Layson's Restoration Busted at Carlisle by Police!!

[The70RT]

So he bought the parts from legitimate sources then resold them at fair prices to consumers??....but made a living....go figure. Did he know if the parts were made legally or not?? If he is legit he should have sued Chrysler long before it got this far.

[Ghoste]

Sue Chrysler?  Do you think if you had a copyright issue with someone who was otherwise unknown to the police, you'd be able to get them to stage a raid like that?  They keep an army of lawyers on retainer and they'd bankrupt you looong before you ever got your day in court.  It's hard enough just trying to get them to honor their damned warranty.

[68rt]

Sue Chrysler?  Do you think if you had a copyright issue with someone who was otherwise unknown to the police, you'd be able to get them to stage a raid like that?  They keep an army of lawyers on retainer and they'd bankrupt you looong before you ever got your day in court.  It's hard enough just trying to get them to honor their damned warranty.

[JimShine]

Sue Chrysler?  Do you think if you had a copyright issue with someone who was otherwise unknown to the police, you'd be able to get them to stage a raid like that? 

As I stated earlier in the post, I watched a bootleg concert video dealer get taken down the exact same way at a Philly Guitar Show. The vast majority of the bands being bootlegged are decades past their peak. It was every bit as elaborate at this.

[Ghoste]

The bands may have been past their peak but you can bet the record company would care about as much as Chrysler. 

[chargerman68]

hey jackie


well the good thing is shelby's car is now famous......

[JimShine]

The record companies only care if they still carry the bands. I bet 95% of those videos I saw were of bands currently gone or with small independant labels. But I also guess it only takes one big band name to make the bust happen.

[Ghoste]

Yeah, the Recording Industry Association will pursue that kind of stuff fairly vigorously too if they get wind of it.

[bull]

I don't know what the truth of the matter is any better than anyone else on here - we're all just armchair prosecutors or defense attorneys. 

I agree. I haven't bought a lot of stuff from Layson's (locking gas cap and a bunch of paint gaskets and odds and ends) but what I have bought from them never had any pentastar stamped on them.

[JimShine]

But the original paint gaskets and locking gas caps didn't have them either.

I forgot they did the gas caps. I was going to look at my receipts to see who made them as mine is wearing out. I had a real hard time getting it to unlock on my last fill up.

[BrianShaughnessy]

hey jackie


well the good thing is shelby's car is now famous......

I took a few pix after AFTER the poop flew...   but didn't really think about it.   But it just makes it more memorable I guess. 

[craigandlynda]

very, very nice.....is that panther pink, or good 'n plenty pink?

[69CoronetRT]

Interesting though that they wouldn't complain about copying the lens and part numbers, but just the logo. I know the logo is protected by copywrite laws, but I would have thought they would have some jurisdiction over the part numbers on them as well.

It would be very difficult to copyright or trademark a string of numbers and claim it was a propriatary grouping unless you have a unique specific grouping used in a uniqe application. Even if you could, you would have to spend the money to register every part number in your inventory including superceeded numbers. It would not be cost effective.

The heart of the matter is use of the pentastar and/or other trademarks without paying licensing fees.

[71ChallengeHer]

very, very nice.....is that panther pink, or good 'n plenty pink?

That's FM3 , panther pink.    And Brian, the pics you took turned out great. 

[Steve P.]

.

The vendors were making "proprietary" parts, which means they were made specifically for Chrysler.  Even the vendors / manufacturer of the parts sourced by Chrysler were not allowed to sell them to anyone but Chrysler.  The tooling was owned by Chrysler.

This is true with all the stuff my father-in-law makes in his tool and die shop also. There was a shop in Rochester, NY some years ago that was making stuff for Rochester Products or Delco, (I forget now), anyway, a worker at this shop was making more product than he shipped and selling the UN COUNTED parts to local repair shops. He got busted due to a failed part that he tried to have a dealer replace.. Moron......

I have to look at it on the other hand. If I were cuffed and taken away leaving thousands and thousands of dollars worth of part I would WANT as many cops there as possible to make sure my parts were safeguarded.

[Kevin68N71]

very, very nice.....is that panther pink, or good 'n plenty pink?

That's FM3 , panther pink.    And Brian, the pics you took turned out great. 

That is a new one on me.  I have never seen Panther Pink in person, only a few pics.  I don't know why, but I always thought Panther Pink had a little orangyness to it---or the much darker color I have seen in chip sets and a few other pictures.

[craig]

and the matching pink sandals are a nice touch.....wonder if i can find a pair of athletic shoes in sub-lime?

[68chrgrwife]

and the matching pink sandals are a nice touch.....wonder if i can find a pair of athletic shoes in sub-lime?

look around I know they have sublime sneakers out there........I think Nike sells them in fact.

[Kevin68N71]

Don't get me wrong, I believe the writers, I just seem to see different pinks...I know it has alot to do with lighting etc, but unlike any other color, they sure look different car to car.

Take a look at this and see if you see what I mean...the orangyness of some, the candy pink to much darker pinks as described.  I can't always dismiss it with lighting.  What gives, anyone else ever notice this?

http://www.pantherpink.com/carlisle2008.htm

[hemi-hampton]

I can explain this. Different Paint Manufacturers use different colored tints. The tints name & # might be the same but when you open the can up & look at them they are not the same. This is a much bigger problem with the low budget paints/tints.  One guy might have had his car Sprayed using PPG while another guy used BASF or Sikkens or RM Diamont or Acme or Matrix or ect, ect. LEON.

[bordin34]

Even some of the cars in the pink building were slightly different shades.

[Kevin68N71]

I can explain this. Different Paint Manufacturers use different colored tints. The tints name & # might be the same but when you open the can up & look at them they are not the same. This is a much bigger problem with the low budget paints/tints.  One guy might have had his car Sprayed using PPG while another guy used BASF or Sikkens or RM Diamont or Acme or Matrix or ect, ect. LEON.

Ah that seems like it would make sense.  I wonder if there is something about pink that makes it more noticeable.  I mean, go-green is pretty much the same every time I see it...maybe a subtle difference if two were side by side, but not as different as the pink.  I know too, obviously, that photos of paint chips may be different from one computer monitor to another. 

Of the magazine articles I have read, it seems the pink was always darker, not that bright pink as in the picture here.

Sorry guys if I have hijacked this a little too far from the Laysons deal.

[jasonfromIKILLYA]

The record companies only care if they still carry the bands. I bet 95% of those videos I saw were of bands currently gone or with small independant labels. But I also guess it only takes one big band name to make the bust happen.

Hey everyone.  I haven't been posting much lately but this got me back in the swing.  I work for Epic Records and wanted to chime in on this.  There is so much to say here, it's hard to know where to start.  Forgive me if I write a bit long.

First, while the record industry is often demonized for their absolutely idiotic failure to embrace MP3 technology and subsequent desperate scramble to attack it, I will ask you to think about the facts and base legality instead.  (for the moment)  The hard fact is that the labels and artists OWN the rights to the music, the art, they have created and marketed.  Think of the label as a bank and the artist as a homeowner.  The bank loans the buyer the money to buy a house, and both own part of it.  If you break into the house and steal parts, you will be arrested and punished.  To speak to the comment above, labels own the rights to the music as long as they own the copyright and publishing rights.  Currently, a copyright is valid for the authors lifetime + 75 years.  Regardless of whether or not the bands were "passed their peak", that was stolen content and illegal.

In this instance, the same theory applies.  Regardless of whether or not Mother Mopar has intentionally deemed our passion unimportant, they still own the right to their name, logo, and their copyright.  You can hate them all you want, but they still own it.  That's like saying it's ok to steal your neighbors car because you don't like him. 

[Kevin68N71]

Jason, I agree with you, and on the topic of music, you are one of the few people out there that understand the concept of the ownership of music and intellectual properties, and just because you CAN copy music or the written work quickly, doesn't mean you have the legal right to, or that you are above the law.

I am having a BIG debate/feud with the owner of another website who absolutely sees no crime in downloading movies off the web illegally.  His position?  Most movies are cr@p.  If its a good enough movie, he'll go ahead and purchase it because they give you all the extras, such as picture books, outtakes etc.  Yes, that is his insane logic.  I don't know how many people I have debated that feel it's their God-given RIGHT to download any music they want and not pay for it.  Reasons range from "The record companies screw us over" to "there is only a few songs I want and I don't want to pay for the album" to "artists only make money when they tour anyways".  Thanks to the public school system for these idiots.

All that said, I totally agree with other writers that Chrysler has done little for the hobby, and I also believe the whole police response was overkill.  However, I also believe that people don't have the right to pass off parts as made by Chrysler when they are not.  That is fraud and should be punished.  On balance, I think a third party should be able to make any part they want that fits any vehicle, and as long as they are not using logos, they shouldn't have to pay Chrysler a freaking dime. 

[craigandlynda]

wow.   its nice to be in with such diversely opined folks....get to hear all sides....

i agree with the misuse of someone else's logo....more than civil, its criminal because it's also misleading to the buyer and subsequent owners of the part...

but the music thing really gets iffy, at least to me..... under the theories of the music companies, if i buy a record, i cant loan it my friend to enjoy......? is that what they are saying?  if i buy a book, can i lend it out for someone else to enjoy? or does that person have to pay a royalty to the publishing company? i think the answer to that has been decided long ago- we have libraries.....

sometimes, the impression i get is that the music business, on this issue, is all about greed......if i download a tune from a friend, for my own personal enjoyment, am i stealing? or is it just as if he is letting me enjoy a book that he has? when i was young and we bought 45's and 33's, people would lend them back and forth, and the music people didn't make a peep...

this seems to be getting grayer and grayer...