Revisit R**********r sales on BC?

[Grangur]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1397390958' post='2423404']
I am the voice of reason.
[/quote]
Then maybe you can help me with an explanation on this:
BC don't carry ads for Ricks and Ripoffricks. Then I see an add at the bottom of the page for http://www.probass.co.uk/ featuring, yes you guessed it.. a Ripoffrick!

Ok, I know it's all done by some other company and BC don't have control over ads. It just struck me as ironic.

[Musky]

[quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1397401219' post='2423523']
Then maybe you can help me with an explanation on this:
BC don't carry ads for Ricks and Ripoffricks. Then I see an add at the bottom of the page for [url="http://www.probass.co.uk/"]http://www.probass.co.uk/[/url] featuring, yes you guessed it.. a Ripoffrick!

Ok, I know it's all done by some other company and BC don't have control over ads. It just struck me as ironic.
[/quote]
That bass seems to be distinctive enough not to incur JH's wrath, unlike the previous version which was far closer to RIC's trademarked designs. Unsurprisingly they disappeared after what may have been a single production run.

[Bassassin]

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1397368935' post='2423182']
Would Jon want to put himself in the firing range of John Hall should he (Jon) make a mistake. I bl***dy well wouldn't.
[/quote]

Absolutely. As I've said, the current crop of Chinese/Taiwanese/whatever copies bear little more than a cosmetic resemblance to genuine Rick basses, and as far as vintage copies are concerned, I'm 100% confident in my ability to tell a well-crafted, professionally manufactured instrument from shonky overpriced American tat. ([i]Joke[/i], Rickenlovers. ) I would need exceptionally clear & detailed pics of certain areas of build & componentry but as I've said, the differences are very clear, with no margin for error if you know what you're looking at.

This is an interesting theoretical discusssion for me - I'm happy to respect the mods' original & any future decision but in the event the community chose to allow RIC sales again, I'd be happy to help verify provenance. I can't accept that Hall would try to cause trouble over the sale of a genuine Rickenbacker - the notion seems frankly ludicrous and of no benefit to anyone, least of all him. John Hall is clearly a highly confrontational & aggressive character but I don't think he's actually mentally ill.

I've had a few run-ins with Mr Hall himself, the official RIC forum and some of the less open-minded members of RickResource over the years and as a result have done a little digging myself regarding RIC's trademarks, US trademark law and whether or not there are any grounds under which sales of Rick copies are illegal in the UK.

There's a tendency to assume that RIC is a huge, wealthy, powerful multinational corporation with a permanent flying squad of attack lawyers on 24-hour standby. The reality is that "Rickenbacker International Corporation" is a little family business owned in its entirety by John Hall and his wife. I doubt Hall's bluff, bluster & mythical C&D letters are any more than that - bluff that he has neither the resources or (in the case of privately-sold secondhand copies) legal right to back up.

I'm certainly not advocating calling that bluff, but isn't it interesting that the CEO of a major instrument brand has nothing better to do with his time than pontificate on his own brand forums, send strings of emails to nonentities such as myself, and throw his weight around on little British bass forums. A previous poster wondered why he "allows" the sale of used Rickenbackers on TalkBass. This is likely because it's an American forum with an incredibly massive membership, there will be people far more aware of US law, and able to take him on at his own game. By comparison, over here we're distant, small, easily intimidated and have very little familiarity with the laws he's threatening us with.

Anyway, a bit of Rickenbacker history is of interest when considering Japanese, Italian, British & Brazilian copies from the 70s. When all these instruments were first being made, Rickenbacker International Corp ("RIC") didn't exist. From memory, Rickenbacker was originally two separate companies, one handling manufacture & the other distribution - apparently a common US business model around the 1930s. Our Mr Hall's dad, F.C. Hall bought these two companies in the 50s and passed them to young Johnny H in the mid 80s, who subsequently amalgamated them and formed RIC.

The important point is that Hall registered various design trademarks of Rick instruments in the late 90s - from which it's reasonable to infer that no such trademarks existed in the pre-RIC era, and current marks therefore cannot be retrospectively applied to instruments made before the company which registered the trademark was founded. Considering the nature of US trademark law, which requres that a trademark holder constantly pursues & challenges breaches, the existence of all these sought-after old copies must be immensely inconvenient to Mr Hall.

J.

[pete.young]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397382248' post='2423319']

By legal ramifications I mean, can Mr.Hall take any action against someone (and/or an entity hosting someone) selling genuine used Rickenbacker product?
[/quote]

In the EU, Mr Hall has no legal basis to take action against a private seller of a copy, never mind the genuine article. The law doesn't matter: all he has to do is demonstrate that he is defending his copyright. Its a game of poker: Ped and Kiwi can't afford the stakes and the ISP isn't interested in the game. All this is explained in the original thread.

[ambient]

Silly question, possibly already been answered somewhere, but I really don't have time to read all through this thread.

How come they're able to sell said product on Talkbass ?

Surely the chances of any legal action being taken by a US company against a UK based website is pretty low, so why is Talkbass allowed to advertise Ric's for sale ?

Personally I think they're extremely ugly and very dated looking basses anyway .

[karlfer]

Jon, I was reading your post whilst on the phone to my 81 (I'm nearly 82 you know) mother.
She seemed quite stunned at my bursting out laughing. I really did not want to go through "shonky overprice American tat" with her.
Right or wrong, you have by proxy, got my mother in the sulks over her inattentive son

[geofio]

As a ric user all my adult life , i find it a shame it has come to this, politics should never come into this. if i were to listen or pay attention to John Hall's attitude even toward genuine ric users/owners, i would never play a ric again !!!!
i play a ric because i like the style of the bass and the tone that it produces, you either hate them or love them, John Hall cannot stop anyone selling a ric bass or a replica in the uk the only part of the bass that had a patent was the headstock design. and that has probably expired. i think it is all hot air . i don't like the crappy copies around but there were some good copies made of the 4001!! if you are a Bass/Guitar manufacturer, i would say you just have to expect copies of your instruments it is part of the business and rather moaning about copies i would be more concerned about improving the product i have out on the market at the moment . cheers Geo

Edited April 13, 2014 by geofio

[Woodinblack]

[quote name='lojo' timestamp='1397399968' post='2423511']
The only thing that annoys me about the ban (which I understand and support) is that removing genuine Rics from the 2nd hand market may mean a few people maybe more tempted to buy new Rics, which is a another victory for them.
[/quote]

Actually I think it is just the opposite. Who is more likely to buy a brand new Ric? I would say only a ric owner (or someone who is very well off and wants one). I think the whole thing is a bit backwards.

Who buys a US fender Jazz? Its someone who saw their favourite stars playing one and started with a cheap jazz copy, then gets to get a Mexican Jazz, then saves up and gets a US Jazz.

Who used to be the people who bought a Ric? People who saw everyone in the 70s playing them (including clones), bought a copy, then got a real one, then eventually got a new one.

Turn on the telly now, count the basses, then count the rics. Whether you love them or hate them, if you don't see them they are not going to sell.

[Woodinblack]

[quote name='geofio' timestamp='1397417609' post='2423749']i play a ric because i like the style of the bass and the tone that it produces, you either hate them or love them, John Hall cannot stop anyone selling a ric bass or a replica in the uk the only part of the bass that had a patent was the headstock design. and that has probably expired. i think it is all hot air .[/quote]


As someone who has sold a rockinbetter, I can assure you he really can stop you selling a ric copy, or at least make it very hard. I know *legally* he can't but you can't sell one here, you can't sell one on eBay, or gumtree (owned by ebay) or preloved. I know, I have tried (well not here). it will be removed quite quickly.

[simon1964]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397422932' post='2423831']

Well, that's not strictly true. Click [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ricky-4003-copy-Rockinbetter-RG4003-/221389570812?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item338bd8c2fc&nma=true&si=2dNsa0g9bUD8OFkoHwm3nNJRTgk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557#ht_310wt_1190"]here[/url].
[/quote]

How on Earth did that one slip through! Particularly as it's listed with Ricky and 4003 and Rockinbetter in the title.

[Woodinblack]

You can do it if you list it at the end of the day on friday. There doesn't seem to be any activity from Ric over the weekend, so if you can get it sold in that time you are ok.

[Johngh]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397376237' post='2423228']
Sorry to keep banging on about this, but could someone answer a simple question for me please?

If I wanted to sell a genuine Rickenbacker product on Basschat (if there wasn't a ban) and there was absolutely no question as to it's authenticity, would there be any legal ramifications?
[/quote]

I can't see how there could be..

The whole thing is about JH trademarking the headstock and the truss rod cover. If Basschat allowed a picture of either in a for sale thread, and the bass turned out to be a faker, then they could potentially end up in a whole heap of poo.

I was a mod on here when this all originally kicked off, and trying to keep tabs on for sale adds that had photos of Rick head stocks and getting them removed was a ballache

The Basschat owners kept getting threatening letters from JH, so in the end we decided to ban Ricks from the classifieds section totally.

I even had a few email exchanges myself with JH, and gave up as he was totally beyond reasoning with. There were also exchanges on Rickenbacker resource forum.

There could be a return to allowing the sale of them on here if photos were not allowed on Rick for sale threads, but the mods would have to police it and it would be a nightmare.

It was mainly because of the Ricky saga I decided to quit modding on here as it was getting too much hassle, what with seeing all the butting up to JH from some of the members off here over on Rick Resource and having to deal with the likes of JH and his threats.

The management ain't going to lift the ban, so that leaves the likes of Gumtree and cretins offering you £300 under what you have it listed for, like they did when I sold my 4003.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Johngh

[simon1964]

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1397423908' post='2423849']
You can do it if you list it at the end of the day on friday. There doesn't seem to be any activity from Ric over the weekend, so if you can get it sold in that time you are ok.
[/quote]

That's it! Lift the BC ban at weekends

Edited April 13, 2014 by simon1964

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='pete.young' timestamp='1397408054' post='2423630']
In the EU, Mr Hall has no legal basis to take action against a private seller of a copy, never mind the genuine article. The law doesn't matter: all he has to do is demonstrate that he is defending his copyright. Its a game of poker: Ped and Kiwi can't afford the stakes and the ISP isn't interested in the game. All this is explained in the original thread.
[/quote] well put

[karlfer]

As has been alluded to, it appears that EBay don't get heat from Ric from about midnight Fri our time until about 2pm Monday our time, hence the quick BIN ads.

[3below]

There may be a legal right to stop sales of 'copies' or genuine basses. There may not be, I am not a lawyer. There may be (or not be) DMCA issues even though this is USA legislation. In reality legal intimidation is a serious matter and can be used as a systematic form of abuse - BC (sic real people, with families, homes, livelihoods) can not afford the time / risk / money / emotional wellbeing / loss of BC to endure such attack(s). Determining what is genuine is yet another minefield and as alluded by others there may be pseudo legal challenges to stop sales of genuine basses. Fighting such challenges is wearing, expensive and futile.

I fully support BC on the stance taken. I used to own a RIc bass, I quite like them, I can easily afford one, will I buy another - never. Go figure.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397425634' post='2423881']
I know it's easy for me to say as I'm not a moderator, but within what you have described could for sale ads could exist devoid of any images at all.
If so, would this work....allows members to generate an image free for sale thread on the understanding that it cannot be published until pre-approved by a mod (maybe get that in the software so nothing slips through). If approved by a mod it then gets locked immediately negating pages of "discussion" or "adding" of images. Once sold the seller PM's a mod for the thread to be marked as such. Basically it would just be like an ad in a music mag back in the day.
[/quote]

Yes, but why would the site owners, not to mention the mods, want to even bother with all that faffing about, never mind the risk of a mistake being made and finding themselves on the sharp end of legal threats, or worse still actual legal action?

Tell you what, since you're so keen to have an online marketplace for trading Rick copies, why not set one up yourself instead of expecting someone else to bear all the risk?

Sorry to sound harsh, but BC has made its position quite clear and it seems only fair to respect it.

[Musky]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397425634' post='2423881']
I know it's easy for me to say as I'm not a moderator, but within what you have described could for sale ads could exist devoid of any images at all.
If so, would this work....allows members to generate an image free for sale thread on the understanding that it cannot be published until pre-approved by a mod (maybe get that in the software so nothing slips through). If approved by a mod it then gets locked immediately negating pages of "discussion" or "adding" of images. Once sold the seller PM's a mod for the thread to be marked as such. Basically it would just be like an ad in a music mag back in the day.
[/quote]

Unfortunately in the UK the trademark now exists in all the key areas of the 4001/4003 design. That trademark applies to anything for trade (by way of business in the UK) that can be interpreted (by a court) as infringing that design. In the case of a bass for sale it is the bass itself that infringes the mark. It isn't the inclusion of pictures that makes the sale unlawful, they just make things far easier to prove that the item for sale is in breach of trademark legislation.

[simon1964]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397428443' post='2423914']
Can the genuine article infringe its own trademark then?
[/quote]

Nail on the head.

There is no risk of litigation arising from advertising genuine Rics. The only issue, as far as i can see, is the perceived risk that someone posts for sale a bass which purports to be a genuine ric but is in fact a faker.

Seems quite a remote risk to me, but I accept it's not my site, so not my decision.

[Bassassin]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397428443' post='2423914']
Can the genuine article infringe its own trademark then?
[/quote]
Very interesting point - theoretically, perhaps it can. If the 4003/4001 body shape wasn't trademarked until 1999, then examples which precede this date could be considered to be infringements. Perhaps more interestingly, it's technically possible for Hoshino Gakki Ten (owner of the Ibanez brand) to demonstrate that they were producing instruments of this design, carrying their brand as early as 1971. A company which was launched in 1984 (RIC) might struggle to prove historical rights to these design elements. I doubt Hoshino would consider doing any such thing, but the idea's an amusing one.

J.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397428240' post='2423910']
Where have I mentioned an interest in Rick copies? I would quite happily put them all in a crusher!
I have no burning interest in genuine Rick's, albeit I do own one. I am vaguely interested in the one that is still for sale here. I might shell out for a CS one day or a nice walnut if one came along that took my fancy, but other than that, mark me as happy with my lot (for now).
What I do have an issue with is the "big guy" mentality that has resulted in this situation. It's not in my nature to take it lying down. I'm not wired like that. I generally do keep at it until something gives. You have misinterpreted my persistence in this matter as some sort of belligerence. That couldn't be further from the truth. I fully support the moderators position, but refuse to accept the problem as unsolvable to the benefit of Rickenbacker fans. There is a difference.
[/quote]

Apologies for my misunderstanding. I also dislike the 'big guy' mentality about this whole thing and my immediate instinct is also to kick back about such things, but pragmatism takes over eventually and my feeling is that the whole thing is more trouble than it's worth. I couldn't care less if Rickenbackers (genuine and fakes) disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow so it's just not something to get worked up about. If everyone felt that way then JH would have nothing to cause trouble about. Instead he's probably having a lot of fun putting the wind up people who do give a sh1t. Well, not me matey, you can keep your Ricks - fake or not.

[karlfer]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1397429975' post='2423931']
Apologies for my misunderstanding. I also dislike the 'big guy' mentality about this whole thing and my immediate instinct is also to kick back about such things, but pragmatism takes over eventually and my feeling is that the whole thing is more trouble than it's worth. I couldn't care less if Rickenbackers (genuine and fakes) disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow so it's just not something to get worked up about. If everyone felt that way then JH would have nothing to cause trouble about. Instead he's probably having a lot of fun putting the wind up people who do give a sh1t. Well, not me matey, you can keep your Ricks - fake or not.
[/quote]

You dislike the "big guy" mentality. But sod it because it doesn't affect you.
Selfish, but honest. Irony?

Well spotted Hiram 1st to notice. Your prize is in the post (that's a blatant lie ).

[Annoying Twit]

There are two things I think haven't been mentioned much yet.

First, there's an opinion that there is no risk if genuine Rickenbackers are advertised. However, I personally would be concerned as to whether RIC might actually make a mistake, and claim that a genuine Rickenbacker is a fake, when it isn't. E.g. if a genuine Rick has been modified (including refinishing) etc. Even if it was a real Rickenbacker, imagine going to court with RIC itself, with the actual company saying that it's a fake.

Secondly, I do wonder about ways in which the attitude of RIC and John Hall might bounce back on them. I've seen people posting about their very poor experiences with Rickenbacker basses. When I see these posts, I wonder if there is anybody who is annoyed enough at John Hall that they would go out and deliberately give them bad reviews as I don't believe the instruments and/or QC are as bad as occasionally claimed. In our highly connected world, even just one person who has sufficient time on their hands could do significant damage to their brand.

It does work the other way. On the RickResource forum, I saw someone claiming that a Rockinbetter was the worst bass ever. I"ve played one and don't believe that they are as good as they should be given the price tag, but they are far from being the worst bass ever.

Edit: I'm not sure that they are well informed over on RickResource. Here they are all saying that Rockinbetter guitars are made by Tokai, without a single dissenting opinion that I can see. http://www.rickresource.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=389091

Edited April 14, 2014 by Annoying Twit

[flyfisher]

[quote name='karlfer' timestamp='1397457404' post='2423972']
You dislike the "big guy" mentality. But sod it because it doesn't affect you.
Selfish, but honest. Irony?
[/quote]

How can it be selfish to ignore something and refuse to let it bother me? My action in this respect doesn't affect you, or anyone else, so how can it be selfish? You should aim your ire at BC as it's THEIR policy that's affecting you, not mine.

Frankly, I'd suggest that any selfishness being displayed here is on the part of those people who keep pestering BC to go head to head with JH despite it being quite clear that they don't wish to take the risk. Isn't it rather selfish not to respect that clear stance?

[Happy Jack]

I think we need a new section ... Lawchat.

Like Hiram, I detest JH's bullying tactics and I would LOVE to call his bluff. Last time around, I suggested having a Basschat whipround to raise a fighting fund to pay the lawyers.

Like Bassassin, I know a fair bit about RIC and their finances - they're (relatively) tiny, and highly unlikely to be able to cross the Atlantic with a high-powered legal team.

Like FlyFisher, I can't understand why people keep asking Ped & Kiwi plus the moderating team to take on such a large, stressful and unpaid extra burden, especially after so much open and transparent discussion with the BC Membership.

Like Billy Apple, I can't help but feel that at least some of this scab-picking verges on being sh*t-stirring. Maybe unfair, but I can't help it.

Hmmmmm.

This thing about seeing both sides of an argument ... doesn't really get you anywhere, does it?