When is a Steinway still a Steinway

[John Musselwhite]

At 09:38 PM 18/11/02 -0600, Kent wrote:

>Interesting discussion.

Indeed. I'm enjoying it too!

>Where I come from. if I sell something, then it's _not mine anymore_ and I 
>have no say in what is done to that particular piece of property.

It used to be that way where I come from as well. Now there is not only 
physical property, but intellectual property too. In this case as with 
everything else these days, you buy the piano and can do whatever you want 
with it, but you didn't buy the trademark that's on it,  just the 
permission to use it according to the trademark's owner's wishes. It's 
similar to buying software in some ways. You buy the disk and the printed 
manual (in some cases) and a license to use what's on it as designated by 
the copyright and trademark owner.

>Steinway obviously has no say in what parts are put into pianos that are 
>not owned by Steinway.

Obviously not, however would you agree that they are within their rights to 
control how their trademarks are used?

 > spruce soundboards, etc., but Steinway still gets the "credit" for these 
pianos since
 > the Steinway name has not been removed. Steinway should be grateful; it 
is these
 > restored pianos that help maintain Steinway's good brand name.

I suspect it's the pianos that are *not* being properly restored or are 
being heavily modified while keeping the trademark in place that draw 
Steinway's attention. I'm not sure they are too grateful that there are so 
many restored pianos maintaining their good brand name though, since those 
pianos are strong competition for their sales of new pianos.

                 John