Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Check out this one. I am surprised it is still there.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Electra-Bas ... 7C294%3A50

This bass looks like another high dollar bass, so this listing could be ended early by eBay or Johnenbacker, so bid quick and often

Hahaha.

Not there now.

missed it! what was it? neck through,set-neck,or bolt on?

Set neck. I kind've wish it wasn't illegal to buy these things secondhand, but I think I understand why it is. They'd make for fun projects though.

Just for my edification, what makes this illegal?

I understand that there are probably trademarks involved or something to that effect, but what actually makes purchasing one illegal?

If illegal, shouldn't it be destroyed?

For the record, I'm not suggesting that owning one should be legal, I'm more curious as to the actual legalities of the situation.

All I know is that if you buy one of them, even aftermarket, it takes a sale away from an actual Ric (in theory). If there were tons of these flooding the secondhand market it would be a real threat to Rickenbacker, again in theory.

Of that, I have no doubt.

I hate to use the theory I used years ago when people were pirating $30K graphics software... and I only do it to show the flipside of that argument:

But years ago, when Alias|Wavefront, etc cost that much, people pirated the hell out of the software. A|W used to say it stole "one sale" for each pirated copy. The problem with that statement--and I'm only talking the A|W statement here--is that a large (I'd estimate it at 90%+) of those pirated copies couldn't afford the software anyway and therefore the sale wouldn't have been made. Another side issue was that because of the high cost, people would pirate a copy to test the software before actually buying it. There was no demos then.

I realize that this is totally unrelated since you can't compare digital to physical assets easily and moreso that the cost of a new Ric isn't $30K. I'm only showing a counterpoint to that argument.

I agree that it would impact sales in no small terms.

BTW, that software (and a lot of graphics software) has dropped significantly in the last decade and I don't hear the cries of piracy like I used to.

Tarrbot wrote:Just for my edification, what makes this illegal?

I understand that there are probably trademarks involved or something to that effect, but what actually makes purchasing one illegal?

If illegal, shouldn't it be destroyed?

For the record, I'm not suggesting that owning one should be legal, I'm more curious as to the actual legalities of the situation.

Well, the short answer (as well as the real answer) is that the Patent and Trademark laws in the U.S. and many other countries make it illegal. Whether people agree with the law or not is irrelevant, it is the law.

cassius987 wrote:All I know is that if you buy one of them, even aftermarket, it takes a sale away from an actual Ric (in theory). If there were tons of these flooding the secondhand market it would be a real threat to Rickenbacker, again in theory.

The argument is logical, but it's a bit weak? I've actually heard it mentioned many times, and I've finally found a sentence that can debunk it. When someone buys a used Rick, they've taken a sale away from Rick too, They don't see a penny when a used instrument is sold, but no one shuts down used Ricks on eBay.

I think it's more of a keeping your design thing. Look at Fender, they didn't defend their design for years and years (Leo had patents), now they don't belong to anyone! I think RIC is just militantly defending the designs they own.

If they don't defend their rights they will lose them. RIC is obligated to do what they can to discourage the trade in copies.

kiramdear wrote:If they don't defend their rights they will lose them. RIC is obligated to do what they can to discourage the trade in copies.

This is exactly right - US trademark law requires the owner of the mark to take action against any infringement - it doesn't matter if (in RIC's case) it's a new copy or a 35-year-old one made in a factory that was destroyed in an earthquake 20 years ago. Beyond the trademark issue - which is a serious one - the only copies that pose a potential threat to RIC would be the ones that get passed off as genuine, as the lower-end ones could compromise confidence in quality. Fortunately most of the worst ones fell apart years ago!

This particular one was an early 70s through-neck built at Fujigen Gakki (who are still alive & well & make MIJ Fenders) and was cool but not remotely accurate - full-width glitter inlays, chequer binding and big chrome Gibson-esque pickups - the same as early Ibanez copies & some Grecos. You wouldn't need to know much about Ricks to realise it wasn't a real one.

Jon.

Tarrbot wrote:Of that, I have no doubt.

I hate to use the theory I used years ago when people were pirating $30K graphics software... and I only do it to show the flipside of that argument:

But years ago, when Alias|Wavefront, etc cost that much, people pirated the hell out of the software. A|W used to say it stole "one sale" for each pirated copy. The problem with that statement--and I'm only talking the A|W statement here--is that a large (I'd estimate it at 90%+) of those pirated copies couldn't afford the software anyway and therefore the sale wouldn't have been made. Another side issue was that because of the high cost, people would pirate a copy to test the software before actually buying it. There was no demos then.

I realize that this is totally unrelated since you can't compare digital to physical assets easily and moreso that the cost of a new Ric isn't $30K. I'm only showing a counterpoint to that argument.

I agree that it would impact sales in no small terms.

BTW, that software (and a lot of graphics software) has dropped significantly in the last decade and I don't hear the cries of piracy like I used to.

Although it's not analogous by any stretch, I've heard from several sources that approximately 30%-40% of software in use in the USA in small businesses is pirated. There are a number of recourses, among them an anti-piracy tip line with rewards offered.

Now, for a quick education and LOTS of discussion on where RIC stands vis á vis the Lanham Act and other methods of protecting their hard-earned intellectual property, simply do a search on this site using any number of terms, but you can begin with "fake" and "counterfeit".

It's been done to death...

RIC's most recent action (within the last 45 days!) in this arena was to send C & D letters to Indie, who markets Rick guitar and bass copies which are made in Korea, and to dealers selling "Indie" products. They have had repeated successes in keeping counterfeits out of the US marketplace, beginning with the very first attempts.

jingle_jangle wrote:
RIC's most recent action (within the last 45 days!) in this arena was to send C & D letters to Indie, who markets Rick guitar and bass copies which are made in Korea, and to dealers selling "Indie" products. They have had repeated successes in keeping counterfeits out of the US marketplace, beginning with the very first attempts.

YAY RIC!


It sucks that they have to spend so much time, money, and energy on this problem, but I sure am glad they do.

Paul, I think I misstated this earlier. I'm clarifying that now...

BTW, that software price (and a lot of graphics software) has dropped significantly in the last decade and I don't hear the cries of piracy like I used to.

Leaving that word out radically changed my meaning.

I oversee our entire software licensing structure where I work so I do understand a bit of how this works in re: to IP and violations and such. We spend a metric ton of money for these items. But ultimately, they're worth it as they make us more competitive and make our jobs a lot easier in the long run.

I agree that Ric should be enforcing their patents/copyrights/trademarks (or whatever they're doing) and using C&Ds when violations occur. I seem to recall murmurings here about some of those recent actions. I just didn't know a lot of the backstory and also didn't know much of the basis for their work. I totally understand why, I just didn't know the legal aspects of how they were executing that.

I'll have to look up some of that and see if I can find more info.