Bug in the ear of the Chinese cloners...

[TUBAD83]

If they research and develop their own models and sell at low prices, good luck to them. What is wrong is coping someone else's design and riding on their hard work to develop. As I have worked in music copyright, I am surprised it is not illegal - maybe it is in Europe, but not the USA?[/size]

Remind me again: which tubas are currently under copyright, patent, or trade dress?

Im curious to know why China is being singled for doing something that has been going on LONG before they entered the market (PCs are ripoffs of IBMs--most cars on the road in the US are design ripoffs, thats why its hard to tell them apart anymore). Does anyone know if any of the major manufacturers have copyright, patent protection, trade dress protection for their designs? I believe the answer is no and I think part of the reason is that their designs are largely based on the work of other tuba makers (York, for example). So, whats the difference between what Jin-Bao is doing now and what Hirbrunner, Miraphone, MW, etc. have already done?

JJ

[bort]

Im curious to know why China is being singled for doing something that has been going on LONG before they entered the market (PCs are ripoffs of IBMs--most cars on the road in the US are design ripoffs, thats why its hard to tell them apart anymore). Does anyone know if any of the major manufacturers have copyright, patent protection, trade dress protection for their designs? I believe the answer is no and I think part of the reason is that their designs are largely based on the work of other tuba makers (York, for example). So, whats the difference between what Jin-Bao is doing now and what Hirbrunner, Miraphone, MW, etc. have already done?

Kinda... I mean, if you go into an art museum and go to a painting gallery, you will see some artists whose work looks really similar. An idea borrowed from this person, a style taken form another. (Which is part of why everyone knows van Gogh and Picasso, but not so many people can name many of their contemporaries.) Innovation is rewarded. Skill is rewarded. But it's innovation coupled with skill that gets you remembered in this world. If you give me a copy of Starry Night that you repainted yourself, I might be impressed by the skill you had in painting the image...but I would give you a real hard time about not putting any creativity or originality behind that skill.

That is to say... it's not so much anger about copying something, but disappointment to see that the skills could be in place... and are ignored in favor of an easy dollar.

[derrenba]

Im curious to know why China is being singled for doing something that has been going on LONG before they entered the market (PCs are ripoffs of IBMs--most cars on the road in the US are design ripoffs, thats why its hard to tell them apart anymore). Does anyone know if any of the major manufacturers have copyright, patent protection, trade dress protection for their designs? I believe the answer is no and I think part of the reason is that their designs are largely based on the work of other tuba makers (York, for example). So, whats the difference between what Jin-Bao is doing now and what Hirbrunner, Miraphone, MW, etc. have already done?

JJ

Good point.

I'm also curious why the anger is directed at "the Chinese" rather than the Steve Dillons, Dave Fedderleys, Vince Simonettis, etc. who claim that they have their horns built to their specs. Assuming that's true, it sure sounds like they're at least suggesting which models they want to have cloned rather than simply buying whatever the Chinese are turning out. (Does anyone honestly believe that "the Chinese" would have copied the MW travel tuba without the active "encouragement" from their US and European "partners" to do so?)

[UDELBR]

I'm also curious why the anger is directed at "the Chinese" rather than the Steve Dillons, Dave Fedderleys, Vince Simonettis, etc. who claim that they have their horns built to their specs. Assuming that's true, it sure sounds like they're at least suggesting which models they want to have cloned rather than simply buying whatever the Chinese are turning out.

This would also apply to all the horns Walter Sear imported through the decades and had his name scratched into the bells.

[cjk]

Im curious to know why China is being singled for doing something that has been going on LONG before they entered the market (PCs are ripoffs of IBMs--most cars on the road in the US are design ripoffs, thats why its hard to tell them apart anymore). Does anyone know if any of the major manufacturers have copyright, patent protection, trade dress protection for their designs? I believe the answer is no and I think part of the reason is that their designs are largely based on the work of other tuba makers (York, for example). So, whats the difference between what Jin-Bao is doing now and what Hirbrunner, Miraphone, MW, etc. have already done?

JJ

Good point.

I'm also curious why the anger is directed at "the Chinese" rather than the Steve Dillons, Dave Fedderleys, Vince Simonettis, etc. who claim that they have their horns built to their specs. Assuming that's true, it sure sounds like they're at least suggesting which models they want to have cloned rather than simply buying whatever the Chinese are turning out. (Does anyone honestly believe that "the Chinese" would have copied the MW travel tuba without the active "encouragement" from their US and European "partners" to do so?)

I couldn't agree more.

I will buy a Chinese tuba if I like it. If I don't, I won't. Thus far, I have not.

I like Meinl-Weston tubas. I own one. However, I find that the MW travel tuba is comically overpriced for what I might use it for. While I do understand why the MW is priced the way it is, but I won't buy one at that price. However, I am eager to try out the "made in China" travel tuba with Dillon stamped on the bell.

The Miraphone 186 has been around since when, the 1950s or 1960s? That's at least 50 years. Even if there was something patentable/trademark-able/whatever about a 186 CC (and I am suggesting that there is not), don't you think that would have expired by now? Is there really anything patentable/trademark-able/whatever about ANY tuba ? The technology in tuba making hasn't changed significantly in 100 years. The appearance of any rotary tuba from today and a Cerveny from the late 1800s isn't significantly different.

While it seems that Jinbao has made a quite decent copy of a 186 CC, the Jinbao 6 valve F tuba does not appear to be a blatant copy of anything. The Jinbao 4 piston, one rotor CC tuba does not appear to be a blatant copy of anything.

It seems that some of y'all seem to think that a tuba is no longer available, it's ok to copy it. However, if a tuba is still available, it's wrong. So, If the body of a Hirsbrunner 4/4 CC tuba is a copy of a 1920s Conn, is it still wrong to copy the body of a 4/4 Hirsbrunner since it's a copy of a tuba that's no longer available?

I don't remember hearing anyone screaming when R&S copied the Conn Helleberg and Schilke Helleberg II. Both of those were still available. The copies were cheaper than the originals. They were pretty blatant copies; even the exterior shape was copied.

If some of y'all don't like something about instruments made in China, don't buy them. If some of y'all don't like how some stores market instruments made in China, don't shop there.

Anyhow, I hope everyone likes his or her tuba.

[prototypedenNIS]

And how, exactly, does your pontification address Levaix's question of how buying a used horn help tuba companies any more than buying a Chinese one?

If the used market isn't selling and is deflated, sellers receive less money and must reduce expenditures from their profit.
Opting to buy used decreases demand for Chinese goods and helps increase demand in the used market, thus encouraging more used owners to sell as their items will sell and will allow a better profit. The bigger the profit, the bigger the budget for the seller to purchase something else which decreases the likelyhood of the seller buying Chinese gear.
Also, an active used market with full value means an instrument can hold its value, which is an incentive when buying new.

[prototypedenNIS]

What you're suggesting is pretty much the opposite of what happened in the guitar world when clones started outperforming the American stuff. The big American luthiers jacked up the prices of their stuff, which got better crafted, and has steadily gained value on the used market, while the Asian built clones have remained priced for what they are - player's instruments to be used without worrying about anything happening to them on stage. If anything, the Asian "clone" market (which is now pretty much dominated by the big American companies marketing those things themselves) helped develop the high prices and value of American craftsmanship in the vintage and custom markets.

My tuba was built in a communist state that no longer exists, so I have no dog in this fight. Just saying.

Yes and no. Gibson found that substantially raising the price (and msrp) led to more sales due to increase in perceived value. The US companies have upped quality in their prestige models and mostly don't make affordable electrics as there isn't enough margin in it.
That being said, as someone who works at a music store, nothing devalues quicker than a USA instrument unless it is an extremely rare instrument or it has artificially inflated demand. Musicians here don't buy new USA guitars, they get them used for 1/3 or less or get Korean. There is little demand and the stores carry as little US as possible as they don't sell. When they do sell, they sell to a lawyer who haggles away the margin because it got a tiny scratch and he's only purchasing it for conspicuous consumption.
Some vintage instruments may have high values, but they don't always align with what you can actually sell them for given this market. Some companies like Godin guitars can make affordable instruments in North America, but the big companis don't, especially when their product is an image not their product.
Only the large national chains stock US, Japanese, or Euro pro band instruments because the prices are too high. Nobody stocks pro tubae in town.
For example, I was selling Selmer saxes online after the market crash for 40 points because the price went up so far that I was below dealer cost for someone to order them in. We had them for 2 years or more and the Chinese Buffets outsold them everytime.

[derrenba]

And how, exactly, does your pontification address Levaix's question of how buying a used horn help tuba companies any more than buying a Chinese one?

If the used market isn't selling and is deflated, sellers receive less money and must reduce expenditures from their profit.
Opting to buy used decreases demand for Chinese goods and helps increase demand in the used market, thus encouraging more used owners to sell as their items will sell and will allow a better profit. The bigger the profit, the bigger the budget for the seller to purchase something else which decreases the likelyhood of the seller buying Chinese gear.

That assumes, of course, that the primary reason tuba players sell a tuba is in order to finance the purchase of a new tuba rather than for other reasons, such as to purchase other goods, to pay bills or other expenses (house, car, tuition), downsize their stable, because at this stage in their life they can't justify having $xx,xxx tied up in a "name brand" tuba when they can buy a Chinese-made clone that, for their purposes plays almost as well, if not as well, for $x,xxx, etc.

Also, an active used market with full value means an instrument can hold its value, which is an incentive when buying new.

Only if one anticipates selling the newly acquired horn at some point in the foreseeable future.

[Donn]

That assumes, of course, that the primary reason tuba players sell a tuba is in order to finance the purchase of a new tuba rather than for other reasons

Not necessarily the primary reason, only that it's enough of a factor to be economically significant.

Also, an active used market with full value means an instrument can hold its value, which is an incentive when buying new.

Only if one anticipates selling the newly acquired horn at some point in the foreseeable future.

To take a cue from the financial advice that was going around a few posts back - you sure should consider potential resale when buying an expensive tuba. It's an asset, and you never know what your circumstances are going to be in the future.

These days, I suppose the main reason you'd buy a tuba with no thought about possibly selling it later, is that you wouldn't expect its resale value to be worth the trouble. That's somewhat circular with respect to the present question, though.

[derrenba]

Not necessarily the primary reason, only that it's enough of a factor to be economically significant.

Sorry, but the assertion that a larger profit from the sale of a used horn decreases the likelyhood []sic] that the seller will purchase a Chinese horn implicitly assumes that purchasing a new, non-Chinese horn is the seller's primary reason for selling, because if the proceeds of the sale are used for anything other than a new, non-Chinese horn, the alleged benefit to tuba companies from the sale of the used instrument disappears.

These days, I suppose the main reason you'd buy a tuba with no thought about possibly selling it later, is that you wouldn't expect its resale value to be worth the trouble. That's somewhat circular with respect to the present question, though.

I suspect that, unlike the gear geeks who inhabit musical instrument forums, the vast majority of people who purchase musical instruments--particularly those who are resuming playing later in life after a long hiatus--do so to satisfy their desire to play, and that a not insignificant proportion of that group find the instruments they do own satisfactory to their needs, interests, and aspirations, and consequently have neither the time, the interest, nor desire to own multiple instrument or to sell the one they do own to chase after the mythical "magic" horn, so that the potential resale value of their instrument is of little, if any, import to them.

[Chadtuba]

That assumes, of course, that the primary reason tuba players sell a tuba is in order to finance the purchase of a new tuba rather than for other reasons, such as to purchase other goods, to pay bills or other expenses (house, car, tuition), downsize their stable, because at this stage in their life they can't justify having $xx,xxx tied up in a "name brand" tuba when they can buy a Chinese-made clone that, for their purposes plays almost as well, if not as well, for $x,xxx, etc.

When and if I sell any of my horns (and this is a constant debate in my head) this sums up why I would. It would be to help pay whatever expenses may be going on in life at that time and because I found an inexpensive horn that fit the bill for what I do. I don't make a lot of money playing tuba, I make no money playing euphonium, but I have made a fairly good amount on bass bone, my weakest playing and my cheapest horn. And to sum all that up, my bass bone is the Jupiter clone of the Conn 112H. It plays well, was purchased for $1000 less than the 112H at that time, and has payed for itself. I would love to have a full stable of horns, and someday I will, but to do this I will probably have at least one or two more clones assuming that they play well for me.

[prototypedenNIS]

Not necessarily the primary reason, only that it's enough of a factor to be economically significant.

Sorry, but the assertion that a larger profit from the sale of a used horn decreases the likelyhood []sic] that the seller will purchase a Chinese horn implicitly assumes that purchasing a new, non-Chinese horn is the seller's primary reason for selling, because if the proceeds of the sale are used for anything other than a new, non-Chinese horn, the alleged benefit to tuba companies from the sale of the used instrument disappears.

These days, I suppose the main reason you'd buy a tuba with no thought about possibly selling it later, is that you wouldn't expect its resale value to be worth the trouble. That's somewhat circular with respect to the present question, though.

I suspect that, unlike the gear geeks who inhabit musical instrument forums, the vast majority of people who purchase musical instruments--particularly those who are resuming playing later in life after a long hiatus--do so to satisfy their desire to play, and that a not insignificant proportion of that group find the instruments they do own satisfactory to their needs, interests, and aspirations, and consequently have neither the time, the interest, nor desire to own multiple instrument or to sell the one they do own to chase after the mythical "magic" horn, so that the potential resale value of their instrument is of little, if any, import to them.

Working in a music store I get asked every day about resale value and players selling used gear to put towards new gear.
I suspect your assumption is based off of a smaller subset than you expect.