Rickenbackers for sale?

[Kiwi]

And the other thing to be clear about assuming thst  a change in sentiment means a change in risk even though the legal rights and need to enforce them hasn't changed.

[RhysP]

18 hours ago, lowregisterhead said:

If they're still setting fire to English-owned holiday homes in Wales it'll probably feel just like California...

They won't be in any danger as neither of them are english... 😈

[Kiwi]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Indeed, as you should, which is why you shouldn't start producing and distributing rickenbacker copies yourself, however, if you sell a private instrument which you are not claiming is a rickenbacker, you are not infringing. The only problem is when it is a fake (ie, you are claiming it is a rickenback when it isn't), and how many fake fenders have probably gone through the site over the years? I think it is easier to spot a fake ric then a fake fender.

Fair enough. I'm really not in the right frame of mind to deep dive on this at the moment.  I have surgery 9am tomorrow morning and I keep being interrupted by nurses and doctors with with things to do, blood samples to give and forms to sign.  

 

My position is I'm open minded about lifting the ban. But it's conditional. 

 

But I think it's going to mean the mods do more work to police the classifieds which kind of undoes the recent coding we implemented to reduce that burden. 

 

And while it could be claimed fake fenders may have been sold through BC, Fender haven't had the same attitude towards enforcing their IP rights.

 

What nobody knows right now is whether Rickenbackers attitude has changed given Hall's perceived retirement.

 

@Hamster you probably have the clearest view of things.  Any thoughts? 

 

I'll jump back in, probably sometime Saturday if my head has cleared by then. 

[Happy Jack]

7 minutes ago, Kiwi said:

And the other thing to be clear about assuming thst  a change in sentiment means a change in risk even though the legal rights and need to enforce them hasn't changed.

 

Happy to wait to hear Colin's take on this, and I fully appreciate that you have other problems on your mind just now (although that hospital suite looks jolly nice 🙄) but just to pick up on this comment.

 

The question is not whether or not the level of risk is changing - maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The question is what exactly is the risk?

 

I was asking this question ten years ago and got no answer. Seeing as others have raised the subject again I have no problem is asking the same question again. I repeat ...

 

Precisely what action, or type of action, could Rickenbacker bring against Basschat? And what redress would they be seeking?

 

If the answer is, "It's my website and I'll do what I want" then I have no problem at all with that answer. It's not the answer I would give in your position but so what? You and @ped set up Basschat, not me. 😎

 

[Woodinblack]

10 minutes ago, Kiwi said:

Fair enough. I'm really not in the mood to deep dive on this at the moment.  I have surgery 9am tomorrow morning and I keep being interrupted by nurses and doctors with with things to do, blood samples to give and forms to sign. 

 

Lets hope they get round to it this time then!

 

6 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

I was asking this question ten years ago and got no answer. Seeing as others have raised the subject again I have no problem is asking the same question again. I repeat ...

 

Precisely what action, or type of action, could Rickenbacker bring against Basschat? And what redress would they be seeking?

 

ten years ago, I suspect the risk is as low as the risk is now, but if you have every spent time talking to Mr Hall (in other than a friendly interview session), the actual risk was having to deal with one of the most unpleasant people you could ever hope to talk to. Frankly it was not worth the effort.

[ped]

Let's lift it and if we get a court summons, put the ban back. It won't happen. We aren't and haven't been doing anything wrong - the ban was intended to be damaging to Rickenbacker by virtue of reducing their exposure among our niche community, at least in my eyes - and the chance to get in some salty remarks about their aggressive behaviour. Lawyers I have worked with will always respect the IP rights if its easier to say that than dig deep into the actual infringement and suggest sailing close to the wind.

[RhysP]

9 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

ten years ago, I suspect the risk is as low as the risk is now, but if you have every spent time talking to Mr Hall (in other than a friendly interview session), the actual risk was having to deal with one of the most unpleasant people you could ever hope to talk to. Frankly it was not worth the effort.

Exactly this. It's easy for people to beach & moan when they're not the ones that have to deal with the consequences, even if that is only having to interact with unpleasant emails.

If I was one of the owners/administrators of Basschat, I would think the prospect of Rickenbacker finally deciding to make an example of a site ignoring their threats as a warning to others would be enough to justify the ban staying in place.

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by RhysP
Worm Moosespelt

[Woodinblack]

15 minutes ago, ped said:

 the ban was intended to be damaging to Rickenbacker by virtue of reducing their exposure among our niche community, at least in my eyes - and the chance to get in some salty remarks about their aggressive behaviour.

 

Sounds like good reasons to me.

[BigRedX]

Regarding what Rickenbacker can do to Basschat, I doubt anything has changed since last time this question was raised.

 

While they may not have the time and energy to pursue this through the UK courts, there is plenty that Rickenbacker can easily do which would make things difficult for the day-to-day running of Basschat. 

 

I suspect that like most relatively small websites Basschat relies on a number of services that are provided by US-based companies. Which company did Basschat use to register the domain name? Where are the servers physically located and who owns that infra-structure? Even if neither of those have anything to do with the US there is still the software used to run the forum (Invision) and Cloudflare who the site relies on to protect it from on-line attacks are both most definitely US based.

 

It would be very unfortunate if Basschat were to disappear because Rickenbacker put pressure on the those US companies and services the website relies on, on the grounds that Basschat was facilitating IP infringement. To challenge that would most likely require US court time which isn't going to be easy or cheap for a UK website.

[Happy Jack]

10 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

... there is plenty that Rickenbacker can easily do which would make things difficult for the day-to-day running of Basschat. 

 

And around we go again with the urban myths. Mike, do you have a single example of Rickenbacker ever doing this? Even once? Successful or otherwise?

 

I'm not claiming some God-like omniscience here; if there is evidence that this sort of thing has ever happened then I'll shut up sharpish. 

 

There are many, many more signs warning you of Speed Cameras Ahead than there are actual speed cameras, because a sign is way cheaper to install and maintain than a speed camera, right? But at least real speed cameras actually exist. Don't ask me how I know.

 

It costs Rickenbacker (or any other company) very little to threaten legal action, in fact it is virtually free these days since any clown with a keyboard can do it by email. Actually initiating legal action is another matter entirely. Suing people on behalf of my firm was part of my job for over 20 years. Number of threats issues = dozens, perhaps even a hundred or more. Number of legal actions initiated = zero.

 

I have actually sued (and won) three times as an individual, but never once out there in the corporate world. The game is hardly ever worth the candle.

 

[BigRedX]

Not Rickenbacker themselves, but there have been instances in the past where US tech companies have been very jumpy around the subject of IP and copyright infringement, and their default position had been to shut the service down first and ask questions second, this was especially noticeable in years immediately after the DMCA came into being. It's a while since there have been any high-profile instances so I'll have to do some digging to find when it last happened. The problem is that most websites rely on multiple 3rd party services to keep going and all it needs is for one of them to get cold feet following an IP infringement allegation and the whole site disappears.

[prowla]

2 hours ago, Happy Jack said:

Remember this?
 

 

I'm on p.3 BTW.

 

Tokai should've complained as well, as they don't make Rockinbetters!

[prowla]

I think there is a big difference between a company taking action against a counterfeiter or distributor vs. going after private one-off sales between individuals via the classifieds.

That said, RIC don't even appear to be going for the folks selling counterfeit £4.99 TRCs for £25+ on ebay.

[Woodinblack]

53 minutes ago, prowla said:

Tokai should've complained as well, as they don't make Rockinbetters!

 

I was going to say that, but if I had a £ for every time I had to, I would have probably bought a few more basses!

 

You should remember when talking of them presurising cloudflare and domain companies, that Rickenback are not a very big company at all, they are not like a big tech company at all.

[Hamster]

3 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Indeed, as you should, which is why you shouldn't start producing and distributing rickenbacker copies yourself, however, if you sell a private instrument which you are not claiming is a rickenbacker, you are not infringing. The only problem is when it is a fake (ie, you are claiming it is a rickenback when it isn't), and how many fake fenders have probably gone through the site over the years? I think it is easier to spot a fake ric then a fake fender.

The problem was then, and is now, is in regard to exposing or facilitating the sale of a copyrighted product. 

 

If we were producing and selling fake Rics I think the general opinion would be against lifting the ban, unfortunately its the same piece of legislation that prohibits facilitating the sale. 

 

It's all in regard to the copyrighted trademarks. We know how fast lawyers are to take action if we use the phrase, 

 

"Basschat - the Rolls Royce of bass websites" or "McBasschat - Bass food for thought" 

 

I'm not against lifting the ban, just cautious, and besides, who the hell wants to buy a Ric? 😉

[Velarian]

Notwithstanding that we maybe talking about trademark infringement rather than copyright, isn’t this analogous to YouTube dealing with copyright claims? People regularly post content who’s IP is owned by others. The owner can notify YT and they oblige by taking the content down but if there is no challenge then it stays up.

 

I think, In the case of BC, if there was a clear notice setting out the basis on which Rick adverts can be posted (i.e. genuine items only) and someone then posts an ad in contravention of those terms then BC could not be seen to be soliciting such content. It would be incumbent on the Rick people to serve a cease and desist notice and as long as BC reacts to such requests then I can’t imagine any court awarding punitive damages. Companies regularly serve cease and desist notices and might only take action if the notice is not acted upon. This would put the onus on the Rick people to police this rather than the mods of the forum.

 

N.B. This is in no way an informed legal view, just what seems sensible to me. 

 

 

[prowla]

3 hours ago, Hamster said:

The problem was then, and is now, is in regard to exposing or facilitating the sale of a copyrighted product. 

 

If we were producing and selling fake Rics I think the general opinion would be against lifting the ban, unfortunately its the same piece of legislation that prohibits facilitating the sale. 

 

It's all in regard to the copyrighted trademarks. We know how fast lawyers are to take action if we use the phrase, 

 

"Basschat - the Rolls Royce of bass websites" or "McBasschat - Bass food for thought" 

 

I'm not against lifting the ban, just cautious, and besides, who the hell wants to buy a Ric? 😉

 

Crowd: "We're all individuals."

Brian: "I'm not!"

[Bassassin]

Can't see a problem with lifting the ban. Over the last 10 years, and particularly since Mr Hall has been 'retired' to his nice, comfy padded cell, RIC appears to have changed somewhat - interesting new models, bridges that intonate, single, functional truss rods - and an acceptance, perhaps, that threatening fire & brimstone at all & sundry will not stem the tide of AliExpress tat, and that maintaining their IP is perhaps a bit more nuanced than the old fake-litigious approach.

 

My ear's nothing like as close to the ground as it once was, but I think copies still get removed from Ebay & the like, so IMO a 'no Fakers' policy would still be prudent. There are a good few of us on here (me & @prowla, for a start) who can spot a copy at 1000 yards, so anything that looked a bit wrong would be potentially easy to weed out. In fairness none of the modern Chinese Fakers bear more than a passing cosmetic resemblance, so we'd only be talking about the handful of through-neck 70s MIJ basses that are still in circulation anyway.

[prowla]

39 minutes ago, Bassassin said:

Can't see a problem with lifting the ban. Over the last 10 years, and particularly since Mr Hall has been 'retired' to his nice, comfy padded cell, RIC appears to have changed somewhat - interesting new models, bridges that intonate, single, functional truss rods - and an acceptance, perhaps, that threatening fire & brimstone at all & sundry will not stem the tide of AliExpress tat, and that maintaining their IP is perhaps a bit more nuanced than the old fake-litigious approach.

 

My ear's nothing like as close to the ground as it once was, but I think copies still get removed from Ebay & the like, so IMO a 'no Fakers' policy would still be prudent. There are a good few of us on here (me & @prowla, for a start) who can spot a copy at 1000 yards, so anything that looked a bit wrong would be potentially easy to weed out. In fairness none of the modern Chinese Fakers bear more than a passing cosmetic resemblance, so we'd only be talking about the handful of through-neck 70s MIJ basses that are still in circulation anyway.

🙂

And those 70s fakers were made before RIC registered the trademarks. 

[skankdelvar]

Simplest and quickest thing to do would be to email RIC and ask them if they continue to maintain their previous policy in respect of web forums hosting ads for Fakers (instant demands for take-downs, threats of legal action for non-compliance, brutal cavity searches, etc).

 

If they say Yes, that's still our position, then keep the ban in place. If they say 'no problem' then lift the ban.

[Paul S]

10 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

Simplest and quickest thing to do would be to email RIC and ask them if they continue to maintain their previous policy in respect of web forums hosting ads for Fakers (instant demands for take-downs, threats of legal action for non-compliance, brutal cavity searches, etc).

 

If they say Yes, that's still our position, then keep the ban in place. If they say 'no problem' then lift the ban.

 

Laser-like logic, Mr Del-Var, with an unequivocal solution.  Well done.  

[prowla]

10 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

Simplest and quickest thing to do would be to email RIC and ask them if they continue to maintain their previous policy in respect of web forums hosting ads for Fakers (instant demands for take-downs, threats of legal action for non-compliance, brutal cavity searches, etc).

 

If they say Yes, that's still our position, then keep the ban in place. If they say 'no problem' then lift the ban.

You mean ask them to endorse the sale of fakers?

[Jakester]

11 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

Simplest and quickest thing to do would be to email RIC and ask them if they continue to maintain their previous policy in respect of web forums hosting ads for Fakers (instant demands for take-downs, threats of legal action for non-compliance, brutal cavity searches, etc).

 

If they say Yes, that's still our position, then keep the ban in place. If they say 'no problem' then lift the ban.

Is it not better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, though? I mean, why go looking for trouble...

[Bassassin]

13 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

Simplest and quickest thing to do would be to email RIC and ask them if they continue to maintain their previous policy in respect of web forums hosting ads for Fakers (instant demands for take-downs, threats of legal action for non-compliance, brutal cavity searches, etc).

 

If they say Yes, that's still our position, then keep the ban in place. If they say 'no problem' then lift the ban.

I don't see that they could openly agree to letting BC advertise copies for sale without abandoning the trademarks they've protected for years.

 

Maintaining ownership of their trademarked designs means that under US law they have to visibly take action against infringements. Doesn't matter if it's a 50 year old copy which pre-dates the registration of the trademarks, or if it's being sold on a little UK forum.

 

They will be perfectly happy with genuine Ricks being advertised here, and it's not hard to make sure that's all that gets listed.

[Woodinblack]

3 minutes ago, Bassassin said:

I don't see that they could openly agree to letting BC advertise copies for sale without abandoning the trademarks they've protected for years.

 

No, they never would or could. The idea of asking them would be a waste of time.