• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

eBay and the rickenfaker witch hunt...

#61
Immigrant said:
As I've stated in several of these threads, current manufacturers of Ric copies should be strapped to a rocket and fired at the sun.

If Rickenbacker seriously thinks that interrupting the sale of an old, used, dismorphic copy is generating a sale of a new Ric for them, they need an accompanying flight to the sun. The fact that they (and some Ric owners) have that attitude turns me off to the idea of ever owning one again. That and they just aren't for me.

That Kay looks like a funhouse mirror Ric.
Click to expand...

It's not at all about "generating sales" of real Ric's. It's about keeping the rights they've fought so hard to protect. It's a legal matter. If Ric does NOT go after the copy's, they'll lose the right to own the Trademarks. I do not understand why these threads always turn so mean spirited, and why some of you fail to grasp the real issue here. Someone posts a fake Ric for sale- that in and of itself is illegal in the US and parts of Europe. Ric, in order to continue owning their trademarks, MUST make objections to these sales. Not doing so can render the Trademark issue moot. Fender and Gibson only WISH they were as proactive in those cases years ago, which would have prevented the onslaught of all those copies way back when. They didn't, Ric did. Easy as that.
 
#63
I was watching one of the chef Ramsey shows where he rescues a restaurant business in trouble. Well there was one restaurant where the owner had trademarked a slogan that was common to the area and was used a lot by different people. Then after she trademarked it she made a lot of enemies by enforcing the trademark. What she did was legal ... but it was not good business.

Perhaps we can compare that to how Rickenbacker enforces its trademark. What they do is legal. And again they do piss a lot of people off.

That is one of the reasons why there is a substantial group of people here who hate Rickenbacker and Rickenbacker instruments.
 
#64
blueflamerick said:
It makes no difference how old the instrument is. Rickenbacker must report every trademark infringement they see. Some slip through the cracks.

Unlike Rickenbacker, Fender does not hold a trademark on the P bass body shape, which is why you see so many P bass clones.
Click to expand...

This is what a lot of people don't understand when they say a company has "gone too far" in suppressing a copyright infringement on what may seem a trivial violation, copyright law dictates a copyright holder MUST go after EVERY infringement, no matter how insignificant it might seem, else they could lose that copyright. The copyright holdet has no choice in the matter, unless they want to lose everything they own. This is why you hear of stories of a company like Disney getting a Cease and Desist order on a day care center for using Disney imagery to decorate their facility without Disney's permission. It's not that Disney is being a heartless corporate bully, they just don't want to lose the copyrights on all their character that are the cornerstone of their entire businesss. Can you imagine the consequences if Disney lost the licensing rights to Mickey Mouse et al?
 
#65
"Perhaps we can compare that to how Rickenbacker enforces its trademark. What they do is legal. And again they do piss a lot of people off.

That is one of the reasons why there is a substantial group of people here who hate Rickenbacker and Rickenbacker instruments."



Good point Jeff, and likely very much part of the antagonistic behavior whenever RIC is mentioned.

My post was to point out the actual legal issue, as it's so often confused or ignored.

People can think what they like about RIC's business practices, and the reasons behind them (if they are known at all).

I just like their products for how they sound and look.
The emotion attached to these subjects seem very surreal to me most of the time.
 
#66
C.Linton said:
This is what a lot of people don't understand when they say a company has "gone too far" in suppressing a copyright infringement on what may seem a trivial violation, copyright law dictates a copyright holder MUST go after EVERY infringement, no matter how insignificant it might seem, else they could lose that copyright. The copyright holdet has no choice in the matter, unless they want to lose everything they own. This is why you hear of stories of a company like Disney getting a Cease and Desist order on a day care center for using Disney imagery to decorate their facility without Disney's permission. It's not that Disney is being a heartless corporate bully, they just don't want to lose the copyrights on all their character that are the cornerstone of their entire businesss. Can you imagine the consequences if Disney lost the licensing rights to Mickey Mouse et al?
Click to expand...


Well, this was the best analogy on this topic so far. There really should not be too many more questions of why RIC does what it does. Mickey Mouse is iconic and so is RIC's design. Like it or not, it is what it is.

Sepp
 
#67
#68
RickenBoogie said:
It's not at all about "generating sales" of real Ric's. It's about keeping the rights they've fought so hard to protect. It's a legal matter. If Ric does NOT go after the copy's, they'll lose the right to own the Trademarks. I do not understand why these threads always turn so mean spirited, and why some of you fail to grasp the real issue here. Someone posts a fake Ric for sale- that in and of itself is illegal in the US and parts of Europe. Ric, in order to continue owning their trademarks, MUST make objections to these sales. Not doing so can render the Trademark issue moot. Fender and Gibson only WISH they were as proactive in those cases years ago, which would have prevented the onslaught of all those copies way back when. They didn't, Ric did. Easy as that.
Click to expand...

I agree with most, if not all, of that. I still don't see how it applies to bass made thirty years ago and may have changed hands multiple times. So if a guy buys a 1970 Univox Ric copy, its for life?

Not trying to argue, just trying to gain an understanding. If I wanted to start an argument, it would be over apostrophe misuse.:p
 
#69
kcole4001 said:
"Perhaps we can compare that to how Rickenbacker enforces its trademark. What they do is legal. And again they do piss a lot of people off.

That is one of the reasons why there is a substantial group of people here who hate Rickenbacker and Rickenbacker instruments."



Good point Jeff, and likely very much part of the antagonistic behavior whenever RIC is mentioned.

My post was to point out the actual legal issue, as it's so often confused or ignored.

People can think what they like about RIC's business practices, and the reasons behind them (if they are known at all).

I just like their products for how they sound and look.
The emotion attached to these subjects seem very surreal to me most of the time.
Click to expand...

Yes just because something is legal does not mean it is the right thing to do.
 
#70
geddeeee said:
The quarter turn a day IS overkill IMO. I've even heard of an eighth of a turn too... Sheesh!!!

I straighten my neck the 'old fashioned' way (a la 4001).
Pull neck into correct position and snug up truss rod nuts. Done. Time taken: 10 minutes...

That's easier and puts less stress on the rods and nuts.

I obviously check over the next few days as the wood settles, but more often than not, it does the trick....

I realise RIC have copyright on their instruments, and rightly so. It's just the telltale attitude from the hardcore RIC owners that I personally find offensive.

If a person was deliberately labelling a copy, a Rickenbacker, then fair enough. But, if it's labelled a Kay, Rondo, Ibanez... or whatever, then OK. As I stated, these instruments are clearly not RICs, or of the same quality, so I don't see the problem...

But, each to their own.....
Click to expand...


I definitely prefer the 4001 TR method. I wish all basses were like this. Instant gratification. :)
 
#72
Sorry to get into the middle of this fine mess. I realize that Ric (TM) has the right to go after the companies that have made copies of their fabulously overpriced stuff. I do not feel that they have the right to prevent the free commerce transaction of a used instrument, perhaps several generations into ownership. If i purchase a Ric copy then try to sell it on eBay or Craigslist or... i am not taking anything from their business. I bid on a Univox Ric copy, that was in no way advertised as such. It made it to 6 hours from auctions end when eBay pulled the auction. This was a bass manufactured in the mid 70's, with similar aspects to a 4001, but with attributes quite different enough to avoid copyright infringement. I felt cheated, as i cannot afford to shell out $1800+ for a 4001 or 4003. It would be nice to get a decent replica for 1/3 of that price. Just feel that the Draconian measures of eBay and rickenbacker are overkill. My .02. Never will be a Ric owner at almost $2000 a pop.
 
#73
Kingbreaker said:
Which is totally juvenile, IMO.

(not you Jeff, but the attitude you describe.)
Click to expand...

I don't hate Ricks or the company or those that work there ... but from time to time they do piss me off, and I think I might have said things they don't like from time to time. I own 2 Rics and I like them.

I don't agree with their trademark enforcement policy ... but it is a free country and they can do what they want. But harsh enforcement of trademarks makes Rickenbacker seem to not be a customer friendly company.
 
#74
Ric5 said:
I was watching one of the chef Ramsey shows where he rescues a restaurant business in trouble. Well there was one restaurant where the owner had trademarked a slogan that was common to the area and was used a lot by different people. Then after she trademarked it she made a lot of enemies by enforcing the trademark. What she did was legal ... but it was not good business.

Perhaps we can compare that to how Rickenbacker enforces its trademark. What they do is legal. And again they do piss a lot of people off.

That is one of the reasons why there is a substantial group of people here who hate Rickenbacker and Rickenbacker instruments.
Click to expand...

The difference was that Cafe Hon tried to trademark something that was part of common vernacular of a community dating back decades before their existence. Ric is trying to protect a design and a brand they developed decades ago. Actually a pretty big difference.

To the defence of the OP, I think their fight is with those that originate the fakes, not someone trying to sell a vintage Kay or Ibanez or "whatever" knock-off. But if they want to go after companies who are ripping off their design or those who try to import them to the USA I wish them the best.

I get that my viewpoint may not be popular, but then again Im old, have never illegally downloaded music and actually believe a musician has a right to defend their itellectual property as much as Ric has a right to defend theirs.
 
#75
I've sold a few Fender copies and Frankenbasses on EBay. I always say at the top of the description in large bolded letters that "This is not a genuine Fender Bass". I'll also say they contain genuine Fender parts, but the bass is not genuine. I've even sold some with Fender knock off decals and never had an auction pulled. You just have to make it perfectly clear perhaps more than once in the title and description that you aren't selling the real deal.
 
#76
Here is what I could find on ebay's policy listing no no's....
Counterfeits, fakes, or replicas of brand name items (for example, a purse bearing the Chanel name or logo that wasn't made by Chanel or a cell phone or battery labeled as a Nokia® cell phone or battery that wasn't made by or for Nokia or with Nokia's consent)

The bass in question is arguably not covered. The trademark infringement was obviously committed decades ago and has since been resolved. The Kay looks like a Ric but is obviously not and is not marked as such. With that said, ebay has the right to create, change, and enforce it's policies as it sees fit, even if they aren't consistant. This really isn't an issue with Ric. I would wager that another user reported the item to ebay and that ebay errs on the side of caution in these matters to avoid legal action against themselves.

Does this stuff suck? Yes! Is there anything we can do about it? No. Matbe the OP should contact ebay and see if a relist is possible.
 
#78
Ric5 said:
I don't hate Ricks or the company or those that work there ... but from time to time they do piss me off, and I think I might have said things they don't like from time to time. I own 2 Rics and I like them.

I don't agree with their trademark enforcement policy ... but it is a free country and they can do what they want. But harsh enforcement of trademarks makes Rickenbacker seem to not be a customer friendly company.[/QUOTE]

There not, having talked to there customer service reps a few times I am almost positive rickenbacker only hires dicks.

I love my 4003, but I bought it because I got it under $1100 new. Then when I had questions about it and another I bought the emails I sent were never replied and the calls were not very nice.
Click to expand...
 
#80
Ric5 said:
I don't hate Ricks or the company or those that work there ... but from time to time they do piss me off, and I think I might have said things they don't like from time to time. I own 2 Rics and I like them.

I don't agree with their trademark enforcement policy ... but it is a free country and they can do what they want. But harsh enforcement of trademarks makes Rickenbacker seem to not be a customer friendly company.
Click to expand...

*snicker*
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back