-
I feel my soul go cold... only the dead are smiling. -
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] -
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
Don't know if it will do any good, but at least they will know how we feel.
Thanks toejam for posting this.
jacksonfanAre YOU a Jackson Warrior?
Join us and be all that you can be! 
Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
Too bad so many of these guys are posting their comments - a lot of them are total fucktards.I want REAL change. I want dead bodies littering the capitol.
- NewcComment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
I see Kirk Hammet signed up as well.
[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/sick.gif[/img]Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
I signed "yes". Yeah, I haven't spent major dough as some people (I don't have that luxury), but I think that an opinion is an opinion.Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
Somehow I feel like I am a small part of this problem that has befallen the guitar industry here recently...Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
[ QUOTE ]
Somehow I feel like I am a small part of this problem that has befallen the guitar industry here recently...
[/ QUOTE ]
Bwhahahaha!!! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
FongComment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
I signed it, who knows if it'll do any good, but like was said previous: At least they'll know how we feel. It would be nice if some non guitar owners signed it though (not that many would care [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]), but might help the point a bit, since this could conceivably carry over into several other trademark/copyright infringement type cases too. It affects more than just us in the grand scheme of things.Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
Signed. Now I can sleep at night, hehe.Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
Is PRS really a small maker?Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
[ QUOTE ]
Is PRS really a small maker?
[/ QUOTE ]
Compared to Gibson and Fender?Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
[ QUOTE ]
Somehow I feel like I am a small part of this problem that has befallen the guitar industry here recently...
[/ QUOTE ]
You ARE the problem! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] J/K [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Here's an old petition against DiMarzio to help try to lift their trademark on double creme pickups. I love DiMarzio, but I think it's ridiculous to try to prevent other manufacturers from using that color. http://www.petitiononline.com/Dimarzio/I feel my soul go cold... only the dead are smiling.Comment
-
Re: Save the small guitar builder petition
I read that PRS is the third largest guitar manufacturer behind Gibson and Fender. Of course, I don't know if this refers to profit, number of guitars made, size of facility, etc. I assume it means profit.
Oh yeah, signed.Comment
-
Some improvements to help-
<font color="red"> I think the petition could be spruced up a bit- </font>
As customers and members of the guitar-buying public, <font color="red"> since "customers" are different than "members" of the guitar buying public </font> we feel that any court action in enforcing 50-year old trademarks, especially when previously undefended or under-defended,<font color="red"> since I’m so familiar with Fender legal proceedings over the years </font> or recent trademarks on 50-year old designs, causes great harm <font color="red"> equal to getting poked in the eye with the tip of your drunken guitarists Rhoads </font>to the guitar-buying public <font color="red"> the members and customers we talked about a minute ago </font>.
We do oppose Fender’s recent attempts to trademark their body styles some 50 to 60 years after the introduction of those body styles, and decades after other builders began <font color="red"> raping the lifework of the industries founding fathers</font> issuing guitars in those styles. Our position is that to a large degree, innovation in the guitar industry necessarily consists of improvements <font color="red"> copying the hell out of </font> to existing design and the further evolution of the craft <font color="red"> copying the hell out of even more </font>as it relates to building quality stringed instruments <font color="red"> that look just like the ones from 1949 </font>.
In the same way that the basic design of the tire was perfected long ago, <font color="red"> like the skinny bias-ply tires on my rusted out Camaro </font> it is our <font color="red"> me and my mullet wearing buddy that ride around in my Camaro with the shitty bias-ply tires </font>position that the early innovators of the electric guitar in the 1950’s (Paul Bigsby, Leo Fender, Ted McCarty, Les Paul) created the ‘wheel’ <font color="red"> OK, this "wheel" analogy is a bit complex for the typical guitarist isn't it? </font>from which further guitar innovation flows <font color="red"> insert cliche: like a pristine mountain stream </font>. It is a recognized fact <font color="red"> by me and my buddy</font>that specific, now-trademarked designs of both Fender <font color="red"> Actually, Fender hasn't received the TM yet </font>and Gibson guitars were actually “borrowed” from Paul Bigsby’s early designs. <font color="red"> “borrowed” in quotes means stolen if you weren't swift enough to get that </font>
Modern builders such as Paul Reed Smith <font color="red"> Innovator </font>, Tom Anderson <font color="red"> who?</font>, John Suhr <font color="red"> sold 6 guitars</font>, Scott Lentz <font color="red"> sounds like "lint" (couldn't think of anything else)</font>, Don Grosh <font color="red"> sold 7 guitars plus it's a horrible name </font>and others <font color="red"> always gotta mention the "others" to help the chances w/ the petition </font>have succeeded as guitar builders <font color="red"> copiers </font>not because they have reinvented the wheel in a new shape <font color="red"> since they didn’t change the shape</font>. Rather success came because they <font color="red"> copied the hell out of</font> have made marked improvements to the ‘wheels’ that were previously only available through Fender and Gibson <font color="red"> So much for the innovative, original design that PRS introduced around 1985 </font>
Just as a piece of round rubber does not constitute a workable automobile tire, <font color="red"> I’m putting all that info. from my Logic 217 class to use – all round pieces of rubber are not tires, however, all tires are round pieces of rubber. </font> neither does a piece of wood cut into a specific shape constitute a workable, much less exceptional, guitar. <font color="red"> like my Kramer Focus Strat with the foamy beer graphic</font> Rather, it is the pursuit of advancements in technology <font color="red"> and not having to come up with a new shape that doesn’t look like ass</font>and construction while working within classic, proven designs <font color="red"> so we don’t have to spent $50 on new templates </font>that advances the science of guitar making <font color="red"> beyond the 8th grade shop project known as the Fender Strat</font>.
In fact, smaller builders such as PRS, Anderson, Lentz, Grosh and Suhr <font color="red"> what about the “others” so ominously mentioned earlier? </font>were able to gain their initial foothold in the market because of a drop in the quality of instruments <font color="red"> I guess Fender wasn’t able to keep the Strat shape exact enough? </font>made by Gibson and Fender. This formed a ‘quality vacuum’ <font color="red"> another concept well beyond the grasp of most people signing this petition</font> which these smaller builders filled.
These improvements are not always obvious to non-players. <font color="red"> or current and former members of the band WASP </font> Many of these improvements are subtle, minor tweaks to an existing design <font color="red"> like putting a 3rd horn on a Strat</font> that afford a breakthrough in tone, balance or playability. These tweaks may or may not meet the demands of the Lanham Act, <font color="red"> I had a girlfriend that used to perform the Lanham Act after a few drinks </font>but to likely customers of these high-end products, these often-minor improvements make a world of difference and greatly influence product purchase <font color="red"> while, more importantly, smashing the “quality vacuum” that so long afflicted the “customers” and “members” of the guitar buying public. </font>
It is our contention that eliminating smaller builders <font color="red"> blood sucking parasites</font> from the marketplace and leaving Fender and Gibson as the only builders capable of producing these classic designs will result in a lack of available alternative choices, <font color="red"> that look just like the other choices </font>a drop in the overall quality of new guitars in the marketplace, <font color="red"> maybe even leading to another "quality vacuum" </font>and an increase in price as they attain monopoly status with regard to these classic designs. <font color="red"> that people have stolen from them for years</font>
We <font color="red"> me and my friend Delmar </font>do understand that guitars are not limited in shape by the same physical constraints that bind a wheel to a circular shape. <font color="red"> so we really need to come up with a reason why people can still rip off someone elses design</font> However those early stringed instrument designs, as far back as Paul Bigsby in the realm of electric guitars <font color="red"> we read that in Guitar for the Practicing Musician once</font>, and indeed as far back as 17th century European violin makers <font color="red"> and “others” </font>achieved a balance, symmetry and playability that has stood the test of time <font color="red"> this is the best Del and I could do </font>
This test of time is proven <font color="red"> cool, we have proven that they stood the test of time </font>not only by the massive sales <font color="red"> highly descriptive technical term</font> that these designs have enjoyed, but also by the derivations and improvements <font color="red"> how many other leeches have been able to make a living off someone elses 50 year old idea </font>made to those designs by scores of builders since 1950.
Again, we take no position on the strictly legal merits of these cases before the courts. <font color="red"> since we really don’t understand the vastly complex field of Trademark law too much</font> As customers, <font color="red"> I’m not only the president, I’m a member </font> however, we express great concern that strict enforcement of these designs, decades after other luthiers have adopted and advanced the technology and construction of those early designs <font color="red"> that haven’t changed in 50 years </font>, will have crippling <font color="red"> massive as hell </font>effects on both the marketplace, as well as the choices available to the millions of guitar players in the United States <font color="red"> possibly making them go nooklear </font>Comment
Tweet
Comment