After the flaming shenanigans that was the 'Confessions of a recaster' thread, I became curious as to what most people think of it. Yes, it's illegal and I'd prefer to buy things for the sake of being a good citizen, but sometimes it's just practical or necessary. I mean, does GW seriously expect me to buy three metal IG Special Weapon blisters to make a squad of melta-vets? And where am I supposed to get fresh, unpainted RT era minis?

And some people say that recasting anything is cheating GW. Don't you think we pay enough already for their products?

I'd only recast small things like special weapons, certain bitz, or old OOP minis. What's your view? I didn't follow the last thread too well.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Don't you think we pay enough already for their products?

I didn't follow the last thread too well.

Whether you pay enough or not have nothing to do with whether you should recast or not. Dont like it been expensive? dont play.

Didnt follow the thread too well? go back and re-read it all.

Yes, reread it, and please close this thread now.

You said it's illegal in your post so you acknowledge that you should not do it yet you are going to do it anyway. hmmmm. . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So, you expect me to buy an entire box or blister for a couple of the bitz inside?

Not everyone can afford that, Luna. If GW isn't providing what players need, I see no problems with recasting for personal use. I am, however, totally against selling re-casts.

For example, I have one Dark Elf Warrior with a sword. I'd like all of them to have swords, but there's only one in the box. What, pray tell, is wrong with recasting a bit for all of them? If I take 20-man blocks and I want them to have swords, why should I have to buy 20 boxes for one regiment?

Cheese Elemental wrote:So, you expect me to buy an entire box or blister for a couple of the bitz inside?

Not everyone can afford that, Luna. If GW isn't providing what players need, I see no problems with recasting for personal use. I am, however, totally against selling re-casts.

For example, I have one Dark Elf Warrior with a sword. I'd like all of them to have swords, but there's only one in the box. What, pray tell, is wrong with recasting a bit for all of them? If I take 20-man blocks and I want them to have swords, why should I have to buy 20 boxes for one regiment?

Its not matter of been able to afford something or not.

You want to recast swords? make them out of plasti cards , recast them all you want , even sell it.

I dont even believe "recasting is ok for personal use" because it falls under " no one else but me knows . no tell = all ok"

Search that plastic Steel legion guy's thread , he is on the right path .

The bottom line is , warhammer is a hobby, not a necessity . You want to do the petty things and recast? go for it. Just dont expect people to look at you any different than a petty thief.

Thing is, recasting would be a lot easier than manually sculpting them out of plasticard or greenstuff. And recasting is expensive. You have to pay for the resin, tools, and the silicone mold yourself, and what's the value of a few bitz anyway? A couple of cents?

Cheese Elemental wrote:So, you expect me to buy an entire box or blister for a couple of the bitz inside?

Not everyone can afford that, Luna. If GW isn't providing what players need, I see no problems with recasting for personal use. I am, however, totally against selling re-casts.

For example, I have one Dark Elf Warrior with a sword. I'd like all of them to have swords, but there's only one in the box. What, pray tell, is wrong with recasting a bit for all of them? If I take 20-man blocks and I want them to have swords, why should I have to buy 20 boxes for one regiment?

If you can't afford it, don't play. It's really that simple. You aren't entitled to Dark Elf Warriors with swords; GW doesn't have any obligation to you to give you as many melta guns as you could use.

There are bitz services out there, if you want to hunt down a few special weapons; GW will even sell you packs of guns.

"I can't afford it, but I want it" is a poor excuse to break the law.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Thing is, recasting would be a lot easier than manually sculpting them out of plasticard or greenstuff. And recasting is expensive. You have to pay for the resin, tools, and the silicone mold yourself, and what's the value of a few bitz anyway? A couple of cents?

Yes , and what gives you the right to duplicate something someone spent time to sculpt in the first place? ( ya copying someones home work would be easier than doing it yourself too )

I dont care if recasting is expensive or not , you are doing it to save money then it must be worth it for you to recast.

value of bitz couple of cents? great! now go buy some bits instead of recasting.

now go back and re read the thread so people dont have to repeat themselves.

I'm not selling them, am I? How do you suggest I get old minis that I can't buy in stores or on the GW site? Do you expect me to pay more than $70 AUD to give my Noise Marines sonic blasters?

And I never said that I am recasting. I'm considering it for personal use, not for profit.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'm not selling them, am I? How do you suggest I get old minis that I can't buy in stores or on the GW site? Do you expect me to pay more than $70 AUD to give my Noise Marines sonic blasters?

And I never said that I am recasting. I'm considering it for personal use, not for profit.

Lol , how many times must i repeat this. " it does not fething matter if its for personal use or not "

READ my tyranid army example on the other thread , seems like NO ONE understood what i said till JHDD posted it again.

Cheese Elemental wrote:After the flaming shenanigans that was the 'Confessions of a recaster' thread, I became curious as to what most people think of it. Yes, it's illegal and I'd prefer to buy things for the sake of being a good citizen, but sometimes it's just practical or necessary. I mean, does GW seriously expect me to buy three metal IG Special Weapon blisters to make a squad of melta-vets? And where am I supposed to get fresh, unpainted RT era minis?

And some people say that recasting anything is cheating GW. Don't you think we pay enough already for their products?

I'd only recast small things like special weapons, certain bitz, or old OOP minis. What's your view? I didn't follow the last thread too well.

I often have the same moral dilemma: illegal, but it's practical or necessary.

I mean, say you like your buddy's girlfriend, but know she won't date you while she's out with him. It's illegal to kill him and dump mind control drugs in her wine, but it's more practical to throw him under a bus than wait around forever in case she dumps him. Heck, if he has an IG army with melta vets, you could make a double score.

My arguement is far fetched, yes. But look at the OP's. Recasting is illega, but if I want something and don't want to pay for it, I can find a way to justify it. Practical? Necessary? Neither of those is true in this case.

Yes it is. Would you rather go through the pain of ordering metal bitz from GW, waiting weeks for a screwed-up order, sending it back, and waiting even longer for the right order to come?

I've had horrible experiences with GW bitz services, and I'm not buying them anymore.

Yes, I know that it's illegal, but it's simply practical and sensible anyway. GW makes us pay out the nose for models that aren't even high quality, and you're calling me a petty thief, Luna?

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Yes, I know that it's illegal, but it's simply practical and sensible anyway. GW makes us pay out the nose for models that aren't even high quality, and you're calling me a petty thief, Luna?

If you want to steal something , steal it for the purpose and the sake of some starving children.

You want to steal some stuff for a game ? Sure is petty to me. I cant sugar coat it sorry cheese.

I wouldn't define it as stealing, TBH. Casting a meltagun is far too small and insignificant to be worth sueing over to GW, and I know this for a fact, as my friend recasts and the local Redshirts are very much aware of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a line between reasonable expectations and downright lunacy. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy multiple Special Weapon blisters to make their meltavets, not when they cost $22 AUD.

Let's tally this up, shall we?

10 Guardsmen: $35
3x Special Weapon blisters: $66.

Only someone with too much money or a downright idiot is going to pay that much for one squad. It's a damn meltagun, Luna! A tiny piece of plastic a centimetre in length! Do you think GW is going to sue me for copying that? Do you think that the courts would actually support it?

Cheese Elemental wrote:I wouldn't define it as stealing, TBH. Casting a meltagun is far too small and insignificant to be worth sueing over to GW, and I know this for a fact, as my friend recasts and the local Redshirts are very much aware of it.

Guess what cheese , stealing even a penny is still stealing. Im going to stop discussing this with you now , if something as basic as this we cant agree on.

Thats pretty much whats Luna is saying as thats the letter of the law cheese.

Go to bitz kingdom and you can outfit 3 plastic cadians with meltas for what $1, surely thats far cheaper and easier than a) finding away to justify petty theft in a "room full of people" that will just see it as petty theft and b) the initial outlay for the materials to produce said $1 item when i could have bought them and done it much faster.

Dude get a grip your poking a dead fire for the sake of starting it again.

I wonder how some of you hardliners feel about illegally downloading music and/or movies, television shows, anime, etc.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I wouldn't define it as stealing, TBH. Casting a meltagun is far too small and insignificant to be worth sueing over to GW, and I know this for a fact, as my friend recasts and the local Redshirts are very much aware of it.

For those following along, this is what's known as making a claim, and then arguing something else to make it look like you're backing up the claim. He says that he wouldn't define it as stealing, and then talks about how it wouldn't be worth GW suing over. Both are true, but that doesn't make it anything other than stealing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a line between reasonable expectations and downright lunacy. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy multiple Special Weapon blisters to make their meltavets, not when they cost $22 AUD.

Let's tally this up, shall we?

10 Guardsmen: $35
3x Special Weapon blisters: $66.

Only someone with too much money or a downright idiot is going to pay that much for one squad. It's a damn meltagun, Luna! A tiny piece of plastic a centimetre in length! Do you think GW is going to sue me for copying that? Do you think that the courts would actually support it?

Again, you're confusing what's right with what's likely to happen. The answer to the latter is, yes, they will. If GW sued, the amount of reproduction doesn't matter.

Sorry dude, I'm not telling you not to recast what you need. But it is nothing other than "I want things I'm not willing to pay for, so I'll take them instead." If you don't feel bad, and aren't caught, bully for you. But don't expect us to buy your bit that it's anything other than illegal, immoral, and selfish.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a line between reasonable expectations and downright lunacy. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy multiple Special Weapon blisters to make their meltavets, not when they cost $22 AUD.
...
Only someone with too much money or a downright idiot is going to pay that much for one squad. It's a damn meltagun, Luna! A tiny piece of plastic a centimetre in length! Do you think GW is going to sue me for copying that? Do you think that the courts would actually support it?

I think for what cheese is wanting to do, I totally see and understand casting. Hell Id do it for the same reason. I wanted to make a SM chapter where ALL the standard marines had the beaky helms. But seeing as you only got 2 or 3 in a box, casting was the only reasonable way of doing it, since they stopped their bitz selling.
Now if you caste to simply make free money, then no its totally wrong to do that. Period.

KingCracker wrote:I think for what cheese is wanting to do, I totally see and understand casting. Hell Id do it for the same reason. I wanted to make a SM chapter where ALL the standard marines had the beaky helms. But seeing as you only got 2 or 3 in a box, casting was the only reasonable way of doing it, since they stopped their bitz selling.
Now if you caste to simply make free money, then no its totally wrong to do that. Period.

I"m not saying I wouldn't do what Cheese does. I'm sure some of my "too good to be true" deals are recasts. I just don't try to defend as anything other than self interest.

BTW, I never though it would be cheaper to build metal armies than plastic, but if you wanted to build mech vets out of metal catachans they sell for 1-2 bucks a peice on ebay.

Redbeard wrote:

Why not? To make my meltagun guys, I not only had to buy models with flamers, but then also buy meltaguns to do the conversion with (Vostroyans don't have meltaguys).

For that matter, my Emperor's Children all have the sculpted shoulder pads. At the time I made that army, each shoulder pad was a separate bit - it was something like $1 or $2/pad. For every guy in the army.

Could I have done that cheaper by casting them? Yes. Would it be ethical? No. As Luna says, this is a hobby. You're not stealing bread for your kids, you're not stealing cancer medicines for old people, you're stealing toys for no one's enjoyment but your own. Just because it isn't worth GW's lawyer's time to go after you, or the court's time to prosecute you doesn't mean that you have a right to do it. You don't. You're a thief, and that's all there is to it. No argument you make about comparative value matters. You're stealing.

Thank you thank you thank you. What he said is what i wanted to say.

And to cheese , would i buy a $30 box just for 1-2 melta or plasma gun?

Yes- I - Would . Its not about affording or not , its not about lunacy . For the rest of the bits i dont end up using i will sell or trade it.

That is a very rigid stand, Luna. I ask again, does it apply to other things in your life, like digital media?

(I'm asking sincerely.)

Didn't BLACK GOBBO do an article on casting copies of things?

Manchu wrote:That is a very rigid stand, Luna. I ask again, does it apply to other things in your life, like digital media?

(I'm asking sincerely.)

Yes it does.

BrookM wrote:Didn't BLACK GOBBO do an article on casting copies of things?

I did , it was a very nice thread rofl even some of the mods loved it .

however it was locked soon after because the models used for example was GW product!

Luna Hound makes a pretty valid point. It's not like GW products are completely illiquid as far as resale.

I recognize that people building IG up from a cold start are in a bad way for melta guns. I really do understand. There are pretty valid options however, aside from recasting.

Polonius wrote:Luna Hound makes a pretty valid point. It's not like GW products are completely illiquid as far as resale.

Thank you , and the example from this goes right back to the other thread on why it effects GW and its customer even if its NOT recasted to be sold.

Imagine if everyone have recasted the weapons they need , who will buy the bits? No one.

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:That is a very rigid stand, Luna. I ask again, does it apply to other things in your life, like digital media?

(I'm asking sincerely.)

Yes it does.

Same here. And I am often told that I am a fool for it. I'm not sure if it's the most pressing of moral issues.

Here, I think, is Cheese's basic point:

Why should consumers be responsible to companies when companies are not responsible to consumers?

Certain the burden on the company should be greater?

Manchu wrote:Why should consumers be responsible to companies when companies are not responsible to consumers?[/b]
Certain the burden on the company should be greater?

Because the customers made the decision to invest GW company via their products , and chose to put up with the company's BS on their free will.

GW didnt force or scam anyone to get into the hobby.

Should the company have great burden? yes and no.

They arnt obligated to do so by any means under the law.
However if they wish to keep the existing customers, they still should show some concern ( even if its just an act)

LunaHound wrote:They arnt obligated to do so by any means under the law.
However if they wish to keep the existing customers, they still should show some concern ( even if its just an act)

And that's the meat of the point (I think) Cheese was making: why do the laws (seem to) protect the company over the consumer?

The answer seems to be that it's because the companies are more powerful and influential than the consumers. This isn't just about GW, which is no tyrant IMO, but about all businesses--including some that definitely are tyrannical. Gw just incidentally benefits from the laws for which those big companies continue to lobby.

These days, however, technology is putting the power back into the hands of the consumers. People who feel disenfranchised politically are voting with their computers by downloading digital media illegally. The point is that many people--probably most people--do not think this is morally wrong. If we lived in a pure democracy, it wouldn't be illegal.

I'm not trying to derail the thread with talk about illegal downloads. I think the same logic, on a smaller scale, applies here. Capitalists go on and on about supply and demand and yet decry the subversion of supply. Supposedly it is bad for us all. Many people don't think so. Whether they are right or wrong is a matter for debate, not foregone and rigidly-constructed conclusions.

Hmm , first of all i think 2 wrongs doesnt make a right ( the illegal media dls)

Why does law seem to protect the companies?
because sometimes the reason companies choose to do things are not what the customers assume them to be.

So GW doesnt make cheap meltas , so GW stopped their bits service .

So what about it? dont like how they do things , stop having anything to do with GW.

GW cant be held accountable for those reasons , people get into the product knowing the expense and decided to accept it.

And dont worry i dont think talking about the illegal media DL is off topic , its very related imo.

Lastly , Manchu i would be glad to discuss things with you in PM so we can go as OT as we feel like.
It just feels like Cheese started this thread to watch people fight , now he stopped posting probably relaxed eating his nachos

I feel that only oop minis should be reprouduced.

Would I steal a boxed set off a shelf? No.
Would I cast a 1 cent piece of plastic for my own use? Yes.
Would I sell a cast of that 1 cent piece of plastic to another? No.

oh noez, i broked the lawwzorz!! Do any of you ever drive faster than the speed limit? Ever taken a 16 minute break at work? Have you ever eaten anything off another person's plate at a buffet? This is not a question of illegality, it is a question of perceived harm. Frankly, you can judge me all you want and tell me how bad of a person I am. I have a moral compass, and I can make sound decisions for myself and my family. I don't "steal" from GW, because I think that somehow they're stealing from me. I make a rational decision to break a law because the percieved harm is low enough for my own and society's tolerances.

the_Armyman wrote:Would I steal a boxed set off a shelf? No.
Would I cast a 1 cent piece of plastic for my own use? Yes.


I make a rational decision to break a law because the percieved harm is low enough for my own and society's tolerances.

Sorry but i cant .... i Lolled

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:They arnt obligated to do so by any means under the law.
However if they wish to keep the existing customers, they still should show some concern ( even if its just an act)

And that's the meat of the point (I think) Cheese was making: why do the laws (seem to) protect the company over the consumer?

Because the companies are creating something, where the consumer isn't?

That's the basis of IP protection world-wide: if we want an individual/company to create technology/art/toys, and incur the expense of so doing, we need to provide the company adequate protection against others who would, for example, make illegal copies of their carefully-sculpted miniatures for their own benefit.

The answer seems to be that it's because the companies are more powerful and influential than the consumers. This isn't just about GW, which is no tyrant IMO, but about all businesses--including some that definitely are tyrannical. Gw just incidentally benefits from the laws for which those big companies continue to lobby.

These days, however, technology is putting the power back into the hands of the consumers. People who feel disenfranchised politically are voting with their computers by downloading digital media illegally. The point is that many people--probably most people--do not think this is morally wrong. If we lived in a pure democracy, it wouldn't be illegal.

I'm not trying to derail the thread with talk about illegal downloads. I think the same logic, on a smaller scale, applies here. Capitalists go on and on about supply and demand and yet decry the subversion of supply. Supposedly it is bad for us all. Many people don't think so. Whether they are right or wrong is a matter for debate, not foregone and rigidly-constructed conclusions.

I love the conspiracy theory. I mean, the basis for patents and copyrights is only in the US Constitution, and only goes back many hundreds of years - OBVIOUSLY it's all the result of a capitalist conspiracy amongst giant corporations. We don't live in a pure democracy, thank god. No country in the world operates as a pure democracy...because a pure democracy doesn't WORK for a modern-sized nation-state. The days of the New England town meeting are over; asserting an unprovable truth like "If we lived in a pure democracy, it wouldn't be illegal" is irrelevant.

Companies are under zero obligation to the consumer to produce their product. The relationship, particularly with GW, is one purely of choice - they choose to produce miniatures, and you choose to participate as a consumer of their products. If you object to the price of their products, you have a variety of legal options, starting with the secondary market, and ending with NOT obtaining their products. And you instead promote an illegal option?

LunaHound wrote:Hmm , first of all i think 2 wrongs doesnt make a right ( the illegal media dls)

Why does law seem to protect the companies?
because sometimes the reason companies choose to do things are not what the customers assume them to be.

So GW doesnt make cheap meltas , so GW stopped their bits service .

So what about it? dont like how they do things , stop having anything to do with GW.

GW cant be held accountable for those reasons , people get into the product knowing the expense and decided to accept it.

And dont worry i dont think talking about the illegal media DL is off topic , its very related imo.

Lastly , Manchu i would be glad to discuss things with you in PM so we can go as OT as we feel like.
It just feels like Cheese started this thread to watch people fight , now he stopped posting probably relaxed eating his nachos

I'm at school Luna. I've only got my sandwiches.

I do feel that I couldn't justify myself very well, and I find myself leaning on people sometimes. Recasting a few bitz is no major crime. I don't doubt that many of us break the law in small ways every day, by going a bit over the speed limit, graffiting something, or smoking where you're not meant to. Yet we do it. I mean, just how much effort did it take a Citadel sculptor to make a meltagun? An hour? Two? Am I cheating them? Would they be pissed off at me for recasting something that I'd otherwise be paying out the nose for?

I wouldn't be hurting anybody. I'm not causing GW employees to lose jobs, I'm not selling recasts, and I'm not making a dent in their sales.

Janthkin wrote:
Companies are under zero obligation to the consumer to produce their product. The relationship, particularly with GW, is one purely of choice - they choose to produce miniatures, and you choose to participate as a consumer of their products. If you object to the price of their products, you have a variety of legal options, starting with the secondary market, and ending with NOT obtaining their products. And you instead promote an illegal option?

Again , very well said.


Janthkin and Redbeard (page1 for people that skips... ) makes very clear and nice posts.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Recasting a few bitz is no major crime. I don't doubt that many of us break the law in small ways every day, by going a bit over the speed limit, graffiting something, or smoking where you're not meant to. Yet we do it. I mean, just how much effort did it take a Citadel sculptor to make a meltagun? An hour? Two? Am I cheating them? Would they be pissed off at me for recasting something that I'd otherwise be paying out the nose for?

I wouldn't be hurting anybody. I'm not causing GW employees to lose jobs, I'm not selling recasts, and I'm not making a dent in their sales.

Read the **************************************ing Tyranid army example on the other thread.
K cheese , im out of patience you just arnt worth my effort and time .

Manchu wrote:

Same here. And I am often told that I am a fool for it. I'm not sure if it's the most pressing of moral issues.

Here, I think, is Cheese's basic point:

Why should consumers be responsible to companies when companies are not responsible to consumers?

Certain the burden on the company should be greater?

Because companies own the property, and consumers have other choices.

This s the 5th thread or so on recasting this week ;P

I love it.


I'll be amazed of this thread will remain opened - cuz all the other ones got locked.


lol

Lunahound wrote:K cheese , im out of patience you just arnt worth my effort and time .

It was your choice to post here.

I will admit this is a bit of an 'Eye for an Eye' thing I've got going here, though.

Well, it's simple. Both sides are operating from pretty strong, but not opposing, arguments.

Side 1: Recasting is illegal and stealing.

Side 2: I wont' get caught, and the loss to GW is negligible.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Yes it is. Would you rather go through the pain of ordering metal bitz from GW, waiting weeks for a screwed-up order, sending it back, and waiting even longer for the right order to come?

I've had horrible experiences with GW bitz services, and I'm not buying them anymore.

Yes, I know that it's illegal, but it's simply practical and sensible anyway. GW makes us pay out the nose for models that aren't even high quality, and you're calling me a petty thief, Luna?

If you are recasting then yes, you are a thief. The product you have copied for yourself was gotten without paying a royalty or due to GW, the IP holder. Now, that has NOTHING to do with right, wrong, or indifferent in any regard except my personal opinion. No law books backing up my words, only my interpretation. However, do not take any of the above as approval or disapproval on my part of the actions discussed. That would be folly. And yeah GW Bitz can be a shower of donkey-caves, no doubt. Just like any other similar organization, form time to time.

Manchu wrote:I don't want to get too involved in this but recasting without reselling is not against the law.

I wonder how some of you hardliners feel about illegally downloading music and/or movies, television shows, anime, etc.

OOOOOOOO, good one. I like it, and it appears to be perfectly valid. Mmmm..., can o worms.

Polonius wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I wouldn't define it as stealing, TBH. ...But don't expect us to buy your bit that it's anything other than illegal, immoral, and selfish.

Illegal? Check. Immoral? In that it violates the law, check. Selfish? I dunno. Kinda on the fence there, Pol. I mean, yeah technically it is wrong. No doubt. But when put into the context of some of GW's pricing, I am questioning the selfish bit unless you mean in the strictest of senses, such as using a definition along the lines of "done for the benefit of the self.", as opposed to something more along the lines of a more common usage along the lines of "THat selfish bastard took the last beer in the fridge." Just a slightly different connotation, a presence or lack of some level of malice.

But not ALL of GW's pricing is berzerk like that. Go check out the quality of the stormlord kit, and then go look at a similar sized Tamiya tank. Now compare prices.

Polonius wrote:Luna Hound makes a pretty valid point. It's not like GW products are completely illiquid as far as resale.

I recognize that people building IG up from a cold start are in a bad way for melta guns. I really do understand. There are pretty valid options however, aside from recasting.

ouch my hands hurt.

A meltagun might have only 1c worth of plastic in it. But that is obviously not the VALUE of the item. An entire box of Cadians has probably 10c worth of plastic. Is it ok to steal the box, because the plastic is only worth a few cents?
No. Because the VALUE is obviously not the materials. The value is in the artistic concept and design and the time it took to create, make sure it is compatible with other bits, make sure it can be mass-produced through injection moulding.. etc.
Sure, it might be worth only 1c and an hours work; but, given 1c of plastic and an hours work could you make a melta gun? No, because you need the outlay on the mold. Like the 'Realm of Battle' board - I made an equivalent in 10 hours of work. Its only maybe a dollar of platic, and a few hours work, why should I pay $450 for it? steal it!!!

Most of the time it would probably be MORE expensive to recast anyway, considering the time it takes to learn the process.

It is illegal. No questions asked.

If you want to break the law and think you won't get caught, over one or two guns for your models, that is your choice. But don't try to say that it is legal.

I am not saying that it's legal, but I'm not doing anything that's going to have an effect on the GW.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I am not saying that it's legal, but I'm not doing anything that's going to have an effect on the GW.

I think if you argued you're not doing anything that has an appreciable effect on GW, than it's a pretty true statement. There is an effect on GW, just slight.

That does ignore the aggregation theory, though. Sure, one caster isn't much harm, but hundreds? That stuff can add up.

simple solution......each time to copy a part cheese, mail gw a penny

Polonius wrote:Because companies own the property, and consumers have other choices.

They do when it's a question of miniature soldiers. How about when its gasoline? As I already said, GW incidentally benefits from these policies. It didn't create them.

Janthkin wrote:Because the companies are creating something, where the consumer isn't?

That's a bit simplistic--where would the company be with what the consumer produced? Namely, money. Consumers are willing to pay for some things and not for others. If the free market is as important as big business claims in Congress, companies will have to respond to consumers' desires more rather than relying on laws they've created and bogus moralities that they've gotten people like you to believe in.

Janthkin wrote:That's the basis of IP protection world-wide: if we want an individual/company to create technology/art/toys, and incur the expense of so doing, we need to provide the company adequate protection against others who would, for example, make illegal copies of their carefully-sculpted miniatures for their own benefit.

And yet, somehow, there were inventions and innovations long before IP laws . . .

Janthkin wrote:I love the conspiracy theory. I mean, the basis for patents and copyrights is only in the US Constitution, and only goes back many hundreds of years - OBVIOUSLY it's all the result of a capitalist conspiracy amongst giant corporations.

Armchair legal scholars are certainly prevalent here. Modern copyright law has nearly nothing to do with the jurisprudence of the framers--except inasmuch as the Constitution itself reflects the interests of propertied, politically influential men. The laws we're talking about have almost without exception been extensively reimagined in the twentieth century and reflect the interests of the current propertied, politically influential people. I'm sorry if serious legal scholarship sounds like a conspiracy to you . . . but it doesn't actually make much of a difference.

Janthkin wrote:We don't live in a pure democracy, thank god. No country in the world operates as a pure democracy...because a pure democracy doesn't WORK for a modern-sized nation-state. The days of the New England town meeting are over; asserting an unprovable truth like "If we lived in a pure democracy, it wouldn't be illegal" is irrelevant.

I don't suggest that we ought to live in a pure democracy. I only suggested that if laws were actually a reflection of what most people thought was right and wrong, then illegal downloading would not be illegal. I'm not sure that the point needs a specific proof. If you believe that only a small percentage of the US population, much less the world population, disregards the moral and legal validity of intellectual property, well, you are severely out of touch with reality.

Janthkin wrote:Companies are under zero obligation to the consumer to produce their product. The relationship, particularly with GW, is one purely of choice - they choose to produce miniatures, and you choose to participate as a consumer of their products. If you object to the price of their products, you have a variety of legal options, starting with the secondary market, and ending with NOT obtaining their products. And you instead promote an illegal option?

No, but then again you didn't bother to read the whole thread to find out. I don't disagree that companies are in fact under "zero obligation" to sell what consumers want at a price that consumers find reasonable. Indeed, I don't myself download anything illegally and have been ostracized for it. What I'm pointing out is that intellectual property does not represent some eternal moral law handed down by God. It was handed down by legislators more heavily influenced by corporations than consumers.

LunaHound wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:Would I steal a boxed set off a shelf? No.
Would I cast a 1 cent piece of plastic for my own use? Yes.


I make a rational decision to break a law because the percieved harm is low enough for my own and society's tolerances.

Sorry but i cant .... i Lolled

I guess those of us who don't have your impeccable lineage can't quite live up to your lofty standards. But thank you for dying for all of our sins 2000 years ago. Much appreciated! Tell your Father I said "hihi."

Cheese Elemental wrote:I am not saying that it's legal, but I'm not doing anything that's going to have an effect on the GW.

Why do people say " why is GW so expensive? its just a piece of plastic" and then go right back to " im just copying a 1 cent plastic , no big deal "

Why do people assume that when themselves do wrong , no one else is doing the same?

Why do people put double standard on things and treats it ok?

Where do people draw the line ? Today i cast 1 sword , tommorow i cast all the plasma guns , next day i cast w/e else i can think of.

Why do people think casting for self and not selling them is ok? (Thats 1 person's army GW didnt end up selling to) multiply that by how many people that does it.
and take in consideration on how many more people might follow if it ends up as been generally accepted.

Why the above? Because people lie to themselves

the_Armyman wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:Would I steal a boxed set off a shelf? No.
Would I cast a 1 cent piece of plastic for my own use? Yes.


I make a rational decision to break a law because the percieved harm is low enough for my own and society's tolerances.

Sorry but i cant .... i Lolled

I guess those of us who don't have your impeccable lineage can't quite live up to your lofty standards. But thank you for dying for all of our sins 2000 years ago. Much appreciated! Tell your Father I said "hihi."

Oh , forgive me then ( and please no , i will never die for humanity rofl ). But im so curious now

Can you tell me ALL the reasons why you wont steal a box off a shelf?

@ Mancu: are you aware that Janthkin is an IP lawyer? He's not talking out of his ass.

I also think there's more of a moral ground work for IP law than you're giving it credit for.

I'm also a lawyer, actually, and am not too intimidated by someone who has the same degree as me.

And what exactly is the moral underpinning? And why is it that so many people don't find it compelling?

Just to throw another side in, if I use non-GW Green Stuff to make a melta gun that's convincing then I paint it and noone can tell the difference, is that terribly different from casting a GW melta gun I have, painting it so noone can tell the difference and using it? What if I made a mold and used GW green stuff to make the "re-cast" of a GW melta gun instead of sculpting it by hand? I think one or two things as long as you're not selling them won't ever matter, even in the slightest. I've scratch-built guns from GW bitz and sculpted completely out of Green Stuff. If there's nothing immoral about scultping one from Green Stuff, how is it any different?

Note that I am only referring to the case of making a few melta guns, not producing things like whole Wave Serpents or Units of Models. Doing anything above a few arbitrary bits then claiming that they're authentic GW is no different than using fake MtG cards in my mind. Luckily some LGS will let you use non-GW models to play GW games since they know it's not the end of the world.

Okee dokee , i want to ask a simple question to see the mind set from different people.

"What is a piece of plastic GW melta gun to you guys?"

Go!

LunaHound wrote:"What is a piece of plastic GW melta gun to you guys?"

A legally-protected product.

Something that looks like a "melta gun," and if it's a tournament, something made of GW parts that looks like a "melta gun." If we weren't mostly brain-washed then a melta gun would be whatever we wanted (a little spear, a little lightsaber, a regular bolter marines with a different color base...).

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:"What is a piece of plastic GW melta gun to you guys?"

A legally-protected product.

Yes and it goes into detail even more , to why a piece of plastic deserves to have gone to such a great length to be protected ?

LunaHound wrote:Can you tell me ALL the reasons why you wont steal a box off a shelf?

I already answered that in my original post. You never answered any of my questions. Have you ever knowingly broken the law? If so, then how did you justify it to yourself? If not, then once again, tell your Father I really liked his work on the Grand Canyon.

I would gladly make my own guns entirely from scratch, but my model will be branded anti-GW and I will most likely run into trouble playing in a GW tournament.

I am seriously doubting whether I should contribute anymore to this thread. I smell a flame war, but I could just be thinking about BBQ.... mmmm, I want some ribs!

I wish that I were in a country where something like this simply didn't matter in the slightest. Lunahound is technically correct that this is stealing, but it still relies on a law that some countries simply do not agree with (go power to the consumers!).

I do not call people thieves with a light tone, you either steal and it is blatantly obvious, or you do not. Casting and selling products is CLEARLY stealing, creating replicas of minor parts to fill the gap that GW cannot (for whatever reason) and using them for personal use is simply not stealing in my book.

Pol: I think it's less Janth's "IP cred" and more just someone having been doing some reading and thinkin they are a lawyer. If that.

LunaHound wrote:Yes and it goes into detail even more , to why a piece of plastic deserves to have gone to such a great length to be protected ?

Because companies have lobbied and litigated until the law says so. As I said, you won't find "Thou shalt not infringe intellectual property" amongst the ten commandments. You can argue (as those companies do) that IP violation hurts all consumers. But it really doesn't seem to. It seems to hurt companies more than consumers, actually. I mean, there haven't been less artists, less inventions, less material progress despite the vast phenomenon of IP violation. And even poor little GW hasn't gone out of business yet.

the_Armyman wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Can you tell me ALL the reasons why you wont steal a box off a shelf?

I already answered that in my original post. You never answered any of my questions. Have you ever knowingly broken the law? If so, then how did you justify it to yourself? If not, then once again, tell your Father I really liked his work on the Grand Canyon.

Whats your question? no im not Jesus or a reincarnation of Jesus ( oh wait Christianity doesnt support reincarnation )

I have broken the law once in my life. I stole a tiny plastic teddy bear from those board games when i was grade 2.

I dont justify it to myself , i accepted the truth that i stoled , and lived with memory of it , and went on living without doing wrong on purpose again.

grizgrin wrote:Pol: I think it's less Janth's "IP cred" and more just someone having been doing some reading and thinkin they are a lawyer. If that.

You can believe what you want, my friend. I don't feel obliged to somehow prove it to you, assuming you would find any sort of proof that I could offer convincing.

LunaHound wrote:I have broken the law once in my life.

Okay, so you don't drive yet.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I have broken the law once in my life.

Okay, so you don't drive yet.

Im assuming you wanted to discuss the breaking the speed limit , not stoping at stop sign , running a red light at night when no one is around ?

I look at rules different then most people . I dont see it as an inhibition to our action.
I see it as a reminder , a caution to why the rule was made in the first place.

In other words , i respect them.

LunaHound wrote:I look at rules different then most people . I dont see it as an inhibition to our action.
I see it as a reminder , a caution to why the rule was made in the first place.

But that's not what they are. They signify laws that are to be obeyed under threat of coercive force. Why not just say that the little C or TM or R is merely a reminder or caution?

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:I have broken the law once in my life.

Okay, so you don't drive yet.

QFT .

I was stuck at a broken light in the left turn lane once... think about this for a second because it is against the law to leave the lane. SO, I decided to take it safe and turn right and go straight instead of risking a left turn. I was obviously not intentionally trying to break the law, and I even took it into consideration.

Guess what though... There was a sheriff that saw me do this, and he pulled me over and ticketed me. The officer had not seen me waiting there so for all he knew I just didn't care. I explained the situation to them, and they decided to put a note, and have me take care of it through a quick phone call. The light was broken, and the city should know that in it's records.

This is how I feel about casting the small stuff. It isn't a matter of being "evil" it involves life and the practicalities involved in it. No I am not going to climb that tree to get that egg, it is nonsense to expect this type of stiff upper lip from everyone, although it does make for some pretty funny characters.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I look at rules different then most people . I dont see it as an inhibition to our action.
I see it as a reminder , a caution to why the rule was made in the first place.

But that's not what they are. They signify laws that are to be obeyed under threat of coercive force. Why not just say that the little C or TM or R is merely a reminder or caution?

Because there are people that breaks the law on purpose . Infact they thrive on going against it eg: triads. ( of course and other stuff in varying degrees )

If you intentionally run a red light or stop sign you have intentionally broken the law. I get what you're saying: there is no criminal cartel dedicated to running stop signs whereas there are groups who make fortunes off of IP violations. But no one in this thread--even Cheese--is a part of a criminal cartel masterminding the wargaming black market. That's not what this thread is about.

LunaHound wrote:I have broken the law once in my life.

Then I contend you're a liar or someone with a really, really poor memory. Never jaywalked? Never taken a condiment packet from a restaurant you didn't patronize? Never dropped the tiniest sliver of paper on a sidewalk, even if by accident? I'm really trying to wrap my head around the savior Himself walking on Dakka.

Manchu wrote:I'm also a lawyer, actually, and am not too intimidated by someone who has the same degree as me.

And what exactly is the moral underpinning? And why is it that so many people don't find it compelling?

Well, my point was your comment on arm chair legal theory is a bit overly snarky.

The moral underpinning is that the creator of a creative work has inherent rights over it's use and reproduction. This does not change when the creator is a corporate entity or the creative work is of commercial value.

Manchu wrote:I ask again, does it apply to other things in your life, like digital media?

Legally, I'm entitled to a digital copy of any physical media I own. All of my MP3s came from my own CDs, and I can prove it because I still have the physical CDs.

I'm a software engineer. I make my living selling intellectual property. When enough people pirate my company's software, my friends get laid off. You better believe I hold myself to the same standard with other people's intellectual property.

Here, I think, is Cheese's basic point:

Why should consumers be responsible to companies when companies are not responsible to consumers?

Certain the burden on the company should be greater?

In what way is the company not responsible to the consumer? They have produced something that people want to buy. This is the essence of responsibility to a consumer - to allow them to consume. If their sales model does not fit the buying power of a sixteen-year-old, well, that's just too bad. It doesn't entitle that sixteen year-old to then pirate their property.

Put another way, I think boats are neat. I'd like a yacht. Unfortunately, I can't afford one. Does that mean that the yachting companies are somehow at fault, and that I should just steal one?

Manchu wrote:
These days, however, technology is putting the power back into the hands of the consumers. People who feel disenfranchised politically are voting with their computers by downloading digital media illegally. The point is that many people--probably most people--do not think this is morally wrong. If we lived in a pure democracy, it wouldn't be illegal.

I disagree. If we lived in this Utopian pure democracy that you suggest, we'd lose access to much of the art and music that we take for granted. Jes Goodwin doesn't sculpt the minis that we all love solely out of the goodness of his heart, he does it because he has children to feed, and bills to pay. If it was suddenly legal for anyone to start making copies of GW figures, and giving them away (not selling them), how much longer do you think they'd bother producing them? They'd sell ten models, and other people would just give the rest away.

Certainly some artists have found a way to use digital distribution successfully. Some bands have websites where you can download their music, and then pay them what you think it is worth. Others give away their stuff for free on MySpace. This is their choice. The right to choose how to distribute your art belongs to the creator, not the consumer.


By the way, you can get a pack of 5 meltas from GWs bits service for $6.50 US (or close to that). This is hardly highway robbery.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
I'm not causing GW employees to lose jobs, I'm not selling recasts, and I'm not making a dent in their sales.

Keep telling yourself that if it lets you sleep better at night. I've certainly lost any respect I may have had for you. You might think that you're not costing anyone their job, but you're contributing to it. You're casting your own stuff, other people are casting their own stuff. And, if this wasn't possible, you would have spent that money (don't try denying this), and so would they. At some point, the cumulative impact of the lost money due to your theft and other recaster's theft adds up and someone gets laid off.

@Manchu: you shouldn't feel obliged to do much. it's a net forum.

the_Armyman wrote:
Then I contend you're a liar or someone with a really, really poor memory. Never jaywalked? Never taken a condiment packet from a restaurant you didn't patronize? Never dropped the tiniest sliver of paper on a sidewalk, even if by accident? I'm really trying to wrap my head around the savior Himself walking on Dakka.

I find this so funny , why?

Just as you find it hard to believe someone can find it so relaxing and easy to not break the law , i find it hard to believe you ( someone opposite of me ) exists.
Believe it or not its up to you as it doesnt effect me one bit. How ever just be honest to yourself , and know not everyone breaks the law.
So dont bother with "i'll do it because everyone does it!" <-- i call that lieing to one's self.

Anyways while replying to this thread i have finished my deff dred , look forward to it!

Redbeard wrote:Keep telling yourself that if it lets you sleep better at night. I've certainly lost any respect I may have had for you. You might think that you're not costing anyone their job, but you're contributing to it. You're casting your own stuff, other people are casting their own stuff. And, if this wasn't possible, you would have spent that money (don't try denying this), and so would they. At some point, the cumulative impact of the lost money due to your theft and other recaster's theft adds up and someone gets laid off.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a... wait a tick.

The way I see it is that customers are pretty much demanding GW to include better sprues in general. I understand that they sell these extra bits, but I would not be one of the people buying these products. As I have said before, you can actually be denied access to tournaments because you have made your own bits, GW makes this pretty clear. I would love to be able to modify my models with my own styles, but GW elitism simply does not allow me to do that.

If I was allowed by GW to bring in my own bits by their rules I would have NO problem with it. For me it sounds like the consumers are just fixing a mistake that GW has made w/o having to resort for GW to fix these problems, they have a pretty bad record of fixing problems. Sure, they are selling a product to fix anything that could be wrong, but that is like selling me pieces that should be included anyway. If I looked at the codex and looked at the sets, I would find that nearly every product is designed to create more purchases... what happened to just buying something?

I just want to play 1000 point games, and that should be entirely feasible to do w/o resorting to extra bits and all of this nonsense, after all I paid the high cost GW asked of me for this product AND I have to put the model together and paint it as well. At what point am I not supposed to be offended by GW business practices?

"Note"
Saying that your customers are wrong is tantamount to saying yes please we want to go out of business. That is the core of sales, and it always will be.

Redbeard wrote: You might think that you're not costing anyone their job, but you're contributing to it. You're casting your own stuff, other people are casting their own stuff. And, if this wasn't possible, you would have spent that money (don't try denying this), and so would they. At some point, the cumulative impact of the lost money due to your theft and other recaster's theft adds up and someone gets laid off.

I, again, really fail to see how recasting a few bits is any worse than using another companies GS to sculpt your own bits. I have no obligation to pay for anyone's job to exist. If GW had robots that could sculpt things all on their own for cheaper, their sculpters would get laid off in a heartbeat. Don't try to sell your stuff, and keep it at a few bits and I don't know what's so terrible. It shouldn't be illegal for me to copy one tiny detail on a model one way, but not in another way. That's just stupid.

Polonius wrote:Well, my point was your comment on arm chair legal theory is a bit overly snarky.

You're probably right and that was wrong of me. But it doesn't excuse the threadbare analysis that tends to misrepresent the field in which he works.

Polonius wrote:The moral underpinning is that the creator of a creative work has inherent rights over it's use and reproduction. This does not change when the creator is a corporate entity or the creative work is of commercial value.

That is the stated argument and it makes pretty good sense--if that's what actually happened. In reality, a company like GE hires hundreds if not thousands of inventors to create products that will never get marketed simply to create patents that prevent other individuals/companies from selling them.

Redbeard wrote:In what way is the company not responsible to the consumer? They have produced something that people want to buy. This is the essence of responsibility to a consumer - to allow them to consume. If their sales model does not fit the buying power of a sixteen-year-old, well, that's just too bad. It doesn't entitle that sixteen year-old to then pirate their property.

I agree. Never said otherwise. I was just framing the issue for more a succinct debate than it was getting.

Redbeard wrote:I disagree. If we lived in this Utopian pure democracy that you suggest, we'd lose access to much of the art and music that we take for granted. Jes Goodwin doesn't sculpt the minis that we all love solely out of the goodness of his heart, he does it because he has children to feed, and bills to pay. If it was suddenly legal for anyone to start making copies of GW figures, and giving them away (not selling them), how much longer do you think they'd bother producing them? They'd sell ten models, and other people would just give the rest away.

Again, I'm not purporting that we should live in a pure democracy. Nor that there are not practical implications of IP, which you have described well enough for our purposes here. I am suggesting that the practical implications are the basis for the laws rather than moral ones. In fact, companies do not exist so that employees can feed their children. In the US at least, the sole legal purpose of a corporation is to make money for shareholders.

LunaHound wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:
Then I contend you're a liar or someone with a really, really poor memory. Never jaywalked? Never taken a condiment packet from a restaurant you didn't patronize? Never dropped the tiniest sliver of paper on a sidewalk, even if by accident? I'm really trying to wrap my head around the savior Himself walking on Dakka.

I find this so funny , why?

Just as you find it hard to believe someone can find it so relaxing and easy to not break the law , i find it hard to believe you ( someone opposite of me ) exists.
Believe it or not its up to you as it doesnt effect me one bit. How ever just be honest to yourself , and know not everyone breaks the law.
So dont bother with "i'll do it because everyone does it!" <-- i call that lieing to one's self.

You actually believe that you've never broken a law...any law... How quaint and self-delusional. Okay, I think I've taken this convo about as far as I can. Out before thread lock

I have not even recast anything yet, and people are all over me saying I've got no morals and I don't deserve respect? Christ, I won't do it if everyone's going to get all butthurt over it. I just don't see the harm in recasting OOP minis.

Wrexasaur wrote:The way I see it is that customers are pretty much demanding GW to include better sprues in general.

Wrexasaur wrote:Saying that your customers are wrong is tantamount to saying yes please we want to go out of business.

QFT. And how do consumers put pressure on a company? By not buying their products. Now that's pretty black and white. People still want the products and so we can't just imagine (what so many have charged me with imagining) a Utopian world where consumers are content to either accept or reject whatever a company offers them. Recasting may primarily be an act of "piracy" (a merely metaphorical description despite what DVD warnings tell you) but it is also incidentally (and by that I also mean unconsciously) an act of protest.

Manchu wrote:Again, I'm not purporting that we should live in a pure democracy. Nor that there are not practical implications of IP, which you have described well enough for our purposes here. I am suggesting that the practical implications are the basis for the laws rather than moral ones. In fact, companies do not exist so that employees can feed their children. In the US at least, the sole legal purpose of a corporation is to make money for shareholders.

I agree with this so much it isn't even funny.

I remember asking my Dad about how he feels about corporations in general, because I think they are basically humanities way of destroying themselves, at least in the way that they are run and dealt with now. In short, he did not answer me, but he sure as hell told me how he feels about me. Funny that...

At some point we will just be consumers, and there will be no real manufacturing jobs besides robotic engineers and maintenance people. What happens then? you think people want to lose their jobs over the availability of robotic technology? This WILL happen, and we cannot do a damn thing about it, just think of the speed that computers are advancing, at what point will all the serious programmers lose their jobs to robotic minds? Call this apocalyptic and I would have to call you naive.

I think no matter how advanced technology gets you will never be able to eliminate the human element. They make robots that can perform surgeries for instance, but you still need a doctor to diagnose you first, and then to operate the machine (pff, I think anyway, I don't think the robot does the entire thing itself but I could be wrong).

Machines can't do everything by themselves, and even if you could have robots doing all the manufacturing, packing, shipping, etc. of your product, who the hell would buy it? If you replace all the workers of the world with machines then how will anyone afford the product?

OK – Cheese, given you are in Australia, Ive wasted a little time at work to look this up (please note I am a tax lawyer, not an IP lawyer, so this is not legal advice, and if you go to jail/get fined, you cant blame Darrkt)!

Firstly, check out this site: http://www.copyright.org.au/ full of useful info. For the legally minded, this link will take you direct to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwth) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/

I do note that according to a precedential UK case, Toy soldiers (Wood v Stoddarts (1928-1935) Macg CC 294) – are ‘sculptural works’ (that is they are considered Sculptures’ under section 10(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)). This means it is classified as an ‘Artistic Work’ . On this basis I think this should cover GW’s models.

This means, to use all or a “substantial part” of an artistic work in any of the ways reserved to the copyright owner, you will need permission from the copyright owner, unless copyright has expired or a special exception applies. Failure to do so is a breach of copyright. I think that re-casting would constitute reproduction, one of the rights reserved to copyright holders.

As such, regardless of your intent not to sell, recasting is a breach of copyright in your relevant jurisdiction (the merry old land of Oz).

If you are unable to afford GW product, one possibility is to make/greenstuff a substantially different Meltagun, using NO GW parts, Then cast that and use that for your models. As GW strongly and very publically encourages customisation and modification of its models, (it sells greenstuff, it shows how to do conversions in its official books and website etc), it has arguably waived certain copyright rights in this regard. Again, I disclaim any and all legal responsibility for this comment, it is not advice, it is pure speculation as to what may be legal under the act.

Many of the comments here are very moralistic – an inherent and important issue when dealing with Copyright – after all, this is the protection of someone’s blood sweat and tears. Courts will consider moral issues when trying these cases, they will not however question the price of these goods. It wouldn’t matter if they charged $100 a meltagun, it is up to GW how they run their business, a large profit it doesn’t make stealing any more moral.

I question however: how many people on this forum have: photocopies/scans of 40k rule books? Burnt music CD’s from friends? Chipped playstation 2s? I admit to a chipped PS2 and some music, but If I like a game/cd, I buy it.

I personally buy all my GW stuff, and am planning a purchase of 5 meltaguns, and 10 alpha legion shoulderpads – via my FLGS, as I believe in supporting them, and GW. GW has created a game and models that I get a lot of joy out of, and don’t feel ripped off when I buy things. I also however earn a good salary, don’t have a mortgage or kids, and have paid off my car. Financially, dropping $15 Aus on 5 meltas isn’t going to break a sweat.

Cheers

Sidstyler wrote:I think no matter how advanced technology gets you will never be able to eliminate the human element. They make robots that can perform surgeries for instance, but you still need a doctor to diagnose you first, and then to operate the machine (pff, I think anyway, I don't think the robot does the entire thing itself but I could be wrong).

Machines can't do everything by themselves, and even if you could have robots doing all the manufacturing, packing, shipping, etc. of your product, who the hell would buy it? If you replace all the workers of the world with machines then how will anyone afford the product?

That is a problem... ISN'T IT??? Prove that these most companies are not heading in this direction though? If one company gets it they all have too, regardless of having available consumers... then they eventually fail because of it. WHEEEE!!! CIRCULAR MADNESS.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:The moral underpinning is that the creator of a creative work has inherent rights over it's use and reproduction. This does not change when the creator is a corporate entity or the creative work is of commercial value.

That is the stated argument and it makes pretty good sense--if that's what actually happened. In reality, a company like GE hires hundreds if not thousands of inventors to create products that will never get marketed simply to create patents that prevent other individuals/companies from selling them.

So? First off, patents only last for a short period of time, and are public record. If GE wants to sit on them, more power. In a decade or so anybody can use their idea.

Second, I guess I don't see how a company creates or uses it's property has any impact, barring bad faith, on how it should be protected. If I buy a plot of land solely to keep people off of it, I don't lose my rights to do that, even if I don't' use it.

You talk about threadbare analysis, but the core of IP is that it is like any other property, with the rights of use, exclusion, and alienability. I don't see the flaw in this analogy. If GW doesn't want anybody to make RT era guardsmen, than it can do that, even if it's not making any.

If your argument is more that the privileges and protections given to corporate entities are inherently immoral, than you have some grist for the mill. I think it's hard to unilaterally disparage corps, but there are some aspects to what they can do that are disturbing. That said, they still have more right to the IP than customers. There's the continental concept of individual ownership of IP that can't be completely sold, which a lot of people like. It's too far from our concept of property to really take root here though. As it stands, the owner of a thing gets to do what he wants with it.

Manchu wrote:

Janthkin wrote:I love the conspiracy theory. I mean, the basis for patents and copyrights is only in the US Constitution, and only goes back many hundreds of years - OBVIOUSLY it's all the result of a capitalist conspiracy amongst giant corporations.

Armchair legal scholars are certainly prevalent here. Modern copyright law has nearly nothing to do with the jurisprudence of the framers--except inasmuch as the Constitution itself reflects the interests of propertied, politically influential men. The laws we're talking about have almost without exception been extensively reimagined in the twentieth century and reflect the interests of the current propertied, politically influential people. I'm sorry if serious legal scholarship sounds like a conspiracy to you . . . but it doesn't actually make much of a difference.

My USPTO admission number is *****; my CA Bar number is ******. I practice IP law daily. Spare me your "serious legal scholarship" statements, along with your "armchair legal scholar" remarks. I disagree with both your comment and your conclusions, and (at present) so does most of the Federal Circuit, and most of the law journals I read.

Janthkin wrote:Companies are under zero obligation to the consumer to produce their product. The relationship, particularly with GW, is one purely of choice - they choose to produce miniatures, and you choose to participate as a consumer of their products. If you object to the price of their products, you have a variety of legal options, starting with the secondary market, and ending with NOT obtaining their products. And you instead promote an illegal option?

No, but then again you didn't bother to read the whole thread to find out. I don't disagree that companies are in fact under "zero obligation" to sell what consumers want at a price that consumers find reasonable. Indeed, I don't myself download anything illegally and have been ostracized for it. What I'm pointing out is that intellectual property does not represent some eternal moral law handed down by God. It was handed down by legislators more heavily influenced by corporations than consumers.

Oh, I read the thread. I read every thread that touches on these subjects, and I'm fairly consistent in my response. Recasting someone else's IP is illegal. No number of false analogies to music downloading or speeding will make it less so. I, personally, could care less what you do in your home; I don't work for GW or own GW stock. But don't try to pass recasting (or music downloading) off as anything but illegal, or try to rationalize the illegality away via a de minimis argument.

Polonius wrote:First off, patents only last for a short period of time, and are public record. If GE wants to sit on them, more power. In a decade or so anybody can use their idea.

You're talking about twenty years. How many patents will be of any intrinsic worth in twenty years, especially given the incredible turnover of technology we've witnessed in the twentieth century and continue to witness in the twenty first? Very few inventions are as durable as the light bulb.

Polonius wrote:You talk about threadbare analysis, but the core of IP is that it is like any other property, with the rights of use, exclusion, and alienability. I don't see the flaw in this analogy. If GW doesn't want anybody to make RT era guardsmen, than it can do that, even if it's not making any.

IP is not used currently in a way that fits the stated purpose of the Constitution. To claim otherwise is a very bad argument. In order to get back to that idea, we would have to adopt the continental inability to completely alienate that you bring up.

Polonius wrote:If your argument is more that the privileges and protections given to corporate entities are inherently immoral, than you have some grist for the mill. I think it's hard to unilaterally disparage corps, but there are some aspects to what they can do that are disturbing. That said, they still have more right to the IP than customers.

I'm not saying corporations are evil. I'm have said and continue to say that IP protection is not, in its current state in the US, a moral issue at all. Yes, corporations have "more" of right to the intellectual property. But that is merely a legal fact, a product of the power that business has over government, rather than a moral statement. You have expressed it perfectly: the owner gets to do with a thing what he wants--[b]not the inventor, artist, etc[/i].

Janthkin wrote:Spare me your "serious legal scholarship" statements, along with your "armchair legal scholar" remarks. I disagree with both your comment and your conclusions, and (at present) so does most of the Federal Circuit, and most of the law journals I read.

Then spare me your erroneous and conclusory discussion of Constitutional jurisprudence. The only people who are impressed with the "I'm a lawyer--here's my P number" line are non-lawyers--if then. I have never argued that the law is anything but what it is nor have I encouraged people to break the law (I really don't appreciate the implications about my lack of professional responsibility you're making here). I have simply called into question whether or not it is a moral issue, which I believe it is definitely not. As to my snarkiness, which Polonius called me on, I've already said that was wrong of me. Finally, the analogy to illegally downloading music is in no way a false analogy.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I have not even recast anything yet, and people are all over me saying I've got no morals and I don't deserve respect?

Ever heard of the phrase " its the thoughts that count? "

Are you going to reply my question cheese?

Who is going to buy people's legit GW OOP item when everyone deem it ok to cast their own?

Cheese Elemental wrote:I have not even recast anything yet, and people are all over me saying I've got no morals and I don't deserve respect? Christ, I won't do it if everyone's going to get all butthurt over it. I just don't see the harm in recasting OOP minis.

And that's where you lost MY respect, if indeed you had any. Do, or do not. But don't let a damn forum sway your course. This is not the place to go for letting people think for you. And certainly don't announce it like we care what you do. No one form this thread is going to show up on oyur door and waggle out fingers at you whilst reciting IP chapter and verse.

Polonius wrote:You talk about threadbare analysis, but the core of IP is that it is like any other property, with the rights of use, exclusion, and alienability. I don't see the flaw in this analogy. If GW doesn't want anybody to make RT era guardsmen, than it can do that, even if it's not making any.

Actually, IP rights are even narrower than other rights. The only right you have is the right of exclusion - if I have a patent, all I have is an enforceable right to prevent others from practicing whatever is claimed.

If your argument is more that the privileges and protections given to corporate entities are inherently immoral, than you have some grist for the mill. I think it's hard to unilaterally disparage corps, but there are some aspects to what they can do that are disturbing. That said, they still have more right to the IP than customers. There's the continental concept of individual ownership of IP that can't be completely sold, which a lot of people like. It's too far from our concept of property to really take root here though. As it stands, the owner of a thing gets to do what he wants with it.

Moral rights are interesting, but you're right - I don't see them making it into US law. Moreover, remember the Damnatus movie, that couldn't ever be released, because the creators couldn't give up their rights to GW, in spite of the derivative nature of their creation? If we're going to treat IP as property, then it needs to be fully alienable.

Janthkin wrote:If we're going to treat IP as property, then it needs to be fully alienable.

And that's the crux of the entire issue. People, except corporations and certain other interested parties, are obviously not on board with treating IP as if it's the same as a car or stock.

Seeing as there are a few IP lawyers here, I have a question that has been bugging me:

I'm starting a Kroot army. It is very expensive as Kroot are very cheap points-wise, and I need to buy lots of Kroot Hounds and Krootox.
Do GW have the 'IP' rights to the design/anatomy of Kroot? For example, if I decided to create (entirely from Greenstuff) my own Krootox would that breech IP/copyright laws (if i didn't intend to cast it) ?
What if I did cast it for personal use?
What if I did cast it for sale (and sold it as 'mutant alien gorilla)?

Manchu wrote:

Janthkin wrote:If we're going to treat IP as property, then it needs to be fully alienable.

And that's the crux of the entire issue. People, except corporations and certain other interested parties, are obviously not on board with treating IP as if it's the same as a car or stock.

I'm still not sure why there isn't a moral right to exclusion, or why this has anything to do with the constitution, other than it being one of congresses enumerated powers. I admit to not being an expert on the subject, but how exactly is there anything less than fully constitutional about current IP law?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:Seeing as there are a few IP lawyers here, I have a question that has been bugging me:

I'm starting a Kroot army. It is very expensive as Kroot are very cheap points-wise, and I need to buy lots of Kroot Hounds and Krootox.
Do GW have the 'IP' rights to the design/anatomy of Kroot? For example, if I decided to create (entirely from Greenstuff) my own Krootox would that breech IP/copyright laws (if i didn't intend to cast it) ?
What if I did cast it for personal use?
What if I did cast it for sale (and sold it as 'mutant alien gorilla)?

Well, I have no clue what Australia's rules are. The question to ask yourself is generally "would this work be seen as a copy, or as an independent work." The more you steer away from highly specific elements (exact beak shape, pose, etc) the safer you would be.

Polonius wrote:I'm still not sure why there isn't a moral right to exclusion, or why this has anything to do with the constitution, other than it being one of congresses enumerated powers. I admit to not being an expert on the subject, but how exactly is there anything less than fully constitutional about current IP law?

There is nothing unconstitutional about these laws. They simply are not the same as the constitutional provisions to which Janthkin alluded. The "moral right" that you're talking about is, in the positivist paradigm of our US courts, not the legal issue.

Polonius wrote:The question to ask yourself is generally "would this work be seen as a copy, or as an independent work." The more you steer away from highly specific elements (exact beak shape, pose, etc) the safer you would be.

That's right, for the purposes of modelling with greenstuff. You shouldn't tempt fate by trying to sell any kroot you've made, however. (At least not in the US!) The "it's not the exact shape of the GW one's beak" argument has not held up.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:First off, patents only last for a short period of time, and are public record. If GE wants to sit on them, more power. In a decade or so anybody can use their idea.

You're talking about twenty years. How many patents will be of any intrinsic worth in twenty years, especially given the incredible turnover of technology we've witnessed in the twentieth century and continue to witness in the twenty first? Very few inventions are as durable as the light bulb.

Pharma patents are extremely relevant for their entire term. Most of the patents around mechanical inventions are relevant. throughout their terms. Really, the only place where technology might outstrip patent term is in software.

Now, if you want to debate copyright term, you'll find a more sympathetic audience. But I don't get the feeling that the difference between 50 or 70 years is your primary concern.

Polonius wrote:You talk about threadbare analysis, but the core of IP is that it is like any other property, with the rights of use, exclusion, and alienability. I don't see the flaw in this analogy. If GW doesn't want anybody to make RT era guardsmen, than it can do that, even if it's not making any.

IP is not used currently in a way that fits the stated purpose of the Constitution. To claim otherwise is a very bad argument. In order to get back to that idea, we would have to adopt the continental inability to completely alienate that you bring up.

Your posts are littered with conclusory and dismissive statements, such as that bolded above. The Constitution is very brief - "to promote the sciences and useful arts" (keeping in mind that "arts" actually applies to what is patentable). There is a hell of a lot of theoretical discussion out there, but so far, the courts haven't decided that our IP scheme is unconstitutional. So, why is it a "very bad argument" to agree with the Supreme Court?

Polonius wrote:If your argument is more that the privileges and protections given to corporate entities are inherently immoral, than you have some grist for the mill. I think it's hard to unilaterally disparage corps, but there are some aspects to what they can do that are disturbing. That said, they still have more right to the IP than customers.

I'm not saying corporations are evil. I'm have said and continue to say that IP protection is not, in its current state in the US, a moral issue at all. Yes, corporations have "more" of right to the intellectual property. But that is merely a legal fact, a product of the power that business has over government, rather than a moral statement. You have expressed it perfectly: the owner gets to do with a thing what he wants--[b]not the inventor, artist, etc[/i].

Here's another interesting conclusory statement. Assume I am GW; I pay some sculptors a reasonable wage, in order to sculpt a few miniatures. Why should I not have all of the rights to that work? Why shouldn't property be alienable?

Janthkin wrote:Spare me your "serious legal scholarship" statements, along with your "armchair legal scholar" remarks. I disagree with both your comment and your conclusions, and (at present) so does most of the Federal Circuit, and most of the law journals I read.

Then spare me your erroneous and conclusory discussion of Constitutional jurisprudence. The only people who are impressed with the "I'm a lawyer--here's my P number" line are non-lawyers--if then. I have never argued that the law is anything but what it is nor have I encouraged people to break the law (I really don't appreciate the implications about my lack of professional responsibility you're making here). I have simply called into question whether or not it is a moral issue, which I believe it is definitely not. As to my snarkiness, which Polonius called me on, I've already said that was wrong of me. Finally, the analogy to illegally downloading music is in no way a false analogy.

First, your "armchair legal scholar" remark called for rebuttal; I'm not trying to impress, merely to inform. Second, I have no clue what you do; as such, I make no comment on your professional responsibility. Third, I object to tying recasting and music downloads together, principally because the purchaser has a greater breadth of options with respect to purchased music (e.g., the right to make a digital copy for use on a portable media player) that brings along extra baggage, and has no analogy when discussing a physical sculpture.

Finally, where is my discussion of Constitutional jurisprudence erroneous?

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'm still not sure why there isn't a moral right to exclusion, or why this has anything to do with the constitution, other than it being one of congresses enumerated powers. I admit to not being an expert on the subject, but how exactly is there anything less than fully constitutional about current IP law?

There is nothing unconstitutional about these laws. They simply are not the same as the constitutional provisions to which Janthkin alluded. The "moral right" that you're talking about is, in the positivist paradigm of our US courts, not the legal issue.

What? I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Janthkin wrote:Really, the only place where technology might outstrip patent term is in software.

Or an entire host of consumer goods.

Janthkin wrote:Now, if you want to debate copyright term, you'll find a more sympathetic audience. But I don't get the feeling that the difference between 50 or 70 years is your primary concern.

Not especially. It's the thought that is behind "forever minus one day" that I find objectionable.

Janthkin wrote:First, your "armchair legal scholar" remark called for rebuttal

Yes it did and so for the third time let me say I'm sorry. That wasn't called for no matter what your profession is.

Janthkin, you know that there is more to the jurisprudence than the words of the Constitution. The idea was to protect the inventor or artists so that he/she would be encouraged to keep inventing or creating. We have come a long ways from such a narrow goal. I'm not saying that the laws are unconstitutional but that there has been a significant amount of economically-influenced legal development that eclipses all but symbolically this rather simple claim of the founders.

Janthkin wrote:Why shouldn't property be alienable?

As I've stated, the problem is that no matter what the law is people generally don't think of an idea in the same way as they do either tangible or other forms of intangible property.

Trasvi wrote:Seeing as there are a few IP lawyers here, I have a question that has been bugging me:

I'm starting a Kroot army. It is very expensive as Kroot are very cheap points-wise, and I need to buy lots of Kroot Hounds and Krootox.
Do GW have the 'IP' rights to the design/anatomy of Kroot? For example, if I decided to create (entirely from Greenstuff) my own Krootox would that breech IP/copyright laws (if i didn't intend to cast it) ?
What if I did cast it for personal use?
What if I did cast it for sale (and sold it as 'mutant alien gorilla)?

G'day Trasvi

I dont really know the strict answer (earlier statements about my area of specialty apply), however perhaps of more relevance than the strictly legal question is the important practical question - How would anyone know? if you GS an entire army, GW lawyers will not know unless you email them photos. If they were any good, they are more likely to offer you a job, than send lawyers around. After all, what is the loss to them? If I paint a copy of a picture of the mona lisa and hang it in my house, is the louvre likely to find out (presuming thats where it is, I really dont know/care) and send their goons after me?

I pesonally doubt it is illegal, as part of the hobby sold by GW is converting/creating. Is it immoral/illegal to save myself $50 on a rhino, when i can make the whole thing out of cardboard using plans that are readily available (possibly on this site)? Is it wrong to act out the entire Star Wars trilogy, playing every part, in front of a video, simply to save the $100 on the boxed set (well, yes, it is wrong, but not legally, its just disturbing).

Again, if you buy one model on ebay, then cast and recast it till you have 100 identical space marine models, GW is not going to find you and kill you - unless and until you try to sell them. Legalities of simple replication aside, practically they can only pursue distribution of fakes, not 'doing your own thing in the privacy of your own bedroom'. Further, if you did it once, chances are they are not going to spot it nor pursue it - they would be looking for frequent abusers of their IP.

And if you started casting and selling your own Krootox model, you will run into trouble if - a) you use the word Krootox or b) it looks like a GW Krootox. If you create and sell 'space gorillas' that look like gorillas, then who can complain?

This may upset the legally or morally minded dakkaites, but practically you will never get caught unless you start dealing.

Polonius wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'm still not sure why there isn't a moral right to exclusion, or why this has anything to do with the constitution, other than it being one of congresses enumerated powers. I admit to not being an expert on the subject, but how exactly is there anything less than fully constitutional about current IP law?

There is nothing unconstitutional about these laws. They simply are not the same as the constitutional provisions to which Janthkin alluded. The "moral right" that you're talking about is, in the positivist paradigm of our US courts, not the legal issue.

What? I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Me, either. All the Constitution has to say on the subject is that Congress, to promote the sciences & useful arts, will create copyright & patent rights. Maybe he's objecting to this statement of mine?

I mean, the basis for patents and copyrights is only in the US Constitution, and only goes back many hundreds of years - OBVIOUSLY it's all the result of a capitalist conspiracy amongst giant corporations.

If so, I'm curious where the problem is - the requirement for copyright & patent is, indeed, in the the Constitution. The idea of patents & copyrights does, indeed, go back hundreds of years (and predates the US by a decent margin).

In a nutshell, the principle behind patent protection is: in order to encourage inventors to contribute their ideas to the public, they are granted a short-term monopoly on their claimed idea. The alternative is to keep everything a trade secret, which would make it nearly impossible for anyone to reproduce, ever. (Think how much fun it would be trying to make a generic drug, if pharma companies held their interesting molecules as trade secrets.)

Copyright protection: simply, the founders believed that creative people improve the world, and should be encouraged to do so.

Wow, I was a little rambling on that one. Lesson kids - dont post without a full nights sleeping first!

Interesting topic. It is very common in the plastic model hobby and the model railroad hobby to re-cast parts for personal use. It is common for competitive diorama builders to do this for extra road wheels and track section for tanks and such. I have an old book by Shepard Paine that shows you how to do it. I wonder if the modeling forums have these types of questions? I wonder if model builders are worried if Tamiya or Mongram are going to take them to court for this? They probably would if you were casting up whole models and selling them on eBay I suppose.

Manchu wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Really, the only place where technology might outstrip patent term is in software.

Or an entire host of consumer goods.

Examples? Truly curious here - as I work principally in high-tech, I don't deal with a lot of simple consumer goods. There are a lot of patents around consumer tech, e.g., home theater equipment (audio decoding in particular), but the impact of those patent pools tends to have little to do with consumers; licensing fees for all of the patents might add a couple bucks to the purchase price of a multi-hundred dollar piece of equipment.

Janthkin wrote:Now, if you want to debate copyright term, you'll find a more sympathetic audience. But I don't get the feeling that the difference between 50 or 70 years is your primary concern.

Not especially. It's the thought that is behind "forever minus one day" that I find objectionable.

See, here's where you'll get some sympathy. I fully agree that a limited duration should mean that copyright actually expires someday. (Tangent: Disney has started using "Steamboat Willy" as part of their logo, in a sneaky attempt to protect that film via Trademark. This seems to suggest that they aren't going to get their next copyright extension.)

Janthkin wrote:First, your "armchair legal scholar" remark called for rebuttal

Yes it did and so for the third time let me say I'm sorry. That wasn't called for no matter what your profession is.

Fast-moving thread; I started responding before I saw Polonius jump on you, or I would have left it lie.

Janthkin, you know that there is more to the jurisprudence than the words of the Constitution. The idea was to protect the inventor or artists so that he/she would be encouraged to keep inventing or creating. We have come a long ways from such a narrow goal. I'm not saying that the laws are unconstitutional but that there has been a significant amount of economically-influenced legal development that eclipses all but symbolically this rather simple claim of the founders.

See, I don't agree with you here, except in scope. I don't think Copyright terms should be as long as they currently are. But a 20 year patent term is actually pretty short. I do think patent law, by and large, is okay. There are some issues still to sort out, relating primarily to the age of the current patent statute vs. the state of technology, but the Court is actually getting to those, one at a time. The patent office has some internal problems, involving backlog and quality of examination, but the insanity of 1997-2004 is over (when "doing something old...ON THE INTERNET!" guaranteed a patent). I don't have a problem with GE's pools of inventors - they are still contributing knowledge to the public pool, which might otherwise not have made it there, and their patents expire within my professional lifetime, much less my personal lifetime. I don't have a problem with "patent trolls," as they aren't any different than property speculators - buy up a bunch of property, and see if it ever becomes worth something.

Janthkin wrote:Why shouldn't property be alienable?

As I've stated, the problem is that no matter what the law is people generally don't think of an idea in the same way as they do either tangible or other forms of intangible property.

Our laws in the United States do not primarily ground their validity in whether or not they are morally acceptable. The law is the law is the law, as they say. Hence the validity of IP is not based on whether or not it is moral to own property. Positivist theory, the dominant body of thought influencing jurisprudence in the US today and since Oliver Wendell Holmes (or even before), considers the questions of right and wrong to be political rather than legal, an issue that is dealt with a priori relevant to the law. It's a fairly simple point but jurisprudence is not a requirement at every law school nor is it very helpful in day to day practice unless you write law review articles for a living.

No one is saying that patents and copyrights are in the Constitution and existed in English law (to prevent the export of machinery to England's eighteenth-century arch-nemisis France) before then. No one is saying that the purpose of encouraging innovation by protecting innovators is not what the Constitution claims. What I am saying is that the issue and so also the laws are no longer that simple. The laws are not always or even primarily used to promote innovation or artistic achievement but rather to protect economic interests that hold those things to be incidental causes of profit.

Creative people do indeed improve the world. But IP law, in its current (legally valid! lest you think I'm encouraging criminal behavior) form, does not always encourage creativity. In fact, it stifles some (especially individual) forms of creativity and innovation as piracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:(Tangent: Disney has started using "Steamboat Willy" as part of their logo, in a sneaky attempt to protect that film via Trademark. This seems to suggest that they aren't going to get their next copyright extension.)

And so we're not too far away from seeing the next renovation of IP law, at least in terms of copyright, that takes us further away from the stated purposes found in the Constitution. That is the essence of my point.

Janthkin wrote:Where is the proof that the majority of people don't support IP rights?

I don't mean that they do not support them at all but rather that they do not support the current state of the law. As for proof, you watch the news.

Manchu wrote: What I am saying is that the issue and so also the laws are no longer that simple. The laws are not always or even primarily used to promote innovation or artistic achievement but rather to protect economic interests that hold those things to be incidental causes of profit.

Creative people do indeed improve the world. But IP law, in its current (legally valid! lest you think I'm encouraging criminal behavior) form, does not always encourage creativity. In fact, it stifles some forms of creativity and innovation as piracy.

I've written patents for a wide range of companies, from my current (relatively tiny) employer, through Fortune 10 hi-tech companies. Nearly all of the patents were for actual features of actual products. Now, if you're not in the field, and only reading some of the more vocal commentaries (and slashdot's "Patent" news), you probably here a lot about patent trolls, and offensive patents, and patent hedges. In practice, I don't see much of that - the patent system is too expensive for most companies to engage in a lot of purely speculative patenting.

A broader discussion is "would companies still invent without the incentives of the patent system?" Sure...but so what? Some technology is fairly easy to reverse-engineer; much of it is not. Does society benefit from the disclosure, more then it suffers from the monopoly? On the whole, I think so.

I don't mind stifling creative piracy. I also don't mind stifling creative cattle theft, or creative electronic bank robbery.

Janthkin wrote:(Tangent: Disney has started using "Steamboat Willy" as part of their logo, in a sneaky attempt to protect that film via Trademark. This seems to suggest that they aren't going to get their next copyright extension.)

And so we're not too far away from seeing the next renovation of IP law, at least in terms of copyright, that takes us further away from the stated purposes found in the Constitution. That is the essence of my point.

This probably isn't a tangent worth pursuing too far - trademark law can't be stretched far enough to lead to infinite copyright extension. I just find it amusing for itself, and hopeful with respect to the end of infinite copyright.

Janthkin wrote:Where is the proof that the majority of people don't support IP rights?

I don't mean that they do not support them at all but rather that they do not support the current state of the law. As for proof, you watch the news.

Oh, you have to do better than that. The news is a series of selective anecdotes, not a scientific demonstration of trends.

I am having an incredibly hard time understanding all of this.

Man... this just got complicated. I will try to understand what you are all saying but it MOSTLY sounds like perceptive thinking to me. Whether or not these are laws matters very little to me, I am just trying to understand what the heck you guys are talking about now...

Darkkt makes a lot of sense though.

I don't see any way of disputing that producing duplicates of someone (or something) else's copyrighted figures is a violation of copyright.

On the practical side, let's stop and consider the situation. There's a hypothetical person decides that they need two dozen identical melta guns so much that they're willing to buy a casting kit because they don't want to pay the money for two dozen GW melta guns. What's the best thing which that hypothetical person should do? What that person should do is build a custom meltagun, using greenstuff, plastic card, random parts of other guns, or whatever, and cast two dozen copies of their own meltagun. As much effort as it is to do decent castings of figures, it's not much more work to just scratch build your own weapons. You get your two dozen meltaguns, you don't violate copyright, and everyone's happy, and just think how much you'd grow as a hobbyist making your own weapons.

And just to take the practical side further, if a person feels compelled to have all of their figures using 100% current edition Games Workshop parts, that person needs a 'ing intervention. And if a person feels compelled to have out of print editions of current figures, then that person really needs an intervention. If for some reason you're playing a game which uses completely OOP figures, it's still the same situation. The figures are out of production, too bad, you should make your own because sculpting is just as much fun as painting is.

Wrexasaur wrote:I am having an incredibly hard time understanding all of this.

Man... this just got complicated. I will try to understand what you are all saying but it MOSTLY sounds like perceptive thinking to me. Whether or not these are laws matters very little to me, I am just trying to understand what the heck you guys are talking about now...

Darkkt makes a lot of sense though.

I stopped reading after the first page. While I was writing my post at least three more popped up.

Janthkin wrote:I don't mind stifling creative piracy. I also don't mind stifling creative cattle theft, or creative electronic bank robbery.

Well, it's hard to argue with equivocation. I'm talking about things like music sampling. Maybe even software design, although I don't know a great deal about it.

My main problems are with copyright, i.e., what was once upon a time the subject of this thread. As far as patents go, you're right that I have heard quite a bit about patent trolling perusing the law reviews and the bar journal here. (I don't read slashdot at all, actually.) I work in criminal defense mostly (although I do a fair bit of contract and some tort) so I don't see these things from day to day.

Janthkin wrote:Does society benefit from the disclosure, more then it suffers from the monopoly? On the whole, I think so.

Maybe so. But IP, and law in general, is an open-ended question. As has already been mentioned, other countries do not share our "creativity is fungible like any other asset" attitude. With the development of international law and what I can only imagine will be the widening and ever more successful incidence of IP infringement, we may have to rethink a lot of our assumptions and conclusions.

As for Disney, we'll just have to see how far the law will continue to stretch, bend over backwards, and whatever other contortion it takes to accommodate business interests.

Janthkin wrote:Oh, you have to do better than that. The news is a series of selective anecdotes, not a scientific demonstration of trends.

I'm not going to go find some statistics (which will simply be shot down as biased) to prove what is common knowledge (don't forget your rules of evidence, mate, ) especially to argue against "iTunes does well and people buy DVDs." No offense intended, ha.

solkan wrote:I don't see any way of disputing that producing duplicates of someone (or something) else's copyrighted figures is a violation of copyright.

On the practical side, let's stop and consider the situation. There's a hypothetical person decides that they need two dozen identical melta guns so much that they're willing to buy a casting kit because they don't want to pay the money for two dozen GW melta guns. What's the best thing which that hypothetical person should do? What that person should do is build a custom meltagun, using greenstuff, plastic card, random parts of other guns, or whatever, and cast two dozen copies of their own meltagun. As much effort as it is to do decent castings of figures, it's not much more work to just scratch build your own weapons. You get your two dozen meltaguns, you don't violate copyright, and everyone's happy, and just think how much you'd grow as a hobbyist making your own weapons.

And just to take the practical side further, if a person feels compelled to have all of their figures using 100% current edition Games Workshop parts, that person needs a 'ing intervention. And if a person feels compelled to have out of print editions of current figures, then that person really needs an intervention. If for some reason you're playing a game which uses completely OOP figures, it's still the same situation. The figures are out of production, too bad, you should make your own because sculpting is just as much fun as painting is.

Honestly you should be making your game if you feel the way you do. I can't imagine not having SOME sort of trouble because of making replicas that were not 100% accurate, and you would be biting (copying) someones design anyway? So what is the point?

I honestly wonder if GW knows what is best for them sometimes... just a thought really, no need to bite me for it.

"Note"
I think my brain exploded trying to understand all of this lawyer talk... who asks there lawyer to explain how they saved their ass? My brain has officially told me to stop reading anymore lawyer jargon...

You're locked in an elevator with a python, a crocodile and a lawyer, but your gun only has two bullets. What do you do?

You shoot the lawyer twice! Haha!

(Just kidding, lawyers!)

I started with Prince August napoleonics minis over 25 years ago.
You were encouraged (simply by the availablilty if molds, and casting ingots) to cast your own multiples of various models (you got molds with certain figures and you could either buy ingots of the right alloy from them or source a similar one from elsewhere). Did PA go out of business (no. PA still exist) because of this? The argument that recasting harms the parent company is not always true.

Admittedly, this recasting was with tacit consent of the parent company.

Ah lawyer jokes. You should realise a lot of this discussion is driven between individuals who are paid to argue a point for living. At the moment, these points of view are lofty arguments over the (mainly US) law of Copyright.

If you paid one of them you could get the point of view you wanted.

PS, Anyone wishing to engage me is more than welcome to, my rates are very reasonable! :p

MUST...NOT...BE...FUNNY!!!

What do you call a lawyer buried up to his neck in sand?

Not enough sand! Haha!

darkkt wrote:If you paid one of them you could get the point of view you wanted.

That only sounds like a joke, ha.

What do you call 10,000 lawyers tied to an anchor at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

PUT THE LAWYER JOKES HERE FOLKS!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/249908.page#865951

chromedog wrote:I started with Prince August napoleonics minis over 25 years ago.
You were encouraged (simply by the availablilty if molds, and casting ingots) to cast your own multiples of various models (you got molds with certain figures and you could either buy ingots of the right alloy from them or source a similar one from elsewhere). Did PA go out of business (no. PA still exist) because of this? The argument that recasting harms the parent company is not always true.

Admittedly, this recasting was with tacit consent of the parent company.

I think if the company is selling molds then that's not tacit consent, that's explicit consent because you're using the company products for their obvious purpose. But it remains the fact that it's the copyright holder's right to decide whether or not to produce molds of their copyrighted materials.

For Prince August it probably made sense, and if they're still in business it probably means that their business descision was a good descision for them. Good show for them. But they have a website which shows a picture of a dozen people standing out front of a store front, and an address in Ireland somewhere. Games Workshop and Citadel Miniatures made different business descisions for a different market segment. Noone knows whether Prince August or Games Workshop will be around in ten or twenty years, but both companies have the right to make their own, different descisions without having their rights infringed upon by others.

Manchu wrote:

Janthkin wrote:I don't mind stifling creative piracy. I also don't mind stifling creative cattle theft, or creative electronic bank robbery.

Well, it's hard to argue with equivocation. I'm talking about things like music sampling. Maybe even software design, although I don't know a great deal about it.

All I was getting at is "I don't mind stifling creativity, when we're discussing creative ways to break the law."

What's wrong with sampling? Little bits are okay; too much isn't. It might be nice if the line was a little less fuzzy...but given how fuzzy creative works tend to be, it's hard to get to a bright line test. "How much is too much?" is a question of fact.

My main problems are with copyright, i.e., what was once upon a time the subject of this thread. As far as patents go, you're right that I have heard quite a bit about patent trolling perusing the law reviews and the bar journal here. (I don't read slashdot at all, actually.) I work in criminal defense mostly (although I do a fair bit of contract and some tort) so I don't see these things from day to day.

Alright, back to copyright then.

Janthkin wrote:Does society benefit from the disclosure, more then it suffers from the monopoly? On the whole, I think so.

Maybe so. But IP, and law in general, is an open-ended question. As has already been mentioned, other countries do not share our "creativity is fungible like any other asset" attitude. With the development of international law and what I can only imagine will be the widening and ever more successful incidence of IP infringement, we may have to rethink a lot of our assumptions and conclusions.

the_Armyman wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:Would I steal a boxed set off a shelf? No.
Would I cast a 1 cent piece of plastic for my own use? Yes.


I make a rational decision to break a law because the percieved harm is low enough for my own and society's tolerances.

Sorry but i cant .... i Lolled

I guess those of us who don't have your impeccable lineage can't quite live up to your lofty standards. But thank you for dying for all of our sins 2000 years ago. Much appreciated! Tell your Father I said "hihi."

Bravo sir, bravo.

Neconilis wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

the_Armyman wrote:Would I steal a boxed set off a shelf? No.
Would I cast a 1 cent piece of plastic for my own use? Yes.


I make a rational decision to break a law because the percieved harm is low enough for my own and society's tolerances.

Sorry but i cant .... i Lolled

I guess those of us who don't have your impeccable lineage can't quite live up to your lofty standards. But thank you for dying for all of our sins 2000 years ago. Much appreciated! Tell your Father I said "hihi."

Bravo sir, bravo.

Whats with you guys that feels the need to bash someone that doesnt do wrong things on purpose? Im not on any high horse you jerks , or did i make someone uncomfortable
by sparking the feeling humans once had " guilt "

And no the anger isnt just on action of counter feiting , its on people having the audacity to claim it doesnt hurt anyone when it does.

Also, since this thread has provoked the same damn response and a new rant would only cause me to use words not censored by the word filter, copy and paste away.

An Angry & Bitter fething donkey-cave Who Hates These fething Threads Full of Bourgeois Martyrs Ready to Sacrifice Themselves Upon The Altar of Capitalist Morality wrote:These threads... Jesus fething Christ, really? I mean, really? Worry about something that matters. World hunger, lack of healthcare, racism, child labor, rape, murder. Actual fething crimes. Not how I can correlate, not prove mind you, how casting fething OOP miniatures in my basement is immoral and 'steals' money from a corporation that price gouges its customers to no fething end because most continually take it.

Seriously, if you want to ride a high fething horse, make sure it's taking you someplace worthwhile, not OMG they be making counterfeit toys! ...and you know what? Even then, even if the world had no 'real' problems, the shear cries of offense arising from this are totally out of line with the actual offense. It's like being pulled over for speeding and being shot by the cop.

Seriously people, the feth?

P.S.: Sorry for going off, but really...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Whats with you 2 that feels the need to bash someone that doesnt do wrong things on purpose?

Luna, I seriously and wholeheartedly respect your view, but the way you deliver it and present it reeks of arrogance and moralistic superiority and that does nothing but cause an instant and adversarial stance deserving of the same. Is it childish, well yes it is, but sometimes you want to submit to that level of debate as well.

I will not try to change your view, because you believe what you believe with utmost faith, and I think it's time we all accept that of each other. Lest anyone want to continue a debate on morality, which by definition is not black and white, and certainly not over an act such as this one.

If you want to keep that up however, anyone, well I'll be here posting gak too until this thread finally ends.

And Cheese, bravo to you too.

Wrexasaur wrote:

solkan wrote:I don't see any way of disputing that producing duplicates of someone (or something) else's copyrighted figures is a violation of copyright.

On the practical side, let's stop and consider the situation. There's a hypothetical person decides that they need two dozen identical melta guns so much that they're willing to buy a casting kit because they don't want to pay the money for two dozen GW melta guns. What's the best thing which that hypothetical person should do? What that person should do is build a custom meltagun, using greenstuff, plastic card, random parts of other guns, or whatever, and cast two dozen copies of their own meltagun. As much effort as it is to do decent castings of figures, it's not much more work to just scratch build your own weapons. You get your two dozen meltaguns, you don't violate copyright, and everyone's happy, and just think how much you'd grow as a hobbyist making your own weapons.

And just to take the practical side further, if a person feels compelled to have all of their figures using 100% current edition Games Workshop parts, that person needs a 'ing intervention. And if a person feels compelled to have out of print editions of current figures, then that person really needs an intervention. If for some reason you're playing a game which uses completely OOP figures, it's still the same situation. The figures are out of production, too bad, you should make your own because sculpting is just as much fun as painting is.

Honestly you should be making your game if you feel the way you do. I can't imagine not having SOME sort of trouble because of making replicas that were not 100% accurate, and you would be biting (copying) someones design anyway? So what is the point?

There may be a misunderstanding here. My point was that it's actually hard work to produce good casts of figures, whether those figures are your own or produced by someone else, and that instead of producing knock offs for their own use, a person would be better off producing copies of their own production. And I disagree with the whole 'But those figures are out of print, I can't get them any other way!' quite strongly. A person doesn't need limited edition figures or antiques to play a wargame, and "This is my complete army of Squat knockoffs" isn't nearly as impressive as "This is my complete army of legitimate Squat figures."

Just going off of the typical complaints used in support of casting, the person wants two dozen weapons for their army, but those weapons are only sold one per box. So how does a person get two dozen weapons?
a) Buy two dozen boxes of figures, wasting money on unwanted stuff
b) Buy two dozen parts from bits services, which may not even be possible
c) Make two dozen replicas of the official model, meaning that copyright on the original sculpture is being infringed
d) Convert the weapons from other sources, typically meaning that the two dozen weapons will be varying in appearance.
e) Make your own weapon and cast two dozen copies of that, the solution which requires the most work

A's too expensive, B's hard to find, C's the whole cause of these on going threads, D produces spotty results, and E's intimidating but easier than people think. If you look at the GW weapons and think "How could that look better?" that's the way to go. I mean, the designs for the 40K weapons have changed enough over the years that making one's own variant shouldn't be a problem. And honestly I'd rather read a thread about figuring out whether or not those weapons would be derivative works than I would about recasting figures.

I honestly wonder if GW knows what is best for them sometimes... just a thought really, no need to bite me for it.

Everybody has the right to make their own mistakes, businesses included, whether they want it or not.

Every penny you spend on meltas is money that could've been spent on feeding starving African children. They're dead now, just because you wanted to kill some plastic tanks. I hope you're happy, Luna.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

...I know it shouldn't be, and for so many reasons, but that's kinda funny.

I'm a horrible person.

Not at all Sid, you'd support starving African children and think that's an important issue. You're a good man/chicken.

Some guy once tried to argue that he could park in front of my friend's driveway because there were starving children. It was lulzy.

Neconilis must be his brother or something.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Some guy once tried to argue that he could park in front of my friend's driveway because there were starving children. It was lulzy.

Neconilis must be his brother or something.

Not sure how to take that Orke, but it made me laugh ;-) Sadly though, I am an only child.

Well, recasting models and starving children have nothing to do with each other.

Unless Cheese Elemental's opening post was "What would people think if I recasted models and caused droughts in Africa?" and I missed it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, recasting models and starving children have nothing to do with each other.

Unless Cheese Elemental's opening post was "What would people think if I recasted models and caused droughts in Africa?" and I missed it.

Orke, as much as the inappropriate pics put me in the same category as Sid, the simple fact that I'm not in Canada should let you know that they're not mine.

Also, as much as I've disagreed with Luna over this in the past, I've actually been pretty amicable with her and talked to her at other times as well. This, well these threads certainly piss me off and that's no mystery, but even I draw the line somewhere. Not that I won't laugh at someone willing to take the comedy to ludicrous extremes to prove a point.

This is almost like watching PETA argue...

"Note"
That was funny, you are officially not... (dot, dot ,dot)

LunaHounde wrote:Nonsense.

Some of the grown ups are trying to have a conversation here.

Janthkin wrote:

LunaHounde wrote:Nonsense.

Some of the grown ups are trying to have a conversation here.

The people with funny hats are talking too dammit!

Wether you sell the recast models or not, you are breaking the law simply by making the copy. Period. No discussion necessary.

Wether you'll be prosecuted is a different matter entirely. If GW doesn't know you make recasts, they cannot come after you.
But making a thread here and expecting people to say; "It is fine and OK to make copies" is simply stupid.
I dare say that 90 % of the people on this board also illegally downloads MP3s, but it doesn't change that it is illegal.

Neconilis wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, recasting models and starving children have nothing to do with each other.

Unless Cheese Elemental's opening post was "What would people think if I recasted models and caused droughts in Africa?" and I missed it.

Orke, as much as the inappropriate pics put me in the same category as Sid, the simple fact that I'm not in Canada should let you know that they're not mine.

Also, as much as I've disagreed with Luna over this in the past, I've actually been pretty amicable with her and talked to her at other times as well. This, well these threads certainly piss me off and that's no mystery, but even I draw the line somewhere. Not that I won't laugh at someone willing to take the comedy to ludicrous extremes to prove a point.

I was reffering to the "An Angry & Bitter fething donkey-cave Who Hates These fething Threads Full of Bourgeois Martyrs Ready to Sacrifice Themselves Upon The Altar of Capitalist Morality" rant.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Neconilis wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, recasting models and starving children have nothing to do with each other.

Unless Cheese Elemental's opening post was "What would people think if I recasted models and caused droughts in Africa?" and I missed it.

Orke, as much as the inappropriate pics put me in the same category as Sid, the simple fact that I'm not in Canada should let you know that they're not mine.

Also, as much as I've disagreed with Luna over this in the past, I've actually been pretty amicable with her and talked to her at other times as well. This, well these threads certainly piss me off and that's no mystery, but even I draw the line somewhere. Not that I won't laugh at someone willing to take the comedy to ludicrous extremes to prove a point.

I was reffering to the "An Angry & Bitter fething donkey-cave Who Hates These fething Threads Full of Bourgeois Martyrs Ready to Sacrifice Themselves Upon The Altar of Capitalist Morality" rant.

Ah, well as you were then. It made me laugh, sigh and be pissed all at once as I typed it, so I kept it.

Um so just have a small question?

has anyone here consulted a Attorney about what constitutes IP copyright laws?

as i have dealt with these in the past i should interject the following facts.

1. recasting or otherwise replicating items for personal use is NOT Illegal , though placing said items for sale or even giving them to a friend IS Illegal.

2. in several published GW products it was stated that items were replicated and permission was given to do so. Also the Term Scratchbuilt has been allowed since the early days of 40k ( anyone have the white dwarf with the templates to build your own baneblade? i do).

3. going after a single slob who has made a extra 2 or 3 old rogue trader marines for his personal use is financial suicide. the costs for such a case as well as the negative publicity far outweigh what would be gained. if gw could win it at all. please also note that these sort of legal cases do not get resolved overnight. they take months if not years and involve no fewer then 3 court apperances before it would even reach a trial stage, which any any point could be thrown out very easily.ohh and to the arguements that thats why they have layers on retainer, go talk to a lawyer as to what that means. no lawyer worth there salt would sign any contract that would put them into cases at a drop of a hat. each one will cost gw a fortune in legal fees, even on retainer. Now going after that Chinese Company that just copied that new space marine drop pod and has mass produced them claiming there the real thing... thats another story

so bottom line here you do it for personal use with no intention of selling or distributing you are perfectly safe. that doesnt mean make 1000 space marine terminators and show them off to everyone.That could get you in trouble.

i personnaly cast several bits here and ther to help outfit my minis if i cannot readily get them from one of the bits places or buy them direct

if you do it for personal use i dont have a problem with it, you do it for profit then your scum that needs to get caught and prosecuted.

I'm ambivalent towards recasting. I own some pewter models whose authenticity is questionable. All of them purchased bona fide from respectable eBay sellers. The moral thing would be to raise hell about the issue, demand my money back etc, but doing that would incur additional costs for me having to send said items back to the seller, and any reimbursement might not ever materialize at all.

The second moral course of action would be to simply destroy the offending models. Again, that would incur a cost to me since I would have wasted the money I spent, in good faith. So again the moral thing to do would only hurt me. And frankly, I might be willing to suffer personal loss to do the right thing, but not for something as trivial as a game of toy soldiers.

Then there's the aspect of certainty. Recasts aren't advertised as such, and I cannot be certain that the dodgy items I have actually are recast, though the balance of probability is leaning in favor of that option. Citadel back in the 1980s wasn't a high tech moulding company, the quality of their casts back then was consistent with what a skilled home caster could make today. I suppose a detailed analysis of the metal in question would tell me for sure (as I doubt modern recasters use the authentic lead alloys of the period), but again, it is a cost I'm not willing to pay for the sake of achieving a tiny moral high ground.

As such, I have numerous models in limbo. Not quite kosher, not quite pariah. In the end, I just clean off the double mold lines and paint them up, because that's what I bought them for. As for selling them, I'm guessing the question will never arise during my lifetime. I like my collection, and don't see us parting ways anytime soon.

Wrexasaur wrote:This is almost like watching PETA argue...

"Note"
That was funny, you are officially not... (dot, dot ,dot)

Good idea!

"Lunahounde." could you please not have this thread locked. I think it contains some interesting and valuable discussion that could be drawn out more.

Those are seals though, I just hope he didn't waste the parts leftover after his rage-based freak-out. I actually am not offended by that picture, I used to keep the whale blood sea one as a background... HAH! yeah you know the one buddy.

Anyway, if you want to talk about this that is cool, it seems like you just want to shut the thread down.

Manchu wrote:"Lunahounde." could you please not have this thread locked. I think it contains some interesting and valuable discussion that could be drawn out more.

I agree, this is chock full of great debates, and a lot of lawyer know what-not-backwards-up stuff too. (Know-how is mandated by law as the IP of Big-Meks only, so you better learn to listen to dem.)

I would appreciate if the MODS would just take out the bad stuff instead, and lock dudes account if they see so fit to see saw do.

I suppose it also bears saying that I don't keep my questionably-provenanced miniatures out of any direct wish to cause GW harm, even though I do wish it*. Also, in order to acquire the miniatures I want (1980s and early 90s Citadel classics), I have to run the risk of recast items every single time, inescapably.

* I wish to see GW brought to an end because I like change. I'd all myself an anarchist were it not for the actual political anarchist movement being so utterly distasteful, but I suppose I'm a person who wants to see chaos and change unfold on the world, to see borders dance back and forth on the map and the merry cutthroat waltz of corporate competition. And GW has been king of the hill for too long.

Wrexasaur wrote:Those are seals though, I just hope he didn't waste the parts leftover after his rage-based freak-out. I actually am not offended by that picture, I used to keep the whale blood sea one as a background... HAH! yeah you know the one buddy.

Anyway, if you want to talk about this that is cool, it seems like you just want to shut the thread down.

Manchu wrote:"Lunahounde." could you please not have this thread locked. I think it contains some interesting and valuable discussion that could be drawn out more.

I agree, this is chock full of great debates, and a lot of lawyer know what-not-backwards-up stuff too. (Know-how is mandated by law as the IP of Big-Meks only, so you better learn to listen to dem.)

I would appreciate if the MODS would just take out the bad stuff instead, and lock dudes account if they see so fit to see saw do.

Glad to be of service!



The second part.

Manchu wrote:"Lunahounde." could you please not have this thread locked. I think it contains some interesting and valuable discussion that could be drawn out more.

"....... I think it contains some interesting and valuable discussion that could be drawn out more."

"... interesting and valuable...."

"...drawn out more..."

No, not the baby seals! You monster!

or even giving them to a friend IS Illegal.

Huh, now I wouldn't have called that one. Makes sense though, but I always just thought it was the sale of recast parts that was forbidden.

As for my own take on recasting, which I'm sure no one is interested in, I'm with most of you in that I'm opposed to people casting entire models for sale on eBay. And while I realize that it isn't exactly "hobby" to cast anything that began life as a GW bit, even if you aren't going to sell it or give it to someone else, sometimes it's just practical. For instance, when people are doing heavily converted armies with modified heads, torsos, etc., rather than painstakingly converting each and every bit, you can do one or two masters and then make whatever number of copies you need. Obviously you can't go and recast your entire army with one box set, but as long as you buy the same number of boxes and GW doesn't get any less money from you, I don't see what the big deal is in making your conversion work go by a little easier.

You can still argue that it's illegal, even if you're buying the same number of kits from GW and aren't recasting an army like I said, but that's just how I see it. Personally I probably won't ever spend the money on the materials I need to recast anything so it's not something I have to worry about, but I sure as hell wouldn't lynch anyone if they admitted to making a cast and reproducing some of their more extravagantly-sculpted bits so they didn't have to kill themselves reproducing a certain head or armor pattern over and over.

So, on a completely unrelated note, have you accepted LunaHound as your lord and savior? (Please don't take that personally, we love you Luna!*)


*
"You have lost your balls!"


EDIT:

* I wish to see GW brought to an end because I like change. I'd all myself an anarchist were it not for the actual political anarchist movement being so utterly distasteful, but I suppose I'm a person who wants to see chaos and change unfold on the world, to see borders dance back and forth on the map and the merry cutthroat waltz of corporate competition. And GW has been king of the hill for too long.

...oooookay, then. That's gotta be one of the most pointless reasons I've seen anyone have for disliking GW. It isn't any specific thing they've done, you just want them to go away because...just because.

Well sure, that's fine for you since all your gak's counterfeit ( ), but I don't want my expensive army to be made worthless anytime soon and the longer GW stays in business the more I'll get out of that army.

And on the topic of politics, I'd rather see borders disappear entirely, rather than dance across the map. Maybe I'm too optimistic but I would love for humanity to unite under one banner and live in a true utopia rather than see everything turn to chaos.

Sidstyler wrote:

Huh, now I wouldn't have called that one. Makes sense though, but I always just thought it was the sale of recast parts that was forbidden.

No, the simple act of making a copy is illegal. Wether you buy a lot of GW boxes or not, or wether you resale or not has zero relevance.
Now if you take a GW item and modify it in a substantial way, it is now your original work and you can copy it to your hearts content. What is "Substantial"? Well, legal departments can discuss that forever.

A friend of mine took 10 IG heads and added balaclavas to them using Green Stuff. We then made a bunch of copies for his IG army. Has he broken the law? Has he made an original conversion several times (using recasting)? Is he toeing the line of violating GW IP?

You decide.

Steelmage99 wrote:You decide.

Well, seeing as how my opinion is the only one that matters...um...

*falls asleep*

Here is my 2 pence (or 50 cents) worth..........

I've bought off Ebay 12 Ork Deff Copters so I can use the Appoc. formation of 12 copters in the rule book. I am a BIG fan of WYSIWYG and strictly enforce it at our games we play. One of the rules of this formation is they all have 1 bomb, so I need x12 Ork Bombs. I went to GW Nottingham to buy them, and Forgeworld have now stopped supplying the bombs as a seperate item, you have to buy a 'Evy Bomma to get some.

So, I've bought a Bomma, to get the bombs, and following GW's instructions on their Hobby Articles page where they made a Green Stuff Mould to produce more Purity Seals supplied with many of their plastic kits, I will be making a green stuff mould for my bombs. This practise MUST be support by GW, else it would not be on their web site (not read WD so don't know if the article made it into there).

Do I feel guilty? No. I've bought an expensive model from GW, a large squad of models inderectly from GW, and now will re-cast some OOP parts from one model, to convert another model. I see no issue with this whatsoever, and knowing the staff at GW HQ Nottingham, neither would they, they'd probably applaud me for it.

Lets keep things realistic, this simple act is not going to collapse the GW wargiming industry. Now somebody mass producing and selling recasts would be wrong, but small parts for personal use to convery existing models is not.

Mod:

A certain user has generate a lot of complaints about this thread.

Just to let you all know I have got my eye on it.

/Mod:

I just love the recasting argument "it's too expensive and I want it so it's okay to steal". It's exactly the same argument as music/software piracy.

As for the law protecting the customer more than the consumer - you don't have a right to meltaguns. You don't need them to live. Supplying melta weaponry is not like supplying clean water.


You don't like the prices of GW's meltas/swords/whatever bit. Sculpt your own design ("heat gun"), make a zillion copies and start selling them cheaper. Likewise, don't like the prices charged for music/software then go out and buy them from the cheapest retailer you can find.

Both of these actions will actually cause someone to take notice as it's a measurable loss. When your bits company is making good money then the big companies might just change their prices or packaging. Your stealing them does not cause anyone to take notice as it is not measurable.


The only grey area is long out-of-production miniatures. A friend of mine has a substantial halfling army with lots of OOP miniatures. He ransacked mail order for all of the oddball minis they could find. (for weeks after he would get calls "we found three halflings holding sandwiches - do you want them?") Some of these he recast in order to have enough minis to fill out units. Some of the minis he got had been OOP for 8+ years, finding more was going to be an extremely long shot. Recasting them wasn't costing GW anything. That, to me, is a grey area.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

solkan wrote:
Just going off of the typical complaints used in support of casting, the person wants two dozen weapons for their army, but those weapons are only sold one per box. So how does a person get two dozen weapons?
a) Buy two dozen boxes of figures, wasting money on unwanted stuff
b) Buy two dozen parts from bits services, which may not even be possible
c) Make two dozen replicas of the official model, meaning that copyright on the original sculpture is being infringed
d) Convert the weapons from other sources, typically meaning that the two dozen weapons will be varying in appearance.
e) Make your own weapon and cast two dozen copies of that, the solution which requires the most work

How about option F - not get what you want?

It is possible to live without 12x meltaguns - you don't HAVE to have them.

Is have twelve meltaguns important enough to steal?

Sidstyler wrote:...oooookay, then. That's gotta be one of the most pointless reasons I've seen anyone have for disliking GW. It isn't any specific thing they've done, you just want them to go away because...just because.

Well sure, that's fine for you since all your gak's counterfeit ( ), but I don't want my expensive army to be made worthless anytime soon and the longer GW stays in business the more I'll get out of that army.

I think some more change within the miniatures wargaming hobby would make it healthier overall. Change often equals improvement. GW forced to compete seriously for the first time in its lifespan would have the potential of improving their products and operations significantly. If GW could change without going under, so much the better for all of us gamers. The lifespans of games and the corporate entities that make them needn't be linked, either. Just consider D&D surviving the demise of TSR and going on to release two well-liked and widely played editions under WOTC/Hasbro.

For the record, all my... um, "gak", as you so delicately put it, are not counterfeit. The grand majority of the models I own, I've bought firsthand, or they're plastics, which are nigh-impossible to counterfeit. Despite the questionable origins of some of my models, they're as precious to me as any collector. I've paid real, non-counterfeit money for every squat and squad, how then could I care less about the future of the game than I would were their pedigree unchallenged? They might not be real GW products (and I must state here that I lack concrete evidence that they aren't), but they are real Warhammer 40,000 models.

Would I prefer that all the Squats I buy were original sculpts? Yes. Do I expect them to be? Not really, considering the human tendency to look for bargains and to deceive. Am I going to stop bidding on items that seem suspiciously cheap compared to the miniatures in question? I doubt it. Do I want to see significant changes in the miniatures wargaming hobby that may or may not result in Games Workshop as we know it ceasing to operate? Yes. Do I want to see the game itself die out? No. Is this mode of imagined Q-and-A posting getting on anyone's nerves yet? I hope not.

Kilkrazy wrote:Mod:

A certain user has generate a lot of complaints about this thread.

Just to let you all know I have got my eye on it.

/Mod:

I hope im not getting confused with the "lunahoundE" that keep linking bad pic links lol . As flattered as i am that someone would create an account to impersonate me.... ->

Don't worry we all know which is the real Lunahound. If you report them, the mods will send out the extermination squads and make everything better.

Lunahound imposters? I'm shocked.

Who doesn't wnat to be lunahound righttt?

LunaHound wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Mod:

A certain user has generate a lot of complaints about this thread.

Just to let you all know I have got my eye on it.

/Mod:

I hope im not getting confused with the "lunahoundE" that keep linking bad pic links lol . As flattered as i am that someone would create an account to impersonate me.... ->

No, I didn't report you.

It is possible to live without 12x meltaguns - you don't HAVE to have them.

Unless you want to play competitively, apparently.

Not that I read Stelek's blog or anything...

GW forced to compete seriously for the first time in its lifespan would have the potential of improving their products and operations significantly.

And GW going under will achieve that! Wait, what?

I want GW to improve too, but that's not what you were saying originally. Your words were more or less along the lines of "I want GW to die.", not "I want GW to have serious competition so their products and service will improve."

Just consider D&D surviving the demise of TSR and going on to release two well-liked and widely played editions under WOTC/Hasbro.

Bad example. Pre-painted plastics with clicky bases sold in booster packs? No thanks.

Even if the rules did improve in Wizards hands, they would kill the game by releasing gak minis for it.

For the record, all my... um, "gak", as you so delicately put it, are not counterfeit.

Oh come on, I was joking! There's no need to explain it to me, I know full well your entire collection isn't counterfeit.

Who doesn't wnat to be lunahound righttt?

I'd do it for the emotes.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Just to throw another side in, if I use non-GW Green Stuff to make a melta gun that's convincing then I paint it and no-one can tell the difference, is that terribly different from casting a GW melta gun I have, painting it so no-one can tell the difference and using it? What if I made a mold and used GW green stuff to make the "re-cast" of a GW melta gun instead of sculpting it by hand?....If there's nothing immoral about scultping one from Green Stuff, how is it any different?
.

I think this is the key crucial point of this debate. In this example, Cannerus is violating IP law, by stealing the design of the meltagun. The fact that he's sculpting it himself before making a mould and recasting is irrelevant. He's still breaking the law by stealing the design, and replicating it.

If you believe that recasting is taking the bread out of honest sculptors mouths, or that by recasting someone is hurting the market(however indirectly), than Cannerus sculpting his own out of greenstuff is just as bad as recasting. For every meltagun that Cannerus sculpts out of greenstuff, it's a meltagun he doesn't buy.

However, I'm dubious about that line of argument. To be perfectly frank, if someone told me that by sculpting a meltagun, I'm morally corrupt, a thief, and depriving hard working sculptors of the ability to feed their families, I'd laugh in their faces. And since I've already established that sculpting my own model out of greenstuff, or recasting that meltagun have EXACTLY the same effect on the market, I'd do the same if someone fed me that line on personal recasting.

A sculptor makes their money by providing a service that we cannot do for ourselves. If we could all build amazing furniture, furniture makers would go out of market. If I'm capable of doing my own plumbing, I'll never have any need to call a plumber. If I'm capable of sculpting, what need have I for a sculptor? Re-casting is just another method whereby one replicates the effect of sculpting. To recast properly is actually a skill, and it's harder than people think.

To put it bluntly, once recasting becomes an easier and cheaper option than buying, that tells you something. What the sculptor(or company in this case) charges is clearly more than the product is worth. If a carpenter charges a £1000 for a bed, and it only costs me £100 to make that bed for myself, how will I acquire the bed? The answer is obvious. I'll build it myself. However, if I lack the skills to make the bed, or the materials necessary, I'll pay the carpenter a £1000 for it.

In my view, the same principle applies within recasting/scultping your own AND THEN recasting. If I possess the skill to create that meltagun cheaper than an extortionate 'bitz pack', than I will do so. Clearly the sculptor/company is, in this case, charging more than the product is worth. If I possess the skills to produce something cheaper than it costs me to buy it, I will do so. It's no different than if you consider yourself a smaller rival company selling to the exclusive audience of 'you'. The cheaper company will make the sale. The more expensive company won't.

Now you might say, 'Ah, but you could say that about recasting every kit they do!' However, making a mould and recasting is not cheap. You have to count for the initial outlay on buying the original to recast from, the resin, and the materials for the mould. In 95% of cases, it is clearly more cost-efficient to buy straight from GW. However, in that 5% of cases where it is cheaper to recast for myself (for example, as someone suggested earlier, that beaky SM helmet), I will do so without a pang of guilt. Why? Because in this case, GW is clearly charging far more for the product than it is actually worth, or failing to offer the option to buy those helmets separately. You can cry about how I could use bitz sites instead, however bitz sites do not always possess the component you are looking for in the necessary quantity(if indeed they stock it at all). If the Bitz markets did have the component I needed, I would buy it. Unless, of course, it would still result in being cheaper to cast my own. Then I would do so.

Please note I am speaking on the issue of personal recasting here, NOT selling on resculpts to the general market.

You can cry about how I could use bitz sites instead, however bitz sites do not always possess the component you are looking for in the necessary quantity(if indeed they stock it at all).

Indeed...I've tried to buy from Bitzbox before several times, and each time I visit their site, everything is out of stock. Every single time. From what I can tell they apparently restock bits once a year, either that or I'm just ludicrously unlucky and every time I go to the website they just happen to have sold out of everything at that moment.

Bits sites are a niche market really. In tune with "Why build this house myself, when I can hire a professional carpenter?" besides the fact that the city might not allow it ... yeah, might not...

It is actually an odd scenario that can be compared in SOME ways to GW and their tournament policies.

I also agree that sculpting a meltagun is simply not grounds to attack someone personally by any means. I consider it comparable the the AK-47 design but in a futuristic WH40k world. Speaking of that are gun designs even protected by IP, not counting mechanical parts of course?

Recasting for other modelling purposes doesn't create this sort of debate though. People don't get in a twist over recasting a few wheels for a kit of a tank or a jeep. In many cases it is expected. But when it comes to GW people do get worked up and self righteous about telling others off for it. I don't know quite where it comes from, perhap people channel GW's disapproval for it and feel they need to fight the good fight on their behalf. If you're recasting models to sell that's clearly wrong in any regard, but recasting a few rifles for your minatures comes under fair use as a hobbyist IMO. Otherwise you have to scratch build every one.

Manchu wrote:
Maybe so. But IP, and law in general, is an open-ended question. As has already been mentioned, other countries do not share our "creativity is fungible like any other asset" attitude. With the development of international law and what I can only imagine will be the widening and ever more successful incidence of IP infringement, we may have to rethink a lot of our assumptions and conclusions.

As for Disney, we'll just have to see how far the law will continue to stretch, bend over backwards, and whatever other contortion it takes to accommodate business interests.

Well, the common law nations by far lead the world in non-patent IP creation, so it seems likely to me that we're going to have a pretty big say any new world copyright laws. Even so, what does developing of International copyright standards have to do with recasting GW stuff in a basement?

And yes, we're all a little tired of the disney rules, but that doesn't change the fact that corporations that own IP still have a better right to that stuff than consumers. Maybe the artists and the writers have a claim, but not joe sixpack. And while corporations are gaining these concessions due mainly to lobbyist money, there is a decent argument to be made that characters and films and whatnot have a longer useful life to a corporation. I think that they've been granted enough, mind you, but there is an argument to be made.

Janthkin wrote:Oh, you have to do better than that. The news is a series of selective anecdotes, not a scientific demonstration of trends.

I'm not going to go find some statistics (which will simply be shot down as biased) to prove what is common knowledge (don't forget your rules of evidence, mate, ) especially to argue against "iTunes does well and people buy DVDs." No offense intended, ha.

Sidstyler wrote:And GW going under will achieve that! Wait, what?

I want GW to improve too, but that's not what you were saying originally. Your words were more or less along the lines of "I want GW to die.", not "I want GW to have serious competition so their products and service will improve."

To phrase myself better, I'd rather they were forced into a sink-or-swim situation. Now, my personal belief is that GW would, in that situation, be unable to "swim". I apologize for any ambiguity. Sadly, trying to write out thoughts into words often runs into this kind of hurdles.

Sidstyler wrote:

Just consider D&D surviving the demise of TSR and going on to release two well-liked and widely played editions under WOTC/Hasbro.

Bad example. Pre-painted plastics with clicky bases sold in booster packs? No thanks.

No, you've got it wrong. Going from AD&D second edition into D&D third edition was a good change for the game itself, and a good change for numerous other companies who flocked to take advantage of the D20 license suddenly being opened to all comers. D&D the roleplaying game flourished under WOTC's management, and continues to do so to this day with the release of the fourth edition.

Completely separate to this is what WOTC did with the licenses and trademarks. D&D Miniatures didn't exist before WOTC's era, they made that game up from scratch, while what I was talking about was more along the lines of a successful game continuing being successful even though its ownership structure changed. For the record, D&D miniatures don't use clicky bases.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Recasting for other modelling purposes doesn't create this sort of debate though. People don't get in a twist over recasting a few wheels for a kit of a tank or a jeep. In many cases it is expected. But when it comes to GW people do get worked up and self righteous about telling others off for it. I don't know quite where it comes from, perhap people channel GW's disapproval for it and feel they need to fight the good fight on their behalf. If you're recasting models to sell that's clearly wrong in any regard, but recasting a few rifles for your minatures comes under fair use as a hobbyist IMO. Otherwise you have to scratch build every one.

There are fine lines. The model makers seem to condone, at least passively, extra wheels and whatnot. GW has given tutorials in White Dwarf about green stuff molds for things like purity seals and IIRC studded shoulder pads. These are small bitz, purely decorative, and are sold only as extras in plastic boxes.

Compare with the FW LRBT turrets of the last thread, or the complete melta gunners of this thread. Those are complete models or a very discrete sub assembly, with in game implications, that are readily, if not as conveniently as we would like, available for purchase.

I don't suppose there's a very good test for this, but one way to look at it is reasonable expectation. Is there a reasonable expectation that hobbyists would buy enough Tactical squad boxes to get enough studded shoulder pads to build an army? No, probably not. Is there a reasonable expectation that hobbyists would buy enough special weapon blisters to get their melta gunners? I think so. If not, there are the plastic guns on the command sprue, or the possibility of converting using the metal bitz available through MO.

I'm not sure everybody arguing against recasting is being self righteous. The "everybody breaks the law and this isn't that big a deal and I'm not hurting anybody and I don't have a lot of money and I don't resell them and GW is evil and copyrights only exist to prop up the corporate hegemony" type of justification doesn't change anything. It's still against the law, a law that while application against basement recasters would be stupid, serves a good purpose.

I think rather than feeling self righteous, I'm more invested in getting people to feel less entitled to recasting, not to stop them or to feel morally superior.

It depends on the design.

For example, the SM shoulder pad without symbols is merely a vertical half-section of an oblate spheroid. It can't possible be copyright because it is just a geometrical solid.

Copying that is fine.

Other weapons, for instance the Ork heavy shootaz in the AoBR box, are sufficiently generic that they can be freely copied.

Note that when I say you can copy these items, I mean you can make a close replica and cast it. You still can't recast off the original GW product because that would infringe the copyright in their sculpt.

If you want lots of meltaguns, the way to do it is to make a similar but different version out of plastic rod and cast that. They won't be 'official' but they will pass at tournaments providing the figure holding them is GW.

If you absolutely must have official meltaguns, well you'll have to buy them at the prices GW offers. That's why there is IP law.

I have some sympathy with recasting OOP figures such as the Squats or Halfling armies mentioned earlier. Even in these cases, though, there is often a legal alternative.

eBay can be searched for OOP figures and some manufacturers offer equivalents. Hasslefree Miniatures' Grymn would make a nice Squat army. Or you could buy and convert official GW fantasy dwarves.

The most important thing for me as a Moderator is that Dakka supports IP and copyright, so we can't be seen to be help or even just ignore recasters. In this regard, recasting is rather like adultery. Doing it is wrong, but it becomes much worse when people find out.

Well I for one think that GW should change their sprue design and include items that reflect the codices in their entirety.

If they keep changing everything in their favor, I will gladly take my business elsewhere and so will many others.

Wrexasaur wrote:Well I for one think that GW should change their sprue design and include items that reflect the codices in their entirety.

If they keep changing everything in their favor, I will gladly take my business elsewhere and so will many others.

Totally agree.

Polonius wrote:Frankly, while you clearly have a grasp on the core of the issue, you're argument seems to boil down to "I think the system isn't as good as it should be, therefore there's no reason to respect it." And that's just not good enough for me. I think on the whole the good things that IP law does far outweigh the bad, and that those that violate copyrights are generally doing so for their own ends.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure everybody arguing against recasting is being self righteous. The "everybody breaks the law and this isn't that big a deal and I'm not hurting anybody and I don't have a lot of money and I don't resell them and GW is evil and copyrights only exist to prop up the corporate hegemony" type of justification doesn't change anything. It's still against the law, a law that while application against basement recasters would be stupid, serves a good purpose.

I think rather than feeling self righteous, I'm more invested in getting people to feel less entitled to recasting, not to stop them or to feel morally superior.

Honestly, you are coming off as pretty morally superior by constantly saying "I respect the law, and you (guys) don't." That demonstrates to me that you don't yet grasp what I'm saying at all. For the final time: I don't encourage anyone to break the law, especially if a person happens to actually know what it is. I'm saying that it's okay to think critically about the law rather than simply shouting "stop right there, criminal scum!" and then launching into a lecture on morality (see the beginning of this thread). If you can see why people who copy IP are just doing so "for their own ends," what's so complicated about seeing that those who have created and rely on IP laws are just doing so for their own ends, too? For you, this justification is "not good enough" for the poorer, less influential, more vulnerable party but it is morally sound when employed by the more powerful party. Why differentiate? Because a law says so. Well, Polonius, IP laws aren't actually inherent to nature. They are made up by the influential people that use them to protect their own interests. And they can be changed in a democratic political system--if people bother to think critically. That's the last I'm saying on this issue. If you haven't gotten it by now, there's no point trying to restate it yet again.

Manchu wrote:I'm saying that it's okay to think critically about the law rather than simply shouting "stop right there, criminal scum!" and then launching into a lecture on morality...

OH NOEZ!



Take it down if you want, BUT I HAD TOO!

To Polonius... We know you look shiny...

I think something that many people need to understand here is that just because something is a law, does not necessarily mean it's good. Governments pass legislation all the time, and are usually heavily influenced in the process of doing so. Even if GW disagrees with the line of thought I laid out above, and gets every government in existence to pass laws disagreeing with me, I'll still think what I think, and do what I want to do, regardless. Government legislation is not what I would call the best moral compass.

Your line of thought made a lot of sense to me BTW Ketara, very well written and understandable.

"Note"
The shiny Knight is a pretty good metaphor for the "good nature" of some laws, because it kinda just stands there and backs it's self up with a drastic pose and possibly a few words of practically angelic advice, and if you are unlucky a swipe of the sword.

Just a thought really...

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:Frankly, while you clearly have a grasp on the core of the issue, you're argument seems to boil down to "I think the system isn't as good as it should be, therefore there's no reason to respect it." And that's just not good enough for me. I think on the whole the good things that IP law does far outweigh the bad, and that those that violate copyrights are generally doing so for their own ends.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure everybody arguing against recasting is being self righteous. The "everybody breaks the law and this isn't that big a deal and I'm not hurting anybody and I don't have a lot of money and I don't resell them and GW is evil and copyrights only exist to prop up the corporate hegemony" type of justification doesn't change anything. It's still against the law, a law that while application against basement recasters would be stupid, serves a good purpose.

I think rather than feeling self righteous, I'm more invested in getting people to feel less entitled to recasting, not to stop them or to feel morally superior.

Honestly, you are coming off as pretty morally superior by constantly saying "I respect the law, and you (guys) don't." That demonstrates to me that you don't yet grasp what I'm saying at all. For the final time: I don't encourage anyone to break the law, especially if a person happens to actually know what it is. I'm saying that it's okay to think critically about the law rather than simply shouting "stop right there, criminal scum!" and then launching into a lecture on morality (see the beginning of this thread). If you can see why people who copy IP are just doing so "for their own ends," what's so complicated about seeing that those who have created and rely on IP laws are just doing so for their own ends, too? For you, this justification is "not good enough" for the poorer, less influential, more vulnerable party but it is morally sound when employed by the more powerful party. Why differentiate? Because a law says so. Well, Polonius, IP laws aren't actually inherent to nature. They are made up by the influential people that use them to protect their own interests. And they can be changed in a democratic political system--if people bother to think critically. That's the last I'm saying on this issue. If you haven't gotten it by now, there's no point trying to restate it yet again.

Hmm. Well, maybe I haven't been clear enough, but while I think that duping is morally wrong, my main beef, and this is where I get a little soapbox and do feel morally superior, is the sense of excuse and entitlement a lot of people have about duping. When I illegally copy something, I know I'm breaking the law and taking something that isn't mine for my own gain. I think that attempts to mitigate that feeling are self serving and incorrect. I'm not even asking people to feel bad, just understand that there is a bit of moral argument against them. To quote myself:

Polonius wrote:
Sorry dude, I'm not telling you not to recast what you need. But it is nothing other than "I want things I'm not willing to pay for, so I'll take them instead." If you don't feel bad, and aren't caught, bully for you. But don't expect us to buy your bit that it's anything other than illegal, immoral, and selfish.

As for thinking critically about the laws, I don't think I've exactly labeled anybody criminal scum. I think I've laid out a fairly solid defense of IP rights, and I think you've too often confused a few bad examples with an underlying weakness. Your point about people duping for their own ends, while creators are also relying on IP for their own ends shows a remarkably facile understanding of both property rights and simple fairness. Yes, there are two competiting interests, that doesn't make them equal. It doesn't even make one interest viable. If I can't pay rent, I'll squat in my apartment for my own interest. But the landlord would only evict me for his own interests, so does that make it wrong for him to evict me?

The difference is that our laws, and to a greater degree than you seem willing to admit our morals, strongly recognize property rights. And yes, that does help the strong and the powerful and the influential. But you know that's not all it does. Strong property rights also help the middle class, even the working class. Absent strong property protections, there is no security, there is no prosperity. The same underlying principles that allow Disney to keep Steamboat willy off the shelves also means my landlord can't evict me as long as I pay rent, and the government can't take my parent's house, and if somebody steals my car, I can at least attempt to get it back.

Ip law is no different. Do you think IP laws don't help small businesses, individual artists, writers, and musicians? Look at chapterhouse: they can stop anybody from duping their stuff just as easily as GW can. Isn't that a good thing?

I'm sorry, I really don't see a strong analytical critique of IP rights. What I see is that you're making the (admittedly correct) assertion that these rights are creations of law, and could be changed. What you're missing is that all property rights are creations of law, but that doesn't mean there's not an underlying fairness to them. I fail to see how in any system that respects property rights the argument "I made it, and thus I should control it" could be trumped by "I want it, and thus I should be able to have it."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:I think something that many people need to understand here is that just because something is a law, does not necessarily mean it's good. Governments pass legislation all the time, and are usually heavily influenced in the process of doing so. Even if GW disagrees with the line of thought I laid out above, and gets every government in existence to pass laws disagreeing with me, I'll still think what I think, and do what I want to do, regardless. Government legislation is not what I would call the best moral compass.

And, as I said before, just because the application of a law can sometimes lead to unfair or wrong ends doesn't mean the entire law is bad. Laws change and adapt over time, and usually the bad stuff gets worked out over the years. It's one of the great things about common law: the people that work with it every day (judges and lawyers) can fine tune it without waiting for a legislature.

IP law does more than make money for big corporations. It's the reason somebody can create something of creative value and expect to make a profit.

Well if I ever make a miniature game I will make sure my customers know full well that A.) they can freely copy certain items in the game that we do not stock ON PURPOSE or B.) are included in the kit itself because I do not feel like sniping my customers wallets from a distance backed up by exactly 3 talking monkeys with hats, and one very angry elephant on a coffee binge... it happens though man.

OK. Here it is, plain and simple.
RECASTING IS ILLEGAL.

In case that's a little confusing for some of you:
DON'T DO IT.

Be more specific, because that is very generalized for at least a few parts of the planet... ahem, and you could mean many things by that statement.

TALKING BIG DOES NOT MEAN YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN HATH BEEN WRITTEN IN THE THREAD BEFORE THE TIME THAT YOU ENTERED IN ABRUPTLY AND SAID AROUND... 10 WORDS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT!!!

NO

Rubiksnoob, people really hack me off when they wade into a debate, contribute absolutely nothing, and then insult anyone that disagrees with them. Either say something worth my time to read, or get out.

Wrexasaur wrote:Well if I ever make a miniature game I will make sure my customers know full well that A.) they can freely copy certain items in the game that we do not stock ON PURPOSE or B.) are included in the kit itself because I do not feel like sniping my customers wallets from a distance backed up by exactly 3 talking monkeys with hats, and one very angry elephant on a coffee binge... it happens though man.

That's very fair. It's your property, you can do what you want with it. To ask a bit of a hypothetical, what if you found out people weren't just copying small bits and oop stuff, but also full models? Would that make you upset?

It's like arguing that if you owned an empty field, you'd let kids play in it. That's laudable, and I think so would it. It doesn't change the fact that a person can still tell kids to get off his lawn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:NO

Rubiksnoob, people really hack me off when they wade into a debate, contribute absolutely nothing, and then insult anyone that disagrees with them. Either say something worth my time to read, or get out.

Well, in the US and UK it's illegal. I don't' think he was insulting, just strident.

His point, made crudely, was that there is no legal and barely any moral argument to support recasting. It simply does boil down, like digital downloads, to knowing you won't get caught for taking something you either can't get otherwise or cant' afford. It's not exactly a noble cause.

Every time this is brought up, it's generally someone wanting the community to give them a blanket 'it's ok' to recast GW minis. And it's not going to happen. It's illegal. And like a lot of things, most people are willing to bend on it a bit. It's like asking, "is it ok to speed?" Most people drive over the limit, but within about 5 mph of the limit. Is that okay? Is 10 mph? 20 mph? Is it raining? There's two answers:
1. It's illegal
2. Depending on circumstances, I'd look the other way.

If you're recasting a plastic meltagun off the Space Wolf sprue to get the 10 you need for mech vets, it's just as illegal as recasting a FW Thunderhawk. But, most people wouldn't care about the 10 meltaguns, and unless you told them, probably wouldn't know.

I fully accept that it's illegal in most countries. However, as I stated earlier, just because something is enshrined in law does NOT make it morally right.

I laid out my reasoning earlier, and I'm not ashamed to have that standpoint. I see nothing ethically wrong with it, and if he does have an issue with it, he should expound a little more.

I have a feeling what he did was read the opening post, and then click 'reply'. Perhaps he wasn't outright offensive, but he was damned rude otherwise. I know we're on the net, but I've come to expect higher levels of civility on DakkaDakka, as most of the members are literate well read people. I guess there are some exceptions on every site though.

There's a hell of a lot of elitism involved with GW customers and GW products which is understandable considering the outrageous pricing schemes GW bestows upon us and the questionable social maturity of nerdy wargamers. However for the most part the anti-recasting camp have demonstrated themselves to be a bit self righteous and arrogant than anything else.

I personally have zero problems with recasting. It doesn't affect me, GW, or the LGS - recasting is a time and cost intensive process and by its very nature cannot compete on the scale of GW or to an extent that would greatly affect their sales. Simply not worth getting worked over especially on the internet and I do question the rather malicious tone and language I've seen against recasters - those kind of users have to get something out of talking down to people.

IP laws are made by corporations and GW only uses them to scare off valuable community supporters like Vassal, 40k comic sites, etc - also gives their lawyers a job and something to do. Its not like GW hasn't performed ethically and legally questionable moves either like trying to shut down Ebay resellers or banning shopping carts on US stores.

Polonius wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Well if I ever make a miniature game I will make sure my customers know full well that A.) they can freely copy certain items in the game that we do not stock ON PURPOSE or B.) are included in the kit itself because I do not feel like sniping my customers wallets from a distance backed up by exactly 3 talking monkeys with hats, and one very angry elephant on a coffee binge... it happens though man.

That's very fair. It's your property, you can do what you want with it. To ask a bit of a hypothetical, what if you found out people weren't just copying small bits and oop stuff, but also full models? Would that make you upset?

It's like arguing that if you owned an empty field, you'd let kids play in it. That's laudable, and I think so would it. It doesn't change the fact that a person can still tell kids to get off his lawn.

If people were copying stuff that I had had not informed them officially that they could, I would consider it a bit of an offense. A bit is the key part to this statement, because I could care less if someone wants to bite my style directly, and if they actually made it from scratch and not mold I doubt I would mind at all in most cases. I would by no means endorse copying full pieces, and I might even include a statement in my products like "I do my part, you do yours." or something to that effect, nothing iron-clad legal or anything. By law if I do not state that a product may be copied it should be assumed that I had no intention of that, therefore most people would get the message.

If you sold or copied and distributed my products "out of good will, and the need to be a real life Easter bunny", and I found out, I would take action, but only if necessary, and only if it isn't some kid helping a broke friend out until he can get models, but that is just between me and them, and by no means would reflect my feelings about the whole situation. That was a ridiculously long sentence... oh, well .

On the other hand I have no plans of making a company quite as large as GW, and my products would probably fall into niche appeal. Never been a huge fan of the idea of working with a WHOLE gak LOAD of people who are all scrambling around a cramped square building... it actually makes me shiver a bit just thinking about it. You know those big smelly hippy fests you see? Well imagine those people in business suits acting normal and all you can hear is the sound of a phone in the background... slightly nightmarish if you ask me.

And yet, somehow, there were inventions and innovations long before IP laws . . .

And long before items could be copied without labor nearly equal to that that it took to create the original item. Once reproductive technologies like the printing press hit the stage, IP laws were not far behind them.

They are made up by the influential people that use them to protect their own interests.

And yet they protect the little guy as well, the same way that laws against theft protect Wallmart, as well as your house. As big a buisness entity as the New York Times was, they still -lost- Times vs Tasini.

Recasting for other modelling purposes doesn't create this sort of debate though.

Want to get flamed quick? mention recasting in a Garage Kit forum.. though that's mostly about it being done with whole kits, but it's a real problem, some companies have either gone out of buisness, or taken expensive extra measures to foil it..

So, while I've been sitting here recasting 20 Sgt Centurius figs to sell on ebay, while listening to downloaded music and watching a bootleg of the new Harry Potter. :p


Seriously though. I make molds. I cast stuff. I often get asked to cast stuff from people that tell me 'well theyre this supercool gun I made all by myself'. I ask for pics. I get a pic of FW lasguns with a dab of greenstuff on them. >,> wtf.

What do I cast? I cast parts, almost always heavily modified or original sculpts that are far outside of the GW production line. Things like back packs for my IG. They have some canteens and grenades on them, but the rest I sculpted. If GW wants to come get me for makin back packs of my own they need to look at their priorities.

Recasting whole figs isnt really a money saving/making endeavor with the exception of the guys doing it to make money selling knock offs of OOP figs and FW stuff. Otherwise, its just a step for those into converting to heavily customize thier own armies without having to sculpt heads, packs or whatever for every fig in thier army.

And casting whole figs, is generally a pain in the butt, it takes alot more than jsut a 50$ casting kit. It takes alot of practice to learn to make the molds. And to get rid of air bubbles you need even more gear. And I wont even get into lead casting.

If GW wants to get pissy about people making accesories- that are going on GW figs- thats like automakers getting mad that someone buys a car and put aftermarket accesories on it.

Cane wrote:There's a hell of a lot of elitism involved with GW customers and GW products which is understandable considering the outrageous pricing schemes GW bestows upon us and the questionable social maturity of nerdy wargamers. However for the most part the anti-recasting camp have demonstrated themselves to be a bit self righteous and arrogant than anything else.

I personally have zero problems with recasting. It doesn't affect me, GW, or the LGS - recasting is a time and cost intensive process and by its very nature cannot compete on the scale of GW or to an extent that would greatly affect their sales. Simply not worth getting worked over especially on the internet and I do question the rather malicious tone and language I've seen against recasters - those kind of users have to get something out of talking down to people.

IP laws are made by corporations and GW only uses them to scare off valuable community supporters like Vassal, 40k comic sites, etc - also gives their lawyers a job and something to do. Its not like GW hasn't performed ethically and legally questionable moves either like trying to shut down Ebay resellers or banning shopping carts on US stores.

Are we arrogant because we know the law and the philosophical underpinnings that support it? self righteous and arrogant is another way of saying "correct and well informed."

So, you have no problem with other people doing things that don't hurt you. That's a finely honed moral stance there. "Malicious tone?" look, some of the people here are clearly worked up about this, but it's not like we're hunting down people that recast. When somebody asks "is this ok" and we say "no," it's because the person is seeking approval, which we refuse to give.

And let's get off this "IP laws are made by corporations " and corporations are evil therefore IP laws are evil BS. It's not true, and it's not accurate. IP laws, like all laws, favor property owners, which is something everybody inherently wants. The world is a bit more complex than "corporations are bad."

Finally, none of those actions were ethically or morally questionable. All three were totally legal, and not against any ethical code I know of. What you mean to say is that those decisions hurt people, which is true, but not what we're talking about.

@Polonius

I'm sorry, but the anti-recast crows here is coming across as looking down it's nose at the people who don't mind it so much, and are a bit sarky in doing so. E.g. 'That's a finely honed moral stance there' /sarcasm.

Whilst it's true some of the 'pro-recast' people are going on way too much about evil corporations, you do have to accept there is SOME legitimacy to that tired old stick. IP laws ARE designed to favour big businesses slightly, because the political parties that make those laws are heavily influenced by those big businesses. That is a fact. That's not to say these laws are 'evil' or anything, because that is indeed absolute rubbish. However, when you start mentioning 'philosophical underpinnings' of IP law, I get a bit dubious.

And whilst I agree with your latter statement, you might want to rephrase it slightly. Saying ,'none of those actions were ethically or morally questionable', followed by ,' those decisions hurt people, which is true', kind of contradicts itself. Generally, when something hurts someone, that's fairly ethically questionable.

Polonius wrote:

Cane wrote:There's a hell of a lot of elitism involved with GW customers and GW products which is understandable considering the outrageous pricing schemes GW bestows upon us and the questionable social maturity of nerdy wargamers. However for the most part the anti-recasting camp have demonstrated themselves to be a bit self righteous and arrogant than anything else.

I personally have zero problems with recasting. It doesn't affect me, GW, or the LGS - recasting is a time and cost intensive process and by its very nature cannot compete on the scale of GW or to an extent that would greatly affect their sales. Simply not worth getting worked over especially on the internet and I do question the rather malicious tone and language I've seen against recasters - those kind of users have to get something out of talking down to people.

IP laws are made by corporations and GW only uses them to scare off valuable community supporters like Vassal, 40k comic sites, etc - also gives their lawyers a job and something to do. Its not like GW hasn't performed ethically and legally questionable moves either like trying to shut down Ebay resellers or banning shopping carts on US stores.

Are we arrogant because we know the law and the philosophical underpinnings that support it? self righteous and arrogant is another way of saying "correct and well informed."

So, you have no problem with other people doing things that don't hurt you. That's a finely honed moral stance there. "Malicious tone?" look, some of the people here are clearly worked up about this, but it's not like we're hunting down people that recast. When somebody asks "is this ok" and we say "no," it's because the person is seeking approval, which we refuse to give.

And let's get off this "IP laws are made by corporations " and corporations are evil therefore IP laws are evil BS. It's not true, and it's not accurate. IP laws, like all laws, favor property owners, which is something everybody inherently wants. The world is a bit more complex than "corporations are bad."

Finally, none of those actions were ethically or morally questionable. All three were totally legal, and not against any ethical code I know of. What you mean to say is that those decisions hurt people, which is true, but not what we're talking about.

You're like a broken record, we get your points no need to constantly repeat the same thing in a single thread. No one is adversely affected by recasting except the recaster who has to spend the time and money in the relatively inefficient process.

Not only do you just repeat but you assume and put words in other mouths since I didn't necessarily say GW are "evil" but I will concede I hinted towards the notion. Generally speaking Business law has historically favored businesses and law itself favors those that have the influence and power to change and control it. We're also not talking about things like rape or murder here, we're talking about recasting toy soldiers.

You saying that none of GW's actions I listed were ethically or legally questionable also makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about since GW had no real legal stance in trying to shut down Vassal. Also interesting to note that you have no problem with US stores being banned from have an online shopping cart yet their overseas counterparts can and can deliver them shipped at a cheaper price - from a business ethics standpoint that is far from sound and from my perspective makes you look like a blind GW fanboy than someone who actually cares about ethics.

Manchu wrote:
I'm saying that it's okay to think critically about the law rather than simply shouting "stop right there, criminal scum!" and then launching into a lecture on morality (see the beginning of this thread).

Fair enough.

If you can see why people who copy IP are just doing so "for their own ends," what's so complicated about seeing that those who have created and rely on IP laws are just doing so for their own ends, too? For you, this justification is "not good enough" for the poorer, less influential, more vulnerable party but it is morally sound when employed by the more powerful party. Why differentiate? Because a law says so. Well, Polonius, IP laws aren't actually inherent to nature. They are made up by the influential people that use them to protect their own interests. And they can be changed in a democratic political system--if people bother to think critically. That's the last I'm saying on this issue. If you haven't gotten it by now, there's no point trying to restate it yet again.

I disagree here. Not that they're doing so for their own ends, but that they're doing so solely for their own ends, or that it's only powerful people who are protected. If I post an MP3 online, one that I created, that's my choice. I'm not powerful. I'm not a recording company. It is my work, and my choice to choose who to share this with - or for what price. If I think someone will pay me $1 for that song, that's also my choice. If someone else starts distributing my MP3, then I lose that revenue.

If someone spends time designing a meltagun - they define it's visual profile, they develop its place in a fictional world, and its stats in a game, that's all work that they did. There is value to that work based on how it fits into thousands of hours of additional work that went into the creation of this fictional world. It is the right of the creator to say how their work can be used. In this case, they have granted this right to GW, in return for a paycheck. Now it's GWs right to decide how this is used.

The value of the meltagun is not just the value of the piece of plastic, it's how it fits into an enormous wealth of additional work, much of which was done with no direct revenue stream attached to it.

This isn't protecting GW, as much as it's protecting society from itself. Without such protections in place, who has the motive to create the thousands of hours of backstory that create the value of the meltagun? Who has the time to devote to designing and creating a meltagun at all, without the promise of some return?

I've seen games developed by individuals and given away (by the choice of their creator) and few are worth anything, and there are none that I know anyone plays regularly. Without the right to profit from ones creations, there is little reason to create, and society as a whole loses. That's the basis behind IP law.

And, it protects the little guy as much as it protects the big guy. Any software I develop and choose to release to the public is protected just as much as that created by Microsoft.

Ketara wrote:
I think this is the key crucial point of this debate. In this example, Cannerus is violating IP law, by stealing the design of the meltagun. The fact that he's sculpting it himself before making a mould and recasting is irrelevant. He's still breaking the law by stealing the design, and replicating it.

If you believe that recasting is taking the bread out of honest sculptors mouths, or that by recasting someone is hurting the market(however indirectly), than Cannerus sculpting his own out of greenstuff is just as bad as recasting. For every meltagun that Cannerus sculpts out of greenstuff, it's a meltagun he doesn't buy.

However, I'm dubious about that line of argument. To be perfectly frank, if someone told me that by sculpting a meltagun, I'm morally corrupt, a thief, and depriving hard working sculptors of the ability to feed their families, I'd laugh in their faces. And since I've already established that sculpting my own model out of greenstuff, or recasting that meltagun have EXACTLY the same effect on the market, I'd do the same if someone fed me that line on personal recasting.

But you are. The meltagun you sculpted has no value outside of a game that was designed with thousands of man-hours of work. It's not about the sculpting, it's about everything that goes into giving that meltagun meaning. You say that its just you, and you have no impact on their sales, but that's not really the point. What if everyone did what you are doing? Your argument, that you're not personally depriving anyone of income, is the same as the shoplifter to steals a candy bar. That one candy bar might not cost anyone a job, but it is still theft, and if everyone stole their candy instead of paying for it, would anyone bother to make candy?

What reason would they have to design what a meltagun looks like, the story of how it works, or the entire universe in which it exists, if they weren't going to be able to get a return on this design investment by selling the meltaguns? If it wasn't for this design work, would you have spent your time sculpting a meltagun, and then recasting it?

Why don't you write your own game, from scratch. Invent some of your own weapons. And rules for how they work. And a story to explain why people are fighting. And a universe where they live. And then come back and sculpt your weapons and recast them. Would this be worth your time or money? And, if you did it, and you did all that work, it would be your right to decide if you wanted to then give away your work, or sell it.

I am totally unconvinced by your line of reasoning.

I HAVE to see real numbers showing this or I simply have to disagree with you Redbeard.

As a designer myself (not a games designer mind you) the guns were most likely developed by a team on the side. Nothing fancy, just some sketches and reviews leading to a very quick and technical sculpt, very simple stuff.

Comparing a meltagun to pretty much any full miniature is borderline preposterous. Turrets on tanks are a totally different story mind you, but they can fall in the same boat ESPECIALLY since a lot of GW's big guns are standard as pie and ice cream.

There is a big difference to me between a whole model and one measly piece that people make to supplement a companies unwise business decisions.

So just to qualify Redbeard (and I'm not contradicting or disagreeing with anything you've said there), do you believe that by sculpting a meltagun out of greenstuff to add onto a model,' I'm morally corrupt, a thief, and depriving hard working sculptors of the ability to feed their families'.

If so, fair enough, that's your viewpoint, and I respect that. However, if you think it's perfectly okay to sculpt a meltagun out of greenstuff, you have to concede that it must be perfectly alright for me to recast meltaguns for my own personal use. You cannot have one without the other. Both of these things deprive GW of exactly the same amount of my money.

And just to verify, I never said anything about it having no impact on their sales. Other people may have done, but I'm not quite so foolish. All I said was that for me to go to the time and effort of creating a mould and recasting my own components, there must be either an inadequate supply, or GW must be charging a ludicrously high price for it, in which case I feel fully justified in recasting/sculpting it.

Real numbers showing what? IP laws DO exist. There are no stats to show what happens when there are no IP laws, unless you want to consider countries that routinely ignore IP. But, we're not exactly playing games developed in Russia or China are we?

Look at where intellectual property is developed. It's in countries with IP laws. Because if your work is not protected, you have no reason to do it. The only numbers that show this are the numbers of software companies based in countries without IP protection: 0.

Real number showing that this effects GW sales, and to a degree that would be significant mind you, because I am not talking about morals here, I am talking about pure profits now.

We are disagreeing, I just want to see if you can back up that this meltagun situation actually impacts a company like GW to a degree where people actually lose jobs. That is what I want to you to show me.

Would it be illegal to say, cast converted bits like green stuffed heads with funny hats or modified lasguns that now sport dildoes on the bayonet lug instead of something sharp.

I don't follow. Recasters would not have bought any additional meltaguns if they had no intention of doing so in the first place; so GW loses nothing since that person wasn't going to buy any anyway.

My thoughts exactly Cane. You could say that some would buy the meltaguns, but the evidence for that theory would be sparse.

They might just get annoyed and stop playing all together, it seems just as likely to me.

My visual metaphor for why I feel like this ok.

Here is something that a person obviously took a very long time (in training, actually creating, etc...) to create and it was obviously a labor of love (put it another way, w/e, doesn't matter). This represents something that should be protected under the artists or even companies IP rights by my morals.



Here is something that anyone can do with a bit of focus and a two week art course.



Found object art is a great example for how I feel about this, because simple stuff like this is a possibility for nearly anyone to design and build. Saying that this is more than a good photograph and a bit of creativity is pretentiousness at it's loftiest. I truly laugh at what some people consider art now, it is like no effort at all can make you the most famous and revered person in the community for a year. If we all held these standards we would be living in a world run on hot air and grass clippings while wearing funny tin-foil hats, and those rubber gloves to make sure we can grip our bikes handles well.

Ketara wrote:
So just to qualify Redbeard (and I'm not contradicting or disagreeing with anything you've said there), do you believe that by sculpting a meltagun out of greenstuff to add onto a model,' I'm morally corrupt, a thief, and depriving hard working sculptors of the ability to feed their families'.

Well, in the absence of GW's IP statement, yes, that would be my position. Probably not the "depriving hard working sculptors..." bit, because of the scale of your work - but we come back to the petty shoplifting example. You doing it, probably little impact. If everyone did it, great big impact.

However....

It's not as cut and dried as that because GW has published (here) a set of guidelines for what they will permit you to do with their IP.

As their owners of the intellectual property, this is their right to decide what to share with you and what not to. And, they have a specific bit about conversions:

Conversions

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:
Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.
Your conversions should be one-time, unique masterpieces of hobby goodness. Do not create a production run of conversions for sale. Whilst infringing our IP, this is also simply not hobby.
Casting

Do not cast any materials that are based upon Games Workshop material. Games Workshop has to maintain a strict policy on this to fight counterfeiters. We would also remind you that reproduction for personal use is NOT an automatic exclusion in respect of copyright protection in many territories worldwide.

So, therefore, you're actually well within what is ethical by sculpting one meltagun as a "one-time masterpiece of hobby goodness". This isn't a problem, because the owners of the IP have told you that you can do this and they're ok with you using their IP in this way.

But, and where your argument is wrong, they then also say that they don't want you to make production runs or recasts. And this is also their right. So, while it is perfectly acceptable for you to sculpt your own, it is not acceptable for you to recast them, and the reason is that in both cases, GW has a right to decide how their IP is used, in the first case, they've explicitly said you may use it that way, and in the second, they've explicitly said you cannot.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
We are disagreeing, I just want to see if you can back up that this meltagun situation actually impacts a company like GW to a degree where people actually lose jobs. That is what I want to you to show me.

Can you show me that someone stealing a candy bar off the shelf at Walmart costs anyone a job? It's just one candy bar. But can you agree that shoplifting the candy bar is wrong?

Can you agree that if everyone stole their candy, Hershey's would lose money and be forced to lay people off?

Ketara wrote:@Polonius

I'm sorry, but the anti-recast crows here is coming across as looking down it's nose at the people who don't mind it so much, and are a bit sarky in doing so. E.g. 'That's a finely honed moral stance there' /sarcasm.

I'm sorry, but the statement "i dont' care if other people violate GW's IP" isn't exactly a work of moral genius. I really thought I should point that out.

Whilst it's true some of the 'pro-recast' people are going on way too much about evil corporations, you do have to accept there is SOME legitimacy to that tired old stick. IP laws ARE designed to favour big businesses slightly, because the political parties that make those laws are heavily influenced by those big businesses. That is a fact. That's not to say these laws are 'evil' or anything, because that is indeed absolute rubbish. However, when you start mentioning 'philosophical underpinnings' of IP law, I get a bit dubious.

There is legitimacy. That's without a doubt. And the amount of influence that business has over the democratic process is frightening. It also doesn't matter. You don't fight the rising power of corporations over society by duping bits. Sorry, that's not the way to fight this battle.

And if you're dubious about the philosophical underpinnings, which I've mentioned, why not debate them? I mean, I've laid out why I think IP laws are not only just, but good. Has anybody challenged them?

And whilst I agree with your latter statement, you might want to rephrase it slightly. Saying ,'none of those actions were ethically or morally questionable', followed by ,' those decisions hurt people, which is true', kind of contradicts itself. Generally, when something hurts someone, that's fairly ethically questionable.

They hurt people that were selling GW, in the sense that they suffered a loss. That loss was neither malicious nor unjustified, and GW has every right to market their products how they want. If I break up with a girl, and she's hurt, was that unethical, or merely my exercise of my free rights? Evicting a tenant that's past due on rent hurts him. Is that unethical?

Cane wrote:
You're like a broken record, we get your points no need to constantly repeat the same thing in a single thread. No one is adversely affected by recasting except the recaster who has to spend the time and money in the relatively inefficient process.

I keep repeating because people keep making incorrect assertions like the above. GW is hurt. Not by much, but GW is hurt by recasting, especially in the aggregate.

Not only do you just repeat but you assume and put words in other mouths since I didn't necessarily say GW are "evil" but I will concede I hinted towards the notion. Generally speaking Business law has historically favored businesses and law itself favors those that have the influence and power to change and control it. We're also not talking about things like rape or murder here, we're talking about recasting toy soldiers.

Business law favors business the same way family law favors families. This isn't a question of business law, but of copyright law. I also don't see how just because laws have historically favored a group means that it's ok to violate them. This isn't a question of perpetual copyright, or artists rights v. corporate rights, or any of the other at least vaguely juicy subjects. This is simply a case of an owner and and non-owner. Kids on the playground understand concepts like "I made it it's mine." So, while there are tons of reasons to attack the body of corporate law, this just isn't one of them.

You saying that none of GW's actions I listed were ethically or legally questionable also makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about since GW had no real legal stance in trying to shut down Vassal. Also interesting to note that you have no problem with US stores being banned from have an online shopping cart yet their overseas counterparts can and can deliver them shipped at a cheaper price - from a business ethics standpoint that is far from sound and from my perspective makes you look like a blind GW fanboy than someone who actually cares about ethics.

I'm not sure about that. Ethics, as a word, has a bit more of restricted meaning. Being ethical is not the same as being nice, or being moral. Vassal was, IIRC, using GW IP of some sort. I'd also point out that GW didn't use legal action, they simply threatened legal action ( either directly or indirectly) in the Cease and Desist. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, there is likely a contractual clause regarding 40k video games or computer applications, and GW was merely doing what it had to. If nothing else, the IP was owned by the GW shareholders, and the company would be negligent to not protect the property of the corporation.

US stores aren't banned from using shopping carts, they just lose their accounts if they do. It's simply how GW does business. Do you feel that we should tell a company how to sell product? Other countries might not allow GW to flex it's muscles like the US does. That's their prerogative, but if what GW does is legal, and it's not malicious, misleading, fraudulent, etc. then why is it a problem? Because it's unfair? Not how the corporate world works.

hehe, I dont' think I've ever been called a fanboy. It might be true, I don't know. I do know that corporations, for good or bad, are required by law to try to make a profit for their share holders. To expect them to do anything less is asking them to violate their duty of care.

Redbeard wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
We are disagreeing, I just want to see if you can back up that this meltagun situation actually impacts a company like GW to a degree where people actually lose jobs. That is what I want to you to show me.

Can you show me that someone stealing a candy bar off the shelf at Walmart costs anyone a job? It's just one candy bar. But can you agree that shoplifting the candy bar is wrong?

Can you agree that if everyone stole their candy, Hershey's would lose money and be forced to lay people off?

Except for that analogy to work that person would have to buy a Hershey's bar and then make their own. It is not stealing.

Cane wrote:I don't follow. Recasters would not have bought any additional meltaguns if they had no intention of doing so in the first place; so GW loses nothing since that person wasn't going to buy any anyway.

What if they did have the intention to do so? So you're arguing that people are creating molds and casting stuff they didn't want much? Seems unlikely to me.

Even if there was no demand for actual GW product, there would still be adverse harm to GW due to a dilution of their IP, increased counterfiet stuff in circulation, etc.

Given that melta guns (not cadian melta gunners) are available at a reasonable price from GW, the "I wouldn't have bought them anyway" argument seems weak to me.

@Redbeard
I'm not disagreeing that recasting is technically illegal. I've never denied that. However, what I'm doing is only illegal as regards to where GW has drawn the line, and they've drawn that line in order to prevent people from counterfeiting their goods and selling them. I doubt they seriously had the example of someone re-casting a set of ten beaky helmets in their basement when they wrote that.

Unfortunately, in order to cover their asses against large scale duplication and sale of their goods, they're forced to word it so that recasting beaky helmets is technically illegal too. That's fine.

What I do not accept, is people telling me that I should pay huge sums of money in order to get duplicates of one OOP component, otherwise I'll hurt GW sales, and I'm morally corrupt. That does not follow on. That law was not passed with me in mind, I'm just one of the unfortunates that gets hurt by it. So, following what I believe to be the spirit of the law here, rather than the wording, I think I'm fully entitled to make recasts of, for example, Imperial Guard Rapier Tracks, for my own conversion purposes.

You keep mentioning how if I did it, then everyone might do it as an example as to how it would cut sales, however, this is a fallacy. As I stated earlier, doing a good quality recast is a skill, and requires a large amount of time and effort, not to mention paying for the materials necessary. As I've already said, 95% of the time, it's far more practical to simply buy straight from GW. However, in that other 5% of the time, if bitz shops and ebay are unable to adequately supply my needs at reasonable pricing, I consider myself fully entitled to make a recast. But due to the expense involved in making a recast, there is NEVER going to be a situation in which people mass produce recasts for
personal use.

@Polonius

I am dubious as to the 'philosophical underpinnings' of IP law, due to having slightly socialistic, and steampunk views as to ownership. However, I'm not really too sure that this is the right place for such a debate. Perhaps in another thread some other time?

As to rephrasing your last statement, I already said I agree with it. There's no need to give examples. I AGREE. I just said you might want to rephrase it slightly as it read a bit funny.

Cane wrote:You're like a broken record, we get your points no need to constantly repeat the same thing in a single thread. No one is adversely affected by recasting except the recaster who has to spend the time and money in the relatively inefficient process.

Apparently it's not that inefficient, or people wouldn't be doing it.

Not only do you just repeat but you assume and put words in other mouths since I didn't necessarily say GW are "evil" but I will concede I hinted towards the notion. Generally speaking Business law has historically favored businesses and law itself favors those that have the influence and power to change and control it. We're also not talking about things like rape or murder here, we're talking about recasting toy soldiers.

First, he's not assuming if you are, in fact, inferring. Second, of course business law is focused on protecting businesses. Guess what? Consumer law is focused on protecting consumers. (The only place this varies is criminal law, which really isn't about protecting criminals.) And yes - property law, including IP law, is focused on protecting the owners of property.

You saying that none of GW's actions I listed were ethically or legally questionable also makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about since GW had no real legal stance in trying to shut down Vassal. Also interesting to note that you have no problem with US stores being banned from have an online shopping cart yet their overseas counterparts can and can deliver them shipped at a cheaper price - from a business ethics standpoint that is far from sound and from my perspective makes you look like a blind GW fanboy than someone who actually cares about ethics.

Did you READ the whole Vassal thread? If you did, you would have seen that there are a variety of legitimate reasons why GW may have needed to shut down Vassal 40k.

Bottom line: GW has zero ethical obligations to let you obtain whatever product you want, in whatever manner you find most convenient. This means there are zero ethical issues raised by choosing to sell bits, or not, or choosing to ban online shopping carts, or not. Just because you disagree with a business decision doesn't make it unethical.

Cane wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
We are disagreeing, I just want to see if you can back up that this meltagun situation actually impacts a company like GW to a degree where people actually lose jobs. That is what I want to you to show me.

Can you show me that someone stealing a candy bar off the shelf at Walmart costs anyone a job? It's just one candy bar. But can you agree that shoplifting the candy bar is wrong?

Can you agree that if everyone stole their candy, Hershey's would lose money and be forced to lay people off?

Except for that analogy to work that person would have to buy a Hershey's bar and then make their own. It is not stealing.

Beat me to it, now to learn how to replicate candy bars... this may take me a while. That is a worthwhile endeavor if I have ever heard one, of that I am 100% positive!!!

Ketara wrote:So, following what I believe to be the spirit of the law here, rather than the wording, I think I'm fully entitled to make recasts of, for example, Imperial Guard Rapier Tracks, for my own conversion purposes.

This line, right there, is where you lost me. You're not entitled. It's understandable, but you're not entitled. I don't hold it against you, even. I'd do the same thing.

Polonius wrote:

Ketara wrote:So, following what I believe to be the spirit of the law here, rather than the wording, I think I'm fully entitled to make recasts of, for example, Imperial Guard Rapier Tracks, for my own conversion purposes.

This line, right there, is where you lost me. You're not entitled. It's understandable, but you're not entitled. I don't hold it against you, even. I'd do the same thing.

It is VERY (VERY) important because GW says so, rather decides to make it illegal. If they decided to let this slide tomorrow, it would be legal, so we are walking on butter sticks folks, just keep your pants on.

Ketara wrote:
I am dubious as to the 'philosophical underpinnings' of IP law, due to having slightly socialistic, and steampunk views as to ownership. However, I'm not really too sure that this is the right place for such a debate. Perhaps in another thread some other time?

Hehe, well, socialist views of ownership have not worked well in practice, and the theory seems to ignore fundamental aspects of human nature. It's easier to regulate free market capitilism than it is to change human nature.

Fair enough, a poor choice of wording there. I am not 'Legally Entitled', but I believe I am 'morally entitled'. I am not ethically in the wrong by doing so, regardless of whether I violate the law or not, as the law in case was not written with me in mind, and laws are not necessarily ethically right.

Ketara wrote:Fair enough, a poor choice of wording there. I am not 'Legally Entitled', but I believe I am 'morally entitled'. I am not ethically in the wrong by doing so, regardless of whether I violate the law or not, as the law in case was not written with me in mind, and laws are not necessarily ethically right.

I'd say you're morally excused. Entitlement, by definition, means you own or possess some interest in something. GW products aren't a public or even semi public good. They're not a necessity or even a major part of modern life. It's a luxury that they own.

Moral entitlement is something like where you resist foreclosure and eviction due to bad lending practices. What you're describing, not to sound like a broken record, is simply self satisfaction.

Ketara wrote:Fair enough, a poor choice of wording there. I am not 'Legally Entitled', but I believe I am 'morally entitled'. I am not ethically in the wrong by doing so, regardless of whether I violate the law or not, as the law in case was not written with me in mind, and laws are not necessarily ethically right.

That is the issue here though, it is the law vs. morals essentially, rather, money vs. morals. Some people have a different view on money than others, although most agree on the basic points of it.

The fact is that morals prove themselves by being solid opinions based on experience and culture more or less.

Money needs proof to back it's existence up, Morals exist because we say so, like magic so to speak. You could say money works in the same way... but you would be completely wrong.

All I am asking for is verifiable proof that this meltagun situation impacts GW and their sales, I am tired of theories and repetitive conversations.

I would disagree with the term 'morally excused' , as the very word 'excused' suggests that I have something I should consider myself guilty for. Agreed that morally entitled is probably another inadequate turn of phrase though.

How does, 'It is morally acceptable', sound for what I've laid out?

Cane wrote:There's a hell of a lot of elitism involved with GW customers and GW products which is understandable considering the outrageous pricing schemes GW bestows upon us and the questionable social maturity of nerdy wargamers.

I think it can extend from similar attitudes from some people that don't like you using non-GW figures in GW games, that you don't use GW paint, and that you don't use the latest versions of various figures. Because they've spent a lot of money on the game and you have found ways around it and aren't a devout GW fanboy. I find there's a lot of "money elitism" in the GW hobby and this comes from the top down. For a start all the most powerful models are the most expensive. If you haven't got much money you'll have a largely vanilla army without much of the cool stuff. Also, I've never seen another company put adverts in their own magazines asking people to inform on people recasting their stuff. But GW has several times, it's a bit odd to recruit your customers to do your detective work. That's another form of elitism, effectively getting some people who see themselves as purists to inform on others who bend the rules a little. I don't support people ripping off companies through recasting and selling their stuff online, but I couldn't care less if a fellow hobbyist recasts for what I believe are genuine hobby/modelling reasons.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Also, I've never seen another company put adverts in their own magazines asking people to inform on people recasting their stuff. But GW has several times, it's a bit odd to recruit your customers to do your detective work.

Is this true? Are they asking people to inform about small bits like guns and the like?

That is odd... I do not like the sound of that.

Ketara wrote:@Redbeard
I'm not disagreeing that recasting is technically illegal.

Is this like being a technical virgin? It's a yes/no issue - it is illegal or not.

However, what I'm doing is only illegal...

Correct.

...and they've drawn that line in order to prevent people from counterfeiting their goods and selling them. I doubt they seriously had the example of someone re-casting a set of ten beaky helmets in their basement when they wrote that.

You're making an assumption. Let me see here, a company that makes its money by selling toy soldiers might not want you to recast parts of those toy soldiers instead of buying them. No, my assumption is that it is this sort of thing that they had in mind when they wrote their IP guidelines.

Regardless of why they did it, the fact remains that it is their right to decide where the line is, not yours.

What I do not accept, is people telling me that I should pay huge sums of money in order to get duplicates of one OOP component, otherwise I'll hurt GW sales, and I'm morally corrupt.

Ok, how about people telling you that you should legally obtain duplicates of whatever item you want, or you're acting unethically. Trade bitz with people. I do that all the time. You don't have to spend a lot, but you do need to respect the rights of the IP holder, or you are acting unethically.

That law was not passed with me in mind,

Ok, you're making an erroneous distinction here. The law was passed with everyone in mind. The law simply put says (and Janthkin can correct me if I'm wrong) that the rights to the IP are granted to the creator of the IP - in the case of an employee of a company, the employee acting as an agent of the company has signed something granting those rights to their employer.

GW, as the owner of the IP, is then allowed to decide how the IP may be used. They have done this, and have published their guidelines (which are far less restrictive than they could be, given that they're a publicly traded company) for how they permit you to use their IP. Their guidelines aren't laws, they're the company's way of letting you know what you can do with their IP.

The fact that their rights and your wishes do not line up perfectly isn't their responsibility, and attempting to justify it by claiming that you're not the person they've written their guidelines for looks like a weak argument.

I'm just one of the unfortunates that gets hurt by it. So, following what I believe to be the spirit of the law here, rather than the wording, I think I'm fully entitled to make recasts of, for example, Imperial Guard Rapier Tracks, for my own conversion purposes.

You might think that, but you're wrong. Following what you believe to be the spirit of the law is a good way to land in jail (not over this, certainly, but as a general guideline).

Here's another analogy: if I own a public garden, and I put a sign up that says "stay off the grass", do you immediately assume that because you want to play catch the sign wasn't directed at you?

You keep mentioning how if I did it, then everyone might do it as an example as to how it would cut sales, however, this is a fallacy.

No, I did not say that because you did it, other people might. I postulated that if everyone did it, GW would lose sales - that's not a fallacy. I fully understand that most people won't/can't do it - just as not everyone would steal a candy bar.

However, in that other 5% of the time, if bitz shops and ebay are unable to adequately supply my needs at reasonable pricing, I consider myself fully entitled to make a recast.

This is simply a variation on the "if I cannot afford it, I should be allowed to steal it" argument. It doesn't hold for cars, it doesn't hold for candy bars, and it doesn't hold for IP. You're still stealing.

I have added a poll on this topic in the dakka polls forum:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/249959.page

GW could easily have written their copyright releases to allow individual players to recast copies of original sculpts.

They could have said an individual is allowed to recast up to 2 copies for each original they buy, or something. But they didn't because they want you to buy more copies from them.

The point of business is to make a product which people want, and sell it to them.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Also, I've never seen another company put adverts in their own magazines asking people to inform on people recasting their stuff. But GW has several times, it's a bit odd to recruit your customers to do your detective work.

Is this true? Are they asking people to inform about small bits like guns and the like?

That is odd... I do not like the sound of that.

I assume it's recasting traders they are after, but who knows where they draw the line.

@Redbeard

I KNOW it is illegal. Shall I repeat that again? I KNOW it is illegal. Since despite me having said this multiple times, you don't seem to think I understand this point. I KNOW it is illegal.

Yes I made making an assumption with GW's intent here as to the formulation of IP policy. I'm making an assumption based on good sense, and standard business practice. That is stating the obvious.

You use several words such as 'justify', 'stealing', and 'unethically'. That's fair enough. In your view of the world, if I decide to use recasting as a method to convert my models more quickly, rather than greenstuff, I'm an unethical thief.

That's your view. The joy of morals however, is that they vary from person to person. I do not believe I'm acting unethically here, even Polonius does not. However, differences of opinion are what spice the world.

We disagree on the fundamentals here, so there's little more to be said I guess. Since it's subjective, you can have your view, and I can have mine.

@Killkrazy

The current component I'm looking at for recasting is the old Imperial Guard Rapier's tracks. I can't get them in even nearly sufficent quantity, and as such, it's what I'm forced to resort to. It's a method of last resort. Is my decision morally unacceptable? You decide, I guess.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Cane wrote:There's a hell of a lot of elitism involved with GW customers and GW products which is understandable considering the outrageous pricing schemes GW bestows upon us and the questionable social maturity of nerdy wargamers.

I think it can extend from similar attitudes from some people that don't like you using non-GW figures in GW games, that you don't use GW paint, and that you don't use the latest versions of various figures. Because they've spent a lot of money on the game and you have found ways around it and aren't a devout GW fanboy. I find there's a lot of "money elitism" in the GW hobby and this comes from the top down. For a start all the most powerful models are the most expensive. If you haven't got much money you'll have a largely vanilla army without much of the cool stuff. Also, I've never seen another company put adverts in their own magazines asking people to inform on people recasting their stuff. But GW has several times, it's a bit odd to recruit your customers to do your detective work. That's another form of elitism, effectively getting some people who see themselves as purists to inform on others who bend the rules a little. I don't support people ripping off companies through recasting and selling their stuff online, but I couldn't care less if a fellow hobbyist recasts for what I believe are genuine hobby/modelling reasons.

I agree with the elitism aspects. And having people reply 'if you cant afford it, dont play' really tells me some people have some sort of stick in their butt. Alot of people that love 40k arent exactly affluent. I mean I know kids that have literally mowed lawns and scooped dog poo to pay for their stuff. They know the game, love the fluff and try to paint thier stuff. I've also seen kids who walked into the GW store and said "Mommy I want!" and poof, they have 4000 pts of Space Marines in 5 minutes. I'd really rather hang out with the kid that likes the game, rather than the one who had the stuff handed to him.

As adults, the dynamics change. 40k becomes a nice hobby, but has to be balanced against reality like paying the bills and eating. Having to choose between makin the house payment and indulging in a hobby you love is part of reality. But, when the cost of that hobby has nearly doubled over several years, with little substance to back the reasons for the price hikes, people are going to start looking at alternatives so they can pay the bills AND have fun with thier hobby.

I agree completely with mistress of minis. Im not sayings its ok to recast and then sell them. If completely altered to a state of not breaking copy right laws then thats fine. Im talking just casting IG and selling IG, thats wrong. But to make things for your self is totally fine IMO. You paid for the stuff so after that you can do with it what you want.
I have a house, 2 children pets and bills like many people. I LOVE this hobby but I sure as hell cant afford everything that GW sells and wants me to buy. If I can cut some corners you bet your ass Im going to do it

Ketara wrote:@Redbeard

I KNOW it is illegal. Shall I repeat that again? I KNOW it is illegal. Since despite me having said this multiple times, you don't seem to think I understand this point. I KNOW it is illegal.

Yes I made making an assumption with GW's intent here as to the formulation of IP policy. I'm making an assumption based on good sense, and standard business practice. That is stating the obvious.

You use several words such as 'justify', 'stealing', and 'unethically'. That's fair enough. In your view of the world, if I decide to use recasting as a method to convert my models more quickly, rather than greenstuff, I'm an unethical thief.

That's your view. The joy of morals however, is that they vary from person to person. I do not believe I'm acting unethically here, even Polonius does not. However, differences of opinion are what spice the world.

We disagree on the fundamentals here, so there's little more to be said I guess. Since it's subjective, you can have your view, and I can have mine.

@Killkrazy

The current component I'm looking at for recasting is the old Imperial Guard Rapier's tracks. I can't get them in even nearly sufficent quantity, and as such, it's what I'm forced to resort to. It's a method of last resort. Is my decision morally unacceptable? You decide, I guess.

I don't know what a Rapier is, but if you've got a model which lost its tracks you could make a reasonable ethical case that it is better to recast the missing track components than let the whole model go to waste. OTOH there are 3rd party companies selling separate tank track.

Morally unacceptable? In the great scheme there are much worse things people could be doing.

As I posted before:


The most important thing for me as a Moderator is that Dakka supports IP and copyright, so we can't be seen to be help or even just ignore recasters. In this regard, recasting is rather like adultery. Doing it is wrong, but it becomes much worse when people find out.

Ketara; morals vary from person to person, morality does NOT. And neither does the law.

I am not a lawyer; I am a theologian. I am trained in morality. And the first rule of moral theory is that morality is not relative to the person. If something is wrong, it is always wrong. It does not matter what a person things about the thing.

This thread has floated around the issue of morality, but has never really engaged with it. This is a good thing, because few people are trained in the formal aspects of it.

However, to weigh in on the moral aspect;

i) It is illegal to copy models in various ways. It is CERTAINLY illegal to copy them by recasting. Everyone agrees on this.

ii) From a moral perspective, the laws of the state are assumed to be moral unless they can be specifically shown not to be. So, to use an example which will not cause a thread derailment; the laws of Nazi Germany allowed for the mistreatment of Jews and Jewish persons. This law is immoral because is disrespects the human person. Therefore, the issue of breaking or keeping it is not automatically a moral / immoral act.

Also in Nazi Germany, the law says which side of the road to drive on. These laws are not moral issues in and of themselves, they are known as INSTRUMENTAL goods, not INTRINSIC goods. They are beneficial to society because when everyone follows them we have a nice, pleasant society (except for the killing Jews thing, of course).

iii) Not re-casting is certainly an INSTRUMENTAL good - in that keeping to the law creates a pleasant, ordered society. It also does not encourage (and may actively discourage) further re-casting. If no-one re-cast, there would be no prosecutions for re-casting, and so we would have a less criminal society.

iv) Not re-casting may also be an INTRINSIC good, in that it is theft, and theft is intrinsically immoral in most situations. The only situations where it is moral is when the item in question is necessary (and in moral theology, that does not mean "I really, really want it and am unhappy without it"; the only physical things which are morally necessary for humanity are food, water, shelter and certain forms of medical care), it is impossible to purchase without impacting the ability to acquire other necessary items, and its theft will not negatively impact others to the point where they lack necessities.

Metal and plastic toy soldiers fail all these definitions.

The issue of intellectual property rights is one which many moral theologians disagree on, and there is no final consensus I can offer. There is the answer which *I* can say is final and settled; but this is based on the authority of the organization saying so, and this argument would not carry much weight with those who do not subscribe to that organizations tenets.

Still, I will say this - the largest religion (currently and in the history of the world) specifically calls intellectual theft (of digital media, or toy soliders) a sinful action (under the normal circumstances for sin). It is deemed to be a form of theft covered under the old standby "Thou shalt not steal" from the Decalogue.

Bottom line? You might have a different moral compass to other people, but that doesn't make a heap of difference. It is either right or wrong and, currently, the very best minds in the world who have years of training and intense personal holiness to determine these things say it is wrong.

AND it is illegal. So, erm . . . yeah, if you re-cast you are a theif. 'Unethical' is not the word I would use - I would use "sinful" as it is more precise.

Morally unacceptable? In the great scheme there are much worse things people could be doing.

I am sure this was not your argument or intention; but the fact there are worse things people could be doing does not make it moral (morally un/acceptable is a spurious term - as I mention above it was morally acceptable to torture Jews in Nazi Germany's death camps, that does not make it moral). If I slap a girl about the face and then defend my actions with the line "I could be raping her / there are people raping girls" it is not a convincing argument.

It is true that, in the grand scheme of things, copying toy soldiers (even selling thousands of them and putting a company out of business and ruining the hobby of millions) is not a huge thing. It is probably a grave sin at that scale, but it is nowhere near as bad as rape, murder, etc. etc. Still, it is still WRONG and BAD. And we really should try to avoid such things - even if we don't accept MY arguments why. I am sure you can come up with your own why we should be good, ethical people.

I want to hear your break down of the morality of corporations Darknight .

Oh, you don't want mine. My boss JUST released a great article on it. Well, that and other subjects.

Perhaps the first time this man has been quoted here, except for possibly some of his words about heretics, and then only accidentally

But, in brief, a corporation is nothing more than an entity which exists to engage in trade - as are we all when considered simply as elements in the marketplace. A corporations decisions are made by human individuals acting in concert in one or more political system (democracy, dictatorship etc.) Individual humans are required to behave in a moral fashion.

So, to answer your begging question Yes, there are many aspects of corporate behaviour which are morally unacceptable. Bear in mind the organization I give allegiance too considers "defrauding laborers of their wages" to be one of the sins which cry vengeance to Heaven.

Now, this might not sound too bad - but then consider the following three points;

i) My Church only has FOUR of these.
ii) My Church is famed for not being pro-homosexual.
iii) One of the four sins which cry vengeance to Heaven is sodomy; so we in fact regard defrauding laborers on much the same level as the stuff which gets all the press.

So, ultimately, corporations and corporate activity is moral when the decisions made are moral ones. When they are informed by greed and avarice (bad things, in case you were wondering) they are not moral.

BUT the behaviour of a corporation in desiring to make profit through effort and labor is not intrinsically immoral, and anyone who says differently has been overtaken by the heretical liberation theology

Darknight wrote:

Now, this might not sound too bad - but then consider the following three points;

i) My Church only has FOUR of these.
ii) My Church is famed for not being pro-homosexual.
iii) One of the four sins which cry vengeance to Heaven is sodomy; so we in fact regard defrauding laborers on much the same level as the stuff which gets all the press.

So, ultimately, corporations and corporate activity is moral when the decisions made are moral ones. When they are informed by greed and avarice (bad things, in case you were wondering) they are not moral.

BUT the behaviour of a corporation in desiring to make profit through effort and labor is not intrinsically immoral, and anyone who says differently has been overtaken by the heretical liberation theology

Morality is a derivative of societal values. As such it boils down to opinion, even if its the opinion of the majority. Theology doesnt change that, formal training or not.

How talking about the stance of your church on its views of sexual orientation has any bearing on this thread is questionable.

Talking about morals- then supporting a form of bigotry is rather ironic.

Mistress of minis wrote:

Darknight wrote:

Now, this might not sound too bad - but then consider the following three points;

i) My Church only has FOUR of these.
ii) My Church is famed for not being pro-homosexual.
iii) One of the four sins which cry vengeance to Heaven is sodomy; so we in fact regard defrauding laborers on much the same level as the stuff which gets all the press.

So, ultimately, corporations and corporate activity is moral when the decisions made are moral ones. When they are informed by greed and avarice (bad things, in case you were wondering) they are not moral.

BUT the behaviour of a corporation in desiring to make profit through effort and labor is not intrinsically immoral, and anyone who says differently has been overtaken by the heretical liberation theology

Morality is a derivative of societal values. As such it boils down to opinion, even if its the opinion of the majority. Theology doesnt change that, formal training or not.

How talking about the stance of your church on its views of sexual orientation has any bearing on this thread is questionable.

Talking about morals- then supporting a form of bigotry is rather ironic.

You and Darknight will never agree on the bolded statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:The current component I'm looking at for recasting is the old Imperial Guard Rapier's tracks. I can't get them in even nearly sufficent quantity, and as such, it's what I'm forced to resort to. It's a method of last resort. Is my decision morally unacceptable? You decide, I guess.

No. You're not "forced" to resort to IP theft. You're choosing an illegal action, because you want a large number of obscure, out of production bits, in order to play with your toy soldiers in the manner which will cause you greater amusement.

I've said it before - I don't personally care what you do. But don't try to rationalize it - you are acting illegally, of your own will, for no better reason than to play with toy soldiers. GW isn't "forcing" you to do so by malevolently withholding from you something to which you are entitled; you have legal options ranging from slow accumulation through the secondary market, through finding a suitable alternative, and culminating with choosing not to participate in GW's market space.

Killkrazy: the rapier was a little self-propelled heavy weapon of 2nd edition vintage, manned by servitors; it had (IIRC) a trapezoidal track. Kind of like a Kannon, but with more style.

Janthkin wrote:

Mistressofminis wrote: Morality is a derivative of societal values. As such it boils down to opinion, even if its the opinion of the majority. Theology doesnt change that, formal training or not.

How talking about the stance of your church on its views of sexual orientation has any bearing on this thread is questionable.

Talking about morals- then supporting a form of bigotry is rather ironic.

You and Darknight will never agree on the bolded statement.

That is the problem with relying on institutions to think for you though.

Just because it makes sense to one group of smart guys does not mean it makes sense to another group of smart guys, this is part of the core essence of being a free-thinking and sentient being.

Darknight wrote:Ketara; morals vary from person to person, morality does NOT. And neither does the law.

That's true, the law does not vary from person to person. Morality does. Morals as a whole are subjective to the culture that birthed them, for example, human sacrifice was perfectly acceptable to the Aztecs.

Darknight wrote:I am not a lawyer; I am a theologian. I am trained in morality. And the first rule of moral theory is that morality is not relative to the person. If something is wrong, it is always wrong. It does not matter what a person things about the thing.

You trained as a theologian. That means that your views on morality are based off of religion, and thus, biased in a certain direction already. As for things always being wrong, well, for starters, always is a highly dubious word. It's the same as 'infinite,' or 'eternity'. To believe that something is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, you have to take a religous standpoint, because if you didn't you're forced to accept that dinosaurs had morals.

Darknight wrote:This thread has floated around the issue of morality, but has never really engaged with it. This is a good thing, because few people are trained in the formal aspects of it.

I've actually undergone philosophical training, and studied many things, from Platos Forms and onwards.

Darknight wrote:However, to weigh in on the moral aspect;

i) It is illegal to copy models in various ways. It is CERTAINLY illegal to copy them by recasting. Everyone agrees on this.

Yup.

Darknight wrote:ii) From a moral perspective, the laws of the state are assumed to be moral unless they can be specifically shown not to be. So, to use an example which will not cause a thread derailment; the laws of Nazi Germany allowed for the mistreatment of Jews and Jewish persons. This law is immoral because is disrespects the human person. Therefore, the issue of breaking or keeping it is not automatically a moral / immoral act.

Also in Nazi Germany, the law says which side of the road to drive on. These laws are not moral issues in and of themselves, they are known as INSTRUMENTAL goods, not INTRINSIC goods. They are beneficial to society because when everyone follows them we have a nice, pleasant society (except for the killing Jews thing, of course).

Well that's Godwins Law broken already. Surprised it took so long actually. Laws should not be presumed to be moral. If you told me every time the Labour government passes a piece of legislation, their laws should be presumed to be moral, I would be highly amused. You say that we should assume laws are moral unless specifically shown not to be. As morals are subjective from culture to culture, this is an irrelevant point anyway.

But disregarding that, the first flaw I would pick in that statement would be the whole, 'specifically shown not to be'. Who by? Who does this deciding? A special committee? Who's on it? Who picked the people to go on it? What are their agendas? Or is it the popular sentiment that judges whether a law is based on morals? If so, isn't that just mob rule? Wouldn't a crowd of people from one nation hold different ethics than a crowd from another nation? For example, I'm pretty sure the RSPCA would have a fit over the treatment of restaraunt bound cats and dogs in China. I'm damn sure most Chinese people don't care though.

Darknight wrote:iii) Not re-casting is certainly an INSTRUMENTAL good - in that keeping to the law creates a pleasant, ordered society. It also does not encourage (and may actively discourage) further re-casting. If no-one re-cast, there would be no prosecutions for re-casting, and so we would have a less criminal society.

You are already preusming here that re-casting is a 'criminal' activity. The only reason it's a criminal activity is because a law has been passed against it. Here, a law has also been passed to stop protestors from protesting within sight of Parliament. Just because something is against the law may make it criminal by definition, but not necessarily a bad thing.

Darknight wrote:The issue of intellectual property rights is one which many moral theologians disagree on, and there is no final consensus I can offer. There is the answer which *I* can say is final and settled; but this is based on the authority of the organization saying so, and this argument would not carry much weight with those who do not subscribe to that organizations tenets.

So in other words, mob rule is right? The majority defines what is correct? Or is it just what the government says is correct or not? In which case, does that mean dictatorships laws are in the right?

Darknight wrote:Still, I will say this - the largest religion (currently and in the history of the world) specifically calls intellectual theft (of digital media, or toy soliders) a sinful action (under the normal circumstances for sin). It is deemed to be a form of theft covered under the old standby "Thou shalt not steal" from the Decalogue.

Bottom line? You might have a different moral compass to other people, but that doesn't make a heap of difference. It is either right or wrong and, currently, the very best minds in the world who have years of training and intense personal holiness to determine these things say it is wrong.

I disagree on whether it is 'right' or 'wrong'. I would question as to whether things are ever so clear cut. I couldn't care less how 'holy' someone is, being trained in the doctrines of a religion does not necessarily place someone in the right. I refuse to subscribe to the view that religion necessarily has anything to do with this discussion. Just because morality and religion are commonly associated subjects does not mean they are necessarily and inevitably linked.

Darknight wrote:

Morally unacceptable? In the great scheme there are much worse things people could be doing.

I am sure this was not your argument or intention; but the fact there are worse things people could be doing does not make it moral (morally un/acceptable is a spurious term - as I mention above it was morally acceptable to torture Jews in Nazi Germany's death camps, that does not make it moral). If I slap a girl about the face and then defend my actions with the line "I could be raping her / there are people raping girls" it is not a convincing argument.

It is true that, in the grand scheme of things, copying toy soldiers (even selling thousands of them and putting a company out of business and ruining the hobby of millions) is not a huge thing. It is probably a grave sin at that scale, but it is nowhere near as bad as rape, murder, etc. etc. Still, it is still WRONG and BAD. And we really should try to avoid such things - even if we don't accept MY arguments why. I am sure you can come up with your own why we should be good, ethical people.

I can't believe you've just compared recasting an out of production models wheels for a heavy weapon base, with raping girls and torturing Jews. Your views strike me as highly biased, and thoroughly religous. Not to mention your analogies are way out fo proportion.

I suggest all discussion from a religious perspective stops there before this turns into a thread on religion, and is inevitably locked as a result.

@Jenthkins.

I know I'm not being FORCED to do it. That was a figure of speech. Did you seriously think I was implying someone was holding a knife to my throat over it? If not, it was hardly worth mentioning. It's true I'm choosing to act in contradiction of the law, here, but in my eyes, the law is flawed, and varies from country to country. I could go on holiday to a country where it's not illegal for a few nights, and do my recasting whilst I'm still there. Would that magically mean that my actions, which would have made me a thief in one country, are suddenly perfectly acceptable? After all, the law never applied in that country, so I'm no thief.

Ketara wrote: I suggest all discussion from a religious perspective stops there before this turns into a thread on religion, and is inevitably locked as a result.

Agreed and agreed, morality has only metaphorical links to religion, and this is not a discussion about or invloving religion in any way.

Wow. I leave for a few minutes and I get accused of bigotry, and have my views dismissed because I am religious.

Way to go on the whole "not being bigotted thing", guys.

With regard to the use of the Nazi analogy - I used the analogy because it is something NO-ONE would disagree with; it is an example of a legal right which is morally wrong. Everyone here would agree that torture and killing of innocents is wrong, and is ALWAYS wrong.

There is a confusion on this thread about morality and morals. Morals are what individuals believe to be right and wrong, while morality is what IS right and wrong. Note I have never specifically said "WHAT I SAY IS RIGHT!" but rather I have said "There has to be a right answer - there has to be an objective morality, even if we do not know it."

The analogy regarding the raping / slapping of girls is not intended (and you very well knew it was not) to suggest the two were comprable issues - it is rather to point out the illogic of saying "There are worse things that could be done."

And I absolutely love the statement that relgious subjects shouldn't be touched - is that a rule I missed? No discussion of religion or even using religious-based aspects?

In any case, I did not raise the issue of religion - others did. I simply pointed out MY moral values, and argued from them, and have been vilified for them. Note I have been called a bigot because of the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality, and had my arguments dismissed out of hand by people who simply don't like them, all because I am religious.

Also, note that religion was raised LONG before I every joined this thread - someone made several sarcastic comments likening a poster to Jesus Christ because he claimed to try to stick to the law. So, religion was raised long before I got here.

Morality is absolute, not relative - things are wrong or right independent of what people think about them. And stealing is wrong - the question is not if steaing IP by re-casting is wrong, it is "Is re-casting stealing?"

In any case, I think I will no longer be participating in this thread, or this forum, given the general juvenille responses I have received here. I have been slandered and villified when I have done nothing to deserve it, except argue from my own personal views and opinions. The fact those views and opinions are based on a highly successful philsophical system which is the foundation of western society should not be a reason to dismiss them.

I am disappointed in the conduct of people here, but not surprised.

Janthkin : the above comments do not apply to you. It is clear you may not agree with me, but at least you understand my viewpoint and are polite and adult enough to engage in the discussion in a reasonable manner.

Darknight wrote:Bottom line? You might have a different moral compass to other people, but that doesn't make a heap of difference. It is either right or wrong and, currently, the very best minds in the world who have years of training and intense personal holiness to determine these things say it is wrong.

For the record, the "intense personal holiness" of Benny XVI is worth to me as much as the opinion of, say, a random person picked off the street. I don't believe theologicians or pontiffs have any authority to affect my life, nor do their opinions carry any weight with me. Indeed, the fact that they're trying to tell the world what to do is insulting.

Agamemnon2 wrote:For the record, the "intense personal holiness" of Benny XVI is worth to me as much as the opinion of, say, a random person picked off the street. I don't believe theologicians or pontiffs have any authority to affect my life, nor do their opinions carry any weight with me. Indeed, the fact that they're trying to tell the world what to do is insulting.

Which is fine, and you will notice I did not ask you to accept my reasoning about whether or not it was wrong based on that or, indeed, anything. I pointed it out as a reason SOME people might accept.

My main point was simple; it is either wrong or it is not - it is not down to whether or not someone thinks it is wrong or not. You think it is wrong to steal a car, but a car thief does not. When he steals your car, is he right or wrong in this? Has he done "a bad thing"?

Indeed, the fact that they're trying to tell the world what to do is insulting.

Can you please direct your ire at the police as well, please? As they tell you what to do. And so do your parents (or did). And, also, by implication, you are telling the world what to do (namely, mind its own business and NOT tell the world what to do - which is kind of like getting high to protest drug use).

Ketara wrote:@Jenthkins.

I know I'm not being FORCED to do it. That was a figure of speech. Did you seriously think I was implying someone was holding a knife to my throat over it? If not, it was hardly worth mentioning. It's true I'm choosing to act in contradiction of the law, here, but in my eyes, the law is flawed, and varies from country to country. I could go on holiday to a country where it's not illegal for a few nights, and do my recasting whilst I'm still there. Would that magically mean that my actions, which would have made me a thief in one country, are suddenly perfectly acceptable? After all, the law never applied in that country, so I'm no thief.

It's worth mentioning, as it is indicative of a certain mindset prevalent throughout the thread - it's an indicator of a feeling of entitlement. If you truly have no issues with your choices, then there is no need for you to hide behind semantics, or shelter behind some sort of civil disobedience rhetoric - boldly proclaim to the world that you choose to make illegal copies of toy soldiers, and get on with it.

Surprisingly few countries lack the basic principles of copyright law that are in discussion here (164 signatories to the Berne convention alone; another 20 or so are parties to different int'l treaties on copyright). I, personally, wouldn't care to visit those that do - they tend to be fairly inhospitable places, and as a exploitative American caplitalist oppressor, I like my creature comforts.

You may consider the response highly juvenile, and I have to admit, calling you a bigot was slightly out of line on Mistresses part.

However, to be perfectly honest, the fact that you believe morality to be absolute and decided by a deity leaves little room for discussion or maneuvring. Any views on morality you have will not be taken from a logical perspective, but from a religous one. Whilst there's nothing wrong with that, it means that we will end up discussing an issue bearing little relevance on the actual topic.

I apologise if you're offended by the sudden slapping down of religous talk, but this forum has a habit of stopping any religous discussion within a few posts by the simple expident of locking the thread, it's been a productive debate so far, and I'd regret it ending because of that.

Morality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=morality

S: (n) morality (concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct)

Nothing about being right/correct/good in itself there... You are talking about theory mate. In a metaphorical sense it is a collective observer (you don't need the majority to have a valid point mind you) that defines what is acceptable behavior, more or less.

And if you are unclear on distinction, just to nip it in the bud.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=distinction

S: (n) differentiation, distinction (a discrimination between things as different and distinct) "it is necessary to make a distinction between love and infatuation"

Again, nothing about being right/correct/good there either.

And just for kicks:

Morals:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=morals

S: (n) ethical motive, ethics, morals, morality (motivation based on ideas of right and wrong)

Janthkin wrote:It's worth mentioning, as it is indicative of a certain mindset prevalent throughout the thread - it's an indicator of a feeling of entitlement.

I agree with this statement - so far the vast majority of what I have seen here is people saying "I want these items, but have no desire to pay the prices GW is asking for them, and so I am entitled to take certain steps to acquire them." No-one seems to be saying "I can do anything", but people are certainly justifying various things which are certainly illegal and almost certainly immoral.

Darknight wrote:Can you please direct your ire at the police as well, please? As they tell you what to do. And so do your parents (or did). And, also, by implication, you are telling the world what to do (namely, mind its own business and NOT tell the world what to do - which is kind of like getting high to protest drug use).

Nice try, but wrong. I don't disapprove of authority. I fully recognize the authority of the police and the government for which it stands. What I fail to recognize is religious authority.