So at TGP Ceriatone has joined the ranks of Dumble.

[stratotone]

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...now why would someone want a Fender sticker on their GMW

That is just not right

Exactly, put a Charvel logo on it!

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

I personally have no problems with what Nik does. He offers a great product at a great price which is largely unavailable, or completely unavailable, especially in countries outside the US. He works hard and even offered to build me something that wasn't a clone, so he's far from a one trick pony. I don't really care if he's stealing intellectual property, it isn't like he's taking hordes of business away, those that can afford matchless or trainwreck will probably still be patient and buy them. Does anyone have an issue with him building clones, and modifying clones, or fender products? Is it a problem that he offers a product thats not available anymore. He markets them as clones, so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

 

[* velcro-fly *]

Does anyone have an issue with him building clones, and modifying clones, or fender products? Is it a problem that he offers a product thats not available anymore. He markets them as clones, so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I own one of Niks amps. The "cloning" is not the issue. The "fuss" was that up until recently the amps in question were being sold with the actual trademarked logo included. That is the fuss. Period. His is a for profit venture, he is not a one off hobbiest. The best thing he could do is to clear the names on his website of all the clones he's building, change the names to be something that points in the direction of what they are emulating, like a "Locomotive Crash" and be just fine. All the Zealots from both sides of the argument would go away.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

So its a matter of vocabulary ?

 

[Xabiche]

Regarding "censorship": everybody has a right to free speech but not a free soap box.

 

[degenaro]

I personally have no problems with what Nik does. He offers a great product at a great price which is largely unavailable, or completely unavailable, especially in countries outside the US. He works hard and even offered to build me something that wasn't a clone, so he's far from a one trick pony. I don't really care if he's stealing intellectual property, it isn't like he's taking hordes of business away, those that can afford matchless or trainwreck will probably still be patient and buy them. Does anyone have an issue with him building clones, and modifying clones, or fender products? Is it a problem that he offers a product thats not available anymore. He markets them as clones, so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Not really, there's a right and a wrong way to do things. I woulda much preferred not paying a buck per album sold to the guys who's tunes I did covers of...get my drift?

 

[trey85stang]

HAY GUIZ WHATS GOIN ON IN DIS THREASD>?















I really want a ceriatone trainwreck clone. I could care less if it came with a trainwreck logo or not

 

[* velcro-fly *]

I really want a ceriatone trainwreck clone. I could care less if it came with a trainwreck logo or not

Ask and you shall recieve (it even comes with the logo'd faceplate which looks cool with a PBR sticker over it )

http://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3276

Steve E

 

[trey85stang]

I really want a ceriatone trainwreck clone. I could care less if it came with a trainwreck logo or not

Ask and you shall recieve (it even comes with the logo'd faceplate which looks cool with a PBR sticker over it )

http://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3276

Steve E

Maybe I should of stated that a little better... Ill do it again

I really wish 'I could afford' a ceriatone trainwreck clone. I could care less if it came with a trainwreck logo or not

I hate being poor

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

I personally have no problems with what Nik does. He offers a great product at a great price which is largely unavailable, or completely unavailable, especially in countries outside the US. He works hard and even offered to build me something that wasn't a clone, so he's far from a one trick pony. I don't really care if he's stealing intellectual property, it isn't like he's taking hordes of business away, those that can afford matchless or trainwreck will probably still be patient and buy them. Does anyone have an issue with him building clones, and modifying clones, or fender products? Is it a problem that he offers a product thats not available anymore. He markets them as clones, so I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Not really, there's a right and a wrong way to do things. I woulda much preferred not paying a buck per album sold to the guys who's tunes I did covers of...get my drift?

No I don't, not trying to be offensive, but are you suggesting that Nik pay royalty to Fender or Marshall or fischers family? I see your point but I don't really beleive someone offering a superior product should be paying a company like fender (who is no longer a part of Leo's design, IMO) anything. I don't think you could say that nik should offer compensation on The TW but not on the Fender, Komet, Matchless or Marshall clones.

Again, I don't think he's taking anyones business and obviousl the companies of Fender and Marhall don't think he is a big enough threat to bother threatening legal action (to the best of my knowledge).

Again this comes to how he amrkets them as clones, no beating around the bush, they are complete clones than can be modded to the customers desire, if thats their desire.

 

[JamesPeters]

So its a matter of vocabulary ?

No; it's a matter of blatant trademark violation.

-Make amp like a Trainwreck to a degree = ok.
-Make amp with same overall design as a Trainwreck as long as there's no patent involved = ok.
-Sell either of those amps = ok.
-Make amp like Trainwreck and use Trainwreck trademarks, for your own personal uses as long as you don't sell it = ok.
-Make amp like Trainwreck (or different for that matter) and use Trainwreck trademarks, and sell it = not ok.

I don't see why this is so difficult for some people to understand because it's actually pretty simple. Again, something like "Locomotive Crash" would be acceptable because although it hints strongly at Trainwreck similarities, it's not blatantly trying to ride on the coattails of a company who's had to earn goodwill for its name.

This situation would be very clear to you if you started a company and fought to earn a reputation for your business that implied value when people saw the name of that business (goodwill), and someone decided to use your company name, slogan, logo and so forth. Make no mistake, you would be livid. It's someone leeching off your reputation in the most blatant way possible, such that it not only takes business from you but also confuses the market as to what your company does (if someone is served by the copycat company and doesn't get the product/service the same way you offer it, that means your reputation can be based on what that copycat company provided).

 

[Xabiche]

So its a matter of vocabulary ?

- (1) Make amp like a Trainwreck to a degree = ok.
- (2) Make amp with same overall design as a Trainwreck as long as there's no patent involved = ok.
- (3) Sell either of those amps = ok.
- (4) Make amp like Trainwreck and use Trainwreck trademarks, for your own personal uses as long as you don't sell it = ok.
- (5) Make amp like Trainwreck (or different for that matter) and use Trainwreck trademarks, and sell it = not ok.

How are 2 & 4 different? The way I read this is that 2 qualifies 3 and 4 qualifies 5, so that 2 & 4 are the key to the argument. The difference that I see between 2 & 4 is putting on a trademark label or not. How is that *really* different when people that purchase the product know full well that the only thing lacking is the trademark logo? Yeah, using the logo is obviously cheezy... but not using it and selling it as the same thing? What is that?

I'm not trying to be difficult here... just trying to understand.

 

[JamesPeters]

How are 2 & 4 different? The way I read this is that 2 qualifies 3 and 4 qualifies 5, so that 2 & 4 are the key to the argument. The difference that I see between 2 & 4 is putting on a trademark label or not. How is that *really* different when people that purchase the product know full well that the only thing lacking is the trademark logo? Yeah, using the logo is obviously cheezy... but not using it and selling it as the same thing? What is that?

I'm not trying to be difficult here... just trying to understand.

You're thinking too hard here, trying to make it a matter of math or something...

It's about a company other than Trainwreck using the Trainwreck name and logo on its product to sell to the public. Pretty basic. Just about anything else is acceptable and would only generate arguments such as "but...isn't it ok if..."

I hope that helps.

 

[theNoseBleedKid]

So basically your argument is that because he uses the Treainwreck name, in conjunction with his own, and the aknowledgment of the fact it is a clone he's in the wrong??

So the use of NAME, dictates your position, thus it IS an issue of vocabulary, to some degree.

 

[Xabiche]

How are 2 & 4 different? The way I read this is that 2 qualifies 3 and 4 qualifies 5, so that 2 & 4 are the key to the argument. The difference that I see between 2 & 4 is putting on a trademark label or not. How is that *really* different when people that purchase the product know full well that the only thing lacking is the trademark logo? Yeah, using the logo is obviously cheezy... but not using it and selling it as the same thing? What is that?

I'm not trying to be difficult here... just trying to understand.

You're thinking too hard here, trying to make it a matter of math or something...

It's about a company other than Trainwreck using the Trainwreck name and logo on its product to sell to the public. Pretty basic. Just about anything else is acceptable and would only generate arguments such as "but...isn't it ok if..."

I hope that helps.

That's where we disconnect. I don't see a difference between selling a twinky in a brown paper bag labeled "Knock Your Dick in the Dirt Sugar Shock Log" or a twinky in a clear plastic wrapper labeled "Hostess Twinky" as long as the inventor of the twinky is still kickin'. That is how I see it. You see those things as being different.

Apparently neither one of us is going to budge on that fundamental argument, either

You can offer up more platitudes like "I hope that helps" but they serve no purpose other than being detrimental to friendly discourse on a serious topic.

Heh. I need some sleep.

 

[lefchr]

And by the way, I have a Fender decal on order to put on my logoless K-Line Strat. SHOOT ME!

I put one on my strat when I ordered a new neck from warmoth. But the guitar started out as a fender, I wont be selling it. If I did sell it I would take the decal off.

 

[Bob Savage]

So basically your argument is that because he uses the Treainwreck name, in conjunction with his own, and the aknowledgment of the fact it is a clone he's in the wrong??

So the use of NAME, dictates your position, thus it IS an issue of vocabulary, to some degree.

With all due respect, it's already been explained multiple times in this thread so I do not think you're going to get it.

 

[JamesPeters]

With all due respect, it's already been explained multiple times in this thread so I do not think you're going to get it.

+a million.

It all comes down to guys not liking Ceriatone because they sell a good amp for about $700.00 instead of $3,000.00 or more.

(Cue the sound of an airplane rushing over donbarzini's head)

And with this endless supply of ignorance towards the subject--which is as clear as day--is it any wonder TGP banned discussion of this specific subject. A thread like this will go on forever with people going "I don't get it" and "it's all about jealousy" and other unrelated guesses as to what the issue even was, without their even trying to understand what's going on.

 

[Meathead]

With all due respect, it's already been explained multiple times in this thread so I do not think you're going to get it.

+a million.

That's ridiculous.

+1 or +2 is plenty ample.

 

[JamesPeters]

That's ridiculous.
+1 or +2 is plenty ample.

Saying "ample" is ample, for that matter. "Plenty ample" is redundant redundant.