Should we allow counterfeit items to be sold in the classifieds?

[Rmansh]

i think we should be firm here. FYI Guitarchina doesnt allow fakes/copies/class A/ re-decalled in their classifieds section. they think its like counterfeit money. weird dont you think? fakes are made in china but are banned in their web.

[sin.tun.ado]

Here's my take on the issue and why I voted yes in the poll.

Copyright, patent, or trade mark is a property right belonging to the owner of such intellectual property.  The protection of that right is the sole prerogative of the owner and assigns.  Infringement of intellectual property rights gives the intellectual property owner, and nobody else, the right of recourse for said infringement.  Third parties can only complain of misrepresentation but not infringement of intellectual property rights.  Third parties have no business protecting or enforcing the business interests of other persons.  After all, it is only the intellectual property owner and the faker that have the sole definitive authority to declare a particular item as a fake or not.  All the rest are still just opinions of so-called experts. 

Brand names are fetishes of the elite and the proud.  The only difference between a well-made replica and its original is the price.  One might add that that is the price of the "assurance" of quality.  But that is only an altruistic feeling.  In this situation, a perfectly good playing guitar would suddenly become bad when you open it and discover that it is not of the name brand you expected it to be.  On the other hand, would you complain if you bought a no brand guitar that played average and when you looked inside it, you find out that it's a original vintage and suddenly, every note coming from it became sweet?

With that said, what if the thread simply says: "for sale electric guitar @Pxxk.  sorry for the crappy pics," what do you do?  Who will say that the item is genuine or not?  Will the price be used as basis to determine if the item is fake?  If its disproportionately cheap, is it fair to immediately conclude that it is a fake?  Since inquiries and comments are not allowed in the ads (why?), nobody will know the transaction history of the item and buyers will not be forewarned of things that previous offers have found out or asked about the item.  Why not just allow sellers to be honest about their commodities and say a spade a spade?  Why not delete posts to bump the ad and keep the comments and inquiries intact, which may give a hint about the true nature of the item?  If a seller is reluctant to answer a question, wouldn't that indicate some form of concealment, which buyers should take note of.

The key issue here is whether or not there is fraud or deceit in the offer to sell.  If there is sufficient disclosure regarding the actual nature of the item, I think the offer should be left alone.  If there is misdeclaration, misdescription or non-disclosure of a substantial and material aspect of the item, including hidden defects, then it should not be allowed to be posted because this is already tantamount to a crime involving fraud or deceit.  However, the sad part is that you will never know there is fraud or deceit until you see the item or until you have examined it closely.  By that time it may be already too late. 

Be that as it may, as an alternative, perhaps it may be a good idea to setup a sub-forum for replicas (a.k.a. "fakes") for guitars, effects, and parts to distinguish them and not offend the sensibilities of the brand name conscious.  This way, project guitar makers will continue to have a source of materials for their ideas, which is a legitimate demand for such "illegitimate" things.  It easier to take risks with replicas and the great majority of us are not financially endowed, if not financially challeged.

On another aspect, also check indirect offers to sell using the signature of the poster.  If the offer to sell a fake or pirated copy is hosted in or linked to another website, it should not be disturbed but if the offer is made in the signature in this forum and the item is posted/hosted in another site, it should not be allowed.  A better alternative is to ban ad linking altogether, in the main ad or in the signatures. 

Good faith is not the sole domain of buyers.  There is also such a thing as a seller in good faith.  What do you do with sellers who honestly believe their commodity is genuine, who are also victims?  In the final analysis, "caveat emptor" is the age old rule that should guide us. 

Thank you for time in reading my opinion.

[Riff_6603]

@sin.tun.ado - thanks for sharing your insights. If ever then, may the previous statement serve to remind instead if such right cannot be exercised by PM (hereby considered as third party); granted as it was not officiated by the concerned/affected parties (manufacturers et al). BUT when it comes to local implementation, PM's rule and any action enacted in accordance with it may reprimand those who transgress the rules as deemed fit by admin - as any violation of rule affects PM as the concerned party. *if PM states that fakes are not allowed in general, then so be it, whether or not the topic of infringement and the like comes into play.

Guys, let's settle this once and for all then. there are a LOT of valid arguments and I appreciate all of you guys sharing your insights re this matter; but as decided upon and as evident with the *majority's votes and insights, we therefore officiate the rule: "NO FAKES ALLOWED". For those who are looking at selling "Class A" wares and the like, there are other sites that could cater to such items. being banned the right to sell such wares in PM wouldn't handicap one's choice of trade, so one shouldn't worry much re this matter.

Custom-made wares are allowed but be forewarned, it would always be under great and careful scrutiny by all concerned. Realistically speaking, we don't have a body of expertise that could discern what's authentic, custom or fake so we would have to rely on each other - only through a self-policing society could we guarantee quality in trade.


Again, thank you to everyone who participated re this matter. voting is now officially closed.

[wiccan8888]

for me, no.

[Siomaiforyou]

Here's a note about fake ruling I just sent...

Dear mr. moderator

In line with your campaign against fakes and scammers selling dubious products which by the way I also support, I would like to clarify more extensively in the qualifications of them fakes, knock-off, imitation, copies, class A, or what have you...Does this mean that items in the likes of Tokai, Greco, Burny, Fernando, SX and a host of other brands which does produce "copies" of Les Pauls, Fender etc qualify in these categories? More over just simply using descriptive words like "copy" to describe your product is tantamount to a violation? 

I for one had posted one in particular a Photogenic Brand which I believe would qualify for the likes of Burny, Greco, Tokai, etc...which had been locked to my surprise? If it is a violation and your forum uphold them I have no argument, its you website u call the shots, ...I guess i have to find another site to market my items...I believe your web has been a haven for the Filipino musician(as well as scammers), if indeed such policy is being upheld, am saddened by this turn of rules...It would mean for me that this site would now only be inhabited by the elite and well-off who (and those who had the privilege who had somehow inherited legitimate products)...can afford to sell, trade and buy legit items,...Filipino ingenuity will have to take a back seat. A third world country like ours can sustain elite products with int'l property rights, patents, etc. These surmises my clarification it if were so, ( I even wonder if softwares used in developing this site is even legit...just wondering)... Hope you can enlighten me on this

thank you and good day



Allow Filipino ingenuity to work, but regulate it,  I believe those shopping for genuine Items so very well be warned and educated, I believe its their resp to learn what they want to buy, its like the label on the cigarettes - Warning: Cigarette smoking is hazardous to you health

[KitC]

I think you are mistaking legitimate copies for misrepresentation. As long as no alteration in identity has been done to even something like an RJ copy of a strat, I think those can pass.

[Siomaiforyou]

I for one only used only the descriptive words as MIJ copy Les Paul but in the photos it is clearly not decaled and was locked and had no way of re-butting to say The brand is legit... I suggest the concern party posting be PM 1st to explain 24 hrs or so why his post not be banned or locked, I had to wait for the suspension period to expire before i can cite my side...scammers prowl everywhere not only in this site, but exacting a rule does not justify an ambiguous, subjective issue, what I would suggest that the site put up a flashing banner on fakes and scammers on the class ads before shopping forewarning buyers and put up tips and at least legit description of authenthicity or put another forum where post are forwarded for members comment or authenticate claims... am sure the are a lot of hands would help, honest traders are hampered in plying their trade...while newbies or ignorant of the trade gets stunted and babied, its like saying ignorance of the law is not an excuse, same with here ignorance of your trade is no excuse

[Riff_6603]

Hi Siomaiforyou!

The no fake ruling is in itself still in “beta mode” (for a lack of a better term). As suggested by the forumites themselves, which was then further deliberated upon and agreed to by the majority; the said ruling constitutes prohibition of buying and selling of fakes, knock-offs, imitations, copies, “Class A” wares etc. On the other hand though, those who produce copies of certain make and models are indeed allowed, as long as there is no misrepresentation involved (e.g. Class A wares, re-decaled items and the like). With that being said, companies and items made by those aforementioned (Burny, Greco, Tokai, etc.) are allowed.

As for the ruling itself, one factor re it’s implementation is to help safeguard each and every musician whose looking at getting quality gear; and not to filter out those who could afford and those who couldn’t. I myself buy items from our local classifieds since it’s within my budget. Now, imagine those who sell fake items priced at par with legit items in the classifieds, taking advantage of those who’s looking at getting great yet affordable gears; it is by all means unfair as far as everyone is concerned. Again, I’m just citing one factor given your example so don’t get me wrong as to what constitutes the rule altogether. 

Now, on to the issue at hand. You mentioned that you posted a “Photogenic” brand that was locked. May I know the link at least so we could investigate what happened? AFAIK there are fake PG’s going around (they’re MIC AFAIK to start with but heck who’s stopping them right?!); it may had been possible that it was mistaken as such since you mentioned you had posted it as an “MIJ copy Les Paul” and didn’t had any decals. If such was the case then our apologies re any misunderstanding.

Again, the rule itself is not meant to shun sellers and buyers alike. It’s being implemented for the sake of all, as the idea originated not from us but from the forumites themselves. We’re just here to officiate and enforce it as much as we could. I must admit, the rule is still in itself a work in progress. I appreciate and would take note of your suggestions as well so we could make PM a better place for everyone. Let’s work things out here. Thanks!

[sin.tun.ado]

Is the prohibition premised on the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that "original" equipment is always better than the copy, a.k.a "fake" (put in another way, copies will never be better or equal to the original), hence the need to protect unsuspecting buyers?  Is quality gear always equated to original gear?

I am asking this because the idea of "better" is very subjective and is a function of personal need.  What is better for me may not be true for somebody else.  When my friend and I needed a guitar to experiment on, it was better for us to do it on a mere copy, and he did buy a "fake" guitar because it suits our purpose. 

On the question of quality, a copy can be at par or even better than the original.  Take Fender for example.  In the 70's, Japan was producing very high quality Fender copies, knock-offs and fakes.  The solution of Fender was to license these Japanese fake manufacturers and slapped the name of Fender on their guitars.  Fender did not create a new factory in Japan in order to establish a distinction between a Japanese copy and a genuine/original.   In a manner of speaking, Fender made the "fake" guitars into "original" guitars but it was not the act of licensing that made the "fakes" into a very high quality guitars.

I know that the prohibition against copies has already been decided upon.  But isn't it that what we are really against is the commission of fraud between the buyer and the seller?   Why interfere between a buyer and seller mutually knowing and agreeing to transact on a mere copy item?  What we should do is to focus our attention against scammers passing copies as originals.  In other words, misrepresenting gear to defraud others, not only in terms of misusing trade names but also in misrepresenting the operability and quality of the item. 

A scammer will always try to find ways to achieve his designs.  However, a seller may also be in good faith believing that his fake gear is original.  Without self- or internal-regulation, a fake item can easily pass on if it will not be scruitinized or exposed.  I remember the days when the "experts" here in PhilMusic were free to comment on an item put out for sale.  I also miss the requests for clearer pictures of a particular part of the item to verify its authenticity or quality, hinting at a possible irregularity.  Indeed, I learned a lot from those comments and it made me aware of a lot of peculiarities of a lot of guitars.  It was a sort of self-regulation that prevented the sale of fakes or warned others of a possible fake.  Many of those comments even exposed undesireable peculiarities or damages in the item being offered that I would not have known or noticed.  I do not understand why this was construed as useless chit-chat and later proscribed.  Even with the new prohibition, who will say that a particular item being offered for sale is fake or not?  It's the seller's word against nobody's because comments are no longer allowed.  Woe to the unsuspecting buyer becaused we could not prevent him from being duped. 

I am not selling any copy gear nor have I sold one.  Presently, I am also not looking for one.  I am not against selling or buying copies that are being offered as such but I am strongly against misrepresentation and fraud.  This is just my personal stand and I have full respect for the rules of the forum.  My discussion is purely academic and I am not one who will go and pique the ire of anyone, particularly the moderators. 

[qroon]

@ sin.tun.ado

The copies are allowed (please back read) as long as the items are not re-decal'd ,e.g, an SX with Fender decal slapped on the headstock, Tokai with Gibson decal. What is prohibited are the blatant fakes (be it Class A or whatever the peddlers call 'em) and re-decal'd items.

[smarty]

paano kung walang decal yung gitara, pero alam nating lahat na ito ay kopya ng jem halimbawa, bawal din ba?

[Riff_6603]

Is the prohibition premised on the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that "original" equipment is always better than the copy, a.k.a "fake" (put in another way, copies will never be better or equal to the original), hence the need to protect unsuspecting buyers?  Is quality gear always equated to original gear?

I am asking this because the idea of "better" is very subjective and is a function of personal need.  What is better for me may not be true for somebody else.  When my friend and I needed a guitar to experiment on, it was better for us to do it on a mere copy, and he did buy a "fake" guitar because it suits our purpose. 

On the question of quality, a copy can be at par or even better than the original.  Take Fender for example.  In the 70's, Japan was producing very high quality Fender copies, knock-offs and fakes.  The solution of Fender was to license these Japanese fake manufacturers and slapped the name of Fender on their guitars.  Fender did not create a new factory in Japan in order to establish a distinction between a Japanese copy and a genuine/original.   In a manner of speaking, Fender made the "fake" guitars into "original" guitars but it was not the act of licensing that made the "fakes" into a very high quality guitars.

I know that the prohibition against copies has already been decided upon.  But isn't it that what we are really against is the commission of fraud between the buyer and the seller?   Why interfere between a buyer and seller mutually knowing and agreeing to transact on a mere copy item?  What we should do is to focus our attention against scammers passing copies as originals.  In other words, misrepresenting gear to defraud others, not only in terms of misusing trade names but also in misrepresenting the operability and quality of the item. 

+1K@qroon. The rule itself is still and always would be focused against misrepresentation and unjust trade practices. Copies are allowed, and I agree that some are even at par or at times even better than the original item per se. But if in case a “copy” is marketed as “authentic”, then that’s the time it’s considered as a “fake”. Given the situation, we won’t allow it; even if it’s considerably at par or better than the original item itself.

A scammer will always try to find ways to achieve his designs.  However, a seller may also be in good faith believing that his fake gear is original.  Without self- or internal-regulation, a fake item can easily pass on if it will not be scruitinized or exposed.  I remember the days when the "experts" here in PhilMusic were free to comment on an item put out for sale.  I also miss the requests for clearer pictures of a particular part of the item to verify its authenticity or quality, hinting at a possible irregularity.  Indeed, I learned a lot from those comments and it made me aware of a lot of peculiarities of a lot of guitars.  It was a sort of self-regulation that prevented the sale of fakes or warned others of a possible fake.  Many of those comments even exposed undesireable peculiarities or damages in the item being offered that I would not have known or noticed.  I do not understand why this was construed as useless chit-chat and later proscribed.  Even with the new prohibition, who will say that a particular item being offered for sale is fake or not?  It's the seller's word against nobody's because comments are no longer allowed.  Woe to the unsuspecting buyer becaused we could not prevent him from being duped. 

 

The “experts” are still very much active, this time via PM’s and mod reports. I too, do miss the early peaceful times when one could comment freely with good intent. It is most unfortunate that abuse already took its toll; leaving us no choice but to implement a more stern ruling against comments and the implementation of the “1up per day” ruling. We do coordinate with both ends though just in case. It ain’t foolproof but that’s as far as we could go given the imposed limitations.

paano kung walang decal yung gitara, pero alam nating lahat na ito ay kopya ng jem halimbawa, bawal din ba?

if it's a "custom" jem copy, then it's cool. if it's a "fake" jem copy without any decal then, malas na lang ng seller. hindi biro magbenta ng fake, yun pa kayang deliberately tinanggalan ng tatak. talo pa din si seller at the end.

Another question would then arise, how could one be able to distinguish between a legit custom and a fake without any decals? well, there are certain locals here in PM who SERIOUSLY know their stuff. We don't need to build a committee of experts just to help us out; sa dami pa lang ng mod reports na nakukuha namin against a single item for example, we could already pass judgement based from those reports alone. BUT WAIT! there's more! We also do research on our own on top of these reports. literally masakit sa ulo and at times aaminin ko hindi ko masyado ma-gets dahil hindi ko linya yung instrumentong inaalam ko, whether it's a certain brand of guitar or a custom designed oboe made from the 70's. Guess that goes to show how dedicated we all are, mods and forumites alike to fully implement the rule justly for everyone.

[maxrufo]

para saakin, kailangan lang ma eliminate is yung posibility na its a "scam" . brandiing your locally made guitar as "fender" then selling it as a "fender" is a big NO. pangloloko yun. pero if the seller indicates "strat copy made by local luthier max rufo w/ fender decal for sale", (example lang) pretty straight forward, siguro ok lang? siguro ung dapat ding i regulate is using "sugar coated words" like "custom" or "class a", dapat ilagay sa add na "COPY" or "locally made" if dito ginawa.

the thing is unfair din siguro sa forumer na gusto lang ibenta ung gear kasi kailangan ng pera or may GAS, everyone is entitled to GAS!!! hehe

lts admit, there is a market for these items.

parang nangyayari kasi eh "BAWALA ANG HINDI ORIGINAL NA BRANDED"

what do you guys think?

Good Day. Anak po ito ni Max Rufo. Just to clear things up, we never decalize any branded guitar. In fact our guitar sounds better than them. Thanks! Have a good day ahead.

[Gunslinger]

Good Day. Anak po ito ni Max Rufo. Just to clear things up, we never decalize any branded guitar. In fact our guitar sounds better than them. Thanks! Have a good day ahead.

Example lang naman daw.

[mahavishnu]

how about my for trade post?
i indicated "t-style"(definitely important when trading telecaster types),
i indicated "Homage" (that means alot in watch trades, and since the guitar is not a "replica" (could be a replica if i completed the slotted screws, NOS pots and caps)
i indicated "build".
i put the specs of the guitar and everything, the parts used, brands, licensed, 3rd party etc etc etc.
 i indicated that a "repro" decal was used and can be removed by interested party.
i thought i got everything covered big time...
... still got locked.

im lost here, help me out? thanks

[toybitz]

Hi boss.

It has a fender decal.  We know you have indicated it as homage, but it could get passed on and on and on until finally someone decides to sell it as an authentic fender. And it has happened.

[qroon]

Mas maigi na lang siguro na tanggalin ang decals ng mga partscaster or other guitars na built from different parts. That is, kung gusto talagang mai-post dito sa PhilMusic.

[mahavishnu]

physically alisin? theres no serial number, nor any indication that will make the guitar any authentic than american burger
i wonder if i can just photoshop it na lang, and not mention the decal? thats how its done in the other forum anyway. tdpri. tgp. mylespaul. where they just block the logo. mas mabilis kasuhan sa kanila right? yet they just allow shooping the headstock. what do you guys think?

i guess my concern is how do i properly advertise it? if i remove "fender" text and one will think what is a "broadcaster?"
if i remove fender text, there are actually fender parts or licensed fender parts in the ad.
what if interested party like the decal too to complete the homage look?

also with regards to counterfeit, fakes etc... i think there should be a sticky on how to spot one. or some kind of neighborhood watch thread, where people can post the guitar they spotted and forum members can chime in how to spot if its fake. or atleast educate potential buyers what to look for in a real guitar e.g. shape. serial. minute details. dates. wood grain. feel of the knurl of the knob. request for an exploded view/detailed pics of disassembled parts, price.

[ceesharp]

Hello! I would like some clarifications on the matter.

For example, I have a Strat copy with a Fender decal. Even if I specifically state in both the subject title and post proper that it's a copy and has a Fender decal on it and I price it as a low-level guitar (i.e. less than P5000), it won't be allowed?

Thank you for your consideration!

Edit: Okay, re-reading the previous posts for the third (second?) time. Nalilito lang ata talaga ako sa definition ng "copy." Kasi DIY guitar pedals rin pwede ma-constitute as "copies." On the other hand, a Frankenstrat with a China-made body and an original Fender neck constitutes as what? And what brands can be considered "fake/copies/imitation/whatever"?

[qroon]

Hello! I would like some clarifications on the matter.

For example, I have a Strat copy with a Fender decal. Even if I specifically state in both the subject title and post proper that it's a copy and has a Fender decal on it and I price it as a low-level guitar (i.e. less than P5000), it won't be allowed?

Thank you for your consideration!

Based on the discussion, it won't be allowed. Even the $8K '59 Tom Bartlett LP replica FS thread was locked (it has a Gibson Logo).

[Riff_6603]

Hello! I would like some clarifications on the matter.

For example, I have a Strat copy with a Fender decal. Even if I specifically state in both the subject title and post proper that it's a copy and has a Fender decal on it and I price it as a low-level guitar (i.e. less than P5000), it won't be allowed?

Thank you for your consideration!

nope. sorry ceesharp!

[ceesharp]

So if a buyer is specifically looking for a copy that isn't necessarily decaled, I'm assuming s/he'll have to look elsewhere. That's clearing things up. Thanks for the prompt reply!

Also, I edited my previous reply to add some of my thoughts, but then again, the points may have been brought up and I wasn't reading well.

[treblinkalovescene]

What is the Philmusic stand on parts guitars? As in guitars made up of individual parts collected from other guitars. I'm not sure if this is what I think it is but one of my FS threads was shut down in the bass section. It was made clear that it was a parts bass with a P-series Jazz Bass neck and electronics in a replacement body with aftermarket guard. It was an old thread where I had been a different item, so akala ko routine maintenance to clear threads older than xxx days. When I saw an obviously faked "Fender Jazzmaster" in the guitar classifieds, I started to think na baka namisconstrue yung item ko as a fake. I wasn't passing my bass off as a Fender, but I clearly specified that I had a bass with Fender parts complete with serial number (which I did not mention, although I did state it was P-series MIJ).

Is there a better way to present parts guitars that isn't "misleading" or does the counterfeit restriction also apply to parts guitars?

Sorry, mejo praning. Pero I've been buying and selling here a while and it's the first time na nangyari 'to sakin. I messaged a mod about it (toybitz, was it you?) but I haven't gotten a response. This was months/weeks ago pa. If I should ever go out of line, sana man lang I could've been messaged or flagged or something.

http://talk.philmusic.com/index.php?topic=270546.msg3694299#msg3694299

I ended up selling it for much less. I only priced it that way because I was expecting a lowball and I got one.

[irigshoponline]

Pinag-babawal din po ba magbenta ng class A na item specially 100% working xa?

Specially to my Irig Amplitube.
may orig nito pero same quality pero sobrang mahal..
Made in Japan.

Class A Made in China
Bkit yan bang mga Iphone,Ipad,Itouch nyo.. di ba galing ng China yan?

maging fair po kayo specially to the Admin's here.

dahil mas nagiging practical lng po ang mga musicians ngun dahil sa mahal na mga gamit nla.

pinagkakait ninyo ang kalayaan para mamili ang mga musicians pra sa mga gamit nla..

LABAS NA PO KAYO SA DEAL NG SELLER AT BUYER.

DAHIL HNDI PO KAYO ANG BIBILI..




SALAMAT NA RIN SA PAGLOCK NG POST KO.
AT MARAMING PANG-NAGBEBENTA NITO JAN SA FORUM NYO..
AT I-LOCK NYO RIN..





[apple] NYO ADMIN KAYO!

[irigshoponline]

ANONG KARAPATAN NYO PIGILAN ANG MGA BUYER BUMILI NG CLASS A ITEMS?

KAYO BA MAGBABAYAD?

KAYO BA MAPAPAGOD MAKIPAG-MEET UP?

UU MAY ORIG NGA.. PERO SOBRANG MAHAL AT SAME QUALITY LNG NMAN SA CLASS A.

GAMITIN NYO PO ANG MGA UTAK NYO KUNG MAY MGA PINAG-ARALAN KAYO..

MGA [grape] BA KAYO O SADYANG MALIKOT LANG MGA UTAK NYO?