Did Y'all See This Stuff?
- Thread starter BS123
- Start date
Hoss
Joyfulnoiseologist
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
i can understand them now wanting anyone to pawn anything off as a fender...but there's only so many shapes you can make a guitar...get real! just start making good guitars again and they won't have to worry about it...i used to be one of those folks who thought it had to say fender usa or gibson on it to even be worth playing.......that's sooooo not even the case!!!
i can understand them now wanting anyone to pawn anything off as a fender...but there's only so many shapes you can make a guitar...get real! just start making good guitars again and they won't have to worry about it...i used to be one of those folks who thought it had to say fender usa or gibson on it to even be worth playing.......that's sooooo not even the case!!!
kill your scene
New member
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
Why should anyone boycott Fender or Gibson? They make the guitars we want, so that's what we'll buy. It's like the episode of South Park where everyone is trying to boycott the "Starbucks-style" coffee shop that moves in and takes business away from a little mom and dad place. The kids explain that the mega-corporation used to be a little mom and dad place, too... the only reason they have tons of money and legal teams right now is because they created a quality product and sold it to people who want to buy it. Period. It's supply and demand. If you're against Fender having money and using their resources in whatever way they see fit, then I hate to say it, but a free-market economy isn't for you.
We live in America and the little guy who's building Strat and Tele knockoffs has the same shot at success that Leo Fender did when he opened his own shop. That's the beauty of it. If this guy can't think up anything more creative than making Strat and Tele designs, then he should be prepared to be sued. Why should Fender sit around and allow their copyrighted material to be stolen? Just because this guy has less money doesn't make him a victim.
I also hate it when people argue that, because I like Fender, that means I'm getting the wool pulled over my eyes. I'm a grown adult who has the ability to make choices about what I buy and what I don't, and if I choose Fender, then that's what I'm going with. I'm not being scammed, bamboozled or swindled any more than the other millions and millions of people who choose Fender. How my choice as a consumer makes me "lazy" is beyond me. This is just another case of everyone trying to pretend they're being victimized by the big bad corporate giant, when, in reality, the guy being sued is stealing intellectual property and deserves whatever lawsuit Fender drags him through. Let him steal something I came up with and I'd sue his ass, too.
ArtieToo said:
Why should anyone boycott Fender or Gibson? They make the guitars we want, so that's what we'll buy. It's like the episode of South Park where everyone is trying to boycott the "Starbucks-style" coffee shop that moves in and takes business away from a little mom and dad place. The kids explain that the mega-corporation used to be a little mom and dad place, too... the only reason they have tons of money and legal teams right now is because they created a quality product and sold it to people who want to buy it. Period. It's supply and demand. If you're against Fender having money and using their resources in whatever way they see fit, then I hate to say it, but a free-market economy isn't for you.
We live in America and the little guy who's building Strat and Tele knockoffs has the same shot at success that Leo Fender did when he opened his own shop. That's the beauty of it. If this guy can't think up anything more creative than making Strat and Tele designs, then he should be prepared to be sued. Why should Fender sit around and allow their copyrighted material to be stolen? Just because this guy has less money doesn't make him a victim.
I also hate it when people argue that, because I like Fender, that means I'm getting the wool pulled over my eyes. I'm a grown adult who has the ability to make choices about what I buy and what I don't, and if I choose Fender, then that's what I'm going with. I'm not being scammed, bamboozled or swindled any more than the other millions and millions of people who choose Fender. How my choice as a consumer makes me "lazy" is beyond me. This is just another case of everyone trying to pretend they're being victimized by the big bad corporate giant, when, in reality, the guy being sued is stealing intellectual property and deserves whatever lawsuit Fender drags him through. Let him steal something I came up with and I'd sue his ass, too.
That90'sGuy
DyzaBoyzologist
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
I guess what's going on now is that Fender doesn't like people buying guitars that aren't theirs, putting the Fender name on them, and selling them. I've heard this is what Nash Guitars does.
At the same time, I saw one auction where he bought a CIJ Tele, relic'd it and is re-selling, I still don't see what's so wrong with that. It's an official Fender, Fender got their money, he's using his talent and skill to relic it and decides to re-sell it for a profit. That's not illegal, that's SMART. Still, if I was in Fenders shoes and saw someone was making a guitar that wasn't mine and tried putting my name on it, I'd be pissed and want to shut them down.
I really hope Fender isn't going down the road where the consumer can't customize their guitar with Fender parts and sell them down the road. I could see there being a problem with selling a guitar advertised as a Fender, but if it were sold as a "parts-caster", there shouldn't be Fender interfering with my right to sell it.
I'm still trying to figure out why the boutique companies haven't been hit. Sadowsky, Anderson, Grosh, Lentz, Suhr etc. They put out Fender styled bodies and necks without any problems. Granted, they are all designed in their own respective workshops with their own wood, independent of Fender, but still, they are using shapes very similar (kinda like the case Gibson had against PRS).
I guess what's going on now is that Fender doesn't like people buying guitars that aren't theirs, putting the Fender name on them, and selling them. I've heard this is what Nash Guitars does.
At the same time, I saw one auction where he bought a CIJ Tele, relic'd it and is re-selling, I still don't see what's so wrong with that. It's an official Fender, Fender got their money, he's using his talent and skill to relic it and decides to re-sell it for a profit. That's not illegal, that's SMART. Still, if I was in Fenders shoes and saw someone was making a guitar that wasn't mine and tried putting my name on it, I'd be pissed and want to shut them down.
I really hope Fender isn't going down the road where the consumer can't customize their guitar with Fender parts and sell them down the road. I could see there being a problem with selling a guitar advertised as a Fender, but if it were sold as a "parts-caster", there shouldn't be Fender interfering with my right to sell it.
I'm still trying to figure out why the boutique companies haven't been hit. Sadowsky, Anderson, Grosh, Lentz, Suhr etc. They put out Fender styled bodies and necks without any problems. Granted, they are all designed in their own respective workshops with their own wood, independent of Fender, but still, they are using shapes very similar (kinda like the case Gibson had against PRS).
Last edited:
kill your scene
New member
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
Incidentally, I believe in customizing genuine Fender guitars with Warmoth parts. I do it and there's nothing wrong with it. Fender has the right to do whatever the hell they like with their own intellectual property and YES, they CAN have it both ways. If they don't want people making new guitars out of their parts, then people can't do it. It's not bullying, it's just protecting what you created. There are a lot of swindlers out there and Fender is protecting what is rightfully theirs.
I read over the thread and Mr. Nash is a THIEF. I would be willing to send a support letter to Fender's legal team instead of a protest letter. I would be severely disappointed if Mr. Nash wasn't sued.... it's a shame that we live in a society where people can swipe people's good ideas, infringe on property laws and all the while make it appear that they are poor innocent nobodies being harassed by an ugly corporate entity. The spin that Nash put on this whole thing is sickening.
Incidentally, I believe in customizing genuine Fender guitars with Warmoth parts. I do it and there's nothing wrong with it. Fender has the right to do whatever the hell they like with their own intellectual property and YES, they CAN have it both ways. If they don't want people making new guitars out of their parts, then people can't do it. It's not bullying, it's just protecting what you created. There are a lot of swindlers out there and Fender is protecting what is rightfully theirs.
I read over the thread and Mr. Nash is a THIEF. I would be willing to send a support letter to Fender's legal team instead of a protest letter. I would be severely disappointed if Mr. Nash wasn't sued.... it's a shame that we live in a society where people can swipe people's good ideas, infringe on property laws and all the while make it appear that they are poor innocent nobodies being harassed by an ugly corporate entity. The spin that Nash put on this whole thing is sickening.
Jeff_H
Dean Hardtail Fanologist
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
No one is arguing that putting the Fender name on a non-Fender product is wrong. I think we all agree on that here. As a Republican, I'm no basher of "Big Corporations". I just believe that it won't stop at guys who are ripping of the "Official Fender Name". I may want to purchase some high end custom guitars at some point, built of a better quality than Fender cares to take the time to produce. Why should they be able to stop me...just because it looks like a Fender? As long as it isn't a product PRETENDING to be a Fender.
No one is arguing that putting the Fender name on a non-Fender product is wrong. I think we all agree on that here. As a Republican, I'm no basher of "Big Corporations". I just believe that it won't stop at guys who are ripping of the "Official Fender Name". I may want to purchase some high end custom guitars at some point, built of a better quality than Fender cares to take the time to produce. Why should they be able to stop me...just because it looks like a Fender? As long as it isn't a product PRETENDING to be a Fender.
kill your scene
New member
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
I'm definitely NOT a Republican and I seldom defend big corporations. In fact, often times big corporations are guilty of some sort of malfeasance. In this particular case, however, Fender is being abused and they have the right to sue this guy. I don't believe in making blanket statements, so I can't say large, multi-million dollar companies are ALWAYS right any more than I can say that small business is ALWAYS right. You have to look at things on a case by case basis. Ideally, the legal system is supposed to protect people who have been robbed.... it doesn't matter who is on the giving or recieving end.
I'm definitely NOT a Republican and I seldom defend big corporations. In fact, often times big corporations are guilty of some sort of malfeasance. In this particular case, however, Fender is being abused and they have the right to sue this guy. I don't believe in making blanket statements, so I can't say large, multi-million dollar companies are ALWAYS right any more than I can say that small business is ALWAYS right. You have to look at things on a case by case basis. Ideally, the legal system is supposed to protect people who have been robbed.... it doesn't matter who is on the giving or recieving end.
That would depend on the nature of the situation. That would be for Fender and the courts to decide. You should be able to buy the guitar you want in the style you want, but you shouldn't be allowed to rip someone off and expect to get away with it. I've seen the facts and, in this case, Mr. Nash should get the book thrown at him.Jeff_H said:
captain cavman
New member
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
This really pisses me off !!!
Business will kill music and everyone goes : "well , yes maybe , why not ..."
I remember playing crappy Fenders and Gibsons in the 70s and 80s with low quality rate, bad tone , heavy weight ... while japanese copies were far better for alf the price! I'm sure that this situation forced those companies (Fender & Gibson) to improve their production and quality rate .
Today , they face US boutique or low volumes competitors and instead of trying to pull their products to a higher level they kill the competitors with their attorneys and big law machine.
Gibson sued PRS for the singlecut , who will be the next one ? Hamer ?
Fender sues Nash who's next ? Suhr ? Tyler ???
I see the scheme , Gibson & Fender chaimen have to explain the share owners why the profits go down so they say : "those damn competitors make copies of our products so in order to stop them and return to a better situation we will sue them !"
And afterward the only effect on their products in A PRICE INCREASE !!!
I don't see anything good for guitar players in this behaving . Someone said Orville and Leo were genius, right ! But I think they'd be disapointed and sad while seeing what the damn chairmen do with their brand and concepts
This really pisses me off !!!
Business will kill music and everyone goes : "well , yes maybe , why not ..."
I remember playing crappy Fenders and Gibsons in the 70s and 80s with low quality rate, bad tone , heavy weight ... while japanese copies were far better for alf the price! I'm sure that this situation forced those companies (Fender & Gibson) to improve their production and quality rate .
Today , they face US boutique or low volumes competitors and instead of trying to pull their products to a higher level they kill the competitors with their attorneys and big law machine.
Gibson sued PRS for the singlecut , who will be the next one ? Hamer ?
Fender sues Nash who's next ? Suhr ? Tyler ???
I see the scheme , Gibson & Fender chaimen have to explain the share owners why the profits go down so they say : "those damn competitors make copies of our products so in order to stop them and return to a better situation we will sue them !"
And afterward the only effect on their products in A PRICE INCREASE !!!
I don't see anything good for guitar players in this behaving . Someone said Orville and Leo were genius, right ! But I think they'd be disapointed and sad while seeing what the damn chairmen do with their brand and concepts
That90'sGuy
DyzaBoyzologist
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
That's really what I'm afraid of as well. I've played boutique guitars and I can never look back at anything else now, they really are that good. I would be heartbroken if they weren't able to continue what they do best: take vintage designs and soup them up with the best woods, craftsmanship and hardware for the musician who demands the best.
I just think it's sad that bigger companies sue others because they are making better products. I think that says volumes about those companies. They need to wise up and realize, people don't want 15 million different model names for the same styled guitar. They want better made guitars with better woods, better hardware and pickups. They shouldn't be preventing others from creating better guitars.
captain cavman said:
That's really what I'm afraid of as well. I've played boutique guitars and I can never look back at anything else now, they really are that good. I would be heartbroken if they weren't able to continue what they do best: take vintage designs and soup them up with the best woods, craftsmanship and hardware for the musician who demands the best.
I just think it's sad that bigger companies sue others because they are making better products. I think that says volumes about those companies. They need to wise up and realize, people don't want 15 million different model names for the same styled guitar. They want better made guitars with better woods, better hardware and pickups. They shouldn't be preventing others from creating better guitars.
rspst14
Tone Cat
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
Admittedly, I didn't read over all those threads. So if this guy was trying to pass off copies as actual Fender products, then yes, that is wrong and Fender has every right to pursue legal action. What I don't want to happen is for Fender to go after companies like Warmoth or USA Custom Guitars, or even independent builders like Blueline for making copies of Fender guitars. If someone seeks out those companies, they clearly know they're not getting a real Fender, just like someone who buys a PRS Singlecut knows they're not buying a Les Paul. There is room for similar products in the marketplace, and as long as everyone plays by the rules, I don't see why it's a big deal. I agree with whoever it was that mentioned the issue of competition leading to higher quality products. If PRS makes a better Les Paul style guitar than Gibson, Gibson should ideally counter that by improving their quality, lowering their prices, etc. That would be far more productive than filing lawsuits. But just to be clear, it's a whole different story if this guy was trying to pass of copies as being authentic Fenders. In that case, he is a thief, and I have no objection to Fender using the courts to put a stop to it.
Ryan
Admittedly, I didn't read over all those threads. So if this guy was trying to pass off copies as actual Fender products, then yes, that is wrong and Fender has every right to pursue legal action. What I don't want to happen is for Fender to go after companies like Warmoth or USA Custom Guitars, or even independent builders like Blueline for making copies of Fender guitars. If someone seeks out those companies, they clearly know they're not getting a real Fender, just like someone who buys a PRS Singlecut knows they're not buying a Les Paul. There is room for similar products in the marketplace, and as long as everyone plays by the rules, I don't see why it's a big deal. I agree with whoever it was that mentioned the issue of competition leading to higher quality products. If PRS makes a better Les Paul style guitar than Gibson, Gibson should ideally counter that by improving their quality, lowering their prices, etc. That would be far more productive than filing lawsuits. But just to be clear, it's a whole different story if this guy was trying to pass of copies as being authentic Fenders. In that case, he is a thief, and I have no objection to Fender using the courts to put a stop to it.
Ryan
kill your scene
New member
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
It's really straight-forward. The guy is taking parts, assembling them, putting a Fender logo on the headstock and selling them. Fender has no beef with Warmoth for selling officially-licensed parts... those parts are designed to act as replacements. Fender has a beef with this guy assembling parts and selling them under a false guise.
If anyone reading this thread can't see signs of theft, then I feel sorry for you. Worse yet is his apparent internet campaign to rally support in his favor. He's encouraging everyone to send angry letters to Fender's legal department and there are people actually going for it. That's unbelievable to me.
EDIT: After re-reading, I may have misunderstood. He may or may not be using the headstock logo. He is, without a doubt, however, selling them under the bogus pretense that you are buying a genuine Fender. There is even info. there regarding how he tries to skirt possible Fender lawsuits... he's clearly a con artist.
rspst14 said:
It's really straight-forward. The guy is taking parts, assembling them, putting a Fender logo on the headstock and selling them. Fender has no beef with Warmoth for selling officially-licensed parts... those parts are designed to act as replacements. Fender has a beef with this guy assembling parts and selling them under a false guise.
If anyone reading this thread can't see signs of theft, then I feel sorry for you. Worse yet is his apparent internet campaign to rally support in his favor. He's encouraging everyone to send angry letters to Fender's legal department and there are people actually going for it. That's unbelievable to me.
EDIT: After re-reading, I may have misunderstood. He may or may not be using the headstock logo. He is, without a doubt, however, selling them under the bogus pretense that you are buying a genuine Fender. There is even info. there regarding how he tries to skirt possible Fender lawsuits... he's clearly a con artist.
Last edited:
DiminisheD-7th
New member
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
i say we all migrate to japan and buy ESP Customs and force Fender to allow copies or face bankruptcy
seriously, ESP-japan custom's are wayyyyyyyyyyy better than fender
i say we all migrate to japan and buy ESP Customs and force Fender to allow copies or face bankruptcy
seriously, ESP-japan custom's are wayyyyyyyyyyy better than fender
tone4days
Heel Whacker
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
KYS, i mostly agree with your logic .. but i do make one distinction that is probably in the grey area ... if someone uses only genuine Fender licensed materials (meaning fender got their cut when the parts were sold), is it such an egregious misrepresentation to say that the guitar is a fender? .. again, i make no excuse for someone putting a fender label on a non-fender guitar .. that is fraud ... but if all the parts are fender, and fender has been paid their agreed to price for the use of the 'license', is fender really harmed unfairly?
and if someone is contributing 'value added' to the assembly by 'relicing' it, i cant see how they dont deserve to be copmpensated
just making an academic discussion, not picking a fight
cheers
t4d
KYS, i mostly agree with your logic .. but i do make one distinction that is probably in the grey area ... if someone uses only genuine Fender licensed materials (meaning fender got their cut when the parts were sold), is it such an egregious misrepresentation to say that the guitar is a fender? .. again, i make no excuse for someone putting a fender label on a non-fender guitar .. that is fraud ... but if all the parts are fender, and fender has been paid their agreed to price for the use of the 'license', is fender really harmed unfairly?
and if someone is contributing 'value added' to the assembly by 'relicing' it, i cant see how they dont deserve to be copmpensated
just making an academic discussion, not picking a fight
cheers
t4d
Last edited:
kill your scene
New member
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
t4d - I understand what you're getting at. I can't claim to have an answer for every hypothetical scenario, but I think what's really getting Fender pissed off is the duplicity of this guy using their name, headstock design and other trademarks in the selling of his guitars. On his website, he encourages sales by claiming that he's offering actual Fender parts and that his guitars are just as good as Fender's. It's hard to see any element of creativity or originality in what he's doing, even if he is "relic"ing the instruments.
EDIT: Also, everyone should be sure to read the threads the original poster put up. Silverface does a better job of crystalizing my argument than I am.
t4d - I understand what you're getting at. I can't claim to have an answer for every hypothetical scenario, but I think what's really getting Fender pissed off is the duplicity of this guy using their name, headstock design and other trademarks in the selling of his guitars. On his website, he encourages sales by claiming that he's offering actual Fender parts and that his guitars are just as good as Fender's. It's hard to see any element of creativity or originality in what he's doing, even if he is "relic"ing the instruments.
EDIT: Also, everyone should be sure to read the threads the original poster put up. Silverface does a better job of crystalizing my argument than I am.
Last edited:
tone4days
Heel Whacker
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
fair enough .. i guess that's what lawyers are for
another topic for the peanut gallery ... i find it interesting that fender has gotten EBAY in on the 'enforcement' angle .. if i want to auction a guitar that i built from parts and i want to openly and honestly inform my potential buyers that the guitar is NOT a fender nor a suhr nor an anderson, etc, why cant i advertise in the title using the words NOT FENDER, NOT SUHR, NOT ANDERSON? .. apparently fender has convinced ebay that the use of 'not fender' in an ad listing is a copyright infrignment and ebay cancels those listings
fair?
t4d
have a good weekend
kill your scene said:
fair enough .. i guess that's what lawyers are for
another topic for the peanut gallery ... i find it interesting that fender has gotten EBAY in on the 'enforcement' angle .. if i want to auction a guitar that i built from parts and i want to openly and honestly inform my potential buyers that the guitar is NOT a fender nor a suhr nor an anderson, etc, why cant i advertise in the title using the words NOT FENDER, NOT SUHR, NOT ANDERSON? .. apparently fender has convinced ebay that the use of 'not fender' in an ad listing is a copyright infrignment and ebay cancels those listings
fair?
t4d
have a good weekend
Gearjoneser
Gear Ho
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
:newangel: :laugh2:
ArtieToo said:
:newangel: :laugh2:
Gearjoneser
Gear Ho
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
What are you guys talking about? I don't have a big head.....just a very long shaft! :32: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
What are you guys talking about? I don't have a big head.....just a very long shaft! :32: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
Re: Did Y'all See This Stuff?
I know this is totally irrelivent to the thread, but I have not subscribed to cable TV for over a year. And Im damn proud of it. The only TV I watch is the Local news (Because I dont want to get the paper either).
Television is detrimental to a persons character, and makes your life feel shorter than it really is. Just think, we already spend one third of our life sleeping, do you really want to waste another couple years sitting on a couch mindlessly taking in pointless advertisements aimed at your age group and economical standing. Didnt think so. Bad enough that some of us are hooked on the Internet.
ArtieToo said:
I know this is totally irrelivent to the thread, but I have not subscribed to cable TV for over a year. And Im damn proud of it. The only TV I watch is the Local news (Because I dont want to get the paper either).
Television is detrimental to a persons character, and makes your life feel shorter than it really is. Just think, we already spend one third of our life sleeping, do you really want to waste another couple years sitting on a couch mindlessly taking in pointless advertisements aimed at your age group and economical standing. Didnt think so. Bad enough that some of us are hooked on the Internet.
