why are Rickenbacker basses such a touchy subject?

[-Virtue-]

Being a bit of a noob when it comes to basses (im more knowledgeable on 6 strings) whats the deal with them? the whole copyright thing? not being allowed to sell them on here etc?

whats the controversy?

[mep]

Can of worms now open for business.

[nottswarwick]

Ibtl

[-Virtue-]

i'm sorry, i er, dont get it...surely theyre just another brand like Fender, Gibson etc?

[JapanAxe]

Briefly, the head honcho at Rickenbacker threw a wobbly every time a copy or Ric-derived bass appeared for sale, threatening dire legal consequences. In the end the bods who run the site took the decision to prohibit the sale of Rics and/or copies across the board. Hence [url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/209819-this-is-a-rickenbacker-free-marketplace/"]this[/url].

There is no problem with discussing Rics though, or lusting after photos of them if that's your thing.

[ezbass]

The Rick team are somewhat litigious when it comes to protecting their intellectual rights, much to the delight of their lawyers no doubt.

[-Virtue-]

I see, i didnt realise you can copyright a shape! how come theyre arnt lawsuits galore for p-bass style guitars and the likes then?

[John Schoen]

Fender tried that, there were too many (American) companies that made copies for a long time then so they lost the case.

[MrFingers]

Yes, you can copyright shapes, the difference is in the law. In the US, the law says that having a copyright doesn't mean you can "lay back and watch mayhem unfold over those who copy" (in the rest of the world you can do that), you have to [b]actively[/b] search for violations. Fender & Gibson also have copyrights on shapes (mostly headstock designs), but they didn't care to actively search for violators, and when things got messy, and they wanted to cease the production of copies of their design, the court said "yes, but you had to actively protect your design, you failed to do that, so basically there's nothing we can do to stop them anymore".

That + there are people on the Rickenbacker-forum who are kinda elitist, and make it a sport to hunt for copies, notifying RIC (the mothercompany of Rickenbacker) and since they actively protect their copyrights, many 'cease & desist"-letters are being sent.

Edited November 15, 2013 by MrFingers

[Woodinblack]

'[font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#282828"]somewhat litigious' in the way that Antarctica is 'slightly chilly'[/color][/font]

[gjones]

I think Fender decided that if you can't beat them........join them. Which is why they now licence factories all over the world to make Fenders/Squiers. Rickenbacker are not prepared to do that (for whatever reason).

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1384555611' post='2278265']
I think Fender decided that if you can't beat them........join them. Which is why they now licence factories all over the world to make Fenders/Squiers. Rickenbacker are not prepared to do that (for whatever reason).
[/quote]
Maybe Rickenbackers just are not popular enough to do that as successfully as Fender.

[LukeFRC]

it's cos this is called basschat, and they are too trebly with not enough low end.



(We all like Fender's here, except BigRedX who says he doesn't, but is in denial. We're helping him through it)





basically in the 70's and 80's, before Rickenbacker had european patents or trademarks (might be wrong on that) some nice people in Japan made copies of Rickenbackers for cheaper and in many cases better than the original.
Some of your favourite famous rickenbacker players had japanese made ones...
Nice basses - rickenbacker later stopped production of them and other copies - as is their right.
However, with little or dubious legal authority (in the EU), and many threats people with these old secondhand copies are not alowed to sell them secondhand without Rickenbacker getting angry with threats against Basschat, ebay et al.... Rickenbacker can afford more lawyers than Basschat so can't argue with them....

But to save you the time, they look pretty but are outdated rubbish basses designed before 50 years of progress on the electric bass, SquierLemmyLeeMacca were all wrong and modern basses are much better nowadays - although Leo (blessed be his name) got it right first time....

or something....

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1384556399' post='2278274']
it's cos this is called basschat, and they are too trebly with not enough low end...
[/quote]
... except when McCartney plays one and it goes all bassy and low.

[KiOgon]

[quote name='-Virtue-' timestamp='1384550914' post='2278195']
whats the controversy?
[/quote]
No controversy - just there's only one bloke, Chris Squier, who ever got a decent sound out of one

[Woodinblack]

I don't know, Geddy did pretty well too. But then he got an almost identical sound out of a Jazz bass on the same songs, so I guess it didn't matter anyway

[Bassman Sam]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1384556399' post='2278274']


(We all like Fender's here, except BigRedX who says he doesn't, but is in denial. We're helping him through it)


[/quote]

[size=4] [/size] [size=4] [/size]

[Bassassin]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1384556399' post='2278274']
Basically in the 70's and 80's, before Rickenbacker had european patents or trademarks (might be wrong on that) some nice people in Japan made copies of Rickenbackers for cheaper and in many cases better than the original.
Some of your favourite famous rickenbacker players had japanese made ones...
Nice basses - rickenbacker later stopped production of them and other copies - as is their right.
[/quote]
What's ironically amusing about this is that John Hall's Rickenbacker International Corp dates to the late 90s and his trademarks for the 4003 shapes & designs are actually some ten years newer - the basses being copied in the 70s were made by a completely different and now long-defunct company.

One of those old Japanese copy brands was Ibanez, who were making Rick copies from about 1971, complete with checked binding & full-width inlays, just like the older 4001s. If they so chose, Hoshino Gakki, parent company of Ibanez, might have very good grounds to challenge RIC's claim to exclusivity regarding the 4001/4003 design.

Despite all the bluff & bluster, RIC is a small, family-owned business (and realistically probably do not have the coin to pursue legal action against BC and its members) - so Mr Hall might want to take a moment to reflect on how fortunate it is that wealthy Japanese corporations have better things to do than take petty & pointless legal actions against inconsequential and anachronistic little American guitar-builders.

Jon.

[-Virtue-]

thanks people! I get the idea now and Geddy Lee did get a good tone (if very trebly) out of one....They are indeed very pretty (especially in flameburst.....*drools*), I dont think i'd ever own one though....

[Gust0o]

[quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1384558989' post='2278307']
What's ironically amusing about this is that John Hall's Rickenbacker International Corp dates to the late 90s and his trademarks for the 4003 shapes & designs are actually some ten years newer - the basses being copied in the 70s were made by a completely different and now long-defunct company.

One of those old Japanese copy brands was Ibanez, who were making Rick copies from about 1971, complete with checked binding & full-width inlays, just like the older 4001s. If they so chose, Hoshino Gakki, parent company of Ibanez, might have very good grounds to challenge RIC's claim to exclusivity regarding the 4001/4003 design.

Despite all the bluff & bluster, RIC is a small, family-owned business (and realistically probably do not have the coin to pursue legal action against BC and its members) - so Mr Hall might want to take a moment to reflect on how fortunate it is that wealthy Japanese corporations have better things to do than take petty & pointless legal actions against inconsequential and anachronistic little American guitar-builders.

Jon.
[/quote]

A very good post, Jon.

I think we've all done a pretty good of answering this

No controversy at this end. I like the basses. I just don't like John Hall's methods - however rational and well-intentioned he might believe them to be. A little bit of the businessman in me is convinced I'd do it another way, and maybe I would... and maybe I wouldn't

[bassmachine2112]

Rickenbackers are lovely basses,
I had a late 70,s 4001 in a dark blue almost black colour and it was a fabulous bass in every way-sold cause I needed a guitar at the time.
Next one is a 1999 4003 in black/jetglo ,another quality piece of kit.
Maybe I was lucky to hit 2 basses that were spot on.
If I was getting another one would I get a 4001 or a 4003 ?
4003 would be my advice.
As for the how the company is run I,ll keep that to myself,maybe the Larry Hartke method would be a better way to do things and for people to spend their spare time looking at ads -well !

[bartelby]

[quote name='KiOgon' timestamp='1384556796' post='2278282']

No controversy - just there's only one bloke, Chris Squier, who ever got a decent sound out of one
[/quote]

2. Cliff Burton (I know his was some what modified though)

[-Virtue-]

and under a wall of distortion

[spongebob]

I think the OP is John Hall digging for info - I rightfully claim my £10. [size=4] [/size]

[simon1964]

[quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1384558989' post='2278307']
What's ironically amusing about this is that John Hall's Rickenbacker International Corp dates to the late 90s and his trademarks for the 4003 shapes & designs are actually some ten years newer - the basses being copied in the 70s were made by a completely different and now long-defunct company.

One of those old Japanese copy brands was Ibanez, who were making Rick copies from about 1971, complete with checked binding & full-width inlays, just like the older 4001s. If they so chose, Hoshino Gakki, parent company of Ibanez, might have very good grounds to challenge RIC's claim to exclusivity regarding the 4001/4003 design.

Despite all the bluff & bluster, RIC is a small, family-owned business (and realistically probably do not have the coin to pursue legal action against BC and its members) - so Mr Hall might want to take a moment to reflect on how fortunate it is that wealthy Japanese corporations have better things to do than take petty & pointless legal actions against inconsequential and anachronistic little American guitar-builders.

Jon.
[/quote]

To put some context and balance to all of that, the Hall family actually acquired Rickenbacker in 1953, way before Japenese companies started copying Rickenbackers. I remain in the apparent minority who cannot see any problem with a company protecting its own design rights.