Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

speaking of lawsuit basses...

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by adept_inept, Feb 11, 2006.


  1. adept_inept

    adept_inept

    Jan 9, 2006
    how come all of the "beatles basses" out there aren't sued by hofner. i mean seriously, rogue, jay turner, aria... they all make/have made direct copies of these basses (although they don't capture any of the tone, just the look) and i don't think thats very legal, unless they have permission?
     
  2. the epi and rogue i've heard captures the tone really well. if they did sue the companies, i'd be pissed. hofners cost way too much and they should give people who dont have a ridiculous budget a chance to get that famous beatles tone.
     
  3. The original Hofners ('60s) were an inexpensive bass and after the initial Beatles craze subsided were not a big seller at all. Now with the retro craze, and more players wanting them, the price is sky high! Go figure.
     
  4. ERIC31

    ERIC31

    Jul 1, 2002
    Maricopa, AZ
    Speaking of knockoffs...why aren't there any Rickenbacker knockoffs?? I've wanted to get one but they are just way too expensive. Not even in my budget and lots of others I'm sure.
     
  5. One would assume-no patent/tm no protection?
     
  6. Woodchuck

    Woodchuck

    Apr 21, 2000
    Atlanta / Macon (sigh)
    Gallien Krueger for the last 12 years!

    There are a crapload of 'em on the 'net. The cheapest I've seen a Ric rip was about $700. As for current Ric copies, I guess the folks at Rickenbacker really protect their design.
    Jim T: I agree.
     
  7. Ric trademarked (is that the term?) everything abuot their basses. Making a Ric knockoff means a guaranteed lawsuit
     
  8. Dbassmon

    Dbassmon

    Oct 2, 2004
    Rutherford, NJ
    One would have to assume that everyone of those companies that make Beatle bass copies is paying a royalty to Hofner Instruments. Don't know for sure but that company has been around way too long to have survived without the business acumen to protect their designs and intellectual property. My guess is that Hofner creates additional revenue streams by licensing agreements with other manufacterers who build inexpensive copies and pay a royalty to Hofner.
     
  9. ScoobyGoo

    ScoobyGoo

    Feb 10, 2006
    I think its ridiculously f'd up that the reason Paul bought that bass in the first place was because of its cheap price and he couldn't afford anything better, and now they sell them like they're Original 1960 Les Paul's or something..it's so sad what people will do to get something on a headstock..

    One day some poor chap is going to get famous with a Squier Affinity and those babies will become $3000 in a few decades..
     
  10. BurningSkies

    BurningSkies CRAZY BALDHEAD

    Feb 20, 2005
    Seweracuse, NY
    One would have to assume that the Hoffner wasn't a copy of a Gibson.
     
  11. I thought the hofner was a copy of the epiphone?!
     
  12. BurningSkies

    BurningSkies CRAZY BALDHEAD

    Feb 20, 2005
    Seweracuse, NY

    The original Gibson EB-1 was introduced in 1953 IIRC.
     
  13. Thornton Davis

    Thornton Davis Supporting Member

    Dec 11, 1999
    Toronto
    You are correct. The Hofner 500/1 was actually Hofner's version of Gibson's EB (electric bass). Hofner's version was introduced in 1956.

    Neither Gibson or Hofner registered their designs as trade marks of their companies. Which means anyone can copy their designs and not pay a royalty fee. Rickenbacker did register all of their designs to protect themselves against any kind of inexpensive poorly made copies of their instruments being made. Many of which are often passed off as real Rickenbacker's to unsuspecting buyers.

    That's the reason why Rickenbacker will not sell a truss rod cover unless the old one is returned. They don't want original RIC parts being put onto cheap copies.

    TD