fretmeister

All of mine are 9lb max. My Ray 5 is lightest at 8.4lb id love something under 8lb!

That’s impressive for such a big instrument. Still far too much for my back, but still impressive.

I’ve got one too. I’m waiting for hernia surgery so it’s meant I can still play.

It’s not a loop hole. It’s the selling of 2 separate but compatible items.

Ha ha hahahahaha. Tw@t is corrected to Silly Billy! Ha hahahahahahahahaha!

silly billy

Did silly billy really get auto corrected to tat?

Yes. It is against the law. Second Defendant in a civil case is a possibility. (Unlikely in a criminal matter). Would only happen if seller refused to refund the buyer. BC is not the seller. A proper system of reporting and removal of offending items is likely to be a defence against a claim as a 2nd Defendant (basically as eBay do it) Indemnity clauses in the T&C for the classifieds mean you can recover any outlay from the individual seller.

Not at all. its a plea for removing all Limelight’s and everything with disclaimers or anyth7ng flagged with adequate proof. And updated rules to be agreed by every seller that what they are selling is legitimate AND that if discovered otherwise the seller will indemnify the buyer AND the owners of BC. And a rule that says - if the seller added the logo then they know it’s not legitimate (Fender do not sell logos at all, ever) and should not be listed.

Thing is, Trigger Broom types can be easy. Seller has a genuine Fender neck and a mighty might body. Selling them together is illegal. Unscrewing the neck and selling as “1 genuine neck and 1loaded body (PS they screw together well)” solves the issue. Difficult the other way round as the body forsnt doesn’t have the logo.

No. Why don’t you add up all the current listings of counterfeit items and express it as a percentage of the entire active listing. I bet it’s under 5%.

the forum owners are in a particularly difficult position on BC as opposed to many other sites. BC charges fees to sell here. That means they benefit. The BC owners would almost certainly be added as a Second Defendant in any civil court action. Seller as First Defendant, the forum owners being the second because they refused to police the sales, possibly refused to remove flagged posts (as per the post above) and earned some money from the listing. Any claimant would be wise to spread the net wide, and the joint owners of BC are likely to have more assets to enforce against between them rather than 1 seller. It doesn’t need FMIC to be upset, just 1 buyer.

Not true. An IP case for civil damages can only be done by FMIC. A criminal case for the criminal offences under the copyright and trademark laws does not need FMIC approval or even assistance. Civil and criminal elements of the legislation are different.

No it won’t. It’s a small percentage of the total sales. This approach is taken on the fretboard (largest EU & U.K. Guitar forum) and no one notices when it’s enforced. And it is enforced.

There is a victim. FMIC. Their intellectual property has been taken.

As actually proven above the item is illegal and buyer and seller being happy is irrelevant. Of course a happy buyer won’t sue (civil action) the seller... but if TD confiscate the item and burn it, then buyer will sue if seller won’t refund. Won’t be happy then. As for there not being an issue if they are happy... I refer you to my first post in the thread. Your opinion on the law does not change the validity or applicability of the law. You not liking the law does not change the illegal nature of the action. The action is still an offence whether you should think it should be or not. The law, the courts, the judges, the Trading Standards etc interpretation of the law is entirely unaffected by your opinion of that law. in a nutshell. It is illegal. Your view doesn’t matter. If you want to change the law lobby your MP. Until that time the law should be upheld.

How did the weight turn up? id love one of his jazz types for my poor old back!

Duped is irrelevant. The item is illegal. It is clearly laid out in the link I posted. here it is again. Just to save you time look8ing for it. i say the law should be upheld. Why don’t you?

So you are arguing an action isn’t illegal because they are not in trouble? pinching a kitkat is still theft even if you get away with it! No no it’s not heroin. It’s copyright and trademark offences. Still against the law. Still illegal. less important than heroin? Maybe. Depends on priorities. That’s the old jurisprudence argument - what is worse? Murder or tax evasion? Murder affects a small group of people intensely. Tax evasion affects everybody a little bit. Plenty of research on that. the fact that you like to move goalposts and claim the offence is not important to you does not mean the action is now lawful. It isn’t. the fact that I don’t care if Mr Blogs in Swansea won’t wear a crash helmet does not mean my indifference makes his offence suddenly legal.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala does not change the fact that clear details / disclaimers about the product DOES NOT change the illegal nature of the product. ”I am being honest about the heroin I’m selling” Plenty of honesty there. The product is still illegal. That’s really how simple it is. It’s just that the penalties for breaking the law are somewhat different. the scale of the crime, whether a single bass or a factory full does not change the offence, it only changes the aggravating factors for sentencing. Stealing a kitkat gets you a caution. Stealing a cargo unit full gets you prison. Both are still theft. Punching someone once gets you community service. Punching them 10 Times gets you prison. Both still assault.

Yes. But if you read the law itself you’d see that the disclaimer use does not render an illegal item legal Consider the reverse. If Bill buys a bass he thinks is a genuine Fender and sells it on... all good. If Pete buys it and discovers the bass was not a Fender then Bill has to refund Pete... even if Trading Standards get involved and confiscate and destroy the bass. Bill has to go back to where he bought it from. Selling with criminal intent to deceive leads to criminal liability to the seller. Selling without does not BUT the item remains illegal and can be confiscated and destroyed. Each person in the chain gets their money back from the last. Caveat Emptor is massively reduced in counterfeit cases as the item is illegal.

Read the post immediately above.

Jimothey here you go, just 1 example “it is illegal to apply someone’s trademark... etc etc” And ”the law applying to disclaimers...does not apply to trade mark and copyright legislation. In essence COUNTERFEIT items cannot legitimately be sold” its up to the indiviuals whether to follow the law or not. But they don’t get to moan if they get prosecuted.

Rubbish. you can look all my info up on the various Trading Standards websites.

The Limelight (or indeed any non Fender with a Fender logo bass) is a deliberate sale of a counterfeit item. Disclaimers don’t make an illegal item legal. No one is suggesting the seller of the bass in the classifieds is telling porkies. He is being honest. The problem is that he is being honest about a counterfeit item! If that doesn’t show exactly why the law is as it is - that the next owner might not be honest- then I don’t know what does.