CraigsList...

[AndThinkOfTexas]

Someone posted this site on Craigslist as a "buyer beware/warning" about all the fakes being sold. Apparently it's some Chinese company.

http://www.musoland.com.cn/main.asp

Pretty ridiculous.

[Professor Tom]

People will buy his stuff, there are always dumb customers.

[ermghoti II]

The site's ben discussed in the guitar fora. People have gotten guitars there, and, apparently, they're not terrible instruments, if you overlook the moral and criminal issues (which I would not). The site itself seems pretty straightforward about the fact that they're selling frauds.

[Gnt1856]

www.paylessguitars.cn
www.trade9.net
www.musoland.com


Honestly there's so many sites out there..

[jaytee123]

The site's ben discussed in the guitar fora. People have gotten guitars there, and, apparently, they're not terrible instruments, if you overlook the moral and criminal issues (which I would not). The site itself seems pretty straightforward about the fact that they're selling frauds.

Pretty much all they would need to do is take the brand names off to make it legal, no?

[ermghoti II]

No, certain aspects of guitar design, notably headstocks, are considered copyrights.

[Richard King]

Why is PayPal doing business with these crooks?

[D Carroll]

Pretty much all they would need to do is take the brand names off to make it legal, no?

In China, it is legal with the brand names on.

[tinypants]

A local musician I know bought the Gibson double neck and a LP clone from that site. In his opinion they play just as well, if not better, than his genuine Gibsons. I hope he's joking...

[ermghoti II]

In China, it is legal with the brand names on.

In Russia, brand name copyrights you!

[The_Dali]

While I wouldn't do it... I must admit that I'm a little curious and tempted to try one...

[Argonaut]

Why is PayPal doing business with these crooks?

That man should be dragged out into the street and shot . . .

[7sickstrings]

Oh wow! I wonder when Ibanez is going to start selling these in the US?
http://www.musoland.com.cn/list.asp?ProdId=0089

I can't wait!


:facepalm:

[life_777]

God I want one...
Cheap and good looking, man hard to resist....

[7sickstrings]

Just out of curiosity, I looked around at some of the other guitars on the site. I have to say, those are the absolute WORST Paul Reed Smith knockoffs I've ever seen. Even some of the Ibanez rips are awful.

[D Carroll]

I am a little tempted to order a neck from them, and filing off any logo, but I think I will just stick with ebay...

[7sickstrings]

I am a little tempted to order a neck from them, and filing off any logo, but I think I will just stick with ebay...

I saw the necks on there, at $30 for the neck, then $110 for shipping, it would be cheaper to go ebay.

[life_777]

I really really want to buy the Ibanez steve vai signature guitar. I think I'm going to save up for one for curiosity now.

[Professor Tom]

I got a friend who works for a major british guitar amp company. They decided to produce a budget range made in China and ordered 100-off initially to see how the quality was. The Chinese made the 100-off allright but they also made another 1000-off for themselves and sold them on as the real thing, which they were. So, not all fakes are actually fake, they can be the result of the inability to understand the words on a contract. The Chinese are notorious for this kind of thing.

[ermghoti II]

So, not all fakes are actually fake, they can be the result of the inability to understand the words on a contract. The Chinese are notorious for this kind of thing.

If by "inability to understand" means "refusing to acknowledge the existence of" you're right on target.

[marcellis]

The white Gretsch knock-off is sweet-looking. (http://www.musoland.com.cn/more_pic.asp?ProdId=1203) But it's not counterfeit.

Infringing on intellectual property interests is not the same as counterfeiting.
In the case of this particular guitar, no trade-names are appropriated.
Note the name on the headstock 'Grote' - not Gretsch.*

Note the absence of a name on the Bigsby-style tailpiece.
It's a knockoff. It's not counterfeit because the manufacturer
does not purport it to be an actual Gretsch. The seller's website arguably
does. But the headstock on the instrument clearly says it's not a Gretsch.

Yes. It may infringe on FMIC's intellectual property rights to the design.
But it's not a counterfeit Gretsch. It's a 'Grote'.
--
*It's interesting that some of the guitars on this site are counterfeits,
such as faux Gibsons, which purport to be Gibsons.

But this particular white hollow body with a Gretsch design is not represented
as being a real Gretsch. It's tailpiece is not represented to be a Bigsby.

I wonder why they counterfeit Gibsons and not Gretsches?

[7sickstrings]

The white Gretsch knock-off is sweet-looking. (http://www.musoland.com.cn/more_pic.asp?ProdId=1203) But it's not counterfeit.

Infringing on intellectual property interests is not the same as counterfeiting.
In the case of this particular guitar, no trade-names are appropriated.
Note the name on the headstock 'Grote' - not Gretsch.*

Note the absence of a name on the Bigsby-style tailpiece.
It's a knockoff. It's not counterfeit because the manufacturer
does not purport it to be an actual Gretsch. The seller's website arguably
does. But the headstock on the instrument clearly says it's not a Gretsch.

Yes. It may infringe on FMIC's intellectual property rights to the design.
But it's not a counterfeit Gretsch. It's a 'Grote'.

--
*It's interesting that some of the guitars on this site are counterfeits,
such as faux Gibsons, which purport to be Gibsons.

But this particular white hollow body with a Gretsch design is not represented
as being a real Gretsch. It's tailpiece is not represented to be a Bigsby.

I wonder why they counterfeit Gibsons and not Gretsches?


I think you're splitting hairs on Counterfeit vs. Copyright Infringement. Besides, I'm not 100% certain, but I think the issue with these would be patent and trademark infringement, rather than copyright. Regardless, making an instrument that looks exactly like a Gretsch, but calling it a Grote, isn't going to keep you from being a crook.

As for why they're calling their fakes Gibson and not Gretsch, it's basic economics. If I had 100 Gibsons and ten Gretsches, when I sold all of my Gibsons, I'd still have a few Gretsches left.

[stunr55]

A local musician I know bought the Gibson double neck and a LP clone from that site. In his opinion they play just as well, if not better, than his genuine Gibsons. I hope he's joking...

Sorry ... from my own experiences, I would say he was serious. Sad but true.

[marcellis]

"I think you're splitting hairs on Counterfeit vs. Copyright Infringement."

Of course. I'm a lawyer. That's what lawyers make money doing, splitting hairs. Unfortunately, the people who write laws are the supreme hair-splitters of the universe.

"...Besides, I'm not 100% certain, but I think the issue with these would be patent and trademark infringement, rather than copyright. "

It was another person who mentioned copyright, not I. Trade name refers to the logo or the trade name. The term, "IP" or intellectual property generally refers to copyrights, patents and trademarks.

Designs can be copyrighted (http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1735). I don't know if the designs of these guitars are copyrighted, patented or even protected.

This is obviously theft of intellectual property. However, it's not counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is willful trademark infringement. That's what happened with the Gibson. It is not the case with the white Gretsch...er, I mean "Grote".

[D Carroll]

I got a friend who works for a major british guitar amp company. They decided to produce a budget range made in China and ordered 100-off initially to see how the quality was. The Chinese made the 100-off allright but they also made another 1000-off for themselves and sold them on as the real thing, which they were. So, not all fakes are actually fake, they can be the result of the inability to understand the words on a contract. The Chinese are notorious for this kind of thing.

Marshall?

[fretwizz]

I got a friend who works for a major british guitar amp company. They decided to produce a budget range made in China and ordered 100-off initially to see how the quality was. The Chinese made the 100-off allright but they also made another 1000-off for themselves and sold them on as the real thing, which they were. So, not all fakes are actually fake, they can be the result of the inability to understand the words on a contract. The Chinese are notorious for this kind of thing.



The Epiphone Valve Junior is made in China.
Retail price (in AU) :$249

http://www.proaudio.com.au/sales/photos/463fd9d119313.jpg


So is the Legacy Valve Edition 5.
Retail price : $235.00 AUD
https://www.billyhydemusic.com.au/photos/1/2232.jpg

[D Carroll]

They didn't even try to hide that one...

[Railfanespee]

Looks like they haven't quite perfected their 335s yet.
http://www.musoland.com.cn/pic/digi/0005_more1.jpg

Notice the Epi-style guard.

[Foulacy]

if they put real deal trems on some of these guitars they would hard to distinguish with the right photo's

[notrfk]

I don't know what bothers me more -- that this crap is out there being sold to unsuspecting victims or that people who know better actually would "buy one out of curiosity." How can we complain about counterfeits one minute and support their makers the next?

Unfortunately there will always be a market for counterfeit pieces:
- people who "buy one out of curiosity"
- people who don't know the difference and think it's a good deal on a genuine piece
- people who think it's just as good -- the same crowd that thinks buying a guitar at Toys R Us is acceptable to "learn on before I buy a real one"

It's a giant freakin' shame, that's what it is.

[Samilyn]

People will buy his stuff, there are always dumb customers.

Yup. There's a sucker in every crowd.

[sploar]

Someone posted this site on Craigslist as a "buyer beware/warning" about all the fakes being sold. Apparently it's some Chinese company.

http://www.musoland.com.cn/main.asp

Pretty ridiculous.

Yesterday the site worked, today some Chinese letters crap only.

[normh]

Gibson just lost a legal action in which they attempted to make the false claim that the lipstick (mustache) headstock was a trademark and a copyright. They lost the lawsuit to PRS. This was also the basis of the Gibson v. Ibanez lawsuit. Unfortunately, that was was settled and never went to trial. I believe the outcome would have been the same.

Think again when you call a knock off a theft. Apparently the US Supreme court does not think a knock off is a theft unless the name is also appropriated. Basic Intellectual Property law. The attorney was right in his questions.

Now the funny thing about many of these knock offs from China, especially from the Segun factory, is that they are better built than the originals. Why do you think that Gibson and PRS bought out the entire production facility from February 2008 until January 2009. The better house brand is S101. The downstream house brand, Canvas, is terrible.

[9ball]

- people who think it's just as good -- the same crowd that thinks buying a guitar at Toys R Us is acceptable to "learn on before I buy a real one"



what's wrong with that?
i bought my girlfriend a squire mini strat to learn on because she has small hands--is that a "shame"? :idk:
personally i dont own any gibsons... or PRS for that matter- i think gibsons are grossly overpriced,and im not throwing money at them for their name on the headstock when i can get a great guitar for 1000 or under from other companies.

[yollyp]

If we consider the trend nowadays, more people go for cheap ones never minding if it's counterfeit or not. As long as it's cheap, it's sold. I have an original gibson guitar but sad to say, it was stolen.:facepalm: I can only sigh 'bout the cost I shelved just to own one. Now, I just settled for a cost-less guitar.:lol:

[normh]

People will buy his stuff, there are always dumb customers.

Yup. You pay $3200 + for your 59 Gibby LP Custom reissue; mahogany body arched maple top, pearl inlays, factory spec - then pay a luthier $200 + to set it up.

I pay $235 including shipping and hard case for my S101 LP knock off; mahogany body, arched maple top, mahogany neck, Gibson spec in all measurements except truss cover, real pearl inlays, and pay another $60 for pups. So for about 1/10th the cost I have the same axe. Who is the dumb customer.

I left out the set up cost on mine because I am an amateur luthier and do my own work. But to even the field, I taped the headstock and took it to several professionals and musicians; they thought they were playing a well setup Gibson until I removed the tape.

The Guitar was just a knock off that was better built than the real deal, cost much less and was not counterfeit.

If you want to be elitist, be so; I would rather be playist. One must also ask why companies bought out the production of the Chinese segun factory if the quality was so flipping bad.

Counterfeit would have been if the guitar matched all specs and had the Gibson name on it; Maybe even to the point of actually being authorized by Gibson since they have refused for six months to answer my questions on this matter.

I did not just by the S101 to experiment, I shopped for it the same way you would a Gibson.

[ermghoti II]

Who is the dumb customer.

The one with an instrument he can't sell without committing a crime.

[normh]

Please cite the crime, U.S.C. what? Check your law or see an attorney.

The guitar is in no way identified as a Gibson. The headstock clearly reads S101. If you want I can post a picture. Per the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the body design nor the headstock can be patented. Copyright does not apply, and the trademark exists in the name - the name only and not the font used for the name - unless that font is purpose designed for that use, such as the I.B.M. logo. If the body design had been patented in the 50's when it was made, you might have had an argument. However, the design had not been patented and has been in the public domain since design.

The lawsuits have always been over the headstock design or the use of the Gibson name, not the body design. Even Gibson and its parent company recognize that the body is not a patented design, say like the Earvana nut, why can't you. The courts have recently settled that the headstock design can not be patented or trademarked.

Finally, I did not buy the guitar to sell, I bought it to play. I like the LP look and sound but know as fact that Gibsons quality control is spotty at best and downright poor at worst. In the past I have owned both the original 82 - 83 Silverburst and an 82 SG. I sold those. If I were to sell a guitar today it would be one of the ones that I build, not ones that I have bought. When I buy a guitar, the first thing I look at is quality and then cost. Quality v cost of the Gibson today does not equal 1.

Take religion out of the equation and what you have is elitism. Gibson is just a piece of wood with a name and like most name brands today, that name has been taking cost cutting measures for some time. I am not trolling, just pointing out a few misconceptions.

Same question, who is the dumb customer? The one who buys into the name brand elitism or the one who buys the best quality in spite of the name?

FYI: The dif between Fender and Gibson is that Fender did patent the headstock design.

[loneleaf]

OMG, it's pretty OK in China when ppl buy fake stuffs wit prestigious brand names on 'em.
However, trust me, if u guys know how to do a purchase on the e-net, u gotta catch a big fish without being ripped off. I know a Chinese website considered as the Amazon-net of the Asia. I bought a folding bike via this website and it didnt let me down. Just check it out:
http://www.alibaba.com/