Fakes?

[tplyons]

It's not cool to steal from KSB, but it's ok to steal from Fender? You can't have it both ways.

Slug

Fender instruments have been copied since the late 60's and early 70's. The body shapes are more common ground than they are Fender's property.

The Fender headstock is the only thing you can take legal action against in a case like this, I believe.

Obviously Leo Fender wasn't too interested in patenting ideas either. The first electric bass was built in 1951. When was it first patented? 1953.

 

[slugworth]

Fender instruments have been copied since the late 60's and early 70's. The body shapes are more common ground than they are Fender's property.

The Fender headstock is the only thing you can take legal action against in a case like this, I believe.

Obviously Leo Fender wasn't too interested in patenting ideas either. The first electric bass was built in 1951. When was it first patented? 1953.

>>>> Legal does not ethical make. Just because I leave my garage door open doesn't mean you can come in and help yourself to my car.

 

[slugworth]

>>>>KSB said The Headstock is the only thing that Fender currently has protection. For this reason, I had designed our own. If I had to and they suddenly patented the body in all its shapes and forms, we would use our own BSR shape as we did with the Burners.

The problem I mentioned at the start of this thread is someone selling Basses with the 'Name' and shape. Copying a shape IS flattery but using the name is Stealing! Plain and simple..

>>> So just because a body shape isn't patented, it's ok to for anyone to use it? So it's ok for that guy in Brazil to use your body shapes just so long as he doesn't refer to your name? I guess if you're cool with that......To me copying isn't simple flattery, it is theft, no matter if there's a legal loophole or not.

Slug

 

[The Penguin]

I'm totally against the using of Ken's name to sell his copies. But for the sake of being somewhat informed in this argument you cannot patent shapes.

Ken, are you paying royalties for your use of the Fender shape, layout and design including the use of the traditional woods and finishes and pickups design?

 

[slugworth]

I just think that original designs shouldn't be stolen or copied. I don't own any copies or clones. I'm with John Hall on this; if you cop my designs or trade dress, my lawyers are gonna come callin'...Go design your own instrument, don't take from me! I will not support any builder that makes copies or clones by buying one, be they copies of Rick, KSB, Fender or anything else, unless they are licensed. If I wanted a Fender, I'd buy the real deal, or buy the parts made by someone who is licensed by Fender to so.

I guess I'm just a conservative purist.

Slug

 

[Ian Perge]

Legal does not ethical make. Just because I leave my garage door open doesn't mean you can come in and help yourself to my car.

Umm, that would still be Grand Theft Auto, only lacking any type of breaking and entering charge...which could still be possible if one had to break into the car to gain access. Not ethical, legal, or a good analogy.

 

[slugworth]

Umm, that would still be Grand Theft Auto, only lacking any type of breaking and entering charge...which could still be possible if one had to break into the car to gain access. Not ethical, legal, or a good analogy.

>>>But the moral question is the same to an extent. Should I take this design or intellectual property knowing it is NOT mine, because most likely nothing will happen to me? Apparently Leo Fender never bothered to lock his doors, because since the "60's and 70's" people have been helping themselves to his designs with impunity and have faced very little consequence. It's like the proverbial bag of money falling out of the back of a Brinks truck: You know it ain't yours, but since nobody saw you, you keep it anyway....

Slug

 

[The Penguin]

>>> Apparently Leo Fender never bothered to lock his doors, because since the "60's and 70's" people have been helping themselves to his designs with impunity and have faced very little consequence. It's like the proverbial bag of money falling out of the back of a Brinks truck: You know it ain't yours, but since nobody saw you, you keep it anyway....

Slug

EDIT, found the post:

The Headstock is the only thing that Fender currently has protection. For this reason, I had designed our own. If I had to and they suddenly patented the body in all its shapes and forms, we would use our own BSR shape as we did with the Burners.

 

[slugworth]

I was going to post in response to this Ken's quote about how he's using the Fender body shape and if they ever come after him he'll switch to using his own BSR design but it seems he deleted that post. Maybe someone pointed out the irony to him? Either way he's threatening to delete this whole thread if it doesn't go his way so I don't want to waste too much time on this one.

>>>> I dig, Penguin...Y' know, I'd be interested in a Ken Smith Bass based on one of his original designs because they are truly superb instruments, IMHO, he doesn't need to be slogging it out in the clone arena, he's too talented for that.

Slug

 

[The Penguin]

Fender instruments have been copied since the late 60's and early 70's. The body shapes are more common ground than they are Fender's property.

Not Fender's property? By what mechanism would their design have been given to the people?

The Fender headstock is the only thing you can take legal action against in a case like this, I believe.

Then wouldn't that also apply to the Smith?

 

[The Penguin]

>>>> I dig, Penguin...Y' know, I'd be interested in a Ken Smith Bass based on one of his original designs because they are truly superb instruments, IMHO, he doesn't need to be slogging it out in the clone arena, he's too talented for that.

Slug

Ooh, you caught me before my edit, oh well.

I had a BSR5P for a while, very distinctive sound yet it sounded great with every band I played it in. It was a bit too flashy and "handmade" for me so I sold it though. Tonally I'd put it as one of my all time favorites.

 

[slugworth]

Dont buy rip offs. People spend time and money into designing models, opening shops, employing people to build basses, if you buy the cheap rip offs you're putting the real designers/builders/luthiers out of business. The music industry is already corrupt enough for musicians to screw real luthiers over. Let's try and keep a minimum of respect and honesty by not buying cheap illegal copies of instruments.

Mr. Smith this has probably already been done but I suggest you report that seller not only to eBay but to the proper authorities for using your designs (which hopefully are patented?) and maybe inform the other luthiers/companies whose designs hes ripped off.

I for one, will buy a Ken Smith when I have the money to, because theres no Ken Smith like a real Ken Smith

>>>>Let's try and keep a minimum of respect and honesty by not buying cheap illegal copies of instruments.

>>>>>But buying $4000 clones of 40 year old instruments designed by a dead man are OK, right? After all, people have been doing it for 30 years, and nothing has happened to them.

This I cannot accept.
Slug


Everybody's doing it, so it must be ok...

 

[slugworth]

One of the biggest disappointments about living in contemporary society, is how people make moral, business,and ethics decisions based solely upon legal consequences or lack thereof. I know I won't get caught, so should I cheat on my taxes, or my wife? I paid with a 10 dollar bill and got change for a $20, should I keep it? Getting my horn blown by my intern in the oval office techically isn't sex or illegal, so it's ok, right?

I'm off my bully pulpit...

Slug

 

[CROZ]

>>>>>But buying $4000 clones of 40 year old instruments designed by a dead man are OK, right? After all, people have been doing it for 30 years, and nothing has happened to them.

This I cannot accept.
Slug

I'm surprised you are so heated on this issue, Slugworth. After all, didn't you steal the secret recipes for several varieties of Willy Wonka's candy?

 

[The Penguin]

I'm surprised you are so heated on this issue, Slugworth. After all, didn't you steal the secret recipes for several varieties of Willy Wonka's candy?

Is this true! I'm shocked


Can I have some?

 

[slugworth]

Actually, I work for Wonka as a secret agent! The reason why Charlie got the keys to the factory is because HE GAVE BACK THE EVERLASTING GOBSTOPPER!!! So shines a good deed in a weary world... You guys need to watch the movie again! After all, there is a moral to the story, and in a weird way, it almost dovetails into this thread!
Slug

 

[CROZ]

Actually, I work for Wonka as a secret agent!

Yeah, it's been awhile since I seen that movie. It matters not, my mission was still accomplished. A little Levity can go a long way.

P.S. Slugworth was still totally creepy in that movie.

 

[Ian Perge]

Apparently Leo Fender never bothered to lock his doors, because since the "60's and 70's" people have been helping themselves to his designs with impunity and have faced very little consequence. It's like the proverbial bag of money falling out of the back of a Brinks truck: You know it ain't yours, but since nobody saw you, you keep it anyway....

Firstly, I simply wanted to point that that your car situation wasn't the best one for the discussion. But now that I have some thoughts.

But does Fender not have some responsibility for a) taking two years to file a patent, and b) not defend their intellectual property, especially during the CBS years when they had a major backing/owner to support such a suit.

It's a moot point, and I dare-say has been one since the late 70's. People can make their own individual choices as to their own morality/ethics of the situation. Defend your property or have it copied - Disney does so strongly and takes a bad rap for forcing Day Care centers to remove pictures of Mickey and the gang, but if they didn't they've open themselves up to copycats. The law is fairly simply, and the Gibson/PRS suit finally ruled in PRS' favor regarding their "Singlecut" model codified it even moreso.

Take me for example - my "dream bass" are Mike Lull Modern 5 fretted and fretless. Clearly these are "Jazz inspired", but has never been as cookie-cutter copy as some of the other J-basses even before the body style was changed somewhat recently. Yet ML also make more traditional Precision and Jazz models, specifically one more on the side on vintage (the V series), another closer to a modern bass with vintage stylings (the Modern Vintage series). Would I ever have the money I'd certainly like to have those in my "toolbox" as well. Yes, Fender makes models close to them, but there are features on the Lulls that Fender simply doesn't offer (35" scale, choice of pickups and electronics). Do I have any moral or ethical issues that keep me up at night concerning this? No - because the idea of me owning a stable of Mike Lull basses is a loooong way off, but mainly because Fender allowed this to happen... well before I was born, I might add. At the same time I applaud luthiers/companies that have recognized this in more modern times and have taken action - Spector and Warwick come to mind.

To sum the above up in one easy-to-read statement: "You snooze, you lose".

 

[Ian Perge]

Getting my horn blown by my intern in the oval office techically isn't sex or illegal, so it's ok, right?

Firstly, how many years will go by before we can let this go - certainly other thing have happened within the Presidency to make that time period laughably naive, but I'll end that there as the subject has little place in this thread or on this board.

Secondly, taking your example... it really does depend on your personal definition of "ok", or more precisely you own moral and ethical code. A close friend of mine and his significant other are in an open relationship, where both of them can see others and have physical relationships outside of theirs. Would it work for myself and my fiancee? Doubtful due to a variety of issues, but d be judge them negatively because of their choices? Not at all. It's their lives and choices, and them seem to be doing a good job at handling life just like everyone else.

I guess what it boils down to is that some people have a black and white sense of morality and ethics. Others have shades of grey. Are either correct? There are some on both sides that would say "yes", but I believe most would have a "live and let live" so long as no laws are broken. The same exact paradigm exists among this conversation.

 

[Rano Bass]

Just "live and let live", but in the process don't rip off shapes, headstocks, and/or names of instruments.