Openly supporting companies that make a mockery of the purpose of IP law (LIMITED time government enforced monopoly purely in existence to benefit society by avoiding trade secrets) like Fender and Disney isn't all that cool either.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Fender Decals On Non-Fender Basses
- Thread starter JAUQO III-X
- Start date
- Status
Openly supporting companies that make a mockery of the purpose of IP law (LIMITED time government enforced monopoly purely in existence to benefit society by avoiding trade secrets) like Fender and Disney isn't all that cool either.
I take issue with the posour lablel, because mine is on a bass that no one sees, or sees me play, so I ain't posing...but....
I am starting to see it as a "cheesball" thing to have done, and I like blank headstocks fine. With so much hatred towards the decal, I may just remove it because now, I am starting to see it as taking away from what is otherwise a great bass.
Wait, so if noone else sees it, you really care that much to put a decal on a non fender bass?
As I said earlier, I take much more pride in putting MY name on something I had custom made for myself.
There are a couple guys on ebay who makes custom headstock logos with different font depending on what you want.
You could even have a 00000001 serial number put under your Name (done in fender cursive if u like) or whatever else.
Aborgman has the best point yet. Too bad smcd will just ignore it like everything else that doesn't enforce his opinion.
Yes.
...and several Disney movies also.
You don't see me carrying water for their IP policies though.
Funny SMCD, you seem to be completely avoiding the comments I made about the most valuable part of a Fender is it's logo...... Anybody can simply disagree, it takes intelligence though to actually put forth a compelling argument. Squire is Fender, roll your eyes if you like but you obviously don't have any valid points to counter that.
Fender makes the same products it made 50 years ago, the only thing they really trade in anymore is the logo, the guitars themselves seem to be nothing more than the packaging......
IP law.... Well, that is not doing any good for society, it protects the profits of the few over the betterment of the many, pretty backwards way to serve society if you ask me. Who cares if there are trade secrets? Trade secrets should be what protects your monopoly, not government enforcement. If I can make a product why shouldn't I be allowed to do so and profit from it? Ideas? everyone gets them, some have ideas that are exactly the same as others. Some see others ideas and can instantly improve them. Why do we protect profit for someone who ran and paid the govermnent?
I see no reason whatsoever to follow the copyrights of Disney for instance, he's dead. Why should a group of guys that had as much involvment in the creation of Mickey Mouse as I did get a protected monopoly on any of it?
Morals? Ethics? those things have nothing to do with any of this. It's all about greed. IP law isn't moral or ethical at all, it is about showing preferance to a small few over the benifits that would be good for society.
-eSmith.
Fender makes the same products it made 50 years ago, the only thing they really trade in anymore is the logo, the guitars themselves seem to be nothing more than the packaging......
IP law.... Well, that is not doing any good for society, it protects the profits of the few over the betterment of the many, pretty backwards way to serve society if you ask me. Who cares if there are trade secrets? Trade secrets should be what protects your monopoly, not government enforcement. If I can make a product why shouldn't I be allowed to do so and profit from it? Ideas? everyone gets them, some have ideas that are exactly the same as others. Some see others ideas and can instantly improve them. Why do we protect profit for someone who ran and paid the govermnent?
I see no reason whatsoever to follow the copyrights of Disney for instance, he's dead. Why should a group of guys that had as much involvment in the creation of Mickey Mouse as I did get a protected monopoly on any of it?
Morals? Ethics? those things have nothing to do with any of this. It's all about greed. IP law isn't moral or ethical at all, it is about showing preferance to a small few over the benifits that would be good for society.
-eSmith.
ROFLMAO! Maybe it's just me but I think C.Linton was pointing out your misspelling of Squier.
-----------------
Ooops... too late. Took too long getting the quotes right.
You got nothing either hey Gort......
Try actually saying something to counter what I said, we all know you don't agree, you just haven't given a valid reason why.
C.Linton, I hear you, it's all good!
-eSmith.
Try actually saying something to counter what I said, we all know you don't agree, you just haven't given a valid reason why.
C.Linton, I hear you, it's all good!
-eSmith.
As I've said a few times already, I made the Fender logo myself. Since I can do it myself, I don't need to go looking for guys on the bay to make a custom one, ...if I choose to put a dif logo on there...it will probably just go badge-less. Not a big deal either way, since this bass would have to move up a few notches in rank to even make "back-up"(it's fretless, and my fretless playing leaves alot to be desired)
I did ultimately put a Fender logo on it because I spent so much time trying to get it "just right"(pride in counterfeiting?
)...but I had also played with my own design, but that felt/looked cheesy too. I had also played with the Ferden logo, and it's similar versions, but they didn't seem right either.Now that I've gotten this feeling of "cheesyness" about my Fender logo, I can just leave it blank. I have a Mighty Mite neck on another bass that I like just fine without a logo, & it doesn't bother me at all.
Used as it should be it's very useful for dissemination of knowledge in society and improving the state of the art.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Absolutly he was. Has anyone considered that I might not give a crap? Other than I get a more amusing reaction when I spell it one way over the other.
And in EVERY case, everyone knows exactly what I am referring to so although I may not have satisified everyone on an Aesthetic level, I have surly satisfied the far more important criteria of communication which is the only real purpose of the written language. If I get the ideas out of my head and into yours communication was successful regardless of the spelling of it all.
-eSmith.
scotch
It's not rocket science!
- Nov 12, 2006
- 6,944
- 2,081
- 51
- Disclosures
- Please see Profile for Endorsement disclosures
You see those giant pics of cars up there? Here's a tip: they are not actually what they say, they are recreations.
How about you say something about it rather than ignore it?
this just made me love Stuart Spector even more...i have never owned one of his basses, but with the release of the coda i have been leaning strongly towards purchasing a 4 and 5 string...and i think now that i see his concern for this brand and his company i will absolutely be on the spector band wagon soon...
- Status
