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

[karlfer]

So, the asking of a question is sh*t stirring Mr Apple? Disappointing response. As for exhuming horses??
I asked a genuine question as to whether it could possibly be looked at, that's all. I also requested if the question was inappropriate, please remove the thread.
Most people have entered into the spirit of the question but more than one has to be the clever one about it. Oh well it's the internet .
Strangely enough when I was thinking about adverts having to be authorised by "committee" the Faker expert I had in mind was the blindingly obvious one, namely Bassassin.
By the way, for anybody who thinks otherwise, Mr Hall has been AMAZINGLY successful in getting ads for Fakers pulled and the result of that seems to have been a very strange downward pressure on their selling prices.
Thanks to everybody for their thoughts nonetheless.

Edited April 13, 2014 by karlfer

[the boy]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1397323276' post='2422858']
it's both unfair and unrealistic to expect the owners of BC to have that fight.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone expects that. I'm guessing the point of this new topic is to explore ways of advertising Rics without the risk of the fight.

[karlfer]

[quote name='the boy' timestamp='1397368413' post='2423177']
I don't think anyone expects that. I'm guessing the point of this new topic is to explore ways of advertising Rics without the risk of the fight.
[/quote]

Exactly.

[Annoying Twit]

Have there been any threads (or opinion) discussing the legal basis of Rickenbacker's trademarks, and what is and isn't legal concerning these. The following is solely my own opinion, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

According to the RickResource thread: http://www.rickresource.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=409369 Rickenbacker has trademarks on its headstock and body shape. And, I'm sure I've seen details on these. But, the Intellectual Property Office only seems to show trademarks on the word 'Rickenbacker', including the truss rod cover (which has the word Rickenbacker on it). E.g. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmownerid/search?domain=1&id=23286&app=1&name=rickenbacker&postcode=

I've had a quick read of the law, and it's certainly not simple. I cannot see wording that immediately suggests to a layman that the selling of Rickenbacker copies on a forum breaks the law, or is actually an infringement of that trademark. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmact94.pdf John Hall on his forum is very clear that he owns trademarks (though I couldn't find these on the ICO website - and I searched on John Hall as well as Rickenbacker). He then glibly states that photos posted on basschat (and ebay) infringe his trademarks. I presume that his lawyers have advised him, but it would help preserve his reputation and the reputation of his company (as said above, all of this is solely my opinion) if he would actually explain how his actions are reasonable given the law. And saying that he needs to protect his trademark is not enough, it might help if he explained how in law such photographs infringe his trademark. Note that this requires both that the trademarks be used, and also that the use of the trademarks be improper, which is defined in law. E.g. I can say the word "Coca Cola" in the sentence "If you concentrate carefully, you may notice that the primary flavours of coca cola are vanilla, cinnamon, and an acid." That's because I'm an individual and not making that statement as my trade.

I can understand basschat's moderators' position. Whether or not John Hall has the legal right to ban adverts of second hand copies of Rickenbacker instruments on basschat is pretty much moot. He has the ability to start a legal case, and that would be incredibly inconvenient and damaging to the moderators and the forum, even if John Hall lost any such case.

Furthermore, my understanding of the law is that there might be even more damage to basschat if a fake Rickenbacker (branded and sold as a Rickenbacker) was sold on the forum. Normally (again, in case anyone's forgotten, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice) it would be expected that the forum would be expected to take reasonable steps to avoid such infringement. However, even if the moderators had such a defence, they would still be severely inconvenienced (understatement) by any legal case that arose. So the current policy seems the only way of avoiding these problems.

From reading what John Hall writes, I (am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice) think he is claiming that basschat, because it charges for ads, is undertaking a trade. And that adverts posted on basschat that include the headstock and body shape of a Rickenbacker or something visually similar, infringe on that trademark. However, the law itself is not clear on whether the provision of a forum, even if for paid adverts, means that it is basschat that is infringing (if there is infringement), or whether the individual that posts the bass is the one who is potentially infringing, and then would have to be engaged in (legal) trade.

Furthermore, I (am not a lawyer this is opinion only) am not convinced that if both the item itself and the advertisement make it clear that this is not a Rickenbacker, that there is infringement. What John Hall says he has is a trademark, he doesn't seem to be claiming design rights. Hence, it's trademark law that defines what is and isn't legal, and I believe that it's not clear that the requirements of infringement of trademark are being met.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Annoying Twit

[Annoying Twit]

[quote name='karlfer' timestamp='1397367860' post='2423172'] Strangely enough when I was thinking about adverts having to be authorised by "committee" the Faker expert I had in mind was the blindingly obvious one, namely Bassassin. [/quote]

Global disclaimer: Everything I post in this forum is solely my own opinion.

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.

[jonsmith]

Despite feeling the occasional desire to add to my little Rick collection, I think things are fine on Basschat the way they are to be honest. We can still discuss Rickenbacker products, but the forum faces no legal threats - justified or not - while operating the current system. There are other places to buy and sell Ricks if one feels so inclined & I don't think their second hand sales are really damaged by exclusion here.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1397346177' post='2423132']
Yes we do. We have members who can identify a Rickenbacker copy, blindfolded and with one arm tied behind their back.

J.
[/quote] we missed you when you weren't around. When you we'rent around we probably had the one arm tied behind the back but would possibly have had to leave out the blindfold.

[bumnote]

[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]

this

[wateroftyne]

There's nothing nice about getting legal threats.

Even if you're certain you're in the right, an opponent with lots of money and a bee in their bonnet can make your life a stressful misery.

If BC has to take measures like it has to be free of the threats, then so be it.

There's only one party to blame, and it isn't BC.

[flyfisher]

[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]

Depends what you mean by 'ramifications'? Even being totally innocent doesn't mean you can't suffer at the hands of litigation. Imagine being forced to prove your innocence, with all the attendant time, cost, worry and stress involved? And for what, advertising a bass for sale? Why would you even consider taking such a risk? Here's an example of an innocent person experiencing some 'legal ramifications' of not doing anything wrong: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27007764

This is not really a legal issue, it's a policy issue by the BC owners and as such should be respected. Agree or disagree with it by all means but please respect their absolute right to decide.

[Billy Apple]

[quote name='karlfer' timestamp='1397367860' post='2423172']
So, the asking of a question is sh*t stirring Mr Apple? Disappointing response.
[/quote]

Disappointing in what way? Are you disappointed because I gave you an honest answer? Maybe if this subject had not been raked over and over again in the past there would be a little more debate involved, but there are pages and pages of discussion that evidence the degree to which this subject has been covered. But, you know what, you can't please all the people all the time so naturally we have members who every now and then like to take a pop at BC over this subject. Like in some way this is down to BC or BC has some kind of prejudice against Rickenbacker basses. I honestly don't know what difference the passage of time makes to this issue, apart from to cement the knowledge the we a a Ric free market place. So to keep on about it after the fact does seem like sh1t stirring to me.

BC is a Ric free market place. The decision has been made. Move on.

[jonsmith]

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

Who verifies this? That's the problem!

[simon1964]

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1397380905' post='2423296']
Disappointing in what way? Are you disappointed because I gave you an honest answer?
[/quote]

But to be fair to Karlfer, he was actually invited to start a thread in General Discussion by another Mod, when the issue got raised in a For Sale thread. That same Mod has even transferred some of the posts from the hijacked For Sale thread here. So your accusation of "sh1t stirring" does come across as a bit heavy handed.

PS - yes, I do realise it was a post by me that lead to the hijacking of the For Sale thread. Apologies!

Edited April 13, 2014 by simon1964

[karlfer]

No. I'm disappointed because of the attitude shown over a question posed.
Things change over the course of time. To ask a question then to see a response that considers it is sh*t stirring is disappointing and shows (in my opinion) a fundamental misunderstanding of why the question was asked.
Perhaps I have missed all the other debates after the initial thread asking members opinions and stating the owners position on the matter. If that is the case, my bad.
The last thing I want to see is Basschat getting serious hassle from RIC, but it was a serious question.

AND BY THE WAY, where exactly did I have a pop at Basschat? If I have done that, then I apologise unreservedly. Basschat is very important to me (even if my subs appear to have lapsed ).

Edited April 13, 2014 by karlfer

[Billy Apple]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1397381838' post='2423312']
But to be fair to Karlfer, he was actually invited to start a thread in General Discussion by another Mod. So your accusation of "sh1t stirring" does come across as a bit heavy handed.
[/quote]

Well, that's me, heavy handed. Just like my playing. But, I stand by my comments and opinions. Seriously though, move on from this, the decision has been made. Whether you like it or not, it was debated and put to the vote, which is something the owners did not have to do. You're maybe unhappy about the voter turn-out in relation to BC total membership, but you can't force people to log on and take part. But I'd put a £5 on the vote being the voice of our active core membership from both sides of the fence.

I'd rather Rics were available FS here. I'd rather wind the clock back to when I was 17 and I didn't have a care in the world, but neither is going to happen any time soon.

It's a lovely day outside and I'm not going to waste it any longer in the house swatting the flies off this dead horse.

[jonsmith]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1397382248' post='2423319']
You've answered my question with another question!
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]

I thought my question would help you to arrive at the answer for yourself, but evidently not. I'll phrase it differently then.

A seller can claim that an item they are selling is a genuine Rickenbacker product, however Basschat cannot verify that without time and effort. It's simply not worth the risk & hassle.

Edited April 13, 2014 by jonsmith

[EmmettC]

It's also worth considering that whoever hosts the site would most likely shut it down at the slightest hint of a legal problem. I worked in a bar, we used our website to advertise gigs, one complaint (unjustified) from a competitor that we were fly posting and littering and our site was shut down, it took weeks to get it back up. Even if we were fly posting or littering it would have nothing to do with the website, but the people hosting it didn't want any part of a legal issue.

[karlfer]

Bloody southerners and their beautiful days. I live in Wigan. If you did you would understand why I'm a grumpy old git

[RhysP]

[quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1397360466' post='2423167']
My apologies, I missed out the winking emoticon after the suggested name for the thread.
[/quote]

Sorry, impossible to tell if it was a joke or not as it's exactly the sort of dumb-ass thing that's likely to be suggested.

[Thunderbird]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1397337297' post='2423044']
Because that would undoubtably lead to a lot of sales fee dodging by dishonest cheapskates.
I cannot believe that this particular well decomposed horse has been dug up for yet another flogging.
[/quote] Thinking about it that is true I could not agree with you more on both points you have made

[RhysP]

[quote name='Thunderbird' timestamp='1397390320' post='2423398']
Thinking about it that is true I could not agree with you more on both points you have made
[/quote]

I am the voice of reason.

[Gust0o]

[quote name='Number6' timestamp='1397331059' post='2422958']
Out of all the members on this forum is there not a Solicitor that can advise?

(I'm new here and have no intention of reading back through all the threads).
[/quote]

A number were asked, but few responded to the call - it seems it's not quite so easy to ask a mate for professional advice

I think Kiwi and Ped got the advice they could, when making their original decision. A prolonged argument, be it legalistic or simply responding to the inevitable chaff and bluster from John Hall, was deemed not to be conducive to their ambitions for the site.

I have a lot of sympathy for their position, however much it is a shame to lose the ability to trade or discuss certain items. They could fight the demand; they could acquiesce and allow a third party unwarranted access to and influence on the operations of the site; or they could bypass the issue. They chose the latter, and any similiarities with John Hall's desires are coincidental,I would suggest.

The one constant in this is, of course, John Hall. I'm not sure, until he changes, we'll ever see this satisfactorily concluded. As long as we're subject to his personal whims and company policy, the threat of a return to our original situation exists - where Kiwi and Ped would find themselves with the same choices.

Someone talked about him winning - perhaps, perhaps not. It's damaged his brand, to my eyes, which is his chief trading commodity. People are welcome to return to the original threads for my opinions on just how different the markets are for real Rics versus the fakes - and where John might find better value for himself and his company, unless he values the need to be seen to protect his properties over any measure of brand or engagement. I, personally and professionally, think he's called it wrong, and his conduct has been poor - and I'm happy to treat that decision with the disdain I feel it deserves.

Whilst I'm doing so, I will respect the original decision until sufficient changes for Ped and Kiwi to consider it again. It is, after all, their decision

[Dad3353]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1397381838' post='2423312']
But to be fair to Karlfer, he was actually invited to start a thread in General Discussion by another Mod, when the issue got raised in a For Sale thread. That same Mod has even transferred some of the posts from the hijacked For Sale thread here...[/quote]

A simple point of order: it was I that brought the original conversation into this thread, in the interests of clarity and openness. The conversation was not deemed to be appropriate to the original topic, but contained nothing warranting deletion, so I copied it here. Just sayin'.

[chrismuzz]

[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]

Good question. We'd need to find out from the horses mouth if there would be any way to prove beyond all doubt that a bass is genuine. I think that if there was it would still be quite difficult to ensure that everyone who sells one on here follows the guidelines. It's probably easier and safer to just avoid it altogether by banning them. Again, its a shame but the decision would only have been made if it was the only viable option

[lojo]

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.

An authentic second hand Ric market on here will ensure hopefully no more money from BCters given to them, sort of a meaningless vito