Fake logos on instruments

[prowla]

1 minute ago, karlfer said:

No it was several weeks ago, at £200.

If you had had the courtesy to pm me YOUR concerns rather than put YOUR OPINION on my sales thread, you might not have whizzed me off so much.

 

So I guess it had a fake TRC.

[prowla]

4 minutes ago, jazzmanb said:

So does this forum,its fixing something that isnt broken

As has been noted and repeated - the rules are already in place.

People who are posting the fakes/counterfeits are breaking the site rules (which they signed up and agreed to on joining).

Edited December 28, 2017 by prowla

[karlfer]

5 minutes ago, prowla said:

So I guess it had a fake TRC.

You guess wrong & continue with your blinkers on all things but your opinion.

It's really a shame that you insist on going straight in screwing people's sales threads rather than having the courtesy to PM them. Wonder why you do that.

I'm off before I get another Mod Spank.

[prowla]

3 minutes ago, karlfer said:

You guess wrong & continue with your blinkers on all things but your opinion.

It's really a shame that you insist on going straight in screwing people's sales threads rather than having the courtesy to PM them. Wonder why you do that.

I'm off before I get another Mod Spank.

Selling fakes - uh-huh.

I've a feeling that things might work out re. the Limelight one; I certainly didn't know the brand before...

[prowla]

Incidentally, if folks are interested, there's a 20% off ebay code, use by 6 o'clock; just enter code PNY2018 at checkout!

[Dad3353]

50 minutes ago, prowla said:

The nuclear option was not the intent...

We've already established that 'intent' is no defence. 

I'm a Mod here. If a sales gets Reported as being an illegitimate logo (of whatever company...), what, pragmatically, should I do..? I have no means of knowing if it's true or not, no way of checking whether the Seller's item is licensed or not, nothing but the Report. Do I delete the ad (that the Seller has paid for...)..? Take it to Higher Authority for adjudication (and leave the ad meantime, or 'hide' it..?)..? Sit on my fingers hoping the door doesn't get blown in by some SWAT team or other..? Unless there's a ruling on this, the whole topic is useless, for me, as a Mod. Do I allow the forum to break the law (that's now been pretty well established...), with no means of detecting 'real' from 'fake'..? The 'nuclear' option is one which guarantees that no more infringements take place. Any other option will be called out by someone or other as 'condoning illegality'. I see no middle ground here. I shall enforce, as a Mod, whatever stance the Admins rule on this; until then, I see nothing more to add.

[prowla]

1 minute ago, Dad3353 said:

We've already established that 'intent' is no defence. 

I'm a Mod here. If a sales gets Reported as being an illegitimate logo (of whatever company...), what, pragmatically, should I do..? I have no means of knowing if it's true or not, no way of checking whether the Seller's item is licensed or not, nothing but the Report. Do I delete the ad (that the Seller has paid for...)..? Take it to Higher Authority for adjudication (and leave the ad meantime, or 'hide' it..?)..? Sit on my fingers hoping the door doesn't get blown in by some SWAT team or other..? Unless there's a ruling on this, the whole topic is useless, for me, as a Mod. Do I allow the forum to break the law (that's now been pretty well established...), with no means of detecting 'real' from 'fake'..? The 'nuclear' option is one which guarantees that no more infringements take place. Any other option will be called out by someone or other as 'condoning illegality'. I see no middle ground here. I shall enforce, as a Mod, whatever stance the Admins rule on this; until then, I see nothing more to add.

Yes, I see what you are saying and indeed it is indeed up to the site admins/owners to rule.

Overt things which are easy to spot should be easy to deal with, like the items I previously listed.

ebay's stance seems to be to rely on people reporting things, which would seem a pragmatic approach; I'm not sure if they require multiple reports to react, or what (I think MSE does in reporting spam).

[Dad3353]

5 minutes ago, prowla said:

Yes, I see what you are saying and indeed it is indeed up to the site admins/owners to rule.

Overt things which are easy to spot should be easy to deal with, like the items I previously listed.

ebay's stance seems to be to rely on people reporting things, which would seem a pragmatic approach; I'm not sure if they require multiple reports to react, or what (I think MSE does in reporting spam).

I'm not 'into' pragmatics; if stuff is illegal, it's illegal. Pragmatics dictates that this topic never got started, as the rules you're now defending have been in place for... Well, quite a long time. We should all move along, pragmatically (unless there's anyone calling for the Ric solution..?). That's all; end of story. Now don't all leave at once, and use the multiple exits to avoid the crush. Thank you all for your time; until the next time... Goodnight.

(... and the last one out turns the lights off, please...)

Edited December 28, 2017 by Dad3353

[skankdelvar]

Should BC apply the law (which implies the Ric solution, to be certain of letting nothing through...). Well..?

It's nice of you to pose the question, Douglas, but I suspect that the boundaries of the existing T&C's will be put to the test with increasing frequency over the next while. Indeed, I venture that basses with non-compliant logos will now regularly be flagged up by at least one individual. At that point the mods will have to decide whether to ask the seller to remove headstock shots or face the possibility that the OP's campaign be escalated. 

The thread has majored almost entirely upon legal minutiae, the details of which are entirely beyond my interest. I care only whether this thread and the intent behind it will entail more work for the  mods. Some have laboured the point that it is illegal to sell re-logo'd replicas; they are legally correct but in practice it makes f**k-all difference and hardly anyone but them gives a sh*t.

Edited December 28, 2017 by skankdelvar
re-inserted to solve timeline paradox

[T-Bay]

The potential outcome of all this is a disastrous change or even closure of the for sale section on here. Will that make buying safer for people? No, the exact opposite in fact. And for what? I find it quite depressing.

[fretmeister]

 

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.

[prowla]

1 minute ago, Dad3353 said:

I'm not 'into' pragmatics; if stuff is illegal, it's illegal. Pragmatics dictates that this topic never got started, as the rules you're now defending have been in place for... Well, quite a long time. We should all move along, pragmatically (unless there's anyone calling for the Ric solution..?). That's all; end of story. Now don't all leave at once, and use the multiple exits to avoid the crush. Thank you all for your time; until the next time... Goodnight.

(... and the last one out turns the lights off, please...)

The pragmatic approach for dealing with it.

It's the same in real-life; the police only respond when an issue is raised; they cannot and do not verify every single item on sale throughout the land beforehand.

I think that reacting, within the rules, is a genuine real-world, pragmatic approach.

[Dad3353]

Just now, skankdelvar said:

...I venture that basses with non-compliant logos will now regularly be flagged up by at least one individual. At that point the mods will have to decide whether to ask the seller to remove headstock shots or face the possibility that the OP's campaign be escalated...

... which leaves unanswered my question: How do I know that it's not 'pukka'..? That's all that counts; if I can't tell (and I can't, and nor can anyone else...) I'd just class the Report as 'Closed', that's it. Where's the proof of 'illegal' in any particular case..?

[prowla]

1 minute ago, fretmeister said:

 

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.

Again, no different to ebay, Friday Ads, and others.

[fretmeister]

1 minute ago, T-Bay said:

The potential outcome of all this is a disastrous change or even closure of the for sale section on here. Will that make buying safer for people? No, the exact opposite in fact. And for what? I find it quite depressing.

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%.

[prowla]

1 minute ago, fretmeister said:

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%.

My guess was 1%.

It's a problem that can be dealt with.

[Dad3353]

4 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

 

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.

This sounds like a plea for the Ric solution, 'just in case'.

[fretmeister]

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. 

[stingrayPete1977]

8 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

... which leaves unanswered my question: How do I know that it's not 'pukka'..? That's all that counts; if I can't tell (and I can't, and nor can anyone else...) I'd just class the Report as 'Closed', that's it. Where's the proof of 'illegal' in any particular case..?

If it's got 'Limelight 009' on the back in Sharpie marker but the advert says it's a genuine Fender you can burn the seller at the stake using their Allparts/Warmoth bitsa for kindling 

[T-Bay]

3 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

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%.

But how can you be sure? And there in lies the problem, or rather it doesn’t but some people seem determined to prove there is a significant problem. And the only way to be 100% sure........ it’s ridiculous but there you go.

I give up, so long and thanks for all the fish.

[Dad3353]

Just now, stingrayPete1977 said:

If it's got 'Limelight 009' on the back in Sharpie marker but the advert says it's a genuine Fender you can burn the seller at the stake using their Allparts/Warmoth bitsa for kindling 

What..? And infringe H&S regulations, to boot..? Are you mad..? 

[Jono Bolton]

12 minutes ago, prowla said:

Yes, I see what you are saying and indeed it is indeed up to the site admins/owners to rule.

/thread

[fretmeister]

1 minute ago, Dad3353 said:

This sounds like a plea for the Ric solution, 'just in case'.

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.

[Dad3353]

1 minute ago, T-Bay said:

...I give up, so long and thanks for all the fish.

That's the spirit..! Now it you could only lead one or two others towards the exit, that would be very helpful; thanks in advance. 

[stingrayPete1977]

7 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

What..? And infringe H&S regulations, to boot..? Are you mad..? 

Are you TimR in disguise?  I think he trained the uk fire service in his lunch hour a few years ago.