just a waste of my hard earned money. I prefer to make educated choices with my cash.

I understand that plenty of people download everything, keep it and never spend a cent. I find that wrong but it appears that I'm in no position to judge. I try to do the right thing while at the same time using tools available to me to save myself from wasting assets.

So my take on the mix cd club is that I already have put money into artist's pockets (well, the music corporations) that they wouldn't have gotten if I never would have heard some of the songs on some of the cd's I've received. Seems fair enough in the long run. Songs and artists I'm not interested in will never get a listen again so where's the loss? One use? Again, skewed thinking on my part I suppose.

I deal with the law and interpreting it constantly at work (obviously) and sometimes it's better to enforce with a hammer and sometimes better to let things go.....and mostly somewhere in between. Obviously some crimes are more serious than others and are treated as such but sometimes the greater good (big picture thing again) is served by handling things in a less strict fashion or with unconventional thinking. So maybe this clouds my perspective a little.

As far as Ric copies and infringement issues.......I only buy genuine Rics and applaud RIC's efforts to keep copies at bay. The fanatical enforcement on behalf of RIC I'll leave to others......I have other more important issues to concern myself with.

deargdoom wrote:

jwr2 wrote:

qwezirider wrote:I'm sure I'll whack a couple toes here on this one. But the thing I find ironic here is that many of us are protective of the Rick package and understand where the company is coming from. Yet in another section of this forum, we're conducting compilation CDs of our favorite music. We point a finger at infringement in one direction yet look the other way when it takes place (albeit in a tremendously small scale) in another manner.

Yes ... it seems most of us straddle the line between right and wrong ... we will copy some things but not others ...

Hypocritical, isn't it.

Have you ever jaywalked? Then you must condone murder too.

Shades of gray.

incubus2432 wrote:As far as Ric copies and infringement issues.......I only buy genuine Rics and applaud RIC's efforts to keep copies at bay. The fanatical enforcement on behalf of RIC I'll leave to others......I have other more important issues to concern myself with.

+1

dpowell wrote:Nope. Two different situations. If I were to, say, re-record 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and sell copies under my own name, then we'd have a comparable situation.

Hereeee we go again!!

Not different. Breaking US copyright law does not hinge upon the sale of music. If that were the case, Napster, et al, would have never had a problem. I'm talking about the copying of an existing commercial recording versus a person re-recording the song.

qwezirider wrote:

dpowell wrote:Nope. Two different situations. If I were to, say, re-record 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and sell copies under my own name, then we'd have a comparable situation.

Hereeee we go again!!

Not different. Breaking US copyright law does not hinge upon the sale of music. If that were the case, Napster, et al, would have never had a problem. I'm talking about the copying of an existing commercial recording versus a person re-recording the song.

I'm not arguing that it's legal, I'm saying the situation is not comparable.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter because the law's the law and RIC is RIC...this is my last post on this thread.