prowla

I think so too, it's more of a comment about the practicalities of pushing things that far vs. a criticism of the chap playing it!

Here's another which shows its capabilities. There's a few fluffs in there, so it might be a step too far! 🙂

The 12-step's buttons can be programmed. This is from their site.

You're 'avin a giraffe!

It's a tech company. (And yes, there's a slide and ping pong tables!)

It turns out that the friendly face and "do your thing" approach is a facade; I had a bit of a frank meeting on Friday and am now wondering if going there was a mistake.

Some folks shoot nerf guns at each other most of the day and someone else was playing with toy drones today.

Well, a couple of the folks at work got of a stressful phone call (due to an issue not of our doing). A colleague keeps a guitar in the office, so I wandered over, tuned it to DADGAD and started playing Kashmir. One of the people said oh yes, it reminded him of Godzilla and the other started singing along and doing the drumming. De-stressed, nice!!!

I agree - it makes it seem unsuitable.

There is an optional USB-MIDI add-on for the 12-step.

I suppose at least it hasn't had a Fender logo put on it.

I saw a JV bass for £950 on the weekend - apparently they're much sought after. To me, they're a Squier.

One of the folks on the Rickenfakers FB group...

Who knows, eh... It could be a quiet day and they could decide to have a clamp down on counterfeit goods.

It's all part of the service, sir! :-)

And felicitations back to my learned friend! The the first item there mentions unregistered trademarks, which does not apply in this case, as the Fender logo and Stratocaster name are registered trademarks. The fact that there are guidelines for how the owners of a trademark may pursue civil remedy does not alter the fact that the item is in itself illegal. The criminal offences mentioned there do not contradict the preceding law. As I mentioned earlier, the likelihood of an individual being taken to court for illegal use of a trademark is probably vanishingly low, but the entity in question in the OP appears to be a repeatable business.

To clarify on 3, the law does not state that it's OK if you say it's a fake. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-offences/intellectual-property-offences 1.1 Unauthorised use of a trade mark Offence Section Sentence Indictment (1) A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor - (a) applies to goods of their packaging a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or (b) sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire or distributed goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, such a sign, or (c) has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such goods with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b) 92(1) 6 months and/or a £5,000 fine. 10 years and/or a fine. (2) A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor - (a) applies a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered a trade mark to material intended to be used - (i) for labelling or packaging goods, (ii) as a business paper in relation to goods, or (iii) for advertising goods, or (b) uses in the course of a business material bearing such a sign for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods, or for advertising goods, or (c) has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such material with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b) 92(2) 6 months and/or a £5,000 fine. 10 years and/or a fine. 3) A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor - (a) makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or (b) has such an article in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business, Knowing or having reason to believe that is has been, or is to be, used to produce goods, or material for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods, or for advertising goods 92(3) 6 months and/or a £5,000 fine. 10 years and/or a fine.

1. Correct. 2. Correct. 3. Incorrect - unauthorised sale of an item bearing a registered trademark is illegal. 4. Correct.

Funnily enough, I was only yesterday thinking about a Flyte.

Illegal as in against the law. There have been threads where the information/links have been posted. As to whether the matter would be pursued, it is questionable whether it would be done for Joe Bloggs selling the old bass he's had in his loft for the past 10 years, but for a business selling multiple ones it could be only a matter of time before they get a knock on the door (or at least a cease & desist notice). A Rickenfaker sporting a Rickenbacker logo on its TRC is also illegal. The current Ric copies with the trademark headstock also infringe RIC's registered EU trademarks and are illegal. The 70s/80s Ric copies which were made before RIC registered the headstock trademark could not infringe it because it didn't exist when they were made. (A moot point would be putting a genuine Rickenbacker TRC onto a 'faker.)