Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Don't get me started on the lens availability issue. I put in an order for a brand spanking new piece of Pentax glass (I'm not saying which, I might jinx it). CRK told my camera store, 6-8 weeks. After 7 weeks I got impatient and asked my camera shop for an updated ETA (this was yesterday), CRK couldn't give one. For f#k's sake. It's times like this when I envy those Dark Side users, who can go into any decent store and pick up pretty much any lens the desire off the shelf or, worst case, have to wait a few days. I'm not blaming Pentax for this, just CRK for giving inaccurate information. Dave (the mightily pi55ed) On 11/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan CR Kennedy Company Pty Ltd. operates in a global market place. The lines we represent in Australia are globally competitive in price. The savings by purchasing from parallel/grey importers are small. The risks are even greater. Grrr.. DSLR prices are about comparable in Australia with New York mail order (if you take into account GST and shipping). But lenses are can be 20% to 30% more expensive, if they are available at all in Australia. And over time, you spend many many more dollars on lenses than on bodies. And that's assuming you can even obtain the lenses here. I had no luck getting the 31mm LTD retail, and had to make a special request to CRK to get one from Japan for me (good from a CRK customer service point of view, poor from a retail strategy point of view). D
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
David, A friend of mine bought a Canon. He had to wait 8 weeks for a 100mm f2.8 macro lens and I'm not sure if they have managed to get his ring flash in yet and that's been 3 months when I last spoke to him. It's not plain sailing for the other brands either. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon David Savage wrote: Don't get me started on the lens availability issue. I put in an order for a brand spanking new piece of Pentax glass (I'm not saying which, I might jinx it). CRK told my camera store, 6-8 weeks. After 7 weeks I got impatient and asked my camera shop for an updated ETA (this was yesterday), CRK couldn't give one. For f#k's sake. It's times like this when I envy those Dark Side users, who can go into any decent store and pick up pretty much any lens the desire off the shelf or, worst case, have to wait a few days. I'm not blaming Pentax for this, just CRK for giving inaccurate information. Dave (the mightily pi55ed) On 11/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan CR Kennedy Company Pty Ltd. operates in a global market place. The lines we represent in Australia are globally competitive in price. The savings by purchasing from parallel/grey importers are small. The risks are even greater. Grrr.. DSLR prices are about comparable in Australia with New York mail order (if you take into account GST and shipping). But lenses are can be 20% to 30% more expensive, if they are available at all in Australia. And over time, you spend many many more dollars on lenses than on bodies. And that's assuming you can even obtain the lenses here. I had no luck getting the 31mm LTD retail, and had to make a special request to CRK to get one from Japan for me (good from a CRK customer service point of view, poor from a retail strategy point of view). D
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Good to hear. Dave On 11/2/05, Leon Altoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, A friend of mine bought a Canon. He had to wait 8 weeks for a 100mm f2.8 macro lens and I'm not sure if they have managed to get his ring flash in yet and that's been 3 months when I last spoke to him. It's not plain sailing for the other brands either. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon David Savage wrote: Don't get me started on the lens availability issue. I put in an order for a brand spanking new piece of Pentax glass (I'm not saying which, I might jinx it). CRK told my camera store, 6-8 weeks. After 7 weeks I got impatient and asked my camera shop for an updated ETA (this was yesterday), CRK couldn't give one. For f#k's sake. It's times like this when I envy those Dark Side users, who can go into any decent store and pick up pretty much any lens the desire off the shelf or, worst case, have to wait a few days. I'm not blaming Pentax for this, just CRK for giving inaccurate information. Dave (the mightily pi55ed) On 11/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan CR Kennedy Company Pty Ltd. operates in a global market place. The lines we represent in Australia are globally competitive in price. The savings by purchasing from parallel/grey importers are small. The risks are even greater. Grrr.. DSLR prices are about comparable in Australia with New York mail order (if you take into account GST and shipping). But lenses are can be 20% to 30% more expensive, if they are available at all in Australia. And over time, you spend many many more dollars on lenses than on bodies. And that's assuming you can even obtain the lenses here. I had no luck getting the 31mm LTD retail, and had to make a special request to CRK to get one from Japan for me (good from a CRK customer service point of view, poor from a retail strategy point of view). D
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) They do not convict you for having counterfeit currency, only for trying to deliberately pass it. They will however confiscate it, which seems fair enough. How about counterfeit Rolex's? William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) Seriously though, the European law puts responsibility on the buyer of the forgery, as well as the creator of it.. Not a bad protection of intellectual property rights, really. It means you have to think for yourself...uh oh! We do things a little differently out here William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
It seems to me that the only way a counterfeit Rolex could harm Rolex is if it actually stole a sale of a legitimate Rolex, nobody in their right mind would believe that the watch they Paid less than $100 dollars for from the street vendor in New York is a real Rolex. On the other hand if it's sold in a legitimate jewelery store at a close to Rolex price, and you can't tell it from a real Rolex then they should have a cause of action, but against the store, not against the buyer. The buyer has also been defrauded... William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) They do not convict you for having counterfeit currency, only for trying to deliberately pass it. They will however confiscate it, which seems fair enough. How about counterfeit Rolex's? William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Rolex perceives their product as a pure status symbol. If poor people can walk around wearing what seems to be a Rolex, rich people will quit buying them. They are of course correct without that status symbol image an 18kt men's Rolex Day Date is a pretty nice thousand dollar wristwatch (for those who do not know, they sell for about $7500 at your upscale jewery store). In fact the only things worth counterfeiting are things that are worth vastly more than they cost to produce, like $100 bills and Rolex watches for instance. I would guess that about 1/2 the junk mail ads for fake Rolexes you get everyday are from Rolex's lawyers who will file charges against you as soon as you send them the money for a watch. A private sting operation in other words. If you live in Belgium you should be very careful, I think. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- P. J. Alling wrote: It seems to me that the only way a counterfeit Rolex could harm Rolex is if it actually stole a sale of a legitimate Rolex, nobody in their right mind would believe that the watch they Paid less than $100 dollars for from the street vendor in New York is a real Rolex. On the other hand if it's sold in a legitimate jewelery store at a close to Rolex price, and you can't tell it from a real Rolex then they should have a cause of action, but against the store, not against the buyer. The buyer has also been defrauded... William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) They do not convict you for having counterfeit currency, only for trying to deliberately pass it. They will however confiscate it, which seems fair enough. How about counterfeit Rolex's? William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) It seems to me that the only way a counterfeit Rolex could harm Rolex is if it actually stole a sale of a legitimate Rolex, nobody in their right mind would believe that the watch they Paid less than $100 dollars for from the street vendor in New York is a real Rolex. On the other hand if it's sold in a legitimate jewelery store at a close to Rolex price, and you can't tell it from a real Rolex then they should have a cause of action, but against the store, not against the buyer. The buyer has also been defrauded... I think we've been down this road before. Copyright infringement isn't decided by whether a company or person has lost money, but by whether an infringement has taken place. You are using the sliding scale of morality to make an arguement. William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Everyone makes a Rolex look alike, unless you look closely, well at least except for the name. For example Timex and Seiko both make watches that look like Rolex Presidents, at least to the casual glance. They cost between $60-$250. They are made by major manufactures and sold in legitimate stores. This must disturb the Rolex company greatly... graywolf wrote: Rolex perceives their product as a pure status symbol. If poor people can walk around wearing what seems to be a Rolex, rich people will quit buying them. They are of course correct without that status symbol image an 18kt men's Rolex Day Date is a pretty nice thousand dollar wristwatch (for those who do not know, they sell for about $7500 at your upscale jewery store). In fact the only things worth counterfeiting are things that are worth vastly more than they cost to produce, like $100 bills and Rolex watches for instance. I would guess that about 1/2 the junk mail ads for fake Rolexes you get everyday are from Rolex's lawyers who will file charges against you as soon as you send them the money for a watch. A private sting operation in other words. If you live in Belgium you should be very careful, I think. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- P. J. Alling wrote: It seems to me that the only way a counterfeit Rolex could harm Rolex is if it actually stole a sale of a legitimate Rolex, nobody in their right mind would believe that the watch they Paid less than $100 dollars for from the street vendor in New York is a real Rolex. On the other hand if it's sold in a legitimate jewelery store at a close to Rolex price, and you can't tell it from a real Rolex then they should have a cause of action, but against the store, not against the buyer. The buyer has also been defrauded... William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) They do not convict you for having counterfeit currency, only for trying to deliberately pass it. They will however confiscate it, which seems fair enough. How about counterfeit Rolex's? William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Yes, but the buyer isn't the counterfeiter. He/She by any reasonable law must be assumed to be an innocent victim. That's my point. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) It seems to me that the only way a counterfeit Rolex could harm Rolex is if it actually stole a sale of a legitimate Rolex, nobody in their right mind would believe that the watch they Paid less than $100 dollars for from the street vendor in New York is a real Rolex. On the other hand if it's sold in a legitimate jewelery store at a close to Rolex price, and you can't tell it from a real Rolex then they should have a cause of action, but against the store, not against the buyer. The buyer has also been defrauded... I think we've been down this road before. Copyright infringement isn't decided by whether a company or person has lost money, but by whether an infringement has taken place. You are using the sliding scale of morality to make an arguement. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Under the copyright laws I have a right to make a copy for my own use. The thing I don't know is, is this Wheatfield Willy pulling our leg, Wal-Mart Manager walking the corporate dictated line, or Bill Robb moralizing? My response would be different to each of them. Me? I think most people are basically honest, like me. If I saw a $100 bill on the floor in your living room, I would bring it to your attention. If I saw one in the middle of the street, I would put it in my pocket. Both fit my ethical standards quite well. In my experience people who talk like you are writing would take a $100 bill out of my desk drawer and put it in their pocket. Always watch out for the guy who claims to be absolutely honest. IMNSHO, people who wear fake Rolex are fakes themselves, but then so are most people who wear real ones. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) It seems to me that the only way a counterfeit Rolex could harm Rolex is if it actually stole a sale of a legitimate Rolex, nobody in their right mind would believe that the watch they Paid less than $100 dollars for from the street vendor in New York is a real Rolex. On the other hand if it's sold in a legitimate jewelery store at a close to Rolex price, and you can't tell it from a real Rolex then they should have a cause of action, but against the store, not against the buyer. The buyer has also been defrauded... I think we've been down this road before. Copyright infringement isn't decided by whether a company or person has lost money, but by whether an infringement has taken place. You are using the sliding scale of morality to make an arguement. William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) Yes, but the buyer isn't the counterfeiter. He/She by any reasonable law must be assumed to be an innocent victim. That's my point. The Belgian law makes it a crime to knowingly buy a counterfiet. If you, for example, buy a Rolex from some guy on the street, can you really call yourself an innocent victim when it turns out to be a fake? What was your point again? William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) Under the copyright laws I have a right to make a copy for my own use. The thing I don't know is, is this Wheatfield Willy pulling our leg, Wal-Mart Manager walking the corporate dictated line, or Bill Robb moralizing? My response would be different to each of them. Yer talking to Bill Robb. Me? I think most people are basically honest, like me. If I saw a $100 bill on the floor in your living room, I would bring it to your attention. If I saw one in the middle of the street, I would put it in my pocket. Both fit my ethical standards quite well. Mine too. Been there, spent the 50 at the bar, in fact. I I should have donated it to charity, but I was young and impetuous.. I didn't think I would get a worthwhile response if I'd put an advert in the lost and found. In my experience people who talk like you are writing would take a $100 bill out of my desk drawer and put it in their pocket. Always watch out for the guy who claims to be absolutely honest. Some of us have learned that absolute honesty is something worthwhile to strive for, whether we make it or not shouldn't be situational dependant. I don't see why it is such an ethical dilemma to recognize that if you take something you have no right to take, you are doing something wrong, and if you aid and abet the taking of something that doesn't belong to the taker, then that is also wrong, and then to try your very best to do the right thing? I bet I sound pretty naive, don't I. William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Sure, the assumption of innocence is absolute. The law in Belgium is after the old French model, guilty until proven innocent. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) Yes, but the buyer isn't the counterfeiter. He/She by any reasonable law must be assumed to be an innocent victim. That's my point. The Belgian law makes it a crime to knowingly buy a counterfiet. If you, for example, buy a Rolex from some guy on the street, can you really call yourself an innocent victim when it turns out to be a fake? What was your point again? William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) Sure, the assumption of innocence is absolute. The law in Belgium is after the old French model, guilty until proven innocent. Sort of like the Texas photography law in concept? The judge ruled the man had knowingly bought the fake and sentenced him to six months in prison under laws for handling counterfeit goods. It sounds like he was given his day in court. William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
I take this as a sign that I shouldn't go to Belgium. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) Sure, the assumption of innocence is absolute. The law in Belgium is after the old French model, guilty until proven innocent. Sort of like the Texas photography law in concept? The judge ruled the man had knowingly bought the fake and sentenced him to six months in prison under laws for handling counterfeit goods. It sounds like he was given his day in court. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
William Robb wrote: I bet I sound pretty naive, don't I. Not here.
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) I take this as a sign that I shouldn't go to Belgium. Just leave your Yolex at home. William Robb
Re: Back to the subject-CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
I was in at C R Kennedy today and asked them about this. C.R. Kennedy will honour any Australian or international warranty on Pentax equipment which is correctly filled in by the place of purchase. Buyers should check this on all purchases, not just cameras. You really can't argue with that and given the pricing of Pentax gear in Australia it's generally not worth the bother to buy from overseas. I know some of the better lenses are hard to get, but I've always found them helpful - to the point where they fixed my out of warranty *istD that was broken by another company, not only free of charge, but overnight. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1587840.html?menu=news.quirkies.strangecrime I can understand why Rolex would do that. They are pretty good wristwatches, probable cost nearly $100 to make, and sell for $3795 in stainless steel. Some of the fakes cost as much as $1000 themselves and are of at least the same quality. However, I think convicting someone for owning one is going too far, manufacturing or selling them yes, but not for just owning one. I do not believe he could have been convicted here in the US, apparently in Belgium they do not have the protections we do. How medieval! I think this ties directly into a recent thread, Ryan's post. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Ryan Lee wrote: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Mm. As for the CRK/Pentax thing, I suppose CRK is just the distributor.. they can't really close a blind eye when the grey goods probably directly affect their margins. If Pentax had their own service centre here, they'd probably not be too fussed- afterall, grey goods or not, it's still supporting their own products. Not too long ago, I bought a Canon 70-200 2.8L IS new on ebay from a Hong Kong seller for about AUD500 less than what it would have cost me here. It didn't come with a warranty card, but it didn't worry me too much (though I made sure I asked for a receipt- which I'm guessing is all they'll ask for should I bring it in to be looked at). However, that being said, I find it a bit strange Canon does gives worldwide warranties on its lenses, but only local ones for its bodies. Does Pentax do the same? As for the Rolex thing graywolf, I agree completely- a criminal record for someone who maybe found himself on a holiday buying a cheap 'Rolex' for a laugh is a bit disturbing. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1587840.html?menu=news.quirkies.strangecrime I can understand why Rolex would do that. They are pretty good wristwatches, probable cost nearly $100 to make, and sell for $3795 in stainless steel. Some of the fakes cost as much as $1000 themselves and are of at least the same quality. However, I think convicting someone for owning one is going too far, manufacturing or selling them yes, but not for just owning one. I do not believe he could have been convicted here in the US, apparently in Belgium they do not have the protections we do. How medieval! I think this ties directly into a recent thread, Ryan's post. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Ryan Lee wrote: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1587840.html?menu=news.quirkies.strangecrime I can understand why Rolex would do that. They are pretty good wristwatches, probable cost nearly $100 to make, and sell for $3795 in stainless steel. Some of the fakes cost as much as $1000 themselves and are of at least the same quality. However, I think convicting someone for owning one is going too far, manufacturing or selling them yes, but not for just owning one. I do not believe he could have been convicted here in the US, apparently in Belgium they do not have the protections we do. How medieval! I presume then, that forgery is a legitimate pastime in your country? Seriously though, the European law puts responsibility on the buyer of the forgery, as well as the creator of it.. Not a bad protection of intellectual property rights, really. William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Quoting Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan CR Kennedy Company Pty Ltd. operates in a global market place. The lines we represent in Australia are globally competitive in price. The savings by purchasing from parallel/grey importers are small. The risks are even greater. Grrr.. DSLR prices are about comparable in Australia with New York mail order (if you take into account GST and shipping). But lenses are can be 20% to 30% more expensive, if they are available at all in Australia. And over time, you spend many many more dollars on lenses than on bodies. And that's assuming you can even obtain the lenses here. I had no luck getting the 31mm LTD retail, and had to make a special request to CRK to get one from Japan for me (good from a CRK customer service point of view, poor from a retail strategy point of view). D
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seriously though, the European law puts responsibility on the buyer of the forgery, as well as the creator of it.. Not a bad protection of intellectual property rights, really. It means you have to think for yourself...uh oh! Tom C.
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
They do not convict you for having counterfeit currency, only for trying to deliberately pass it. They will however confiscate it, which seems fair enough. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1587840.html?menu=news.quirkies.strangecrime I can understand why Rolex would do that. They are pretty good wristwatches, probable cost nearly $100 to make, and sell for $3795 in stainless steel. Some of the fakes cost as much as $1000 themselves and are of at least the same quality. However, I think convicting someone for owning one is going too far, manufacturing or selling them yes, but not for just owning one. I do not believe he could have been convicted here in the US, apparently in Belgium they do not have the protections we do. How medieval! I presume then, that forgery is a legitimate pastime in your country? Seriously though, the European law puts responsibility on the buyer of the forgery, as well as the creator of it.. Not a bad protection of intellectual property rights, really. William Robb
