First off, no I don't know where to find them nor do I plan to start a Red Chinese GW pirating opertion but...

Given the love-hate relationship wtih GW most fans have, I wonder how pirated GW models would go over.  Would we be good paladins and abjure them or snap up $10 space marine boxes?

i don't think i would order them knowing they were fakes. but if i stumbled across a man at a boot sale with a trunk load of fake gw stuff I wouldn't ask were they came from

I would if they were cheap enough and the quality was good then Hell yeah. Anything to save money on this expensive addiction of mine

Yes, If they were good quality reproductions of out of production figures that you can't get hold of any more.

I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of my eBay purchases over the years were pirated. I wouldn't buy pirated copies of in-production models. I would CONSIDER buying pirated copies of OOP models, but I'd probably feel guilty about it afterwards; there is a whole collector's market for Citadel miniatures that is frequently separate from the gamers' market.  

Nope. If I'm not going to buy actual GW models, I'd rather buy some of the nice models coming out of other companies. (Nevermind I'm an intellecual property attorney....)

I am with Janthkin, I would NEVER knowingly buy pirated GW products.

Darrian

Never.
Why would I pay money for something I can make myself? Janthkin can tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe that once I buy something, I can legally make copies of it for my own sole private use. Selling such copies would be illegal, but if I want to cast a Steam Tank in resin, then chop it up to use in a diorama, that is fine.

I wouldn't KNOWINGLY buy pirated merchandise.

ender502

It's a trap!  We won't be hearing from anyone who said yes ever again.









Yo, I'll be in the back of the bakery in ten minutes.  Just bring the goods

Who says your not unknowingly buying pirated stuff right now?

How can you prove that what you buy that says "Made in England" with the games workshop crap all over it is actually verifiably GW produced, overpriced oil by products and tin amalgams??

Seems a silly question, but it might not be so silly when todays technology can reproduce such things so cheaply. I know the asian markt does this already with alot of model kits.

In fact, I am quite suprised that it isnt happening already with GW models.

Gundam comes to mind immediatly of such kits. They are quite good knock offs too. Its as iff the people who are pirating them made their own plastics injection molds...


Which brings me back to my original question, how can you prove your buying bonafide GW products unless you buy directly from the manufacturer?

I never buy pirated goods. Whether that means stolen or knock-offs. Either way it's reprehensible.

Nope. I like the hobby; why would I want to kill the incentive to design more miniatures?

Of course, I don't have a problem buying miniatures that are 'compatible with' GW products, but I wouldn't buy recasts.

>>I believe that once I buy something, I can legally make copies of it for my own sole private use.

No, that would still be illegal even though for sole private use.

What nobody buys pirate DVD's?

I have no problem buying pirated GW models, heck any Pirated models for a major game company I would buy. Where I draw the line is buying pirated mom and pop minis. For example if some guy was cranking out Hasslefree or Wyrd knock offs I would be very pissed.

Short answer: you're wrong. You purchased ONE copyrighted work (a steam tank); that doesn't provide you any license to create copies of that work, regardless of the intended usage of those copies. (Where commercial/non-commercial comes in is the damages you're liable for.)

Longer answer: "But what about fair use?" I hear someone cry. There are no applicable exceptions that apply to wholesale reproduction of a copyrighted model, in the situation you describe.

(Disclaimer: Not a legal opinion; seek your own counsel before acting on any of the statements I offer.)

It's amazing the "moral" rules people will come up with to rationalize their actions.

I do not knowingly buy pirate DVDs or miniatures or games or anything. I work in the videogames industry which is reliant on protecting its IP so I have a particular perspective on the issue.

I copy my CDs to iTunes, and I do not consider this morally to be a violation even though I know it is illegal.

When I was a student I used to tape records. More recently I have dubbed CDs to MiniDisc.

>>It's amazing the "moral" rules people will come up with to rationalize their actions

Yes, look at me. I know it's illegal to rip my CDs to iTunes but I don't "feel" it's wrong.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 06/24/2007 12:56 AM
>>It's amazing the "moral" rules people will come up with to rationalize their actions

Yes, look at me. I know it's illegal to rip my CDs to iTunes but I don't "feel" it's wrong.

I think in the States it is legal to copy something you own to another format but not distribute it.  I know windows media automatically does it and even looks up song titles and album covers for me. 

I keep or throw out the CDs, I don't resell them.

I own exactly 2 priate DVDs, both OOP movies.  Even in Red China I seek out legit copies, paying the userous fee of Y30 (about US$4.50) rahter than Y10.  Of course I'm here on an expat salary so my virtue has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I would love to know the logic behind buying priated GW minis, but not from mom and pop sellers.  I guess you're thinking of the old Blacktree figures that were GW recasts?

 

The logic being that they are cheaper than hat GW charges seems like the most logical answer. I have not bought any that were pirates as I dont see any around so I am not sure how good quality they are?

Morally I dont think its wrong. If GW makes a product and somebody else does it cheaper why not. Its called capitalism if I am not mistaken. Before somebody talks about IEP or IP or whatever its called I would like to add as a comsumer I dont care if the seller has broken the rules. I just want the product for as cheap as I can get it (without the quality being crap)

>>I think in the States it is legal to copy something you own to another format but not distribute it.

Not in the UK. Everyone does it though. There's an exception to the copyright laws to allow home taping of TV broadcasts.

>>I would love to know the logic behind buying priated GW minis, but not from mom and pop sellers

GW is The Man, and he's just trying to enslave and grind you down with his Roman laws. So pirating his stuff is a form of freedom fighting. Your mom'n'pop operators are just little guys like you so they shouldn't be attacked like that.

Oh mom and pops are small scale. Yeah support them, buy mom and pops. They got little kids to feed aswell. think of mom and pops kids.

All GW has to feed is the DEVIL (directors)

@Janthkin: Thanks for clearing that up. I don't want to take the thread off-topic, but I would like to ask for clarification. You said "wholesale". What exactly did you mean? Are you saying that I cannot legally copy the entire model, but if I were to copy portions of it, that would be okay? For example, if I were to copy just the left-side armor.

If I were to painstakingly build an exact copy, using plasticard & greenstuff, is that different from making a mold of the model and casting it in resin?

And what about Scibor? He is always selling heavily converted miniatures. Does the fact that somewhere, deep inside all the press-molded greenstuff, there lurks a GW terminator, that he paid for, protect him from copyright infringement?

A side note: once, long ago, I tried to make molds in RTV rubber and copy some miniatures using resin. The results were disappointing, the wastage excessive, and the expense exhorbitant. The simple fact of the matter is, it is cheaper to buy minis from the manufacturer than it is to try to copy them yourself. Which is why pirates end up trying to sell their recasts, no doubt; to recoup their investment.

The basic US rules on copyright are found here.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

All signatories to the Berne Convention will have very similar rules.

A miniature would be considered a piece of sculpture. It has inherent copyright that belongs to GW.

Making an exact copy of even a piece of a model would probably be considered an infringement since you would have copied the design of the original, however you did it.

If Scibor moulds and replicates his modified figurines, he is creating derivative works which is also a violation. If he sells individual figures built up on GW miniatures he paid for, that might also be a derivative work but it is unlikely he could be successfully sued for it.

As with many aspects of law, especially civil law, results of any legal proceedings cannot be predicted with accuracy.

Killkrazy pretty much covered it.

Nah probably not. I like to know where my miniatures are coming from, etc.

It does piss me off with music on the other hand, because I feel that albums etc are only so expensive because the artists and producers are massively overpaid.
(Same with films)
But I don't pirate that stuff either, because I'm paranoid.

paranoid about what?

Simply, although many have argued that GW models are overpriced (Indeed, probably really worth their weight in gold), I'd have to be really hard pressed to buy a pirated model. From a pure cost standpoint, the investment the pirate must put into obtaining the materials necessary to make selling complete copies viable are huge, therefore you will find that the cost of the copy is nearly the same as the real deal. With this, you will also get questionable quality (Hollows, shallows, obscured detail).

I do however, see no problem in seeing copies of heavily converted GW models, regardless of the questionable legality.

Posted By beef on 06/24/2007 1:33 PM
paranoid about what?

Getting caught.

I realise this is unlikely.

But paranoia is paranoia.

Posted By Da Boss on 06/24/2007 1:48 PM

Posted By beef on 06/24/2007 1:33 PM
paranoid about what?

Getting caught.

I realise this is unlikely.

But paranoia is paranoia.

Just remember, your always more likely to be caught than you think, especially if you start actively advertising. :3

No buying pirate recasts for me. I prefer to buy my toys from a game store which provides gaming space. Call it enlightened self interest.

I got screwed once with fakes on a trade for some eldar. 5 wraithguard models were castings of a model. I just thought the paint was really slopped on. I stripped them and found out they were fakes. It was a pretty big trade so I didn't raise a stink.

Oh...and I wouldn't buy knock offs. I will continue buying only from the second hand markets.

Come to think of it, what is the general consensus here on second hand sales/trades?

No second hand markets here, just ebay and then they sometimes seem over priced for sloppily painted mini's that need stripping. But if I can find a bargain yup i would. Although I have bought some total crap that i will never use buy hey thats my fault

Well if you can get them stripped for cheap, I don't see why not. Thanks for informing me! ^^

Posted By Naenia on 06/24/2007 11:23 PM
Come to think of it, what is the general consensus here on second hand sales/trades?

Second hand models, why not?

Oh, and forums like this tend to have swap forums or links to other places
where members can find someone to swap bitz and/or buy entire armies off
ebay. I'd think it's safe to say that most think it's fair game.

Posted By Pariah Press on 06/23/2007 10:26 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of my eBay purchases over the years were pirated. I wouldn't buy pirated copies of in-production models. I would CONSIDER buying pirated copies of OOP models, but I'd probably feel guilty about it afterwards; there is a whole collector's market for Citadel miniatures that is frequently separate from the gamers' market.  

There was a thread a while back about an eBay recaster - weewarriors I believe. I had in the past made a purchase from them - a three squad infantry platoon of Praetorian Imperial guard.

They are re-cast. Look like GW 'white metal', but they're quite brittle. Several have lost feet while trying to straighten out a cocked base tab.
The price wasn't actually much better than the OOP Praetorian blisters I purchased from other eBay sellers.

Posted By Darrian13 on 06/23/2007 11:22 AM
I am with Janthkin, I would NEVER knowingly buy pirated GW products.

Darrian

Ditto.

This is an interesting quandry.

First, because I HAVE purchased out-of-production recasts. I think that's where you see most recasting. I have no idea if that's legal or not. (i.e. Someone recasts the RT space marine sprues...is that legal? GW does not make that any more....)

Hmmm, I've also seen recasts of newer stuff, but nobody who does that is stupid enough to push it on eBay or in bulk. The people I know who recast give their stuff away. I'm not sure there is enough of that going on for GW to worry about. A lot of "expert" modelers recast all the time.

Lucky for GW ... a miniature NAPSTER equivalent has yet to spring up.

buying moody miniatures is madness if you want to continue to have new miniatures! The pirate market will drive up prices of the originals as the OEM tries to make up for lost profit, and in extreme cases piracy could literaly kill a company!!

Nope, not legal. There is no "abandonment of copyright" defense to infringement.

i think you're wrong. the pirate market will dry up when the profit is no longer there. when GW starts making their products in china, the costs will drop and pirates will move on to something else.

in fact, i think piracy will actually help the markets in most situations.

here is a link to piracy in the marketplace.
http://www.mises.org/story/2590

i think for most people there is going to be a price break, where they will accept the lesser quality merchandise when the cost of the original no longer warrants the high costs, like sony T.V.'s , ipods  and home PC's have shown.

so yes, i would buy them if my price break is met.

I would love to buy Pirate GW models. Then I could finally do my Pirate themed DOW army!



Ozymandias, King of Kings

Where does Games Workshop produce their models? I presume it is in England?

GW have plants in the UK and in the USA I believe.

Does anyone really think GW will drop their prices if they move production to China? (I'm not convinced they will save much by going there, actually.)

Piracy can help professional software wales by allowing home users to train themselves on popular programs such as Word. This reduces costs for businesses and encourages businesses to use the already wide-spread software.

It's possible there might be a similar effect for figures, but there haven't been any studies on it.

I'd say that 90% of my GW stuff has been bought as second-hand models. It seems that quite a few people over-buy GW and then are willing to unload it at 60-70% of retail for unpainted or even unassembled/NIB stuff. Less for painted stuff, and stripping metal is super-easy.

The GW prices are really too high, especially here in Canada where they don't seem to understand that exchange rates have changed in the past year or two. I will buy from the USA discounters, paying shipping and customs charges, and *still* come out ahead over what GW Canada charges at the store down the street from me.

If someone sold me 2nd hand models at a serious discount and they turned out to be (well-made) recasts, I wouldn't cry that GW shareholders might have to hold off on that 2nd mercedes or that villa in Spain... If they were *poor* recasts on the other hand, I'd be pissed.

I don't know about the profitability of selling/purchasing standard GW models... but if we go into the resin of Forgeworld, then it becomes a very different debate. I admit I'm leery of buying FW stuff on ebay because of the relative ease of casting & selling FW products... and I'm not certain about what various resins they use (i've gotten terrain pieces that are white, some that are grey, and I've bought a Carnifex upgrade set strait from FW that was all grey with the kinds of defects I'd expect from a recast (air pockets, etc).

Would I buy pirated GW general products? Probably not.
Would I buy pirated FW products? Maybe if the price was right. Of course, I might have already without even knowing about it.

It's perfectly ok to steal from rich people because they aren't even real people!

Some people make me sick.

Posted By Wayfarer on 06/25/2007 5:59 PM
Some people make me sick.

Namely the rich ones!

sure, if they are the same quality then why not?

im sure none of you have EVER downloaded a song, or a program, or a movie

Posted By Kilkrazy on 06/25/2007 2:32 PM
GW have plants in the UK and in the USA I believe.

Does anyone really think GW will drop their prices if they move production to China? (I'm not convinced they will save much by going there, actually.)

Piracy can help professional software wales by allowing home users to train themselves on popular programs such as Word. This reduces costs for businesses and encourages businesses to use the already wide-spread software.

It's possible there might be a similar effect for figures, but there haven't been any studies on it.

It cheap enough to make the plastics here in the UK.  I doubt piracy will work like it did for the software and pc world.

Knowingly buy a pirated piece? Nope.

Willingly and actively format shift my music collection (from cd to my mp3 player) Yep, and it's legal here. too. they had to amend our copyright act to allow this, as otherwise, use of a dvd PLAYER was illegal. (DVD players 'format shift' the dvd to buffer memory, then play from that. ).

I have cast models in the past (while in the FX industry) and if the caster knows what they are doing, wastage is minimal, and the quality can be impressive. I worked in bronze and polyester resins.).

Much of my games stuff, however, is 2nd hand. I have recently picked up a handful of old RT era black shadow SM bikes (v1) and some Void viper wing (v1) bikes for a IG RR squad. The black shadows had no tabs, or excessive flash/multiple mold lines. They might have been copies (4 of them and 6 viper wings cost me $60aud) but they were good ones if they were (and I know what to look for).

Posted By commisar-Kaine on 06/25/2007 11:36 PM
sure, if they are the same quality then why not?

im sure none of you have EVER downloaded a song, or a program, or a movie

I have, but I try not to. The majority of my stuff is official, and the unofficial stuff
has since disappeared.

I might or I might not. In general I'm not so moraly opposed to pirateing (avast ya swabs) but its just as easy (and cheep) to buy second hand GW stuff that I see pirateing as unnecessary.

Despite what people say kids, pirates help the free market grow. Capitalism is all about making a quick buck. Now if only the pirates could bankrupt GW then we would have no more problems.

What a bizarre perspective....

In a scenario where product consumption is fixed and limited (e.g., GW games - "using" a model doesn't consume it, so you only have to buy them once), I don't buy into the "piracy is good" argument. Similarly, in any monopolistic situation (GW has absolute copyright control of their games, or a company with the limited-duration monopoly of a patent), piracy will not grow the demand for the LEGITIMATE product. In turn, this lessens the value (to the company) of their product/intellectual property, and reduces the incentive to develop further in this line.

In short, bull.

Well if they stop producing cos of the pirates cos GW has lost the incentive I am sure other companies will gain from this like PRiviteer or Rackham. therefore despite the pirates I doubt GW will stop producing mini's. At the most we can hope for is they reduce thier prices to make it more appealing to onsumers to buy original GW stuff.

Posted By beef on 06/27/2007 1:36 AM
Well if they stop producing cos of the pirates cos GW has lost the incentive I am sure other companies will gain from this like PRiviteer or Rackham.

Exactly the opposite. GW is insulated from the piracy problem somewhat because they do a huge amount of business through their own stores and direct order and diversified into terrain, paints, hobby supplies, magazines, video game licensing, etc.

If miniatures piracy increases, Privateer Press will be the big loser. Their more open to the effects and have less space to afford to take a loss.

Rackham is probably largely immune. They produce their own pre-painted miniatures - and recasts won't be able to mimic the paint jobs while remaining profitable.

Mongoose is another big potential loser from miniatures piracy - mainly because the same Chinese factories that produce BF: Evo miniatures by day can produce identical pirated BF: Evo miniatures by night.

There's no reason to assume that piracy would only happen to GW models.

Posted By beef

Various bad ideas

Can this count as trolling?

Piracy IS the purest form of capitalism. That doesn't make it legal.. only pure. Piracy IS the market responding to demand for a product. It is neither good nor evil. It is just the market.

I find it fascinating that many seem to equate what is "moral" to what is "legal." The terms are mutually exclusive. There are plenty of things which are legal that are immoral (from a certain point of view.. i'll let you fill in your own blank because i don't want this to wander off into OT land) and plenty of illegal things that are moral (civil disobedience to oppose racial segregation for example).

The question that is really interesting, and has been brought up here, is whether or not piracy has a positive or negative effect on actors in the market place. I haven't seen any objective research (I discount the recording industry of america folks) to say it is either a good or bad thing in toto.

I guess the way to frame the research question would be: Does product piracy increase or decrease total wealth of the actor against whom the piracy is perpetrated? 

Does anyone have access to that kind of research? A link or something?

ender502

"The terms are mutually exclusive."

Killing babies is illegal. Therefore, according to your own statement, killing babies is moral, since nothing illegal can be immoral as morality and legality are mutually exclusive.

I really hope you don't mean what you said.

Posted By Asmodai on 06/28/2007 7:13 PM
"The terms are mutually exclusive."

Killing babies is illegal. Therefore, according to your own statement, killing babies is moral, since nothing illegal can be immoral as morality and legality are mutually exclusive.

I really hope you don't mean what you said.

Probably just meant that they're not synonyms.

GW isnt a major target for pirates because:

The market includes a lot of adult buyers who are less likely tobuy pirate goods than teenagers. Teens tend to be more morally flexible because they have less purchasing power and they network more easily via schools. So if one teen gets pirate stock the rest are in the market. With adults the set up is more risky

The company has a low profile still. Sure gamers have heard of GW ut to everyone else..who? It isnt a noted brand in the far east where most of these rips come from. There are no 40K cartoons.

There are much bigger targets that do attract attention and are simpler to rip off. Pokemon for example, has a relatively small range of toys compared to GW. It is simpler to knock off a copy of a naff yellow mouse than a space marine librarian. Which will sell more?

The GW brands have a western feel to them, Gundam is very oriental. Most rip offs are home market oriented. The stuff that comes over here is just the overflow.

>>I guess the way to frame the research question would be: Does product piracy increase or decrease total wealth of the actor against whom the piracy is perpetrated?

>>Does anyone have access to that kind of research? A link or something?

There is some good research argument that piracy of professional software programs (that is, not games) benefits the producer for the following reasons.

1. Companies use certain professional software such as PowerPoint.
2. Home users obtain pirate copies of these programs and learn them so they can get jobs.
3. This creates a ready trained (self-trained) supply of users.
4. The company saves training costs by employing these people.
5. Companies are much easier to chase than home users so they pay for their licences.
6. Home users would never pay full whack for this kind of software anyway.

I've read the paper and used it as a reference in some of my own degree work. If you're really interested I'll try to find the citation, however you will only be able to get access to the original paper through an academic library.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, in less detail, and speculated that a similar mechanism might work for GW.

Here is how I think it could work, though I have no evidence.

A. Gamer has a go at 40K round a friend's house.
B. He gets interested and buys some pirate figures plus a photocopy of the rules because they're cheap.
C. Once hooked, he needs to buy official products because the pirate versions do not fill the army list and can't be used at official events.

Beef responded that it's probably not applicable to GW. He's probably right as there are several factors that are quite different to the software situation.

>>Teens tend to be more morally flexible because they have less purchasing power and they network more easily via schools.

Also teenagers have not got a fully formed moral compass.

Posted By bigchris1313 on 06/27/2007 10:02 AM

Posted By beef

Various bad ideas

Can this count as trolling?

I doubt it as most people know by now that I dont really troll.  I just sometimes have various bad idea's.  Especialy when it comes to finanvial stuff to do with GW cos i cant be bithered to read about that stuff.  I should stick to posting on topics where people just whine about GW.

I will leave you with my catchphrase.  "If you dont like it go play something else" (even though it has no releavance to this topic.

Posted By Orlanth on 06/29/2007 1:29 AM
 Pokemon for example, has a relatively small range of toys compared to GW. It is simpler to knock off a copy of a naff yellow mouse than a space marine librarian. Which will sell more?

Slightly OT, but I can't be the only player who makes Pikachu sound effects whenever my Imperial Fists Librarian uses Storm of the Emperor's Wrath...

Pika pika!

I make those noises when

SUPPRESSED BY ORDER OF THE FAMILY =I=

Posted By ender502 on 06/28/2007 5:21 PM

I find it fascinating that many seem to equate what is "moral" to what is "legal." The terms are mutually exclusive.

If one were to equate morality with justice, Hobbes (not the General--rather the prominent political philosopher) would beg to differ:

"To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice."

You can talk all you want about the statement applying only to the bellum omnium contra omnes, but if there's something else in Hobbes that contradicts this in the context of the state, I haven't seen it.

EDIT: Thread de-railed.

Posted By Asmodai on 06/28/2007 7:13 PM
"The terms are mutually exclusive."

Killing babies is illegal. Therefore, according to your own statement, killing babies is moral, since nothing illegal can be immoral as morality and legality are mutually exclusive.

I really hope you don't mean what you said.

Wow..didn't do well with reading comprehension now did we? As I said the terms are mutually exclusive. That means (in this context) if something is legal or illegal has no bearing on whether it is moral or immoral.

In your oh so cute dead baby example you use only half of the mutually exclusive formula.. that is.. illegal does not equal moral... You do not extend the suppossition to its logical end... illegal does not equal moral or immoral.

I can forgive the lapse. It is a fairly standard way to try and make a point when you have decided to throw out logic and reason. Check out Fox News. They use it all the time.

The simple fact is that law is neither moral or immoral. Questions or morality are questions of Right and Wrong. The law is merely involved with what is legal or illegal. Right and Wrong are absolute. What is legal is only about what law makers want. If that which was legal was by definition right (or moral) then the people that challenged segregation laws would have been fighting against what was moral and right.

Or, more on topic.... If IP laws are changed to say recasting of GW minis is legal, then are the people that DID it when it was illegal moral or immoral? What about those that do it now? How are the two types of people different from each other? The question of morality is completely detatched from legality.

Did I notice that you are an attorney? Thinking the law is moral/right is a trap attorneys often fall into. Generally it is just a coping mechanism to say we are doing the RIght thing when we are merely doing the Legal thing.

oh, and I noticed you didn't answer the question about total wealth creation for the actor.

ender502

In logic, two mutually exclusive (or "mutual exclusive" according to some sources) propositions are propositions that logically cannot both be true. To say that more than two propositions are mutually exclusive may, depending on context mean that no two of them can both be true, or only that they cannot all be true. The term pairwise mutually exclusive always means no two of them can both be true.

From furrypedia, I mean wiki...

That was me. I don't recall what Asmodai does, off hand....



Morality and legality need not be related, it's true. In this instance, however, my personal morals happen to coincide with the laws - I find it fundamentally wrong that someone should thank the creator of a work by copying it and selling the copies. Pragmatically, such behavior also greatly reduces the incentive for creators to share their works with the public, or to create in the first place.

Fortunately, the laws tend to react in similar fashion - if you create something, you are rewarded for putting it out into commerce with a limited, legally-enforceable monopoly. Even better, the government is willing to put its own weight behind your monopoly, which is why there are criminal sanctions available for (extreme) copyright infringement.



Morality is a poor subject for debate, simply because there's no external arbiter (readily available). Ethics is a little better, and tends to be closer to the basis of many laws. (Note, however, that ethics and morals are not synonyms - e.g., stealing is unethical in most societies, even in situations where it may not be immoral (stealing food to feed starving children).) Some behavior may be unethical, however, while not being illegal - the codes of ethics adhered to by patent practitioners are not laws, and don't have criminal sanctions for violations, though there are other consequences.

I would posit that pirating miniatures is unethical behavior, as well as illegal. I would further posit that knowingly purchasing pirated miniatures is unethical behavior.

The problem with the **AA's statistics is that they invariably argue that "1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale." If this person had not been able to obtain 100 different illegitimate copies, they would have bought 100 legitimate ones.

Asserting that, because I have 100 pirated marines, my need to buy a single legitimate chaplain model has somehow "grown the market" is the same sort of falacy as the **AA's view of piracy; it assumes I wouldn't have bought anything, but for the availability of pirated models.

Posted By Janthkin on 06/29/2007 4:36 PM

Did I notice that you are an attorney?

That was me. I don't recall what Asmodai does, off hand....

Only a law student.

From Webster's:
<form>> > action="/cgi-bin/dictionary" method="post" name="entry"> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" valign="top"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <input type="hidden" value="mutually exclusive" name="hdwd" /><input type="hidden" value="mutually exclusive" name="listword" /><input type="hidden" value="Dictionary" name="book" /></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </form> Main Entry: mutually exclusive
Function: adjective
: being related such that each excludes or precludes the other <mutually exclusive events>; also : INCOMPATIBLE <their outlooks="" were="" not="">mutually exclusive>


From TheFreeDictionary.com

</their> <table id="wn"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top">Adj.</td> <td valign="top">1.</td> <td>mutually exclusive - unable to be both true at the same time </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top">2.</td> <td>mutually exclusive - necessitating a choice between mutually exclusive possibilities; "`either' and `or' in `either this or that'"</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Examples culled from the net:

• A flipped coin coming up heads and the same coin coming up tails at the same time is not possible as they are mutually exclusive events.
• A student passing a test and failing it are mutually exclusive (though someone can fail a test, retake it, and then pass- or have the grade scaled).
• When rolling a six-sided die, each of the outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are mutually exclusive and Collectively exhaustive, because no more than one outcome can occur simultaneously and they encompass the entire range of possible outcomes.
• The logical operation A XOR B means A and B are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true at the same time. In order for A XOR B to be true, either A or B must be true but not both.

ender502: You posited that the law and morality are mutually exclusive. Not that they weren't correlated, which seems to be what you were trying (and failing) to say.

According to you something being moral precludes it from being legal. i.e. it is impossible for something to both by legal and moral at the same time.

"In your oh so cute dead baby example you use only half of the mutually exclusive formula.. that is.. illegal does not equal moral... You do not extend the suppossition to its logical end... illegal does not equal moral or immoral."

That's not the logical end. Again, you're treating mutually exclusive as meaning 'not connected'.



MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE DOES NOT MEAN THAT.

It's rather amazing that you accused me of lacking reading comprehension. Here's a hint: I can only read what you write. I can't read your mind and pluck out the word you meant to write, but didn't.

Re: Net economic effects: Meh. I'm not an expert in IP. The net social impact of a theft doesn't justify it though.

Posted By Janthkin on 06/29/2007 4:46 PM

The problem with the **AA's statistics is that they invariably argue that "1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale." If this person had not been able to obtain 100 different illegitimate copies, they would have bought 100 legitimate ones.

Asserting that, because I have 100 pirated marines, my need to buy a single legitimate chaplain model has somehow "grown the market" is the same sort of falacy as the **AA's view of piracy; it assumes I wouldn't have bought anything, but for the availability of pirated models.

The funny thing about the stat examples is that they are either true or false based on the proclivity of the actor under discussion. If an actor would NEVER buy a mini (no gain to GW) then buying the chaplain does create (however small) an increase in the market. If an actor WOULD buy a mini then the pirating is taking money from GW.

A personal example.. I bought several Pegasus hobby gothic buildings rather than GW city fight terrain. But as a  result I also picked up some GW barbwire. No gain (buying Pegasus) created a gain (the wire purchase). Normally I would not have bought the wire.

Until there is a good socio/economic paper on this I will stick with my gut feeling... pirating does NOT negatively effect the market. Now poor rules writing.....

ender502

First... I love your Morbo. Best supporting character on Futurama.

Second.... Actually, I was treating mutually exclusive as "not compatible." I do believe that is in your definition. As in the example you quoted "incompatible personalities." The personalities do not preclude each other as your sense of mutually exclusive would suggest. They are merely not compatible with one another. You were reading it as "precludes." That's why the reading comprehension troll... For which you have my apologies.

As far as I am concerned, the terms legal/illegal are incompatible with moral/immoral. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Like comparing an orange to a Volvo. As to why I think that..... Well that is WAY OT.

Third.... Net Economic Effects on the actor to whom the IP protection applies. And those net effects are not everything... They are, as Vince Lombardi may have said... the only thing. If you can show GW that for every X minis that are stolen by recasting they make X + 1 on future sales, whereas without illegal recasting they make X - 1... Would GW complain about the recasting? I think not. 

Further, IP law exists to protect the net economic effects of the actor. Yes, we can talk about the promotion of invention and such. But in the end result it is there to protect net economic effects. I don't think you can discount that so easily without missing out on an entire spectrum of analysis.

ender502, sorry it took me so long to post an answer. My comp is doing some odd things

First... I love your Morbo. Best supporting character on Futurama.

Second.... Actually, i was treating mutually exclusive as "not compatible." I do believe that is in your definition. As in the example you quoted "incompatible personalities." The personalities do not preclude eachother as your sense of mutually exclusive would suggest. They are merely not compatible with one another. You were reading it as "precludes." That's why the reading comprehension troll... For which you have my apologies.

As far as I am concerned, the terms legal/illegal are incompatible with moral/immoral. They are mutually exclusive concepts. Like comparing an orange to a Volvo. As to why I think that..... well that is WAY OT.

Third.... Net Economic Effects on the actor to whom the IP protection applies. And those net effects are not everything.. They are, as Vince Lombardi may have said... the only thing. If you can show GW that for every X minis that are stolen by recasting they make X + 1 on future sales. Whereas without illegal recasting they make X - 1... Would GW complain about the recasting? i think not. 

Further, IP law exists to protect the net economic effects of the actor. Yes, we can talk about the promotion of invention and such. But in the end result it is there to protect net economic effects. I don't think you can discount that so easily without missing out on an entire spectrum of analysis.

ender502

 

  While we may disagree or be uncertain about the effect on GW's bottom line, I think that we can all agree that pirated models negatively effect the collector's market for rare Citadel Miniatures. 

This is based on the US system of copyright.

Copyright is broken, it was meant to give a person (not a company) rights for reproduction for a limited amount of time. Copyright was meant to expire so that art could eventually add to the public domain, so we can all benefit from new art. It is no longer limited (it gets extended each time it is ready to expire) and the only ones holding copyrights for the most parts are companies, not individuals. Copyright infringement is not stealing, it is not piracy and it is not wrong for personal use.  However:

After original sale the resale of objects is fine and legal, so getting someone else's old army off eBay is fine, legal and morally correct. Sure GW doesn't get new item sales for new players, but there were no moral or legal problems. The entertainment industries are fighting this because then people can buy it once and sell it to recoup costs, and the next person pays for the movie or CD but not to the original company. The entertainment companies are also the ones who  push the hardest to extend copyright past its original deadline. But this is the same music to movie that they broadcast on TV or sell on DVD, they are still distributing the item, and should be protected by copyright. The models GW makes and sells currently should be protected by copyright for the original 20 years.

However, when a company like Disney stops distributing their art (oh noes, it's in the Disney vault!) their copyright should expire. It should be available to buy from the copyright owner, or it should not be copyrighted. It should also become part of the public domain and copyable after 20 years. There is no reason a company should continue to have exclusive rights for longer than 20 years, they should come up with something new to distribute and let the market decide who shares the old art. GW models 20 years old should be able to be copied, and even sold by others to fill the market, and GW could move on to something new. This is the same as old movies, Mickey Mouse movies, The Sound of Music and The Wizard of Oz are part of American culture, but are not able to be shared amongst us, which is what copyright was supposed to be made for, encouragement for the creation of works to add to the public domain.

What does all this have to do with "pirated" models? Well, models currently being sold by GW (including the back models they sell out of print) should be covered by copyright and people should not sell or trade them for money (legally) People should not make casts for use in public or with others, although making a personal mold for use as decoration in terrain or to test out things like paint schemes is not morally wrong, you still buy the figures you need to play the game. This has no effect on GW because terrain can be made without this decoration and the test models would not be used publicly. Models that GW sells should be purchased second hand or from GW because it supports the company who holds the copyright and funds future new art (new models). Buying second hand can either support someone making a new purchase (so GW might get more money) or allow that person (such as me) to get involved in the hobby to purchase new models (which I have). However you should never knowingly purchase a cast of a model that is currently sold by GW and was made within the last 20 years because then you are not encouraging new art.

Why should a company make money off a studio recording from 30 years  ago that everyone knows the words to? Why can Disney restrict access to movies that everyone knows the full words to? Plumbers don't get residual checks for people using toilets, artists should only have a limited amount of time to make money off of one performance. Companies should actually have less.

"However, when a company like Disney stops distributing their art (oh noes, it's in the Disney vault!) their copyright should expire. It should be available to buy from the copyright owner, or it should not be copyrighted."

This just leads to constant repackaging and token distribution - the re-re-re-release of the Star Wars Trilogy frex.

In my opinion the current terms of copyright are too long, but I do not know what would be a fair term.

Posted By Asmodai on 07/01/2007 1:01 AM
"However, when a company like Disney stops distributing their art (oh noes, it's in the Disney vault!) their copyright should expire. It should be available to buy from the copyright owner, or it should not be copyrighted."

This just leads to constant repackaging and token distribution - the re-re-re-release of the Star Wars Trilogy frex.

Where can you currently buy The Sword and the Stone? Snow White? Why are these movies allowed to be withheld from the people who gave Disney the rights for distribution to protect Disney's income? They aren't making income by not selling them, so someone else distributing the movies they don't would not hurt them.

Besides, how long should one organization keep the rights to one film? Should Star wars really still be covered by copyright? 20 years is plenty long to make money on a project, after that they can make money but so could anyone else. If people wanted to support the original creator they still could by buying if they are selling. Companies still make money off things in the public domain like Shakespeare and classical music, most of Disney's early movies were based of public domain stories but they get to hold their version hostage for 150 years? It's a load of bull.

Disney thinks it has a big problem that its early creations such as Mickey Mouse are going out of copyright. MM should have gone free in the 1990s (I think) but the US Congress amended the copyright term to the current 90 years after creation for corporate works. That extended the copyright on MM to 2018. It will be interesting to see if Disney try for another extension in a few years.

Fry's. It's still on the shelf there. They've got The Black Cauldron. too.

Posted By Janthkin on 07/01/2007 10:35 AM

Where can you currently buy The Sword and the Stone?

Fry's. It's still on the shelf there. They've got The Black Cauldron. too.

You are correct, The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast are currently in the vault, not the Sword and the Stone.

Disney will not release Songs of the South though, even though that movie is 50+ years old and taken from public domain stories.  Why do we grant them that right to not distribute?

Ok, as somebody who has had Intellectual Property both stolen and infringed upon a couple of times in my life, let me put it into a bit of a different perspective on how it affects me.

When somebody took some artwork that I was using for my own personal use, and a few years later made it the new name and logo for a major collegiate athletic team... it really pissed me off. There's no way I could afford to fight it in court, and I probably would lose anyways, but I know what I designed and it really angers me to see it plastered all over magazines, television, sides of the city bus and so forth. I get absolutely NOTHING, not even credit, while somebody else uses my design and artwork and makes millions.

I used to run an online business. One day, a copycat website opens up using my business name, linking to other dealers in the same industry.

Now, I've gotten an almost finished rule set for a miniature based game. I've got some great concepts for figures and vehicles. But, seeing how much piracy goes on both in the miniature and scale model industries.... why should I even bother to try? I could (theoretically) make the near-perfect game, I could get some outstanding sculptors to help with figures, and about a third of you guys apparently will buy the cheapest copies you can get ahold of, because "it's good for me" and "Piracy helps the market"? No Thanks.

You're not paying for the resin. You're not paying for the white metal. You're not paying for the glossy shiny cover. You're paying for the time and effort that people put into the design work, the master sculpting, drawing and painting the fancy pictures, and writing the fluff.   Yeah, GW is expensive.  But if you always buy the cheaper recasts, why would anybody bother doing the real work of coming up with new stuff?

Hans, I think most people here would sympathize with you. However, as stated back in page 2 or 3, when it's about a big corporation it's all about fighting the system and/or The Man, which as a 21 year old I still have lingering feelings about. It's weird though: I never thought about buying a pirated model for some reason.

Oh, I agree that the majority of folks here, no matter what they think of GW and their absurd business practices, would do the right thing. But even so, if I'm going to go through the risk of starting up anything, I have to seriously consider how far people are going here to justify recasts. Laying out the cash for a spin molding setup ain't cheap, and the concept I'm working with would be heavily dependant on the miniature sales.

And should I become successful and outgrow the whole "Mom and Pop" image, it wouldn't just be helping out some guy on the Dakka forum anymore, I would be "The Man" that everybody would be trying to stick it to.

I'm not saying this to make you guys feel sorry for me or anything, this thread isn't going to influence my decison, though I am finidng it interesting. I'm more trying to just share the perspective from the other side of the arguement, and the potential backlash. People are only going to sculpt and create material if they are the ones who get the benefit.

Posted By Hans on 07/01/2007 5:55 PM
People are only going to sculpt and create material if they are the ones who get the benefit.

This is not true, look at all the people that do conversions and then write up a "How to". People do many things artistic free of charge for the benefit of a community like wargaming, and find out a way to make money in spite of unethical behavior. Game workshop makes money in spite of forgeries, because their quality is better, so people prefer to buy the real thing.

I was speaking more from a business standpoint, where the intended benefit is a financial profit.  From a hobbiest standpoint, the intent is generally just to enjoy yourself, and some folks share things like that because they gain pleasure from doing so.  I know It's why I keep putting my conversion work here and up on my website.  I enjoy helping other folks and giving them ideas to inspire them. 

But I think the main point is still valid even in that case .  Lets say you did a really nice conversion,  and put it up on a website to show others how you did it.  Then a couple of other copycat websites had a photo of the work you did, claiming it to be their own idea... would you still enjoy having done that?  It would probably get you a bit upset.  Then, what if they kept doing it on a regular basis, repeatedly spoiled your fun, and took away that special warm feeling it used to give you.  Would you keep doing it?   Would you fight back, trying to get them to remove it?  

 

 

>>Laying out the cash for a spin molding setup ain't cheap, and the concept I'm working with would be heavily dependant on the miniature sales.

Don't buy your own spin-casting machine. Get a test run of your figures done by some company on a contract basis.

Posted By Hans on 07/01/2007 7:33 PM

I was speaking more from a business standpoint, where the intended benefit is a financial profit. 

Hans,

the question that has been repeatedly asked, and not adequately answered, is what is the actual financial effect of pirating minis? The most commonsense answer is that pirating will hurt your sales. But what if that isn't the case? What if pirating has a beneficial financial effect? Is it so awful then?

Can someone point us to something that can at least edge into the grounds of evidence rather than conjecture?

ender502

 

Posted By Hans on 07/01/2007 7:33 PM

I was speaking more from a business standpoint, where the intended benefit is a financial profit.  From a hobbiest standpoint, the intent is generally just to enjoy yourself, and some folks share things like that because they gain pleasure from doing so.  I know It's why I keep putting my conversion work here and up on my website.  I enjoy helping other folks and giving them ideas to inspire them. 

But I think the main point is still valid even in that case .  Lets say you did a really nice conversion,  and put it up on a website to show others how you did it.  Then a couple of other copycat websites had a photo of the work you did, claiming it to be their own idea... would you still enjoy having done that?  It would probably get you a bit upset.  Then, what if they kept doing it on a regular basis, repeatedly spoiled your fun, and took away that special warm feeling it used to give you.  Would you keep doing it?   Would you fight back, trying to get them to remove it?  

 

 

You may have meant in business but you said "noone is going to make models" etc. Well, people will, not everything has to make money to be shared. Copyright is only there as an incentive, not a means to an end. When people take your idea and claim to have been their idea you just move on if they don't agree to stop, or if you really care if you get credit you stop doing it. If you do it for the sharing of knowledge you can simply know in your own mind that it was your idea and if someone else wants to spread it like a jerk you still shared the knowledge. If you are a business and someone does this it is fraud and you can sue them. People claim credit for other's work all the time, but yet we always have new stuff to share.

Again, I like a short term copyright to encourage work but don't think it is a right that should extend 90 years past death. I also don't believe that people who infringe affect companies profit margins, as the people who would not buy their stuff anyway are the ones who pirate, and some people who are exposed to the pirated stuff will still buy the real thing if it is better (see iTunes).

Besides, isn't your work influenced by the previous art you have been exposed to? Isn't the majority of your designs based on something you have seen which is probably covered by copyright? Do you realize how adding to the public domain helps future works such as the ones you have made? All art is influenced by what we have seen or heard (through previous art or nature), your art is just a combination of your accumulated knowledge.

I am usually against re-casting, with a couple exceptions.

I'm fine with it if it is LONG out-of production and the company has no plans to use it again. (For example if you want a Warlock head for your Armorcast Phantom Titan, since only a couple were made anyway)

The other exception is if you all ready have a model, and are just copying part of it to put back on an existing model for artistic reasons. (Like copying the face of an armorcast cauldron of blood to use as the new face on your chaso titan.)