prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:29, discreet said: Its not deceit if there is no intention to deceive!! Intention!! Expand Intentionally selling a fake item.
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:30, Dad3353 said: No problem, Karl. Was the logo applied by the factory (or under license...) or not..? That's the only criteria. Modded or not, original or not; no problem. It's only the logo that's protected IP (trademark...) Expand Yep.
Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:41, prowla said: Intentionally selling a fake item. Expand But that doesn't happen. What does happen is selling basses with a trademarked logo without being made by or licensed from the trademark holder. I'd say that that's a very different proposition. There's no deceit, but an infringement of Intellectual Property (IP...), that 's all.
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:41, prowla said: Intentionally selling a fake item. Expand Its not intentionally selling a fake item if it is honestly described and there is no intention to deceive.
timmo Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:41, prowla said: Intentionally selling a fake item. Expand Who is intentionally selling a fake item ?
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:45, Dad3353 said: But that doesn't happen. What does happen is selling basses with a trademarked logo without being made by or licensed from the trademark holder. I'd say that that's a very different proposition. There's no deceit, but an infringement of Intellectual Property (IP...), that 's all. Expand Intentionally selling an item titled Fender which is known to have a non-genuine Fender logo.
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:40, prowla said: The mods adopt a light-touch and don't monitor/vet everything. Expand So why take it upon yourself to do so?
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:45, discreet said: Its not intentionally selling a fake item if it is honestly described and there is no intention to deceive. Expand It is still a fake even if you say so. "Come and get yer genuine fake Rolex watches, Gucci handbags - roll up, roll up!".
Paul S Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 Prowla, you are simply and plainly wrong. You may believe you are right but that belief is not based in fact. Go read the Theft act. Sec 15 covers deception. But, in a nutshell. Man makes a bitsa from cheap bits, sticks a Fender decal on it and sells it as a Fender - deception. Man buys a bass with a fender logo but is of the opinion it is probably fake. He sells it described as a Fender - deception. Man sells bass with Fender decal applied. Describes it as not a Fender - NO deception.
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:49, discreet said: So why take it upon yourself to do so? Expand Well, one the one hand, who said I did? And on the other hand, if the mods stance is that they will react to reported infringements, then isn't that a requirement?
timmo Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:51, prowla said: It is still a fake even if you say so. "Come and get yer genuine fake Rolex watches, Gucci handbags - roll up, roll up!". Expand There you go. You have just made the distinction clear. If you are selling fake Rolex watches and telling people that it is genuine, that is deceit. Having a Rolex , and telling you it is a fake, is not deceit
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:49, prowla said: Intentionally selling an item titled Fender which is known to have a non-genuine Fender logo. Expand How many times has that happened when there was no qualifier explaining the true nature of the bass?
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:53, Paul S said: Prowla, you are simply and plainly wrong. You may believe you are right but that belief is not based in fact. Go read the Theft act. Sec 15 covers deception. But, in a nutshell. Man makes a bitsa from cheap bits, sticks a Fender decal on it and sells it as a Fender - deception. Man buys a bass with a fender logo but is of the opinion it is probably fake. He sells it described as a Fender - deception. Man sells bass with Fender decal applied. Describes it as not a Fender - NO deception. Expand You are picking which laws (and rules) you wish to apply. Links to counterfeit/trademark law have already been provided, along with links to site rules covering copyright/trademark.
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:54, timmo said: There you go. You have just made the distinction clear. If you are selling fake Rolex watches and telling people that it is genuine, that is deceit. Having a Rolex , and telling you it is a fake, is not deceit Expand But it is still illegal.
Paul S Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 No YOU were talking specifically about deception in your examples above and you are wrong.
mickster Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) On 27/12/2017 at 16:55, prowla said: You are picking which laws (and rules) you wish to apply. Links to counterfeit/trademark law have already been provided, along with links to site rules covering copyright/trademark. Expand Yeah, but that bad stuff's not gonna happen to us on BC anymore, is it Prowla? We've got you - thank christ - to look after our best interests and point out where the rules were being inadvertently overlooked. I can just tell already how everything's gonna get more thorough, more shipshape, more in ordnung now you're here to oversee stuff. Nothing falling outside the lines, no messiness, no surprises, like before you came. Thanks, Prowla. You’re a mensch and I just know yr gonna fit right in here eventually... Edited December 27, 2017 by mickster
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:55, discreet said: How many times has that happened when there was no qualifier explaining the true nature of the bass? Expand I only went back through this month's bass sales and found a number of items bearing false logos and Fender in their titles.
timmo Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:56, prowla said: But it is still illegal. Expand I understand what you are saying about fakes being illegal. You were implying that people were out to deceive, even though it is clearly written on the description that it is not a genuine Fender. You are clearly arguing about different things. The Rolex example is a clear fake and attempt to deceive. If you tell the person it is fake, you are not deceiving.
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:56, Paul S said: No YOU were talking specifically about deception in your examples above and you are wrong. Expand The fact that they have the logo is a deception and is illegal. The fact that they have Fender in the title but are not is a deception, regardless of the subsequent description. Simple answer is to just not use that company's brand.
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 17:00, timmo said: I understand what you are saying about fakes being illegal. You were implying that people were out to deceive, even though it is clearly written on the description that it is not a genuine Fender. You are clearly arguing about different things. The Rolex example is a clear fake and attempt to deceive. If you tell the person it is fake, you are not deceiving. Expand The existence of the fake logo itself is a deception; saying it is a fake doesn't get around that.
Paul S Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 17:01, prowla said: The fact that they have the logo is a deception and is illegal. The fact that they have Fender in the title but are not is a deception, regardless of the subsequent description. Simple answer is to just not use that company's brand. Expand No it isn't. As I explained. You do not know what you are talking about I am afraid.
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 17:01, EssentialTension said: I'm nearly out of popcorn. Expand I'm nearly ready for another fry-up!
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 16:57, mickster said: Yeah, but that bad stuff's not gonna happen to us on BC anymore, is it Prowla? We've got you - thank christ - to look after our best interests and point out where the rules were being inadvertently overlooked. I can just tell already how everything's gonna get more thorough, more shipshape, more in ordnung now you're here to oversee stuff. Nothing falling outside the lines, no messiness, no surprises, like before you came. Thanks, Prowla. You’re a mensch and I just know yr gonna fit right in here eventually... Expand Thanks for your support!
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Posted December 27, 2017 On 27/12/2017 at 17:03, Paul S said: No it isn't. As I explained. You do not know what you are talking about I am afraid. Expand Yes it is, as I explained. You are trying to have a different argument (ie. quoting the theft act to support a spurious argument).
Recommended Posts