Copyright Insanity? 300 SL destroyed

[Marian87]

I dont know why I am still banging my head against this wall any more...

I don't know why I'm doing that either.

I got your point but it's still not valid in the real world. I contend that if you would pit an original 300 SL against a replica one made with modern internals and electrics the replica will be more reliable. Plus it's known that older super cars have a lot of problems and impracticalities attached to them.

Lets take the Lamborghini Miura as an example or the Countach. They weren't the picture of reliability in their day. The Miura could even catch fire.
If those faults in the originals didn't harm the company I fail to see how a replica of that car which is not a 100% the same and most likely uses modern electrics, brakes and so on would do harm if it breaks down.

Look at Jay Lenos site, he has tens and if not hundreds of car mostly original ones. Ther are plenty of them that had design faults from the factory or were limited in the technology used. Why don't the companys close his site because he's soiling their good reliable reputation?
That is ridiculous of course because no one expects modern reliabity from an old car and the only way you can keep or improve your image is to build good cars now. Do you see how this relates to your argument?

[serothis]

I got your point but it's still not valid in the real world. I contend that if you would pit an original 300 SL against a replica one made with modern internals and electrics the replica will be more reliable.

What guarantee is there that there will be reliable modern internals? Just because this particular example seems to be done well, What's to stop someone from making cheap knockoffs? "Motorist dies in 300 SL fire" Do you really think a reporter is going to really dig deep to find out if the car was original or a replica?

Yes, older cars have their old and deteriorating systems. But anyone would can afford to buy a 300 SL probably doesn't drive it and if they do probably knows every mechanical issue with their particular car. But then consider this from a collectors point of view. Let's say I want an original 300 SL for sentimental reasons. Now I would have to wade through all of these replicas. And if it's difficult to tell between an original and a replica then yes that does degrade the value. Not just the price tag but the value of the nameplate.

[Azurael]

I dont know why I am still banging my head against this wall any more...
A broken down replica on the side of the road looks like the car it is replicating not like a broken down replica, that will damage the original manufactures image not the replicas image...
The original manufacturer of any product wants to keep their image as good as it can be and having cheap knock off's (broken down replica on the side of the road) is something they have no control over and I can understand their desire to remove them...

Huh? There are THOUSANDS of replicas of classic Ferraris (most of them based on MR2s - euck) around and nobody crushes them. And even if those are based on kits and assembled by individuals, somebody's still building the kits/has the moulds. It's ridiculous for a company to be so heavy handed with a design they don't even produce any more; if they're worried the SL will suddenly be popular again because some coachmaker decides to build replicas then surely they should be building them?! Personally, I don't think they SHOULD have any right to the design any more. I'm totally in favour of non-renewable copyrights; they stifle progress and competition for the benefit of a few greedy gits. But then, this is all about corporate greed... Why do we let corporations, who obviously only exist for selfish reasons have so much control over us? It's ridiculous that we value the corporation above the individual these days. (and yes, I realise I live in a country with a Conservative, status-quo maintaining government. Not much I can do about that - the vast majority of the population, myself included, didn't vote for them, but the system is f**ed.)

[Marian87]

What guarantee is there that there will be reliable modern internals? Just because this particular example seems to be done well, What's to stop someone from making cheap knockoffs? "Motorist dies in 300 SL fire" Do you really think a reporter is going to really dig deep to find out if the car was original or a replica?

Ok there are no guarantees, but do you think that people didn't die in the original 300 SLs? The worst of the damage has been done already.
What I'm trying to say with that is that the older the car the lesser the impression of responsability is on the company that made it. There are no classic cars being recalled to fix some of their design faults period.
With modern cars you have a period of warranty between 3 and 5 years in which the company is responsible for mechanical and electrical failures after that no one gives a damn unless it is a serious design fault, and that only happens to 10-15 year old cars tops.
This argument of image protection doesn't really stand up. That doesn't mean that Mercedes doesn't think how you do, but it's bullshit reasoning anyway.

Yes, older cars have their old and deteriorating systems. But anyone would can afford to buy a 300 SL probably doesn't drive it and if they do probably knows every mechanical issue with their particular car. But then consider this from a collectors point of view. Let's say I want an original 300 SL for sentimental reasons. Now I would have to wade through all of these replicas. And if it's difficult to tell between an original and a replica then yes that does degrade the value. Not just the price tag but the value of the nameplate.

You would have to wade through replicas only if they were made in very high numbers, rarely the case, and the owners were dihonest and didn't put REPLICA in the title of the add or whatever. Otherwise I don't see a problem here. Look for a 1950s car, phone the guy ask the guy all the important questions and go see the car yourself, have an expert see it etc. You don't buy expensive cars without checking them through.

I would agree with you if replicas were 100% accurate to the original, but when only the body looks the same and it isn't made out of metal then I can't. Plus what is this about value, if you want to buy the original car for sentimental reasons and have a lot of money then the cost doesn't matter. If you want to buy the original car for sentimental reasons and don't have a lot of money then a cheaper replica would be enough.

Lets look at the Shelby Cobra market:
-replicas are worth $50 000 and above
-originals are worth around $2 000 000

The cobra is one the most successful replica car being sold yet the originals are still worth a lot of money. The same goes with the Lotus 7 and Porsche 356. Mercedes is being stupid for not allowing replicas of its old cars. They could allow licensing and make some money from it or sell parts for the replicas.

[cm_]

marian I think you are either too young and/or too naive to understand the copyright & patent laws in play here. Obviously it was considered by the courts as "fair" as Mercedes were allowed to go ahead and destroy the cars. serothis makes many good points that you seem to dismiss with a "who cares about the company" attitude.

If companies weren't guaranteed many of these rights in the first place many of the beautiful cars you see today wouldn't even exist.

[Jedi]

That, or every car would look identical, some would be well built, others, not so much.

[Marian87]

I may be too young and naive but in the world we live now, big companies in every field seem to be wanting to control our lives more, to restrict our freedoms, to do that and the other just to make a profit and I'm sick of it. It may not be exactly the same case with Mercedes, but I still don't like it and still can't see it as fair.

I'm sure if copyright and patent laws didn't exist or were in a different form beautiful cars would have still been made. Probably the only big difference would be that huge companies would have a more difficult time, and smaller ones would have a bigger chance of surviving and competing. Competition is what gives birth to innvovation and we would have all a lot more to benefit from.

[cm_]

I may be too young and naive but in the world we live now, big companies in every field seem to be wanting to control our lives more, to restrict our freedoms, to do that and the other just to make a profit and I'm sick of it. It may not be exactly the same case with Mercedes, but I still don't like it and still can't see it as fair.

I'm sure if copyright and patent laws didn't exist or were in a different form beautiful cars would have still been made. Probably the only big difference would be that huge companies would have a more difficult time, and smaller ones would have a bigger chance of surviving and competing. Competition is what gives birth to innvovation and we would have all a lot more to benefit from.

ok now you have proven my point... one day you will realise not everything is a conspiracy.

Don't put on that tin foil hat just yet...

[Gemberkoekje]

While I understand your point, let me play the devil's advocate for a second.

Imagine a world where copyright insanity doesn't exist. at all. Lamborghini makes a beautifully crafted car, and then some Chinese company called Lambolgini comes, copies the thing 1 on 1, and puts it on the market for less money, as they didn't have to do all the research in wind tunnels and engine development.

In a world like that, there would be no innovation to begin with, because any innovation you put money in will be copied and monetized by someone else.

However, I do agree that the restrictiveness in Video Games and the like are somewhat overdone, even though the video game makers do make money off their games (And having a Lamborghini would sell the game better, probably)

[Marian87]

Imagine a world where copyright insanity doesn't exist. at all. Lamborghini makes a beautifully crafted car, and then some Chinese company called Lambolgini comes, copies the thing 1 on 1, and puts it on the market for less money, as they didn't have to do all the research in wind tunnels and engine development.

What are these then? The only thing that the Chinese can't copy because of copyright is the names....the cars while not 100% exact are pretty much Identical.
http://www.monsterauto.ca/chinese-cars.php

This is another reason I'm pissed off. Because China is a huge market nobody wants to jeopardise their balance sheet by sueing these companies, but they can be against making replicas of 60 year old cars and even destroying somebody elses property........Hypocrisy!

Another point is that if copyrights and patents didn't exist at all and all innovations and inventions would be freely available nobody would put or need to put a lot of money into research and developement the cost would all be shared among everybody.
Say we are 60 years in the future and I want to make a fusion engined car. A small fusion reactor has just been invented, then I can take all the schematics and research and make my own, the only innovation here would be the way I adapt it for car use. Then someone else also makes a car based on mine, improving it in the process and so on.

Ofcourse many wouldn't like such a world because you couldn't have a monopoly and get rich fast and easy, but cars at least would evolve faster and be much better. The ones that aren't wouldn't be bought. Survival of the fittest( meaning the most adaptable not the strongest)at its best.

[cm_]

Imagine a world where copyright insanity doesn't exist. at all. Lamborghini makes a beautifully crafted car, and then some Chinese company called Lambolgini comes, copies the thing 1 on 1, and puts it on the market for less money, as they didn't have to do all the research in wind tunnels and engine development.

What are these then? The only thing that the Chinese can't copy because of copyright is the names....the cars while not 100% exact are pretty much Identical.
http://www.monsterauto.ca/chinese-cars.php

This is another reason I'm pissed off. Because China is a huge market nobody wants to jeopardise their balance sheet by sueing these companies, but they can be against making replicas of 60 year old cars and even destroying somebody elses property........Hypocrisy!

Another point is that if copyrights and patents didn't exist at all and all innovations and inventions would be freely available nobody would put or need to put a lot of money into research and developement the cost would all be shared among everybody.
Say we are 60 years in the future and I want to make a fusion engined car. A small fusion reactor has just been invented, then I can take all the schematics and research and make my own, the only innovation here would be the way I adapt it for car use. Then someone else also makes a car based on mine, improving it in the process and so on.

Ofcourse many wouldn't like such a world because you couldn't have a monopoly and get rich fast and easy, but cars at least would evolve faster and be much better. The ones that aren't wouldn't be bought. Survival of the fittest( meaning the most adaptable not the strongest)at its best.

hahahahaahah!

I'm not even going to bother to respond to that one, gave me a good laugh though

Come back and read that sentence when you are a bit older

[Killrob]

Whoops, topic drifting into flames... I'll put it into the crematorium before that can happen though. Keep it calm.
I stopped arguing in this thread long ago as it leads nowhere obviously.

[Marian87]

What does age have to do with changing the current unfair copyright patent system. Ignoring my personal views on how it should change come on and tell me that the current system is perfect, just and fair?

Did you even see the link with the ripoff chinese copies?

Look, I understand that the intent of these laws is to protect the people that put effort into making, developing, creating something. These laws could be revised and still do that, maybe even better, but also make them fairer for everyone else and remove the inanity of selling and buying thosse rights for an unlimited period.

I guess my desire that everyone on this planet should benefit more from intelectual resources is amusing to some of you.

I don't want a flame war on this thread. What I wanted was more of a discussion. Nobody explained to me in a rational manner why these laws should remain the same.

[Killrob]

Nobody explained to me in a rational manner why these laws should remain the same.

This is far from the truth, and I guess this is why people (including me) get upset with this thread.
Good arguments and bad arguments have been made on both sides. Let it stand as is.

Thread locked for the better of everyone.
Cheers!