Ritter Jupiter Copy!

[Bassic83]

I find it ironic and very amusing that one of the most vocal opponents of copies is is one who copies Fender designs as well.

And who might THAT be?

 

[Smallequestrian]

It amazes me (maybe it shouldn't) how people still don't understand the reasons behind the abundance of Fender copies and the differences between making a J bass copy and a Ken Smith Copy.

Whether you think it is morally its right or wrong, there is a huge legal difference between a KSD J bass copy and a Ken Smith copy.

 

[Eric Perry]

And who might THAT be?

 

[Bassic83]

LOL!!!

 

[Dragonlord]

That's my feeling as well.

I find it ironic and very amusing that one of the most vocal opponents of copies is is one who copies Fender designs as well.

It's actually hilarious

 

[Elionjamz]

It's actually hilarious

+ 1, I also think the Ritter (and it's copy) are staight up ugly anyways! Was that made for Prince? Who cares if someone bit the design! The most coveted basses on this sight are typically bites of a fender (Sadowsky basses for example). No one cares about that. Seems like this is a waste of a thread.....

 

[Planet Boulder]

I'd be embarrassed to be seen playing that thing. Anyone who knows anything about Ritter would know what a sorry excuse for a copy that thing is.

I can only imagine the "quality" of that bass.

 

[DWBass]

Ken Smith doesn't work for KSD! They pay him to use his name only to sell basses! He doesn't build them and he said so himself! There are no Jazz bodied basses on his website. Secondly, the guy he had a problem with labled his bodies as Ken Smiths! He didn't have a problem with the guy selling them but in trying to pass them off as genuine Ken Smith bodies.

 

[GobBass]

i remember reporting on this just before xmas.

 

[Jiggybass]

No matter what, it still looks just plain ugly, no offence, all opinion here.


Though, It does look a little different all around. It's close, but yet different.


Although, "Unique body design" ya, Bull****

 

[labgnat]

a bass is a bass cut the shape of it how you please.
so are people here pissed off at payless shoes for designing shoes to look similar to high priced named brand shoes? i know i don't care. speak with your wallet, if you want the expensive ritter then get it, if you want this other guys bass then get it. i seriously down payless shoe source is cutting into nike's business too much. and if it is oh well, are you haters against capitalism?

 

[Lord Henry]

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I love Ritter basses and, as this is not being sold as a Ritter (ie. a fake) I can see it as a testament to his design skills in the same way that I see that fact that every johnny-come-lately to the cheap bass market tends to use Leo F's 50-year-old-but-still-great designs.

On the flip side I think it's a bit sad. Whoever or wherever made that bass clearly knows how to work a piece of wood (I'm not saying that they are good basses, just that they appear well carved). It seems a shame to me that there is clearly more money in 'ripping off' an existing design than making original shaped basses or even body and neck blanks. It does seem to suggest that we, both as bassists and as people, are very hooked on going with what we know.

It's not just in basses. I have some trouble telling a Jag from a Merc from a BMW from a Lexus. It seems to be that it is safer (by which I mean more profitable because more people will buy it) to redo what has been done before than to try something new. That can't be a good thing, surely.

Sorry, wandering rant over.

Cheers

 

[yellofury]

man that tile floor looks just like the Fastsale123 seller
that sells the Steinberg knockoffs for cheap
Link Removed

well atleast it doesnt have the string through body like a true Ritter
and the controls are on the front
kinda like when a guy puts a BMW grille on a Honda Accord

 

[embellisher]

I wonder if it has 10 bolts securing the neck to the body?

 

[MobileHolmes]

The difference in that case, IIRC, was that the copies were being advertised as Ken Smiths. Nowhere in that eBay ad is that referred to as a Ritter, and unless Ritter has specifically copyrighted his body shapes I doubt he has much recourse. I don't really see the difference between this and the ubiquitous Fender clones we see all the time?

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I seem to recall that you can copyright a headstock shape but not a body shape.

 

[emils]

Ah, get over it, it's a cheap copy that no one is going to mistake for a Ritter.
What annoys me more is when a reputable builder puts their name on a cheap Asian made guitar and sells the "NAME" for more then its worth.

 

[The Penguin]

As far as "ugly" and "unique body shape" ... can't touch this !

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...tToStoreCat&refwidgettype=cross_promot_widget

A pelvis?

 

[Eric Perry]

What annoys me more is when a reputable builder puts their name on a cheap Asian made guitar and sells the "NAME" for more then its worth.

I do agree.

 

[Eric Perry]

A pelvis?

LMAO!

 

[Bassic83]

man that tile floor looks just like the Fastsale123 seller
that sells the Steinberg knockoffs for cheap
Link Removed

Same guy. Telephone number is the same.