NOTICE FOR OWNERS OF RICKENBACKER COPIES

[karlfer]

[quote name='Stacker' timestamp='1334131677' post='1611175']
1 Rick down, 3 to go. Will never have one in this house again.
[/quote]

Should have hocked one for my Bergs .
Right, I really must calm down and get some work done

[Stacker]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1334131763' post='1611177']
I love the uninformed reaction to this sort of thing.



Personally, I am more amazed at the sadly expected forum reaction. Try changing position on it. If you had a product that you researched, bought to market and sold, building up a global reputation wouldn't you protect it?
[/quote]

HAve you every been insulted by Mr Hall or his acolytes? I have, just for asking pertinent questions. He recently did so again to a BC forumite. That's my main stance on getting rid of my Ricks; I've just had enough. Furthermore, I have NO problem with a company protecting its rights; it's just the ham-fisted way RIC goes about it that pisses me off.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Stacker

[simon1964]

[quote name='mrdreadful' timestamp='1334130933' post='1611163']
If RIC stopped being so precious about their 'hand made American' basses and introduced a decent, mass-produced budget line that bore the 'sacred' Rickenbacker name they would make an absolute killing and take away a lot of the reason why newer copies exist.
[/quote]

On the other hand, they would also water down the perceived exclusivity of their product. Arguably, that's exactly what Warwick have done with their Rockbass line.

I'm not particularly defending Rickenbacker, but they do have a unique niche / marketing strategy, and I can see where they're coming from in protecting that as aggresively as they do.

Its also interesting to compare Rickenbacker copy threads, with the regular threads on here bashing Behringer for producing cheap Boss rip-offs...

[Wil]

I can understand going after retailers of new copies, but chasing private sales of old copies is absolutely ridiculous.

Fender and Gibson dont do this as far as I know, so why do RIC?

[fretmeister]

[quote name='Stacker' timestamp='1334132207' post='1611195']
HAve you every been insulted by Mr Hall or his acolytes? I have, just for asking pertinent questions. He recently did so again to a BC forumite. That's my main stance on getting rid of my Ricks; I've just had enough. Furthermore, I have NO problem with a company protecting its rights; it's just the ham-fisted way RIC goes about it that pisses me off.
[/quote]


That wasn't exactly even hinted at in your earlier post.

I have no problem with that at all - Larry Dimarzio offended me once so I took all his pickups out of my guitars!

[Stacker]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1334133052' post='1611209']
That wasn't exactly even hinted at in your earlier post.

I have no problem with that at all - Larry Dimarzio offended me once so I took all his pickups out of my guitars!
[/quote]

Which post? Anyway, as long as I appear to have made a valid reason for my outburst, and not just a gung-ho reaction to JH's stance. Thanks.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Stacker

[mrdreadful]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1334132581' post='1611201']
On the other hand, they would also water down the perceived exclusivity of their product.
[/quote]

The thing is though, the existing product would still be exclusive... call the budget line "Hallisanob by Rickenbacker" or something, make some minor cosmetic changes (no neck binding, for example) suddenly it's not a 'proper' Rick and people will still pay top dollar for the 'proper' ones, because that kind of thing actually matters to people. Gibson have demonstrated that it's possible to make reasonable sub-£500 instruments in the US (albeit ones with the usual Gibson QC problems but that's not the point) so it's not like they even have to outsource manufacturing to the Far Eastern factories John Hall despises so much because how [i]dare[/i] they have different cultures and laws to America?

[Gust0o]

Careful Kiwi, you'll be being extradited in no time - it'll be solitary confinement in some dusty super-max!

Or, more likely, he hasn't got a f***ing hope. It's a private sale listing of an instrument that you did not manufacture, in another country. See Monckyman's response. It's the typical American litigation model, of issuing threats and being the last one to blink.

I can understand the need to protect intellectual and material copyrights, for something you have invested heavily in - but I would suggest that this kind of action, on such a level, is counterproductive. Such a private sale would have zero impact on Rickenbacker sales - but the associated press certainly will. In a bid to stop a single sale, he has produced negative responses from a dozen members or more - people who are active purchasers; and have the ability to pass that negative response on to others.

We've said before, but the Rickenbacker brand is out of all proportion to the energy and ambition of the company. They have this incredible, iconic product; and they have no idea how to sell it. Since someone from Rickenbacker is reading this forum, my consulting rate will be £2000-a-day to tell you how to do it

Pull the sale thread out or respect or courtesy; but don't pull it simply because John Hall is telling you to do so [i]or else[/i]. It's laughable.

[simon1964]

[quote name='mrdreadful' timestamp='1334133918' post='1611223']
The thing is though, the existing product would still be exclusive... call the budget line "Hallisanob by Rickenbacker" or something, make some minor cosmetic changes (no neck binding, for example) suddenly it's not a 'proper' Rick and people will still pay top dollar for the 'proper' ones, because that kind of thing actually matters to people. Gibson have demonstrated that it's possible to make reasonable sub-£500 instruments in the US (albeit ones with the usual Gibson QC problems but that's not the point) so it's not like they even have to outsource manufacturing to the Far Eastern factories John Hall despises so much because how [i]dare[/i] they have different cultures and laws to America?
[/quote]

I understand your point, but Rickenbacker have always adopted a very different marketing strategy to Gibson and Fender. Those two have always mass produced in far greater numbers than Rickenbacker. Ric's startegy has always been to produce small numbers of guitars in order to keep demand (artificially?) high - that's why its so hard to find Rickenbackers in stock, and why they (arguably) sell for more than they are actually worth!

If they had taken on Gibson and Fender in the mass produced market, they would probably have disappeared and / or have been taken over decades ago (as has happened with Guild, Epiphone, Gretsch etc).

Edited April 11, 2012 by simon1964

[peterjam]

While I bow to no-one in my admiration of Rickenbacker players - Chris Squire, Geddy Lee, Cliff Burton, Bruce Foxton - I have the feeling that Rickenbacker are trading on past glories. Either that or they're following the Apple line, "my way or the highway". Most well-known players ended up 'modifying' their basses - Geddy Lee fitted Badass bridges to his Rics, Chris Squire wired his in stereo and Cliff Burton fitted a Seymour Duncan pickup in place of the foam mute.

Rickenbacker basses were so radical when they first came out, but they've been overtaken by players needs and technology. I could understand if you were getting an out-of-the-ordinary bass for the amount of money, (new or second-hand), but I've seen a number of instances of poor build quality to believe this to be the case [url="http://bassthatricbuilt.web.officelive.com/default.aspx"]http://bassthatricbuilt.web.officelive.com/default.aspx[/url] You can pick up a custom-built bass from an independent luthier for between £1500 and £2000, so why would you buy a bass with a foam mute and a metal plate over the strings?

It's a shame that people move to entrenched positions when something like this comes to light but, as I said at the start, I think Rickenbacker are living in the past in relation to their basses.

[Moos3h]

Protecting intellectual property is one thing. Coming across as a total bell-end by chasing private sales in a foreign country for a 30 year old instrument is another.

You'd have thought that the PR disaster that such petty actions are bound to stir up, would be best avoided. But perhaps that's just me being naive. Either way, it won't affect me as I've never liked Rickys and wouldn't buy one in a thousand lifetimes.

[simon1964]

[quote name='peterjam' timestamp='1334134558' post='1611233']
While I bow to no-one in my admiration of Rickenbacker players - Chris Squire, Geddy Lee, Cliff Burton, Bruce Foxton - I have the feeling that Rickenbacker are trading on past glories. Either that or they're following the Apple line, "my way or the highway". Most well-known players ended up 'modifying' their basses - Geddy Lee fitted Badass bridges to his Rics, Chris Squire wired his in stereo and Cliff Burton fitted a Seymour Duncan pickup in place of the foam mute.

Rickenbacker basses were so radical when they first came out, but they've been overtaken by players needs and technology. I could understand if you were getting an out-of-the-ordinary bass for the amount of money, (new or second-hand), but I've seen a number of instances of poor build quality to believe this to be the case [url="http://bassthatricbuilt.web.officelive.com/default.aspx"]http://bassthatricbu...om/default.aspx[/url] You can pick up a custom-built bass from an independent luthier for between £1500 and £2000, so why would you buy a bass with a foam mute and a metal plate over the strings?

It's a shame that people move to entrenched positions when something like this comes to light but, as I said at the start, I think Rickenbacker are living in the past in relation to their basses.
[/quote]

I don't particularly have an entrenched view. I own a Shuker as well as a Ric, so take your point entirely regarding what you can spend your money on.

But Rickenbacker have produced updated models - eg the 4004, with more modern bridge and pickups, but those models have always been less popular. Ric are succesful precisely because they are trading on their past, and sell what is undoubtedly a quirky, old fashioned, but iconic, product. Comparing a Ric with a custom built modern bass is like comparing a Morgan with a BMW - they are entirely different products targetting entirely different niches of the market. And because Rickenbacker have such a small niche, I can see why they look to protect their products so aggressively.

That having been said, I don't represent the Rickenbacker police, and quite agree Mr Hall doesn't do himself any favours at times

Edited April 11, 2012 by simon1964

[Kiwi]

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1334134009' post='1611226']
Pull the sale thread out or respect or courtesy; but don't pull it simply because John Hall is telling you to do so [i]or else[/i]. It's laughable.
[/quote]
John Hall states:
[i]"I'm under no obligation to provide further clarification, other than to note that you are hosting ads for goods which infringe our registered trademarks, copies of which were provided. Sale of such items is simply not legal and as such, you are acting as the facilitator."[/i]

[karlfer]

Perhaps a bit more forethought would have gone down well. Somewhere in the region of 20, 000 members, or potentially 20,000 customers.
Not really the place to hack off even a small percentage of potential customers.
Especially for an exclusive niche market product.
I really do hope some good comes of this.
Mr Hall, I honestly think if you backed off the pre-lawsuit stuff, you would find a lot more people with a lot more respect and empathy for the stance of your undeniably respected business.
Karl.

[Shockwave]

As far as I am aware. As long as a Rick copy has no statement that says something along the lines of "This is a Rickenbacker bass" and If sellers want to 100% cover themselves, don't include headstock photos in their ads. They cant do anything. People know what they are buying and aren't under the impression that it is a real backer.

[b]According to UK law. Its not illegal to possess such items in the UK or resell them as not a real Rickenbacker. It is illegal to possess the MEANS of making such items and produce counterfeits with them.[/b]

I for one am GLAD to have sold my Rickenbacker this morning and will never buy another one again.

[GregHughes]

I can't see what he's bothered about. Rickenbacker can't make enough basses to keep up with demand as it is so it not as if they really need more business.

If you want a ric then you'll buy one if you can afford it. Surely imitations just strengthen the brand awareness as more and more people are exposed to the look and then seek out the real thing.

I don't think it did Fender any harm. Perhaps that is why they started the Squire brand though.

[Marvin]

Regardless of whether the trademark is enforceable, which it seems it isn't in this case, Rickenbacker seem to have scored a massive own goal here. Pursuing a trademark infringement on a private sale on a bass forum of 20,000 members can only be seen as a massive over reaction.

I think we'd all be supportive if Rickenbacker were pursing manufacturers that are presently making copies, but a 30yr old copy and a private sale, no

[Icarus_147]

[quote name='Stacker' timestamp='1334131872' post='1611184']
I'm already in the process of doing so. Can't bear to look at them, now.
[/quote]

If you're stuck for getting them sold and just want rid of them, I'd be willing to adopt one.

[pete.young]

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1334135309' post='1611247']
John Hall states:
[i]"Sale of such items is simply not legal and as such, you are acting as the facilitator."[/i]
[/quote]

This would appear to be untrue, but can you afford to blink last?

Hall doesn't care about the outcome - the only reason for this is a demonstration that he's aggressively defending his trademark.

[Gust0o]

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1334135309' post='1611247']
John Hall states:
[i]"I'm under no obligation to provide further clarification, other than to note that you are hosting ads for goods which infringe our registered trademarks, copies of which were provided. Sale of such items is simply not legal and as such, you are acting as the facilitator."[/i]
[/quote]

See Shockwave's response. John Hall is unable to provide further clarification as I suspect he already knows this - it's bluster and bullying.

Can we confirm if he has contacted the seller, since they would - no doubt - also be of concern?

I'd wait for your formal legal opinion to confirm your position before acting. Even if that opinion confirms that the ad is allowed under current UK legislation, you still have the option to pull it if you continue to feel uncomfortable - or if you want a break from the drudgery of John Hall's Outlook outbox.

Well, I'm equally under no obligations to show any respect to a firm totally lacking in innovation or progressive spirit, and headed up by a CEO [i]who can find the time to personally pursue such frivolities.[/i]

That last line says it all: too much time on your hands, John. Just what leadership are you providing, again? You might want to learn Mandarin and go after some of your real issues, or try and find something more productive to do which pushes your business forward.

[Gust0o]

[quote name='pete.young' timestamp='1334137753' post='1611301']
This would appear to be untrue, but can you afford to blink last?

Hall doesn't care about the outcome - the only reason for this is a demonstration that he's aggressively defending his trademark.
[/quote]

Quite likely, as it's been a real issue for them.

The US litigation system - indeed, as with so much in that country - has some very deep flaws. And by [i]blink[/i], they traditionally mean [i]afford.[/i]

[Stacker]

[quote name='Icarus_147' timestamp='1334137545' post='1611299']
If you're stuck for getting them sold and just want rid of them, I'd be willing to adopt one.
[/quote]

Icarus, if I were well-off, you could have 'em all, mate! Unfortunately, there's a few quid tied up in them. However, I'd be happy to accept hookers n crack n back-copies of the Beano and Dandy! God nows, I'd appreciate all of them more than JH's products right now.

[Stag]

This makes me a sad panda.

I love Rics, and think the copyright should be protected aggressively on any NEW copies, but not old copies. Thats just ridiculous IMO. A lot of people read this forum who are not members, as a result of Google searches etc, and this kind of behaviour from Ric is the kind of thing that would get marketing people FIRED from my company... surefire way of alienating potential customers.

[simon1964]

Am I the only person getting an add at the top of this thread for those Retrovibe Ric copies?

Anyway, I'm off to change my avatar...

[Stag]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1334138567' post='1611329']
Am I the only person getting an add at the top of this thread for those Retrovibe Ric copies?
[/quote]

I was going to mention that, but it seems he hasnt got any Ric-Alikes left?