I understood that we were not to profit of his designs. A price of 750 pound sterling must ensure profit. I think prices around $500-600US is reasonable unless you are paying for the labour and materials of a custom chassis, like woodwork. You give someone a hand... they take the arm.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200379470254
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200379470254
Hi - it's my listing 
I bought this used, and £750 is indeed more than I paid. I don't expect it to sell for that (best offers accepted!), and I have made it clear on the forum I bought it from that I would be happy to sell it for what I paid for it. I'm happy to extend that offer to this forum as well, if anyone is interested!
On a more general note, I actually don't see anything wrong, and certainly nothing legally actionable, from selling at a profit. I certainly never entered into a contract when I bought this not to sell at a profit. (I have informally mentioned that if I were to make a profit, I would share it with the guy I bought it from 50:50.)
And on an even more general note, I'm entirely happy if I don't sell this amplifier, as it sounds fantastic, and much better than even the £750 price would suggest. I have priced it more at its value to me than at its cost to me, if that makes sense.
I bought this used, and £750 is indeed more than I paid. I don't expect it to sell for that (best offers accepted!), and I have made it clear on the forum I bought it from that I would be happy to sell it for what I paid for it. I'm happy to extend that offer to this forum as well, if anyone is interested!
On a more general note, I actually don't see anything wrong, and certainly nothing legally actionable, from selling at a profit. I certainly never entered into a contract when I bought this not to sell at a profit. (I have informally mentioned that if I were to make a profit, I would share it with the guy I bought it from 50:50.)
And on an even more general note, I'm entirely happy if I don't sell this amplifier, as it sounds fantastic, and much better than even the £750 price would suggest. I have priced it more at its value to me than at its cost to me, if that makes sense.
I don't understand why you are selling it, if you think it sounds so fantastic.
There is a very bad feeling around here towards Tim Rawson. It was probably not a good idea to state it was made by him.
It is people like him that put us at risk of losing the great generosity of Nelson in sharing his designs with us.
If this affects Nelsons business then I would not blame him if he was to withdraw all future support to the diy community.
If you were to make a profit from this amp then you should be splitting the profits with Nelson, not Tim or anyone else.
There is a very bad feeling around here towards Tim Rawson. It was probably not a good idea to state it was made by him.
It is people like him that put us at risk of losing the great generosity of Nelson in sharing his designs with us.
If this affects Nelsons business then I would not blame him if he was to withdraw all future support to the diy community.
If you were to make a profit from this amp then you should be splitting the profits with Nelson, not Tim or anyone else.
Last edited:
I have other amps that also sound great - a pair of 6B4G PP monoblocks and also some OTL monoblocks. I sold some 300B SET monoblocks last week too - I got a bit over-amped...
The ebay listing is factually correct, and ignoring the Rawson connection would have been misleading, I think. I'm sorry if it causes offence or upset to anyone. Certainly I'd prefer a short note from Nelson as to the right way to do things, rather than one from his lawyer!
The ebay listing is factually correct, and ignoring the Rawson connection would have been misleading, I think. I'm sorry if it causes offence or upset to anyone. Certainly I'd prefer a short note from Nelson as to the right way to do things, rather than one from his lawyer!
I don't have issues with you owning or selling an amplifier
based on the F3. The issue is strictly that of trademarks,
which you are using liberally without permission.
Last edited:
Wrong?
Wrongful on two levels.
1)If it was morally or legally right, I am sure a lot of dIYers would quit their day jobs and have fun regurgitating other peoples creativity. One should not need a law to know when a debt is owed anyway.
2)If this was encouraged to happen we would never learn anything new, just sustain our present frightening state of ignorance where this even needs to be debated.
I thank Nelson Pass in my heart everyday and often in the forums for his gracefulness. I find hope for our future, when a successful man can be successful and share his success with the masses. I believe that he has enlightened many with his genius, kindness, patience, generosity, and his time. Mr. Pass is proof that commitment to an ideal can be honest and profitable at the same time, and those that share that idea can govern themselves peacefully. In this forum is a microcosm of our planet's population. The main difference is that all things are equal here.
The Dude
Wrongful on two levels.
1)If it was morally or legally right, I am sure a lot of dIYers would quit their day jobs and have fun regurgitating other peoples creativity. One should not need a law to know when a debt is owed anyway.
2)If this was encouraged to happen we would never learn anything new, just sustain our present frightening state of ignorance where this even needs to be debated.
I thank Nelson Pass in my heart everyday and often in the forums for his gracefulness. I find hope for our future, when a successful man can be successful and share his success with the masses. I believe that he has enlightened many with his genius, kindness, patience, generosity, and his time. Mr. Pass is proof that commitment to an ideal can be honest and profitable at the same time, and those that share that idea can govern themselves peacefully. In this forum is a microcosm of our planet's population. The main difference is that all things are equal here.
The Dude
Last edited:
I don't have issues with you owning or selling an amplifier
based on the F3. The issue is strictly that of trademarks,
which you are using liberally without permission.
OK, I understand your position now. I'll PM you to discuss how the amplifier could be described so that it would not contravene these marks.
Hi - it's my listing
I bought this used, and £750 is indeed more than I paid. I don't expect it to sell for that (best offers accepted!), and I have made it clear on the forum I bought it from that I would be happy to sell it for what I paid for it. I'm happy to extend that offer to this forum as well, if anyone is interested!
On a more general note, I actually don't see anything wrong, and certainly nothing legally actionable, from selling at a profit. I certainly never entered into a contract when I bought this not to sell at a profit. (I have informally mentioned that if I were to make a profit, I would share it with the guy I bought it from 50:50.)
And on an even more general note, I'm entirely happy if I don't sell this amplifier, as it sounds fantastic, and much better than even the £750 price would suggest. I have priced it more at its value to me than at its cost to me, if that makes sense.
I thought it was pretty well understood that these sort of non-public domain DIY designs are for personal/non-commercial use only. The only one who should ever profit should be the original designer. Your piece should never have been sold in the first place as it is breaking the DIY use contract. The pawn shop owner who buys stolen property and later sells it for a profit is not absolved of liability, except in this case Nelson Pass is far too gracious and only objects to copyright infringement.
You should understand that most of us here see this as an abuse of Nelson's generosity and that if it became widespread would lead to a witholding of future designs.
That is utter nonsense. If Nelson Pass asserts a lien over all amps based on his designs, he won't get many builders. There are two issues here:
First, there is someone out there who is using Nelson's designs and building amplifiers specifically to sell. This certainly breaks the spirit of how the designs were released, if not actually being in contravention.
Second, I am advertising this amplifier at an inflated price on ebay BIN/BO. I didn't buy the amp to profit, I bought it to see how it sounded. I now am looking to sell it, and have used a system that means I have control over the sale process - there is no risk of it selling at less than a third what I paid, which has happened to me with auctions in the past. Ideally, potential purchasers will contact me and we can transact outside ebay, to save paying their exorbitant fees. Only by having the high fee will I get this complete protection.
There is no greed here - sure I won't mind if someone coughs up the asking price, but I would also be happy to sell it for what I paid, especially if that buyer is a member of a forum to which I feel some connection. Given the vitriol I'm receiving here (including by PM), that ain't here.
At this point, anyone with an ebay.co.uk account should feel free to use the Ebay process to request the listing be removed.
Report item --> Counterfeits and Breach of Copyright --> Potential trademark infringement --> Other replica or counterfeit items.
This clearly violates the Ebay policies under: http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/listing-ov.html
Listings must not misrepresent items
Except as noted in the specific policy as exceptions, sellers cannot:
...
Include brand names or other inappropriate keywords in a title or description. (On eBay this is known as keyword spamming)
...
Nelson obviously has additional rights in the situation (and a different option on the 'report a problem' screen), but Ebay invites community involvement when laws are being violated.
Rick
Report item --> Counterfeits and Breach of Copyright --> Potential trademark infringement --> Other replica or counterfeit items.
This clearly violates the Ebay policies under: http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/listing-ov.html
Listings must not misrepresent items
Except as noted in the specific policy as exceptions, sellers cannot:
...
Include brand names or other inappropriate keywords in a title or description. (On eBay this is known as keyword spamming)
...
Nelson obviously has additional rights in the situation (and a different option on the 'report a problem' screen), but Ebay invites community involvement when laws are being violated.
Rick
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.