Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talizvar wrote:

Asterios wrote:
have you ever made a mix tape?

Yep, typically from my own purchased collection.
I think the question you were reaching for here is "and then gave it to someone?".

or recorded a show on TV before?

I believe this is a standard feature on most cable or satellite systems so fail to see an issue here.

that may be the case now, but is it legal? its like when VCR's were made the NFL made a big stink about people taping their games and such.

The question is, what if you bought a model that is no longer made but wanted more of that model so recasted the already paid for model for your own personal use? what do you think of that morally? certain things it is illegal to do, but is it a case of no harm, no foul? its not like you are taking money from GW since they no longer make the model, and its not like you are selling your recasts. something like this I have no problem with, what about you?

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

No, the original question is about buying recast models from someone that is making money from them. Recasting them for yourself is different to helping someone make money from stolen IP.

To use your mix tape example - creating a mix tape from music that you've bought is not the same as buying a mix tape of pirated music.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

Commercial recasters are overseas in countries that don't care about copyright laws so you can't really do a hell of a lot about it other than get their websites closed down.

Going after home recasters who just do it for personal use I think would be an exercise in both futility and stupidity. If people aren't selling the models then policing it is pretty much impossible.

Going after damages I think is immoral because the idea that 1 person is responsible for every dollar that the models could have been sold for is fething insane and illogical. In the context of wargaming models recasted for personal use it's going to be even more difficult because the monetary value probably isn't going to be high anyway.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

Yeah I don't think most people care about recasts in the context of "maybe in 20 years time GW will release a made to order system!"

If GW immediately moved old product to a made to order system I might agree with you. They didn't. They killed the products and then ignored them for years upon years. People get left with incomplete armies they might have spent hundreds of dollars on and I don't see it as immoral for them to want to finish off those forces with recasts when GW aren't producing them anymore and show no sign of producing them.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

No, the original question is about buying recast models from someone that is making money from them. Recasting them for yourself is different to helping someone make money from stolen IP.

To use your mix tape example - creating a mix tape from music that you've bought is not the same as buying a mix tape of pirated music.

but what if you made a mix tape of music off of the radio? this was rather common practice

and yes you were right about the original question but my question is about the morality of recasting for your own personal use?

Asterios wrote:

and yes you were right about the original question but my question is about the morality of recasting for your own personal use?

I think it's difficult to say that it's wrong to recast for your own use something that the creator refuses to sell - in that scenario they haven't lost anything and you haven't profited (beyond getting further enjoyment from their creation).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

Commercial recasters are overseas in countries that don't care about copyright laws so you can't really do a hell of a lot about it other than get their websites closed down.

Going after home recasters who just do it for personal use I think would be an exercise in both futility and stupidity. If people aren't selling the models then policing it is pretty much impossible.

Going after damages I think is immoral because the idea that 1 person is responsible for every dollar that the models could have been sold for is fething insane and illogical. In the context of wargaming models recasted for personal use it's going to be even more difficult because the monetary value probably isn't going to be high anyway.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

Yeah I don't think most people care about recasts in the context of "maybe in 20 years time GW will release a made to order system!"

If GW immediately moved old product to a made to order system I might agree with you. They didn't. They killed the products and then ignored them for years upon years. People get left with incomplete armies they might have spent hundreds of dollars on and I don't see it as immoral for them to want to finish off those forces with recasts when GW aren't producing them anymore and show no sign of producing them.

Going after damages for home users makes an example of someone, preventing others from risking the same penalties. That's exactly why statutory damages exist in place of actual damages. See RIAA for examples.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and yes you were right about the original question but my question is about the morality of recasting for your own personal use?

I think it's difficult to say that it's wrong to recast for your own use something that the creator refuses to sell - in that scenario they haven't lost anything and you haven't profited (beyond getting further enjoyment from their creation).

that is the problem, if you copy their icons and such its illegal, but the point is is anyone getting hurt? the company is not losing money and the recaster gets to complete his army since the company no longer makes said product.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Going after damages for home users makes an example of someone, preventing others from risking the same penalties. That's exactly why statutory damages exist in place of actual damages. See RIAA for examples.

mostly those have been thru file sharers and such, the problem is people do not realize when they file share they are also sending out the file while downloading it themselves, so yes company's can track them and will go after them.

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

No, the original question is about buying recast models from someone that is making money from them. Recasting them for yourself is different to helping someone make money from stolen IP.

To use your mix tape example - creating a mix tape from music that you've bought is not the same as buying a mix tape of pirated music.

but what if you made a mix tape of music off of the radio? this was rather common practice

and yes you were right about the original question but my question is about the morality of recasting for your own personal use?

It is illegal to copy from radio or TV that is why since maybe 10 years or more there is a sub-charge on empty media (in the Netherlands) because of copying.

IMHO there is nothing wrong with recasting an oop or parts of current models for your own use. Officially it is illegal.

With GW's prices i have gone the proxy route and second hand route (game companies really hate the second hand market)

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

No, the original question is about buying recast models from someone that is making money from them. Recasting them for yourself is different to helping someone make money from stolen IP.

To use your mix tape example - creating a mix tape from music that you've bought is not the same as buying a mix tape of pirated music.

Most people probably recast from legally bought miniatures (Initially at least), just like people do mix tapes with legally bought music.

I'm pretty sure under EU law you can recast things if you don't distribute/sell things

Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

Asterios wrote:
The question is, what if you bought a model that is no longer made but wanted more of that model so recasted the already paid for model for your own personal use? what do you think of that morally? certain things it is illegal to do, but is it a case of no harm, no foul? its not like you are taking money from GW since they no longer make the model, and its not like you are selling your recasts. something like this I have no problem with, what about you?

Fair enough question.
In a perfect world I would contact the creator and ask if they plan on running that product again.
If no, I would ask for permission to copy the model I have for personal use.
Unfortunately with GW there would be no good way in asking them.
Personally I don't really want to copy anything of theirs anyway.

For them to morally say no to OOP recast? I would say they probably have to since many items have artistic elements of their IP and they need to defend it.

Never normally post on these things, far too scary, however...it makes me laugh that the OP asked a perfectly viable question, but it degrades to what was expressly put as NOT the point.

It is fairly obvious that WikilawyersRus have as much legal nous as me (read none) but I understand that it is illegal to copy anything made by GW, the same that it is illegal to copy a Music CD or a DVD movie. The fact that most of the time this is not chased up by the relevant company is a blessing to us all.

Morally, this is a very grey area, and a good question. As an avid scratch builder I often copy closely other peoples ideas, I would never dream of taking cash for an accurate copy of someone elses work, be it GW or just a fellow Dakkite. In the same way I would have no issue with someone copying my work (be flattered more than likely) but if they copy it and sell it as their own that's wrong, morally. Nothing illegal about it.

So I have no moral issue with you copying an OOP no longer supported model, for your personal use. But I do have an issue morally with anyone making money from it.

As several have pointed out, GW have to take the stance of never copy OUR work. Where else can you draw the line. After all next year they might start selling BFG or Epic. Those designs are theirs.

On a purely moral/ethical point, GW started out years ago asking you to go and copy their designs, make your own, here's the concept, go play. They have changed over the years, but so has society. Dakka has given a brilliant game of its own. How would anyone here feel if someone started pumping out recasts of ME. I personally would be outraged, but that is today's world. I do not understand peoples hatred for GW, they have given me so much fun in my life, and though I find the prices difficult, I do not really see a problem. I pay if I want to for a piece of entertainment that (some of my models that even today I repaint) will last me a ridiculous amount of time. Of course they have every right to OWN that ART. But once bought I have every right to do what I want with it, but copy it and make profit from that is simply wrong.

An interesting slip to the side would be, is it morally wrong to profit from GW design, as in, I paint the model and sell it for 5 times its original worth, but in reality its there design that I am selling? And before I get trolled on this, no one would pay for anything I painted.

And finally, we (maybe not all of us) live in a society where somethings value is determined by what people are willing to pay for it. If the secondhand market prices are steep it is simply supply and demand, rare popular items are expensive, unwanted readily available are cheap, that is the way of the world. I dare say you could have an army a million strong of Gretchin with autoguns for the price of a small titan right now.

I now await the inevitable trolling ....

 Camkierhi wrote:
On a purely moral/ethical point, GW started out years ago asking you to go and copy their designs, make your own, here's the concept, go play.

Pretty sure that is NOT true in the slighest. GW shared templates and plans, and showed how to make things. That is a like publishing a blueprint or a recipe (both copyrightable), for the express purpose for others to use. Giving permission to copy a template or use a plan, is not the same as giving carte balance to copy other things.

It's like saying that allowing someone into your home for a birthday party gives them irrevocable occupancy and tenancy rights.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


It's like saying that allowing someone into your home for a birthday party gives them irrevocable occupancy and tenancy rights.

It doesn't? Man. No wonder my landlord is always so pissed off.

Guess what I was trying to say was, that imo the whole game system was more flexible, my idea of the game has always been more open to interpretation and over the years GW has gotten more rigid. Admittedly I was thinking about the baneblade when I commented. Designs given freely in white dwarf. But then GW had no model being produced for it. Now if you took those plans today and started producing models for sale from it. GW would shout. And I would agree with them to a degree.

As to your reference to birthday party guests, that's how I got my wife!

I get were you are coming from. My point was more about how attitude changes over time. I would wholeheartedly agree that just because they used to give out plans it does not give carte blanche to start mass production in your basement.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Going after damages for home users makes an example of someone, preventing others from risking the same penalties. That's exactly why statutory damages exist in place of actual damages. See RIAA for examples.

I know what it does and I find it completely immoral. In the case of online copyright infringement they hand down penalties which are completely fething insane because 1. The idea that pirating Y number of items that have an RRP of $X dollars means the company has lost $X*Y is stupid and 2. The idea that it's fair punishment to bankrupt a person for it is stupid, we don't even ask murderers to pay back what the expected wages for rest of the life of the person they killed might have been. 3. They then use those landmark cases as extortion to get people to settle out of cases they can't afford to be involved in. 4. It doesn't stop piracy or more importantly doesn't increase sales anyway.

When it comes to home recasting it'd be even more stupid IMO. Sure, go after actual companies that do it and resell, though you're not going to get damages out of someone recasting in Russia or China, hopefully you can take down the websites.

Going after people recasting at home would be fruitless, potentially expensive, suicidal as far as public opinion goes and IMO in many cases downright immoral.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

Copyright law isn't harmonized within the EU let alone with the US. In particular the DMCA contains a load of ridiculous stuff that has no equivalent.

There is little harmonization of law between the US and EU.

If the question is about making money from recasts from dead/OOP games/miniatures, then I can see situations where I dont see any moral problems with it.

For example, when GW trashed Epic Armageddon it rose up a community of recasters and sculptors that provided miniatures to the Epic community, both old GW miniatures and new miniatures that never had gotten a official GW mini. This kept the community and the game alive and helped inspire new fan-made supplements for the game.

If anything I would call GW immoral when they started coming down on these casters, like a child trying to keep others from playing with THEIR toy, even though they dont play with it anymore.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

It's already been shown in this thread that US and UK (an EU member for now) law aren't harmonised...

Morally, I view that something is right as long as it does no harm.
Recasting an OOP miniature (whether it is subsequently sold or not) doesn't harm anyone, even if it is not legally permitted. Quite the contrary, it makes people happy because they can now get something they want but otherwise would not be able to get. And GW doesn't lose any profits. Therefore I think that recasting OOP miniatures isn't just 'not wrong', but that it is fact a morally commendable thing to do.
GW certainly does not have the moral right to say no as long as they do not make the miniature.
Imo, copyright law as it currently stands in many places is a perfect example of how something that started out with a noble goal has been perverted into something evil and opressive that serves the interests of capital rather than those of society.

Is it morally wrong? Probably. GW is still in business, so if you believe in private and intellectual property, they should maintain control over it. Just because nobody gets hurt doesn't make an action morally correct. It is against the wishes of the rightful owner. You are recasting somebody else's work for your personal gain/pleasure. If you really want to claim morality, make your own sculpts.

I believe this argument changes if the original owner no longer has any interest in the property, as in the case of Abandonware software for old computer systems, or truly defunct gaming companies.

Further, the more recasts that people make, the higher the chances of them intentionally or accidentally entering the secondary market. This is a big problem with Battletech miniatures, as people are trying to pawn off recasts of valuable "unseen" (legally OOP) miniatures. People are buying the poor quality knock offs, and it depresses the market for legitimate owners. If you resell an army that includes recasts, the moral thing to do is smash all non-original product with a hammer before you put it up for sale. Is that going to happen every time?

I don't have a problem with personal-use recasts as long as it remains that. It's convenient, likely victimless, and in many cases legal, but let's not try to say it's "moral".

It's not morally wrong, it's just dumb financially.

People IN game stores buy stuff at the store out of laziness and "ooooo shiny I want that".

People rejected from game stores do not.

nareik wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

It's already been shown in this thread that US and UK (an EU member for now) law aren't harmonised...

Actually, the example of UK law was outdated, and I showed very clearly that UK law is currently in step with US law.

That said, if some idiot wants to bet his house, savings, and future salary on obsolete UK law as precedent in the US, I've got loads of popcorn for watching the inevitable result.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

nareik wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

It's already been shown in this thread that US and UK (an EU member for now) law aren't harmonised...

Actually, the example of UK law was outdated, and I showed very clearly that UK law is currently in step with US law.

That said, if some idiot wants to bet his house, savings, and future salary on obsolete UK law as precedent in the US, I've got loads of popcorn for watching the inevitable result.

Ah my mistake then. Apologies.

I would wonder how much trouble GW would be if certain designs of theirs were brought to the attention of other IP holders. For example, many of the tyranid designs and 20th Century Fox...

 Stormonu wrote:
I would wonder how much trouble GW would be if certain designs of theirs were brought to the attention of other IP holders. For example, many of the tyranid designs and 20th Century Fox...

I'm thinking more of the Terminator and Necrons.

 Stormonu wrote:
I would wonder how much trouble GW would be if certain designs of theirs were brought to the attention of other IP holders. For example, many of the tyranid designs and 20th Century Fox...

Absolutely none. Playmates / Exo-Squad already established similarity is not infringement.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

nareik wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

It's already been shown in this thread that US and UK (an EU member for now) law aren't harmonised...

Actually, the example of UK law was outdated, and I showed very clearly that UK law is currently in step with US law.

That said, if some idiot wants to bet his house, savings, and future salary on obsolete UK law as precedent in the US, I've got loads of popcorn for watching the inevitable result.

UK and US law were in agreement on that specific point but there is no harmonization of copyright law between the UK and US. Also, you claimed that EU copyright law was harmonized with US law which is ridiculous when there is no such thing as EU copyright law - it's not even close to being harmonized within the EU let alone with any other country.

OK, if that's the case, show me where in the EU the law permits individuals to ignore copyright for the purpose of making personal copies not for sale/distribution.

Because, what I see at a high level suggests that that is not the case. Further, I see EU law moving toward US law with greatly expanded copyright protection and lengthened copyright term following the US Mickey Mouse trail.

For your example, please use current law, not stuff that's obsolete. The fact that the UK exception was obsoleted is direct evidence of harmonization, BTW...