Replicas, why bother ??

Which replicas exactly could be challenged on legal grounds? Anyone can build a replica of any car they like, with any badges on it, put it on the road and drive it. We aren't talking about selling it here, just building and/or owning a replica. The Mayor said he is OK with it if it is legal, so where specifically is the law being broken?

 

Ok.. so I go to the Louve to see the Mona Lisa. And I see it and I admire it.

Then, I find out later it's not the real Mona Lisa. It's a fake.

Do I feel robbed?

Yep.

You guys crack me up. Over and over you try to defend what you know is just plain wrong.

A fake is a fake. You can stick a sock in your shorts and try to make your schong look long and impress a girl. But when she finds out the truth, she's laughing her ass off -- and not in a good way.

 

Apple is currently making and selling an iphone. Ferrari hasn't made a 250 gto in 50 years. Knocking off and selling a cheaper version of an existing product is illegal. Building a replica of a car that hasn't been built in 50 years and isn't available for sale isn't.

 

That's not a valid argument. You paid for something -- to see the Mona Lisa -- and they defrauded you.

On the contrary, you have not paid to see someone else's replica on the street, nor does the owner have any obligation to you. You are not entitled to some form of compensation just because you've been deceived, nor are you entitled to anything other than the car your purchased. Ferrari could start turning out thousands of replicas and selling them for next to nothing, and you'd be in no different of a situation.

I ask again, would you feel robbed of your enjoyment of owning an Enzo and would Ferrari be in the wrong if they sold them to everyone else on your block and thus you saw the exact same car as yours all over the place?

 

Actualy its more like you already have a big schlong. You see the Schlong anaolgy is about how good the car is, not when it was made. To you schlong size is about price, to me its about how it goes. And ont he track if you can run with the big dogs wen it was built is irrelevant.

 

Actualy you got to see some Cobras, which otherwise might not have happened at all. And if you were not such a snob, you might have had the opportunity to drive a cobra.
The only difference between a Kirkham and a 60's shelby is that one was bilt along time ago, and the other is much better built. these are industrial products how they function and look is everything, all the rest is just a bunch of claptrap hooha by auction companies to drive up the price of some cars to "collectors" or better put aquisitionars.

The rest of us like to drive.

But yes if there were some distinctive styling elements still used by shelby, like a jeep grill is on a jeep, then copying these trademarked elements on any car would be theft. But int he case of acobra, yes the name and snake emblem cannot be copies, the shape is actualy AC so Shelby has no claim. As to ferrari, you cat copy the horsey and any in prduction or trademarked car, but thats it.

Now find me that perfect 288 recreation, I dont need the horsey on mine, I know what it is and just want to drive and use one.

 

Mercedes successfully confiscated a fake 300 SL Gullwing -- this was described on one of the other replica threads. They own the trademark for that design.

If it's illegal, it's illegal.

If it's legal, it's a waste of money, time and talent.

 

You don't understand Bullfighter.

If it's done to someone else, it's just fine -- according to some people here. It "doesn't hurt anyone".

What I WISH on everyone who says fake cars are OK and they enjoy driving them is that someday they wake up with a brilliant idea, put it into production, and someone copies it at half the price.

And that the loyal customers who bought their products complain that they haven't done enough to keep fakes off the market.

Until the pain is on their side, they will never agree to your post above.

 

Why is https://www.factoryfive.com/ so successful then??

 

Jeeez John,that worked!!!!

















not

 

Because people don't have a moral problem in owning a fake car, a fake wrist watch, a copied DVD, or anything else they can get more cheaply by cutting out the rightful owner's money from them.



How many fake Rolex's are made each year? There's your answer.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I'll pray for you ok?

 

Well, pray for those businesses that lose sales, won't hire more employees, and won't invest in new products because someone makes an imitation of their product because someone else doesn't mind owning it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_watch

A counterfeit watch is an illegal copy of an authentic watch. According to estimates by the Swiss Customs Service, there are some 30 to 40 million counterfeit watches put into circulation each year.[1] For example, the number and value of Customs’ seizures rose from CHF 400,000 and 18 seizures in 1995 to CHF 10,300,000 and 572 seizures in 2005.[1] Counterfeit watches cause an estimated $1 billion loss per year to the watch industry.[2]

 

I cannot help you out concerning your obsession over fake watches but I do realize that you are "baiting" me "sand box" style over my Rolex thread.

 

Fakes are just that, but they deliver pleasure to many owners. There are certain designs in life that just work well and they are copied, no more no less. As long as the owner doesn't try to pass it off as real I see no problem.

No one seems to have a problem with it regarding guitars, furniture or toilet paper.

 

I'm not baiting anything. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who would say they would never wear a fake watch but have no problem in driving a fake classic car.

I think fake classic cars should be steam rollered the same way -- as the are in Italy.

 

You BIG SILLY!!! I wish you would have said that earlier as I would not have baited "myself" cause now I understand the point you are making!!

 

That's a good question really. I am amazed at the talent out there. One gentleman is building from scratch a GT40 completely out of carbon fiber (he is a composites engineer). Tub, suspension, body, it's incredible. So why a GT40 and not some other personally styled car? That is a very legitimate question and the only answer I have is that the shape is gorgeous and he obviously feels it is more of a tip of the hat to Eric Broadley's design than a kick in the teeth to the poor unfortunate souls who will never see a period GT40.

We chose a Cobra replica originally because we had never done it and there were a lot of cars out there and a lot of information on how to get them done well. It's a huge project regardless of how simple you try to make it. Getting a car to ride and steer and handle and stop - especially to do these things well - is not easy. It was still a two year project (with two people including one retired guy) working. And then we have changed engines, suspension, exhaust, shocks, front end geometry, rear end geometry, and want to change the rear end ratio and differential. That's part of what makes it great but you don't want to bite off more than you can chew or you never get it done!

It was near the end of the project that I decided to do a GT40. I admit I wanted to because I love the shape (and I consider it a tip of the hat to Mr. Broadley, not a kick in the teeth to the poor unfortunate souls who will never see a period GT40). It has been vastly more difficult as other than the chassis and body, dash and seats, everything had to be fabricated. It was simply not in my skill set to create something new from scratch.

At the time the only decent "original" kit (not a replica) was the Ultima. It's a fantastic car, but the shape just wasn't something that moved me (having been in one now I might change my tune). There are a few more options on the market now but the pickings are still slim and you are beholden to a design that you might not find appealing. For sure most kits are replicas of older cars, with the Cobra replicas being far and away the most common.

 

Um, in reference to cars, exactly who are you referring to? The folks at AC? Shelby America? Ford? Lola? Porsche? Ferrari? I get that this is a sore spot for you and I don't deny that counterfeit items and stolen designs can have a great impact, but in this case I think you are greatly exaggerating the "damages".

How about the folks at Superformance. And Race Car Replicas. And Factory Five, Fortes, FFMetal, Finish Line, Levy Racing, Mike's Replica Parts, Lodestone Billetworks, Whitby Motorcars, Isis, Pacific Custom Classics, Vintage Performance, Very Cool Parts, and myriad of other shops and people that have assisted or had work due to people building, modifying, and servicing these cars that would otherwise simply not exist?

When I went to visit Race Car Replicas in Detroit, right at the automotive crash, they were alone on a street that stretched for miles with empty closed buildings, all smaller support businesses for the auto industry. I think the guys working at RCR, and everyone else involved, were happy to have jobs.

But I guess they are all just accomplices in this horrible crime.

 

Tell me then who exactly does a replica 250 GTO cost sales? Ferrari? No, they don't make and sell them anymore and they haven't for 50 years. The 36 current owners? None of them are currently offered for sale and if they were, they'd have buyers lined up around the block. Who exactly is it stealing from?

If we were talking about a 458, then yes you'd be damaging Ferrari as they currently make and sell it, not to mention that it would be illegal due to the 14 year design patent window. That said, it'd be vastly more expensive to make an exact copy of a 458 than it would be to just buy one.

You could make an exact copy of a 355 using all Ferrari parts and ordering from Ricambi if you wanted - they sell the whole body shell. How would you feel about that?

 

Good points

 

Do you and Bullfighter own any older Fearraris?

 

I have a lot of isue with owning a fake anything, in other words something currently produced, protetected, that is not produced by the manufacturer or licensee.

I do not have a problem buying something that is no longer in production and is not available or protected, particularily if someone makes a nut and bolt copy of what is an industrial item. Yes claiming it is an old build is being a fake, but every replica owner I have ever met or seen has never claimed this.

A fake is something that is still in production and protected, then made to lesser standards by someone not the manufacturer designer licensee.

A copy or recreation is a copy made of an industrial product no longer in production or otherwise available or protected. This does not husrt the original manufacturer as they have abandoned proiduction of this item and in the case of a car due to marketing and legislation will never produce that car again.

This is very different to a "fake " rolex. Also fake rolex owners do so to pretend that they are somethign they are not. Reacreation cars owners do it to personaly experience/drive/use a vehicle otherwise unobtainable. they do not do it in 99.9% of cases to pretend they have somethign they do not. The pretend part is really mostly new ferrari and porche owners who pretend they are sportscar drivers when in fact they are poseurs projecting an image and wealth, but I digress..

Now you do argue that copies somehow limit the enjoyment of originals, Except the owners of originals in the case of cars own copies themselvs and in the case of Bugatti are welcomed because it keeps the flame alive. If you have to own something like a car because nobody else does, I question why you own that machine, surely we aprreciate things for what they are, unless of course we are enthusuasts based on marketing hype. Its true that 100,000 copies of a GTo can ruin the uniqueness, but even a cobra replicated probably more than 100,000 times is a rare and welcome sight.

I can also argue that as cars are mostly not static objects, their use causes damage and degradation to the point where very little original material may be left. Copies thererfore allow the preservation or original old builds for posterity. Lastly recreations appear not to decrease value of original old builds but in fact heighten desire due to greater exposure.

A car is a form of mechanical art. Unlike a painting it is in fact constructed by many people to blueprints which are the product of a number of people, and new builds replicated by the manufacturewr every day. In this sense creating a few more capies later in time means the object recreated is exactly the same, only sperated through time. As to trademark issues, you have apoint, but if a design is not longer trademarked and or abandoned that is not and issue.

I sense that you and Bullfighter do not like recreations as a concept, so look to bolster your view with legal arguements, most of which are invalid as most cars replicated are done so under license or the designs are no longer protected. If their is no license infringement, then your objection is a social one, that you belive owners of recreations pretend they are something they are not. I have never seen this happen but I am sure its true in some cases. But then to me 90% of owners of new ferraris and porches are pretending they are something they are not. Actualy in better car circles(ie real enthusiasts) new ferrari owners have a bad rap of needing to dispalay wealth, kinda your sock down the pants analogy.



I always look at recreations and kit cars at shows, i like machines, I have seen quite a few ferrari 250GTo's two old builds and 3 recreations, I have never ever seen someone who owns a recreation claim its orginal old build. In fact most seem to be proud telling you how closely the car recreates the original or not, and happy that they get to experience the real thing properly without the value worry. As to saying that you are not experiencing the real thing beecause it was not built long ago in a far off land. Well if you toatly restore a car its message through time is lost and its ruined too, plus you now how restorations are too perfect too shiney and run like crap, so what does real mean for a car, the build date or the experience of the drive.

Frankly as an enthusiast I applaud the presevation calss, cars that have lived through time have their own stroy to tell, once any car hits the road its no longer new. Restoration has ruined more than one great car, destroyed it in fact and making the car lost to time. True in same cases its necessary but in half probably not.

I embrace all enthusisast especialy those that drive.

The only ones I have little time for are checkbook enthusiasts. You know the ones that cant drive, the ones with no clue, other than aprreciating something for what it costs and or represents/projects. If you own it, drive it, and drive it properly, that is the standard. A few runs to redline on a straight road dont count, almost any fool can put his foot flat and shift.

 

No, he didn't spent two years in jail, only five days.
In fact, he even "won" some cases in court against Ferrari. But he was found dead on Oct 26th, 1988, with a bullet in the heart. Most people say that he took his own life exhausted by the succession of court cases, but some think he was murdered.

At the beginning, he advertised the cars exactly for what they were, that is copies of the originals built on original 250 chassis. In the french edition of "Autocourse" 1984-85, there is a two page advertisement from him for his cars, entitleled: "it is still possible today to buy a 250 GTO"

The whole story is here, but pay attention: you need a very good command of french to understand it (sorry, but it is too long for me to translate it), and it is told in a somewhat "inflated" and spectacular style. (And note that this is only the fourth page in a five page story, dealing specifically with the legal aspect of the story)

The point is, the "master car" used at the beginning and that launched the whole story was built during the seventies in his garage by a french TV reparator, using genuine original pieces given to him by the french importer.

GATSBYMagazine

 

Cheers!