prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 11 minutes ago, discreet said: Its not deceit if there is no intention to deceive!! Intention!! Intentionally selling a fake item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 12 minutes ago, 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...) Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, prowla said: Intentionally selling a fake item. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, prowla said: Intentionally selling a fake item. Its not intentionally selling a fake item if it is honestly described and there is no intention to deceive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmo Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, prowla said: Intentionally selling a fake item. Who is intentionally selling a fake item ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, 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. Intentionally selling an item titled Fender which is known to have a non-genuine Fender logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 8 minutes ago, prowla said: The mods adopt a light-touch and don't monitor/vet everything. So why take it upon yourself to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, discreet said: Its not intentionally selling a fake item if it is honestly described and there is no intention to deceive. It is still a fake even if you say so. "Come and get yer genuine fake Rolex watches, Gucci handbags - roll up, roll up!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul S Posted December 27, 2017 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, discreet said: So why take it upon yourself to do so? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmo Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Just now, 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!". 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, prowla said: Intentionally selling an item titled Fender which is known to have a non-genuine Fender logo. How many times has that happened when there was no qualifier explaining the true nature of the bass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 Just now, 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, 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 But it is still illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul S Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 No YOU were talking specifically about deception in your examples above and you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickster Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, discreet said: How many times has that happened when there was no qualifier explaining the true nature of the bass? I only went back through this month's bass sales and found a number of items bearing false logos and Fender in their titles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmo Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, prowla said: But it is still illegal. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Paul S said: No YOU were talking specifically about deception in your examples above and you are wrong. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssentialTension Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I'm nearly out of popcorn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, 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. The existence of the fake logo itself is a deception; saying it is a fake doesn't get around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul S Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Just now, 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. No it isn't. As I explained. You do not know what you are talking about I am afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, EssentialTension said: I'm nearly out of popcorn. I'm nearly ready for another fry-up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, 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... Thanks for your support! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Paul S said: No it isn't. As I explained. You do not know what you are talking about I am afraid. Yes it is, as I explained. You are trying to have a different argument (ie. quoting the theft act to support a spurious argument). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts