SX Stingray

[pilotjones]

Rondo doesnt expect to see them again. Im glad I got mine when I did. I should have bought the 5 stringer also.

Yeah, while the basses' pages are still there, they are no longer referenced from the "basses" page.

Gosh, I wonder what could have happened.

Sarcasm, or hint of inside knowledge?

 

[bovinehost]

Sarcasm, or hint of inside knowledge?

Um, the answer is "yes".

Really, if you were the Music Man legal team, do you think you might give these guys a call?

I think I would.

 

[pilotjones]

Oh, I would too. And a phone call from counsel might be enough to have an effect.

 

[toad]

thank God they righted that wrong. Bass builders copying other's designs, how unimaginable ...

 

[patrickj]

Um, the answer is "yes".

Really, if you were the Music Man legal team, do you think you might give these guys a call?

I think I would.

Seriously, give it a ****ing rest.

They're gone. I don't know why. I'm pretty sure you don't either; EBMM sales monkeys are rarely part of EBMM legal teams. But either way you've won so stop being an asshat.

Personally, your constant harping on this bass and its few supporters is making me that much less inclined to ever own or play an actual EBMM - simply because of association.

Harsh, left field, flame, I don't care. I've had a bad day and you personally made it a tiny bit worse.

 

[fttfbass]

I'm glad I got mine when I did!

 

[bovinehost]

Seriously, give it a ****ing rest.

They're gone. I don't know why. I'm pretty sure you don't either; EBMM sales monkeys are rarely part of EBMM legal teams. But either way you've won so stop being an asshat.

They're gone and I DO know why, frankly. But I don't see it as being an asshat. I see it as these people stole something, and that is just about as basic as it gets. So you're either in favor of thievery or you're not, and I know how I would feel about someone breaking into my house and stealing my basses. I mean, it's either okay to steal your stuff or it isn't.

Personally, your constant harping on this bass and its few supporters is making me that much less inclined to ever own or play an actual EBMM - simply because of association.

Good. Go buy something else, because the Ernie Ball Music Man family is just that - family. We'll survive without you, somehow. But I must say, my 'constant harping' still boils down to this - it's either okay to break into your house and steal your belongings or it is NOT. So what do you have? I'm assuming it's fine if I take it. Family photos? Beloved hand-me-downs from the grandparents? You don't mind, don't you?

Harsh, left field, flame, I don't care. I've had a bad day and you personally made it a tiny bit worse.

My intent was never to make anyone's day worse. I just want you to understand that Ernie Ball wasn't just a name - he was a man, and he had a wife and kids and a life and he was a real person, not just some industry icon.

Your bad day will never change that.

So I consider at least one of his sons to be a really good friend of mine. I love the guy, frankly. I have a relationship with him, his kids, his wife, his employees. You have a friend like that? Almost everyone does.

So you're just going to have to forgive me if I defend him.

He's a good guy and he cares about the bass playing community and he cares about instruments. Now that's a good thing, isn't it? Does Rondo or SX or whoever it is have the same commitment, or are they in it for the money?

Make up your own mind, but I think I know the answer.

Jack

 

[12bass]

They're gone and I DO know why, frankly. But I don't see it as being an asshat. I see it as these people stole something, and that is just about as basic as it gets. So you're either in favor of thievery or you're not, and I know how I would feel about someone breaking into my house and stealing my basses. I mean, it's either okay to steal your stuff or it isn't.

Good. Go buy something else, because the Ernie Ball Music Man family is just that - family. We'll survive without you, somehow. But I must say, my 'constant harping' still boils down to this - it's either okay to break into your house and steal your belongings or it is NOT. So what do you have? I'm assuming it's fine if I take it. Family photos? Beloved hand-me-downs from the grandparents? You don't mind, don't you?

Bad analogy.

What tangible physical thing exactly did these people steal? The fact is that there clearly isn't any physical thing here that has been stolen, unlike your poor attempts to make an analogy. The cases you bring up as an example all involve common theft, or the removal of an item from someone's possession.

There is nothing of the sort happening here.

No one is having their house broken into.

No one is having items removed from their possession.

There may be a case involving the matter of intellectual property rights, but that's not at all the same as common theft. Intellectual property rights issues are more complicated than the black and white moralizing presented above.

 

[pilotjones]

What tangible physical thing exactly did these people steal? The fact is that there clearly isn't any physical thing here that has been stolen...

There may be a case involving the matter of intellectual property rights, but that's not at all the same as common theft. Intellectual property rights issues are more complicated than the black and white moralizing presented above.

Theft of intellectual property is indeed different from common theft. Indeed it usually is less black-and-white, but it is no less a crime. It may in fact be considered more of a crime than simple theft.

Often difficulty lies in determining exactly what is protected by a trademark--I myself have some (doubts, reservations, or at least questions) about what EBMM owns the rights to in this case--but I respect the process of law in determining those issues. Without government protection of intellectual property rights, America (and other countries of course) would not have developed industry and technology into the world we have today. We'd be living and working by candlelight, in wood-framed structures of no more than three floors, and dying of diseases that no longer are a threat or no longer exist.

That may seem a bit high-minded, but the concrete application is this: if companies, including EBMM, are not protected in their rights to produce a product unique to themselves, then they no longer have either the motivation or the profitability to produce the product, and the product is no longer produced.

 

[joeyl]

so how about posting pics of SX stingrays in action. And remember: copying is the biggest form of admiration

 

[fttfbass]

so how about posting pics of SX stingrays in action. And remember: copying is the biggest form of admiration

I will as soon as I get some photos taken at next practice.

 

[bovinehost]

Intellectual property rights issues are more complicated than the black and white moralizing presented above.

No kidding? Gosh, you must be really smart.

Don't worry, I get the difference in a legal sense.

Morally - and viscerally - theft is still theft.

To me, that is.

 

[RoVaughn]

If they ever bring back those blasted SX Stingray Copies we should host a rally outside of Rondo music......That'll teach em!

 

[jondog]

They're gone and I DO know why, frankly. Jack

Can you tell us?

Did they also call Jay Turser, and ask for five years (more?) of payback? SX is much smaller than Turser and the MM copy just came out. Turser's has been out for years.

FWIW, Rondo *is* a family company that does seem to care about musicians. I've always had positive interactions with them. Everybody is in business for money, some businesspeople are nicer than others. I have no idea how family oriented Team International (SX parent co.) is, but in general Asian businesses are known for their group/family oriented approach to management, so odds are yes Mr. SX has relatives and friends just like Mr. Ball.

Intellectual property is not being stolen here -- bass design principles are common knowledge. If anything is being stolen, it is what is called "trade dress," which is the distinctive look of your product that you've designed and then spent $ associating w/ your name brand. This is precisely what is licensed to OLP. Now, go through your stuff and see how many things you own resemble the trade dress of a better known product. Is your fridge a Frigidaire? Does it look like one? What about your stove? Do all of those appliance manufacturers owe Edison (or whoever invented it) or fear a call from his legal team? I don't think so. In fashion, trade dress law only seems to bar 100% direct copies (like the fake LV branded purses they sell on the street). You can go to K-Mart and buy a bag that looks a *lot* like the LV, and as long as it doesn't say LV on it it's legal.

US law has to find a balance between protecting original ideas and enabling the competition that drives a capitalist economy. To my limited knowledge, Chinese law (governing SX mfr.) is not concerned about original ideas. They are such an old culture (3000 years vs. our 250?) that they know that *every* idea builds on and tweaks previous ideas. If you want to make something good, don't reinvent the wheel, copy and refine the best.

Arguing right and wrong across cultures is a tricky job. IMO, competition is usually good for the consumer (me), so I'm in favor of copy basses. How many *million* Fender copies are out there? Have they ruined the bass manufacturing industry? No, they've made it a competitive field and anybody who wants to sell basses has to either offer features nobody else sells (innovation) or offer the best price for features other people do sell.

I'll gig my SXMM5 tonight and try to get some pix.

 

[bovinehost]

If you want to make something good, don't reinvent the wheel, copy and refine the best.

I wouldn't argue with that. I might argue that there is a difference between what Dan Lakin does, for example, and what Asian knockoffs do.

Copy? Yes? Refine? Um.....you tell me.

Jack

 

[Smallequestrian]

IANAL, but many of you are failing to understand some basic principles of Intellectual property.

A) its not the fact that Rondo made a bass that looks like a Stingray with the "similar" electronics. As stated before many companies have tried that. The part that EB has trademarked is the 3+1 headstock. If Rondo had made a Stingray copy similar to that of Jay Turser's, they could probably still be making them.

B) If you do not actively protect your trademarks, you actually lose the ability to enforce it. This is a key to intellectual property. This also is supposed to prevent a company from patenting/trademarking/copywrighting something, letting another compmany make something for 5 years and then saying, "oh, we own that so you owe us all your profits and you must close now"

You may not like it, but its the system that we live under.

 

[zachbass02]

No kidding? Gosh, you must be really smart.

Don't worry, I get the difference in a legal sense.

Morally - and viscerally - theft is still theft.

To me, that is.

So are we going to start suing every pop artist that puts out a song with chorus progression of 1-5-6-4 for copyright infringement? Man, who knows who started that one. If it was before U2, they're screwed with back payment. As pointed out by others, what about the other blatent MM ripoffs that exist? They've been around for years, but one that suddenly has some sort of following is targetted? It would seem if you're going to go after one, shut them all down.

 

[Smallequestrian]

So are we going to start suing every pop artist that puts out a song with chorus progression of 1-5-6-4 for copyright infringement? Man, who knows who started that one. If it was before U2, they're screwed with back payment. As pointed out by others, what about the other blatent MM ripoffs that exist? They've been around for years, but one that suddenly has some sort of following is targetted? It would seem if you're going to go after one, shut them all down.

ARRRRRRRRRRRGGHHHH!

If god forbid somebody had to managed to copyright 1-5-6-4, we would all be screwed. However there are limits to what can be copyrighted. We may not always agree on what should be copyrighted, and at some point the whole IP law is going to have to be completely revised, but under the current laws, its EB's right and duty to make sure they do what they can to protect their trademarks.

 

[bovinehost]

IANAL, but many of you are failing to understand some basic principles of Intellectual property.

A) its not the fact that Rondo made a bass that looks like a Stingray with the "similar" electronics. As stated before many companies have tried that. The part that EB has trademarked is the 3+1 headstock. If Rondo had made a Stingray copy similar to that of Jay Turser's, they could probably still be making them.

B) If you do not actively protect your trademarks, you actually lose the ability to enforce it. This is a key to intellectual property. This also is supposed to prevent a company from patenting/trademarking/copywrighting something, letting another compmany make something for 5 years and then saying, "oh, we own that so you owe us all your profits and you must close now"

You may not like it, but its the system that we live under.

See the nail? See the very top of the nail? That is the part that is called the "head".

See Mr Equestrian with his hammer? Look how firmly he is striking that part of the nail!

Don't ask me about patents, trademarks or copyrights for I do not know. I am but a sales monkey, but I have a fairly reliable internal compass and I know when I do the right thing and I know when I do the wrong thing.

Sometimes I can even recognize when other people do it, too.

 

[jondog]

A) its not the fact that Rondo made a bass that looks like a Stingray with the "similar" electronics. As stated before many companies have tried that. The part that EB has trademarked is the 3+1 headstock. If Rondo had made a Stingray copy similar to that of Jay Turser's, they could probably still be making them.
.

Yes, but the disclaimer on the guitar patent says only the headstock "shape" is protected, and the SX shape is clearly different than the MM. I prefer the MM. The SX hook is doofy, but I'll forgive it because I like the rest of my bass.

I'm pretty sure there are other mfr.s using 3+1 and 4+2 (guitar) tuner configurations. Can anybody name them? I think I remember a 3+1 Epiphone. Do these basses upset the MM defenders? We've pretty much established that nothing else, not the body, not the pg shape, not the electronics, not the neck dots, is protected. Right? Call Epiphone right away, those trade dress violations are harming EBMM sales!